The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate’s delayed filing of an affidavit of withdrawal for one position did not disqualify her from running for another, as long as there was substantial compliance with the law. This decision underscores the principle that minor procedural lapses should not override a citizen’s right to participate in elections, especially when there’s no evidence of fraud or prejudice. The Court prioritized the intent of the law over strict adherence to administrative rules, ensuring the candidate’s eligibility for the gubernatorial race was maintained.

Dual Candidacy Conundrum: Can a Late Withdrawal Derail a Governor’s Run?

The case revolves around Ma. Catalina L. Go, who initially filed certificates of candidacy for both mayor of Baybay, Leyte, and governor of Leyte. Philippine election law prohibits a person from being eligible for more than one office in the same election, as stated in Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code.

“SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy.- No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.

“A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written declaration under oath.

“No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.”

Go attempted to withdraw her mayoral candidacy when filing for governor but faced obstacles due to conflicting instructions and the impending deadline. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualified her from both positions because her affidavit of withdrawal for mayor was filed 28 minutes past the deadline, leading to the present legal challenge.

At the heart of the matter is whether the COMELEC’s strict interpretation of the filing deadline was justified. The COMELEC relied on its Resolution No. 3253-A, which requires the withdrawal to be filed before the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was filed. However, the Supreme Court found that this requirement was merely directory and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that administrative rules cannot override the substantive provisions of the law. This is a crucial distinction because it acknowledges the practical limitations candidates face and prevents minor technicalities from disenfranchising them.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that there was substantial compliance with the law. Go attempted to file the withdrawal on time, but the provincial election supervisor refused to accept it, directing her to file it with the municipal election officer. Given the late hour and the distance between locations, Go sent the affidavit by fax, which was received shortly after the deadline. The original affidavit was filed later the same day. The Court recognized that these actions demonstrated Go’s clear intent to withdraw from the mayoral race and pursue the governorship.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court raised serious concerns about the denial of procedural due process to the petitioner. The COMELEC Law Department conducted an ex-parte study of the case without affording Go an opportunity to be heard or to submit responsive pleadings. This is a clear violation of the fundamental right to be heard before an impartial tribunal.

“Rule 23 – Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy

“x x x x

 “Sec. 3. Summary Proceeding. – The petition shall be heard summarily after due notice. (italic supplied)”

The Court noted that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure explicitly require notice to be given to the respondent in cases involving the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy. By failing to provide such notice and opportunity for a hearing, the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. This underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and impartiality in election-related disputes.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes a balanced approach between upholding election laws and protecting the right to participate in the electoral process. It clarifies that while candidates must comply with the requirements of the law, minor procedural lapses should not be used to disenfranchise them, especially when there is no evidence of bad faith or prejudice to other candidates. The ruling also reinforces the importance of procedural due process in administrative proceedings, ensuring that individuals are given a fair opportunity to be heard before decisions are made that affect their rights.

This approach contrasts with a more rigid interpretation that would prioritize strict compliance with deadlines, even if it leads to unjust outcomes. By adopting a more flexible stance, the Court ensures that the focus remains on the substance of the candidate’s intent and the fairness of the electoral process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the COMELEC erred in disqualifying a candidate for governor due to the late filing of her withdrawal of candidacy for mayor. The Supreme Court needed to determine if this technicality should override her right to run for governor.
What is the Omnibus Election Code’s stance on multiple candidacies?	The Omnibus Election Code prohibits a person from being eligible for more than one office in the same election. However, it allows a candidate to withdraw from one race before the filing deadline to remain eligible for another.
Why did the COMELEC disqualify Ma. Catalina L. Go?	The COMELEC disqualified Go because her affidavit of withdrawal for mayor was filed 28 minutes past the deadline. They interpreted this as a violation of the rule against holding multiple candidacies simultaneously.
What was the Supreme Court’s reasoning in reversing the COMELEC’s decision?	The Supreme Court reasoned that the COMELEC’s requirement for filing the withdrawal was merely directory, and Go had substantially complied with the law. They also cited the denial of procedural due process.
What does “substantial compliance” mean in this context?	“Substantial compliance” means that while there may have been a minor deviation from the prescribed procedure, the candidate’s actions demonstrated a clear intent to comply with the law. In this case, Go’s attempt to file on time and subsequent actions showed her intent to withdraw.
What is the significance of procedural due process in election cases?	Procedural due process ensures that candidates are given a fair opportunity to be heard and present their case before decisions are made that affect their eligibility. This includes the right to notice, a hearing, and an impartial tribunal.
Can administrative rules override substantive provisions of the law?	No, administrative rules cannot override substantive provisions of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative resolutions are intended to implement the law, not to contradict or amend it.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for future candidates?	This ruling provides a degree of flexibility for candidates facing minor procedural challenges. It suggests that courts will consider the totality of circumstances and the candidate’s intent when evaluating compliance with election laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rep. Ma. Catalina L. Go v. COMELEC serves as a reminder that election laws should be interpreted in a way that promotes fairness and protects the right to participate in the electoral process. While compliance with deadlines and procedures is important, minor technicalities should not be used to disenfranchise candidates, especially when there is no evidence of fraud or prejudice. The ruling also underscores the importance of adhering to procedural due process in administrative proceedings, ensuring that individuals are given a fair opportunity to be heard before decisions are made that affect their rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REP. MA. CATALINA L. GO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 147741, May 10, 2001