The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) cannot deny due course to a candidate’s certificate of candidacy without providing proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. This decision reinforces the fundamental right to due process in electoral proceedings, ensuring that candidates are afforded a fair chance to defend their eligibility before being disqualified. The Court emphasized that while the Comelec has the power to disqualify candidates, this power must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Barangay Brawl: Did the Comelec’s Last-Minute Move Trample on Due Process?

Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo T. Lara, candidates for Barangay Captain, found their electoral dreams challenged when the Comelec issued a resolution denying due course to their certificates of candidacy on the very day of the election. Despite this, they were proclaimed winners. However, a subsequent memorandum directed election officers to remove their names, prompting the candidates to challenge the Comelec’s actions, arguing that they were denied due process. The core legal question revolves around whether the Comelec violated the candidates’ right to due process by denying their certificates of candidacy without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdiction of the Comelec to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. The court affirmed that the Comelec possesses such authority, even after elections, provided no final disqualification judgment was rendered beforehand, the candidate won, and had not yet been proclaimed or taken their oath. However, this power is not absolute. Central to this case is **Section 3, Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure**, which mandates that a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily *after due notice*. This underscores that due process is non-negotiable, even in expedited election proceedings.

The timeline of events is crucial. Comelec Resolution No. 5393, which denied due course to the petitioners’ candidacies, was issued on July 15, 2002, the day of the elections. According to **Section 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure**, decisions become final and executory only after five days, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Comelec’s decision was not yet final when the elections took place, and the Barangay Board of Canvassers acted correctly in including the petitioners’ names and counting the votes cast for them. This five-day period allows candidates the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration, a right that was effectively denied to the petitioners.

Further exacerbating the denial of due process, the petitioners argued that they were never served a copy of the resolution and were not given a chance to present evidence. The Comelec contended that Resolution No. 4801, published in newspapers, provided constructive notice of any administrative inquiry. However, the Court rejected this argument, asserting that **constructive notice** is insufficient. Actual notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental requirements of due process, particularly in cases affecting a person’s right to participate in elections.

Moreover, the court noted that the petitioners had already been proclaimed winners, taken their oaths of office, and were serving their constituents. Citing **Lambonao v. Tero**, the Supreme Court reiterated that defects in certificates of candidacy should be challenged before the election, not after the electorate has expressed its will through the ballot. Election laws are designed to facilitate voter participation, not to thwart it. The Comelec’s actions risked disenfranchising the voters who had chosen the petitioners to represent them.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of due process as a cornerstone of a democratic society. The COMELEC must adhere to these procedures to ensure the integrity of electoral outcomes. By setting aside Comelec Resolution No. 5393, the Court affirmed that the right to a fair hearing and proper notification cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of administrative efficiency.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Comelec violated the candidates’ right to due process by denying their certificates of candidacy without providing proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
What did the Comelec do that was challenged in court?	The Comelec issued a resolution denying due course to the candidates’ certificates of candidacy on the day of the election and subsequently directed election officers to remove their names, despite them having been proclaimed winners.
What does “due process” mean in this context?	In this context, due process means that candidates must be given adequate notice of any inquiry into their qualifications and a fair opportunity to present evidence and defend their eligibility.
When does a Comelec decision become final and executory?	According to Comelec Rules, decisions become final and executory after five days from their promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
Why was the timing of the Comelec’s decision important?	The Comelec’s decision was issued on the day of the election, meaning it was not yet final and executory when the elections took place and the candidates were proclaimed winners.
Did the candidates receive notice of the inquiry against them?	The candidates argued they did not receive proper notice, and the Court found that the Comelec’s reliance on constructive notice was insufficient.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside Comelec Resolution No. 5393, reinforcing the importance of due process in electoral proceedings.
What is the practical implication of this case?	This case underscores that election laws should be interpreted to facilitate voter participation and that candidates are entitled to due process before being disqualified, even after an election has taken place.

This case serves as a critical reminder that the pursuit of electoral integrity must always be balanced with the protection of individual rights. The Supreme Court’s decision safeguards the principles of fairness and due process, ensuring that all candidates are afforded a just opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

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: Eduardo T. Saya-Ang, Sr. vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 155087, November 28, 2003