The online version of the Inquirer reported this today:
The Commission on Elections has unseated Sto. Tomas Mayor Renato Federico over a technicality but was still unclear as to what this was.
To clarify:
On December 21, 2011, the Commission en banc promulgated the decision in SPC No. 10-082 [In Re: Petition to Annul the Proclamation of Respondent Renato M. Federico], ruling:
“The proclamation of respondent Federico is hereby ANNULLED.”
The en banc went on to instruct the convening of a Special Municipal Board of Canvassers for the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, for the purpose of proclaiming the petitioner, Osmundo M. Maligaya, as the duly elected Mayor of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, AND – and this is important! – directing the Law Department to “conduct an investigation on the members of the [Old] Municipal Board of Canvassersof Sto. Tomas, Batangas for possible violation of Section 32 pars. [c] and [f], Article VI of COMELEC Resolution No. 8809.”
For reference, the quoted provision provides as follows:
ARTICLE VI
ELECTION OFFENSES; ELECTORAL SABOTAGESec. 32. Election Offenses; Electoral Sabotage. – In addition to the prohibited acts and election offenses mentioned herein and those enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election offense or a special election offense to be known as electoral sabotage:
…
c) Any person who simulates an actual COC or statement of votes, or print a digital copy thereof;
…
f) The Chairman or any member of the Board of canvassers who signs or authenticates a print which bears an image different from the COC or statement of votes produced after counting and posted on the wall; …
It is important because these violations, according to the en banc, “amount to electoral sabotage.”
Because of the gravity of this decision – and the claim that this was based on a mere technicality – it would be a good thing to understand how the Commission arrived at its conclusions.
A bit of background:
In the May 10 elections, Edna Sanchez and Osmundo Maligaya were both running for Mayor of Santo Tomas. Edna’s husband, Armando Sanchez, was running for Governor of Batangas.
Armando died on April 27, 2010.
On April 30, Edna withdrew her candidacy for the Mayoralty and filed a new Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Governor, as her husband’s substitute candidate. Of course, by then, the ballots had already been pre-printed and so her name actually remained on the ballot as a candidate for Mayor, while Armando’s name remained as a candidate for Governor.
Because she withdrew from the mayoral race, Maligaya seemed to be suddenly running un-opposed. But Renato Federico had other ideas; he filed a Certificate of Candidacy as Edna’s substitute.
This sequence of events gave rise to two questions before the COMELEC: First, was Edna’s substitution in place of Armando valid? And second, was Federico’s substitution in place of Edna valid as well?
The First Division’s June 21 Ruling.
The Law Department got first crack at the case and recommended the denial of both substitutions, while allowing Edna’s withdrawal from the Mayoral race. In other words, Edna would no longer be running for Mayor AND she would not be running for Governor either. Federico wouldn’t be running at all.
The Commission en banc in Resolution 8889, however, reversed the Law Department’s recommendation and seemingly allowed both substitutions. Edna would therefore be allowed to run for Governor, and Federico for Mayor.
As things turned out, Edna got the most votes for Mayor [remember how because the ballots had already been pre-printed, her name actually remained on the ballot as a candidate for Mayor], with Maligaya coming in second. As a result, the automated canvassing system printed out a Certificate of Votes and Proclamation in Edna’s name.
DThe Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers [MBOC] admitted to verbally proclaiming Federico the winner – relying it seems on Resolution 8889. More than that however, the MBOC then went ahead and printed a 2nd set of proclamation documents this time substituting Federico’s name in place of Edna’s. It was later concluded by the en banc, as it stated in its December 21 ruling, that this printing was done
“… by the MBOC on another date, but certainly not on May 11, 2010.”
At this point it’s important to note that this second set was created by the MBOC and not by the automated canvassing system. There was no way that the automated system could have printed out a proclamation in Federico’s name for the simple reason that Federico’s name didn’t even exist in the system. So, the MBOC seems to have faked official documents with the goal of bringing the paperwork into harmony with its verbal pronouncement.
Apparently this second printing happened unbeknownst [whatta word!] to Maligaya, who went ahead and protested Edna’s win on May 20,2010. After that, Maligaya claimed to have discovered the printing of the fake proclamation docs on May 27 when he received a copy of the proclamation docs and saw that Federico’s name was on there and not Edna’s. He then withdrew his protest against Edna and filed a new one against Federico on June 1, 2011.
On June 21 the First Division of the Commission ruled:
- Commissioner Velasco – Maligaya’s petition was filed after the deadline [set to ten days after the proclamation – which in this case happened to be May 10] and therefore too late, and that the substitutions of Edna and Federico were valid anyway;
- Commissioner Sarmiento – Maligaya’s petition was too late, but that the substitution of Federico was INVALID.
- Commissioner Lim – Maligaya’s petition was too late.
The Commission’s December 21 Ruling.
On appeal to the en banc, three issues were identified:
- Was Maligaya’s petition too late?
- Was there sufficient basis for annulling the proclamation of Federico? and
- Was the substitution of Federico in place of Edna valid?
On the first issue – timeliness – the en banc [and we’re talking here about this Decision dated December 21, ok?] ruled that because Maligaya only found out about the second set of docs on the 27th of May, he had ten days from that date within which to file his petition seeking to annul Federico’s proclamation. As the Commission ruled:
“There is merit in the argument of petitioner [Maligaya]. The discovery of the printing of the second Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation in favor of respondent Federico came about only on May 27, 2010. Therefore the reckoning period of 10 days should start on that date and not on May 11, 2010.”
On the second issue, the en banc ruled that the proclamation of Federico was flawed in two respects. First, there was an invalid substitution of Federico for Edna as mayoral candidate [more on this below]; and second, the MBOC’s proceedings were illegal because they printed – without authority and notice to the parties – a second set of proclamation docs, in violation of the COMELEC’s canvassing rules.
On the third issue – was Federico’s substitution for Edna valid? – the en banc rejected the notion that COMELEC Resolution 8889, which reversed the Law Department’s recommendation and allowed both Edna’s and Federico’s substitutions, had already lapsed into finality.
As it turned out, Resolution 8889 apparently justified only Edna’s substitution of her husband for the position of Governor, but remained silent on Federico’s substitution for Edna as Mayoral candidate. So the en banc clarified that Federico’s substitution could not have been valid because it fell outside the deadline set by law for such substitutions.
To explain. Under the law, if a candidate dies, the qualified substitute can file his certificate of candidacy as late as mid-day of election day.
On the other hand, if a candidate WITHDRAWS, then the substitute only has until a certain day to file his certificate of candidacy. In 2010, that deadline was set at December 14, 2009.
SO, Edna subbing for Armando was clearly valid. But Federico, subbing for Edna – who did not die but merely WITHDREW from the Mayoral race – falls within the second category of substitutions where a deadline has to be met. The deadline was December 14, 2009, and Federico filed his substitution April 2010; way past the deadline.
All told…
All told, since Federico was never validly substituted for Edna, the en banc declared unequivocally that “Maligaya was the only valid mayoralty candidate in the municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas” in May 2010. Hopefully, it is clear that this was a conclusion not premised on a “mere technicality,” but on a well-documented string of violations of election regulations, making it only right that Maligaya now be proclaimed and the given the reins as Hizzoner the Mayor of Sto. Tomas, Batangas.
Dura lex and all that.