By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
This is the strange case of JOSEPH B. TIMBOL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent (G. R. 2066004, Feb. 24, 2015), where a candidate was declared by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) motu proprio as a nuisance candidate. The Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc was written by Justice Marvic Leonen.
Timbol filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for City Councilor of Caloocan City for the May 13, 2013 elections.
Thereafter, he received a subpoena from the Election Officer of Caloocan City, ordering him to appear for a clarificatory hearing in connection with his COC.
Timbol attended the hearing. His name was on the list of nuisance candidates on the COMELEC’s website. He argued that he was not a nuisance candidate. He said that he had run unsuccessfully for City Councilor in the 2010 elections and ranked 8th. He also said that he had sufficient resources to fund his campaign for City Councilor.
The Election Officer “assured him that his name would be deleted from the list and that his Certificate of Candidacy would be given due course.”
However, his name was not removed from the list despite the favorable recommendation of the Election Officer.
Subsequently, COMELEC set the printing of ballots on Feb. 4, 2013. This forced Timbol to file a petition with the COMELEC on Feb. 2, “praying that his name be included in the certified list of candidates for the May 13, 2013 elections.”
But COMELEC denied his petition because “the printing of ballots had already begun.”
Aggrieved, Timbol filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the case has already been mooted.
The Court explained that:
“We may no longer act on petitioner’s prayer that his name be included in the certified list of candidates and be printed on the ballots as a candidate for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Petitioner filed with this court his Petition for Certiorari on March 15, 2013, 39 days after respondent began printing the ballots on February 4, 2013. Also, the May 13, 2013 elections had been concluded, with the winners already proclaimed.”
However, the Court said it is not precluded from laying down “‘controlling and authoritative doctrines” to be observed by respondent in motu proprio denying due course to or cancelling certificates of candidacy of alleged nuisance candidates. This motu proprio authority is always subject to the alleged nuisance candidate’s opportunity to be heard — an essential element of procedural due process.”
The Court said that the COMELEC “declared petitioner a nuisance candidate without giving him a chance to explain his bona fide intention to run for office. Respondent had already issued Resolution No. 9610 on January 11, 2013 when petitioner appeared before Election Officer Valencia in a clarificatory hearing on January 17, 2013. This was an ineffective opportunity to be heard.”
What is crystal clear here is that Timbol was denied due process by the COMELEC when it declared him motu proprio as a nuisance candidate. This is the finding of the Supreme Court.
COMELEC is not infallible. It may commit mistakes. These mistakes may not be the subject of speedy correction, as in this case.
Can Timbol sue the COMELEC en banc, the Chairman and all Commissioners, let us say, for damages?
The answer will be a big NO. This is so because the COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners are impeachable officers, pursuant to Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution. They are insulated from suits of whatever nature and kind while they are in their respective positions, except for impeachment complaints.
At the end of the day, we can only pity the Timbols of this world. Cursed as nuisance candidates, they have no other recourse except to live day by day labelled as such. They may anxiously wait for the next elections to run and hopefully win, exorcising themselves of their unsavory reputations as COMELEC-declared nuisance candidates.
