EMILIO RAMON "E.R." P. EJERCITO vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR "EGAY" S. SAN LUIS
FACTS: Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 Elections, a petition for disqualification was filed by Edgar “Egay” San Luis before the COMELEC against Emilio Ramon “E.R.” P. Ejercito, who was a fellow gubernatorial candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of the Province of Laguna. Petition alleged Ejercito distributed orange card to influence voters in his favor; and Ejercito exceeds the amount of expenditures necessary. Ejercito proclaimed Governor. The COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice of Conference. Ejercito prayed for the dismissal of the petition which was improperly filed because it is in reality a complaint for election offenses, thus, the case should have been filed before the COMELEC Law Department, and if with probable cause, file with proper court. The COMELEC First Division resolved to grant the disqualification of Ejercito. The COMELEC En Banc agreed with the findings of its First Division that San Luis’ petition is an action to disqualify Ejercito. Ejercito filed before the Court GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION against COMELEC and contends It violated the right of petitioner due process when it ruled for disqualification of petitioner even it was not prayed for disqualification. Worse, there is yet no finding of guilt by competent court that he committed election offense. ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion HELD: NO. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, is an independent action that is available only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.44 It is a legal remedy that is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues and is not
meant to correct simple errors of judgment.45 More importantly, it will only prosper if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and is actually proved to exist.46 Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. It means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction; it contemplates a situation where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law. x x x.47 Ejercito failed to prove that the COMELEC rendered its assailed Resolution with grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC First Division and COMELEC En Banc correctly ruled that the petition filed by San Luis against Ejercito is not just for prosecution of election offense but for disqualification as well. Ejercito cannot feign ignorance of the true nature and intent of San Luis’ petition. The title of San Luis’ petition shows that the case was brought under Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which is the specific rule governing the disqualification of candidates. Moreover, the averments of San Luis’ petition rely on Section 68 (a) and (c) of the OEC as grounds for its causes of action. Section 68 of the OEC precisely enumerates the grounds for the disqualification of a candidate for elective position and provides, as penalty, that the candidate shall be disqualified from continuing as such, or if he or she has been elected, from holding the office. A similar tenor was expressed in the prayer in the petition filed by San Luis. An election offense has both criminal and electoral aspects. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice-versa. The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from
holding a future public office. The conduct of preliminary investigation is not required in the resolution of the electoral aspect of a disqualification case. The “exclusive power of the COMELEC to conduct a preliminary investigation of all casesinvolving criminal infractions of the election laws” stated in Par. 1 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 pertains to the criminal aspect of a disqualification case. Hence, an erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation
