The COMELEC declared Joseph Timbol a nuisance candidate for the 2013 elections without first providing him an opportunity to be heard. Timbol argued at a clarificatory hearing that he was a legitimate candidate, but COMELEC still denied his candidacy. The Supreme Court ruled COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by denying Timbol due process. However, the case was declared moot since ballots had already been printed and the election completed. COMELEC must provide candidates an opportunity to be heard before denying or cancelling their certificates of candidacy.
The COMELEC declared Joseph Timbol a nuisance candidate for the 2013 elections without first providing him an opportunity to be heard. Timbol argued at a clarificatory hearing that he was a legitimate candidate, but COMELEC still denied his candidacy. The Supreme Court ruled COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by denying Timbol due process. However, the case was declared moot since ballots had already been printed and the election completed. COMELEC must provide candidates an opportunity to be heard before denying or cancelling their certificates of candidacy.
The COMELEC declared Joseph Timbol a nuisance candidate for the 2013 elections without first providing him an opportunity to be heard. Timbol argued at a clarificatory hearing that he was a legitimate candidate, but COMELEC still denied his candidacy. The Supreme Court ruled COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by denying Timbol due process. However, the case was declared moot since ballots had already been printed and the election completed. COMELEC must provide candidates an opportunity to be heard before denying or cancelling their certificates of candidacy.
The COMELEC declared Joseph Timbol a nuisance candidate for the 2013 elections without first providing him an opportunity to be heard. Timbol argued at a clarificatory hearing that he was a legitimate candidate, but COMELEC still denied his candidacy. The Supreme Court ruled COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by denying Timbol due process. However, the case was declared moot since ballots had already been printed and the election completed. COMELEC must provide candidates an opportunity to be heard before denying or cancelling their certificates of candidacy.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
JOSEPH B. TIMBOL v.
COMELEC GR No. 206004, Feb 24, 2015
Topic: Nuisance Candidate
The power of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to restrict a citizen's right of suffrage should not be arbitrarily exercised. The COMELEC cannot motu proprio deny due course to or cancel an alleged nuisance candidate's certificate of candidacy without providing the candidate his opportunity to be heard.
Facts On October 5, 2012, Timbol filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District of Caloocan City. On January 15, 2013, he received a Subpoena from COMELEC Election Officer Dinah A. Valencia (Election Officer Valencia), ordering him to appear before her office on January 17, 2013 for a clarificatory hearing in connection with his Certificate of Candidacy. During the clarificatory hearing, Timbol argued that he was not a nuisance candidate. He contended that in the 2010 elections, he ranked eighth among all the candidates who ran for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District of Caloocan City. He allegedly had sufficient resources to sustain his campaign. The clarificatory hearing panel allegedly assured him that his name would be deleted from the list of nuisance candidates in the COMELEC website and that his Certificate of Candidacy would be given due course. Despite Election Officer Valencia's favorable recommendation, Timbol's name was not removed from the list of nuisance candidates posted in the COMELEC's website. Timbol filed a Petition praying that his name be included in the certified list of candidates for the May 13, 2013 elections, but the COMELEC denied the Petition for being moot, considering that the printing of ballots had already begun. On March 15, 2013, Timbol filed his Petition for Certiorari with this court, arguing that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in declaring him a nuisance candidate. According to Timbol, the COMELEC deprived him of due process of law when he was declared a nuisance candidate even before Election Officer Valencia conducted the clarificatory hearing. He prayed for a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the COMELEC to include his name in the certified list of candidates for the position of Member of Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District of Caloocan City. Issue Whether respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner Timbol's Petition for inclusion in the certified list of candidates.
Ruling Yes. Respondent's power to motu proprio deny due course to a certificate of candidacy is subject to the candidate's opportunity to be heard. To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled by respondent. This denial or cancellation may be "motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party," "subject to an opportunity to be heard." The opportunity to be heard is a chance "to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of." In election cases, due process requirements are satisfied "when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand." Respondent 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 when petitioner appeared before Election Officer Valencia in a clarificatory hearing. This was an ineffective opportunity to be heard. That petitioner was able to file a Petition for inclusion in the certified list of candidates did not cure the defect in the issuance of Resolution No. 9610. First, he would not have to file the Petition had been given an opportunity to be heard in the first place.
Additional Notes: The case is denied for being moot and academic. A case is moot and academic if it "ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value." The Court 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.
