G.R. No. 264125. – NOEL E. ROSAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH SAN JUAN ARMOGILA, respondents.

G.R. No. 266775. – OSCAR ROBERT H. CRISTOBAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO A. GARBIN, JR., JOSEPH SAN JUAN ARMOGILA, AND CARMEN GERALDINE ROSAL, respondents.

G.R. No. 266796. – CARMEN GERALDINE ROSAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JOSEPH SAN JUAN ARMOGILA, ALFREDO A. GARBIN, JR., AND OSCAR ROBERT H. CRISTOBAL, respondents.

Caguioa, J.

Synopsis

Noel Rosal (Noel), Carmen Geraldin Rosal (Carmen), and Jose Alfonso Barizo (Barizo) are candidates for the positions of Governor, Mayor, and Councilor of the Albay province, and in Legazpi City in the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections (NLE). Joseph San Juan Armogila (Armogila) filed three separate petitions for disqualification against them for vote-buying under of Sec. 68(a) and Sec. 68(e) in relation illegal disbursement of public fund during election period under to Sec. 261 (v)(2) of the OEC. The COMELEC granted all three petitions and disqualified Noel, Carmen, and Barizo. The COMELEC proclaimed Vice Governor Lagman as replacement for Noel, while it proclaimed Garbin, who gathered the second highest number of votes, as replacement for Carmen.

The issues are: (1) the propriety of the disqualifications of Noel, Carmen, and Barizo; and (2) the successor to be proclaimed as their replacement should the disqualifications be found proper.

The Supreme Court held that:

(1) Noel, Carmen, and Barizo not guilty of vote-buying under Sec. 68(a) of the OEC. It held that the allegations and evidence against them do not concretely and directly show that they personally initiated, controlled, or supervised the conduct of the cash assistance payouts for the purpose of influencing, inducing, or corrupting the recipients to vote for them. This is given that the program was an ongoing one and was commenced as early as 2021 long before the start of the election and campaign periods. Meanwhile, the Court found Noel, Carmen, and Barizo guilty for violating Secs. 261(v) and 261(v)(2) of the OEC. (a) Noel was found guilty of releasing, disbursing, or expending public funds for social development projects within 45 days before a regular election or 30 days before a special election. The Court held that a “continuing” project is not exempted from the prohibition, and that it is the timing of such release, etc. that is material in determining whether there had been a violation of the provision. Moreover, Noel cannot deny that he had a hand in the said release, etc. since as the local chief executive, he is the approving authority for the same under Sec. 344 of the LGC. (b) Additionally, all three were found guilty of indirect participation in the distribution of any relief or other goods to the victims of the calamity or disaster during the prohibited period. Their acts of facilitation, e.g. sending text messages, and their personal appearance during the activity consists of participation in the same, albeit indirectly.

(2) Vice Governor Lagman properly succeeded Noel, following the rules on succession under the LGC. Meanwhile, Vice Mayor Cristobal was not proclaimed as replacement for Carmen. Rather, the Court remanded to the COMELEC the issue of whether Cristobal is also guilty of the same act under Sec. 261 (v) (2) that Carmen and Barizo have been found guilty of. This is in view of his apparent participation in the subject cash payout program. Under current jurisprudence, the granting, after the elections, of the petitions for disqualification of the respondents creates a vacancy in office which must be filled up following the rules on succession. However, the extraordinary factual circumstances of the case led the Supreme Court to exercise caution in simply following the rules on succession and pronouncing that Cristobal should replace Carmen.

Facts

Noel, Carmen, and Barizo were then running for the positions of Governor of Albay province, Mayor, and Councilor, respectively, in the City of Legazpi, Albay in the May 9, 2022 NLE.

Armogila filed three separate petitions for disqualification against them for alleged violations of Sec. 68(a) and Sec. 68(e) in relation to Sec. 261 (v)(2) of the OEC. The petitions similarly alleged that Noel, Carmen, and Barizo engaged in vote-buying under Sec. 68(a) and violated the prohibition under Sec. 261(v) of the OEC against the release, disbursement, and expenditure of public funds within 45 days before the date of the regular election.

The petitions are primarily based on the Facebook post in Barizo’s account dated March 31, 2022 of an activity called “2-Day Tricycle Driver’s Cash Assistance Payout @ Fishport Legazpi.” The caption reads:

“2-Day Tricycle Driver’s Cash Assistance Payout @ Fishport Legazpi.

Thank you Governor Noel E. Rosal, Mayor Gie Rosal, VM Bobby Cristobal, the incumbent [and] aspiring Councilors.

Salamat man sa TODA sa suporta asin marhay na kooperasyon!
Mabuhay kamu!

Al Barizo
Committee on Public Utilities & Energy
(Transportation)

#tapatsubokmaypuso”

The post was also allegedly accompanied by photographs of Noel, Carmen, and Barizo with numerous individuals who were presumably tricycle drivers who went to the activity to receive the cash assistance.

While the petitions were pending before the COMELEC, Noel, Carmen, and Barizo all won as Governor, Mayor, and Councilor, respectively, in the May 9, 2022 NLE.

The three petitions were granted, and Noel, Carmen, and Barizo were disqualified.

(a) The COMELEC First Division granted the petition for disqualification against Noel. It found that the cash assistance payouts violated of Sec. 261(v)(2) of the OEC on the prohibition against the release, disbursement, and expenditure of public funds by public officials and employees for all social welfare and development projects and activities during the campaign period. However, it nonetheless ruled that he is not guilty of vote-buying under Sec. 68(a) of the OEC. Vice Governor Lagman was proclaimed as replacement.

(b) The COMELEC En Banc (appealed from Second Division) ultimately held that Carmen should be disqualified for giving money to influence, induce, or corrupt the voters under Sec. 68(a) of the OEC. With her disqualification, COMELEC found it fitting to proclaim Garbin, who garnered the second highest number of votes, as the City Mayor of Legazpi City.

(c) The COMELEC Second Division likewise ruled that there was substantial evidence to show Barizo’s participation in violating Sec. 261(v)(2) in relation to Sec. 68(e) of the OEC.

Issues

1. Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its assailed Resolutions, which disqualified Noel, Carmen, and Barizo (collectively petitioners) from running in the May 9, 2022 NLE?
2. Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in proclaiming Vice Governor Edcel Greco Lagman (Lagman) and Garbin to replace Noel and Carmen as Governor of Albay and Legazpi City Mayor, respectively?

Ruling and Discussion

The Court partly grants the Petitions. On the first issue, the Court affirms the COMELEC Resolutions which disqualified Noel and Barizo, respectively, for violation of Sec. 261 (v) (2) of the OEC. Meanwhile, the Court affirms the disqualification of Carmen, albeit on a different ground, which is for violation of Sec. 261 (v) (2) of the OEC. On the second issue, the Court affirms Lagman’s proclamation to replace Noel. As to Carmen’s replacement, the Court remands to the COMELEC the issue of whether Cristobal should likewise be disqualified.

1. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that NOEL AND BARIZO ARE NOT GUILTY OF VOTE-BUYING UNDER SEC. 68(a) of the OEC. However, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it held Carmen guilty of vote-buying under the same Section.
   
   The elements to be disqualified for vote-buying under Sec. 68(a) of the OEC are absent in this case, namely:
   
   (a) the candidate, personally or through his or her instructions, must have given money or other material consideration;
   (b) the act of giving money or other material consideration must be for the purpose of influencing, inducing, or corrupting the voters or public officials performing electoral functions.
   
   The allegations and evidence against Noel, Carmen, and Barizo do not concretely and directly show that they personally initiated, controlled, or supervised the conduct of the cash assistance payouts for the purpose of influencing, inducing, or corrupting the recipients to vote for them.
   
   Conversely, it was sufficiently established that at the time relevant to these cases, the program was an ongoing one, commenced as early as 2021, long before the start of the election and campaign periods: (i) the cash assistance payouts were established to be the project of the LGU, City Social Welfare and Development Office or CSWDO; (ii) the cash assistance program was already the subject of Appropriation Ordinance approved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod in March 2022; (iii) the CSWDO started the implementation of the program in August 2021.
   
   Given these, it cannot be said that the decision to go through with the cash assistance payouts came from Noel, Carmen, and/or Barizo. Apart from the Facebook post and text messages that merely informed of the events, there was no other evidence presented which would prove that they gave the cash assistance payouts personally or through their own instructions (first element). Moreover, the evidence presented against them failed to establish that they intended to influence or induce the recipients to vote for them (second element).
   
   COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that Noel and Barizo are GUILTY of violating Secs. 261(v) and 261(v)(2) of the OEC, respectively.
   
   Secs. 261(v) and 261(v)(2) of the OEC covers: (a) the disbursement, release, or expenditure of public funds; and (b) distribution of any relief or other goods to the victims of the calamity or disaster.
   
   On the disbursement, release, or expenditure of public funds, Noel is guilty, while Barrizo and Carmen are not.
   Secs. 261(v) and 261(v)(2) of the OEC penalizes as an election offense the act of a public official or employee of releasing, disbursing, or expending public funds within 45 days before a regular election or 30 days before a special election, which funds are intended for social development projects undertaken by the DSWD and other agencies performing similar functions, regardless of whether the activity is undertaken by the DSWD itself or the LGU concerned. A “continuing” project is not exempted from the prohibition. It is the timing of the release, disbursement, and expenditure that is material to the issue of whether there is a violation of the provision. The evil sought to be prevented is the actual release or payout of public funds during the election period. The law’s intention is to prevent a scenario in which incumbent public officials promote their respective candidacies for re-election using public funds by spending the same in cashout activities or projects that help boost their visibility and winnability.
   
   Here, public funds were paid during the cash assistance payouts that occurred within the prohibited period, which is a clear violation of Secs. 261(v) and 261(v)(2) of the OEC.
   
   As to Noel. His argument that it was not proven that he directly and personally caused the release, disbursement, and expenditure of public funds relating to the cash assistance programs is of no moment: (i) he did not deny that the cash assistance payouts happened during the prohibited period but merely justified that the prohibition does not apply since the program was not new but a continuing one which the LGU had no other option but to follow through; (ii) being the approving authority as the then City Mayor, Noel had direct control over the subject said cash payouts. Noel did not and cannot deny that he had a hand in the approval of the release, disbursement, and expenditure of the said public funds. Sec. 344 of the LGC provides that “[e]xcept in cases of disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses … approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.” The instant cash assistance payouts clearly did not fall within the exception. Thus, the certification and approval of the concerned vouchers could not have been done by anyone else other than Noel as the local chief executive.
   
   As to Barizo. He had no ostensible participation in the release, disbursement, or expenditure of the public funds used in the project. Neither his office as a City Councilor nor his membership in the Committee on Public Utilities and Energy (Transportation) entailed such responsibility.
   
   As to Carmen. She obviously had no liability since she was not even holding any elective or appointive position in the LGU at that time.
   
   On the distribution of any relief or other goods to the victims of the calamity or disaster, the petitioners are guilty of indirect participation.
   As to Barizo. His acts of facilitation (through text messages), coupled with his personal appearance in the cash assistance payouts (which he did not categorically deny) meant that he had participated therein, albeit indirectly, specifically by gathering and inducing the recipients to attend the activity and providing information on how the distribution will be made or where to nevertheless receive the payouts in case the recipient fails to attend. Barizo’s text messages, along with the affidavits of concerned tricycle drivers are corroborative of the subsequent Facebook post of Barizo, which chronicled the cash assistance payouts.
   
   As to Spouses Noel and Carmen. They also do not also categorically deny their presence at the cash assistance payouts. Nonetheless, the photos submitted by Armogila showed them with Barizo and other individuals during the activity. Moreover, COMELEC found that election paraphernalia were displayed during the event. The photos posted in Barizo’s Facebook post also showed Carmen wearing a campaign t-shirt and a hat bearing her name. It is of no moment here whether the monetary reliefs were not distributed by the PNRC but by the LGU through its CSWDO. It also does not matter that the cash assistance was not given in view of a calamity or disaster. Finally, it does not matter that Carmen is not an incumbent public official when he or she participated during the distribution of the relief goods since Secs. 261(v) and 261(v)(2) of the OEC specifically proscribed the direct or indirect participation of candidates or their spouse or any member of their family within the second civil degree of affinity or consanguinity in the distribution of such relief goods.
   
   To fall under the exception under Sec. 261 (v) (2), the LGU should have filed a petition for exception before COMELEC.
   Sec. 261 (v) (2) provides that it should not apply to salaries of personnel, other routine and normal expenses, and other expenses as the Commission may authorize after due notice and hearing. For an exception to apply, the LGU should have filed a petition for issuance of a Certificate of Exception before the Clerk of the COMELEC following Sec. 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10747 laying down the rules and regulations to enforce the prohibitions provided under Sec. 261 (v) and (w) of the OEC.
   
   The conditions set forth under Sec. 14 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10747 do not apply to the instant case. COMELEC Second Division held that Sec. 14 apply in instances where projects and programs which require the use of public funds do not fall under Sec. 261 (v) of the OEC. For the COMELEC Second Division, Sec. 14 is a catch-all provision for other future projects that may come up but do not pertain to social welfare services, among others.
   
   The fact that the cash assistance payouts happened during the pandemic will not remove the prohibition or exempt the events from the prohibition under Sec. 261 (v) (2). The Bayanihan Law should not be used as an excuse to skirt the prohibition under the Section.
   
   **Violations of Secs. 68 (a) and 68 (e) in relation to Sec. 261 (v) of the OEC are not mutually exclusive.
   Sec. 261 (v)(2) remains to be preventative and an unqualified deterrence against the use of government resources during the prohibitive period; it does not matter whether there was intention at all to commit political partisan activities. There is not requirement in the law that the release, disbursement, or spending of public funds or the distribution of relief or goods must be for electioneering or vote-buying. As long as there was such release, disbursement, expenditure, or distribution within the prohibited period for the enumerated activities under Sec. 261 (v), the offense is committed.
2. As to Noel, COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that the Lagman should replace him following the rules on succession under the LGC.
   
   Under current jurisprudence, the granting, after the elections, of the petitions for disqualification of the respondents creates a vacancy in office which must be filled up following the rules on succession.
   
   As to Carmen, the Supreme Court remanded to the COMELEC the issue of whether Cristobal is also guilty of the same act under Sec. 261 (v) (2) that Carmen and Barizo have been found guilty of.
   
   The extraordinary factual circumstances of the case led the Supreme Court to exercise caution in simply following the rules on succession and pronouncing that Cristobal should replace Carmen.
   
   The Court observes that Cristobal was, in fact, likewise identified as an attendee or participant in the subject cash assistance payouts. Given, however, that Cristobal has not been the subject of the same petition for disqualification, the Court cannot make any categorical ruling in this case against him in the interest of due process. Hence, the remand to COMELEC.

dispositive

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition in G.R. No. 264125 is DISMISSED. The COMELEC Resolutions dated September 19, 2022 and November 18, 2022 in SPA No. 22-031 (DC), disqualifying Noel E. Rosal to run as Governor of the Province of Albay during the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections are AFFIRMED. The Petition for Intervention of A1 Francis C. Bichara filed in the same case is DISMISSED.

The Petition in G.R. No. 266796 is DISMISSED. The COMELEC Resolutions dated October 4, 2022 and May 4, 2023 in SPA No. 22-032 (DC) disqualifying Carmen Geraldine Rosal to run as Mayor in Legazpi City in the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections are AFFIRMED.

The Petition in G.R. No. 266775 is DECONSOLIDATED from G.R. No. 264125, G.R. No. 266796, and G.R. No. 269274. Pro hac vice, COMELEC is directed, with dispatch, to separately docket a disqualification proceeding against Vice Mayor Oscar Robert H. Cristobal in order to determine whether he is also disqualified from running for the office of Vice Mayor in the 2022 National and Local Elections under Section 261 (v) (2) in relation to Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.

In the meantime, the Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on May 11, 2023 is hereby LIFTED with immediate effect. Accordingly, the assailed COMELEC Resolutions dated October 4, 2022 and May 4, 2023 in SPA No. 22-032 (DC) shall likewise immediately take effect.

The Petition in G.R. No. 269274 is likewise DISMISSED and the COMELEC Resolutions dated May 5, 2023 and September 27, 2023 in SPA No. 22-030 (DC), disqualifying Jose Alfonso V. Barizo to run as Councilor in Legazpi City are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the next highest-ranking Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod be proclaimed to assume the vacated position of Jose Alfonso V. Barizo.

SO ORDERED.