Grego v. COMELEC G.R. No.

125955 June 19, 1997

ROMERO, J.: FACTS Petitioner: William Grego [hereinafter, Grego] a registered voter of Precinct No. 996, District 2, City of Manila.

Respondents: COMELEC an administrative agency and a specialized constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. (Article IX, Sub-Title C, Sec.2) Humberto Basco [hereinafter, Basco] A three-time City Councilor of District 2, Manila.

Timeline: 1981 Oct 31 Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff due to serious misconduct in an Administrative Complaint by Nena Tordesillas. 1998 Jan 18 Basco ran for office as a City Councilor and won 1992 May 11 Basco ran for and won the 2nd time. His win was questioned by Cenon Ronquillo (another candidate) on the ground of the Tordesillas ruling. Another 2 cases were filed by one Honorio Lopez II in the Office of the Ombudsman and in the DILG [both were dismissed]. 1995 May 8 Basco ran and won for the 3rd time. This is final term. 1995 May 13 Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification and praying for the suspension of his proclamation and for the declaration of Romualdo S. Maranan as the 6 th duly elected Councilor. 1995 May 14 COMELEC conducted a hearing. 1995 May 17 Bascos oath-taking took place. 1995 June 5 Motion to dismiss from Basco. 1995 Oct 6 Petitioners prayer was dismissed.

Others: The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was later denied and he argues that Basco should be disqualified under the Local Government Code which took effect on January 1, 1992. Section 40(b) applies due to retroactivity. He also cites Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646 which explains the effect of a disqualification case.

ISSUES Whether or not the wording of Section 6 in RA No. 6646 contemplates that the proclamation be made mandatory in terms of the interpretation of the said law. Whether the Sec. 5 of Rule 25 shall prevail over Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646. RULINGS (1) Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. The word may indicates that the suspension of a proclamation is merely directory and permissive in nature and operates to confer discretion. What is merely made mandatory is the continuation of the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest. (2) Sec. 5. Effect of Petition if Unresolved Before Completion of Canvass - If the petition, for reasons beyond the control of the Commission, cannot be decided before the completion of the canvass, the votes cast for the respondent may be included in the counting and in the canvassing; however, if the evidence of guilt is strong, his proclamation shall be suspended notwithstanding the fact that he received the winning number of votes in such election. This being merely an implementing rule cannot prevail over the Republic Act. Therefore, it must remain consistent with and in harmony with the law it seeks to apply and implement, because administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant or modify the law. Since Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646, the law which Sec. 25 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure seeks to implement, employed the word may, it is, therefore improper and highly irregular for the COMELEC to have used the word shall in its rules.