JUDICIARY

Sinaca vs. Mula

315 SCRA 699 (1999)

Political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision.

Facts:

Matugas Wing and Barbers Wing are both factions in the LAKAS NUCD- UMPD party. In the May
1998 elections, each faction has distinct candidates for the mayoral post in the Municipality of Malimono,
Surigao del Norte.
Miguel Mula, a candidate for vice-mayor belonging to the Barbers wing filed a petition for
disqualification against Teodoro Sinaca, Jr., a mayoral candidate in the Municipality of Malimono, which the
COMELEC granted. Consequently, Teodoro filed a motion for reconsideration. The same date that Teodoro
filed a motion for reconsideration, Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, withdrew his certificate of
candidacy, and subsequently became a member of LAKAS. Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca ran as a substitute
candidate for the mayoral post of the Matugas Wing after their original candidate, Teodoro Sinaca, Jr., was
disqualified for being convicted of bigamy. Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca was declared as the winner.
Mula filed another petition for disqualification against Sinaca, contending that his nomination as a
substitute candidate is illegal because of the following reasons:

1. Prior to being a substitute candidate, he was not part of any party.

2. Sinaca’s nomination bears only the approval of Provincial Chair Matugas, without consultation
with the other party members.
3. Substitution takes place only when the disqualification of a party results to losing representation,
but in this case, LAKAS still had Canoy as the party's candidate.

COMELEC dismissed Mula's petition and upheld Sinaca's candidacy because Matugas was
allowed to nominate Sinaca as substitute candidate. Also, the petition to disqualify Sinaca was rendered
moot and academic because Sinaca was already declared winner of the election, and has already taken
his oath of office.
Ultimately, Mula filed a motion for reconsideration. This time, the COMELEC issued a resolution
disqualifying Sinaca solely on the basis of being an independent candidate prior to his nomination as a
substitute candidate. Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that in the event that an official
candidate dies, withdraws or is disqualified on the last day of the filing of certificates of candidacy, only a
person belonging to the same party may replace the candidate.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the substitution of Emmanuel Sinaca violated Section 77 of the Omnibus Election
Code.
2. Whether or not the COMELEC was correct in disqualifying Emmanuel Sinaca.

Ruling:
1. NO. Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only mandates that a substitute candidate should
be a person belonging to and certified by the same political party as the candidate to be replaced.
In the case at bar, Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, had first withdrawn his
certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan Member before he joined the LAKAS party and nominated
by the LAKAS MATUGAS Wing as the substitute candidate. He had filed his certificate of candidacy and
his certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate signed by Gov. Matugas with his written
acceptance of the party's nomination. Therefore, he is a bona fide LAKAS member.
 There is no express provision in the Constitution or in a statute which requires, as a condition
precedent, that a substitute candidate must have been a member of the party concerned for a certain period
of time before he can be nominated as such.
2. NO. The COMELEC erred in disqualifying Emmanuel Sinaca. The Supreme Court said that "a
political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the association and to select a standard
bearer who best represents the party's ideologies and preference.
Matugas had the authority to nominate a candidate without Barbers' concurrence because he was
designated as LAKAS HQ's Deputy Secretary General and National Secretariat Executive Director. Sinaca
was also rightfully a member of LAKAS. Political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs
free from judicial supervision. This common-law principle of judicial restraint, uprooted in the constitutionally
protected right of free association, serves the public interest by allowing political processes to operate
without undue interference. Thus, the rule is that the determination of disputes as to party nominations rests
with the party, in the absence of statutes giving the court's jurisdiction.