Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
City of Manila

ANASTASIA GOMEZ,
Petitioner,

-versus- Election Protest Case No. 2019-006

EUPHEMUS SANTOS, ET. AL.,

Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Respondent, EUPHEMUS SANTOS, by undersigned counsel, thru the Honorable

Commission on Elections (“Comelec”), most respectfully submits this Answer and in support

thereof states that:

I
NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a Petition for Quo Warranto, contesting the election and proclamation of

the respondent as councilor of the City of Olongapo, on the ground of ineligibility.

II
THE PARTIES

2. EUPHEMUS SANTOS (“Respondent”, for brevity) is a Filipino citizen, of

legal age and a resident of Begonia St., Ma. Orosa, Malate, Manila, where he may be served with

pleadings, summons and other processes of this Honorable Commission;

3. ANASTASIA GOMEZ (“Petitioner”, for brevity) is a Filipino citizen, of

legal age, married, and a resident of Roselyn Beach, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila. She may be

served with pleadings, summons and other processes of this Honorable Commission at her given

address;

1
 III
TIMELINESS

4. Respondent received via registered mail on July 18, 2019, a copy of the petition

and he is directed to submit a verified answer within an unextendable period of five (5) days,

hence this answer;

IV
MATERIAL FACTS

5. Respondent duly filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Councilor of the

Malate, Manila and was voted and won said post in the May 13, 2019 National and Local

Elections (Attached herewith is the copy of Certificate of Candidacy marked as Annex “1”;

6. The respondent was proclaimed on May 14, 2019 as a duly elected Councilor for

the Manila;

7. Respondent rank 9th out of the 10 councilors and had a total of 39,293 votes;

8. The Office of the Ombudsman Decision dated December 21 2017 ordered the

dismissal from service of respondent with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility,

forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification to re-enter government service, and

bar from taking civil service examinations;

9. The DECISION was implemented by the Department of Interior and Local

Government Regional Office in an Order dated 28 June 2018;

V
ARGUMENTS

10. The Petitioner contends that the immediate implementation pending appeal of the

DISMISSAL ORDER of the Office of the Ombudsman rendered the respondents ineligible to

run for public office;

2
 11. The petitioner cited Section 40 of the Local Government Code which states the

grounds for disqualifications in elective local positions, to wit:

SECTION 40. – Disqualifications. – The following persons are disqualified from

running for any elective local position:

a. Those sentence by final judgment for an offense involving moral

turpitude or for any punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment,

within two (2) years after serving sentence;

b. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;

c. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of

allegiance of the republic;

d. Those with dual citizenship;

e. Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or

abroad;

f. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have

acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right

after the effectivity of this Code; and

g. The insane or feeble-minded.

12. As alleged by the petitioner, the ineligibility of the respondents is based on

Section 40(b). The decision of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of dismissal is

immediately executory;

13. There is no question as to the grounds of disqualification provided in Section 40

of the Local Government Code, however it should also be considered that the said Section should

be read vis-à-vis Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides, to wit:

3
 “Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which

he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found

by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to

influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral

functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in

his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d)

solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96,

97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d,

e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a

candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a

permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified

to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his

status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with

the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.”

And Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code which states:

“Sec. 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent

authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for

subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been

sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving

moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office,

unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.”

From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the finality of the judgment/decision is

necessary in order to disqualify a candidate from running in a local election.

4
 14. The petitioner could have questioned the candidacy by a Petition for

Disqualification or a Petition to Deny Course, but failed to do so or probably he is also aware

that in order to disqualify the respondent, his dismissal has to be final and executory;

15. The Ombudsman’s Orders are always executory, even if they are appealed

according to Rule 3, Section 7 of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the Order

of Dismissal was duly executed by the DILG, but the execution of the said order did not render

the decision final;

16. The case of Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013, which

was cited by the petitioner to support his petitinon is not applicable to the instant case. The issue

in Maquiling case involves the use of a foreign passport and renounciation of a foreign

citizenship of a natural born Filipino who was naturalized as a citizen of USA. The facts

attending the cited case is far from the circumstances involving respondent, who is duly elected

and though the decision against him for dismissal has been implemented, he still has the

priviledge of appealing his case and the probability of reversing the decision of dismissal

persists;

17. Clearly, the alleged disqualification raised by the petitioner is nonexistent.

Petitioner’s claim that the respondent should not have run for public office anymore is

reproachable, and a desperate attempt to assert a victory that he never had;

18. True enough and as stated by the petitioner “the outcome of this mid-year election

will decide the future of this country. The Commission is mandated to ensure that the choice of

the electorate is respected,” hence, the respondent, who was voted by the people of Olongapo to

serve them as their councilor despite the appealed dismissal, and even placed him 9th in the

ranking of candidates is the clear and resounding voice of the electorate of Olongapo that must

be protected and respected.

5
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable

Commission issue an order DISMISSING the instant petition for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under premises are likewise prayed for.

Manila, July 23, 2019.

ATTY. DOODLE DEE

MANILA
PTR No.38294652/01-03-19/MANILA
IBP No. 59373/1-10-19/MANILA
Roll of Attorneys No. 83924
MCLE Compliance No. (pending issuance)

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Answer has been served upon the other parties, by registered mail/private
courier due to distance (geographical location), unpredictable traffic situation, and time
constraints, to effect personal service.

ATTY. DOODLE DEE

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. BORROMAE FIDES

Counsel for Petitioner
28-1 Mahina St., Brgy. Kangkungan
Makati City, Metro Manila