BONTOC, Mountain Province – The Commission on Election (Comelec) ordered the filing of information against former Mountain Province Provincial election Supervisor lawyer Elenita Julia Tabangin-Capuyan, Provincial Prosecutor Golda B. Calaoa-Bagawi and Provincial Schools Superintendent Gloria D. Buya-ao for violation of the pertinent provisions of the Omnibus Election code while performing their role as members of the Board of Canvassers (BOC) during the May 2016 synchronized national and local elections.
In a 17-page order, the poll body also ordered that the three members of the provincial board of canvassers at that time be charged administratively for violation of pertinent provisions of the Administrative Code of the Philippines for alleged serious misconduct in the performance of their duties and responsibilities at that time.
However, the Comelec dismissed the charges for violation of the pertinent provisions of Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for lack of merit to establish probable cause against the three personalities.
The election-related offense by the BOC members stemmed when they allegedly proclaimed a person who was not a candidate whose intended substitution of an independent deceased candidate was already denied by the Commission en banc relevant to the May 9, 2016 synchronized national and local elections.
In the morning of May 20, 2016, the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor Mountain Province received a copy of Comelec Minute Resolution No. 16-0342 that denied the proposed substitution of Atty. Kathy Jyll Mayaen for her deceased father, the late Gov. Leonard Mayaen, who died on March 31, 2016 due to cardiac arrest.
In the evening of May 10, 2016, in their capacity as chairperson and members of the provincial Board of Canvassers, Capuyan, Bagawi and Buya-ao allegedly proclaimed the younger Mayaen as the duly elected governor of Mountain Province, thus, the said election offense and the administrative charges against the respondents.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the charges against them are dismissible on the grounds of forum shopping and that the proclamation they made was valid and in accordance with law.
Further, the respondents claimed that it was their obligation to proclaim the winning candidates under pertinent provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and that had there been pending petition for disqualification or to deny due course for cancellation of Mayaen’s certificate of candidacy, they would still proceed to proclaim the winning candidate.
According to the respondents, the basis for the proclamation of the winning candidate was the Certificate of Canvass that was printed out of the results tabulated under the consolidated canvassing system.
The poll body claimed that contrary to the assertions of the respondents, the Certificate of Canvass for the position of governor of Mountain Province bore only the name of Leonard G. Mayaen as the substitution by his daughter was denied by the Commission en banc, thus, there was no other bonafide candidate for the said post.
Moreover, the proclamation made by respondents of the younger Mayaen who was not a candidate and whose name was not among those stated in the official election results was in clear violation of the prohibitive tenor of the law.
The order underscored that the contemplation of the law is that only an official candidate of a registered political party may be substituted by a member of the same political party. This was not the consideration in the array of cases being claimed by respondents.
Contrary to the claim of the respondents that the absence of a specific provision governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution, such a restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not written indeed, there is more reason to allow the substitution of candidates where no political parties are involved than when political considerations or any party affiliations reign, a fact that most have been subsumed by law.
The Comelec order stipulated that the positive admission of respondents of the fact of proclamation by a substitute whose substitution was already denied by the Commission en banc, a fact known to them, is considered substantial enough to support a finding of a serious charge for an election offense.
In dismissing the graft charges against the members of the board of canvassers, the poll body stated that the provision of the corrupt practices of public officers applies to officers and employees charged with the grant or approval of licenses or permits or other concessions. In the case of a board, committee or panel, there must be direct or indirect interest for personal gain or having material interest in any transaction of which the respondents is a member. In the said case, neither of the respondents is tasked with approval or grant of licenses. Neither an interest for personal gain of respondents, that they may stand to lose or gain from this act, directly or indirectly, was shown for the law to apply.
The order asserted that there is nothing on record in the said case impliedly or otherwise that will exemplify acts of corruption on the part of respondents.
The poll body explained that it appears that despite the standing order of the Commission en banc denying the substitution of the daughter in place of her deceased father, respondents had the temerity to declare that their decision was to proclaim Atty. Kathy Jyll as the duly elected governor of Mountain Province based on their belief that the denied substitution was valid.
It emphasized that nowhere under the rules that the Board of Canvassers has the power to pass upon and rule on the validity of substitution of an aspirant. It is the Commission en banc which has the authority and not the BOC.
