[ G.R. No. 23892. March 23, 1925 ] 47 Phil. 694
[ G.R. No. 23892. March 23, 1925 ]
RAMON R. PAPA, PRESIDENT OF THE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE OF THE “PARTIDO NACIONALISTA CONSOLIDADO” OF THE CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT. MARCELO CARINGAL, PRESIDENT OF THE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE OF THE “PARTIDO LIBERAL” OF THE CITY OF MANILA, INTERVENOR. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The well worn issue in this case, as well as in a series of cases, which election years may be expected to produce, relates to the representation of political parties on election boards. The Municipal Board of the City of Manila named two election inspectors and two substitutes therefor for the Partido Democrata and one inspector and his substitute for the Partido Liberal, for each of the municipal election precints. A Judge of First Instance of the City of Manila, on mandamus proceedings being instituted and heard, rendered judgment ordering the Municipal Board of the City of Manila within two days to meet in a special session and proceed to name for each of the election precincts of the city, two election inspectors and a secretary and their respective substitutes, from names proposed by the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, and one inspector with his corresponding substitute from names proposed by the Partido Democrata, with costs against the members of the Municipal Board. From this judgment, the respondent Municipal Board of the City of Manila appealed. In this instance, the Partido Liberal has been permitted to intervene in the proceedings.
The hearings before the Municipal Board of the City of Manila and before the courts, and the deliberations of these bodies, have disclosed a truly remarkable divergence of views, absolutely hopeless of reconcilement. The trial judge, counsel for the appellee, and one member of this court, who will likely state his individual opinion, unite in holding that the votes cast at the special election in 1923 should be made the criterion in determining which political party polled the largest number of votes, and that the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado is entitled to majority representation on the board of inspectors in the coming general elections, and the Partido Democrata to minority representation on these election boards. At the other extreme, stand the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, counsel for the appellant, and possibly one member of this court, who reach the conclusion that the Partido Democrata should be given the control of the election boards and that the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado should be shut off from all participation on these boards. Two other members of the court incline to the view that because of the hopeless confusion resulting from any attempt to analyze the vote at the special election, the court is forced to consider the vote at the last general election and thus to grant two inspectors on each election board to the Partido Democrata and one inspector to the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado. Out of this state of affairs, must come some sort of a decision which the writer will endeavor to have present the situation fairly and to reflect the opinion of the majority.
The facts are mostly stipulated. They are: The last general elections were held in 1922. In the City of Manila, the Partido Democrata ran first, the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista second, and the Partido Nacionalista third. The Partido Liberal also polled some votes. A special election to fill a vacancy in the office of Senator of the Fourth District including the City of Manila, was held on October 2, 1923. At this special election, two persons, Juan Sumulong and Ramon J. Fernandez, filed their certificates of candidacy. In the City of Manila, Juan Sumulong received 16,022 votes and Ramon J. Fernandez, 19,380 votes. When the time came for the Municipal Board of the City of Manila to name election inspectors and poll clerks for the general election of 1925, it refused all participation on election boards to the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the political legatee of the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista. Instead, it provided for election boards, as above indicated, by giving majority representation to the Partido Democrata and minority representation to the Partido Liberal.
Leaving further statement of the facts for later discussion, we should now make connection between the facts and the law. The portion of the revised Election Law, principally to be taken under consideration, is section 417 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Acts Nos. 2711, 3030, and 3210. As this section stood in Act No. 3030, before its last amendment, and as it was enforced during the general elections of 1922 and the special election of 1923, it reads in part:
“It shall be the duty of the municipal council in each municipality wherein a general election is to be held to appoint, ninety days immediately prior to the date of such general election, three inspectors of election and one poll clerk, with their respective substitutes, for each election precinct therein, who shall hold office for three years or until their successors shall have taken charge of the same. The date of the meeting of the municipal council for the appointment of inspectors shall be published at least fifteen days in advance of such meeting, by the town crier and other means o£ publication. Should there be in such municipality one or more political parties or branches or fractions thereof, or political groups, then two of said inspectors and two substitutes for the same shall belong to the party which polled the largest number of votes in said municipality at such preceding election and the other inspector and his substitute shall belong to the party, branch or fraction thereof, or political group which polled the next largest number of votes at said election.”
Pursuant to the terminology of the law above quoted, election inspectors were chosen on the basis of the results of the general elections. The phrase “at such preceding election” referred back to the phrase “general election.” If these provisions had remained unchanged, there could exist no doubt that election inspectors for the general election in 1925 would be chosen on the basis of the general election in 1922, which would mean two election inspectors for each precinct of the City of Manila for the Partido Democrata and one election inspector for each precinct for the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado.
At the last session of the Philippine Legislature, however, it again amended section 417 by the enactment of Act No. 3210 by changing the phrase “at such preceding election” to the phrase “at the next preceding election.” Possibly the law is still susceptible to the interpretation that “the next preceding election” has relation with the “general election” mentioned in the beginning of the section. But obviously, the law was amended for some purpose. As the law now exists, a special election is as much a “preceding election” as a general election. This may be unfortunate, for a special election is an election not regularly held to supply a vacancy in a particular office before the expiration of the full term for which the incumbent was elected, and thus does not as well echo the political sentiment of the electorate as does a general election. Without, however, entering into this phase of the question and without attempting to substitute our opinion of what is best for the opinion of the Legislature, we must give literal application to the phrase “next preceding election” and permit it to cover a preceding election, whether general or special.
Conceding, therefore, that under the law as last amended, the next preceding election to the approaching election of 1925 is the special election of 1923, then the question becomes one of determining which political party polled the largest number of votes in the City of Manila at the special election and which political party polled the next largest number of votes at said election. This brings us again to look at certain combined phases of law and fact.
To begin with, section 404 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3030, provides that “no person shall be eligible for the office of senator * * * unless, within the time fixed by law, he shall file a duly verified certificate of candidacy.” In said certificate, the candidate must state, among other things, “the name of the political party to which the candidate belongs, or that he belongs to none, if such be the case.”
In the certificate of candidacy of Juan Sumulong, he declared that “Yo, Juan Sumulong, anuncio y permito que se anuncie mi candidatura para el cargo de Senador por el 4.º Distrito Senatorial * * *. Que pertenezco y soy el candidato oficial del Partido Democrata, para el referido cargo de Senador de dicho Distrito Senatorial.” (I, Juan Sumulong, announce and permit the announcement of my candidacy for the office of Senator for the 4th Senatorial District * * *. That I pertain to, and am the official candidate of the Partido Democrata for the office of Senator of said Senatorial District.) In the certificate of candidacy of Ramon J. Fernandez, he stated that “Yo, Ramon Fernandez, declaro que permito que se anuncie mi candidatura para el cargo de Senador del Cuarto Distrito; * * * que soy elegible para el mencionado cargo de Senador y no pertenezco por ahora a ningun partido politico.” (I, Ramon Fernandez, declare that I permit my candidacy to be announced for the office of Senator for the Fourth District; * * * that I am eligible for the above mentioned office of Senator, and do not belong at present to any political party." Senator Fernandez was not called as a witness during the trial of this case, but on the witness stand, Senator Vicente de Vera, general secretary of the Partido Colectivista during the campaign of the special election and now the secretary-treasurer of the executive committee of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado in response to the question “Y, segun su conocimiento personal, ¿no ha pertenecido nunca a ningun partido politico o grupo politico en Manila?” (And according to your personal knowledge, he has never belonged to any political party or political group in Manila?), referring to Senator Fernandez, answered “No.” On the contrary, it appears that Senator Fernandez was hailed as the candidate of “Juan de la Cruz” and the candidate of the “People.” He was, however, the choice of the coalition formed by the Partido Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista and received the backing of the leaders of these parties throughout the campaign. According to the testimony of Senator De Vera, the triumph of Senator Fernandez in Manila was brought about by the favor accorded him by the voters pertaining to the Partido Colectivista, the Partido Nacionalista, the Partido Liberal, and the Partido Democrata, and other independent electors.
With this the situation, it is questionable if the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado can now claim a monopoly of the benefits arising from an election when the successful candidate ran as an independent. The certificate of candidacy of Ramon J. Fernandez permitted the placing of his name before the electorate. It was in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of his political creed or lack of political creed. It constituted an authorized badge which the voter could scrutinize before casting his ballot. The electors voted for Ramon J. Fernandez, Independent. They did not vote for Ramon J. Fernandez, Colectivista, Nacionalista, Liberal, or Democrata. It would be hard to say whether of the 19,380 votes received by Senator Fernandez, 16,023 thereof, or one more than was received by his opponent, came to him on account of the backing of the Partido Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista, or whether such support only accounted for 16,021 votes, or one less than was received by his opponent.
It has been the practice of this court to hold that a person who does not belong to any political party, but is only an independent candidate, has no right to recommend persons as election inspectors. The statute, providing that election inspectors shall be selected from the leading political parties, discloses a legislative intent to preserve and protect party organization. (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Lupao, No. 15438; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Quezon, No. 15439; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Talavera, No. 15440; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Rizal, No. 15442; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Muñoz, No. 15444; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Santo Domingo, No. 15445;[*] and Villamor, Tratado de Elecciones, p. 203.) This court has likewise held in at least two decisions and the same has been the judgment of a member of this court, Justice Villamor, in his well-known work on Elections, that “for the proper and correct weighing of the evidence that determines which of the political parties was victorious in the last election, and the classification of the voters who cast the votes, the political filiation and color of the candidate nominated and voted for must be taken into account. Only the votes cast in favor of the official candidates of a party, being homogeneous, can be computed in the name and in favor of the party to which said candidates voted for belonged * * *. The political filiation and color of the candidate voted for, which determine those of his voters, must be judged and considered as of the date of the election and not afterwards * * .” (Bustos vs. Municipal Council of Masantol, No. 15310; Galian and Montenegro vs. Municipal Board of Manila, No. 15324;[] Villamor, Tratado de Elecciones, third edition, pp. 206, 207.) We would not be warranted in departing from the doctrines previously announced in our decisions.
It results, therefore, that while the 16,022 votes given to Juan Sumulong in the City of Manila as the official candidate of the Partido Democrata for the position of Senator can be counted in favor of the Partido Democrata, not all at least of the 19,380 votes received by Ramon J. Fernandez as a candidate who did “not belong at present to any political party” can be counted in favor of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the successor of the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista. On the basis of the results in the special election of 1923, in relation with the general election of 1922, the Partido Democrata must still be considered the majority party in the City of Manila and the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the minority party. As for the Partido Liberal, no serious consideration can be given to its claims, since its failure to present a complete ticket in 1922, and since its expression of sympathy and adhesion to the cause of the resigning members of the Council of State, and the Mayor of the City of Manila, and its felicitations of Ramon J. Fernandez on his acceptance of candidacy for the position of Senator, hardly disclose a showing worthy of comparison with its competitors in the political field.
The trial judge gave the poll clerk in each election precinct to the party having the largest number of votes. By implication, although not expressly, he suggested that the poll clerk should necessarily belong to the majority party. His Honor may have been induced to take this position by some loose language appearing in our decisions. It will be noted, however, that while the law is specific in providing that election inspectors shall belong to the two leading parties, it is silent as to the political filiation of poll clerks. It must, therefore, be assumed that the appointment of poll clerks rests entirely within the discretion of the municipal council or the Municipal Board. Poll clerks may belong to any political party or to no party at all. (See Laurel, The Election Law, Annotated, p. 50.)
The whole purpose of the much amended Election Law is to provide for clean elections. The courts will assist in accomplishing this purpose just in so far as they make themselves the instruments of the public welfare. As a practical observation, it is of record and is moreover contemporaneous history that the two leading parties in the Philippines are the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado and the Partido Democrata. It is also a safe deduction that in the City of Manila, the Partido Democrata has for some years and up to the present “been the dominant political party, and the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, under other forms, the party or parties of the opposition. By giving to each of these political parties representation on election boards, honesty in the conduct of the election will be better assured. To the courts will go the satisfaction of having aided in this much desired result.
A majority of the court, for varying reasons, concur in this—that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and upon the petitioner-appellee amending his complaint to make it accord with our findings, judgment shall issue directing the Municipal Board of the City of Manila immediately after receipt of notice to convene and to name one election inspector and one substitute for each election precinct in the City of Manila from the names submitted by the legitimate representative or representatives of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the appointments heretofore made by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila of election inspectors for the Partido Democrata, and of poll clerks, to remain undisturbed. No costs shall be allowed in either instance. Without awaiting the expiration of the customary fifteen-day period, the record will be remanded at once to the court below. It is so ordered.
Johnson, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.