Another red flag for the COMELEC to dismiss Olandrias petition is the fact that Amora claims to personally know the notary public, Atty. Granada, before whom his COC was sworn. In this regard, the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Larrazabal aptly disposes of the core issue:
With all due respect to the well-written Ponencia, I respectfully voice my dissent. The primary issue herein is whether it is proper to disqualify a candidate who, in executing his Certificate of Candidacy (COC), merely presented to the Notary Public his Community Tax Certificate.
The majority opinion strictly construed the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (the “2004 Notarial Rules”) when it provided that valid and competent evidence of identification must be presented to render Sergio G. Amora, Jr.’s [petitioner’s] COC valid. The very wording of the 2004 Notarial Rules supports my view that the instant motion for reconsideration ought to be granted, to wit:
Section 2. Affirmation or Oath . The term Affirmation or Oath refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a)appears in person before the notary public;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.
As quoted supra, competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is personally known to the Notary Public, which is the case herein. The records reveal that [petitioner] submitted to this Commission a sworn affidavit executed by Notary Public Oriculo A. Granada (Granada), who notarized [petitioners] COC, affirming in his affidavit that he personally knows [petitioner]
[Respondent], on the other hand, presented no evidence to counter Granadas declarations. Hence, Granada[s] affidavit, which narrates in detail his personal relation with [petitioner], should be deemed sufficient.
The purpose of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters. The people of Candijay, Bohol has already exercised their right to suffrage on May 10, 2010 where [petitioner] was one of the candidates for municipal mayor. To disqualify [petitioner] at this late stage simply due to an overly strict reading of the 2004 Notarial Rules will effectively deprive the people who voted for him their rights to vote.
The Supreme Courts declaration in Petronila S. Rulloda v. COMELEC et al. must not be taken lightly:
Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.
Our ruling herein does not do away with the formal requirement that a COC be sworn. In fact, we emphasize that the filing of a COC is mandatory and must comply with the requirements set forth by law.
In this case, however, contrary to the declarations of the COMELEC, Amora complied with the requirement of a sworn COC. He readily explained that he and Atty. Granada personally knew each other; they were not just colleagues at the League of Municipal Mayors, Bohol Chapter, but they consider each other as distant relatives. Thus, the alleged defect in the oath was not proven by Olandria since the presentation of a CTC turned out to be sufficient in this instance. On the whole, the COMELEC should not have brushed aside the affidavit of Atty. Granada and remained inflexible in the face of Amoras victory and proclamation as Mayor of Candijay, Bohol. [Amora v. COMELEC, GR No. 192280, January 25, 2011].
