Lynette Garvida vs Florencio Sales, Jr.

written by Howard

G.R. No. 124893 – 338 Phil. 484 – 271 SCRA 767 – Law on Public Officers – Ineligibility – SK Chairman – Labo Doctrine Applied

In 1996, Lynette Garvida filed her candidacy to the position of Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of a barangay in Bangui, Ilocos Norte. Her candidacy was opposed by her rival Florencio Sales, Jr. on the ground that she is over 21 years old (21 years old, 9 months at the time of the filing). Nevertheless, the trial court ordered that she be admitted as a candidate and the SK elections went on. Sales, in the meantime, filed a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Garvida. When the results came in, Garvida won with a vote of 78, while Sales got 76. Garvida was eventually proclaimed as winner but had to face the petition filed by Sales.

Garvida, in her defense, averred that Section 424 of the  Local Government Code (LGC) provides that candidates for the SK must be at least 15 years of age and a maximum age of 21 years. Garvida states that the LGC does not specify that the maximum age requirement is exactly 21 years hence said provision must be construed as 21 years and a fraction of a year but still less than 22 years – so long as she does not exceed 22 she is still eligible because she is still, technically, 21 years of age (although she exceeds it by 9 months).

ISSUE: Whether or not Garvida met the age requirement.

HELD:  No. Section 424 of the Local Government Code provides that candidates for SK must be:

  1. Filipino citizen;
  2. an actual resident of the barangay for at least six months;
  3. 15 but not more than 21 years of age; and
  4. duly registered in the list of the Sangguniang Kabataan or in the official barangay list.

The provision is clear. Must not be more than 21 years of age. The said phrase is not equivalent to “less than 22 years old.” The law does not state that the candidate be less than 22 years on election day. If such was the intention of Congress in framing the LGC, then they should have expressly provided such.

Sales claims that he obtained the second highest number of vote, hence he should be declared as the SK Chairman, is this a valid contention?

No. Applying the ruling in Labo vs COMELEC, a defeated candidate, though obtaining the second highest number of vote, is not deemed to have been elected by reason of the winner’s eventual disqualification/ineligibility. He cannot be declared as successor simply because he did not get the majority or the plurality of votes – the electorate did not choose him. It would have been different if Sales was able to prove that the voters still voted for Garvida despite knowing her ineligibility, this would have rendered her votes “stray”.

Under Section 435 of the LGC, the SK Chairman should be succeeded by the SK member who obtained the highest number of votes, should the SK member obtaining such vote  succeed Garvida?**

(**Not to be confused with Sales’ situation – Sales was a candidate for SK chairmanship not SK membership.)

The above argument can’t be considered in this case because Section 435 only applies when the SK Chairman “refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, is convicted of a felony, voluntarily resigns, dies, is permanently incapacitated, is removed from office, or has been absent without leave for more than three (3) consecutive months.” Garvida’s case is not what Section 435 contemplates. Her removal from office by reason of her age is a  question of eligibility. Being “eligible” means being “legally qualified; capable of being legally chosen.” Ineligibility, on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the statutes for holding public office. Ineligibility is not one of the grounds enumerated in Section 435 for succession of the SK Chairman.

So how will the vacant SK Chairmanship position be filled?

The incumbent SK members must elect from among its members. The winner by simple majority shall be the SK chairperson.

Read full text.