EN BANC
[G. R. No. 149803.
DATU ANDAL S. AMPATUAN, BIMBO Q. SINSUAT, SR., IBRAHIM B. BIRUAR, ALONTO B. DAUDIE, MICHAEKL B. DIRANGAREN, ASNAWIS S. LIMBONA, RUSSMAN Q. SINSUAT, ZALNUDIN M. ABUTAZIL, DATUWATA U. ADZIS, BORGIVA T. DATU-MANONG, FREDDIE G. MANGUDADATU and ABBAS A. PENDATUN, JR., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DATU ZACARIA A. CANDAO, DATU NORODIN M. MATALAM, KHARIS M. BARAGUIR, PAGRAS D. BIRUAR, CAHAR PENDAT IBAY, PATULA O. TIOLO, MARHOMSAL K. LAUBAN, MENTANG T. KABAGANI, ELIZABETH C. MASUKAT, GAPOR A. RAJAMUDA, SAID S. SALIK and LINTATO G. SANDIGAN, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order[1] to nullify and set aside two (2) orders
dated
Petitioners[4] and respondents[5] were candidates for the provincial elective
positions in the
On
On
On
On
Petitioners’ assumption into office notwithstanding, on July 26,
2001, the Comelec ordered the consolidation of
respondents’ petition for declaration of failure of elections with SPA Nos.
01-244, 01-332, 01-360, 01-388 and 01-390.[15] The COMELEC further ordered a random
technical examination on four to seven precincts per municipality on the
thumb-marks and signatures of the voters who voted and affixed in their voter’s
registration records, and forthwith directed the production of relevant
election documents in these municipalities.[16]
On
On
On
On
“The Commission, in view of the pendency
of G. R. No. 149803 xxx, requiring it to comment within ten (10) days from
notice, hereby suspends implementation of its orders of
However, on
On
“xxx the Court Resolved to (a) ISSUE the TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER prayed for, effective immediately and continuing until further orders
from this Court, ordering the respondent Commission on Elections to CEASE and
DESIST from ordering the lifting of the suspended implementation orders dated
26 July 2001 and 28 August 2001 in SPA No. 01-323 xxx.”[24]
The main issue to be resolved is whether the Commission on Elections was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide respondents’ petition for declaration of failure of elections after petitioners had been proclaimed.
We deny the petition.
Petitioners submit that by virtue of their proclamation as
winners, the only remedy left for private respondents is to file an election
protest, in which case, original jurisdiction lies with the regular courts.
Petitioners cited several rulings that an election protest is the proper remedy
for a losing candidate after the proclamation of the winning candidate.[25]
However, the authorities petitioners relied upon involved
pre-proclamation controversies. In Loong v.
Commission on Elections,[26] we ruled that “a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an
action for annulment of election results, or failure of elections.” These two
remedies were more specifically distinguished in this wise:
“While, however, the Comelec is
restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of the election
returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them
and investigate election irregularities, the Comelec
is duty bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence, and
other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for
declaration of failure of elections, as the Omnibus Election Code denominates
the same. Thus, the Comelec, in the case of
actions for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of
elections, may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare
and analyze voters’ signatures and thumbprints in order to determine
whether or not the elections had indeed been free, honest and clean.”[27]
The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not
deprive the Comelec of its authority to annul any
canvass and illegal proclamation.[28] In the case at bar, we cannot assume that
petitioners’ proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was
legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was put in
issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of election results and/or
declaration of failure of elections.
Respondents’ allegation of massive fraud and terrorism that
attended the May 14, 2001 election in the affected municipalities cannot be
taken lightly as to warrant the dismissal of their petition by the Comelec on the simple pretext that petitioners had been
proclaimed winners. We are not unmindful of the fact that “a pattern of conduct
observed in past elections has been the pernicious
‘grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest’ slogan of some candidates or
parties” such that even if the protestant wins, it becomes “a mere pyrrhic
victory, i.e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has
expired.” xxx “We have but to reiterate the oft-cited rule that the validity of
a proclamation may be challenged even after the irregularly proclaimed
candidate has assumed office.”[29]
Petitioners likewise rely on the case of Typoco, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections.[30] This Court held that Comelec committed no
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a petition for declaration of failure
of elections. However, we made a pronouncement that the dismissal was proper
since the allegations in the petition did not justify a declaration of failure
of elections. “Typoco’s relief was for Comelec to order a recount of the votes cast, on account of
the falsified election returns, which is properly the subject of an election
contest.”[31]
Respondents’ petition for declaration of failure of elections, from which the present case arose, exhaustively alleged massive fraud and terrorism that, if proven, could warrant a declaration of failure of elections. Thus:
“4.1. The ‘elections’ in at least eight (8) other
municipalities xxx were completely sham and farcical. There was a total failure
of elections in these municipalities, in that in most of these municipalities, no
actual voting was done by the real, legitimate voters on election day itself
but ‘voting’ was made only by few persons who prepared in advance, and en
masse, the ballots the day or the night before election and, in many
precincts, there was completely no voting because of the non-delivery of
ballot boxes, official ballots and other election paraphernalia; and in certain
municipalities, while some semblance of ‘voting’ was conducted on election day,
there was widespread fraudulent counting and/or counting under very irregular
circumstances and/or tampering and manufacture of election returns which
completely bastardized the sovereign will of the people. These illegal and
fraudulent acts of desecration of the electoral process were perpetrated to
favor and benefit respondents. These acts were, by and large, committed with
the aid and/or direct participation of military elements who were deployed to
harass, intimidate or coerce voters and the supporters or constituents of
herein petitioners, principally, of re-electionist
Governor Datu Zacaria Candao. Military units and personnel visibly, openly and
flagrantly violated election laws and regulations by escorting people or
elements engaged in the illegal, advanced preparation of ballots and election
returns and, at times, manning the polling places or precincts themselves
and/or staying within the prohibited radius. Ballot boxes and other election
paraphernalia were brought not to the precincts or voting centers
concerned but somewhere else where massive manufacture of ballots and election
documents were perpetrated.”[32]
The Comelec en banc has the
authority to annul election results and/or declare a failure of elections.[33] Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
further provides that:
“Section 6. Failure of election.- If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election of failure to elect.”
Elucidating on the concept of failure of election, we held that:
“xxx before Comelec can act on a verified
petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must
concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date
fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted
in a failure to elect; and second, the votes cast would affect the result of
the election. In Loong vs. Commission on
Elections, this Court added that the cause of such failure of election
should have been any of the following: force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous cases.”[34]
In another case, we ruled that “while it may be true that
election did take place, the irregularities that marred the counting of votes
and the canvassing of the election returns resulted in a failure to elect.”[35]
In the case at bar, the Comelec is
duty-bound to conduct an investigation as to the veracity of respondents’
allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that attended the conduct of the
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary
restraining order issued on
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Melo,
J., please see dissenting opinion.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., joins Justice Melo in his dissent.
[1] Filed on
[2] In the consolidated
cases SPA Nos. 01-244 and 01-323 (Rollo, pp.
81-86).
[3] In the consolidated
cases SPA Nos. 01-244, 01-323, 01-332, 01-360, 01-388, and 01-390 (Rollo, pp. 117-122).
[4] Official candidates
of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP political party (Rollo, p. 28).
[5] Official candidates
under the banner of KAMPI (Rollo, p. 28).
[6] Docketed as SPA No.
01-323 (Rollo, pp. 27-37).
[7] Namely: Shariff Aguak, Talayan, Mamasapano, Ampatuan, Datu Odin Sinsuat, South Upi, Salipada K. Pendatun and Datu Piang.
[8] Rollo,
pp. 27-37 at pp. 29-34.
[9] Rollo,
pp. 48-49.
[10] Rollo,
pp. 50-55.
[11] Rollo,
pp. 67-76.
[12] Petition, Rollo, pp. 3-26 at p. 4.
[13] Docketed as G.R. No.
148289 (Petition, Rollo, p. 4).
[14] Petition, Rollo, p. 5.
[15] One of the assailed
orders of this present petition, Order dated
[16] Ibid.
[17] Rollo,
pp. 117-122.
[18] Rollo,
pp. 332-346.
[19] Rollo,
pp. 3-26.
[20] As outlined in the
September 27, 2001 order of the Comelec.
[21] Rollo,
pp. 128-154.
[22] Rollo,
pp. 184-186.
[23] Rollo,
pp. 187-195.
[24] Rollo,
pp. 167-168.
[25] Salvacion
v. Commission on Elections, 170 SCRA 513 (1989); Torres v. Commission on Elections,
270 SCRA 583 (1997); Typoco,
Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 319 SCRA 498 (1999).
[26] 326 Phil. 790, 814
(1996), cited in Matalam v. Commission on
Elections, 338 Phil. 447 (1997).
[27] Loong
v. Commission on Elections, 326 Phil. 790, 814 (emphasis supplied).
[28] Aguam
v. Comelec, 132 Phil. 353, 357 (1968).
[29] Ibid., at p.
358.
[30] 319 SCRA 498 (1999).
[31] Typoco, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, 319 SCRA 498, 506 (1999). Emphasis supplied.
[32] Rollo,
pp. 29-30.
[33] Section 4, R.A. No.
7166, “The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991.”
[34] Typoco, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, 319 SCRA 498, 505 (1999), citing Mitmug v. Commission on Elections 230 SCRA 54
(1994).
[35] Soliva v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 141723 (