Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
HAJI
FAISAL D. ADAP, G.R.
NO. 161984
MOHAAMMADALI
G.
PANGCOGA,
ALLAN Present:
AMPUAN,
CADER CARIM,
HADJI
YUSOPH BOHARY PUNO,
C.J.,
AMPUAN,
DATHAMAN M. QUISUMBING,
ABBAN,* LOMALA SARIP YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CADER,
BONDIONG SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
COMILING,
HADJI OMAIR CARPIO,
SARIP
AMAROHOM,* * AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
AMPUAN
CASIM,
PENDATUN
B. ORANGOT, CARPIO-MORALES,
AMINOLLAH
D. AMPUAN CALLEJO,
SR.,
and
PANGCOGA AZCUNA,
SARIPODEN, TINGA,
Petitioners, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR., and
- versus -
COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS,
SARIPODEN
M. PANGCOGA,
AKIGAN
PRETTY SARIPADA,
CADER
MARSOK, SAIDAMEN
SANDAB,
ALIBASAR BAYA
ABDULSALAM,
ABDUL
SANDAB
SULTAN, SALIMATAR
SARIP,
ABAY MARUHOM,
SULTAN
SARIP MACAUNDAS,
ANTING
ACO, COSAIN AMPUAN,
ISMAEL
CASIM, ISHAK
ORANGOT,
ALEM ALEXANDER
TOMARA
SHARIEF, HADJI
USMAN
ALIBATO, ALANODIN
BALINDONG
and AL-SARIP
MANAN
DATU IMAM, Promulgated:
Respondents. February 21, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
This
resolves the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to set
aside the Resolution[1]
of public respondent Commission on Elections, En Banc (COMELEC En
Banc) dated
Petitioners
were the proclaimed winning candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in
their respective barangays in the municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del
Sur in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan
Elections (2002 Elections). Individual
respondents were candidates for the position of barangay chairmen in
said 2002 elections, some of whom are Punong-Barangays proclaimed
in the barangay elections previous to the 2002 elections.
On August 19, 2002, after learning that a Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of winning candidates for Punong Barangay and Kagawad ng Sangguniang Barangay, proclaiming petitioners as winning candidates had been submitted to the COMELEC, respondents filed a petition for declaration of failure of elections and the holding of special elections in the whole municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur and to annul for being void ab initio the proclamation of petitioners.[2]
Respondents alleged that the 2002
Elections have not been conducted in thirteen (13) barangays of
Pagayawan on
After
trial, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated the herein assailed Decision on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Commission en banc RESOLVED as it hereby
RESOLVES to ANNUL and SET ASIDE the
ACCORDINGLY, the Commission en banc hereby ORDERS:
a) The herein Respondents (now petitioners) namely: Hadji Faisal D. Adap, Mohammadali G. Pangcoga, Allan Ampuan, Cader Carim, Hadji Yusoph Bohary Ampuan, Dathman M. Abbas, Lomala Sarip Cader, Bondiong Comiling, Hadji Omair Sarip Marohom, Ampuan Casim, Pendatun B. Orangot, Aminollah D. Ampuan and Pangcoga Saripoden TO VACATE the Office of the Punong Barangay of Ngingir Bubong, Ilian, Padas, Pinalangca, Diampaca, Linindingan, Mapantao, Biala-an, Ayong, Reboken-Kamalig (Rubokan), Lumbak (Lumbac), Badaraingud and Madang, Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur, TO CEASE and DESIST from performing the functions of said office.
b) The Petitioners-Punong
Barangay (now respondents) who have been duly elected and proclaimed in the
barangay elections previous to the 15 July 2002 barangay elections in the
subject barangay of the municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur, to continue
as such Punong Barangay in a hold-over capacity until the holding of a Special
Barangay Elections in the Municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur.
c) The Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operation to implement this resolution re the guidelines in the holding of the Special Barangay and SK Elections in the municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur.
d) The Law Department to conduct the appertaining investigation to determine the administrative and criminal liability of the above named Respondents (now petitioners) and of Election Officer Taha C. Ali. (Italization ours).
e) The Clerk of the Commission to furnish a copy thereof to the Office of the President of the Philippines, the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Office of the Governor, Lanao del Sur, and to the Office of the Secretary of the local Sangguniang Bayan and Sangguniang Barangay, Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur.
No pronouncement as to costs.[4]
Aggrieved by the foregoing Resolution,
petitioners come to this Court, claiming that it was grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC En
Banc in (1) declaring failure of elections in barangays not subject
of the petition filed before it; (2) not examining and viewing the election paraphernalia inside the
ballot boxes of the questioned precincts of subject barangays; and (3)
ordering herein individual respondents, who have been duly proclaimed in the barangay
elections previous to the 2002 Elections, to continue as Punong Barangays
in a hold-over capacity until the holding of special elections.[5]
The Court reiterates and emphasizes the oft-repeated rule stated in Pangandaman v. Comelec,[6] to wit:
x x x the
propriety of declaring whether or not there has been a total failure of
elections x x
x is a factual issue which this
Court will not delve into considering that the COMELEC, through its deputized
officials in the field, is in the best position to assess the actual conditions
prevailing in that area. Absent any
showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the COMELEC or
any administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of
endeavor, are binding on the Court.
x x x [7] (Emphasis supplied)
The petition is without merit. There is no cogent reason to
deviate from the findings of the COMELEC En Banc. It did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion. It acted well within its
jurisdiction when it issued the Resolution of
First of all, petitioners' allegation that the COMELEC En
Banc declared failure of elections in barangays not covered by the
respondents' petition is highly inaccurate.
It is not even specified in the Petition which barangays were not
covered by respondents’ Petition filed with the COMELEC. Moreover, the COMELEC En Banc, in the
Resolution dated January 27, 2004, held that there was failure of elections in the
thirteen (13) barangays subject of respondents’ petition, namely: Ngingir Bubong, Ilian, Padas, Pinalangca,
Diampaca, Linindingan, Mapantao, Biala-an, Ayong, Reboken-Kamalig (Rubokan),
Lumbak (Lumbac), Badaraingud and Madang, and nullified the proclamation of
petitioners as punong barangays of the subject thirteen barangays.
Secondly, it was not necessary for the COMELEC En Banc
to examine and view the election paraphernalia inside the ballot boxes of the
questioned precincts of subject barangays, considering that there is
substantial evidence on record to convince said body that no elections had
actually been conducted.
To refute the claim of failure of elections in subject barangays
of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur, herein petitioners (respondents below) formally
offered the following documents as evidence, to wit:
Exhibit
1. Certification from the Chief of
Police of Pagayawan (SPO1 Amerodin T. Baraguer) stating, among other things,
that the elections on
Exhibit 2. Certification from the Acting Municipal
Treasurer Panangalian Alawi stating, among other things, that the election
paraphernalia were properly distributed to the Board of Election Tellers for
the eighteen (18) Barangays on July 15, 2002.
To prove that there were indeed elections in Pagayawan as wrongfully
pictured by petitioners.
Exhibit 3. Certification from Minonting Macatumpag, DECS
District Supervisor,
Exhibit 4. Communication dated
Exhibit 5. Communication dated
Exhibit 6. [Enumeration of submarkings omitted]. Acknowledgement reciept of Official Ballots,
election returns and other forms and supplies by the Board of Election Tellers
(CE Form No. 14). To prove that the
designated Election Tellers have received the election paraphernalia alloted
for
Exhibit 7. [Enumeration of submarkings omitted]. Joint Affidavit of the designated Board of
Tellers for the 18 Barangays in Pagayawan.
To prove the conduct of election on
The COMELEC En Banc,
however, found the foregoing evidence insufficient to overcome respondents'
evidence, to wit:
Although, the Respondents [herein
petitioners] have submitted various certifications, its contents appear to be
diametrically opposed to what have actually transpired as indubitably
established by the following documentary evidence which overcome [sic] and
impeached the evidence thus presented by Respondents, to wit:
1.
The Acknowledgement Receipt executed by Acting
Treasurer Pangalian Alawi dated
2.
The transmittal of the results of the election in Pagayawan
by TAHA C. ALI, who is not the Election Officer of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur is
in itself questionable because it should be Election Officer of the
municipality, Alican Kamampangan, who has the duty to do so. Taha C. Ali, in
his memorandum dated
3.
The Consolidated List of Candidates for the
x x x x x x x x x
4. In their ANSWER WITH MOTION TO DISMISS, Respondents alleged that EO KAPAMPANGAN assisted Acting Treasurer Pangalian Alawi in distributing the election forms, documents and other paraphernalia.
However, in their memorandum, Respondents contradict themselves by
alleging that EO Alican Kapampangan abandoned his duty to supervise the
aforesaid elections and was no where to be found after the receipt of the
election paraphernalia allocated to Pagayawan on 14 July 2002 by Acting
Municipal Treasurer Pangalian Alawi from the Office of the Provincial Treasurer
at Marawi City. That EO Kapampangan only
re-appeared after the election on
x
x x x x x x x x [9]
It should be borne in mind that for this Court to uphold
the factual findings of the COMELEC, it only needs to be
shown that the same is supported by substantial evidence.[10] Substantial evidence is “that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.”[11] In this case, the Court is convinced that the finding of fact made by
the COMELEC En Banc, that there was no actual casting of votes in
subject barangays of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur, is supported by
substantial evidence, as discussed in the assailed Resolution dated
Lastly,
petitioners' contention that it was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC
En Banc to order herein private respondents to continue as Punong Barangays
in a hold-over capacity until the holding of special elections, is likewise
devoid of merit. In Sambarani v.
Comelec,[12]
the Court already explained, thus:
x x x Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9164 (“RA 9164”) provides:
Sec. 5. Hold Over. – All incumbent barangay officials and sangguniang
kabataan officials shall remain in office unless sooner removed or suspended
for cause until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.
The provisions of the Omnibus Election Code relative to failure of elections
and special elections are hereby reiterated in this Act.
RA
9164 is now the law that fixes the date of barangay and SK elections,
prescribes the term of office of barangay and SK officials, and provides for
the qualifications of candidates and voters for the SK elections.
As the law now stands, the language
of Section 5 of RA 9164 is clear. It is
the duty of this Court to apply the plain meaning of the language of Section
5. Since there was a failure of
elections in the
Section 5 of RA 9164 reiterates
Section 4 of RA 6679 which provides that “[A]ll incumbent barangay officials
xxx shall remain in office unless sooner removed or suspended for cause xxx
until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.” Section 8 of the
same RA 6679 also states that incumbent elective barangay officials running for
the same office “shall continue to hold office until their successors shall
have been elected and qualified.”
The application of the
hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction of official
business and prevents a hiatus in government pending the assumption of a
successor into office. As held in Topacio
Nueno v. Angeles, cases of extreme necessity justify the application of
the hold-over principle.[13]
Clearly therefrom, the
COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering those who have been
elected and proclaimed in the barangay elections prior to the 2002
elections to continue as Punong Barangays in a hold-over capacity
until the holding of special barangay elections.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES Associate
Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO,
SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
* ABBAS
in Comelec En Banc Resolution dated
** MAROHOM
in Comelec En Banc Resolution dated
[1] Penned by Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tancangco.
[2] COMELEC En Banc Resolution promulgated on
[3] Ibid.; Petition to Declare Failure of Elections, rollo, p. 107.
[4] Rollo, pp. 152-153.
[5]
[6] 377 Phil. 297 (1999).
[7]
[8] Formal Offer of Exhibits, rollo, pp. 137-138.
[9] Rollo, pp. 151-152.
[10] Baddiri v. Comelec, G.R. No.
165677.
[11] Rules
of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 5.
[12] G.R. No. 160427,
[13]