EN
BANC
|
HARLIN CASTILLO ABAYON,
Petitioner, - versus
- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RAUL A.
DAZA, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 181295 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,*
CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: April 2, 2009 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
This is a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to set
aside the Resolution[1]
dated 28 January 2008 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc in EPC No. 2007-62, which
affirmed the Order dated 8 October 2007 of the COMELEC First Division[2]
dismissing the election protest of petitioner Harlin Castillo Abayon (Abayon)
for having been filed out of time.
Abayon and respondent Raul Daza (Daza)
were candidates for the Office of Governor of the
On 19 May 2007, Abayon filed a
pre-proclamation protest before the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBoC) of
Northern Samar, docketed as SPC No. 07-037, entitled, “IN THE MATTER OF
THE PETITION TO EXCLUDE THE CERTIFICATE[S] OF CANVASS (COC) OF THE
MUNICIPALITIES OF CAPUL, ROSARIO AND BOBON—ALL IN THE PROVINCE OF NORTHERN
SAMAR WHICH WERE PREPARED UNDER DURESS, THREATS AND INTIMIDATION.”[4]
On
On
On the same day, Abayon filed with the COMELEC two
other petitions, “IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO DECLARE THE PROCLAMATION OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENT [Daza] AS WINNING CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION OF GOVERNOR OF
NORTHERN SAMAR NULL AND VOID,” docketed as SPC No. 07-070, and “IN THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF ELECTIONS IN THE
MUNICIPALITIES OF CAPUL, ROSARIO AND BOBON, ALL OF NORTHERN SAMAR,” docketed as
SPA No. 07-460.[7]
On 24 May 2007, Abayon filed with the COMELEC a fifth petition,
“IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO DECLARE FAILURE OF ELECTION IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CATUBIG, NORTHERN SAMAR, AND FOR THE HOLDING OF SPECIAL
ELECTIONS THEREOF,” docketed as SPC No. 07-484.[8]
On
29 June 2007, Abayon filed with the COMELEC a Petition of Protest, docketed as EPC
No. 2007-62, contesting the election and proclamation of Daza as Governor
of Northern Samar.[9]
Of Abayon’s numerous petitions, three
were denied or dismissed. SPC No.
07-069, Abayon’s petition to exclude from canvass the COC of Catubig,
Abayon was similarly unsuccessful in EPC
No. 2007-62, his Petition of Protest.
On 8 October 2007, the COMELEC First Division issued its Order[13]
dismissing Abayon’s election protest for having been filed out of time. Under Section 250 of the Omnibus Election
Code,[14]
an election protest should be filed within 10 days from the date of the
proclamation of the results of the election.
Since Daza was proclaimed on 20 May 2007, Abayon had only until 30
May 2007 to file his election protest.
However, he filed his election protest only on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
election protest is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time.[16]
On
The COMELEC en banc denied Abayon’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution[18]
dated 28 January 2008. It affirmed that
the election protest in EPC No. 2007-62 was belatedly filed. The COMELEC en banc maintained that
SPC No. 07-037 seeking the exclusion from canvass of the COCs from three
municipalities of Northern Samar was based on grounds that were not proper for
a pre-proclamation controversy. SPC No.
07-037 lacked merit and could not have rendered Daza’s proclamation void. Consequently, SPC No. 07-070 – in which
Abayon challenged Daza’s proclamation on the basis that it was made counting
the votes in the COCs sought to be excluded in SPC No. 07-037 – was without
merit. The suspension of the ten-day
period for filing an election protest was intended to ensure that the losing
candidate who filed a pre-proclamation case retains the right to avail himself
of an election protest. This rationale
presupposes that there is a valid pre-proclamation controversy; otherwise, such
rationale would be defeated if the ten-day suspension period is applied to a
pre-proclamation contest so manifestly baseless that it cannot prosper. The COMELEC then ruled that:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Commission RESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVED, to DENY the instant Motion for
Reconsideration. The Resolution of the
Commission (First Division) ordering the dismissal of the case for having been
filed out of time is hereby AFFIRMED.[19]
On
I
VILLAMOR VS. COMELEC APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE WHERE THE BASIS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF PROCLAMATION IS BY ITS VERY NATURE COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR THE ANNULMENT OF PROCLAMATION, LIKE THE ILLEGAL COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD;
II
VILLAMOR VS. COMELEC IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT (sic) UNDER SECTION 248 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; HENCE IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY; AND
III
THE PROTEST IS
SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE; HENCE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED IN
DETERMINING THE TRUE WINNER IN THE ELECTION SHOULD BE
The Court identifies the two main issues in this case to be as follows: (1) whether the mere filing of a pre-proclamation case, regardless of the issues raised therein, suspends the ten-day period for the filing of an election protest; and (2) if the answer to the first issue is in the negative, whether the election protest which is untimely filed may still be considered by the COMELEC.
Section 250 of the Omnibus Election
Code fixes the period within which to file an election contest for provincial
offices at ten days after the proclamation of the election results, to wit:
Section 250. Election contests for Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial and city offices. - A sworn petition contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa or any regional, provincial and city official shall be filed with the Commission by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.
However, this ten-day period may be
suspended, as Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Law provides:
Section 248. Effect of filing petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation.-- The filing with the Commission of a petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation of any candidate shall suspend the running of the period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings.
In Dagloc v. Commission on Elections,[21]
this Court clarified that the “petition to annul or to suspend the
proclamation,” which Section 248 refers to, and which suspends the running
of the period within which to file the election protest or quo warranto proceedings,
must be a pre-proclamation controversy.
The Court, thus, decreed in the same case that a petition for the
declaration of failure of election was not a pre-proclamation controversy and,
therefore, did not suspend the running of the reglementary period within which
to file an election protest or quo
warranto proceedings.
In this case, it is worthy to
reiterate that on 20 May 2007, Daza was already proclaimed the winning
candidate for the Office of Governor of the Province of Nothern Samar in the 14
May 2007 elections. Abayon had until 30
May 2007 to file his election protest.
Yet, he filed EPC No. 2007-62, his Petition of Protest only on
The Court scrutinized the petitions
filed by Abayon in the present case to determine if any of them suspended the
ten-day period for the filing of an election protest.
SPA No. 07-460 and SPA No. 07-484, which are
petitions for the declaration of failure of elections in the Municipalities of
Capul, Rosario, Bolon, and Catubig, Northern Samar, cannot suspend the ten-day
period for filing an election protest, per the ruling of the Court in Dagloc. Abayon also readily admits that SPC No. 07-069,
a petition for the exclusion from canvass of the COC from the
Abayon, however, maintains that SPC
No. 07-037, a petition for the exclusion from canvass of the COCs from the
Municipalities of Capul, Rosario, and Bobon, Northern Samar; and SPC No.
07-070, a petition to annul the proclamation of Daza, both effectively
suspended the running of the period to file EPC No. 2007-62, his
election protest. As regards
particularly SPC No. 07-037, Abayon asserts that it is a pre-proclamation
case.
Abayon’s position is untenable.
Jurisprudence makes it clear that the
mere filing of a petition denominated as a pre-proclamation case or one seeking
the annulment of a proclamation will not suspend the ten-day period for filing
an election protest. It is required that
the issues raised in such a petition be restricted to those that may be
properly included therein.
The Court pronounced in Dagloc,[23]
and quoted in Villamor v. Commission on
Elections,[24] that:
Not all actions seeking the annulment of proclamation suspend the running of the period for filing an election protest or a petition for quo warranto. For it is not the relief prayed for which distinguishes actions under [Section] 248 from an election protest or quo warranto proceedings, but the grounds on which they are based. (Emphasis ours.)
The grounds that must support a
pre-proclamation controversy are limited by the Omnibus Election Code to the
following:
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy.—The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.
The enumeration is restrictive and
exclusive. Thus, in the absence of any
clear showing or proof that the election returns canvassed are incomplete or
contain material defects; appear to have been tampered with, falsified or
prepared under duress; and/or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to
any candidate, which would affect the result of the election, a petition cannot
be properly considered as a pre-proclamation controversy. [25]
The purpose of a pre-proclamation
controversy is to ascertain the winner or winners in the election on the basis
of the election returns duly authenticated by the board of inspectors and
admitted by the board of canvassers. It
is a well-entrenched rule that the Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC are not
to look beyond or behind electoral returns.
A pre-proclamation controversy is summary in nature. It is the policy of the election law that
pre-proclamation controversies be summarily decided, consistent with the law’s
desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. There is no room for the presentation of evidence
aliunde, the inspection of voluminous
documents, and for meticulous technical examination. That is why such questions as those involving
the appreciation of votes and the conduct of the campaign and balloting, which
require more deliberate and necessarily longer consideration, are left for
examination in the corresponding election protest.[26]
The COMELEC First Division herein
found, and Abayon never disputed before the COMELEC or this Court, that SPC
No. 07-037, his petition for exclusion from canvass of the COCs from three
municipalities in
[T]he petition for annulment of proclamation was based on an unresolved petition for exclusion from the canvass of three certificates of canvass on the ground that they were allegedly prepared under duress, threats, coercion or intimidation as shown by the following circumstances:
1. a voter was forcibly taken by members of the Philippine Army;
2. a political leader was killed;
3. threats which prevented the holding of campaign sorties or rallies;
4. vote buying; threats and intimidation on voters;
5. alleged missing certificate of canvass; and
6. a wife of a BEI member was seen going in and out of the polling precinct under suspicious circumstances. [27]
None of the aforementioned
circumstances fall under the enumeration of issues that may be raised in a
pre-proclamation controversy. Abayon
acknowledges that SPC No. 07-037 does not involve the illegal composition of
the board of canvassers.[28] Not any of these circumstances involves
defects or irregularities apparent from the physical examination of the
election returns. The alleged abduction
of a voter, the killing of a political leader, the threats which prevented the
holding of the campaign sorties, and the intimidation of voters, are acts of
terrorism which are properly the subject of an election protest, but not of a
pre-proclamation controversy. Precisely,
in Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections,[29]
the Court held that massive vote-buying, like the allegation of bribery
evidenced by the suspicious presence of the wife of a Board of Election
Inspectors (BEI) member, was a proper ground for
an election protest, but not for a pre-proclamation controversy.
Since
SPC No. 07-037 did not qualify as a pre-proclamation controversy, it could not
have suspended the ten-day statutory period for the filing of an election
protest.
Bereft of any legal basis, SPC No.
07-070, Abayon’s petition to annul the proclamation of Daza, likewise,
could not have suspended the period for the filing of an election protest. In SPC No. 07-070, Abayon questioned the
validity of “the proclamation of [Daza] despite the pendency of a
pre-proclamation controversy, SPC No. 07-037, which questioned the inclusion of
three municipal certificates of
canvass.”[30] Abayon posited that Daza’s proclamation was
void under Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166, hereunder reproduced:
Section 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns.
x x x x
(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the object brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.
To begin with, as this Court already
ruled herein, SPC No. 07-037 was not a pre-proclamation case that should defer
the proclamation of Daza during its pendency.
More importantly, the procedure under
Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7166 applies only to valid pre-proclamation
contests. The first part of Section 20,
particularly paragraph (a), actually states that:
Section 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns.
a)
Any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties contesting the
inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any election returns on any of the
grounds authorized under Article XX or
Sections 234, 235 and 236 of Article XIX of the Omnibus Election Code shall
submit their oral objection to the chairman of the board of canvassers at the
time the questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass. Such objection shall be recorded in the
minutes of the canvass. [Emphasis ours.]
It bears to point out that under Section
20(a) of Republic Act No. 7166, election returns may be contested on any of the
grounds recognized under Article XX, and Sections 234, 235, and 236 of the
Omnibus Election Code. Sections 234,
235, and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code are the very same grounds for a
pre-proclamation controversy recognized under Section 243(b) of the Omnibus
Election Code, which reads: “The canvassed election returns are incomplete,
contain material defects, appear tampered with or falsified, or contain
discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as
mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236.” On the other hand, Article XX entitled
“Pre-Proclamation Controversies” is unequivocal about the kind of petition
discussed therein. Section 20 (i) of Republic Act No. 7166 is part of the procedure
undergone by a valid pre-proclamation contest.
Hence, Abayon cannot seek the annulment of Daza’s proclamation, where no
valid pre-proclamation contest was filed.
SPC No. 07-070 sought the annulment
of Daza’s proclamation and was necessarily filed after the said proclamation.
Clearly it is not a pre-proclamation case.
Moreover, it is based on a legally implausible ground--the COMELEC’s
failure to resolve SPC No. 07-037. Under
Section 16 of Republic Act No. 7166,[31]
pre-proclamation cases which are unresolved at the beginning of the term of the
winning candidate are automatically terminated. The COMELEC is not obligated to
resolve each and every pre-proclamation case.
Since SPC No. 07-070 is apparently not a pre-proclamation contest and it
is based on a legal argument which contradicts the law, this Court cannot
possibly accord it the effect of suspending the statutory period for the filing
of an election protest.
To reiterate, the circumstances
pointed out by Abayon in SPC No. 07-037 are proper grounds for an election
protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.
In fact, had Abayon timely filed an election protest, bearing the same
allegations and raising identical issues, it would have been given due course. Instead, Abayon repeatedly insisted on
pursuing remedies which were not available to him given, the circumstances
alleged in his petitions.
Abayon’s assertion that Villamor v. Commission on Elections[32]
should not be applied to his case, because of the difference in the factual
backgrounds of the two cases, is unconvincing.
In Villamor, the petition to annul the proclamation was
based on the purported illegal composition of the municipal board of
canvassers, a fact that could have constituted a pre-proclamation
controversy. However, since the petition
therein was belatedly filed, after the proclamation of the winning candidate,
the Court ruled that it still could not suspend the period for filing an
election protest. Even the
factual background in Dagloc is not
on all fours with the present case, for it involved a petition for the
declaration of failure of elections, which was adjudged not to be a
pre-proclamation case. In the case
presently before this Court, Abayon argues that the period for filing his election
protest was suspended by his previous filing of SPC No. 07-037, a petition to
exclude from canvass the COCs from three municipalities of Northern Samar; and
SPC No. 07-070, a petition to annul Daza’s proclamation.
Despite the aforementioned differences
between the facts of Villamor and Dagloc vis-à-vis the case at bar, the Court finds the same to be actually
irrelevant, and should not detract this Court from applying the wisdom of its
ruling in its two decided cases to the one at bar. It is clear from Villamor and Dagloc
that, as provided under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, the period
within which an election protest must be filed could only be suspended upon the
filing of a pre-proclamation case based on any of the grounds enumerated under
Section 243 of the same Code. Petitions
based upon grounds other than those so identified under Section 243, even if
they seek to annul the proclamation, will not suspend the period for filing the
election protest.
Section 248 of the Omnibus Election
Code, allowing a pre-proclamation case to suspend the period for filing the
election protest, was clearly intended to afford the protestant the opportunity
to avail himself of a remedy to its fullest extent; in other words, to have his
pre-proclamation case resolved, without the pressure of having to abandon it in
order to avail himself of other remedies.
It protects the right of the protestant to still file later on an
election protest on grounds that he could not raise in, or only became apparent
after his filing of, a pre-proclamation case.
Section 248 is not to be used as a justification for the irresponsible
filing of petitions, which on their face are contrary to the provisions of
election laws and regulations, and which only serve to delay the filing of
proper remedies and clog the dockets of the COMELEC and the courts.
The processes
of the adjudication of election disputes should not be abused. By their very nature and given the public
interest involved in the determination of the results of an election, the
controversies arising from the canvass must be resolved speedily; otherwise,
the will of the electorate would be frustrated.
And the delay brought about by the means resorted to by petitioner is
precisely the very evil sought to be prevented by election laws and the
relevant jurisprudence.[33]
It bears enucleation that the rule
prescribing the ten-day period for the filing of an election protest is
mandatory and jurisdictional; and the filing of an election protest beyond the
period deprives the court of jurisdiction over the protest. Violation of this rule should not be taken
lightly, nor should it be brushed aside as a mere procedural lapse that can be
overlooked. This is not a mere
technicality but an essential requirement, the non-compliance with which would
oust the court of jurisdiction over the case.[34]
The cases cited by Abayon in support
of his present Petition are not in point.
Saquilayan v. Commission on
Elections[35] does not involve delay in filing an
election protest, but rather the wrongful manner in which the allegations were
made in the protest. Respondent therein
filed an election protest, which failed to specifically mention the precincts
where widespread election fraud and irregularities supposedly occurred, as well
as where and how these occurrences took place.
The Court, nevertheless, allowed the election protest to proceed, taking
into account the then recent case Miguel
v. Commission on Elections,[36]
which was also invoked by Abayon.
Respondent in Miguel filed
a timely election protest, wherein he made general allegations of fraud and irregularities in the conduct
of the electoral exercise.
Petitioner therein insisted that a “preliminary hearing” on the
particulars of the alleged fraud and irregularities must be conducted before
the ballots were opened. The Court ruled
in favor of the respondent and held that the opening of the ballot boxes would
ascertain, with the least amount of protracted delay, the veracity of fraud and
irregularities.
While there is merit in allowing an
election protest to proceed in order to ascertain the allegations of massive
fraud and irregularities which tend to defeat the electorate’s will, one must
also keep sight of jurisdictional requirements such as the period within which
to file the protest. Otherwise, election
disputes would drag on, and the political stability which the election rules
seek to preserve will be vulnerable to challenges even beyond a reasonable
period of time. In this case, Abayon
failed to give this Court a justification for the delay in filing his election
protest, apart from his reliance on the argument that the manifestly invalid
pre-proclamation case he filed suspended the period for the filing of his
election protest.
In a special civil action for certiorari,
the burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible
error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned
order. Grave abuse of discretion means a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction.[37] In the present case, the COMELEC did not
gravely abuse its discretion. Rather, it
decided the matter in accordance with the prevailing laws and jurisprudence. The conclusion of the COMELEC on a matter decided
within its competence is entitled to utmost respect.[38]
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.
The Resolution dated
The election protest filed by Abayon
is DISMISSED for having been filed
out of time. Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGOAssociate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On official leave
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice
|
[1] Per Curiam, with Acting Chairman Ressureccion Z. Borra, Commissioners Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, Rene V. Sarmiento, Nicodemo T. Ferrer and Moslemen T. Macarambon, concurring. Rollo, pp. 50-56.
[2] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra with Commissioner Romeo A. Brawner concurring; rollo, pp. 30-36.
[3] Rollo, p. 30.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code states that:
Section
250. Election contests for Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial and city offices. - A sworn petition
contesting election of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa or any regional, provincial and city official shall be filed with
the Commission by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy
and has been voted for the same office, within ten days after the proclamation
of the results of the election.
[15] G.R. No. 169865,
[16] Rollo, p. 35.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Dagloc v. Commission on Elections, 378 Phil. 906, 912-917 (1999).
[22] Rollo, p. 212.
[23] Supra note 21.
[24] Supra note 15 at 340.
[25] Sanchez
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. L-78461, L-79146 and L-79212,
[26] Abella
v. Larrazabal, G.R. Nos. 87721-30 and 88004,
[27] Rollo, pp. 34-35.
[28] Sanchez v. Commission on Elections, supra note 25 at 75.
[29] Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 86117, 7 May 1990, 185 SCRA 86, 92-94.
[30] Rollo, p. 215.
[31] Section
16. Pre-proclamation
Cases Involving Provincial, City and Municipal Offices. Pre-proclamation cases involving provincial,
city and municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections
17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof. All pre-proclamation cases pending before
the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of
the office involved and the rulings
of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a
regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the
basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determined that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly
issues an order for the proceeding
to continue or when an appropriate order
has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. (Emphasis
supplied.)
[32] Supra note 15.
[33] Baltazar v. Commission on Elections, 403 Phil. 444, 453-454 (2001).
[34] Roquero v. Commission on Elections, 351 Phil. 1079, 1086 (1998); Robes v. Commission on Elections, 208 Phil. 179, 187 (1983).
[35] 462 Phil. 383 (2003).
[36] 390 Phil. 478 (2000).
[37] Suliguin
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166046,
[38] Ocate v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 170522, 20 November 2006, 507 SCRA 426, 437; Laodenio v. Commission on Elections, 342 Phil. 676, 688 (1997).