EN BANC
|
SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL, Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and MA. THERESA DUMPIT-MICHELENA, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 190526 Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA,* BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 26, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
May
a division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) elevate an appeal to the
Commission en banc without first
resolving it? And in connection with the said appeal, may the COMELEC en banc legally proceed with a fresh appreciation of the contested
ballots without first ascertaining that the same have been kept inviolate?
These are the two (2) important issues raised in this petition for certiorari filed under Rule 64 in
relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
First,
the facts.
Petitioner
Sandra Eriguel (Eriguel) and private respondent Ma. Theresa Dumpit-Michelena
(Dumpit) were mayoralty candidates in Agoo, La Union during the
On
On
Initially,
the RTC dismissed the election protest on
Preliminary
conference was then conducted on
On
Dumpit’s motion, the RTC conducted a technical examination of the ballots.
Senior Document Examiner Antonio Magbojos of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) Questioned Documents Division conducted the technical
examination for Dumpit, while Chief Inspector Jose Wacangan of the Regional
Crime Laboratory Office No.1 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) conducted
the examination for Eriguel.[5] Eight (8) other witnesses for Dumpit also
testified during the trial.[6]
On
A perusal of all the testimonies of the witnesses and all other evidences presented by the Protestant are not substantial enough to persuade the Judge of this Court to rule in favor of Protestant.
The Judge of this Court had gone over reading the Minutes of Voting and Counting of Votes but could not find any alleged irregularity recorded nor any protest entered in said Minutes of Voting and Counting of Votes.
x x x x
While witnesses (Ligaya Mutia, Elmer Tamayo, Melita Genove, and Ma. Victoria Japson) were presented and testified that there were irregularities or protests made but were not duly recorded by the BEI Chairman either intentionally or unintentionally, still the same did not or is not enough to overcome such presumption. Granting without concluding (sic) that such were the case, their testimonies are merely confined to the precincts in which they served as poll watcher[s] and does not affect other precincts where the conduct of the election were generally peaceful. The same is not enough to overcome the margin of more than three thousand votes lead of the Protestee.
The Judge had even observed in the
course of his scanning the Minutes of Voting and Counting of Votes that the
Protestant or the Political Party to which she belongs has four (4) watchers in
some precincts, three (3), two (2) and one (1) in other precincts. In other words,
the Protestant or KAMPI had a number of watchers who were in the voting
precincts during the
Mr. Antonio Magbojos gave his expert
handwriting testimony on the entries written on the ballots for the Protestee,
however, these are mere opinions and speculations which were not substantiated
by any strong, direct and convincing evidence on how such entries were written
by one person for a particular set or group of ballots in a particular
precinct.[8]
Unsatisfied
with the findings, Dumpit appealed to the COMELEC. The case was docketed as EAC
No. A-01-2008, and was initially assigned to the Special Second Division
composed of Presiding Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento and Commissioner Nicodemo T.
Ferrer. Commissioner Ferrer, however, decided to inhibit himself. This
prompted Presiding Commissioner Sarmiento to issue an Order dated
Sec. 5. Quorum; Votes Required. – (a) x x x
(b) When sitting in Divisions, two
(2) Members of a Division shall constitute a quorum to transact business. The
concurrence of at least two (2) Members of a Division shall be necessary to
reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling. If this required number is not
obtained, the case shall be automatically elevated to the Commission en banc for decision or resolution.[10]
Thereafter, the Commission en banc proceeded to conduct a fresh appreciation of the contested
ballots.[11]
On December 9, 2009, after an exhaustive appreciation of all the contested
ballots,[12]
the Commission en banc promulgated a resolution
nullifying 3,711 ballots cast in favor of Eriguel after finding the same to
have been written by only one (1) or two (2) persons. The following figures
were thus derived:[13]
|
|
Dumpit |
Eriguel |
|
Total number of votes per physical count after revision |
7,839 |
11,678 |
|
ADD claimed/credited ballots |
35 |
41 |
|
LESS ballots INVALIDATED after appreciation |
14 |
4,026 |
|
Total No. of votes AFTER Comelec appreciation |
7,860 |
7,693 |
On
this note, the Commission en banc set
aside the RTC’s decision and declared Dumpit as the duly elected mayor of Agoo,
La Union, for having garnered 167 more votes than Eriguel.[14]
Aggrieved,
Eriguel now comes before us via a
petition for certiorari.
Eriguel
essentially raises the following two issues: (1) procedurally, whether the Special
Second Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its authority when it
automatically elevated Dumpit’s appeal to the Commission en banc after only one commissioner was left to deal with the case;
and (2) substantively, whether the COMELEC en
banc’s fresh appreciation of the contested ballots without first ascertaining
the integrity thereof violated the doctrine enunciated in Rosal v. Commission on Elections.[15]
We
find the petition meritorious.
I.
Automatic elevation of the appeal to the Commission en banc is invalid
The
COMELEC, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, is bound to follow
the provision set forth in Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution,
which reads:
Sec.
3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases
shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.[16]
It
therefore follows that when the COMELEC is exercising its quasi-judicial powers
such as in the present case, the Commission is constitutionally mandated to
decide the case first in division, and en banc only upon motion for
reconsideration.[17]
Indeed,
it is a basic doctrine in procedural law that the jurisdiction of a court or an
agency exercising quasi-judicial functions (such as the COMELEC) over the
subject-matter of an action is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the agreement
of the parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived, enlarged or
diminished by, any act or omission of the parties.[18]
Neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence of the court,[19]
more particularly so in election cases where the interest involved transcends those
of the contending parties.
This
being so, the Special Second Division of the COMELEC clearly acted with grave
abuse of discretion when it immediately transferred to the Commission en banc a case that ought to be heard
and decided by a division. Such action
cannot be done without running afoul of
Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. Instead of peremptorily transferring the case
to the Commission en banc, the Special
Second Division of COMELEC, should have instead assigned another Commissioner
as additional member of its Special Second Division, not only to fill in the
seat temporarily vacated by Commissioner Ferrer, but more importantly so that
the required quorum may be attained.
Emphasis
must be made that it is the COMELEC division that has original appellate
jurisdiction to resolve an appeal to an election protest decided by a trial
court. Conclusively, the Commission en
banc acted without jurisdiction when it heard and decided Dumpit’s appeal.
Any
one (1) among the parties should have moved for a reconsideration of the July
22, 2009 Order before the Special Second Division since what was involved was
an interlocutory order.[20]
The Special Second Division may, however, opt to refer the resolution of the
motion to the Commission en banc, but
only upon a unanimous vote by all of the Division members.[21]
If the motion is still denied by the
COMELEC en banc, the aggrieved party may thereafter seek recourse to
this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[22]
II.
The COMELEC cannot proceed to conduct a fresh
appreciation of ballots without first ascertaining the integrity thereof
The
records of the case also indicate that the COMELEC en banc proceeded to conduct a fresh appreciation of the contested
ballots without first ascertaining whether the ballots to be recounted had been
kept inviolate. This lackadaisical and flawed procedure on the part of the
COMELEC is further highlighted by the fact that as early as August 10, 2009,
COMELEC Chairman Jose A.R. Melo has already issued an order to the Commission’s
Law Department to investigate why some election returns in La Union were
missing,[23]
while some of the ballot boxes appeared to have been tampered with.[24]
On
In
Rosal,[26]
we painstakingly explained the importance of ascertaining the integrity of the
ballots before conducting a revision. There, we said:
The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is the true and lawful choice of the electorate. Such a proceeding is usually instituted on the theory that the election returns, which are deemed prima facie to be true reports of how the electorate voted on election day and which serve as the basis for proclaiming the winning candidate, do not accurately reflect the true will of the voters due to alleged irregularities that attended the counting of ballots. In a protest prosecuted on such a theory, the protestant ordinarily prays that the official count as reflected in the election returns be set aside in favor of a revision and recount of the ballots, the results of which should be made to prevail over those reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that “in an election contest where what is involved is the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves.”
It
should never be forgotten, though, that the superior status of the ballots as
evidence of how the electorate voted presupposes that these were the very same
ballots actually cast and counted in the elections. Thus, it has been held
that before the ballots found in a [ballot] box can be used to set aside the
returns, the court (or the Comelec
as the case may be) must be sure
that it has before it the same ballots deposited by the voters.[27]
The
Rosal doctrine finds equal, if not
more, importance in the instant case where the proceeding adopted by the
COMELEC involved not only a revision of ballots, but a fresh appreciation
thereof.
Thus,
however exhaustive the COMELEC’s findings may appear to be, the same is still
rendered void due to its lack of jurisdiction and its failure to ensure that
the integrity of the ballots has been preserved prior to conducting a fresh
appreciation thereof.
Under
such circumstances, the question as to who between the parties was duly elected
mayor of Agoo, La Union still cannot be settled without conducting proper
proceedings in the COMELEC. Therefore, we are left with no other recourse but
to set aside the assailed Resolution for being both procedurally and
substantively infirm.
Accordingly,
the COMELEC is hereby ordered to re-raffle and assign the case to one (1) of
its divisions, and to issue an order that an additional member be appointed to
the assigned division should it later on be determined that the required quorum
still could not be attained. Since the custody of the ballot boxes has already
been transferred to the COMELEC, the COMELEC division to which the case shall
be assigned must, prior to proceeding with a fresh appreciation of the ballots,
determine whether the ballot boxes for the Municipality of Agoo sufficiently
retained their integrity as to justify the conclusion that the ballots
contained therein could be relied on as better evidence than the election
returns. The COMELEC division shall also determine which ballot boxes in the
said municipality were in such a condition as would afford reasonable
opportunity for unauthorized persons to gain unlawful access to their contents.
Should it be found that there are such ballot boxes, the ballots contained
therein shall be held to have lost all probative value and should not be used
to set aside the official count in the election returns, following our ruling
in Rosal.[28]
We
likewise remind the COMELEC to be more prudent and circumspect in resolving
election protests by following the proper procedure, whether in the exercise of
its original or appellate jurisdiction, in order not to frustrate the true will
of the electorate. Otherwise, the very foundation of our democratic processes
may just as well be easily and expediently compromised.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated
(1) identify which of the ballot boxes
were otherwise preserved with such substantial compliance with statutory safety
measures as to preclude reasonable opportunity for tampering with their
contents. The ballots from these precincts shall be deemed to have retained
their integrity in the absence of evidence to the contrary and the Commission
on Elections may consider them in the recount; and
(2) ascertain which of the ballot boxes
were found in such a condition as would afford reasonable opportunity for
unauthorized persons to gain unlawful access to their contents. The Commission
on Elections shall exclude from the recount the ballots from these boxes and
shall rely instead on the official count as stated in the election returns.
The
status quo ante orders issued by this
Court on
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
||
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES 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 |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
||
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify 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.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
*
On official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 408-422. Docketed as EPC No. A-16.
[2]
[3] Sec. 11(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal
and Barangay Officials, or The Election Contest Rules which took effect on
Rule 2. ELECTION CONTESTS
x x x x
SEC. 11. Contents of the protest or petition. – An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall specifically state the following facts:
x x x x
(c) the number of votes credited to the parties per proclamation.
[4] Rollo, p. 439.
[5]
[6]
[7]
WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing premises, the
Court declares protestee, SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL, the duly elected Mayor of the
DECIDED on the 3rd day of December, 2007.
PROMULGATED this 7th day of December, 2007.
[8]
[9]
Considering that the necessary majority can not be had in the resolution of this case, the same, together with the records thereof, is hereby elevated to the Commission en banc.
SO ORDERED.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Maria Theresa Dumpit-Michelena is hereby proclaimed as the winning Mayor of Agoo, La Union having garnered 167 votes more than appellee Sandra Y. Eriguel.
SO ORDERED.
[15] G.R. Nos. 168253 & 172741,
[16] Emphasis supplied.
[17] Baytan v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
153945, February 4, 2003, 396 SCRA 703, 716; and Canicosa v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120318, December 5,
1997, 282 SCRA 512, 521.
[18] Regalado, Vol. I, Remedial Law Compendium, 9th revised edition, pp. 11-12.
[19]
[20] Sec. 5 (c), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure reads:
Sec. 5. Quorum; Votes Required. – x x x
(c) Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory orders of the division which shall be resolved by the division which issued the order. (Emphasis supplied.)
[21] Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure reads:
Sec. 2. The Commission En Banc. – The Commission shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter specifically provided, or in pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of the members of the Commission, or in all other cases where a division is not authorized to act, or where, upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the Commission en banc. (Emphasis supplied.)
[22] Supra, note 15 at 486.
[23] Rollo, p. 570.
[24]
[25]
[26] Supra note 15.
[27]
[28]