PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
EN BANC
SANGCAD S. BAO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
149666
December 19, 2003
-versus-
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
ATTY. RAY SUMALIPAO,
COL. FELIX CASTRO, JR.,
MUNICIPAL BOARD
OF CANVASSERS OF BUTIG,
LANAO DEL SUR,
DIMNATANG
L. PANSAR,
GORIGAO LANGCO,
AND RASMIA U. SALIC ROMATO,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner Sangcad
S. Bao sought re-election as mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur in the May
14,
2001 elections.
Aside from petitioner,
the other candidates for mayor were Gorigao Langco (Langco), Dimnatang
L. Pansar (Pansar), and Rasmia U. Salic Romato (Romato).cralaw:red
On May 25, 2001, petitioner
filed before the COMELEC a "Very Urgent Petition for Suspension of
Counting
of Votes by the Board of Election Inspectors, Canvass of Election
Returns
and Proclamation of Winners by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, and
Declaration
of Failure of Election in Butig, Lanao del Sur,"[1]
naming Pansar, COMELEC Provincial Election Supervisor Atty. Ray
Sumalipao,
and "COMELEC Deputy" Col. Felix Castro, Jr. as respondents. The
petition,
which was docketed as SPA Case No. 01-336, alleged that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. he
requested
Acting Election Officer Taha Casidar (Casidar) to adopt the Project of
Precincts with six (6) clustered voting centers which he (petitioner)
recommended,
after consultation with political parties, but over his (petitioner's)
vehement opposition, "Military COMELEC Deputy" Col. Felix Castro, Jr.
disregarded
the plan without consulting both parties and the voters concerned;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. in Precincts
1A-13A,
Philippine National Police personnel bearing high-powered firearms were
seen escorting persons who are not voters therein;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. in Precincts
9A-10A,
ballot boxes were missing during the period of casting of votes;
4. in Precincts
14A-15A,
the wife of vice-mayoralty candidate Pundaracab Ander forcibly took
possession
of the Book of Voters and acted as Board of Election Inspectors and
conducted
the voting by herself;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. in Precincts
20A-27A
and 46A-49A, the casting of votes was stopped early because
non-registrants
and flying voters insisted on voting, thus causing fighting and
shooting
among voters;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. in Precincts
28A-29A,
all the registered voters were not able to cast their votes because the
ballot boxes were brought to the second floor of the school building
and
when the boxes were brought down, the ballots and the Book of Voters
were
already filled up and thumbmarked by non-voters;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. in Precincts
1A-21A
and 42A-43A, voting was closed at 3:30 p.m., but was illegally
reopened; and cralaw:red
8. in Precincts
64A-65A,
official ballots issued to voters were forcibly filled up by one person.cralaw:red
Petitioner later filed
on May 29, 2001 an "Additional Submission"[2]
containing Casidar's "Narrative Report on the Conduct of the May 14,
2001
National and Local Elections in the Municipality of Butig, Lanao del
Sur"[3]
reading verbatim:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
1. Per my
instruction,
the BEIs immediately started the election.cralaw:red
2. while the
election
was going on, at around 2 pm, several bombings occurred almost in the
area
where the election was held which caused commotion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. due to the
incident
and fear, the BEIs assigned in some other precincts locked their ballot
boxes and brought them to the Municipal Hall while others continued the
casting of votes until the last hour.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. x x
x
the electors and some other candidates were forcing and/or convincing
me
to open the ballot boxes brought to the Municipal Hall to continue the
election which I refused as it was already too late.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. x x
x
due to intimidation and force shown or displayed by some of the
supporters
and candidates themselves, I failed to decide on time as it will
endanger
my life and other civilians in the area.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred "
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
On June 4, 2001,
petitioner
filed a "Very Urgent Motion to Defer Canvass of Election Returns and
Suspend
Proclamation,"[4]
reiterating the arguments in his previous petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 8, 2001, Langco
(petitioner-intervenor), filed a petition-in-intervention[5]
adopting the allegations of petitioner and further alleging the
occurrence
of other irregularities during the conduct of the elections, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. watchers
were not allowed to escort the ballot boxes and witness the
distribution
of ballots;
2. a member of the
Philippine
Army was putting inside the ballot box official ballots already filled
up;
3. around 11:20
a.m.,
there were simultaneous explosions causing the voters to scamper away
which
resulted to low voter turn-out;
4. the casting of
votes
was stopped at 1:30 p.m.;
5. the clustering
made
by the COMELEC based on the convenience and safety of the voters was
not
followed;
6. the casting of
votes
was done in public as there were no voting booths;
7. there was
illegal
transfer of polling places;
8. there was
massive
substitution of voters;
9. there was no
justification
for the military to serve in the election;
10. the casting of
votes
in Precincts 1A-17A, 28A-32A and 59A-69A was closed around 2:30 p.m.
but
was again reopened until around 6:00 p.m.; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
11. the counting
of
votes was manned by Philippine Army soldiers known to favor mayoralty
candidate
Pansar.cralaw:red
The COMELEC En Banc,
without
giving due course to the petition and the petition-in-intervention,
resolved
on June 14, 2001:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. to admit
the Petition-in-Intervention filed by Langco on June 8, 2001;
2. to direct the
Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Butig to hold in abeyance the proclamation of
the
respondent until lifted by the Commission;
3. to direct the
Clerk
of the Commission to issue summons requiring the respondents to file
their
answers to the petition and petition-in-intervention and to set for
hearing
the instant case immediately in order to hear from the parties and
determine
whether the suspension will stay or has to be lifted; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. to direct the
Deputy
Executive Director for Operations to implement this order with dispatch.[6]
The COMELEC En Banc
conducted
a hearing on June 28, 2001 during which all the parties were
represented
by counsels, after which it issued the following order, quoted
verbatim:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At today's
hearing parties were respectively represented by counsels.
Counsel for
intervenor-oppositor
Rashmina Salic Romato manifested that they filed a petition in
intervention
in this case as his client was not impleaded although was proclaimed
also
as mayor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Counsel for
respondent
Dimnatang L. Pansar manifested that his client the impleaded respondent
who was also proclaimed did not receive any summons in this case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering the
foregoing,
the motion to intervene is granted. Respondents are hereby given three
(3) days from today to file answer, after which this case shall be
deemed
submitted for resolution.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As noted in the
above-quoted
June 28, 2001 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, Romato who had in the
meantime been proclaimed (on June 10, 2001)[8]
as mayor, as was Pansar (on June 16, 2001),[9]
manifested that he filed a petition-in-intervention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By the questioned Resolution
of August 13, 2001, the COMELEC En Banc dismissed the petition and
Langco's
petition-in-intervention, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Very Urgent Petition and Petition in
Intervention
are DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT.
The Very Urgent
Motion
to Defer Canvass of Election Returns and Suspend Proclamation is
likewise
DENIED for the same reason.cralaw:red
Hence, the present
petition
for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court raising
the issue of:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHETHER OR
NOT
RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ILLEGALLY OR ARBITRARILY RESOLVED TO
DENY THE PETITION OF BAO AND INTERVENOR LANGCO AND ROMATO, THAT THEIR
'ALLEGATIONS'
AND 'EVIDENCES' ATTACHED TO THEIR PLEADINGS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO DECLARE
FAILURE OF ELECTION.[10]
(Emphasis
omitted.)
Petitioner contends
that
SPA No. 01-336 being a contentious case, the COMELEC acts as a
quasi-judicial
tribunal and thus falls under the term "court"; that the questioned
resolution
failed to express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
it is based in contravention of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution;[11]
that contrary to the findings of the COMELEC, the two (2) conditions
set
forth in Mitmug v. COMELEC[12]
to declare a failure of election was present in the instant case; and
that
the serious and massive election irregularities in thirty out of forty
precincts in Butig were more than sufficient to affect the election
results
as they disenfranchised more than 70% of the registered voters.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner further contends
that even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in
failure
to elect;[14]
that the COMELEC erred in not giving credence to the official Narrative
Report of Casidar which contained facts affecting the validity of the
elections;[15]
and that in failing to conduct summary hearing for the reception of
evidence,
the COMELEC violated the Omnibus Election Code and its own rules.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issue in the main
is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not
declaring
a failure of election.cralaw:red
This Court holds
in the negative.
Section 6 of the Omnibus
Election Code provides:chanrobles virtual law library
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 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 on a date reasonably close to the
date 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 or failure to elect.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Mitmug v. COMELEC,[17]
this Court held that before the 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 precinct or precincts on the
date
fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
results
in failure to elect; and second, the votes not cast would affect the
result
of the election.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
And in Typoco v. COMELEC,[18]
this Court held:chanrobles virtual law library
Clearly
then,
there are only three instances where a failure of election may be
declared,
namely:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the
election
in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the election
in
any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the
closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) after the
voting
and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or
in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in failure to
elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes. In all instances there must have been a failure to
elect;
this is obvious in the first scenario, where the election was not held
and second where the election was suspended. As to the third scenario,
the preparation and transmission of election returns which give rise to
the consequence of failure to elect must as aforesaid be literally
interpreted
to mean that nobody emerged as winner.cralaw:red
In the present case,
the
allegations-bases of both the petition and Langco's
petition-in-intervention
before the COMELEC are mostly grounds for an election contest, not for
a declaration of failure of election. While there are allegations which
may be grounds for failure of election, they are supported by mere
affidavits
and the narrative report of the election officer. That petitioner and
petitioner-intervenor
were not able to present substantial evidence in support of their
allegations
should not be blamed on the COMELEC, for during the June 28, 2001
hearing,
Atty. Jose Ventura Aspiras, collaborating counsel for petitioner, on
being
informed that respondent Pansar had not yet received the summons to
necessitate
the resetting of the hearing, made a "request," which was granted, that
said respondent should just file "an answer or memorandum to abbreviate
the proceedings," and did not object to the COMELEC's pronouncement to
consider the petition submitted for resolution after the filing of the
answer or memorandum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred "
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Comm. Javier
In the meantime,
we
will have to reset this case because it appears that the service of
summons
has not been done into the respondent, so, it would appear that this
Commission
would not have any jurisdiction yet because you appeared here already,
your appearance, you are submitting to the jurisdiction of the
Commission,
so, in that case, we will request the petitioner to submit a copy to
the
respondent and give him time to answer, three (3) days to answer, okay.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Aspiras
May we just
request
that what we (sic) file would be an answer/memorandum to abbreviate the
proceedings.cralaw:red
Comm. Javier
Okay, answer
together
with memorandum in three (3) days, you have to submit simultaneous
memorandum.cralaw:red
Atty. Aspiras
Yes, your Honor.cralaw:red
Comm. Javier
Three (3) days
from
today, we will consider this submitted for resolution.cralaw:red
Atty. Aspiras
Yes, your Honor,
we
will furnish already after this hearing, copy of the amended petition
to
the respondent your Honor.cralaw:red
Comm. Javier
Okay, next case.cralaw:red "
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x[19]
(Emphasis and italics supplied.)
Under the
circumstances,
petitioner and petitioner-intervenor are deemed to have waived their
right
to present further evidence to substantiate their petition.
Since, as the following
portion of the assailed COMELEC resolution states, both petitioner and
petitioner-intervenor failed to discharge the burden of proving their
allegations,
the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, there
can be no other recourse for this Commission than to deny the petition.
General allegations, without sufficient evidentiary support, do not
warrant
a declaration of a failure of elections. Election results are the
expression
of the will of the people whose welfare and interests must immediately
be served by those upon whom the people have placed their trust.
Peripherally
but not trivially, elections need be consummated with dispatch because
the losers or even those just lagging behind in the counting, more
often
than not, file all kinds of protests and complaints and objections that
delay the election process and threaten to deny the people their
representation
in government.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo at 48–57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 83–86.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 87–88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 34–39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 95–101.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
COMELEC Records at 76–77.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 93–94.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Motion for Leave to Intervene, COMELEC Records at 121–123.
[9]
Answer, id. at 107–115.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
230 SCRA 54 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Rollo at 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id. at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 33–34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
319 SCRA 498 (1999) citing Canicosa v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512 (1997);
Vide
Banaga v. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 701 (2000) and Pasandalan v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 150312, July 18, 2002.
[19]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes, June 28, 2001 at 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo at 179 citing Loong v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 2 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|