ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 149076.November 27, 2001]

OLIVAREZ vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 27 2001.

G.R. No. 149076(Pablo R. Olivarez vs. Commission on Elections, Elmer M. Kayanan, in his capacity as Election Officer of Para�aque City, and the City Board of Canvassers.)

Petitioner Pablo R. Olivarez was among the candidates for mayor of Para�aque City during the May 14, 2001 elections.

On May 20, 2001, petitioner filed with respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition against Elmer Kayanan in his capacity as election officer of Para�aque City and the Board of Canvassers of the same city praying for the (a) declaration of nullity of the May 14, 2001 elections in Para�aque City; (b) purging of the list/book of fictitious voters; and (c) calling of special elections therein.In support of his petition which was docketed as SPA No. 01-285, petitioner alleged that:

RESPONDENT OFFICIALLY ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY 167,883 QUALIFIED VOTERS IN PARA�AQUE BUT DID NOT CAUSE THE DELISTING OF 93,200 FICTITIOUS VOTERS THAT CONSTITUTED THE INTRINSIC INVALIDITY AND LACK OF INTEGRITY OF THE LIST/BOOK OF VOTERS USED IN THE MAY 14, 2001 ELECTIONS.

(Rollo, p. 16)

THE ELECTION RETURNS FORMS USED IN THE MAY 14, 2001 ELECTIONS WERE SUPER-IMPOSED WITH THE WORDS, "PARA�AQUE CITY, METRO MANILA" AND "SERIAL NO. 95010001 TO 95011319" WHICH CONSTITUTES THE INTRINSIC INVALIDITY OF THE SAID ELECTION DOCUMENT. (Id., at 18.)

On July 5, 2001, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

Hence, the instant petition brought under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court.Petitioner raises the following grounds for allowance of the petition:

RESPONDENT COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING OUTRIGHT SPA NO. 01-285

AND

COMELEC DENIED PETITIONER HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION (Id., at 6.).

The petition is not meritorious.

In dismissing the petition before it, the COMELEC ruled:

Upon careful review of the petition, We in the Commission however find that the grounds raised in the instant petition are not proper in a petition for the declaration of failure of elections, as provided by applicable laws and existing jurisprudence.

In Canicosa vs. Commission on Elections, 282 SCRA 512, the Honorable Supreme Court held:

There are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely: (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: (b) the election in any polling place has 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: or (c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. ( Underscoring supplied for emphasis)

In the absence therefore of any showing that there are indeed grounds to declare a failure of election in Para�aque City, this Honorable Commission deemed it wise to refrain from giving due course to the instant petition."For the rule is well-settled that the power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will" (Pena vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 270 SCRA 340).

(Id., at 40-41.)

There is nothing in the petitioner's petition before the COMELEC that raises valid grounds for the declaration of a failure of elections in the City of Para�aque.The grounds for the petition before the COMELEC were that respondent Elmer M. Kayanan, in his capacity as city election officer, failed to delist the book of 93,200 fictitious voters and that "intrinsically invalid elections returns" were used in said elections.Under Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely: (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; (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; or (c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election returns in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes (Sison v. COMELEC, 304 SCRA 170 [1999]; Canicosa v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512 [1997]).Clearly, none of the two grounds invoked by the petitioner fall under any of those enumerated.

Moreover, the filing of a petition for declaration of failure of election is not the proper remedy, where the question raised involves the inclusion or exclusion of voters from the voter's list.The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to vote which is within the power or authority of the first level trial courts to rule upon, not the COMELEC. (Canicosa v. COMELEC, supra.)

Petitioner also contends that the COMELEC denied him his right to due process when it dismissed his petition without the benefit of a hearing.The COMELEC, in ruling that the petition must be dismissed outright, rationcinated:

It is worthy to stress that in the instant case, there is no concurrence of the conditions necessary to declare a failure of election, as provided in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code and as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Mitmug vs. Commission on Elections.Likewise, the High Tribunal held in the same Mitmug case that:

"Indeed, the fact that a verified petition is filed does not automatically mean that a hearing on the case will be held before COMELEC will act on it. The verified petition must still show on its face that the conditions to declare a failure to elect are present.In the absence thereof, the petition must be denied outright." (Underscoring supplied for emphasis)

We agree with the COMELEC.The fact that the COMELEC en banc reviewed and evaluated the petition in question at the first instance meant that petitioner was already given a fair "hearing" of his case.In Borja v. COMELEC (260 SCRA 604 [1996]), we held:

xxx Nor can Borja claim that he was denied due process because when the COMELEC en banc reviewed and evaluated his petition, the same was tantamount to a fair "hearing" of his case.The fact that Capco was not even ordered to rebut the allegations therein certainly did not deprive him of his day in court.If anybody here was aggrieved by the alleged lack of notice and hearing, it was Capco whose arguments were never ventilated.If he remained complacent, it was because the COMELEC's actuation was favorable to him.

Certainly, the COMELEC cannot be said to have committed abuse of discretion, let alone grave abuse of discretion thereof, in dismissing Borja's petition. xxx

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit."Buena, J., abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com