ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132459. November 22, 1999]

SALAINTO, et al. vs. COMELEC

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 22, 1999.

G.R. No. 132459(Aliman Salainto, as Election Officer of Barira, Maguindanao and Omar Marandang, as Election Clerk of Said Municipality vs. Commission on Elections and Ibrahim P. Malambut.)

Petitioners brought this action for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition alleging that respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolution on February 9, 1998 in SPP No. 98-014, entitled, "Ibrahim P. Malambut, Petitioner v. Aliman P. Salainto, Election Officer for Barira and Omar Marandang, COMELEC Clerk for Barira, Maguindanao, Respondents." The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads:

Premises considered, the Commission En Banc hereby renders judgment to:

a) Annul the Book of Voters of Barira, Maguindanao;

b) Set the special registration of voters for all qualified voters of Barira, Maguindanao, on February 21, 22, 28 and March 1, 7 & 8, 1998, to be conducted by the Board of Election Inspectors in their respective polling places;

c) Direct the investigation and prosecution of Election Officer Alimari P. Salainto and Election Assistant Omar Marandang for violation of Section 39, R.A. 8189 in relation to Section 261 (y) sub. Paragraph (11) and (16) of the Omnibus Election Code and in the meantime to SUSPEND them for one year without pay.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioners argue that the annulment of the Book of Voters by respondent COMELEC was done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction since the requirements of publication, notice and hearing were not complied with, as prescribed in Rule 31, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides:

Notice of hearing . --- Within three days from the filing of the petition, the Clerk of Court concerned shall make a report of the petition to the Commission which shall determine either to give it due course or to deny the same. If the Commission shall give it due course, an Order to that effect, fixing the date of hearing, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province or city concerned once a week for two consecutive weeks, the last of which shall not be less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. Copies of the order shall likewise be furnished to all political parties, organization or coalition of political parties in the province or city concerned. Expenses for the publication and notices shall be borne by the petitioner, which as preliminarily estimated, shall be deposited with the Commission. If the petitioner is an Election Registrar the expenses for publication shall be borne by the Commission.

Petitioners further contend that the setting of the special registration of voters on February 21, 22, 28 and March 1, 7 & 8, 1998 violated Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8189, which requires that no order, ruling, decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed within ninety (90) days before an election. Indeed, the ninety-day period or prohibition prior to the election of May 11, 1998 commenced on February 10, 1998. Finally, petitioners deplore their suspension without pay for one year, saying that the same was no longer preventive, since the period for preventive suspension should only be for ninety days, but rather constituted a punishment for their supposed election offenses.

The petition is without merit. It fails to show that respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to warrant issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

To be sure, respondent COMELEC ordered the annulment of the Book of Voters of Barira, Maguindanao after a finding that numerous anomalies were committed in the distribution and use of the voter registration records (VRR) in that petitioners illegally sold the VRR forms to different persons. Quite notably, these anomalies are not controverted by petitioners in the instant petition. Respondent COMELEC also found a statistical improbability in the number of registered voters contained in the Book of Voters when compared to the total population of Barira, Maguidanao as certified to by the National Statistics Office of Region XII.

As correctly pointed out by respondent COMELEC, notice was sent to all interested parties of the date of the hearing of the petition for the annulment of the Book of Voters. More importantly, in view of the finding of the aforesaid anomalies, the overriding concerns of public policy and public interest necessitate the performance by the COMELEC of its mandated task to cleanse the list of voters of illegal registrants, if only to ensure a clean, honest and orderly election.

On the other hand, it should be recalled that the assailed Resolution annulling the Book of Voters of Barira, Maguindanao was issued on February 9, 1998. Under the circumstances, therefore, the fixing of the special registration of voters in Barira, Maguindanao within the ninety-day period which immediately preceded the May 11, 1998 elections was justified by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 6646 which provides:

Designation of Other Dates for Certain Pre-election Acts. --- If it should no longer be reasonably possible to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts, the Commission shall fix other periods and dates in order to ensure accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be deprived of their right of suffrage.

Petitioners' contention that their one-year suspension without pay was tantamount to an imposition of a penalty without affording them due process of law must likewise fail, it being clear from the records that they were afforded an opportunity to be heard in the resolution of SPP No. 98-014. In fact, the assailed Resolution states that petitioners (as respondents therein) filed their Comment/Answer on January 27, 1998 traversing the material averments of the petition, and also submitted their documentary evidence as Annexes "1" to "8" thereof (Rollo, p. 164).

Therefore, respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued its Resolution dated February 9, 1998. Consequently, the instant petition must be dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED.

Pardo, J., no part.

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