Janairo v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the local election held on November 14, 1967, for the offices of Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Caluya, Antique, Ambrosio Janairo and Romulo Lumawig were candidates for Mayor, and Francisco Madarcos and Simplicio Egina were candidates for Vice-Mayor. The election in Precinct No. 10, located in the island-barrio of Sibay, did not take place due to an incident where individuals delivering election materials were fired upon, forcing them to retreat. They returned later that day, but the board of election inspectors refused to conduct the election, citing legal prohibitions. 2. Procedural History: Following the election, Ambrosio Janairo and Francisco Madarcos filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court on November 24, 1967. This petition was prompted by the Commission on Elections' resolution on November 21, 1967, which directed the municipal board of canvassers to suspend the canvass until November 27, 1967, to allow the petitioners to seek a court remedy. If no restraining order was received by that date, the board was to proceed with the canvass and proclamation. 3. The Petition: The petitioners sought a mandamus order from the Supreme Court directing the Commission on Elections to order the continuation of the election in Precinct No. 10. Alternatively, they prayed for the Court to recommend to the President the holding of a new election in that precinct or, if legislation was necessary, to allow them time to pursue it. They also requested a suspension of the vote canvass and proclamation pending the resolution of their prayer for a new election. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition without legal basis and dismissed it, noting the lack of statutory authority for either the Court or the Commission on Elections to order a new election in such circumstances, and emphasizing that the remedy lies with the legislature.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has the authority to direct the Commission on Elections to order the holding of a new election in a particular precinct where the election failed to take place on the date specified by law. Whether the Supreme Court can recommend to the President the holding of a special election in Precinct No. 10 of Caluya, Antique.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court finds no legal basis for the petitioners' prayer.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Supreme Court's authority to order a new election: The Court held that the authority to order the holding of new elections or the postponement of elections on dates other than those fixed by law is legislative in character and does not fall within the purview of the general judicial power of the courts. Citing Section 8 and Section 21(c) of the Revised Election Code, the Court noted that the authority to postpone an election upon recommendation of the COMELEC or to call a special election to fill an office where the election failed to take place is vested in the President. There is no law granting similar authority to the courts or to the COMELEC. The Court reiterated the principle established in Salih Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections and Indanan Anni, G.R. No. L-25349, December 3, 1965, that the power to fix election dates is legislative, and any authority to order elections on other dates is merely incidental to this legislative power. The Court acknowledged the potential for disenfranchisement and the encouragement of terrorism if such situations are not addressed, but stressed that the remedy lies in legislation, not judicial fiat. On the issue of recommending a special election to the President: The Court denied the alternative prayer for several reasons. Firstly, the function of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate justiciable cases, not to make recommendations concerning the powers and functions of other departments of the government. Secondly, the petitioners are free to make such a recommendation themselves. Thirdly, the Court expressed doubt as to whether the failure of election in one out of eleven precincts could be considered a failure of "the election for a local office to take place on the date fixed by law" as contemplated by Section 21(c) of the Revised Election Code. Therefore, even if it had the power to recommend, the factual basis for such a recommendation was questionable.
Main Doctrine
The authority to order the holding of new elections or the postponement of elections on dates other than those fixed by law is legislative in character and resides with Congress, not with the courts or the Commission on Elections. The remedy for a failure of election in a specific precinct lies in legislation.