Abes v. Commission on Election
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns alleged widespread irregularities during the November 14, 1967 elections in Quezon City. Petitioners, candidates and parties from the Liberal Party, the Nacionalista Reform Party, and the Quezon City Citizens League for Good Government, claimed numerous fraudulent and illegal acts. These included the theft of blank registration forms, campaigning within polling places, voters casting ballots based on mimeographed notices, ballots being filled outside polling places, restricted access to inclusion forms, voters being allowed to vote on indiscriminate inclusion orders, voters casting ballots beyond legal hours, I.D. cards being scattered and distributed by partisan leaders, unauthorized registration locations, unsealed precinct books of voters, and ultimately, the disenfranchisement of approximately 51% of registered voters. Procedural History: Following the election, the petitioners first approached the Commission on Elections (Comelec) with allegations of a failure of election due to the extensive irregularities. They sought the suspension of the canvass and proclamation of winning candidates, as well as the nullification of the elections and the ordering of new elections in Quezon City. Comelec, by minute resolution on November 23, 1967, denied the petition, directed the board of canvassers to proceed with the canvass but not to proclaim any winning candidate for city offices, and advised the petitioners to seek remedy from the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify Comelec's resolution. They argued that Comelec should have suspended the canvass and proclamation, annulled the election, and ordered a new election. The Supreme Court, however, found that Comelec correctly denied the petition. The Court clarified that the board of canvassers is a ministerial body and that Comelec lacks the constitutional or statutory power to annul an election or order a new one based on alleged fraud or irregularities. Such matters, the Court held, must be addressed through election protests filed in the appropriate courts after proclamation, and that Comelec's powers are primarily administrative and preventive, not curative. The Court also noted that the claim of 51% disenfranchisement was contested, with respondents asserting that approximately 62% of registered voters had cast their votes.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the jurisdiction to order the board of canvassers to suspend the canvassing and proclamation of winning candidates. Whether COMELEC has the authority to annul the elections held in Quezon City. Whether COMELEC can direct the holding of a new election in Quezon City.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition to suspend canvass and proclamation. COMELEC is powerless to annul an election or direct a new election, and mandamus will not lie to compel it to perform acts not within its legal duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of suspending canvass and proclamation: The Supreme Court reiterated that the board of canvassers is a ministerial body tasked with canvassing votes on election returns submitted in due form. Its powers are limited to the mechanical function of ascertaining and declaring the apparent result. COMELEC's duty is to enforce election laws and ensure the board performs its function. While COMELEC can annul a canvass or proclamation based on incomplete, incorrect, or tampered returns, or made in an unauthorized meeting, it cannot look beyond the face of the returns once their authenticity is satisfied. The petition did not indicate falsified or non-genuine returns, but rather alleged other irregularities. Suspending canvassing and proclamation at that late stage could result in a vacuum in office, which must be prevented. Therefore, canvassing and proclamation must proceed. On the issue of annulling the election: The Court held that the Constitution and the Revised Election Code do not grant COMELEC the power to annul an election. COMELEC's powers are primarily preventive, intended to prevent fraud or violations of election law, but not curative. The duty to cure or remedy the resulting evil, if preventive measures fail, falls upon other agencies of the government. Election contests involving provincial and municipal officials are entrusted to the courts, and the power to decide such contests necessarily includes the power to determine the validity or nullity of votes. The Court cited Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections and Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections to support the principle that COMELEC's powers are essentially executive and administrative, not judicial. On the issue of directing a new election: The Supreme Court found no constitutional or legal precept granting COMELEC the power to direct a new election after the election has been held. Section 8 of the Revised Election Code pertains to the postponement of elections before they are held, upon recommendation of COMELEC and by the President. The Court noted that the failure of the law to afford redress in cases of failed elections, such as the one in Janairo vs. Commission on Elections, highlights a hiatus that can only be filled by legislation, not by judicial fiat. Therefore, COMELEC cannot be compelled to order a new election.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the power to enforce and administer election laws and supervise elections, but it does not possess the authority to annul an election or order a new election. Such powers are vested in other government agencies or require legislative action. The proper remedy for alleged irregularities, fraud, terrorism, and other illegal practices is an election protest filed before the appropriate court.