Pungutan v. Abubakar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Following the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, respondent Benjamin Abubakar and other candidates filed a petition alleging that in the towns of Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk, no elections were actually held due to massive violence, terrorism, and fraud. They claimed that voting was done by persons other than registered voters, and armed men dictated the preparation of election returns. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) conducted hearings, including oral testimony from election officials and examination of precinct books of voters, fingerprints, and signatures. Based on the evidence, the COMELEC concluded that the elections in the said municipalities were sham elections, characterized by widespread irregularities such as substitute voting and manipulation of returns. Consequently, the COMELEC issued a resolution excluding the returns from 107 precincts of Siasi, 56 of Tapul, 67 of Parang, and 60 of Luuk from the canvass, declaring them spurious or manufactured, and thus no returns at all. The Petition: Petitioner Abdulgafar Pungutan assailed the COMELEC resolution, questioning the Commission's power to exclude election returns based on oral testimony and forensic examination, and arguing that such action encroached upon the judiciary's exclusive jurisdiction over the right to vote. He sought to have the excluded returns included in the canvass.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections has the power to disregard and annul election returns from certain precincts for being spurious or manufactured, based on oral testimony and examination of fingerprints and signatures. Whether the exclusion of such returns by the Commission on Elections contravenes the constitutional provision that it cannot pass on the right to vote. Whether a special election should be called in the affected municipalities.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolution of the Commission on Elections dated May 14, 1971. The Court directed the Commission on Elections to order the board of canvassers to convene without delay, complete the canvass of election returns from all precincts of Sulu, excluding those from Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk, and thereafter proclaim the winning candidate for the third Constitutional Convention seat for the province. The decision was declared immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the power to exclude spurious returns: The Supreme Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the power to disregard and annul election returns found to be spurious or manufactured. This power is essential for the COMELEC to fulfill its constitutional mandate of ensuring free, orderly, and honest elections. The Court cited previous rulings, particularly Usman v. Comelec, which affirmed the COMELEC's authority to reject returns that are not entitled to credit due to lack of integrity and authenticity. The evidence presented, including fingerprint and signature analysis, demonstrated that no genuine election was held in the affected municipalities, justifying the exclusion of the returns as 'no returns at all.' The Court emphasized that to hold otherwise would be to disregard reason and the realities of the situation, allowing sham elections to be legitimized. On the exclusion of returns and the right to vote: The Court clarified that the COMELEC's power to exclude spurious returns does not infringe upon the judiciary's exclusive jurisdiction over the right to vote. The right to vote is a fundamental political right, but its exercise is regulated by the Election Code, and its enforcement is vested in the COMELEC as an administrative function. The COMELEC's determination of whether an election was actually held, and if not, to exclude fraudulent returns, is an administrative question. This is distinct from determining whether a specific individual can exercise or is precluded from exercising the right of suffrage, which is a judicial matter. Therefore, by excluding the alleged returns from the four towns due to the absence of a genuine election, the COMELEC acted within its administrative competence and did not encroach upon judicial territory. On the call for a special election: The Court denied the plea for a special election in the affected municipalities. Citing the ruling in Usman v. Commission on Elections, the Court found no reason to order a special election. The exclusion of the returns was based on the finding that no valid election took place, and the purpose of the canvass is to reflect the true results of an election that was actually held. Ordering a special election was deemed unnecessary and not supported by the circumstances presented.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections has the power to exclude spurious or manufactured election returns, even if based on oral testimony and examination of fingerprints and signatures, as this falls within its administrative function to ensure free, orderly, and honest elections. This power does not encroach upon the judiciary's exclusive jurisdiction over questions concerning the right to vote.