Resurreccion v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the January 30, 1980 elections for municipal officials of Kawit, Cavite, petitioners Ramon B. Resurreccion and Federico A. Poblete (KBL candidates for Mayor and Vice-Mayor) were proclaimed winners on January 31, 1980. On February 4, 1980, private respondents (Nacionalista Party candidates) filed an urgent petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to suspend the proclamation based on alleged vote buying, dead persons voting, minors voting, flying voters, and terrorism. Procedural History: The COMELEC, on February 5, 1980, denied the urgent petition, stating the allegations were grounds for an election protest. Private respondents filed another petition with the same allegations, which was also denied by the COMELEC in Resolution No. 9074, reiterating that the grounds were proper for an election protest. On March 31, 1980, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9614, denying a motion for reconsideration and stating that the period for filing an election protest would commence from the issuance of that resolution, without prejudice to investigating the allegations for possible criminal prosecution. Consequently, private respondents filed election cases (Nos. N-10-80 and N-11-80) with the Court of First Instance of Cavite on April 10, 1980. Petitioners, claiming lack of notice, filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 9614, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction for issuing it without due notice and hearing. The COMELEC denied this motion on June 2, 1981. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's resolutions, particularly Resolution No. 9614, alleging annulment of their proclamation without due notice and hearing and on grounds not specified in Sections 172, 173, and 174 of the Election Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 9614, which set the commencement of the period for filing an election protest from the date of its issuance. Whether petitioners were denied procedural due process.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 9614: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not annul the proclamation of the petitioners. Instead, by denying the urgent petition and stating that the grounds were proper for an election protest, the COMELEC merely provided a period for the private respondents to file such a protest. The Court clarified that the resolution assumed the validity of the proclamation and gave private respondents ten days from receipt of the resolution to file an election protest. This action was deemed just and equitable, as the COMELEC was investigating the validity of the allegations concerning the election, and suspending the period for filing a protest during this investigation was warranted. The Court cited the Sande Aguinaldo doctrine, which holds that pre-proclamation controversies arising after the election and proclamation should be dismissed without prejudice to being passed upon in a proper election protest or quo warranto proceeding, unless invoked prior to the election. The Court also reiterated the principle from Venezuela v. Commission on Elections and subsequent cases, where the COMELEC was permitted to grant a period for filing an election protest after denying a petition based on grounds proper for such protest. On the issue of denial of procedural due process: The Supreme Court found no denial of procedural due process. The Court reasoned that the subsequent orders of the COMELEC merely reiterated the initial denial of the urgent petition on February 5, 1980, which clearly informed the petitioners that the allegations were grounds for an election protest. Petitioners were aware from February 5, 1980, that private respondents could institute an election protest. Therefore, the subsequent actions of the COMELEC, which allowed the filing of the protest within a period set by authoritative doctrines, did not constitute a denial of due process. The Court emphasized that even if a procedural due process issue were sustained, it would be an exercise in futility if it did not result in a reversal of the action assailed, and no arbitrariness was shown in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may validly deny a petition seeking to suspend or annul a proclamation based on grounds proper for an election protest, and may set a period for the filing of such protest, even if the proclamation has already been made, provided that the grounds alleged are within the COMELEC's competence to investigate and the period set is equitable.