Batino Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Nacionalista Party (NP) candidates for Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Sangguniang Panglungsod in Tagaytay City, filed a petition for certiorari to annul a resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) upholding the exclusion of election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19. Tagaytay City was a "problem area" in the 1980 local elections, and a special action team was assigned. The City Board of Canvassers excluded the returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19 and elevated the matter to the COMELEC. Procedural History: On March 1, 1980, the COMELEC issued a resolution declaring the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19 as spurious or manufactured and excluded them from the canvass. The COMELEC directed the board of canvassers to convene, complete the canvass, and proclaim the winners. The board completed the canvass based on 26 election returns, and the winning candidates were proclaimed on March 2, 1980. This petition for certiorari was filed on March 12, 1980. The Petition: Petitioners claimed that if the excluded election returns had been canvassed, they would have won the positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and certain Sangguniang Panglungsod seats. They questioned whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in excluding the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19. Whether a pre-proclamation controversy case remains viable after the proclamation of winning candidates and the assumption of office, absent a pending petition before the Supreme Court prior to the election; and the scope of the Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction over COMELEC rulings.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of appropriate proceedings in the proper forum, if desired by the parties concerned, within a period of ten (10) days from notice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's exclusion of election returns: The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC considered several circumstances in declaring the election return from Voting Center No. 11 as spurious, including disruptions, intimidation, delays in counting, discrepancies in dates, use of multiple writing instruments, and the testimony of the Chairman of the Citizens Election Committee. Regarding Voting Center No. 19, the COMELEC ruled that the large percentage of excess voters over the number of valid ballots cast (144 excess, or 44.3%) indicated a spurious or manufactured return, as it did not reflect the true will of the voters. The Court noted that the number of voters who actually voted (469) was significantly higher than the total number of valid ballots (325), suggesting either ballots were spirited out or the vote count was inflated. On the viability of the pre-proclamation controversy and the scope of certiorari jurisdiction: The Supreme Court reiterated the governing rule in pre-proclamation controversies: such cases are no longer viable after the date of the election if no petition was pending before the Supreme Court as of that date and a proclamation of winning candidates was subsequently made. The exception applies only if the COMELEC's questioned ruling was issued before the election and the matter was elevated to the Supreme Court before the election. In this case, the COMELEC's decision was promulgated on March 1, 1980, after the January 30, 1980 election, and the winning candidates were proclaimed on March 2, 1980, before the petition was filed. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was not viable. The Court emphasized that its certiorari jurisdiction over COMELEC rulings is confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a patent and substantial denial of due process. In the absence of jurisdictional infirmity or error of law of the utmost gravity, the COMELEC's conclusions on matters within its competence are entitled to utmost respect. The petitioners' challenge was essentially directed against the sufficiency of evidence, which is not proper in certiorari proceedings. The Court also noted that factual findings of the COMELEC, if supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court, and the COMELEC is in a "peculiarly advantageous position" to decide such controversies.
Main Doctrine
A pre-proclamation case is no longer viable after the date of the election if there was no pending petition before the Supreme Court as of said date and a proclamation of the winning candidate was thereafter made, unless the questioned ruling was issued by the Commission on Elections before the election and the matter was then elevated to the Supreme Court before such election.