Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: These consolidated cases stem from various election disputes arising from the 1992 elections. The core of the disputes involves challenges to the rulings of municipal and provincial boards of canvassers concerning the inclusion or exclusion of election returns, the composition of these boards, and alleged manifest errors in tabulation. The petitioners are candidates who sought to have certain election returns excluded from the canvass or to correct alleged irregularities, while the respondents are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the respective boards of canvassers or proclaimed winning candidates. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, aggrieved by decisions of various municipal and provincial boards of canvassers, appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC, sitting en banc, issued resolutions in each of these cases, either affirming, reversing, or dismissing the appeals. The petitioners in these consolidated cases are challenging these en banc resolutions of the COMELEC, arguing that the Commission lacked the authority to hear and decide these appeals directly, as they should have been initially heard by a division of the COMELEC. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the resolutions of the COMELEC en banc. Their primary argument is that the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion by taking cognizance of and deciding the appeals without first referring them to any of its divisions, contrary to Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be heard and decided in division, with motions for reconsideration being decided en banc. The petitioners contend that these resolutions are therefore null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc has the jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. Whether the commencement of the term of office renders the pending pre-proclamation controversies moot.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions without prejudice to the filing of regular election protests. The Court declared the COMELEC En Banc resolutions null and void for lack of jurisdiction but held that the cases were rendered moot by the commencement of the terms of office on June 30, 1992, pursuant to Section 16 of Republic Act No. 7166.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction. Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution is clear and mandatory in stating that 'All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.' This provision distinguishes the 1987 Constitution from the 1973 Constitution, which allowed the Commission to decide whether to sit En Banc or in divisions for such cases. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically Rule 27, Section 9, further confirm that appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers are cognizable by a Division. Because the En Banc bypassed the Division stage, its resolutions are null and void. The Court emphasized that procedural rules mandated by the Constitution are jurisdictional and cannot be waived for convenience. On Issue 2: Despite the nullity of the En Banc resolutions, the Court found that the cases had been rendered moot. Section 16 of Republic Act No. 7166 provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved. Since the terms of the offices in question commenced at noon on June 30, 1992, the pre-proclamation controversies are legally terminated by operation of law. The rulings of the boards of canvassers are deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of regular election protests. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would be an exercise in futility given this statutory termination. Consequently, the proper remedy for the aggrieved parties is to file a regular election protest, with the period for filing deemed suspended during the pendency of these petitions.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) sitting En Banc does not have the authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance. Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that such cases be heard and decided in division, with the En Banc only having jurisdiction over motions for reconsideration. This requirement is jurisdictional and mandatory, and any resolution issued by the En Banc in violation of this procedure is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.