Caram v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the election of provincial and congressional officials following the conversion of the Sub-province of Guimaras into a regular province. This conversion was subject to a plebiscite held simultaneously with the national elections on May 11, 1992. The Local Government Code stipulated that new legislative districts created by such conversions would continue to be represented by the representatives of the original districts until their own representatives were elected. It also provided for the appointment of new provincial officials by the President if the conversion was approved. 2. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated Resolution No. 2410 on April 15, 1992, outlining the rules for the plebiscite. The official ballots for the Province of Iloilo and the Sub-province of Guimaras included a question regarding the conversion of Guimaras into a regular province. Following the May 11, 1992 elections, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Iloilo certified that the conversion was approved by a majority vote. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the COMELEC to conduct special elections. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Francisco Javier O. Caram and the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court. They argued that the COMELEC had no authority to exclude voters of the Sub-province of Guimaras from voting for the Governor, Vice-Governor, and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Iloilo Province. Additionally, they contended that the COMELEC failed to adequately inform voters in Guimaras about their right to vote for a Congressman for the Second Congressional District of Iloilo, resulting in a significant number of abstentions. The petition sought to compel special elections for these positions and to halt the canvassing and proclamation of results by the Provincial Board of Canvassers.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC had the authority to exclude voters of the Sub-province of Guimaras from voting for the Governor, Vice-Governor, and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Iloilo. Whether special elections should be conducted for the said provincial positions and for Congressman for the Second Congressional District of Iloilo due to alleged lack of information dissemination. Whether the failure of approximately one-third of the registered voters in Guimaras to vote for a Congressman constitutes a valid ground for special elections, considering the right to abstain from voting.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to exclude voters for provincial positions: The Court reiterated its ruling in Griño v. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC had no authority to exclude voters of Guimaras from voting for Governor, Vice-Governor, and Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members of Iloilo. However, considering that the plebiscite ratified the conversion of Guimaras into a regular province, the Court found no useful purpose in undoing the COMELEC's actions and no legal basis to call for special elections for these provincial positions. The Court noted that the Local Government Code provided for the President to appoint officials of the newly created province if the conversion was ratified. On the conduct of special elections for Congressman and alleged lack of information dissemination: The Court found no evidence to support the claim that about one-third of the voters in Guimaras were unable to vote for a Congressman for the Second Congressional District of Iloilo due to lack of information. The official ballots clearly contained a space for voting for this position, indicating that voters were aware of their right. The Court held that those who did not vote for Congressman merely abstained, and the right to abstain is as respected as the right to vote. Compelling special elections would nullify the choices of the majority of voters who participated in the May 1992 elections. On the right to abstain from voting and its implications for special elections: The Court emphasized that the right to abstain from voting for a particular position deserves the same respect as the exercise of the right to vote. It would be contrary to the democratic will to compel special elections based on the assertion that a portion of the electorate chose not to vote for a specific office, especially when the ballots clearly provided for such an option. The absence of a vote for a position is presumed to be a deliberate abstention, not necessarily a disenfranchisement.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the COMELEC acted correctly in allowing voters of Guimaras to vote for the Congressman of the Second Congressional District of Iloilo, as per Section 462 of the Local Government Code, and that failure to vote for a position is a respected right of abstention, not a basis for special elections.