Samad v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Datu Sukarno S. Samad and private respondent Bai Unggie Abdula were proclaimed mayor-elect of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao, by two different canvassing boards. Samad was proclaimed on May 29, 1992, by the board headed by Mucado M. Pagayao, while Abdula was proclaimed on May 28, 1992, by the board headed by Abas A. Saga. Procedural History: Both parties filed petitions with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against each other. Samad sought the nullification of Abdula's proclamation and a special election, while Abdula prayed for the nullification of Samad's proclamation and an injunction. The COMELEC initially directed an investigation into falsification and required comments. Subsequently, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2489 terminating pre-proclamation cases, but SPA 92-314 was not included. Samad also filed a quo warranto petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cotabato City, which issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction favoring Samad. Abdula questioned this order before the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a resolution enjoining its implementation. The COMELEC, on November 4, 1992, denied the consolidated petitions, finding both certificates of canvass and proclamation defective, and ordered the creation of a Special Board of Canvassers. The COMELEC en banc sustained this resolution and directed the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to designate an OIC-Mayor. Samad filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order. The DILG issued conflicting directives regarding the mayoralty. President Fidel V. Ramos then designated Abdula as OIC-Mayor, prompting Samad to file another petition with the Supreme Court. The CA dismissed one case and suspended another, deferring to the Supreme Court's restraining orders. The Petition: The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court raised issues regarding the COMELEC's jurisdiction, the validity of its resolutions, the propriety of the RTC's injunction, and the President's authority to appoint an OIC-Mayor, as well as allegations of forum-shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC acted arbitrarily in directing the constitution of a Special Board of Canvassers despite the termination of pre-proclamation cases under COMELEC Resolution No. 2489; and whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction over the pre-proclamation controversy despite the filing of a quo warranto petition with the RTC. Whether both proclamations of Samad and Abdula were null and void. Whether the COMELEC erred in denying Samad's motion for reconsideration instead of dismissing the petitions and allowing judicial determination by the RTC; and whether the RTC's orders were valid. Whether the President had jurisdiction to appoint an OIC-Mayor despite the RTC's writ of preliminary injunction. Whether forum-shopping was committed by either party.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC retained jurisdiction over the pre-proclamation controversy. It declared both proclamations of petitioner Datu Sukarno S. Samad and private respondent Bai Unggie Abdula as null and void. The Court ordered the COMELEC to resolve the question of whether a special election should be called, to proceed with the creation of a Special Board of Canvassers to proclaim the mayor-elect, and ordered the RTC to dismiss the quo warranto case. The Court allowed the private respondent to continue discharging her duties as OIC-Mayor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and the termination of pre-proclamation cases: The Court held that COMELEC Resolution No. 2489, which terminated pre-proclamation cases, did not apply to SPA 92-314 because it also prayed for a special election, falling under Section 4 of the resolution. Furthermore, even if it were a purely pre-proclamation case, it remained active due to subsequent COMELEC orders requiring the appearance of election registrars and comments from the Election Supervisor. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC's jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies is exclusive, as provided by Sections 241, 242, and 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. The filing of a quo warranto petition with the RTC does not automatically divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction, especially when exceptions apply, such as an illegally constituted board of canvassers or a proclamation that is null and void. The Court found that the Saga board proclaiming Abdula was illegally constituted, and the Pagayao board proclaiming Samad made a proclamation based on an incomplete canvass, rendering both void. On the validity of the proclamations: The Court found both proclamations to be null and void. The proclamation in favor of Abdula was made by the Saga board, which was found to be illegally constituted. The proclamation in favor of Samad by the Pagayao board was based on an incomplete canvass, as three precincts with a total of 660 registered voters had not submitted their returns, and the missing returns from Precinct No. 13 could affect the outcome of the election. The Court reiterated that an incomplete canvass cannot be the basis for a valid proclamation, and any proclamation made in violation of the Omnibus Election Code provisions regarding missing returns is null and void. The Pagayao board itself acknowledged in its report that it could not proclaim a winner due to the incomplete canvass, yet proceeded to do so on the same day, rendering the proclamation legally ineffective. On the RTC's jurisdiction and the quo warranto petition: The Court ruled that the COMELEC retained exclusive jurisdiction over the pre-proclamation controversy, and therefore, the restraining order and preliminary injunction issued by the RTC in the quo warranto case were void ab initio. The Court clarified that while the filing of an election protest or quo warranto generally precludes a pre-proclamation controversy, exceptions exist. In this case, exceptions applied because the proclamation of Abdula was made by an illegally constituted board, and the petition before the RTC was not a true quo warranto proceeding as both parties claimed the office, and the grounds for quo warranto (disloyalty or ineligibility) were not invoked. The issues raised were primarily about the legality of the board of canvassers and the proclamation, which fall under the COMELEC's exclusive jurisdiction. On the President's authority to appoint an OIC-Mayor: Given that the COMELEC retained jurisdiction and the RTC's orders were void, the Court held that President Ramos did not act improperly in designating Bai Unggie Abdula as OIC-Mayor pending the resolution of the dispute. This was in accordance with jurisprudence allowing the President to appoint an officer-in-charge when there is a controversy over a mayoral position. On forum-shopping: The Court found no forum-shopping committed by either party. Petitioner Samad filed the quo warranto case with the RTC because he believed the COMELEC case had been terminated under Resolution No. 2489, acting in accordance with Section 16 of R.A. 7166 which allows for the filing of a regular election protest after termination of pre-proclamation cases. The Court also found that the multiple petitions filed by Samad with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals did not involve identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues. Private respondent Abdula was not guilty of forum-shopping because she sought relief from the COMELEC, the same forum, and at the time she filed her petition, no adverse ruling had been rendered by the COMELEC on those issues.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) retains exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies, including issues concerning the illegal composition or proceedings of a board of canvassers and the calling of special elections. A petition for quo warranto filed with a Regional Trial Court does not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over such matters, especially when exceptions to the general rule apply, such as when the proclamation is null and void due to an illegally constituted board or an incomplete canvass. Both proclamations in this case were found to be null and void, necessitating the COMELEC's intervention to determine the rightful mayor-elect and the need for special elections.