Ottomama Benito v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Ottomama Benito and Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca were candidates for mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, in the May 11, 1992 election. Prior to the election, a petition for disqualification was filed against Ogca by a COMELEC Deputy, alleging that Ogca assaulted him. The COMELEC referred this petition for investigation, and a resolution was issued finding a prima facie case against Ogca. However, Ogca was killed in an ambush on May 20, 1992, before any final judgment on the disqualification petition. 2. Procedural History: Following Ogca's death, the petitioner, Ottomama Benito, filed a motion to suspend proclamation, which the COMELEC denied, noting Ogca's death and the need for succession. The Municipal Board of Canvassers initially ruled to count Ogca's votes for record purposes but exclude them from the final tally and proclamation. Private respondents appealed this ruling to the COMELEC. The COMELEC directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim the candidate with the highest number of votes. Subsequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Benito as mayor-elect. However, the COMELEC later declared Benito's proclamation null and void and directed a new certificate of canvass to reflect Ogca as the winner, with a notation of his death for succession purposes. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Ottomama Benito filed this special civil action for certiorari seeking to set aside the COMELEC resolutions. He contends that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, he argues that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the private respondents, that the resolution denying his motion to suspend proclamation was issued with grave abuse of discretion, and that the COMELEC resolutions declaring his proclamation void were likewise issued without jurisdiction and in violation of due process. The petition also raises the issue of whether the appeal by the private respondents was filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its resolutions. Whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction over SPC No. 92-303 and its June 29, 1992 resolution. Whether the COMELEC resolution of July 6, 1992, was null and void for lack of jurisdiction and violation of due process. Whether the interlocutory order of June 11, 1992, denying the motion to suspend proclamation, was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The questioned COMELEC resolutions dated June 29, 1992, and July 6, 1992, are declared valid and effective. The proclamation of petitioner Ottomama Benito is null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The proclamation of petitioner Benito, who garnered the second highest number of votes, was invalid because the candidate with the highest number of votes was the deceased Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca. The Court emphasized that the people's choice is paramount and their expressed will must be given effect. Allowing a defeated candidate to take over despite rejection by the electorate disenfranchises the voters and undermines democracy. The COMELEC's action to nullify Benito's proclamation and direct the preparation of a new certificate of canvass to facilitate legal succession was in line with upholding the popular will. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the appeal filed by the heirs of the deceased candidate was technically filed a day late according to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7166. However, the Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities should not obstruct the determination of the true will of the electorate. Adherence to a technicality that would validate a palpably void proclamation and frustrate the popular will was deemed unacceptable. The Court consistently prioritizes substantive merits over technicalities in election cases to ensure the people's choice is given effect. On the validity of the proclamation: The proclamation of petitioner Ottomama Benito as mayor-elect was not a valid proclamation. The Municipal Board of Canvassers erred in proclaiming Benito, who had the second highest number of votes, as the winner. Their belief that the death of Ogca rendered his victory moot and academic was incorrect. The duty of the MBC was to proclaim Ogca as the winner, albeit with the notation of his death, to allow for legal succession. The proclamation of Benito, who was rejected by the electorate, was a nullity and did not deprive the COMELEC of its power to annul it. On the timeliness of the appeal and the validity of the COMELEC resolution: The Court addressed the issue of the COMELEC resolution of July 6, 1992, in relation to the appeal's timeliness. It reiterated that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities should not obstruct the determination of the true will of the electorate. The Court consistently prioritizes substantive merits over technicalities in election cases to ensure the people's choice is given effect. Therefore, the COMELEC resolution was valid in light of the need to uphold the popular will. On the denial of the motion to suspend proclamation: The COMELEC's resolution of June 11, 1992, denying the motion to suspend proclamation, was not issued with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's argument that Ogca's votes should not have been counted based on Section 6 of R.A. No. 6640 was misplaced. This provision applies only to candidates declared disqualified by final judgment. In this case, there was no final judgment disqualifying Ogca. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly denied the motion to suspend proclamation, recognizing the need to proceed with the process to allow for legal succession in light of Ogca's death.
Main Doctrine
The proclamation of a candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes is null and void, as it disenfranchises the electorate and frustrates the popular will. Technicalities in election cases should not be allowed to obstruct the determination of the true will of the electorate.