Mentang v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case stems from the regular elections for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) held on March 25, 1993. The dispute centers on the election for a position in the Regional Legislative Assembly for the Second District of Maguindanao, where petitioner Datu Pike T. Mentang and private respondent Datu Ali Bernan were contenders. Following the canvassing of election returns by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of Maguindanao, petitioner Mentang was declared the third and last winning candidate with 55,212 votes, surpassing private respondent Bernan's 52,808 votes. Consequently, Mentang was proclaimed and took his oath of office. 2. Procedural History: Private respondent Bernan, upon learning of Mentang's proclamation, claimed a discrepancy in his vote count, asserting he garnered 57,248 votes based on his personal tally sheets. He attempted to address this with the Provincial Election Supervisor, as the PBC members had already departed. On April 2, 1993, Bernan notified the COMELEC of his intent to file a petition to correct errors and annul the proclamation. He formally filed this petition with the COMELEC on April 5, 1993, docketed as SPC No. 93-004. Petitioner Mentang contested the COMELEC's jurisdiction, arguing the petition was filed late and constituted a pre-proclamation case that should adhere to a five-day reglementary period from proclamation. The COMELEC, through Chairman Monsod, initially ordered a re-tabulation of votes on April 23, 1993, but later suspended its implementation pending a ruling on jurisdiction. On June 8, 1993, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution holding that it had jurisdiction to decide the petition, deeming it a petition for annulment of proclamation due to a manifest error in the addition of votes, not a mere correction of manifest errors in election documents. This resolution was reached by a majority vote, with some commissioners dissenting or offering separate opinions. The present petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on June 14, 1993, challenging the COMELEC's resolution on jurisdiction. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Datu Pike T. Mentang, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the COMELEC's resolution of June 8, 1993. The core argument is that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in asserting jurisdiction over the private respondent's petition. Petitioner contends that the private respondent's filing was untimely, as it was a pre-proclamation controversy that should have been filed within the five-day period prescribed by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure for corrections of manifest errors. He further argues that Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7647 prohibits pre-proclamation cases in ARMM elections. The petitioner seeks to have the COMELEC's resolution set aside and its order for re-tabulation nullified. The Supreme Court, in its decision, found no grave abuse of discretion, affirming the COMELEC's jurisdiction to annul a proclamation based on a manifest error in the addition of votes, provided it is filed within a reasonable time, which it deemed to be within ten days from proclamation. The Court remanded the case to the COMELEC for resolution of the main petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that it has lawful jurisdiction to decide the "petition to correct manifest error and annul the proclamation of (petitioner) and/or suspend the effects of such proclamation," and whether the petition filed by the private respondent was a pre-proclamation controversy that was filed out of time. Whether Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7647 prohibits the filing of a pre-proclamation case for annulment of proclamation in the ARMM elections. Whether the paramountcy of the electorate's will should be considered in election contests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections. The case was remanded to the COMELEC to proceed with dispatch in resolving the main petition. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court was lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Jurisdiction of COMELEC, Timeliness of Filing, and Viability of Pre-Proclamation Controversies: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. While the petition prayed for the correction of mathematical or mechanical errors, these errors were not in the entries of election documents but in the mere computation of votes. Therefore, the petition was truly a request for the declaration of nullity of the petitioner's proclamation. The filing of the petition on April 5, 1993, following the proclamation on March 28, 1993, was well within the ten-day period required for filing an election protest or a petition for quo warranto. The Court clarified that a petition to annul a proclamation suspends the running of the ten-day period within which to file an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, provided there are allegations that, if proven, would render the proclamation null and void. Such a petition can be filed directly with the COMELEC even as a pre-proclamation controversy, provided it is done within ten (10) days following the proclamation. The Court acknowledged the rule that pre-proclamation controversies may no longer be entertained after a winning candidate has been proclaimed and assumed office. However, this rule is premised on the assumption that the proclamation is valid. Where a proclamation is null and void, it is considered no proclamation at all, and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot divest the COMELEC of its power to declare such nullity. In this case, the alleged mistake in the addition of votes, if true, would render the proclamation void. On the Prohibition under Section 3 of R.A. No. 7647: The Court found that Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7647 does not expressly or impliedly disallow the filing of a petition for annulment of proclamation. The section pertains to pre-proclamation cases concerning the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass. However, Section 5 of the same Act expresses the applicability of the provisions of the Election Code to it. The COMELEC's interpretation that the petition was not a prohibited pre-proclamation case but rather a petition for annulment of proclamation, which is not delimited by the five-day rule, was sustained. The Court emphasized that election matters should not be treated as "games of technicalities" and that the COMELEC, in the interest of justice, can suspend its rules. The Court also noted that reports submitted after the re-tabulation order showed the private respondent garnered more votes than the petitioner. On the Paramountcy of the Electorate's Will: Citing Tatlonghari vs. COMELEC and Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities should not obstruct the determination of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to prevent the people's will from being defeated by mere technical objections. The Court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means who is the real candidate elected by the electorate, as the voice of the people must prevail.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction to annul a proclamation based on a mistake in the addition of votes, even if denominated as a petition for correction of manifest error, provided it is filed within a reasonable time, which in this case, is within the ten-day period for filing an election protest or quo warranto petition. A proclamation that is null and void does not divest the COMELEC of its power to declare its nullity.