Borja, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Benjamin U. Borja, Jr. and Jose T. Capco, Jr. were candidates for Mayor of Pateros in the May 8, 1995 elections. Capco won by 6,330 votes and was proclaimed the winner. Borja alleged fraud, violence, terrorism, disenfranchisement, flying voters, and unqualified election inspectors, claiming these constituted a failure of election and that the canvass and proclamation were invalid. 2. Procedural History: Borja filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc to declare a failure of election and nullify the proclamation. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on May 25, 1995, ruling that the grounds cited by Borja were only applicable in an election contest, not a petition for failure of election. Borja then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC en banc lacked original jurisdiction to hear the case and had committed grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: Borja filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC en banc exceeded its authority by hearing the petition at first instance, contrary to Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, which mandates that election cases be heard by divisions, with only motions for reconsideration decided en banc. He contended that his petition, while styled as a failure of election, was in essence an election contest falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, and thus the COMELEC en banc should not have ruled on its merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc has original jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition to declare a failure of election. Whether the grounds alleged by the petitioner constitute a failure of election as contemplated by law. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition; and whether the petition was, in reality, a simple election protest involving a municipal elective position, and whether there was denial of due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Resolution of the Commission on Elections dated May 25, 1995. The Court held that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc: The Court clarified that a petition to declare a failure of election is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case. Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that election cases and pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard and decided in divisions, with motions for reconsideration decided en banc. The COMELEC en banc does not have original jurisdiction over such matters. The Court cited Ong which affirmed that the COMELEC en banc has no original jurisdiction over pre-proclamation issues, and such cases should be remanded to the COMELEC for referral to its divisions. In this case, the petition was filed directly with the COMELEC en banc, which lacked original jurisdiction. On whether the grounds alleged constitute a failure of election: The Court reiterated that Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 2, Rule 26 of the Revised COMELEC Rules of Procedure define failure of election as occurring when, due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes, the election is not held, is suspended, or results in a failure to elect (meaning nobody was elected). The allegations made by Borja, such as lack of notice, fraud, flying voters, and unqualified inspectors, are grounds proper for an election contest, not for declaring a failure of election. These allegations, if proven, would be grounds to nullify the election results or proclamation in an election contest, but they do not, in themselves, constitute a failure to hold an election or a failure to elect. On the alleged denial of due process, the nature of Borja's petition, and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no denial of due process. The COMELEC en banc's review and evaluation of the petition, even without ordering the respondent to rebut the allegations, was considered a fair hearing of the case. The Court noted that if anyone was aggrieved by the alleged lack of notice and hearing, it was the respondent Capco, whose arguments were never ventilated, but he remained complacent as the COMELEC's action was favorable to him. The dismissal of the petition was based on patent deficiencies on its face, rendering further proceedings unnecessary. The Court concluded that Borja's petition was, in reality, a simple election protest involving a municipal elective position. Such contests fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the appropriate Regional Trial Court, as provided by Section 251 of the Election Code. The COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions of trial courts in contests involving elective municipal officials. Therefore, the petition was filed before the wrong tribunal. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, let alone abuse thereof, in dismissing the petition. The COMELEC correctly applied the clear provisions of the law by dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for being filed before the wrong tribunal. The Court stated that the COMELEC deserves commendation for its correct application of the law.
Main Doctrine
A petition to declare a failure of election is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case, and therefore does not fall under the original jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc. Allegations of fraud, violence, terrorism, and similar causes, if they do not result in a failure to elect, are grounds for an election contest cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts, not a petition for failure of election.