Hassan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan and private respondent Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan were candidates for Vice-Mayor, alongside other candidates for councilor, in Madalum, Lanao del Sur, during the May 8, 1995 local elections. Due to threats of violence and terrorism, elections failed in six of the twenty-four precincts. Specifically, in Precinct No. 7-A, ballot boxes were burned, and threats were made. In Precincts Nos. 9, 9-A, 10, 13, and 14, the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) failed to report for duty, preventing elections from taking place. Procedural History: Following the initial failure of elections, special elections were scheduled for May 27, 1995, but the BEI again failed to report. The COMELEC Team then rescheduled the special elections for May 29, 1995, relocating them to Liangan Elementary School, approximately 15 kilometers away. Even on this rescheduled date, the BEI members did not report, leading the COMELEC Team to appoint police and military personnel as substitute BEI members to conduct the elections. The initial May 8 election results showed Mangondaya Hassan leading petitioner Hassan by 83 votes. The special elections on May 29 resulted in Mangondaya Hassan receiving 214 votes and petitioner Hassan receiving 78 votes. On June 10, 1995, petitioner Hassan filed a petition with the COMELEC (SPA 95-283) challenging the validity of the May 29 special elections. Concurrently, private respondent Mangondaya Hassan Buatan filed a petition (SPA 95-286) assailing the inaction of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On February 21, 1996, the COMELEC en banc denied the petition for a declaration of failure of elections and ordered the reconstitution of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim Mangondaya Hassan as the winning vice-mayoralty candidate. The Petition: Petitioner Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, assailing the COMELEC's February 21, 1996 resolution. He argues that the COMELEC erred in not declaring a failure of elections on May 29, 1995, in Madalum, Lanao del Sur. The petition highlights several grounds for invalidating the special elections: the voting was prematurely ended due to gunfire and grenade launching; the venue was moved 15 kilometers away with insufficient notice; only 21.1% of registered voters were able to cast their votes, effectively disenfranchising 78%; and regular BEI members were replaced by military personnel. Petitioner contends that the COMELEC's conclusion that the uncast votes would not affect the election results was flawed, as it ignored the significant disenfranchisement of voters due to the short notice and the violent circumstances surrounding the election. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on March 26, 1996, enjoining the proclamation of winners pending resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC erred in not declaring a failure of elections in Madalum, Lanao del Sur, on May 29, 1995, considering the violence and disenfranchisement. Whether the special elections held on May 29, 1995, were valid, considering the circumstances of insufficient notice and pervasive violence.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The COMELEC is enjoined from proclaiming the winners and is ORDERED to conduct special elections in Madalum, Lanao del Sur, as soon as possible.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC erred in not declaring a failure of elections in Madalum, Lanao del Sur, on May 29, 1995: The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC erred in not declaring a failure of elections. The Court reiterated the two pre-conditions: (1) no voting due to force majeure, violence, or terrorism, and (2) the uncast votes suffice to affect the results. The Court emphasized that the deprivation of the right to vote is paramount. Elections had to be reset due to threats of violence, necessitating military personnel as BEI substitutes and the transfer of polling places. Voting was suspended on May 29 due to grenade launching and gunfires. Evidence supported the occurrence of violence and the use of substitute military personnel. Out of 1,546 registered voters, only 328 (about 21.1%) voted, indicating significant disenfranchisement. The Court disagreed with the COMELEC's conclusion that the uncast votes would not affect the results, highlighting that the deprivation of the right to vote was apparent and substantial, affecting approximately 78% of the registered voters. On the issue of whether the special elections held on May 29, 1995, were valid: The Court found the notice given on the afternoon of May 28 for an election on May 29, 15 kilometers away, to be too short and impracticable, especially in a locality marred by violence. The Court concluded that the May 29 elections were vitiated by insufficient notice and the pervasive atmosphere of violence, thus necessitating special elections to ascertain the true will of the people.
Main Doctrine
The concurrence of two conditions is required to justify the calling of a special election: (1) that no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force majeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) that the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections. Insufficiency of notice, coupled with violence and terrorism, can lead to a declaration of failure of elections, even if the outcome might not change, if the right to vote was substantially deprived.