Loong v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Congress enacted R.A. No. 8436 mandating an automated election system, which was used in the May 11, 1998 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), including Sulu. During the automated counting of votes in Sulu, discrepancies were discovered between election returns and votes cast, particularly in the municipality of Pata, where votes for a mayoralty candidate were credited to another, and ballots were not reflected correctly. Atty. Jose Tolentino, Jr., head of the COMELEC Task Force for Sulu, confirmed these discrepancies, attributing them to misaligned ovals on the local ballots, which the automated machines failed to read correctly. Similar issues arose in five other municipalities where local ballots were rejected due to wrong sequence codes. Procedural History: Respondent Abdusakur Tan requested the suspension of automated counting throughout Sulu. COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No. 98-1747 ordering a manual count only in Pata. Atty. Tolentino, Jr. recommended a manual count for the entire Province of Sulu due to the widespread ballot printing errors. Subsequently, COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No. 98-1750, approving the recommendation to transport counting machines and ballots to Manila for both automated and manual operations at the PICC, under COMELEC en banc supervision. Minute Resolution No. 98-1796 further laid down rules for the manual count. Petitioner Tupay Loong objected to these resolutions, arguing that R.A. No. 8436 mandated automated counting and that manual counting provided opportunities for election cheating. On May 25, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. On June 8, 1998, Abdusakur Tan was proclaimed governor-elect based on the manual count. The Supreme Court issued a status quo order on June 23, 1998. Yusop Jikiri, who placed second in the manual count, filed a motion for intervention, alleging denial of due process and lack of factual basis for the COMELEC resolutions. The Petition: Petitioner Loong sought to nullify COMELEC Minute Resolutions Nos. 98-1747, 98-1750, and 98-1796, arguing they were issued without due process and violated R.A. No. 8436 by ordering a manual count. He contended that manual counting allowed for the use of tampered or fake ballots, substitution of ballots, and delays in proclamation. He prayed for a temporary restraining order enjoining the manual count and for the proclamation of winners based on automated counting.
Issue(s)
Whether or not a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the appropriate remedy to invalidate the disputed COMELEC resolutions. Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering a manual count, considering the legal and factual bases and claims of denial of due process. Assuming the manual count is illegal and that its result is unreliable, whether or not it is proper to call for a special election for the position of governor of Sulu.
Ruling
The petition and the petition in intervention are dismissed. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in issuing the assailed Minute Resolutions. The status quo order of June 23, 1998, is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that certiorari is the proper remedy for the petitioner. It noted that Section 7, Article IX(A) of the 1987 Constitution allows decisions, orders, or rulings of the Commission to be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari within thirty days by the aggrieved party. While administrative orders are generally not subject to certiorari, this case presented a unique situation involving an interpretation of Republic Act No. 8436 (Automated Election System) in relation to the COMELEC's broad constitutional powers under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution. The issue was not only legal but one of first impression and national significance, adjudicating the rights of candidates to the position of governor of Sulu. These considerations were deemed sufficient to warrant the exercise of the Court's certiorari jurisdiction, consistent with the precedent set in Filipino Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering a manual count. The Court found the post-election realities on the ground supported COMELEC's decision, thus not characterizing it as arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. Firstly, the automated machines undeniably failed to correctly read ballots in Pata due to misaligned ovals and rejected ballots in five other municipalities (Talipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapul, and Jolo) due to wrong sequence codes, all stemming from printing errors by the National Printing Office, not machine defects. Continuing the automated count under these circumstances would have resulted in a grossly erroneous count, subverting the will of the electorate. Secondly, there was a fast-deteriorating peace and order situation in Sulu, a province with a history of violent elections, as evidenced by reports from Atty. Tolentino, Jr. and Executive Director Borra, and the unanimous recommendation for manual counting by military and police authorities to prevent imminent violence and bloodshed. Given the vacuum in Republic Act No. 8436 regarding non-machine related counting errors, COMELEC's broad constitutional power "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election" (Article IX(C), Section 2(1)) provided the legal basis for its actions. The Court stressed that the Constitution did not envision a COMELEC incapable of counting election results. Lastly, the Court found that petitioner Loong and intervenor Jikiri were not denied due process, as they were given ample opportunity to participate, including oral hearings, submission of written position papers, and having their representatives escort the ballots and observe the entire manual counting process. Their watchers were present from the transfer of ballots to Manila until the completion of the manual count, safeguarding the integrity of the process. On Issue 3: The Court held that calling for a special election for the position of governor of Sulu was not proper. Such a plea must first be addressed to the COMELEC en banc through a verified petition, alleging specific grounds for failure of election, such as force majeure, terrorism, or fraud, as provided under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166. These grounds involve questions of fact that must be determined by COMELEC after due notice and hearing to the parties. In this case, the petitioner never asked the COMELEC en banc for a special election, and the plea was deemed a mere afterthought and procedurally improper. Furthermore, the Court found the grounds for failure of election inexistent, as the voters of Sulu were able to cast their votes freely and fairly, and their votes were counted correctly, albeit manually. The records showed that the will of the people was honestly determined. Additionally, ordering a special election solely for the position of Governor would be discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause, given that all other elected officials in Sulu were proclaimed and assumed office based on the results of the same manually counted votes.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered a manual count of ballots in the Province of Sulu, despite the existence of Republic Act No. 8436 (Automated Election Law), when technical defects in the ballots rendered the automated counting machines incapable of accurately reading or processing them, thereby necessitating a manual count to ascertain the true will of the electorate and maintain peace and order.