Tillah Rasul v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case concerns the proclamation of senatorial candidates in the May 11, 1998 national and local elections. The petitioner, Santanina Tillah Rasul, challenges the proclamation of Teresa Aquino-Oreta as the twelfth (12th) winning senatorial candidate. 2. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed the twelve (12) winning senatorial candidates based on the canvass of certificates of canvass from various provincial and city boards. Petitioner Rasul filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside this proclamation and compel the Commission to canvass remaining certificates and conduct special elections. 3. The Petition: The petitioner argues that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion by proclaiming the winning candidates before all votes were canvassed and before special elections were held in certain areas. She contends that the uncanvassed votes and the registered voters in areas where special elections were suspended (totaling 419,020) could potentially alter the outcome, dislodging the 12th placer, Teresa Aquino-Oreta. The petition seeks to annul the proclamation and compel further canvassing and special elections.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in proclaiming the twelve (12) winning senatorial candidates based on an incomplete canvass. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the proclamation of a winning senatorial candidate; and the proper recourse when a candidate has already been proclaimed a winner.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that it cannot take cognizance of the case as the proper recourse for the petitioner was to file an election protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, which has exclusive jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the Senate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC: The Court did not explicitly address this issue in the provided ratio decidendi. However, the discussion regarding the proper forum implies that the Supreme Court's lack of jurisdiction stems from the fact that a candidate has already been proclaimed, suggesting that any challenge to the COMELEC's actions related to the proclamation should be addressed through an electoral protest within the Senate Electoral Tribunal's (SET) jurisdiction. On the issue of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the proper remedy: The Court reiterated the ruling in Pangilinan vs. Commission on Elections that where a candidate has already been proclaimed a winner, the remedy of certiorari is not appropriate, and the proper recourse is an electoral protest with the relevant Electoral Tribunal. In this case, since the petitioner is assailing the proclamation of a senatorial candidate, the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). The Court emphasized that Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code vest in the Senate and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunals the sole authority to judge all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" is interpreted to encompass all matters affecting the validity of a contestee's title, including the conduct of polls, casting and counting of votes, canvass of returns, proclamation of winners, and matters of eligibility or disloyalty. The word "sole" underscores the exclusivity of this jurisdiction. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot entertain the petition for certiorari and mandamus as it encroaches upon the exclusive domain of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The petitioner's proper recourse was to file an election protest with the SET within fifteen (15) days after the proclamation of the protestee, as provided by Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The Court noted that had the petitioner filed such a protest, it might have been consolidated with a similar protest filed by Roberto Pagdanganan.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing the proclamation of a winning senatorial candidate by the Commission on Elections acting as the National Board of Canvassers falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and the proper remedy is an election protest filed before the said Tribunal.