Dagloc v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Salambai Ambolodto (private respondent) and Sukarno Samad were mayoralty candidates in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Samad was declared winner and proclaimed on May 14, 1998, along with Salipongan Dagloc (petitioner) as vice-mayor. Procedural History: On May 23, 1998, Ambolodto filed a "PETITION TO DECLARE A FAILURE OF ELECTION AND/OR ANNUL THE ELECTION RESULTS" (SPA No. 98-356) before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). On June 19, 1998, she filed an "ELECTION PROTEST" (Election Protest No. 38-98) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Cotabato City. Samad, the proclaimed winner, moved to dismiss the election protest, arguing it was filed beyond the 10-day period from proclamation. The RTC denied this motion. Samad filed a petition for certiorari (SPR No. 37-98) before the COMELEC assailing the RTC's denial. Samad died during the pendency of the cases and was substituted by herein petitioner, Salipongan Dagloc, who succeeded him as mayor. The Petition: The COMELEC en banc, in a resolution dated June 29, 1999, dismissed SPR No. 37-98 for lack of merit. It held that Ambolodto's initial petition (SPA No. 98-356), though denominated as a petition for failure of election, was considered a petition for annulment of proclamation, which, under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, suspends the running of the period for filing an election protest. Consequently, the COMELEC ruled that Ambolodto's election protest filed on June 19, 1998, was timely. This resolution is the subject of the present petition for certiorari filed by Dagloc, who contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a petition for declaration of failure of election suspends the running of the reglementary period for filing an election protest. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the election protest was timely filed. Whether COMELEC Commissioner Abdul Gani M. Marohombsar had the authority to sign the assailed resolution, and whether the petition in SPR No. 37-98 should be dismissed as it was based on a prohibited pleading.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Commission on Elections and ordered the dismissal of Election Protest No. 38-98 for having been filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a petition for declaration of failure of election suspends the reglementary period for filing an election protest: The Court held that Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, which suspends the running of the period for filing an election protest or quo warranto proceedings, applies only to petitions to annul or suspend proclamation that are considered pre-proclamation controversies. A petition for declaration of failure of election, as distinguished from a pre-proclamation controversy, requires a deeper investigation into allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence, and other analogous causes, and is not limited to the examination of election returns on their face. The Court cited Matalam v. COMELEC and Loong v. COMELEC to emphasize this distinction. Therefore, the filing of SPA No. 98-356, a petition for declaration of failure of election, did not suspend the 10-day period for filing an election protest. The Court reiterated the principle that the purpose of allowing pre-proclamation controversies is to prevent the pernicious practice of "grabbing the proclamation and prolonging the protest," and that grounds proper for electoral protests should not delay proclamation. The Court found that the private respondent's election protest, filed on June 19, 1998, was filed beyond the reglementary period which expired on May 24, 1998, ten days after the proclamation. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in misinterpreting Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code and in ruling that the election protest was timely filed. The misapplication of the law regarding the suspension of statutory periods for filing election protests constituted grave abuse of discretion, leading to the setting aside of the COMELEC's resolution. On the authority of COMELEC Commissioner Abdul Gani M. Marohombsar and the argument that the petition in SPR No. 37-98 should be dismissed as it was based on a prohibited pleading: The Court found the contention regarding Commissioner Marohombsar's authority to be without merit. While the petitioner alleged that the Commissioner's term had expired, the Court noted that the Commissioner's term expired on June 3, 1999, and the resolution was promulgated on June 29, 1999. However, even disregarding the vote of Commissioner Marohombsar, the resolution still garnered a majority vote (6-1), rendering it valid. On the argument that the petition in SPR No. 37-98 should be dismissed as it was based on a prohibited pleading, the Court found this argument untenable. The prohibition against filing a motion to dismiss applies only to actions and proceedings before the COMELEC itself, as stated in Rule 1, Section 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The motion to dismiss in the RTC was not subject to this prohibition, as it pertained to proceedings in a regular court, not directly before the COMELEC.
Main Doctrine
A petition for declaration of failure of election does not suspend the running of the reglementary period for filing an election protest or quo warranto proceedings, as it is not a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code.