Benito v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Zaipal D. Benito and private respondent Ibrahim Pagayawan were candidates for municipal mayor in Calanogas, Lanao del Sur, during the May 11, 1998 elections. Voting in five precincts clustered at Sultan Disimban Elementary School, specifically precincts 15A, 6A/6A1, and 17A, was interrupted when approximately thirty armed men fired shots into the air, causing panic and scattering voters and election officials. Procedural History: Following the interruption, the petitioner alleged that voting did not resume and ballot boxes were taken by the military. The private respondent, however, claimed voting resumed peacefully after the armed men departed. The votes from the three disputed precincts (15A, 6A/6A1, and 17A) were excluded from the initial count. Private respondent Pagayawan was proclaimed mayor, leading petitioner Benito by 48 votes. Petitioner filed a petition to declare a failure of elections and for special elections, which was consolidated with a petition to annul the proclamation. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed the petition, ordering the reconvening of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to count the remaining votes but affirming the proclamation as the excluded votes would not change the outcome. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the COMELEC's resolution through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He argues that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his petition for lack of merit and in finding that elections resumed in the disputed precincts based on a conflicting incident report. Petitioner contends that a failure of election should have been declared due to the threats, violence, and terrorism that disrupted voting, and that the proclamation of the private respondent should be annulled.
Issue(s)
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE PETITION DOCKETED AS SPA NO. 98-333 (INCLUDING SPC 98-159) FOR LACK OF MERIT AND IN DECLARING THAT THE ELECTIONS IN PRECINCTS 6A & 6A1, 15A AND 17A HAVE CONTINUED AN HOUR AFTER THEY WERE SUSPENDED ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED FINAL REPORT OF CAPTAIN MANQUIQUIS; WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT HOLDING A SPECIAL ELECTION IN PRECINCT NOS. 15A, 6A & 6A1 AND 17A ON GROUND OF FAILURE OF ELECTION OR OF A SUSPENDED ELECTION BEFORE THE CLOSING OF THE VOTING AT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE MAY 11, 1998 ELECTION DAY ON GROUND OF THREATS, VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM; WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT ANNULLING THE CERTIFICATE OF PROCLAMATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT DATED MAY 15, 1998.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the COMELEC's resolution dismissing the petition to declare a failure of election and to call for a special election. The COMELEC was ordered to reconvene the Municipal Board of Canvassers to count the remaining uncounted votes for the three precincts and to proclaim the unproclaimed municipal councilors and enter the correct votes. However, the COMELEC's affirmation of private respondent's proclamation as mayor was upheld, considering that the remaining uncounted votes would not affect the winning candidate's lead.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for failure of election and declaring that elections continued: The Court held that whether voting resumed after the interruption is a question of fact, which is not a proper subject for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's reliance on Captain Manquiquis's final incident report, which stated that voting resumed. The Court also clarified that the time indicated in the report referred to the occurrence of the incident, not the execution of the report, thus dispelling the petitioner's claim of inconsistency. Furthermore, the Court found the contradictory affidavits from election inspectors to be unreliable and beyond the scope of certiorari review. The COMELEC's refusal to give credit to the contradictory affidavits was deemed proper. On the issue of whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in not holding a special election: The Court reiterated that a failure of election requires two preconditions: (1) no voting was held due to force majeure, violence, or terrorism, and (2) the uncast votes are sufficient to affect the election results. The Court noted that the petitioner singled out only three precincts out of five in the same school, and did not object to the counting of votes in the other two precincts (2A/2A1 and 13A) during the canvassing. This selective objection, coupled with the fact that voting resumed in other precincts, suggested that a failure of election did not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioner. The Court also emphasized that a low percentage of votes cast does not automatically equate to a failure of election if the will of the majority can still be ascertained and respected. The Court cited Sardea v. Commission on Elections for the principle that the power to annul an election should be exercised with utmost care only when the will of the electorate cannot be determined. On the issue of whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in not annulling the proclamation of private respondent: The Court found that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The COMELEC's resolution ordered the counting of the remaining votes, which was a proper step. However, it correctly affirmed the proclamation because the remaining votes were insufficient to alter the outcome of the mayoral race. The Court also dismissed the petitioner's attempt to equate the situation with other municipalities in Lanao del Sur where failures of election were declared, stating that the COMELEC is in the best position to assess local conditions and that its findings of fact, absent grave abuse of discretion, are binding.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's dismissal of a petition to declare a failure of election, holding that the interruption of voting by armed men, while disruptive, did not necessarily constitute a failure of election if voting resumed and the results could still be ascertained. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether voting resumed is a question of fact, not proper for a certiorari petition, and that a low voter turnout does not automatically equate to a failure of election if the will of the electorate can still be determined.