Pasandalan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 14, 2001 elections for mayor in Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur, petitioner Bago P. Pasandalan filed a petition before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) seeking to nullify election results in several precincts. Pasandalan alleged that on election day, Cafgu members fired firearms near a polling center, causing panic and preventing voters from casting their ballots. He further alleged that supporters of private respondent Bai Salamona L. Asum took advantage of the confusion to fill up ballots with Asum's name and place them in ballot boxes. In other precincts, Pasandalan claimed the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) failed to sign ballots and remove detachable coupons, and that Asum's supporters grabbed ballots and filled them with Asum's name during a fistfight. Pasandalan contended that a technical examination would reveal that only a few persons wrote the entries on the ballots. Procedural History: Private respondent Asum filed an Answer, denying the allegations and stating that gunshots were heard late in the afternoon, after voting had largely concluded. Asum was subsequently sworn into office as mayor. The Comelec dismissed Pasandalan's petition for lack of merit, ruling that the alleged irregularities were better suited for an election protest and did not constitute grounds for declaring a failure of election. The Comelec found Pasandalan's evidence, consisting of self-serving affidavits from his poll watchers, insufficient. The Petition: Pasandalan filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Comelec's dismissal of his petition to declare a failure of election.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for alleged lack of merit. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not annulling the election or declaring a failure of election in the sixteen (16) questioned precincts. Whether the Commission on Elections acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not declaring as illegal, null and void ab initio the proclamation of the private respondent as the duly elected Mayor.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Resolution of the Comelec is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Comelec acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for alleged lack of merit: The Supreme Court ruled that the Comelec correctly dismissed the petition for declaration of failure of election. The Court emphasized that a petition for declaration of failure of election is an extraordinary remedy that can only be exercised under specific circumstances outlined in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. These instances include the election not being held, being suspended, or resulting in a failure to elect due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes. The Court found that the allegations in Pasandalan's petition did not fall under any of these three instances. The election was held as scheduled, was not suspended, and there was no failure to elect, as Asum was elected by a plurality of votes. The alleged terrorism and fraud were not of such scale or prevalence to prevent the holding of the election or cause its suspension, and thus should be resolved in an election protest. On the issue of whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in not annulling the election or declaring a failure of election: The Court reiterated that the power to declare a failure of election must be exercised with utmost circumspection to avoid disenfranchising voters. The Court found that Pasandalan's allegations of gunshots causing panic and supporters filling up ballots did not meet the stringent conditions for declaring a failure of election. The Court noted that the casting and counting of votes, transmission, canvassing, and proclamation all took place. The Court held that mere allegations of fraud and terrorism are insufficient to warrant nullification, especially when they do not prevent the holding of the election or fatally mar the election returns. The Court also found Pasandalan's evidence, consisting of self-serving affidavits from his poll watchers, to be insufficient to substantiate his claims. On the issue of whether the Comelec acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not declaring the proclamation of the private respondent illegal, null and void ab initio: The Supreme Court clarified that the nullification of elections or declaration of failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner. The Court found that Pasandalan failed to establish a prima facie case for the declaration of failure of election. The Court distinguished the present case from Basher v. Commission on Elections, where the election was found to be illegal and irregular due to extreme circumstances not present here. In this case, the election proceeded as scheduled and in accordance with law and Comelec rules, and the will of the electorate was discernible. Therefore, Pasandalan should have filed an election protest to substantiate his allegations of electoral anomalies.
Main Doctrine
A petition for declaration of failure of election must specifically allege the essential grounds that would justify the exercise of this extraordinary remedy; otherwise, the Comelec can dismiss outright the petition for lack of merit. Allegations of fraud and terrorism that do not fall under the three instances justifying a failure of election are better ventilated in an election protest.