Cawasa v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 14, 2001 elections for mayor in the Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao del Norte, petitioner Jun Rascal Cawasa and private respondent Abdulmalik M. Manamparan were among the candidates. A failure of election occurred in four precincts (Precinct Nos. 2A, 2A1/2A2 in Barangay Bangko, Precinct No. 3A in Barangay Cabasaran, and Precinct No. 10A/10A1 in Barangay Liangan), affecting 845 registered voters. Special elections were subsequently scheduled for these precincts. Procedural History: Special elections were held on May 30, 2001, with the results affecting the overall outcome. Petitioner Cawasa was initially proclaimed mayor. Private respondent Manamparan filed a petition to annul the proclamation (SPC No. 01-252), which was dismissed by the Comelec Second Division. Subsequently, Manamparan filed another petition (SPC No. 01-276) seeking the annulment of the special election results and the subsequent canvass and proclamation. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc, in a resolution dated October 24, 2001, annulled the results of the special elections in the four contested precincts and set aside the proclamation of all winning candidates whose standing was affected by these results. The Petition: Petitioners, including Mayor Cawasa and several councilors, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Comelec en banc's resolution. They argue that the resolution was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Their main contentions include the alleged violation of due process for the councilors who were not impleaded or notified, the claim that the transfer of the special election venue and the appointment of military personnel as election inspectors were agreed upon by political parties and candidates, and that the election officer had the authority to transfer the venue. They also argue that the Comelec en banc should have conducted a trial and required field officers to explain the transfer of polling places before issuing its resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Comelec en banc Resolution annulling the special election results was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Whether the transfer of the venue of the special elections to Sultan Naga Dimaporo and Sapad was legal; and whether the appointment of military personnel as members of the Board of Election Inspectors was legal. Whether the petitioners were accorded due process prior to the promulgation of the assailed resolution.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc in SPC No. 01-276 dated October 24, 2001, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court did not explicitly address whether the Comelec en banc Resolution annulling the special election results was issued with grave abuse of discretion. On the Legality of the Transfer of Polling Places and Appointment of Military Personnel as Members of the Board of Election Inspectors: The Court affirmed the Comelec's finding that the special elections were vitiated by fraud due to the illegal transfer of polling places and the appointment of military personnel as BEI members. Sections 153 and 154 of the Omnibus Election Code clearly mandate that changes in polling place locations require notice and hearing, or a resolution from the Comelec, unless the polling place is destroyed or unusable. The Comelec found no evidence that notice was given to candidates and voters, nor was there substantiation of petitioners' claim that all political parties and candidates agreed to the transfer. The transfer occurred within the prohibited period before the special election, violating Section 153 of the Omnibus Election Code. Furthermore, the appointment of military personnel as BEI members lacked legal basis, as Section 164 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 13 of R.A. 6646 clearly stipulate that BEI members should be public school teachers, with other qualified citizens appointed only if there are insufficient teachers. The Court distinguished the cited cases of Balindong and Alonto, noting that in Balindong, the uncast votes would not have affected the election outcome, unlike in the present case where the 845 voters were crucial. In Alonto, the transfer of vote counting was necessitated by circumstances and authorized by Comelec representatives, which is different from the unauthorized transfer of polling places here. On the Denial of Due Process: The Court found no denial of procedural due process. Section 4 of R.A. 7166 empowers the Comelec en banc to decide on matters like the declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections. While Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code requires due notice and hearing for a failure of election, the Court clarified that a formal trial-type hearing is not always essential; it is sufficient that parties are given a fair opportunity to explain their sides. The Comelec en banc heard the petition on June 27, 2001, and directed the parties to submit memoranda, after which the case was submitted for resolution. Petitioners were heard through their pleadings, and the Municipal Board of Canvassers, including Election Officer Ballesta, were notified and furnished copies of the petition. The Court also distinguished this case from Velayo v. Commission on Elections, where proclaimed winners were not impleaded and notified, unlike in this case where petitioner Cawasa and the Municipal Board of Canvassers were impleaded, notified, and heard. The Court concluded that at this late stage, reopening the case for the councilors who did not present new substantial matters would further derail public interest in the speedy disposition of the case.
Main Doctrine
The unauthorized transfer of polling places and the appointment of military personnel as members of the Board of Election Inspectors, without due notice and hearing, vitiate the integrity of special elections, justifying their annulment. Such irregularities, when affecting the results, can lead to a declaration of failure of election.