Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Flora L. Benzonan, a mayoralty candidate in the May 14, 2001 elections in Glan, Sarangani, filed a pre-proclamation case with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc. She sought to nullify the canvass conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Glan and the proclamation of the winning candidates, including petitioners. Benzonan's grounds included the illegal constitution of the MBC, the transfer of canvassing proceedings to an unauthorized venue, the failure to record minutes, lack of notice to her representatives, tampering/falsification of election returns, and falsification of the certificate of canvass votes. Procedural History: The COMELEC en banc, on December 4, 2001, issued a resolution finding that the canvass was conducted in a place other than the original venue, leading to the nullification of the proclamations and an order for a re-canvass. Petitioners sought to reverse this resolution via a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary prohibitory injunction. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the COMELEC en banc's resolution dated December 4, 2001. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on December 21, 2001, enjoining the COMELEC from implementing its resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction to hear and decide a pre-proclamation controversy in the first instance; and whether the resolution of the COMELEC en banc dated December 4, 2001, in SPC No. 01-032 is null and void.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The resolution of the COMELEC en banc dated December 4, 2001, in SPC No. 01-032 is declared null and void and set aside. The COMELEC is directed to assign SPC No. 01-032 to a division.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc to hear pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance and the validity of its resolution: The Court reiterated its consistent ruling, beginning with Sarmiento v. COMELEC, that the COMELEC en banc does not possess the constitutional authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, in the first instance. This power is vested in the divisions of the COMELEC. Decisions rendered by the COMELEC en banc on such matters are considered null and void for want of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that while the COMELEC en banc can act on matters within its administrative powers, its exercise of quasi-judicial powers, such as in pre-proclamation controversies, must first be heard by a division, with appeals or motions for reconsideration decided en banc. The present case, SPC No. 01-032, clearly involves a pre-proclamation controversy, as evidenced by the allegations of illegality in the MBC's composition and proceedings, and the alleged falsification of election returns and certificates of canvass. Respondent Benzonan herself acknowledged that the case was a pre-proclamation controversy. Therefore, the filing of the case directly with the COMELEC en banc and its subsequent decision by the same body were procedurally flawed and beyond its jurisdictional competence. The resolution issued by the COMELEC en banc on December 4, 2001, was thus a nullity.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, in the first instance. Such power pertains to the divisions of the COMELEC, and any decision by the COMELEC en banc on such matters is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.