Milla v. Balmores-Laxa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Manuel Milla and respondent Regina Balmores-Laxa were candidates for municipal councilor in Gerona, Tarlac, during the May 14, 2001 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (BOC) proclaimed Milla as the eighth winning candidate based on the Statement of Votes and Certificate of Canvass, which showed Milla with 8,052 votes and Balmores-Laxa with 8,006 votes. Procedural History: On June 18, 2001, one month after Milla's proclamation, respondent Balmores-Laxa filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking the correction of alleged fraudulent entries in the Statement of Votes. She claimed that Milla's votes were padded by 350 votes across four precincts due to errors in tabulation. Milla, who had already taken his oath and assumed office, moved for the dismissal of the petition, arguing it was filed beyond the reglementary period and that padding of votes is not a proper subject for a pre-proclamation case. The COMELEC En Banc, in a resolution dated December 18, 2001, found the padding of votes to be intentional, declared Milla's proclamation null and void, proclaimed Balmores-Laxa as the eighth winning candidate, and denied the BOC's motion to reconvene. The Petition: Petitioner Milla filed the present petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to annul his proclamation because the petition was filed beyond the five-day reglementary period for pre-proclamation controversies and that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction by not first having the case heard and decided by a division, as mandated by the Constitution for pre-proclamation controversies. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the COMELEC's resolution and ordering the case to be assigned to a COMELEC division for resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to annul a proclamation and declare it null and void even after the proclaimed candidate has taken his oath and assumed office. Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the petition directly, instead of referring it to a division.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated December 18, 2001, and ordered the COMELEC to assign the case to a division for resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court affirmed that a proclamation based on a Statement of Votes containing erroneous entries, such as padded votes, is null and void. Such a proclamation is considered no proclamation at all, and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot divest the COMELEC of its power to annul it. The Court emphasized that adherence to technicalities that would validate a palpably void proclamation and frustrate the will of the electorate cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the COMELEC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over respondent's petition for correction of errors and annulment of proclamation, even if filed beyond the strict five-day period, as it could suspend its own rules to prevent a miscarriage of justice and uphold the electorate's will. The Court noted that while election laws are silent on when such petitions may be filed directly with the COMELEC, Section 5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five days following proclamation, a rule the COMELEC may suspend. On the COMELEC En Banc's Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC, sitting en banc, acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be heard and decided by a division of the COMELEC, with motions for reconsideration decided by the Commission en banc. Since the petition before the COMELEC involved a pre-proclamation controversy and was not first passed upon by a division, the COMELEC en banc's direct action was contrary to the constitutional mandate. Consequently, the assailed Resolution was declared null and void.
Main Doctrine
A proclamation based on a Statement of Votes containing erroneous entries, such as padded votes, is null and void and can be annulled by the COMELEC even after the proclaimed candidate has assumed office, as the assumption of office cannot validate a void proclamation. The COMELEC may suspend its own rules on technicalities to uphold the will of the electorate.