Tan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the May 14, 2001 elections, candidates for Governor, Vice-Governor, and Sangguniang Panlalawigan members in Sulu were elected. Abdusakur Tan, Abdulwahid Sahidulla, and Abraham Burahan (Tan, et al.) filed petitions with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on May 17, 2001, seeking to declare a failure of elections in Luuk, Parang, and Indanan municipalities, and to suspend the canvassing and proclamation of winning candidates. Procedural History: The COMELEC En Banc, on May 19, 2001, issued an order suspending the proclamation of winning candidates for all provincial positions. However, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) was not served a copy of this order. Consequently, on May 23, 2001, Yusop Jikiri, Abdel Anni, and others (Jikiri, et al.) were proclaimed as winning candidates. Tan, et al. filed amended petitions on May 30, 2001, impleading Jikiri, et al. as respondents. On June 20, 2001, the COMELEC En Banc annulled the May 23, 2001 proclamation, finding it a defiance of its May 19, 2001 order. Jikiri, et al. moved for a recall of this order. On June 28, 2001, the COMELEC En Banc recalled its June 20, 2001 order, affirming the May 23, 2001 proclamation, stating there were no valid pre-proclamation issues and citing previous rulings. Tan, et al. assailed this June 28, 2001 order before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 148575-76). Subsequently, on October 3, 2001, the COMELEC En Banc ordered a technical examination of voters' registration records in the questioned municipalities. Jikiri, et al. moved to resolve the jurisdiction issue and suspend this order. On April 17, 2002, the COMELEC En Banc denied their motion, asserting jurisdiction and directing the technical examination. Jikiri, et al. filed a petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 152882-83) assailing the October 3, 2001 and April 17, 2002 orders. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and issued a temporary restraining order in G.R. Nos. 152882-83. The Petition: The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court sought to annul the COMELEC En Banc's Orders dated June 28, 2001, October 3, 2001, and April 17, 2002, for allegedly being issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc had jurisdiction to take cognizance of and resolve the amended petitions for declaration of failure of election, considering they were essentially election protest cases. Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Orders dated June 28, 2001, October 3, 2001, and April 17, 2002, specifically regarding the recall of the suspension of proclamation and the allowance of technical examination of voters' registration records.
Ruling
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 148575-76 are DISMISSED. The Order of the COMELEC dated June 28, 2001, is AFFIRMED. The petitions in G.R. Nos. 152882-83 are GRANTED. The Orders of the COMELEC dated October 3, 2001, and April 17, 2002, are SET ASIDE, and the COMELEC is directed to dismiss SPA No. 01-257 and SPA No. 01-265.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC En Banc and the nature of the petitions: The Supreme Court ruled that the amended petitions filed by Tan, et al. were essentially election protest cases, not petitions for declaration of failure of election. The Court emphasized that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by law and the allegations in the petitions. The COMELEC En Banc, in taking cognizance of these amended petitions, was exercising its quasi-judicial powers, and such cases should be referred to a Division of the COMELEC, not the En Banc. The Court reiterated the established rule that for a declaration of failure of election to prosper, specific conditions related to the failure to elect and the cause of such failure must be met, which were not satisfied in this case. The Court stressed that once a proclamation is made, the propriety of a petition for declaration of failure of election ends, and the matter shifts to the realm of election protest. On the COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion regarding the orders issued: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC may suspend or annul a proclamation, but this power is generally limited to pre-proclamation controversies. The Court agreed with the OSG that the COMELEC's June 28, 2001 order recalling the suspension was not issued with grave abuse of discretion. However, the Court held that the COMELEC's subsequent orders allowing the technical examination of voters' registration records were tainted with grave abuse of discretion because the petitions were found to be election protests and not proper for a declaration of failure of election. The proper recourse was for the respondents to file regular election protest cases.
Main Doctrine
A petition to declare a failure of election or annul election results cannot be filed and prosecuted after the winning candidates have already been proclaimed. In such a scenario, the proper recourse for aggrieved parties is to file an election protest.