Buac v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: In April 1988, a plebiscite was held in Taguig for the ratification of Republic Act No. 8487, which proposed the conversion of Taguig from a municipality into a city. Despite initial declarations by the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers that 'NO' votes prevailed, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc ordered the Board to reconvene and complete the canvass. The Board subsequently issued an order proclaiming that negative votes had prevailed. 2. Procedural History: Following the proclamation, petitioners Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the plebiscite results, alleging fraud and irregularities. The case was initially treated as an election protest by the COMELEC Second Division, which asserted jurisdiction and ordered a revision and recount of ballots. However, upon motion for reconsideration by intervenor Alan Peter S. Cayetano, who argued that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction over plebiscite controversies, the Second Division reversed its ruling and dismissed the petition. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this dismissal, holding that jurisdiction lay with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC en banc's resolution. They argued that jurisdiction over plebiscite protest cases is constitutionally vested with the COMELEC and that the impugned order was discriminatory, citing a similar case involving the Malolos plebiscite where the COMELEC assumed jurisdiction. Petitioners contend that the COMELEC's power to enforce and administer laws relative to plebiscites inherently includes the power to resolve disputes concerning their results, and that the appreciation of ballots is best left to the COMELEC's expertise. They also argue that the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Cayetano was filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction over a petition to annul the results of a plebiscite. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over a petition to annul the results of a plebiscite. Whether the COMELEC's Motion for Reconsideration filed by private respondent Cayetano was filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The COMELEC is directed to reinstate the petition to annul the results of the 1998 Taguig plebiscite and to decide it without delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over plebiscite results: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to annul plebiscite results. The Court emphasized that Article IX-C, Section 2(1) of the Constitution explicitly grants the COMELEC the power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." To "enforce" means to cause to take effect or to cause the performance of acts necessary to bring a plan or measure into actual operation. This power necessarily entails all incidental powers required to ensure an honest and credible plebiscite. Therefore, the COMELEC's authority is not limited to mere administrative functions; it includes the power to verify and ascertain the true results of a plebiscite, which can be done through revision of ballots. Removing this power would render nugatory the COMELEC's constitutionally mandated duty to enforce plebiscite laws. The Court clarified that while Section 2(2) of Article IX-C enumerates the COMELEC's quasi-judicial powers concerning contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of elective officials, this provision is not a limitation on its broader power to enforce and administer plebiscite laws. The power to ascertain the true results of a plebiscite is implicit in the power to enforce plebiscite laws. On the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC): The Court found the invocation of the RTC's jurisdiction under Section 19(6) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act) to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that Section 19 pertains to civil cases, and a plebiscite involves the expression of the public will on a public issue, not a dispute between private persons over legally demandable rights. The determination of the public will is a matter of ascertaining the sovereign decision of the electorate, which is distinct from the traditional jurisdiction of civil courts. Furthermore, granting jurisdiction to any RTC nationwide over a plebiscite would lead to "jumbled justice" and unmanageable difficulties, especially in national plebiscites. On the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found that private respondent Cayetano's Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires such motions to be filed within five (5) days from receipt of the order or resolution. Cayetano admitted receiving the COMELEC Second Division's Resolution on October 9, 2001, but filed his motion ten days later, on October 19, 2001. Consequently, the COMELEC Second Division had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the constitutional and legal authority to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of a plebiscite, which includes the power to ascertain the true results of the plebiscite through revision of ballots, and therefore, has jurisdiction over petitions to annul plebiscite results.