Batabor v. Comission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the July 15, 2002 Barangay elections, Hadji Rasul Batabor and Mocasim Abangon Batondiang ran for Punong Barangay in Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur. Batondiang won with 123 votes against Batabor's 94 votes and was proclaimed the winner. Procedural History: Batabor filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking a declaration of failure of election in Precincts 3A, 4A, and 5A, annulment of Batondiang's proclamation, and a special election. Batabor alleged that the voting was suspended after lunch break when the Chairwoman of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) tore unused ballots, padlocked ballot boxes, and prevented over 100 of his relatives and followers from voting, despite a directive to resume voting. The Petition: Batondiang countered that Batabor's allegations were unsubstantiated and that the ballot boxes were padlocked by Batabor. He argued that the issues raised were grounds for an election protest, not a declaration of failure of election. The COMELEC En Banc denied Batabor's petition. Batabor then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's petition for declaration of failure of election, and whether there was a failure of election in Precincts 3A, 4A, and 5A of Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for declaration of failure of election.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion and whether there was a failure of election: The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to declare a failure of election is vested exclusively in the COMELEC. For a failure of election to be declared, two conditions must be met: (1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts due to fraud, force majeure, violence, or terrorism, or the election was suspended before the closing hour; and (2) the votes not cast are sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion exists only when the COMELEC's act is exercised capriciously and whimsically, amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, or performed in an arbitrary or despotic manner. In this case, while the alleged 100 votes of petitioner's supporters could have affected the election results, Batabor failed to prove that voting did not take place in the questioned precincts. The COMELEC found, based on the Statement of Votes and Certificate of Canvass, that out of 316 registered voters, at least 220 actually voted, indicating that there was no failure of election. The Court also noted that the COMELEC correctly pointed out that the prayer to annul the proclamation of only one candidate and call for a special election would be discriminatory and violative of equal protection, as a failure of election affects all positions. Furthermore, allegations of fraud and irregularities, such as the voting not resuming after lunch, are better ventilated in an election protest, as per established jurisprudence. The Court concluded that the will of the electorate was not muted and could be ascertained, thus, there was no failure of election. Applying the ruling in Benito v. Commission on Elections, the Court found that the incident described did not constitute a failure of election because the will of the electorate was not muted and could be ascertained. The COMELEC's resolution was therefore not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A failure of election requires that no voting has been held or the election was suspended, and the votes not cast are sufficient to affect the election results. Allegations of fraud and irregularities are generally better ventilated in an election protest rather than a petition to declare a failure of election, unless the irregularities are so fundamental and persistent that the will of the electorate cannot be ascertained.