Galo v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juhary A. Galo and private respondent Minda P. Dagalangit were candidates for mayor in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur. A failure of election occurred on May 10, 2004, due to disagreements among candidates regarding election procedures, leading to a special election on May 12, 2004. Procedural History: Petitioner Galo filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc to declare a failure of election and annul the results of the May 12, 2004 special election in six precincts. Galo alleged massive irregularities, including the use of fake ballots by supporters of Dagalangit, and that election inspectors refused to enter valid objections. The COMELEC En Banc issued a TRO suspending the canvassing. Dagalangit denied the allegations, asserting the orderly conduct of the special election and that the use of fake ballots is not a ground for nullification. During a hearing, Galo filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion/Manifestation stating he had already been proclaimed mayor on May 20, 2004, rendering his petition moot and academic, and that he had lost interest. Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution dismissing Galo's petition for lack of merit, annulling his proclamation for being made in contravention of the TRO, and ordering the Municipal Board of Canvassers to complete the canvass and proclaim the winning candidates. The COMELEC En Banc held that the alleged use of fake ballots is not a ground for nullifying election results under the Omnibus Election Code, and all 39 precincts functioned during the special election. The Petition: Petitioner Galo filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC En Banc's Resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for declaration of failure of election and annulment of election results. Whether the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in annulling petitioner Galo's proclamation.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The COMELEC En Banc did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for declaration of failure of election and annulment of election results: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC En Banc did not gravely abuse its discretion. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code outlines the conditions for declaring a failure of election, which include situations where an election is not held, is suspended, or results in a failure to elect due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes. Crucially, in all these instances, there must be a failure to elect, meaning no candidate emerges as a winner. The Court emphasized that before the COMELEC can act on a petition to declare a failure of election, two conditions must concur: first, no voting has taken place or the election resulted in a failure to elect; and second, the votes cast would affect the result of the election. In this case, it was undisputed that voting took place in all 39 precincts during the special election. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to allege that no election was conducted, and the Court reiterated that the use of fake ballots is not a recognized ground for declaring a failure of election under the Omnibus Election Code. The Court also noted that the petitioner himself admitted that voting occurred in the questioned precincts and failed to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities would affect the election results. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly dismissed the petition. On the annulment of petitioner Galo's proclamation: The Supreme Court sustained the COMELEC En Banc's action in annulling petitioner Galo's proclamation. The records showed that Galo was proclaimed mayor based on the results of the May 10, 2004 elections. However, it was established that no election was held on that date. The proclamation was made on May 20, 2004, which was after the COMELEC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on May 21, 2004, suspending the canvassing proceedings. The COMELEC En Banc correctly found that Galo's proclamation was made "surreptitiously and in contravention of the May 21, 2004 Order of the Commission." Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc acted within its authority in annulling this premature and irregular proclamation.
Main Doctrine
The alleged use of fake ballots is not a ground for nullifying election results or declaring a failure of election under the Omnibus Election Code, especially when the election was held and votes were cast and counted.