Istarul v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the 2004 elections for the mayoralty of Tipo-Tipo, Basilan, private respondent Pamarann T. Maturann was proclaimed the winner. Petitioner Ingatun G. Istarul, a losing candidate, filed an election protest (Election Case No. 01-04), as did another losing candidate, Munap H. Pacio (Election Case No. 26-04). The cases were jointly decided by Judge Danilo Bucoy, who annulled Maturann's proclamation and declared Istarul as the duly elected Mayor. Procedural History: On August 10, 2005, the same day the joint decision was rendered, Istarul filed a Notice of Appeal. The following day, Maturann filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Istarul opposed this motion. On August 22, 2005, Judge Bucoy issued a Special Order granting Maturann's motion and a Writ of Execution. The Petition: On August 23, 2005, Istarul filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division. The COMELEC First Division issued a Temporary Restraining/Status Quo Ante Order. On October 21, 2005, the COMELEC First Division granted Istarul's petition, reversing and setting aside the Special Order and Writ of Execution, and directing Istarul to cease performing mayoral functions while directing Maturann to resume his position. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this resolution on December 12, 2005. Petitioner Istarul then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing and setting aside the trial court's Special Order granting execution pending appeal. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in disregarding the jurisprudential rule on execution pending appeal. Whether the COMELEC erred in ignoring the rule that, as between two presumptive winners, the proclamation made by the court prevails over that of the board of canvassers. Whether the COMELEC erred in not considering that private respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court before filing his petition for certiorari. Whether the assailed COMELEC Resolutions violated petitioner's right to procedural due process and the equal protection clause.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the COMELEC First Division and En Banc, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court's decision is: "WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED."
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's alleged grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Special Order: The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The Court found that the issues raised by petitioner merely questioned the wisdom and legal soundness of the COMELEC's resolutions, not its jurisdiction. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion because it correctly found that the trial court's Joint Decision was "seriously impaired" due to its failure to provide explanations for crediting certain ballots. Such a decision, suffering from grave infirmities, cannot be a valid source for execution pending appeal. Therefore, the COMELEC's action in setting aside the Special Order was a valid exercise of its authority. On the COMELEC's alleged disregard of the jurisprudential rule on execution pending appeal: The Supreme Court clarified that the COMELEC did not disregard the rule but correctly applied it. Execution pending appeal in election cases may be granted, but only if there are "good reasons" therefor. The COMELEC found that the reasons presented by the petitioner, namely the will of the electorate (based on the trial court's finding of highest votes) and the shortness of the remaining term, were insufficient. The "will of the electorate" could not be considered established when the trial court's decision was found to be unreliable. Furthermore, citing Fermo v. Comelec, the Court held that "shortness of term" alone is not sufficient justification for premature execution unless the victory of the protestant has been clearly established. On the COMELEC's alleged disregard of the rule on presumptive winners: The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC did not ignore this rule but applied it in conjunction with the finding that the trial court's ruling on who garnered the highest votes was unreliable. Citing Camlian v. Comelec, the Court agreed that installing a presumptive winner declared by a court pending appeal is disruptive, especially if the protestee later wins the appeal. The COMELEC's decision to maintain the status quo ante, given the infirmities in the trial court's decision, was deemed logical and proper. On the failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court: The Supreme Court ruled that this contention was unmeritorious. The COMELEC First Division noted that a decision suffering from grave infirmities cannot be a source of valid execution. The COMELEC found exceptions to the general rule requiring a motion for reconsideration, such as when public interest is involved, the matter is urgent, or the order is a patent nullity. Given the "grave infirmities" in the trial court's Joint Decision, the COMELEC concluded that the Special Order was invalid or a patent nullity, and the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the COMELEC's dispensation with the motion for reconsideration was justified. On the alleged violation of procedural due process and equal protection: The petitioner's claims of bias, such as the speed of the COMELEC's TRO issuance and the promulgation of its resolution, were unsubstantiated. The Court found no proof of irregularity. The prompt resolution of the case by the COMELEC was seen as upholding its mandate to resolve issues with dispatch, not as evidence of bias. The issue regarding private respondent's alleged conviction for nepotism was also deemed better addressed in the appeal before the COMELEC, as the primary issue in the certiorari petition was the COMELEC's alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding the execution pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari will not lie to correct errors of judgment, but only errors of jurisdiction. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing and setting aside a special order granting execution pending appeal when the trial court's decision was found to be seriously impaired due to lack of explanation for its rulings on the crediting of votes, rendering it an invalid source for execution.