Tan v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Abdusakur M. Tan and Basaron Burahan were candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor, respectively, in the May 10, 2004 elections in Sulu Province. They, along with other candidates, filed petitions with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking a declaration of failure of elections in the municipalities of Maimbung, Luuk, Tongkil, and Panamao. These petitions alleged systematic fraud, terrorism, and massive disenfranchisement of voters, supported by affidavits from poll watchers and photographs. Concurrently, another gubernatorial candidate, Yusop Jikiri, also filed a petition for declaration of failure of elections. The COMELEC Second Division initially suspended the proclamation of the winning gubernatorial candidate but later lifted the suspension, directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers to complete the canvass and proclaim the winner in Manila. Meanwhile, Abdusakur Tan had also filed earlier petitions to exclude election returns and certificates of canvass, which were dismissed, leading to an appeal and a COMELEC First Division order suspending proceedings. Despite this, Benjamin Loong was proclaimed Governor and assumed office, prompting Tan to file a petition to annul the proclamation, which the COMELEC First Division initially granted but was later rendered moot by the dismissal of Tan's appeals regarding the exclusion of certificates of canvass. Procedural History: The COMELEC en banc, in a Joint Resolution dated October 18, 2004, dismissed the five petitions seeking a declaration of failure of elections, finding no merit in the allegations and ruling that the grounds presented were matters for an election protest. Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain dissented, opining that there was a failure of elections due to insufficient notice of polling place changes, though this ground was not raised by the petitioners. Petitioners Tan and Burahan received the Joint Resolution on October 21, 2004, and filed their petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 13, 2004. Separately, Benjamin Loong, the proclaimed Governor, filed a motion to dismiss Yusop Jikiri's election protest (EPC Case No. 2004-66), arguing it was filed out of time. The COMELEC First Division denied this motion in an Order dated December 14, 2004, and subsequently denied Loong's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated February 7, 2005. Loong then filed his own petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consolidated the two petitions due to substantially similar facts. The Petition: Petitioners Tan and Burahan, in G.R. Nos. 166143-47, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, arguing that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing their petitions for declaration of failure of elections despite alleged massive disenfranchisement. They also questioned whether a void proclamation bars such petitions. They contended that the 30-day reglementary period to file their petition for certiorari should have commenced from their receipt of the dissenting opinion, not the main resolution. Petitioner Benjamin Loong, in G.R. No. 166891, filed a Petition for Certiorari, challenging the COMELEC First Division's denial of his motion to dismiss Jikiri's election protest. Loong argued that the protest was filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period and that pre-proclamation controversies and election protests should not be prosecuted simultaneously. Both petitions were filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitions for declaration of failure of elections despite alleged massive disenfranchisement of voters. Whether the proclamation of respondents, albeit patently null and void, bars the filing of petitions for declaration of failure of elections. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain electoral protests filed beyond ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of an election for a provincial office. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain simultaneously pre-proclamation controversies and electoral protests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for lack of merit and affirmed the assailed resolutions and orders of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Sections 3 and 4, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure were declared unconstitutional. On the issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitions for declaration of failure of elections: The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The grounds raised by the petitioners, such as alleged fraud and terrorism, were proper for an election protest and not for a declaration of failure of election. The Court found that a valid election was held, there was no suspension of voting, and a plurality of votes resulted in an elected candidate. The evidence presented, primarily affidavits from poll watchers, was deemed insufficient to prove massive disenfranchisement or to warrant a declaration of failure of election. Furthermore, the issue of abrupt change of polling places, raised for the first time on appeal, was not considered. The Court reiterated that for a failure of election to be declared, there must be a failure to elect due to causes like force majeure, violence, terrorism, or fraud, which was not sufficiently established. On the issue of whether the proclamation of respondents bars the filing of petitions for declaration of failure of elections: The Court found this issue moot and academic, as the COMELEC's dismissal of the petitions for declaration of failure of elections was upheld, and the annulment of Loong's proclamation was subsequently set aside. On the issue of whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain electoral protests filed beyond ten (10) days after proclamation: The Court ruled that the election protest filed by Yusop Jikiri was timely. It explained that under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, the filing of petitions to annul or suspend proclamation suspends the running of the period to file an election protest. Since several pre-proclamation cases were pending, the 10-day reglementary period for filing the protest did not commence. The Court emphasized that this liberal interpretation serves to prevent the "grab the proclamation and prolong the protest" situation and to determine the true will of the people. On the issue of whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain simultaneously pre-proclamation controversies and electoral protests: The Court held that there is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution of pre-proclamation controversies and election protests. It explained that these cases differ in issues, evidence, and objectives. The Court also highlighted the importance of speedy disposition of election cases, noting that a late decision can render the dispute moot. The Court reiterated that the COMELEC has the authority to annul illegal proclamations, even if the proclaimed candidate has assumed office, to prevent the frustration of the electorate's will.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitions for declaration of failure of elections: The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitions for declaration of failure of elections were dismissed for lack of merit because the grounds raised by petitioners, such as alleged fraud, terrorism, and machinations, did not fall under the three instances justifying such a declaration: (1) election not held, (2) election suspended, or (3) failure to elect. The Court reiterated that these allegations are proper grounds for an election protest, not for declaring a failure of election. Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence presented, mainly affidavits from poll watchers, was insufficient to prove massive disenfranchisement or to nullify the election results. The Court also noted that the issue of insufficient notice regarding polling place changes, raised by Commissioner Sadain in his dissent, was not raised by the petitioners before the COMELEC en banc and thus could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The factual findings of the COMELEC, which has expertise in election matters, were given weight and respect. On the issue of whether the proclamation of respondents bars the filing of petitions for declaration of failure of elections: The Court deemed this issue moot and academic. The COMELEC First Division's order annulling Benjamin Loong's proclamation was later set aside and superseded by another order dismissing Tan's appeal regarding exclusion of certificates of canvass. Therefore, the initial proclamation, even if potentially flawed, did not serve as a bar to the proceedings, and its subsequent annulment was rendered moot by later developments. On the issue of whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain electoral protests filed beyond ten (10) days after proclamation: The Court ruled that the COMELEC First Division correctly denied Loong's motion to dismiss. While Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code generally requires election protests for provincial offices to be filed within ten days after proclamation, Section 248 of the same Code provides that the filing of a petition to annul or suspend proclamation suspends the running of the period to file an election protest. In this case, various pre-proclamation controversies were filed by other candidates, which tolled the reglementary period. The Court emphasized that these pending pre-proclamation cases, even if filed by other candidates, prevented the 10-day period from starting to run, making Yusop Jikiri's subsequent conversion of his protest ad cautelam into a regular election protest timely. The Court also noted that pre-proclamation controversies and election protests have different causes of action and can proceed independently. On the issue of whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain simultaneously pre-proclamation controversies and electoral protests: The Court held that there is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution of pre-proclamation controversies and election protests. The Court explained that these two types of cases differ in issues, admissible evidence, and objectives. Allowing simultaneous adjudication can expedite the resolution of election cases, which is paramount. The Court cited previous rulings that encourage the use of multiple remedies to fully ventilate election irregularities and stressed the importance of speedy disposition to prevent the term of office from expiring before a decision is rendered. The Court also noted that the COMELEC First Division's decision to proceed with Jikiri's protest while Tan's pre-proclamation appeals were pending was not an abuse of discretion, as these cases could proceed independently.
Main Doctrine
The 30-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court from a COMELEC en banc resolution or decision is reckoned from the receipt of the majority opinion, not from the receipt of a subsequently released dissenting opinion. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which extend this period for reserved extended opinions, are unconstitutional. Furthermore, the filing of pre-proclamation controversies tolls the reglementary period for filing an election protest.