Mutilan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan and Zaldy Uy Ampatuan were candidates for Governor in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) during the August 8, 2005 elections, with Zaldy Uy Ampatuan proclaimed the winner on August 11, 2005. Dr. Mutilan subsequently filed an Electoral Protest and/or Petition to Annul the Elections, alleging that no actual voting occurred in Maguindanao, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, and Sulu, and that ballots were filled by non-registered voters, while also contesting results in specific municipalities in Lanao del Sur due to alleged massive substitute voting. 2. Procedural History: The case, docketed as EPC No. 2005-3, saw the COMELEC Second Division dismiss the petition in an Order dated November 21, 2005, citing lack of jurisdiction as the petition was for annulment of elections, which falls under the COMELEC En Banc's exclusive jurisdiction, and denied the petitioner's request to elevate the case to the En Banc. Petitioner then filed an unverified Motion for Reconsideration, which the COMELEC En Banc, in an Order dated December 28, 2005, denied for failing to comply with verification requirements, thereby declaring the Second Division's order final and executory. 3. The Petition: Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the COMELEC En Banc's December 28, 2005 Order. He argues that the COMELEC Second Division gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the petition for annulment and not elevating it to the En Banc, contending that the COMELEC, whether in division or en banc, possesses jurisdiction, and further argues that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration due to a lack of verification, which he considers a minor procedural defect.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC Second Division acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to annul elections and in not elevating the petition to the COMELEC En Banc, considering the allegations presented. Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of verification, and whether the belated submission of a verified motion cured the defect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the December 28, 2005 Order of the COMELEC En Banc.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC Second Division's dismissal and failure to elevate: The Court found that while the COMELEC Second Division could have referred the petition to the COMELEC En Banc under Section 4, Rule 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the petition failed because the allegations did not establish a prima facie case for a declaration of failure of elections. The Court reiterated the three instances where a failure of elections may be declared and found that the petitioner's claims of electoral anomalies, lacking specific particulars or evidence, should be resolved in a proper election protest, not through a declaration of failure of elections. The Court emphasized the need for stringent proof for such an extraordinary remedy, which was absent in this case. On the COMELEC En Banc's denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court affirmed the COMELEC En Banc's ruling that the motion for reconsideration was invalid due to lack of verification, as required by Section 3, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and found no grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's counsel admitted filing an unverified motion, and the subsequent Motion to Admit Verified Copies was filed after the COMELEC En Banc had already denied the unverified motion. This delay and failure to comply with the mandatory verification requirement meant that the COMELEC Second Division's Order had become final and executory, and the COMELEC En Banc correctly denied the belatedly verified motion.
Main Doctrine
While the COMELEC Second Division is not prohibited from referring a petition for annulment of elections to the COMELEC En Banc, the allegations of massive disenfranchisement, substitute voting, and other electoral anomalies, without establishing any of the three instances justifying a declaration of failure of elections, do not warrant the annulment of elections and should be resolved in a proper election protest. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration must be verified in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and failure to do so renders the motion invalid and the order final and executory.