Pacificador v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioners Arturo F. Pacificador and Jovito C. Plameras, Jr. ran for Governor of Antique against incumbent Governor Salvacion Z. Perez. Petitioners filed a disqualification case against respondent Perez and others, alleging violations of Section 261, paragraphs O, V, and W of the Omnibus Election Code. They claimed that on April 4, 2007, under Perez's order, a program for the resumption of the Solong Bridge construction was held, which turned out to be a proclamation program for Perez's party. During this program, checks from the Provincial Government were distributed to barangay chairmen, with instructions to antedate the official receipts to March 29, 2007, to circumvent COMELEC Resolution No. 7707 prohibiting disbursements from March 30, 2007, to May 14, 2007. The disqualification case remained unresolved after the election. Procedural History: On May 18, 2007, petitioners filed a petition for suspension of canvassing and/or proclamation before the COMELEC (suspension case), alleging fraud in the preparation of election returns due to duress and fraudulent entries. The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) ruled against petitioner Pacificador due to insufficiency of evidence, leading to an appeal (PBOC appeal). The COMELEC's Second Division ruled against petitioners on the suspension case. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the PBOC appeal, noting that no appeal was filed within the required five days. Subsequently, the COMELEC First Division, acting on private respondent's motion, relieved the existing PBOC and created a new one (Majarucon PBOC) to convene and proclaim winning candidates. This prompted petitioners to file the present petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Injunction. The Petition: Petitioners contend that the Majarucon PBOC is illegal, violating COMELEC Resolution No. 7859 and Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6646. They argue that the COMELEC First Division created the Majarucon PBOC with the intention of 'railroading' proceedings, despite pending COMELEC actions and their lack of receipt of the June 22, 2007 Resolution. They also claim the June 22, 2007 Resolution is void ab initio as it was issued by a Division, contrary to COMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring en banc hearings for motions for reconsideration of division resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for prohibition is the proper remedy. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the June 22, 2007 Resolution creating the Majarucon PBOC. Whether the COMELEC First Division has the authority to relieve members of the Board of Canvassers and appoint substitutes, and whether the enumeration of substitute officials in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6646 is exclusive. Whether the June 22, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division has become final and executory. Whether the failure to attach the assailed Resolution is a ground for dismissal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC has direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers and may relieve members for cause and substitute them motu proprio. The enumeration of substitute officials in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6646 is not exclusive. Furthermore, the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC First Division had become final and executory due to the petitioners' failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, rendering the petition for prohibition improper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for prohibition: The Court held that a petition for prohibition is directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. However, in this case, the COMELEC First Division was exercising its mandate under Section 227 of the Omnibus Election Code, which grants the Commission direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers and the power to relieve members for cause and substitute them motu proprio. Therefore, prohibition does not lie against the COMELEC's exercise of its lawful powers. Moreover, the Court noted that the COMELEC's June 22, 2007 Resolution had become final and executory because the petitioners failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, as required by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Court. This failure to exhaust administrative remedies rendered the resolution final and beyond challenge through a petition for prohibition. On the COMELEC First Division's authority to create the Majarucon PBOC: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC First Division. The COMELEC, under Section 227 of the Omnibus Election Code, has direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers and may relieve any member for cause and substitute them motu proprio. The COMELEC's action in relieving the Mabutay PBOC and creating the Majarucon PBOC was a valid exercise of this power, especially considering the COMELEC's assertion that the members of the Mabutay PBOC were facing indirect contempt and insubordination cases. The COMELEC's mandate includes ensuring the orderly conduct of canvassing and proclamation proceedings, and it has the authority to take necessary steps to achieve this. On the COMELEC First Division's authority to relieve members of the Board of Canvassers and appoint substitutes, and on the exclusivity of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6646: The petitioners' contention that the COMELEC's choice of substitute officials was limited to those enumerated in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6646 was found to be untenable. The Court clarified that the enumeration in Section 21 is not exclusive. While it lists specific officials who may be appointed as substitutes, the COMELEC is not precluded from appointing other available officials if those enumerated are not available or if circumstances warrant. The COMELEC's discretion in appointing substitutes is broad, provided it acts within the bounds of law and with due regard for the integrity of the canvassing process. The appointment of COMELEC officials as members of the Majarucon PBOC was therefore not inherently illegal. On the finality of the June 22, 2007 Resolution: The Court emphasized that decisions and resolutions of any division of the COMELEC in special cases become final and executory after the lapse of five days, unless a timely motion for reconsideration is lodged with the COMELEC en banc. Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure also states that decisions in pre-proclamation cases shall become final and executory after five days from promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. Petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the June 22, 2007 Resolution before the COMELEC en banc. Instead, they filed the present petition directly with the Supreme Court. This failure to exhaust administrative remedies meant that the Resolution had attained finality, making the petition for prohibition moot and academic. On the failure to attach the assailed Resolution: The Court noted that petitioners failed to attach a certified true copy of the assailed June 22, 2007 Resolution to their petition, which is a violation of Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This procedural defect is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law, and strict compliance with procedural rules is necessary for the orderly administration of justice. The failure to comply with this requirement, without persuasive reasons, leads to the loss of the right to appeal or seek judicial intervention.
Main Doctrine
A petition for prohibition will not lie to challenge a final and executory resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) when the proper remedy was to file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, and the failure to do so renders the resolution final and executory. Furthermore, the COMELEC has direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers and may relieve members for cause and substitute them motu proprio.