Taguiam v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jonas Taguiam and private respondent Anthony C. Tuddao were candidates for the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City in the 2007 National and Local Elections. Following the election, Taguiam was proclaimed the 12th winning candidate with 10,981 votes, while Tuddao was ranked 13th with 10,971 votes. Procedural History: Private respondent Tuddao filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking the correction of manifest errors in the Election Returns and Statements of Votes for several precincts and the annulment of Taguiam's proclamation. Tuddao alleged discrepancies between the votes recorded in the Election Returns and those tallied in the Statements of Votes by Precinct, claiming he was credited with fewer votes and Taguiam with more. The City Board of Canvassers denied these allegations. The COMELEC's Second Division granted Tuddao's petition, directing the correction of errors and a new proclamation. Upon denial of Taguiam's motion for reconsideration by the COMELEC En Banc, Taguiam filed the present petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Taguiam assails the COMELEC's resolutions through a petition for certiorari, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by taking cognizance of Tuddao's petition despite its late filing. Taguiam contends that Tuddao's petition, filed six days after the proclamation, was beyond the five-day reglementary period for correction of manifest errors and should have been dismissed, with Tuddao relegated to an election protest. The COMELEC, however, invoked its power to suspend its rules in the interest of justice and to ascertain the true will of the electorate, finding substantiated errors that altered the election outcome and thus affirming Tuddao as the rightful 12th winning candidate.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it took cognizance of private respondent’s petition for correction of manifest errors despite its late filing. Whether the COMELEC erred in suspending its rules of procedure regarding the filing period for petitions for correction of manifest errors, and whether the COMELEC has the authority to correct manifest errors.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The December 20, 2007 Resolution of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the October 9, 2008 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and late filing: The COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice and to achieve the speedy disposition of matters, as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. This is in line with the constitutional mandate of the COMELEC to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The Court has consistently employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to prevent the defeat of the people's will by mere technical objections. In this case, the COMELEC found that the proclamation of petitioner was based on SOVPs containing manifest mathematical and clerical errors that altered the outcome of the election. The COMELEC's authority to correct such errors and annul a proclamation based on a faulty tabulation is paramount, even if the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court affirmed the COMELEC's suspension of its rules in similar cases, emphasizing the duty to determine the real will of the electorate. Therefore, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the petition. On the COMELEC's authority to correct manifest errors and the suspension of rules: The COMELEC's power to correct manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of election results is a pre-proclamation controversy that may be filed directly with the Commission. Rule 27, Section 5(a)(2) of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure outlines instances of manifest errors, such as mistakes in copying figures into the SOVP, which could not have been discovered during canvassing despite due diligence. The COMELEC found that the SOVPs in question contained such errors, leading to an incorrect tally of votes. The Court reiterated in Torres v. Commission on Elections that a proclamation based on a null and void process is no proclamation at all, and the COMELEC retains the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. Petitioner did not assail the COMELEC's factual findings of manifest error but only raised technicalities regarding the filing period. Hence, the COMELEC's findings of fact are sustained.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the discretion to suspend its rules of procedure, including the reglementary period for filing a petition for correction of manifest error, in the interest of justice and to ascertain the true will of the electorate, especially when the proclamation is based on a faulty tabulation of votes.