Dibaratun v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Abdulcarim Mala Abubakar, a re-electionist candidate for Punong Barangay, filed a petition before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to declare a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A, Barangay Bagoainguid, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur, and to annul the proclamation of petitioner Abdul Gaffar P.M. Dibaratun. Abubakar alleged that on July 15, 2002, after only ten (10) voters had cast their votes, Alipecry Acop Gaffar, son of petitioner Dibaratun, was caught with three (3) filled ballots intended for insertion into the ballot box. When confronted, Alipecry Gaffar allegedly became violent, disrupted the casting of votes, destroyed the ballot box, and replaced its contents with substituted ballots, causing the suspension of voting which was never resumed. Only ten (10) out of 151 registered voters were able to vote. Abubakar further alleged that the Board of Election Inspectors, in conspiracy with Dibaratun, canvassed the election returns and illegally proclaimed Dibaratun. Procedural History: The COMELEC en banc granted Abubakar's petition, annulled Dibaratun's proclamation, and ordered the holding of special elections. Dibaratun filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's resolution. The Petition: Petitioner Dibaratun argued that the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion by giving due course to Abubakar's petition, which he claimed was filed out of time and should have been treated as a pre-proclamation controversy. He also contended that Abubakar was estopped from raising issues due to failure to object during the election proceedings. Dibaratun further argued that the COMELEC erroneously declared a failure of elections.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A and annulling the proclamation of petitioner Dibaratun. Whether the petition for declaration of failure of elections was filed out of time. Whether the petition was a pre-proclamation controversy and if the proper procedures were followed.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, affirming the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc annulling the proclamation of petitioner Abdul Gaffar P.M. Dibaratun and declaring a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in declaring a failure of elections: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code allows the COMELEC to declare a failure of elections if, due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes, the election was not held, was suspended, or resulted in a failure to elect, and this failure would affect the election results. In this case, it was undisputed that voting was suspended before the legal closing hour due to violence. Both parties presented affidavits blaming each other for the violence, but the COMELEC correctly concluded that the suspension due to violence, after only ten voters cast their votes out of 151 registered voters, constituted a failure of elections that would affect the outcome. The findings of fact of the COMELEC on matters of failure of elections are generally binding on the Supreme Court, as the COMELEC possesses the expertise in election matters. On the issue of the petition being filed out of time: The Supreme Court found this argument to be without merit. While petitioner Dibaratun cited Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code concerning election contests for barangay offices, which has a ten-day prescriptive period, the petition filed by respondent Abubakar was for a declaration of failure of elections under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Court noted that Section 6 and the relevant COMELEC Rules of Procedure do not explicitly provide a prescriptive period for filing such petitions, leaving it to the COMELEC's discretion to take cognizance. Furthermore, the COMELEC en banc considered the issue of timeliness moot and academic since the petition had already been heard and submitted for resolution. The COMELEC's action was in line with its mandate to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. On the issue of the petition being a pre-proclamation controversy and procedural compliance: The Supreme Court clarified that a petition to declare a failure of elections under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code is not a pre-proclamation controversy as defined under Section 243 of the same Code. Pre-proclamation controversies typically involve issues related to the composition of the board of canvassers, the integrity of election returns, or the authenticity of returns. The issue before the COMELEC was the suspension of voting due to violence and the resulting failure of elections, which falls squarely within the COMELEC's authority under Section 6. Therefore, the procedural requirements for pre-proclamation controversies were not applicable, and the COMELEC correctly took cognizance of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to declare a failure of elections when, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election in any polling place has not been held, has been suspended, or has resulted in a failure to elect, provided that such failure would affect the election results. The findings of fact of the COMELEC on matters of failure of elections are binding on the Supreme Court, absent grave abuse of discretion.