Eriguel v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Sandra Y. Eriguel and respondent Ma. Theresa Dumpit-Michelena were candidates for mayor in Agoo, La Union, in the May 14, 2007 elections. Following the canvassing, Eriguel was proclaimed the winner with 11,803 votes against Dumpit's 7,899. Dumpit filed an election protest, alleging irregularities in the appreciation and counting of ballots, specifically that ballots favoring Eriguel were erroneously counted despite markings and identical symbols, and that some ballots written by a single person were still counted for Eriguel. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed Dumpit's protest but later reinstated it. After a revision of ballots, which slightly altered the vote count but maintained Eriguel's lead, the RTC conducted a technical examination. On December 7, 2007, the RTC upheld Eriguel's proclamation, finding Dumpit's evidence insufficient. Dumpit appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The case was assigned to the Special Second Division, but due to a commissioner's inhibition, the Presiding Commissioner elevated the appeal to the COMELEC en banc on July 22, 2009. The COMELEC en banc then conducted a fresh appreciation of the contested ballots, ultimately nullifying 3,711 ballots for Eriguel and proclaiming Dumpit as the winner. 3. The Petition: Eriguel filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, raising two main issues: (1) whether the COMELEC Special Second Division gravely abused its authority by elevating the appeal to the COMELEC en banc without first resolving it, and (2) whether the COMELEC en banc legally proceeded with a fresh appreciation of ballots without first ascertaining their integrity, citing the doctrine in Rosal v. Commission on Elections. Eriguel argued that the elevation to en banc was unconstitutional and that the COMELEC failed to ensure the ballots were inviolate before recounting them.
Issue(s)
Whether the Special Second Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its authority when it automatically elevated Dumpit’s appeal to the Commission en banc after only one commissioner was left to deal with the case. Whether the COMELEC en banc’s fresh appreciation of the contested ballots without first ascertaining the integrity thereof violated the doctrine enunciated in Rosal v. Commission on Elections.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Resolution dated December 9, 2009, of the Commission on Elections en banc is declared NULL and VOID. The COMELEC is directed to re-raffle and assign the case to one of its divisions and to proceed with the resolution of the case with utmost dispatch, ensuring the integrity of the ballots prior to any recount.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Automatic elevation to COMELEC en banc): The Court ruled that the Special Second Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it automatically elevated the appeal to the Commission en banc. The 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 3, mandates that COMELEC cases shall be heard and decided in division, and only motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. The Special Second Division should have assigned another Commissioner to attain the required quorum instead of transferring the case to the en banc. Therefore, the Commission en banc acted without jurisdiction when it heard and decided Dumpit's appeal. The proper procedure would have been for the division to resolve the case, and if a motion for reconsideration was filed, it could then be elevated to the en banc, or the division could have unanimously voted to refer the motion to the en banc. On the second issue (Fresh appreciation of ballots without ascertaining integrity): The Court held that the COMELEC en banc's fresh appreciation of the contested ballots without first ascertaining whether they had been kept inviolate was a flawed procedure. This is in line with the doctrine established in Rosal v. Commission on Elections, which emphasizes that the superior status of ballots as evidence presupposes that they are the same ballots actually cast and counted. The COMELEC must be sure that it has before it the same ballots deposited by the voters before using them to set aside election returns. The records showed concerns about missing election returns and tampered ballot boxes, which Eriguel raised, but the COMELEC en banc proceeded with the appreciation without addressing these concerns. Thus, the COMELEC en banc's findings were rendered void due to its failure to ensure the integrity of the ballots.
Main Doctrine
A division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot elevate an appeal to the Commission en banc without first resolving it, and the COMELEC en banc cannot legally proceed with a fresh appreciation of contested ballots without first ascertaining that they have been kept inviolate.