Sahali v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 10, 2010 elections, petitioners Sadikul A. Sahali and Ruby M. Sahali were proclaimed Governor and Vice-Governor, respectively, of Tawi-Tawi. Private respondents Rashidin H. Matba and Jilkasi J. Usman, who ran for the same positions, filed separate Election Protests Ad Cautelam with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), alleging massive and wide-scale irregularities in 39 clustered precincts. Both protests prayed for the technical examination of ballots and election documents. The COMELEC First Division consolidated the cases and ordered the retrieval of ballot boxes and election paraphernalia. Subsequently, it ordered a recount of contested ballots and then granted the private respondents' motion for a technical examination of the Election Day Computerized Voters List (EDCVL), Voters Registration Record (VRR), and Book of Voters. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting denial of due process, lack of published rules for technical examination, and violation of a Precautionary Protection Order. The COMELEC First Division denied this motion, maintaining that petitioners had the opportunity to oppose and that technical examination is governed by COMELEC Resolution No. 8804. The COMELEC also stated it would request clearance from the Presidential Electoral Tribunal regarding the Precautionary Protection Order. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC First Division's Orders dated May 3, 2012, and May 5, 2012, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for denying them an opportunity to oppose the motion for technical examination and for ordering such examination without published rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the technical examination of election paraphernalia without affording petitioners an opportunity to oppose the motion. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the technical examination of election paraphernalia despite the alleged lack of published rules governing such examination.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Orders dated May 3, 2012, and May 5, 2012, issued by the First Division of the Commission on Elections are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari against an interlocutory order: The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC is generally not the proper remedy. The aggrieved party should first seek a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. This is in line with Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution, which mandates that decisions, orders, or rulings of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari within thirty days from receipt, implying final decisions or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc. The Court reiterated the ruling in Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC that the Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC. The proper mode for reviewing a decision, order, or ruling of a division of the COMELEC is by filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc before elevating it to the Supreme Court. On the alleged denial of due process: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' claim of denial of due process. It emphasized that COMELEC is not duty-bound to notify a party to file an opposition to a motion; it is incumbent upon the party concerned to file an opposition within five days from receipt of the motion, as provided by Section 3, Rule 9 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804. The petitioners failed to file an opposition to the motion for technical examination. Furthermore, they were afforded an opportunity to be heard through their Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration, which was exhaustively discussed by the COMELEC First Division. The Court clarified that due process does not necessarily require a hearing but an opportunity to be heard, which was provided through pleadings and the motion for reconsideration. On the authority to order technical examination: The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC First Division's authority to order the technical examination of election paraphernalia. While acknowledging that Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 does not explicitly provide for the procedure of technical examination, the Court held that the absence of a specific rule does not bar the COMELEC from ordering such examination. This power stems from the COMELEC's exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of elective officials. The Court reasoned that the express grant of power to resolve election protests carries with it all necessary, proper, or incidental powers for its effective and efficient exercise. The technical examination, in this case, was deemed a reasonable, efficient, and expeditious means to determine the truth of allegations of fraud and irregularities, aligning with the mandate for the expeditious resolution of election cases.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is generally not the proper remedy; the aggrieved party must first seek a reconsideration from the COMELEC en banc. However, direct resort to the Supreme Court via certiorari may be allowed exceptionally when the COMELEC Division commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and the matter does not fall under instances where the COMELEC en banc may sit or where a division is not authorized to act.