cases in election law

7/29/2019 Cases in Election Law

1/88

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 139357. May 5, 2000]

ABDULMADID P.B. MARUHOM, peti t ioner, vs. COMMISSION ONELECTIONS and HADJI JAMIL DIMAPORO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES_SANTIAGO, J.:

Whether or not a motion to dismiss, filed after an answer has been filed, is a prohibitedpleading in an election protest pending before the Regional Trial Court is the issueposed in this petition forcertiorariwith prayer for preliminary injunction challenging the

Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated July 6, 1999 [1]dismissingComelec Case SPR No. 52-98.

The COMELECs challenged order summarizes the relevant facts of the controversythus:

1. Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for Mayor in theMunicipality of Marogong, Lanao del Sur and voted as such in the lastMay 11, 1998 national and local election (sic). Petitioner is a re-electionistand a veteran politician;

2. The election in Marogong functioned on May 11, 1998, and after thevoting the ballot boxes were transmitted to the Kalimodan Hall, ProvincialCapitol of Lanao del Sur at Marawi City where the automated counting ofvotes and canvass of election returns were centralized;

3. During the counting of votes, serious irregularities, anomalies andelectoral frauds were committed at the instance of petitioner or hisfollowers in that votes actually casted (sic) for the private respondent werenot counted and credited in his favor thru (sic) the concerted acts,conspiracy and manipulation of the Board of Election Inspectors, military,Election Officer and the Machine Operator who happens to be a nephew

of the petitioner;

4. In Precincts Nos. 1A-1A1, 7A1, 8A, 10A-10A1 and 11A about 115official ballots were refused or rejected by the counting machine which theprivate respondents watchers or representatives have requested andinsisted to be re-fed to the automated machine for the second and thirdtimes pursuant to the provisions of Comelec Resolution No. 3030 but theirrequests were not heeded by the Election Officer and the Machine
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn1


2/88

Operator, Solaiman Rasad, who is a close kin of the Petitioner, andinstead considered the said ballots as finally rejected, while in PrecinctsNos. 12A, 23A1 and 6A, around 56 ballots were found therein which werenot drawn from the official ballots and were included in the counting ofvotes over the objection of the private respondents watchers or

representatives;

5. Before the termination of the counting of votes and the consolidation ofthe results, the machine operator and the Election Officer carried awayfrom the Kalimodan Hall the diskette and brought the same to the downtown without the knowledge of the private respondents watchers orrepresentatives;

6. As a result of the foregoing irregularities, anomalies and electoralfrauds, the petitioner was illegally proclaimed as winner because heappeared to have obtained 2,020 votes while the private respondent

garnered 2,000 votes with a slight margin of only 20 votes;

7. After the counting of votes, the ballot boxes were kept at the KalimodanHall, Provincial Capitol, Marawi City guarded and secured by military andPNP personnel together with the watchers/representatives of the petitionerand the private respondent and other candidates or political parties untilthey were transported and delivered to the respondent court at Malabang,Lanao del Sur sometime on August 13, 1998 by 1Lt. Napisa AG togetherwith the duly authorized representatives of both parties.

xxx xxx xxx

1. On May 22, 1998, private respondent, knowing that he was cheatedand the true winner for Mayor, filed before this Honorable Commission apetition to annul the proclamation of petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom asthe duly elected Mayor of Marogong, Lanao del Sur docketed as SPC No.98-226.[2]

2. As precautionary measure to avoid any technicality, private respondentfiled on May 25, 1998, an ordinary "Protest ad Cautelam"against thepetitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Malabang, Lanaodel Sur entitled "Hadji Jamil D. Dimaporo vs. Abdulmadid Maruhom" for

election protest (Manual Judicial Recount, revision and reappreciation ofballots) docketed as Election Case No. 11-127.[3]

3. On June 1, 1998,petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom filed an answer withcounter-protest in Election Case No. 11-127special and affirmativedefenses and counter-protest.[4]In his answer petitioner prayed to hold inabeyance further proceedings since the protest is ad cautelam or subjectto the petition filed before this Honorable Commission.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn2


3/88

4. On July 2, 1998, before SPC No. 98-228 could be set for hearing by thisHonorable Commission, the private respondent as petitioner therein, fileda motion to withdraw his petition in said SPC No. 98-228 albeit said casewas among those cases the proceedings of which were ordered to becontinued beyond June 30, 1998, under Comelec Resolution No. 3049

promulgated on June 29, 1998.[5]

xxx

5. On July 17, 1998, an order was issued by this HonorableCommission, (First Division)granting the private respondents motion towithdraw petition in SPC No. 98-228 and considered the samewithdrawn.[6]xxx.

6. Upon receipt of a copy of said order, dated July 17, 1998, privaterespondent filed an urgent motion before the respondent court on July 27,1998, praying for the issuance of an order directing the properofficials/officers concerned to bring and produce before said court the

ballot boxes subjects of the protest and counter-protest and to set thecase for hearing as mandated by law.[7]xxx

7. After the delivery of the ballot boxes involved in the protest and counter-protest, the public respondent issued an order, dated August 17, 1998,setting Election Case No. 11-127 for hearing (a) for the creation of theCommittee on Revision and appointment of the Chairman and Membersthereof; (b) making of the cash deposit and payment of the revisorscompensation; (c) partial determination of the case, etc. on September 1,1998, at 8:30 oclock in the morning.[8]

8. When the case was called for hearing on September 2, 1998, aRevision Committee was created and its membership were duly appointedin open court which committee was directed by the respondent court tofinish the revision of ballots, if possible, within 20 days from thecommencement of the revision [9]xxx

9. After the Revision Committee was directed by the respondent tocommence the revision of ballots, thepetitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom thrucounsel orally moved for the dismissal of the proteston the grounds that(1) The ballot boxes containing the ballots in the protested and counter-protested precincts have been violated; (2) Automated counting of ballotsdoes not contemplate a manual recount of the ballots; and (3) Protestantis guilty of forum shopping warranting summary dismissal of the petitionerof the protest.

10. The private respondent thru (sic) undersigned counsel, vigorouslyopposed the said oral motion to dismiss and orally argued that the motionis clearly dilatory having been made only after the Revision Committeehas been ordered to commence the revision of ballots on September 1,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn5


4/88

1998 and maintained that (1) The motion to dismiss is not allowed in anelection protest; (2) The sanctity and integrity of the ballot boxes subjectmatter of the protest and counter-protest have been preserved and neverviolated; (3) The automated counting of ballots does not preclude the filingof the election protest for the judicial recount and revision of ballots; and

(4) The private respondent is not guilty of forum shopping because hispetition of protest is clearly and explicitly a ProtestAd Cautelam in view ofthe pendency of his petition before this Honorable Commission which waswithdrawn by the private respondent before it could be set for hearing oracted upon by this Honorable Commission.

11. After the oral arguments of both parties, the petitioners counsel askedthat he be given ample time to file a written Omnibus Motion to Dismissand the respondent court thru then Acting Presiding Judge RasadBalindong, issued an order dated September 2, 1998, giving ten (10) daysto Atty. Tingcap T. Mortaba to file an Omnibus Motion in substantiation of

all the oral motions he made, furnishing a copy thereof to the undersignedcounsel for the private respondent who was likewise given an equal periodof time to comment.[10]

12. On September 11, 1998, petitioner filed his motion to dismiss[11]and onSeptember 21, 1998, the private respondent filed a vigorous opposition tomotion to dismiss.[12]

13. During the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the opposition theretoon September 21, 1998, the petitioners counsel requested for ample timeto file a rejoinder to the vigorous opposition to motion to dismiss submitted

by the private respondent which was granted by the court and onSeptember 28, 1998, petitioner filed his rejoinder[13]and on October 5,1998 private respondent filed his comment[14]thereto and thereafter allincidents were submitted for resolution of the court.

14. On November 10, 1998, the respondent court thru HonorablePresiding Judge Moslemen T. Macarambon, issued the assailed orderdenying the petitioners motion to dismiss for lack of merit and ordering theRevision Committee to report to the court on November 19, 1998, at 8:30oclock in the morning for their oath taking and to receive the instruction ofthe court in the revision of the ballots and other allied matters.[15]

15. On November 18, 1998, the petitioner filed a motion forreconsideration of the order dated November 10, 1998,[16]and onNovember 23, 1998, private respondent filed a vigorous opposition [tomotion] for reconsideration.[17]

16. Finding no compelling reason to disturb its order dated November 10,1998, the respondent court issued the assailed order dated December 1,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn10


5/88

1998 which denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. In thesame order, the respondent court reiterated its previous order to themembers of the Revision Committee to take their oaths before Atty.Raqueza T. Umbaro or Atty. Khalil Laguindab and thereafter to conveneand start the revision of ballots on December 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1998,

morning and afternoon.[18]

17. As a diabolical scheme to cause further delay of the proceedings ofthe case more specifically the revision of ballots, the petitioner filed onDecember 10, 1998, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition withprayer for preliminary injunction and on December 11, 1998, petitionerfiled an urgent motion before the respondent court praying that furtherproceedings in Election Case No. 11-127 be deferred until afterprotestees petition for certiorari and prohibition before this HonorableCommission shall have been finally resolved, copy of which was servedupon the undersigned counsel only on December 12, 1998, at 10:50

A.M.

[19]

xxx

18. That before the undersigned counsel could file his opposition to saidurgent motion on December 14, 1998 and in the absence of a restrainingorder or writ of preliminary injunction issued by (the COMELEC), therespondent judge already issued an order granting the same motion andordering the Revision Committee to hold in abeyance the scheduledrevision of ballots on December 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1998, etc. untilfurther order from the court xxx.[20]

Petitioner alleges that in dismissing the petition the COMELEC acted in excess of, or

with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction in

1.] holding that a motion to dismiss an election protest case filed in theRegional Trial Court is a prohibited pleading;

2.] holding that the motion to dismiss filed after the answer is not allowed;

3.] failing to resolve the issues raised in SPR No. 52-98 which aresufficient legal bases to dismiss Election Case No. 11-127.

In sum, petitioner insists that in refusing to pass upon the three (3) principal issues

raised in COMELEC Case SPR No. 52-98, to wit:

1. Whether or not public respondent acted in excess of, or with graveabuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that amotion to dismiss an election protest case in the Regional Trial Court is aprohibited pleading;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn18


6/88

2. Whether or not public respondent acted in excess of, or with graveabuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in holding that amotion to dismiss filed after the answer to an election protest case in theRegional Trial court is not allowed; and

3. Whether or not public respondent gravely abused its discretionamounting to lack of jurisdiction, in failing to resolve the relevant materialand substantial issues raised in SPR No. 52-98.

the COMELEC "abdicated its duty under its own rules of procedure and under theConstitution and the election laws." Such abdication of duty, according to petitioner,amounts to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

It must be borne in mind that the purpose of governing statutes on the conduct ofelections

[i]s to protect the integrity of elections to suppress all evils that mayviolate its purity and defeat the will of the voters. The purity of theelections is one of the most fundamental requisites of populargovernment. The Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandatemust do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of thevotes cast in the elections. In the performance of its duties, theCommission must be given a considerable latitude in adopting means andmethods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective forwhich it was createdto promote free, orderly and honest elections. Thechoice of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they areclearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be

interfered with.

[21]

Section 2 (1) of Article IX of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power to"enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." There can hardly be any doubt that the textand intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary andincidentalpowers for it to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful andcredible elections.

In accordance with this intent, the Court has been liberal in defining the parameters ofthe COMELECs powers in conducting elections. Sumulong v. COMELEC[22]aptly points

out that

Politics is a practical matter, and political questions must be dealt withrealistically not from the standpoint of pure theory. The Commission onElections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with politicalstrategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealingwith political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position todecide complex political questions xxx. There are no ready made formulas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn21


7/88

for solving public problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolvepatterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the matter of theadministration of laws relative to the conduct of election xxx we must notby any excessive zeal take away from the Commission on Elections thatinitiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it.

Succinctly stated, laws and statutes governing election contests especially theappreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of theelectorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technicalinfirmities.[23]An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the needto dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative,[24]muchmore so in this case considering that a mere twenty (20) votes separates the winnerfrom the loser of the contested election results.

The primordial issue to be resolved herein is whether or not the COMELEC gravelyabused its discretion in dismissing SPR No. 52-98.

In support of his cause, petitioner insists that there is "nothing irregular or anomalous inthe filing of the motion to dismiss" after the filing of the answer because in effect he ismerely insisting on a preliminary hearing of his special and affirmative defenses. Thus,he claims that the summary dismissal of his motion to dismiss is tainted with graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

We disagree.

The filing of the motion to dismiss, in fact, appears to be part of a perfidious plot toprevent the early termination of the proceedings in Election Case No. 4847 as

evidenced by a confluence of events clearly showing a pattern of delay employed bypetitioner to avert the revision ballots. These events, pointed out by privaterespondent[25]and borne by the record, show that

1. It was only on September 1, 1999 after the creation of the RevisionCommittee and the appointment of its Chairman and Members and afterthe said committee was ordered by the trial court to commence therevision and to render its report within 20 days that the petitioner orallymoved for the dismissal of the case on the flimsy grounds that (1) theballot boxes subject of the protest and counter protest have beenviolated; (2) the automated counting of ballots does not contemplate a

manual recount of ballots; and (3) protestant is guilty of forum-shoppingwarranting summary dismissal of the protest;

2. After the oral arguments on the oral motion to dismiss the petitionerrequested for ample time within which to file an Omnibus Motion toDismiss and over the vigorous opposition of the private respondent thesame was granted by the court and the petitioner was given a period of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn23


8/88

ten (10) days to file the same and the private respondent was likewisegiven a period of ten (10) days to file his comment;

3. On September 11, 1998, the motion to dismiss[26]and during the hearingon the said motion and the opposition[27]thereto on September 21, 1998,

the petitioner again asked for ample time to file a rejoinder to the vigorousopposition to motion to dismiss which was again granted by the court andit was only on September 28, 1998 that said rejoinder was filed;

4. After a denial of the motion to dismiss on November 10, 1998,[28]thepetitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 18, 1998;[29]

5. When the motion for reconsideration was denied on December 1,1998,[30]petitioner filed on December 18, 1998 before the Commission onElections a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminaryinjunction and asked the trial court to defer the proceedings of Election

Case No. 11-27 until after his petition shall have been finally resolvedwhich was granted by the trial court. Hence, the scheduled revision of theballots on December 14, 15, 16 and 17, 1998 was cancelled and theproceedings of the case held in abeyance;[31]

6. As the Comelec En Bancdid not give due course to petitioners prayerfor writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court, upon motion of the privaterespondent, issued an order for the revision of ballots on February 8,1999.[32]On said day, neither the petitioners counsel nor his designatedrevisors appeared, instead the petitioner, assisted by his numerous armedmen, numbering around 30 stated (sic) in strategic places, prevented the

court personnel to enter the court premises. Were it not for the maximumtolerance exercised by the PNP personnel and the intervention of the localdatus/leaders, there would have been bloodshed;

7. On February 9, 1999, the petitioners counsel filed a withdrawal ofappearance with the attached letter-request of the petitioner asking for thedeferment of the revision of ballots for at least two (2) weeks to enable himto engage the services of another counsel. Considering that the incidentwas designed to delay the further the early disposition of the case whichwould frustrate the ends of justice, the court held in abeyance its ruling onthe withdrawal of appearance of and directed petitioners counsel tohandle the case after the appearance of a new counsel;[33]

8. To further delay the proceedings of the case, the petitioner filed apetition for transfer of venue of the trial to from RTC, Branch 11,Malabang, Lanao del Sur to Iligan City or in Metro Manila which theprivate respondent did not oppose so as not to delay the early resolutionof this Honorable Supreme Court on the said petition;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn26


9/88

9. Again, the proceedings of the case was held in abeyance in view of thependency of the said petition for transfer of venue;

10. After the dismissal of the petition in Election Case No. 52-98, thepetitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari before this Honorable

Supreme Court with a prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order;

11. As a diabolical scheme to cause further delay of the proceedings ofthe case, the petitioner filed an urgent motion before this HonorableSupreme Court praying for the immediate issuance of a TRO directing thePresiding Judge, RTC, Branch III, Iligan City to cease, desist and refrainfrom conducting any further proceedings of Election Case No. 4847 untilthe instant case shall have been resolved. This Honorable SupremeCourt, without granting the prayer for TRO, directed the RTC, Branch III,Iligan City not to promulgate any decision in the said election case untilfurther order[s] from this most Honorable Court.[34]

It is clear, given the foregoing facts of this case, that the roundabout manner withinwhich petitioner virtually substituted his answer by belatedly filing a motion to dismissthree (3) months later is a frivolous resort to procedure calculated to frustrate the will ofthe electorate. As pointedly observed by the COMELEC in its challenged Resolutiondated July 6, 1999,[35]petitioner only filed his motion to dismiss "when the results of thetrial appear[ed] to be adverse to him"[36]or right after the creation of the RevisionCommittee had been ordered by the trial court. If petitioner truly intended to move forthe preliminary hearing of his special and affirmative defenses as he claims, then heshould have simultaneously moved for the preliminary hearing of his special andaffirmative defenses at the time he filed his answer. Otherwise, he should have filed his

motion to dismiss "within the time for but before filing the answer" pursuant to Section1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Suffice it to state in this regard that such a whimsical change of mind by petitioner cannot be countenanced much more so in election cases where time is of the essence inthe resolution thereof. Indeed, the Omnibus Election Code states in no uncertain termsthat

SEC. 258. Preferential disposition of contests in courts. The RTC, in theirrespective cases, shal l give preference to elect ion con tests over al lother cases, except those of habeas corpus, and shall, without delay,hear and within thirty (30) days from the date of their submission fordecision, but in every case within six (6) months after filing, decide thesame. xxx[37](emphasis and italics supplied)

Petitioner further argues that his submissions that a.] the integrity of the ballot boxeshas been violated; b.] only rejected ballots or ballots manually counted are the propersubjects of an election protest; and c.] private respondent is guilty of forum-shopping,are enough grounds to dismiss the case.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn34


10/88

We remain unconvinced.

As aptly observed by the COMELEC in the challenged Resolution, these grounds are"evidentiaryin nature and can be best ventilated during the trial of the case."[38]It needsbe stressed in this regard that the purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether

the candidate proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is reallythe lawful choiceof the electorate.[39]In an election contest where the correctness of the number of votesis involved, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves; wherethe ballots can not be produced or are not available, the election returns would be thebest evidence.[40]In this case, the counted official ballots are available and there is noevidence, other than the bare allegation of petitioner, that the sanctity of the ballotboxes subject matter of the protest have been violated or the official ballots containedtherein impaired. The best way, therefore, to test the truthfulness of petitioners claim isto open the ballot boxes in the protested precincts followed by the examination, revision,recounting and re-appreciation of the official ballots therein contained in accordancewith law and pertinent rules on the matter. Needless to state this can only be done

through a full-blown trial on the merits, not a peremptory resolution of the motion todismiss on the basis of the bare and one-sided averments made therein.

Petitioners reliance on COMELEC Resolution No. 2868 [41]to support his restrictive claimthat only rejected ballots or ballots manually counted in case of failure of the automatedcounting machines are the proper subjects of an election protest, is just asunpersuasive.

There is admittedly a lacuna leges in R.A. No. 8436 which prescribes the adoption of anautomated election system. However, while conceding as much, this Court ruledin Tupay Loong v. COMELEC,[42]that the Commission is nevertheless not precluded from

conducting a manual count when the automated counting system fails, reasoning thus:

In enacting R.A. No. 8436, Congress obviously failed to provide aremedy where the error in counting is not machine related for humanforesight is not all-seeing. We hold, however, that the vacuum in thelaw cannot p revent the COMELEC from levi tat ing abo ve the

problem. Section 2(1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives theCOMELEC the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws andregulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,referendum and recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this provision isto give the COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it toachieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful andcredible elections. Congruent to this intent, this Court has not beenniggardly in defining the parameters of powers of COMELEC in theconduct of our elections In the case at bar, the COMELEC order for amanual count was not only reasonable. It was the only way to count thedecisive local votes ... The bottom line is that by means of the manualcount, the will of the voters of Sulu was honestly determined. We canno tkick away the w i l l of the people by giv ing a l i teral interpretation to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn38


11/88

R.A. 8436. R.A. 8436 did n otprohib i t manual count ing when m achinecount does notwork. Counting is part and parcel of the conduct of anelection which is under the control and supervision of the COMELEC

Our elections are not conducted under laboratory conditions. In running

for public offices, candidates do not follow the rules of Emily Post. Toooften, COMELEC has to make snap judgments to meet unforeseencircumstances that threaten to subvert the will of our voters. In the

process, the actions of COMELEC may not be impeccable, indeed, mayeven be debatable. We cannot, however, engage in a swivel chaircriticism of these actions often taken under very difficult circumstances.

Verily, the legal compass from which the COMELEC should take its bearings in actingupon election controversies is the principle that "clean elections control theappropriateness of the remedy."[43]

Be that as it may, the fact is the averments in petitioners counter-protest and privaterespondents protest already justified the determination of the issues through a judicialrevision and recounting of the ballots pursuant to Section 255 of the Omnibus ElectionCode which provides that

Sec. 255. Judicial counting of votes in election contest.- Whereal legat ions in a p rotest or co unter-protest so warrant or w henever in

the opinion of the cou rt the interests of jus t ice so require, it shallimmediately order the book of voters, ballot boxes and their keys, ballotsand other documents used in the election be brought before it and that theballots be examined and votes recounted. (Italics supplied)

So too must fall petitioners procedural objection that private respondent should befaulted for forum-shopping vis--vis this Courts pronouncement inSamad v.COMELEC[44]which states in no uncertain terms that

As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition forquowarranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamationcontroversy, or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thusdepriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon thetitle of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason is thatonce the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protestor a petition forquo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to bedecided in the case itself and not in another proceeding. This procedurewill prevent confusion and conflict of authority. Conformably, we haveruled in a number of cases that after a proclamation has been made, apre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is no longer viable.

The rule admits of exceptions, however, as where: (1) the board ofcanvassers was improperly constituted; (2) quo warranto was not the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn43


12/88

proper remedy; (3) what was filed was not really a petition for quowarranto or an election protestbut a petition to annul a proclamation;(4) the f i l ing of a quo warranto pet i t ion or an elect ion p rotest wasexpressly made withou t prejudice to the pre-proclamation

controversy orwas made ad cautelam; and (5) the proclamation was

null and void.

Petitioners argument that the filing of a motion to dismiss in an election contest filedwith a regular court is not a prohibited pleading is well taken. As we pointed outin Melendres, Jr. v. COMELEC:[45]

Neither can petitioner seek refuge behind his argument that the motion todismiss filed by private respondent is a prohibited pleading under Section1, Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure because the saidprovision refers to proceedings filed before the COMELEC. The applicable

provisions on the matter are found in Part VI of the Rules of Procedure

titled "PROVISIONS GOVERNING ELECTION CONTESTS BEFORETRIAL COURT"and as this Court pointedly stated inAruelo v. Court ofAppeals[46]

It must be noted that nowherein Part VI of the COMELEC Rules ofProcedure is it provided that motions to dismiss and bill of

particulars are not allowed in election protests or quo warrantocases pending before regular courts.

Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a ruleprohibiting the filing of a certain pleading in the regular courts. The

power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice andprocedure in all courts is vested in the Supreme Court.[47]

The foregoing pronouncement, however, will not extricate petitioner from hispredicament because the denial of petitioners motion to dismiss was based on the factthat the othergrounds relied therein was considered unmeritorious and not because thesaid motion is a prohibited pleading in electoral protest cases. While the challengedCOMELEC Resolution may not have been entirely correct in dismissing the petition inthis regard, the soundness of its discretion to accord unto the trial court the competenceto resolve the factual issues raised in the controversy cannot be doubted. Indeed, asreasoned by the COMELEC, the

Commission assumes the competence of the trial court to handleelectoral protest and cannot encroach on its original and exclusive

jurisdiction on electoral protest cases involving the contested mayoraltyseat. To our mind, the trial court should be allowed to resolve the case onthe merits to be able to rule on the factual and legal grounds raised by thepetitioner as his defenses in his Answer. Should the petitioner bedissatisfied with the outcome of the case in the lower court, he can still
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn45


13/88

appeal, as his relief, to this Commission within the reglementary periodprovided by law.

Moreover

At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy andperception of how to interpret and apply the laws relating to elections;literal or liberal; the letter or the spirit; the naked provision or the ultimatepurpose; legal syllogism or substantial justice; in isolation or in the contextof social conditions; harshly against or gently in favorof the votersobvious choice. In apply ing elect ions laws, i t would be far better to errin favor of pop ular sovereignty than to be r ight in complex bu t l i t tle

und erstood legal isms.[48]

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack ofmerit.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena,Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Melo, Kapunan, and Purisima, JJ., on leave.

Panganiban, J., in the result.

[1]Rollo, p. 32.[2]Record, pp. 72-74.[3]Record, pp. 30-38.[4]Ibid.,pp. 39-45.[5]Id.,pp. 214-215.[6]Id.,pp. 216-218.[7]Id.,pp. 219-220.[8]Id.,p. 221.[9]Id.,p. 222.[10]Id.,p. 58.[11]Id.,pp. 59-69.

[12]Id.,pp. 80-89.[13]Id.,pp. 90-124.[14]Id.,pp. 125-143.[15]Id., pp. 26-28.[16]Id.,pp. 144-174.[17]Id.,pp. 175-184.[18]Rollo, p. 138; Annex O, Petition.[19]Record, pp. 223-225.[20]Ibid.,p. 226.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftn48


14/88

[21]Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911 [1967].[22]73 Phil. 288 [1941].[23]Pangandaman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134340, 25 November 1999, p. 1, citing Punzalan v. COMELEC, 289

SCRA 702 [1998], citing Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273 [1995]; Pahilan v. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205

[1994]; Aruelo, Jr. v. CA, 227 SCRA 311 [1993]; Tatlonghari v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 849 [1991]; Unda v.

COMELEC, 190 SCRA 827 [1990]; De Leon v. Guadiz, Jr., 104 SCRA 591 [1981].[24]Punzalan v. COMELEC,supra.[25]Rollo, pp. 241-243.[26]Record, pp. 59-69.[27]Ibid.,pp. 80-89.[28]Id.,pp. 26-28.[29]Id.,pp. 144-174.[30]Rollo, p. 138; Annex O, Petition.[31]Ibid.,p. 255; Annex 2, Comment.[32]Id.,pp. 262-265; Annex 4, Comment.[33]Id.,pp. 266-267; Annex 5, Comment.[34]Id., p. 204..[35]Id.,pp. 32-40; Annex A, Petition.[36]Id.,p. 39.[37]See also Rule 35, Section 18 and Rule 36, Section 11, COMELEC Rules.[38]Rollo, p. 40; Annex A, Petition, p. 9.[39]Agpalo R., The Law On Public Officers, 1st ed. (1998), p. 58.[40]Lerias v. HRET, 202 SCRA 808 [1991].

[41]Rollo, pp. 45-47; Annex C, Petition, which provides, inter alia, that:

SEC. 2.Filing of Protest.Any losing candidate, who registers his objections on the rejection of ballots, may file a

protest with the Commission within ten (10) days from proclamation of the winning candidates in accordance with

the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

Only rejected ballots and ballots manually counted shall be the subject of protest.

SEC. 3.Examination of rejected ballots.In determining the intent of the voter in the case of rejected ballots,the rejection of which have been objected to and noted in the Minute of Counting, the Commission shall examine

and appreciate the rejected ballots concerned applying the provision of Section 7 of Resolution No. 2862 (Rules and

Regulations on the Manual Counting and Canvassing of Votes in Case of Failure of the Automated Counting System

in the September 9, 1996 Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao [ARMM], promulgated 14

August 1996).[42]G.R. No. 133676, 14 April 1999, 305 SCRA 832.[43]Pangandaman v. COMELEC,supra, citing Pacis v. COMELEC, 25 SCRA 377 [1968].[44]224 SCRA 631 [1993].[45]G.R. No. 129958, 25 November 1999, pp. 15-16.[46]227 SCRA 311 [1993].[47]Citing Article VIII, Section 5 (5), Constitution.[48]Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 [1996].
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139357.html#_ftnref21


15/88

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 154198. January 20, 2003]

PETRONILA S. RULLODA, pet i t ioner, vs. COMMISSION ONELECTIONS (COMELEC), ELECTION OFFICER LUDIVICO L.ASUNCION OF SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN; BARANGAYBOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BRGY. STO. TOMAS, SANJACINTO, PANGASINAN, Board of Election Tellers of Prec. Nos.30A/30A1, 31A, 31A1, and 32A1, and REMEGIOPLACIDO, respondents.

D E C I S I O NYNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

In the barangay elections of July 15, 2002, Romeo N. Rulloda and Remegio L.Placido were the contending candidates for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, SanJacinto, Pangasinan. On June 22, 2002, Romeo suffered a heart attack and passedaway at the Mandaluyong City Medical Center.[1]

His widow, petitioner Petronila Betty Rulloda, wrote a letter to the Commission onElections on June 25, 2002 seeking permission to run as candidate for BarangayChairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband.[2] Petitioners request was

supported by the Appeal-Petition containing several signatures of people purporting tobe members of the electorate of Barangay Sto. Tomas.[3]

On July 14, 2002, Election Officer Ludivico L. Asuncion issued a directive to theChairman and Members of the Barangay Board of Canvassers of Sto. Tomas asfollows:

Just in case the names BETTY or PETRONILA or the surname RULLODA is

written on theballot, read the same as it is written but add the words NOT

COUNTED like BETTY NOT COUNTED or RULLODA NOT COUNTED.[4]

Based on the tally of petitioners watchers who were allowed to witness the canvassof votes during the July 15, 2002 elections, petitioner garnered 516 votes whilerespondent Remegio Placido received 290 votes.[5] Despite this, the Board ofCanvassers proclaimed Placido as the Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas. [6]

After the elections, petitioner learned that the COMELEC, acting on the separaterequests of Andres Perez Manalaysay and Petronila Rulloda to be substituted ascandidates for Barangay Chairman of Barangay La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn1


16/88

Barangay Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan, respectively, issued Resolution No.5217 dated July 13, 2002 which states:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES,

to ADOPT the recommendation of the Law Department as follows:

1. To deny due course the Certificates of Candidacy of ANDRES PEREZMANALAYSAY and PETRONILA S. RULLODA; and

2. To direct the Election Officer of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and San Jacinto,Pangasinan to delete the name of ANDRES PEREZ MANALAYSAY, candidate forBarangay Chairman in Barangay La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija; and the nameof PETRONILA S. RULLODA, candidate for Barangay Captain in Barangay Sto.Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan.

Let the Law Department implement this resolution.

SO ORDERED.[7]

The above-quoted Resolution cited as authority the COMELECs Resolution No.4801 dated May 23, 2002, setting forth the guidelines on the filing of certificates ofcandidacy in connection with the July 15, 2002 synchronized Barangay andSangguniang Kabataan elections, more particularly Section 9 thereof which reads:

Sec. 9. Substitution of candidates.There shall be no substitution of candidates

forbarangay andsangguniang kabataan officials.[8]

Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, seeking to annul Section 9 of

Resolution No. 4801 and Resolution No. 5217, both of the COMELEC, insofar as theyprohibited petitioner from running as substitute candidate in lieu of her deceasedhusband; to nullify the proclamation of respondent; and to proclaim her as the dulyelected Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan.

Private respondent Remegio Placido filed his Comment, arguing that since thebarangay election is non-partisan, substitution of candidates is not allowed. Moreover,petitioner did not file any certificate of candidacy; hence, there was only one candidatefor Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, namely, respondent Placido.[9]

Public respondent COMELEC also filed its Comment. It contends that itsResolution No. 4801 was issued not pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but as an

incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of the barangayelections. Therefore, the same may not be the subject of review in a petition forcertiorari. Further, the COMELEC alleges that it did not commit grave abuse ofdiscretion in denying due course to petitioners certificate of candidacy and inproclaiming respondent considering that he was the only candidate for BarangayChairman of Sto. Tomas.[10]

We find merit in the petition.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn7


17/88

At the outset, there is no dispute that petitioner garnered 516 votes whilerespondent got only 290 votes. Respondents did not deny this in their respectiveComments.

In our jurisdiction, an election means the choice or selection of candidates to publicoffice by popular vote through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials which are

determined through the will of the electorate. An election is the embodiment of thepopular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people. The winner is thecandidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in theelection. Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those whoreceive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in allrepublican forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be declared electedand no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or pluralityof the legal votes cast in the election.[11]

Respondents base their argument that the substitution of candidates is not allowedin barangay elections on Section 77 of the Omnibus Elections Code, which states:

Section 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another.

If after the last day of the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a

registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause,

only a person belonging to, and certified by the same political party may file a

certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was

disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may

file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the

preceding sections not later than mid-day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or

disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of

election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in thepolitical subdivision where he is a candidate or, in the case of candidates to be voted

by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.

Private respondent argues that inasmuch as the barangay election is non-partisan,there can be no substitution because there is no political party from which to designatethe substitute. Such an interpretation, aside from being non sequitur, ignores thepurpose of election laws which is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of thevoters.[12] It is a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable mandate of thepeople. It is well-settled that in case of doubt, political laws must be so construed as togive life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.[13]

Contrary to respondents claim, the absence of a specific provision governingsubstitution of candidates in barangay elections can not be inferred as a prohibitionagainst said substitution. Such a restrictive construction cannot be read into the lawwhere the same is not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow the substitution ofcandidates where no political parties are involved than when political considerations orparty affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn11


18/88

Private respondent likewise contends that the votes in petitioners favor can not becounted because she did not file any certificate of candidacy. In other words, he wasthe only candidate for Barangay Chairman. His claim is refuted by the Memorandum ofthe COMELEC Law Department as well as the assailed Resolution No. 5217, wherein itindubitably appears that petitioners letter-request to be allowed to run as Barangay

Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband was treated as a certificate ofcandidacy.[14]

To reiterate, it was petitioner who obtained the plurality of votes in the contestedelection. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made tostand in the way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contestsmust be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of publicofficials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[15]

Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers

must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the

electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court frowns upon any

interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent

casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.[16]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. Theassailed Resolution No. 5217 of the Commission on Elections, insofar as it denied duecourse to petitioners certificate of candidacy, is declared NULL and VOID. Theproclamation of respondent Remegio L. Placido as Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas,San Jacinto, Pangasinan is SET ASIDE, and the Board of Canvassers of the saidBarangay is ORDERED to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Barangay Chairmanthereof.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio , Austria-Martinez,Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., and Quisumbing, JJ., in the result, pro hac vice only.Panganiban, J., in the result.

[1] Rollo, p. 46.

[2]

Ibid., p. 47.[3] Ibid., pp. 49-64.

[4] Ibid., p. 67.

[5] Ibid., pp. 68-82.

[6] Ibid., p. 83.

[7] Ibid., pp. 42-43.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftn14


19/88

[8] Ibid., pp. 33-39, at 38.

[9] Ibid., pp. 122-125.

[10] Ibid., pp. 133-137.

[11] Carlos v. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571, 582 [2000].

[12] Papandayan, Jr. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 147909. April 16, 2002.[13] Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, et al., Concurring Opinion of JusticeArtemio V. Panganiban, 357 SCRA 545, 566 [2001]; citing Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 [1996].

[14] Rollo, pp. 40-43.

[15] Carlos v. Angeles, supra., citing Benito v. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436, 442 [1994].

[16] OHarav. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 148941-42, March 12, 2002.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/142907.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/142907.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/142907.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/142907.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/142907.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/148941_42.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/142840.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/142907.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/154198.htm#_ftnref8


20/88

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 155087. November 28, 2003]

EDUARDO T. SAYA-ANG, SR., and RICARDO T. LARA, pet i t ioners,vs . HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HONORABLE PIO JOSES. JOSON, HONORABLE JOSE P. BALBUENA, HONORABLELIRIO T. JOQUINO and MANTIL D. LIM, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

Petitioners herein, Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo T. Lara, were candidatesfor the Office of Barangay Captain of Barangays Congan and New Aklan respectivelyfor the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) and BarangayElections. Petitioner Saya-ang filed his certificate of candidacy in Barangay Conganon June 6, 2002. On the other hand, petitioner Lara filed his own certificate ofcandidacy in Barangay New Aklan on June 8, 2002. On July 19, 2002, a letter-reportwas submitted by Acting Election Officer Alim to the Law Department of the Comelecwhich stated that petitioners herein are not residents of the barangays they wish to beelected in. In turn, the Law Department of the Commission on Elections(Comelec) submitted its study to the Comelec en bancon July 9, 2002 recommendingthe denial of due course to the certificates of candidacy of petitioners. On the day of the

elections or on July 15, 2002, the Comelec, issued En Banc Resolution No. 5393, whichessentially denied due course to the certificates of candidacy of petitioners herein.

The pertinent portion of the assailed Resolution states:

Considering the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES,

to approve the recommendation of the Law Department as follows:

1. To deny due course to the Certificates of Candidacy of Romeo P.

Sumayog, Sandigan Damie, James Ceasar I. Young, Eduardo T. Saya-ang,

Sr., and Ricardo L. Lara; and

2. To direct the Election Officer of Glan, Sarangani to delete their

names from the Certified List of Candidates for Barangay Kagawad and

Punong Barangay of Barangays E. Alegado, Baliton, Cross, Congan, and

New Aklan, respectively.


21/88

Without prejudice to the filing of criminal cases against them as the evidence so

warrants under the circumstances.

Let the Law Department implement this resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Despite the abovementioned Resolution, petitioners were still proclaimed aswinners on July 16, 2002, having garnered the most number of votes in their respectivebarangays. On July 31, 2002, petitioners took their oath of office before Alfredo L.Barcelona, Jr., the First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Sarangani Province.

On August 9, 2002, Pio Jose S. Joson, Deputy Executive Director for Operations ofthe Comelec, issued a Memorandum for all Regional Election Directors, ProvincialElection Supervisors and City/Municipal Election Officers. This memorandum directedall election officers to delete the names of those candidates whose certificates of

candidacy were denied due course despite the fact that said denial did not arrive ontime. It also ordered the candidates concerned to desist from taking their oaths andfrom assuming the positions to which they have been elected, unless the SupremeCourt issued a temporary restraining order. Lastly, the said memorandum ordered theBoard of Canvassers to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming the duly-electedcandidates and correcting the certificates of canvass and proclamation.

On August 10, 2002, the Comelec en bancpromulgated Resolution No. 5584,entitled In the Matter of the Policy of the Commission on Proclaimed Candidates Foundto be Ineligible for Being Not Registered Voters in the Place Where They Were Electedand on the Failure/ Omission of the Board of Canvassers to Include Certain ElectionReturns in the Canvass.[1]

On August 14, 2002, Acting Election Officer Alim, invoking and acting pursuant toComelec Resolution No. 5393 and Resolution No. 5584, issued a directive commandingpetitioners to cease and desist from taking their oath of office and from assuming theposition to which they were elected. He also directed the Barangay Board ofCanvassers for Barangays Congan and New Aklan to reconvene immediately andproclaim the duly-elected candidates and to correct the certificates of canvass andproclamation.

Petitioners received the aforementioned directive on August 19, 2002. On August21, 2002, the Comelec en bancpromulgated Resolution No. 5666 amending itsResolution No. 5584 on the basis of the approved recommendations of Commissioner

Sadain. Pertinent portions of the amended resolution state:

I.

ON PROCLAIMED CANDIDATES FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR BEING

NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE ELECTED

x x x
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn1


22/88

(d) For both (a) and (b), in the event that the disqualified candidate is

proclaimed the winner despite his disqualification or despite the pending

disqualification case filed before his proclamation, but which is

subsequently resolved against him, the proclamation of said disqualified

candidate is hereby declared void from the beginning, with notice to the

candidate concerned, even if the dispositive portion of the resolutiondisqualifying him or cancelling his certificate of candidacy does not

provide for such an annulment.[2]

On September 4, 2002, Acting Election Officer Alim, using as his basis Comelec enbancResolution No. 5666 issued a memorandum directing the Board of Canvassers ofBarangay Congan, Glan,Sarangani Province to reconvene at his office on September13, 2002.

Hence, the instant petition anchored on the sole assignment of error:

THAT THE PROMULGATION OF THE EN BANC RESOLUTION NO. 5393,DATED 15 JULY 2002, BY RESPONDENT HONORABLE COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS BEING WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT

AND IN LAW AND THE ISSUANCE OF WHICH IS IN GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING EVEN AS IT DOES TO LACK OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION.[3]

At the very outset, it must be made clear that the Comelec has jurisdiction to denydue course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.[4] Such jurisdiction continues evenafter the elections, if for any reason no final judgment of disqualification is rendered

before the elections, and the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receivesthe highest number of votes, and provided further that the winning candidate has notbeen proclaimed or taken his oath of office.[5] Furthermore, a decision by the Comelecto disqualify a candidate shall become final and executory only after a period of fivedays:

Sec. 3.Decisions After Five Days.--- Decisions in pre-proclamation cases and

petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, to declare a

candidate as nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and to postpone or

suspend elections shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days

from their promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.[6]

In the present case, the assailed Resolution denying due course to petitionerscertificates of candidacy was promulgated on June 15, 2002, or on the very day of theelections. On that day, therefore, the decision of the Comelec had not yet become finaland executory since petitioners still had until June 20, 2002 to file their motion forreconsideration. The Barangay Board of Canvassers rightly retained petitioners namesin the list of qualified candidates and could not be faulted from counting the votes cast in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/155087.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/no

cases in election law

Documents