Abes v. COMELEC - Power to Grant-cancel

7/21/2019 Abes v. COMELEC - Power to Grant-cancel

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/abes-v-comelec-power-to-grant-cancel 1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-28348 December 15, 196

!ERN"RD#NO "!ES, C"RLOS L. "L!ERT, "NTON#O C. "MOR, NOR!ERTO CONDE$, !EN%"M#N GREC#",LU#S" G. OREND"#N, %OSE "!REN#C", ROS"R#O L. PL"N"S, PROCESO SE!"ST#"N, &#D"L ". T"N,LOREN$O 'USON, T(E L#!ER"L P"RT', T(E )UE$ON C#T' C#T#$ENS LE"GUE *OR GOODGO&ERNMENT, + T(E N"C#ON"L#ST" RE*ORM P"RT', petitioner,vs.T(E COMM#SS#ON ON ELECT#ON, T(E )UE$ON C#T' !O"RD O* C"N&"SSERS, NOR!ERTO S."MOR"NTO, #SM"EL M"T("', %R., EDU"RDO P"REDES, S"TURN#NO !ERMUDE$, R"*"EL M#SON,*LORENT#NO L"PU$, (ERMOGENES C"LU"G, *RED MONT#LL", %ESUS PERL"S, %R., ROMULOLUC"S"N, + T(E )UE$ON C#T' COMELEC REG#STR"R, respondents.

Antonio C. Amor for and his own behalf.Ramon Barrios for respondent COMELEC.

Crispin D. Baizas and Associates for other respondents.

S"NC(E$, J.:

Petitioners' cry for relief, so their petition avers, is planted upon the constitutional mandate of free, orderly, andhonest elections. !pecifically, they list a number of repressible acts. Amon"st these are# $% blan& officialre"istration forms ere ta&en from the office of the (ue)on City Comelec Re"istrar several ee&s before electionday, November *, +- $/% active campai"nin" ithin the pollin" places by Nacionalista leaders or sympathi)ers ofNacionalista candidates ere alloed $0% voters ere permitted to vote on mere mimeo"raphed notices of certainNacionalista candidates $*% voters ere compelled to fill their official ballots on open tables, des&s and in manyprecincts outside the pollin" places $1% forms of petitions for inclusion proceedin"s ere obtainable only in theoffices of candidates of the Nacionalista Party $% thousands of voters ere alloed to vote on the stren"th of

inclusion orders issued indiscriminately by to 2ud"es on election day $-% thousands of voters sympathetic to theNacionalista candidates ere alloed to vote beyond the hours for votin" alloed by la $3% thousands of voters'4.5. re"istration cards of voters sympathetic to non6Nacionalista candidates ere thron and scattered in the 7fficeof the Nacionalista candidate for Mayor $+% voters' 4.5. cards ere delivered by partisan leaders of respondentsNacionalista candidates, and those ho did not si"nify their preference for Nacionalista candidates ere not "iventheir 4.5. cards $8% the office of the corporation of hich respondent 4smael Mathay, 2r. is the President as usedas a place of re"istration hich is 9unauthori)ed9 $% most of the precinct boo&s of voters ere not sealed ithinthe deadline fi:ed by la and $/% the resultin" effect of irre"ularities is that about 1; of the re"istered votersere disenfranchised.

Petitioners, candidates of the <iberal Party, the Nacionalista Reform Party and the (ue)on City Citi)ens <ea"ue for=ood =overnment, first ent to the Commission on Elections $Comelec%. >pon the claim that more than 18; of there"istered voters ere not able to vote durin" the elections of November *, +-, they prayed for Comelec's

declaration that there as failure of election. ?hey petitioned for suspension of the canvass and the proclamation ofinnin" candidates. ?hey sou"ht nullification, too, of elections in (ue)on City for city officials and as&ed that neelections be held. Comelec, in a minute resolution of November /0, +-, denied the petition, ordered the board ofcanvassers to proceed ith the canvass but not to proclaim any innin" candidate for city offices and "avepetitioners time 9to "o to the !upreme Court for the proper remedy.9

Petitioners thus came to this Court on certiorari ith a prayer for preliminary in@unction.

>pon the petition and respondents' returns, the case as heard on the merits.



e ploed throu"h a ma)e of alle"ations in the petition and the returns and the affidavits and other anne:es. ?hehole problem funnels don to the issue of hether Comelec has @urisdiction $% to order the board of canvassersto suspend the canvassin" and proclamation of the, innin" candidates $/% to annul the elections in (ue)on Cityand $0% folloin" such annulment, to direct the holdin" of another election.

. By ay of prefatory statement, it may serve our purpose if e emphasi)e once a"ain that the board ofcanvassers is a ministerial body./ 4t is en@oined by la to canvass all votes on election returns submitted to it in dueform.0 4t has been said, and properly, that its poer are 9limited "enerally to the mechanical or mathematical functionof ascertainin" and declarin" the apparent result of the election by addin" or compilin" the votes cast for each

candidate as shon on the face of the returns before them, and then declarin" or certifyin" the result soascertained.9* Comelec is the constitutional body char"ed ith the duty to enforce all las relative to elections, dutybound to see to it that the board of canvassers perform its proper function.1

Pertinent rulin"s of this Court have since defined Comelec's poers in pursuance of its supervisory or administrativeauthority over officials char"ed ith specific duties under the election code. 4t is ithin the le"itimate concerns ofComelec to annul a canvass or proclamation based on incomplete returns, or on incorrect or tampered returnsannul a canvass or proclamation made in an unauthori)ed meetin" of the board of canvassers either because itlac&ed a uorum- or because the board did not meet at all.3 Neither Constitution nor statute has "ranted Comelec orthe board of canvassers the poer, in the canvass of election returns, to loo& beyond the face thereof, oncesatisfied of their authenticity.

Petitioners ar"ue that the canvassin" should be stopped. But nothin" in the petition herein ould indicate that thereturns ere falsified after they left the hands of the election inspectors or that the returns are not "enuine. ?hepetition stresses the e:istence of other irre"ularities. or us no to "ive our stamp of approval to the petition tosuspend canvass and proclamation is to stop both Comelec and the board of canvassers# the first, from performin"its constitutional and le"al duty to administer the election las and supervise elections and the second, fromdischar"in" its le"al obli"ation to canvass the returns and proclaim the elected candidates. And orse, to suspendcanvassin" and proclamation at this late date may result in a vacuum in office of (ue)on City elective officials afterthe term of the present incumbents shall have ended on 5ecember 0, +-. !ome such eventuality must beprevented. Canvassin" and proclamation must proceed. itc-alf Because, as Mr. 2ustice (uerube C. Ma&alintal correctlyobserved in Cit Board of Can!assers !s. Moscoso, <601 !eptember 08, +0, 9to en@oin the city board ofcanvassers from assessin" the return ould result in a lac& of incumbents in the offices concerned after thetermination of the current term and hile the case remains pendin" in court.9

/. Petitioners' ne:t prayer is for the annulment of the elections held on November *, +-. ?heir bases# frauds,terrorism, and other ille"al practices committed before and durin" the elections.

?he primary "rant of poer to Comelec is found in !ection /, Article D of the Constitution, thus#

!ec. /. ?he Commission on Elections shall have e:clusive char"e of the enforcement and administration ofall las relative to the conduct of elections and shall e:ercise all other functions hich may be conferredupon it by la. 4t shall decide, save those involvin" the ri"ht to vote, all administrative uestions, affectin"elections, includin" the determination of the number and location of pollin" places, and the appointment ofelection inspectors and of other election officials. All la enforcement a"encies and instrumentalities of the=overnment, hen so reuired by the Commission, shall act as its deputies for the purpose of insurin" free,orderly, and honest elections. ?he decisions, orders, and rulin"s of the Commission shall be sub@ect to

revie by the !upreme Court.

Nothin" in the fore"oin" constitutional precept ill imply authority for Comelec to annul an election. !o, too, did theRevised Election Code ithhold from Comelec the specific poer to annul an election.

?he boundaries of the forbidden area into hich Comelec may not tread are also mar&ed by @urisprudence. ?hatComelec is not the proper forum to see& annulment of an election based on terrorism, frauds and other ille"alpractices, is a principle emphasi)ed in decisions of this Court. E:pressive of this rule is the folloin" culledfrom"acionalista #art !s. Commission on Elections, 31 Phil. *+, 11613#



hat are the implications of the poer vested in the Commission to enforce and administer all las relativeto the conduct of elections and to insure free orderly, and honest elections Does it include the power toannul an election which wa not ha!e been free$ orderl$ and honest

4t seems clear from the conte:t of the constitutional provision in uestion as ell as from other provisionsalready uoted above F!ecs. 3 and , Revised Election CodeG that such poer is pre!enti!e only and notcurati!e also that is to say, it is intended to prevent any and all forms of election fraud or violation of theElection <a, but if it fails to accomplish that purpose it is not the Commission on Election that is char"edith the duty to cure or remedy the resultin" evil but some other a%encies of the &o!ernment . e note from

the te:t that the poer to decide uestions involvin" the ri"ht to vote is e:pressly ithheld from theCommission althou"h the ri"ht to vote is provided in the Election <a, the enforcement and administration ofhich is placed in the e:clusive char"e of the Commission. Parallel to the ithholdin" of such poer fromthe Commission is the vestin" in other a"encies of the more inclusive poer to decide all contests relatin" tothe election, returns, and ualifications of the members of Con"ress, namely, the Electoral ?ribunal of the!enate in the case of the senators and the Electoral ?ribunal of the House of Representatives in the case ofthe members of the latter.itc-alf Election contests involvin" provincial and municipal officials are entrusted to thecourts $!ections -/ et se'., Revised Election Code.% (he power to decide election contests necessarilincludes the power to determine the !alidit or nullit of the !otes 'uestioned b either of the contestants.+

?here has been neither deviation nor retreat from the fore"oin" pronouncement.

4ndeed, in the more recent case of )tutalum !s. Commission on Elections, <6/10*+, 5ecember 0, +1, this Court,spea&in" thru then Associate 2ustice, no Chief 2ustice, Roberto Concepcion rather than brea& aayfrom"acionalista #art !s. Commission on Elections, bolstered @urisprudence on this point by reiteratin" thatComelec's poers are 9essentially e:ecutive $'enforcement'% and administrative $'administration'% in nature.9

Not that petitioners are bereft of remedy. ?he course to pursue is pointed out to them in Cit Board of Can!assers!s. Moscoso, heretofore cited, $<601, !eptember 08, +0%. I

?he uestion of hether or not there had been terrorism vote6buyin" and other irre%ularities in the +1+elections in ?acloban City should be !entilated in a re%ular election protest , pursuant to section -* of theElection Code, and not in a petition to en@oin the city board of canvassers from canvassin" the electionreturns and proclaimin" the innin" candidates for municipal offices. ?he duty of the board in this re"ard ismore or less ministerial it does not pass upon the validity or invalidity of the ballots cast, and its action isnecessarily ithout pre@udice to the determination of such uestion in a proper court proceedin" later. ?hisproceedin", under section -*, should be filed ithin to ee&s after the proclamation of the result of theelection and hence necessarily implies a previous canvass of the votes by the board of canvassers....8

?he ratiocination advanced that there as failure of election due to rampancy of terrorism, frauds, and otherirre"ularities, before and durin" elections, such that alle"edly about 1; of the re"istered voters ere not able tovote, ill not carry the day for petitioners. or, in the first place, this is "rounded upon bare assertions. Respondentscontest the correctness thereof. And in the anser of respondents Amoranto, Mathay and others, they aver that outof /,*1- re"istered voters in (ue)on City, 88,03/ votes actually cast their votes I about /; of the re"isteredvoters. But above all, as pointed out in Cit Board of Can!assers !s. Moscoso$ supra, nullity of an election formunicipal officials should be determined in a petition contestin" the election of municipal officers6elect to be filedbefore the Court of irst 4nstance.

0. As unconvincin" is petitioners' prayer that Comelec direct a ne election in (ue)on City. e have searched invain for any constitutional or le"al precept that ould "rant Comelec that poer. All that there is in the statute boo&sis !ection 3 of the Revised Election Code, hich reads#

!ec. 3. #ostponement of Election. I hen for any serious cause the holdin" of an election should becomeimpossible in any political division or subdivision, the President, upon recommendation of the Commissionon Elections, shall postpone the election therein for such time as he may deem necessary./

?his refers to postponement before elections. ?his is not a remedy after elections. 2ust a fe days a"o, e erecalled upon to rule on a petition $2anairo vs. Commission on Elections, <6/301, 5ecember 3, +-% prayin" thatthis Court direct Comelec to order the holdin" of an election in a precinct located in the island6barrio of !ibay,



Caluya, Antiue, here elections failed to ta&e place on the date specified by la. And this, because 9hen thepersons entrusted by the local C7ME<EC re"istrar ith the delivery of the list of re"istered voters arrived at theislands they ere fired upon and had to "o bac& to Caluya, returnin" to !ibay only at #08 in the evenin" of thesame day, at hich time hoever, the board of election inspectors refused to hold the election on the "round that itas a"ainst the la to do so.9 Citin" !ections 3 and / $c% of the Revised Election Code, this Court, spea&in" thruMr. 2ustice Ma&alintal, there held $citin" >tutalum vs. Commission on Election, supra% that 9no elections may be heldon any other date, e:cept hen so provided by another Act of Con"ress, or upon orders of a body or officer to homCon"ress may have dele"ated either its aforementioned poer or the authority to ascertain or fill in the details in thee:ecution of that poer,9 and added that#

4n the same decision F>tutalum vs. Commission on ElectionsG this Court not only too& note of the failure ofthe la to afford redress, either before the Commission on Elections or before the courts, to personsadversely affected by such failure, but reco"ni)ed its possible effects upon the very institution of suffra"e.?he voters in precincts here no election is held on the date fi:ed by la, e said, 9ill in effect . . . bedisfranchised, and unscrupulous politicians ould be encoura"ed to resort to acts of terrorism in areasfavorin" their opponents, in order to offset the latter's advanta"e therein, and thus eventually defeat the illof the ma@ority and undermine the foundation of our democracy.9 4t is undeniable that the situation is frau"htith dan"erous possibilities.

?he remedy, hoever, lies in Con"ress. ?he hiatus in our election la may be filled only by le"islation, notby @udicial fiat.

*. ?he petition before this Court in effect see&s to nullify Comelec's order of November /0, +- heretofore advertedto. ?here as no lac& nor e:cess of @urisdiction. No "rave abuse of discretion as involved. Correctly did Comelecdecline to direct the (ue)on City board of canvassers to suspend canvass and proclamation. Comelec is poerlessto annul the election. Nor can it direct a ne election. e cannot compel Comelec to act as petitioners prayed for.

Absent Comelec's le"al duty, mandamus ill not issue.

or the reasons "iven, e vote to dismiss the petition. No costs alloed. !o ordered.

Concepcion$ C.*.$ Dizon$ Ma+alintal$ Ben%zon$ *.#.$ ,aldi!ar$ Castro and An%eles$ **.$ concur.

Se+r+/e O00o

*ERN"NDO, J., concurrin"#

?he opinion of 2ustice !anche) is impressive both for e:haustiveness and scholarly research. 4t reflects ith careand fidelity the state of the la. ?he result arrived at is thus immune from any valid ob@ection. 4t deserves assent,hich 4 "ive.

hy the concurrin" opinion then or one thin", the sub@ect is of the utmost importance for the litany of "rievancescited by petitioners, even if due alloances be made for e:cess of partisan )eal and disappointment of e:pectations

e:poses serious defects in the electoral process. Add to this the inability of the @udiciary to afford any remedy, ifthere be full and scrupuluous adherence to the rule of la, hich certainly should be the case alays, alloin" forhuman imperfection of course, and it becomes understandable hy there should be stress on the need for an effortto improve matters, both earnest, and, it is to be hoped, effective. 7therise, the la itself mi"ht indeed be indisrepute. ?hat is somethin" that should, by all means, be avoided.

7ne mi"ht say that assumin" the truth of the sad and unfortunate pli"ht in hich petitioners, throu"h no fault of their on, found themselves, an election protest affords a remedy. 4n theory it is so. ?he actualities many a time haveproved the opposite. ?he lon" period reuired for a final decision and e:penses that must be met render feoccasions this remedy not only costly but in not a fe occasions futile.



hy then, it may pertinently be as&ed by those burnin" ith impatience and )eal for the needed reforms, cannot the @udiciary do anythin" about the matter ?he anser is simple. >nder our constitutional system, only the people arepossessed of ri"hts, to protect hich "overnmental a"encies are dele"ated poers. ?here can be no presumptionthen of authority or competence it must be shon to e:ist.

hatever may be said in favor of the petition, it is uite barren as the anser of respondent so clearly shos of anyle"al precept, hether statute or decision, that reveals that the "rievance is a matter proper for @udicial correction.7ne of the counsel of petitioners, ith commendable candor, admitted at the oral ar"ument that at the time of thefilin" of this petition, their search for any such le"al support as fruitless. 4t must have been so also as of the time

they ere heard. Certainly then, in a "overnment of las and not of men, such absence of a le"al moorin" is fatal.

!hould this not be a case then for the @udiciary to fill a "ap, one could very ell say an achin" void in the la ?heanser as is e:pressed so clearly and so plausibly in the ma@ority opinion is that such a poer as thus ithheld, asshon by the past decisions of this Court to hich adherence is indeed called for.

4t could have been different if e had in our Civil Code a comparable provision to that found in the !iss Civil Codeof +8- hich provides that in default of an applicable statute, the @ud"e is to pronounce @ud"ment accordin" to thecustomary la, and in default of custom accordin" to the rules hich he ould establish if he ere to assume thepart of a le"islator. Even in such a case, as Cardo)o pointed in ords that have the rin" both of beauty act of truth#9?he @ud"e, even hen he is free, is still not holly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a &ni"ht6errant,roamin" at ill in pursuit of his on ideal of beauty or of "oodness. He is to dra his inspiration from consecrated

principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to va"ue and unre"ulated benevolence. He is to e:ercise adiscretion informed by tradition, methodi)ed by analo"y, disciplined by system, and subordinated to 'the primordialnecessity of order in the social life.' ide enou"h in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.9

hile as Holmes pointed out, @ud"es 9do and must le"islate,..... they can do so only interstitially they are confinedfrom molar to molecular motions.9/ or under the theory of separation of poers, it is to the Con"ress that the poerof le"islation belon"s. At the most then, to paraphrase Cardo)o, the @udiciary can fill in the "aps or clear up theambi"uities. >nfortunately for petitioners, in this instance, there is no "ap to be filled nor ambi"uities to be cleared.Hence, ith due aareness of the possibility that "rave shortcomin"s vitiated the past election in (ue)on City, butith full reco"nition that to cure hat could be assumed to be an e:istin" evil the very "reat evil of assumin" poerhere none e:ists should be avoided, this petition cannot prosper.

Rees$ *.B.L.$ *.$ concurs ith 2ustices !anche) and ernando's opinion.

Abes v. COMELEC - Power to Grant-cancel

Documents

Transcript of Abes v. COMELEC - Power to Grant-cancel