Facts:

The case involves Aguedo F. Agbayani as the petitioner against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Rafael M. Colet as the respondents. The controversy arose from the dismissal of Agbayani's pre-proclamation cases (SPC Nos. 88-309, 88-445, and 88-485) on December 13, 1988. The COMELEC dismissed these cases citing two main reasons: first, that Agbayani had effectively abandoned the pre-proclamation cases by filing an election protest on October 5, 1988, and second, that since Colet had already been proclaimed Governor of Pangasinan, the matter was no longer viable. The dismissal was issued by a vote of 2-1 in the COMELEC’s First Division, which was later sustained by a 4-3 vote in the COMELEC en banc on February 23, 1989, when Agbayani's motion for reconsideration was denied. The COMELEC majority held that Agbayani's protest, while described as ad cautelam, was indeed a regular election protest that rendered the pre-proclamation controversy moot. The issues raise

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Aguedo F. Agbayani (the petitioner) questioned the validity of the COMELEC’s acts dismissing his pending pre-proclamation cases against private respondent Rafael M. Colet.
• The cases in question are identified as SPC Nos. 88-309, 88-445, and 88-485.

Dismissal of the Pre-Proclamation Controversy

• The COMELEC issued an Order on December 13, 1988, dismissing the petitioner’s pre-proclamation cases.
• This dismissal was based on two principal grounds:
• That the petitioner had abandoned the pre-proclamation cases by filing an election protest on October 5, 1988.
• That the controversy became moot because Rafael M. Colet had already been proclaimed Governor of Pangasinan.

Nature and Timing of the Election Protest

• Despite being labeled “ad cautelam,” the election protest filed by the petitioner was argued by COMELEC’s majority to be a regular protest which would render the pre-proclamation controversy moot.
• The filing process included:
• Issuance of a summons by the COMELEC’s Clerk of Court upon the filing of the protest.
• Submission of a responsive answer with a counter-protest by the protestee on October 25, 1988.
• A subsequent reply and Answer Ad Cautelam by the petitioner on November 2, 1988, intended only to prevent any waiver of his right to file further pleadings.

The Petitioner's True Intention

• The petitioner’s real intention, as argued before the court, was not to abandon the pre-proclamation cases but rather to safeguard the ballot boxes used in the January 18, 1988 local elections in Pangasinan.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2035 (dated September 7, 1988) provided that all ballot boxes would be reserved for forthcoming barangay elections provided they were not involved in any controversy or investigation.
• Only nine precincts were involved in the pre-proclamation controversy, so the petitioner filed the protest as a precautionary measure to ensure that, if needed, all the ballot boxes across the province could later be activated for a full-scale protest.

Alleged Violation of COMELEC Rules

• The petitioner highlighted that the Order and Resolution were both penned by Commissioner Abueg.
• This act was claimed to be in violation of the COMELEC internal rule which prohibits a member from being the ponente of an en banc decision or any related motion that he himself authored in a division decision.

Broader Context on Proclamations and Pre-Proclamation Controversies

• The ruling emphasized that usually, the proclamation of a candidate makes a pre-proclamation controversy moot because the full canvass would then be subject to an election protest.
• However, when the canvass is incomplete or contested—such as when certain returns are omitted or lost—the pre-proclamation controversy remains viable, permitting the COMELEC to annul an improper proclamation.
• Several cases (e.g., Duremdes v. COMELEC, Aguam v. COMELEC, Mutuc v. COMELEC) were cited to underscore that the proclamation of a candidate does not bar the challenge of an irregular or illegal canvass.

Issue:

Whether the filing of an election protest “ad cautelam” by the petitioner constituted an abandonment of his pre-proclamation controversy cases.

• Did the timing and nature of the petitioner’s pleadings indicate an actual intention to abandon his previous cases?
• Was the reservation made in his protest sufficient to preserve his rights despite the additional filing?

Whether the proclamation of Rafael M. Colet as Governor automatically rendered the pre-proclamation controversy moot and academic, thereby justifying the dismissal.

• How should the completeness of the canvass affect the viability of a pre-proclamation challenge?
• Can a pre-proclamation controversy continue to be relevant when issues remain regarding the completeness and integrity of the canvass?

Whether the COMELEC’s internal procedural rules were violated by having Commissioner Abueg both author the Order in the division and the subsequent en banc Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.

• Does the dual role of Commissioner Abueg in the drafting of both decisions create grounds for reversal on the basis of bias or procedural impropriety?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)