Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49705-09)
Facts:
Tomatic Aratuc et al., G.R. Nos. L-49705-09, and Linang Mandangan, G.R. Nos. L-49717-21, February 08, 1979, Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.The petitions arose from the canvass and pre-proclamation proceedings for representatives to the Interim Batasang Pambansa in Region XII (Central Mindanao) held April 7, 1978. Petitioners in G.R. Nos. L-49705-09 were six independent candidates running under the unregistered banner Kunsensiya ng Bayan (KB): Tomatic Aratuc, Sergio Tocao, Ciscolario Diaz, Fred Tamula, Mangontawar Guro and Bonifacio Legaspi. In G.R. Nos. L-49717-21 the petitioner was Linang Mandangan. Respondents included the Commission on Elections (Comelec), the Regional Board of Canvassers for Region XII, and several candidates (notably Ernesto Roldan and other KBL candidates).
After partial regional canvassing showed KBL candidates leading, petitioners alleged massive irregularities in thousands of voting centers (some 2,775 centers were complained of). The Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-48097 temporarily suspended the canvass and issued detailed guidelines (May 23, 1978) for resuming the canvass in Manila; those guidelines were modified June 1, 1978. The Regional Board of Canvassers nonetheless completed a canvass in Cotabato City and on July 11, 1978 declared KBL candidates winners. Petitioners appealed to the Comelec which conducted its own examinations (including NBI-Comelec fingerprint/signature work), excluded a number of returns, and on January 13, 1979 issued a resolution altering the order of winners (including declaring Ernesto Roldan entitled to proclamation) and ordering proclamation of the winners.
Petitioners filed certiorari actions in this Court to review the Comelec resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process for (inter alia) Comelec’s inclusion/exclusion of returns, its refusal to open ballot boxes whose CE Forms were unavailable, its treatment of returns showing very high turnout (including centers where military operations occurred), and its purported wrongful reliance on or misapplication of prior precedents (notably Diaz v. Comelec and Bashier/Basman v. Comelec). The cases were argued before the Court (oral arguments took p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under the 1973 Constitution and the Election Code, is the Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction over Comelec orders, rulings and decisions limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process?
- Did the Comelec exceed its jurisdiction or deny due process by (a) examining election records beyond those considered by the Regional Board of Canvassers and (b) excluding returns from voting centers transferred to poblaciones because of military operations without evidentiary hearing?
- Did Comelec commit grave abuse of discretion in applying the Court’s precedents (Diaz vs. Bashier/Basman) and in its standards for excluding returns (including treatment of high-percentage voting and substitution of voters)?
- Did Comelec gravely abuse its discretion by refusing to open ballot boxes whose CE Forms were unavailable and by including returns from centers with missi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)