G.R. No. 262938 - Walter Manuel F. Prescott vs. Bureau of Immigration, as represented by Hon. Rogelio D. Gevero, Jr. and the Department of Justice

Petitioners: Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista – Filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Respondents: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Alan Peter S. Cayetano – COMELEC originally handled the case; Congressman Cayetano also intervened.
The petition challenges the October 28, 2002, en banc Resolution of the COMELEC which held that it has no jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of a plebiscite and the annulment of its result.

In April 1988, a plebiscite was conducted in Taguig regarding the conversion of the municipality into a city (ratification of Republic Act No. 8487).
The initial canvassing, done before securing all 64 election returns, led the Plebiscite Board to declare a “NO” victory, indicating the electorate’s rejection of conversion.
The COMELEC en banc ordered the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and complete the canvass, after which an Order was issued proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed.

Following the proclamation, petitioners filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the plebiscite results, seeking revision and recount of the ballots cast.
The petition alleged that frauds, irregularities, and anomalies in the balloting and counting process had affected the outcome.

The case was docketed as an election protest and raffled to the COMELEC Second Division.
Private respondent Congressmen Cayetano intervened, moving to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds – contending that a plebiscite is not an election contest, and that jurisdiction should lie with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Initially, the COMELEC Second Division gave due course to the petition, treating it similarly to an election protest and ordering the transfer of Taguig ballot boxes for revision and recount.
Subsequently, in an unverified Motion for Reconsideration by Cayetano, the COMELEC 2nd Division reversed its ruling, dismissing the petition on the ground that the COMELEC lacks jurisdiction because the matter involves quasi-judicial powers not conferred by Section 2(2) of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
The COMELEC en banc later affirmed the dismissal, holding that the jurisdiction over the annulment of plebiscite results, being administrative in nature, is properly vested in the RTC under Section 19(6) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act.

Petitioners argued that the COMELEC’s power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall” includes authority to order the recount and revision of ballots in cases of alleged fraud.
Petitioners further contended that inconsistency exists, as the COMELEC had assumed jurisdiction over a similar case involving the plebiscite for Malolos city conversion.
Respondents maintained that the constitutional grant of quasi-judicial powers to the COMELEC is limited to election contests involving elective officials, hence disputes regarding plebiscite results fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.

Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition seeking to annul the results of a plebiscite.
Whether disputes arising from the conduct and result of a plebiscite (as opposed to an election contest) are within the scope of the COMELEC’s administrative or quasi-judicial powers.

Whether the case involves the determination of an expression of the electorate’s sovereign decision rather than a clash of legally demandable private rights.
Whether the allegations of fraud, anomalies, and irregularities in the canvassing and counting of votes bring the case within the ambit of judicial review.

The proper interpretation of Section 2(1) versus Section 2(2) of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution regarding the COMELEC’s administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
The applicability of Section 19(6) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act in vesting jurisdiction over plebiscite controversies with the RTC.