Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26959)
Facts:
In April 1998 a plebiscite was held in Taguig for ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law (Republic Act No. 8487). The Plebiscite Board of Canvassers initially declared the "NO" votes prevailing without canvassing sixty-four (64) other returns; the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ordered a reconvened canvass, after which petitioners Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista filed a petition to annul the plebiscite results and for revision and recount of ballots (docketed EPC No. 98-102) before the COMELEC Second Division; intervenor Alan Peter S. Cayetano moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The COMELEC Second Division first ordered revision and recount but later dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; the COMELEC en banc affirmed in its October 28, 2002 Resolution, prompting this petition for certiorari and mandamus to the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition to annul the results of a plebiscite and to order re
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26959)
Facts:
- Parties and subject matter
- Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista (Petitioners) filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Alan Peter S. Cayetano (Respondents).
- The petition sought annulment of the results of the plebiscite held in Taguig for ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law (Republic Act No. 8487) and prayed for revision and recount of the plebiscite ballots.
- Antecedent events and canvass
- A plebiscite was held in Taguig in April, 1988 (record also refers to the 1998 Taguig plebiscite and to a plebiscite held on 25 April 1998) proposing conversion of Taguig from a municipality into a city.
- The Plebiscite Board of Canvassers initially declared "NO" votes prevailed without completing the canvass of sixty-four other election returns.
- The COMELEC en banc ordered the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and complete the canvass; the Board later issued an Order proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed.
- Filing before COMELEC and intervenor action
- Petitioners filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the plebiscite results, docketed as EPC No. 98-102, alleging fraud and irregularities in casting and counting of votes; the case was raffled to the COMELEC Second Division.
- Private respondent Congressman Alan Peter S. Cayetano intervened and moved to dismiss for lack of COMELEC jurisdiction, asserting that plebiscite results cannot be subject of an election protest and that jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Proceedings in the COMELEC Second Division
- The COMELEC Second Division initially gave due course to the petition, treated it as akin to an election protest, ordered Taguig ballot boxes brought to its Manila office, and created revision committees to revise and recount the ballots.
- Intervenor Cayetano filed an unverified Motion for Reconsideration insisting COMELEC lacked jurisdiction.
- On November 29, 2001, the COMELEC Second Division reversed itself, granted the Motion for Reconsideration, dismissed the petition, and ruled that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction because deciding the matter would be an exercise of quasi-judicial powers not contemplated under Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
- COMELEC en banc action and grounds for dismissal
- The COMELEC en banc (October 28, 2002 Resolution) affirmed the Second Division, holding that:
- The COMELEC's power to enforce and administer laws relative to plebiscites is purely administrative or executive and not quasi-judicial.
- Jurisdiction over the petition lay with the RTC under Section 19(6) of Batas Pambansa Big. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act), which confers RTC jurisdiction in cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any judicial or quasi-judicial body.
- Petition to the Supreme Court and parties’ contentions
- Petitioners argued that jurisdiction over plebiscite protest cases is constit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary questions presented
- Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition to annul the results of a plebiscite and to order revision and recount of plebiscite ballots based on allegations of fraud and irregularities.
- Whether the regular courts, specifically the Regional Trial Court under Section 19(6) of Batas Pambansa Big. 129, have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions attacking plebiscite results.
- Subsidiary questions
- Whether a petition to annul plebiscite results is equivalent to an election protest within the meaning of Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, thereby invoking COMELEC quasi-judicial power. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)