Case Digest (G.R. No. 172563)
Facts:
Mike A. Fermin v. Commission on Elections and Alimudin A. Macacua, G.R. No. 172563, April 27, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Mike A. Fermin and private respondent Alimudin A. Macacua were rival mayoral candidates in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao in the May 2004 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed petitioner the duly elected mayor, but the COMELEC annulled that proclamation because clustered Precinct No. 25A/26A in Barangay Guiawa had failed to function and its 264 registered voters could affect the results; a special election for that clustered precinct was scheduled for July 28, 2004.
In the July 28, 2004 special election private respondent was proclaimed the winner. Petitioner challenged the special election on procedural grounds; in a June 2, 2005 Resolution the COMELEC nullified that special election, set aside private respondent's proclamation, and the vice mayor-elect temporarily assumed the mayoralty.
The COMELEC later scheduled another special election for clustered Precinct No. 25A/26A on May 6, 2006 and constituted a Special Municipal Board of Canvassers (SMBOC). One hundred seventy-eight of the 264 registered voters voted. Per the SMBOC canvass petitioner received 39 votes and private respondent 136 votes; when those votes were added to the prior totals both candidates were tied at 2,208 votes each, thus activating Sec. 240 of the Omnibus Election Code and prompting the SMBOC to suspend proceedings and set a Special Public Hearing for May 14, 2006.
On May 8, 2006 the SMBOC Chairman submitted a report to the COMELEC on the May 6 proceedings. On May 9, 2006 private respondent filed an Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion with the COMELEC en banc seeking (a) investigation of why the special election was stopped at 2:15 p.m. with 30–40 voters still in line, (b) show-cause proceedings against the SMBOC and the PNP contingent for possible election offenses under Secs. 261 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, and (c) that the Special Public Hearing set for May 14 be held in abeyance pending COMELEC action.
That same day the COMELEC issued an Order requiring comments from petitioner and the SMBOC within five days, holding the May 14 hearing in abeyance, and setting the omnibus motion for hearing on May 18, 2006. Despite that Order, the Special Public Hearing proceeded on May 14, 2006 and the SMBOC proclaimed petitioner the duly elected mayor; private respondent alleged he was absent from that hearing. On May 16, 2006 the COMELEC en banc issued a second Order annull...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by ruling on private respondent’s Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion despite alleged insufficient notice to the parties?
- Did the COMELEC exceed its jurisdiction or otherwise err in taking cognizance of issues in the omnibus motion that petitioner contends should have been the subject of separate criminal prosecutions r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)