G.R. No. 178259 - Pacificador vs. Commission on Elections

During the May 14, 2007 elections in the province of Antique, petitioners Arturo F. Pacificador and Jovito C. Plameras, Jr., along with Salvacion Z. Perez (the incumbent Governor), ran as candidates for governor.
Petitioners initiated a disqualification case against the respondent and other members of the Nationalist People’s Coalition-Antique ticket by alleging violations of Section 261, paragraphs (o), (v), and (w) of the Omnibus Election Code.

On April 4, 2007, under the order of the private respondent, a letter was sent by Provincial Engineer Vicente Dalumpines to the chairmen of various barangays of Sibalom, Antique, inviting them to attend a program for the resumption of the Solong Bridge construction scheduled on April 10, 2007.
Instead of merely heralding the resumption of a public works project, the program served as a platform for a political rally where private respondent’s party-mates spoke and solicited support for their candidacies, culminating with the distribution of checks drawn from the Provincial Government’s account.
Allegedly, the distributed checks were part of a scheme: the barangay treasurers were instructed to issue Official Receipts antedated to March 29, 2007, with the purpose of circumventing COMELEC Resolution No. 7707, which prohibited such disbursements for public works and related services during the election period.

Following the election, on May 18, 2007, petitioners sought a suspension of the canvassing of votes and of the respondent’s proclamation. They claimed that the initial canvassing by the Barcenal PBOC was flawed due to fraudulent entries allegedly made under duress.
After ruling against petitioner Pacificador in a resolution dated May 21, 2007, the Barcenal PBOC’s decision was appealed; however, due to procedural deficiencies (failure to file an appeal within the mandated period), the COMELEC dismissed the appeal.
Subsequently, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the PBOC appeal and constituted a new PBOC (Mabutay PBOC), only to later replace it with yet another panel (the Majarucon PBOC) through a June 22, 2007 Resolution.
The new Majarucon PBOC was tasked with convening and proclaiming the winning candidates, setting the stage for the respondent’s eventual proclamation as Governor.

Petitioners contended that the creation of the Majarucon PBOC was illegal since it violated:

Sec. 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7859, which mandates that any relief for the Board of Canvassers must be for cause.
Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 6646, listing the prescribed order of officials eligible for substitution.

They argued that the COMELEC’s action was intended to “railroad” the proclamation by circumventing ongoing election controversies, including the non-finalized canvassing and pending actions in Manila.
Notably, petitioners also claimed that the June 22, 2007 Resolution itself was void ab initio, being issued by a Division instead of being properly reviewed by the COMELEC en banc.

The COMELEC, through its First Division and the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for the dismissal of the petition on several grounds:

The petition failed to attach a certified true copy of the assailed June 22, 2007 Resolution, violating Sec. 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Asserting that pleas for prohibition cannot challenge a final and executory resolution under the applicable rules and constitutional provisions.
Arguing that, since the protest was directed against a pre-proclamation controversy and the respondent had already been proclaimed Governor, the petition was moot and should have been resolved via an electoral protest.

Petitioners, in their reply, did not dispute COMELEC’s general authority to change the composition of the PBOC but insisted that the selection of substitution officials was limited by statutory provisions, thereby tainting the process with grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the petitioners’ allegations of election irregularities—specifically, the misuse of public funds and circumvention of mandatory procedures—provided sufficient ground to question the validity of the public display and proclamatory acts during the elections.
Whether the substitution of members of the Board of Canvassers (from the Mabutay PBOC to the Majarucon PBOC) was lawful, particularly considering the statutory provisions enunciated in Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 6646.
Whether the COMELEC First Division exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the June 22, 2007 Resolution, despite the contention that such actions must be reviewed en banc.
Whether the procedural defect—namely, the failure of petitioners to attach the certified copy of the assailed Resolution—constituted a fatal flaw warranting dismissal.
Whether the resolution and acts of the newly constituted PBOC became final and executory due to the lack of timely motion for reconsideration by the petitioners, thereby rendering the petition moot.
Whether the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction is the proper remedy given that the challenged resolution had ostensibly reached finality and that the petitioners should have pursued an electoral protest instead.