G.R. No. 148575-76 - Tan vs. Commission on Elections

The case arises from the May 14, 2001 national and local elections in Sulu, where candidates vied for various positions including Governor, Vice-Governor, Congressman, and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Multiple candidates contested in different municipalities (Luuk, Parang, Indanan) with allegations of widespread irregularities and fraud.

On May 17, 2001, petitioners (candidates Abdusakur Tan, Abdulwahid Sahidulla, and Abraham Burahan) filed a petition (SPA No. 01-257) with the COMELEC to declare a failure of elections in all precincts in the Municipality of Luuk, based on the claim that no actual voting occurred.
On the following day, a similar petition (SPA No. 01-265) was filed seeking the annulment of the election results and declaration of failure of elections in the municipalities of Indanan and Parang.
The petitions requested suspension of canvassing and proclamation pending resolution, urging special elections in the affected areas.

On May 19, 2001, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidates.
Acting on this motion, the COMELEC issued an order directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) to suspend proclamation; however, the PBC was not served the order.
On May 23, 2001, despite the pending petitions and motions, the winning candidates were proclaimed in Luuk, Indanan, and Parang.
On May 30, 2001, the petitioners amended their petitions to implead the declared winning candidates as respondents.

The COMELEC, after holding hearings and pre-marking evidence, initially annulled the May 23 proclamation on June 20, 2001.
The COMELEC later recalled the June 20 order on June 28, 2001, affirming the validity of the proclamation due to the absence of pre-proclamation issues and the presumption of regularity attached to the proclamation.
On October 3, 2001, the COMELEC directed a technical examination of voters’ registration records from the affected municipalities, ordering the production and examination of documents to assess the alleged irregularities.
On April 17, 2002, the COMELEC confirmed its jurisdiction over the amended petitions and denied motions by the respondents seeking to suspend the technical examination order.
The respondents later filed a petition for certiorari seeking the nullification of the COMELEC’s October 3 and April 17 orders and the dismissal of the petitions, arguing that once candidates are proclaimed, any challenge should be treated as an election protest rather than a petition for failure of election.

On July 11, 2001, petitioners filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the COMELEC’s orders.
On March 4, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order regarding the disputed COMELEC orders.
Finally, on April 29, 2003, the Court consolidated the petitions from G.R. Nos. 148575-76 and G.R. Nos. 152882-83 and set forth two threshold issues regarding the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the COMELEC En Banc had jurisdiction to take cognizance of and resolve the amended petitions, given that the winning candidates had already been proclaimed.
Whether the nature of the petitions, allegedly filed as petitions for declaration of failure of election, were actually election protest cases once the proclamation took effect.

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it issued the order recalling its earlier suspension of proclamation (June 28, 2001).
Whether the subsequent issuance of orders on October 3, 2001 and April 17, 2002 directing the technical examination of voters’ registration records was proper, amid allegations of fraud and irregularities.