Title
Bao vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 149666
Decision Date
Dec 19, 2003
Petitioner sought suspension of 2001 mayoral election in Butig, alleging irregularities. COMELEC dismissed claims; SC upheld, citing insufficient evidence for failure of election.
failure of election
irregularities
election contest

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149666)

Factual Background

Petitioner alleged that the May 14, 2001 mayoralty election in Butig suffered from widespread and serious irregularities that, according to him, rendered the electoral process invalid and resulted in a failure to elect. He anchored his allegations on the claim that, after consultation with political parties, he recommended a Project of Precincts with six (6) clustered voting centers, but that “Military COMELEC Deputy” Col. Felix Castro, Jr. allegedly disregarded it without consulting parties and affected voters. He further alleged specific precinct-level anomalies, including sightings of Philippine National Police personnel carrying high-powered firearms escorting alleged non-voters, missing ballot boxes in particular precincts during voting, forcible taking of the Book of Voters and conducting of voting by the wife of a vice-mayoralty candidate, early stoppage of voting due to insistence of non-registrants and “flying voters” and ensuing violence, ballot box movement that allegedly resulted in non-voters filling up and thumbmarking ballots before registered voters could vote, illegal reopening of voting after closure, and forcible filling up of official ballots by a single person.

Petitioner later filed an “Additional Submission” on May 29, 2001, attaching the narrative report of Acting Election Officer Taha Casidar, which, in substance, described disruptions caused by bombings around the election area and the resulting commotion and fear. Casidar’s narrative stated that at least some Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs) locked ballot boxes and brought them to the Municipal Hall while others continued voting until late; he stated that electors and some candidates attempted to force the opening of ballot boxes held at the Municipal Hall, but he refused because it was already too late and because of intimidation and force that endangered his life and other civilians.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC and the Dismissal

On June 4, 2001, petitioner filed a “Very Urgent Motion to Defer Canvass of Election Returns and Suspend Proclamation,” reiterating the same election disruption and irregularity arguments. On June 8, 2001, Langco filed a petition-in-intervention, adopting petitioner’s allegations and expanding them with additional purported irregularities, including alleged denial of watchers’ right to escort ballot boxes and witness ballot distribution, placement of already-filled official ballots inside the ballot box by a member of the Philippine Army, simultaneous explosions at around 11:20 a.m. allegedly producing voter flight and low voter turn-out, voting stoppages and alleged reopening up to late hours, divergence from the intended precinct clustering allegedly for convenience and safety, alleged public voting due to lack of voting booths, alleged illegal transfer of polling places, alleged massive substitution of voters, alleged lack of justification for military participation, alleged closure and reopening of casting of votes in multiple precincts, and alleged control of counting by Philippine Army soldiers purportedly aligned with Pansar.

The COMELEC En Banc admitted the petition-in-intervention and issued directions to hold proclamation in abeyance, order the filing of answers, and schedule immediate hearing to determine whether suspension should continue. After a hearing on June 28, 2001, the COMELEC issued an order granting Langco’s motion and giving respondents a period to file answers, after which the case would be submitted for resolution. In the meantime, Romato and Pansar were proclaimed mayor on June 10, 2001 and June 16, 2001, respectively, and each later manifested intervention.

By the assailed COMELEC En Banc Resolution of August 13, 2001, the COMELEC dismissed the “Very Urgent Petition” and Langco’s petition-in-intervention for lack of merit, denied the pending motion to defer canvass and suspend proclamation for the same reason, and thereby refused to declare failure of election. The dismissal was anchored on the conclusion that the allegations and supporting materials were insufficient to justify the sought electoral nullification.

The Issues Framed on Certiorari

Petitioner sought review under Rule 64 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, raising primarily whether the COMELEC acted illegally or arbitrarily in denying petitioner and intervenor Langco their request to declare failure of election. Petitioner advanced multiple arguments: first, that since the proceeding was contentious, the COMELEC acted as a quasi-judicial tribunal falling within the term “court” for purposes of the constitutional requirement of clear and distinct facts and law stated in resolutions; second, that the COMELEC disregarded the conditions identified in Mitmug v. COMELEC for a declaration of failure of election; third, that serious and massive irregularities in numerous precincts necessarily affected the result by disenfranchising more than seventy percent of registered voters; fourth, that even if voting occurred, the election still resulted in failure to elect; fifth, that the COMELEC erred in refusing to credit Casidar’s narrative report as an official account of events affecting election validity; and sixth, that the COMELEC violated the Omnibus Election Code and its own rules by supposedly failing to conduct a summary hearing for reception of evidence.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court denied the petition. It held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to declare a failure of election, and it therefore dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court focused on the statutory framework in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, which authorizes the COMELEC to declare a failure of election only when, due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, an election in a polling place either (a) had not been held on the fixed date, (b) had been suspended before the statutory closing hour, or (c) after voting and during the preparation and transmission of election returns or during their custody or canvass, the election results in failure to elect—provided the COMELEC acts on a verified petition after due notice and hearing.

The Court reiterated the controlling interpretation from Mitmug v. COMELEC that two conditions must concur before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition for failure of election: first, no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if voting occurred, the election nonetheless resulted in failure to elect; and second, the votes not cast would affect the election result. The Court also cited Typoco v. COMELEC to emphasize that failure of election may be declared in only three instances, corresponding to the three statutory scenarios. In addition, the Court stressed that in the third scenario, the statutory language requires a literal meaning that “nobody emerged as winner.”

Applying these doctrinal standards, the Court found that the allegations pleaded before the COMELEC were “mostly grounds for an election contest,” not for a declaration of failure of election. The Court noted that while some allegations arguably touched on failure of election, the support consisted largely of “mere affidavits” and the narrative report of the election officer. It therefore concluded that petitioner and petitioner-intervenor were unable to present substantia

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms