Case Summary (G.R. No. 155855)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Petitioners filed a petition to annul the plebiscite results (docketed EPC No. 98-102) with a prayer for revision and recount. The petition was initially given due course and raffled to the COMELEC Second Division, which ordered the Taguig ballot boxes brought to COMELEC-Manila and created revision committees. Intervenor Cayetano moved to dismiss for lack of COMELEC jurisdiction. The COMELEC Second Division later granted reconsideration and dismissed the petition; the COMELEC en banc affirmed by Resolution dated October 28, 2002. Petitioners sought certiorari and mandamus in the Supreme Court.
Key Dates
Plebiscite held in April (the record refers to the plebiscite and the petition to annul the 1998 Taguig plebiscite); COMELEC Second Division orders and motions occurred in October–November 2001; COMELEC en banc Resolution of October 28, 2002; Supreme Court decision rendered January 26, 2004.
Applicable Law and Sources Cited
1987 Constitution: Article IX‑C, Section 2(1) (power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall”) and Section 2(2) (exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective officials). Article VIII, Section 1 (definition of judicial power). Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. Blg. 129), Section 19 (jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts). COMELEC Rules (Section 2, Rule 19 re motion for reconsideration period). Relevant precedents and authorities cited in the decision include Salva v. Macalintal, Maruhom v. COMELEC, Nolasco v. COMELEC, Baytan v. COMELEC, Garces v. Court of Appeals, Bautista v. COMELEC, and others as referenced in the record.
Central Legal Issue
Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions to annul the results of a plebiscite and to order revision and recount of plebiscite ballots, or whether such controversies fall within the jurisdiction of the regular courts (Regional Trial Courts) under B.P. Blg. 129 and related provisions.
Majority Holding
The Supreme Court (majority) granted the petition. It held that the COMELEC has jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition to annul the Taguig plebiscite results and to order revision and recount of ballots as part of its constitutional power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of . . . plebiscite.” The Court directed COMELEC to reinstate the petition and decide it without delay.
Majority Reasoning — Nature of the Case and Judicial Power
The majority emphasized the distinctive nature of a plebiscite: it ascertains the sovereign will of the electorate on a public question rather than resolving private rights between litigants. Citing Article VIII, Section 1’s definition of judicial power (settlement of actual controversies involving legally demandable rights and determination of grave abuse of discretion), the Court concluded that the plebiscite dispute is not a typical exercise of judicial power because it does not involve the vindication of private rights in adversarial litigation; rather, it concerns protection of the public sovereignty manifested through voting.
Majority Reasoning — Inapplicability of RTC Civil Jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129
The majority rejected reliance on Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129 (which vests the RTC with exclusive original jurisdiction in certain civil matters and in cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of bodies exercising judicial/quasi‑judicial functions). The Court observed that Section 19’s provisions presuppose civil actions—cases for enforcement or protection of private rights—and that a plebiscite dispute is not a civil action of that character. The majority read Salva v. Macalintal as addressing the validity of COMELEC rules, not as establishing general RTC jurisdiction over plebiscite results.
Majority Reasoning — Practical and Structural Considerations
The Court noted the impractical consequences of assigning plebiscite-result annulment actions to the RTCs (e.g., potential fragmentation and “jumbled justice” in the case of national plebiscites where many RTCs would claim concurrent jurisdiction). The administrative structure and limited territorial jurisdiction of RTCs would not promote orderly resolution of nationwide plebiscite controversies.
Majority Reasoning — Constitutional Allocation of Powers and COMELEC’s Enforcement Role
The majority analyzed the constitutional scheme: the Constitution expressly assigns the COMELEC administrative powers (including enforcement and administration of plebiscite laws) and enumerates the COMELEC’s quasi‑judicial jurisdiction in Section 2(2) for contests involving elections, returns, and qualifications of elective officials. The Court concluded that controversies not involving elections/returns/qualifications of elective officials (such as plebiscite conduct and results) are not categorically excluded from COMELEC jurisdiction; rather, disputes arising from the conduct of plebiscites fall squarely within the COMELEC’s power “to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of . . . plebiscite.”
Majority Reasoning — Incidental and Necessary Powers to Ensure Credible Plebiscites
The Court emphasized that “enforce” necessarily confers all necessary and incidental powers required to secure free, orderly, honest and credible plebiscites, including powers to supervise canvassing, suspend or annul illegal proclamations, declare failure of elections, promulgate rules, and—importantly—verify or ascertain true results through revision of ballots. Denying COMELEC power to review and correct canvassings or to order recounts would render its enforcement mandate hollow.
Majority Reasoning — Historical Practice, Expertise, and COMELEC Consistency
The majority observed historical practice in which conduct and determination of plebiscites were administered by COMELEC and stressed COMELEC’s institutional expertise in ballot appreciation—an expertise that counsels deference and adequate latitude. The Court noted the COMELEC’s inconsistent treatment of similar cases (reference to the Malolos plebiscite being handled by COMELEC) and found the COMELEC’s refusal of jurisdiction in the Taguig matter unjustified.
Majority Reasoning — Procedural Defect in Reconsideration
The Court found that intervenor Cayetano’s Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC Second Division was filed out of time (COM ELEC Rules require filing within five days; Cayetano filed on the tenth day), rendering the Second Division without jurisdiction to entertain it. This procedural defect contributed to the Court’s disposition.
Remedy and Disposition
The Court granted the petition, ordered the COMELEC to reinstate the petition to annul the 1998 Taguig plebiscite results, and directed the COMELEC to decide the matter without delay. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Puno and concurred in by Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and Justices Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares‑Santiago, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, Austria‑Martinez, Corona and Azcuna. Justices Carpio and Carpio‑Morales dissented; Justice Callejo, Sr. concurred in Carpio‑Morales’s dissent; Justice Tinga took no part.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice Carpio) — Quasi‑Judicial Jurisdiction Limited to Election Contests
Justice Carpio dissented, arguing that the Constitution expressly confines the COMELEC’s quasi‑judicial jurisdiction to contests “relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials” and to appellate review of municipal and barangay contests (Section 2(2), Article IX‑C). Because a plebiscite on cityhood does not involve selection of public officers or an election contest, Carpio reasoned the COMELEC lacks quasi‑j
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155855)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court En Banc decision reported at 465 Phil. 800, G.R. No. 155855, dated January 26, 2004.
- Petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista challenging the October 28, 2002 en banc Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- Case below: petition to annul the results of the plebiscite docketed as EPC No. 98-102.
- COMELEC Second Division (presided by Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion, with Commissioners Mehol K. Sadain and Florentino A. Tuazon, Jr.) initially entertained the petition, later reversed and dismissed it on reconsideration.
- COMELEC en banc affirmed the Second Division’s dismissal by Resolution dated October 28, 2002.
- Relief sought from the Supreme Court: reversal of COMELEC en banc Resolution and direction to reinstate and decide the petition to annul the plebiscite results.
Relevant Dates and Administrative Actions
- Plebiscite for Taguig’s conversion referenced in the record as held in April, 1988 in one passage, and elsewhere repeatedly referenced as the 1998 Taguig plebiscite (including a specific date of 25 April 1998 in dissenting opinion).
- COMELEC Second Division issued an Order on October 3, 2001 (initially ordering revision/recount and physical transfer of ballot boxes).
- An unverified Motion for Reconsideration by intervenor Alan Peter S. Cayetano was filed after receipt of the October 3, 2001 Order; the Second Division issued an Order on November 29, 2001 granting reconsideration and dismissing petition.
- Intervenor Cayetano admitted receipt of the October 3, 2001 Resolution on October 9, 2001 and filed his Motion for Reconsideration (undated and unverified) on October 19, 2001—ten days after receipt.
- COMELEC en banc Resolution dismissing COMELEC exercise of jurisdiction dated October 28, 2002.
- Supreme Court en banc decision rendered January 26, 2004.
Factual Background
- The plebiscite concerned the proposed conversion of the Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city pursuant to Republic Act No. 8487.
- At the canvass, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared "NO" votes to have prevailed without completing the canvass of sixty-four (64) other election returns.
- The COMELEC en banc ordered the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and complete the canvass. The Board reconvened and in due course issued an Order proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed in the plebiscite.
- Petitioners subsequently filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the plebiscite results with a prayer for revision and recount of ballots, alleging fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting of votes.
- Private respondent Congressman Alan Peter S. Cayetano intervened and moved to dismiss the petition for lack of COMELEC jurisdiction, contending that plebiscite controversies are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and that there is no constitutional or statutory basis for a plebiscite “protest” within COMELEC’s quasi-judicial jurisdiction.
- Petitioners alleged unequal or discriminatory treatment: while COMELEC assumed jurisdiction and resolved a similar plebiscite ballot revision/recount for the conversion of Malolos into a city, it refused jurisdiction over the Taguig petition.
Questions Presented
- Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition to annul the results of a plebiscite and to order a revision and recount of plebiscite ballots.
- Whether jurisdiction over disputes involving the conduct and results of a plebiscite is lodged with the regular courts (RTC) pursuant to Section 19(6) of Batas Pambansa Big. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act) or within the COMELEC’s powers under Section 2(1) and/or Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether the COMELEC’s dismissal of the petition and the Second Division’s grant of intervenor’s untimely Motion for Reconsideration were proper.
Positions of the Parties
- Petitioners (Buac and Bautista):
- Assert COMELEC has constitutional authority to decide plebiscite protest cases under its power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of ... plebiscite" (Section 2(1), Article IX-C).
- Argue that COMELEC’s authority includes necessary and incidental powers to order recounts and revisions to ascertain true plebiscite results.
- Allege discrimination and inconsistency because COMELEC exercised jurisdiction in a similar Malolos plebiscite case.
- Respondents (COMELEC and intervenor Cayetano):
- Contend there is no recognized action called a "plebiscite protest" under the Constitution, laws, or COMELEC rules—only election protests exist.
- Maintain COMELEC’s quasi-judicial jurisdiction is limited to the contests enumerated in Section 2(2), Article IX-C (elections, returns and qualifications of elective officials), which does not include plebiscite results.
- Argue that even if akin to an election protest, jurisdiction over election protests involving municipal officials rests with the RTC, with COMELEC having only appellate jurisdiction; thus, the petition belongs to the RTC under Section 19(6), B.P. Blg. 129.
COMELEC Second Division and En Banc Rulings Below
- Second Division (initial action):
- Initially gave due course to petition; treated the petition as akin to an election protest because the allegations (fraud and irregularities in casting/counting and preparation of returns) mirror typical grounds in election protests.
- Ordered physical transfer of Taguig ballot boxes to COMELEC Manila and created revision committees to revise and recount plebiscite ballots.
- Second Division (reconsideration):
- In an unverified Motion for Reconsideration, intervenor Cayetano argued lack of jurisdiction.
- On November 29, 2001, the Second Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration, dismissed petition, and ruled COMELEC lacked jurisdiction because deciding the petition would require the exercise of quasi-judicial powers not contemplated under Section 2(2), Article IX-C.
- COMELEC en banc:
- On October 28, 2002, affirmed the Second Division’s dismissal.
- Held COMELEC’s power to enforce and administer laws relative to plebiscites is administrative/executive in nature, not quasi-judicial, and concluded jurisdiction over the petition is lodged with the RTC under Section 19(6), B.P. Blg. 129.
Supreme Court Majority Holding (Justice Puno, J.)
- Disposition:
- Petition granted. COMELEC directed to reinstate the petition to annul the results of the 1998 Taguig plebiscite and to decide it without delay.
- Core legal finding:
- COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions to annul plebiscite results and to order revision and recount of ballots as an incident of its constitutionally mandated power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of ... plebiscite" under Section 2(1), Article IX-C.
- Reasoning — Key Points:
First — Nature of the controversy and judicial power
- Judicial power, as defined in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, concerns settling actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights and determining grave abuse of discretion; the Taguig matter is not a classic judicial controversy over private rights.
- The petition’s object is to ascertain the sovereign decision of the electorate whether to approve conversion to cityhood, a matter aimed at protecting popular sovereignty rather than vindicating private rights in adversarial litigation.
- The issue does not fit the type of dispute traditionally calling for the exercise of judicial power because there is no plaintiff/defendant structure centered on private legal rights. Second — Scope and applicability of Section 19, B.P. Blg. 129
- Section 19 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act addresses jurisdiction in civil cases; civil actions are those where a party sues another to enforce or protect a right or to redress a wrong