Title
Cagas vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 194139
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2012
Election protest over Davao del Sur governorship; COMELEC upheld Bautista's protest as sufficient; SC dismissed Cagas's certiorari, citing no jurisdiction over interlocutory orders.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194139)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

May 10, 2010: Automated elections held. May 14, 2010: Canvass completed and Cagas proclaimed governor. May 24, 2010: Bautista filed electoral protest. June 22, 2010: Petitioner filed answer raising special affirmative defenses. August 13, 2010: COMELEC First Division denied petitioner’s special affirmative defenses (first assailed order). October 7, 2010: COMELEC First Division denied motion for reconsideration (second assailed order). Thereafter, petitioner directly filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 64.

Applicable Law and Governing Constitutional Provision

Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990). Governing constitutional provision: Section 7, Article IX (now Article IX-C) which prescribes that each constitutional commission’s decisions, orders, or rulings may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari only as provided, and establishes that review is generally of final decisions, orders or resolutions of the commission en banc. Relevant COMELEC instruments: COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (COMELEC Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated Election System) — notably Rule 6 (Section 7 and Section 9) and Rule 19 (Section 2), and COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Rule 3, Sections 2 and 5), as well as the Rules of Court provisions on certiorari (Rule 64, formerly Rule 65).

Factual and Procedural Background Before the COMELEC

Bautista filed an initiatory petition alleging specific electoral irregularities; the case was raffled to the COMELEC First Division. In his answer, Cagas asserted special affirmative defenses that Bautista failed to make the required cash deposit timely and did not render a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of, as required by Resolution No. 8804. The First Division examined the protest and found that Bautista had paid P100,000 on June 3, 2010 (O.R. No. 1118105) and that paragraphs 9–28 of the initiatory petition set forth the specific details of the acts and omissions complained of, amounting to substantial compliance with Resolution No. 8804’s requirements.

COMELEC First Division Orders and Rationale

August 13, 2010 order: The First Division denied Cagas’s special affirmative defenses, concluding that Bautista’s June 3 payment constituted substantial compliance with the cash deposit requirement (considering Section 9(e), Rule 6 of Resolution No. 8804) and that the initiatory petition essentially complied with the requirement for a detailed specification of acts or omissions (Section 7(g), Rule 6). October 7, 2010 order: The First Division denied Cagas’s motion for reconsideration, reasoning that the August 13 order was interlocutory and the allegations in the protest substantially complied with COMELEC rules and warranted opening ballot boxes; it further denied certification to the COMELEC en banc because interlocutory orders of a division do not dispose of the case with finality (Section 5(c), Rule 3 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure).

Petitioner’s Contentions in the Supreme Court Petition

Cagas contended that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by refusing to summarily dismiss Bautista’s protest for insufficiency in form and content under Section 9, Rule 6 of Resolution No. 8804. He argued that the protest failed to: (a) specify how irregularities affected election results, (b) identify precincts using alleged pre-shaded bogus ballots, (c) identify precincts where PCOS machines failed to account votes favoring Bautista, and (d) allege with particularity the number of additional votes Bautista would receive per ground protested. He characterized the protest as a fishing expedition and invoked Roque, Jr. v. COMELEC to argue that challenges to automated systems without particularized allegations should be insufficient.

Respondents’ and OSG’s Position

The Office of the Solicitor General and Bautista argued that COMELEC has the authority and discretion to determine the sufficiency of allegations in an election protest and that the First Division acted within its discretion. They further contended that the assailed orders were interlocutory and not proper subjects of a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court, and that the petitioner had adequate remedies before the COMELEC en banc or in the ordinary course of law.

Jurisdictional Issue Raised and Controlling Rule

The central jurisdictional question was whether the Supreme Court could entertain a petition for certiorari directly assailing interlocutory orders of a COMELEC Division. The Court applied Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which limits Supreme Court certiorari review to decisions, orders, or rulings of each commission, implying review lies to final decisions or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc and not interlocutory Division orders. The Court reiterated precedent that a petition for certiorari is improper where a motion for reconsideration and en banc review are available, as the Rules of Court require exhaustion of plain, speedy, and adequate remedies.

Precedent and the Exception Doctrine

The Court reviewed precedents including Ambil v. COMELEC, which emphasizes that certiorari lies against final en banc COMELEC decisions and that interlocutory orders of a division should be first addressed within the COMELEC procedural framework. The Court acknowledged the Kho v. COMELEC exception: where an interlocutory order of a division is issued without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and where the COMELEC en banc is not the proper forum fo

...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