G.R. No. 166388 - Cayetano vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166388)

Parties, Venue, and Procedural Posture

The petitioner sought certiorari against resolutions and orders issued by the COMELEC En Banc in the election case docketed as EPC No. 98-102. In G.R. No. 166388, he assailed the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated December 8, 2004, which confirmed the plebiscite result approving Taguig’s conversion into a highly urbanized city. In G.R. No. 166652, he challenged (a) the COMELEC En Banc Order dated January 28, 2005 declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory, and (b) the recording of that resolution in the COMELEC’s Book of Entry of Judgments on the same date.

Statutory and Constitutional Framework

The pleadings and the Court’s prior ruling anchored the COMELEC’s authority on Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the 1987 Constitution, which empowers the COMELEC “to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.” The Court also considered the COMELEC Rules of Procedure on quorum, elevation to the commission En Banc, and finality, particularly Section 5(b), Rule 3, and Section 13(a), Rule 18, as they related to the mechanism by which EPC No. 98-102 reached final action by the COMELEC En Banc and how its resolutions attained finality.

Facts: The 1998 Taguig Plebiscite and the Initial Canvass

On April 25, 1998, the COMELEC conducted the plebiscite in Taguig to determine whether the municipality should be converted into a highly urbanized city “to be known as the City of Taguig,” as provided in Republic Act No. 8487. The voters were asked: “Do you approve the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila into a highly urbanized city to be known as the City of Taguig, as provided for in Republic Act No. 8487?”

On April 26, 1998, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC), allegedly without completing the canvass of sixty-four (64) other election returns, declared that the “No” votes won, indicating rejection of the conversion.

Reconvocation, Proclamation of Results, and the COMELEC Proceedings

Upon order of the COMELEC En Banc, the PBOC reconvened and completed the canvass. The negative votes still allegedly prevailed after completion, and the results reflected rejection of the conversion. Alleging fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting of votes, private respondents filed with the COMELEC a petition praying for annulment of the announced plebiscite results and for revision and recount of the ballots. The COMELEC treated the petition as an election protest and docketed it as EPC No. 98-102, which was raffled to the Second Division. The petitioner intervened and moved to dismiss, arguing that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction because a plebiscite could not be the subject of an election protest.

The COMELEC Second Division granted the motion and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed. Private respondents then sought relief from the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus in G.R. No. 155855, Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista vs. COMELEC and Alan Peter S. Cayetano.

The Supreme Court’s January 26, 2004 Decision and Remand

On January 26, 2004, the Court reversed the COMELEC’s dismissal. It held that the controversy involved the enforcement and administration of a law related to a plebiscite, and thus fell within the COMELEC’s constitutional jurisdiction under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the 1987 Constitution. The Court ordered the COMELEC “to reinstate the petition to annul the results of the 1998 Taguig plebiscite and to decide it without delay.”

The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a February 24, 2004 resolution. After reinstatement, on April 19, 2004, the COMELEC Second Division constituted revision/recount committees in EPC No. 98-102. Revision and recount proceedings commenced on April 28, 2004, and the committees later submitted complete and final reports. The Second Division thereafter set the matter for hearing, but because the petitioner did not present witnesses, the parties were directed to submit memoranda.

Elevation to the COMELEC En Banc and the December 8, 2004 Resolution

The Second Division did not render a decision because the required number of votes among its members could not be obtained. Under Section 5(b), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the case was elevated automatically to the COMELEC En Banc. On November 24, 2004, the COMELEC En Banc considered the case submitted for resolution. On December 8, 2004, it issued the challenged Resolution granting the petition and declaring and confirming the ratification and approval of Taguig’s conversion into a highly urbanized city, expressly based on the Commission’s finding that twenty-one thousand one hundred five (21,105) affirmative votes constituted the majority and the highest votes obtained during the 1998 plebiscite. It directed the election officer of Taguig and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to implement the resolution.

The January 28, 2005 Order and Entry of Judgment; Filing of G.R. Nos. 166388 and 166652

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed G.R. No. 166388, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s December 8, 2004 Resolution. On January 28, 2005, upon motion of private respondents, the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order declaring its December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory, invoking Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and ordered its recording. On the same date, the December 8, 2004 Resolution was recorded in the COMELEC’s Book of Entry of Judgments. The petitioner then filed G.R. No. 166652 to challenge the January 28, 2005 Order and the corresponding entry of judgment. The Court later directed consolidation with G.R. No. 166388.

Petitioner's Position: Alleged Incomplete Revision and Fraud During Revision Proceedings

At the outset, the Court noted the petitioner’s stated position that he supported the cityhood of Taguig in principle but believed it should be achieved “by a fair count of votes and not by twisting the electoral will.” He argued that the revision of plebiscite ballots could not reliably determine the electorate’s will because, according to him, the revision was incomplete. He claimed that the final report of eight revision committees yielded a total of fifteen thousand eight hundred two (15,802) votes for “Yes” and twelve thousand six hundred two (12,602) votes for “No,” and that only twenty-eight thousand four hundred four (28,404) ballots were canvassed in the revision.

He further alleged that “many irregularities, frauds and anomalies” attended the revision proceedings and insisted that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it confirmed Taguig’s conversion.

Respondents' Position and the Court's Frame of Review

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the COMELEC, and private respondents disputed petitioner’s claims and urged dismissal for lack of merit. The Court emphasized that, based on the petitioner’s own allegations, the issues he raised were factual in nature. They required examination of the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence and the conduct of revision proceedings before the COMELEC, matters which the Court could not ordinarily review in special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Under Rule 65, Section 1, the Court’s power in such petitions was confined to issues of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction attributed to the public respondent.

Court's Consideration: Limited Review in the Interest of Substantial Justice

Despite the general limitation, the Court stated that it would still review the evidence in the interest of substantial justice and also considering the interest of the residents and voters of the City of Taguig. It addressed the petitioner’s specific claim that the revision yielded 15,802 “Yes” votes and 12,602 “No” votes. The Court held that this was erroneous because the COMELEC did not rely solely on a simplistic summation of revision outputs. Instead, the COMELEC considered the total number of votes reflected in the Final Canvassing Report of the Taguig PBOC and computed the results

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166388)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Alan Peter S. Cayetano, as petitioner and as representative of Taguig and Pateros, filed two petitions for certiorari assailing related acts and resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The respondents were COMELEC, Ma. Salvacion Buac, and Antonio Bautista, all of whom participated as private respondents in the plebiscite-related proceedings.
In G.R. No. 166388, Cayetano assailed a COMELEC en banc Resolution dated December 8, 2004 in EPC No. 98-102 that declared the plebiscite result approving Taguig’s conversion into a highly urbanized city.
In G.R. No. 166652, Cayetano separately challenged a COMELEC en banc Order dated January 28, 2005 that declared the December 8, 2004 resolution final and executory, and the recording of the resolution in the Book of Entry of Judgments.
The Court later consolidated the two petitions for joint disposition.
The Court dismissed both petitions for lack of merit, holding that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.

Statutory and Constitutional Setting

The plebiscite sought approval for the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila into a highly urbanized city as mandated by Republic Act No. 8487.
The Court anchored COMELEC’s constitutional power on Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the 1987 Constitution, which authorizes the COMELEC “to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.”
The Court treated the petitions as special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The Court emphasized that Rule 65, Section 1 confines review to issues mainly involving jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
The Court referenced Rule 18, Section 13(a) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure to explain finality of a COMELEC en banc resolution in ordinary actions, special proceedings, provisional remedies, and special reliefs.
The Court also referenced Rule 3, Section 5(b) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure to explain automatic elevation to the COMELEC en banc when the required division votes were not obtained.

Key Factual Allegations

The COMELEC conducted a plebiscite on April 25, 1998 in Taguig, Metro Manila on the conversion of the municipality into a highly urbanized city, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8487.
The plebiscite asked voters: whether they approved the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila into a highly urbanized city to be known as the City of Taguig, “as provided for in Republic Act No. 8487.”
On April 26, 1998, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC) initially declared that the “No” votes won, and the board did so without completing the canvass of sixty-four (64) other election returns.
After an order from the COMELEC en banc, the PBOC reconvened and completed the canvass, and it eventually proclaimed that the negative votes still prevailed.
Private respondents alleged fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting of votes and filed with the COMELEC a petition seeking annulment of the announced plebiscite results and requesting revision and recount of ballots.
The COMELEC treated the petition as an election protest and docketed it as EPC No. 98-102, which was raffled to the Second Division, while petitioner intervened.
Petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of COMELEC jurisdiction over a plebiscite, arguing that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election protest.
After proceedings that included revision and recount committees, petitioner later alleged that the ballot revision was incomplete and that it should not be relied upon to determine the electorate’s will.
Petitioner maintained that the revision yielded totals of 15,802 votes for “Yes” and 12,602 votes for “No,” and he claimed that the committees canvassed only a total of 28,404 ballots.
Petitioner further alleged “many irregularities, frauds and anomalies” attended the revision proceedings.
In support of the challenged COMELEC action, the Court recorded that the COMELEC used not only a canvassing summary but also physical count data, uncontested precinct returns, and contested ballot appreciation to arrive at final vote totals.

Jurisdictional Dispute and Earlier Supreme Court Ruling

The case began with a jurisdictional contest when the COMELEC Second Division granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss EPC No. 98-102 for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that it could not hear the annulment of plebiscite results as framed.
The COMELEC en banc affirmed the dismissal.
Private respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 155855: Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista vs. COMELEC and Alan Peter S. Cayetano.
On January 26, 2004, the Court reversed the COMELEC ruling and held that the dispute concerned enforcement and administration of law relative to a plebiscite, which fell within COMELEC’s jurisdiction under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the 1987 Constitution.
The Court directed the COMELEC to reinstate the petition and decide it without delay, and it denied petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration in a February 24, 2004 resolution.
After reinstatement, the COMELEC Second Division issued an order on April 19, 2004 constituting committees for revision and recount of plebiscite ballots, and revision proceedings commenced on April 28, 2004.

Revision, Recount, and COMELEC Action

The revision and recount proceedings started after the constitution of committees, and the committees later submitted complete and final reports.
The COMELEC Second Division scheduled a hearing but, because petitioner presented no witnesses, it required the parties to submit memoranda.
The Second Division failed to render a dec