Title
Dibaratun vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 170365
Decision Date
Feb 2, 2010
Petition challenges COMELEC's declaration of election failure in Precinct 6A/7A, annulling Dibaratun's proclamation due to voting disruption caused by violence. SC upheld COMELEC's resolution, ordering a special election.
failure of elections
annulment
proclamation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170365)

Factual Background

Private respondent Abdulcarim Mala Abubakar, a re-electionist candidate for Punong Barangay, filed a petition before the COMELEC to declare a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A and to annul petitioner’s proclamation as Punong Barangay. In support of his petition, Abubakar alleged that on July 15, 2002, at around 10:30 a.m., voting began at the designated polling place in Cayagan Elementary School. He alleged that while only ten (10) voters had voted, Alipecry Acop Gaffar, described as the son of petitioner, entered the polling place and was caught holding three (3) filled-up ballots reportedly bearing petitioner’s name, with the intent to insert the ballots into the ballot box. Abubakar further alleged that when confronted by petitioner’s watchers and other watchers, Alipecry Gaffar became violent and caused a commotion that disrupted and stopped the casting of votes. He averred that the chairman left the ballot box held by persons accompanying Alipecry Gaffar, that the ballot box was destroyed, that the official ballots contained therein were taken, and that substituted ballots were inserted and placed in the ballot box. Abubakar claimed that the casting of votes was never resumed. He also alleged that only ten (10) voters voted out of 151 registered voters, and that candidates for barangay chairmen and barangay kagawad were unable to vote because the election process was illegally disturbed.

Abubakar also asserted that the election officer recommended a special election for the precinct due to the alleged failure of elections. He further claimed that the respondent Board of Election Inspectors allegedly canvassed election returns surreptitiously and proclaimed petitioner despite the alleged irregularities, and that the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of Winning Candidates dated July 16, 2002 was allegedly an antedated xerox copy.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC

Petitioner denied the allegations in substance. The respondents argued that because ten voters had actually voted, there was no failure of elections, and that the petition was filed out of time. In its Resolution dated October 17, 2005, the COMELEC en banc granted Abubakar’s petition. It annulled the proclamation of petitioner as the duly elected Punong Barangay and ordered him to cease and desist from exercising the powers and responsibilities of the office. The COMELEC further directed that, pending special elections to be scheduled, the incumbent Punong Barangay would continue in a hold-over capacity pursuant to Section 5 of R.A. No. 9164.

Petitioner’s Issues in the Certiorari Petition

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assigning grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC en banc. He argued, first, that the COMELEC unjustly gave due course to the petition because it was allegedly filed out of time and the validity of his proclamation could no longer be assailed after ten days. Second, he claimed private respondent was estopped from asserting rights under election rules because Abubakar allegedly failed to make proper objections during the casting, counting, and canvassing of votes, and thus the COMELEC allegedly erred in hearing and considering the petition. Third, petitioner argued that the COMELEC allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A and ordered special elections.

Main Issue

The Court framed the principal inquiry as whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections in Precinct No. 6A/7A and annulling petitioner’s proclamation as the elected Punong Barangay.

Legal Standards Governing Failure of Elections and Certiorari Review

The Court explained that the 1987 Constitution vested in the COMELEC the broad power to enforce laws and regulations relative to election conduct and to decide questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. It held that an application for certiorari against COMELEC actions was limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court also stressed that, as a specialized constitutional body, the COMELEC’s findings and conclusions on matters within its competence were generally respected and treated as conclusive, particularly when they involved factual determinations after due notice and hearing.

On the substantive law, the Court cited Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, which authorized the COMELEC, upon verified petition of an interested party and after due notice and hearing, to call for the holding or continuation of elections not held, suspended, or resulting in failure to elect, when the failure or suspension was attributable to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. The Court further linked Section 6 to Section 2, Rule 26 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and adopted the COMELEC’s framework, derived from Banaga, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, enumerating three instances when failure of elections may be declared.

The Court emphasized that before the COMELEC could act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of elections, two conditions had to concur: first, no voting took place in the precinct(s) on the date fixed, or that even if voting took place, the election resulted in a failure to elect; and second, that the votes not cast would have affected the result of the election. The Court treated the grounds for failure of election as involving factual issues—specifically the presence of violence and the effect of the uncast votes—which the COMELEC resolved based on evidence presented and after due proceedings.

The COMELEC’s Findings on Violence and Suspension of Voting

The Court upheld the COMELEC en banc’s conclusion that voting in Precinct No. 6A/7A was suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting due to violence. The Court noted that COMELEC relied on affidavits submitted by both parties, which were said to support the occurrence of violence. Although the parties differed on who actually perpetrated the violence, the COMELEC determined that both sets of affidavits and supporting documents indicated that the voting was suspended before the legal closing hour because of violence by undetermined persons.

Specifically, COMELEC referenced a letter of Mayor Abdul Jabbar Mangawan A.P. Balindong to Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr., along with joint affidavits of members and witnesses of the Board of Election Inspectors and police officers, which allegedly stated that petitioner and his followers caused the violence. Conversely, affidavits submitted by petitioner’s witnesses allegedly stated that respondent Dibaratun and his followers caused the violence that resulted in suspension after only ten persons managed to vote. The Court adopted the COMELEC reasoning that, since both parties acknowledged a suspension caused by violence prior to the closing hour, the statutory conditions for a failure of elections were present.

The Court also accepted the factual determination that only ten voters were able to cast votes out of 151 registered voters, and held that the uncast votes would have affected the election result. With these two conditions—(1) suspension of voting prior to closing due to violence, and (2) effect on the election result—the Court concluded that the COMELEC was justified in declaring failure of elections.

Powers of the COMELEC Upon Declaration of Failure of Elections

Given the determination of a failure of elections, the Court held that the COMELEC was empowered to annul the election and to call for special elections. Accordingly, petitioner’s claim that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion was rejected.

Whether the Petition Was a Pre-Proclamation Controversy

Petitioner argued that Abubakar’s petition was in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that Abubakar failed to follow the applicable procedures. The Court disagreed. It held that Abubakar’s petition fell under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code because its allegations described an instance for declaring a failure of elections—specifically, violence that suspended voting before the legal closing hour and caused failure to elect.

The Court explained that the COMELEC properly took cognizance under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7166, which allowed postponement, declaration of failure of election, and calling of special elections to be decided by the COMELEC en banc by majority vote, and which expressly contemplated causes occurring before or after casting of votes or on the election day.

Limits of Pre-Proclamation Controversies Under the Omnibus Election Code

The Court reasoned that the issue before the COMELEC was evidentiary: whether violence suspended the elections in the precinct before the legal closing hour and resulted in failure of elections. It held that this did not fall within the enumerated matters that may be litigated in a pre-proclamation controversy. The Court cited Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code to delineate the pre-proclamation controversy issues, such as illegal composition or proceedings of canvass boards, materially defective or tampered returns, returns prepared under duress or manufactured, and cases involving substituted or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places that materially affect candidates’ standing. The Court further held that

...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