Title
Supreme Court
Loong vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 133676
Decision Date
Apr 14, 1999
COMELEC exceeded authority by ordering manual count in Sulu elections, violating R.A. No. 8436; Supreme Court nullified results, mandated special election.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133676)

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date April 14, 1999)
  • Republic Act No. 8436 (Automated Election System)
  • Omnibus Election Code (for procedural analogy)

Key Dates

  • December 22, 1997: RA 8436 enacted
  • May 11–12, 1998: ARMM elections, including Sulu
  • May 12, 1998: Discrepancies discovered in Pata; COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 98-1747 orders manual count in Pata
  • May 13, 1998: Minute Resolution No. 98-1750 orders ballots and machines flown to Manila for combined manual/automated operations
  • May 15, 1998: Minute Resolution No. 98-1796 sets rules for manual count in Sulu
  • May 18, 1998: Petitioner files Rule 65 petition; manual count begins
  • June 8, 1998: Abdusakur Tan proclaimed Governor-elect based on manual count
  • June 23, 1998: Supreme Court issues status quo order
  • August 20, 1998: Yusop Jikiri intervenes
  • September 25, 1998: Oral arguments
  • April 14, 1999: Supreme Court en banc issues decision

Facts

Congress mandated automated voting, counting and canvassing in ARMM under RA 8436. In the May 11, 1998 elections, automated machines were used in Sulu. Early May 12, COMELEC Task Force Head Tolentino found that ballots from Pata with misaligned ovals were misread, yielding zero votes for a candidate despite marked ballots. Further reports showed that five other municipalities (Talipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapul and Jolo) produced rejections due to wrong sequence codes on local ballots. After a meeting among candidates and security forces—where Loong and Jikiri favored continuing automation but Tan, Tulawie, the AFP and PNP officials recommended manual count—Tolentino recommended suspension of the automated count province-wide. COMELEC en banc issued successive minute resolutions: 98-1747 (manual count in Pata), 98-1750 (relocate ballots and machines to PICC, Manila, for combined manual/automated operations), and 98-1796 (detailed rules for manual count, including special boards of inspectors). Despite a provision for parallel automated counting, only manual count was conducted, supervised by COMELEC officials and observed by candidate watchers. Loong filed a certiorari and prohibition petition under Rule 65, alleging COMELEC exceeded jurisdiction, violated RA 8436’s mandatory automation, denied due process and invited fraud. Tan was proclaimed on June 8, 1998; Jikiri became intervenor.

Issues

  1. Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy?
  2. Assuming it is, did COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering manual count?
    a. Was there a legal basis for manual count under RA 8436?
    b. Were the factual grounds (ballot defects, peace and order concerns) reasonable?
    c. Were Loong and Jikiri denied due process?
  3. If manual count is illegal, should a special election be called for Governor of Sulu?

Decision

  1. Certiorari was the proper remedy to review final COMELEC resolutions in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers (Const. Art. IX(A), Sec. 7).
  2. COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in ordering manual count.
    a. Although RA 8436 mandated automation, it did not anticipate non-machine-related ballot defects. The Constitution (Art. IX(C), Sec. 2(1)) vests COMELEC with broad authority to administer all election laws.
    b. The technical experts and machine suppliers confirmed that misaligned ovals and wrong sequence codes (printing errors by the National Printing Office) rendered local ballots unreadable or rejectable by machines. To continue automated count would have produced grossly erroneous results. Moreover, reports of tension and security threats in Sulu, a historically violent elec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.