Case Summary (G.R. No. 134096)
Petitioner
Petitioner filed a verified petition purportedly under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging that post-voting fraud and analogous acts during preparation/transmission/custody/canvass of election returns resulted in a failure to elect and thus warranted suspension of canvass/proclamation or a call for new elections.
Respondent
COMELEC dismissed the petition in SPC No. 98-134 by resolution dated June 22, 1998, on the grounds that petitioner’s allegations were unsupported by sufficient evidence and that the asserted grounds were not within the pre-proclamation issues defined by statute.
Key Dates
Election canvass and proclamation proceedings in Quezon City occurred while petitioner’s COMELEC petition was pending. COMELEC promulgated the challenged dismissal on June 22, 1998. The Supreme Court rendered the decision affirming COMELEC on March 3, 1999.
Applicable Law and Authorities
Primary statutes: Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended) — notably Section 6 (failure of elections), Sections 241–248 (pre-proclamation controversies), Section 242 (notice on suspension/annulment), and Section 243 (issues proper in pre-proclamation controversy); Republic Act No. 7166 (amendments affecting pre-proclamation procedure, Sections 16, 17, 18); Supreme Court precedents cited in the decision (e.g., Matalam v. COMELEC; Canicosa v. COMELEC; Mitmug v. COMELEC; Abella v. Larrazabal; Laodenio; Salih). Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered after 1990).
Material Facts Alleged by Petitioner
Petitioner alleged numerous specific irregularities: inclusion in canvass of returns lacking inner seals; Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) removing copies of returns from canvass area; written objections to inclusion of tampered/altered/falsified returns; minutes showing missing returns from certain precincts; returns lacking vote data for vice mayoralty; suspicious persons introducing returns/documents into canvass area; discovery of discarded canvassing minutes, keys, locks, and metal seal; BEIs admitting placing copies meant for the Board of Canvassers into ballot boxes due to fatigue; ballot boxes not remaining in COMELEC custody and restricted access preventing watchers’ entry; and alleged manufactured returns in Barangay New Era indicating no actual voting.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner filed the COMELEC petition while the Quezon City Board of Canvassers was canvassing returns. The City Board of Canvassers proclaimed winners (including vice mayor) before COMELEC resolved petitioner’s petition. COMELEC dismissed the petition on June 22, 1998. Petitioner sought review by certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process by COMELEC.
Issues Presented to the Court
- Whether petitioner’s pleading was properly characterized and actionable as a petition to declare failure of elections under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code; 2) alternatively, whether petitioner’s claims constituted a viable pre-proclamation controversy under the rules governing pre-proclamation issues; and 3) whether COMELEC deprived petitioner of due process by not allowing him to present evidence orally before COMELEC.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner argued COMELEC erred and abused its discretion in dismissing SPC No. 98-134, principally by failing to afford a hearing and opportunity to present evidence. He maintained the election returns and the canvassing minutes alone constituted sufficient evidence of massive fraud to warrant suspension of canvassing/proclamation or a finding of failure of elections.
COMELEC’s Rationale for Dismissal
COMELEC dismissed the petition because (1) petitioner’s allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) the alleged grounds were not among the issues properly raised as pre-proclamation controversies under the statutory scheme (i.e., were not within the limited, enumerated pre-proclamation issues).
Supreme Court’s Characterization of the Pleading
The Court observed petitioner’s ambivalence: although the initial petition invoked Section 6 (failure of elections), petitioner later framed the matter as a pre-proclamation controversy under Sections 241–248. The Court reiterated the controlling rule that the nature of a pleading is determined by the allegations made in good faith, the stage of the proceeding, and the primary objective of the pleader. The Court concluded petitioner failed to meet the elements required for a Section 6 failure-of-elections claim and, in any case, the petition effectively raised pre-proclamation issues.
Failure of Elections Standard and Application
The Court recited the statutory instances where failure of elections may be declared (three scenarios: no election held; election suspended before closing; or after voting in preparation/transmission/custody/canvass results in failure to elect) and noted prior jurisprudence requiring two conditions for COMELEC to act on a verified petition seeking failure of elections: (1) no voting occurred or voting produced a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the result. Here, petitioner did not allege elections were not held or suspended, and his assertion of failure to elect was a bare conclusion lacking substantive factual allegations showing how the failure to elect occurred.
Scope and Exclusivity of Pre-Proclamation Controversies
The Court emphasized that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to issues enumerated in Section 243 (illegal composition/proceedings of the board of canvassers; incomplete/materially defective/tampered/falsified returns or discrepancies; returns prepared under duress or obviously manufactured; substitution or fraudulent returns materially affecting standings). That enumeration is restrictive and exclusive, reflecting the policy that pre-proclamation controversies be summarily decided to avoid undue delay in canvass and proclamation. Once proclamation occurs, the normal remedies are an election protest or quo warranto, and pre-proclamation proceedings are generally no longer viable.
Application of Pre-Proclamation Rule to the Case
Because the City Board had already proclaimed the winners, petitioner’s pre-proclamation remedy (if such it was) became nonviable. The Court examined recognized exceptions to the rule that pre-proclamation cases terminate upon proclamation but found none applicable to petitioner’s allegations. The Court also considered COMELEC’s Omnibus Resolution No. 3049 (June 29, 1998) terminating pre-proclamation cases when the term of office has begun, and clarified that the specific omnibus resolution’s paragraph 4 exception did not cover
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 134096)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed before the Supreme Court.
- The petition challenged the Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated June 22, 1998 which dismissed petitioner Joseph Peter S. Sison’s earlier petition in SPC No. 98-134 entitled “In the Matter of the Petition to Suspend the Canvassing of Votes and/or Proclamation in Quezon City and to Declare a Failure of Elections.”
- While the petition before COMELEC was pending, the Quezon City Board of Canvassers proclaimed the winners of the elections in Quezon City, including the vice mayoralty.
- The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition and whether petitioner was deprived of due process.
Relevant Factual Background
- Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC during the canvassing of Quezon City election returns but before proclamation, seeking suspension of canvass/proclamation and declaration of failure of elections.
- The petition purported to be filed pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code on the ground of “massive and orchestrated fraud and acts analogous thereto which occurred after the voting and during the preparation of election returns and in the custody or canvass thereof, which resulted in a failure to elect.”
- Specific instances alleged by petitioner (as summarized in the petition) included:
- The Board of Canvassers announced inclusion in the canvass of election returns that had no inner seal.
- Board of Election Inspectors brought home copies of election returns meant for the City Board of Canvassers.
- Written objections were raised to inclusion in the canvass of election returns alleged to be tampered with, altered, falsified, or otherwise not authentic.
- Minutes of the City Board of Canvassers showed precincts with missing election returns.
- Several election returns had no data for the number of votes cast for the vice mayoralty position.
- Highly suspicious persons sneaked in some election returns and documents into the canvassing area.
- A concerned citizen found minutes of the counting, keys, locks and metal seal in the COMELEC area for disposal as trash.
- Board of Election Inspectors volunteered that they placed copies of election returns meant for the City Board of Canvassers in the ballot boxes deposited with the City Treasurer, allegedly due to fatigue and lack of sleep.
- Ballot boxes were reportedly never in COMELEC custody and neither the parties nor their watchers were allowed into the restricted area where those boxes passed through on the way to the City Hall basement where they were supposedly kept.
- In Barangay New Era, there was an alleged clear pattern of voting suggesting manufactured election returns and absence of actual voting by duly qualified voters.
Petitioner's Legal Theories and Contentions
- Primary pleading invoked: Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code (failure of elections) alleging fraud after voting affecting canvass/custody of returns.
- Later in argumentation before the Supreme Court, petitioner also advanced the matter as a pre-proclamation controversy governed by Sections 241–248 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7166.
- Petitioner contended that COMELEC deprived him of basic due process by ruling on his petition without affording him a hearing and the opportunity to present evidence.
- Petitioner asserted that the election returns themselves and the minutes of the Canvassing Committees/City Board of Canvassers were sufficient evidence to support his petition.
COMELEC Resolution and Grounds for Dismissal
- COMELEC promulgated its resolution on June 22, 1998 dismissing SPC No. 98-134.
- COMELEC’s stated grounds for dismissal were:
- The allegations in the petition were not supported by sufficient evidence.
- The grounds recited in the petition were not among the pre-proclamation issues set forth in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166 (the decision notes the petition’s incompatibility with the limited scope of pre-proclamation controversies).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition.
- Whether petitioner was denied due process by not being allowed to present evidence or be heard prior to COMELEC’s dismissal.
- Whether the petition properly invoked Section 6 (failure of elections) or instead constituted a pre-proclamation controversy under the codal provisions and RA 7166.
Nature of the Remedy and Pleading Classification
- The Court observed petitioner’s ambivalence regarding the nature of the remedy sought: initially framed under Section 6 (failure of elections) but later advanced as a pre-proclamation controversy under Sections 241–248 (RA 7166).
- The Court reiterated the controlling rule that the nature of a pleading is determined by the allegations made in good faith, the stage of the proceeding when filed, and the primary objective of the party filing it.
- The Supreme Court concluded that petitioner could not succeed under either remedy he attempted to invoke.
Failure of Elections (Section 6) — Court’s Analysis
- The Court cited governing precedent distinguishing pre-proclamation controversies from actions for annulment of election results or declarations of failure of elections (Matalam v. Commission on Elections; Canicosa v. COMELEC).
- The Court set out the three codal in