CASE DIGEST NO. 2

CASE DIGEST NO. 2

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

SANCHEZ VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS(114 SCRA 454)

FACTS:

The Resolution of the Commission on Elections, dated May 15, 1980, in Pre-Proclamation Case No. 41 entitled Virgilio Sanchez vs. Mayor Armando P. Biliwang and the Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Fernando, Pampanga.

In the local elections held on January 30, 1980, Virgilio Sanchez was the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party (NP) for Municipal Mayor of San Fernando, Pampanga, while Armando Biliwang was the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan,s (KBL) official candidate for the same position.

On February 1, 1980, Sanchez filed with the Commission on Elections a Petition to declare null and void the local elections in San Fernando, Pampanga due to alleged large scale terrorism. On the same day, the COMELEC denied the Petition for lack of merit. Sanchez moved for reconsideration. On February 8, 1980, the COMELEC recalled its Resolution and required Biliwang and the Municipal Board of Canvassers to answer. Hearings were conducted thereafter.

On November 19, 1980, Sanchez filed a petition for Certiorari with this court, docketed as G.R. No. 55513, wherein he seeks a modification of the portion of the COMELEC Resolution of May 15, 1980 refusing to call a special election.

On December 6, 1980, Biliwang instituted, also with this Court, a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 55642, assailing the same COMELEC Resolution and alleging that same body has no power to annul an entire municipal election.

These two Petitions were ordered consolidated and were heard by the court en banc on July 28, 1981.

ISSUES:

Does the COMELEC have the power to annul an entire municipal election on the ground of post-election terrorism?

Does the COMELEC have the authority to call for a special election?

HELD:

Biliwang Asserts that COMELEC lacks the power to annul elections of municipal officials particularly so because, under Section 190 of the 1978 Election Code, the power to try election contests relative to elective municipal officials is vested in Courts of First Instance.

Be that as it may, it should be recalled that what COMELEC actually rejected were the sham and illegal returns in San Fernando, and that kind of fraud and terrorism perpetrated thereat was sufficient cause for voiding the election as a whole. Besides, COMELEC is empowered motu proprio to suspend and annul any proclamation as, in fact, it did annul Biliwang’s proclamation.

It may be true that there is no specific provision vesting the COMELEC with authority to annul an election. However, there is no doubt either relative to COMELEC’s extensive powers. Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is tasked with the function to “enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections.” The 1978 Election Code accords it exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of insuring free, orderly and honest elections.

In other words, in line with the plenitude of its powers and its function to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC must be deemed possessed of authority to annul elections where the will of the voters has been defeated and the purity of elections sullied. It would be unreasonable to state that the COMELEC has a legal duty to perform and at the same time deny it the wherewithal to fulfill that task.

On this issue, the COMELEC opined that it had no power to order the holding of new or special election.

Thus, the COMELEC deemed it imperative “to certify to the President/Prime Minister and the Batasang Pambansa the failure of election in San Fernando, Pampanga, so that remedial legislation may be enacted.

Again, the foregoing Opinions were rendered under the regime of the 1935 Constitution and the former Revised Election Code, whereby there was no constitutional nor statutory precept that empowered the COMELEC to direct a new election after one had already been held. Under Section 8 of that former statute, authority was given to the President to postpone the election upon the recommendation of the COMELEC. And Section 21 (c) of the same law authorized the President to issue a proclamation calling a special election whenever the election for a local office failed to take place on the date fixed by law. In other words, the prerogative to postpone an election or call a special election, was formerly lodged with the President.

As the laws now stand, however, COMELEC has been explicitly vested with the authority to “call for the holding or continuation of the election.”

Clearly, under Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, when the election “results in a failure to elect, the COMELEC may call for the “holding or continuation of the election as soon as practicable.” We construe this to include the calling of a special election in the event of a failure to elect in order to make the COMELEC truly effective in the discharge of its functions. In fact, Section 8 of the 1978 Election Code, supra, specifically allows the COMELEC to call a special election for the purpose of fillinf the vacancy or a newly created position, as the case may be. There should be no reason, therefore, for not allowing it to call a special election when there is a failure to elect.

RULING OF COURT:

WHEREFORE. 1) in G.R. No. 55513, the challenged Resolution of May 15, 1980 is hereby modified, and the Commission on Elections hereby held empowered to call a special election where there has been a failure to elect. That portion which certifies the failure of election in San Fernando, Pampanga, to the President and the Batasang Pambansa for the enactment of remedial measures, is hereby set aside.

2) In G.R. No. 55642, the Petition is hereby denied for lack of merit, and the authority of the Commission on Elections to annul an election hereby upheld.