Scribd
Upload
69 views6 pages

Fermin Vs Comelec

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued two orders related to a mayoral election in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The first order required parties to file comments on allegations that a special election was improperly stopped, and held a public hearing in abeyance. The second order annulled the public hearing that went ahead and set aside the proclamation of the petitioner, finding the COMELEC acted properly within its constitutional duty to ensure fair elections. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's actions, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

Sharmila Abiera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views6 pages

Fermin Vs Comelec

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued two orders related to a mayoral election in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The first order required parties to file comments on allegations that a special election was improperly stopped, and held a public hearing in abeyance. The second order annulled the public hearing that went ahead and set aside the proclamation of the petitioner, finding the COMELEC acted properly within its constitutional duty to ensure fair elections. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's actions, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

Sharmila Abiera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 172563 : April 27, 2007]

MIKE A. FERMIN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS


and ALIMUDIN A. MACACUA, Respondents.

DECISION

AZCUNA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari alleging that the Commission on


Elections (COMELEC) en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders
dated May 9, 2006 and May 16, 2006.

The facts are:

Petitioner Mike A. Fermin and private respondent Alimudin A.


Macacua were candidates for Mayor in the May 2004 local elections
in the Municipality of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan proclaimed petitioner as the duly
elected mayor of Kabuntalan. The COMELEC, however, annulled the
proclamation due to the failure of clustered polling Precinct No.
25A/26A to function in Barangay Guiawa, Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao. The existence of 264 registered voters in the
clustered precinct would affect the results of the election. Thus, the
COMELEC scheduled a special election in clustered Precinct No.
25A/26A on July 28, 2004.

In the special election of July 28, 2004, private respondent was


proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor. Petitioner
challenged the special election due to alleged procedural infirmities.
In a Resolution dated June 2, 2005, the COMELEC nullified the
special election. Private respondent's proclamation was set aside
and the vice mayor-elect temporarily assumed the mayoralty post.

The COMELEC scheduled another special election for clustered


Precinct No. 25A/26A on May 6, 2006. It constituted a Special
Municipal Board of Canvassers (SMBOC) for this purpose. One
Hundred Seventy - Eight (178) out of the 264 registered voters cast
their votes.

Per SMBOC canvass, petitioner garnered 39 votes, while private


respondent obtained 136 votes. When the election results were
added, petitioner and private respondent got 2,208 votes each,
ending in a tie.

Pursuant to Sec. 2401 of the Omnibus Election Code, SMBOC issued


a notice suspending its proceedings and setting a Special Public
Hearing on May 14, 2006.

In a Memorandum dated May 8, 2006, the SMBOC Chairman


submitted to COMELEC a report on the conduct of the second
special elections.

On May 9, 2006, private respondent filed with the COMELEC en


banc an Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion:

A. To investigate why the May 6, 2006 Special Election was stopped


at 2:15 p.m. with 30 to 40 voters still lined-up to vote;

B. To require the SMBOC of Kabuntalan headed by Atty. Radam and


the PNP Contingent headed by a certain Supt. Gunting to show
cause why they should not be held liable for an election offense
under paragraphs (e) and (f), Sec. 261 and Sec. 262 of the
Omnibus Election Code; and cralawlib rary

C. To hold in abeyance the Special Public Hearing set by the Board


on May 14, 2006 for purposes of Sec. 240 of the Omnibus Election
Code until after the Commission shall have ruled on the incidents.2

On even date, the COMELEC issued the first assailed Order dated
May 9, 2006, the dispositive portion of which reads:

The Commission, after due deliberation, hereby orders as follows:

1. to require the petitioner and the Special Municipal Board of


Canvassers of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao to file their respective
comments within five (5) days from receipt hereof;
2. to hold in abeyance the Special Public Hearing set by the Special
Municipal Board of Canvassers on May 14, 2006; and cralawl ibra ry

3. to set this Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for hearing on May


18, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., Comelec Session Hall, 8th Floor, Palacio
del Gobernador, Intramuros, Manila.

SO ORDERED.3

Despite the Order dated May 9, 2006, the Special Public Hearing
pushed through on May 14, 2006, and the SMBOC proclaimed
petitioner as the duly elected Mayor of Kabuntalan. Private
respondent alleged in his Comment4 that he was absent during the
Special Public Hearing.

On May 16, 2006, the COMELEC en banc issued the second assailed
Order,5 which annulled the proceedings of the Special Public Hearing
conducted on May 14, 2006 and set aside the proclamation of
petitioner.

Hence, this petition.

The issue is whether or not the COMELEC en banc gravely abused


its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders
dated May 9, 2006 and May 16, 2006.

Petitioner claims that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of


discretion when it ruled on private respondent's Extremely Urgent
Motion despite the alleged lack of sufficient notice to the parties.

The Court is not persuaded.

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure


provide:

Sec. 3. Construction. These rules shall be liberally construed in


order to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the
objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible elections and to achieve just expeditious and
inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and
proceeding brought before the Commission.

Sec. 4. Suspension of the Rules. - - In the interest of justice and in


order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the
Commission, these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended
by the Commission.

Moreover, Pangandaman v. Commission on Elections6 held:

Section 2 (1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the


COMELEC the broad power to 'enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative referendum and recall.' There can hardly be any doubt that
the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give
COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve
the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections.

xxx

More pointedly, this Court recently stated in Tupay Loong v.


COMELEC, et al., that ' [O]ur elections are not conducted under
laboratory conditions. x x x Too often, COMELEC has to make snap
judgments to meet unforeseen circumstances that threaten to
subvert the will of our voters. In the process, the actions of
COMELEC may not be impeccable, indeed, may even be debatable.
We cannot, however, engage in swivel chair criticism of these
actions often taken under very difficult circumstances.'

The purpose of the governing statutes on the conduct of elections'

'. . . [i]s to protect the integrity of elections to suppress all evils that
may violate its purity and defeat the will of the voters. The purity of
the elections is one of the most fundamental requisites of popular
government. The Commission on Elections, by constitutional
mandate, must do everything in its power to secure a fair and
honest canvass of votes cast in the elections. In the performance of
its duties, the Commission must be given considerable latitude in
adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of
the great objective for which it was created ' to promote free,
orderly, and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the
Commission of Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute
grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with.7

In this case, the assailed Orders were issued by the COMELEC in the
performance of its duty to promote free, orderly and honest
elections. Private respondent's Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion
invoked COMELEC'S authority to investigate why the May 6, 2006
Special Election was stopped at 2:15 p.m. with 30 to 40 voters still
lined-up to vote and determine the accountability of the SMBOC of
Kabuntalan on the matter.

According to private respondent, a scripted scenario of violence


initiated by persons identified with petitioner and abetted by the
PNP contingent marred the second special elections on May 6, 2006.
Further, the Chairman of the SMBOC allegedly stopped the election
at 2:15 p.m. although there were still voters lined up to vote in the
precinct.

Hence, the COMELEC issued the first Order dated May 9, 2006
requiring petitioner and the SMBOC to file their respective
Comments on the omnibus motion, and to hold in abeyance the
Special Public Hearing set on May 14, 2006.

However, despite notice to both parties and the SMBOC, the Special
Public Hearing proceeded on May 14, 2006. In its Order dated May
16, 2006, the COMELEC annulled the proceedings of the Special
Public Hearing and set aside the proclamation of petitioner therein
as the duly elected mayor of Kabuntalan, evidently for failure to
heed its Order dated May 9, 2006.

Under the circumstances, COMELEC's action is not tainted with


grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioner also assails the COMELEC for taking cognizance of private


respondent's omnibus motion although the matters raised therein
did not constitute that of a pre-proclamation controversy, but
should have been the subject of a separate criminal prosecution for
election offenses.
The argument is without merit.

Under Section 2278 of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC is


vested with the power of direct control and supervision over the
board of canvassers; hence, it took cognizance of the complaint in
the omnibus motion which questioned the conduct of the special
elections by the SMBOC.

The Solicitor General aptly stated that the COMELEC cannot just
cast a blind eye and concede to be powerless in the midst of
allegations of electoral fraud and violence in the second special
elections held in Precinct 25A/26A in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao by
the mere expedient of an alleged procedural flaw on the part of the
party aggrieved. To do so would be an abandonment of COMELEC's
constitutionally enshrined duty of ensuring an honest and clean
election.

Petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC


in issuing the assailed Orders implies capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary
and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal
hostility.9 It is absent in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Orders


of the COMELEC dated May 9, 2006 and May 16, 2006
are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like