551 Phil. 17
AZCUNA, J.:
On May 9, 2006, the COMELEC issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads:
- 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;
- 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
- 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.
The Commission, after due deliberation, hereby orders as follows:Despite the Order dated May 9, 2006, the Special Public Hearing pushed through on May 14, 2006, and the SMBOC proclaimed private respondent as the duly elected Mayor of Kabuntalan.SO ORDERED.
- to require the petitioner and the Special Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao to filed their respective comments within five (5) days from receipt hereof;
- to hold in abeyance the Special Public Hearing set by the Special Municipal Board of Canvassers on May 14, 2006; and
- 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.
At the onset, it must be emphasized that the instant case had its inception when herein petitioner Mike A. Fermin filed before this Commission a "Petition to Annul Proclamation and/or Declare Proclamation Null and Void Ab Initio", with respect to the proclamation of private respondent Alimudin A. Macacua as Mayor of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao in the 10 May 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections. The Commission took cognizance of the petition and docketed the same as a Special Case pursuant to Section 5(h), Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.The dispositive portion of the Resolution states:
Bearing this in mind, we believe that the first and most important to be resolved among the issues raised herein before us by the parties is the matter of whether of not to hold a third or another special election in Barangay Guiawa. Accordingly, if we rule in the affirmative, it would be the third special election that will be held thereat considering that the two (2) special elections conducted before both resulted in a failure to elect.
To the above-mentioned issue, we in the Commission (en banc) find it rather unfortunate that we cannot anymore sanction the holding of a third or another special election in Barangay Guiawa. Verily, to declare such will truly be unprecedented for never in the history of the Commission that three (3) special elections were ordered held in one place. Our decision to forego of another special election however is not solely grounded on this. More compelling are the peculiar facts surrounding the instant case and the force of circumstances attendant to it, not to mention on matter and principles of law and equity also.
Firstly, judicial notice must be taken of the fact that there is already scarcity of funds in the Commission considering that even as of this writing, its budget for the year 2006 has yet to be approved and released by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). Thus, at present, it can very well be said that there is truly lack of available funds for the holding of another special election in Barangay Guiawa. Whatever amount, if any, is still left in the Commission� coffers, the same has already been channeled and devoted to the other equally urgent and/or more important projects/endeavors of the Commission, which the pursuit, to us, has more the assurance of transparency, reliability and success.
Moreover, it must be stressed that the Commission has already spent considerable amounts in the regular election and in the last two (2) special elections held in Barangay Guiawa which, sadly, all resulted in a failure to elect. In the second special election alone, the Commission already spent the huge amount of P300,000.00 for just one (1) clustered precinct (Precinct No. 25A/25B) comprising of two hundred sixty-four (264) registered voters. It must be noted however that based on the records, only one hundred seventy-eight (178) voters voted in the failed electoral exercise.x x x
Another cogent and compelling reason not to conduct another special election anymore in Barangay Guiawa deals with the peculiar circumstances that attended the regular election and the past two (2) special elections held thereat. It must be recalled that after the 10 May 2004 regular local election failed, the two (2) special elections that followed in said barangay likewise resulted in a failure of election. Primarily, initial investigation shows that this is because of the anomalies that transpired during the course or proceedings thereof brought about by the very persons who are supposed, under the law, to ensure that the said elections would be free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible. Sadly, included in the controversy are some of our very own people in the Commission.
As already told, we in the Commission (en banc) find it very disappointing that the regular election and the two (2) special elections held in just one (1) precinct in Barangay Guiawa failed notwithstanding the enormous amount the Commission had spent particularly in the second special election. Verily, this is the main reason why in the final hearings of the instant case, an initial investigation was conducted regarding the responsibility and liability of those officers, field personnel, the parties and other persons connected with the conduct of the second special election in Barangay Guiawa, and the resultant failure thereof. The results of the investigation, albeit preliminary, are very discouraging which led us in the Commission (en banc) to forego any decision of holding a third or another special election in Barangay Guiawa.
To reiterate, never in the history of the Commission that a third special election was ordered, or three (3) special elections were held, in one place. This lack of precedence can be best explained in connection with the proximity of the next elections to be held involving the position being contested, after the second special election failed. More often than not, the length of time that the case is ongoing before the second special election held again resulted in a failure to elect, almost already consumed the term of the office being contested. Otherwise put, the next regular election, usually, is just around the corner.
As in the case at bar, considering the above stated peculiar facts and circumstances in the instant case which resulted in the failure of the two (2) special elections held in Barangay Guiawa, the issue of whether or not to order a third and/or another special election thereat is truly a serious matter to consider. It is worth stressing that the next regular election involving the herein contested position is now just around the loom, or to be more specific, in May of 2007. Verily, it would be impractical in time, effort and money to declare the holding of a third or another special election in Barangay Guiawa. To rule the aforesaid issue in the affirmative, we respectfully but strongly submit, would be a grievous error on our part for it is surely [dis]advantageous to the government, specifically to us in the Commission on Elections.[3]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission (en banc) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to:Thereafter, petitioner filed this petition raising this sole issue:
- DENY/DISMISS with finality the instant petition, and any and all motions filed by the herein parties, for the holding/conduct of a third and/or another special election in Barangay Guiawa for the position of Mayor of Kabuntalan, Maguindano in view of the failure of the second special election held thereat on 6 May 2006. ACCORDINGLY, the hiatus created by this decision in the herein contested position shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code; and
- DIRECT the Law Department (this Commission) to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation, in accordance with law, with respect to the following persons/witnesses who were called to testify in the hearings conducted in the instant case, to wit:
- Atty. Lilian A. Suan-Radam - Chairman, Special Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan;
- Atty. Paisal Diaz Tanjili - Vice-Chairman, Special Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan;
- Atty. Yogie G. Martirizar - Member Secretary, Special Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan;
- Atty. Lintang H. Bedol -- Provincial Election Supervisor of Maguindanao;
- Mr. Dante A. Parenas - Chairman, Board of Election Inspectors, Barangay Guiawa, Kabuntalan;
- P/S Supt. Lumala Gunting, PNP Provincial Director for Maguindanao, PNP Cotabato City;
- Lt. Col. Julieto D. Ando, Commanding Officer, 61B Kabuntalan, Maguindanao;
- P/S Supt. Salik E. Macapantar, GD, 15th RMG, Kabuntalan Maguindanao; and
- Atty. Pio Jose S. Joson, Executive Director, Commission on Elections.
The investigation, among others, must focus mainly on their involvement or participation in the regular and special elections held at Barangay Guiawa, particularly with regard to the second special election, its stoppage before the time provided by law and the consequent failure thereof, which may constitute as probable cause to hold them liable for election offenses for violation of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and other pertinent election laws. Likewise, the Law Department must determine whether or not the said persons/witnesses must be indicted not only for election offenses but also for administrative offenses, in particular, those officers and personnel of this Commission who are responsible and mandated under the law to ensure that the election in Barangay Guiawa must be free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible, and one which must be held truly in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Whether or not the Public Respondent COMELEC [en banc] committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in promulgating the questioned Resolution on November 20, 2006, disallowing the holding of a third Special Election for lack of funds.[5]Petitioner contends that the ruling against the holding of a third special election is an "abnegation" of COMELEC's constitutional duty to conduct elections.
...[T]he Commission has already set into motion the mechanism for the conduct of [the 2007] election as early as July 26, 2006. Preparations have already started and conducting another special election in one precinct only might disrupt the whole system and jeopardize our major electoral exercise come May 14, 2007. At the time preparation alone for the conduct of the special election might already coincide or so nearly approximate the May 14, 2007 election so that any result of the special election may already be mooted by the May 14, 2007 election.[7]The COMELEC en banc enunciated that it would be impractical in terms of time, effort and money to declare the holding of a third special election in Barangay Guiawa, and it would be disadvantageous to the government, specifically to the Commission.