G.R. No. 85742 ; April 19, 1990
JESUS F. SALAZAR, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND BENJAMIN S. IMPERIAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus F. Salazar, Jr. and private respondent Benjamin S. Imperial were candidates for Mayor of Legaspi City in the January 18, 1988 elections. During the canvass, Salazar objected to 165 election returns, alleging massive irregularities. The City Board of Canvassers overruled his objections. Salazar then filed a petition with the COMELEC (SPC No. 88-265) seeking a declaration of failure of election, annulment of returns, or a recount. Initially, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution suspending the effects of any proclamation. However, following a reorganization, the COMELEC First Division issued a resolution on February 26, 1988, lifting that suspension and ordering the Board to reconvene and proclaim the winning mayor. The Board proclaimed Imperial on March 2, 1988.
Salazar moved for reconsideration. The COMELEC en banc, on October 21, 1988, denied his motion, affirmed the First Division’s resolution lifting the suspension, and remanded the case to the First Division for a hearing on the merits. Salazar filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the February 26 and October 21, 1988 resolutions and Imperial’s proclamation. While this case was pending, the COMELEC First Division proceeded with the hearing as mandated and eventually dismissed Salazar’s petition for lack of interest on June 5, 1989.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions that led to the proclamation of Benjamin S. Imperial and in subsequently dismissing the pre-proclamation controversy.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and sustained the COMELEC’s actions. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between pre-proclamation controversies and election protests. The alleged massive irregularities, such as fraud and terrorism, raised by Salazar involved the appreciation of ballots and the conduct of the voting and counting—matters that are properly adjudicated in a regular election protest, not in a pre-proclamation case. Pre-proclamation controversies are generally limited to challenges based on the completeness and authenticity of the election returns. Since Salazar’s objections went into the merits of the votes cast, his proper remedy was to file an election protest.
Furthermore, the Court found that the COMELEC First Division acted within its jurisdiction when it lifted the suspension of proclamation. The initial suspension order was interlocutory, and the Division had the authority to reverse it. The subsequent en banc resolution, which affirmed the lifting and remanded the case, was also valid. The Court also ruled that the COMELEC’s continuation of proceedings during the pendency of this petition was proper, as no restraining order was issued. Finally, the June 5, 1989 resolution dismissing the case for lack of interest was not a decision requiring en banc reconsideration but a procedural order, and it did not render the Supreme Court petition moot, as the Court independently concluded that Salazar’s claims were for an election protest.