GR 166143; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 166143-47 and 166891, November 20, 2006
ABDUSAKUR M. TAN and BASARON BURAHAN, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., Respondents. / BENJAMIN T. LOONG, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and YUSOP H. JIKIRI, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Abdusakur M. Tan and Basaron Burahan were candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor of Sulu in the May 10, 2004 elections. They filed petitions with the COMELEC for a declaration of failure of elections in four municipalities (Maimbung, Luuk, Tongkil, and Panamao), docketed as SPA Nos. 04-336, 04-337, 04-339, and 04-340. They alleged systematic fraud, terrorism, and massive disenfranchisement, submitting numerous affidavits from poll watchers and voters, photographs, and a military report to substantiate their claims. The COMELEC en banc, in a Joint Resolution dated October 18, 2004, rejected their prayer. Meanwhile, Benjamin Loong, who was proclaimed Governor, was facing an election protest (EPC Case No. 2004-66) filed by rival candidate Yusop Jikiri. Loong filed a motion to dismiss the protest, which the COMELEC First Division denied in Orders dated December 14, 2004, and February 7, 2005.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying the petitions for declaration of failure of elections, and (2) denying Loong’s motion to dismiss the election protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. On the failure of elections, the Court reiterated the stringent conditions for such a declaration: (1) no voting took place, or voting was suspended before the hour fixed by law, or (2) after the voting, the election results were not achieved. The Court held that the petitioners’ evidence, while voluminous, consisted largely of general and unsubstantiated allegations. The affidavits failed to specify with particularity the precincts affected, the number of voters disenfranchised, or how the alleged irregularities prevented the electorate from freely casting their votes. The COMELEC en banc correctly found that the evidence did not convincingly establish that the will of the electorate was entirely subverted or that the irregularities were of such a nature as to warrant the extreme remedy of nullifying the elections. The holding of elections and the subsequent canvassing of returns were factual determinations by the COMELEC entitled to great respect.
Regarding the election protest, the Court ruled that the COMELEC First Division acted within its jurisdiction in denying Loong’s motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss in an election protest is generally a prohibited pleading under COMELEC rules. Furthermore, the grounds raised by Loong pertained to the appreciation of evidence and the merits of the protest, which are matters to be fully ventilated during a full-blown trial, not resolved summarily in a motion to dismiss. The COMELEC did not act capriciously or whimsically in issuing the assailed orders.