GR 178884; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178884 ; June 30, 2008
RICARDO P. PRESBITERO, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL YOGORE, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners sought a declaration of failure of election in Valladolid, Negros Occidental, and the holding of a special election. Their petition was based on several grounds: the disenfranchisement of 946 individuals whom the MCTC had ordered included as qualified voters but were barred from voting due to the acting Provincial Election Supervisor’s directive; the alleged illegal replacement of the Municipal Election Officer; an unusually low voter turnout; the claim that 2,000 supporters could not find their names on the voter list; and the Municipal Board of Canvassers’ defiance of an MCTC-issued Temporary Restraining Order that sought to suspend the canvass and proclamation.
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It ruled that the cited grounds did not fall under the specific instances warranting a declaration of failure of election under the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC noted that petitioners themselves admitted an election was held, approximately 70% of voters cast their ballots, and winners—including four petitioners—were proclaimed. Aggrieved, petitioners filed this certiorari and prohibition case, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for declaration of failure of election.
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal framework for declaring a failure of election is strict and limited. Under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, such a declaration is warranted only in three instances: (1) the election has not been held, (2) the election has been suspended before the hour fixed by law, or (3) the preparation/transmission of returns results in a failure to elect (i.e., no winner emerges). Furthermore, the cause must be force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes.
The petitioners’ allegations do not satisfy these stringent requirements. They conceded that an election was conducted and that it produced winners. The claimed disenfranchisement, while a serious electoral concern, is not a valid ground for declaring a complete failure of election under the law, absent proof that voting did not occur at all. Proper remedies for such grievances, including questions on the board’s composition or proceedings, lie in a pre-proclamation controversy, not a petition for failure of election. The MCTC also lacked jurisdiction to issue a TRO against the canvassing board, as pre-proclamation matters are within the COMELEC’s exclusive authority. Thus, the COMELEC correctly applied the law, and its resolution is upheld.