GR 201796; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201796 ; January 15, 2013
GOVERNOR SADIKUL A. SAHALI and VICE-GOVERNOR RUBY M. SAHALI, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION), RASHIDIN H. MATBA and JILKASI J. USMAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Sadikul A. Sahali and Ruby M. Sahali were proclaimed Governor and Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi, respectively, after the May 2010 elections. Private respondents Rashidin H. Matba and Jilkasi J. Usman, the losing candidates, filed separate election protests before the COMELEC, contesting results in 39 clustered precincts and praying for a technical examination of election documents. The cases were consolidated. The COMELEC First Division initially ordered a recount but later granted the private respondents’ ex-parte motion to instead conduct a technical examination of the Election Day Computerized Voters List (EDCVL), Voters Registration Record (VRR), and Book of Voters to compare signatures and thumbmarks.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the COMELEC Order was issued without due process as they were not allowed to oppose the ex-parte motion. They also contended there were no published rules governing such technical examination and that it violated a Precautionary Protection Order from the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The COMELEC First Division denied their motion, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Order for a technical examination of election documents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the COMELEC Order. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the due process claim, the Court ruled that the petitioners were not deprived of their right to be heard. The private respondents’ election protests and the Preliminary Conference Orders explicitly indicated their intent to seek a technical examination. Petitioners had the opportunity to, but failed to, object during the preliminary conference. The subsequent grant of the motion was not a final adjudication but a procedural directive incidental to the protest, and petitioners were able to fully argue their opposition in their motion for reconsideration.
Regarding the absence of published rules, the Court emphasized the COMELEC’s broad constitutional and statutory powers to investigate and ascertain the results of elections. This includes the inherent authority to issue orders for the examination of election documents to determine fraud or irregularities. Such procedural directives in the exercise of its adjudicatory functions do not require prior publication as they are not rules of general applicability. The technical examination was a reasonable exercise of the COMELEC’s discretion to get to the truth of the matter. The Court also found no conflict with the Precautionary Protection Order from another tribunal, as that order pertained to a different electoral contest.