GR 163302; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163302 , July 23, 2004
ROBERTO ALBAÑA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PIO JUDE S. BELO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were proclaimed winners in the May 14, 2001 elections for municipal offices in Panitan, Capiz. Private respondents filed a complaint for election offenses, specifically vote-buying and acts of terrorism under the Omnibus Election Code, and sought petitioners’ disqualification. The COMELEC Law Department found a prima facie case and recommended the filing of an information and disqualification. The COMELEC En Banc, by Resolution dated February 28, 2003, directed the filing of an information and the docketing of a disqualification case. The COMELEC First Division subsequently issued a Resolution on October 21, 2003, annulling petitioners’ proclamation and ordering the constitution of a new board of canvassers to disregard petitioners’ votes and proclaim new winners. The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on May 5, 2004.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling petitioners’ proclamation in a disqualification case based solely on the prima facie findings of its Law Department, without conducting a formal hearing or receiving evidence directly.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the COMELEC resolutions. The Court held that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. In a disqualification case based on alleged commission of election offenses, the COMELEC acts as a quasi-judicial body. Its constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute election offenses is distinct from its adjudicatory power to resolve disqualification cases. The First Division’s resolution, which grounded disqualification on findings of vote-buying and terrorism, was based merely on the preliminary investigation report of the Law Department. The petitioners were never given a genuine opportunity to present their evidence and counter the charges in a formal hearing before the Division. Due process requires that in an adversarial proceeding like a disqualification case, the evidence must be formally offered and the parties heard. The COMELEC cannot shortcut this process by merely adopting the prosecutorial arm’s findings. Consequently, the annulment of proclamation and the order to disregard petitioners’ votes were void for lack of due process. The proper course was for the COMELEC to hear the disqualification case independently.