G.R. Nos. 107814-15, 120826, 122137, 122396 May 16, 1996
GOV. TUPAY T. LOONG, et al. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the 1995 elections for Governor and Vice-Governor of Sulu, involving petitioners Tupay T. Loong and Kimar Tulawie against private respondents Abdusakur Tan and Munib Estino. After the canvass, the COMELEC, acting on a petition (SPA No. 95-284) filed by private respondents alleging massive fraud and failure of election in the Municipality of Parang, issued an order suspending the proclamation of petitioners. The COMELEC then directed its Voters Identification Division to conduct a technical examination and verification of the signatures and thumbmarks in the list of voters (CE Form 2) and registration records (CE Form 1) for Parang. Petitioners challenged this order, arguing such examination is prohibited in pre-proclamation controversies under the ruling in Dianalan vs. COMELEC.
The COMELEC, in its October 9, 1995 Resolution, ultimately granted the petition in SPA No. 95-284, declaring a failure of election in Parang and annulling the canvass results from that municipality. It ordered a special election. Petitioners sought reconsideration and filed the instant petitions, arguing the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in suspending their proclamation, ordering the technical examination, and declaring a failure of election.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) suspending the proclamation of petitioners; (2) ordering a technical examination of voters’ signatures and thumbmarks; and (3) declaring a failure of election in Parang and annulling the canvass.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. On the first issue, the COMELEC has the constitutional authority to enforce and administer all laws relative to elections, which includes the power to suspend a proclamation to preserve the integrity of the electoral process when serious allegations of fraud are raised. The suspension was a preliminary step to its investigation and was within its discretion. On the second issue, the technical examination was not conducted in the context of a pre-proclamation controversy but as part of the COMELEC’s fact-finding in an action for annulment of elections, which is distinct and allowed. The prohibition in Dianalan applies to pre-proclamation cases, not to actions for annulment.
Most significantly, on the third issue, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s declaration of failure of election. The legal requisites for such a declaration are: (1) no voting took place, or the election was suspended before the hour fixed by law; or (2) voting and election results were affected by force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. The COMELEC’s factual findings, based on evidence of widespread fraud, terrorism, and disenfranchisement in Parang which prevented a free and honest expression of the popular will, sufficiently met these criteria. The COMELEC’s determination on this matter is accorded great respect and finality unless patently erroneous. No such error was found.