GR 110347; (February, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110347 February 4, 1994
DATU PIKE T. MENTANG, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALI BERNAN, respondents.
FACTS
Pursuant to R.A. No. 7647 , the ARMM regular elections were held on March 25, 1993. Petitioner Datu Pike Mentang and private respondent Datu Ali Bernan were contenders for a seat in the Regional Legislative Assembly. After canvassing, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of Maguindanao certified on March 28, 1993, that petitioner was the third winning candidate with 55,212 votes against private respondent’s 52,808 votes. Petitioner was proclaimed and took his oath on March 31, 1993. On April 5, 1993, private respondent filed with the COMELEC a “Petition to Correct Manifest Error and Annul the Proclamation of Respondent and/or Suspend the Effects of Such Proclamation” (SPC No. 93-004). He contended, based on the Statement of Votes by Precinct, that he actually garnered 57,248 votes, indicating a mathematical mistake in the PBC’s addition. Petitioner questioned COMELEC’s jurisdiction, arguing the petition was a pre-proclamation case filed beyond the five-day reglementary period from proclamation. On April 23, 1993, COMELEC Chairman ordered a re-tabulation. On June 8, 1993, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution holding it had jurisdiction and directing the implementation of the re-tabulation order. Petitioner filed this certiorari petition assailing the Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that it has lawful jurisdiction to decide the petition to annul the proclamation based on alleged mistake in the addition of votes.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The Court ruled that the petition filed by private respondent was not merely for correction of manifest errors but essentially a petition for annulment of proclamation based on a mistake in addition, which is not strictly bound by the five-day period for pre-proclamation controversies. The COMELEC, in the exercise of its broad administrative powers to enforce and administer election laws, has the authority to annul an illegal proclamation. The Court emphasized that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities should not obstruct the determination of the true will of the electorate. The case was REMANDED to the COMELEC to resolve the main petition with dispatch. The temporary restraining order was LIFTED.