GR 139545; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139545. January 28, 2000.
MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ATTY. ALI M. BALINDONG, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Ali Balindong, a rival mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify petitioner Maimona Diangka from the May 11, 1998 elections for Mayor of Ganassi, Lanao del Sur. The petition alleged Diangka, through her husband (the incumbent mayor), committed acts of terrorism to enhance her candidacy. Specific acts included compelling rival watchers to leave a precinct, allowing the stuffing of ballots, and, on election day, creating commotion by firing guns at a school to scare away voters. Diangka filed an Answer with a general denial but did not specifically traverse the allegations. After special elections in nine precincts, Diangka was proclaimed winner. The COMELEC Second Division, based on the affidavits submitted by Balindong, found the acts of terrorism sufficiently established and attributable to Diangka as the candidate intended to succeed her husband, and disqualified her.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Diangka based on affidavits without conducting a formal hearing where the affiants could be cross-examined.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the summary nature of disqualification proceedings under COMELEC rules. The Court emphasized that such proceedings are designed for expeditious resolution. Rule 25, Section 4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandates summary hearings, and Rule 17, Section 3 explicitly allows the Commission to decide based on position papers, affidavits, and documentary evidence, dispensing with oral testimony. A formal trial-type hearing with cross-examination is not indispensable; the COMELEC may, at its discretion, allow cross-examination only if clarification is needed. Here, Diangka was given the opportunity to be heard by submitting her memorandum and counter-affidavits. Her failure to specifically deny the allegations under oath and to present compelling contrary evidence left the COMELEC’s factual findings, based on the submitted affidavits, conclusive. The Court found no arbitrariness in the COMELEC’s evaluation of evidence and its conclusion that the terrorism was perpetrated to benefit Diangka’s candidacy. Thus, the petition was dismissed.