G.R. Nos. 148575-76 & 152882-83, December 10, 2003
ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, et al. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

Petitioners Abdusakur Tan, et al., candidates in the May 14, 2001 elections in Sulu, filed two petitions (SPA Nos. 01-257 and 01-265) with the COMELEC En Banc to declare a failure of elections in the municipalities of Luuk, Parang, and Indanan. They alleged widespread fraud, terrorism, and disenfranchisement, claiming no actual voting occurred in many precincts. The COMELEC initially issued an order to suspend the proclamation of winning candidates. However, the Provincial Board of Canvassers was not served this order and proceeded to proclaim respondents Yusop Jikiri, et al., as the winning candidates for provincial positions. Petitioners then filed amended petitions impleading the proclaimed winners and moved to annul their proclamation.
The COMELEC En Banc, in its assailed orders, ultimately dismissed the petitions. It ruled that the grounds invoked by petitioners—specifically, alleged massive fraud and terrorism—did not constitute valid grounds for a declaration of failure of election under the law. The COMELEC held that the proper remedy for such allegations was a regular election protest, not a petition to declare a failure of elections. It also noted that the petitions were filed directly with the En Banc, bypassing the proper division, and were thus procedurally infirm.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitions to declare a failure of elections in the three Sulu municipalities.

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s dismissal, emphasizing the strict legal parameters for declaring a failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4116. The Court reiterated that a failure of election can only be declared in three specific instances: (1) the election has not been held; (2) the election has been suspended before the close of voting; or (3) after the voting, a failure to elect results from force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes during the preparation, transmission, or custody of returns or canvass.
The legal logic is clear: the grounds alleged by petitioners, even if true, pertain to irregularities in the conduct of the election itself, not to a scenario where no election was held or where the election process was completely suspended. The Court distinguished between an “election protest,” which questions the manner and validity of votes cast, and a “failure of election” proceeding, which questions the very holding of the election. Since voting and canvassing were admittedly conducted, the alleged fraud and terrorism did not prevent the electorate from participating in an election. Therefore, the proper recourse for the petitioners was to file an election protest with the proper tribunal to ventilate their claims of electoral anomalies, not a petition to declare a total failure of elections. The COMELEC’s finding that the essential conditions for a failure of election were absent was a correct application of settled doctrine and within its jurisdiction.