GR 149803; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149803; January 31, 2002
DATU ANDAL S. AMPATUAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DATU ZACARIA A. CANDAO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners and respondents were opposing candidates in the May 14, 2001 elections for provincial positions in Maguindanao. Petitioners were proclaimed winners by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on June 14, 2001, following a COMELEC order lifting a prior suspension of proclamation. Respondents had earlier filed a petition for annulment of election results and/or declaration of failure of elections, alleging massive fraud where ballots were pre-filled and election paraphernalia were not delivered in several municipalities. After the proclamation, the COMELEC issued orders on July 26 and August 28, 2001, consolidating the failure of elections petition with other related cases and directing a random technical examination of election documents to verify the allegations.
Petitioners filed this certiorari and prohibition case, arguing that the COMELEC lost jurisdiction over the failure of elections petition upon their proclamation. They contended that the proper remedy for respondents was an election protest, which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts and involves a full trial, not the summary proceeding for failure of elections. They sought to nullify the COMELEC orders for the technical examination, claiming it would defeat the summary nature of a failure of elections petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for declaration of failure of elections after the proclamation of the winning candidates.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC retained jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between a pre-proclamation controversy and an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections. A pre-proclamation controversy involves objections to the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers before proclamation and is generally limited to face-value examination of election returns. In contrast, an action for annulment or failure of elections, filed under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleges that the election was not held, was suspended, or resulted in a failure to elect due to fraud, terrorism, violence, or analogous causes. Such an action can be filed within a specified period and is not barred by a prior proclamation.
The Court held that the petitioners’ proclamation did not automatically convert the pending failure of elections petition into an election protest. The allegations of widespread fraud—that the elections were a sham, with ballots pre-filled and paraphernalia undelivered—if proven, constitute grounds for a declaration of failure of elections, which the COMELEC has the constitutional duty to investigate summarily. The technical examination was a valid exercise of this investigatory power to ascertain the truth of the allegations. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly proceeded with the consolidated petitions and the ordered examination. The petition was dismissed, and the temporary restraining order was lifted.