GR 150312; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150312 ; July 18, 2002
BAGO P. PASANDALAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and BAI SALAMONA L. ASUM, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bago P. Pasandalan and private respondent Bai Salamona L. Asum were candidates for mayor of Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections. Pasandalan filed a petition before the COMELEC to declare a failure of election in several precincts. He alleged that on election day, gunfire from CAFGU members caused panic, allowing Asum’s supporters to allegedly seize and fill out ballots. In other precincts, he claimed members of the Board of Election Inspectors failed to sign ballots and remove detachable coupons properly, and that Asum’s supporters grabbed and filled out ballots during a commotion.
The COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It found that elections in the questioned precincts were held as scheduled, were not suspended, and resulted in Asum’s election. The COMELEC ruled the allegations of fraud, terrorism, and irregularities were proper subjects for an election protest, not a petition for failure of election, and deemed Pasandalan’s evidence, consisting of affidavits from his own watchers, insufficient and self-serving.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for declaration of failure of election.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A petition for declaration of failure of election is an extraordinary remedy, exercisable only in three instances under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code: (1) the election was not held, (2) the election was suspended, or (3) the election resulted in a failure to elect, meaning nobody was elected. The Court emphasized that this power must be exercised with utmost circumspection to avoid disenfranchising voters and frustrating the electorate’s will.
None of the conditions were present. The elections proceeded, were not suspended, and Asum was proclaimed winner. The alleged irregularities—terrorism, fraud, and procedural lapses by election officials—do not constitute grounds for a failure of election but are proper for an election contest where evidence can be thoroughly examined. The COMELEC correctly held that the petition did not specifically allege the essential grounds for the extraordinary remedy. Since the will of the electorate in the contested precincts could still be ascertained, the proper recourse was an election protest. The dismissal was thus affirmed.