GR 155855 CArpio Morales (Digest)
G.R. No. 155855, January 26, 2004
Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista, Petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections and Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners sought from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) the annulment of the plebiscite results concerning the conversion of Taguig from a municipality into a highly urbanized city, held on April 25, 1998. They alleged that fraud, anomalies, and irregularities attended the balloting and canvassing, which seriously affected the plebiscite’s outcome. Invoking the COMELEC’s constitutional power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of a… plebiscite” under Section 2(1), Article IX-C, they petitioned for a recount of the votes.
The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The majority of the Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s position, finding that its administrative powers under the Constitution did not extend to adjudicating post-plebiscite controversies alleging electoral fraud. This digest encapsulates the dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio Morales, which contests the majority’s conclusion on jurisdictional grounds.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain a petition to annul plebiscite results based on allegations of fraud, anomalies, and irregularities in the conduct of the balloting and canvassing.
RULING
No, the COMELEC lacks jurisdiction. The dissenting opinion meticulously distinguishes between the COMELEC’s administrative and quasi-judicial powers. Its power to “enforce and administer” laws relating to plebiscites under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C is purely administrative, covering pre-plebiscite and plebiscite-day oversight. Conversely, its quasi-judicial power to adjudicate “contests” is explicitly and exclusively granted under Section 2(2) of the same Article, but this provision is expressly limited to contests involving “elective” officials.
The petition, by alleging fraud and irregularities that affected the outcome, essentially raises a post-proclamation contest over the plebiscite results. This calls for the exercise of quasi-judicial power to resolve a justiciable controversy. However, since neither the Constitution nor any statute has delegated to the COMELEC or any other tribunal the specific quasi-judicial authority to settle plebiscite contests, such jurisdiction remains with the regular courts pursuant to Section 19(6) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. This provision grants Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Recognizing a gap in the law does not permit the Court to confer jurisdiction upon the COMELEC, as doing so would constitute judicial legislation.