G.R. No. 160427 ; September 15, 2004
POLALA SAMBARANI, JAMAL MIRAATO, SAMERA ABUBACAR and MACABIGUNG MASCARA, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EO ESMAEL MAULAY, Acting Election Officer, Tamparan, Lanao del Sur or whoever is acting on his behalf, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were incumbent punong barangays who ran for re-election in their respective barangays in Tamparan, Lanao del Sur, during the 15 July 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Due to a failure of elections in eleven barangays, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5479 setting special elections on 13 August 2002. Acting Election Officer Esmael Maulay certified that no special elections were held on that date. Consequently, the petitioners filed a Joint Petition seeking to declare a failure of elections and to hold another special election, attributing the failure to EO Maulay’s non-compliance with a COMELEC Commissioner’s directive regarding the use of specific voter lists and records.
The COMELEC en banc, in a Resolution dated 8 October 2003, agreed that the special elections had failed. However, it refused to call another special election, citing Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, which states that special elections must be held not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause for postponement. The COMELEC deemed another election untenable as more than thirty days had elapsed, and it would be a waste of resources. Instead, it directed the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to proceed with the appointment of barangay officials. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition challenging the COMELEC’s refusal to hold another special election and its directive for appointments.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to call another special election after a declared failure of election and in directing the DILG to appoint barangay officials instead.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC’s reliance on the 30-day period under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code was misplaced. This provision applies to the postponement of elections before they are held, not to situations where an election has been held but subsequently declared a failure. The governing law for declaring a failure of election and calling a special election is Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, in relation to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 . These laws empower the COMELEC to call a special election within thirty days after it has determined and declared the existence of a failure of election, not from the date of the original failed election.
The legal logic is clear: the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate to enforce election laws includes the power to call a special election to fill a vacancy arising from a failure to elect. The 30-day period for holding that special election begins to run from the date the COMELEC declares a failure of election, not from the date of the original election. Since the COMELEC declared the failure of election only on 8 October 2003, the 30-day period had not yet lapsed when it issued the assailed resolution. Therefore, its refusal to call an election based on a misinterpretation of the law constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court also held that the COMELEC cannot delegate its exclusive power to call a special election to the DILG. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, ordered the petitioners to remain in a hold-over capacity, and directed the COMELEC to conduct special barangay elections in the affected barangays within thirty days from the finality of the decision.