GR 160428; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160428 , July 21, 2004
Hadji Rasul Batabor, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, Barangay Board of Canvassers, Board of Election Inspectors of Precincts Nos. 3A, 4A and 5A, Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur, and Mocasim Abangon Batondiang, respondents.
FACTS
In the synchronized July 15, 2002 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, petitioner Hadji Rasul Batabor and private respondent Mocasim Abangon Batondiang were opposing candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur. The canvass showed Batondiang won with 123 votes against Batabor’s 94, a margin of 29 votes, and Batondiang was duly proclaimed.
Batabor filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare a failure of election in Precincts 3A, 4A, and 5A. He alleged that after a lunch break, the BEI Chairwoman tore all unused official ballots, padlocked the ballot boxes, and did not resume voting despite a directive from the Election Officer. Consequently, over 100 of his relatives and supporters were allegedly disenfranchised. Batondiang countered that Batabor himself padlocked the boxes, his family witnessed the counting, and such issues were proper for an election protest, not a declaration of failure of election.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition to declare a failure of election and annul the proclamation?
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to declare a failure of election is extraordinary and must be exercised with utmost care only when the electorate’s will is muted and cannot be ascertained. Under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, two conditions must concur: (1) no voting was held in a precinct due to fraud, force majeure, violence, terrorism, or analogous causes; and (2) the votes not cast are sufficient to affect the election results.
The Court found that while the alleged 100 disenfranchised votes were numerically sufficient to alter the outcome, Batabor failed to substantiate his claim that voting did not take place in the subject precincts. The COMELEC correctly relied on the Statement of Votes and the Certificate of Canvass, which indicated an election was held and results were obtained. Allegations of fraud and irregularities, such as the premature termination of voting and disenfranchisement, are properly adjudicated in a regular election protest where evidence can be thoroughly examined, not in a summary proceeding for failure of election. The will of the electorate, as reflected in the canvassed results, remained determinable and therefore must be respected.