G.R. No. 166388 & 166652; January 23, 2006
ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MA. SALVACION BUAC and ANTONIO BAUTISTA, Respondents.

FACTS

A plebiscite was held on April 25, 1998, to ratify the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city under Republic Act No. 8487. The Plebiscite Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed the rejection of the conversion. Alleging fraud and irregularities, private respondents Buac and Bautista filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the results and seek a revision and recount of ballots, docketed as EPC No. 98-102. Petitioner Alan Peter Cayetano, then Congressman of Taguig-Pateros, intervened and moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election protest and that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction. The COMELEC initially granted the motion, but the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 155855, reversed this, holding that the COMELEC has constitutional authority to enforce laws relative to plebiscites. The High Court directed the COMELEC to reinstate and decide the petition.
Following the Supreme Court’s directive, the COMELEC conducted a revision and recount of the plebiscite ballots. The COMELEC Second Division failed to reach a decision due to an inability to obtain the required votes. Consequently, the case was elevated to the COMELEC en banc, which, on December 8, 2004, issued a Resolution declaring the conversion ratified and approved, finding that the affirmative votes constituted the majority. Petitioner filed G.R. No. 166388, assailing this Resolution. Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc declared its December 8 Resolution final and executory and recorded it in its Book of Entry of Judgments on January 28, 2005. Petitioner challenged these subsequent actions in G.R. No. 166652, leading to the consolidation of the two petitions.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) issuing its December 8, 2004 Resolution declaring the ratification of Taguig’s cityhood based on the revision/recount; and (2) declaring the said Resolution final and executory and entering it in the Book of Entry of Judgments.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. On the first issue, the Court held that the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and mandate. Its constitutional power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall” includes the authority to resolve disputes concerning the conduct and results of a plebiscite. The revision and recount of ballots were a valid exercise of this power to ascertain the true will of the electorate, especially after the Supreme Court had already definitively ruled on the COMELEC’s jurisdiction in the prior G.R. No. 155855. Petitioner’s objections to the revision process were unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate any capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment by the COMELEC.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the COMELEC’s act of declaring its Resolution final and executory and recording the entry of judgment was a ministerial duty prescribed by its own Rules of Procedure. Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules states that a decision of the Commission en banc becomes final after thirty days from promulgation. The December 8, 2004 Resolution became final on January 9,