G.R. No. 244587. January 10, 2023
AMIL P. SULA, GASPAR S. ASI, AND HUSSIEN K. MALIG, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE NATIONAL PLEBISCITE BOARD OF CANVASSERS, RESPONDENT.
MAYOR FRANCES CYNTHIA GUIANI-SAYADI, PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE NATIONAL PLEBISCITE BOARD OF CANVASSERS, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Republic Act No. 11054, the Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, was enacted on July 21, 2018. It provided for the determination of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region’s territorial jurisdiction through majority votes cast in a plebiscite to be held within 90 to 150 days after the law’s effectivity. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated Resolution No. 10464, scheduling the plebiscite for Cotabato City on January 21, 2019. The official ballot for Cotabato City contained the question: “PAYAG BA KAYO NA ISAMA ANG LUNGSOD COTABATO SA REHIYONG AWTONOMO NG BANGSAMORO?” The plebiscite was conducted as scheduled. The Certificate of Canvass showed 38,682 “YES” votes and 24,994 “NO” votes. The COMELEC, sitting as the National Plebiscite Board of Canvassers, ordered a retabulation of the votes. On January 25, 2019, the COMELEC proclaimed the ratification of the Organic Law and the inclusion of Cotabato City in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. Petitioners, residents and registered voters of Cotabato City, filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus assailing the COMELEC’s conduct of the plebiscite and its subsequent proclamation. They alleged that: (1) the plebiscite was held beyond the 150-day period prescribed by law; (2) the question on the ballot was misleading as it implied the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region already existed; (3) there were massive irregularities in the conduct of the plebiscite, including manipulation of voter registration, biased plebiscite committees, flying voters, and use of force and intimidation; and (4) the discrepancies in the Certificate of Canvass between total votes cast and the number of registered voters who actually voted indicated fraud. The COMELEC, in its Comment, asserted it did not commit grave abuse of discretion, arguing the plebiscite dates were within the legal period, the ballot question complied with the Organic Law, and the alleged irregularities were unsubstantiated, with discrepancies reconciled during retabulation. Cotabato City Mayor Frances Cynthia Guiani-Sayadi filed a Petition-in-Intervention seeking the grant of the main Petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) conducting the plebiscite in Cotabato City on January 21, 2019, and (2) proclaiming the ratification of the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the inclusion of Cotabato City in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition and the Petition-in-Intervention. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
1. On the Timeliness of the Plebiscite: The Court held the plebiscite was conducted within the period mandated by the Organic Law. The law took effect on September 10, 2018, 15 days after its publication in a local newspaper of general circulation on August 25, 2018. Counting 150 days from September 10, 2018, the deadline fell on February 7, 2019. The Cotabato City plebiscite on January 21, 2019, was well within this period. Furthermore, the COMELEC possesses the authority under the Omnibus Election Code to fix other dates for a plebiscite if necessary.
2. On the Form of the Plebiscite Question: The Court ruled the question on the ballot, “PAYAG BA KAYO NA ISAMA ANG LUNGSOD COTABATO SA REHIYONG AWTONOMO NG BANGSAMORO?”, was a proper and straightforward translation of the requirement in Article XV, Section 3(d) of the Organic Law, which states: “The City of Cotabato shall form part of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region if the majority of the votes cast in the city shall be in favor of its inclusion.” The question was not misleading.
3. On the Alleged Plebiscite Irregularities: The Court found petitioners’ allegations of massive irregularities to be bare and unsubstantiated. They failed to present concrete evidence to prove the claimed manipulation, bias, flying voters, or coercion. The alleged discrepancy in the Certificate of Canvass was adequately explained and rectified by the COMELEC through the retabulation process, which is a standard procedure under its own rules. The retabulation confirmed the results. The Court emphasized that in the absence of compelling evidence, it must accord respect to the COMELEC’s factual findings and expertise in administering elections and plebiscites.
The Court reiterated that the writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are only granted upon a clear showing that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. No such showing was made against the COMELEC. Its actions in administering the plebiscite and proclaiming its results were within its constitutional and statutory mandate. The Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.