G.R. No. 264661 , July 30, 2024.
CLARYLYN A. LEGASPI, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners, representing voters of Pangasinan, filed a class suit via a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. They alleged that their rights of suffrage, to petition for redress, and to access information were violated by the COMELEC’s inaction on their requests for a manual recount of the provincial election results for all positions from the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections, at their expense. They argued this inaction constituted grave abuse of discretion and a denial of due process.
The COMELEC’s Executive Director received a document titled “APELA PARA SA MANO-MANONG PAGBILANG MULI NG MGA BOTO SA PROBINSYA NG PANGASINAN” (APELA) on May 27, 2022, forwarded from the Provincial Election Supervisor who received it from Albert O. Quintinita. The APELA was a signature campaign petition alleging widespread cheating in Pangasinan and calling for a proper, honest, and lawful manual recount. Petitioner Atty. Laudemer I. Fabia prepared and circulated it. Only the first page of intent was attached to the petition; the signature pages were not included.
The COMELEC Law Department, in a letter dated May 31, 2022, replied to Quintinita. It stated that the APELA, while signed by many, did not specify the position or details required for an election protest. It guided that contests for elective regional, provincial, or city officials must be filed directly with the COMELEC by a candidate for the same office who received the second or third highest number of votes. Contests for municipal officials must be filed with the proper Regional Trial Court by such a candidate.
Dissatisfied, Atty. Fabia sent a letter dated June 15, 2022, seeking reconsideration on behalf of over 71,000 voters. He argued the APELA was not an election protest by a losing candidate but a “PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE” and an exercise of the people’s right to information and sovereign rights to know if their votes were accurately counted. He claimed IT experts could testify about failures in mandated safeguards of the Automated Election System, opening results to manipulation.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its treatment of and response to the petitioners’ “APELA” for a manual recount.

RULING

No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court held that the petitioners’ remedy of a manual recount is properly availed of through an election protest, which is governed by specific rules and timelines under the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC resolutions. An election protest is a contest between a losing candidate and a winning candidate, questioning the latter’s eligibility or the correctness of the election results. The petitioners, as mere voters, are not the proper parties to initiate an election protest; the proper parties are the candidates themselves.
The Court found that the COMELEC correctly and appropriately responded to the APELA by providing the correct guidance on the proper remedy—an election protest—and the proper parties to file it. The COMELEC’s response was a mere reiteration of the law and did not constitute a denial of a right or a refusal to perform a duty. There was no inaction or refusal to act on the part of the COMELEC; it acted by issuing the responsive letter. Therefore, the COMELEC’s actions were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court further noted that the petitioners failed to comply with procedural requirements for a special civil action for certiorari, such as attaching certified true copies of the assailed COMELEC letter and the APELA document with its signatures. The petition also raised factual issues inappropriate for direct recourse to the Supreme Court. The asserted rights to suffrage, information, and petition were not absolute and could be subject to limitations, including the prescribed statutory procedures for election contests.