G.R. No. L-28315 December 8, 1967
Ambrosio Janairo and Francisco Madarcos, petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections, Romulo Lumawig and Simplicio Egina, respondents.

FACTS

In the local election of November 14, 1967, for Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Caluya, Antique, petitioners Ambrosio Janairo and Francisco Madarcos were candidates against respondents Romulo Lumawig and Simplicio Egina, respectively. No election was held in Precinct No. 10 (Sibay island-barrio) because persons delivering the list of registered voters were fired upon and forced to return, arriving back only at 6:30 PM, at which time the board of election inspectors refused to hold the election. The respondents obtained a plurality of 23 votes. Petitioners alleged Precinct No. 10 had 173 voters, was their known bailiwick, and an election there would alter the municipal results. The Commission on Elections, upon telegraphic requests, resolved to direct the municipal board of canvassers to suspend the canvass until November 27, 1967, to give opportunity to seek a court remedy, after which, if no restraining order was received, the canvass would proceed and winners proclaimed. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court praying for an order directing the Commission on Elections to order the continuation of the election in Precinct No. 10, or alternatively to recommend to the President the holding of a new election there, or to give petitioners time to seek necessary legislation.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections or the Supreme Court has the authority to order the holding of a new election in a particular precinct where the election failed to take place on the date fixed by law.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that neither the Commission on Elections nor the Court has the authority to order the holding of a new election in a precinct where the election failed to take place. The authority to postpone an election (under Section 8 of the Revised Election Code) or to call a special election to fill an office when an election fails to take place or results in a failure to elect (under Section 21(c) of the Revised Election Code) is vested in the President. The power to fix the date of elections is legislative in character. The hiatus in the election law, which leaves voters in such precincts effectively disenfranchised, can only be filled by legislation from Congress, not by judicial fiat. The Court also denied the alternative prayer for a recommendation to the President, as making such recommendations is not the Court’s function, petitioners may do so themselves, and it is doubtful if the failure in one precinct constitutes a failure of “the election for a local office to take place” under the law.