G.R. No. L-31380 January 21, 1970
BENJAMIN T. LIGOT, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CAGAYAN and DAVID PUZON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin T. Ligot, a Nacionalista Party independent candidate for the second congressional district of Cagayan in the November 11, 1969 elections, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on November 13, 1969. He sought the annulment of all election returns from the municipalities of Ballesteros, Allacapan, Abuyog, and Pamplona. His principal allegation was that armed men employed by respondent David Puzon, the official Nacionalista Party candidate, dictated at gunpoint the contents of the election returns to the boards of inspectors without an actual tally and count of the ballots, to give Puzon a plurality. In his fifth supplemental petition dated November 28, 1969, petitioner asked the COMELEC to receive evidence and conduct an investigation. However, on the same day, he agreed to have the matter heard and decided based on affidavits, counter-affidavits, and memoranda. Following this agreed procedure, the COMELEC required the submission of affidavits and allowed rebuttal affidavits. It then issued a resolution on December 19, 1969, dismissing Ligot’s petition and directing the provincial board of canvassers to proceed with the proclamation based on the returns from all municipalities, including the four contested ones, finding the returns regular and genuine. Petitioner later demanded on December 2, 1969, that the COMELEC summon and allow cross-examination of the election inspectors and poll clerks, but this was not granted. He also claimed he could not secure rebuttal affidavits due to threats from Puzon’s armed partisans, but that these witnesses were willing to testify before the COMELEC, a claim the COMELEC considered and rejected.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections committed a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, in hearing and deciding the petition for annulment of election returns based solely on affidavits without requiring oral testimony, and in dismissing the petition.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that by agreeing to have the matter heard and decided on affidavits, counter-affidavits, and rebuttal affidavits, the petitioner effectively waived his right, if any, to examine the affiants. His subsequent demand for summoning and cross-examining witnesses was therefore unavailing. The Court found that the petitioner made only a general allegation and did not show that the COMELEC’s procedure of deciding on affidits alone, without oral testimony, constituted such a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC, in performing its constitutional duty to insure free, orderly, and honest elections, possesses a wide latitude of discretion, which will not be interfered with by the Court unless exercised arbitrarily or improvidently. Furthermore, the allegations of fraud, terrorism, and vote-buying are normally proper grounds for an election protest, not for an action to annul election returns. The restraining order issued on December 22, 1969, was lifted, and the COMELEC and provincial board of canvassers were allowed to proceed accordingly.