G.R. No. L-52451, March 31, 1981
Zacarias A. Ticzon vs. Commission on Elections

FACTS

The consolidated cases arose from the 1980 local elections in San Pablo City. Petitioner Zacarias Ticzon and intervenor Cesar Dizon were candidates for mayor. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) initially issued an order on February 1, 1980, suspending the canvass of votes. On February 5, 1980, the Supreme Court issued a restraining order directing the city board of canvassers to proceed with the canvass. Before this order could be served, the COMELEC, acting on a verified petition from Dizon alleging terrorism and irregularities, issued a Resolution on February 6, 1980, which suspended the canvass and proclamation or, alternatively, annulled the election. The COMELEC also reconstituted the city board of canvassers and later ordered the canvass to be held at its Session Hall in Manila.
Subsequently, the COMELEC resolved the pending disqualification cases against the candidates. It found Ticzon disqualified on the ground of “turncoatism” on February 12, 1980, and dismissed the disqualification case against Dizon on February 13, 1980. Following these resolutions, the COMELEC considered Ticzon’s votes as stray and proclaimed Dizon as the elected mayor. Ticzon challenged these COMELEC actions before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion or in willful disregard of the Supreme Court’s restraining orders through its series of resolutions and orders concerning the canvass and proclamation in the San Pablo City mayoral election.

RULING

In his concurring opinion, Justice De Castro defended the COMELEC’s actions, finding no gross disregard of the Supreme Court’s orders. He reasoned that the COMELEC’s February 6, 1980 Resolution was issued before service of the Court’s February 5 restraining order and was a bona fide exercise of its constitutional duty to act on serious electoral charges. The resolution was based on a verified petition alleging grievous election offenses, which the COMELEC could not ignore without dereliction of duty.
The opinion further held that the COMELEC’s subsequent acts—reconstituting the board of canvassers and transferring the venue of the canvass—were within its plenary powers of direct control and supervision under the Election Code to ensure a clean and honest canvass. These acts did not violate the specific thrust of the first restraining order, which was merely to have the canvass proceed. The disqualification of Ticzon, which led to the straying of his votes and Dizon’s proclamation, was a separate exercise of the COMELEC’s adjudicatory power. Justice De Castro emphasized that constitutional bodies like the COMELEC should be presumed to act in good faith and be spared severe castigation absent indisputable grounds, as their errors do not equate to arbitrariness or willful disobedience.