G.R. No. L-53962 February 3, 1981
ABOLAIS R. OMAR, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and YASIN B. ALAPA, respondents.

FACTS

Abolais R. Omar, an independent candidate, was proclaimed mayor of Madalum, Lanao del Sur on February 4, 1980, defeating Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan candidate Yasin B. Alapa by 104 votes. The following day, Alapa filed an urgent petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to set aside the proclamation, alleging massive fraud, substitution of voters, and irregularities in two voting centers. He sought the impoundment of ballot boxes and an examination of voting records by experts. The COMELEC initially suspended Omar’s proclamation. Omar countered that such allegations were proper grounds for an election protest, which Alapa had already filed ad cautelam.
On March 1, 1980, the COMELEC dismissed Alapa’s petition, ruling the grounds raised were proper for an electoral protest. However, before learning of this dismissal, Alapa filed a motion presenting newly discovered evidence. Subsequently, via a telegram dated April 17, 1980, the COMELEC held in abeyance the implementation of its March 1 resolution and directed Alapa to remain as holdover mayor. This effectively continued the suspension of Omar’s proclamation. On May 15, 1980, the COMELEC issued a resolution directing fingerprint and handwriting experts to examine the voting records of the contested centers to determine the validity of the votes and the proclamation.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in issuing its May 15, 1980 resolution ordering a technical examination of voting records.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC is the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies under Section 175 of the 1978 Election Code. Its directive for a technical examination was a procedural measure within its prerogative to ascertain the existence of discrepancies in the election returns, given the prima facie allegations of substitute voting. This proceeding was a continuation of the pre-proclamation controversy initiated by Alapa during the canvass when he sought to exclude the returns from the two voting centers.
The Court found the COMELEC’s action neither capricious, despotic, nor whimsical. It acted within its authority to adopt necessary procedures to resolve the controversy, as supported by precedents like Diaz, Sr. vs. COMELEC. The Court also noted that its power of review over COMELEC decisions under the 1973 Constitution is limited to certiorari, and the COMELEC’s orders in pre-proclamation controversies are generally final and executory. Therefore, absent a clear showing of grave abuse, the Court would not interfere. The petition was dismissed.