Cayetano vs. COMELEC

In a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the Court generally may not resolve factual issues such as the alleged incompleteness of a plebiscite revision and purported irregularities in the appreciation of ballots; the COMELEC's factual findings in plebiscite matters, when supported by evidence, are accorded respect and finality and will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion. In these consolidated cases, no grave abuse of discretion attended the COMELEC's confirmation of Taguig's cityhood or its order declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory.

Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Congressman representing the District of Taguig-Pateros, challenged resolutions of the Commission on Elections concerning the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, into a highly urbanized city under Republic Act No. 8487. Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista are residents and registered voters of Taguig. Republic Act No. 8487 mandated a plebiscite on the conversion, and a prior decision in G.R. No. 155855, Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista vs. COMELEC and Alan Peter S. Cayetano, held that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a controversy involving the conduct of the Taguig plebiscite under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution.

On April 25, 1998, the COMELEC conducted a plebiscite in Taguig, Metro Manila, on the conversion of the municipality into a highly urbanized city as mandated by Republic Act No. 8487. The residents were asked whether they approved the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, into a highly urbanized city to be known as the City of Taguig, as provided for in Republic Act No. 8487.

On April 26, 1998, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers, without completing the canvass of sixty-four (64) other election returns, declared that the "No" votes won, indicating that the people rejected the conversion. Upon order of the COMELEC en banc, the PBOC reconvened and completed the canvass of the plebiscite returns, but the negative votes still prevailed. Private respondents Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista, residents and registered voters of Taguig, alleged that fraud and irregularities attended the casting and counting of votes and filed with the COMELEC a petition seeking annulment of the announced results, with a prayer for revision and recount of the ballots.

The COMELEC treated the petition as an election protest, docketed as EPC No. 98-102 and raffled to the Second Division. Petitioner Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Congressman representing the District of Taguig-Pateros, intervened and moved to dismiss on the ground that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over an action involving the conduct of a plebiscite, alleging that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election protest. The COMELEC Second Division granted the motion and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the COMELEC en banc affirmed. On January 26, 2004, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 155855, reversed the COMELEC and held that the controversy involved the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a plebiscite, falling under the COMELEC's jurisdiction under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution; the Court directed the COMELEC to reinstate the petition and decide it without delay. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 24, 2004.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's directive, the COMELEC Second Division issued an Order on April 19, 2004 constituting the committees for the revision/recount of the plebiscite ballots. The revision/recount proceedings commenced on April 28, 2004, and upon termination, the Committees on Revision submitted their complete and final reports. The COMELEC Second Division then set the case for hearing; as no witnesses were presented by petitioner, the parties were directed to submit their respective memoranda, which they did. The Second Division, however, failed to render a decision because the required number of votes among its members could not be obtained, and the case was elevated to the Commission en banc under Section 5(b), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

On December 8, 2004, the COMELEC en banc issued the assailed Resolution granting the petition and declaring and confirming the ratification and approval of the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city. The COMELEC considered not only the total number of votes reflected in the Final Canvassing Report of the Taguig PBOC but also the voting results based on (a) the physical count of the ballots, (b) the returns of the uncontested precincts, and (c) the appreciation of the contested ballots. Its tally showed 21,105 affirmative votes and 19,460 negative votes: for the affirmative votes, 19,413 from the PBOC canvassing report minus 253 invalid votes, minus 0 votes deducted after physical count, plus 1,936 votes added after physical count, plus 9 credited claimed ballots; for the negative votes, 21,890 from the PBOC canvassing report minus 419 invalid votes, minus 2,024 votes deducted after physical count, plus 0 votes added after physical count, plus 13 credited claimed ballots. The COMELEC thus found that 21,105 affirmative votes represented the majority and the highest votes obtained during the 1998 Taguig Plebiscite.

Petitioner alleged that the revision of the plebiscite ballots could not be relied upon because it was incomplete, claiming that the Final Report of the Committee on Revision for each of the eight (8) Revision Committees yielded a total of 15,802 votes for "Yes" and 12,602 votes for "No," with only 28,404 ballots canvassed. He also alleged that many irregularities, frauds, and anomalies attended the revision proceedings. On January 28, 2005, the COMELEC en banc, upon motion of private respondents, issued an Order declaring its December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory as of January 9, 2005 in conformity with Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure; on the same date, the Resolution was recorded in the COMELEC's Book of Entry of Judgments.

• Incomplete Revision / Electoral Will: Petitioner contended that the revision of the plebiscite ballots cannot be relied upon for the determination of the will of the electorate because the revision was incomplete; based on the Final Report of the Committee on Revision for each of the eight (8) Revision Committees, the revision yielded a total of 15,802 votes for "Yes" and 12,602 votes for "No," with only 28,404 ballots canvassed.
• Irregularities, Frauds, and Anomalies: Petitioner alleged that many irregularities, frauds, and anomalies attended the revision proceedings.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in confirming the ratification and approval of the conversion of Taguig into a highly urbanized city.
• Finality and Entry of Judgment: Petitioner questioned the COMELEC Resolution dated January 28, 2005 declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory, as well as the recording of the said Resolution in the COMELEC's Book of Entry of Judgments.
• Cityhood Not Opposed Per Se: Petitioner clarified that he is for the cityhood of Taguig but firmly believed that Taguig must become a city the right way, by a fair count of votes and not by twisting the electoral will.

• Lack of Merit / Disputed Allegations: The Solicitor General, on behalf of the COMELEC, and the private respondents vehemently disputed petitioner's allegations and prayed that the instant petitions be dismissed for lack of merit.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may properly raise factual issues concerning the alleged incomplete canvass of plebiscite votes and the irregularities, frauds, and anomalies purportedly committed during the revision proceedings before the COMELEC.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Confirmation of Cityhood: Whether the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing its December 8, 2004 Resolution declaring and confirming the ratification and approval of the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Finality and Entry: Whether the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its January 28, 2005 Order declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory and in recording the Resolution in its Book of Entry of Judgments.

• Propriety of Certiorari: No. The matters raised were factual in nature and involved an examination of the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented during the revision proceedings; Rule 65 confines review mainly to jurisdictional issues and grave abuse of discretion. The Court nevertheless reviewed the evidence in the interest of substantial justice.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Confirmation of Cityhood: No. The COMELEC's factual findings were supported by evidence and were accorded respect and finality; the conduct of the plebiscite and the appreciation of ballots are within the COMELEC's exclusive expertise, and its acts enjoy the presumption of regularity.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Finality and Entry: No. The January 28, 2005 Order declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory was issued in conformity with Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and no grave abuse of discretion attended it.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Section 1 of Rule 65 confines the Court's power to resolve issues mainly involving jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction attributed to the public respondent. Petitioner's allegations that the revision was incomplete and that irregularities, frauds, and anomalies attended the revision proceedings were factual; they required an examination of the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented before the COMELEC, which the Court cannot do in a special civil action for certiorari. Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the interest of the residents and voters of the City of Taguig, the Court reviewed the evidence and found that petitioner erred in claiming that the revision yielded only 15,802 "Yes" votes and 12,602 "No" votes. The COMELEC considered not only the total number of votes in the Final Canvassing Report of the Taguig PBOC but also the physical count of the ballots, the returns of the uncontested precincts, and the appreciation of the contested ballots. Its tally showed 21,105 affirmative votes and 19,460 negative votes: for the affirmative votes, 19,413 from the PBOC canvassing report minus 253 invalid votes, minus 0 votes deducted after physical count, plus 1,936 votes added after physical count, plus 9 credited claimed ballots; for the negative votes, 21,890 from the PBOC canvassing report minus 419 invalid votes, minus 2,024 votes deducted after physical count, plus 0 votes added after physical count, plus 13 credited claimed ballots. The COMELEC thus found that 21,105 affirmative votes represented the majority and the highest votes obtained during the 1998 Taguig Plebiscite.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Confirmation of Cityhood: The COMELEC's factual findings, being supported by evidence, were accorded not only respect but finality. The conduct of a plebiscite and the determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts; such a case involves the appreciation of ballots, which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall, the COMELEC has indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws. Its acts, therefore, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. In issuing the challenged December 8, 2004 Resolution, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Finality and Entry: The COMELEC en banc, upon motion of private respondents, issued its January 28, 2005 Order declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory as of January 9, 2005 in conformity with Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides that a decision or resolution of the Commission en banc shall become final and executory after thirty (30) days from its promulgation in ordinary actions, special proceedings, provisional remedies, and special reliefs. The Resolution was recorded in the Book of Entry of Judgments on the same date. In issuing the challenged Resolution and Order in these twin petitions, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.

• Certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to jurisdictional issues and grave abuse of discretion — A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 confines the Court's power to resolve issues mainly involving jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction attributed to the public respondent. Factual issues, such as the alleged incompleteness of a plebiscite revision and purported irregularities in the appreciation of ballots, are not ordinarily proper subjects of certiorari because they require examination of the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence. In this case, the Court applied the rule to reject petitioner's factual challenges, although it reviewed the evidence in the interest of substantial justice.
• COMELEC factual findings in plebiscite matters are accorded respect and finality — The conduct of a plebiscite and the determination of its result are the business of the COMELEC, not the regular courts; the appreciation of ballots is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall, the COMELEC has indisputable expertise in election and related laws. Its factual findings, when supported by evidence, are accorded not only respect but finality, and its acts enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the COMELEC's confirmation of Taguig's cityhood.
• Grave abuse of discretion is not shown where COMELEC acts within its expertise on evidence-supported findings — A COMELEC resolution or order will not be struck down on certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Where the COMELEC's factual findings are supported by evidence and fall within its constitutional mandate and expertise over plebiscites, no grave abuse of discretion exists. The Court applied this principle to both the December 8, 2004 Resolution confirming the ratification and approval of Taguig's conversion and the January 28, 2005 Order declaring that Resolution final and executory.
• COMELEC jurisdiction over plebiscite controversies — Under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution, the COMELEC is authorized "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall." A controversy on the conduct of a plebiscite is a matter involving the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a plebiscite and falls under the COMELEC's jurisdiction. This doctrine was established in the prior decision in G.R. No. 155855, Buac vs. Commission on Elections and Alan Peter S. Cayetano, and formed the basis for the COMELEC proceedings in this case.

• "It is clear from petitioner’s allegations that the matters being raised – the alleged incomplete canvass of plebiscite votes during the revision proceedings and the irregularities, frauds, and anomalies purportedly committed therein – are factual in nature. They involve an examination of the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented during the revision proceedings before the COMELEC. Certainly, this we cannot do in the present special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended." — This passage states the ratio for rejecting petitioner's factual challenges under Rule 65 and explains why the alleged revision defects were not ordinarily reviewable by certiorari.
• "The above factual findings of the COMELEC supported by evidence, are accorded, not only respect, but finality." — This is the Court's canonical statement on the deference owed to the COMELEC's evidence-supported factual findings in plebiscite matters.
• "the conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws." — This passage supplies the rationale for the COMELEC's primary role and expertise over plebiscite conduct and ballot appreciation, supporting the finality of its findings.
• "In fine, we hold that in issuing the challenged Resolution and Order in these twin petitions, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion." — This is the Court's ultimate holding disposing of both consolidated petitions.

• Buac vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 155855, January 26, 2004, 421 SCRA 92 — Prior decision in the same controversy; it reversed the COMELEC's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and held that a controversy on the conduct of the Taguig plebiscite falls under the COMELEC's jurisdiction under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution, directing reinstatement of the petition and decision without delay.
• Pangkat Laguna vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 148075, February 4, 2002, 376 SCRA 97 — Cited for the rule that the COMELEC's factual findings supported by evidence are accorded respect and finality, and for the presumption of regularity in the COMELEC's acts.
• Socrates vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 457 — Cited in support of according respect and finality to the COMELEC's factual findings.
• Abinal vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 148540, April 22, 2002, 381 SCRA 462 — Cited for the Rule 65 limitation that review is confined to jurisdictional issues and grave abuse of discretion.
• Recado, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134293, June 21, 1999, 308 SCRA 793 — Cited for the same Rule 65 limitation on the Court's power to resolve issues mainly involving jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
• Montesclaros vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 152295, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 269 — Cited for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the COMELEC.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended — Confines the Court's power to resolve issues mainly involving jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction attributed to the public respondent. It was applied to reject petitioner's factual challenges to the revision proceedings. The decision's body refers to the 1987 Rules, while footnote 1 refers to the 1997 Rules.
• Section 2, Rule 64, Rules of Civil Procedure — Cited in relation to Rule 65 as the procedural basis for the petitions for certiorari. It governed the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner.
• Section 2(1), Article IX(C), 1987 Constitution — Authorizes the COMELEC "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall." It was applied in the prior Buac decision and reiterated as the basis for the COMELEC's jurisdiction over the Taguig plebiscite controversy.
• Section 5(b), Rule 3, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that when sitting in Divisions, if the required number of votes is not obtained, the case shall be automatically elevated to the Commission en banc for decision or resolution. It was applied when the COMELEC Second Division failed to render a decision due to lack of the required votes.
• Section 13(a), Rule 18, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that in ordinary actions, special proceedings, provisional remedies, and special reliefs, a decision or resolution of the Commission en banc shall become final and executory after thirty (30) days from its promulgation. It was applied to the January 28, 2005 Order declaring the December 8, 2004 Resolution final and executory as of January 9, 2005.
• Republic Act No. 8487 — "An Act Converting the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Taguig, and for other purposes." It mandated the plebiscite on the conversion of Taguig into a highly urbanized city.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban; Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Dante O. Tinga, and Cancio C. Garcia.