Guzman vs. COMELEC

Issuance, use or availment of a treasury warrant or any device undertaking future delivery of money chargeable against public funds within 45 days before a regular election violates Section 261(w)(b) of the Omnibus Election Code independently of whether it is for public works. Mere purchase of land to be used as a public cemetery is not public works under Section 261(v), which covers only fixed infrastructures and facilities constructed for public use.

Robert P. Guzman is the election-offense complainant against Randolph S. Ting, City Mayor of Tuguegarao City, and Salvacion Garcia, City Treasurer of the same city. The Commission on Elections is the constitutional body empowered under Article IX-C, Section 2(6) of the 1987 Constitution to investigate and prosecute violations of election laws. Sections 261(v) and (w) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibit, during 45 days before a regular election, the release, disbursement or expenditure of public funds for public works and the undertaking of public works or issuance of treasury warrants.

On March 31, 2004, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tuguegarao City passed Resolution No. 048-2004 authorizing City Mayor Ting to acquire two parcels of land for use as a public cemetery of the City. Pursuant to the resolution, City Mayor Ting purchased Lot Nos. 5860 and 5861 located at Atulayan Sur, Tuguegarao City, with an aggregate area of 24,816 square meters covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-36942 and No. T-36943, from Anselmo Almazan, Angelo Almazan and Anselmo Almazan III.

As payment, City Treasurer Garcia issued and released Treasury Warrant No. 0001534514 dated April 20, 2004 in the sum of P8,486,027.00. Thereafter, on May 5, 2004, the City Government of Tuguegarao caused the registration of the sale and the issuance of new certificates in its name, namely TCT No. T-144428 and TCT No. T-144429.

Because the purchase and payment occurred within the election ban period that commenced on March 26, 2004 and ended on May 9, 2004 for the May 9, 2004 election, petitioner filed a complaint in the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Cagayan Province charging City Mayor Ting and City Treasurer Garcia with undertaking to construct a public cemetery and releasing, disbursing and expending public funds within 45 days prior to election. City Mayor Ting denied the accusations in his counter-affidavit, while City Treasurer Garcia opted not to answer.

• Restrictive Interpretation: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC's point of view was unduly restrictive and would defeat the very purpose of the law.
• Scope of Prohibition: Petitioner argued that it could be deduced from the exceptions stated in Section 261(v) of the Omnibus Election Code that disbursement of public funds within the prohibited period should be limited only to the ordinary prosecution of public administration and for emergency purposes, and that any expenditure other than such was proscribed by law.

• Definition of Public Works: City Mayor Ting claimed that the mere acquisition of land to be used as a public cemetery could not be classified as public works, and that there would be public works only where and when there was an actual physical activity being undertaken and after an order to commence work had been issued by the owner to the contractor.
• Prematurity: The COMELEC stated that the petition was premature because petitioner did not first file a motion for reconsideration as required by Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
• Prosecutorial Discretion: The COMELEC stated that as the primary body empowered by the Constitution to investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election laws, it assumed full discretion and control over determining whether or not probable cause existed to warrant prosecution in court of an alleged election offense.

• Prematurity: Whether the petition for certiorari was premature for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC en banc resolution.
• Public Works under Section 261(v): Whether the acquisition of Lots 5860 and 5881 during the period of the election ban was covered by the term public works as to be in violation of Section 261(v) of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Treasury Warrant under Section 261(w): Whether the issuance of Treasury Warrant No. 0001534514 during the period of the election ban was in violation of Section 261(w) of the Omnibus Election Code.

• Prematurity: No. The petition was not premature because it raised a purely legal issue on the interpretation of Section 261(v) and (w), which falls under the recognized exceptions to the prior motion for reconsideration requirement.
• Public Works under Section 261(v): No. The acquisition of the lots for use as a public cemetery was not public works, so the element requiring release of funds for any and all kinds of public works was absent.
• Treasury Warrant under Section 261(w): Yes. There was probable cause for violation of Section 261(w), subparagraph (b), because the treasury warrant was issued during the 45-day ban period.

• Prematurity: The indispensable elements of certiorari are direction against a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, action without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and absence of plain, speedy and adequate remedy. As a rule a motion for reconsideration must first be filed to give the public respondent opportunity to correct error, but the rule admits exceptions including where the issue raised is purely one of law or public interest is involved. The SC applied the last exception because all facts were established and undisputed and petitioner challenged only the COMELEC's interpretation of Section 261(v) and (w). There is a question of law when doubt arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts without examining probative value of evidence, while there is a question of fact when doubt concerns truth or falsehood of alleged facts requiring calibration of evidence and credibility.
• Public Works under Section 261(v): Section 261(v) prohibits a public official or employee from releasing, disbursing or spending public funds within 45 days before a regular election for any and all kinds of public works except four situations, requiring concurrence of release by a public official, timing within the ban, and purpose for public works. The Omnibus Election Code does not define public works, so the SC construed it with the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 1, Chapter 1, Title V, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, which associate public works with fixed infrastructures and facilities owned and operated by government for public use such as roads, bridges, school buildings, health facilities, national highways, and flood control systems. Under ejusdem generis, the general phrase other public works refers only to things of the same kind as those enumerated, meaning any building or structure on land or structures built by government for public use and paid for by public funds, or all fixed works constructed for public use. Applied here, the purchase of Lots 5860 and 5861 to be utilized as a cemetery could not by any stretch be considered public works, so the third element was absent and respondents were not liable under Section 261(v).
• Treasury Warrant under Section 261(w): Section 261(w) punishes any person who during 45 days before a regular election (a) undertakes construction of any public works except those exempted, or (b) issues, uses or avails of treasury warrants or any device undertaking future delivery of money, goods or other things of value chargeable against public funds. The SC concurred with the OSG that the provision covers two separate and distinct acts because the disjunctive or expresses an alternative and signifies disassociation and independence, and under strict construction in penal statutes and can never be read as or or vice versa. Consequently whether the warrant was intended for public works was of no moment. There was probable cause that subparagraph (b) was violated when City Mayor Ting and City Treasurer Garcia issued Treasury Warrant No. 0001534514 during the ban. Although the COMELEC has full discretion to determine probable cause as investigator-prosecutor, non-interference does not apply where it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reaching a patently erroneous result, constituting grave abuse of discretion defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

• Certiorari and prior motion for reconsideration — As a rule certiorari requires a prior motion for reconsideration in the tribunal of origin, but exceptions exist including patent nullity, issues already passed upon, urgent necessity, uselessness, denial of due process, urgent relief from arrest, null proceedings, ex parte proceedings, and purely legal or public-interest issues; the SC applied the last exception to excuse non-filing where only statutory interpretation was disputed on undisputed facts.
• Question of law vs. question of fact — There is a question of law when doubt concerns what the law is on a certain state of facts without examining probative value of evidence; there is a question of fact when doubt concerns truth or falsehood of alleged facts requiring calibration of evidence, credibility, surrounding circumstances and probabilities; the SC held the case presented purely a question of law.
• Public works under Section 261(v) — Public works refer to fixed works constructed for public use and paid for by public funds, including public buildings, roads, aqueducts, parks, highways, flood control and water resources systems, and similar infrastructure; mere purchase of land for future use as a cemetery is not public works, so its payment is not covered by the ban.
• Ejusdem generis — Where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things of particular meaning, the general words apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or class absent contrary legislative intent; the SC used it to limit other public works to fixed public infrastructures.
• Disjunctive or in Section 261(w) — Or expresses an alternative and signifies disassociation and independence of one enumerated thing from another, creating two separate offenses: (a) undertaking construction of public works and (b) issuing, using or availing of treasury warrants or similar devices; intent for public works is irrelevant to (b).
• COMELEC discretion on probable cause — The COMELEC as constitutional investigator-prosecutor has full discretion to determine existence of probable cause, and its findings are generally not subject to review; review lies only where it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reaching a patently erroneous result.
• Grave abuse of discretion — Grave abuse exists upon capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform duty enjoined by law; the SC found it in the COMELEC's dismissal of the Section 261(w)(b) charge.

• "There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts." — Defines when an issue is purely legal to excuse prior motion for reconsideration and hold the petition not premature.
• "Public works are clearly works, whether of construction or adaptation undertaken and carried out by the national, state, or municipal authorities, designed to subserve some purpose of public necessity, use or convenience, such as public buildings, roads, aqueducts, parks, etc.; or, in other words, all fixed works constructed for public use." — States the canonical definition used to exclude mere land acquisition from Section 261(v).
• "In legal hermeneutics, or is a disjunctive that expresses an alternative or gives a choice of one among two or more things." — Construes Section 261(w) as creating two separate and independent prohibited acts.
• "when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." — Defines grave abuse of discretion applied to the COMELEC's erroneous dismissal.

• Barbers vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165691, June 22, 2005, 460 SCRA 569 — Cited for the indispensable elements of certiorari.
• Star Paper Corporation vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 154006, November 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 556, 564-565 — Followed as authority for exceptions to the prior motion for reconsideration requirement, including purely legal issues.
• Pagsibigan vs. People, G.R. No. 163868, June 4, 2009 — Followed for the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact.
• Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. vs. Register of Deeds of Davao, 96 Phil. 53, 58 (1954) — Cited for the rule of ejusdem generis in construing public works.
• Republic vs. Migriño, 189 SCRA 289, 296-297 — Cited for the rule of ejusdem generis in construing public works.
• Malinias vs. COMELEC, 439 Phil 319, 330 — Followed for the rule that COMELEC probable-cause findings are generally not reviewed except where arbitrary and capricious.
• Reyes-Tabujara vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172813, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 844, 857-858 — Followed for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Section 261(v), Omnibus Election Code — Prohibits any public official or employee from releasing, disbursing or expending public funds within 45 days before a regular election for any and all kinds of public works except maintenance, contract/bid work awarded before the period, preparatory costs, emergency calamity restoration, and ongoing or foreign-agreement projects; applied to hold the lot purchase not covered.
• Section 261(w), Omnibus Election Code — Prohibits any person during 45 days before a regular election from (a) undertaking construction of public works except exempted projects or (b) issuing, using or availing of treasury warrants or devices for future delivery of money chargeable against public funds; applied to find probable cause under (b) for the April 20, 2004 warrant.
• Article IX-C, Section 2(6), 1987 Constitution — Empowers the COMELEC to investigate and prosecute violations of election laws; invoked to recognize its discretion while allowing review for grave abuse.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court in relation to Rule 64 — Governs certiorari against tribunals acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse and without plain speedy adequate remedy; basis for the petition.
• Section 1(d), Rule 13, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides motions for reconsideration of an en banc ruling are not allowed except in election offense cases; invoked by the COMELEC to claim prematurity.
• Section 17, Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) and Section 1, Chapter 1, Title V, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — Associate public works with infrastructure facilities and fixed works for public use; used as extrinsic aid to define public works.