Primary Holding

The COMELEC Second Division lacked jurisdiction to decide pre-proclamation controversies involving Batasang Pambansa members, as such cases must be heard en banc under the 1973 Constitution.

Background

The 1984 Antique elections were marred by violence, including the killing of petitioner Evelio Javier’s supporters. Javier challenged irregularities in the canvass, but COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed his claims and proclaimed Arturo Pacificador winner. Javier’s assassination in 1986 and the Batasang’s abolition under the post-Marcos Freedom Constitution rendered the case moot.

Facts

• 1. Pre-election violence in Antique included an ambush on May 10, 1984, killing three supporters of Evelio Javier.
• 2. COMELEC dismissed Javier’s protests alleging ballot box tampering, falsified returns, and intimidation by Pacificador’s allies.
• 3. The COMELEC Second Division (not en banc) proceeded to proclaim Pacificador as the Batasang Pambansa representative.
• 4. Commissioner Jaime Opinion, a former law partner of Pacificador, participated in the proceedings despite Javier’s request for recusal.
• 5. The canvassing process allegedly excluded 25 election returns favoring Javier.
• 6. Javier was assassinated on February 11, 1986, months before the Supreme Court decision.
• 7. The Batasang Pambansa was abolished under the 1986 Freedom Constitution, rendering the case technically moot.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The COMELEC Second Division lacked jurisdiction to decide pre-proclamation controversies for Batasang Pambansa seats, as the 1973 Constitution mandated resolution en banc
• 2. Commissioner Jaime Opinion’s participation created bias, violating due process, given his prior law partnership with Pacificador
• 3. The elections were marred by violence (including the ambush of Javier’s supporters) and irregularities like ballot box tampering, falsified returns, and intimidation by Pacificador’s allies
• 4. The canvassing process illegally excluded 25 election returns favoring Javier, skewing the results
• 5. The COMELEC’s failure to address electoral fraud undermined the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” required for due process

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The COMELEC Second Division had jurisdiction to resolve the pre-proclamation controversy, as such disputes were administrative and procedural in nature, falling under divisions’ authority under existing election laws
• 2. The case became moot and academic after the Batasang Pambansa’s abolition under the 1986 Freedom Constitution, rendering judicial intervention unnecessary
• 3. Commissioner Jaime Opinion’s participation did not violate due process, as there was no legal requirement for recusal based on prior professional relationships, and his impartiality was presumed
• 4. Javier’s allegations of election irregularities (e.g., violence, tampering) were insufficiently substantiated and did not warrant overturning Pacificador’s proclamation
• 5. The exclusion of 25 election returns during canvassing was justified procedurally, with no evidence proving systematic bias or fraud
• 6. Post-proclamation remedies, not pre-proclamation challenges, were the appropriate legal avenue to address Javier’s claims of electoral fraud

Issues

• 1. Did the COMELEC Second Division have jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies for Batasang members?
• 2. Did Commissioner Opinion’s refusal to recuse violate due process?

Ruling

• 1. Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC Second Division lacked authority to decide Batasang Pambansa election disputes, as the 1973 Constitution (Article XII-C, Section 2) required en banc resolution for all election contests involving Batasang members, including pre-proclamation controversies.
• 2. Due Process Violation: Commissioner Jaime Opinion’s refusal to recuse himself despite his prior professional ties to Pacificador violated due process by creating a “cloud of partiality,” rendering the Second Division’s proclamation void.
• 3. Mootness Doctrine: While the Batasang’s abolition and Javier’s assassination rendered the case moot, the Court exercised its constitutional duty to resolve the issues to prevent future abuses and clarify jurisdictional limits.
• 4. Liberal Interpretation of “Contests”: The Court broadly interpreted “election contests” under the 1973 Constitution to include pre-proclamation disputes, rejecting the respondents’ narrow definition limited to post-proclamation challenges.
• 5. Duty of COMELEC: Emphasized COMELEC’s obligation to act as a “neutral arbiter” and rigorously address electoral fraud, even in moot cases, to uphold public trust in elections.

Doctrines

• 1. Sole Judge Doctrine: COMELEC en banc exclusively decides Batasang election contests.
• 2. Due Process: Judges must avoid even the appearance of partiality.
• 3. Liberal Interpretation: “Contests” in the Constitution include pre- and post-proclamation disputes.

Key Excerpts

• 1. “The Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government.”
• 2. “Due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza.”

Precedents Cited

• 1. Aratuc vs. COMELEC: Pre-proclamation controversies require en banc resolution.
• 2. Vera vs. Avelino: Defined “election contests” broadly.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. 1973 Constitution, Article XII-C, Sections 2(2) and 3: COMELEC en banc must decide Batasang election contests.
• 2. PD 1296 (1978 Election Code), Section 175: COMELEC’s authority over pre-proclamation controversies.