Macabago vs. Commission on Elections

Allegations of massive fraud that compel the reception of evidence aliunde are proper grounds for a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy or a petition for declaration of failure of election, where voting actually took place and a candidate was proclaimed.

Sabdullah T. Macabago and Jamael M. Salacop contended for the position of Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur in the May 22, 2001 elections. Macabago was proclaimed the winner with a lead of 198 votes. Salacop sought to annul the election results in Precincts 19, 20, 28, and 29, alleging massive voter substitution, irregularities in voting procedures, and failure of the Board of Election Inspectors to comply with election laws, rendering the process a sham.

• Proclamation: On May 22, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Macabago as the winning mayoralty candidate, having secured a lead of 198 votes over Salacop.
• Petition Before the COMELEC: On June 1, 2001, Salacop filed a petition to annul the elections and the proclamations in the municipality. He alleged massive voter substitution, pervasive irregularities in voting procedures in four precincts, and non-compliance by the Board of Election Inspectors with Sections 28 and 29 of COMELEC Resolution No. 3743 and Section 193 of the Omnibus Election Code. He appended photocopies of Voters Registration Records (VRRs) and affidavits to substantiate the fraud, praying that the election results in the contested precincts be excluded and the proclamations annulled.
• Assailed COMELEC Order: In his answer, Macabago argued that the petition raised a pre-proclamation controversy and that the grounds cited were proper only in an election protest. On February 11, 2002, the COMELEC En Banc redocketed the petition from a Special Case (SPC) to a Special Action (SPA), characterizing it as one for the annulment of elections or declaration of failure of election under Rule 26 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Finding convincing proof of massive fraud, the COMELEC directed the Election Officer to produce the original VRRs of the questioned precincts for technical examination in Manila.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Macabago maintained that filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court was proper without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC, because a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order of the COMELEC En Banc is a prohibited pleading under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Macabago argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petition and ordering the technical examination of the VRRs, as the petition actually raised grounds proper for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy or a petition for annulment or failure of election.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Salacop countered that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 is proper only to nullify a final order or resolution of the COMELEC, not an interlocutory order such as the assailed order directing technical examination.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge an interlocutory or administrative order of the COMELEC En Banc.
• Nature of the Petition: Whether the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in treating the petition as one for annulment of elections or declaration of failure of election, rather than dismissing it as an improper pre-proclamation controversy or ground for failure of election.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Certiorari was ruled as the proper remedy. While Rule 64 governs the review of final orders of the COMELEC in its quasi-judicial functions, an administrative order of the COMELEC En Banc may be challenged via certiorari under Rule 65 when issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration was not required because such a motion directed at an En Banc order is a prohibited pleading, rendering certiorari the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• Nature of the Petition: The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The allegations of massive fraud and conspiracy with the Board of Election Inspectors necessitate the reception of evidence aliunde, which is anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. Pre-proclamation controversies are summary in nature and limited to the face of the election returns; issues of fraud must be resolved in a regular election protest. Furthermore, the petition could not be treated as one for declaration of failure of election. A failure of election requires that no voting took place or that the election resulted in a failure to elect—meaning nobody emerged as a winner. Because voting occurred and Macabago was proclaimed, the essential conditions for declaring a failure of election were absent.

• Pre-proclamation controversy vs. Election protest — A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to challenges against the proceedings of the board of canvassers relating to election returns. It is summary in nature and proscribes the reception of evidence aliunde. Issues of fraud, terrorism, or irregularities requiring the COMELEC to look behind election returns that are prima facie regular must be raised in a regular election protest before the Regional Trial Court.
• Failure of election — A declaration of failure of election requires the concurrence of two conditions: (a) no voting took place on the date fixed, or even if there was voting, the election resulted in a failure to elect; and (b) the votes cast would affect the election result. Fraud, to be a ground for failure of election, must prevent or suspend the holding of an election or fatally mar the preparation and transmission of election returns. "Failure to elect" means nobody emerges as a winner.
• Judicial review of COMELEC administrative orders — As a general rule, an administrative order of the COMELEC is not a proper subject of certiorari. However, when the COMELEC acts capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may seek redress via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

• "Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the resolution of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear to be prima facie regular, on their face, are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues should be posed and resolved in a regular election protest."
• "While fraud is a ground to declare a failure of election, such fraud must be one that prevents or suspends the holding of an election, including the preparation and transmission of the election returns. 'Failure to elect' must be understood in its literal sense—which is, nobody emerges as a winner."

• Salva v. Makalintal — Followed. Rule 64 applies only to judgments or final orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, not to interlocutory or administrative orders.
• Ambil v. COMELEC — Distinguished. The subject matter therein was an interlocutory order of a Division of the COMELEC, requiring a motion for reconsideration with the En Banc; here, the assailed order was already from the En Banc, where a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.
• Dipatuan v. COMELEC — Followed. Fraud, such as padding the list of voters, is not a valid basis for a pre-proclamation controversy and should be raised in an election protest.
• Canicosa v. COMELEC — Followed. Enumerated the three instances where a failure of election may be declared.
• Banaga v. COMELEC — Followed. Similar factual backdrop where the Court held that failure of election could not be declared because voting occurred and a candidate was proclaimed.

• Section 1, Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC. Applied to show that the rule does not foreclose recourse to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 from administrative orders of the COMELEC.
• Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs special civil actions for certiorari. Applied as the proper remedy to challenge the administrative order of the COMELEC En Banc issued with grave abuse of discretion.
• Article IX(A), Section 7, 1987 Constitution — Provides for the remedy of certiorari to review acts of the COMELEC.
• Section 241, Republic Act No. 7166 — Defines pre-proclamation controversy. Interpreted to exclude issues of fraud requiring evidence aliunde.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 7166 — Defines when a failure of election occurs. Interpreted to require that fraud must prevent or suspend the holding of an election or result in a failure to elect.
• Rule 3, Section 6(c), COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Requires motions for reconsideration of Division rulings to be resolved by the En Banc. Distinguished from En Banc orders where such motions are prohibited.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. Gutierrez, J., concurred in the result.