Mutilan vs. Commission on Elections and Ampatuan

Failure of elections may be declared only upon proof of one of the three statutory instances resulting in failure to elect, supported by a prima facie pleading and convincing evidence; bare allegations of fraud, substitute voting, and election irregularities do not suffice and belong properly to an election protest.

Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan and Zaldy Uy Ampatuan were rival candidates for Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, election cases are heard and decided in Division, while Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 assigns postponement, failure of elections, and special elections to the COMELEC sitting en banc by majority vote. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure separately require verification of motions for reconsideration and permit adoption of suitable process where procedure is not specifically provided.

Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan and Zaldy Uy Ampatuan were candidates for Governor in the election of regional officials held on 8 August 2005 in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. On 11 August 2005, Ampatuan was proclaimed as the duly elected Governor of the ARMM. On 19 August 2005, Mutilan filed an Electoral Protest and/or Petition to Annul the Elections, docketed as EPC No. 2005-3.

In that petition, Mutilan contested the results in Maguindanao, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, and Sulu on the ground that no actual election was conducted in the precincts therein, alleging that voters did not actually vote and ballots were filled up by non-registered voters. He also contested the results in the municipalities of Butig, Sultan Gumander, Calanogas, Tagoloan, Kapai, Masiu, and Maguing in Lanao del Sur, where massive substitute voting allegedly took place. According to petitioner, ballots were forcibly grabbed by armed persons and filled up even before election day, election returns were filled up before counting, votes credited exceeded registered voters, and tally boards were filled up before ballots were counted, while other anomalies included transfer of canvass venue without notice, proclamation without canvassing Tawi-Tawi results, erasures and missing initials in certificates of canvass, differing inks and handwritings, and the mere noting of his objections.

During the initial hearing, petitioner’s counsel admitted that the petition was not an election protest but one for annulment of elections and prayed that the case be elevated to the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC Second Division found that jurisdiction over annulment pertained to the En Banc but that elevation was not sanctioned by the rules or jurisprudence, and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction while denying elevation. Petitioner filed an unverified motion for reconsideration within five days, explaining that he was then in Marawi City and his verification arrived in Manila only later; his Motion to Admit Verified Copies was filed on 29 December 2005, one day after the En Banc’s denial and one month after the original motion.

• Jurisdiction and Elevation to the En Banc: Petitioner argued that jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution resides in the COMELEC as one whole collegial body and continues whether it sits en banc or in division, such that the Second Division had authority to act on and legally elevate the petition to the En Banc to expedite disposition. Petitioner maintained that docketing by administrative staff as an election protest case should not prejudice his rights or divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction, and that dismissal instead of elevation was grave abuse of discretion.
• Verification of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner argued that absence of verification was a slight, minor, and merely formal defect not affecting validity and efficacy of the pleading. Petitioner maintained that the motion was timely filed within five days, that verification was delayed because he was in Marawi City, and that subsequent filing of a Motion to Admit Verified Copies with explanation cured the defect.

• Jurisdiction and Elevation: Whether the COMELEC Second Division acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to annul elections and in not elevating the petition to the COMELEC En Banc.
• Verification of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of verification.

• Jurisdiction and Elevation: Yes in part, but relief denied. While automatic elevation is not provided in the COMELEC Rules, referral from Division to En Banc is not prohibited under Section 4, Rule 2; however, the petition still failed for want of a prima facie case of failure of elections.
• Verification of Motion for Reconsideration: No. Denial was proper because Section 3, Rule 19 requires a verified motion, the belated verification came only after denial, and no grave abuse attended the En Banc’s action.

• Jurisdiction and Elevation: Under Section 3, Article IX-C, all election cases including pre-proclamation controversies are heard and decided in Division, but a petition to declare failure of elections is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case, and jurisdiction over postponement, failure of elections, and special elections vests exclusively in the COMELEC En Banc under Section 4 of RA 7166. A prayer to annul results and a prayer to declare failure of elections based on fraud, terrorism, violence, or analogous causes are of the same nature under the Omnibus Election Code, so the Second Division correctly held it had no jurisdiction and petitioner could not blame the docket clerk after availing of two remedies under separate jurisdictions. Nevertheless, automatic elevation not being sanctioned is different from being prohibited, and Section 4, Rule 2 permits adoption of any suitable process where procedure is not specifically provided, leaving referral to the En Banc permissible.
• Verification of Motion for Reconsideration: Section 3, Rule 19 expressly requires that the motion be verified and point specifically to unsupported or unlawful findings with reference to evidence or law, and non-compliance rendered the 29 November 2005 motion invalid so that the 21 November 2005 Order became final and executory on 8 December 2005. Petitioner’s excuse of absence from Manila did not excuse non-compliance, particularly as the Motion to Admit Verified Copies was filed only on 29 December 2005, after the 28 December 2005 denial and one month after the original filing. Grave abuse requires capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of power amounting to evasion of legal duty, not mere abuse, and none was shown in the En Banc’s enforcement of the verification requirement.

• Failure of elections — three statutory instances — Failure of elections may be declared only where (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes; (b) the election has been suspended before the hour fixed for closing of voting on the same grounds; or (c) after voting and during preparation, transmission, custody or canvass of returns, such election results in a failure to elect on the same grounds. In all three instances there is a resulting failure to elect; the third is interpreted to mean nobody emerged as winner. Applied here, none was present because elections took place and private respondent was proclaimed winner.
• Failure of elections as extraordinary remedy; burden and prima facie case — Nullification or declaration of failure of elections is extraordinary; the party seeking it bears the burden, must plead a prima facie case, and must substantiate allegations with convincing evidence, a verified petition alone being insufficient. Applied here, petitioner’s general allegations of disenfranchisement, substitute voting, ballot-filling, and statistical improbability, mostly without particulars, failed to make out a prima facie case.
• Fraud warranting failure of elections vs. grounds for election protest — To warrant failure of elections on fraud, the fraud must prevent or suspend the holding of an election or fatally mar preparation, transmission, custody, and canvass of returns; massive substitution, multiple voting, and other anomalies are resolved in an election protest by revision or recount, not by setting aside the election. Applied here, petitioner’s claims of substitute voting and irregular canvass belonged to an election protest.
• COMELEC En Banc exclusive jurisdiction over failure of elections — Under Section 4 of RA 7166, postponement, declaration of failure of elections, and calling of special elections are decided by the Commission sitting en banc by majority vote, whether causes occur before or after casting of votes or on election day; a petition to declare failure of elections is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case under Section 3, Article IX-C. Applied here, the Second Division had no jurisdiction over the admitted petition for annulment.
• Referral of erroneously filed case from Division to En Banc — While automatic elevation is not provided in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, it is not prohibited; under Section 4, Rule 2, where procedure is not specifically provided, any suitable process or proceeding may be adopted to effect jurisdiction. Applied here, the Second Division could have referred the annulment petition to the En Banc instead of dismissing it, though dismissal of the substantive claim was ultimately sustained on other grounds.
• Verification of motion for reconsideration; grave abuse of discretion — Section 3, Rule 19 requires a verified motion for reconsideration; grave abuse implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power, so patent and gross as to evade a legal duty. Applied here, denial of the unverified motion, belatedly sought to be cured after denial, was not grave abuse.

• "To warrant a declaration of failure of election on the ground of fraud, the fraud must prevent or suspend the holding of an election, or mar fatally the preparation, transmission, custody and canvass of the election returns." — States the stringent threshold for fraud-based failure of elections, distinguishing it from anomalies remediable by protest and recount.
• "if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such power or jurisdiction is not specifically provided for by law or these rules, any suitable process or proceeding may be adopted" — Provides the textual basis for permitting referral of an annulment petition from Division to En Banc despite absence of an express elevation rule.
• "Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility." — Defines the standard applied to reject petitioner’s claim that denial of the unverified motion for reconsideration was grave abuse.

• Borja, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120140, 21 August 1996, 260 SCRA 604 — Cited as affirming that jurisdiction over a petition to declare failure of elections vests in the COMELEC En Banc because such petition is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case.
• Mayor Cawasa vs. Comelec, 433 Phil. 312 (2002) — Cited for the proposition that a prayer to annul election results and a prayer to declare failure of elections based on fraud, terrorism, violence or analogous causes are of the same nature under the Omnibus Election Code.
• Banaga, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 391 Phil. 596 (2000) — Cited as source of the three instances where failure of elections may be declared and the requirement of resulting failure to elect.
• Pasandalan vs. Commission on Elections, 434 Phil. 161, 173 (2002) — Cited as controlling formulation on stringent conditions for failure of elections, proper resort to election protest for substitution and multiple voting, and burden of proving entitlement with prima facie pleading and convincing evidence.
• Navarosa vs. Comelec, 458 Phil. 233 (2003) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion and the requirement that it be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion or refusal to perform a legal duty.
• Benito vs. Commission on Elections, 402 Phil. 764 (2001) — Cited for the rule that not every abuse of discretion qualifies; the abuse must be grave.

• Section 3, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions and that election cases including pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard and decided in division, with motions for reconsideration decided en banc; applied to distinguish Division cases from En Banc failure-of-elections petitions.
• Section 4, Republic Act No. 7166 — Provides that postponement, declaration of failure of elections, and calling of special elections shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by majority vote; applied to hold that the Second Division lacked jurisdiction over the annulment petition.
• Sections 5, 6 and 7, Omnibus Election Code — Referenced through Section 4 of RA 7166 as governing postponement, failure of elections, and special elections; applied to characterize petitioner’s annulment prayer as a failure-of-elections cause.
• Section 4, Rule 2, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Permits employment of auxiliary writs and processes and adoption of any suitable process where procedure is not specifically provided; applied to hold that referral to the En Banc was not prohibited.
• Sections 2 and 3, Rule 19, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Require a motion for reconsideration within five days and mandate that it be verified and specify unsupported or unlawful findings with evidentiary and legal references; applied to sustain denial of the unverified motion and resulting finality.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura concurred, with no separate concurring reasoning detailed in the text.