Soliva vs. COMELEC

A failure of election may be declared when, though voting took place, the counting of votes and canvassing of election returns are attended by fraud, intimidation, terrorism, and harassment such that the election results in a failure to elect, and the COMELEC's findings of fact in election matters are accorded great weight and finality absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners and private respondents were rival candidates for local elective posts — mayor, vice-mayor, and members of the Sangguniang Bayan — in the Municipality of Remedios T. Romualdez (RTR), Agusan del Norte, during the May 11, 1998 synchronized local elections. Petitioners ran under the Lakas-NUCD party while private respondents campaigned under the Laban ng Makabayan Masang Pilipino (LAMMP) banner. The dispute centers on whether the election results in that municipality should be annulled due to alleged irregularities in the counting and canvassing of votes, and whether the COMELEC properly exercised its constitutional and statutory authority to declare a failure of election.

On May 11, 1998, synchronized local elections were held in the Municipality of Remedios T. Romualdez (RTR), Agusan del Norte. Two slates competed for the municipal posts: petitioners, running under the Lakas-NUCD banner with Nilo D. Soliva as mayoralty candidate, and private respondents, running under the Laban ng Makabayan Masang Pilipino (LAMMP) with Alexander C. Bacquial as mayoralty candidate. On May 12, 1998, all the Lakas-NUCD candidates were proclaimed as the winning candidates by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC).

Six days later, on May 18, 1998, Bacquial filed a petition before the COMELEC seeking to declare a failure of election, alleging massive fraud, terrorism, ballot switching, stuffing of ballot boxes, delivery of ballot boxes by petitioner Soliva and his men from several precincts to the supposed canvassing area, failure of counting of votes in the precincts upon Soliva's instructions, and an attempt on Bacquial's life by one of Soliva's men, later identified as Eliseo Baludio, when Bacquial was about to cast his vote in Precinct 17-A in San Antonio, RTR on the morning of May 11, 1998. The petition was subsequently amended to include Bacquial's LAMMP co-candidates.

Private respondents supported their allegations with sworn statements from several witnesses — Nestor Fuentes, Faustino Abatayo, Eddie Roa, Max C. Ponce, Danilo Taculayan, Alejandre Martinez, Enecito Salas, and others — who attested to particular incidents of alleged irregularities in certain polling precincts. They also submitted the Order of Provincial Election Supervisor Atty. Roland E. Edayan dated May 12, 1998, directing PNP Provincial Director Col. Felix P. Ayaay to investigate reports of grave threats, intimidation, and coercion directed against Bacquial's supporters. Copies of election returns that did not bear the signatures of LAMMP poll watchers were likewise presented to show that such watchers were not allowed inside the municipal gymnasium where the canvassing was conducted. Petitioners denied that violence, terrorism, fraud, or other irregularities attended the election, appending photocopies of the Minutes of Voting and Counting of Votes in Precinct Nos. 17-A and 16-A. They insisted that LAMMP poll watchers signed the election returns, that the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) announced the results and accomplished the returns in their respective precincts, and that the returns were thereafter submitted to the MBC.

It was not controverted that the counting of votes was transferred from the polling precincts to the multi-purpose gymnasium without the knowledge and permission of private respondents or their representatives, and without the authority of the COMELEC as required by law. The irregularity was compounded by the fact that the transfer was not recorded by the BEI; the COMELEC learned of it only from the answer of MBC Chairman Tago M. Mangontra to the petition. The counting by the BEI and the canvassing by the MBC were conducted without the accredited watchers or duly authorized representatives of private respondents present. Not one of the election returns was objected to during the canvassing, and none of the election returns bore the signatures or thumbmarks of the LAMMP poll watchers. The Minutes of Voting and Counting of Votes for Precinct 17-A showed that not one LAMMP poll watcher signed in the space provided, while in Precinct 16-A, the purported signatures of two watchers appeared to have been written by the same person, with handwriting similar to that used for illiterate or disabled voters.

The proclamation of petitioners on May 12, 1998 was likewise irregular. The Certificate of Proclamation was signed by the MBC members on that date, yet the Minutes of Canvass revealed that the reading of election returns was finished only at 8:00 P.M. on May 13, 1998, and the MBC completed its work — including tabulation, verification, preparation of the Statement of Votes, Certificate of Canvass, and Certificate of Proclamation — at 2:00 A.M. on May 14, 1998. Mangontra himself admitted in his answer that the Board never canvassed the election returns for local and national candidates separately but in immediate succession, raising the question of how a valid proclamation could have been made on May 12 when the reading of votes was not completed until May 13. Petitioners did not submit any counter-affidavits to rebut the sworn statements of the witnesses for private respondents.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners maintained that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when, without any formal proceedings and absent any formal presentation of evidence and witnesses, it declared a failure of election in RTR only on February 11, 2000 — over one year and eight months, or twenty months, after the May 11, 1998 elections.
• Denial of Irregularities: Petitioners denied that violence, terrorism, fraud, and other similar causes attended the conduct of the election, asserting that LAMMP poll watchers signed the election returns, that the BEI announced the results and accomplished the returns in their respective precincts, and that these were duly submitted to the MBC. They appended photocopies of the Minutes of Voting and Counting of Votes in Precinct Nos. 17-A and 16-A to support their position.

• Fraud in Counting and Canvassing: The Solicitor General, on behalf of public respondent COMELEC, maintained that the declaration of a failure of election was proper because the counting of ballots and the canvass of returns were fraught with fraud, as the transfer of counting from the polling precincts to the multi-purpose gymnasium was irregular and without the authority of the COMELEC and the conformity of private respondents or their representatives.
• Irregular Proclamation: Respondent argued that the proclamation of petitioners was irregular, as the Certificate of Proclamation was signed by the MBC on May 12, 1998, while the tabulation of votes, verification, preparation of the Statement of Votes, Certificate of Canvass, and proclamation of winning candidates were finished only on May 14, 1998.
• Threats and Intimidation: Respondent contended that the election was marred by threats, violence, intimidation, coercion, and harassment, as attested to in the sworn statements attached to the memorandum of private respondents and corroborated by the Order of Provincial Election Supervisor Edayan.

• Failure of Election: Whether the COMELEC erred in declaring a failure of election in the entire municipality of RTR, Agusan del Norte.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolution declaring a failure of election without formal proceedings and formal presentation of evidence, and in doing so twenty months after the May 11, 1998 elections.

• Failure of Election: No. The COMELEC did not err in declaring a failure of election, the counting and canvassing having been clearly attended by fraud, intimidation, terrorism, and harassment, resulting in a failure to elect.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; its findings of fact in election matters are accorded great weight and respect, and absent a substantial showing of erroneous estimation of evidence, those findings are conclusive.

• Failure of Election: Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a failure of election may be declared when, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election results in a failure to elect, provided the failure would affect the result of the election. In Mitmug vs. Commission on Elections, the Court established two conditions that must concur: (1) no voting took place on the date fixed, or even if there was, the election results in a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the result of the election. Here, while voting did take place, the irregularities that marred the counting and canvassing — the unauthorized transfer of the counting venue without COMELEC authority or notice to opposing watchers, the conduct of counting and canvassing without those watchers present, the absence of LAMMP poll watcher signatures on the election returns, and the premature proclamation on May 12 when the canvass was not completed until May 14 — resulted in a failure to elect. The election returns and statements of votes were rendered unreliable as documents to gauge the fair and true expression of the popular will. The sworn statements of witnesses attesting to intimidation, terrorism, and harassment, corroborated by the Order of Provincial Election Supervisor Edayan, further established that the election was marred by pervasive fraud and violence. Petitioners did not submit any counter-affidavits to rebut these sworn statements.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Findings of fact of administrative bodies charged with a specific field of expertise are afforded great weight and respect by the courts, and in the absence of a substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence, they are conclusive and should not be disturbed. The COMELEC, as the constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, possesses expertise in its field such that its findings and conclusions are generally respected and even given finality. The Court found no erroneous estimation of evidence by the COMELEC. The irregularities were largely admitted or not controverted by petitioners — the transfer of counting venue without COMELEC authority, the absence of opposing watchers during counting and canvassing, and the premature proclamation — all supported the COMELEC's conclusion. The provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2971 and Section 18 of R.A. No. 6646, which require unanimous approval of the board and concurrence by the majority of watchers present for any transfer of counting venue, were clearly violated. The rights of watchers under election laws — to witness proceedings, take notes, file protests, read ballots and election returns, and be furnished certificates of votes — are not ineffectual but are part and parcel of measures to protect the sanctity of the sovereign will. The violation of these rights put the integrity of the ballots to serious doubt, justifying the declaration of a failure of election.

• Failure of Election — Under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, a failure of election may be declared when, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the closing of voting, or after voting and during the preparation, transmission, custody, or canvass of election returns, such election results in a failure to elect, and the failure or suspension would affect the result of the election. The COMELEC may then call for the holding or continuation of the election not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause. Three instances are contemplated: (1) when the election has not been held on the date fixed; (2) when the election had been suspended before the hour fixed for closing; and (3) after voting and during preparation, transmission, custody, or canvass of returns, the election results in a failure to elect. In this case, the third instance applied: although voting took place, the fraud attending the counting and canvassing resulted in a failure to elect.

• Two-Part Test for Failure of Election (Mitmug Doctrine) — Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition for declaration of a failure of election, two conditions must concur: (1) that no voting has taken place on the date fixed by law, or even if there was, the election results in a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the result of the election. Both conditions were satisfied here.

• Respect for COMELEC Findings of Fact — Findings of fact of administrative bodies charged with a specific field of expertise are afforded great weight and respect by the courts, and in the absence of a substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive and should not be disturbed. The COMELEC's expertise in election matters warrants deference to its factual findings.

• Rights of Election Watchers — The rights of watchers under election laws — to witness and inform themselves of proceedings, take notes, take photographs, file protests, obtain certificates of protest, read ballots and election returns, and be furnished certificates of votes — are not ineffectual rights but are part and parcel of measures to protect the sanctity of the sovereign will. Their violation puts the integrity of the ballots to serious doubt.

• "The rights of watchers as embodied in our election laws are not ineffectual rights. They are part and parcel of the measures to protect the sanctity of the sovereign will." — This passage articulates the doctrinal significance of election watchers' rights as essential safeguards of electoral integrity, providing the legal foundation for nullifying election results conducted without their presence.

• "While it may be true that election did take place, the irregularities that marred the counting of votes and the canvassing of the election returns resulted in a failure to elect. And when there is a failure of election, the COMELEC is empowered to annul the election and to call a special election." — This is the ratio decidendi of the decision, establishing that a failure of election may be declared even when voting occurred, provided the counting and canvassing irregularities result in a failure to elect.

• "Findings of fact of administrative bodies charged with a specific field of expertise are afforded great weight and respect by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive and should not be disturbed." — This passage states the controlling doctrine on judicial deference to COMELEC factual findings, a principle frequently cited in subsequent election jurisprudence.

• Mitmug vs. Commission on Elections, 230 SCRA 54 (1994) — Controlling precedent establishing the two-part test for declaring a failure of election: (1) no voting took place or the election resulted in a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the result. The Court applied this test to uphold the COMELEC's declaration.
• Typoco, Jr. vs. Comelec, 319 SCRA 498 (1999) — Cited for the proposition that Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code contemplates three instances when the COMELEC may declare a failure of election.
• Canicosa vs. Comelec, 285 SCRA 512 (1997) — Cited alongside Typoco for the same proposition regarding the three instances of failure of election under the Omnibus Election Code.
• Ocampo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136282, and Ocampo vs. Salalila, G.R. No. 137470, February 15, 2000 — Cited for the doctrine that the COMELEC's findings and conclusions in election matters are generally respected and even given finality due to its specialized expertise.

• Article IX-C, Section 2(3), 1987 Constitution — Vests the COMELEC with broad power to enforce all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections and plenary authority to decide all questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. This constitutional grant underpins the COMELEC's authority to declare a failure of election.
• Section 4, Republic Act 7166 (Synchronized Elections Law of 1991) — Provides that the postponement, declaration of failure of elections, and calling of special elections, as provided in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code, shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members.
• Section 6, Omnibus Election Code (Failure of Election) — Defines the conditions under which a failure of election may be declared: when, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election has not been held, has been suspended, or results in a failure to elect, and the failure would affect the result of the election. This was the primary statutory basis for the COMELEC's declaration.
• Sections 39 and 40, COMELEC Resolution No. 2971 — Section 39 mandates that counting of votes be public and without interruption in the polling place unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Section 40 permits transfer of counting to a safer place only by unanimous approval of the board and concurrence by the majority of watchers present, with the fact recorded in the Minutes. Both provisions were violated when the counting was transferred to the gymnasium without COMELEC authority or watcher concurrence.
• Section 18, Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1989) — Provides the statutory basis for the transfer of counting to a safer place, requiring unanimous board approval and majority watcher concurrence, with the fact recorded in the minutes. This provision is in consonance with Sections 39 and 40 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2971 and was likewise violated.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Gutierrez, JJ., concur.