View full case

LININDING PANGANDAMAN v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the Omnibus Order of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") dated July 14, 1998. The COMELEC's order directed special elections to be held in several municipalities in Lanao del Sur due to either total or partial failure of elections. During the pre-trial of the cases, it was shown and admitted by the parties that there was total failure of elections in Butig, Kapatagan, Lumbatan, Lumbabayabao, Lumbayanague, Madalum, Maguing, Masiu, Sultan Dumalondong, Sultan Gumander, Tubaran, and Tugaya. No precinct in these towns was able to function on election day. Partial failure of elections occurred in Ganassi, Malabang, Marantao, Pagayawan, and Marawi City. The cause of the failure of elections in these municipalities varied, from armed confrontation and disagreement on clustering of precincts to disqualification of election officers.

In the Municipality of Lumbayao, there was a disagreement among the candidates regarding the venue of distribution of election supplies and the clustering of precincts. In Lumbayanague, the composition of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) in all precincts was not completed because most appointed members were disqualified due to relationship within the prohibited degree.

In Madalum, the appointed teachers who were supposed to act as BEI members did not arrive on election day. The issue of alleged ghost barangays/precincts in Madalum was still unresolved, as investigations were ongoing. In Maguing, no members of the BEIs arrived in all precincts, and new ballots had to be printed due to the inadvertent non-inclusion of a candidate's name. In Masiu, the Municipal Treasurer did not receive the election paraphernalia, and the Acting Election Officer arrived late on election day, preventing the distribution of election supplies.

In Sultan Dumalondong, the Municipal Treasurer did not appear to receive the ballots and other election paraphernalia, resulting in no election supplies for distribution. In Sultan Gumander, the BEIs did not appear on election day, and there was a disagreement on the venue of distribution of election supplies. In Tubaran, all members of the BEIs did not appear due to intense rivalry among opposing candidates. In Tugaya, there was widespread terrorism causing intimidation of the electorate, and a petition to declare the inclusion of 4,075 voters null and void was pending.

In Ganassi, members of the BEIs did not appear in certain precincts, and there was failure of election due to ballot box snatching and voting irregularities. Special elections were ordered for affected precincts.

The case involves three municipalities in the Province of Lanao del Sur where the May 13, 2013, elections did not proceed smoothly due to various incidents. In the Municipality of Saguiaran, nine precincts did not have the appearance of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs), and the ballot boxes from three precincts were snatched and not recovered. However, all election paraphernalia for the affected precincts are available, so the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) will print new ballots and other election forms for use in the special election.

In the Municipality of Malabang, twenty-three precincts failed to function due to shooting incidents. Additionally, five ballot boxes containing election paraphernalia were snatched and never recovered. However, election paraphernalia for eighteen precincts are intact and available. As a result, COMELEC will print 1,000 ballots and election forms for the affected precincts.

Lastly, in the Municipality of Marantao, thirty-five precincts failed to function due to terrorism. Of these, eight precincts lost their ballot boxes, ballots, and other election paraphernalia to armed groups. The affected precincts are identified in the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in insisting on holding special elections more than thirty days after the failure to elect in certain municipalities;

  2. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in failing to declare a total failure of elections in certain municipalities.

  3. Whether or not the COMELEC violated Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code by failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur and failing to certify the same to the President and Congress.

  4. Whether or not the COMELEC violated Sections 166, 170, 175, and 176 of the Omnibus Election Code by ordering only members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police who were not assigned to the affected areas as members of the Board of Election Inspectors.

  5. Whether or not the COMELEC violated the law by insisting on machine counting despite the proven unreliability and undependability of the counting of votes with the use of computer machines.

  6. Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) gravely abused its discretion in fixing the date for special elections.

  7. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur and to certify the same to the President and Congress.

  8. Whether the COMELEC violated certain provisions of the Omnibus Election Code in appointing members of the Board of Election Inspectors who are not assigned to the affected areas.

  9. Whether machine counting of votes is undependable and unreliable.

  10. Whether or not the imposition of the burden on the affected areas is warranted.

  11. Whether or not the imposition is an acceptable option to the judicial conscience.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in insisting on holding special elections more than thirty days after the failure to elect in certain municipalities. It reasoned that Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides for the period within which the special elections should be held, should be read in conjunction with Section 5, which grants the COMELEC authority to fix the date of the special elections. The Supreme Court noted that the COMELEC took into consideration various factors, including security concerns, in determining the dates for the special elections. Thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC.

  2. The Supreme Court also held that the COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in failing to declare a total failure of elections in certain municipalities. It explained that under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, a total failure of elections can only be declared when no voting has taken place in any precinct or polling place in a municipality or when the election in a municipality has been rendered ineffective due to terrorism, violence, disorder, or other analogous causes. In this case, while there were precincts that failed to function or experienced incidents such as ballot box theft and terrorism, there were still functioning precincts and available election paraphernalia. Therefore, the failure of elections was not total.

  3. The Court held that the COMELEC did not violate Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. The provision, which provides for the holding of a special election in case of failure of elections, is not mandatory. The Court emphasized that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that the spirit and intent of the law should determine its construction. The purpose and spirit of the law on special elections is to achieve free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. In this case, the COMELEC had the authority to determine and take the necessary actions to ensure the integrity of the elections, including the discretion to declare a failure of elections.

  4. The Court held that the COMELEC did not violate Sections 166, 170, 175, and 176 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC has the broad power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. The Court recognized the need for the COMELEC to have the necessary and incidental powers to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The COMELEC's decision to include members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police who were not assigned to the affected areas as members of the Board of Election Inspectors is within its discretionary power to ensure the integrity of the elections.

  5. The Court held that the COMELEC did not violate the law by insisting on machine counting. The Court acknowledged the challenges and unforeseen circumstances that the COMELEC faces in conducting elections. The COMELEC's actions may not be impeccable and may even be debatable, but the Court emphasized the need to support the COMELEC in its efforts to protect the integrity of elections and prevent the violation of its purity.

  6. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in fixing the date for special elections. The dates set for the special elections were reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. The COMELEC should not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in the exercise of its discretion to resolve election disputes.

  7. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur. The determination of whether there has been a total failure of elections is a factual issue best assessed by the COMELEC, which is in the best position to assess the actual conditions prevailing in that area.

  8. The COMELEC did not violate the Omnibus Election Code in appointing members of the Board of Election Inspectors who are not assigned to the affected areas. The appointment of elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police as members of the BEIs was done to ensure an effective and impartial military presence and to avoid the risk of another failure of elections.

  9. Machine counting of votes is not undependable and unreliable. The fact that the COMELEC ordered a machine counting of votes in certain municipalities indicates that the computer sets can be relied upon. Petitioner's allegations to the contrary are mere self-serving claims.

  10. The imposition of the burden on the affected areas is deemed unwarranted.

  11. The imposition is an unacceptable option to the judicial conscience.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The COMELEC has the authority to determine the dates for special elections, taking into consideration various factors, including security concerns.

  • A total failure of elections can only be declared when no voting has taken place in any precinct or polling place in a municipality or when the election in a municipality has been rendered ineffective due to terrorism, violence, disorder, or other analogous causes.

  • Statutes should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and should be read according to their spirit and intent.

  • The COMELEC has broad powers to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

  • The COMELEC should be given considerable latitude in adopting means and methods to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in elections.

  • In acting upon election controversies, the COMELEC's choice of means should not be interfered with unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion.

  • Clean elections control the appropriateness of the remedy.

  • In fixing the date for special elections, the COMELEC should ensure that it is not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to elect, and that it is reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended, or which resulted in the failure to elect.

  • The determination of whether there has been a total failure of elections is a factual issue best assessed by the COMELEC, and absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the COMELEC or any administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor are binding on the Court.

  • The COMELEC should not and must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in the exercise of its discretion to resolve election disputes.

  • The appointment of elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police as members of the Board of Election Inspectors may be justified to ensure an effective and impartial military presence and to avoid the risk of another failure of elections.

  • Machine counting of votes can be relied upon if the COMELEC deems it fit to order such method of counting. Allegations of its unreliability must be supported by satisfactory proof.

  • There should be a proper and justifiable basis for any imposition on the people.

  • The judicial conscience should guide the decision-making process.