ABOLAIS R. OMAR, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND YASIN B. ALAPA, RESPONDENTS.

Omar versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari brought by Abolais R. Omar against the Commission on Elections and his rival, Yasin B. Alapa. Omar asks the Supreme Court to set aside a resolution of the Commission on Elections ordering fingerprint and handwriting experts to examine the voting records of two voting centers in Madalum, Lanao del Sur. The case matters because it fixes the narrow scope of judicial review over the Commission on Elections in pre-proclamation controversies, and because it teaches that the Commission is the sole judge of such controversies and may adopt means and methods to ascertain the purity of the ballot.

Procedural History

After the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Omar as mayor, Alapa filed an urgent petition with the Commission on Elections to set aside the proclamation on the ground of frauds and irregularities in two voting centers. The Commission suspended the effects of the proclamation and required Omar to answer. Alapa also filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur. The Commission then dismissed Alapa's petition, holding that the ground relied upon was a proper ground for an electoral protest. Alapa moved to hold the resolution in abeyance and submitted newly discovered evidence. The Commission, by telegram, held in abeyance the implementation of its resolution and directed Alapa to remain as mayor in a holdover capacity. Omar asked the Commission to revoke that telegraphic order, but the Commission did not revoke it. The Commission then issued the resolution of May 15, 1980, directing its Fingerprints Division and the handwriting expert of the National Bureau of Investigation to compare the thumbprints and signatures in the voting records with those in the permanent Books of Voters. Omar then filed this special civil action of certiorari in the Supreme Court to set aside that resolution.

Facts

Omar ran as an Independent candidate for mayor of Madalum, Lanao del Sur. On February 4, 1980, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed him as the duly elected mayor. He obtained 775 votes, winning by 104 votes over his opponent, Hadji Yasin B. Alapa, the incumbent mayor and the candidate of the Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan.

On February 5, Alapa filed an urgent petition with the Commission on Elections to set aside the proclamation. He alleged that frauds and irregularities were committed in voting centers Number 3 and Number 5, in Barangays Linuk and Sugod. He claimed massive substitution of voters tolerated by the citizens election committees, that the ballots were filled up by persons other than the voters themselves, and that flying voters and minors were allowed to vote. He attached affidavits and asked that the ballot boxes and election paraphernalia be impounded and that fingerprint and handwriting experts examine the voting records. Omar denied the allegations and contended that Alapa's remedy was the election protest he had already filed.

The Commission dismissed Alapa's petition on March 1, 1980, holding that the ground relied upon was a proper ground for an electoral protest. Alapa then submitted newly discovered evidence, among which was that Omar was certified twice under two names, Omar Abolais C under the Nacionalista lineup and Omar Raquib under the Independent lineup. The Commission, by telegram dated April 17, 1980, held in abeyance the implementation of its March 1 resolution and directed Alapa to remain as mayor in a holdover capacity. On May 15, 1980, the Commission issued the resolution directing the examination and comparison of the thumbprints and signatures in the voting records with those in the permanent Books of Voters, so that it could have a basis for affirming or annulling Omar's proclamation or determining whether Alapa was elected mayor. Omar then filed this petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in requiring experts to examine and compare the thumbmarks and signatures in the questioned voting records.

Applicable Provisions

Section 175 of the 1978 Election Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

The Comelec is the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and, after hearing, it may annul any proclamation if it is convinced that there are discrepancies in the election returns.

This provision is the source of the Commission's authority to act as sole judge of pre-proclamation controversies and to annul a proclamation after hearing, which the Court invokes to sustain the questioned resolution.

Ruling

The Court held that the Commission on Elections did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in requiring experts to examine the fingerprints and signatures on the questioned voting records to determine whether substitute voters or flying voters cast their votes in voting centers Number 3 and Number 5. That proceeding would be a continuation of the pre-proclamation controversy which started on election day, when Alapa asked that the voting in those centers be stopped, and continued during the canvass, when he asked for the exclusion of the returns for those centers. The Court said it cannot be said that the Commission acted in a capricious, despotic and whimsical manner; it acted within its prerogatives in adopting that procedure in a pre-proclamation controversy.

The Court stressed that the Commission is the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and, after hearing, it may annul any proclamation if it is convinced that there are discrepancies in the election returns. In this case, the existence of discrepancies in the election returns for the two voting centers is probable because of the prima facie finding that there was substitute voting in those centers.

The Court also noted that its power to review a decision, ruling or order of the Commission under the 1973 Constitution is narrower in scope than under the 1935 Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, the Court exercised appellate jurisdiction to review any decision, ruling or order of the Commission; under the present Constitution, such a decision, ruling or order can be assailed only by the special civil action of certiorari. The Court further stressed that the decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission in pre-proclamation controversies, of which it is the sole judge, are final and executory. In factual matters, the Commission is in a better position than any other organ of the State to ascertain matters that tend to assure the purity of the suffrage, and its conclusions on facts and questions of equity should not be modified unless the record shows a grave abuse of its faculties. The Court added that the power of review over the acts of the Commission should, as a general proposition, be used sparingly but firmly in appropriate cases, and that the Commission may err, as the Court may also err, but it should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure free, orderly and honest elections.

Doctrine

The Commission on Elections is the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and, after hearing, it may annul any proclamation if it is convinced that there are discrepancies in the election returns. Its decisions, orders or rulings in such controversies are final and executory.

Judicial review of the Commission's acts in pre-proclamation controversies is confined to the special civil action of certiorari, and the Court will interfere only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Commission may err, but it should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods to insure free, orderly and honest elections; the Court should not interfere unless the Commission's choice of means is clearly illegal or constitutes gross abuse of discretion.

In factual matters, the Commission's conclusions are not to be modified unless the record shows a grave abuse of its faculties, because of its fact-finding facilities and its peculiar advantage in deciding complex political questions.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the restraining order previously issued was lifted, and costs were assessed against Omar.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the Commission on Elections is the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies, and that its rulings therein are final and executory, reviewable only by certiorari on a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the narrow scope of judicial review over the Commission on Elections and the deference given to its choice of means and methods in pre-proclamation controversies.