OTTOMAMA BENITO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ABDALAWE M. PAGRANGAN, AND THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED MAYORALTY CANDIDATE MURAD KISMEN SAMPIANO OGCA, REPRESENTED BY CAB…

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to set
aside the following resolutions of respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), viz: (a) Resolution dated
June 11, 1992 in SPA No. 92-147 and SPA No. 92-145 denying the Motion to
Suspend the Proclamation of Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca in the event that he is
elected mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur; (b) Resolution dated June 29, 1992
in SPC No. 92-303 directing the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Balabagan,
Lanao del Sur to proclaim the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes during the May 11, 1992 election as the winner for the contested office; and (c) Resolution dated July 6, 1992
in SPC No. 92­163, SPC No. 92-303, and SPC No. 92-357 declaring the proclamation
of Ottomama Benito as winning candidate for mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur
null and void and of no force and effect. In the last resolution, the Municipal Board of Canvassers was likewise
directed to set aside the certificate of canvass and proclamation and to
prepare a new certificate of canvass indicating therein that the winning
candidate for mayor is Hadji Murad Ogca but placing the information that he
died on May 20, 1992 for the purpose of applying the rule on legal succession
to office pursuant to Section 44 of R.A. 7160.

Petitioner assails the above-mentioned resolutions on the ground
that they were issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Petitioner Ottomama Benito and the deceased Hadji Murad Kismen
Sampiano Ogca were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1992
election.

On May 1, 1992, Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Deputy for
Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, Sultan Kisa D. Mikunug filed a petition for
disqualification against Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca. Mikunug alleged that at around five o’clock in the afternoon of
April 28, 1992, while inside a billiard hall, Ogca asked him to work for the
former’s re-election. However, when
Mikunug refused, Ogca struck him on the head with a billiard cue.^[1]

On May 6, 1992, the COMELEC referred the disqualification
petition to its Law Department for investigation.^[2] In
turn, the Law Department referred the same to the Director of the Office of the
Regional Election Director of Cotabato City for investigation.^[3]

On June 10, 1992, the Regional Election Director of Cotabato City
issued a resolution stating that there was a prima facie case against
Ogca and that the latter was probably guilty of the charges in the petition for
disqualification.^[4]

Thereafter, nothing more was heard of the petition for
disqualification.

In the meantime, on May 20, 1992, candidate Ogca was killed in an
ambush while returning home from the residence of Lanao del Sur Governor
Saidamen Pangarungan in Marawi City.

On the same date, petitioner, probably not aware of the death of
his opponent, filed a motion to suspend the proclamation of Ogca as elected
mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, contending that there was strong evidence of
guilt against him in the disqualification case.^[5]

Resolving the motion to suspend proclamation, the COMELEC, on
June 11, 1992, denied the same stating that Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca was
dead, hence, his proclamation as winner was essential to pave the way for
succession by the Vice-Mayor-elect as provided for in Section 44 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160).^[6]

Meanwhile, the Municipal Board of Canvassers when asked to
exclude from tallying, counting and canvassing all votes for and in the name of
deceased mayoralty candidate Ogca, ruled, on May 30, 1992, that:

1. The Board shall
continue counting/tabulating all the votes cast for deceased Mayoralty
Candidate Murad K.S. Ogca and Vice Mayoralty Candidate Cadal Luks in the
Statement of Votes by Municipality/Precinct (CE Form No. 20-A) for purposes of
records only and for the reference and guidance of the Commission on Elections,
but it shall not include them (Deceased Candidates) in the Certificate of
Canvass and Proclamation of winning candidates (CE Form No. 25) in case they
won (sic), it being moot and academic.

2. The Board shall exclude
the names of the deceased Mayoralty candidate Murad K.S. Ogca and Vice
Mayoralty candidate Cadal Luks from the list of the LIVING candidates including
the votes obtained by them (Deceased Candidates), considering that their deaths
are of public knowledge and admitted by both parties, and thereafter proclaim
the winning candidates for Municipal Officials, subject to the confirmation of
the Commission on Elections.^[7]

On June 4, 1992, herein private respondents appealed the above
ruling to the COMELEC praying that the Municipal Board of Canvassers be
enjoined from implementing its ruling and that it be directed to ascertain the
results of the elections and to proclaim the candidate obtaining the highest
number of votes as the winner.^[8]

On June 29, 1992, the COMELEC resolved to direct the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur to proclaim as winner for the
contested office the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes during
the May 11, 1992 election.^[9]

On June 30, 1992 at two o’clock in the afternoon, the Municipal
Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner Ottomama Benito as the duly elected
mayor of the municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur.^[10]

On July 1, 1992, the Election Registrar and Chairman of the Board
of Canvassers of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur submitted a memorandum to the COMELEC
informing it that the Board of Canvassers of Balabagan had proclaimed Ottomama
Benito as mayor-elect of the said town.

On July 2, 1992, petitioner took his oath of office before
Secretary of Interior and Local Government Rafael Alunan III.^[11]

On July 6, 1992, the COMELEC issued a resolution declaring the
proclamation of petitioner an absolute nullity and of no force and effect. The certificate of canvass and proclamation
was set aside. The Municipal Board of
Canvassers was likewise directed to prepare a new certificate of canvass
indicating therein that the winning candidate for mayor was Hadji Murad Ogca
but with the information, in parenthesis, that he died on May 20, 1992, for the
purpose of applying the rule on legal succession to office pursuant to Section
44 of R.A. No. 7160.^[12]

Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner faults the COMELEC with lack of jurisdiction and/or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for the
following reasons, viz:

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

COMELEC HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER SPC NO. 92­-303. THE JUNE 29, 1992 RESOLUTION IS NULL AND
VOID AB INITIO

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

THE COMELEC RESOLUTION OF JULY 6, 1992
[ANNEX A] IS ALSO NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THE COMELEC HAS NO JURISDICTION. IT WAS ALSO ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF JUNE 11,
1992. ISSUED IN SPA NOS. 92-147 AND
92-146 (sic) DENYING THE MOTION
TO SUSPEND PROCLAMATION WAS ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION.^[13]

The petition must fail.

The proclamation of petitioner Ottomama Benito as mayor-elect of
Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers was not a valid
proclamation. It appears from the
record that during the May 11, 1992 election, the deceased mayoralty candidate
Murad Sampiano Ogca obtained a total of 3,699 votes as against petitioner’s
2,644. Thereupon, it was the duty of
the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim as winner the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes. However, the Municipal Board of Canvassers, instead of performing what
was incumbent upon it, that is, to proclaim Ogca as the winner but with the
information that he died, to give way to legal succession to office, went on to
proclaim herein petitioner, the candidate who obtained the second highest
number of votes as winner, believing that the death of Ogca rendered his
victory and proclamation moot and academic.^[14] This
cannot be countenanced.

In every election, the people’s choice is the paramount
consideration and their expressed will must, at all times, be given
effect. When the majority speaks and
elects into office a candidate by giving him the highest number of votes cast
in the election for that office, no one can be declared elected in his place.

The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes dies, or is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the
office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who
obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the
elective office.^[15]
For to allow the defeated and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty
despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate
without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of
democracy and the people’s right to elect officials of their choice.^[16]

It is petitioner’s further submission that the appeal filed by
the heirs of the deceased mayoralty candidate from the May 30, 1992 ruling of
the Balabagan Municipal Board of Canvassers was filed out of time, the same
having been submitted a day late. Records bear out that herein private respondents filed their appeal from
the May 30, 1992 ruling only on June 4, 1992, in violation of Section 19 of
Republic Act No. 7166, which provides that a party adversely affected by a
ruling of the Board of Canvassers must appeal the same to the Commission within
three (3) days from the said ruling. However, adherence to a technicality here would put a stamp of validity
on petitioner’s palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of
frustrating the popular will. Adjudication of cases on substantive merits and not on
technicalities has been consistently observed by this Court. In the case of Juliano vs. Court of Appeals^[17] cited in Duremdes vs. Commission on Elections,^[18] this Court had the occasion to
declare that:

Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve public
interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to
stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of
the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. And also settled is the rule that laws
governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the
will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by
mere technical objections. (Gardiner v.
Romulo, 26 Phil. 521; Galang v. Miranda, 35 Phil. 269; Jalandoni v. Sarcon,
G.R. No. L-6496, January 27, 1962; Macasunding v. Macalañgan, G.R. No. L-22779,
March 31, 1965; Cauton v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-25467, April 27,
1967). In an election case the court
has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the
real candidate elected by the electorate (Ibasco v. Ilao G.R. No. L-17512,
December 29, 1960). xxx.^[19]

In the later case of Rodriguez vs. Commission on Elections,^[20] this doctrine was reiterated and the
Court went on to state that:

Since the early case of Gardiner v. Romulo (26 Phil. 521),
this Court has made it clear that it frowns upon any interpretation of the law
or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent
casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the
results. This bent or disposition
continues to the present.^[21]

The same principle still holds true today. Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated
in the election laws should not frustrate the determination of the popular
will.

Where, as in this case, the proclamation is null and void, the
same is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of
office does not deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and
annul the proclamation.^[22]

Consequently, petitioner’s contention that the Commission on
Elections had no jurisdiction to resolve the appeal filed by herein private
respondents turns to naught. The said
appeal, though filed a day too late, was not frivolous. Neither was it interposed for dilatory
purposes. It sought to give effect, not
to frustrate, the will of the
people. Therefore, we declare the
questioned resolutions dated June 29, 1992 and July 6, 1992 of the public
respondent valid and effective.

Finally, the resolution of the COMELEC dated June 11, 1992
denying the petitioner’s motion to suspend proclamation of deceased candidate
Ogca is likewise assailed. Petitioner
argues that the votes for deceased Ogca should not have been counted based on
Section 6 of R.A. No. 6640. This
provision, however, applies only to candidates who have been declared by final
judgment to be disqualified. In the
present case, there is no final judgment declaring the deceased Ogca
disqualified, hence, the provision does not cover him.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, and
Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Cruz and Bellosillo,
JJ., on official leave.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 33-37.

^[2]
Id., at pp. 42-43.

^[3]
Id., at p. 49.

^[4]
Id., at p. 51.

^[5]
Id., at pp. 44-46.

^[6]
Id., at pp. 30-32.

^[7]
Id., at p. 51.

^[8]
Id., at pp. 52-57.

^[9]
Id., at pp. 26-29.

^[10]
Id., at pp. 74; 79-80.

^[11] Id., at p. 81.

^[12]
Id., at pp. 22-25.

^[13]
Id., at pp. 11-16.

^[14]
Id., at p. 51.

^[15]
Labo, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 211 SCRA 297, 308-309; Abella vs.
Commission on Elections, 201 SCRA 253, 275-276; Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136
SCRA 435, 447.

^[16]
Badelles vs. Cabile, 27 SCRA 121.

^[17]
20 SCRA 808.

^[18]
178 SCRA 746.

^[19]
Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 818?819.

^[20]
119 SCRA 465.

^[21]
Id., at p. 474.

^[22]
Duremdes vs. Commission on Elections, supra, and
Aguam vs. Commission on Elections, 23 SCRA 883).