TUPAY T. LOONG, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ABDUSAKUR TAN, RESPONDENTS, YUSOP JIKIRI, INTERVENOR.

Loong versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition brought by Tupay Loong, a candidate for governor of Sulu, against the Commission on Elections and his rival Abdusakur Tan, with Yusop Jikiri intervening. Loong asks the Supreme Court to annul the Comelec resolutions that abandoned the automated count and ordered a manual count of the Sulu local ballots in the May 1998 elections, the first automated elections held in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The case matters because it is the Court's first encounter with the automated election law, and it settles when the Comelec may lawfully set the machine aside and count by hand.

Procedural History

The case began not in a trial court but in the Comelec itself. Acting on the reports from Sulu, the Comelec en banc issued a minute resolution on May 12, 1998 ordering a manual count in the municipality of Pata. The next day it issued another resolution approving the transport of the counting machines and ballots to Manila for both automated and manual operations. On May 15, 1998 it issued a further resolution laying down the rules for the manual count and directing a parallel manual count in all eighteen municipalities of Sulu. Loong filed his objection on May 18, 1998, but the manual count proceeded. Tan was proclaimed governor-elect on June 8, 1998 on the basis of the manual count. On May 25, 1998, Loong went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65. The Court required the respondents to comment and directed the parties to maintain the status quo. Jikiri filed a motion for intervention, which the Court noted. The Court heard the parties in oral arguments on September 25, 1998, and the case was submitted for decision.

Facts

Congress enacted the automated election law on December 22, 1997, and the new system was used in the May 11, 1998 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, including the Province of Sulu. Voting in Sulu was relatively peaceful. The problem began during the automated counting at the Sulu State College. In the early morning of May 12, 1998, election inspectors and watchers reported discrepancies between the election returns and the votes actually cast for mayoralty candidates in Pata. Ballots picked at random confirmed that votes for one mayoralty candidate were not reflected in the printed returns. The task force head suspended the counting and consulted the Comelec technical experts and the machine supplier. The experts found nothing wrong with the machines. The error was in the printing of the local ballots: the ovals opposite the candidates' names were misaligned, so the machines failed to read them correctly.

At an emergency meeting that noon, the local candidates split. Those who wanted a manual count included Tan and the military and police officials; those who insisted on the automated count included Loong and Jikiri. Reports also came in that the machines had rejected all local ballots in five other municipalities because those ballots carried the wrong sequence code. Tan asked that automated counting be suspended throughout Sulu. The Comelec first ordered a manual count in Pata alone, then approved the transport of the machines and ballots to Manila, and finally directed a manual count in Pata with a parallel manual count in all eighteen municipalities. Loong objected, arguing that automated counting is mandatory and that the only remedy the law allows for a defective machine is to replace it.

The manual count proceeded. Tan was proclaimed governor-elect with 43,573 votes against Loong's 35,452, a margin of 8,121 votes. Jikiri placed second with 38,993 votes. Loong then came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy to invalidate the disputed Comelec resolutions.
• Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering a manual count, that is, whether there was legal basis for the manual count, whether its factual bases were reasonable, and whether Loong and Jikiri were denied due process.
• Whether or not, assuming the manual count is illegal and its result unreliable, it is proper to call for a special election for governor of Sulu.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7, Article Nine, paragraph A of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

This is the gateway provision that the Court uses to take cognizance of the petition.

Section 2, paragraph 1, Article Nine, paragraph C of the Constitution provides:

The Commission on Elections shall enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

This defines the broad administrative power of the Comelec within which the questioned resolutions must be tested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that certiorari was the proper remedy. The Constitution allows final orders and rulings of the Comelec rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers to be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Administrative orders of the Comelec are generally not fit subjects of certiorari, but the Court found that the issue here involved the interpretation of the automated election law in relation to the Comelec's constitutional power to enforce and administer election laws. The issue was legal, one of first impression, and of significance to the entire nation, and it adjudicated the right of the parties to the governorship of Sulu. These considerations justified the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The order for a manual count could not be characterized as arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. The automated machines had failed to read the ballots in Pata, where one mayoralty candidate obtained zero votes despite the representations of the board of election inspectors that they had voted for him, and another garnered one hundred percent of the votes. The machines had also rejected the local ballots in five other municipalities because of the wrong sequence code. The technical experts traced the problem not to the machines but to the printing of the local ballots by the National Printing Office. To continue the automated count would have produced a grossly erroneous result, and there was no need for more sampling because all the ballots in those municipalities suffered from the same defects. The Court also found no denial of due process, as the parties were heard and given the opportunity to submit their positions.

On the third issue, the Court declined to call for a special election. The manual count was not illegal, and the factual bases for the Comelec's action were reasonable.

Doctrine

First, a final order or ruling of the Comelec rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Section 7, Article Nine, paragraph A of the Constitution, while its administrative orders are generally not fit subjects of certiorari, save where the issue is legal, of first impression, and of national significance.

Second, the Comelec does not commit grave abuse of discretion when it orders a manual count where the automated machines demonstrably fail to read the ballots because of defects in the printing of the local ballots, since to persist in the automated count would produce a grossly erroneous result. The Court's standard is whether the order is arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, tested against the post-election realities on the ground.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the Comelec resolutions ordering the manual count in Sulu were upheld, with Tan remaining proclaimed governor-elect on the basis of the manual count.

Remember This

Memorize this line: automated counting yields to a manual count when the machines demonstrably fail to read the ballots, for the Comelec does not gravely abuse its discretion by choosing an accurate count over a lifeless machine. Examiners use this case to test the scope of certiorari against Comelec orders and the limits of the automated election law.