JAMES MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EN BANC AND ELADIO M. LAPUZ, RESPONDENTS.

Miguel versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, brought by James Miguel against the Commission on Elections sitting en banc and against Eladio Lapuz. Miguel asks the Supreme Court to annul the resolutions of the Commission on Elections that set aside two orders of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City and directed that the ballot boxes of an entire municipality be transferred to the trial court for the revision of ballots. The case matters because it fixes a simple, memorable rule for every election protest: once the protest alleges fraud or irregularities that would require the ballots to be examined or counted, the court has no choice but to order the opening of the ballot boxes, and it may not first hold a preliminary hearing to test those allegations.

Procedural History

Eladio Lapuz filed a verified petition of protest before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 23, impugning the results of the mayoralty election in all one hundred five precincts of the Municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija. The trial court issued an order scheduling a conference to discuss, among other things, the constitution of a board of revisors, the deposit of the sum required for the revision of ballots, and the commencement of the presentation of evidence. Miguel moved for reconsideration and prayed for a preliminary hearing on the merits, asking that the opening of the ballot boxes and the recounting of ballots be withheld unless that hearing were held. Over Lapuz's opposition, the trial court granted the motion in an order dated 07 July 1998, relying on the narrative report of the acting election officer, and set a preliminary hearing at which the protestant was required to adduce documentary and definite evidence to negate that report. Lapuz's urgent motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated 11 August 1998.

Lapuz then questioned the twin orders before the Commission on Elections in a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. On 17 December 1998, the Commission on Elections en banc found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, set aside both orders, and directed the judge to immediately order the transfer of all the ballot boxes of the one hundred five precincts to the trial court for safekeeping and revision of ballots. Miguel's motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated 14 January 1999. Miguel then came to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the Commission.

Facts

James Miguel and Eladio Lapuz were candidates for mayor in the Municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija, in the elections held on 11 May 1998. Three days later, Miguel, who garnered 9,951 votes against Lapuz's 8,911 votes, was proclaimed mayor-elect.

On 25 May 1998, Lapuz filed a verified petition of protest before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 23, impugning the results in all one hundred five precincts of the municipality. He alleged election fraud, anomalies, and irregularities, among them rampant switching and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake ballots, padding of votes in favor of Miguel, misappreciation of ballots, counting of illegal or marked ballots and stray votes, misreading and mis-tallying, massive vote-buying, substitution of votes, multiple voting by flying voters, harassment of voters, massive disenfranchisement, and massive threats, coercion, and intimidation.

Miguel answered with a counterclaim, raising the affirmative defense that Lapuz had no valid cause of action because the grounds of protest were couched in general terms, and asserting that the conduct of the election was clean, honest, and peaceful as certified in the narrative report of the acting election officer. The trial court then scheduled a conference and, later, granted Miguel's prayer for a preliminary hearing before any opening of the ballot boxes. That order, and the denial of Lapuz's motion for reconsideration, set the stage for the Commission on Elections and, ultimately, for this Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the trial court's orders that required a preliminary hearing before the ballot boxes could be opened and the ballots revised.
• Whether or not a protestant in an election protest must first make a prima facie showing of fraud or irregularities, beyond the allegations in the protest, before the court may order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of ballots.

Applicable Provisions

Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, provides:

Section 255. Judicial counting of votes in election protest. Where allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the court the interests of justice so require, it shall immediately order the book of voters, ballot boxes and their keys, ballots and other documents used in the election be brought before it and that the ballots be examined and the votes recounted.

This is the statutory command the Court enforces: the order to bring the ballot boxes before the court and to examine and recount the ballots is immediate once the allegations so warrant, with no intervening preliminary hearing.

Section 6 of Rule 20 of the Commission on Elections Rules of Procedure provides:

When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division, the interest of justice so demands, it shall immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of voters with voting records, book of voters, and other documents used in the election to be brought before the Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots.

The Court notes that although this rule governs protests within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Commission, the same procedure is prescribed for election contests within the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction and of courts of limited jurisdiction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission on Elections committed no grave abuse of discretion. It was the trial court that acted outside its province and overshot the limits of its jurisdiction when it ordered a preliminary hearing. The twin orders of 07 July 1998 and 11 August 1998 were issued in clear violation of the rules and of existing case law.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that no prima facie showing is required beyond the allegations in the protest. The rule in this jurisdiction is clear: when there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the perusal, examination, or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of the ballots deposited therein. The Court quoted its earlier reasoning that the simplest, most expeditious, and best means to determine the truth or falsity of the allegation is to open the ballot box and examine its contents, and that to require other evidence beforehand would give the protestee ample opportunity to delay the settlement of the controversy, which would be to sanction an easy way to defeat a protest.

The Court added that a preliminary hearing set for the same purpose is a mere superfluity that negates the essence of affording premium to the prompt resolution of election cases. Miguel's heavy reliance on the narrative report of the acting election officer was misplaced, because the law does not require a prima facie showing other than the allegations in the protest of fraud or irregularities in order to authorize the opening of the ballot boxes. The stand taken by the trial court was extremely technical and highly impractical, apart from tending to defeat one of the major objectives of the law. In controversies touching the true will of the electorate, time is of paramount importance, and an election controversy should be resolved with utmost dispatch, precedence, and regard to due process.

Doctrine

When an election protest alleges fraud or irregularities that would require the ballots to be examined or counted, the trial court has a ministerial duty to immediately order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of the ballots. This duty flows from Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code, which commands that the court shall immediately order the ballot boxes brought before it and the ballots examined and the votes recounted whenever the allegations so warrant or the interests of justice require.

The protestant need not make any prima facie showing beyond the allegations in the protest. A preliminary hearing to test those allegations is a superfluity and a ground for grave abuse of discretion, because it defeats the prompt resolution of election cases that the law demands.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, the assailed resolutions of the Commission on Elections en banc were affirmed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the resolution of the electoral protest. Miguel lost; Lapuz won.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the opening of the ballot boxes is a ministerial duty once the protest alleges fraud or irregularities requiring the examination of ballots, and no preliminary hearing may be interposed. Examiners use this case in election law to test the procedure in election protests and the scope of the Commission on Elections' corrective power over grave abuse of discretion by trial courts.