POLALA SAMBARANI, JAMAL MIRAATO, SAMERA ABUBACAR AND MACABIGUNG MASCARA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EO ESMAEL MAULAY, ACTING ELECTION OFFICER, TAMPARAN, LANAO …

Sambarani versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Polala Sambarani, Jamal Miraato, Samera Abubacar and Macabigung Mascara against the Commission on Elections and Acting Election Officer Esmael Maulay of Tamparan, Lanao del Sur. The petitioners were incumbent punong barangay who ran for re-election in the synchronized barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections of July 2002. When both the regular elections and the special elections that followed failed in their barangays, the Commission on Elections declared a failure of election but refused to hold another special election, choosing instead to direct the Department of the Interior and Local Government to appoint barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the thirty-day deadline for special elections is directory and not mandatory, and because it confirms the hold-over principle for incumbent barangay officials whose successors have not yet been elected and qualified.

Procedural History

After the failure of the special elections of August 2002, the petitioners filed a joint petition with the Commission on Elections asking that a failure of election be declared in the five barangays and that another special election be held. The Commission, sitting en banc, issued a resolution on 8 October 2003 declaring a failure of election but refusing to call another special election, directing the Department of the Interior and Local Government to proceed with the appointment of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials, and referring Maulay to its Law Department for preliminary investigation. The petitioners then went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

Facts

In the synchronized barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections of 15 July 2002, Sambarani, Miraato, Abubacar, Mascara and Aliasgar Dayondong ran for re-election as punong barangay in their respective barangays, namely Occidental Linuk, Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, New Lumbacaingud and Tatayawan South, all in Tamparan, Lanao del Sur. Elections failed in eleven barangays of Lanao del Sur, so the Commission issued a resolution setting special elections on 13 August 2002 in the affected barangays, including these five.

On 14 August 2002, Acting Election Officer Maulay issued a certification that no special elections were held on 13 August 2002. The petitioners attributed the failure to Maulay's non-compliance with the directive of Commissioner Mehol Sadain to use the 2001 computerized voter's list of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao and the voter's registration records of the provincial election officer, to segregate and exclude voters whose records were not among those allocated and released to Tamparan, and to delete the name of a disqualified candidate from the certified list.

The petitioners filed a joint petition seeking a declaration of failure of election and another special election. The parties did not appear at the hearing of 11 September 2002 despite due notice. At the hearing of 1 October 2002, counsel for the petitioners and Maulay with his counsel appeared, and the Commission ordered the submission of memoranda and directed Maulay to explain in writing why he should not be administratively charged. The petitioners filed their memorandum; Maulay filed neither a memorandum nor an explanation, and the case was submitted for resolution. The Commission then issued the challenged resolution of 8 October 2003.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to call another special election in the subject barangays after the failure of the special elections of 13 August 2002.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion in directing the Department of the Interior and Local Government to proceed with the appointment of barangay captains, barangay kagawads, Sangguniang Kabataan chairmen and Sangguniang Kabataan kagawads in the subject barangays.
• Whether or not the petitioners may remain in office as the rightful incumbent barangay chairmen in a hold-over capacity until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 6. Failure of election. If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.

This is the provision the Commission relied on in refusing to call another special election, and the Court holds that its thirty-day deadline is directory, not mandatory.

Section 45 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 45. Postponement or failure of election. When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any barangay, the Commission, upon a verified petition of an interested party and after due notice and hearing at which the interested parties are given equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election therein for such time as it may deem necessary.

This is the provision that specifically governs barangay elections, and the Court notes that unlike Section 6 it does not require that the special election be held on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held.

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9164 provides:

Section 5. Hold Over. All incumbent barangay officials and sangguniang kabataan officials shall remain in office unless sooner removed or suspended for cause until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. The provisions of the Omnibus Election Code relative to failure of elections and special elections are hereby reiterated in this Act.

This is the provision that entitles the petitioners to remain in office in a hold-over capacity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the Commission gravely abused its discretion. The Court acknowledged that the Commission has broad constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, and that its authority to declare a failure of election and to call special elections is administrative in nature. But the Court held that the thirty-day period in Section 6 is not an absolute bar. It is directory, not mandatory, and the Commission retains residual power to conduct special elections even beyond the deadline, because the deadline cannot defeat the right of suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court also stressed that neither the candidates nor the voters caused the failure; it was the Commission's own acting election officer who admitted that no special elections were held. The Court added that the fact that these elections pertain to the lowest level of political organization is no justification to disenfranchise voters, and that in applying election laws it is better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms.

On the second and third issues, the Court ruled that the Commission erred in directing the Department of the Interior and Local Government to appoint barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials. Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9164 is clear: incumbent barangay officials shall remain in office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. Since there was a failure of elections in both the regular and the special elections, the petitioners may legally remain in office in a hold-over capacity, and the application of the hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction of official business and prevents a hiatus in government.

Doctrine

First, the thirty-day deadline in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code for holding special elections is directory, not mandatory. The Commission on Elections possesses residual power to fix other dates for special elections beyond the deadline, because the deadline cannot defeat the right of suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution.

Second, Section 45 of the Omnibus Election Code, which specifically governs barangay elections, does not require that the special election be held on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held; special elections may be held anytime, provided the date is within thirty days from the time the cause of postponement has ceased.

Third, under Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9164, incumbent barangay officials shall remain in office in a hold-over capacity until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. The hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction of official business and prevents a hiatus in government.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the resolution of the Commission on Elections of 8 October 2003 was declared void except insofar as it directed a preliminary investigation of Esmael Maulay, the petitioners were held entitled to remain in office as barangay chairmen in a hold-over capacity, and the Commission was ordered to conduct special barangay elections in the four barangays within thirty days from finality of the decision.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the thirty-day deadline for special elections is directory, not mandatory, and that incumbent barangay officials hold over until their successors are elected and qualified. Examiners like to use this case on the right of suffrage, on the residual power of the Commission on Elections to call special elections beyond the statutory deadline, and on the hold-over principle under Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9164.