Marawi City – The Commission on
Election (Comelec) declared Ibrahim M. Macadato as the duly elected mayor of
Butig, Lanao del Sur after the Comelc en banc issued a resolution SPA No.10-198.
In the 8 pages En Banc Resolution
of Atty. Dimnatang Pansar versus Municipal Board of canvassers (MBOC) of Butig,
Lanao del Sur and Ibrahim M. Macadato promulgated last September 06, 2010, a
petition filed by Atty.Pansar as the petitioner wants that the Comelec will
annul the results of the Election in selected clustered precincts in the town, suspension
of the effects of proclamation and the holding of Special Elections, and seeks
the failure of election in several clustered precincts.
The resolution states, “Aggrieved with the
results of the elections, Pansar filed an instant petition on May 26, 2010. He
seeks to annul the results and proceedings in certain precincts that,
accordingly, were marred by violence ,terrorism and fraud, causing the
disenfranchisement of a considerable number of duly registered voters in
Barangays Dilabayan, which has three clustered voting precincts with about 87
out of total 501 registered voters were able to cast their votes, while in
Barangay Malungun having three clustered precincts fifty percent (50%) of the 475 total registered
voters have cast their votes and Barangay Pocton which has four clustered
precincts”.
He also cited in the petition
that in Barangay Poctan out of the total 688 registered voters’ respondent
obtained a total of 633 votes while he was credited to only two votes. In
Barangay Ragayan, again Pansar garnered the highest number of votes with 620
votes, out of the 725 total registered voters. Both results were described by petitioners as a statically improbability
and further proof of the alleged perpetration of election fraud by respondent by respondent.IN addition, petitioner
and his poll watchers in Barangay Pocton point out that the anomaly that no
unused ballots were retrieved from the ballot boxes during the canvassing
giving the appearance that all the registered voters of barangay Poctan exercise
their right.
On the other hand, petitioner,
Macadato, in his comment and opposition to the petition, dated June 12, 2010, contends
that petitioner’s allegation of fraud, violence and terrorism are erroneous ,unfounded
and have n legal basis. He presented affidavit from the BEIs of Malungun and
Dilabayan, claiming that his followers did not perpetrate acts of violence or terrorism
in their respective precincts.
Macadato said that he presented
affidavit of Sultan Abdulrahman M. Diamaoden of the Royal House of Butig and
the joint affidavit of former vice mayor of Datu Muhaimen L. Hakim and Timbab, Butig
Barangay Chairman Sultan Dima-acal Macabuntal to bolster his contention that he did not
commit any kind of violence. He also obtained and presented a the written report of the Chief of Police
of Butig, PSI Mapha T. Macapa ar, stating
that the election was honest, peaceful and orderly compared to the previous elections.
Macadato in his argument the
violence and acts of terrorism adverted
by petitioner is as blatant lie, a failure of election cannot be decreed.
He contends, citing Hassan vs Comelec that
for such a declaration to be made. He reasons that since the registered voters
of the precincts referred to by petitioner actually cast their votes on May 10,
2010, the petition is groundless in fact. He pointed out that the petition was
filed on May 26,2010 twelve days from his proclamation in May 14, 2010. Respondent
postulates that the instant petition was either file out of time or lodged in
the wrong jurisdiction. In his own words, respondent states that “The petition
of petitioner appears to be a pre proclamation controversy based on illegal
proceedings of Board due to alleged terrorism as provided for under paragraph
“b” of section 2 of Rule of Comelec Resolution No.880 in relation to section 6
hereof which must be filed with in ten days after the day of the proclamation. Otherwise
it should be regular protest which must be filed with the appropriate Trial
Court”
A petition to declare a failure
of election is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case.
Respondent should not confuse a petition for declaration of failure of election with a pre-procla
mation case. In Loong, the Supreme
Court explained the matter succinctly in the following manner: ” While, however,
the Comelec is restricted in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of the
election returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or
behind them and investigate election irregularities ,the Comelec is duty bound
to investigate allegations of fraud ,terrorism ,violence and other analogous causes in actions for
annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections ,as the Omnibus
Election Code denominates the same. Thus,
the Comelec ,in the case of actions for
annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections ,may
conduct technical examination of election
documents and compare and analyze voters’ signatures and fingerprints in
order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free, honest
and clean. Needless to say, a pre –proclamation controversy is not the same as
an action for annulment of election
results or declaration of failure of election”.
Consequently, Comelec resolution
No.8804 dos not apply .In contrast, the Supreme Court notes that that provision
on failure of elections in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code does not
provide for a prescriptive period.
ON the substantial issue, the
respondent prays for the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit and for
the affirmation of his proclamation.
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code provides for the instances when the Comelec may declare failure of elections,
thus:
“Sec.6 .Failure of election.- If
,on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes 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 notvice
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.”
A petition for declaration of failure
of election can only be made when two conditions concur ,that is (1) that no
voting has been held in any precinct or
precincts because of force majeure, violence
or terrorism; or even if there was voting, the election resulted in a failure
to elect; and (2) that the votes not cast therein would suffice to affect the
results of h elections.
“We rule that the foregoing
conditions are wanting in this case, Please note that although the election in
the said place was far from perfect, it cannot be said that such imperfections
resulted in no voting at all in any of
the precincts that functioned during the
elections. In fact, all precincts were able to transmit and print the results
of the elections. Even in the contested precincts petitioner admits that there
was election but such election resulted in his loss. It is not correct therefore to postulate or to make it appear tvbhat since he lost in
the said precincts or that because he obtained a few votes ,the results thereof
are products of massive irregularities
and are statistically improbable.
Further , we give more credence
to the affidavits executed by the members
of the Board of Election Inspectors and the Municipal Election Office himself stating that the election was peaceful, than
the affidavits executed by the witnesses
of petitioner. Obviously, the BEI and the Election Officer have executed d the
affidavits in the exercise of their
official duties while witnesses for the petitioner cannot claim that they did so
in their official capacity. It is not far fetched that all testimonial evidence presented by
petitioner in the form of affidavits are self-serving and highly biased since
petitioner is clearly exercising ascendancy over them , he being the local
executive in the community for the
past 15 years. It cannot be denied that
petitioner’s clout and power is pervasive such that between the petitioner and
the respondent it is highly improbable
that respondent has the capacity and temerity to commit or try to commit fraud and irregularities he being a simple man with no clout and power
whatsoever as compared to herein petitioner who was then the incumbent mayor.
:Moreover, in the early case of
passion vs. Comelec it was held that:
“The petition must be dismissed .It is very apparent from the petition-letter
that the grounds relied upon by petitioners in seeking relief from the Comelec
are proper grounds for election protest.
Petitioner premised his petition , to quote from resolution No.9802 of the Comelec ,on seizure of ballot
boxes at gunpoint ;intimidation of voters
and forced opening and examination
of ballots; and tampering of election returns .”
In the same case, the Court made
the following pronouncement, viz:
“In the early case of Villegas
vs. Comelc ,where massive fraud and
violation of certain provisions of the Election Code were allegedly committed
during the elections were denounced in
this Court, the Court through Mr. Chief of Justice Enrique M. Fernando dismissed the petition, it appearing therein that the grounds set forth in the complaint before the Comelec are proper for election protest.
The Court pointed out that any rate petitioner would not be left without remedy
f or the opportunity for him, to prove suchb`1 a wholesale allegation of
massive fraud and violations of Election Code is still there. Indeed, herein
petitioner could still avail himself of the election protest where he could
ventilate his grievances and be provided the full opportunity to present all relevant evidence in a full dress
hearing in a accordance with due
process, unlike in the Comelec where he
proceedings are summary in nature .As was aptly said in Laguda vs.Comelc , to
pass on such a complex matter in summary proceedings would be to run the risk
that the decision arrived at would not reflect the realities of this situation”.
WHERFORE, premises considered, we
RESOLVED to, as we do hereby, DISMISS the instant petition and AFFIRM the
proclamation of herein respondent Ibrahim Macadato as the duly elected mayor of
the Municipality of Butig,lanao del Sur.
The resolution was signed by Jose A.R.Melo, chairman, Commissioners Rene
Sarmiento, Nicodemo T. Ferrer,Lucenito N.Tagle,Armando C.Velasco.Elias
R.Yusoph,Gregoria Y.Larrazabal.
