1 Cayetano - v. - Commission - On - Elections PDF
1 Cayetano - v. - Commission - On - Elections PDF
1 Cayetano - v. - Commission - On - Elections PDF
SYLLABUS
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ , J : p
Petitioner intervened in the case. He then led a motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over an action involving the
conduct of a plebiscite. He alleged that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election
protest.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
The COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution granting petitioner's motion
and dismissing the petition to annul the results of the Taguig plebiscite for lack of
jurisdiction. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this Resolution.
Aggrieved, private respondents led with this Court a petition for certiorari and
mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 155855, entitled Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio
Bautista vs. COMELEC and Alan Peter S. Cayetano. On January 26, 2004, we rendered a
Decision reversing the COMELEC's Resolution. We held that the controversy on the
conduct of the Taguig plebiscite "is a matter that involves the enforcement and
administration of a law relative to a plebiscite. It falls under the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC under Section 2 (1), Article IX (C) of the Constitution authorizing it 'to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.'" Thus, we directed the COMELEC "to
reinstate the petition to annul the results of the 1998 Taguig plebiscite and to decide it
without delay." Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration but we denied the same in a
Resolution dated February 24, 2004.
Accordingly, on April 19, 2004, the COMELEC Second Division issued an Order in
EPC No. 98-102 constituting the committees for the revision/recount of the plebiscite
ballots.
On April 28, 2004, the revision/recount proceedings commenced and upon its
termination, the Committees on Revision submitted their complete and final reports.
Thereafter, the COMELEC Second Division set the case for hearing. As no
witnesses were presented by petitioner, the parties were directed to submit their
respective memoranda, which they did.
However, the COMELEC Second Division failed to render a decision as the
required number of votes among its members could not be obtained. Consequently,
pursuant to Section 5 (b), 3 Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the case was
elevated to the Commission en banc for resolution. 4
On November 24, 2004, the COMELEC en banc issued an Order considering the
case submitted for resolution. On December 8, 2004, it issued the assailed Resolution
declaring and con rming the rati cation and approval of the conversion of the
Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city, thus:
"WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED .
"Considering that 21,105 a rmative votes represent the majority and the
highest votes obtained during the 1998 Taguig Plebiscite, this Commission
hereby DECLARES and CONFIRMS the RATIFICATION and APPROVAL of the
conversion of the municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city.
"Let the Election O cer of Taguig and the Department of the Interior and
Local Government (DILG) implement this Resolution.
Hence, petitioner led the instant petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 166388 ,
alleging that in rendering the said Resolution, the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion. ACHEaI
Besides, "many irregularities, frauds and anomalies attended the revision proceedings."
1 0 He maintains that the COMELEC "acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or in excess of jurisdiction" in con rming the rati cation and approval of the
conversion of Taguig into a highly urbanized city.
In their respective comments, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the COMELEC,
and the private respondents vehemently disputed petitioner's allegations and prayed
that the instant petitions be dismissed for lack of merit.
Both petitions must fail.
It is clear from petitioner's allegations that the matters being raised — the
alleged incomplete canvass of plebiscite votes during the revision proceedings and the
irregularities, frauds, and anomalies purportedly committed therein — are factual in
nature. They involve an examination of the admissibility and su ciency of the evidence
presented during the revision proceedings before the COMELEC. Certainly, this we
cannot do in the present special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1987
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 1 of the same Rule con nes the power of
this Court to resolve issues mainly involving jurisdiction, including grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction attributed to the public
respondent. 1 1
Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice and considering likewise the
interest of the residents and voters of the City of Taguig, we still reviewed the evidence
and found that petitioner erred when he alleged that the revision of ballots yielded a
total of "15,802 votes for 'Yes' and a total of 12,602 votes for 'No.' "
As shown by the records, the COMELEC considered not only the total number of
votes re ected in the Final Canvassing Report of the Taguig PBOC, but also the voting
results based on (1) the physical count of the ballots; (2) the returns of the uncontested
precincts; and (3) the appreciation of the contested ballots, all summed up and tallied
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
as follows: 1 2
Affirmative Negative
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Tinga, J., took no part due to prior inhibition in prior case.
Footnotes
1. Filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, in relation to Sec.
2, Rule 64.
2. "An Act Converting the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, into a Highly Urbanized City
to be known as the City of Taguig, and for other purposes."
3. "Sec. 5. Quorum; Votes Required. — (a) . . . . (b) When sitting in Divisions, two (2)
Members of a Division shall constitute a quorum to transact business. The concurrence
of at least two (2) Members of a Division shall be necessary to reach a decision,
resolution, order or ruling. If this required number is not obtained, the case shall
be automatically elevated to the Commission en banc for decision or
resolution ."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
4. Order dated November 22, 2004.
15. Montesclaros vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 152295, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA
269; Pangkat Laguna vs. Commission on Elections, supra.