Cawasa v. COMELEC

Cawasa v. COMELEC

Facts: Cawasa and Manamparan candidates for the office of mayor of Nunungan, Lanao del Norte. Out of the forty precincts in Nunungan, only thirty-six functioned, as there was a fail failur ure e of elec electi tion on in the the rema remain inin ing g four four prec precin inct cts. s. Spec Specia iall elec electi tion ons s were were set set considering that the number of registered voters in the remaining four precincts would affect the election results. The special elections for Precincts of Barangay Bangko were conduc conducted ted in the Sultan Sultan Naga Naga Dimapor Dimaporo, o, Lanao Lanao del Norte Norte while while those those of Barang Barangay ay Cabasara and Barangay Liangan were conducted in Sapad, Lanao del Norte. After the canvassing of the election returns, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed the winning candidates on the basis of the earlier election returns of the regular elections and the election returns of the 4 precincts subject of the special elections. Prior to the special elections the lead of Cawasa was eighty six. After the May 30, 2001 special elections, Manamparan overcame the margin with a lead of 297 votes. Cawasa was proclaimed mayor. Manamparan filed an appeal and petition to annul the proclamation of Cawasa which was later dismissed by the COMELEC 2nd division. He then filed a petition for the Annulment of Election Results of the Special Elections and Annulment of Canvass and Proclamation. The COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution annulling the results of  the special elections as well as the proclamation of all winning candidates insofar as the results in the 4 contested precincts affect the standing of candidates. Issue: Whether the Transfer of Polling Places and Appointment of Military Personnel as Members of the Board of Election Inspectors is legal Held: No. The transfer was made not only in blatant disregard of COMELEC Resolution No. 4360 issued on May 21, 2001 specifying the polling places but also Sections 153 and 154 of the Election Code. As clearly provided by the law, the location of polling places shall be the same as that of the preceding regular election. However, changes may be initiated by written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct or agreement of  all the political political parties parties or by resolution resolution of the COMELEC COMELEC after notice notice and hearing. hearing. But ultimately, it is the COMELEC which determines whether a change is necessary after notice and hearing.  The COMELEC has unequivocally stated that “nothing in the records showed that notice notice was given given to the politi political cal candid candidate ates s and regis register tered ed voter voters s affecte affected d by the transfer.” transfer.” Private Private respondent respondent Manamparan Manamparan has categoric categorically ally denied petitioner petitioners’ s’ claim that all the political parties and municipal candidates agreed to the transfer of venue. Reliance on Balindong Balindong vs. COMELEC and Alonto vs. COMELEC COMELEC is misplaced. misplaced. Alonto involved the transfer of the counting and tallying of the votes after the closing of the polls from the precincts to the PC camps. On the other hand Balindong held that the mere fact that the transfer of polling place was not made in accordance with law does not warrant a declaration of failure of election and the annulment of the proclamation of  the winning candidate, because the number of uncast votes will not affect the result of  the election. In the case at bar, there is is no dispute that the election election returns from the 45 45 precincts will affect the results of the elections. Issue:

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Whet Whethe herr the the appo appoin intm tmen entt of mili milita tary ry pers person onne nell as memb member ers s of the the boar board d of  election inspectors is legal Held: No. There was absolutely absolutely no legal basis for the appointment appointment of military military personnel personnel as members of the BEI. Verily, the appointments were devoid of any justification other than than the bare bare asserti assertion, on, again, again, that that “the “the politi political cal partie parties s and munici municipal pal candid candidate ates s agreed on the said arrangement.” Clearly, the BEI shall be composed of a chairman and two members, all of whom are public school teachers. If there are not enough public school teachers, teachers in private schools, employees in the civil service or other citizens of known probity and competence may be appointed. It was highly irregular to repla replace ce the duly duly consti constitut tuted ed member members s of the BEI, BEI, who were were publi public c school school teache teachers. rs. Nothing in petitioners’ pleadings would even suggest that the substitution was made for cause and after hearing. Issue: Whether there are grounds for declaring a failure of election Held:  Yes. The pre-condi pre-conditions tions for declaring declaring a failure failure of election election are: (1) that no voting voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes and (2) that the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the elections. The concurrence of these two circumstances justifies the calling of special elections. Here, the COMELEC found that the special elections were vitiated by fraud due to the illegal transfer of the polling places and the appointment of  military personnel personnel as members of of the BEI. Inevitably, the COMELEC could could not ascertain who voted during the special elections. The circumstances were such that the entire electoral process was not worthy of faith and credit, hence, in practical effect no election was held. Issue: Whether there was a clear violation of due process of law Held: No. A prayer to annul election results, as in the instant case, and a prayer to decl declar are e fail failur ure e of elec electi tion ons s base based d on alle allega gati tion ons s of fraud fraud,, terr terror oris ism, m, viol violen ence ce or analogous causes, are actually of the same nature and the Election Code denominates them them simila similarl rly. y. The COMELE COMELEC C may exerci exercise se the power power to annul annul electi election on resul results ts or declare a failure of election motu proprio or upon a verified petition. The hearing of the case shall be summary in nature. A formal trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process – it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reaso reasonabl nable e opport opportuni unity ty to explai explain n their their respe respecti ctive ve sid sides es of the contr controve oversy rsy and to present evidence on which a fair decision can be based. In Velayo vs. Commission of  Elections, the Court held that “the non-inclusion of a proclaimed winner as respondent in a pre-proclamation controversy and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the COMELEC which resulted in the cancellation of his proclamation constitute clear denial of due

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.