G.R.Nos.14857576.December10,2003.

ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, ABDULWAHID SAHIDULLA, ABRAHAM BURAHAN,

petitioners,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, YUSOP H. JIKIRI, ABDEL S.
ANNI, DEN RASHER I. SALIM, TALIB L. HAYUDINI, RIZAL TINGKAHAN,
BARLIENAHUDAN,ABRAHAMDAUD,LUKMANOMAR,ONNIHAHMADand
BASARONM.BURAHAN,respondents.
G.R.Nos.15288283.December10,2003. *

YUSOP JIKIRI, ABDEL ANNI, ABRAHAM DAUD, LUKMAN OMAR, ONNIH

AHMAD, BASARON BURAHAN, DEN RASHER SALIM, TALIB HAYUDINI,
RIZALTINGKAHAN,andBARLIENAHUDAN,petitioners,vs.COMMISSIONON
ELECTIONS,ABDUSAKURTAN,ABDULWAHIDSAHIDULLA,MUNIBESTINO
andABRAHAMBURAHAN,respondents.
Election Law;Commission on Elections;Election Protest;The COMELEC assumed
jurisdiction over the amended petitions in the exercise of its quasijudicial powers.The
amendedpetitionsfiledbytherespondentshereinareelectionprotestcasesoverwhichthe
publicrespondenthasoriginalexclusivejurisdictionunderSection2(2),ArticleIXofthe
Constitution.Thepublicrespondentassumedjurisdictionovertheamendedpetitionsinthe
exercise of its quasijudicial powers. Section 4, Rep. Act No. 7166 provides that the
COMELECsittingenbancbyamajorityvoteofitsmembersmaydecide,amongothers,the
declarationoffailureofelectionandthecallingofspecialelectionsasprovidedinSection6
oftheOmnibusElectionCode.
Same;Same;Same;Failure of Elections;Circumstances;Section 6 of the Omnibus
ElectionCodelaysdownthree(3)instanceswhereafailureofelectionmaybedeclared .
ButSection6oftheOmnibusElectionCodelaysdownthreeinstanceswhereafailureof
electionmaybedeclared,namely,(1)theelectioninanypollingplacehasnotbeenheldon
thedate fixedon account offorce majeure,violence,terrorism,fraudorotheranalogous
causes;(2)theelectioninanypollingplacehasbeensuspendedbeforethehourfixedbylaw
fortheclosingofthevotingonaccountofforcemajeure,violence,terrorism,fraudorother
analogouscauses;or(3)afterthevotingandduringthepreparationandtransmissionofthe
electionreturnsorinthecustodyorcanvassthereof,suchelectionresultsinafailureto
electonaccountofforcemajeure,violence,terrorism,fraudor
_______________

ENBANC.
*

533
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 5
33
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
otheranalogouscases.Inallinstancestheremusthavebeenafailuretoelect.Thisis
obviousinthefirsttwoscenarios,wheretheelectionwasnotheldandwheretheelection
wassuspended.Astothethirdscenario,thepreparationandthetransmissionoftheelection
returns,whichgiverisetotheconsequenceoffailuretoelect,mustasaforesaidbeliterally
interpretedtomeanthatnobodyemergedasawinner.
Same;Same;Same;Same;TheCOMELECisdutyboundtoinvestigateallegationsof
fraud,terrorism,violenceandotheranalogouscausesinactionsforannulmentofelection
resultsorfordeclarationoffailureofelections.InLoongv.COMELEC,weheldthatthe
COMELECisdutyboundtoinvestigateallegationsoffraud,terrorism,violenceandother
analogouscausesinactionsforannulmentofelectionresultsorfordeclarationoffailureof
elections, as the Omnibus Election Code denominates the same. Thus, the public
respondent,inthecaseofactionsforannulmentofelectionresultsordeclarationoffailure
ofelections,mayconductatechnicalexaminationofelectiondocumentsandcompareand
analyze voters signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the
electionshadindeedbeenfree,honestandclean.However,theexerciseofthisauthority
presupposesthatthepetitionhasproperlybeenactedupononaccountoftheexistenceof
anyofthegroundsprovidedunderSection6oftheOmnibusElectionCode.
Same;Same;Same;Same;GroundsfortheSuspensionofProclamation.Thefilingof
preproclamationcontroversiesunder248oftheOmnibusElectionCode,however,isnot
theonlygroundforthesuspensionofproclamation.Twootherinstancesareprovidedin
R.A.No.6646,knownasTheElectoralReformsLawof1987,viz.:(1)Under6ofthe
statute, the COMELEC may, upon motion of the complainant in an action for
disqualification,suspendtheproclamationofthewinningcandidateiftheevidenceofhis
guilt is strong, and (2) under 7 thereof, the COMELEC may likewise suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate if there is ground for denying or canceling his
certificateofcandidacy....

SPECIALCIVILACTIONSintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Brillantes,Navarro,Jumamil,Arcilla,Escolin & Martinez Law Officesfor
petitionersinG.R.Nos.14857576.
RomuloB.MacalintalforpetitionersinG.R.Nos.15288283.
AbdulmoinM.PakamforrespondentsTingkahanandNahudan.
534
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections

CALLEJO,SR.,J.:

BeforeusaretwoconsolidatedpetitionsfiledunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt,as
amended,assailingtheOrdersoftheCommissiononElectionsEnBancdatedJune
28,2001,October3,2001andApril17,2,002inSPANo.01257andSPANo.01
265 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excessofjurisdiction.
 The factual antecedents insofar as pertinent to the instant petitions are as
follows:
IntheMay14,2001elections,AbdusakurTanandAbdulwahidSahidullawere
candidatesforGovernorandViceGovernor,respectively,whileMunibEstinoand
Abraham Burahan were candidates for Congressman of the Second and First
DistrictofSulu,respectively.TheothercandidatesforGovernorandViceGovernor
wereYusopJikiriandAbdelAnni.Thecandidatesforthepositionofmembersof
theSangguniangPanlalawiganoftheFirstDistrictofSuluwereDenRasherSalim,
TalibHayudini,RizalTingkahanandBarlieNahudan,whilethosefortheSecond
DistrictwereAbrahamDaud,LukmanOmar,OnnihAhmadandBasaronBurahan.
OnMay17,2001,AbdusakurTan,AbdulwahidSahidullaandAbrahamBurahan
(AbdusakurTan,etal.forbrevity)filedwiththeCOMELEC(publicrespondent)a
petitiontodeclarefailureofelectionsinalltheprecinctsintheMunicipalityof
Luuk,ProvinceofSulu,whichwasdocketedasSPANo.01257. Thepetitioners 1

prayedthat:
_______________

1
AnnexB,Rollo,G.R.Nos.14857576,pp.4446.Thepetitionallegedinteraliathat:

1. 4.TheMunicipalityofLuuk,Suluhasatotalof121votingprecincts,andfortheMay14,2001
elections,84groupedprecincts;

2. 5.LastMay14,2001elections,thedayofthenationalandlocalelections,theregisteredvotersin
alltheprecinctsintheentireMunicipalityofLuukwerealldisenfranchised,astherewasno
actualvotingheld;

3. 6.Inallthe84groupedprecinctsspreadthroughoutthe20barangaysofsaidmunicipality,all
official watchers of the PMP were either prevented from entering their respective precinct
assignments,ordrivenoutbysomeunscrupulouscandidatesofotherpartiesandtheirgoons,
particularlybythoseLAKASorAdministration

535
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 535
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable
CommissionDECLAREaFAILUREofELECTIONSinalltheprecinctsintheMunicipality
ofLuuk,Suluwherenovotingwasactuallyheld,astheregisteredvotersneverdidcast
theirvotes.
Thepetitionersfurtherpraythatpendingfinalresolutionofthispetitionthatanorder
beimmediatelyissueddirectingtheMunicipalBoardofCanvassersofLuuk,Suluaswell
astheProvincialBoardofCanvassersofSulutosuspendanddesistfromcontinuingwith,
theCANVASSINGoftheelectionreturnsand/orcertificateofcanvass.
Otherreliefconsistentwithlaw,justiceandequityarealsoprayedfor. 2

The following day, the petitioners filed a petition to declare failure of elections
and/ortoannultheelectionsortheelectionresultsintheMunicipalitiesofParang
and Indanan, Province of Sulu, which was docketed as SPA No. 01265. The 3

petitionersprayedthat:
_______________

candidates,withthehelpofsomecorruptBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI),barangayofficialsand
themilitary;

1. 7.Likewise,theregisteredvoterswhoonelectiondayflockedtotheirrespectiveprecinctswereall
preventedfromexercisingtheirrighttosuffragebythesearmedpersons,andthroughforceand
intimidation,theysucceededindrivingouttheregisteredvotersawayfromthepollingplaces;

2. 8.Theseterroristsalsosucceededingoingtothehousesofregisteredvotersontheeveofthe
elections and the early hours of election day and placed indelible ink in the forefingers of
registeredvoters,thusensuringthattheseregisteredvoterswillnotbeabletovote;

3. 9.After succeeding in perpetrating the abovementioned contemptuous acts, their cohorts, the
BoardofElectionInspectors,togetherwithcandidateswhomastermindedthissystematicand
evilscheme,theirsupportersstartedfillingouttheofficialballotsandplacingthemin their
respectiveballotboxes,tomakeitappearasifanelectionwasactuallyconducted.Theydidthis
withthesupportofarmedmilitaryandparamilitarypersonnel;

4. 12.Thatthefailedelectioninsaidmunicipalitywillaffectthefinalresultsoftheelectionandthat
unlesstheMunicipal Board ofCanvassers ofLuuk,Suluas wellas theProvincial Board of
CanvassersofSuluarerestrained,pendingfinalresolutionofthispetition,fromcanvassingand
tabulatingthevotesinLuuk,Sulu,thispetitionwillbecomemootandacademic.

Id.,atpp.4546.
2

AnnexC,id.,atpp.5663.Thepetitionallegedinteraliathat:
3

536
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully pray that this petition be granted and that an
Orderbeissued:
_______________

1. 2.ThatintheconductoftheMay14,2001electionsinSulu,particularly,inthemunicipalitiesof
ParangandIndanan,whichispartofSuluFirstDistrict,theMNLFArmyIntegratesutilizedto
securetheelectionprocessflagrantlyandblatantlyignoredandviolatedCOMELECRulesinnot
respectingtherightsofpartywatcherstowatchtheconductoftheelectionintheirrespective
precinct assignments and perform their duties and responsibilities as watchers during the
castingofthevotes;

2. 3.In addition, the said MNLF Army Integrates further violated the COMELEC Rules in
disregardingthefifty(50)meterradiusfromthePollingPlacewhereintheyarepreventedfrom
enteringandinsteadmassivelyserved,themselvesasassistorsofvoterswithouthavingbeen
authorizedforthispurpose;
 3. 4.Thatthevoterswhoareidentifiedandperceivedassupportersofthepetitionerswererequired
topresentIdentificationCardsinviolationofCOMELECLaws,whilethosevoterssupporting
theotherpartywereunfairlyallowedtocasttheirvotes;

4. 5.ThattheopponentsofPetitionersarecandidatesoftheMNLF,particularlytheopponentof
petitionerTan,whoistheChiefofStaffoftheMNLF;

5. 6.ThatasanetresultoftheforegoingschemeemployedbytheMNLFArmyIntegratesinfavorof
theMNLFcandidates,massivefraud,anomaliesandirregularitieswerecommittedinMNLF
controlledareasinParangandIndanan,Sulu,suchasbutnotlimitedtothefollowing:

1. a)TheBoardofElectionInspectorsandtheirMNLFArmyIntegratessecurityrefusedtorecognize
andallowthewatchersofthepetitionerstoexercisetheirrightsandperformtheirdutiesand
responsibilities. And they observed, that voters were allowed to vote more than once and
neitherwasindelibleinkused;

2. b)Manyregisteredvoterswereunabletocasttheirvotes,because,theballotshadalreadybeen
voted by the MNLF Army Integrates themselves in conspiracy with the Board of Election
Inspectors;

3. c)At others, flying voters were transported with MNLF Army Integrates escorts from one
Barangay to the others to accomplish the Ballots. And the BEI on being confronted by the
Watchersabouttheanomaliescouldonlysaythatwe

537
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 537
Tan vs. Commission on Elections

1. 1.Annullingandsettingasidetheelectionsand/ortheelectionresultsinthe
May14,2001electionsinthemunicipalitiesofIndananandParang,Sulu,
anddeclaringafailureofelectionstherein;

_______________

cannotdoanything,because,thisplaceistheircontrolledterritories,

1. d)Stillatothers,thephotographsofthedulyRegisteredVotersweretemporarilydetachedand
replacedbyotherpictures.WhentherealRegisteredVoterscametovote,theyweredisallowed,
because,althoughthenamesappearingintheListofVotersandtheBookofVotersbelongto
them,thepictureappearingontheVotersRegistrationRecord,whichhavebeenearlierchanged
aredifferent;

Fromtheforegoingscheme,thefollowingconclusionsareinevitable:

1. 1.Novalidandlegitimateelectionswereactuallyheldorconductedinthesubjectmunicipalities
consideringthefraudulentschemeemployedbytheMNLFArmyIntegratesassignedtosecure
theelectionstherein;
 2. 2.Novalidand/orlegitimateelectionswereactuallyheldinsaidmunicipalitiesasOfficialBallots
werepreparedbyonlyafewindividualsandnotbythedulyRegisteredVoters.Thiscanbe
readilyestablishedbytheexaminationofthesignaturesandthumbmarksinthecorresponding
ListofVotersandBookofVoters;

3. 3.The OfficialBallotshaving beenpreparedbypersons otherthan theRegisteredVoters, the

votesreflectedinthecorrespondingElectionReturnsarenottrulyreflectiveoftheactualand
truevotescastinthesubjectmunicipalities;

4. 4.In fact, this anomalous and fraudulent manner of voting is perhaps also true to other
municipalitiesinSulu.Thelowturnoutofvotersinmunicipalitiessupportiveofthepetitioners
andthenearlyOneHundredPercentturnoutofvotersinmunicipalitiesalliedwiththeMNLF
candidatesissufficientproofthattheelectionsconductedinthesubjectmunicipalitiesonMay
14, 2001, was vitiated by the fraudulent scheme decried herein;
...

9.Thattheconductoftheelectionsinthesubjectmunicipalitieswereclusteredtosix(6)Voting
Centers inthecaseofParang,which iscomposed[of]EightyThree(83)precincts,andtoFive (5)
VotingCentersinthecaseofIndanan,Sulu,whichiscomposedofOneHundredSix(106)precincts,
resultinginthelocationofanaverageofatleastfive(5)precinctstoaClassroomthatmadeitmuch
easierfortheperpetratorsoftheallegedfraudulentschemetocarryouttheiranomalies;
538
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections

1. 2.Suspending the canvassing and the proclamationof any and all

allegedwinning candidatesinthe municipalities ofIndananandParang,
Sulu;

2. 3.Callingforimmediatespecialelectionsintheaforesaidareaswherefailure
ofelectionstranspired;

3. 4.Suchotherreliefsasmaybejustandequitablearelikewiseprayed. 4

No respondents were impleaded in both petitions. The public respondent took

cognizanceofandassumedjurisdictionoverthepetitions.
OnMay19,2001,thepetitionersthereinfiledanurgentreiteratingmotionto
suspendproclamation. Actingonthesaidmotion,thepublicrespondentissuedan
5

ordersuspendingtheproclamationofthewinningcandidates,viz.:
ActingonthePetitionfiledonMay17,2001intheabovecaptionedcase,includingthe
reiteratingmotionofMay19,2001,andfindingthesametobesufficienttowarrantthe
issuanceofapreliminarysummaryaction,soasnottorenderacademic,thepetitioninthe
above case, let there be issued to the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu an
Order/directiveforthesuspensionofproclamationofthewinningcandidatesforallelective
provincialpositions,untilfurtherorder/sfromthisCommission. 6
However,theProvincialBoardofCanvassers(PBC)wasnotservedwithacopyof
the orderof thepublicrespondent. On May 23, 2001, YusopJikiri, Abdel Anni,
Abraham Daud, Lukman Omar, Onnih Ahmad, Basaron Burahan, Den Rasher
Salim,TalibHayudini,RizalTingkahanandBarlieNahudanwereproclaimedas
thewinningcandidatesforGovernor,ViceGovernorandBoardMembers. 7

OnMay30,2001,thepetitionersthereinfiledtheirAmendedPetitionsinSPA
Nos.01257 and01265 impleadingforthefirst
8 9

_______________

4
Id.,atp.61.
5
AnnexD,id.,atpp.6466.
6
AnnexE,id.,atpp.6871.CommissionersMeholK.Sadain,ResurreccionZ.Borra,andFlorentino
A.Tuason,Jr.votedforthecountingandcanvassingtoproceed.
7
AnnexD,Rollo(G.R.Nos.15288283),p.61.
8
AnnexE,id.,atpp.6270.
9
AnnexE1,id.,atpp.8493.
539
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 539
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
time the winning candidates, Yusop Jikiri,et al., as party respondents. The
petitionersinSPANo.01257prayedthat:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable
CommissionDECLAREaFAILUREOFELECTIONinalltheprecinctsintheMunicipality
ofLuuk,Suluwherenovotingwasactuallyheldastheregisteredvotersneverdidcast
theirvotes.
Petitionersfurtherpraythatpendingfinalresolutionofthispetitionthatanorderbe
immediatelyissueddirectingtheMunicipalBoardofCanvassersofLuuk,Suluaswellas
theProvincialBoardofCanvassersofSulutosuspend,anddesistfromcontinuingwith,the
CANVASSINGoftheelectionreturnsand/orcertificateofcanvass.
Otherreliefconsistentwithlaw,justice,andequityarealsoprayedfor. 10

ThepetitionersinSPANo.01265prayedthat:
WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully pray that this petition be granted and that an
Orderbeissued:

1. 1.Annullingandsettingasidetheelectionsand/ortheelectionresultsintheMay14,
2001electionsinthemunicipalitiesofIndananandParang,Suluanddeclaringa
failureofelectionstherein;

2. 2.Calling for immediate special electionsin the aforesaid areas where failure of
electiontranspired.

3. 3.Suchotherreliefsasmaybejustandequitablearelikewiseprayed. 11
On June 11 and 18, 2001, the respondents filed their respective answers to the
aforesaid amended petitions questioning in the main the jurisdiction of the
COMELECEnBanctoactonthesaidamendedpetitionsandtheproprietyofthe
recourseofthepetitionersinviewoftheirvalid,lawfulandexistingproclamation
as the winners. The petitioners in turn filed an urgent motion to annul the
12

proclamation of the respondents as the winners. The respondents opposed the

motion, contending that such motion was appropriate only in preproclamation
controversies.
OnJune20,2001,theCOMELECEnBancissuedanorderannullingtheMay
23,2001proclamationoftherespondentsonits
_______________

Rollo(G.R.Nos.15288283),p.68.
10

Id.,atp.91.
11

AnnexesE2andE3,id.,atpp.94117.
12

540
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
findingthattheproclamationbythePBCofthewinningcandidateswasadefiance
of its Order ofMay 19, 2001. The public respondent forthwith set theamended
petitionsforhearing. Inthemeantime,therespondentsfiledamotionfortherecall
13

oftheJune20,2001OrderoftheCOMELEConthegroundthatthepetitionsbefore
itweremerelypetitionstodeclareafailureofelectionanddonotinvolveapre
proclamationcontroversy.However,theCOMELECfailedtoimmediatelyresolve
thependingincidents.Inthemeantime,thepetitionerspremarkedtheirevidence.
TherespondentsreservedtherighttopremarktheirevidencebeforetheClerkof
CourtoftheCOMELECwithoutprejudicetotheresolutionofthependingmotions.
OnJune28,2001,afterduehearing,theCOMELECissuedanorderrecalling
and setting aside its June 20, 2001 Order, and affirming the May 23, 2001
proclamationoftherespondents.Theorderstatesinteraliathat:
Afterdueconsiderationandtherebeingnovalidpreproclamationissuespendingbefore
the Commission involving the elective provincial officials of the Province of Sulu, and
considering further our ruling in SPA 01323 and SPA 01244 involving the elective
provincialofficialsoftheProvinceofMaguindanao,theCommissionRESOLVES,asitis
herebyRESOLVED,torecallitsJune20,2001Orderannullingtheproclamationofthe
electiveprovincialofficialsoftheProvinceofSulu.
ThedefiancebythePBCoftheorderofsuspensionoftheCommission,thoughavalid
concern,cannotandshouldnotdetertheproclamationoftheprovincialofficialsofSulu
aftertheresultoftheprovincialcanvassingshowedthattheywerethewinningcandidates.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the June 20, 2001 Order of this Commission is
herebyrecalledandsetasideandtheproclamationoftheprivaterespondentsonMay22,
2001isherebyAFFIRMED.
 ThisORDERiswithoutprejudicetotheadministrativecasereferredbytheCommission
totheLawDepartmentagainstthePBCofSulu.ThisORDERislikewisewithoutprejudice
toafullresolutionofthemainpetitiontodeclarefailureofelectionsinthemunicipalitiesof
Luuk,IndananandParang. 14

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed on July 11, 2001 with this Court a petition for
certiorari,prohibitionandmandamusdocketedas
_______________

AnnexJ,Rollo(G.R.Nos.14857576),pp.118124.
13

AnnexA,id.,atpp.3942.
14

541
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 541
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
G.R. Nos. 14857576with prayer for the issuance of a writ of injunction and/or
temporaryrestrainingorderand/orstatusquoanteorder,assailingtheaforequoted
June 28, 2001 Order of the public respondent; and submitting for the Courts
resolutionthefollowingthresholdissue:
ThethresholdissueinthispetitionisthedeterminationofwhethertheComelechasthe
powertoissueanordersuspendingproclamationasapreliminaryreliefinapetitionfor
declarationoffailureofelectionand/orannulmentofelectionresults.
Corollarythereto,didrespondentComelecgravelyabuseitsdiscretionwhenitissuedits
June28,2001QuestionedOrderrecalling,andeffectivelyreconsidering,thesuspensionof
proclamationithadpreviouslypromulgated? 15

In the meantime, acting on a series of motions filed by the petitioners, the

COMELEC issued an Order dated October 3, 2001 directing the technical
examination of the voters registration records in the Municipalities of Parang,
IndananandLuuk,thus:

1. 1.TodirecttheElectionOfficersoftheMunicipalitiesofLuuk,Indananand
Parang, Sulu to produce before the Commission the pertinent VOTERS
REGISTRATION RECORDS showing the thumbmarks and signatures of
votersaffixedduringtheirregistrationandduringthevotingintheMay14,
2001elections(CEFormNo.1)withinten(10)daysfromreceipthereof,to
bedepositedattheElectionRecordsandStatisticsDepartment;

2. 2.Torequirepetitionertodefraytheexpensesforthetransportationtothe
main office of said election documents; and to advance to the Election
Officers concerned the necessary amount for said transportation of
documents;

3. 3.Partiesareentitledtowatchersduringthetransportofthesedocumentsat
theirownexpenseuntildulyreceivedbytheElectionRecordsandStatistics
Department,thisCommission.
 4. 4.To direct the Voters Identification Division to conduct technical
examination of said documents and to make a report thereon to the
CommissionEnBancwithinfifteen(15)days;

5. 5.LettheDeputyExecutiveDirectorforOperationsimplementthisOrder.

_______________

Id.,atpp.2223.
15

542
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
Furnish copy of this Order to the Election Records and Statistics Department, this
Commission. 16

OnOctober12,2001,therespondentsfiledwiththeCOMELECanomnibusmotion
to resolve the issue of jurisdiction with a prayer to recall and/or suspend
implementationoftheOrderdatedOctober3,2001. Therespondentscontended
17

thatbasedonthedocumentaryevidence,therewasnofailureofelection;theproper
remedy of the petitioners was for them to file election protest cases and not
petitionstodeclareafailureofelectioninviewoftheirvalid,lawfulandexisting
proclamationasthewinningcandidatesconfirmednolessbytheCOMELEC.The
respondentsallegedthatthepetitionsbeforeitbeingregularelectionprotestcases
disguisedaspetitionstodeclareafailureofelectionshouldbeheardbyadivisionof
theCOMELECandnotbytheCOMELECEnBancasprovidedforinSection3,
ArticleIXCoftheConstitution.Therespondents,likewise,arguedthattodirect
the technical examination of voluminous documents would be repugnant to the
summarynatureofthecasesbeforeitandviolativeofSection6,Rule26ofthe
COMELECRulesofProcedurewhichstatesthatapetitionfordeclarationoffailure
ofelectionsissummary.
On April 17, 2002, the COMELEC issued an order declaring that it had
jurisdictionovertheamendedpetitionsconformablywithSection4ofRepublicAct
No.7166;anddenyingtheomnibusmotionoftherespondents,thus:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theOmnibusMotionandtheMotiontoSuspendthe
ImplementationoftheOctober3,2001OrderoftheCommissionenbancisDENIEDfor
lackofmerit.
The Commissionen bancorders the Voters Identification Division to continue the
technicalexaminationoftheVotersRegistrationRecordsofLuuk,ParangandIndanan,
SuluasauthorizedintheOctober3,2001enbancOrder. 18

TheCOMELECruledthatbasedontheallegationsoftheamendedpetitions,there
wasnovalidandlegitimateelectionsheldorconductedinthethreemunicipalities.
It,likewise,ruledthatithadtheauthoritytoorderatechnicalexaminationofthe
VRRsin
_______________
 Rollo(G.R.Nos.15288283),pp.3132.
16

Annex1,Rollo(G.R.Nos.15288283),pp.129138.
17

AnnexA1,id.,atpp.3444.
18

543
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 543
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
apetitiontodeclareafailureofelectioncitingtherulingofthisCourtinLoongv.
CommissiononElections. Hence,onApril29,2002,therespondentsthereinfiled
19

with this Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. Nos. 15288283 with
prayerfortheissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderand/orwritofpreliminary
injunction, praying for the nullification of the public respondents Orders dated
October3,2001andApril17,2002andforthedismissalofSPANos.01257and01
265forlackofjurisdiction.Theyarguedthat:

1. (a)ONJUNE28,2001,THECOMELECITSELFAFFIRMEDTHEMAY23,
2001PROCLAMATIONOFTHEPETITIONERSASTHEDULYELECTED
PROVINCIALELECTIVEOFFICIALSOFTHEPROVINCEOFSULUIN
THE MAY 14, 2001 ELECTIONS. THEREFORE, IT IS A VALID AND
EXISTING PROCLAMATION. SUCH PROCLAMATION PRESUPPOSES
THATANELECTIONHASBEENCONDUCTED.THUS,ANYALLEGED
IRREGULARITIES IN THE POLLS ARE MATTERS OF ELECTION
PROTEST.

2. (b)PETITIONERS HAVE ALREADY ASSUMED AND ARE ALREADY

EXERCISING THEIR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS AS ELECTIVE
PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS SINCE JUNE 30, 2001. HENCE, THE
REMEDYOFTHELOSINGCANDIDATESISANELECTIONPROTEST.

3. (c)ONCEPROCLAMATIONISMADE,THEPROPRIETYOFFAILUREOF
ELECTIONENDSANDTHEREALMOFELECTIONPROTESTBEGINS.
THISISSOBECAUSETHEDIVIDINGLINEBETWEENPETITIONTO
DECLARE FAILURE OF ELECTION AND ELECTION PROTEST IS
PROCLAMATION. AND HERE, THE PROCLAMATION IS VALID. IT
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COMELEC EN BANC AFTER A HEARING
WHEREALLTHEPARTIESWEREGIVENTHEOPPORTUNITYTOBE
HEARD.

4. (d)THEREBEINGVALIDANDEXISTINGPROCLAMATIONANDSUCH
PROCLAMATION HAVING BEEN AFFIRMED, THERE WAS NO
FAILUREOFELECTIONASWINNERSHADEMERGED.INTYPOCO,
JR. V. COMELEC,319 SCRA 498andBORJA V. COMELEC,260 SCRA
604, IT WAS HELD THAT FAILURE OF ELECTION SHOULD
 LITERALLY MEAN THAT NOBODY EMERGED AS A WINNER. IN
THE INSTANT CASE, WINNERS HAD EMERGED IN VIEW OF THE
VALID AND EXISTING PROCLAMATION OF THE PETITIONERS,
AFFIRMEDBYTHECOMELECITSELF.HENCE,THEREWASNO

_______________

257SCRA1(1996).
19

544
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections

1. FAILUREOFELECTION.THEREMEDYOFPRIVATERESPONDENTS
ISANELECTIONPROTEST.

2. (e)THE QUESTIONED ORDER WOULD EVEN ALLOW THE PIERCING

OF THE VEIL OF ELECTION RETURNS SINCE TECHNICAL
EXAMINATIONOFELECTIONDOCUMENTSCOULDBEALLOWEDIN
ALLKINDSOFPETITIONSWHICHCOULDNOWBEDISGUISEDAS
ONEFORFAILUREOFELECTION. 20

OnMarch4,2003,theCourtgrantedthemotionofthepetitionersinG.R.Nos.
15288283 for the issuance of a temporary restraining order directing the
COMELEC to cease and desist from implementing its questioned Orders dated
October3,2001andApril17,2002andfromfurtherproceedingthereon.
OnApril29,2003,theCourtorderedtheconsolidationofG.R.Nos.14857576
andG.R.Nos.15288283sincebothpetitionsarosefromacommonsetoffactsand
raisedsimilarissues.
For convenience, the Court shall delve into and resolve the issues in both
petitionssimultaneouslyandwillrefertoYusopJikiri,AbdelAnni,AbrahamDaud,
Lukman Omar, Onnih Ahmad, Basaron Burahan, Den Rasher Salim, Talib
Hayudini, Rizal Tingkahan, and Barlie Nahudan as the petitioners; and,
Abdusakur M. Tan, Abdulwahid Sahidulla, and Abraham Burahan as the
respondents,withoutreferencetothedocketnumbersofthepetitionsrespectively
filedinthisCourt.
Thethresholdissuesforresolutionare(1)whethertheCOMELECEnBanc,now
publicrespondent,isvestedwithjurisdictiontotakecognizanceofandresolvethe
amended petitions before it; (2)whether the public respondent actedwith grave
abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing its
OrdersdatedJune28,2001,October3.2001,andApril17,2002.
Onthefirstissue,thepetitionersaverthattherespondentswereproscribedfrom
filingtheiramendedpetitionforadeclarationoffailureofelectionsand/orforthe
annulmentofelectionsunderSection6,RepublicActNo.7166forthereasonthat
thepetitionershadalreadybeenproclaimedthewinningcandidates.Theycontend
that a petition for declaration of failure of elections or for the annulment of an
election canno longer befiledandprosecuted after thewinning candidates had
alreadybeenpro
_______________

Rollo(G.R.Nos.15288283),pp.1213.
20

545
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 545
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
claimedbythePBC.Theyaverthattheproperrecourseoftherespondentswasto
fileelectionprotestcasesagainstthepetitionersasthewinningcandidates.The
petitionersalsoassertthattheproceedingsinanelectionprotestarenotsummary
innatureandshouldbeventilatedinafullblownhearing.Thepetitionersargue
thattheamendedpetitionsoftherespondentsareelectionprotestcasesoverwhich
theCOMELECassumesjurisdictionintheexerciseofitsquasijudicialpowersand
shouldbereferredforhearingandresolutiontoaDivisionoftheCOMELECas
mandated by Section 3, Article IXC of the Constitution and Section 250 of the
OmnibusElectionCode.
Therespondents,fortheirpart,averthatthepublicrespondenttookcognizance
oftheamendedpetitionsunderSection4,Rep.ActNo.7166initsadministrative
capacityandnotasaquasijudicialbody.Theyalsocontendthattheacts/omissions
allegedintheamendedpetitionsarepropersubjectsforapetitionforadeclaration
ofafailureofelectionorfortheannulmentoftheelections.Theyassertthatina
petition for a declaration of failure of election, the public respondent does not
exercisequasijudicialfunctionsbecauseitdoesnotadjudicateanyconflictingor
adverseclaimsofthecontendingpartiesastherearenorightstospeakofunder
whichadverseclaimstosuchrightsaremade.Theyarguethatintakingcognizance
oftheamendedpetitions,thepublicrespondentwasmerelyperformingitsdutiesas
an administrative body tasked to ensure clean, honest, orderly and peaceful
elections. The said respondents cited the ruling of the Court inLoong v.
COMELEC. 21

TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)isoftheviewthatapetitiontodeclare
a failure of election may be maintained even when a winner had already been
proclaimed.TheOSGcitedtherulingofthisCourtinSolivav.COMELEC. The 22

publicrespondentismandatedintheexerciseofitsadministrativepowersunder
Section 2(3), Article IX of the Constitution, to investigate allegations of fraud,
terrorism,violenceandotheranalogouscausesofactionsforannulmentofelection
results or declaration of a failure of election as the Omnibus Election Code
denominates.Italsosubmitsthatthepublicrespondentismandatedtoconductan
investigationastotheveracityoftheallegationsoftherespon
_______________

Supra.
21

357SCRA336(2001).
22

546
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
dentsoffraud,terrorism,harassmentandintimidationtoensuretheconductoffree
andimpartialelections.
Weagreewiththepetitioners.
Theamendedpetitionsfiledbytherespondentshereinareelectionprotestcases
overwhichthepublicrespondenthasoriginalexclusivejurisdictionunderSection2
(2),ArticleIXoftheConstitution.Thepublicrespondentassumedjurisdictionover
theamendedpetitionsintheexerciseofitsquasijudicialpowers. Section4, Rep. 23 24

ActNo.7166providesthattheCOMELECsittingenbancbyamajorityvoteofits
membersmaydecide,amongothers,thedeclarationoffailureofelectionandthe
callingofspecialelectionsasprovidedinSection6oftheOmnibusElectionCode.
SaidSection6,inturn,providesthat:
Section6.FailureofElections.If,onaccountofforcemajeure,violence,terrorism,fraudor
otheranalogouscausestheelectioninanypollingplacehasnotbeenheldonthedatefixed,
orhadbeensuspendedbeforethehourfixedbylawfortheclosingofthevoting,orafterthe
votingandduringthepreparationandthetransmissionoftheelectionreturnsorinthe
custodyorcanvassthereof,suchelectionresultsinafailuretoelect,andinanyofsuch
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the
Commissionshall,onthebasisofaverifiedpetitionbyanyinterestedpartyandafterdue
noticeandhearing,callfortheholdingofcontinuationoftheelectionnotheld,suspended
orwhichresultedinafailuretoelectonadatereasonablyclosetothedateoftheelection
notheld,suspendedorwhichresultedinafailuretoelectbutnotlaterthanthirtydays
afterthecessationofthecauseofsuchpostponementorsuspensionoftheelectionorfailure
toelect.
Thelongstandingruleisthatthenatureofanactionandthejurisdictionofthe
tribunalaredeterminedbylawandtheallegationsinthepetitionsregardlessof
whetherornotthepetitioners
_______________

Baytanv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.153945,February4,2003,396SCRA703.
23

SECTION 4.Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections.The postponement,

24

declarationoffailureofelectionandthecallingofspecialelectionsasprovidedinSections5,6and7of
theOmnibusElectionCodeshallbedecidedbytheCommissionsittingenbancbyamajorityvoteofits
members.Thecausesforthedeclarationofafailureofelectionmayoccurbeforeorafterthecastingof
votesoronthedayoftheelection.
547
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 547
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
areentitledtothereliefsought. Thecaptionofthepetitionsarenotdeterminative
25

ofthenaturethereof.Intheiramendedpetitionsbeforethepublicrespondent,the
respondents herein Abdusakur Tan,et al., the petitioners therein, substantially
allegedthattherespondentsthereinwhoarethepetitionersinthiscasewerethe
duly proclaimed winning candidates; that the elections in the Municipalities of
Luuk,ParangandIndanan,ProvinceofSulu,weremarredbymassivesubstitution
of voters, fraud, terrorism and other anomalies, impelling them to file their
petitions pursuant to Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 7166 in relation to Section 6,
Omnibus Election Code, and reiterated in Section 2, Rule 26 of the 1993 26

COMELECRulesofProcedure,asamended.ButSection6oftheOmnibusElection
Codelaysdownthreeinstanceswhereafailureofelectionmaybedeclared,namely,
(1)theelectioninanypollingplacehasnotbeenheldonthedatefixedonaccount
offorce majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes; (2) the
electioninanypollingplacehasbeensuspendedbeforethehourfixedbylawforthe
closingofthevotingonaccountofforcemajeure,violence,terrorism,fraudorother
analogous causes; or (3) after the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
electionresultsinafailuretoelectonaccountofforcemajeure,violence,terrorism,
fraudorotheranalogouscases.Inallinstancestheremusthavebeenafailureto
elect.Thisisobviousinthefirsttwoscenarios,wheretheelectionwasnotheldand
wheretheelectionwassuspended.Astothethirdscenario,thepreparationand
_______________

Sandovalv.CommissiononElections,323SCRA403(2000).
25

SEC. 2.Failure of Election.If, on account offorce majeure,violence, terrorism, fraud or other

26

analogouscausestheelectioninanyprecincthasnotbeenheldonthedatefixed,orhadbeensuspended
beforethehourfixedbylawfortheclosingofthevoting,orafterthevotingandduringthepreparation
andthetransmissionoftheelectionreturnsorinthecustodyofcanvassthereof,suchelectionresultsina
failuretoelect,andinanyofsuchcasesthefailureorsuspensionofelectionwouldaffecttheresultofthe
election,theCommissionshall,onthebasisofaverifiedpetitionbyanyinterestedpartyandafterdue
notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resultedinafailuretoelectonadatereasonablyclosetothedateoftheelectionnotheld,suspendedor
whichresultedinafailuretoelectbutnotlaterthanthirty(30)daysafterthecessationofthecauseof
suchpostponementorsuspensionoftheelectionorfailuretoelect.
548
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
thetransmissionoftheelectionreturns,whichgiverisetotheconsequenceoffailure
toelect,mustasaforesaidbeliterallyinterpretedtomeanthatnobodyemergedasa
winner. 27

Hence,beforetheCOMELECcanactonaverifiedpetitionseekingtodeclarea
failureofelections,twoconditionsmustconcur,namely,(1)novotingtookplacein
theprecinctorprecinctsonthedatefixedbylaw,oreveniftherewasvoting,the
electionresultedinafailuretoelect;and(2)thevotesnotcastwouldhaveaffected
theresultoftheelection.Notethatthecauseofsuchfailureofelectioncouldonlybe
any ofthe following:force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes. 28

Inthesecases,electionswereheldinthequestionedmunicipalities.Infact,the
very reason why the respondents filed their amended petitions before the
COMELEC on May 30, 2001 was to implead the petitioners as the respondents
therein who had been proclaimed as the winning candidates; hence, were
indispensablepartiestothepetitions.Inresolvingtheamendedpetitions,thepublic
respondentwillhavetoruleonthevalidityoftheproclamationofthepetitioners
and their right to hold office and perform the duties appurtenant thereto. The
alleged fraud and irregularities, grantingarguendothat they indeed marred the
elections, did not prevent or suspend the holding of the elections in the
aforementionedmunicipalities includingthepreparationandtransmissionofthe
election returns. Indeed, these returns were duly canvassed by the respective
municipal boards of canvassers which prepared the corresponding certificates of
canvasswhichwereinturncanvassedbytheProvincialBoardofCanvassersof
Suluwhich,aftersuchcanvass,proclaimedthepetitionershereinasthewinning
candidatesintheMay14,2001elections.Infine,electionshadbeenconductedand
winnershadbeenalreadyproclaimed.Eventhepublicrespondent,noless,through
theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,statedinitscommentonthepetitioninG.R.Nos.
14857576thattheamendedpetitionsoftherespondentsdidnotstateavalidcause
ofactionforadeclarationofafailureofelectionandwereprematurelyfiledinthis
Court:
...Afterallthegroundsrelieduponbythepetitionersintheirpetitionstodeclareafailure
ofelection,towit:(1)votersweredrivenaway
_______________

Typoco,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,319SCRA498(1999).
27

Banaga,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,336SCRA701(2000).
28

549
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 549
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
throughforceandintimidation;(2)personsotherthanregisteredvotersfilleduptheofficial
ballots;(3)flyingvotersweretransported;(4)voterswereallowedtovotemorethanonce;
(5)watchersofthepetitionerswerenotallowedtoexercisetheirrightsandperformtheir
duties; do not seem to clearly sustain adeclaration of a failureof election. It has been
consistentlyheldthatthereareonlythree(3)instanceswhereafailureofelectionmaybe
declared,namely:(a)theelectioninanypollingplacehasnotbeenheldonthedatefixedon
account offorce majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the
electioninanypollingplacehadbeensuspendedbeforethehourfixedbylawfortheclosing
of the voting on account offorce majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes;(c)afterthevotingandduringthepreparationandtransmissionof theelection
returnsoronthecustodyorcanvassthereof,suchelectionresultsinafailuretoelecton
accountofforcemajeure,violence,terrorism,fraud,orotheranalogouscauses(Typoco,Jr.
vs.COMELEC,319SCRA498[1999]).
Intheirtwopetitions,petitionersmadenospecificallegationastothepresenceofanyof
the three abovementioned circumstances. They merely enumerated the various acts of
allegedterrorismandfraud.Therewasnoallegationthatduetosaidactsofterrorismand
fraudnoelectionwasactuallyheldorthattherewassuspensionofelectionorevenifthere
waselectionheld,nobodyemergedasawinner.Onthecontrary,itisapparentthatthere
wasanactualelection.Whatpetitionersaresayingisthatitwasnotavalidandlegitimate
elections.TheissueisstillpendingdeterminationoftheCOMELECandthepresentpetition
beforethisHonorableCourtisthereforepremature.ThisCourthasmadeapronouncement
inBagatsingv.COMELEC,320SCRA817[1999]thatitdoesnotlookwithfavoronthe
practiceofseekingremedyfromtheSupremeCourtwithoutwaitingfortheresolutionof
the pending action before the tribunal below, absent extraordinary circumstances
warrantingappropriateactionbythisCourt. 29

Moreover,theproclamationofthepetitionersenjoysthepresumptionofregularity
andvalidity. Todestroythepresumption,therespondentsmustconvincinglyshow
30

that the petitioners victory was procured through extralegal means. This they
triedtodobyallegingmattersintheirpetitionswhichtheybelievedconstituted
grounds for a declaration of failure of election, such as massive substitution of
voters, fraud, terrorism, disenfranchisement of voters, and other anomalies. The
attendanceoftheallegedfraudandirregularitiesintheelectionsascataloguedby
therespon
_______________

Rollo(G.R.Nos.14857576),pp.205206.(Italicssupplied.)
29

Bince,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,218SCRA782(1993).
30

550
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
dents,however,constitutemerelythecausesoreventswhichmaygiverisetothe
grounds to declare failure of elections, namely, (a) no election held on the
designatedelectiondate;(b)suspensionofelectionbeforethehourfixedbylawfor
theclosingofvoting;and(c)electioninanypollingplaceresultedinafailureto
elect.Butasaforesaid,thegroundscitedbytherespondentsdonotfallunderanyof
theinstancesunderSection6ofRep.ActNo.7166,thewinningcandidateshaving
beenproclaimedbythePBC.Whilefraudisagroundtodeclareafailureofelection,
thecommissionoffraudmustbesuchthatitpreventedorsuspendedtheholdingof
anelection,includingthepreparationandtransmissionoftheelectionreturns. It 31

behoovedthepublicrespondenttodismisstheamendedpetitions:
...InthefairlyrecentcaseofTomasT.Banaga,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,etal.with
afactualbackdropsimilartothiscase,theCourtheld:
WehavepainstakinglyexaminedthepetitionfiledbypetitionerBanagabeforetheCOMELEC.But
we found that petitioner did not allege at all that elections were either not held or suspended.
Neither did he aver that although there was voting, nobody was elected. On the contrary, he
concededthatanelectiontookplacefortheofficeofvicemayorofParaaqueCity,andthatprivate
respondentwas,infact,proclaimedelectedtothatpost.Whilepetitionercontendsthattheelection
wastaintedwithwidespreadanomalies,itmustbenotedthattowarrantadeclarationoffailureof
electionthecommissionoffraudmustbesuchthatitpreventedorsuspendedtheholdingofan
election,ormarredfatallythepreparationandtransmission,custodyandcanvassoftheelection
returns.Theseessentialfactsoughttohavebeenallegedclearlybythepetitionerbelow,buthedid
not.
Private respondent alleged in his petition with the COMELECEn Bancthat the
electionsensuedinthesubjectprecinctsandthatpetitionerhereinemergedasthewinner
andwasinfactproclaimedassuchbytheBoardofElectionInspectors.
Insumthen,thegroundsallegedbytheprivaterespondentinhispetitionbeforethe
COMELECarethoseforaregularelectionprotestandarenotproperinapreproclamation
controversy;norissuchpetitiononeforannulmentoftheelectionsorforadeclarationof
failureofelectionsinthemunicipalityofSaguiaran,LanaodelSur.TheCOMELECshould
have
_______________

Typoco,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,supra.
31

551
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 551
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
orderedthedismissalofthepetitioninsteadofissuingtheassailedorder.TheCOMELEC
thuscommittedagraveabuseofitsdiscretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdictionin
issuingthesame.Theerroriscorrectiblebythespecialcivilactionforcertiorari. 32

ReliancebytherespondentsoftherulingofthisCourtinSolivav.COMELEC is 33

misplaced.Inthatcase,theCourtruledthatthepetitiontodeclareafailureof
electionfiledwiththepublicrespondentwasproperdespitetheproclamationofthe
winningcandidatesbecausethegroundsallegedinthepetitionsandprovedduring
trialwerethatthecountingofthevotesandthecanvassingoftheelectionreturns
wereattendedbyfraud,intimidation,terrorsandharassment.Inthiscase,there
wasnoallegationoffraud,terror,intimidationandharassmentinthecountingof
votesandthecanvassingofelectionreturns.
Accordingly,thepublicrespondentssubsequentOctober3,2001andApril17,
2002 Resolutions allowing the technical examination of the voters registration
recordsfortheMunicipalitiesofParang,IndananandLuukwereactionstainted
withgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdictioncorrectible
byacertwrit.
We are not saying that the public respondent is precluded at all times from
allowing the technical examination of the voters registration records. InLoong
v.COMELEC,weheldthattheCOMELECisdutyboundtoinvestigateallegations
offraud,terrorism,violenceandotheranalogouscausesinactionsforannulmentof
electionresultsorfordeclarationoffailureofelections,astheOmnibusElection
Codedenominatesthesame.Thus,thepublicrespondent,inthecaseofactionsfor
annulmentofelectionresultsordeclarationoffailureofelections,mayconducta
technical examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters
signaturesandfingerprintsinordertodeterminewhetherornottheelectionshad
indeed been free, honest and clean. However, the exercise of this authority
34

presupposes that the petition has properly been acted upon on account of the
existenceofanyofthegroundsprovidedunderSection6oftheOmnibusElection
Code.
_______________

Macabagov.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.152163,November18,2002,392SCRA178.
32

Supra.
33

Supra.
34

552
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
Where, as in this case, elections had been held and winners had been duly
proclaimed,theproperrecourseoftherespondentsshouldhavebeentofileregular
election protest cases to ventilate the veracity of the alleged election fraud and
irregularities of the election in the subject precincts with the consequent
determinationanddeclarationoftherealwinnersintheelections.Therecallbythe
public respondent ofits June20, 2001 Order is justified bycaselaw. Thus, the
publicrespondentmaysuspendorannulaproclamationonlyinthreeinstances,
includingpreproclamationcontroversies,butnotinapetitionforadeclarationof
failureofanelection.AsheldbyusinDaglocv.COMELEC, thus: 35

The filing of preproclamation controversies under 248 of the Omnibus Election Code,
however,isnottheonlygroundforthesuspensionofproclamation.Twootherinstancesare
providedinR.A.No.6646,knownasTheElectoralReformsLawof1987,viz.:(1)Under
6ofthestatute,theCOMELECmay,uponmotionofthecomplainantinanactionfor
disqualification,suspendtheproclamationofthewinningcandidateiftheevidenceofhis
guilt is strong, and (2) under 7 thereof, the COMELEC may likewise suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate if there is ground for denying or canceling his
certificateofcandidacy.... 36

AnentthevalidityoftheOrderofthepublicrespondentdatedJune28,2001,the
respondents aver that the public respondent committed a grave abuse of its
discretioninrecallingitsorderannullingtheproclamationofthepetitionersasthe
winning candidates. The respondents insist that the public respondent is
empoweredtoannulaproclamationofthewinningcandidatesortosuspendsuch
proclamation.TheOSG,foritspart,agreedthatthepublicrespondentisvested
withauthoritytosuspendtheproclamationofthewinningcandidatesortoannul
suchproclamationbutcontendthatthepublicrespondentmayintheexerciseofits
discretionallowsuchproclamationorsetasideitsorderannullingtheproclamation
ofthewinningcandidates,ratiocinatingthat:
ThequestionnowiswhethertheCOMELECcanvalidlyrecallorsetasideanearlierorder
tosuspendproclamationissuedaspreliminaryreliefinapetitionfordeclarationoffailure
ofelectionand/orannulmentofelectionresults.
_______________

321SCRA273(1999).
35

Id.,atp.279.
36

553
VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 553
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
WhileweagreewiththepetitionerthattheCOMELECcansuspendtheproclamation
pending the resolution of the petition to declare a failure of election, the same order,
however,ismerelyprovisionalinnatureandcanbeliftedwhentheevidencesowarrants.
InNolasco v. COMELEC,275 SCRA 762[1997], it is said to be akin to a temporary
restrainingorderwhichacourtcanissueexparteunderexigentcircumstances.
ThepetitionerwouldliketoimpressuponthecourtthattheCOMELECmerelyrecalled
itsearlierorderofsuspensionofproclamationwithoutanymotionforreconsideration.Such
isnotcorrect.DuringthehearingonJune28,2001,whenthepartiespremarkedtheir
respectiveevidence,therespondentsalsoraisedthemotionandprayertorecalland/orlift
the June 20, 2001 Order. The parties then agreed to have the matter immediately
consideredbytheCOMELECinviewoftheproximityoftheJune30,2001terminationof
thetermofofficeofthe(then)incumbentelectiveofficialsoftheProvinceofSulu. 37

WeagreewiththeOSG.Therespondentsfailedtoshowthatthepublicrespondent
committedagraveabuseofitsdiscretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdiction
inissuingitsJune28,2001Order.
INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionsinG.R.Nos.14857576are
DISMISSED.TheOrderoftheCOMELECdatedJune28,2001isAFFIRMED.
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 15288283 are GRANTED. The Orders of the
COMELEC dated October 3, 2001 and April 17, 2002 are SET ASIDE, and the
COMELECisdirectedtodismissSPANo.01257andSPANo.01265.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.