EN BANC

G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997

RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA and SEVERINO LAJARA, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for mayor in Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 May 1995 elections. After obtaining a
majority of some 24,000 votes Lajara was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May 1995 Canicosa filed with the Commission on
1

Elections (COMELEC) a Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation because of alleged widespread frauds
and anomalies in casting and counting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting, and delay in
the delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. Canicosa particularly averred that: (a) the names
of the registered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their precincts; (b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with
strangers voting in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he actually received; (d) control data of the election returns was not filed up in some
precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there was
delay in the delivery of election returns. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of
failure of election.

Indeed, the grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of failure of election. Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election
Code, reads:

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 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.

Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and during the
preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure.
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.

None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of those enumerated.

Canicosa bewails that the names of the registered voters in the various precincts did not appear in their respective lists of voters. But this is not a ground to
declare a failure of election. The filing of a petition for declaration of failure of election therefore is not the proper remedy. The day following the last day for
registration of voters, the poll clerk delivers a certified list of voters to the election registrar, election supervisor and the COMELEC, copies of which are open to
public inspection. On the same day, the poll clerk ports a copy of the list of registered voters in each polling place. Each member of the board of election inspectors
retains a copy of the list which may be inspected by the public in their residence or in their office during office hours.2

Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on 8 May 1995 the final list of voters was posted in each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of R.A. No. 7166. Based on
the lists thus posted Canicosa could have filed a petition for inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts. The question of inclusion or exclusion from the
list of voters involves the right to vote which is not within the power and authority of COMELEC to rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to
3

vote is a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular courts. Section 138, Art. XII, of the Omnibus Election Code states;

Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. — The municipal and metropolitan trial courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
all matters of inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their respective municipalities or cities. Decisions of the municipal or metropolitan trial
courts may be appealed directly by the aggrieved party to the proper regional trial court within five days from receipts of notice thereof, otherwise said
decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court shall decide the appeal within ten days from the time the appeal was received and its decision shall
be immediately final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the courts (Sec. 37, PD 1896, as amended).

On the other hand, Canicosa could have also filed with the COMELEC a verified complaint seeking the annulment of the book of voters pursuant to Sec. 10, of
R.A. No. 7166:

Sec. 10. Annulment of the List of Voters. — Any book of voters the preparation of which has been affected with fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation,
intimidation, force or any other similar irregularity or which is statistically improbable may be annulled after due notice and hearing by the
Commission motu propio or after the filing of a verified complaint: Provided, that no order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed
within sixty (60) days before an election.

If indeed the situation herein described was common in almost all of the 557 precincts as alleged by Canicosa, then it was more expedient on his part to avail of
4

the remedies provided by law in order to maintain the integrity of the election. Since Canicosa failed to resort to any of the above options, the permanent list of
voters as finally corrected before the election remains conclusive on the question as to who had the right to vote in that election, although not in subsequent
elections.
5
Canicosa also avers that more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote, instead, strangers voted in their behalf. Again, this is not
a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election. Canicosa was allowed to appoint a watcher in every precinct. The watcher is empowered by law to
challenge any illegal voter. Thus, Secs. 199 and 202, Art. XVII, of the Omnibus Election Code, provide:

Sec. 199. Challenges of illegal voters. — (a) Any voter, or watcher may challenge any person offering to vote for not being registered, for using the
name of another or suffering from existing disqualification. In such case, the board of election inspectors shall satisfy itself as to whether or not the
ground for the challenge is true by requiring proof of registration or identity of the voter . . .

Sec. 202. Record of challenges and oaths. — The poll clerk shall keep a prescribed record of challenges and oaths taken in connection therewith and
the resolution of the board of election inspectors in each case and, upon the termination of the voting, shall certify that it contains all the challenges
made . . .

The claim of Canicosa that he was credited with less votes than he actually received and that the control date of the election returns was not filled up should have
been raised in the first instance before the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers. Section 179, Art. XV, of the Omnibus Election Code clearly
provides for the rights and duties of watchers —

Sec. 179. Rights and duties of watchers. — . . . The watchers . . . shall have the right to witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the board
of election inspectors . . . to file a protest against any irregularity or violation of law which they believe may have been committed by the board of
election inspectors or by any of its members or by any persons, to obtain from the board of election inspectors
a certificates as to the filing of such protest and/or of the resolution thereon . . . and to be furnished with a certificate of the number of votes in words
and figures cast for each candidate, duly signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and all the members of the board of election inspectors . . .

To safeguard and maintain the sanctity of election returns, Sec. 212, Art. XVIII, of the Omnibus Election Code states —

Sec. 212. Election returns. — . . . Immediately upon the accomplishment of the election returns, each copy thereof shall be sealed in the presence of
the watchers and the public, and placed in the proper envelope, which shall likewise be sealed and distributed as herein provided.

Furthermore, it is provided in Sec. 215 of the Omnibus Election Code

that —

Sec. 215. Board of election inspectors to issue a certificate of the number of votes polled by the candidates for an office to the watchers. — After the
announcement of the results of the election and before leaving the polling place, it shall be the duty of the board of election inspectors to issue a
certificate of the number of votes received by a candidate upon request of the watchers. All members of the board of election inspectors shall sign the
certificate.

Supplementing the preceding provisions, Secs. 16 and 17 of RA No. 6646 also require —

Sec. 16. Certificate of votes. — After the counting of the votes cast in the precinct and announcement of the results of the election, and before leaving
the polling place, the board of election inspectors shall issue a certificate of votes upon request of the duly accredited watchers . . .

Sec. 17. Certificate of Votes as Evidence. — The provisions of Secs. 235 and 236 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 notwithstanding, the certificate of votes
shall be admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or anomaly committed in the election returns concerned . . .

From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that in case of inconsistency as to the number of votes written in the election returns and the certificate of votes, a petition
for correction of election returns must immediately be filed with COMELEC by all or a majority of the members of the board of election inspectors or any candidate
affected by the error or mistake. In order to make out a case for correction of election returns, there must be an error and at least a majority of the members of the
board of election inspectors agrees that such error existed. Canicosa never mentioned that he petitioned for the correction of the election returns before the
COMELEC.

Canicosa complains that the election returns were delivered late and the ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e., without
padlocks nor self-locking metal seals. These bare allegations cannot impel us to declare failure of election. Assuming that the election returns were delivered late,
we still cannot see why we should declare a failure to elect. The late deliveries did not convert the election held in Calamba into a mockery or farce to make us
conclude that there was indeed a failure of election.

In fine, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. In Mitmug
v. Commission on Elections we ruled that before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, at least two (2) conditions must
6

concur: (a) no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and,
(b) the votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election. From the face of the instant petition, it is readily apparent than an election took place and
that it did not result in a failure to elect.
7

Canicosa finally insists that it was error on the part of COMELEC sitting en banc to rule on his petition. He maintains that his petition should have first been heard
by a division of COMELEC and later by the COMELEC en banc upon motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Sec. 3, Art. IX-C, of the Constitution. 8

But this provision applies only when the COMELEC acts in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions and not when it merely exercises purely
administrative functions. To reiterate, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition are that: (a) the names of the registered voters did not appear in the list of
voters in their respective precincts; (b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with strangers voting in their stead; (c) he was
credited with less votes than he actually received; (d) the control data of the election returns was not filled up in some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the
Office of the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there was delay in the delivery of election returns.

Clearly, all these matters require the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions. Section 2, Art. IX-C, of the 1987 Constitution grants extensive
administrative powers to the COMELEC with regard to the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. Likewise,
Sec. 52 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, states:
 Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the Commission on Elections. — In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Constitution, the
Commission shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administrative of all laws relative to the conduct of elections of the purposes of
ensuring free, orderly and honest elections . . .

Quite obviously, it is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by Division and
then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is jurisdictional. In the instant case, as aforestated, the issues presented demand
only the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions.

The COMELEC exercises direct and immediate supervision and control over national and local officials or employees, including members of any national or local
law enforcement agency and instrumentality of the government required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. Its power of direct supervision
and control includes the power to review, modify or set aside any act of such national and local officials. It exercises immediate supervision and control over the
9

members of the boards of election inspectors and canvassers. Its statutory power of supervision and control includes the power to revise, reverse or set aside the
action of the boards, as well as to do what the boards should have done, even if questions relative thereto have not been elevated to it by an aggrieved party, for
such power includes the authority to initiate motu proprio or by itself such steps or actions as may be required pursuant to law. 10

Specifically, Canicosa alleged that he was credited with less votes than the actually received. But he did not raise any objection before the Municipal Board of
Canvassers; instead, he went directly to the COMELEC. He now claims, after the COMELEC en banc dismissed his petition, that it was error on the part of
COMELEC to rule on his petition while sitting en banc.

We have already disposed of this issue in Castromayor v. Commission on Elections thus —11

It should be pinpointed out, in this connection, that what is involved here is a simple problem of arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is merely a
tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. In making the correction in computation, the MBC will
be acting in an administrative capacity, under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence, any question pertaining to the proceedings of the
MBC may be raised directly to the COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections.

Moreover, it is expressly provided in Rule 27, Sec. 7, of the Comelec Rules of Procedure that any party dissatisfied with the ruling of the board of canvassers shall
have a right to appeal to the COMELEC en banc:

Sec. 7. Correction of Errors in Tabulation or Tallying of Results by the Board of Canvassers. — (a) Where it is clearly shown before proclamation that
manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying or election returns, or certificates of canvass, during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of
the election returns of one precinct or two or more copies of a certificate of canvass were tabulated more than once, (2) two copies of the election
returns or certificate of canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there was a mistake in the adding or copying of the figures into the certificate of canvass
or into the statement of votes by precinct, or (4) so-called election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass, the board may motu
proprio, or upon verified petition by any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the
errors committed . . . (h) The appeal shall be heard and decided by the Commission en banc.

The Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections it was made to appear in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates that
12

respondent therein received 4,951 votes or more than what he actually obtained. In resolving the case we ruled that the correction of the manifest mistake in
mathematical addition calls for a mere clerical task of the board of canvassers. The remedy invoked was purely administrative. In Feliciano vs.Lugay we 13

categorized the issue concerning registration of voters, which Canicosa cited as a ground in his petition for declaration of failure of election, as an administrative
question. Likewise, questions as to whether elections have been held or whether certain returns were falsified or manufactured and therefore should be excluded
from the canvass do not involve the right to vote. Such questions are properly within the administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC, hence, may be acted upon
14

directly by the COMELEC en banc without having to pass through any of its divisions.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent Commission on Elections, the petition is DISMISSED and its Resolution en
banc of 23 May 1995 dismissing the petition before it on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
 EN BANC

[G.R. No. 160427. September 15, 2004]

POLALA SAMBARANI, JAMAL MIRAATO, SAMERA ABUBACAR and MACABIGUNG MASCARA, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EO ESMAEL
MAULAY, Acting Election Officer, Tamparan, Lanao del Sur or whoever is acting on his behalf, respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Challenged in this petition for certiorari[1] with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is the Resolution of the Commission on Elections en
banc (COMELEC)[2] dated 8 October 2003. The COMELEC declared a failure of election but refused to conduct another special election.

The Facts

In the 15 July 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (elections), Polala Sambarani (Sambarani), Jamal Miraato (Miraato), Samera
Abubacar (Abubacar), Macabigung Mascara (Mascara) and Aliasgar Dayondong (Dayondong) ran for re-election as punong barangay in their respective barangays, namely:
Occidental Linuk, Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, New Lumbacaingud, and Tatayawan South (five barangays), all in Tamparan, Lanao del Sur.

Due to a failure of elections in eleven barangays in Lanao del Sur, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5479 setting special elections on 13 August 2002 in the
affected barangays in Lanao del Sur including the five barangays. On 14 August 2002, Acting Election Officer Esmael Maulay (EO Maulay) issued a certification that there
were no special elections held on 13 August 2002.

Consequently, Sambarani, Miraato, Abubacar, Mascara and Dayondong (joint-petitioners) filed a Joint Petition seeking to declare a failure of elections in the five
barangays and the holding of another special election. The Joint Petition attributed the failure of the special elections to EO Maulays non-compliance with COMELEC
Commissioner Mehol K. Sadains (Commissioner Sadain) directive. Commissioner Sadain had directed EO Maulay to use the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
2001 computerized Voters List and the Voters Registration Records of the Provincial Election Officer during the December 2001 registration of new voters.

The parties did not attend the hearing scheduled on 11 September 2002 despite due notice. In the 1 October 2002 hearing, counsel for joint-petitioners as well as EO
Maulay and his counsel appeared. The COMELEC ordered the parties to submit their memoranda within 20 days. The COMELEC also directed EO Maulay to explain in writing
why he should not be administratively charged for failing to comply with Commissioner Sadains directive. The joint-petitioners filed their Memorandum on 25 October 2002.
EO Maulay did not file a memorandum or a written explanation as directed. The COMELEC considered the case submitted for resolution.

On 8 October 2003, the COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution, disposing as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, the Department of Interior and Local Government is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the appointment of Barangay Captains and Barangay Kagawads as
well as SK Chairmen and SK Kagawads in Barangays Occidental Linuk, Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, Tatayawan South, and New Lumbacaingud, all of
Tamparan, Lanao del Sur, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, and other related
laws on the matter.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Municipality of Tamparan, Lanao [d]el Sur, and the respective
Sangguniang Barangays of Barangays Occidental Linuk, Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, Tatayawan South and New Lumbacaingud, of Tamparan.

Finally, let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Law Department for Preliminary Investigation of Respondent ESMAEL MAULAY for possible commission of election
offense/s, and consequently, the filing of administrative charges against him if warranted.

SO ORDERED.[3]

Sambarani, Miraato, Abubacar and Mascara (petitioners) filed the instant petition. [4]

The COMELECs Ruling

The COMELEC agreed with petitioners that the special elections held on 13 August 2002 in the five barangays failed. The COMELEC, however, ruled that to hold
another special election in these barangays as prayed for by petitioners is untenable. The COMELEC explained that it is no longer in a position to call for another special
election since Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that special elections shall be held on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, but not later
than thirty days after cessation of the cause of such postponement. The COMELEC noted that more than thirty days had elapsed since the failed election.

The COMELEC also pointed out that to hold another special election in these barangays will not only be tedious and cumbersome, but a waste of its precious
resources. The COMELEC left to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) the process of appointing the Barangay Captains and Barangay Kagawads as well
as the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairmen and SK Kagawads in these barangays in accordance with the Local Government Code of 1991 and other related laws on the
matter.[5]

The Issues

Petitioners contend that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in

1. Denying the prayer to call for another special election in barangays Occidental Linuk, Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, New Lumbacaingud (subject
barangays);

2. Directing the DILG to proceed with the appointment of the barangay captains, barangay kagawads, SK chairmen and SK kagawads in the subject barangays;

3. Not declaring the petitioners as the rightful incumbent barangay chairmen of their office until their successors have been elected and qualified.

The Courts Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

First Issue: Whether To Call Another Special Election

Petitioners fault the COMELEC for not holding another special election after the failed 13 August 2002 special election. Petitioners insist that the special barangay and
SK elections in the subject barangays failed because EO Maulay did not use the voters list used during the 2001 ARMM elections. Neither did Maulay segregate and exclude
those voters whose Voters Registration Records (VRRs) were not among those 500 VRRs bearing serial numbers 00097501 to 0009800 allocated and released to Tamparan.
Finally, Maulay did not delete from the certified list of candidates the name of disqualified candidate Candidato Manding. Petitioners contend that COMELECs refusal to call
another special election conflicts with established jurisprudence, specifically the ruling in Basher v. Commission on Elections.[6]

The Solicitor General supports the COMELECs stance that a special election can be held only within thirty days after the cause of postponement or failure of election
has ceased. The Solicitor General also maintains that the DILG has the power to appoint and fill vacancies in the concerned elective barangay and SK offices.

Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. Indisputably, the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC all
the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve its primordial objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. [7]

The functions of the COMELEC under the Constitution are essentially executive and administrative in nature. It is elementary in administrative law that courts will not
interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies. [8] The authority given to COMELEC to declare a failure of elections and to call for special elections falls under its administrative
function.[9]

The marked trend in our laws has been to grant the COMELEC ample latitude so it can more effectively perform its duty in safeguarding the sanc tity of our elections.
But what if, as in this case, the COMELEC refuses to hold elections due to operational, logistical and financial problems? Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in
refusing to conduct a second special Barangay and SK elections in the subject barangays?

Neither the candidates nor the voters of the affected barangays caused the failure of the special elections. The COMELECs own acting election officer, EO Maulay,
readily admitted that there were no special elections in these barangays. The COMELEC also found that the Provincial Election Supervisor of Lanao del Sur and the Regional
Election Director of Region XII did not contest the fact that there were no special elections in these barangays.

An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people. [10] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public
office by popular vote.[11] The right of suffrage is enshrined in the Constitution because through suffrage the people exercise their sovereign authority to choose their
representatives in the governance of the State. The fact that the elections involved in this case pertain to the lowest level of our political organization is not a justification to
disenfranchise voters.

COMELEC anchored its refusal to call another special election on the last portion of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code ( Section 6) which reads:

SEC. 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. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court construed Section 6 in Pangandaman v. COMELEC,[12] as follows

In fixing the date for special elections the COMELEC should see to it that: 1.] it should not be later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement
or suspension of the election or the failure to elect; and, 2.] it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to
elect. The first involves a question of fact. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of a case. Thus, the holding of elections within
the next few months from the cessation of the cause of the postponement, suspension or failure to elect may still be considered reasonably close to the
date of the election not held. (Emphasis supplied)

The prohibition on conducting special elections after thirty days from the cessation of the cause of the failure of elections is not absolute. It is directory, not
mandatory, and the COMELEC possesses residual power to conduct special elections even beyond the deadline prescribed by law. The deadline in Section 6 cannot defeat
the right of suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. The COMELEC erroneously perceived that the deadline in Section 6 is absolute. The COMELEC has
broad power or authority to fix other dates for special elections to enable the people to exercise their right of suffrage. The COMELEC may fix other dates for the conduct of
special elections when the same cannot be reasonably held within the period prescribed by law.

More in point is Section 45 of the Omnibus Election Code (Section 45) which specifically deals with the election of barangay officials. Section 45 provides:

SEC. 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.

If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes, the election in any barangay has not been held on the date herein fixed or has been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting therein and such failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the
Commission, on the basis of 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 call for the holding or continuation of the election within thirty days after it shall have verified and found that the cause or
causes for which the election has been postponed or suspended have ceased to exist or upon petition of at least thirty percent of the registered voters in the
barangay concerned.

When the conditions in these areas warrant, upon verification by the Commission, or upon petition of at least thirty percent of the registered voters in the barangay
concerned, it shall order the holding of the barangay election which was postponed or suspended. (Emphasis supplied)

Unlike Section 6, Section 45 does not state that special elections should be held on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held. Instead, Section 45
states that special elections should be held within thirty days from the cessation of the causes for postponement. Logically, special elections could be held anytime, provided
the date of the special elections is within thirty days from the time the cause of postponement has ceased.

Thus, in Basher[13] the COMELEC declared the 27 May 1997 barangay elections a failure and set special elections on 12 June 1997 which also failed. The COMELEC
set another special election on 30 August 1997 which this Court declared irregular and void. On 12 April 2000, this Court ordered the COMELEC to conduct a special election
for punong barangay of Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur as soon as possible. This despite the provision in Section 2 [14] of Republic Act No. 6679 (RA 6679)[15] stating that the
special barangay election should be held in all cases not later than ninety (90) days from the date of all the original election.

Had the COMELEC resolved to hold special elections in its Resolution dated 8 October 2003, it would not be as pressed for time as it is now. The operational, logistical
and financial problems which COMELEC claims it will encounter with the holding of a second special election can be solved with proper planning, coordination and cooperation
among its personnel and other deputized agencies of the government. A special election will require extraordinary efforts, but it is not impossible. In applying election laws,
it would be better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. [16] In any event, this Court had already held that special
elections under Section 6 would entail minimal costs because it covers only the precincts in the affected barangays. [17]

In this case, the cause of postponement after the second failure of elections was COMELECs refusal to hold a special election because of (1) its erroneous
interpretation of the law, and (2) its perceived logistical, operational and financial problems. We rule that COMELECs reasons for refusing to hold another special election are
void.

Second and Third Issues: Whether the DILG may Appoint

the Barangay and SK Officials

Petitioners contend that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in directing the DILG to proceed with the appointment of Barangay Captains and Barangay
Kagawads as well as SK chairmen and SK Kagawads in the four barangays. Petitioners argue that as the incumbent elective punong barangays in the four barangays,[18] they
should remain in office in a hold- over capacity until their successors have been elected and qualified. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9164 (RA 9164) [19] provides:

Sec. 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.

RA 9164 is now the law that fixes the date of barangay and SK elections, prescribes the term of office of barangay and SK officials, and provides for the qualifications of
candidates and voters for the SK elections.

As the law now stands, the language of Section 5 of RA 9164 is clear. It is the duty of this Court to apply the plain meaning of the language of Section 5. Since there
was a failure of elections in the 15 July 2002 regular elections and in the 13 August 2002 special elections, petitioners can legally remain in office as barangay chairmen of
their respective barangays in a hold-over capacity. They shall continue to discharge their powers and duties as punong barangay, and enjoy the rights and privileges
pertaining to the office. True, Section 43(c) of the Local Government Code limits the term of elective barangay officials to three years. However, Section 5 of RA 9164
explicitly provides that incumbent barangay officials may continue in office in a hold over capacity until their successors are elected and qualified.

Section 5 of RA 9164 reiterates Section 4 of RA 6679 which provides that [A]ll incumbent barangay officials xxx shall remain in office unless sooner removed or
suspended for cause xxx until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. Section 8 of the same RA 6679 also states that incumbent elective barangay officials
running for the same office shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.

The application of the hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction of official business and prevents a hiatus in government pending the assumption of a
successor into office.[20] As held in Topacio Nueno v. Angeles,[21] cases of extreme necessity justify the application of the hold-over principle.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the instant petition. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections dated 8 October 2003 is declared VOID except insofar as it directs its
Law Department to conduct a preliminary investigation of Esmael Maulay for possible commission of election offenses. Petitioners have the right to remain in office as
barangay chairmen in a hold-over capacity until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. The Commission on Elections is ordered to conduct special Barangay
elections in Barangays Occidental Linuk, Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, New Lumbacaingud, all in Tamparan, Lanao del Sur within thirty (30) days from finality of this
decision.

SO ORDERED.