gumalal digest

LAMBINO V. COMELEC (2006)

EN BANC

[ G.R. NO. 174153, October 25, 2006 ]

RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., INTERVENOR.

ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, AND CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., INTERVENORS.

ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, INTERVENOR.

BAYAN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. CAROLINA PAGADUAN-ARAULLO, BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. REYNALDO LESACA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL JOEL MAGLUNSOD, HEAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL DR. GENE ALZONA NISPEROS, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM REPRESENTED BY FR. DIONITO CABILLAS, MIGRANTE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON CONCEPCION BRAGAS-REGALADO, GABRIELA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTED BY SEC. GEN. CRISTINA PALABAY, ANAKBAYAN REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON ELEANOR DE GUZMAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS REPRESENTED BY CHAIR VENCER CRISOSTOMO PALABAY, JOJO PINEDA OF THE LEAGUE OF CONCERNED PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSMEN, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO OF THE SOLIDARITY OF HEALTH AGAINST CHARTER CHANGE, DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS OF HEALTH ACTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERVENORS.

LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, AND ANA THERESA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, INTERVENORS.

LUWALHATI RIACASA ANTONINO, INTERVENOR.

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, INTERVENOR.

TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INTERVENOR.

LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO, INTERVENOR.

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, AND AMADO GAT INCIONG, INTERVENORS.

RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, AND RUELO BAYA, INTERVENORS.

PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) AND MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS, INTERVENORS.

SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MANUEL VILLAR, JR., INTERVENOR.

SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., INTERVENOR.

JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, AND RANDALL TABAYOYONG, INTERVENORS.

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE CHAPTERS, INTERVENORS.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. AND SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEGA III, JAMBY MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM AND PANFILO LACSON, INTERVENORS.

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTERVENORS.

[G.R. NO. 174299]

MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., AND RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., AND COMMISSIONERS RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, AND JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

Facts

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups^[1] and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c)^[2] and Section 7^[3] of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735").

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.

The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)^[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)^[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."^[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.

On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections^[8] declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.^[9]

Issues

The petitions raise the following issues:

1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's initiative;

2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and

3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition.

The Ruling

There is no merit to the petition.

The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people's initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.

This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people's sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison d'etre.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

MENDOZA V COMELEC (2010)

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 191084, March 25, 2010 ]

JOSELITO R. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, RESPONDENTS.

PEREZ, J.:

Facts

This case involves the election protest filed with the Commission on Elections against Joselito R. Mendoza (Mendoza), who was proclaimed elected Governor of Bulacan in the 14 May 2007 elections. Mendoza garnered 364,566 votes while private respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan) got 348,834 votes, giving Mendoza a winning margin of 15,732 votes.

After the appreciation of the contested ballots, the COMELEC Second Division deducted a total of 20,236 votes from Mendoza and 616 votes from Pagdanganan. As regards the claimed ballots, Mendoza was awarded 587 ballots compared to Pagdanganan's 586 ballots. Thus, the result of the revision proceedings showed that Pagdanganan obtained 342,295 votes, which is more than Mendoza's 337,974 votes. In its Resolution dated 1 December 2009 (Division Resolution), the COMELEC Second Division annulled the proclamation of Mendoza and proclaimed Pagdanganan as the duly elected Governor of Bulacan with a winning margin of 4,321 votes.

The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Division Resolution on 8 February 2010. On 4 March 2010, the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order denying Mendoza's Motion for Reconsideration and granting Pagdanganan's Motion for Execution of the Division Resolution

Issue

Whether or not, the COMELECgravely abuse its discretion when it failed to credit petitioner's claims?

Whether or not, the COMELEC en banc has the power to hear and decide the case.

Ruling

Indeed, the grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is patent in the fact that despite the existence in its books of the clearly worded Section 6 of Rule 18, which incidentally has been acknowledged by this Court in the recent case of Marcoleta v COMELEC,^[5] it completely ignored and disregarded its very own decree and proceeded with the questioned Resolution of 8 February 2010 and Order of 4 March 2010, in all, annulling the proclamation of petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza as the duly elected governor of Bulacan, declaring respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan as the duly elected governor, and ordering petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza to cease and desist from performing the functions of the Governor of Bulacan and to vacate said office in favor of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan.

The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is underscored by the fact that the protest that petitioner Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007 overstayed with the COMELEC until the present election year when the end of the term of the contested office is at hand and there was hardly enough time for the re-hearing that was conducted only on 15 February 2010. As the hearing time at the division had run out, and the re-hearing time at the banc was fast running out, the unwanted result came about: incomplete appreciation of ballots; invalidation of ballots on general and unspecific grounds; unrebutted presumption of validity of ballots.

Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to decide election cases in the first instance as this authority belongs to the divisions of the COMELEC Specifically.

Sec.3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission En Banc.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned Resolution of the COMELEC promulgated on 8 February 2010 in EPC No. 2007-44 entitled "Roberto M. Pagdanganan v. Joselito R. Mendoza," the Order issued on 4 March 2010, and the consequent Writ of Execution dated 5 March 2010 are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The election protest of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan is hereby DISMISSED.

 ROQUE V.COMELEC (2009)

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 188456, September 10, 2009 ]

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R. BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T. ANDRES, IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T. MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA P. MACEDA, AND ALVIN A. PETERS, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY HON. CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HON. FERDINAND RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION.

SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MOVANT-INTERVENOR.

VELASCO JR., J.:

Facts

On 23 January 2007, Congress passed RA 9369 amending the first automated election law, RA 8436.^[2] Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, which amendment took effect on 10 February 2007, authorized the COMELEC to:

Use an automated election system or systems in the same election in different provinces, whether paper-based or a direct recording automated election system as it may deem appropriate and practical for the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidation and transmittal of results of electoral exercises: Provided, that for the regular national and local election, which shall be held immediately after effectivity of this Act, the AES shall be used in at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, to be chosen by the Commission x x x x In succeeding regular national or local elections, the AES shall be implemented nationwide. (Emphasis supplied)

The COMELEC did not use any automated election system in the 14 May 2007 elections, the national and local elections held after RA 9369 took effect.

On 10 July 2009, the COMELEC, on the one hand, and TIM and Smartmatic (Provider), on the other, signed the Contract for the automated tallying and recording of votes cast nationwide in the 10 May 2010 elections. For P7,191,484,739.48, the COMELEC leased for use in the 10 May 2010 elections 82,200 optical scanners (and related equipment) and hired ancillary services of the Provider.

On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as taxpayers and citizens, filed this petition^[4] to enjoin the signing of the Contract or its implementation and to compel disclosure of the terms of the Contract and other agreements between the Provider and its subcontractors.^[5] Petitioners sought the Contract's invalidation for non-compliance with the requirement in Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended, mandating the partial use of an automated election system before deploying it nationwide. To further support their claim on the Contract's invalidity, petitioners alleged that (1) the optical scanners leased by the COMELEC do not satisfy the minimum systems capabilities" under RA 8436, as amended and (2) the Provider not only failed to submit relevant documents during the bidding but also failed to show "community of interest" among its constituent corporations as required in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC (Infotech).

Issue

Whether or not, the COMELECgravely abuse its discretion when it entered to contract with Smartmatic TIM Corporation and assailing to an automated election.

Ruling

Assayed against the provisions of the Constitution, the enabling automation law, RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, the RFP and even the Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners invoked as an afterthought, the Court finds the project award to have complied with legal prescriptions, and the terms and conditions of the corresponding automation contract in question to be valid. No grave abuse of discretion, therefore, can be laid on the doorsteps of respondent COMELEC. And surely, the winning joint venture should not be faulted for having a foreign company as partner.

The COMELEC is an independent constitutional body with a distinct and pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its awesome functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and lead implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, it should not be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of an organization of lesser responsibility.[103] It should be afforded ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in devising means and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the great objective for which it was created--to promote free, orderly, honest and peaceful elections. This is as it should be for, too often, COMELEC has to make decisions under difficult conditions to address unforeseen events to preserve the integrity of the election and in the process the voice of the people. Thus, in the past, the Court has steered away from interfering with the COMELEC’s exercise of its power which, by law and by the nature of its office properly pertain to it. Absent, therefore, a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on comelec’s part, as here, the Court should refrain from utilizing the corrective hand of certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the acts of that body.

There are no ready-made formulas for solving public problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of the laws relative to the conduct of elections, x x x we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the comelec the initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it. Due regard to the independent character of the Commission x x x requires that the power of this court to review the acts of that body should, as a general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in appropriate cases.

.This independent constitutional commission, it is true, possesses extraordinary powers and enjoys a considerable latitude in the discharge of its functions. The road, however, towards successful 2010 automation elections would certainly be rough and bumpy. The comelec is laboring under very tight timelines. It would accordingly need the help of all advocates of orderly and honest elections, of all men and women of goodwill, to smoothen the way and assist comelec personnel address the fears expressed about the integrity of the system. Like anyone else, the Court would like and wish automated elections to succeed, credibly.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.