ballot box snatched
+ All election paraphernalia for eighteen precincts are intact and available. The Commission will cause the printing of 1,000 ballots and other election forms for five precincts (8A1, 12A2, 26A, 34A).
3. MARANTAO — thirty-five (35) precincts failed to function due to terrorism in the area. Out of these 35, eight (8) precincts lost to armed groups their ballot boxes, ballots and other election paraphernalia. These eight are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Name of Barangay Precinct No.
1. Daana Ingud Proper 3A
2. - do - 3A1/3A2
3. Tuca Kialdan 7A
4. - do - 7A1
5. Banga Pantar 22A/22A-1
6. Inudaran Campong 29A
7. - do - 29A-2
8. Mapantao Goo 34A-2
Ballots are to be printed for these precincts by the Commission. Canvassing forms and other paraphernalia shall also be provided. In Precincts No. 12A, 24A and 24A-1, ballots were cast but were not yet counted due to complaints that their integrity had been violated. There being no proof that the integrity of the ballots had been violated in these precincts, the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Marantao are directed to include the same in the canvass.
4. PAGAYAWAN — casting of votes was aborted due to widespread terrorism. Fifteen (15) precincts failed to function.
+ All election paraphernalia are available. However, in precinct 5A/5A1, some commotion took place. Eleven voters out of two hundred and sixty-eight (268) have already cast their votes at the time but only one ballot was found inside the ballot box after the commotion. The Commission deems it proper that the casting of votes by the eleven voters be annulled and a special election shall be conducted therein.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
5. Marawi City — there was partial failure of election in sixteen precincts (16), namely —
Name of Barangay Precinct No.
1. Brgy. Banggolo 6A2
2. -do- 6A3
3. Brgy. Lilod Madaya 42A-4
4. Brgy. South Madaya 85A
5. Brgy. Sangkai Dansalan 83A-3
6. Brgy. Raya Madaya I 74A-6
7. Brgy. Bacolod Chico 3A
8. -do- 3A-1
9. -do- 3A-2
10. Brgy. Raya Saduc 76A
11. Brgy. Guimba 38A
12. -do- 38A-1/38A-2
13. Brgy. Lolod Saduc 73A-5
14. Brgy. Bangco 5A-5A-1
15. Brgy. Timbangalan 88A
16. -do- 88A-1/88A-2
due to non-appearance of the BEIs. All election paraphernalia are in order and available except for one ballot box intended for Precinct 5A/5A-1 in Brgy. Banco which is missing or undelivered or without ballots contained therein.
The petition for declaration of failure of election in the municipality of Calanogas, Lanao del Sur will be covered by a different resolution.
To avoid the risk of another failure of elections and to encourage public trust in the process and results of the special elections, the following changes shall be undertaken:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Only elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police who are assigned to the affected areas shall serve as members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs). The Acting Provincial Election Supervisor (PES) of Lanao del Sur, Atty. Suharto Ambolodto, shall ensure that said BEIs are given adequate briefing for this task;
Considering that under-aged persons succeeded in registering voters, a complaint that is common in many areas in Lanao del Sur, the BEIs are given explicit authority to prevent from voting all those registered voters who are visibly under-aged and shall reflect their names and VRR numbers in the Minutes of Voting for future prosecution.
For this purpose, all poll watchers are encouraged to provide themselves with camera and provide indubitable proof of under-aged voters.
b. Election officers from areas outside of Lanao del Sur shall be tapped to act as Election Officers, while the regular election officers in Lanao del Sur shall perform such duties as directed by the Acting PES;
c. The special election in the municipality of Madalum shall be scheduled only after the Investigating Team aforementioned has finished its investigation of alleged ghost precincts therein and the Commission has acted on their findings of facts and recommendation(s);
d. The special election in the municipality of Tugaya shall be scheduled after the controversy on the four thousand and seventy-five (4,075) voters shall have been settled;
e. Considering the complaints received by the Commission against certain actuations of the Provincial Board of Canvassers, the same shall be replaced with a new Provincial Board of Canvassers whose members shall be designated by the Commission;
f. The PNP, thru the Criminal Investigation Group in Region XII and the Prosecution Offices in Lanao del Sur shall actively help in the filing of criminal complaint for election offenses committed during the election period."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner asserts that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Omnibus Order —
1.] By insisting on holding special elections on July 18 and 25, 1998 more than thirty (30) days after the failure to elect, in certain municipalities, in contravention of the clear and explicit provisions of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code;
2.] By failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur and to certify the same to the President of the Philippines and Congress so that the necessary legislation may be enacted for the holding of a special election;
3.] By ordering only elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police who are not assigned to the affected areas as members of the Board of Election Inspectors, in contravention of Sections 166, 170, 175 and 176 of the Omnibus Election Code;
4.] By insisting on machine counting despite the proven unreliability and undependability of the counting of votes with use of computer machines.
In support of his cause, petitioner insists on a strict compliance with the holding of special elections not later than thirty (30) days after failure to elect pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 6. Failure of elections. — 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 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." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Petitioner argues that the above-quoted provision is mandatory because of the word "shall." He further asserts that the prescribed time frame actually ‘delimits’ COMELEC’s authority to call for a special election and that instead, the power to call for a special election after the 30th day now resides in Congress.
The provision invoked can not be construed in the manner as argued by petitioner for it would defeat the purpose and spirit for which the law was enacted.
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that the spirit, rather than the letter of the law determines its construction; for that reason, a statute must be read according to its spirit and intent. 4 Thus, a too literal interpretation of the law that would lead to absurdity prompted this Court to —
". . . [a]dmonish against a too literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually found not in ‘the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth’ . . ." 5
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." There can hardly be any doubt that the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
Pursuant to this intent, this Court has been liberal in defining the parameters of the COMELEC’s powers in conducting elections. As stated in the old but nevertheless still very much applicable case of Sumulong v. COMELEC : 6
"Politics is a practical matter, and political questions must be dealt with realistically — not from the standpoint of pure theory. The Commission on Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions . . . . 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 laws relative to the conduct of election . . . we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the Commission on Elections that initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it."cralaw virtua1aw library
More pointedly, this Court recently stated in Tupay Loong v. COMELEC, Et Al., 7 that" [O]ur elections are not conducted under laboratory conditions. In running for public offices, candidates do not follow the rules of Emily Post. Too often, COMELEC has to make snap judgments to meet unforeseen circumstances that threaten to subvert the will of our voters. In the process, the actions of COMELEC may not be impeccable, indeed, may even be debatable. We cannot, however, engage in a swivel chair criticism of these actions often taken under very difficult circumstances."cralaw virtua1aw library
The purpose of the governing statutes on the conduct of elections —
". . . [i]s to protect the integrity of elections to suppress all evils that may violate its purity and defeat the will of the voters. The purity of the elections is one of the most fundamental requisites of popular government. The Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections. In the performance of its duties, the Commission must be given a considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created — to promote free, orderly, and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with." 8
Guided by the above-quoted pronouncement, the legal compass from which the COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the principle that "clean elections control the appropriateness of the remedy." 9
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. 10 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." 11
In this case, the COMELEC can hardly be faulted for tardiness. The dates set for the special elections were actually the nearest dates from the time total/partial failure of elections was determined, which date fell on July 14, 1998, the date of promulgation of the challenged Omnibus Order. Needless to state, July 18 and 25, the dates chosen by the COMELEC for the holding of special elections were only a few days away from the time a total/partial failure of elections was declared and, thus, these were ‘dates reasonably close’ thereto, given the prevailing facts herein. Furthermore, it bears stressing that in the exercise of the plenitude of its powers to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC should not and must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in the exercise of its discretion to resolve election disputes. 12
Petitioner’s argument that respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur and to certify the same to the President and Congress so that the necessary legislation may be enacted for the holding of a special election, likewise fails to persuade.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
No less than petitioner himself concedes that there was total failure of elections in twelve (12) municipalities and partial failure in eleven (11). Yet he now insists a total failure of elections should have been declared in the entire province of Lanao del Sur. Suffice it to state that the propriety of declaring whether or not there has been a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur is a factual issue which this Court will not delve into considering that the COMELEC, through its deputized officials in the field, is in the best position to assess the actual conditions prevailing in that area. Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the COMELEC or any administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on the Court. 13 There is no cogent reason to depart from the general rule in this case.
The insistence of petitioner that the COMELEC violated Sections 166, 170, 175 and 176 of the Omnibus Election Code when it ordered elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) who are not assigned to the affected areas as members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) is likewise unconvincing vis-a-vis the underlying reason of the public respondent to have an effective and impartial military presence "to avoid the risk of another failure of elections."cralaw virtua1aw library
So too must fall the argument that machine counting being allegedly "undependable and unreliable" should not be resorted to as the reasoning of petitioner, by itself, invokes the answer. If the COMELEC saw it fit to order a machine counting of votes in the municipalities enumerated, it could only mean that the decree of R.A. No. 8436 could be implemented without the interference of the claimed "unreliability, inaccuracy and undependability" of the computer sets. The absence of any satisfactory proof to support petitioner’s allegations to the contrary reduces them to mere self-serving claims.
Be that as it may, we agree with the Solicitor General that the petition has been rendered moot by supervening events. For one, it seeks to enjoin the holding of special elections scheduled for July 18 and 25, 1998. However, petitioner himself admits that special elections were "conducted on a staggered basis" on July 4, 18 and 25, 1998. 14 For another, the petition questions the membership of the Board of Election Inspectors for being composed of elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police as well as the machine counting of the votes when these events have been superseded by the recent issuance of the Certificates Of Canvass Of Votes And Proclamation Of The Winning Candidates For Provincial Offices dated August 7, 1998. 15 In face of these supervening events, the arguments proffered by the petitioner to seek the annulment of the challenged Omnibus Order rings hollow. Verily —
"At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and apply laws relating to elections; literal or liberal; the letter or the spirit; the naked provision or its ultimate purpose; legal syllogism or substantial justice; in isolation or in the context of social conditions; harshly against or gently in favor of the voter’s obvious choice. In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms." 16
Indeed, to embark upon the costly electoral exercise insisted upon by petitioner in terms of time and taxpayer’s money is an unwarranted imposition on the people of the affected areas and is an unacceptable option to the judicial conscience.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., concurs in the result.
Pardo, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Tupay Loong v. COMELEC, Et Al., G.R. No. 133676, 14 August 1999, p. 36.
2. Punzalan v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 702 [1998].
3. Rollo, p. 47; Annex C, Petition.
4. Paras v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 49 [1996], citing PLDT v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674 [1952].
5. Paras v. COMELEC, supra, p. 55, citing People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 [1986].
6. 73 Phil. 288 [1941].
7. See note no. 1.
8. Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911 [1967].
9. Pacis v. COMELEC, 25 SCRA 377 [1968].
10. Lucero v. COMELEC, 234 SCRA 280 [1994].
11. Ibid., p. 297.
12. See Nolasco v. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762 [1997].
13. Cordero v. COMELEC, GR No. 134826, 6 July 1999, p. 12, citing Grego v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 [1997]; Philippine Savings Bank v. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409 [1996]; Navarro v. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 596 [1993].
14. Rollo, p. 79.
15. Rollo, p. 88, Annex D, Supplemental Manifestation and Motion.
16. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 7272 [1996].