G.R. No. 149666 - SANGCAD S. BAO, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ATTY. RAY SUMALIPAO, COL. FELIX CASTRO, JR., MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BUTIG, LANAO DEL SUR, DIMNATANG L. PANSAR, GORIGAO LANGCO, AND RASMIA U. SALIC ROMATO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Very Urgent Petition and Petition in Intervention are DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT. The Very Urgent Motion to Defer Canvass of Election Returns and Suspend Proclamation is likewise DENIED for the same reason. Hence, the present petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court raising the issue of: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ILLEGALLY OR ARBITRARILY RESOLVED TO DENY THE PETITION OF BAO AND INTERVENOR LANGCO AND ROMATO, THAT THEIR `ALLEGATIONS' AND `EVIDENCES' ATTACHED TO THEIR PLEADINGS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO DECLARE FAILURE OF ELECTION. [10] (Underscoring omitted) Petitioner contends that SPA No. 01-336 being a contentious case, the COMELEC acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal and thus falls under the term "court"; that the questioned resolution failed to express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based in contravention of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution; [11] that contrary to the findings of the COMELEC, the two (2) conditions set forth in Mitmug v. COMELEC [12] to declare a failure of election was present in the instant case; and that the serious and massive election irregularities in thirty out of forty precincts in Butig were more than sufficient to affect the election results as they disenfranchised more than 70% of the registered voters. [13] Petitioner further contends that even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; [14] that the COMELEC erred in not giving credence to the official Narrative Report of Casidar which contained facts affecting the validity of the elections; [15] and that in failing to conduct summary hearing for the reception of evidence, the COMELEC violated the Omnibus Election Code and its own rules. [16] The issue in the main is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not declaring a failure of election. This Court holds in the negative. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides: Section 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 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