G.R. No. 157863 - HADJA NIDA B. ARADAIS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ABDUSALI ASMADUN. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the proclamation of ABDULSALI K. ASMADUN as duly-elected Mayor of Lugus, Sulu, and ABDURAHMAN SANING, AMBAY PATULAN, ABDUL IDRIS, MANUEL USMAN, SYEDHASHIM ABUBAKAR, BENSALI JALMAANI, DHOH WAHAB and JAAFAR ASAMUDDIN, as duly-elected Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Lugus, Sulu, as contained in C.E.F. No. 25 with serial no. 870185, is hereby AFFIRMED as VALID and LAWFUL; while the proclamation of Hadja Nida B. Aradais together with Muadjad A. Aradais, Mobin A. Aradais, Kaungan H. Hapasain, Boy Hassan I. Iribani, Cesar S. Absari, Marma A. Abdurajak AND Najir S. Abdulnasser as contained in the spurious C.E.F. No. 25 purporting to have the same serial number 8701805, is hereby declared INVALID and WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT. The Law Department is directed to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the falsification of the aforementioned election documents, and determine if there is a basis for filing charges against Commission officials and/or other parties involved. Her Motion for Reconsideration of the August 21, 2002 Resolution having been denied by COMELEC En Banc Resolution of March 31, 2003, petitioner filed the present petition. Petitioner contends that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its power and discretion when it delegated its constitutional duty to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases to a mere ad hoc committee. She argues that the COMELEC should have ordered a recanvass and retabulation of the votes, instead of limiting itself to the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee which did not actually resolve the conflicting claims of the parties. The petition fails to convince the Court. The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee are merely advisory in nature and do not bind the COMELEC, especially in light of petitioners failure to present any evidence that the COMELEC merely relied on said findings and recommendations and did not go over the records of the case to make its own assessment. Absent any evidence to the contrary then, the presumption of regular performance of an official duty stands. [15] It bears emphasis that the COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means available to it. [16] In the case at bar, it was well within the COMELECs discretion to avail of the means it deemed effective, such as requiring the parties to present their side through position papers and memoranda and conducting a clarificatory hearing wherein the members of the BOC were required to shed light on the two proclamations made. Besides, it is a settled rule that the COMELECs judgment cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion. [17] Since the assailed resolution is supported by substantial evidence, it cannot be considered whimsical, capricious or arbitrary warranting this Courts power of review. WHEREFORE , for failure of petitioner to show that the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion