GR 150540; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150540 ; October 28, 2003
DIMALUB P. NAMIL, ABDULNASSER TIMAN, TERESITA G. AKOB, MALIGA AMILUDIN and EPAS GUIAMEL, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, public respondent. JOENIME B. KAPINA, MONIB B. WALINGWALING, MAULANA G. KARNAIN, ABDULGAPHAR M. MUSTAPHA, ABDULRAKMAN TALIKOP and WILSON SABIWANG, private respondents.
FACTS
The May 14, 2001 elections for the Sangguniang Bayan of Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat, resulted in two conflicting proclamations. The Municipal Board of Canvassers first issued Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation (COCVP) No. 8031108 on May 20, 2001, proclaiming the petitioners, among others, as the winning candidates. They took their oaths and assumed office on June 30, 2001. The following day, May 21, 2001, the same Board issued COCVP No. 8031109, proclaiming a different set of winners, the private respondents.
The private respondents requested the COMELEC to recognize their proclamation. Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain conducted an investigation, which included memoranda from field officials. One certification deemed COCVP No. 8031109 as genuine and valid, while labeling the earlier COCVP No. 8031108 as fictitious. Based on this, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 4615, declaring the private respondents’ proclamation valid and ordering their immediate installation, effectively ousting the petitioners who were already incumbent officials.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 4615, which annulled the petitioners’ proclamation and ordered the installation of the private respondents without prior notice and hearing.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the COMELEC resolution. The Court ruled that the COMELEC’s action constituted a quasi-judicial function that required due process. The petitioners, having been proclaimed, taken their oaths, and assumed office, had acquired a vested right to their positions. Any subsequent annulment of their proclamation is an adjudication of their title to the office, which is essentially an election contest falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the proper courts, not a pre-proclamation controversy.
The legal logic is anchored on due process and jurisdictional principles. While Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code grants the COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies and allows it to annul proclamations motu proprio, this authority is limited to pre-proclamation stages and does not dispense with the requirements of notice and hearing. The phrase “motu proprio” refers only to the initiation of proceedings, not to the conduct of such proceedings without due process. Once a candidate is proclaimed and assumes office, the remedy to question the legality of the proclamation is a regular election protest or a quo warranto proceeding in the appropriate court. By issuing the resolution without affording the petitioners notice and an opportunity to be heard, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.