G.R. No. L-52451, L-52678, L-53393. March 31, 1981.
Zacarias A. Ticzon, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, et al., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the 1980 local elections in San Pablo City. Petitioner Zacarias A. Ticzon and respondent Cesar P. Dizon were candidates for Mayor. The initial canvass showed Ticzon leading Dizon by 1,457 votes. However, before Ticzon could be proclaimed, Dizon filed a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify Ticzon on the ground of “turncoatism,” alleging Ticzon had changed his political party affiliation within six months before the election, in violation of the 1978 Election Code. The COMELEC issued a resolution suspending Ticzon’s proclamation pending its hearing on the disqualification case.
Subsequently, the COMELEC constituted a new City Board of Canvassers and directed it to reconvene, canvass the returns, and proclaim the winning candidate “excluding the votes cast for Ticzon.” This order effectively commanded the board to tally only Dizon’s votes. Ticzon challenged these COMELEC actions, arguing they deprived him of due process and prematurely adjudicated the disqualification issue without a full hearing, thereby disenfranchising the voters who chose him.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the canvass and a potential proclamation based solely on the votes of one candidate, thereby effectively disqualifying Ticzon without a final ruling on the pending disqualification case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, through the dissenting opinions, found the COMELEC’s actions constituted grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the violation of due process and the premature disenfranchisement of voters. A petition for disqualification based on turncoatism is a quasi-judicial proceeding that requires a full hearing, presentation of evidence, and a definitive resolution before any legal consequences can attach. By ordering the canvass to exclude Ticzon’s votes pendente lite, the COMELEC pre-judged the disqualification case and effectively imposed the penalty of vote nullification without a final determination of Ticzon’s guilt.
This procedure was fundamentally unfair. The correct legal procedure was for the COMELEC to first resolve the disqualification case with finality. If Ticzon were found disqualified, then his votes would be considered stray. Until such a final determination, the board of canvassers was mandated to count all votes from valid returns, including those for Ticzon, and proclaim the candidate with the plurality of votes. The COMELEC’s flip-flopping resolutions and its order for a truncated canvass eroded its credibility and denied Ticzon and his voters their right to due process. The dissenters concluded Ticzon, having obtained a plurality, should be proclaimed, after which Dizon could pursue his disqualification case in an appropriate electoral protest.