Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81146:gr-201796-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:53:53+00:00

Document:
GOVERNOR SADIKUL A. SAHALI and VICE-GOVERNOR RUBY M. SAHALl, Petitioners, v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION), RASHIDIN H. MA TBA and JILKASI J. USMAN, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court filed by Sadikul A. Sahali (Sadikul) and Ruby M. Sahali (Ruby), assailing the Order1 dated May 3, 2012 issued by the First Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in EPC Nos. 2010-76 and 2010-77.
Alleging that the said elections in the Province of Tawi-Tawi were attended by massive and wide-scale irregularities, Matba filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam5 with the COMELEC. Matba contested the results in 39 out of 282 clustered precincts that functioned in the province of Tawi-Tawi. The said election protest filed by Matba was raffled to the First Division of the COMELEC and was docketed as EPC No. 2010-76.
After Sadikul filed his Answer8 with counter-protest, a preliminary conference was conducted by the COMELEC in EPC No. 2010-76. On November 24, 2011, the COMELEC issued a Preliminary Conference Order9 in EPC No. 2010-76. Thereafter, the COMELEC issued an Order10 dated November 23, 2011 which directed the retrieval and delivery of the 39 ballot boxes containing the ballots in the 39 protested clustered precincts as well as the election paraphernalia therein.
Meanwhile, in EPC No. 2010-77, the COMELEC, after Rubys filing of her Answer11 with counter-protest, conducted a preliminary conference on January 4, 2012. On January 20, 2012, the COMELEC issued its Preliminary Conference Order12 in the said case.
On January 17, 2012, the COMELEC resolved to consolidate EPC No. 2010-76 and EPC No. 2010-77.
Private respondents Matba and Usman averred that, instead of recounting the ballots in the pilot precincts constituting 20% of the protested precincts, the COMELEC First Division should order the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia from the 38 clustered precincts that are the subject of both election protests filed by them.
On March 5, 2012, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order15 which granted the said ex-parte motion filed by Matba and Usman. Thus, the COMELEC First Division directed its Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD) to conduct a technical examination of the said election paraphernalia by comparing the signature and thumbmarks appearing on the EDCVL as against those appearing on the VRRs and the Book of Voters.
On March 9, 2012, Sadikul and Ruby jointly filed with the COMELEC First Division a Strong Manifestation of Grave Concern and Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Order Dated March 5, 2012)16. They asserted that the March 5, 2012 Order issued by the COMELEC First Division, insofar as it directed the technical examination of the EDCVL, the VRR and the Book of Voters, should be reversed on account of the following: first, the said Order was issued without due process since the COMELEC First Division did not allow them to oppose the said ex-parte motion; second, the COMELEC First Division cannot just order a technical examination in the absence of published rules on the matter; and third, the COMELEC First Division could not just examine the said election paraphernalia without violating the Precautionary Protection Order issued by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal in the protest case between Manuel Roxas and Jejomar Binay.
On March 15, 2012, Matba and Usman filed with the COMELEC First Division their counter-manifestation17 to the said manifestation and motion for reconsideration filed by Sadikul and Ruby. They asserted therein that Sadikul and Ruby were not deprived of due process when the COMELEC First Division issued its March 15, 2012 Order. They averred that their respective election protests and the Preliminary Conference Orders issued by the COMELEC First Division all indicated that they would move for the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia. Nonetheless, they pointed out that Sadikul and Ruby failed to express any objection to their intended motion for technical examination of the said election paraphernalia.
Further, Matba and Usman claimed that said motion for technical examination is not a contentious motion since the intended technical examination would not prejudice the rights of Sadikul and Ruby considering that the same only included the EDCVL, the VRR and the Book of Voters, and not the ballots.
On March 23, 2012, Sadikul and Ruby then filed with the COMELEC First Division their Reply18 to the counter-manifestation filed by Matba and Usman. In turn, Matba and Usman filed with the COMELEC First Division their Rejoinder19 on March 30, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the COMELEC First Division issued the herein assailed Order20 which denied the said motion for reconsideration of the March 5, 2012 Order filed by Sadikul and Ruby. The COMELEC First Division maintained that Sadikul and Ruby were not deprived of due process. It pointed out that the intention of Matba and Usman to ask for the technical examination of the said election documents had always been apparent from the filing of their separate election protests, preliminary conference briefs and their intention to offer as evidence all election documents and paraphernalia such as the EDCVL, VRRs and Book of Voters on the protested precincts.
Further, the COMELEC First Division opined that the insinuation asserted by Sadikul and Ruby that there are no published rules governing the technical examination of election paraphernalia is untenable. It pointed out that the technical examination of election paraphernalia is governed by Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804. As to the Precautionary Protection Order issued in the protest case between Manuel Roxas and Jejomar Binay, the COMELEC First Division averred that it would request a clearance from the Presidential Electoral Tribunal for the conduct of said technical examination.
Hence, petitioners Sadikul and Ruby filed the instant petition with this Court essentially asserting that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when: first, it did not give them the opportunity to oppose the motion for technical examination filed by Matba and Usman; and second, it ordered the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia despite the lack of sanction and published rules governing such examination.
We have interpreted this provision to mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers." This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division. The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.
The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the Comelec en banc may be elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, now expressly provided in Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The petitioners, citing the case of Kho v. COMELEC,25 nevertheless insist that this Court may take cognizance of the instant Petition for Certiorari since the COMELEC en banc is not the proper forum in which the said interlocutory orders issued by the COMELEC First Division can be reviewed.
The petitioners reliance on Kho is misplaced. In Kho, the issue was whether a Division of the COMELEC may admit an answer with counter-protest which was filed beyond the reglementary period. This Court held that the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion when it admitted the answer with counter-protest that was belatedly filed.
"Section 2. The Commission en banc. - The Commission shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter specifically provided, or in pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of the members of a Commission, or in all other cases where a division is not authorized to act, or where, upon a unanimous vote of all the members of a Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the Commission en banc." In the instant case, it does not appear that the subject controversy is one of the cases specifically provided under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in which the Commission may sit en banc. Neither is it shown that the present controversy a case where a division is not authorized to act nor a situation wherein the members of the First Division unanimously voted to refer the subject case to the Commission en banc. Clearly, the Commission en banc, under the circumstances shown above, can not be the proper forum which the matter concerning the assailed interlocutory orders can be referred to.
The exception in Kho does not apply in the instant case since the COMELEC First Division is authorized to act on the ex-parte motion for the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia. The COMELEC First Division has already acquired jurisdiction over the election protests filed by Matba and Usman. Concomitant with such acquisition of jurisdiction is the authority of the COMELEC First Division to rule on the issues raised by the parties and all incidents arising therefrom, including the authority to act on the ex-parte motion for technical examination of said election paraphernalia.
Even if this Court is to disregard the procedural lapse committed by the petitioners and rule on the issues raised, the instant petition would still be denied.
The petitioners claim that they were denied due process when the COMELEC granted the motion for technical examination filed by Matba and Usman without giving them the opportunity to oppose the said motion.
This Court does not agree.
If the party concerned, despite receipt of a copy of the motion that was filed with the COMELEC, did not file an opposition to the said motion, the motion would be deemed submitted for resolution upon the expiration of the period to file an opposition thereto.
Here, the petitioners did not file an opposition to the said motion for technical examination that was filed by Matba and Usman on February 24, 2012. It was only after the COMELEC First Division issued its March 5, 2012 Order that the petitioners decided to register their opposition to the intended technical examination, albeit in the form of a motion for reconsideration of the said Order. Contrary to the petitioners claim, Section 3, Rule 9 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 gave them the opportunity to raise their objections to the said motion for technical examination. However, for reasons known only to them, petitioners did not file any opposition to the said motion. Accordingly, it is the petitioners themselves and not the COMELEC First Division who should be faulted for their predicament.
Further, this Court cannot see how due process was denied to the petitioners in the issuance of the COMELEC First Divisions March 5, 2012 Order. The petitioners were able to present their opposition to the said motion for technical examination in their manifestation and motion for reconsideration which they filed with the COMELEC First Division on March 9, 2012. Indeed, the petitioners objections to the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia were exhaustively discussed by the COMELEC First Division in its May 3, 2012 Resolution. Having filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC First Divisions March 5, 2012 Order, the petitioners claim of denial of due process is clearly unfounded.
Anent the issue on the technical examination of election paraphernalia, the petitioners contend that the COMELEC First Division cannot order a technical examination of the said election paraphernalia since there is as yet no published rule therefor. They assert that Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, the rule relied upon by the COMELEC First Division in ordering a technical examination, is vague as it failed to provide the documents that should be subjected to technical examination in election protest cases.
At the core of the petitioners assertion is the power of the COMELEC First Division to order the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia. This Court agrees with the petitioners that Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 does not expressly authorize the conduct of technical examination of election paraphernalia as it merely provides for the procedure to be followed in the presentation and reception of evidence in election protest cases.
Sec. 1. Presentation and reception of evidence; order of hearing. - The reception of evidence on all matters or issues raised in the protest and counter-protests shall be presented and offered in a hearing upon completion of (a) the recount of ballots, or re-tabulation of election documents, or (b) the technical examination, if warranted.
While Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 does not explicitly provide for the rule on the technical examination of election paraphernalia, it does not mean, however, that the COMELEC First Division does not have the power to order the conduct of such technical examination.
Otherwise stated, the express grant of power to the COMELEC to resolve election protests carries with it the grant of all other powers necessary, proper, or incidental to the effective and efficient exercise of the power expressly granted. Verily, the exclusive original jurisdiction conferred by the constitution to the COMELEC to settle said election protests includes the authority to order a technical examination of relevant election paraphernalia, election returns and ballots in order to determine whether fraud and irregularities attended the canvass of the votes.
Here, the technical examination ordered by the COMELEC First Division, by comparing the signature and the thumbmarks appearing on the EDCVL as against those appearing on the VRRs and the Book of Voters, is a reasonable, efficient and expeditious means of determining the truth or falsity of the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the canvass of the votes in the province of Tawi-Tawi. Accordingly, the COMELEC First Division did not commit any abuse of discretion when it allowed the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Order dated May 3, 2012 issued by the First Division of the Commission on Elections in EPC Nos. 2010-76 and 2010-77 is AFFIRMED.
1 Rollo, pp. 32-34. Signed by Presiding Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento and Commissioners Armando A. Velasco and Christian Robert S. Lim.
7 Id. at 51, 70.
21 Cagas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012, 663 SCRA 644, 645.
22 398 Phil. 257 (2000).
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rule of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
25 344 Phil. 878 (1997).
27 See Cagas, supra note 21, at 656.
28 Supra note 25, at 885-886.
29 In re: COMELEC Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated Election System in Connection with the May 10, 2010 Elections, approved on March 22, 2010.
30 See Gementiza v. Commission on Elections, 406 Phil. 292, 301 (2001).
31 Estrada, et al. v. Sto. Domingo, et al., 139 Phil. 158, 176-177 (1969).
32 Paat v. CA, 334 Phil. 146, 155 (1997); citations omitted.
33 CONSTITUTION, Article IX-C, Section 2 (2).
34 Miguel v. Commission on Elections, 390 Phil. 478, 488 (2000).
35 See Alberto v. COMELEC, 370 Phil. 230, 239 (1999).
36 Pacanan, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 186224, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 189, 203.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.