Badelles vs Cabili

GR L-29333, February 27, 1969

Topic: Citizens Participation in Election: Right to Vote

Facts:
These are two consolidated petitions protesting the proclamation of Cabili as mayor of Iligan City.
Badelles, the opposing candidate, claimed that there were more than 200 voters per precinct rather than the
limited 200 announced, and that the election officials failed to publish the list of voters for each precinct thus
allowing those not registered to cast their votes. He also claims that no list of registered voters were posted in
the precincts, and that more or less 8,000 registered voters were unable to vote because they had no proper ID
and were not included in the list of voters. Badelles then prayed for the nullification of the proclamation of Cabili
to be null and void.
The RTC dismissed both cases stating that the allegations of the election officers' misconduct failed to
allege that their misconduct changed the result of the election in favor of Cabili. The court also stated "there
were no allegations that the non-compliance of the election officials of the provisions of the election laws
regarding registration of voters were intentional for committing fraud."

Issue:
Did the protestants have a cause of action though they failed to make the specific allegations regarding the
election officers' misconduct affecting the election results?

Held:
YES
(They said there was actually lack of one, but that the seriousness and gravity of the imputed failure gives rise to
doubts on the duly elected officials..)

Ruling:
In the language of Justice Sanchez: "The boundaries of the forbidden area into which Comelec may not
tread are also marked by jurisprudence. That Comelec is not the proper forum to seek annulment of an election
based on terrorism, frauds and other illegal practices, is a principle emphasized in decisions of this Court." For
as announced in Nacionalista Party v. Commission on Elections, assuming that there be a failure to conduct an
election in a free, orderly and honest manner, "the duty to cure or remedy the resulting evil" did not rest with
the Commission on Elections but in "some other agencies of the Government." More specifically, with reference
to provincial and municipal officials, election contests "are entrusted to the courts." Then came this express
affirmation: "The power to decide election contests necessarily includes the power to determine the validity or
nullity of the votes questioned by either of the contestants."
As so emphatically observed in the Abes opinion, "there has been neither deviation nor retreat from the
foregoing pronouncement." After which came the following: "The ratiocination advanced that there was failure
of election due to rampancy of terrorism, frauds, and other irregularities, before and during elections, such that
allegedly about 51% of the registered voters were not able to vote, will not carry the day for petitioners. For, in
the first place, this is grounded upon bare assertions. Respondents contest the correctness thereof. And in the
answer of respondents Amoranto, Mathay and others, they aver that out of 162,457 registered voters in Quezon
City, 100,382 voters actually cast their votes about 62% of the registered voters. But above all, as pointed
out in City Board of Canvassers vs. Moscoso, [the] nullity of an election for municipal officials should be
determined in a petition contesting the election of municipal officers-elect to be filed before the Court of First
Instance."
TOLENTINO & MOJICA vs. COMELEC, RECTO & HONASAN
G.R. No. 148334
January 21, 2004

This is a petition for prohibition to set aside Resolution No. NBC 01-005 dated 5 June 2001 (Resolution No. 01-
005) and Resolution No. NBC 01-006 dated 20 July 2001 (Resolution No. 01-006) of respondent Commission
on Elections (COMELEC). Resolution No. 01-005 proclaimed the 13 candidates elected as Senators in the 14
May 2001 elections while Resolution No. 01-006 declared official and final the ranking of the 13 Senators
proclaimed in Resolution No. 01-005.

Facts:

Following the appointment of Senator Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President of the Philippines, the Senate on
February 8, 2001 passed Resolution No. 84, calling on COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a special election to
be held simultaneously with the regular elections on May 14, 2001. Twelve senators, with 6-year term each,
were due to be elected in that election. The resolution further provides that the Senatorial candidate garnering
the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto Guingona,
Jr. which ends on June 30, 2004.

On June 5, 2001, after canvassing the election results, the COMELEC proclaimed 13 candidates as the elected
Senators, with the first 12 Senators to serve the unexpired term of 6 years and the 13th Senator to serve the full
term of 3 years of Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr. Gregorio Honasan ranked 13th.
Petitioners Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica, as voters and taxpayers, filed the instant petition for
prohibition, praying for the nullification of Resolution No. 01-005. They contend that COMELEC issued
Resolution 01-005 without jurisdiction because: (1) it failed to notify the electorate of the position to be filled in
the special election as required under Section 2 of RA 6645; (2) it failed to require senatorial candidates to
indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they seek election under the special or regular elections as
allegedly required under Section 73 of BP 881; and, consequently, (3) it failed to specify in the Voters
Information Sheet the candidates seeking election under the special or regular senatorial elections as
purportedly required under Section 4, paragraph 4 of RA 6646. Tolentino and Mojica add that because of these
omissions, COMELEC canvassed all the votes cast for the senatorial candidates in the 14 May 2001 elections
without distinction such that there were no two separate Senate elections held simultaneously but just a single
election for thirteen seats, irrespective of term. Tolentino and Mojica sought the issuance of a temporary
restraining order during the pendency of their petition. Without issuing any restraining order, the Supreme
Court required COMELEC to Comment on the petition. Honasan questioned Tolentinos and Mojica's standing to
bring the instant petition as taxpayers and voters because they do not claim that COMELEC illegally disbursed
public funds; nor claim that they sustained personal injury because of the issuance of Resolutions 01-005 and
01-006.

Issue:

WON the Special Election held on May 14, 2001 should be nullified:
(1) for failure to give notice by the body empowered to and
(2) for not following the procedure of filling up the vacancy pursuant to R.A. 6645.

Decision:

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

Ratio Decidendi:

(1) Where the law does not fix the time and place for holding a special election but empowers some authority to
fix the time and place after the happening of a condition precedent, the statutory provision on the giving of
notice is considered mandatory, and failure to do so will render the election a nullity.
The test in determining the validity of a special election in relation to the failure to give notice of the special
election is whether want of notice has resulted in misleading a sufficient number of voters as would change the
result of special election. If the lack of official notice misled a substantial number of voters who wrongly believed
that there was no special election to fill vacancy, a choice by small percentage of voters would be void.
(2) There is no basis in the petitioners claim that the manner by which the COMELEC conducted the special
Senatorial election on May 14, 2001 is a nullity because the COMELEC failed to document separately the
candidates and to canvass separately the votes cast for the special election. No such requirement exists in our
election laws. What is mandatory under Section 2 of R.A. 6645 is that the COMELEC fix the date of election, if
necessary, and state among others, the office/s to be voted for.

Significantly, the method adopted by the COMELEC in conducting the special election on May 14, 2001 merely
implemented the procedure specified by the Senate in Resolution No. 84. Initially, the original draft of said
resolution as introduced by Senator Francisco Tatad made no mention of the manner by which the seat vacated
by former Senator Guingona would be filled. However, upon the suggestion of Senator Raul Roco, the Senate
agreed to amend the resolution by providing as it now appears, that the senatorial cabdidate garnering the 13th
highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto Giongona, Jr.

Facts: After becoming president on January 2001, Gloria Arroyo nominated Senator Teofista Guingona as vice-
president. After confirmation as VP, Resolution 84 was passed by the Senate calling the COMELEC to fill the
vacancy with a special election tobe held simultaneously with the 2001 May regular election. It also provided
that the candidate garnering the 13th highest vote will serve for the unexpired term of Guingona. Petitioners,
Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica sought to enjoin COMELEC from proclaiming the winner. They contend that
it is without jurisdiction because it failed to notify the electorate of the position to be filled in (special election)
due to this the people voted without distinction in one election for 13 seats irrespective of term.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners have standing to maintain suit?

Decision: In questioning the validity of special election, petitioners assert harm classified as generalized
grievance. They failed to establish direct injury they suffered from the said governmental act. However, the
Court relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised its discretion to give due course to voters suit
involving the right of suffrage.