OTTOMAMA BENITO, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ABDALAWE M. PAGRANGAN, and the Heirs of the Deceased Mayoralty Candidate MURAD KISMEN SAMPIANO OGCA, represented by CABILI SAMPIANO.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 106053
- Promulgated: 1994-08-17
- Ponente: Kapunan, J.
Doctrine
Election contests involve public interest and procedural technicalities should not obstruct determination of the electorate's true will; election laws must be liberally construed to effectuate the people's choice.
A provision disqualifying votes (Section 6, R.A. No. 6640) applies only when a candidate has been declared disqualified by final judgment; absent such judgment, votes for a deceased candidate may be considered.
Facts
Petitioner sought certiorari to set aside three COMELEC resolutions: denial of a motion to suspend proclamation of Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca (11 June 1992), a directive to proclaim the highest vote-getter (29 June 1992), and another related resolution (6 July 1992).
Petitioner argued the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contested resolutions.
The COMELEC considered an appeal filed by private respondents that was one day late but held it was not frivolous nor dilatory and sought to give effect to the people's will.
Petitioner further contended votes for deceased Ogca should not have been counted under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6640; the Court held that provision applies only where there is a final judgment of disqualification, which was absent here.
Issues
Whether the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the June 29 and 6 July 1992 resolutions directing proclamation and related matters.
Whether votes cast for deceased candidate Ogca should have been excluded under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6640, and whether denial of the motion to suspend his proclamation was proper.
Ruling
The Court held the late-filed appeal did not divest COMELEC of jurisdiction; the appeal was neither frivolous nor for delay, and the June 29 and 6 July 1992 resolutions are valid and effective.
The Court ruled Section 6 of R.A. No. 6640 does not apply because there was no final judgment declaring Ogca disqualified; therefore the 11 June 1992 denial of the motion to suspend proclamation was proper.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.
Keywords
G.R. No. 106053, special civil action for certiorari, Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Resolution dated June 11, 1992 in SPA No. 92-147 and SPA No. 92-145, Motion to Suspend Proclamation, Resolution dated June 29, 1992 in SPC No. 92-303, Municipal Board of Canvassers, Resolution dated July 6, 1992 in SPC No. 92-163, SPC No. 92-303, and SPC No. 92-357, null and void and of no force and effect, legal succession to office, Section 44 of R. A. 7160, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, disqualification petition, prima facie case, Local Government Code of 1991 (R. A. 7160), Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation, due process of law, canvassers, municipal board, proclamation