Borja v. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 120140 (August 21, 1996)

Supreme Court ruled COMELEC can't handle Borja's election petition; it’s a Regional Trial Court matter.

Facts:

Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr. contested the results of the May 8, 1995 elections for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Pateros, where private respondent Jose T. Capco, Jr. was declared the winner by a margin of 6,330 votes. Following Capco's proclamation and assumption of office, Borja filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to declare a failure of election. He alleged various irregularities, including lack of notice regarding the canvass, fraud, violence, terrorism, disenfranchisement of voters, and the presence of unqualified members of the Board of Election Inspectors.

The COMELEC dismissed Borja's petition on May 25, 1995, asserting that the grounds he cited were more appropriate for an election contest rather than a petition for failure of election. The Commission noted that the specific grounds for declaring a failure of election, as outlined in the Omnibus Election Code, were not present in Borja's case. Borja subsequently elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing his petition without a proper hearing.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the COMELEC en banc had the authority to hear and decide Borja's petition for failure of election.
  2. Whether Borja's petition constituted an election case or a pre-proclamation controversy.
  3. Whether the dismissal of Borja's petition constituted a violation of his right to due process.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Borja): Borja contended that the COMELEC en banc lacked jurisdiction to decide his petition, as Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, should be heard in division. He argued that the COMELEC's dismissal of his petition without a hearing constituted grave abuse of discretion and violated his right to due process.

  • Respondent (COMELEC): The COMELEC maintained that Borja's petition did not qualify as an election case or a pre-proclamation controversy. They asserted that the grounds cited by Borja were insufficient to declare a failure of election as defined by the Omnibus Election Code. The Commission argued that the petition was essentially an election protest, which falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, not the COMELEC.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed Borja's petition, affirming the COMELEC's resolution. The Court reasoned that a petition to declare a failure of election does not fall under the category of election cases or pre-proclamation controversies as defined by the law. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC en banc is only empowered to resolve motions for reconsideration of cases decided by its divisions, and not to hear original petitions of this nature.

The Court reiterated that the grounds for declaring a failure of election, as specified in the Omnibus Election Code, were not present in Borja's case. It noted that Capco's proclamation as Mayor enjoyed a presumption of regularity and validity, which Borja failed to overcome with his allegations. The Court concluded that Borja's petition was essentially an election protest, which should have been filed with the appropriate Regional Trial Court within the prescribed period.

Furthermore, the Court found no violation of due process, stating that the COMELEC's review of Borja's petition constituted a fair evaluation of the case. The Court noted that the absence of a rebuttal from Capco did not deprive him of his right to a fair hearing, as the proceedings were favorable to him.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. A petition to declare a failure of election is distinct from an election contest and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc.
  2. The grounds for declaring a failure of election must meet specific criteria as outlined in the Omnibus Election Code.
  3. The presumption of regularity and validity of an election proclamation can only be overturned by substantial evidence.
  4. The appropriate venue for election contests involving municipal offices is the Regional Trial Court, with the COMELEC exercising appellate jurisdiction over such cases.