COMELEC En Banc Acts Without Jurisdiction in Election Appeal: Eriguel v. COMELEC

The Supreme Court, in Eriguel v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 190526, February 17, 2010), nullified a COMELEC en banc resolution that overturned a mayoralty election victory. The Court ruled that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it automatically elevated an appeal to the en banc without first resolving it in a division, and when it conducted a fresh appreciation of ballots without first ascertaining that those ballots had been kept inviolate. The decision underscores two fundamental safeguards in election contests: the constitutional requirement that election cases be decided in division first, and the doctrine that ballots are reliable evidence only if their integrity is preserved.

Facts of the Case

Sandra Eriguel and Ma. Theresa Dumpit-Michelena were mayoralty candidates in Agoo, La Union during the May 14, 2007 elections. Eriguel was proclaimed the winner with 11,803 votes against Dumpit's 7,899 votes, a margin of 3,904 votes. Dumpit filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), contesting the appreciation of ballots in 152 precincts.

After revision of ballots and technical examination, the RTC upheld Eriguel's proclamation. The trial court found the protestant's evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the conduct of elections and noted that the protestant had watchers present in the precincts who could have reported irregularities.

Dumpit appealed to the COMELEC. The case was assigned to the Special Second Division, but one commissioner inhibited himself, leaving only one commissioner to hear the case. Instead of assigning another commissioner to complete the quorum, the remaining commissioner elevated the case to the COMELEC en banc.

The en banc proceeded to conduct a fresh appreciation of the contested ballots. On December 9, 2009, it nullified 3,711 ballots cast in favor of Eriguel after finding they were written by only one or two persons. This resulted in Dumpit being declared the winner by 167 votes.

Issue: Did the COMELEC En Banc Act Without Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction. Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution mandates that all election cases "shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc."

The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It cannot be acquired through, waived, or enlarged by any act or omission of the parties. The Special Second Division should have assigned another commissioner as an additional member to attain the required quorum, rather than peremptorily transferring the case to the en banc.

The proper remedy for an aggrieved party would have been to file a motion for reconsideration of the interlocutory order before the division. The division could then refer the matter to the en banc only upon a unanimous vote of all division members.

Issue: Did the COMELEC Fail to Ensure Ballot Integrity?

The Court also found that the COMELEC en banc proceeded with a fresh appreciation of ballots without first ascertaining whether the ballots had been kept inviolate. This was particularly problematic because, as early as August 2009, the COMELEC Chairman had ordered an investigation into missing election returns in La Union and reports that some ballot boxes appeared tampered with.

Eriguel filed an omnibus motion expressing concern over these discoveries, but the motion remained unresolved as the en banc proceeded with the appreciation and promulgated its resolution five days later.

The Court applied the doctrine in Rosal v. Commission on Elections (G.R. Nos. 168253 & 172741, March 16, 2007), which held that the superior status of ballots as evidence presupposes that these were the very same ballots actually cast and counted in the elections. Before ballots can be used to set aside election returns, the court or COMELEC must be sure that it has before it the same ballots deposited by the voters.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the COMELEC en banc resolution null and void. The Court ordered the COMELEC to re-raffle and assign the case to one of its divisions, with an additional member appointed if needed to attain a quorum. The division must first determine which ballot boxes retained their integrity before considering them in a recount. Ballot boxes found to afford reasonable opportunity for tampering must be excluded, and the official count in the election returns shall prevail for those precincts.

Practical Takeaways

• Election cases must be decided in division first. The COMELEC cannot automatically elevate a case to the en banc when a division lacks a quorum; it must assign additional commissioners instead.
• Ballot integrity is a precondition to recount. Before ballots can be used to overturn election returns, the tribunal must ascertain that the ballots were kept inviolate and are the same ballots actually cast.
• Tampered ballot boxes lose probative value. Ballots from boxes that afford reasonable opportunity for unauthorized access shall be excluded from a recount, and the election returns shall prevail for those precincts.
• Jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties' actions. The COMELEC en banc's ruling was void for lack of jurisdiction, regardless of how exhaustive its appreciation of the ballots may have been.
• Interlocutory orders require proper remedies. A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of a COMELEC division should file a motion for reconsideration with that division, not await the en banc's action.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.