Who Decides Plebiscite Disputes? COMELEC's Power to Annul Results

The question of who has the power to correct a flawed plebiscite is not just a technical legal issue—it goes to the heart of how the people's sovereign will is protected. In Buac v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 155855, January 26, 2004), the Supreme Court settled a critical jurisdictional dispute: the COMELEC, not the Regional Trial Court, has the authority to hear and decide petitions to annul plebiscite results.

The case arose from the 1998 plebiscite in Taguig on the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law (Republic Act No. 8487). The Plebiscite Board of Canvassers initially declared that the "NO" votes won, but it did so without completing the canvass of sixty-four election returns. After the COMELEC ordered the Board to reconvene and finish the canvass, the Board again proclaimed that the negative votes prevailed. Petitioners then filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the results, alleging fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting of votes.

The COMELEC's Initial Reversal

The COMELEC Second Division initially gave due course to the petition, treating it as akin to an election protest and ordering a revision and recount of the ballots. However, after a motion for reconsideration, the Division reversed itself and dismissed the petition, ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the case. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this dismissal, holding that its power over plebiscites was purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. It concluded that jurisdiction lay with the Regional Trial Court under the residual jurisdiction provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.

The Issue: Who Hears Plebiscite Protests?

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction over a petition to annul the results of a plebiscite, or whether such disputes belonged to the regular courts.

The Ruling: COMELEC Has Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court granted the petition and held that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of a plebiscite and the annulment of its results. The Court reasoned that a plebiscite involves the expression of the sovereign will of the people on a public issue, not the clash of private rights between individuals. As such, it does not fit the traditional concept of judicial power, which is designed to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights.

The Court emphasized that the 1987 Constitution gives the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of a plebiscite. This power necessarily includes the authority to ascertain the true results of a plebiscite through revision of ballots. To hold otherwise would render the COMELEC's constitutionally mandated power nugatory.

The Court also noted a practical concern: if the RTC were given jurisdiction, any regional trial court in the country could hear a petition questioning a nationwide plebiscite, leading to difficulties in the orderly administration of justice. The COMELEC, as an independent constitutional body with expertise in election and related laws, is better equipped to handle such matters.

Finally, the Court observed that the motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent Cayetano was filed out of time under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which require such motions to be filed within five days from receipt of the order. Cayetano filed his motion ten days after receipt, so the COMELEC Second Division had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

Practical Takeaways

• COMELEC has jurisdiction over plebiscite disputes. The power to enforce and administer laws relative to plebiscites includes the authority to correct fraudulent or erroneous results through ballot revision and recount.
• Plebiscites are not ordinary civil cases. They involve the determination of the sovereign will of the people, not the vindication of private rights, so they do not fall under the traditional jurisdiction of regular courts.
• The RTC's residual jurisdiction does not apply. The provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 covering cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions does not cover plebiscite disputes, because the COMELEC's jurisdiction over such matters is constitutionally grounded.
• Procedural deadlines matter. The COMELEC's Rules of Procedure require motions for reconsideration to be filed within five days. A late filing deprives the COMELEC of jurisdiction to act on it.
• Consistency in COMELEC practice is expected. The Court noted the COMELEC's inconsistent stance—it assumed jurisdiction over a similar Malolos plebiscite case but refused it in the Taguig case—and found this inexplicable.

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