When Disrupted Voting Does Not Nullify an Election: Benito v. COMELEC

The 1998 mayoral race in Calanogas, Lanao del Sur was interrupted by gunfire. Armed men fired shots into the air at a school housing five clustered precincts, sending voters and election officials scrambling. One candidate asked the Commission on Elections to declare a failure of election and hold a special election in three precincts. The Supreme Court's ruling in Benito v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 134913, January 19, 2001) explains when that remedy is available — and why a violent disruption does not always undo an election result.

What Happened in Calanogas

Zaipal D. Benito and Ibrahim Pagayawan were among eight candidates for municipal mayor in the May 11, 1998 elections. Five precincts were clustered at Sultan Disimban Elementary School: precincts 15A, 6A/6A1, 17A, 2A/2A1, and 13A.

Voting began peacefully. Shortly before noon, about thirty armed men appeared and fired shots into the air, causing panic. A military spot report confirmed the disruption.

What happened next was disputed. Benito claimed voting never resumed after the ballot boxes were taken to the municipal hall. Pagayawan claimed voting resumed peacefully around 1:00 p.m. and closed at 3:00 p.m. A final military incident report supported Pagayawan's account.

The Count and the Proclamation

The ballot boxes from all of Calanogas were taken to Marawi City for counting. Votes from precincts 15A, 6A/6A1, and 17A were excluded after Benito's counsel objected. When the remaining votes were counted, Pagayawan led Benito by 48 votes.

The excluded precincts had only 41 votes cast in total. Even if all 41 were credited to Benito, Pagayawan would still lead by 7 votes. Pagayawan was proclaimed mayor. Benito then asked the COMELEC to declare a failure of election in the three precincts.

What the Law Requires Before a Failure of Election

The COMELEC en banc has the exclusive power to postpone an election, declare a failure of election, or call a special election. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) allows a failure of election to be declared when force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or similar causes prevent the holding of an election, suspend it before the close of voting, or produce a failure to elect — and the failure or suspension would affect the result.

The Supreme Court, citing Hassan v. Commission on Elections (264 SCRA 125, 1996), laid down two conditions:

• No voting was held in a precinct due to force majeure, violence, or terrorism; and
• The votes not cast are sufficient to affect the result of the election.

Both must exist. If the votes not cast could not change the outcome, the remedy is not available.

Why the Petition Failed

The Court dismissed Benito's petition for lack of merit. Several points drove the ruling.

First, whether voting actually resumed was a question of fact — not a proper subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court does not resolve factual disputes in that remedy.

Second, the Court found no real inconsistency between the two military reports. Benito argued the final report was falsified because its time notation appeared earlier than the spot report. The Court read the notation as the time of the incident, not the time the report was made.

Third, the affidavits from board of election inspectors were contradictory, and evaluating them was beyond the scope of certiorari. The COMELEC was justified in not relying on either set.

Fourth, Benito questioned only three of the five precincts in the same school. Votes from precincts 2A/2A1 and 13A were counted without objection, even though all five were disrupted by the same incident. The COMELEC found this selective objection telling.

Fifth, a low turnout does not equal a failure of election. Citing Mitmug v. Commission on Elections (230 SCRA 54, 1994), the Court held that the law does not require a majority of registered voters to cast ballots — only that the winner be chosen by a plurality of valid votes.

Finally, the Court stressed that annulling an election is an extreme remedy. Quoting Sardea v. Commission on Elections (225 SCRA 374, 1993), it held that the power to throw out an election must be exercised with the utmost care, and only when the will of the electorate cannot be ascertained. If the people's will is determinable, it must be respected.

Practical Takeaways

• A failure of election requires two things: no voting held due to force majeure, violence, or terrorism, and uncast votes sufficient to change the result. Missing either bar, the petition fails.
• Interrupted voting that later resumes does not automatically void the election. The question is whether the will of the electorate can still be determined.
• Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy for factual disputes. Credibility of incident reports and affidavits is for the COMELEC, not the Supreme Court.
• Low voter turnout is not a ground to annul results. The law requires only a plurality of valid votes, not a majority of registered voters.
• Objections must be consistent. Questioning some precincts affected by the same incident while accepting others weakens a claim.

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