Upholding Electoral Tribunals Discretion Respecting THE Voters Intent IN Contested Ballots

The Supreme Court, in Sevilla, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203833, March 19, 2013), reminded the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that a decision rendered with an equally divided vote has no legal effect. The case arose from a disputed barangay election and a challenge to how ballots were appreciated, but the Court’s ruling focused on a more fundamental procedural question: when the Comelec en banc is split, it must conduct a rehearing, not simply issue a resolution that fails to command a majority.

The Facts of the Case

Mamerto T. Sevilla, Jr. and Renato R. So were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City in the October 25, 2010 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Sevilla was proclaimed the winner with 7,354 votes, a margin of 628 over So’s 6,726 votes. So filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), alleging electoral fraud and irregularities, and prayed for a manual revision of ballots.

After a recount in the pilot precincts, the MeTC dismissed the protest on May 4, 2011. So filed a motion for reconsideration instead of a notice of appeal and failed to pay the appeal fee on time. The MeTC denied the motion, noting it was a prohibited pleading. So then filed a petition for certiorari with the Comelec, claiming grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC judge.

The Comelec’s Conflicting Rulings

The Comelec Second Division granted So’s petition, holding that certiorari could be availed of despite the availability of appeal when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. It found the MeTC’s order couched in general terms and lacking the specific details required in appreciating ballots allegedly written by one or two persons.

The Comelec en banc, however, was split. Three commissioners voted to deny So’s motion for reconsideration, while three voted to grant it. Despite the 3-3 tie, the en banc issued a resolution denying the motion and directing the MeTC judge to conduct another revision of the contested ballots.

The Issue: What Happens When the Comelec is Equally Divided?

Sevilla argued that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in entertaining So’s petition despite the finality of the MeTC’s dismissal order. He also contended that the dismissal was proper and that certiorari could not substitute for a lost appeal. So, meanwhile, argued that the petition was premature because the en banc resolution was not a majority decision.

The Supreme Court agreed with So on this point, but for a different reason. The Court ruled that the October 6, 2012 Comelec en banc Resolution had no legal effect.

Under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, each constitutional commission shall decide any case or matter by a majority vote of all its members. The Comelec Rules of Procedure, in Section 5(a), Rule 3, similarly require the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Commission when sitting en banc. The Court clarified that this means four members must concur, regardless of how many commissioners actually participate in the deliberations.

In this case, the 3-3 vote meant that neither side obtained the required majority. The resolution, therefore, served no more than a record of votes. It did not affirm the Second Division’s ruling, nor did it overturn it.

The Remedy: A Rehearing, Not a Resolution

The Court cited Section 6, Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, which states that when the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard. This is not a mere formality. A rehearing presupposes the participation of the opposing parties, allowing them to present additional evidence and further clarify their arguments. It is distinct from a mere “re-consultation,” which involves only the members of the tribunal re-evaluating the issues without the parties.

The Court relied on earlier rulings in Juliano v. Commission on Elections and Marcoleta v. Commission on Elections, both of which emphasized that a rehearing is mandatory when the en banc vote is equally divided. In both cases, the Court remanded the cases to the Comelec for this purpose.

Because the Comelec en banc failed to order a rehearing in Sevilla’s case, the Court dismissed the petition and remanded the case to the Comelec for the conduct of the required rehearing with utmost dispatch.

Practical Takeaways

• A majority vote of all Comelec members is required. A 3-3 vote does not constitute a valid decision, resolution, or ruling, even if the resolution appears to affirm or reverse a division’s ruling.
• An equally divided Comelec en banc must order a rehearing. This is not optional. The parties must be given the opportunity to present additional evidence and arguments.
• Procedural rules in election cases are not absolute. While the Court acknowledged the importance of liberality in appreciating ballots to uphold the voters’ intent, procedural infirmities cannot be cured by a resolution that lacks the required majority.
• For litigants, the remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court did not rule on the merits of Sevilla’s arguments about the propriety of the certiorari petition, but the case underscores the importance of observing procedural rules, including the proper remedy and deadlines.
• Election protest decisions must be specific. The Comelec’s concern about the MeTC’s general and “copy-pasted” findings highlights the need for judges to clearly explain how and why ballots were appreciated in a particular way.

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