October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 197778 : October 04, 2011]
NASSER DIKI LAGUINDAB V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HADJI SORAYA CALI DATUMANONG, ET AL.
"G.R. No. 197778 (Nasser Diki Laguindab v. Commission on Elections, Hadji Soraya Cali Datumanong, et al.) - The Court hereby DISMISSES the Petition for Certiorari dated 26 August 2011 filed by petitioner Nasser Diki Laguindab, considering that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed no grave abuse of discretion in its Decision dated 03 June 2011.
�The grounds for failure of election � force majeure, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes � clearly involve questions of fact." (Loong v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133676, 14 April 1999, 305 SCRA 832, 868-869) Whether the election paraphernalia was released to the properly constitutcd board of election tellers and whether elections in Barangay Pialot were actually held and winners proclaimed, resulting in a supposed failure of elections, are ultimately questions of fact that are not proper subjects of a Rule 65 petition, in relation to Rule 64. (Benito v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 134913, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 705)
In any case, the COMELEC correctly ruled that there are prescribed circumstances in which a resulting failure to elect occurs and a petition to declare such failure would prosper. (Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 6; Soliva v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 141723, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 336; see also Mutilan v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 171248, 02 April 2007, 520 SCRA 152) The circumstances cited by petitioner Laguindab in the proceedings below, however, are not valid grounds under law and jurisprudence for a declaration of failure of elections; hence, the dismissal by the COMELEC of his Petition.
In petitions for certiorari such as the instant case, the Court is cautious in substituting its judgment with the exercise of the COMELEC's extraordinary power to declare a failure of election. As the administrative agency and specialized constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, the COMELEC possesses known expertise in its field so that its findings and conclusions are generally respected by and conclusive on the Court. (Dibaratun v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 170365, 02 February 2010, 611 SCRA 367) In the instant Petition, petitioner Laguindab's failure to establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to the COMELEC's lack of jurisdiction gives no basis for the exercise of the Court's certiorari powers and exemption from the aforementioned general rule.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari dated 26 August 2011 filed by petitioner Nasser Diki Laguindab is DISMISSED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court