2S ADMIN Case Digests

TOPIC Declaration of Failure of Elections AUTHOR Candelario

CASE TITLE Sison v. COMELEC GR NO 134096

TICKLER Massive and orchestrated fraud DATE 3 March 1999

DOCTRINE Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there are only three (3) instances where a
failure of elections may be declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud,
or other analogous causes.
FACTS While the election returns were being canvassed by the Quezon City Board of Canvassers but before the winning
candidates were proclaimed, Joseph Peter S. Sison filed a petition seeking to suspend the canvassing of votes and/or
proclamation in Quezon City and to declare a failure of elections pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code. Ground: Massive and orchestrated fraud and acts analogous thereto which occurred after the voting and
during the preparation of election returns and in the custody or canvass thereof, which resulted in a failure to
elect.

The winners of the election however was proclaimed while the petition is pending in the COMELEC.

On June 22, 1998, COMELEC dismissed the petition on the ground (1) that the allegations therein were not supported
by sufficient evidence, and (2) that the grounds recited were not among the pre-proclamation issues set forth in
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166.

Hence this petition. Petitioner alleged that COMELEC failed to afford him basic due process and that the election returns
themselves, as well as the minutes of the canvassing committee of the City Board of Canvassers were, by
themselves, sufficient evidence to support the petition.

ISSUE/S Whether or not there is a failure of election.

RULING/S NO. There is no failure of election.

At the start, he anchors his initiatory petition under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code regarding failure of
elections but he later builds his case as a pre-proclamation controversy which is covered by Sections 241-248 of
the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7166. In this respect, the rule is, what conjointly determine
the nature of a pleading are the allegations therein made in good faith, the stage of the proceeding at which it
is filed, and the primary objective of the party filing the same.

In any case, petitioner nonetheless cannot succeed in either of the remedies he opted to pursue. Pre-proclamation
controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections,
founded as they are on different grounds.

FAILURE OF ELECTION:
Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there are only three (3) instances where a
failure of elections may be declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law
 2S ADMIN Case Digests
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud,
or other analogous causes.

The Court found nothing in the petition that could support an action for declaration of failure of elections. He never
alleged at all that elections were either not held or suspended. Furthermore, petitioner's claim of failure to elect
stood as a bare conclusion bereft of any substantive support to describe just exactly how the failure to elect
came about.

PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY:
Scope of pre-proclamation controversy is only limited to the issues enumerated under Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code, and the enumeration therein is restrictive and exclusive. Reason: the canvass and proclamation be
delayed as little as possible.

However, with the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested, the question of whether
the petition raised issues proper for a pre-proclamation controversy is already of no consequence since the well
entrenched rule in such situation is that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is no longer viable, the
more appropriate remedies being a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.

Paragraph 3 of the COMELEC's Omnibus Resolution No. 3049 (Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases) dated June
29, 1998, clearly stated that "All other pre-proclamation cases . . . shall be deemed terminated pursuant to
Section 16, R.A. 7166. Section refers to the termination of pre-proclamation cases when the term of the office
involved has already begun, which is precisely what obtains here.

The exception provided under Paragraph 4 which petitioner cited operates only when what is involved is not a pre-
proclamation controversy such as petitions for disqualification, failure of elections or analogous cases. This petition
is actually a case of pre-proclamation controversy and, hence, not falling within the ambit of the exception. In
any case, that omnibus resolution would not have been applied in the first place because that was issued
posterior to the date when the herein challenge resolution was promulgated which is June 22, 1998. There was
no provision that such omnibus resolution should have retroactive effect.
NOTES Circumstances enumerated by Petitioner:
1. The Board of Canvassers announced that election returns with no inner seal would be included in the
canvass;
2. Board of Election Inspectors brought home copies of election returns meant for the City Board of
Canvassers;
3. Petitioner, through counsel, raised written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of election returns
which were either tampered with, altered or falsified, or otherwise not authentic;
4. According to the minutes of the City Board of Canvassers, there were precincts with missing election
returns;
5. Several election returns with no data on the number of votes cast for vice mayoralty position;
6. Highly suspicious persons sneaking in some election returns and documents into the canvassing area;
7. Concerned citizen found minutes of the counting, keys, locks and metal seal in the COMELEC area for
disposal as trash;
8. Board of Election Inspectors have volunteered information that they placed the copy of the election
returns meant for the City Board of Canvassers in the ballot boxes deposited with the City Treasurer
allegedly due to fatigue and lack of sleep;
9. Ballot boxes were never in the custody of the COMELEC and neither the parties nor their watchers
were allowed to enter the restricted area where these boxes passed through on the way to the
basement of the City Hall where they were supposedly kept; and
10. In the elections in Barangay New Era, there was a clear pattern of voting which would show that the
election returns were manufactured and that no actual voting by duly qualified voters took place therein.

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law