This is the case of a plebiscite held for the ratification of the cityhood of the municipality of Taguig. The case started when the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared that the "No" votes have won and that the people of the town have rejected its conversion into a city without completing the canvass of sixty-four other election returns. Upon order of the Comelec, the Board reconvened and completed the canvass where the "no" votes still prevailed.
Two residents filed with the Comelec a petition to annul the results of the plebiscite with a prayer for the revision and recount of the ballots cast therein. They were joined by several other residents. They alleged, as usual, that fraud and irregularities attended the casting and counting of votes. Two other politicians in the town intervened and asked for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They averred that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election protest and that the jurisdiction to hear a complaint involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged with the Regional Trial Court.
Initially, the Comelec ruled that it has jurisdiction as the petition is akin to an election protest considering that the same allegations of fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots and preparation of returns are the same grounds for assailing the results of an election. But in a complete turnaround, the Comelec granted the motion for reconsideration of an intervenor and dismissed the petition. According to the Comelec, the jurisdiction over the petition to annul the plebiscite results is lodged in the regular courts of justice particularly the RTC. The Comelec held that it cannot use its power to enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscites as this power is purely administrative or executive and not quai-judicial in nature. Its quasi judicial powers are limited only to exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to elections, returns and qualifications of elective regional, provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving municipal and barangay officials decided by the trial courts pursuant to Section 2(2) Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Was the Comelec correct?
No.
The invocation of judicial power to settle dispute involving the conduct of a plebiscite is misplaced. Section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution defines judicial power as including "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable ·" This represents the traditional concept of judicial power involving settlement of conflicting rights as conferred by law. This case does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise of judicial power. It does not involve the violation of any legally demandable right and its enforcement. There is no plaintiff or defendant in the case at bar for it merely involves ascertainment of the vote of the electorate of Taguig whether they approve or disapprove the conversion of their municipality to a highly urbanized city. This is no invocation of a private right conferred by law that has been violated and which can be vindicated alone in our courts of justice in an adversarial proceeding. Rather, the issue in the case at bar is the determination of the sovereign decision of the electorate of Taguig. The purpose of this determination is more to protect the sovereignty of the people and less to vindicate the private interest of any individual. Such determination does not contemplate the clash of private rights of individuals and hence cannot come under the traditional jurisdiction of courts.
The Comelec’s position is highly untenable. Article IX-C Section 2(1) is very explicit that the Comelec has the power "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall" To enforce means to take effect or to cause the performance of such act/s necessary to bring into actual effect or operation, a plan or measure. The power of the Comelec to enforce all laws relative to the conduct of a plebiscite necessarily entails all the necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the holding of an honest and credible plebiscite. Obviously, the power of the Comelec is not merely limited to the mere administrative function of conducting the plebiscite. It is also mandated to enforce the laws relative to the conduct of the plebiscite. The power of the Comelec to ascertain the true results of the plebiscite is implicit in its power to enforce all laws relative to the conduct of the plebiscite. (Buac et al. vs. Comelec et al. G.R. 155855, January 26, 2004).
E-mail: jcson@info.com.ph