Case Digest: HADJA NIDA B. ARADAIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. 428 SCRA 277 (2004)

HADJA NIDA B. ARADAIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. 428 SCRA 277 (2004)

Petitioner Hadja Nida B. Aradais (Aradais) and respondent Abdusali Asmadun (Asmadun) were mayoralty candidates in the municipality of Lugus, Sulu. After canvassing was completed, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (BOC) proclaimed Asmadun as the mayor-elect by virtue of a Certificate of Canvass (COC). Aradais was also proclaimed as mayor-elect by virtue of a second Certificate of Canvass which is the same as the first COC issued. Asmadun took his oath of office on May 19, 2001 and subsequently assumed office. Aradais on the other hand took his oath of office on June 23, 2001. However, the Regional Election Director of Region IX advised that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) should recognize only one proclamation, that of Asmadun, and Aradais‘s proclamation was without any legal effect. This prompted Aradais to file before the COMELEC a Petition for the Annulment of Asmadun‘s proclamation. The COMELEC then created an Ad Hoc Committee to look into cases of double proclamations wherein it directed Aradais, Asmadun, three members of the BOC, the COMELEC Regional Director, and the Provincial Election Supervisor of Sulu to submit their respective position papers or memoranda and other pertinent documents, as well as affidavits of their witnesses. In its report, the Ad Hoc Committee made recommendations and proclaimed Asmadun as the mayor-elect. Concurring with the findings and recommendations, the COMELEC affirmed the proclamation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its power and discretion when it delegated its constitutional duty to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases to a mere ad hoc committee.

 
HELD:

The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee are merely advisory in nature and do not bind the COMELEC, especially in light of petitioner‘s failure to present any evidence that the COMELEC merely relied on said findings and recommendations and did not go over the records of the case to make its own assessment. Absent any evidence to the contrary then, the presumption of regular performance of an official duty stands. It bears emphasis that the COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means available to it. In the case at bar, it was well within the COMELEC‘s discretion to avail of the means it deemed effective, such as requiring the parties to present their side through position papers and memoranda and conducting a clarificatory hearing wherein the members of the BOC were required to shed light on the two proclamations made. Besides, it is a settled rule that the COMELEC‘s judgment cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 
Since the assailed resolution is supported by substantial evidence, it cannot be considered whimsical, capricious or arbitrary warranting the Court‘s power of review.