In Nilo D. Soliva vs. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s declaration of a failure of election in Remedios T. Romualdez (RTR), Agusan del Norte, due to widespread fraud, intimidation, and harassment. This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring free, fair, and honest elections, emphasizing that when irregularities undermine the integrity of the electoral process, the COMELEC has the authority to annul the election and call for a special one. The decision reinforces the principle that the sanctity of the ballot and the true expression of the people’s will must be protected above all else.

Can Election Irregularities Nullify a Proclamation? The Case of Remedios T. Romualdez

The case revolves around the May 11, 1998, local elections in RTR, where Nilo D. Soliva and his party, Lakas-NUCD, were proclaimed the winners. However, Alexander C. Bacquial of LAMMP filed a petition alleging massive fraud, terrorism, and ballot manipulation. Private respondents (petitioners before the COMELEC) supported their claims with sworn statements detailing irregularities in specific polling precincts. The COMELEC, after considering the evidence, declared a failure of election and nullified the proclamation of the Lakas-NUCD candidates, leading to the present petition questioning the COMELEC’s decision.

The petitioners argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by declaring a failure of election long after the election date, without formal proceedings, and without sufficient evidence. They insisted that the election was conducted regularly, with normal counting and canvassing of votes. In contrast, the Solicitor General supported the COMELEC’s decision, citing fraud in the counting of ballots and the canvass of returns, as well as reports of threats, violence, intimidation, and coercion.

The Supreme Court addressed the central issue of whether the COMELEC erred in declaring a failure of election in RTR. The Court cited Section 4 of Republic Act 7166, or the Synchronized Elections Law of 1991, which empowers the COMELEC to decide on the postponement, declaration of failure of elections, and the calling of special elections. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code further outlines the circumstances under which the COMELEC may declare a failure of election:

Sec. 6. Failure of election. – If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.

To act on a petition for the declaration of a failure of election, the Supreme Court, citing Mitmug v. Commission on Elections, stated that two conditions must concur: (1) no voting has taken place or the election results in a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the election result. This case falls under the third instance contemplated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, specifically, that after voting and during the preparation and transmission of election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, the election results in a failure to elect.

The Court concurred with the COMELEC’s finding that the counting of votes and canvassing of election returns in RTR were tainted by fraud, intimidation, terrorism, and harassment. The fact that the counting of votes was transferred from polling places to a multi-purpose gymnasium without informing the private respondents or their representatives was a significant irregularity. It is also important to note that COMELEC Resolution No. 2971, Sections 39 and 40 were violated and were related to R.A. No. 6646, The Electoral Reforms Law of 1989, Section 18. Thus, the integrity of the ballots was seriously doubted, violating the rights of watchers to witness the proceedings.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted the irregular proclamation of the petitioners on May 12, 1998, as the Minutes of Canvass indicated that the reading of election returns was only completed on May 13, 1998. The sworn statements attached to the private respondents’ Memorandum corroborated these findings, attesting that the May 11, 1998 election in RTR was marred by intimidation, terrorism, and harassment. The Provincial Election Supervisor’s Order dated May 12, 1998, to investigate reports of threats and coercion against supporters of Alexander C. Bacquial, further supported these allegations.

Here is an overview of the Court’s conclusions and the evidence supporting them:

Issue	Court’s Conclusion	Supporting Evidence
Irregular Transfer of Vote Counting Venue	The counting of votes was transferred without proper authority or notification.	Testimonies and the lack of documentation in the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) records.
Exclusion of Party Watchers	Counting and canvassing occurred without the presence of the representatives of the private respondents.	Absence of signatures and thumbmarks of assigned poll watchers on the election returns from different precincts.
Premature Proclamation of Winners	The proclamation occurred before the reading of votes was completed.	The Minutes of Canvass revealed that the reading of election returns was finished on May 13, 1998, but the proclamation occurred on May 12, 1998.
Widespread Fraud and Intimidation	The election was marred by acts of fraud, terrorism, intimidation, and harassment.	Sworn statements from witnesses and the Provincial Election Supervisor’s order to investigate reports of threats and coercion.

Considering these points, the Supreme Court held that the election in RTR could not be deemed regular or valid due to massive fraud, terrorism, intimidation, and harassment. The Court recognized that irregularities during the counting of votes and canvassing of election returns resulted in a failure to elect. Accordingly, the COMELEC acted within its authority to annul the election and call a special election.

FAQs

What is a failure of election?	A failure of election occurs when, due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other similar causes, an election is not held, is suspended, or results in a failure to elect during the preparation, transmission, custody, or canvass of election returns.
What is the role of the COMELEC in declaring a failure of election?	The COMELEC is empowered to enforce election laws and regulations, and it has the authority to decide on the postponement, declaration of failure of elections, and the calling of special elections.
What conditions must be met before the COMELEC can declare a failure of election?	Two conditions must concur: (1) no voting has taken place or the election results in a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the election result.
What irregularities occurred during the RTR elections that led to the declaration of failure of election?	Irregularities included the unauthorized transfer of vote counting venue, exclusion of party watchers during the counting and canvassing, premature proclamation of winners, and widespread fraud, intimidation, and harassment.
What laws govern the declaration of failure of elections?	Section 4 of Republic Act 7166 (Synchronized Elections Law of 1991) and Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code are the primary laws governing the declaration of failure of elections.
What happens when the COMELEC declares a failure of election?	When the COMELEC declares a failure of election, it is empowered to annul the election and call a special election to ensure the filling of the contested positions.
What rights do party watchers have during the counting of votes and canvassing of election returns?	Party watchers have the right to witness the proceedings, take note of what they see or hear, take photographs, file protests against irregularities, obtain certificates of votes cast, and be furnished with copies of election returns.
What is the effect of the irregular transfer of vote counting venue on the integrity of the election?	An irregular transfer of vote counting venue, especially without the knowledge or consent of all parties, can cast serious doubt on the integrity of the ballots and the fairness of the election process.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Soliva v. COMELEC reinforces the constitutional mandate to ensure fair and honest elections. The ruling serves as a reminder that any actions that undermine the integrity of the electoral process, such as fraud, intimidation, or the unauthorized alteration of vote-counting procedures, can lead to the nullification of an election. While the proximity of subsequent regular elections made a special election impractical in this particular instance, the principles articulated in this case remain critical for safeguarding the democratic process in the Philippines.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NILO D. SOLIVA VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 141723, April 20, 2001