PASANDALAN VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G. R. No. 150312

FACTS:
Pasandalan and private respondent Asum were mayoral candidates in the
Municipality of Lumbayangue, Lanao del Sur, during the May 14, 2001 elections. On
the 23rd day of the same month and year, Pasandalan submitted a petition to the
COMELEC, seeking to nullify the election results in several barangays within
Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur, including Cabasaran, Lamin, Wago, Meniros, Bualan,
and Pantaon, totaling sixteen precincts.

Pasandalan claimed that during the ongoing voting, CAFGUs near Sultan Gunting
Elementary School indiscriminately discharged firearms, causing voters to panic and
leave without casting their votes. Allegedly, Asum's supporters took advantage of the
chaos, tampering with official ballots and placing them in the ballot boxes, thus
compromising the election results.

Furthermore, Pasandalan argued that the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) failed to
sign their initials on several ballots and remove detachable coupons, only affixing
their initials during the vote counting. Lastly, Pasandalan asserted that in other
precincts, Asum's supporters exploited a fistfight between Asum's nephew and
Candidate Norania Salo's supporters, seizing official ballots and filling them in with
Asum's name.

Asum denied Pasandalan's claim that the shots fired disrupted the voting, asserting
that the gunshots were heard around 2:35 p.m., not at the voting's commencement.
On June 30, 2001, Asum was sworn into office as the municipal mayor of
Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur.

Subsequently, the COMELEC ruled that the power to declare a failure of election, an
extraordinary remedy, could only be exercised in three instances: (1) if the election is
not held, (2) if the election is suspended, or (3) if the election results in a failure to
elect, where nobody is elected. The COMELEC dismissed Pasandalan's petition as
none of the grounds fell under any of these three instances. The elections in the
questioned precincts were held as scheduled, the gunshots did not suspend the
voting, and Asum was elected by a plurality of votes.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing the petition to declare a failure of election within the
16 questioned precincts.

RULING:
No. The COMELEC appropriately rejected the petition for the declaration of a failure
of election, emphasizing that the irregularities raised in the petition should have been
addressed through an election protest rather than a petition for declaring a failure of
election. According to RA7166 (The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991), the
COMELEC En Banc is authorized to declare a failure of election under Section 6 of
the OEC (BP Blg 881), which outlines the conditions for exercising this power.

The three instances justifying a declaration of failure of election, as stated in the law,
involve situations where (a) the election in a polling place is not held due to force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes; (b) the election in a polling
place is suspended before the closing hour due to force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or analogous causes; or (c) the election results in a failure to elect during the
preparation, transmission, custody, or canvass due to force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes.

In all three instances, the common factor is the resulting failure to elect. Pasandalan
claims that these conditions are met in this case, but the allegations do not align with
any of the instances justifying a failure of election declaration. The election took place
in the protested precincts as scheduled, with no suspension at any point. There was
no failure to elect due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous
causes during the election return processes. The alleged terrorism did not reach a
scale to prevent or suspend the election.

Courts must exercise caution when declaring a failure of election to avoid

disenfranchising the electorate. In this case, actual voting occurred, undermining
Pasandalan's argument. To warrant a failure of election based on fraud, the fraud
must prevent or suspend the election or significantly affect the election return
processes.

Pasandalan's claims of voter substitution, multiple voting, and other electoral

anomalies should be addressed through a proper election protest rather than the
extraordinary remedy of nullifying or declaring a failure of elections. The burden of
proving entitlement to this remedy rests on the party seeking it, requiring convincing
evidence beyond mere affidavits. In this case, Pasandalan failed to substantiate his
allegations, relying solely on affidavits, which were executed by his own poll watchers
and deemed insufficient.