The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded candidates in the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) set on Monday, Oct. 30, to follow strictly procedural rules in filing court cases like election protests.
“Non-compliance with the rules of procedure in election cases cannot be justified by the mere invocation of the determination of the ‘true will of the electorate,’ and neither is the liberal application of the rules automatically be granted by such invocation,” the SC said.
The reminder was contained in a decision made public last Oct. 25 and written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.
The decision affirmed the rulings of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) which upheld the order issued by the municipal trial court (MTC) of Goa, Camarines Sur in favor of Joseph Amata Blance, rival of Joenar Vargas Agravante in the May 14, 2018 BSKE elections in Barangay Matacla.
Agravante garnered 789 votes as against Blance’s 786 votes. Agravante was proclaimed winner.
Blance, however, challenged Agravante’s proclamation in an election protest filed before the MTC which unseated the latter and proclaimed the former as the winning candidate.
In granting Blance’s protest, the MTC cited Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC which provides that “no evidence shall be considered by the court unless it has been formally offered.”
Thus, the MTC excluded from the official count a certain number of ballots that were not formally offered in evidence by either Agravante or Blance.
After revision, the MTC found that Blance obtained 789 votes as against Agravante’s 784 votes. Agravante’s proclamation was set aside as the court declared Blance the “punong barangay” (barangay chairman).
Agravante elevated the case to the Comelec which dismissed his petition.
The Comelec’s first division ruling stated that Agravante failed to submit an affidavit of mailing, the registry receipt as proof of service, and a written explanation as to why service by mail was resorted to in accordance with Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 3, Rule 12 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, as amended.
It ruled that Agravante’s brief was deemed not filed for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements.
Undeterred, Agravante elevated the case to the Comelec en banc, as a full court, which also dismissed his petition on Sept. 20, 2022.
The Comelec en banc dismissed the petition with a ruling that Agravante failed to present any controverting evidence to justify his non-compliance with the rules and merely stated that his failure was only due to inadvertence.
It pointed out that the submission of documentary requirements is mandatory in nature and non-compliance is a clear ground for dismissal.
Agravante elevated the case to the SC which dismissed his petition and affirmed the Comelec’s rulings. It said:
“Time and again, this Court has held that procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate adjudication of cases, deliberately set in place to prevent arbitrariness in the administration of justice.
“Since the right to appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, anyone who seeks to invoke such privilege must comply with the applicable rules; otherwise, the right to appeal is forfeited.
“As the highest court of the land, this Court is mandated to firmly enforce its own rules in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and to maintain impartiality in the administration of justice. Otherwise, the fundamental principle of fairness upon which our legal system is built would be rendered meaningless.
“While it has been held in previous cases that ‘technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate,’ such pronouncement cannot be construed as a license for parties in election cases to disregard procedural rules altogether.
“This Court never intended to establish the precedent that the ‘true will of the electorate’ may be used as an excuse for all kinds of procedural errors., no matter how numerous or serious they may be.
“Non-compliance with the rules of procedure in election cases cannot be justified by the mere invocation of the determination of the ‘true will of the electorate,’ and neither is the liberal application of the rules automatically be granted by such invocation. To rule otherwise would be akin to holding that the technical rules of procedure need not be followed in election cases.
“It must be emphasized that rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings.
“It is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as has often been suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it will result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.
“The actual policy of the courts is to give effect to both, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.
“Observance of both substantive rights is equally guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such rights may be.
“Wherefore, the petition is dismissed. The July 2, 2019 Order of the Commission on Elections First Division and the Sept. 20, 2022 Resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc in EAC No. 167-2018-B are affirmed.”