EN BANC
[G.R. No. 210344. June 3, 2014.]
NASSER M. IMAM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS [BEI] OF CLUSTERED PRECINCT NO. 4 [8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B AND 11A] OF BARANGAY BAYANGA NORTE, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS [MBOC] OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MATANOG, PROVINCE OF MAGUINDANAO, AND MOHAMMAD-ALI S. GURO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJUNE 3, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210344 (Nasser M. Imam v. Commission on Elections, The Members of the Board of Election Inspectors [BEI] of Clustered Precinct No. 4 [8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B and 11A] of Barangay Bayanga Norte, The Municipal Board of Canvassers [MBOC] of the Municipality of Matanog, Province of Maguindanao, and Mohammad-Ali S. Guro). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for having been filed out of time, or only on December 27, 2013. Records reveal that petitioner Nasser M. Imam (Imam) moved for the reconsideration of the assailed Resolution dated November 4, 2013 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, wherein he admitted that he received a copy thereof on November 11, 2013. Considering that a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 1, Rule 13 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Imam's filing thereof did not toll the running of the 30-day reglementary period under Section 3, Rule 64 2 of the Rules of Court. Thus, he only had until December 11, 2013 to file his petition for certiorari before the Court — which he failed to do.
In any event, no grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the COMELEC En Banc in dismissing Imam's Petition to Declare [a] Failure of Elections in Clustered Precinct No. 4 (8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B and 11A) in Barangay Bayanga Norte, Municipality of Matanog, Maguindanao. 3 As correctly found by the COMELEC En Banc, the alleged election-related violence was merely an isolated incident, considering that while election proceedings were indeed interrupted at 1:30 in the afternoon of the elections; such interruption was only momentary since as soon as the disturbance settled down, said proceedings resumed smoothly until the voting hours closed at 7:00 in the evening. Accordingly, the commotion did not in any way significantly interrupt the casting of votes which would result in the disenfranchisement of the voters. In this regard, it is well-settled that failure of election exists only if the will of the electorate has been defiled, but if it is determinable, it must be accorded respect, 4 as in this case." (adv145) IHaCDE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 1, Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure reads:
Section 1. What Pleadings are Not Allowed. — The following pleadings are not allowed:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases;
xxx xxx xxx
2. Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court reads:
SEC. 3. Time to file petition. — The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
3. Rollo, pp. 31-40.
4. "There is failure of elections only when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, the same must as far as possible be respected." (Batabor v. COMELEC, 478 Phil. 795, 797 [2004].) "There can be failure of election in a political unit only if the will of the majority has been defiled and cannot be ascertained. But, if it can be determined, it must be accorded respect. After all, there is no provision in our election laws which requires that a majority of registered voters must cast their votes. All the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast." (Mitmug vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 106270-73, February 10, 1994, 230 SCRA 54, 61.)