Understanding the Critical Distinction Between Failure of Election and Election Protest

G.R. No. 120140, August 21, 1996

Imagine an election where irregularities abound – allegations of fraud, disenfranchisement, and even violence. Can a losing candidate simply claim a “failure of election” to challenge the results? This case clarifies the crucial difference between declaring a failure of election and filing an election protest, outlining the specific grounds and procedures for each. Understanding this distinction is vital for any candidate considering challenging an election result.

Introduction

The integrity of elections is paramount in a democratic society. When irregularities surface, candidates often seek legal avenues to challenge the results. However, the path chosen must align with the specific nature of the challenge. This case, Benjamin U. Borja, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, et al., delves into the critical distinction between a petition to declare a “failure of election” and an “election protest.” The Supreme Court clarifies that these are distinct remedies with different grounds and procedures, emphasizing that a losing candidate cannot simply claim a failure of election to circumvent the requirements of an election protest.

In this case, Benjamin U. Borja, Jr. contested the mayoral election results in Pateros, where Jose T. Capco, Jr. won by a significant margin. Borja filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to declare a failure of election based on alleged irregularities. The COMELEC dismissed the petition, stating that Borja’s claims were more appropriate for an election protest. Borja then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Legal Context: Defining Failure of Election and Election Protest

Philippine election law provides distinct remedies for challenging election results, each with specific grounds and procedures. A “failure of election” is a specific legal term defined in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code:

“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…”

This means a failure of election can be declared only under specific circumstances, such as when the election did not occur due to force majeure, violence, or fraud; or when the election was suspended before the closing of voting; or when the failure or suspension affected the election result. The key phrase here is “nobody was elected.”

An “election protest,” on the other hand, is a broader remedy used to contest the election of a winning candidate based on irregularities that occurred during the election process. Section 251 of the Election Code outlines the procedure for election contests for municipal offices:

“Section 251. Election contests for municipal offices. — A sworn petition contesting the election of a municipal officer shall be filed with the proper regional trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten days after proclamation of the results of the election.”

For example, if a candidate believes that votes were fraudulently counted or that ineligible voters participated, they would file an election protest, not a petition to declare a failure of election. The proper venue for an election protest involving municipal officers is the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Case Breakdown: Borja vs. COMELEC

The case of Borja vs. COMELEC unfolded as follows:

• The Election: Jose T. Capco, Jr. won the mayoral election in Pateros, defeating Benjamin U. Borja, Jr.
• Borja’s Petition: Borja filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare a failure of election, alleging lack of notice, fraud, violence, disenfranchisement, and other irregularities.
• COMELEC’s Ruling: The COMELEC dismissed Borja’s petition, stating that his allegations were grounds for an election protest, not a failure of election.
• Supreme Court Review: Borja appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC en banc lacked the authority to hear the case in the first instance.

The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s decision, emphasizing that Borja’s allegations did not meet the legal criteria for a failure of election. The Court reasoned that:

“These grounds, however, as correctly pointed out by the COMELEC, are proper only in an election contest but not in a petition to declare a failure of election and to nullify a proclamation.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that Capco had already been proclaimed as the winner, creating a presumption of regularity and validity. Borja’s petition was essentially an election protest disguised as a petition to declare a failure of election.

The Supreme Court also noted that the COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over the RTC’s decision in election protests involving elective municipal officials, pursuant to Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution.

Practical Implications: Choosing the Right Remedy

This case underscores the importance of understanding the distinct remedies available to challenge election results. A losing candidate must carefully assess the grounds for their challenge and choose the appropriate legal avenue. Filing the wrong type of petition can lead to its dismissal, as happened in Borja’s case.

For example, consider a situation where a candidate suspects that a large number of non-residents voted in the election. This would be grounds for an election protest, where evidence of the fraudulent votes would need to be presented to the Regional Trial Court. Filing a petition for a failure of election would be inappropriate in this scenario.

Key Lessons

• Know the Difference: Understand the distinct legal definitions of “failure of election” and “election protest.”
• Assess Your Grounds: Carefully evaluate the basis for your challenge and choose the appropriate legal remedy.
• File in the Right Venue: Ensure that you file your petition in the correct court or tribunal. For municipal offices, election protests are filed with the Regional Trial Court.
• Gather Evidence: If filing an election protest, gather sufficient evidence to support your allegations of fraud or irregularities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the main difference between a failure of election and an election protest?

A: A failure of election occurs when the election is not held, is suspended, or results in no one being elected due to force majeure, violence, or other similar causes. An election protest challenges the election of a winning candidate based on irregularities that occurred during the election process.

Q: When should I file a petition to declare a failure of election?

A: You should file a petition to declare a failure of election only when the election was not held, was suspended, or resulted in no one being elected due to specific causes outlined in the Omnibus Election Code.

Q: Where do I file an election protest for a municipal office?

A: Election protests for municipal offices are filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the relevant jurisdiction.

Q: What is the deadline for filing an election protest?

A: According to Section 251 of the Election Code, a sworn petition contesting the election of a municipal officer must be filed with the proper regional trial court within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

Q: What happens if I file the wrong type of petition?

A: If you file the wrong type of petition, such as filing a petition to declare a failure of election when the grounds are more appropriate for an election protest, your petition may be dismissed.

ASG Law specializes in election law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.