26 – Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. v.

Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, and Jesus Emmanuel Pimentel,

GR 136191, November 29, 1999

F: Jesus O. Typoco, (“TYPOCO”) and Jesus Emmanuel Pimentel (“PIMENTEL”) were both candidates for the
position of Governor in Camarines Norte during the May 11, 1998 elections. On June 10, 1998, TYPOCO filed a
petition alleging that massive fraud and irregularities attended the preparation of the election returns considering that
upon technical examination, 305 election returns were found to have been prepared in group by one person. A report
by the COMELEC’s ERSD Voters Identification Division disclosed, among others, that the “handwritten entries on
278 COMELEC copies of election returns particularly under the columns Congressman/Governor/Vice-
Governor/Nickname or Stage Name, were written by one and the same person in groups.

The COMELEC En Banc promulgated a resolution dismissing TYPOCO’s petition for the Declaration of
Failure of Elections and/or Annulment of Elections in Camarines Norte for lack of merit, claiming that the grounds
cited by TYPOCO do not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.

I: Whether or not the findings of the ERSD Voters Identification Division can warrant the declaration of a Failure of
Elections and/or Annulment of Elections?

H: No; Petition DISMISSED

R: First, the Court pointed to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as “The Synchronized Elections
Law of 1991,” from which the COMELEC derives its authority to declare a failure of elections. Second, the court
quoted Section 6 of the same law, which enumerates the causes for a declaration of a Failure of Election. These are
explained in the case of Mitmug v. Commission on Elections, wherein the Court held that two conditions must
concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law, or even if there was
voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to election; and second the votes cast would affect the result of
the election. In Loong v. Commission on Elections, the Court added that the cause of such failure of election should
have been any of the following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud of other analogous cases. Further in Borja,
jr. v. Commission on Elections, the Court stated that “The COMELEC can call for the holding or continuation of
election by reason of failure of election only when the election is not held, is suspended or results in a failure to
elect. The latter phrase, in turn, must be understood in its literal sense, which is “nobody was elected.”

Clearly then, the Court held that there are only three instances where a failure of election may be declared,
namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases; (b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before
the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes; (c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. In all instances there must have been failure to elect; this is obvious in
the first scenario whre the election was not held and the second where the election was suspend. As to the third
scenario, the preparation and transmission of the election returns, which gave rise to the consequence of a failure to
elect must as aforesaid be literally interpreted to mean that nobody emerged as a winner.

While fraud is a ground to declare a failure of election, the commission of fraud must be such that it
prevented or suspended the holding of an election including the preparation and transmission of the election returns.
The ground invoked by TYPOCO is not proper in a declaration of failure of election. TYPOCO’s relief was for
COMELEC to order a recount of the votes cast, on account of the falsified election returns, which is properly the
subject of an election contest. The COMELEC, therefore, had no choice but to dismiss TYPOCO’s petition in
accordance with clear provisions of the law and jurisprudence.
 27 – Hadji Rasul Batabor v. COMELEC, Mocasim Abangon Batondiang, et.al.,
GR 160428, July 21, 2004

F: Hadji Rasul Batabor (“BATABOR”) and Mocasim Abangon Batondiang (“BATONDIANG”) were candidates
for the position of Punong Barangay in Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur. BATABOR filed a petition to
declare a failure of elections with the COMELEC, claiming that on the day of the election, the voting was not
continued after lunch, and in effect prevented his family and followers from casting their votes. The COMELEC
denied his petition.

I: Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by not declaring a failure of elections based on
the allegations made by BATABOR?

H: No; Petition DISMISSED

R: The Court found that BATABOR’s allegations that the voting was not resumed after lunch break, preventing
100 of his relatives and followers to vote, is better ventilated in an election contest. The question of whether there
has been terrorism and other irregularities is better ventilated in an election contest .These irregularities may not as a
rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the electorate through the misdeeds of a relative
few. Otherwise, elections will never be carried out with the resultant disenfranchisement of innocent voters as losers
will always cry fraud and terrorism.

The Court discussed the power of the COMELEC to declare a failure of election, however, which is vested
exclusively therein by Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.

"Section 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 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 on a date reasonably close to the date 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."

The Court cited Benito v. Commission on Elections, which explain Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, as
providing for two conditions that must exist before a failure of election may be declared: (1) no voting has been held
in any precinct or precincts due to fraud, force majeure, violence or terrorism; and (2) the votes not cast therein are
sufficient to affect the results of the election. The cause of such failure may arise before or after the casting of votes
or on the day of the election.

The Court also cited, Loong v. COMELEC, wherein it held that “the Commission may not, on the ground of failure
of elections, annul the proclamation of one candidate only, and thereafter call a special election therefor, because
failure of election necessarily affects all the elective positions in the place where there has been a failure of
elections. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and violative of the equal protection of the laws.

On a final note, the Court reiterated its ruling in Benito v. COMELEC, that there is failure of elections only when the
will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained. In the case at bar, this incident is not present.
 28 – Sangcad S. Bao (“BAO”) v. COMELEC, et.al.
GR 149666, December 19, 2003

F: BAO sought reelection as mayor of Bitug, Lanao del Sur, in the May 14, 1002 elections. Private respondents
were candidates for mayor as well. On May 25, 2001, BAO filed before the COMELEC a Very Urgent Petition for
Suspension of Counting of Votes by the Board of Election Inspectors, Canvass of Election Returns and
Proclamation of Winners by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, and Declaration of Failure of Election in Butig,
Lanao del Sur. Among their allegations of irregularities during the election was the occurrence of several bombings,
illegal transfer of polling places, massive substitution of voters, etc. The COMELEC however, dismissed the petition
for lack of merit.

I: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not declaring a failure of election?

H: No; Petition DISMISSED

R: The Court referred to Section 6, of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides for the instances wherein the
COMELEC may declare a Failure of Elections.

The Court cited its decision in Mitmug v. COMELEC, wherein it held that “before the COMELEC can act on a
verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must concur: first, no voting has taken
place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
results in failure to elect; and second, the votes not cast would affect the result of the election.”

The Court also cited its decision in Typoco v. COMELEC, wherein it held that “there are only three instances where
a failure of election may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the election in any
polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (c) after the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in failure to elect on
account of force rnajeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. In all instances there must have been
a failure to elect; this is obvious in the first scenario, where the election was not held and second where the election
was suspended. As to the third scenario, the preparation and transmission of election returns which give rise to the
consequence of failure to elect must as aforesaid be literally interpreted to mean that nobody emerged as winner.”

The Court, in applying its rulings in the abovementioned cases, rationed that in the present case, the allegations-
bases of both the petition and Langcos petition-in-intervention before the COMELEC are mostly grounds for an
election contest, not for a declaration of failure of election. While there are allegations which may be grounds for
failure of election, they are supported by mere affidavits and the narrative report of the election officer. . General
allegations, without sufficient evidentiary support, do not warrant a declaration of a failure of elections. Election
results are the expression of the will of the people whose welfare and interests must immediately be served by those
upon whom the people have placed their trust. Peripherally but not trivially, elections need be consummated with
dispatch because the losers or even those just lagging behind in the counting, more often than not, file all kinds of
protests and complaints and objections that delay the election process and threaten to deny the people their
representation in government.