Clarylyn A. Legaspi Et Al. vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 264661, July 30, 2024)
SYLLABUS:
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for a manual recount of the 2022 elections in Pangasinan, citing defective verifications, lack of locus standi, and failure to establish a valid class suit. The Court held that the petitioners' claims were speculative and based on hearsay, without concrete evidence of fraud or electoral irregularities. The petitioners also failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, and neither certiorari nor mandamus could be granted, as COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its actions.
FACTS:
After the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections, petitioners, voters from Pangasinan, alleged that widespread fraud had occurred during the automated voting process. They filed a petition for a manual recount of the votes, expressing their doubts about the accuracy of the vote-counting machines (VCMs). The petitioners organized a signature campaign known as APELA, and submitted the signatures of over 71,000 voters supporting the call for a recount. Despite filing the petition, they only attached the first page of APELA, omitting the critical pages containing the signatures. Additionally, their claims of fraud were based on hearsay from social media and online opinions, rather than firsthand knowledge or authenticated documents. COMELEC, in responding to their requests, informed them that their petition did not meet the requirements for an election protest under the law, as it lacked specific allegations necessary for such actions. The petitioners then directly filed a petition before the Supreme Court, but the verifications attached to their petition were based on beliefs and unauthenticated sources, rather than personal knowledge or documentary evidence.
The petitioners, as voters in Pangasinan, argued that their right to suffrage had been violated by the supposed fraud in the election results. They pointed to anomalies in the election, including the high voter turnout and the speed of the transmission of results from the VCMs. They further argued that their right to know how their votes were counted was part of their constitutional right to suffrage. The petitioners based these claims on reports and opinions shared online by certain experts who questioned the transparency of the election results. However, the petitioners did not provide any direct evidence that their votes had been tampered with, nor did they claim any specific injury, such as being prevented from voting. Instead, their claims were largely speculative, and they admitted to having participated in the election without interference. They merely sought a recount to address their doubts about the election’s legitimacy.
In their petition, the petitioners claimed to represent over 71,000 voters from Pangasinan who had signed the APELA for a manual recount of votes. However, they failed to attach the pages containing the signatures of these voters, leaving the Supreme Court unable to verify the claim of representation. The petitioners sought to represent a large class of voters from Pangasinan who they alleged shared the same doubts about the election results, but without providing the proper documentation or evidence of their authorization to represent such a group. Furthermore, the petitioners did not demonstrate that the interests of the class were so numerous or diverse that it would be impracticable to include all affected voters in the case.
The petitioners alleged that the election results in Pangasinan were not credible due to potential manipulation of the VCMs and discrepancies between the results and pre-election surveys. However, they did not provide concrete evidence of any manipulation or irregularity. Their concerns were based on online discussions and opinions from various individuals who questioned the election results. The petitioners did not claim that they were unable to cast their votes or that their votes were not counted, only that they doubted the accuracy of the automated counting process. Their request for a manual recount was primarily based on their subjective concerns and fears, rather than an actual legal controversy or violation of their rights.
Before filing their petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioners communicated with COMELEC regarding their request for a manual recount. COMELEC responded that their request did not meet the legal requirements for an election contest or protest, which would have allowed a manual recount. COMELEC explained that only losing candidates who received the second or third-highest number of votes could file a protest, and that such protests must follow certain procedural requirements. The petitioners, dissatisfied with this response, filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court, asserting that COMELEC's refusal to conduct a manual recount constituted a denial of their constitutional rights. The Court found, however, that COMELEC had not explicitly denied the petitioners’ rights but had merely provided guidance on the legal process. The petitioners failed to exhaust all possible remedies within the COMELEC process before seeking judicial intervention.
The petitioners argued that COMELEC's refusal to conduct a manual recount amounted to grave abuse of discretion and a violation of their rights. They sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus to compel COMELEC to conduct the recount. However, the Court found that COMELEC had acted within its authority in rejecting the request, as the petitioners had no legal right to demand a recount without filing an election protest under the law. The Court emphasized that a manual recount could only be conducted under specific legal circumstances, such as in an election contest filed by a losing candidate. Since the petitioners were not candidates and their request did not follow the procedures set forth in election laws, the Court held that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus were not warranted in this case.
ISSUES:
2. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to file the petition.
3. Whether the petition constituted a valid class suit.
4. Whether there was an actual case or controversy.
5. Whether the petitioners exhausted administrative remedies. Whether certiorari or mandamus could be granted.
HELD:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Defective Verifications
Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that verifications must be based on personal knowledge or authentic documents. A proper verification ensures that the allegations in the petition are made in good faith and are true, not speculative or based on hearsay.
The Court found that the petitioners did not comply with this requirement, as their allegations of electoral fraud were based largely on hearsay from social media and opinions from various unauthenticated sources. The petitioners lacked personal knowledge about the specifics of the automated voting system or the alleged irregularities, as they were not present during the transmission of results or during the operations of the vote-counting machines (VCMs). Additionally, the petitioners did not attach critical supporting documents, such as the signature pages of the APELA. The verification requirement aims to prevent frivolous or speculative claims, and since the petitioners’ allegations were not founded on personal knowledge or authenticated documents, their verifications were deemed defective. This defect undermined the integrity of their petition.
Locus Standi
Locus standi requires a party to have a personal and substantial interest in the case, meaning that the party must have suffered or will suffer direct injury as a result of the governmental act in question. A mere general interest shared with the public is insufficient.
The Court ruled that the petitioners lacked locus standi because they failed to demonstrate any specific injury they had sustained. The petitioners admitted that they were able to cast their votes without interference, and their claims of fraud and irregularities were based on fears and suspicions rather than concrete evidence of any harm to their rights. Their interest in ensuring a fair election was general and speculative, not specific or personal. To invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, there must be a direct and personal injury, and since the petitioners did not demonstrate such injury, they were found to lack legal standing to bring the case.
Class Suit
Under Rule 3, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, a class suit can be filed when the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons, so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. The representative plaintiffs must be sufficiently numerous and representative to protect the interests of the class.
The Court ruled that the petition did not constitute a valid class suit because the petitioners failed to provide sufficient proof that they represented the 71,000 voters they claimed to. The APELA’s signature pages, which would have demonstrated the number of affected voters, were not attached to the petition, and without these, the Court could not verify whether the petitioners were indeed representative of the class they claimed to speak for. Moreover, without proper documentation, it was unclear whether all 71,000 voters supported the petitioners' call for a manual recount. As such, the petition did not meet the criteria for a valid class suit.
Actual Case or Controversy
The Constitution requires an actual case or controversy for judicial review, meaning there must be a real and substantial dispute involving legal rights. A hypothetical or abstract question is insufficient.
The Court found that no actual case or controversy existed because the petitioners’ claims were speculative and lacked any concrete evidence of electoral fraud. Their allegations were based on online discussions and suspicions about the speed of the transmission of election results and the high voter turnout, but they did not show that their votes were not counted or that any part of the election process violated their rights. The Court emphasized that for judicial review to take place, there must be an existing legal conflict that affects the rights of the parties, and the petitioners' vague fears about the election did not meet this standard.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires parties to seek relief through all available administrative channels before resorting to judicial intervention. Courts will generally not intervene unless administrative remedies have been fully exhausted, or unless there is an exception, such as when pursuing such remedies would be futile or when there is a clear denial of the petitioner's rights.
The Court ruled that the petitioners did not exhaust all administrative remedies before filing their petition with the Supreme Court. COMELEC had responded to the petitioners' request for a manual recount by explaining that their petition did not meet the legal requirements for an electoral protest or recount. COMELEC provided guidance on the proper legal processes, and the petitioners did not follow through with the appropriate actions under existing election laws. The Court noted that there was no explicit denial of the petitioners’ requests by COMELEC, and the miscommunication between COMELEC and the petitioners was largely due to the petitioners' failure to articulate their legal basis clearly. Therefore, they failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action.
Certiorari and Mandamus
Certiorari is issued when a tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Mandamus compels the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.
The Court found that neither certiorari nor mandamus could be granted because COMELEC had not committed grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners did not have a legal right to demand a manual recount of the entire province of Pangasinan without filing an election protest under the rules set by law. COMELEC’s actions, in providing guidance on the legal requirements for an election contest, were within its jurisdiction and discretion. The Court emphasized that the right to a manual recount is only available under specific legal circumstances, such as in an election protest filed by a losing candidate. Since the petitioners were not candidates and did not follow the procedural requirements for a recount, they had no legal right that could be enforced through mandamus. Therefore, neither extraordinary remedy was appropriate in this case.
