BENITO v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 134913 Jan. 19, 2001 De Leon, Jr. J. Bec
petitioners Zaipal Benito
respondents COMELEC, Ibrahim Pagayawan and Municipal Board of Canvassers of Calanogas, Lanao del Sur
summary A group of armed men opened fired in a school which disrupted the elections for mayor in
the Municipality of Calanogas, Lanao del Sur. Benito wanted to declare failure of elections
in 3 of the precints therein alleging that voting did not resume after the incident. However
the court did not give credence to such allegation because of the affidavits of BEI and final
reports of election officers in charge that indeed, elections resumed. SC said that the power
to declare failure of elections is exclusively with COMELEC. Such must be exercised with
caution and only if there is evidence that voters were disenfranchised due to violence,
intimidation and threats.

facts of the case

Benito and Pagayawan are candidates in the mayoralty elections in Calanogas, Lanao Del Sur. On the day
of elections, 30 armed men interrupted the voting by firing shots in Disimban Elementary School. As a result,
the voters panicked and scrambled for their safety.
Benito: After the incident, military forces took the ballot boxes and were taken to the municipal hall.
Voting did not resume after that.
Pagayawan: Voting resumed an hour after the armed men disappeared. No further disruptions were made
and elections were closed at 3pm. As evidence he submitted the final report of the acting election officer which
testified to such fact.
After the tabulation of votes, respondent won by a margin of 48 votes. The ballots in the enumerated
precints were excluded after petitioners objection that these arrived after the canvassing of 19 others.
Respondent was proclaimed mayor because even considering the excluded votes, the result of the elections
would not change.
Benito then asked that special elections be conducted because of the failure of elections. However
COMELEC did not grant the petition, instead it ordered that the votes in the 3 precints to be included in order
to proclaim the councilors. It also ordered for the respondent to be proclaimed.

issue
WON there was a failure of elections should be declared and special elections be conducted in Lanao del Sur?
NOPE.

ratio
COMELEC en banc has the exclusive power to postpone, declare a failure of election, or to call a special
one1. Sec 6 OEC provides that there is failure of elections when:
(1) It is not held on the date fixed in the, or
(2) suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of voting, or
(3) transmission of election returns resulted to a failure to elect

1 Sec. 6 OEC 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.
1
 Grounds: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes

Requisities: (1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts due to force majeure, violence or
terrorism; and (2) the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the election. (Hassan v.
COMELEC)

As applied, no failure of elections should be declared. Benito assails the report of the election officer,
saying that his signature therein is forged because:
1. The disparity in the time element in the initial and final reports SC dismissed the same stating the the
final report stated the time the incident occurred which is at 12pm, and not the time of the execution of
the reports.
2. Affidavits of Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) that the elections did not resume SC did not
appreciate them because both parties presented essentially the same documents but with different
contents. It adopted the findings of COMELEC that elections resumed after the disruption of 30 armed
men. SC gave credence to the report of Captain Maniquis attesting to that fact.
3. [IMPT] There should be failure of elections because of the low percentage of votes cast SC again
disregarded such argument because [t]here 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.
4. There is a failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sul SC said that the propriety of
declaring whether or not there has been a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del
Sur is a factual issue which this Court will not delve into considering that the COMELEC, through its
deputized officials in the field, is in the best position to assess the actual conditions prevailing in that
area.

The court also said that the power to annul elections should be exercised with utmost care. It must do so
only when violation of the law had been so fundamental or persistent that it is impossible to distinguish what
is lawful from what is not, or that many voters were disenfranchised due to violence, intimidation and threats.