Dibaratun vs.

COMELEC  after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns
[G.R. No. 170365; February 2, 2010] or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on
Topic: POWER TO ENFORCE AND ADMINISTER ALL ELECTION LAWS account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.
Petitioners: ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN  Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of elections,
Respondents: COMELEC, ABUBAKAR two conditions must concur:
Ponente: J. Peralta  no voting took place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if
there was voting, the election resulted in a failure to elect; and
 the votes not cast would have affected the result of the elections. The cause of such
FACTS:
failure of election could only be any of the following: force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.
 Abubakar filed before the COMELEC a petition for declaration of failure of elections in an
 the affidavits submitted by the witnesses of the petitioner all state that it is respondent
election precinct, and annul the proclamation of Dibaratun as Punong Barangay.
Dibaratun and his followers and relatives who were the cause of the violence which
 Abubakar alleged that Dibaratun’s son entered the polling place possessing filled up ballots
resulted in the suspension of the election after only ten (10) people managed to vote.
with intent of placing them in the ballot box.
 The COMELEC en banc ruled that since both parties agreed that the elections were
 When he was confronted, Dibaratun’s son committed violence, causing commotion and
suspended before the hour fixed by law due to violence caused by undetermined persons,
thereby stopping the polls, with only 10 out of 151 registered voters having voted.
there was obviously a failure of elections in the aforementioned precinct.
 Despite the number of voters, the Board of Election Inspectors, who were allegedly in
 As to the question of filing the petition within time, the reglementary period contended by
connivance with Dibaratun, canvassed the votes and proclaimed Dibaratun as the winner.
petitioner does not apply for this petition. The action to declare failure of elections
 COMELEC granted the petition, and ordered Dibaratun to meanwhile act as Punong
is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor election contest.
Barangay until the special elections.
.
 Dibaratun filed petition for certiorari with the SC, contending that the petition was filed
outside the reglementary period of 10 days from proclamation, and that there was grave
abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC

ISSUE:

WON the declaration of failure of election was made properly by the COMELEC.

HELD: YES

 The 1987 Constitution vests in the COMELEC the broad power to enforce all the laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of elections, as well as the plenary authority to decide
all questions affecting elections except the question as to the right to vote.
 In its Resolution, the COMELEC en banc, citing Banaga, Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, enumerated the three instances when a failure of elections may be declared by
the Commission:
 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;
 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; or