ARADAIS V COMELEC G.R. No. 157863 - April 28, 2004 AC!

S" A double proclamation was made for the position of mayoralty of the Municipality of Lugus, Sulu in the May 14, 2001 election. A letter from the egional !lection "irector of egion #$, %amboanga &ity ad'ised &ol. (olentino that it is the respondent who won. (his prompted petitioner to file before the &)M!L!& a petition for the annulment of respondent*s proclamation with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary in+unction and,or temporary restraining order. An Ad -oc committee was established thereupon directed all parties to answer. espondent submitted a Manifestation to the Ad -oc &ommittee stating that the can'assing of 'otes was completed in the morning of May 1., 2001 in an orderly and peaceful manner after which he was proclaimed as mayor/elect0 and that the proclamation of petitioner proceeded from illegal acts of terrorism, intimidation and threats against &)& &hairman and Secretary. 1etitioner on the other hand alleged that while the can'assing had yet to be completed, respondent and his followers pressured and intimidated the members of the 2)& to proclaim him as the winner0 and that 2)& 1resident and Secretary succumbed to the threats and proclaimed respondent as mayor/elect, while 2)& member wal3ed out of the can'assing hall. After hearing the testimonies and the corresponding e'idence, the Ad -oc &ommittee pronounced the respondent the rightful mayor of Lugus, Sulu. -ence, this petition. ISS#E" 4hether or not &)M!L!& !n 2anc gra'ely abused its power and discretion when it delegated its constitutional duty to 5hear and decide6 pre/proclamation cases to a mere ad hoc committee. $ELD" 7). (he findings and recommendations of the Ad -oc &ommittee are merely ad'isory in nature and do not bind the &)M!L!&, especially in light of petitioner*s failure to present any e'idence that the &)M!L!& merely relied on said findings and recommendations and did not go o'er the records of the case to ma3e its own assessment. Absent any e'idence to the contrary then, the presumption of regular performance of an official duty stands. #t bears emphasis that the &)M!L!& has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means a'ailable to it. #n the case at bar, it was well within the &)M!L!&*s discretion to a'ail of the means it deemed effecti'e, such as re8uiring the parties to present their side through position papers and memoranda and conducting a clarificatory hearing wherein the members of the 2)& were re8uired to shed light on the two proclamations made. 2esides, it is a settled rule that the &)M!L!&*s +udgment cannot be o'erturned by this &ourt unless it is clearly tainted with gra'e abuse of discretion.