In an 11-page decision penned by Associate Justice Angelina Gutierrez, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Taguig Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano questioning the recount proceedings, which was used as basis for declaring the cityhood of Taguig.
In his petition, Cayetano said that while he was not against the cityhood of Taguig, "it should be done through a fair count of votes and not by twisting the electoral will."
On April 25, 1998, the Comelec held a plebiscite for the proposed conversion of Taguig into a city as mandated by Republic Act 8487.
A day later, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC), without completing the canvass of 64 other election returns, declared that the "no" votes had prevailed, indicating that the people had rejected the conversion of Taguig into a city.
Upon order of the Comelec en banc, the PBOC reconvened and completed the canvass of the plebiscite returns and eventually proclaimed that the "no" votes still prevailed.
However, Taguig residents Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista, citing fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting of votes, filed with the Comelec a petition seeking to annul the results of the plebiscite with a prayer to revise and recount the ballots.
The Comelec treated their petition as an election protest and was raffled off to the Comelec’s second division.
Cayetano intervened in the case and filed a motion to dismiss Buac and Bautista’s petition on the ground that the Comelec had no jurisdiction over an action involving the conduct of a plebiscite.
He said a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election protest. The motion was granted and Buac and Bautista’s petition was dismissed.
The en banc affirmed the resolution, prompting Buac and Bautista to file with the High Court a petition for certiorari and mandamus naming Comelec and Cayetano as respondents.
On Jan. 26, 2004, the High Court reversed the Comelec’s resolution and declared that the controversy on the conduct of the Taguig plebiscite was a matter that involved the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a plebiscite.
The High Court said that under the Constitution, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Comelec, which is authorized "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall."
The Comelec was ordered to reinstate the petition seeking to annul the results of the 1998 Taguig plebiscite and to decide it without delay.
On Dec. 8, 2004, the Comelec en banc issued a resolution declaring and confirming the ratification and approval of the conversion of Taguig as a highly urbanized city.
Cayetano later filed a petition for certiorari, claiming that the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion when it issued an en banc resolution confirming the ratification of Taguig’s cityhood.
He said that the revision of the plebiscite ballots could not be relied upon for the determination of the will of the electorate because the revision was incomplete.
"Many irregularities, frauds and anomalies attended the revision proceedings," the lawmaker said.
In upholding the cityhood of Taguig, the High Court junked Cayetano’s contention that the revision committee canvassed only a total of 28,404 ballots with total of 15,802 votes for "yes" and a total of 12,602 votes for "no."
Cayetano’s tally was contrary to the result released by the Comelec, which had 21,105 residents voting "yes" and 19,460 voting "no" for a total of 40,565 ballots tallied.
The High Court said the results presented by the Comelec should be deemed final since the conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the Comelec.