G.R. No. L-52749 March 31, 1981
SOTERO OLFATO, MAURO V. BARADAS, CIRIACO L. PADILLA, MANUEL S. GONZALES, CECILIO F. HERNANDEZ LUCIO P. MENDOZA, JR., BENEDICTO C. MAGSINO, and BIENVENIDO P. TRINIDAD, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO E. LIRIO, respondents.
FACTS : In the local elections
held last January 30, 1980, petitioner Sotero Olfato was the official candidate
of the Nacionalista Party (NP) for Mayor of Tanauan, Batangas. The other
petitioners were the official NP candidates for Members, Sangguniang Bayan, in
the same municipality. Respondent Francisco E. Lirio, on the other hand, was
the official candidate of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) for mayor of said
town.
In the canvass of votes cast
in Tanauan, Batangas by the Tanauan Municipal Board of Canvassers, petitioner
Olfato and respondent Lirio obtained the following votes:
Sotero Olfato..................................... 15,293
Francisco E.
Lirio.............................. 13,714
On the basis of the results of
its canvass of votes, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tanauan, Batangas,
proclaimed on February 5, 1980 petitioner Olfato and the rest of the
petitioners as the duly elected Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan,
On February 6, 1980,
petitioners took their oaths of office as Mayor and as Members, Sangguniang
Bayan of Tanauan, Batangas, before Notary Public Roberto P. Laurel.
Earlier, on February 2, 1980
or three (3) days before petitioners were proclaimed, respondent Lirio,
together with the candidates on his ticket for Vice Mayor and Members of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Tanauan, Batangas, filed with respondent Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) a petition for suspension of canvass and of proclamation of
"Winning candidates" for the elective positions of Tanauan, which was
docketed as Pre-proclamation Case No. 118,
Thus, in said petition, Lirio
alleged that around 3,000 fake voters using forms allegedly misinterpreting
paragraph 2 of Section 13 of Resolution No. 1410 of the COMELEC
Consequently, respondent urged
for the suspension of the canvass of election returns prior to the
identification and the segregation of the alleged fake ballots from the genuine
ballots. Hence, Lirio prayed inter alia that an order be issued for the
suspension of the canvass of the votes and the proclamation of "winning
candidates" for the positions of Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilors of
Tanauan, Batangas;
On February 13, 1980,
respondent Commission issued Minute Resolution No. 9092 in P. P. Case No. 118,
suspending the effects of the proclamation of herein petitioners as duly
elected Mayor and Members, Sangguniang Bayan of Tanauan, Batangas
On February 15, 1980,
respondent Lirio filed with the Court of First Instance of Batangas an election
protest ex abundante ad cautela against petitioner Olfato
Hence, in view of the
promulgation by respondent Commission of Minute Resolution No. 9119, herein petitioners
filed with respondent Commission on February 18, 1980, an urgent motion for
reconsideration of Minute Resolution No. 9092
On February 23, 1980, after
the lapse of the five (5) day period within which therein respondents
(petitioners herein) were required to answer as per Resolution No. 9092, and
after their failure to do so, respondent Commission, in a telegram-notice dated
February 23, 1980, to respondent Lirio's counsel, granted the prayer in the
opposition to the motion for reconsideration when it set the case "FOR
HEARING ON 5 MARCH 1980 AT 10:00 A.M. AT THE SESSION HALL COMELEC MANILA."
On February 27, 1980,
Guillermo L. Roxas and Melquiades Salisi, NP candidates for Vice Mayor and
Member, Sangguniang Bayan, respectively, were proclaimed as duly elected
officials in their respective positions. On February 28, 1980, they took their
oaths of office.
On February 28, 1980, this
Court in a resolution required respondents to comment and not to file a motion
to dismiss within ten (10) days from notice
On February 29, 1980,
petitioner Olfato filed with respondent Commission an opposition to respondent
Lirio's urgent motion for reconsideration
On March 3, 1980, petitioners
assumed their respective offices pursuant to Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
52. On March 12, 1980, respondent Commission adopted, approved and promulgated
Minute Resolution No. 9558
RESOLVED AS IT HEREBY RESOLVES
to dismiss the petition and to reinstate the proclamation made by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers in favor of the respondent and his entire ticket, without
prejudice to other legal remedies under the Election Code of 1978, including
the prosecution of the Criminal offenses, if warranted.
On March 21, 1980, petitioners
filed with this Court the instant amended petition seeking to review and set
aside Minute Resolution No. 9558, adopted by respondent Commission on March 12,
ISSUE : WON the Comelec erred
in adopting MInute resolution 9558
HELD : It is therefore clear from the above-quoted
provisions that Section 172 speaks of material defects in the election returns,
Section 173 speaks of tampered, altered or falsified returns and Section 174
speaks of discrepancies of election returns.
this Court empowered the
Commission on Elections to nullify certain contested returns on the ground of
"statistical improbabilities", when WE sustained the authority of the
Commission to examine voting records, the number of ballots and the number of
votes reportedly cast and tallied for each and every candidate, when the
returns are obviously false or fabricated. In said case, WE, adopted "a
practical approach to the Commissions mission to insure a free and honest
elections" by denying prima facie recognition to the election returns on
the ground that they were manifestly manufactured or falsified.
Thus, this Court concluded
that where all the evidence and circumstances point to a systematic plan of
allowing persons who were not registered voters to cast their ballots in all
the precincts of a certain municipality and to count such spurious ballots and
take them into account in the returns, there is no alternative but to consider
said returns as deliberately prepared with a view to alter the true results of
the voting, through either malice or coercion. The returns thereby become false
or falsified.
Thus, it becomes clear from
the above rulings that respondent Commission on Elections has the power and
authority to inquire into the allegation of fake voters, with fake Ids
Identification slips in a pre-proclamation controversy in order to determine
the authenticity or integrity of the election returns or whether such election
returns faithfully record that only registered or genuine electors were allowed
to vote
Section 175 (first sentence)
of the 1978 Election Code explicitly provides that "the Commission shall
be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its
decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory" (emphasis
supplied)
The law says "all,"
and therefore covers all pre-proclamation tion controversies involving
national, provincial, city and municipal elective officials. The law does not
distinguish nor contain qualifications. To give a strict interpretation of
Section 175 (second sentence) of the 1978 Election Code would be to limit the
grounds in pre-proclamation controversies to matters purely affecting election
returns. WE believe that to revert to the old doctrine prohibiting the Comelec
from looking behind the election returns as to the existence of election
irregularities is not consistent with the very purpose of the law.
Hence, once there is a prima
facie showing of the commission of other election irregularities which will
ultimately be reflected in the election returns, the Comelec should in a pre-
proclamation controversy, with due observance of due process of course, be also
authorized to suspend canvass, Suspend or annul a proclamation of a
candidate-elect, for it smacks of absurdity to proscribe the commission of one
kind of irregularity and yet countenance another kind of irregularity, when
both irregularities make a mockery of suffrage.
It must be observed further,
that there is no plausible reason to prohibit an aggrived candidate from filing
an objection regarding the election returns directly, before the Comelec itself
if the election irregularities that vitiate the integrity of the election
returns are not apparent upon their faces. The reason is obvious — "the
board of canvassers exists for a specific function — that is, to canvass the
result of the elec- tion as shown in the election returns and to proclaim the
winning candidates. Once this specific function had been perform- ed the
existence of the board of canvassers is ended or terminated
No comments:
Post a Comment