CASE DIGEST : VELORIA VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992

ATTY. RAMON J. VELORIA, ENGR. RENATO J. ESPEJO, JESUS O. BANDOLIN, SEGUNDO D. BILLOTE, GERONIMO B. ENRIQUEZ, RODOLFO C. MADRIAGA, and SOFRONIO L. MANGONON, and HON. ROMULO E. ABASOLO, as Presiding Judge-Designate, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, petitioners, 

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, composed of DARIO C. RAMA, Commissioner-Ponente, HAYDEE B. YORAC, Acting Chairperson, ALFREDO E. ABUEG, Commissioner, LEOPOLDO L. AFRICA, Commissioner, ANDRES R. FLORES, Commissioner, MAGDARA B. DIMAAMPAO, Commissioner, HON SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, ATTY. PEDRO N. SALES, ENGR. WILFREDO E. SORIANO, ERLINDA C. TAMBAOAN, ENGR. EMILIO M. ANGELES, JR., ELEUTERIO C. SISON, MANUEL FERRER and SANTOS SIBAYAN, respondents.

FACTS : The seven (7) petitioners, Ramon Veloria, Renato Espejo, Jesus Bandolin, Segundo Billote, Geronimo Enriquez, Rodolfo Madriaga and Sofronio Mangonon, as well as the seven (7) private respondents, Pedro Sales, Wilfredo Soriano, Erlinda Tambaoan, Emilio Angeles, Jr., Eleuterio Sison, Manuel Ferrer and Santos Sibayan were candidates for municipal mayor (Veloria and Sales), vice-mayor (Espejo and Soriano) and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Manaoag, Pangasinan, in the local elections of January 18, 1988.

After the canvass of the election returns on January 31, 1988, the private respondents were proclaimed duly elected to the positions they ran for.

Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed Election Protest No. U-4659 which was raffled to Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, then presided over by the late Hon. Alfredo de Vera.

Several proceedings were had, and some issues were brought up to the Court of Appeals and this Court for determination.

Finally, the revision of ballots was set on February 26, 1990 by Judge Santiago Estrella, Presiding Judge of Branch 49, Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, where the Election Protest No. U-4659 was re-assigned by raffle after Judge Vera's untimely death.

On February 26, 1990, during the scheduled initial revision of the ballots in Precinct No. 22, Barangay Licsi, the private respondents, as protestees, filed a "Motion to Dismiss" on the ground that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction

The petitioners-protestants opposed the Motion to Dismiss. On March 7, 1990, Judge Santiago Estrella dismissed the election protest

The petitioners received a copy of the court's Resolution on March 15, 1990. However, instead of perfecting an appeal within five (5) days as provided by law, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 20, 1990. On April 10, 1990, the private respondents filed a "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal" on the grounds

On May 10, 1990, Judge Abasolo gave due course to petitioners' Notice of Appeal.

The private respondents (as protestees) sought recourse in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by a petition for certiorari and Prohibition with a Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order (SPR No. 8-90) to annul Judge Abasolo's order giving due course to the appeal.

On June 14, 1990, the Commission en banc issued the following Order defining the issues:

After a thorough discussion of the issues, the following crystallized as the only issues to be presented for resolution by the Commission, namely: (1) the issue of whether or not a Motion for Reconsideration in electoral cases is a prohibited pleading; and (2) the parties agreed that in case the answer to the first issue is "yes," the notice of appeal was filed out of time and in case the answer is "no," the notice of appeal was filed on time.

On August 2, 1990, the COMELEC granted the petition for certiorari

Hence, this special civil action of Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, filed on August 31, 1990 by the petitioners (protestants below), pursuant to Rule 39, Section 1, COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE

ISSUE : WON the COMELEC Erred in Granting the petition

HELD : There is no merit in this petition for review for the COMELEC correctly found that the petitioners' appeal from the court's order dismissing their election protest was indeed tardy. It was tardy because their motion for reconsideration did not suspend their period to appeal. The petitioners' reliance on Section 4, Rule 19 of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE is misplaced. The "motion for reconsideration" referred to above is a motion for reconsideration filed in the COMELEC, not in the trial court where a motion for reconsideration is not entertained.

The COMELEC, therefore, correctly ruled that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners in the trial court on March 20, 1990 did not suspend the period to appeal since a "motion for reconsideration" is prohibited under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Since the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law

Nevertheless, we must grant this petition for certiorari for the COMELEC does not possess jurisdiction to grant the private respondents' petition for certiorari.

In view of this pronouncement, an original special civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against a regional trial court in an election contest may be filed only in the Court of Appeals or in this Court, being the only courts given such original jurisdiction under the Constitution and the law.

CASE DIGEST : CASTAMAYOR VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 120426 November 23, 1995

NICOLAS C. CASTROMAYOR, petitioner, 

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALINOG, ILOILO, respondents.

FACTS : Petitioner was a candidate for a seat in the eight-member Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality of Calinog, Iloilo in the elections held on May 8, 1995.

After the votes had been cast, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) convened at 6:00 p.m. of that day and began the canvass of the election returns from the different precincts in the municipality. The canvassing lasted well into the night of May 9, 1995. The totals of the votes cast were checked by the Municipal Accountant who acted as recorder of votes.

On May 10, 1995, the winners were proclaimed on the basis of the results of the canvass which showed that petitioner received 5,419 votes and took eighth place in the election for members of the Sangguniang Bayan

As matters stood, therefore the total number of votes cast for Demorito was 5,470, or 51 more than the 5,419 votes cast for petitioner.

As matters stood, therefore the total number of votes cast for Demorito was 5,470, or 51 more than the 5,419 votes cast for petitioner.

Garin reported the matter to the Regional Election Director, Atty. Rodolfo Sarroza, who advised her to request authority from the COMELEC to reconvene for the purpose of correcting the error.

On May 13, 1995, a fax letter was sent to the Law Department of the COMELEC in Manila. The letter explained the problem and asked for authority for the MBC to reconvene in order to correct the error, annul the proclamation of petitioner and proclaim Demorito as the eighth member of the Sangguniang Bayan.

A formal letter was later sent to the COMELEC on May 17, 1995.

On May 23, 1995, the COMELEC issued the following resolution

On May 25, 1995, not yet apprised of the resolution of the COMELEC en banc, Garin sent a letter to petitioner Castromayor, informing him of the error in the computation of the totals and of the request made by the MBC for permission to reconvene to correct the error.

Petitioner protested the proposed action in a letter dated June 5, 1995 to COMELEC Executive Director Resurreccion A. Borra. He questioned the legality of the actuations of Garin as stated in her letter.6

On June 9, 1995, the MBC was informed by fax of the COMELEC's action on its request.7

Accordingly on June 14, 1995, the MBC sent notices to the parties concerned that it was going to reconvene on June 22, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan, to make a correction of errors.

Hence this petition to annul COMELEC Resolution No. 95-2414.

ISSUE : WON the comelec erred in issuing  the resolution in question without notice and hearing, solely on the basis of the fax letter of the MBC.

To be sure, the COMELEC did not itself annul the proclamation of petitioner, but, by "direct[ing] the Municipal Board of Canvassers of said municipality to reconvene to annul the proclamation of Nicolas C. Castromayor," the COMELEC in effect did so. After all, the authority of the COMELEC was sought because, without such authority, the MBC would not have the power to annul the proclamation of petitioner.

The proceedings before the MBC should be summary. Should any party be dissatisfied with the ruling of the MBC, the party concerned shall have a right to appeal to the COMELEC en banc, in accordance with Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

Athough this provision applies to preproclamation controversies and here the proclamation of petitioner has already been made, there is nothing to suggest that it cannot be applied to cases like the one at bar, in which the validity of the proclamation is precisely in question. On the contrary, in Duremdes v. COMELEC, 11 this Court sustained the power of the COMELEC en banc to order a correction of the Statement of Votes to make it conform to the election returns in accordance with a procedure similar to the procedure now embodied in Rule 27, §7. If the Rule was not applied, it was only because it was adopted after that case had arisen. Otherwise, as we said there, this procedure "best recommends itself specially considering that the Statement of Votes is a vital component in the electoral process."

Indeed, since the Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation. It begs the question, therefore, to say that this is not a preproclamation controversy and the procedure for preproclamation controversies cannot be applied to the correction in the computation of the totals in the Statement of Votes.

It should be pointed out, in this connection, that what is involved here is a simple problem of arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. In making the correction in computation, the MBC will be acting in an administrative capacity, under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence any question pertaining to the proceedings of the MBC may be raised directly to the COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections.

CASE DIGEST : DUMAYAS CS COMELEC

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 141952-53. April 20, 2001]

RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARLES, PROVINCE OF ILOILO and FELIPE BERNAL, JR., respondents.

FACTS : Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates for the position of mayor in Carles, Iloilo last 11 May 1998 synchronized elections.

During the canvassing on 13 May 1998, election returns for precinct nos. 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan was protested for inclusion in the canvass before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC for brevity) by petitioner-appellant Dumayas Jr. The grounds relied upon for their exclusion are all the same- that is, "violation of Secs. 234, 235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws; acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts prohibited by law."

On the other hand, respondent Bernal, Jr. in vehemently denying the allegations of petitioner, submitted joint affidavits of the members of the different Boards of Election Inspectors for precinct nos. 61A, 62A and 63A/64A.

Nody Mahilum and PO3 Gilbert Sorongon also executed a joint affidavit denying the accusations of Dumayas, Jr. and his watchers stating therein that they only entered their respective precinct-polling place in order to exercise their right of suffrage and that the election in the three precincts of Barangay Pantalan was orderly, peaceful, and honest which (sic) truly reflects the will of the electorate.

In the afternoon of May 14, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioner’s objection to the inclusion of the contested returns and proceeded with the canvass. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998. The appeal was given due course by the COMELEC Second Division3 which rendered a resolution dated August 4, 1998,

On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.

Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division, Election Officer Rolando Dalen set the reconvening of the MBC on August 13, 1998, for the continuation of canvass proceedings and proclamation of winning candidates for Vice-Mayor and Municipal Councilors of Carles, Iloilo. No winner for the position of Mayor was proclaimed since private respondent was able to present a copy of his motion for reconsideration before the MBC

On August 17, 1998, despite presentation of the August 12, 1998 order, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the election after excluding from the canvass the election returns from the three contested precincts in accordance with the COMELEC Second Division Resolution.

Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo warranto5 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 66. Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141, said petition included respondent Bernal as one of the petitioners together with Vice-Mayor Betita.

On September 18, 1998, petitioner filed before the COMELEC en banc a motion to expunge respondent Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and motion to declare petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio, on the ground that respondent Bernal should be deemed to have abandoned said motions by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 which, according to petitioner, is a formal election protest via quo warranto brought before the regular courts.

In a resolution dated August 24, 1999 but promulgated on March 2, 2000, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion to expunge

On March 13, 2000, respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by the newly-constituted Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality of Carles, thereby unseating petitioner Dumayas.

Hence, this instant special civil action

ISSUE : WON the COMELEC err in ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvassing of ballots

HELD : As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation

the general rule is not absolute. It admits of certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and (e) the proclamation was null and void.

Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its discretion, when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner’s proclamation as void ab initio. Note that under the allegations cited above, the determination of Betita’s right would ultimately hinge on the validity of petitioner’s proclamation in the first place. To repeat, the "quo warranto" petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition to annul petitioner’s proclamation over which COMELEC exercises original exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, it could not be deemed as a proper remedy in favor of respondent Bernal, Jr. even if his name was included in the title of said petition.

Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of fact by the COMELEC, or any other administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on this Court.18 In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns which are on their face regular and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper remedy is a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.1

In the present case, petitioner barely alleged that the preparation of said returns was attended by threats, duress, intimidation or coercion without offering any proof, other than the affidavits mentioned above, that these had affected the regularity or genuineness of the contested returns. Absent any evidence appearing on the face of the returns that they are indeed spurious, manufactured or tampered with, the election irregularities cited by petitioner would require the reception of evidence aliunde which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy such as the one initiated by petitioner. Returns can not be excluded on mere allegation that the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face, appear regular and without any physical signs of tampering, alteration or other similar vice. If there had been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal through falsification of the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy.20

In sum, we hold that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second Division. The appeal brought by petitioner from the order of inclusion issued by the MBC should have been dismissed by that Division right away, since the grounds for exclusion relied upon by petitioner are not proper in a pre-proclamation case, which is summary in nature

CASE DIGEST : LAGUMBAY VS COMELEC

G.R. No. L-25444             January 31, 1966

WENCESLAO RANCAP LAGUMBAY, petitioner, 

vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CESAR CLIMACO, respondents.

FACTS : This petition prays for revision of an order of the Commission on Elections declining to reject the returns of certain precincts of some municipalities in Mindanao. The Constitution provides for review by this Court of the rulings of the said Commission.

The matter being urgent, and having reached the conclusion that the returns of certain questioned precincts were "obviously manufactured" within the meaning of pertinent jurisprudence, particularly Mitchell v. Stevens,1 we issued on December 24, 1965, a short resolution upholding the Commission's power and duty to reject the returns of about fifty precincts. It appearing therein that — contrary to all statistical probabilities — in the first set, in each precinct the number of registered voters equalled the number of ballots and the number of votes reportedly cast and tallied for each and every candidate of the Liberal Party, the party in power; whereas, all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party got exactly zero; and in the second set, — again contrary to all statistical probabilities — all the reported votes were for candidates of the Liberal Party, all of whom were credited with exactly the same number of votes in each precinct, ranging from 240 in one precinct to 650 in another precinct; whereas, all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party were given exactly zero in all said precincts.

ISSUE WON FRAUD WAS COMMITED IN THE ELECTION

HELD : The same ratio decidendi applies to the situation in the precincts herein mentioned. These returns were obviously false or fabricated — prima facie. Let us take for example, precinct No. 3 of Andong, Lanao del Sur. There were 648 registered voters. According to such return all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party got 648 each,3 and the eight Nacionalista candidates got exactly zero. We hold such return to be evidently fraudulent or false because of the inherent improbability of such a result — against statistical probabilities — specially because at least one vote should have been received by the Nacionalista candidates, i.e., the vote of the Nacionalista inspector. It is, of course, "possible" that such inspector did not like his party's senatorial line-up; but it is not probable that he disliked all of such candidates, and it is not likely that he favored all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party. Therefore, most probably, he was made to sign an obviously false return, or else he betrayed his party, in which case, the election therein — if any — was no more than a barefaced fraud and a brazen contempt of the popular polls.

Of course we agree that frauds in the holding of the election should be handled — and finally settled — by the corresponding courts or electoral tribunals. That is the general rule, where testimonial or documentary evidence, is necessary; but where the fraud is so palpable from the return itself (res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself), there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value.

At any rate, fraud or no fraud, the verdict in these fifty precincts may ultimately be ascertained before the Senate Electoral Tribunal.4 All we hold now, is that the returns show "prima facie" that they do not reflect true and valid reports of regular voting. The contrary may be shown by candidate Climaco — in the corresponding election protest.

The well-known delay in the adjudication of election protests often gave the successful contestant a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire, or has expired. And so the notion has spread among candidates for public office that the "important thing" is the proclamation; and to win it, they or their partisans have tolerated or abetted the tampering or the "manufacture" of election returns just to get the proclamation, and then let the victimized candidate to file the protest, and spend his money to work for an empty triumph.

It is generally admitted that the practice has prevailed in all previous elections. Never was the point pressed upon us in a more clear-cut manner. And without, in any way, modifying our stand as outlined in the Nacionalista Party vs. Commission decision, we feel the mores of the day require application — even extension — of the principle in the Mitchell decision, which is realistic and common sensical even as it strikes a blow at such pernicious "grab - the - proclamation - prolong - the - protest" slogan of some candidates or parties.

It is strongly urged that the results reported in these returns are quite "possible", bearing in mind the religious or political control of some leaders in the localities affected. We say, possible, not probable. It is possible to win the sweepstakes ten times; but not probable. Anyway, judges are not disposed to believe that such "control" has proved so powerful as to convert the electors into mere sheep or robots voting as ordered. Their reason and conscience refuse to believe that 100% of the voters in such precincts abjectly yet lawfully surrendered their precious freedom to choose the senators of this Republic.

Indeed, social scientists might wonder whether courts could, consistently with morality and public policy,5 render judgment acknowledging such "control" or validating such "controlled votes" as candidate Climaco chose to call them.

CASE DIGEST : OLFATO VS COMELEC

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

CASE DIGEST : BETERINA VS COMELEC

G.R. Nos. 95347-49 January 6, 1992

SALACNIB F. BATERINA, CANDIDO BALBIN, GUILLERMO BALLESTEROS, NATHANIEL ESCOBAR, BENJAMIN GALAPIA, LEONARDO ROLDAN, FILEMON SISON, ERWIN REYES-ULEP, EVELYN VALDEZ, OCTAVIO VILLANUEVA, COALITION FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT OF ILOCOS SUR, AND LAKAS NG BANSA, petitioners, 

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EVARISTO "TITONG" SINGSON, CARIDAD ALCANTARA, MARIANO TAJON, WINSTON AGUIRRE, HEREDIO BELLO, BENJAMIN BUGARIN, TERESITA CORDERO, JOSE DIVINA, RODOLFO GALIMA, DEOGRACIAS VICTOR SAVELLANO, VICTOR VILORIA and AND THE PROVINCIAL BOARD CANVASSERS OF ILOCOS SUR, respondents.

Facts : Petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina was a candidate for Governor of Ilocos Sur in the special local elections held on 25 January 1988. The other petitioners, Octavio Villanueva and Evelyn Valdez, Felimon Sison, Leonardo Roldan, Gil Ballesteros, Benjamin Galapia, Erwin Reyes-Ulep, and Nathaniel Escobar, were candidates for Vice Governor and Provincial Board Members, respectively, in the same local elections. Petitioners ran under the banner of the Lakas ng Bansa. Private respondent Evaristo Singson, on the other hand, was also a candidate for Governor of Ilocos Sur. Private respondent Mariano Tajon was a candidate for Vice Governor. The rest of the private respondents were candidates for the other disputed positions.

In the course of the canvass proceedings, verbal objections were raised by petitioners to certain election returns based on the grounds mentioned in Sections 233 (lost or destroyed election returns), 234 (material defects in the election returns), 235 (tampered or falsified election returns) and 236 (discrepancies in election returns), in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt and custody of the election returns. The objections were aimed at excluding the election returns from the canvass.

The BOARD, in several Resolutions dated 29, 30 and 31 January 1988, denied the objections and protests of petitioners mainly on the ground that the alleged defects of the election returns were merely formal and did not affect their authenticy, validity and genuineness as to warrant their exclusion from the canvass. Petitioners filed with the BOARD notices of appeal from its rulings.

On 30 January 1988, petitioners filed with the COMELEC a "Petition Contesting the Legality of the Proceedings of the Board of Canvassers with Motion to Restrain Canvassing and Proclamation and/or Suspend the Effects of any Proclamation," docketed as SPC No. 88-453 and assigned to the First Division (Suspension of Proclamation Case). The Petition sought the suspension of the canvassing and proclamation of any winning candidate.

On 31 January 1988 the BOARD issued the "Certification of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates for Provincial Offices, January 18, 1988 Elections," proclaiming respondents Evaristo C. Singson as the duly elected Governor of Ilocos Sur, Mariano M. Tajon as Vice Governor and the others as Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province.

On 23 March 1985, the First Division of the COMELEC issued a Minute Resolution dismissing the Suspension of Proclamation Case (SPC No. 88-453) filed on 30 January 1988, on the ground that the winning candidates had already been proclaimed on "21 January 1988" (should be 31 January 1988). It advised the petitioners to file instead an election protest with the COMELEC if desired

Petitioners appealed the dismissal of the Petition alleging error in that the proclamation was made on 31 January 1988, not 21 January, as stated in the First Division Resolution. Petitioners also alleged that the First Division failed to consider the other petition filed by them in the same SPC No. 88-453, dated 9 February 1988, thereby effectively dismissing said petition without notice and hearing in violation of Sections 242 and 246 of the Omnibus Election Code.

On 5 June 1989, the Second Division of the COMELEC promulgated a decision in SPC Nos. 88-490 and 88-506 (Rollo, p. 124) dismissing petitioners' "Appeal" and "Appeal Memorandum" on the ground that no substantial objection had been raised against the election returns in accordance with Sections 233-236 and Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code.

On 10 June 1989, petitioners appealed the Decision of the Second Division (in SPC Nos. 88-490 and 88-506) to the COMELEC en banc. On 6 September 1990, that body issued a per curiam Resolution, in SPC Nos. 88-453, 58-490, and 88-506, dismissing petitioners' appeals from the rulings rendered by its First and Second Divisions on the ground that no genuine pre-proclamation controversies had been raised by petitioners.

That dismissal prompted petitioners to avail of these Certiorari proceedings.

ISSUE : WON the COMELEC be faulted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dismissal of the Suspension of Proclamation Case (SPC No. 88-453) and of petittoners' "Appeals" (SPC Nos. 88-490 and 88-506) ordered by its First and Second Divisions respectively

HELD : The Court thinks not. The Suspension of Proclamation Case, filed on 30 January, 1988 (SPC No. 88-453), was dismissed by the First Division considering "that the winning candidates have been proclaimed on January 21, 1988"

The grounds raised by petitioners for the exclusion of the election returns from the canvassing, as stated in their "Appeal Memorandum" before the COMELEC (Rollo, p. 92), refer to the failure to close the entries with the signatures of the election inspectors; lack of inner and outer paper seals; canvassing by the BOARD of copies not intended for it; lack of time and date of receipt by the BOARD of election returns; lack of signatures of petitioners' watchers; and lack of authority of the person receiving the election returns.

While the aforesaid grounds may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules governing the preparation and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the subject election returns as to warrant their exclusion from the canvassing. The grounds for objection to the election returns made by petitioners are clearly defects in form insufficient to support a conclusion that the election returns were tampered with or spurious. "A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof" (Estrada v. Navarro, L-28340, 29 December 1967, 21 SCRA 1514). It is only when the election returns are palpably irregular that they may be rejected (Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, L-28517, 21 February 1968, 22 SCRA 662). On the basis of formal defects alone, such palpable irregularity can not be said to have been established herein.

The foregoing provision negates the contention that an election return is spurious owing to the failure of a watcher to affix his signature. Under this provision, a watcher signs the election returns only if he is available. If he is not, or is unwilling, or refuses to sign them, any other watcher present may be required to sign. In this case, the signature of any watcher present is not even a mandatory requirement as can be gleaned from the text of the provision. In other words, while the signing of an election return by a watcher is a measure intended to discourage the preparation of falsified returns, the absence of said signature does not give rise to a presumption that the election returns are manufactured or spurious and should consequently be excluded in the canvass. Otherwise, a party's watcher can easily cause the nullification of election returns reflecting results unfavorable to the candidate he is representing by simply refusing to sign the returns.

In fine, the BOARD correctly included the contested election returns in the canvass as they did not suffer from any serious infirmities affecting their integrity. It is the "ministerial function of a board of canvassers to count the results as they appear in the returns which on their face does not reveal any irregularities nor falsities" (Demafiles v. Commission on Elections, L-28396, 29 December 1967, 21 SCRA 1462).

Petitioners also assail the dismissal of their petitions by the COMELEC without hearing. Suffice it to cite the ruling in Ilarde v. Commission on Elections, (L-31446, 23 January 1970, 31 SCRA 72) that "canvass proceedings are administrative and summary in nature, and a strong prima facie case backed up by a specific offer of the evidence and indication of its nature and importance has to be made out to warrant the reception of evidence aliunde and the presentation of witnesses and the delays necessarily entailed thereby. Otherwise, the paralyzation of canvassing and proclamation leading to a vacuum in an important office could easily be brought about." In their case before us, the petitions and appeals filed by petitioners in their pre-proclamation cases before the COMELEC did not even point prima facie to a tampering of election returns, nor to returns with patent erasures and superimpositions, but merely raised objections based on defects that are, at best, formal in nature. The COMELEC, therefore, did not gravely abuse its discretion in concluding that in the absence of genuine pre-proclamation issues a full-blown hearing was rendered unnecessary.

CASED DIGEST : PIMENTEL VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 178413             March 13, 2008

AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III, petitioner, 

vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC SITTING AS THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, THE SPECIAL PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR MAGUINDANAO CHAIRED BY ATTY. EMILIO S. SANTOS, and JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI, respondents.

Facts : The Petition stemmed from the 14 May 2007 national elections for 12 senatorial posts. At the time of filing of the Petition, around two months after the said elections, the 11 candidates with the highest number of votes had already been officially proclaimed and had taken their oaths of office as Senators. With other candidates conceding, the only remaining contenders for the twelfth and final senatorial post were Pimentel and private respondent Juan Miguel F. Zubiri (Zubiri). Public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc, acting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), continued to conduct canvass proceedings so as to determine the twelfth and last Senator-elect in the 14 May 2007 elections.

Pimentel assailed the proceedings before the NBC and its constituted Special Provincial Board of Canvassers for Maguindanao (SPBOC-Maguindanao) in which the Provincial and Municipal Certificates of Canvass (PCOC and MCOCs) from the province of Maguindanao were respectively canvassed. The SPBOC-Maguindanao was created because the canvass proceedings held before the original Provincial Board of Canvassers for Maguindanao (PBOC-Maguindanao)

Task Force Maguindanao, headed by COMELEC Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. and Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer, retrieved and collected 21 MCOCs from the municipalities of Maguindanao, mostly copy 2, or the copy intended to be posted on the wall. Due to the consistent denial by the SPBOC-Maguindanao of the repeated and persistent motions made by Pimentel’s counsel to propound questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao regarding the due execution and authenticity of the Maguindanao MCOCs, Pimentel’s counsel manifested her continuing objection to the canvassing of the said MCOCs.

On 29 June 2007, the SPBOC-Maguindanao submitted to the NBC the second PCOC for Maguindanao. In the proceedings before the NBC, Pimentel’s counsel reiterated her request to propound questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and the SPBOC-Maguindanao. The NBC, however, refused to grant her request. Pimentel’s counsel thereafter moved for the exclusion of the second Maguindanao PCOC from the canvass

Pimentel averred that said canvass proceedings were conducted by the NBC and SPBOC-Maguindanao in violation of his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process and equal protection of the laws, and in obvious partiality to Zubiri

In the meantime, without any TRO and/or Status Quo Ante Order from the Court, the canvass proceedings before the NBC continued, and by 14 July 2007, Zubiri (with 11,004,099 votes) and Pimentel (with 10,984,807 votes) were respectively ranked as the twelfth and thirteenth Senatorial candidates with the highest number of votes in the 14 May 2007 elections.

After a close scrutiny of the allegations, arguments, and evidence presented by all the parties before this Court, this Court rules to dismiss the present Petition

ISSUE

HELD : A pre-proclamation controversy has been defined by Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, as follows:

SEC. 241. Definition. – A pre-proclamation controversy is any question pertaining to or affecting the proceeding of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appearance of the election returns.

Under Republic Act No. 7166, providing for synchronized national and local elections, pre-proclamation controversies refer to matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appearance of election returns and certificates of canvass

Similarly, the COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC for the election for Senators, did not violate Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, when it denied Pimentel’s request to question PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and SPBOC-Maguindanao, and his subsequent motion to exclude the second Maguindanao PCOC.

The SPBOC-Maguindanao, in the conduct of its canvass proceedings, properly refused to allow Pimentel to contest the Maguindanao MCOCs at that stage by questioning PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and presenting evidence to prove the alleged manufactured nature of the said MCOCs, for such would be tantamount to a pre-proclamation case still prohibited by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, even after its amendment by Republic Act No. 9369.

According to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, Congress and the COMELEC en banc, acting as the NBC, shall determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President and Senators, respectively, as accomplished and transmitted to them by the local boards of canvassers. For the province of Maguindanao, it is the PBOC which transmits the PCOC to the NBC.

Given the foregoing, there is indeed no merit in Pimentel’s request before the NBC to still question PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and SPBOC-Maguindanao regarding the Maguindanao MCOCs. There is also no reason to exclude the second Maguindanao PCOC from the national canvass of votes for Senators after its authenticity and due execution had been determined by the NBC in accordance with the criteria provided by the law.

This Court finds Pimentel’s argument of deprivation of due process problematic since he has not established what he is being deprived of: life, liberty, or property. He was a candidate in the senatorial elections. At the time he filed the instant Petition, he might have been leading in the canvassing of votes, yet the canvass proceedings were still ongoing, and no winner for the twelfth and last senatorial post had been proclaimed. May he already claim a right to the elective post prior to the termination of the canvass proceedings and his proclamation as winner, and may such a right be considered a property right which he cannot be deprived of without due process? These were clearly substantial and weighty issues which Pimentel did not address. Unfortunately, this Court cannot argue and settle them for him.

Finally, while Section 15, in relation to Section 30, of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, did introduce an additional exception to the prohibition against pre-proclamation controversies in elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators, this Court has already established in the preceding discussion that Pimentel cannot invoke the same in his Petition. The provisions in question did not materially change the nature of canvass proceedings before the boards of canvassers, which still remain summary and administrative in nature for the purpose of canvassing the votes and determining the elected official with as little delay as possible and in time for the commencement of the new term of office