CCHOPE ELECTION 2001

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH NAMFREL, PPCRV, VOTECARE AND MAJOR MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS!

 

INCOMPLETE CANVASS OF VOTES IS ILLEGAL

Third. Petitioner contends that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to order petitioner to "cease and desist" from taking his oath of office as Mayor of Matanog considering that there was no pending pre-proclamation issue. Rtc-spped

Records show that on May 16, 1998 a certification was issued by the Office of the Election Officer, Matanog, Maguindanao, stating:24 [Rollo, p. 87.]

"Considering the number of voters whose precincts failed to function will materially affect the total results of elections, NO proclamation will be made until such time proper and legal to do so."

Despite the certification, the municipal board of canvassers proceeded to proclaim petitioner as the mayoral winner.

At the time the proclamation was made, the COMELEC had not yet resolved the Petition for Canvassing of Votes and Petition for Special Elections filed on May 22, 1998. Pursuant to Sections 24525 ["...The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party and any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election."] and 23826 ["If, after the canvass of all the said returns, it should be determined that the returns which have been set aside will affect the result of the election, no proclamation shall be made except upon orders of the Commission after due notice and hearing. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be null and void."] of the Omnibus Election Code, the Board of Canvassers should not have proclaimed any candidate absent the authorization from the COMELEC. Any proclamation made under such circumstances is void ab initio.27 [Ramon D. Duremdes v. Commission on Elections, 178 SCRA 747 (1989)]

An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation.28 [Datu Sukarno Samad v. Commission on Elections, 224 SCRA 631, 642 (1993)] A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted.29 [Duremdes v. Commission on Elections, 178 SCRA 746 (1989)] This is true when the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the election.30 [Emilio Caruncho III v. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No.135996, September 30, 1999.]

We note that the votes of petitioner totaled one thousand nine hundred and sixty one (1,961) while private respondent garnered a total of one thousand nine hundred thirty (1,930) votes. The difference was only thirty-one (31) votes. There were fourteen (14) precincts31 [The fourteen (14) precincts unaccounted for consisted of:

BARANGAY

PRECINCT NO.

NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS

Bayanga Sur

2-A
2-A1
27A & 2A8
2A10
2A6
2A9
2A11

200
200
244
101
200
200
200

Norte

1A
lA1
1A2
1A3
1A4

200
200
200
101
101

Bugasan Sur Sapad

4A5
6A1

200

TOTAL

 

2348]

unaccounted for whose total number of registered voters are two thousand three hundred and forty eight (2,348).32 [Rollo, p. 47.] Surely, these votes will affect the result of the election. Consequently, the non-inclusion of the 14 precincts in the counting disenfranchised the voters. Scl-aw

We therefore find that COMELEC had sufficient reason to suspend the proclamation of petitioner

 

En Banc, Ynares-Santiago, NASSER IMMAM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HADJI YUSOPH LIDASAN, respondents [G.R. No. 134167. January 20, 2000]

 



For any inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
Last Updated: Monday, April 23, 2001 09:01:43 AM