|
|
|
|
JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW AND DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS
The authority to rule on petitions for correction
of manifest error is vested in the COMELEC en banc. Section
7 of Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure32
[Took effect on February 15, 1993.] provides
that if the error is discovered before proclamation, the board of
canvassers may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any
candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political
parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed. The
aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the board to the Commission and
said appeal shall be heard and decided by the Commission en banc. Section
5, however of the same rule states that a petition for correction of
manifest error may be filed directly with the Commission en banc provided
that such errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing
despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of , the winning
candidate had already been made. Thus, we held in Ramirez vs.
COMELEC:33 [270
SCRA 590 (1997)] En Banc,
Justice Puno, FEDERICO
S. SANDOVAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CANUTO
SENEN A. ORETA, respondents
[G.R. No.133842. January 26, 2000] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
On the first issue, we uphold the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over the petitions filed by private respondent. As a general rule, candidates and registered political parties involved in an election are allowed to file pre-proclamation cases before the COMELEC. Pre-proclamation cases refer to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings 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 appreciation of election returns.24 [Section 241, Omnibus Election Code.] The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies.25 [Section 242, supra.] As an exception, however, to the general rule, Section 15 of Republic Act (RA) 716626 [An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for other Purposes, approved by the House of Representatives on November 18, 1991 and by the Senate on November 20, 1991.] prohibits candidates in the presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and congressional elections from filing pre-proclamation cases.27 [See Pangilinan vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 36 (1993); Chavez vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315 (1992)] It states: "Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation
Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and
Members of the House of Representatives.-- For purposes
of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the
House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on
matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the
case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the
appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint
of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of
canvass or election returns before it."
The prohibition aims to avoid delay in the
proclamation of the winner in the election, which delay might result in a
vacuum in these sensitive posts.28
[See Sanchez vs. COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67 (1987)] The law,
nonetheless, provides an exception to the
exception. The second sentence of Section
15 allows the filing of petitions for correction of manifest errors
in the certificate of canvass or election returns even in elections for
president, vice- president and members of the House of Representatives for
the simple reason that the correction of manifest error will
not prolong the process of canvassing nor delay the proclamation of the
winner in the election. This rule is consistent with and complements the
authority of the COMELEC under the Constitution to, "enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an,
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall"29 [Section 2 (1), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution.] and
its power to "decide, except those involving the right to vote, all
questions affecting elections."30
[Section 2 (3), Article IX-C, supra.] Applying the foregoing rule, we hold that the Commission
has jurisdiction over SPC No. 98- 143 and SPC No.98-206, both filed by
private respondent seeking to correct the alleged manifest error in the
certificate of canvass issued by the Malabon municipal board of
canvassers. These petitions essentially allege that there exists a
manifest error in said certificate of canvass as the board failed to
include several election returns in the canvassing. Private respondent
prays that the board be reconvened to correct said error. Section 15 of
RA 7166 vests the COMELEC with jurisdiction over cases of this nature. We
reiterate the long-standing rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law and
is determined by the allegations in the petition regardless of whether or
not the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought.31 [Santiago vs.Guingona, Jr., 298 SCRA 756 (1998); Union Bank
of the Philippines vs. CA, 290 SCRA 198 (1998); Chico vs.
CA, 284 SCRA 33 (1997)] The authority to rule on petitions for correction
of manifest error is vested in the COMELEC en banc. Section
7 of Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure32
[Took effect on February 15, 1993.] provides
that if the error is discovered before proclamation, the board of
canvassers may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any
candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political
parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed. The
aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the board to the Commission and
said appeal shall be heard and decided by the Commission en banc. Section
5, however of the same rule states that a petition for correction of
manifest error may be filed directly with the Commission en banc provided
that such errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing
despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of , the winning
candidate had already been made. Thus, we held in Ramirez vs.
COMELEC:33
[270 SCRA 590 (1997)]
"Although in Ong,
Jr. v. COMELEC it was said that 'By now it is settled that election
cases which include pre-proclamation controversies must first be heard and
decided by a division of the Commission' -- and a petition for correction
of manifest error in the Statement of Votes, like SPC 95-198 is a
pre-proclamation ; controversy -- in none of the cases cited to support
this proposition was the issue the correction of a manifest error in the
Statement of Votes under Sec. 231 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP. Blg.
881) or Sec. 15 of R.A. No.7166. On the other hand, Rule 27, Sec. 5 of the
1993 Rules of the COMELEC expressly provides that pre - proclamation
controversies involving, inter alia, manifest errors in the tabulation or
tallying of the results may be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc x x
x."34
[At pp. 596-507.] En Banc, Justice Gonzaga,
MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
and ATTY. DAN RESTOR, respondents.RICARDO QUINTOS, necessary
respondent. [G.R. No. 133927. November 29, 1999]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
