|
|
|
|
CONDUCTING OF MANUAL COUNT IS AUTHORIZED WHEN AUTOMATED COUNTING FAILS Petitioner’s reliance on COMELEC Resolution No. 286841
[Rollo, pp. 45-47; Annex C, Petition, which provides, inter alia,
that: SEC. 2. Filing
of Protest. – Any losing candidate, who registers his objections on
the rejection of ballots, may file a protest with the Commission within
ten (10) days from proclamation of the winning candidates in accordance
with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Only rejected
ballots and ballots manually counted shall be the subject of protest. SEC. 3. Examination of rejected ballots. – In determining the intent of the voter in the case of rejected ballots, the rejection of which have been objected to and noted in the Minute of Counting, the Commission shall examine and appreciate the rejected ballots concerned applying the provision of Section 7 of Resolution No. 2862 (Rules and Regulations on the Manual Counting and Canvassing of Votes in Case of Failure of the Automated Counting System in the September 9, 1996 Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao [ARMM], promulgated 14 August 1996).] to support his restrictive claim that only rejected ballots or ballots manually counted in case of failure of the automated counting machines are the proper subjects of an election protest, is just as unpersuasive. There is admittedly a lacuna leges in R.A. No. 8436 which prescribes the adoption of an automated election system. However, while conceding as much, this Court ruled in Tupay Loong v. COMELEC,42 [G.R. No. 133676, 14 April 1999, 305 SCRA 832.] that the Commission is nevertheless not precluded from conducting a manual count when the automated counting system fails, reasoning thus: … In enacting R.A. No. 8436, Congress obviously failed to provide a remedy where the error in counting is not machine related for human foresight is not all-seeing. We hold, however, that the vacuum in the law cannot prevent the COMELEC from levitating above the problem. Section 2(1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this provision is to give the COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. Congruent to this intent, this Court has not been niggardly in defining the parameters of powers of COMELEC in the conduct of our elections … In the case at bar, the COMELEC order for a manual count was not only reasonable. It was the only way to count the decisive local votes ... The bottom line is that by means of the manual count, the will of the voters of Sulu was honestly determined. We cannot kick away the will of the people by giving a literal interpretation to R.A. 8436. R.A. 8436 did not prohibit manual counting when machine count does not work. Counting is part and parcel of the conduct of an election which is under the control and supervision of the COMELEC… … Our elections are
not conducted under laboratory conditions. In running for public offices,
candidates do not follow the rules of Emily Post. Too often, COMELEC
has to make snap judgments to meet unforeseen circumstances that threaten
to subvert the will of our voters. In the process, the actions of COMELEC
may not be impeccable, indeed, may even be debatable. We cannot, however,
engage in a swivel chair criticism of these actions often taken under very
difficult circumstances. Verily, the legal compass from which the COMELEC
should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the
principle that "clean elections control the appropriateness of the
remedy."43
[Pangandaman v. COMELEC, supra, citing Pacis v.
COMELEC, 25 SCRA 377 [1968].] Be that as it may, the fact is the averments in petitioner’s counter-protest and private respondent’s protest already justified the determination of the issues through a judicial revision and recounting of the ballots pursuant to Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that – Sec. 255. Judicial counting of votes in election contest.- Where allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant or whenever in the opinion of the court the interests of justice so require, it shall immediately order the book of voters, ballot boxes and their keys, ballots and other documents used in the election be brought before it and that the ballots be examined and votes recounted. (Italics supplied)
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
