|
|
|
|
PRE-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY
"...Because
what [petitioner] is asking for necessarily postulates a full reception of
evidence aliunde and the meticulous examination of voluminous election
documents, it is clearly anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy which,
by its very nature, is to be heard summarily and decided on as promptly as
possible."12 [Matalam v.
COMELEC, supra, at 746.] To require the COMELEC
to examine the circumstances surrounding the preparation of election
returns would run counter to the rule that a pre-proclamation controversy
should be summarily decided.13 [Omnibus
Election Code, Sec. 243; Loong v. COMELEC, supra, at 22; Dipatuan v.
COMELEC, supra, at 92; Sanchez v. COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67, 75 (1987).] In Sison v. COMELEC,14 [G.R. No. 134096, March 3, 1999, p. 6.] we ruled that: "…The reason underlying the delimination both of substantive ground and procedure is the policy of the election law that pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with the law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. That is why such questions which require more deliberate and necessarily longer consideration, are left for examination in the corresponding election protest." Where the resolution of
the issues raised would require the COMELEC to "pierce the veil"
of election returns that appear prima facie regular, the remedy is a
regular election protest,15 [Matalam
v. COMELEC, supra, at 747; Loong v. COMELEC, supra, at 22; Dipatuan v.
COMELEC, supra, at 92.] "...wherein
the parties may litigate all the legal and factual issues raised by them
in as much detail as they may deem necessary or appropriate."16
[Matalam v. COMELEC, supra; Dimaporo v. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 769, 785
(1990).] Here, we note favorably
the position taken by the Office of the Solicitor General. Petitioners
have not demonstrated precisely how the preparation and appreciation of
election returns were adversely affected by, as alleged by petitioners,
"harassments of petitioners’ supporters," "midnight
convoys of armed men riding in motorcycles," and "raids by the
military in different houses" in Sto. Tomas. We are constrained to
agree with the OSG’s submission that on the basis of our holding in
Salih v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 19, respondent COMELEC herein "could not
justifiably exclude said returns on the occasion of a pre-proclamation
controversy whose office is limited to incomplete, falsified or materially
defective returns which appear as such on their face."17 [Salih
v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 19, 32 (1997); Rollo, p. 710.]
En Banc, Justice
Quisumbing, Sabastian, Romano v. COMELEC et als [G.R. Nos. 139573-75.
March 7, 2000]
It could be argued that private respondent's petition for annulment of proclamation/exclusion of election returns was a pre-proclamation case. The issues raised in that petition pertain to the preparation and appreciation of election returns and the proceedings of the municipal board of canvassers. But note that such petition was filed after the proclamation of petitioner as the winning candidate, thus, the petition was no longer viable, for pre-proclamation controversies may no longer be entertained by the COMELEC after the winning candidates have been proclaimed. It might even be claimed with some reason that private respondent, by resorting to the wrong remedy, abandoned his pre-proclamation case earlier filed.17 [Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705, 713-714 (1997).] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + We take pains to emphasize that the same was filed only on July 18, 1998, thirty-four (34) days after the case had been submitted for resolution on June 14, 1998.9 [Original Record, p. 70.] When a case is already deemed submitted for decision or resolution, the court can only consider the evidence presented prior to this period. It can not and must not take into account evidence presented thereafter without obtaining prior leave of court. For as held in the case of Arroyo vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,10 [246 SCRA 384, citing Ticao vs. Nañawa, 116 Phil. 97.] "(t)he rule in an election protest is that the protestant or counter protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of protest or counter protest." A pre-proclamation controversy praying for the
correction of manifest errors must be filed not later than five (5) days
following the date of proclamation11 [Section 5 (b), Rule 27, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] while
an election protest must be filed within ten (10) days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.12 [Section 3,
Rule 35, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] At this juncture, we have to point out that the said Manifestation and Comments, whether it be considered a pre-proclamation controversy or an election protest, was filed beyond the reglementary period to do so. The COMELEC has not ruled on the matter of the
five uncanvassed election returns. It was alleged in the memorandum filed
by the Solicitor General that the "eight (8) precincts [for the five
uncanvassed election returns and the three erroneous statements of votes]
were not raised before the Commission en banc."13
[Rollo, p. 460.] The Commission on Elections may suspend its rules of procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate. Petitioner contends that there was no need to suspend the COMELEC rules of procedure in order to resolve the issues raised in the Supplemental Petition. We find that there was a need to do so. Contrary to what the COMELEC perceived, the
Supplemental Petition is a petition for correction of manifest errors, not
a petition for declaration of nullity. It squarely falls within the
definition provided in the case of Mentang vs. Commission on
Elections,14
[229
SCRA 666.] "(c)orrection of manifest errors has reference to errors in the election returns, in the entries of the statement of votes by precinct/per municipality, or in the certificate of canvass." Section 5 (2), Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure likewise provides: Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly with the Commission. - (a) The following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed directly with the Commission: xxx "2)......When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing as where xxx (3) there had been a mistake in the copying of the figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate of canvass" xxx The Supplemental Petition prayed for the correction of the erroneous copying of figures into the summary statement of votes from the statement of votes thus it is a petition for correction of manifest errors. Some of the definitions given for the word "manifest" are that it is evident to the eye and understanding; visible to the eye; that which is open, palpable, uncontrovertible; needing no evidence to make it more clear; not obscure or hidden.15 [55 CJS p. 662.] (citations omitted) "A manifest clerical error is – "’… one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have been committed.’"16 [Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. vs. David, 52 OG 3145, 3151.] (citations omitted) Section 5 (b) of the same Rules also enunciates that: "If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation" xxx Note should be made that the Supplemental Petition was filed on June 8, 1998 or exactly 21 days from the date of proclamation on May 18, 1998. It was therefore filed beyond the reglementary period to do so. The Supplemental Petition which was meant to be suppletory to the original petition involving a pre-proclamation controversy, is a prohibited pleading. Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure states: "Section 1. What Pleadings are not Allowed: xxx "(g) supplemental pleadings in special actions and in special cases. A pre-proclamation controversy is a special case in accordance with Section 5 (h), Rule 1, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, thus: "Sec. 5. Meaning
of Words. – Whenever used in these Rules, the following words or
terms shall mean: xxx "(h) Special Cases – shall refer to Pre-proclamation cases" Finally, Section 3, Rule 9 of the same Rules provides thus: "Sec. 3. Matters Subject of Supplemental Pleadings. -- Upon motion of a party the Commission or a Division, as the case may be, may, upon notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented." xxx The subject of the supplemental pleading filed by petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed rule. As the name connotes, a supplemental petition merely supplies deficiencies in aid of the original petition. It cannot be used to introduce a new matter or a new cause of action or defense which is precisely what the petitioner had done in the instant case. "A supplemental
pleading is not like an amended pleading — a substitute for the original
one. It does not supersede the original, but assumes that the original
pleading is to stand, and the issues joined under the original pleading
remain as issues to be tried in the action."17
[Delbros Hotel Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 159
SCRA 533.] The issue raised in the Supplemental Petition is a new one, not even advanced in the original Petition. It sought the correction of Summary Statement of Votes No. 094338 which credited petitioner with only 1009 votes when Statement of Votes No. 094284 upon which the former was based listed 1099 votes for him. The original petition only asked for the correction of the double canvassing of five election returns and the exclusion of an election return of an inexistent precinct. It did not raise the issue of the incorrect total of the summary statement of votes and its correction. We quote some portions of the questioned resolution of the COMELEC, thus: "However, this
Commission cannot countenance an injustice that will be done to petitioner
if his allegation of error if proven would result into a loser becoming a
winner. The Commission in order to fulfill its mandate in faithfully
determining the will of the electorate may brush aside its rules if it
stands in the way of finding the truth. The Supreme Court recognized the
Commission’s paramount role when it pronounced that, ‘While election
controversies should be speedily settled, so as not to frustrate the
expression of the people’s will, this laudable objective does not free
the Commission from compliance with established principles of fairness and
justice and the adjudication of cases not on technicality but on their
substantive merits’ (Rodriguez versus Comelec, 119 SCRA 465). If the
rules are obstacles in the way of doing justice, then it can be said that
it is a mere technicality that should not stand in the way of determining
as to who between the contending parties have the mandate of the
electorate."18 [Orig. Record, p. 289; Rollo, p. 42.]
xxx "xxx (T)he
Commission in order to do justice and truly determine the rightful winner
in the elections may suspend its rules provided the right of the parties
are equally protected and act thereon pro hac vice." xxx19
[Ibid., p. 290; Ibid., p. 43.] From the above, we could glean why there was a need to suspend the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Without its suspension, the Supplemental Petition would have been dismissed. The allegation that it was Republic Act 7166 that was suspended and not the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not correct. Both R.A. 7166 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure cover the same subject on which the suspension was made, to wit: Sections 17 and 20 of R.A. 7166 (now found under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines) and Sections 2 and 9, Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner alleges that the suspension of the rules should have been applied equally. We hold that the COMELEC did so. In his petition, Trinidad alleges that there is no provision or concept in the Omnibus Election Code or the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that mentions a "counter-petition" in pre-proclamation cases because a petition is an original action, a separate formal petition, or one that can stand alone. He further contends that there are some antecedents or jurisdictional requirements that must be met, such as payment of filing fees, mandatory compliance with the period within which to appeal or file action, the service of summons, setting of the case for hearing, the reception of evidence for both parties, etc. The Answer/Memorandum (with Counter-Petition for Correction) filed by private respondent is akin to a counterprotest. A counterprotest is not a prohibited pleading
under Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Such pleading is
provided for under Ordinary Actions (Section 3, Rule 20, 1993 COMELEC
Rules of Procedure) and is equivalent to an answer with a counterclaim
under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies suppletorily to the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure.20 [Section 1, Rule 41, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] It is the contention of the petitioner that there
was no need for the COMELEC to suspend its rules of procedure because even
without the Supplemental Petition the COMELEC would have basis to order
the correction of errors since the petition itself clearly states the
number of votes garnered by petitioner and private respondent based on a
summation of the statement of votes by precinct.
The COMELEC, in its resolution of July 29, 1998,21 [Rollo, p. 44.] raised the following points: 1.......The Supplemental Petition is an entirely separate petition as it raised a new issue distinct and different in substance to the original petition. 2.......It was filed on June 8, 1998 or exactly 21 days from date of proclamation on May 18, 1998 and clearly filed out of time and is a prohibited pleading in the instant case. Despite these infirmities, the Supplemental
Petition was considered and the allegations therein given due
consideration. The COMELEC, in fact, credited petitioner with the
additional ninety (90) votes claimed in his Supplemental Petition.22
[Rollo, p. 45.] Petitioner thus benefited from the suspension of the rules of procedure when his Supplemental Petition was resolved in his favor. He should not be heard to say that the COMELEC did not give him the same treatment accorded the private respondent. In the instant case, however, we do not find the COMELEC to have exceeded nor abused its jurisdiction. Unless it is shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with its decisions and rulings. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSEDEN BANC, Justice Buena,
WENCESLAO P. TRINIDAD, petitioner vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
THE PASAY CITY BOARD OF ELECTION CANVASSERS and JOVITO CLAUDIO, respondents.[G.R.
No. 134657. December 15, 1999]
The Code provides that a pre-proclamation
controversy refers 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 the
election returns.11
[Code, sec. 241.] Section 243 of the Code enumerates the specific issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy as follows: (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; (b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Code; (c) The election
returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or
they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. In addition to the restrictive and exclusive
scope of its subject matter, all pre-proclamation controversies on
election returns or certificates of canvass shall be disposed of summarily
- first, by the board of canvassers, and then, by the Comelec.12
[Republic Act No. 7166 – SEC. 18. Summary Disposition
of Pre-proclamation Controversies. - All pre-proclamation controversies on
election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of the
records and evidence elevated to it by the board of canvassers, be
disposed of summarily by the Commission within seven (7) days from receipt
thereof. Its decisions shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7)
days from receipt by the losing party of the decision of the Commission.
SEC. 20. Procedure in
Disposition of Contested Election Returns. - (a) Any candidate, political
party or coalition of political parties contesting the inclusion or
exclusion in the canvass of any election returns on any of the grounds
authorized under Article XX or Sections 324, 235 and 236 of Article XIX of
the Omnibus Election Code shall submit their oral objection to the
chairman of the board of canvassers at the time the questioned return is
presented for inclusion in the canvass. Such objection shall be recorded
in the minutes of the canvass. (b) Upon receipt of any such
objection, the board of canvassers shall automatically defer the canvass
of the contested returns and shall proceed to canvass the returns which
are not contested by any party. (c) Simultaneous with the oral
objection, the objecting party shall also enter his objection in the form
for written objections to be prescribed by the Commission. Within
twenty-four (24) hours from and after the presentation of such an
objection, the objecting party shall submit the evidence in support of the
objections, which shall be attached to the form for written objections.
Within the same period of twenty-four (24) hours after presentation of the
objection, any party may file a written and verified opposition to the
objection in the form also to be prescribed by the Commission, attaching
thereto supporting evidence, if any. The board shall not entertain any
objection or opposition unless reduced to writing in the prescribed forms. The evidence attached to the
objection or opposition, submitted by the parties, shall be immediately
and formally admitted into the records of the board by the chairman
affixing his signature at the back of each and every page thereof. (d) Upon receipt of the
evidence, the board shall take up the contested returns, consider the
written objections thereto and opposition, if any, and summarily and
immediately rule thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on the
prescribed form and authenticate the same by the signatures of its
members. (e) Any party adversely
affected by the ruling of the board shall immediately inform the board if
he intends to appeal said ruling. The board shall enter said information
in the minutes of the canvass, set aside the returns and proceed to
consider the other returns. (f) After all the uncontested
returns have been canvassed and the contested returns ruled upon by it,
the board shall suspend the canvass. Within forty-eight (48) hours
therefrom, any party adversely affected by the ruling may file with the
board a written and verified notice of appeal; and within an unextendible
period of five (5) days thereafter, an appeal may be taken to the
Commission.
(g) Immediately upon receipt
of the notice of appeal, the board shall make an appropriate report to the
Commission, elevating therewith the complete records and evidence
submitted in the canvass, and furnishing the parties with copies of the
report. (h) On the basis of the
records and evidence elevated to it by the board, the Commission shall
decide summarily the appeal within seven (7) days from receipt of said
records and evidence. Any appeal brought before the Commission on the
ruling of the board, without the accomplished forms and the evidence
appended thereto, shall be summarily dismissed. The decision of the Commission
shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt thereof
by the losing party. (i) 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. Any proclamation made in violation hereof
shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not
adversely affect the results of the election.] It
is a well-entrenched rule in jurisprudence that, in a pre-proclamation
controversy, the board of canvassers and the Comelec are not to look
beyond or behind election returns which are on their face regular and
authentic returns. In such summary proceedings, there is no room for the
presentation of evidence aliunde, the inspection of voluminous
documents, and for meticulous technical examinations which take up
considerable time. A party seeking to raise issues the resolution of which
would compel or necessitate the Comelec to pierce the veil of election
returns which are prima facie regular on their face, has his proper
remedy in a regular election protest.13
[Matalam vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 733 (1997); Loong vs. Comelec, 257
SCRA 1 (1996); Dimaporo vs. Comelec, 186 SCRA 769 (1990); Dipatuan vs.
Comelec, 185 SCRA 86 (1990).]
The legislative intent behind the summary
disposition of pre-proclamation controversies is to give life to the
policy that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible
for it is in the public interest that the position for which the election
was held should be filled promptly, even though the proclamation of the
winning candidates be provisional in nature, in that the same may still be
subject to the results of the election protests that may be subsequently
filed.14
[Dimaporo vs. Comelec, supra note 13; Dipatuan vs. Comelec, supra
note 13.] Also, the boards of canvassers,
particularly municipal, city and provincial, before whom such
pre-proclamation controversies are initiated, are merely ad hoc bodies,
existing only for the interim task of canvassing election returns and
thus, do not have the facilities, the time, nor the competence to hear,
examine and decide on alleged election irregularities, unlike regular
courts, the Comelec or the electoral tribunals (Presidential, Senate, and
House) which are regular agencies of the government tasked and equipped
for the purpose.15 [Matalam vs. Comelec,
supra note 13.] In order to justify his objection to the
inclusion of the 74 election returns in the canvassing, petitioner alleged
the following election irregularities - (1) Sanchez replaced some members
of the BEI with her relatives and sympathizers; (2) the respective
assignments of the other BEI members were changed without prior approval
by the Comelec; (3) after the voting, the members of the BEI were
instructed to bring to Uson Central School the ballot boxes for a
centralized counting despite the fact that the elections were peaceful and
orderly and hence, there was no need to transfer the venue of the counting
of the ballots; (4) that, considering the distance of some barangays from
Uson, it took several hours for the ballot boxes to reach the school,
during which time many irregularities could have transpired, destroying
the sanctity of the ballot boxes; (5) during the counting of the ballots
and the preparation of the returns, Sanchez and her fully armed bodyguards
entered the polling places and spoke with the members of the BEI who, due
to very strong fear for their lives, were forced to disregard the ballots
and instead to favor Sanchez, giving her a wide margin over petitioner;
(6) Sanchez, together with her relatives and supporters, observed the
proceedings before the BEI, resulting in the intimidation of the members
thereof; (7) Sanchez’ bodyguards threatened petitioner’s watchers in
order to prevent them from performing their functions; and (8) some
members of the MBC were forced by Sanchez’ bodyguards to immediately
proclaim Sanchez. In support of his allegations, petitioner submitted the
affidavits of members of the BEI and of his own supporters16
[Petitioner’s memorandum, 9-13.]
and a certified true copy of an excerpt from the blotter of the Uson
Police Department.17
[Rollo, 41, 186.]
The only issue raised by petitioner which may possibly be the subject of a pre-proclamation controversy is the entry of Sanchez and her armed bodyguards in the polling places during the counting of ballots and the preparation of the election returns, which allegedly caused the intimidation and undue influence of the members of the BEI, resulting in the "sudden and radical change" in the election returns.18 [Ibid., 20.] This would appear to fall under section 243 (c) of the Code, which provides that one of the issues properly pertaining to a pre-proclamation controversy is that - [t]he election returns
were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they
are obviously manufactured or not authentic.
However, petitioner does not claim that there are any defects or irregularities apparent from a physical inspection of the election returns. Neither did the MBC nor the Comelec make any finding that the returns contained any palpable errors or material defects. To prove the intimidation which petitioner asserts was exerted upon the members of the BEI by Sanchez and her supporters would require the reception of evidence aliunde in a full-blown proceeding, wherein the parties are permitted to file pleadings and to introduce the testimonies of their witnesses and other documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations before the proper tribunal. Such election irregularities cannot be proven in a summary proceeding like a pre-proclamation controversy, but rather should be properly raised in an election protest. In the recent case of Salih vs. Comelec,19
[279 SCRA 19 (1997).] we held that
returns will not be excluded on the mere allegations that the returns are
manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face, appear regular
and wanting of any physical signs of tampering, alteration, or other
similar vice. Thus, if there had been sham voting or minimal voting which
was made to appear as normal through the falsification of the election
returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and
not in a pre-proclamation controversy.
And in Matalam vs. Comelec,20 [Supra note 13.] the Court, in rejecting petitioner’s claims that the election returns were spurious, obviously manufactured and prepared under irregular circumstances, explained that [the] petition must
fail because it effectively implores the Court to disregard the statutory
norm that pre-proclamation controversies are to be resolved in a summary
proceeding. He [petitioner] asks the Court to ignore the fact that the
election returns appear regular on their face, and instead to determine
whether fraud or irregularities attended the election process. Because
what he is asking for necessarily postulates a full reception of evidence aliunde
and the meticulous examination of voluminous election documents, it is
clearly anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy which, by its very
nature, is to be heard summarily and decided as promptly as possible.
Petitioner claims that the proclamation of Sanchez was premature since, at the time of such proclamation, the Comelec’s June 8, 1998 order was not yet final and executory pursuant to paragraphs (h) and (i) of section 20 of RA 7166 which provides – SEC. 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns. - xxx xxx xxx (h) On the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the board, the Commission shall decide summarily the appeal within seven (7) days from receipt of said records and evidence. Any appeal brought before the Commission on the ruling of the board, without the accomplished forms and the evidence appended thereto, shall be summarily dismissed. The decision of the
Commission shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from
receipt thereof by the losing party.
(i) 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. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election. Petitioner also cites sections 13, Rule 18 and section 2, Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which states as follows- Rule 18 - Decisions Sec. 13. Finality of Decisions or Resolutions. xxx xxx xxx (b) In Special Actions
and Special Cases a decision or resolutions of the Commission en banc
shall become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation
unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
xxx xxx xxx Rule 19 - Motions for Reconsideration Sec. 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. - A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro forma, suspends the execution or implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling. According to petitioner, since he received the
Comelec’s June 8, 1998 order only on June 17, 1998, the same attained
finality and may be fully executed only on June 24, 1998; that he had five
days from receipt of the assailed order to file a motion for
reconsideration or until June 22, 1998; and that the proclamation of
Sanchez as the winning candidate by the MBC on June 18, 1998 is void ab
initio for at the time there was no final judgment which the board
could lawfully implement.21
[Petitioner’s Memorandum, 15-18.]
Petitioner also asks this Court to declare that
the Comelec committed a reversible error in failing to pass upon his
objections to the inclusion of the thirty-seven (37) election returns
which he was unable to embody in the prescribed form, as required by
section 20 (c) of RA 7166, reasoning that such failure was attributable to
the MBC. 22
[Ibid.,
19-24.] In light of our ruling that the electoral irregularities enumerated by petitioner are not proper to a pre-proclamation controversy for so long as the election returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the other issues raised by petitioner have necessarily become moot and academic.23 [Matalam vs. Comelec, supra note 13.] The MBC, in rejecting petitioner’s objections and proclaiming Sanchez, and the Comelec, in upholding the MBC, are entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions,24 [Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec.3 (m).] which petitioner has failed to rebut. Even assuming that petitioner had availed of the
proper remedy, still the proclamation of Sanchez by the MBC did not have
to await the resolution of his motion for reconsideration by the Comelec en
banc since it was validly made upon the authority of the order issued
by the Comelec’s Second Division, ordering the MBC to reconvene and
include the 37 election returns in the canvass and thereafter, proclaim
the winning candidate. In this respect, our ruling in Casimiro vs.
Comelec25
[Casimiro vs. Comelec, 171 SCRA 468 (1989).] is
squarely in point. We held in this case that the proclamation of the
winning candidate by the board of canvassers was authorized by the ruling
of the Comelec’s Second Division ordering the board to "reconvene,
complete the canvass if not yet completed, and proclaim the winning
candidates…" even though such proclamation was made before the
filing of the motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc.
We wish to stress that our ruling in this case
merely sustains the Comelec’s position that, in the absence of
"palpable errors and/or material defects [which] are clearly
discernible on the faces of these returns," the board of canvassers
should include in the canvass the 37 election returns26
[Rollo, 42.] and that, by
ruling thus, we have no intention of passing upon the verity of
petitioner’s imputations of electoral irregularities and acts of
terrorism, which we reiterate is not in issue in a pre-proclamation
controversy, but should be resolved in a proper electoral protest.27
[Matalam vs. Comelec, supra note 13.]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that public respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its resolution dated September 1, 1998. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Appeal from the decision of the Board of Canvassers is governed by Section 18 of RA 7166, viz.: "SEC. 18. Summary disposition of pre-proclamation controversies. – All pre-proclamation controversies on election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the board of canvassers, be disposed of summarily by the Commission within seven (7) days from receipt thereof. Its decision shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt by the losing party of the decision of the Commission." + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Assuming arguendo that petitioner’s objections to the inclusion of the subject returns were timely filed, his contention that the votes in some of the objected precincts were cast under the influence of the Barangay Captain and that some election returns were prepared under duress, fraud, coercion has no merit. Even assuming that such were the facts, the same can no longer be considered since the winners were already proclaimed and there is no sufficient reason or evidence presented that the Board of Canvassers has made an invalid proclamation.4 [Torres v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583.] Moreover, it is settled that as long as the election returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look behind or beyond them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes.5 [Loong V. COMELEC, 326 Phil. 790; Matalam v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733.] A party, such as petitioner herein, seeking to raise issues, resolution of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear prima facie regular on their face has his proper remedy in a regular election protest.6 [Dipatuan v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 86.] Other than the general allegations that certain returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, intimidation, petitioner failed to point out specific objections to said returns7 [Patoray v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 470.] and likewise presented no adequate substantiation of his self-described "Mob-ruled proclamation" made by the Board of Canvassers. It has been ruled that objections raised before the Board of Canvassers that certain votes were not freely cast is not a valid ground for a pre-proclamation controversy and is beyond the competence of the Board.8 [See Abella v. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509.]EN
BANC, Justice Ynares-Santiago, ROGELIO
G. SIQUIAN, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
FELICITAS P. ONG, respondents.[G.R. No. 135627. December 9,
1999] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Members of the House of Representatives. 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." 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)] 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] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
