What must be done if there is a discrepancy
between the words and figures in a number of votes in the election
return of a precinct? This is the question raised and answered in
this case between Fernando and Margarita who were the opposing
candidates for mayor of an island municipality in Southern Luzon.
During the canvass of the votes cast for
the candidate in said municipality, a watcher of Margarita noted a
discrepancy between the words and figures in the number of votes for
Fernando in the election return of Precinct 22. On the face of said
return, the votes cast for Fernando were sixty-six (66) written in
figures and fifty-six (56) written in words. When this was brought
to the attention of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) the MBC
decided to credit Fernando with sixty-six (66) votes written in
figures. So after the canvassing, Fernando garnered a total of 4,500
votes while Margarita got a total of 4,498 votes with only a margin
of two votes.
Despite Margarita's petition to suspend the
proclamation, the MBC still issued a certificate of canvass of votes
and proclamation of winning candidates wherein it proclaimed
Fernando as the winner in the election.
On appeal to the Comelec, the second
division issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Fernando
and ordered the MBC to reconvene, open the ballot box in Precinct 22
and prepare a new certificate of canvass.
Fernando moved to reconsider said
resolution. But while his motion was pending the MBC already
reconvened and opened the ballot box pursuant to the Comelec
resolution. But no recount of the votes was conducted despite
Margarita's motions. Instead, the MBC merely examined the election
return and found that there was no sign of tampering. It also
verified that the "taras" as counted for the first 100
votes was 29 for Fernando but the written figure was blurred. On the
next line the taras counted was 37 for Fernando and the
figure was also blurred. So the MBC decided that by adding 29 taras
and 37 taras, Fernando got 66 votes as reflected in the
election return. Thus it once more proclaimed Fernando as the duly
elected mayor.
In the meantime the Comelec also ruled on
Fernando's motion for reconsideration and denied the same. It
maintained that Fernando's proclamation was premature and ordered
the MBC to reconvene, summon the election inspectors, reopen the
ballot box, conduct a physical recount of the votes for Fernando and
correct the entries for mayor if necessary. Thereafter, the MBC was
ordered to prepare a new certificate of canvass and proclaim the
winning candidate. Fernando questioned this resolution. He said that
the Comelec should not have ordered the re-opening of the ballot box
and recount of votes casts for mayor in Precinct 22 because the MBC
has already examined the election return and found no sign of
tampering. Was Fernando correct?
No. It is clear from Section 236 of the
Omnibus Election Code that a recount of votes is in order where a
discrepancy exists between the votes written in words or in figures.
The recount merely consists in the mathematical counting of the
votes received by each candidate and it does not involve any
appreciation of ballots or the determination of their validity as
required in an election contest. This will offer a prompt relief to
a simple controversy and restore public tranquillity by dispelling
all doubts as to the true and correct number of the votes cast in a
given polling place. That way, the chances whereby a candidate may
grab a proclamation to which he is not entitled to are minimized.
The electorate deserve to know who the true
winner is. Public interest and the sovereign will of the people
expressed in their ballots must, at all times, be the paramount
consideration in an election controversy (Oiondriz, Jr, vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 135084 Aug. 25, 1999).
*
* *
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org.
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
