|
|
| |||||||||||||||
UNAUTHORIZED
PROCLAMATION IS NULL AND VOID 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. 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:
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
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
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
