PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
EN BANC
SALIPONGAN L.
DAGLOC,
Petitioner,
G.R.
Nos.
154442-47
December 10, 2003
-versus-
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
BAI SUSAN A. SAMAD
AND KENNEDY P.
DILANGALEN,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition With a Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, under
Rule
65 of the Rules
of
Court, seeking the nullification of the Resolution[1]
dated July 18, 2002 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc.
Petitioner
primarily contends that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of
discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the exclusion
from
canvass of the election returns from nine precincts in the Municipality
of Kabuntalan, Province of Maguindanao, in connection with the May 14,
2001 elections.
The Antecedents
During the May 14, 2001
elections, Bai Susan A. Samad ("Samad"), Salipongan I. Dagloc
("Dagloc")
and Kennedy Dilangalen ("Dilangalen") were among the mayoralty
candidates
in the Municipality of Kabuntalan, Province of Maguindanao.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the canvassing
of the election returns for the Municipality of Kabuntalan, Samad,
Dagloc
and Dilangalen filed their respective objections and oppositions to the
inclusion or exclusion from the canvass of certain election returns
from
several precincts.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Samad contested the
inclusion of the election returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B,
33A and 33B, all of Barangay Bagumbayan, on the grounds that: (a) the
returns
were tampered and falsified, and (b) the returns were prepared under
duress,
threats, coercion and intimidation.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its rulings dated
May 23 and May 26, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
Kabuntalan
("the Board") dismissed Samad's petitions to exclude the said election
returns because she failed to submit evidence within twenty-four (24)
hours
from the time of her objection. On June 1 and 5, 2001, Samad appealed
from
said rulings of the Board before the COMELEC, and her appeal was
docketed
as SPC 01-341 and SPC 01-342, respectively.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, Dagloc
questioned the inclusion of the election returns from Precinct Nos.
78A/79A,
80A/81A and 82A on the ground that the returns were manufactured or
spurious
because the counting of the votes and the preparation of the said
election
returns were conducted in a privately-owned house which was under the
control
of a barangay chairman, who was an alleged ally and political supporter
of Samad. Dagloc also opposed the exclusion of the election returns
from
Precinct Nos. 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 83A and 84A 6 on the ground that said
returns appeared regular on their face and the alleged irregularities
were
done during the voting. Dagloc further stated that the COMELEC
authorized
the voting in Precinct Nos. 78A/79A, 80A/81A, 82A, 58A/59A, 70A, 71A,
83A
and 84A to be conducted in the gymnasium of the 6th Infantry Division,
Philippine Army, Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Board, in resolving
the objections and oppositions filed by Dagloc, ruled to include in the
canvassing the election returns from Precinct Nos. 78A/79A, 80A/81A and
82A, and granted Samad's petitions to exclude the returns from Precinct
Nos. 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 83A and 84A. On June 7, 2001, Dagloc appealed
from
the said rulings of the Board with the COMELEC, and his appeal was
docketed
as SPC 01-282.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dilangalen also filed
several petitions to exclude from the canvassing the election returns
from
Precinct Nos. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B/3B, 3A, 5A/6A, 17A, 31A, 31B, 32A/32B,
33A/33B,
34A/35A, 36A/37A, 38A, 45B/46A, 70A, 71A, 78A/79B, 80A/81A and 82A
based
on any of the following grounds:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) The
returns
were prepared under duress, threats and intimidation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) The returns
were
manufactured and falsified and they contained erasures, mistakes,
manifest
errors and superimpositions in figures and in words;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) The election
returns
lacked material data;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) Terrorism and
election
irregularities transpired during the casting of votes; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) Statistical
improbability
of the results of the elections.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dilangalen alleged that
the Board dismissed his petitions and included the contested returns in
the canvassing. Hence, on June 12, 2001, he filed a pre-proclamation
case
before the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 01-285.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 13, 2001, Dagloc
filed a Petition to Annul Falsified Proclamation and to Suspend the
Effects
of Falsified Proclamation, docketed as SPC 01-291. Dagloc alleged that
on June 7, 2001, while the tabulation of the election returns was still
in progress, the Board, consisting of Chairman Dionisio Linaban and
Member-Secretary
Andaman Samud proclaimed Bai Susan A. Samad as mayor, Datu Nasser H.
Ali
as vice-mayor, and Monambai (sic) Diocalano, Brahim Mokamad, H. Sittie
Tula, Lincoln Radzak, Zainadun Kabulan, H. Faisal Pendi, Almada
Pidzakal
and H. Rouf Adbulrakman as members of the Sangguniang Bayan ("Samad, et
al.").[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, Dagloc maintained
that the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning Candidates
for Municipal Offices (CEF No. 25) with Serial No. 8692104, used by the
Board, was not valid because: (1) the signature of Samud was allegedly
obtained by force by two men who blocked his way on June 6, 2001 at
around
10:10 p.m.; and (2) Linaban was absent during the purported
proclamation.
Dagloc thus prayed for the annulment of the proclamation of Samad, et
al.[12]
On June 18, 2001, Samad,
et al. filed a petition before the COMELEC, docketed as SPC 01-310,
alleging
that on June 8, 2001, members of the Board, namely, Vice-Chairman Usman
D. Zailon and Member-Secretary Andaman K. Samud proclaimed Datu
Salipongan
L. Dagloc as mayor, Datu Mohidin S. Lauban as vice-mayor, and Amnambai
Diocolano, H. Sittie Tula, Fhamie Dumaba, H. Brahim Mokamad and Lincoln
M. Radzak as members of the Sangguniang Bayan ("Dagloc, et al."). Said
proclamation was evidenced by CEF No. 25 with Serial No. 8692109.
Samad,
et al. contended that the second proclamation was a nullity based on
the
following grounds:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) The
second
proclamation was made without notice and hearing;
(b) The second
proclamation
cannot annul the first proclamation;
(c) The signature
of
Andamen K. Samud in the second proclamation was obtained through
intimidation
by the armed men of Dagloc; and cralaw:red
(d) The second
proclamation
is void for there were only five (5) councilors who were proclaimed.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The COMELEC
consolidated
the aforementioned six cases filed by Dagloc, Samad, Samad, et al., and
Dilangalen.
In its resolution dated
May 29, 2002, the COMELEC, Second Division ("Second Division"),
clarified
that the contested returns refer to the election returns from Precinct
Nos. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B/3B, 3A, 5A/6A, 17A, 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B,
34A/35A,
36A/37A, 38A, e45A/46B, 45B/46A, 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 72A, 78A/79B,
80A/81A,
82A, 83A and 84A.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Second Division
found that some of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners, i.e,
tampered,
falsified, manufactured or spurious returns, returns prepared under
duress,
threats, coercion, etc., were proper issues for a pre-proclamation
controversy
under subsections (b) and (c) of Section 243[15]
of the Omnibus Election Code. The Second Division, however, stated that
objections to the inclusion of the election returns should not be
immediately
accorded weight absent any showing that on the face thereof, there are
patent irregularities. It took into consideration the doctrine that as
long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on
their
face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to
verify
allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Second Division
noted that based on the written rulings of the Linaban Board, the
election
returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B and 33A/33B and 45A
(should
have been Precinct Nos. 70A, 71A, 83A and 84A) were excluded because of
alleged election irregularities perpetrated by some members of the
Board
of Election Inspectors ("BEI") and the disqualification of some members
thereof as evidenced by purported affidavits executed by Usman.[17]
The Second Division,
however, resolved to include the returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B,
32A/32B
and 33A/33B (should have been Precinct Nos. 70A, 71A, 83A and 84A) in
the
canvass on the following grounds:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) The
contested
election returns contained no sign of any tampering or alteration,
affecting
the standing of the candidates; they are prima facie regular on their
face;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) The alleged
irregularities
occurred in the BEI level. Pre-proclamation controversies are limited
to
challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and the proceedings
thereof and not challenges with respect to proceedings before the Board
of Election Inspectors or its composition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) The grounds
raised
compel the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns, which, as
adverted
to, are not proper issues for pre-proclamation controversies. A party
seeking
to raise issues the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC
to
pierce the veil of election returns that are prima facie regular on
their
face has his proper remedy in an election protest case.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to the
other
grounds raised to support the exclusion of the contested returns, the
Second
Division made the following findings:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. Election
returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 32A/32B, 36A/37A, 45A/46B, 70A, 80A/81A
and 82A — There is no entry on the space provided for Data on Voters
and
Ballots. Such omission, however, does not invalidate the election
returns.
The defect does not, in any way, affect the results of the elections.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Election
Returns
from Precinct Nos. 5A/6A, 38A and 71A — There were erasures in the
votes
of some candidates in figures and in words. Nevertheless, the said
election
returns must be included applying the aforecited Section 30 of COMELEC
Resolution 3848.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Election
Returns
from Precinct Nos. 2B/3B, 31B, 34A/35A, 45B/46A, 78A/79A and 83A —
There
are superimpositions or erasures but they were countersigned and were
just
obviously made to correct clerical errors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also resolve to
include
election returns from Precinct Nos. 1A/1B, 2A, 3A, 17A, 58A/59A, 72A
and
84A on the ground that they are perfectly regular on their face.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the Second
Division declared the first proclamation of Samad, et al. and the
subsequent
proclamation of Dagloc, et al. to be illegal.cralaw:red
The COMELEC, Second
Division, pronounced judgment, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the COMMISSION RESOLVE, as it hereby
RESOLVES,
to INVALIDATE (1) the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of
Winning
Candidates for Local Positions (CEF No. 25) with Serial No. 8692104
certifying
to the proclamation of Samad, et al. and (2) the Certificate of Canvass
and Proclamation of Winning Candidates for Local Positions (CEF NO. 25)
with Serial No. 8692109 certifying to the proclamation of Dagloc, et
al.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACCORDINGLY, We:chanrobles virtual law library
(1) ORDER
the
CONSTITUTION of a SPECIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS composed of COMELEC
lawyers
to be appointed by the Commission;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) DIRECT THE
Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan to DELIVER to Election Records and
Statistics
Department (ERSD), COMELEC, Manila, all the election returns from
Precinct
Nos. 17A, 45B/46A, 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 72A, 78A/79A, 80A/81A, 82A, 83A,
84A, 45A/46B, 31A, 31B, 32A/32B and 33A/33B, as well as the election
records
and documents pertaining to these cases; and cralaw:red
(3) ORDER the
Special
Board of Canvassers to:chanrobles virtual law library
(i)
immediately
RECONVENE upon receipt of said election returns and after serving
proper
notice to all the parties concerned;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(ii) COMPLETE
the CANVASS
by including the results in Precinct Nos. 17A, 45B/46A, 58A/59A, 70A,
71A,
72A, 78A/79A, 80A/81A, 82A, 83A, 84A, 45A/46B, 31A, 31B, 32A/32B and
33A/33B;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(iii)
Thereafter, PROCLAIM
the winning candidates for the position of MAYOR, VICE MAYOR and
MEMBERS
OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN of the Municipality of Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Provincial
Election
Supervisor of Maguindanao and the Election Officer of Kabuntalan are
hereby
DIRECTED to COORDINATE with the local police or members of the Armed
forces
of the Philippines to ensure that the integrity of the ballot boxes
containing
the contested election returns and other election records is not
violated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Urgent Motion
for
Handwriting Examination filed by petitioner DAGLOC is hereby DENIED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Law Department
is
hereby directed to immediately INVESTIGATE EO DIONISIO LINABAN's
questionable
act of leaving the canvassing venue without notice and authority from
this
Commission during the canvassing on June 7–8, 2001 and to PROSECUTE him
upon finding of probable cause.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this
resolution
be furnished to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
for implementation and for appropriate action.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[20]
Presiding Commissioner
Ralph C. Lantion dissented[21]
from the resolution of the Second Division and voted to exclude from
the
canvass the election returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B,
33A/33B,
70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and 84A.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 3, 2002, Samad
seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the
COMELEC, Second Division, relying mainly on the dissenting opinion of
Commissioner
Lantion. It appears that Dilangalen filed, out of time,[22]
his motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 18, 2002, the
COMELEC en banc resolved Samad's motion for reconsideration. The
COMELEC
en banc agreed with the resolution of the Second Division that the
consolidated
cases were pre-proclamation controversies since some of the grounds
(i.e.,
tampered, falsified, manufactured or spurious returns, returns prepared
under duress, threats, coercion, etc.) were proper issues for a
pre-proclamation
controversy under subsections (b) and (c) of Section 243[23]
of the Omnibus Election Code. It ruled that the Second Division
correctly
annulled the proclamation of Samad and Dagloc as the duly elected mayor
of the Municipality of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao pursuant to Section 20
(i)[24]
of Republic
Act
No. 7166.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The COMELEC en banc
held that the only issue to be resolved was the propriety of the
inclusion
or exclusion of the contested returns, taking into account the
contradicting
conclusions of the two members of the Second Division and its Presiding
Commissioner. It noted that if all the election returns were canvassed,
Dagloc would win by a plurality of votes. But if the election returns
from
Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and 84A
were
excluded from the canvass, as ruled in the dissenting opinion, Samad
would
win.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The COMELEC en banc
held that after a careful study of the evidence on record, it found
that
only the election returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B,
33A/33B,
70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and 84A remain to be proper subjects for review as
the
grounds relied upon to exclude the other contested returns were
appropriate
in a regular election protest.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The COMELEC en banc
sustained the findings in the dissenting opinion of the Presiding
Commissioner
of the Second Division, and excluded from the canvass the election
returns
from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and
84A
(hereinafter, the "nine election returns"). The COMELEC en banc
anchored
the exclusion of the nine election returns on the manner of their
preparation,
which it found to be "sham." The COMELEC en banc held that the votes
reported
in the nine election returns do not reflect the true will of the
electorate.
It added that this conclusion was strengthened by the fact that in the
supposed affidavit of the BEI members of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao, which
was attached by Dagloc in his appeal in SPC 01-282 to prove the
regularity
of the exercise of the BEIs' assigned task, only one member of the BEI
from Precinct No. 70A, Sandatu Kamson, signed said affidavit, while no
member of the BEI from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 71A,
72A,
83A and 84A signed it.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The COMELEC en banc
pronounced judgment, thus:chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE,
the proclamation of both Datu Salipongan Dagloc and Bai Susan Samad as
municipal mayor of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao is hereby ANNULLED.
Furthermore,
a New Municipal Board of Canvassers is hereby constituted, to be
composed
of Comelec lawyers, mandated to canvass the valid election returns in
Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao, taking into consideration the above observations in
Election
Returns No. 69090014, 69090021, 69090036, 69090044, 69090045, 69090046,
69090056, 69090061, 69090062, 69090067, and 69090069, from Precinct
Nos.
17A, 25A/26A, 45A, 56A/57A, 58A/59A, 60A, 73A/74A, 80A/81A, 82A, 89A,
and
91A, respectively, in the proper appreciation of votes of the
contending
mayoralty candidates, and EXCLUDING therefrom the election returns from
Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A, and 84A,
in accordance with the foregoing disquisition, and on the basis thereof
proclaim the winning local candidates in the May 14, 2001 National and
Local Elections.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the
Law
Department is hereby directed to investigate, and if necessary,
prosecute
upon finding of probable cause: (1) the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and
Member-Secretary
of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao for
apparently
being partisan by favoring certain local candidates; and (2) the
members
of the BEIs in Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A,
83A, and 84A, namely:chanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
SO ORDERED.[29]
On August 15, 2002,
Dagloc
filed this instant petition for certiorari, raising the following
issues:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. The
respondent
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it issued the questioned PER CURIAM Resolution
ordering
the EXCLUSION of the nine (9) election returns based on objections
which
are not proper for pre-proclamation controversies.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The respondent
COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
when it issued the questioned PER CURIAM Resolution ordering the
EXCLUSION
of the nine (9) election returns without clear and convincing evidence
of fraud and other election irregularities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The respondent
COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
in not dismissing SPC No. 01-342 for failure to comply with the
mandatory
procedure provided in Section 20 of R.
A. 7166 and Section 38 of Comelec Resolution No. 3848.[3]
On August 26, 2002,
petitioner
filed a Most Urgent Motion and Plea Reiterating the Previous Prayer for
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order,[31]
which was denied by the Court for lack of merit.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 3, 2002,
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan proclaimed Bai Susan A.
Samad as the duly elected mayor of the Municipality of Kabuntalan,[33]
having obtained the highest number of votes. On the same date, Samad
took
her oath of office,[34]
and thereafter assumed office.[35]
On September 16, 2002,
respondent Dilangalen filed a Motion to Issue a Status Quo Order as of
the Filing of the Petition and/or Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary
Restraining Order Enjoining the Respondent Samad from Assuming and/or
Performing
the Functions of Mayor[36],
which was also denied by the Court for lack of merit.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 16, 2002,
Mohidin S. Lauban, a party mate of petitioner Dagloc and a candidate
for
vice-mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections in the Municipality of
Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao, filed a motion for leave to intervene and a
petition-in-intervention.
Lauban alleged that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction for: (1) failing to notify him about
the proceedings in the consolidated cases including SPC No. 01-310, and
thereafter annulling his proclamation in violation of his right to due
process; and (2) ordering the exclusion of the nine election returns
grounded
on objections which were improper for a pre-proclamation controversy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 1, 2002,
the Court resolved to grant Lauban's motion and required respondents to
comment on Lauban's petition in-intervention.[38]
Finally, in her Comment[39]
to Dagloc's petition for certiorari, respondent Samad averred that on
September
13, 2002, Dagloc filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam before the
Regional
Trial Court of Cotabato City, which is still pending with the said
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
First Issue: The
existence of grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy
Petitioner avers that
the COMELEC en banc excluded the election returns from Precinct Nos.
70A,
71A, 83A and 84A for being spurious due to the following reasons (as
quoted
from the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Lantion): (1) the alleged
disqualification
of some members of the BEI in said precincts; and (2) the Board found
that
the same members of the BEI were the ones who committed illegal acts,
such
that the votes reported in the subject returns do not reflect the true
will of the electorate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner states that
the COMELEC also excluded the election returns from Precinct Nos. 31A,
31B, 32A/32B and 33A/33B for the same reasons advanced in excluding the
election returns from Precinct Nos. 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and 84A.
According
to petitioner, the COMELEC made said conclusion by relying solely on
the
averments of respondent Samad in SPC No. 01-341 and SPC No. 01-3342,
thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In SPC No.
01-341 and SPC No. 01-342, Bai Susan Samad questions the inclusion of
the
election returns in Precincts No. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B. She avers
that they are tampered or falsified and prepared under duress, threats,
coercion and intimidation. An eyewitness and official watcher in
Precinct
No. 31A, Deduzman Lakim, stated in his affidavit dated May 19, 2001
that
on May 14, 2001, Salipongan Dagloc approached him and said that he
(Lakim)
will be killed after the election. Consequently, Lakim and his
co-watchers,
namely: Amera Lakim, Asis Abdulla, and Tuansi Sandiale, who were
assigned
at Precincts No. 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, respectively, failed to report
because they were afraid they will be killed by Dagloc. Lakim narrated
that the ballots in said contested precincts were openly tampered and
falsified
by Dagloc's supporters. So that the counting of votes were based on
tampered
and falsified ballots which, in turn, were the bases reflected on the
election
return.[40]
x x x (Emphasis supplied by petitioner Dagloc.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner
contends
that the aforementioned reasons advanced by the COMELEC for the
exclusion
of the nine election returns are not proper issues in a
pre-proclamation
controversy. Citing Patoray v. Comelec,[41]
petitioner contends that under the Omnibus
Election Code, pre-proclamation controversies are limited to: (1)
challenges
directed against the composition or proceedings of the board of
canvassers
(not the board of election inspectors), or (2) challenges related to
election
returns to which a party must have made specific objections. (Emphasis
supplied by petitioner Dagloc.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Following the arguments
of Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra in her Concurring and Dissenting
Opinion in the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc, petitioner contends
that
the Second Division in its Resolution found that the contested returns
contained no tampering or alteration affecting the standing of the
candidates
and that they were prima facie regular on their face; hence, the Second
Division included said returns in the canvass. Petitioner asserts that
this is in accordance with the Court's ruling in Matalam v. COMELEC,[42]
that "[i]n the absence of a strong evidence establishing spuriousness
of
the returns, the basic rule that election returns shall be accorded
prima
facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the counts of votes
for canvassing and proclamation purposes must perforce prevail."
Petitioner
also cited Loong v. COMELEC,[43]
where the Court held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The policy
consideration underlying the delimitation of both substantive ground
and
legal procedure is the policy to determine as quickly as possible the
result
of the election on the basis of the canvass. The prevailing
doctrine
in this jurisdiction, therefore, is that as long as the returns appear
to be authentic, and duly accomplished on their face, the Board of
Canvassers
cannot look beyond or behind them to verify allegations of
irregularities
in the casting and counting of the votes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner thus
contends
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in excluding the nine election returns
because
of alleged disqualification of some members of the BEI and alleged
irregularities
perpetrated by said members, which are not proper issues in a
pre-proclamation
controversy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 243 of the
Omnibus
Election Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 243.
Issues
that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. — the following
shall
be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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, 2343, 235 and
236
of this Code;
(c) The election
returns
were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they
are obviously manufactured or not authentic; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The enumeration is
restrictive
and exclusive.[44]
Admittedly, the COMELEC
en banc ordered the exclusion of the nine election returns from the
canvass
considering partly the reasons aforecited by petitioner. Petitioner,
however,
omitted to mention the fact that the COMELEC en banc also gave great
weight
to the affidavit of the BEI members assigned in Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao,
which was attached by Dagloc in his appeal in SPC 01-282 to prove the
supposed
regularity of the exercise of the BEIs' assigned task. The COMELEC en
banc
held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We cannot
just
close our eyes and include in the canvass the subject returns,
notwithstanding
the undisputed fact that the votes reported in the election returns
from
Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A, and 84A
do
not reflect the true will of the electorate. This conclusion is
strengthened
by the fact that in the supposed affidavit of the BEI members, who were
assigned in the different precincts in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao,
attached
by Dagloc in his appeal in SPC 01-282 to prove the supposed regularity
of the exercise of the BEIs' assigned task, there were no affiants in
Precincts
Nos. 83A and 84A; whereas only one member of the BEI in Precinct Nos.
71A
and 72A was named, to wit: Rosalinda Kimbuan and 1Lt. Juan Gullem,
respectively,
but both did not sign said affidavit; and only one member of the BEI in
Precinct No. 70A, Sandatu Kamson, signed said affidavit. Moreover, no
member
of the BEIs in Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, and 33A/33B signed said
affidavit. Neither were their names even mentioned in it.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the circumstances,
taken as a whole, made the COMELEC en banc conclude that the election
returns
from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and
84A
were spurious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case of
Patoray v. Comelec, as cited by petitioner, is not in point. To
reiterate,
in said case, the Court stated that under the Omnibus Election Code,
pre-proclamation
controversies are limited to: (1) challenges directed against the
composition
or proceedings of the board of canvassers (not the board of election
inspectors),
or (2) challenges related to election returns to which a party must
have
made specific objections. The private respondent therein objected to
two
returns on the ground "that the election returns are manufactured,
fabricated
or not authentic, considering that the election returns includes votes
on ballots which are spurious, marked and invalid ballots." In said
case,
the Court held that the municipal board of canvassers correctly ruled
that
private respondent's objections were not proper in a proclamation
controversy
since the objection, as worded, did not challenge the returns, but was
directed primarily at the ballots reflected in the returns (emphasis
supplied).
Hence, the Court ruled, "it is settled that issues relative to the
appreciation
of ballots cannot be raised in a proclamation controversy."
"Appreciation
of ballots is the task of the board of election inspectors, not the
board
of canvassers, and questions related thereto are proper only in
election
protests."
In this case, what
Samad
contested was the inclusion of the election returns from Precinct Nos.
31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A and 33B on the ground that these were tampered
or
falsified and were prepared under duress, threats, coercion and
intimidation,
which are proper issues for a pre-proclamation controversy under
paragraphs
(b) and (c) of Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code. The Board dismissed Samad's petitions; hence, Samad
appealed to the COMELEC. The resolution of the Second Division shows
that
Samad also sought the exclusion of the election returns from Precinct
Nos.
70A, 71A, 83A and 84A, but the ground for her objection does not appear
on record. The Board granted the petition of Samad to exclude said
returns;
hence, Dagloc appealed from the Board's ruling before the COMELEC.
Evidently,
the pre-proclamation cases filed by Samad fall under the second
category
adverted to in Patoray v. Comelec, that is, "(2) challenges related to
election returns to which a party must have made specific objections."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the COMELEC
en
banc's findings on the nine election returns are anchored on "the
manner
of their preparation," which it found to be a sham. The COMELEC
correctly
held that said ground is a pre-proclamation issue, citing Sections 241
and 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code, in relation to Section 235 of the same Code, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 241.
Definition.
- A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to
x
x x any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in
relation
to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
the election returns.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 243. Issues
that
may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. - The following shall be
proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 235. When
election
returns appear to be tampered with or falsified. — If the election
returns
submitted to the board of canvassers appear to be x x
x prepared by persons other than the member of the board of
election
inspectors, the board of canvassers shall use the other copies of said
election returns and, if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box
which
upon previous authority given by the Commission may be retrieved in
accordance
with Section 220 hereof. If the other copies of the returns are
likewise
x x x prepared by persons other than the members of
the
board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers or any candidate
affected shall bring the matter to the attention of the Commission. The
Commission shall then, after giving notice to all candidates concerned
and after satisfying itself that nothing in the ballot box indicate
that
its identity and integrity have been violated, order the opening of the
ballot box and, likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity of
the ballots therein has been duly preserved shall order the board of
election
inspectors to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare
a new return which shall then be used by the board of canvassers as
basis
of the canvass.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although the COMELEC en
banc noted that Deduzman Lakim, an eyewitness and official watcher in
Precinct
No. 31A, stated in his affidavit that the ballots in Precinct Nos. 31A,
31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B were openly tampered and falsified by Dagloc's
supporters,
it must be clarified that the appreciation of ballots is not the ground
raised by Samad for the exclusion of the nine election returns, and it
is also not the basis of the COMELEC en banc for excluding said returns.
Further, the aforecited
doctrine that "as long as the returns appear to be authentic, and duly
accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond
or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting
and
counting of the votes," is not applicable in this case due to the
following
reasons:chanrobles virtual law library
(1) The
COMELEC
has the authority to review the rulings of the Board of Canvassers in a
pre-proclamation controversy under paragraphs (e) to (f) of section 20
(Procedure in Disposition of Contested election Returns) of Republic
Act No. 7166;[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) The COMELEC en
banc
found that the nine election returns are fraudulent in the manner of
their
preparation which is a pre-proclamation issue under Sections 241 and
243
of the Omnibus
Election Code;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) The
allegations
of irregularity is not in the casting and counting of votes, but in the
preparation of the election returns (i.e., the election returns from
Precinct
Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A and 33B were tampered or falsified and were
prepared under duress, threats, coercion and intimidation).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Given the factual
finding
of the COMELEC en banc that the nine election returns are spurious in
the
manner of their preparation, doubt is cast on the authentic appearance
of said returns. Hence, the subject election returns cannot be accorded
prima facie status as genuine reports of the results of the counts of
votes.
Nevertheless, under Section 235 of the Omnibus
Election Code, a recount of votes may be resorted to, if the
integrity
of the affected ballot boxes and their contents has been preserved.
Thereafter,
new returns shall be prepared which shall be used by the Board of
Canvassers
as basis of the canvass. This procedure protects the will of the
electorate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second Issue:
Sufficiency of evidence in finding that the nine election returns were
spurious.
Appellant contends that
the COMELEC abused its discretion in finding the nine election returns
spurious without clear and convincing evidence of fraud and other
election
irregularities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court is not persuaded.cralaw:red
The COMELEC en banc,
after a judicious evaluation of the documents on record, upheld the
findings
stated in the dissenting opinion of Presiding Commissioner Ralph C.
Lantion
in the Resolution of the Second Division. What exactly these documents
and evidence are upon which the COMELEC en banc based its resolution,
and
how they have been appreciated in respect of their sufficiency, are
beyond
this Court's scrutiny.[47]
The rule that factual findings of administrative bodies will not be
disturbed
by courts of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or no
substantial evidence in support of such findings should be applied with
greater force when it concerns the COMELEC, as the framers of the
Constitution
intended to place the COMELEC — created and explicitly made independent
by the Constitution itself — on a level higher than statutory
administrative
organs.[48]
The factual finding of the COMELEC en banc is therefore binding on the
Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third Issue:
The proper remedy in case of spurious election returns
Petitioner contends
that even assuming that the subject election returns are spurious, the
remedy is not exclusion, but that provided in Section 235 of the Omnibus
Election Code, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section
235.
When election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified. — If the
election returns submitted to the board of canvassers appear to be
tampered
with, altered or falsified after they have left the hands of the board
of election inspectors, or otherwise not authentic, or were prepared by
the board of election inspectors under duress, force, intimidation, or
prepared by persons other than the member of the board of election
inspectors,
the board of canvassers shall use the other copies of said election
returns
and, if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box which upon previous
authority
given by the Commission may be retrieved in accordance with Section 220
hereof. If the other copies of the returns are likewise tampered with,
altered, falsified, not authentic, prepared under duress, force,
intimidation,
or prepared by persons other than the members of the board of election
inspectors, the board of canvassers or any candidate affected shall
bring
the matter to the attention of the Commission. The Commission shall
then,
after giving notice to all candidates concerned and after satisfying
itself
that nothing in the ballot box indicate that its identity and integrity
have been violated, order the opening of the ballot box and, likewise
after
satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been
duly
preserved shall order the board of election inspectors to recount the
votes
of the candidates affected and prepare a new return which shall then be
used by the board of canvassers as basis of the canvass.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to
petitioner,
while it may be true that the board of canvassers will not be compelled
to canvass election returns which are falsified or spurious, this does
not, however, mean that the board should right away disregard and
exclude
the election returns and ultimately the votes cast in the precinct.
Hence,
petitioner contends that the exclusion from canvass of the nine
election
returns by the COMELEC is a clear exercise of grave abuse of discretion.
The contention is meritorious.cralaw:red
Outright exclusion of
election returns on the ground that they were fraudulently prepared by
some members or non-members of the BEI disenfranchises the voters.
Hence,
when election returns are found to be spurious or falsified, Section
235
of the Omnibus
Election Code provides the procedure which enables the COMELEC to
ascertain
the will of the electorate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The COMELEC, therefore,
gravely abused its discretion when it excluded outright the subject
election
returns after finding that they were fraudulent returns. Instead, the
COMELEC
should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 235 of the Omnibus
Election Code: "x x
x The Commission shall then, after giving notice to all candidates
concerned
and after satisfying itself that nothing in the ballot box indicate
that
its identity and integrity have been violated, order the opening of the
ballot box and, likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity of
the ballots therein has been duly preserved shall order the board of
election
inspectors to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare
a new return which shall then be used by the board of canvassers as
basis
of the canvass."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, if the
integrity of the ballots has been violated, the COMELEC need not
recount
the ballots but should seal the ballot box and order its safekeeping in
accordance with Section 237 of the Omnibus
Election Code, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 237.
When
integrity of ballots is violated. — If upon the opening of the ballot
box
as ordered by the Commission under Sections 234, 235 and 236, hereof,
it
should appear that there are evidence or signs of replacement,
tampering
or violation of the integrity of the ballots. The Commission shall not
recount the ballots but shall forthwith seal the ballot box and order
its
safekeeping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Therefore, subject to
the
finding of whether or not the integrity of the affected ballot boxes
and
of their ballots has been preserved, the new returns from Precinct Nos.
31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A, 71A, 72A, 83A and 84A shall be
included
in the canvass. Consequently, not only the votes of the mayoralty
candidates,
but also those of the candidates for vice-mayor and members of the
Sangguniang
Bayan will be recounted and reflected in the new returns as basis of
the
canvass. On the basis of said canvass, the winning local candidates of
the Municipality of Kabuntalan in the May 14, 2001 elections shall be
proclaimed.
Fourth Issue:
Whether SPC No. 01-342 should have been dismissed
Petitioner contends
that the COMELEC should have dismissed SPC No. 01-342 since Samad
failed
to comply with the mandatory procedure provided in Section 20 of
Republic
Act (RA) No. 7166 and Section 38 of Comelec Resolution No. 3848.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 20 of RA No.
7166 provides:chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 20.
Procedure
in Disposition of Contested Election Returns. — (a) Any candidate
x
x x contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any
election
returns on any of the grounds authorized under Article XX or Sections
234,
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(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 objection x x x (Emphasis supplied by petitioner
Dagloc.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner claims
that
Samad failed to submit her evidence in support of her objections within
24 hours from the time such objections were made, which is evidenced by
the ruling of the Board issued on May 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further,
petitioner
asserts that Paragraph 8, Section 38 of Comelec Resolution No. 3848
mandates
that "any appeal brought before the Comelec on the ruling of the Board,
without the accomplished forms and the evidence thereto, shall be
summarily
dismissed."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner thus
contends
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when it did not dismiss SPC No. 01-342 for
failure
to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 20 of Republic Act
No. 7166 and Section 38 of Comelec Resolution No. 3848.
The Court disagrees.cralaw:red
Petitioner is referring
to Samad's appeal before the COMELEC of the Board's ruling to include
in
the canvass the election returns from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B,
33A and 33B. It appears that Samad submitted her evidence belatedly. It
may be presumed that when Samad appealed from the Board's ruling before
the COMELEC, the Board elevated its report and the complete records and
evidence submitted in the canvass in accordance with Section 20,
paragraphs
(g) and (h) of Republic Act No. 7166, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the absence of
evidence
to the contrary, it is presumed that official duty has been regularly
performed.
Moreover, in their respective resolutions, the COMELEC en banc and the
Second Division evidently decided on the pre-proclamation cases filed
before
them based on the records and evidence elevated to them by the Board.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, the COMELEC
has broad powers to ascertain the true results of the election by means
available to it.[49]
It is not strictly bound by procedural rules in the attainment of this
end. In fact, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, wherein the aforecited
Section
20 of RA No. 7166 is reiterated,[5]
provides that said rules "shall be liberally construed in order to
promote
the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of
ensuring
the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections
and
to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and
disposition
of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fifth Issue: Whether
intervenor was denied due process.cralaw:red
In regard to the petition-in-intervention
filed by intervenor Mohidin Lauban, a co-respondent in SPC No. 01-310,
it is contended that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction for: (1) failing to notify him about
the proceedings in the consolidated cases including SPC No. 01-310, and
thereafter annulling his proclamation in violation of his right to due
process; and (2) ordering the exclusion of the nine election returns
grounded
on objections which were improper for a pre-proclamation controversy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court has already
ruled on the incorrectness of the order of the COMELEC to exclude
outright
the nine election returns from the canvass; hence, the remaining issue
to be resolved is whether or not the intervenor was denied due process
by the COMELEC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lauban contends that
the COMELEC deprived him of his right to notice and hearing in all the
proceedings conducted in SPC No. 01-310, wherein he was a
co-respondent,
as he was neither notified nor furnished a copy of the petition.
Thereafter,
Lauban asserts that the two resolutions of the COMELEC annulled and set
aside his proclamation as vice-mayor of the Municipality of Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao, despite prior knowledge by both the Second Division and
the
Commission en banc that he was not duly notified and heard.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contention is
without merit.
The COMELEC, represented
by the Solicitor General, countered that Lauban was not denied due
process
before the COMELEC. It observed that petitioner Dagloc and Lauban were
party mates; the former was a candidate for mayor and the latter for
vice-mayor
during the May 14, 2001 elections. In SPC No. 01-310, Dagloc and Lauban
and their candidates for Sangguniang Bayan were impleaded as
respondents
and their proclamations were sought to be annulled.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to the
COMELEC,
Dagloc, Lauban and another private respondent in SPC-310, Fhamie
Dumaba,
were all represented by Abdul & Maningas Law Offices as shown by
the
pleading, "Answer to Petition."[51]
A notice of hearing[52]
was sent to Atty. Kamid Abdul as counsel of private respondents. In the
minutes of the session held at the COMELEC Session Hall on July 24,
2001
at 2:00 p.m., Atty. Kamid Abdul entered his appearance as counsel for
Dagloc,
et al.[53]
The COMELEC, therefore, correctly stated that Lauban, who was
represented
by a counsel who filed an answer, was notified of the hearing and had
attended
the hearing, cannot claim to have been denied due process by the
COMELEC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition-in-intervention
is denied for lack of merit, insofar as intervenor Mohidin S. Lauban
claims
that the COMELEC denied him due process. However, said
petition-in-intervention
and the petition for certiorari of Salipongan L. Dagloc are given due
course
insofar as they pray for the inclusion of the nine election returns in
the canvass. The COMELEC is directed to determine within twenty (20)
days
from receipt of this Decision whether the integrity of the ballot boxes
and the ballots from Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A/33B, 70A,
71A,
72A, 83A and 84A has been preserved. If the integrity of the affected
ballot
boxes and of their ballots is found to be intact, the COMELEC is
directed
to order the Board of Election Inspectors to recount the votes cast in
the precinct involved and to prepare a new return as basis of the
canvass.
The new return shall be included in the canvass, in the proper
appreciation
of the votes of the candidates for mayor, vice-mayor and members of the
Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Kabuntalan, Province of
Maguindanao,
and on the basis of said canvass, the winning local candidates in the
May
14, 2001 elections shall be proclaimed. However, if the integrity of
any
ballot box or of its ballots has been violated, the COMELEC shall not
recount
the affected ballots, but shall seal the affected ballot box and order
its safekeeping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No pronouncement as
to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and
Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
In SPC Nos. 01-282, 01-285, 01-291, 01-310, 01-341, 01-342.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 86.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 89.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
It appears that Samad also sought the exclusion of the election returns
from these precincts. However, Samad did not allege this fact in SPC
No.
01-341 and SPC No. 01-342 which she filed before the Commission on
Elections.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, pp. 89–90.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 90.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, p. 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Rollo, pp. 91–92.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo, p. 97.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. —
the following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a
pre-proclamation
controversy:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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, 2343, 235 and 236 of this Code:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion,
or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic
x
x x.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 97–98.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Rollo, p. 98.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Rollo, pp. 98–99.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Rollo, pp. 99–100.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo, pp. 105–107.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Dissenting Opinion, Rollo, p. 109.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Comment (Samad), Rollo, p. 377.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
The Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in
pre-proclamation
controversy. — the following shall be proper issues that may be raised
in a pre-proclamation controversy:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion,
or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not
authentic
x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
An Act Providing For Synchronized National and Local Elections And For
Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, And For Other
Purposes.
[26]
Rollo, pp. 53-54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Rollo, p. 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Rollo, pp. 57–60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Rollo, pp. 62–64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Rollo, p. 223.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Rollo, p. 232.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning
Candidates
for Municipal Offices, Rollo, p. 392; Confirmation of Assumption to
Office,
Rollo, p. 394.
[34]
Panunumpa sa Katungkulan, Rollo, p. 393.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Comment (Samad), Rollo, p. 381.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Rollo, p. 239.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Rollo, p. 282-C.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Rollo, p. 342-B.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Rollo, p. 375.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Rollo, pp. 58–59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
274 SCRA 470 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
271 SCRA 733, 749 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
257 SCRA 1, 23 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Belac v. Commission on Elections, 356 SCRA 394, 403 (2001); Sanchez v.
COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67, 75 (1987).
[45]
Rollo, p. 316.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Republic Act No. 7166, Section 20. Procedure in Disposition of
contested
Election Returns. —
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Sison v. Commission on Elections, 304 SCRA 170, 179 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
Mastura v. Commission on Elections (Second Division), 285 SCRA 493, 499
(1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Mastura v. Commission on Elections (Second Division), supra, note 48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
See Comelec Rules of Procedure, Rule 27, Section 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
Annex A, Rollo, p. 440.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
Annexes B-B-1, Rollo, pp. 446–447.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
Annex C, Rollo, p. 448.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|