ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 145950.March 27, 2001]
TAN, et al. vs. COMELEC et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 27 2001.
G.R. No. 145950(Riza M. Tan, Alihaidar Hassan, Said Arajil, Utal Jairal, Asiri Hamsani, Salip Ikit, Mahsir Tan, Riger Tating and Najan Ulli petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Maimbung and Najib Maldisa, respondents.)
Petitioner Riza Tan and respondent Najib Maldisa were candidates for the mayoralty of Maimbung, Sulu during the May 11, 1998 elections.
Maimbung, Sulu has fifty-six (56) precincts. During the canvassing of the election returns, petitioner Tan orally objected to the inclusion of election returns in thirty six (36) precincts, namely: 3A, 4A, 4A1, 5A, 5A1, 6A, 6A1, 6A2 and 6A3, 7A, 7A1, 7A2, 8A 8A1, 8A2 and 8A3, 9A, 9A1, 9A2 and 9A3, 10A, 10A1, 10A2, 11A, 11A1, 11A2, 12A, 12A1, 12A2, 13A, 13A1 and l3A2, 13A3, 17A1, 19A, 21A, 23A, 23A1, 24A and 29A. Respondent Maldisa, for his part, objected to the inclusion of the election returns in sixteen (16) precincts, namely: 1A and 1A1, 2A, 4A, 4A1, 14A1, 16A, 17A, 17A1, 22A, 23A, 25A, 27A, 28A, 28A1, 33A and 33Al. These objections were registered before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) chaired by Tambuyong Undog with Abdujarik Paradji and Hadja Intan Ismali as members. Respondent Maldisa's objection was orally denied by the MBC.
A written ruling dated May 31, 1998 (4:30 P.M.) and signed by Chairman Undog and Mr. Paradji ordered the exclusion of election returns on the ground that they were manufactured in view of the distribution of votes and alleged statistical improbability of the results. However, the ruling did not indicate which returns were to be excluded. Another written ruling dated "June 31, 1998" * should be May 31, 1998. (6:45 P.M.) was rendered by the same MBC, this time excluding the thirty-six (36) election returns objected to by petitioner Tan. The later ruling, however, only bore the signature of Chairman Undog with a marginal note signed by MBC members Paradji and Ismali which read: "We will (sic) not informed before and consulted."
After the said canvassing, the MBC no longer met prompting the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to create a new Board of Canvassers composed of Atty. Allen Abaya as Chairman and Divina Blas and Susana Querubin as members. The new MBC convened on June 3, 1998. During the session, the two (2) written rulings of the former MBC dated May 31, 1998 (4:30 P.M.) and "June 31, 1998" (6:45 P.M.) were presented by the former MBC.
On June 5, 1998, the new MBC resumed its session. On the same date, respondent Maldisa filed before it and with the COMELEC's Law Department, a motion to set aside the proceedings of the former MBC. Assailed therein was the legality of the "June 31, 1998" (6:45 P.M.) ruling. The new MBC was likewise furnished a copy of respondent Maldisa's appeal from the ruling of the MBC of Maimbung dated June 4, 1998 filed before the COMELEC on June 5, 1998. The appeal, docketed as SPC No. 98-237, questioned the oral ruling of the former MBC denying the exclusion of the sixteen (16) election returns objected to by respondent Maldisa. Later, respondent Maldisa withdrew his objections to the inclusion of election returns in nine (9) precincts, namely, 2A, 4A, 4A1, 14A1, l7A, 17A1, 22A, 23A and 28A1, thereby, limiting his appeal to seven (7) precincts only, thus, 25A, 33A, 33A1, 16A, 28A, 27A and 1A/1A1.
On June 6, 1998, petitioners filed their comment and opposition to the motion to set aside the proceedings of the former MBC alleging that (a) the former board and its members were not impleaded as respondents, making the motion absolutely useless, and (b) questions affecting the composition/proceedings of the board of canvassers must be initiated in the Board and which respondent Maldisa failed to do.
On June 8, 1998, the new MBC elevated the motion to set aside the proceedings of the former MBC to the COMELEC en banc en consulta. The COMELEC assumed jurisdiction over the consulta.
On June 9, 1998, respondent Maldisa filed a motion to consolidate SPC No. 98-237 with the consulta.
On the same date, the COMELEC en banc, acting on the consulta of the new MBC, issued Resolution No. 98-1951 which reads as follows:
Resolved, considering that the Certificate of Canvass for the provincial offices has already been accomplished on the Statement of Votes prepared by the previous board and the presumption of regularity in the performance of function, to direct the new Municipal Board of Canvassers of Maimbung, Sulu to reconvene, finish the canvassing and thereafter to proclaim the winning candidates in said municipality. 1 Rollo, p. 90.
On June 25, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC issued a resolution in SPC No. 98-237 which dispositively reads as follows:
In view therefore of the foregoing findings, the Commission (FIRST DIVISION) hereby AFFIRMS the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to include into the canvass the seven (7) election returns objected to by Appellant.
Accordingly, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Maimbung, Sulu, is hereby DIRECTED to RECONVENE, and taking into account the ruling of the former MBC as regards the thirty (sic) (36) election returns it had previously canvassed, COMPLETE THE CANVASS, by including thereto the seven (7)elections returns subject of this appeal, and thereafter PROCLAIM the winning candidates for the elective positions in the Municipality of Maimbung, Sulu.
SO ORDERED. 2 Id., at 86.
This resolution bore this notation from Commissioner Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, viz:
I reiterate my stand that we hold in abeyance this Resolution because the Commission is revisiting the rulings of the 1st MBC of Maimbung when it excluded 36 election returns from the canvass and which matter was raised to Us by the 2nd MBC en consulta. This ruling will pre-empt the action of the Commission En Banc therein and could complicate the legal issues we seek to resolve in Maimbung. 3 Id., at 87.
On June 27, 1998, respondent Maldisa filed his motion for reconsideration.
Meantime, on July 2, 1998, the COMELEC en banc issued a minute resolution which reads:
Resolved to allow the voluntary inhibition of Atty. Francis Abaya as Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, Maimbung, Sulu, and to direct said board to immediately reconvene with notice to all parties concerned and implement the Resolution of the First Division in SPC No. 98-237, promulgated on June 25, 1998. 4 Id., at 92.
On July 9, 1998, respondent Maldisa's motion for reconsideration was set for hearing on July 14, 1998. The hearing was reset to July 21, 1998.
Before the day of the hearing came, respondent Maldisa filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 134320, seeking to enjoin the COMELEC and the new MBC from implementing the July 2, 1998 resolution.
On July 17, 1998, this Court issued a status quo ante order.
On June 8, 1999, this Court issued a resolution dismissing G.R. No. 134320 which reads as follows:
xxx
Acting on the special civil action for certiorari, as well as the separate comments thereon filed by (a) counsel for private respondent dated 22 September 1998, and (b) counsel for public respondent dated 5 April 1999, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition, for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the questioned resolution.
On July 29, 1999, this Court issued another resolution denying for lack of merit the "motion to authorize the Commission on Elections en banc to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration" filed by counsel for respondent Maldisa.
On August 17, 1999, this Court issued another resolution which reads:
Acting on the pending incidents the Court Resolved to NOTE (a) petitioner's manifestation and Motion for Correction of Clerical Errors in the June 8, 1999 Resolution dated 27 July 1999; (b) private respondent's Brief Comment on the said Manifestation and Motion, dated 2 August 1999; and (c) Petitioner's Manifestation and Supplemental Motion for Clarification of the June 8, 1999 Resolution, dated 6 August 1999.
The Court further Resolved to RULE that there is nothing to correct in the resolution of 8 June 1999. The errors are not in the 'wordings' of the resolution, but in the understanding thereof by petitioner.
Nevertheless, since the Commission on Elections is in quandary as to what it should do, the Court finally Resolved to declare that the logical consequence of the dismissal of the petition in this case is the recognition that the COMELEC en banc committed no grave abuse of discretion in setting for hearing the motion for reconsideration.
On September 14, 1999, this Court clarified its ruling on the issue of setting therein motion for reconsideration for hearing:
The Court Resolved to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the Comment to Another Pleading of Petitioner dated 12 August 1999 filed by counsel for private respondents Riza Tan, et al., considering that in the resolution of 17 August 1999, the Courtruled that there is nothing to correct in the resolution of 8 June 1999 and that the logical consequence of the dismissal of the petition in this case is the recognition that the COMELEC en banc committed no grave abuse of discretion in setting for hearing the motion for reconsideration.
Pursuant to the above resolution, the COMELEC en banc immediately set respondent Maldisa's motion for reconsideration for hearing, and on November 29, 2000, issued the assailed resolution which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Commission (en banc), finding merit in the instant Motion for Reconsideration, reverses in part the ruling of the Commission's (First Division) Resolution which excludes the 36 election returns, and affirms its ruling in including the seven (7) election returns object to by petitioner Maldisa in the canvass.
The Commission shall constitute a new Municipal board of Canvassers for Maimbung, Sulu which is hereby DIRECTED to immediately reconvene with notice to all parties concerned and implement in part as above-indicated, the Resolution of the First Division, promulgated, on June 25, 1998; and to implement the Commission en banc's Minute Resolution No. 98-1951 dated June 9, 1998, in accordance with the findings of this decision. 5 Id., at 59.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order and/or status quo ante order. Petitioners assail the validity of the COMELEC resolution reversing the old MBC's order excluding the election returns from the thirty six (36) precincts they objected to.
On December 5, 2000, this Court resolved to require the respondents to comment on the petition and directed the parties to maintain the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of the petition, which is the condition existing before the issuance or enforcement and implementation of the questioned COMELEC resolution dated November 29, 2000 in SPC No. 98-237. 6 Id., at 160.
Petitioners contend that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it resolved for the inclusion of the thirty-six (36) election returns excluded by the MBC even when the issue was not raised in the appeal of respondent Maldisa before the First Division.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that even if said issue was not raised in the appeal, it cannot be denied that the new MBC elevated the matter on the propriety of the issuance of the order of exclusion of said returns to the COMELEC en consulta.
Article XX, Section 242 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 provides that the COMELEC shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. Consequently, the Commission is tasked to resolve pre-proclamation controversies in the exercise either of its original jurisdiction in cases directly filed before it, or of its appellate jurisdiction in appeals from the rulings of the board of canvassers.
Much reliance has been made by the petitioners on the fact that an appeal was not raised questioning the "June 31, 1998" MBC ruling which excluded the thirty-six (36) election returns objected to by petitioner Tan. However, the Court believes and so holds that there was substantial compliance on the part of the respondent Maldisa. It may be recalled that on June 5, 1998, respondent Maldisa filed a motion to set asides the proceedings of the former MBC which excluded the thirty-six (36) precincts. The fact that the new MBC elevated the matter to the COMELEC en consulta and the COMELEC assumed jurisdiction over it qualifies the matter ripe for review by the Commission. Technicalities should not be resorted to in determining the true will of the electorate.
In Cauton v. Commission on Elections, 7 19 SCRA 911 (1967). we held that:
xxx The Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections. In the performance of its duties, the, Commission must be given a considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created - to promote free, orderly, and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with. Technicalities, which are not conducive to free, orderly and honest elections, but on the contrary may defeat the will of the sovereign people as expressed in their votes, should not be allowed to hamper the Commission on Elections in the performance of its duties. xxx 8 Id., at 921-922.
Besides, there was no occasion to appeal from either the May 31, 1998 or the "June 31, 1998" ruling of the MBC as they were vitiated by serious irregularities and, therefore, did not become effective. The May 31, 1998 ruling was not valid as it did even state what returns were to be excluded and the reason why they were to be excluded. The "June 31, 1998" ruling was signed only by the MBC chairman with a marginal note signed by the other members saying that they were not "informed and consulted" of the ruling.
Even assuming that the "June 31, 1998" ruling is valid, no opportunity was accorded the parties to question the same as the old MBC no longer reconvened after issuing the ruling, prompting the COMELEC to create a new MBC.
Absent showing therefore that the COMELEC acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the Court will respect its resolution.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Puno, J., is abroad on official business.Pardo, J., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
