34. Chavez v.
COMELEC – 211 SCRA 315 [1992] (pre-proclamation)
FACTS: On 5 May, 1992, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in the case of
Francisco Chavez vs. COMELEC (GR 104704) which disqualified Melchor Chavez from
running for Office of Senator in the May, 1992 elections. When COMELEC received the
resolution, Francisco Chavez filed an urgent motion to the COMELEC praying that 1.) to
disseminate through the fastest available means the resolution to all election officials
and areas, and 2.) to delete Melchor Chavez’s name among the list of certified
candidates and "to count all votes cast for the disqualified Melchor Chavez in favor of
Francisco Chavez."
COMELEC issued Res. No. 92-1322 which deleted the name of Melchor Chavez
from the list of candidates, however it failed to order the crediting of “Chavez” votes in
favor of Francisco. According to Francisco, COMELEC failed delete the name of the
disqualified candidate, in violation of RA 7166, Sec. 7, and thus the name of Melchor
Chavez remained undeleted during election day. In this confusion, the Boards of
Election Inspectors (BEIs) from 170,354 precincts nationwide declared votes for
Melchor Chavez as either stray or invalidated, and as a result votes for Melchor were
not credited to Francisco.
Francisco then filed a petition for COMELEC to, among other points, to re-open
the ballot boxes in 13 provinces involving some 80,348 precincts, to scan for the
"Chavez" votes for purposes of crediting the same in his favor, and to suspend the
proclamation of the 24 winning candidates through the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO.)
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be filed with the SET
HELD: Yes. Section 242 of the OEC provides that preproclamation contests are
not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the
House of Representatives. The proper recourse should have been to file a regular
election protest before the SET. The petition must also fail for failure to demonstrate any
manifest error in the certificates of canvass or election returns before the COMELEC
which would warrant their correction.
What is allowed is the correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or
election returns.—It is clear from the above-quoted provision of the law that “pre-
proclamation cases (are) not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator
and Member of the House of Representatives.” What is allowed is the correction of
“manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns.” To be manifest, the
errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought
to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the board of
canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.
Chavez vs. Commission on Elections, 211 SCRA 315, G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992
Additionally, RA 7166 states that only "manifest errors (i.e. appearing on the face) in the
certificate of canvass or election returns” may be corrected. The Court cited the case of
Sanchez v. COMELEC which further defined the characteristics for such manifest errors
under the Omnibus Election Code: the election returns are incomplete or contain
material defects (sec. 234), appear to have been tampered with, falsified or prepared
under duress (sec. 235) and/or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any
candidate, the difference of which affects the result of the election (sec. 236). Francisco
Chavez’s complaint that “Chavez” votes were not counted in his favor clearly does not
fall under any of the elements listed in the Omnibus Code.
In the absence of any manifest error, the Court further states that Francisco’s
proper recourse would be to take up the case to the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Under
Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, "(t)he Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members…" The word “sole” emphasizes that only the Tribunal has jurisdiction over
election contests over their respective members which, as worth noting in this case,
includes members of the Senate. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain
Francisco Chavez’s petition and must therefore dismiss it for lack of merit.
