G.R. No. 104960 September 14, residence at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, . . .

Failure to depart on or
1993 Leyte,  caused the construction of his
1
before the specified date
residential house therein. He soon may result in the
PHILIP G. ROMUALDEZ, petitioner, thereafter also served as Barangay withdrawal of voluntary
vs. Captain of the place. In the 1984 departure and action being
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH Batasan Election and 1986 "snap" taken to effect your
7, TACLOBAN CITY, DONATO Presidential Election, Romualdez acted deportation. In accordance
ADVINCULA, BOARD OF ELECTION as the Campaign Manager of the with a decision made to
INSPECTORS, PRECINCT No. 9, Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in Leyte your case, you are
MALBOG, TOLOSA, LEYTE, and the where he voted. 2
required to depart from
MUNICIPAL REGISTRAR COMELEC, the United States at your
TOLOSA, LEYTE, respondents. When the eventful days from the 21st to expense on or before 23
the 24th of February, 1986, came or August 1992. 6

Otilia Dimayuga-Molo for petitioner. were about to come to a close, some

relatives and associates of the deposed Upon receipt of the letter, Romualdez
The Solicitor General for President, fearing for their personal departed from the U.S. for the
respondents. safety, whether founded or not, "fled" Philippines, arriving on December 1991
the country. Petitioner Romualdez, for apparently without any government
one, together with his immediate family, document. 7

left the Philippines and sought "asylum"

VITUG, J.: in the United States which the United When Romualdez arrived in the
States (U.S.) government Philippines, he did not delay his return
granted.  While abroad, he took special
3
to his residence at Malbog, Tolosa,
An event in this decade, which future
studies on the development of Leyte- Leyte. During the registration of voters
generations would likely come to know
Samar and international business conducted by the Commission on
simply as the "EDSA People's Power
finance. 4
Election ("COMELEC") on 01 February
Revolution of 1986," has dramatically
changed the course of our nation's 1992 for the Synchronized National and
history. So, too, not a few of our In the early part of 1987, Romualdez Local Election scheduled for 11 May
countrymen have by it been left alone in attempted to come back to the 1992, petitioner registered himself anew
their own personal lives. One such case Philippines to run for a congressional as a voter at Precinct No. 9 of Malbog,
is that of the petitioner in this special seat in Leyte. On 23 March 1987, he Tolosa, Leyte. The chairman of the
civil action for certiorari. finally decided to book a flight back to Board of Election Inspectors, who had
the Philippines but the flight was known Romualdez to be a resident of
somehow aborted. 5
the place and, in fact, an elected
The petitioner is Philip Romualdez, a
Barangay Chairman of Malbog in 1982,
natural born citizen of the Philippines,
On 25 September 1991, Romualdez allowed him to be registered.
the son of the former Governor of Leyte,
Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez, and received a letter from Mr. Charles Cobb,
nephew of the then First Lady Imelda District Director of the U.S. Immigration Romualdez's registration, however, was
Marcos. Sometime in the early part of and Naturalization Service, informing not to be unquestioned. On 21 February
1980, the petitioner, in consonance with him that he should depart from the U.S. 1992, herein private respondent Donato
his decision to establish his legal at his expense on or before 23 August Advincula ("Advincula") filed a petition
1992, thus: with the Municipal Trial Court of Tolosa,
Leyte, praying that Romualdez be DENIED and petition The petitioner has raised several issues
excluded from the list of voters in DISMISSED. which have been well synthesized by the
Precinct No. 9 of Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte, Solicitor General into —
under BP 881 and RA 7166.  Advincula
8
SO ORDERED.
alleged that Romualdez was a resident (1) Whether or not the MTC and RTC
of Massachusetts, U.S.A.; that his Upon receipt of the adverse decision, acquired jurisdiction over, respectively,
profession and occupation was in the Advincula appealed the case to the Case No. 01-S. 1992 and Case No. 92-
U.S.A.; that he had just recently arrived respondent court. 03-42, the petition having been filed by
in the Philippines; and that he did not one who did not allege to be himself a
have the required one-year residence in On 03 April 1992, the respondent court registered voter of the municipality
the Philippines and the six-month rendered the assailed decision,   thus:
12 concerned; and
residence in Tolosa to qualify him to
register as a voter in Barangay Malbog, WHEREFORE, this Court (2) Whether or not the respondent court
Tolosa, Leyte.9
finds respondent Philip erred in finding the petitioner to have
Romualdez disqualified to voluntarily left the country and
On 25 February 1992, Romualdez filed register as a voter for the abandoned his residence in Malbog,
an answer, contending that he has been 1992 elections and hereby Tolosa, Leyte.
a resident of Tolosa, Leyte, since the reverses the decision of
early 1980's, and that he has not the lower court in toto. The petition is impressed with merit.
abandoned his said residence by his
physical absence therefrom during the The Municipal Registrar of Anent the first issue, the petitioner
period from 1986 up to the third week the Commission on assails for the first time the jurisdiction
of December 1991.  10
Elections of Tolosa, Leyte, of the respondent Court and the MTC of
is hereby ordered to delete Tolosa, Leyte, in taking cognizance of
After due hearing, the Municipal Court and cancel the name of the case, despite an absence of any
of Tolosa, Leyte rendered a respondent Philip G. allegation in the petition filed with the
decision   on 28 February 1992, the
11
Romualdez from the list of MTC that Advincula was himself a
dispositive portion of which reads: qualified voters registered registered voter in Precinct No. 9 of
February 1, 1992, at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte
WHEREFORE PREMISES Precinct 9, barangay conformably with Section 142 of the
CONSIDERED, the court Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. Omnibus Election Code.  14

finds the respondent to be

a resident of Brgy. Malbog, SO ORDERED. When respondent Advincula filed the
Tolosa, Leyte and qualified petition with the MTC for the exclusion
to register as a voter Hence, this recourse. of herein petitioner Romualdez, the
thereat. Hence, the instant latter countered by filing his
petition for exclusion of answer   and praying for the denial of
15
On 7 May 1992, this Court issued a
Philip G. Romualdez from the petition, without raising the issue of
temporary restraining order directing
the list of voter of Precinct jurisdiction. But what can be telling is
respondent Regional Trial Court Judge
No. 9, Malbog, Tolosa, that when the MTC decision, denying
Pedro Espino to cease and desist from
Leyte is hereby ordered the petition for disqualification, went on
enforcing questioned decision.13
appeal to the RTC, Romualdez, in his concerned, it may well be to recall what indefinite period of time; the change of
own appeal-memorandum, this Court said in Rubio residence must be voluntary; and the
explicitly prayed that the MTC decision vs. Sto.  Tomas:  18
residence at the place chosen for the
be affirmed. This unassailable incident new domicile must be actual.  22

leads us to reiterate that "while lack of It is also incumbent upon

jurisdiction may be assailed at any the Office of the Solicitor The political situation brought about by
stage, a party's active participation in General to present to the the "People's Power Revolution" must
the proceedings before a court without Court the position that will have truly caused great apprehension to
jurisdiction will estop such party from legally uphold the best the Romualdezes, as well as a serious
assailing such lack of interest of the concern over the safety and welfare of
jurisdiction."   Undoubtedly,
16
the government, although it the members of their families. Their
petitioner is now estopped from may run counter to a going into self-exile until conditions
questioning the jurisdiction of the client's position. favorable to them would have somehow
respondent not only by his active stabilized is understandable. Certainly,
participation in the proceedings thereat In election cases, the Court treats their sudden departure from the country
but, more importantly, in having sought domicile and residence as synonymous cannot be described as "voluntary," or
an affirmative relief himself when the terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as as "abandonment of residence" at least
appeal was made to the latter court used in the election law is synonymous in the context that these terms are used
whose jurisdiction he, in effect, invoked. with "domicile", which imports not only in applying the concept of "domicile by
Furthermore, the question is not really an intention to reside in a fixed place choice."
as much the jurisdiction of the courts but also personal presence in that place,
below as merely the locus standi of the coupled with conduct indicative of such We have closely examined the records,
complainant in the proceedings, a intention."   "Domicile" denotes a fixed
19
and we find not that much to convince
matter that, at this stage, should be permanent residence to which when us that the petitioner had, in fact,
considered foreclosed. absent for business or pleasure, or for abandoned his residence in the
like reasons, one intends to Philippines and established his domicile
In any case, we consider primordial the return.   That residence, in the case of
20
elsewhere.
second issue of whether or not the petitioner, was established during
Romualdez voluntarily left the country the early 1980's to be at Barangay It must be emphasized that the right to
and abandoned his residence in Malbog, Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. Residence thus vote is a most precious political right, as
Tolosa, Leyte. Here, this time, we find acquired, however, may be lost by well as a bounden duty of every citizen,
for the petitioner. adopting another choice of domicile. In enabling and requiring him to
order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile participate in the process of government
The Solicitor General himself sustains by choice, there must concur (1) so as to ensure that the government
the view of petitioner Romualdez. residence or bodily presence in the new can truly be said to derive its power
Expressing surprise at this stance given locality, (2) an intention to remain solely from the consent of the
by the Solicitor General, respondent there, and (3) an intention to abandon governed.   We,
23
therefore, must
Advincula posits non the old domicile.   In other words, there
21
commend respondent Advincula for
sequitur argument   in
17
his comment must basically be animus spending time and effort even all the
assailing instead the person of Solicitor manendi coupled with animus non way up to this Court, for as the right of
Edgar Chua. If it would have any value, revertendi. The purpose to remain in or suffrage is not to be abridged, so also
at all, in disabusing the minds of those at the domicile of choice must be for an must we safeguard and preserve it but
only on behalf of those entitled and
bound to exercise it.

WHEREFORE, finding merit on the

petition the same is hereby GRANTED
DUE COURSE; of the Decision of the
respondent Regional Trial Court dated
03 April 1992 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the
Municipal Trial Court dated 28 February
1992 is hereby REINSTATED and the
Temporary Restraining Order issued by
the Court in this case is correspondingly
made PERMANENT. No pronouncement
as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 142907             November The Facts In the course of the protest, the
29, 2000 municipal treasurer of Valenzuela, who
Petitioner Jose Emmanuel L. Carlos and by law has custody of the ballot boxes,
JOSE EMMANUEL L. respondent Antonio M. Serapio were collected the ballot boxes and delivered
CARLOS, petitioner, candidates for the position of mayor of them to the Regional Trial Court,
vs. the municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Caloocan City. The trial court conducted
HON. ADORACION G. ANGELES, IN Manila (later converted into a City) a pre-trial conference of the parties but
HER CAPACITY AS THE ACTING during the May 11, 1998 elections. it did not produce a substantial result as
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE the parties merely paid superficial
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN On May 21, 1998, the Municipal Board service and only agreed on the
CALOOCAN CITY (BRANCH 125) and of Canvassers, Valenzuela, Metro Manila following:
ANTONIO M. SERAPIO, respondents. proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected
mayor of Valenzuela having obtained 1. Both parties admit their
PARDO, J.: 102,688 votes, the highest number of capacity to sue and be sued;
votes in the election returns.
The Case 2. Both parties admit that the
On June 1, 1998, respondent Antonio M. protestant was a candidate
The case before the Court is an original Serapio who obtained 77,270 votes, the during the May 11, 1998
special civil action for certiorari and second highest number of votes, filed election;
prohibition with preliminary injunction or with the Regional Trial Court,
temporary restraining order seeking to Valenzuela, Metro Manila, an election 3. Both parties admit that the
annul the decision of the Regional Trial protest challenging the results. Due to protestee has been proclaimed as
Court, Caloocan City, Branch 125, the the inhibition of all judges of the the elected mayor of Valenzuela,
dispositive portion of which reads as Regional Trial Court in Valenzuela, the Metro Manila, on May 21, 1998;
follows: case was ultimately assigned to the
Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, 4. Both parties admit that the
"WHEREFORE, premises Branch 125, presided over by protestee allegedly obtained
considered, the proclamation of respondent Judge Adoracion G. Angeles. 102,688 votes while the
the Protestee, Jose Emmanuel protestant obtained 77,270 votes
Carlos, by the Board of On June 26, 1998, petitioner filed with per canvass of election returns of
Canvassers is accordingly SET the trial court an answer with the Board of Canvassers.
ASIDE. affirmative defenses and motion to
dismiss. The court denied the motion to The pre-trial was then concluded and
"The Court hereby FINDS the dismiss by order dated January 14, the parties agreed to the creation of
Protestant, ANTONIO SERAPIO, 1999. Petitioner elevated the order to seven (7) revision committees
as the DULY ELECTED MAYOR OF the Commission on Elections (Comelec) consisting of a chairman designated by
VALENZUELA CITY. on petition for certiorari and the court and two members
prohibition, which,
2 
however, has representing the protestant and the
"SO ORDERED." 1 remained unresolved up to this protestee.
moment.
Meantime, on May 12, 1999, petitioner (b) protestee Carlos - Valenzuela. The court held that the
filed a consolidated motion that included 83,609 votes, giving the fraud was attributable to the protestee
a prayer for authority to photocopy all latter a winning margin of who had control over the election
the official copies of the revision reports 17,007 votes. paraphernalia and the basic services in
in the custody of the trial court. the community such as the supply of
However, the trial court denied the The Trial Court's Ruling electricity.
issuance of such authorization. The 3 

court likewise denied a motion for Nevertheless, in its decision, the trial On April 24, 2000, the trial court
reconsideration of the denial. Then 4 
court set aside the final tally of valid rendered a judgment ruling that the
petitioner raised the denial to the votes because of its finding of perpetuation of fraud had undoubtedly
COMELEC on petition for certiorari and "significant badges of fraud," namely: suppressed the true will of the
mandamus, which
5 
also remains electorate of Valenzuela and substituted
unresolved until this date. 1. The keys turned over by the it with the will of the protestee.
City Treasurer to the court did Notwithstanding the plurality of valid
The Revision Results not fit into the padlocks of the votes in favor of the protestee, the trial
ballot boxes that had to be court set aside the proclamation of
The revision of the ballots showed the forcibly opened; protestee Jose Emmanuel Carlos by the
following results: Municipal Board of Canvassers and
2. Seven (7) ballot boxes did not declared protestant Antonio M. Serapio
(1) Per physical count of the contain any ballot and two (2) as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela
ballots: ballot boxes out of the seven (7) City.
6

ballot boxes did not contain any

(a) protestant Serapio - election returns; Hearing news that the protestant had
76,246 votes. won the election protest, the protestee
3. Some schools where various secured a copy of the decision from the
(b) protestee Carlos - precincts were located trial court on May 4, 2000. On the other
103,551 votes. experienced brownouts during hand, notice of the decision was
the counting of votes causing received by the protestant on May 03,
(2) Per revision, the court delay in the counting although 2000.
invalidated 9,697 votes of the there was no undue commotion
protestant but validated 53 stray or violence that occurred; On May 4, 2000, protestant filed with
votes in his favor. the trial court a motion for execution
4. Some of the assigned watchers pending appeal. On May 4, 2000, the
7 

The court invalidated 19,975 votes of of protestant were not in their trial court gave protestee five (5) days
the protestee and validated 33 stray posts during the counting of within which to submit his comment or
votes in his favor. votes. opposition to the motion.8

The final tally showed: On the basis of the foregoing badges of Petitioner's Appeal to Comelec
fraud, the trial court declared that there
(a) protestant Serapio - was enough pattern of fraud in the Meantime, on May 04, 2000, petitioner
66,602 votes. conduct of the election for mayor in filed a notice of appeal from the decision
of the trial court to the Commission on 1. Whether the Supreme Court shopping. He submitted that Comelec
13 

Elections. 9
has jurisdiction to review, by and not the Supreme Court has
petition for certiorari as a special jurisdiction over the present petition for
The Petition at bar civil action, the decision of the certiorari assailing the decision dated
regional trial court in an election April 24, 2000 of the regional trial court.
On May 8, 2000, petitioner filed the protest case involving an elective Assuming that this Court and Comelec
present recourse. 10 municipal official considering that have concurrent jurisdiction and
it has no appellate jurisdiction applying the doctrine of primary
Petitioner raised the following legal over such decision. jurisdiction, the Comelec has jurisdiction
basis: since petitioner has perfected his appeal
2. Whether the trial court acted therewith before the filing of the instant
(1) The Supreme Court has without jurisdiction or with grave petition. Certiorari cannot be a
original jurisdiction to entertain abuse of discretion when the substitute for an appeal; the present
special civil actions of certiorari court set aside the proclamation petition is violative of Revised Circular
and prohibition; of petitioner and declared No. 28-91 on forum-shopping; issues
respondent Serapio as the duly raised are factual, not correctible by
elected mayor of Valenzuela City certiorari; and that the temporary
(2) There are important reasons
despite its finding that petitioner restraining order should be lifted, the
and compelling circumstances
garnered 83,609 valid votes petition dismissed, and petitioner and
which justify petitioner's direct
while respondent obtained counsel should be made to explain why
recourse to the Supreme Court;
66,602 valid votes, or a winning they should not be punished for
margin of 17,007 votes. contempt of court.
(3) Respondent judge committed
grave abuse of discretion when
TRO Issued The Court's Ruling
she declared respondent Serapio
as the duly elected mayor of
Valenzuela despite the fact that On May 8, 2000, we issued a temporary We find the petition impressed with
she found that petitioner restraining order ordering respondent merit.14

obtained 17,007 valid votes court to cease and desist from further
higher than the valid votes of taking cognizance of Election Protest No. I. The Supreme Court is vested
respondent Serapio; 14-V-98 more specifically from taking with original jurisdiction to issue
cognizance of and acting on the Motion writs of certiorari, prohibition and
(4) The assailed decision is for Execution Pending Appeal filed by mandamus against the decision
contrary to law, based on respondent Serapio on May 4, 2000. 12
of the regional trial court in the
speculations and not supported election protest case before it,
by the evidence as shown in the Respondent's Position regardless of whether it has
decision itself. 11
appellate jurisdiction over such
On May 15, 2000, respondent Serapio decision.
The Issues filed his comment with omnibus motion
to lift the temporary restraining order Article VIII, Section 5 (1) of the 1987
and to declare petitioner in contempt of Constitution provides that:
The issues raised are the following:
court for violating the rule against forum
 "Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall judgment, order or resolution jurisdiction. This point has been settled
15 

have the following powers: subject thereof, copies of all in the case of Relampagos vs.
pleadings and documents Cumba, where we held:
16 

"(1) Exercise original jurisdiction relevant and pertinent thereto,

over cases affecting and a sworn certification of non- "In the face of the foregoing
ambassadors, other public forum shopping as provided in disquisitions, the court must, as
ministers and consuls, and over the third paragraph of section 3, it now does, abandon the ruling
petitions for certiorari, Rule 46." in
prohibition, mandamus, quo the Garcia and Uy and Veloria cas
warranto, and habeas corpus." By Constitutional fiat, the Commission es. We now hold that the last
on Election (Comelec) has appellate paragraph of Section 50 of B. P.
xxx xxx xxx jurisdiction over election protest cases Blg. 697 providing as follows:
involving elective municipal officials
Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of decided by courts of general jurisdiction, The Commission is vested
Civil Procedure, as amended, provides as provided for in Article IX (C), Section with exclusive authority to
that: 2 of the 1987 Constitution: hear and decide petitions
for certiorari, prohibition
"SECTION 1. Petition for "Sec. 2. The Commission on and mandamus involving
certiorari.—When any tribunal, Elections shall exercise the election cases.
board or officer exercising judicial following powers and functions:
or quasi-judicial functions has remains in full force and effect
acted without or in excess of its "(1) x x x. but only in such cases where,
or his jurisdiction, or with grave under paragraph (2), Section 1,
abuse of discretion amounting to "(2) Exercise exclusive original Article IX-C of the Constitution, it
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and jurisdiction over all contests has exclusive appellate
there is no appeal, or any plain, relating to the elections, returns jurisdiction. Simply put, the
speedy, and adequate remedy in and qualifications of all elective COMELEC has the authority to
the course of law, a person regional, provincial, and city issue the extraordinary writs of
aggrieved thereby may file a officials, and appellate certiorari, prohibition, and
verified petition in the proper jurisdiction over all contests mandamus only in aid of its
court, alleging the facts with involving elective municipal appellate jurisdiction." (Emphasis
certainty and praying that officials decided by trial courts of ours).
judgment be rendered annulling general jurisdiction, or involving
or modifying the proceedings of elective barangay officials Consequently, both the Supreme Court
such tribunal, board or officer, decided by trial courts of limited and Comelec have concurrent
and granting such incidental jurisdiction." jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
reliefs as law and justice may prohibition, and mandamus over
require. In like manner, the Comelec has original decisions of trial courts of general
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, jurisdiction (regional trial courts) in
The petition shall be accompanied prohibition and mandamus involving election cases involving elective
by a certified true copy of the election cases in aid of its appellate municipal officials. The Court that takes
jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive the use of the ballot, and the elected not entitle a candidate receiving the
jurisdiction over the case. 17
officials of which are determined next highest number of votes to be
through the will of the electorate. "An20 
declared elected." In other words, "a
26 

Ergo, this Court has jurisdiction over the election is the embodiment of the defeated candidate cannot be deemed
present petition of certiorari as a special popular will, the expression of the elected to the office." 27

civil action expressly conferred on it and sovereign power of the

provided for in the Constitution. people." "Specifically,
21 
the term "Election contests involve public
'election', in the context of the interest, and technicalities and
Relative to the appeal that petitioner Constitution, may refer to the conduct procedural barriers should not be
filed with the COMELEC, the same would of the polls, including the listing of allowed to stand if they constitute an
not bar the present action as an voters, the holding of the electoral obstacle to the determination of the true
exception to the rule because under the campaign, and the casting and counting will of the electorate in the choice of
circumstances, appeal would not be a of votes." The winner is the candidate
22 
their elective officials. Laws governing
speedy and adequate remedy in the who has obtained a majority or plurality election contests must be liberally
ordinary course of law. The exception is
18  of valid votes cast in the construed to the end that the will of the
sparingly allowed in situations where election. "Sound policy dictates that
23 
people in the choice of public officials
the abuse of discretion is not only grave public elective offices are filled by those may not be defeated by mere technical
and whimsical but who receive the highest number of objections. In an election case, the
also palpable and patent, and votes cast in the election for that office. court has an imperative duty to
the invalidity of the assailed act is For, in all republican forms of ascertain by all means within its
shown on its face. government the basic idea is that no command who is the real candidate
one can be declared elected and no elected by the electorate. The Supreme
II. Certiorari lies. The trial court measure can be declared carried unless Court frowns upon any interpretation of
acted with grave abuse of he or it receives a majority or plurality the law or the rules that would hinder in
discretion amounting to lack or of the legal votes cast in the any way not only the free and intelligent
excess of jurisdiction. Its decision election." In case of protest, a revision
24 
casting of the votes in an election but
is void. or recount of the ballots cast for the also the correct ascertainment of the
candidates decides the election protest results."
28

The next question that arises is whether case. The candidate receiving the
certiorari lies because the trial court highest number or plurality of votes In this case, based on the revision of
committed a grave abuse of discretion shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if ballots, the trial court found that:
amounting to lack or excess of the candidate receiving the majority
jurisdiction in deciding the way it did votes is ineligible or disqualified, the First, by canvass of the Municipal Board
Election Protest Case No. 14-V-98, candidate receiving the next highest of Canvassers the results were:
declaring respondent Serapio as the number of votes or the second placer,
duly "elected" mayor of Valenzuela, can not be declared elected. "The 25 
Carlos - 102,668 votes
Metro Manila. wreath of victory cannot be transferred
from the disqualified winner to the
Serapio - 77,270 votes, or a
repudiated loser because the law then
In this jurisdiction, an election means winning margin of 25,418 votes
as now only authorizes a declaration of
"the choice or selection of candidates to
election in favor of the person who has
public office by popular vote" through
19 
Ramon Ignacio - 20 votes.
obtained a plurality of votes and does
and consequently, the Board of tampering of the contents of the ballot were not used by the Board of Election
Canvassers proclaimed petitioner Carlos boxes. Inspectors or the Board of Canvassers
the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela, since there was neither proof nor even a
Metro Manila. Procedurally, the keys to the ballot claim of missing ballots or missing
boxes were turned over by the Board of election returns.
Second, by physical count of the ballots, Election Inspectors from the precinct
the results were: level to the Municipal Board of Third: Some schoolhouses experienced
Canvassers and finally to the municipal brownout during the counting of votes.
Carlos - 103,551 votes treasurer for safekeeping. The three- There was nothing extraordinary that
level turn-over of the keys will not would invite serious doubts or suspicion
Serapio - 76,246 votes, or a winning prevent the possibility of these keys that fraud was committed during the
margin of 27,305 votes. being mixed up. This is an ordinary brownout that occurred. Indeed, one
occurrence during elections. The mere witness stated that it was the first time
Third, by revision of the ballots, the trial inability of the keys to fit into the that he observed brownout in
court found in a final tally that the padlocks attached to the ballot boxes Dalandanan Elementary School and
"valid" votes obtained by the candidates does not affect the integrity of the another stated that the brownout was
were as follows: ballots. At any rate, the trial court easily localized in Coloong Elementary School.
forced open the padlocks and found Since counting of votes lasted until
Carlos - 83,609 votes valid votes cast therein; midnight, the brownouts had caused
only slight delay in the canvassing of
Second: Seven (7) ballot boxes were votes because the election officials
Serapio - 66,602 votes, or a
found empty. Thus, the trial court availed themselves of candles,
winning margin of 17,007 votes.
concluded that there were "missing flashlights and emergency lights. There
ballots" and "missing election returns." were no reports of cheating or
Consequently, the final tally clearly tampering of the election returns. In
This is pure speculation without factual
showed petitioner Carlos as the
basis. "The sea of suspicion has no fact, witnesses testified that the
overwhelming winner in the May 11, counting of votes proceeded smoothly
shore, and the court that embarks upon
1998 elections.
it is without rudder or compass." On the
30  and no commotion or violence occurred.
other hand, the Summary of Votes as So, the brownouts had no effect on the
However, the trial court set aside the revised does not show any integrity of the canvass.
final tally of votes because of what the
unaccounted precinct or whether there
trial court perceived to be "significant was any precinct without any ballot or Fourth: The absence of watchers for
badges of fraud" attributable to the
election returns. It is a standard candidate Serapio from their posts
protestee. These are:
29 
procedure of the Commission on during the counting of votes. This
Elections (Comelec) to provide extra cannot be taken against candidate
First: The failure of the keys turned over empty ballot boxes for the use of the Carlos since it is the candidate's own
by the City Treasurer to the trial court Board of Election Inspectors or the look-out to protect his interest during
to fit the padlocks on the ballot boxes Board of Canvassers, in case of the counting of votes and canvassing of
that compelled the court to forcibly open necessity. election returns. As long as notices were
the padlocks. The trial court concluded duly served to the parties, the counting
that the real keys were lost or the The empty ballot boxes found could be and canvassing of votes may validly
padlocks substituted pointing to possible proceed in the absence of watchers.
the empty reserve ballot boxes that
Otherwise, candidates may easily delay irregularities and violations of election not been held on the date fixed,
the counting of votes or canvassing of laws may be raised as an incident to an or had been suspended before
returns by simply not sending their election contest. Such grounds for the hour fixed by law for the
watchers. There was no incomplete annulment of an election may be closing of the voting, or after the
canvass of returns, contrary to what the invoked in an election protest case. voting and during the preparation
trial court declared. The evidence However, an election must not be and the transmission of the
showed complete canvass in Valenzuela, nullified and the voters disenfranchised election returns or in the custody
Metro Manila. 31
whenever it is possible to determine a of canvass thereof, such election
winner on the basis of valid votes cast, results in a failure to elect, and in
"We cannot allow an election protest on and discard the illegally cast ballots. In any of such cases the failure or
such flimsy averments to prosper, this case, the petitioner admittedly suspension of election would
otherwise, the whole election process received 17,007 valid votes more than affect the result of the election,
will deteriorate into an endless stream the protestee, and therefore the the Commission shall, on the
of crabs pulling at each other, racing to nullification of the election would not lie. basis of a verified petition by any
disembank from the water." 32 The power to nullify an election must be interested party and after due
exercised with the greatest care with a notice and hearing, call for the
Assuming for the nonce that the trial view not to disenfranchise the voters, holding or continuation of the
court was correct in holding that the and only under circumstances that election not held, suspended or
final tally of valid votes as per revision clearly call for such drastic remedial which resulted in a failure to elect
report may be set aside because of the measure. 35
on a date reasonably close to the
"significant badges of fraud", the same date of the election not held,
would be tantamount to a ruling that As heretofore stated, in this jurisdiction, suspended or which resulted in a
there were no valid votes cast at all for elections are won on the basis of a failure to elect but not later than
the candidates, and, thus, no winner majority or plurality of votes cast and thirty (30) days after the
could be declared in the election protest received by the candidates. "The right cessation of the cause of such
case. In short, there was failure of to hold an elective office is rooted on postponement or suspension of
election. electoral mandate, not perceived the election or failure to elect."
entitlement to the office."36 (Emphasis supplied)
In such case, the proper remedy is an
action before the Commission on More importantly, the trial court has no Likewise, RA 7166 provides that:
Elections en banc to declare a failure of jurisdiction to declare a failure of
election or to annul the election.37
"Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of
election. However, the case below was
33  Election and Special Elections".--
an election protest case involving an Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code The postponement, declaration of
elective municipal position which, under provides that: failure of election and the calling
Section 251 of the Election Code, falls of special elections as provided in
within the exclusive original jurisdiction "Sec. 6. Failure of Election.—If, Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the
of the appropriate regional trial court.
34
on account of force majeure, Omnibus Election Code shall be
violence, terrorism, fraud or decided by the Commission
Nonetheless, the annulment of an other analogous causes the sitting en banc by a majority vote
election on the ground of fraud, election in any polling place has of its members. The causes for
the declaration of a failure of
 election may occur before or after been held on the date fixed on account ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful,
the casting of votes or on the day of force majeure, violence, terrorism, and credible elections. On the other
43 

of the election." (Emphasis fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) hand, electric utility services in Metro
supplied) the election in any polling place had Manila, including Valenzuela are under
been suspended before the hour fixed the control of its franchise holder,
It is the Commission (Comelec) by law for the closing of the voting on particularly the Manila Electric
sitting en banc that is vested with account of force majeure, violence, Company, a public service company,
exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure terrorism, fraud, or other analogous certainly not owned or controlled by the
of election.
38 causes; or (c) after the voting and protestee. In fact, during election
during the preparation and transmission period, Comelec has control over such
"In a petition to annul an election under of the election returns or in the custody utilities as electric and even telephone
Section 6, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, or canvass thereof, such election results service. What is important, however, is
44 

two conditions must be averred in order in a failure to elect on account of force that the voters of Valenzuela were able
to support a sufficient cause of action. majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or to cast their votes freely and fairly. And
These are: (1) the illegality must affect other analogous causes." 41
in the election protest case, the trial
more than 50% of the votes cast and court was able to recount and determine
(2) the good votes can be distinguished Thus, the trial court in its decision the valid votes cast.
from the bad ones. It is only when these actually pronounced a failure of election
two conditions are established that the by disregarding and setting aside the Assuming that the trial court has
annulment of the election can be results of the election. Nonetheless, as jurisdiction to declare a failure of
justified because the remaining votes do herein-above stated, the trial court election, the extent of that power is
not constitute a valid constituency."39 erred to the extent of ousting itself of limited to the annulment of the election
jurisdiction because the grounds for and the calling of special elections. The 45 

We have held that: "To declare a failure failure of election were not significant result is a failure of election for that
of election, two (2) conditions must and even non-existent. More particular office. In such case, the court
occur: first, no voting has taken place in importantly, the commission of fraud can not declare a winner. A permanent
46 

the precincts concerned on the date can not be attributed to the protestee. vacancy is thus created. In such
fixed by law or, even if there were There was no evidence on record that eventuality, the duly elected vice-mayor
voting, the election nevertheless protestee had a hand in any of the shall succeed as provided by law. 47

resulted in a failure to elect; and, irregularities that protestant averred. It

second, the votes not cast would affect is wrong for the trial court to state that We find that the trial court committed a
the result of the election." Neither of
40  the protestee had control over the grave abuse of discretion amounting to
these conditions was present in the case "election paraphernalia" or over electric lack or excess of jurisdiction in
at bar. services. The Commission on Elections rendering its decision proclaiming
has control over election paraphernalia, respondent Serapio the duly elected
More recently, we clarified that, "Under through its officials and deputies. The
42 
mayor of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, on
the pertinent codal provision of the Comelec can deputize with the the basis of its perception of the voice of
Omnibus Election Code, there are only concurrence of the President, law the people of Valenzuela, even without a
three (3) instances where a failure of enforcement agencies and majority or plurality votes cast in his
elections may be declared, namely: (a) instrumentalities of the government, favor. In fact, without a single vote in
the election in any polling place has not including the Armed Forces of the his favor as the trial court discarded all
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of the votes. Thus, the decision is not
supported by the highest number of to evasion of the positive duty to act in decision within a non-extendible period
valid votes cast in his favor. This accord with law.52 of fifteen (15) days from notice of this
violated the right to due process of law decision. The judge shall report to this
of petitioner who was not heard on the In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court on the decision rendered within
issue of failure of election, an issue that burden is on petitioner to prove not five (5) days from rendition submitting a
was not raised by the protestant. "A merely reversible error, but grave abuse copy thereof to the Office of the Clerk of
decision is void for lack of due process of discretion amounting to lack or Court en banc.
if, as a result, a party is deprived of the excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
opportunity of being heard."48 The trial public respondent Judge. "By grave This decision is immediately executory.
court can not decide the election protest abuse of discretion is meant capricious
case outside the issues raised. If it and whimsical exercise of judgment as No costs.
does, as in this case, the trial court is is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere
ousted of its jurisdiction. Likewise, it is a abuse of discretion is not enough. It SO ORDERED.
basic principle that a decision with must be grave abuse of discretion as
absolutely nothing to support it is when the power is exercised in an
void.49 "A void decision may be assailed arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
or impugned at any time either directly of passion or personal hostility, and
or collaterally, by means of a petition must be so patent and so gross as to
filed in the same case or by means of a amount to an evasion of a positive duty
separate action, or by resisting such or to a virtual refusal to perform the
decision in any action or proceeding duty enjoined or to act at all in
where it is invoked."50 Here, the trial contemplation of law."53 We must
court indulged in speculations on its emphasize that election to office is
view of the voice of the people, and determined by the highest number of
decided the case disregarding the votes obtained by a candidate in the
evidence, but on its own intuition, ipse election.
dixit.51 How was this voice
communicated to the trial court? The Judgment
Certainly not by competent evidence
adduced before the court as it should WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the
be, but by extra-sensory perception. petition. The Court ANNULS and
This is invalid in law. Contrary to its own DECLARES VOID the decision dated April
finding that petitioner obtained 83,600 24, 2000 of the trial court in Election
valid votes against 66,602 valid votes Protest Case No. V-14-98.
for the respondent as second placer, or
a plurality of 17,007 votes, the trial The temporary restraining order we
court declared the second placer as the issued on May 8, 2000, is made
winner. This is a blatant abuse of permanent.
judicial discretion by any account. It is a
raw exercise of judicial function in an
Let Election Protest Case No. V-14-98
arbitrary or despotic manner, amounting
be remanded to the trial court for
G.R. No. 125629 March 25, 1998 On 22 April 1995 Sunga filed with the Trinidad. However, notwithstanding the
COMELEC a letter-complaint  for
2
motion, Trinidad was proclaimed the
MANUEL C. SUNGA, petitioner, disqualification against Trinidad, elected mayor, prompting Sunga to file
vs. accusing him of using three (3) local another motion to suspend the effects of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and government vehicles in his campaign, in the proclamation. Both motions were
FERDINAND B. violation of Sec. 261, par. (o), Art. XXII, not acted upon by the COMELEC 2nd
TRINIDAD, respondents. of BP Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code, Division.
as amended). On 7 May 1995, Sunga
filed another letter-complaint  with the
3
On 28 June 1995 the COMELEC Law
COMELEC charging Trinidad this time Department submitted its Report  to the
6

BELLOSILLO, J.: with violation of Sec. 261, par. (e) COMELEC En Banc recommending that
(referring to threats, intimidation, Trinidad be charged in court for violation
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 terrorism or other forms of coercion) of of the following penal provisions of the
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure the Omnibus Election Code, in addition Omnibus Election Code: (a) Sec. 261,
seeks to annul and set aside, for having to the earlier violation imputed to him in par. (a), on vote buying; (b) Sec. 261,
been rendered with grave abuse of the first letter-complaint. This was par. (e), on threats, intimidation,
discretion amounting to lack or excess followed by an Amended Petition  for 4
terrorism or other forms of coercion;
of jurisdiction, the 17 May 1996 disqualification consolidating the and, (c) Sec. 261, par. (o), on use of
Resolution of the COMELEC 2nd Division charges in the two (2) letters-complaint, any equipment, vehicle owned by the
in Sunga v. Trinidad, SPA No. 95- including vote buying, and providing government or any of its political
213  dismissing
1
the petition for more specific details of the violations subdivisions. The Law Department
disqualification against private committed by Trinidad. The case was likewise recommended to recall and
respondent Ferdinand B. Trinidad docketed as SPA No. 95-213. revoke the proclamation of Ferdinand B.
pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. Trinidad as the duly elected Mayor of
2050 promulgated 3 November 1988, as In a Minute Resolution dated 25 May Iguig, Cagayan; proclaim Manuel C.
amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 1995,  the
5
COMELEC 2nd Division Sunga as the duly elected Mayor; and,
2050-A promulgated 8 August 1990, referred the complaint to its Law direct Sunga to take his oath and
and 30 July 1996 Resolution of the Department for investigation. Hearings assume the duties and functions of the
COMELEC En Banc affirming the 17 May were held wherein Sunga adduced office.
1996 Resolution of the COMELEC 2nd evidence to prove his accusations.
Division. Trinidad, on the other hand, opted not The COMELEC En Banc approved the
to submit any evidence at all. findings of the Law Department and
Petitioner Manuel C. Sunga was one of directed the filing of the corresponding
the candidates for the position of Mayor Meanwhile, the election results showed informations in the Regional Trial Court
in the Municipality of Iguig, Province of that Trinidad garnered the highest against Trinidad. Accordingly, four (4)
Cagayan, in the 8 May 1995 elections. number of votes, while Sunga trailed informations  for
7
various elections
Private respondent Ferdinand B. second. offenses were filed in the Regional Trial
Trinidad, then incumbent mayor, was a Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. The
candidate for re-election in the same On 10 May 1995 Sunga moved for the disqualification case, on the other hand,
municipality. suspension of the proclamation of was referred to the COMELEC 2nd
Division for hearing.
On 2 May 1996 Sunga filed a Second relation to Sec. 6 of Republic Act before the election but remains
Urgent Motion to Suspend the Effects No. 6646 filed after the election unresolved until after the
and Annul the Proclamation with Urgent against a candidate who has election; (2) The disqualification
Motion for Early Resolution of the already been proclaimed as a case was filed after the election
Petition. But in its 17 May 1996 winner shall be dismissed as a and before the proclamation of
Resolution, the COMELEC 2nd Division disqualification case. However, winners; and (3) The
dismissed the petition for the complaint shall be referred disqualification case was filed
disqualification, holding in its Resolution for preliminary investigation to after election and after
No. 2050 that — the Law Department of this proclamation.
Commission.
1. Any complaint for If the instant case is deemed to
disqualification of a duly Where a similar complaint is filed have been filed upon receipt by
registered candidate based upon after election but before the COMELEC of the letter-
any of the grounds specifically proclamation of the respondent complaint on April 26 1995, it
enumerated under Sec. 68 of the candidate, the complaint shall, nevertheless remained pending
Omnibus Election Code, filed nevertheless, be dismissed as a until after the election. If it is
directly with the Commission disqualification case. However, deemed to have been filed upon
before an election in which the complaint shall be referred filing of the amended petition on
respondent is a candidate, shall for preliminary investigation to 11 May 1995, it was clearly filed
be inquired into by the the Law Department. If, before after the election. In either case,
Commission for the purpose of proclamation, the Law Resolution No. 2050 mandates
determining whether the acts Department makes a  prima the dismissal of the
complained of have in fact been facie finding of guilt and the disqualification case.
committed . . . . corresponding information has
been filed with the appropriate His motion for reconsideration having
In case such complaint was not trial court, the complainant may been denied by the COMELEC En Banc,
resolved before the election, the file a petition for suspension of Sunga filed the instant petition
Commission may motu propio, or the proclamation of the contending that the COMELEC
on motion of any of the parties, respondent with the court before committed grave abuse of discretion in
refer the complaint to the Law which the criminal case is dismissing the petition for
Department of the Commission pending and said court may order disqualification in that: first, Sec. 6 of
as the instrument of the latter in the suspension of the RA No. 6646 requires the COMELEC to
the exercise of its exclusive proclamation if the evidence of resolve the disqualification case even
power to conduct a preliminary guilt is strong. after the election and proclamation, and
investigation of all cases the proclamation and assumption of
involving criminal infractions of As interpreted in the case office by Trinidad did not deprive the
the election of Silvestre v. Duavit, SPA 94- COMELEC of its
laws . . . . 003, Resolution No. 2050 jurisdiction; second COMELEC
provides for the outright Resolution No. 2050 is null and void as
2. Any complaint for dismissal of the disqualification it contravenes Sec. 6 of R.A. No.
disqualification based on Sec. 68 case in three cases: (1) The 6646; third, the fact that COMELEC
of the Omnibus Election Code in disqualification case was filed authorized the filing of four (4)
informations against private respondent insisted that the outright dismissal of a petitioner's prayer while alleging
for violation of the penal provisions of disqualification case was warranted that respondent and his men
the Omnibus Election Code shows more under any of the following committed acts of terrorism and
than sufficient and substantial evidence circumstances: (a) the disqualification violated the gun ban. Finally, on
to disqualify Trinidad, and he should case was filed before the election but 11 May 1995, an Amended
have been so disqualified; and fourth, was still pending (unresolved) after the Petition was filed with the Clerk
since Trinidad was a disqualified election; (b) the disqualification case of Court of the Commission
candidate, it is as if petitioner was the was filed after the election but before containing substantially the same
only candidate entitled to be proclaimed the proclamation of the winner; and, (c) allegations as the previous letters
as the duly elected mayor. the disqualification case was filed after but supported by affidavits and
the election and after the proclamation other documentary evidence.
In his 17-page Comment and of the winner.
Manifestation dated 3 December 1996, That the Amended Petition was filed
the Solicitor General concurred with The issue in this case is whether the only on 11 May 1995, or after the
petitioner's arguments. COMELEC committed grave abuse of elections, is of no consequence. It was
discretion when it dismissed the merely a reiteration of the charges filed
Private respondent, on the other hand, disqualification case against private by petitioner against private respondent
postulates inter alia that Sunga's respondent Trinidad. on 26 April 1995 and 7 May 1995 or
letters-complaint of 22 April 1995 and 7 before the elections. Consequently, the
May 1995 were not petitions for The petition is partly meritorious. Amended Petition retroacted to such
disqualification because no filing fee was earlier dates. An amendment which
paid by Sunga; the letters-complaint We find private respondent's arguments merely supplements and amplifies facts
were never docketed by the COMELEC; on the propriety of the letters-complaint originally alleged in the complaint
and, no summons was ever issued by puerile. COMELEC itself impliedly relates back to the date of the
the COMELEC and private respondent recognized in its Resolution that the commencement of the action and is not
was not required to answer the letters- petition was filed before the 8 May 1995 barred by the statute of limitations
complaint. It was only on 13 May 1995 election in the form of letters-complaint, which expired after the service of the
when petitioner filed the so- thus — original complaint. 
9

called Amended Petition, docketed for

the first time as SPA No. 95-213. Thus, This case originally came to the The fact that no docket fee was paid
the COMELEC correctly dismissed the attention of this Commission on therefor was not a fatal procedural lapse
disqualification case for having been 26 April 1995 in a form of letter on the part of petitioner. Sec. 18, Rule
filed only after the 8 May 1995 elections from petitioner accusing 42, of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
and the proclamation of private respondent of utilizing provides, "If the fees above described
respondent on 10 May 1995, pursuant government properties in his are not paid, the Commission may
to COMELEC Resolution No. 2050. campaign and praying for the refuse to take action thereon until they
latter's immediate are paid and may dismiss the action or
COMELEC filed its Comment on 21 April disqualification. Another letter proceeding." The use of the word "may"
1997 relying heavily on Resolution No. dated 7 May 1995 and addressed indicates that it is permissive only and
2050 and the Silvestre v. Duavit  ruling
8
to the COMELEC Regional operates to confer a discretion on the
in support of the dismissal of the Director of Region II reiterated COMELEC whether to entertain the
disqualification case. The COMELEC petition or not in case of non-payment
of legal fees. That the COMELEC acted Moreover, Resolution No. 2050 as unresolved after the election, Silvestre
on and did not dismiss the petition interpreted in Silvestre v.  Duavit in effect disallows what RA No.
outright shows that the non-payment of v.  Duavit infringes on Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646 imperatively requires. This
fees was not considered by it as a legal 6646,   which provides:
10
amounts to a quasi-judicial legislation
obstacle to entertaining the same. Be by the COMELEC which cannot be
that as it may, the procedural defects Sec. 6. Effects of Disqualification countenanced and is invalid for having
have been cured by the subsequent Case. — Any candidate who has been issued beyond the scope of its
payment of docket fees, and private been declared by final judgment authority. Interpretative rulings
respondent was served with summons, to be disqualified shall not be of quasi-judicial bodies or administrative
albeit belatedly, and he submitted his voted for, and the votes cast for agencies must always be in perfect
answer to the complaint. Hence, private him shall not be counted. If for harmony with statutes and should be for
respondent has no cause to complain any reason a candidate is not the sole purpose of carrying their
that no docket fee was paid, no declared by final judgment before general provisions into effect. By such
summons served upon him, or that he an election to be disqualified and interpretative or administrative rulings,
was not required to answer. he is voted for and receives the of course, the scope of the law itself
winning number of votes in such cannot be limited. Indeed, a quasi-
Neither do we agree with the election, the Court or judicial body or an administrative
conclusions of the COMELEC. We discern Commission shall continue with agency for that matter cannot amend an
nothing in COMELEC Resolution No. the trial and hearing of the act of Congress. Hence, in case of a
2050 declaring, ordering or directing the action, inquiry or protest and, discrepancy between the basic law and
dismissal of a disqualification case filed upon motion of the complainant an interpretative or administrative
before the election but which remained or any intervenor, may during ruling, the basic law prevails.
unresolved after the election. What the the pendency thereof order the
Resolution mandates in such a case is suspension of the proclamation of Besides, the deleterious effect of
for the Commission to refer the such candidate whenever the the Silvestre ruling is not difficult to
complaint to its Law Department for evidence of his guilt is strong foresee. A candidate guilty of election
investigation to determine whether the (emphasis supplied). offenses would be undeservedly
acts complained of have in fact been rewarded, instead of punished, by the
committed by the candidate sought to Clearly, the legislative intent is that the dismissal of the disqualification case
be disqualified. The findings of the Law COMELEC should continue the trial and against him simply because the
Department then become the basis for hearing of the disqualification case to its investigating body was unable, for any
disqualifying the erring candidate. This conclusion, i.e., until judgment is reason caused upon it, to determine
is totally different from the other two rendered thereon. The word "shall" before the election if the offenses were
situations contemplated by Resolution signifies that this requirement of the law indeed committed by the candidate
No. 2050, i.e., a disqualification case is mandatory, operating to impose a sought to be disqualified. All that the
filed after the election but before the positive duty which must be erring aspirant would need to do is to
proclamation of winners and that filed enforced.  The implication is that the
11 employ delaying tactics so that the
after the election and the proclamation COMELEC is left with no discretion but disqualification case based on the
of winners, wherein it was specifically to proceed with the disqualification case commission of election offenses would
directed by the same Resolution to be even after the election. Thus, in not be decided before the election. This
dismissed as a disqualification case. providing for the outright dismissal of scenario is productive of more fraud
the disqualification case which remains
which certainly is not the main intent if elected, from serving, or to prosecute is not a scintilla of doubt that the
and purpose of the law. him for violation of the election laws. evidence of Trinidad's guilt was strong
Obviously, the fact that a candidate has as shown in the Report and
The fact that Trinidad was already been proclaimed elected does not Recommendation  of the COMELEC Law
proclaimed and had assumed the signify that his disqualification is Department —
position of mayor did not divest the deemed condoned and may no longer
COMELEC of authority and jurisdiction to be the subject of a separate Parenthetically, there is merit to
continue the hearing and eventually investigation. petitioner's petition against the
decide the disqualification case. respondent for disqualification for
In Aguam v.  COMELEC  this Court held
12
It is worth to note that an election the alleged commission of
— offense has criminal as well as electoral election offenses under Sec. 68 of
aspects. Its criminal aspect involves the the Omnibus Election Code, such
Time and again this Court has ascertainment of the guilt or innocence as use of armed men and act of
given its imprimatur on the of the accused candidate. Like in any terrorism, intimidation and
principle that COMELEC is with other criminal case, it usually entails a coercion of voters, massive vote-
authority to annul any canvass full-blown hearing and the quantum of buying and others, duly
and proclamation which was proof required to secure a conviction is supported by affidavits of
illegally made. The fact that a beyond reasonable doubt. Its electoral witnesses and other documents.
candidate proclaimed has aspect, on the other hand, is a Consequently, the petitioner's
assumed office, we have said, is determination of whether the offender evidence supporting the
no bar to the exercise of such should be disqualified from office. This is disqualification of respondent
power. It of course may not be done through an administrative remain unrebutted simply
availed of where there has been proceeding which is summary in because respondent has
a valid proclamation. Since character and requires only a clear expressly waived his right to
private respondent's petition preponderance of evidence. Thus, under present evidence in SPA No. 95-
before the COMELEC is precisely Sec. 4 of the COMELEC Rules of 213 in his Manifestation and
directed at the annulment of the Procedure, petitions for disqualification objection to the presentation of
canvass and proclamation, we "shall be heard summarily after due evidence in SPA No. 95-213
perceive that inquiry into this notice." It is the electoral aspect that we dated 16 June 1995, thus the
issue is within the area allocated are more concerned with, under which waiver is the intentional
by the Constitution and law to an erring candidate may be disqualified relinquishing of a known right of
COMELEC . . . Really, were a even without prior criminal conviction. 13
respondent TRINIDAD.
victim of a proclamation to be
precluded from challenging the It is quite puzzling that the COMELEC In fact, on the basis of this Report and
validity thereof after that never acted on Sunga's motion to Recommendation the COMELEC directed
proclamation and the assumption suspend the proclamation of Trinidad. the filing of four (4) criminal
of office thereunder, baneful The last sentence of Sec. 6 of RA No. informations against Trinidad before the
effects may easily supervene. 6646 categorically declares that the Regional Trial Court, an indication that
Commission may order the suspension there was indeed  prima facie evidence
It must be emphasized that the purpose of the proclamation of a candidate of violation of election laws.
of a disqualification proceeding is to sought to be disqualified whenever the
prevent the candidate from running or, evidence of his guilt is strong. And there
However, Sunga's contention that he is majority of whom have positively Sec. 44. Permanent vacancies in
entitled to be proclaimed as the duly declared through their ballots that they the office of the Governor, Vice-
elected Mayor of the Municipality of do not choose him. 15
Governor, Mayor, Vice-Mayor. —
Iguig, Province of Cagayan, in the event (a) If a permanent vacancy
that Trinidad is disqualified finds no While Sunga may have garnered the occurs in the office of the
support in law and jurisprudence. The second highest number of votes, the Governor or Mayor, the Vice-
fact that the candidate who obtained the fact remains that he was not the choice Governor or Vice-Mayor
highest number of votes is later of the people of Iguig, Cagayan. "The concerned shall become the
disqualified for the office to which he wreath of victory cannot be transferred Governor or Mayor . . .
was elected does not entitle the from the disqualified winner to the
candidate who obtained the second repudiated loser because the law then For purposes of this chapter, a
highest number of votes to be declared as now only authorizes a declaration of permanent vacancy arises when
the winner of the elective office. The election in favor of the person who has an elective local official fills a
votes cast for a disqualified person may obtained a plurality of votes and does higher vacant office, refuses to
not be valid to install the winner into not entitle a candidate receiving the assume office, fails to qualify,
office or maintain him there. But in the next highest number of votes to be dies, is removed from office,
absence of a statute which clearly declared elected."  In Aquino
16
voluntarily resigns or is otherwise
asserts a contrary political and v.  COMELEC,  this Court made the
17
permanently incapacitated to
legislative policy on the matter, if the following pronouncement: discharge the functions of his
votes were cast in the sincere belief that office . . . .
the candidate was qualified, they should To simplistically assume that the
not be treated as stray, void or second placer would have This provision is echoed in Art. 83 of
meaningless. 14
received the other votes would the Implementing Rules and Regulations
be to substitute our judgment for of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Sunga totally miscontrued the nature of the voter. The second placer is
our democratic electoral process as well just that, a second placer. He lost The language of the law is clear, explicit
as the sociological and psychological the election. He was repudiated and unequivocal, thus admits no room
elements behind voters' preferences. by either a majority or plurality for interpretation but merely application.
Election is the process of complete of voters. He could not be This is the basic legal precept.
ascertainment of the expression of the considered the first among Accordingly, in the event that Trinidad is
popular will. Its ultimate purpose is to qualified candidates because in a adjudged to be disqualified, a
give effect to the will of the electorate field which excludes the permanent vacancy will be created for
by giving them direct participation in disqualified candidate; the failure of the elected mayor to qualify
choosing the men and women who will conditions would have for the said office. In such eventuality,
run their government. Thus, it would be substantially changed. We are the duly elected vice-mayor shall
extremely repugnant to the basic not prepared to extrapolate the succeed as provided by law. 19

concept of the constitutionally results under such circumstances.

guaranteed right to suffrage if a WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY
candidate who has not acquired the Also, what Sunga wants us to do is to GRANTED. The 17 May 1996 and 30 July
majority or plurality of votes is disregard the express mandate of Sec. 1996 Resolutions of the COMELEC are
proclaimed winner and imposed as the 44, RA No. 7160,  which provides in
18
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. COMELEC is
representative of a constituency, the part —
ordered to REINSTATE SPA No. 95-213, on the case taking its bearings from the SO ORDERED.
"Manuel C. Sunga v. Ferdinand B. opinion herein expressed. No costs.
Trinidad," for disqualification, and ACT
G.R. No. 106270-73 February 10, Petitioner SULTAN MOHAMAD L. 1. SPA No.  92-324: On 6 June 1992,
1994 MITMUG and private respondent DATU private respondent Datu Gamba
GAMBAI DAGALANGIT were among the Dagalangit filed an urgent petition
SULTAN MOHAMAD L. candidates for the mayoralty position of praying for the holding of a special
MITMUG, petitioner, Lumba-Bayabao during the 11 may election in Precinct No. 22-A alleging
vs. 1992 election. There were sixty-seven therein that when the ballot box was
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, (67) precincts in the municipality. opened, ballots were already torn to
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF pieces. On 14 July 1992, the petition
CANVASSERS OF LUMBA-BAYABAO, As was heretofore stated, voter turnout was granted and a special election for
LANAO DEL SUR, and DATU GAMBAI was rather low, particularly in forty-nine Precinct No. 22-A was set for 25 July
DAGALANGIT, respondents. (49) precincts where the average voter 1992. 4

turnout was 22.26%, i.e., only 2,330

Pimentel, Apostol, Layosa & Sibayan out of 9,830 registered voters therein 2. SPC No. 92-336: On 16 June 19992,
Law Office for petitioner. cast their votes. Five (5) of these Datu Elias Abdusalam, another
precincts did not conduct actual voting mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to
Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla at all.
1
declare failure of election in twenty-nine
for private respondent. (29) more precincts as a result of
Consequently, COMELEC ordered the alleged tampering of ballots  and
5

holding of a special election on 30 May clustering of precincts.  On 16 July

6

1992 in the five (5) precincts which 1992, the petition was dismissed.
BELLOSILLO, J.: failed to function during election day. COMELEC ruled that there must be a
On 30 July 1992 another special election situation where there is absolute
was held for a sixth precinct.2 inability to vote before a failure of
The turnout of voters during the 11 May
election can be declared.  Since voting
7

1992 election in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao

In the interim, petitioner filed a petition was actually conducted in the contested
del Sur, was abnormally low. As a
seeking the annulment of the special precincts, there was no basis for the
result, several petitions were filed
election conducted on 30 May 1992 petition.
seeking the declaration of failure of
election in precincts where less than alleging various irregularities such as
25% of the electorate managed to cast the alteration, tampering and 3. SPA No 92-368: On 20 June 1992,
their votes. But a special election was substitution of ballots. But on 13 July private respondent filed another
ordered in precincts where no voting 1992, COMELEC considered the petition petition, this time seeking to exclude
actually took place. The Commission on moot since the votes in the subject from the counting the ballots cast in six
Elections (COMELEC) ruled that for as precincts were already counted. 3 (6) precincts on the ground that the
long as the precincts functioned and integrity of the ballot boxes therein was
conducted actual voting during election Other petitions seeking the declaration violated.  Again, on 14 July 1992,
8

day, low voter turnout would not justify of failure of election in some or all COMELEC considered the petition moot,
a declaration of failure of election. We precincts of Lumba-Bayabao were also as the issue raised therein was related
are now called upon to review this filed with COMELEC by other mayoralty to that of SPA No. 92-311 which on 9
ruling. candidates, to wit: July 1992 was already set aside as
moot. 9
4. SPA No. 92-347: On 1 July 1992, On 10 August 1992, petitioner lodged clustering of precincts, which COMELEC
Datu Bagato Khalid Lonta, a fourth an election protest with the Regional should have at least heard before
mayoralty candidate, filed a petition trial Court of Lanao del Sur disputing rendering its judgment.
which in the main sought the the result not only of some but all the
declaration of failure of election in all precincts of Lumba-Bayabao, del Sur.  14
Incidentally, a petition to annul an
sixty-seven (67) precincts of election is not a pre-proclamation
Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, on the Respondents, on the other hand, assert controversy. Consequently, the
ground of massive disenfranchisement that with the filing of an election proclamation of a winning candidate
of voters.   On 9 July 1992, COMELEC
10
protest, petitioner is already deemed to together with his subsequent
dismissed the petition, ruling that the have abandoned the instant petition. assumption of office is not an
allegations therein did not support a impediment to the prosecution of the
case of failure of election.
11
It may be noted that when petitioner case to its logical conclusion. 17

filed his election protest with the

On 8 July 1992, petitioner filed a motion Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur, he Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
to intervene in these four (4) informed the trial court of the pendency within twenty-four (24) hours from the
petitions.   But COMELEC treated the
12
of these proceedings. Paragraph 3 of his filing of a verified petition to declare a
same as a motion for reconsideration protest states "[T]hat on August 3, failure to elect, notices to all interested
and promptly denied it considering that 1992, your protestant filed a Petition parties indicating therein the date of
under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure for Certiorari with the hearing should be served through the
such motion was a prohibited Supreme Court . . . docketed as G.R. fastest means available.   The hearing
18

pleading. 13
No. 106270 assailing the validity of the of the case will also be summary in
proclamation of the herein protestee. . . nature.19

Thereafter, a new board of Election ."   Evidently, petitioner did not intend
15

Inspectors was formed to conduct the to abandon his recourse with this Court. Based on the foregoing, the clear intent
special election set for 25 July 1992. On the contrary, he intended to pursue of the law is that a petition of this
Petitioner impugned the creation of this it. Where only an election protest ex nature must be acted upon with
Board. Nevertheless, on 30 July 1992, abundante ad cautela is filed, the Court dispatch only after hearing thereon shall
the new Board convened and began the retains jurisdiction to hear the petition have been conducted. Since COMELEC
canvassing of votes. Finally, on 31 July seeking to annul an election.  16
denied the other petitions   which
20

1992, private respondent was sought to include forty-three (43) more

proclaimed the duly elected Mayor of The main issue is whether respondent precincts in a special election without
Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur. COMELEC acted with grave abuse of conducting any hearing, it would appear
discretion amounting to lack of then that there indeed might have been
On 3 August 1992, petitioner instituted jurisdiction in denying motu proprio and grave abuse of discretion in denying the
the instant proceedings seeking the without due notice and hearing the petitions.
declaration of failure of election in forty- petitions seeking to declare a failure of
nine (49) precincts where less than a election in some or all of the precincts in However, a closer examination of the
quarter of the electorate were able to Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur. After COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
cast their votes. He also prayed for the all, petitioner argues, he has meritorious particularly Sec. 2, Rule 26, thereof
issuance of a temporary restraining grounds in support thereto, viz., the which was lifted from Sec. 6, B.P. 881,
order to enjoin private respondent from massive disenfranchisement of voters otherwise known as the Omnibus
assuming office. due to alleged terrorism and unlawful
Election Code of the Philippines, such postponement or the conditions to declare a failure to
indicates otherwise. It reads — suspension of the election elect are present. In the absence
or failure to elect. thereof, the petition must be denied
Sec. 2. Failure of election. outright.
— If, on account of force Before COMELEC can act on a verified
majeure, violence, petition seeking to declare a failure of Considering that there is no concurrence
terrorism, fraud or other election, two (2) conditions must of the two (2) conditions in the petitions
analogous causes the concur: first, no voting has taken place seeking to declare failure of election in
election in any precinct in the precinct or precincts on the date forty-three (43) more, precincts, there
has not been held on the fixed by law or, even if there was is no more need to receive evidence on
date fixed, or had been voting, the election nevertheless results alleged election irregularities.
suspended before the hour in failure to elect; and, second, the
fixed by law for the closing votes not cast would affect the result of Instead, the question of whether there
of the voting, or after the the election.  21
have been terrorism and other
voting and during the irregularities is better ventilated in an
preparation and the In the case before us, it is indubitable election contest. These irregularities
transmission of the that the votes not cast will definitely may not as a rule be invoked to declare
election returns or in the affect the outcome of the election. But, a failure of election and to
custody of canvass the first requisite is missing, i.e., that disenfranchise the electorate through
thereof, such election no actual voting took place, or even if the misdeeds of a relative
results in a failure to elect, there is, the results thereon will be few.   Otherwise, elections will never be
24

and in any of such cases tantamount to a failure to elect. Since carried out with the resultant
the failure or suspension actual voting and election by the disenfranchisement of innocent voters
of election would affect the registered voters in the questioned as losers will always cry fraud and
result of the election, the precincts have taken place, the results terrorism.
Commission shall, on the thereof cannot be disregarded and
basis of a verified petition excluded.   COMELEC therefore did not
22
There can be failure of election in a
by any interested party commit any abuse of discretion, much political unit only if the will of the
and after due notice and less grave, in denying the petitions majority has been defiled and cannot be
hearing, call for the outright. There was no basis for the ascertained. But, if it can be
holding or continuation of petitions since the facts alleged therein determined, it must be accorded
the election not held, did not constitute sufficient grounds to respect. After all, there is no provision
suspended or which warrant the relief sought. For, the in our election laws which requires that
resulted in a failure to language of the law expressly requires a majority of registered voters must
elect on a date reasonably the concurrence of these conditions to cast their votes. All the law requires is
close to the date of the justify the calling of a special election. 
23
that a winning candidate must be
election not held, elected by a plurality of valid votes,
suspended or which Indeed, the fact that a verified petition regardless of the actual number of
resulted in a failure to is filed does not automatically mean that ballots cast.   Thus, even if less than
25

elect but not later than a hearing on the case will be held before 25% of the electorate in the questioned
thirty (30) days after the COMELEC will act on it. The verified precincts cast their votes, the same
cessation of the cause of petition must still show on its face that must still be respected. There is  prima
facie showing that private respondent
was elected through a plurality of valid
votes of a valid constituency.

WHEREFORE, there being no grave

abuse of discretion, the Petition
for Certiorari is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 126669 April 27, 1998 municipality of Mexico, Pampanga Succinctly, the election contests sought
during the May 8, 1995 elections. the nullification of the election of
ERNESTO M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, Meneses allegedly due to massive fraud,
vs. On May 24, 1995, the Municipal Board irregularities and other illegal electoral
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed practices during the registration and the
FERDINAND D. Ferdinand Meneses as the duly elected voting as well as during the counting of
MENESES, respondents. mayor, having garnered a total of votes such as:
10,301 votes against Danilo Manalastas'
G.R. No. 127900 April 27, 1998 9,317 votes and Ernesto Punzalan's a. the
8,612 votes. registration
FERDINAND D. MENESES, petitioner, of flying
vs. On May 30, 1995, Danilo Manalastas voters;
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and filed an election protest docketed as
ERNESTO M. Election Case No. E-005-95 before the b. the
PUNZALAN, respondents. Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, preparation
Pampanga, challenging the results of of ballots by
G.R. No. 128800 April 27, 1998 the elections in the municipality's forty- persons
seven (47) precincts.   In due time,
1
other than
ERNESTO M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, Ferdinand Meneses filed his answer with the
vs. counter protest impugning the results in registered
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and twenty-one (21) precincts   of the 47
2
electors
FERDINAND D. protested by Manalastas. concerned;
MENESES, respondents.
On June 2, 1995, Ernesto Punzalan filed c. the use of
G.R. No. 132435 April 27, 1998 his own election protest docketed as electoral
Election Case No. E-006-95, also before fraudulent
ERNESTO M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, the RTC in San Fernando, Pampanga, practice such
vs. questioning the results of the elections as the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and in one hundred and fifty seven (157) "lansadera;"
FERDINAND D. precincts.   Meneses, on his part, filed
3

MENESES, respondents. an answer with counter-protest with d. false

respect to ninety-six (96) precincts   of
4
reading of
the 157 protested by Punzalan. votes for the
petitioner/pr
Since the two (2) election protests otestant;
involved the same parties and subject
KAPUNAN, J.:
matter, they were ordered consolidated e. the
and were jointly tried by the RTC of San counting of
Danilo Manalastas, Ferdinand Meneses Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 44. illegal and
and Ernesto Punzalan were among the
marked
four (4) candidates for mayor of the
ballots and counted for registered
stray votes the electors
as votes for petitioner/pr concerned;
the otestant in
respondent/p the b) The use of
rotestee; preparation electoral
of the fraudulent
f. switching correspondin practice
of ballots in g election known as the
favor of return; "lansadera;"
respondent/p
rotestee; i. groups of c) False
two or more reading of
g. tampering ballots for votes for the
with the the protestee;
ballots for respondent/p
the rotestee d) The
petitioner/pr were written counting of
otestant each group, illegal and
after having by only one marked
been cast, so (1) person; ballots and
as to annul stray votes
the same or j. one (1) for the
to substitute ballot for the protestant;
therefor respondent/p
illegal votes rotestee e) Switching
for written by of ballots in
respondent/p two or more favor of
rotestee; persons. 5 protestant;

h. the adding By way of counter-protest to the two (2) f) Tampering

of more election protests, Meneses alleged that with the
votes to he, too, was a victim of massive fraud ballots for
those and illegal electoral practices such as: the Protestee
actually after having
counted for a) The been cast, so
the preparation as to annul
respondent/p of the ballots the same or
rotestee and by persons to substitute
the reducing other than therefor
of the votes the illegal votes
actually
for the Finding the protests and counter- Danilo D. Manalastas and
protestant; protests sufficient in form and dismissing the instant
substance, the trial court ordered a protest.
g) The revision of the ballots. The result of said
adding of physical count coincided with the figures 2. In EPC No. E-006-95 —
more votes reflected in the election returns, thus: declaring Ernesto M.
to those Meneses — 10,301 votes; Manalastas — Punzalan as the duly
actually 9,317 votes; and Punzalan — 8,612 elected Municipal Mayor of
counted for votes. Mexico, Pampanga.
the Protestee Ferdinand D.
protestant After hearing the election protests, the Meneses is hereby ordered
and the trial court rendered judgment on to vacate his position and
reducing of September 23, 1996 with the following to cease and desist from
the votes findings, viz: that massive fraud, illegal further discharging the
actually electoral practices and serious duties and functions
counted for anomalies marred the May 8, 1995 officially vested in the
the protestee elections; that ballots, election returns Office of the Municipal
in the and tally sheets pertaining to Precinct Mayor of Mexico,
preparation Nos. 8, 20, 41, 53, 68, 68-A and 70 Pampanga which now and
of the "disappeared under mysterious henceforth, unless
correspondin circumstances;" and that filled-up otherwise disqualified by
g election ballots with undetached lower stubs and law, are conferred unto
returns; groups of ballots with stubs cut out with and in favor of Ernesto M.
scissors were found inside ballot boxes. Punzalan, who is hereby
h) Group of Because of these irregularities, the trial ordered to act, perform
two (2) or court was constrained to examine the and discharge the duties,
more ballots contested ballots and the handwritings functions and
for appearing thereon and came up with the responsibilities and all
protestant declaration that Punzalan was the incidents appertaining to
were written, winner in the elections. The dispositive and in connection with the
each group, portion of the decision reads: Office of the Municipal
by only one Mayor of Mexico,
(1) person; WHEREFORE, premises Pampanga, immediately
considered, judgment is and after he shall have
i) One (1) hereby rendered: taken his oath of office as
ballot for the such.
protestant 1. In EPC No. E-005-95 —
written by declaring Ferdinand D. 3. The counterclaims
two (2) or Meneses as having interposed by Ferdinand D.
more garnered 7,719 votes or Meneses in both cases are
persons. 6 33 votes more than the hereby dismissed.
7,686 votes received by
 The authorities concerned for execution pending appeal. On the On November 12, 1996, this Court
are hereby ordered to same date, Meneses filed before the issued a TRO directing the COMELEC to
enforce, implement and COMELEC a petition for certiorari and cease and desist from enforcing the TRO
assist in the enforcement prohibition with prayer for the issuance it issued on October 11, 1996 in SPR
and implementation of this of temporary restraining order (TRO) No. 47-96.
Decision immediately after and/or preliminary injunction, docketed
Ernesto M. Punzalan shall as SPR No. 47-96, seeking the On November 21, 1996, Punzalan filed
have had taken his oath of nullification of the RTC's order of before this Court a supplement to the
office. execution pending appeal. petition seeking to declare as void the
COMELEC's preliminary prohibitory and
As soon as this Decision On October 11, 1996, the COMELEC mandatory injunction and to declare
becomes final, let notice issued a TRO enjoining the RTC from Meneses in contempt of court.
thereof be sent to the enforcing its Order dated October 10,
Commission on Elections, 1996. On January 9, 1997, the COMELEC
Department of Interior and issued an order which dispositively read
Local Governments and On October 22, 1996, Meneses filed with as follows:
Commission on Audit. the COMELEC a motion for contempt
against Punzalan, alleging that the latter Considering that the 7
Without pronouncement as was holding the office of mayor of November 1996
to costs. Mexico, Pampanga in violation of the preliminary injunction of
TRO issued by the COMELEC. the Commission was
SO ORDERED. 7 pursuant to its 11 October
On October 28, 1996, Punzalan filed 1996 temporary
Immediately thereafter, Meneses filed a before this Court a petition restraining order, which
notice of appeal from the aforesaid for certiorari, prohibition and was specifically covered by
decision declaring Punzalan as the duly declaratory relief with application for a the Supreme Court's
elected mayor of Mexico, Pampanga. writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
The case was docketed as EAC No. 48- temporary restraining order, docketed order, the Commission will
96 by the COMELEC. Manalastas did not as G.R. No. 126669, to set aside the respect and abide by the
appeal from the said decision. COMELEC's TRO issued on October 11, order of the Supreme
1996. Court. Considering,
On October 1, 1996, Punzalan filed a however, that the
motion for execution pending appeal On November 7, 1996, the COMELEC temporary restraining
with the RTC in San Fernando, issued two (2) orders, one which order of the Supreme
Pampanga. On the same day, the submitted for resolution Meneses' Court relates only to the
COMELEC issued an order directing the application for a writ of preliminary implementation of the
RTC to elevate the entire records of the injunction and motion for contempt and order of execution of
case. another which granted a writ of judgment pending appeal
preliminary injunction enjoining the of the Regional Trial Court,
On October 10, 1996, the RTC issued an enforcement of the RTC's order of the Commission finds no
order which granted Punzalan's motion execution dated October 10, 1996. legal impediment to
proceed with the
 resolution of the main On December 8, 1997, the COMELEC his post in favor of
action promulgated a resolution in EAC No. 48- protestee-appellant
for certiorari pending 96 setting aside the trial court's decision Ferdinand Meneses
before it and shall act and affirming the proclamation of immediately upon finality
accordingly. Meneses by the MBC as the duly elected of this Resolution. 8
mayor of Mexico, Pampanga, thusly:
On January 30, 1997, the COMELEC Punzalan filed a motion for
issued an order stating that: 1) it need WHEREFORE, premises reconsideration of the aforesaid
not act on Meneses' motion reiterating considered, the decision of resolution. In its Resolution dated
the prayer to suspend pendente lite the the court a quo in Election February 13, 1998, the COMELEC
implementation of the Order dated Protest Case No. E-006-95 denied said motion for lack of merit.
January 9, 1997, and 2) the Order declaring protestant-
dated January 9, 1997 shall take effect appellee Ernesto M. Hence, this petition
thirty (30) days from notice thereof to Punzalan as the duly for certiorari with preliminary
the parties. elected Mayor of the injunction and a prayer for the
Municipality of Mexico, issuance of a temporary restraining
On February 10, 1997 Meneses filed Pampanga in the May 8, order, filed on February 16, 1998
with this Court a petition 1995 local elections is and docketed as G.R. No. 132435, to
for certiorari with prayer for the hereby ANNULLED and set aside the COMELEC's resolutions
issuance of a temporary restraining SET-ASIDE. of December 8, 1997 and February
order and/or writ of preliminary 13, 1998. Thus, petitioner alleges:
injunction, docketed as G.R. No. ACCORDINGLY, the
127900, which sought to set aside the Commission [First that the decision (resolution) in
COMELEC Orders dated January 9 and Division] hereby AFFIRMS question is tainted with grave abuse
30, 1997. the proclamation of of discretion amounting to lack of
protestee-appellant jurisdiction;
On April 24, 1997, the COMELEC issued Ferdinand D. Meneses by
a resolution granting the petition of the Municipal Board of that it was rendered in disregard of
Meneses to set aside the RTC's order of Canvassers as the duly law and the evidence;
execution pending appeal and allowing elected Mayor of Mexico,
Meneses to continue to discharge the Pampanga but with the that the decision (resolution) in
duties and functions of municipal mayor modification that question is a "prejudged decision;"
of Mexico, Pampanga, without prejudice protestee-appellant and
to the resolution of his pending appeal received only 9,864 votes,
from the RTC's decision. or a deduction of 437 4 that the
votes from his original decision
On April 28, 1997, Punzalan filed with 10,301 votes. Further, this (resolutio
this Court a petition for certiorari, Commission [First n) in
docketed as G.R. No. 128000, which Division] hereby question
sought to nullify the COMELEC's COMMANDS protestant- is the
Resolution dated April 24, 1997. appellee Ernesto M. culminati
Punzalan to RELINQUISH
 on of a the board to comply with their eye, the presence of red or
series of mandated administrative blue fibers in the ballots. It
acts of responsibility, i.e., signing, is only when none of these
the public authenticating and thumbmarking of marks appears extant that
responde ballots, should not penalize the voter the ballot can be
nt with disenfranchisement, thereby considered spurious and
favoring frustrating the will of the people. 12
subject to rejection.
the
private In the recent case of Marcelino Similarly, Section 211 of Batas
responde C. Libanan v. House of Representatives Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as
nt. 9 Electoral Tribunal and Jose the "Omnibus Election Code of the
T .  Ramirez,   this Court affirmed the
13
Philippines" provides that in the reading
First. Punzalan maintains that the ruling of the Tribunal in Libanan and appreciation of ballots, every ballot
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of v.  Ramirez   to the effect that a ballot
14
shall be presumed to be valid unless
discretion in declaring as valid the without BEI chairman's signature at the there is a clear and good reason to
ballots credited to Meneses which did back is valid and not spurious, provided justify its rejection. Certainly, the
not bear the signature of the BEI that it bears any one of these other inefficiency of an election officer in
chairman at the back thereof, invoking authenticating marks, to wit: (a) the failing to affix his signature at the back
the ruling of this Court in Bautista COMELEC watermark; and (b) in those of the ballot does not constitute as a
v.  Castro   wherein it was held that the
10
cases where the COMELEC watermarks good and clear reason to justify the
absence of the signature of the BEI are blurred or not readily apparent, the rejection of a ballot.
chairman in the ballot given to a voter presence of red and blue fibers in the
as required by law and the rules as ballots. The Court explained in this Second. Punzalan contends that the
proof of the authenticity of said ballot is wise: COMELEC committed grave abuse of
fatal. discretion in declaring valid (a) the
What should, instead, be ballots wherein the signatures of the BEI
This contention is not meritorious. given weight is the chairmen were different from their
consistent rule laid down respective signatures appearing on
While Section 24   of Republic Act No.
11 by the HRET that a ballot several COMELEC documents, (b) those
7166, otherwise known as "An Act is considered valid and group of ballots allegedly written by one
Providing For Synchronized National and genuine for as long as it (1) hand and (c) a number of single
Local Elections and For Electoral bears any one of these ballots written by two (2) persons. He
Reforms," requires the BEI chairman to authenticating marks, to argues that the trial court's findings on
affix his signature at the back of the wit: (a) the COMELEC the authenticity of said handwritings
ballot, the mere failure to do so does watermark, or (b) the must prevail over the findings of the
not invalidate the same although it may signature or initials, or COMELEC because: 1) the finding of the
constitute an election offense imputable thumbprint of the Regional Trial Court was based first on
to said BEI chairman. Nowhere in said Chairman of the BEI; and the findings of the revisors with the
provision does it state that the votes (c) in those cases where assistance of an expert witness in the
contained therein shall be nullified. It is the COMELEC watermarks person of Atty. Desiderio Pagui; (2) the
a well-settled rule that the failure of the are blurred or not readily finding of the Regional Trial Court was
BEI chairman or any of the members of apparent to the naked arrived at after an adversarial
proceeding where both parties were expert, it is axiomatic that the COMELEC handwriting on the ballots,
represented by their lawyers and the need not conduct an adversarial an examination of the
expert witness was cross-examined; proceeding or a hearing to determine ballots themselves being
and (3) on the other hand, the findings the authenticity of ballots or the sufficient . . . . 20
of the public respondent were made handwriting found thereon. Neither does
unilaterally, without any hearing and it need to solicit the help of handwriting In Bocobo v. COMELEC,   we 21
likewise
without the presence of the lawyers of experts in examining or comparing the ruled that:
the parties and of the parties handwriting.   In
17
fact, even
themselves.  15
evidence aliunde is not necessary to . . . . Handwriting experts,
enable the Commission to determine the while probably useful, are
These arguments fail to persuade us. authenticity of the ballots and the not indispensable in
genuineness of the handwriting on the examining or comparing
The appreciation of the contested ballots ballots as an examination of the ballots handwriting; this can be
and election documents involves a themselves is already sufficient. 
18
done by the COMELEC
question of fact best left to the itself. We have ruled that
determination of the COMELEC, a In Erni v.  COMELEC,   we held that:
19
evidence aliunde is not
specialized agency tasked with the allowed to prove that a
supervision of elections all over the . . . . With respect to the ballot is marked, an
country. It is the constitutional contention that a technical inspection of the ballot
commission vested with the exclusive examination of the ballots itself being sufficient
original jurisdiction over election should have been ordered (Penson v. Parungao, 52
contests involving regional, provincial to determine whether they Phil. 718) . . . . 22
and city officials, as well as appellate had been written by two or
jurisdiction over election protests more persons, or in groups In the case at bar, the opinion of Atty.
involving elective municipal and written by only one hand, Pagui, who was claimed to be a
barangay officials. Consequently, in the we hold that the handwriting expert, was not binding
absence of grave abuse of discretion or Commission en banc did upon the COMELEC especially so where
any jurisdictional infirmity or error of not commit an abuse of its the question involved the mere
law, the factual findings, conclusions, discretion in denying similarity or dissimilarity of handwritings
rulings and decisions rendered by the petitioner-protestee's which could be determined by a
said Commission on matters falling request. The rule is settled comparison of existing signatures or
within its competence shall not be that the Commission itself handwriting.   Section 22 of Rule 132 of
23

interfered with by this Court.  16

can make the the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly
determination without the authorizes the court, by itself, to make
Anent Punzalan's assertion that the trial need of calling handwriting a comparison of the disputed
court's finding which was arrived at experts. handwriting "with writings admitted or
after an adversarial proceeding wherein treated as genuine by the party against
an expert witness testified and was Nor was whom the evidence is offered, or proved
cross-examined, should not be evidence aliunde necessar to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
interfered with by the COMELEC whose y to enable the judge."
finding was arrived at without the Commission to determine
benefit of a hearing or the aid of an the genuineness of the
In Lorenzo v. Diaz,   this
24
Court given case, absolute very rare that two (2) specimens of a
enumerated the tools to aid one in the absence, or manifest person's signature are exactly alike.
examination of handwriting, thus: dearth, or direct or
circumstantial competent On the issue of the genuineness of the
The authenticity of a evidence of the character handwriting on the ballots, it is
questioned signature of a questioned observed that the specimens examined
cannot be determined handwriting, much weight by Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui, presented
solely upon its general should not be given to by Punzalan as an expert witness, were
characteristics, similarities characteristic similarities, mere certified true copies of the ballots
or dissimilarities with the or dissimilarities, between and documents concerned.   This fact
28

genuine signature. the questioned raised a cloud of doubt and made the
Dissimilarities as regards handwriting and an findings suspect. Consequently, the
spontaneity, rhythm, authentic one. 25 examination of the ballots themselves
presence of the pen, loops by the COMELEC should not be brushed
in the strokes, signs of Indeed, the haste and pressure, the aside. Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules
stops, shades, etc., that rush and excitement permeating the of Court explicitly authorizes the court
may be found between the surroundings of polling places could (the COMELEC in this case) to make
questioned signature and certainly affect the handwriting of both itself the comparison of the disputed
the genuine one are not the voters and the election officers handwriting "with writings admitted as
decisive on the question of manning the said precincts. The volume genuine by the party whom the
the former's authenticity. of work to be done and the numerous evidence is offered."
The result of examination documents to be filled up and signed
of questioned handwriting, must likewise be considered. Verily, Expert opinions are not ordinarily
even with the benefit of minor and insignificant variations in conclusive in the sense that they must
aid of experts and handwriting must be perceived be accepted as true on the subject of
scientific instruments, is, as indicia of genuineness rather than of their testimony, but are generally
at best, inconclusive. falsity. regarded as purely advisory in
There are other factors character; the courts may place
that must be taken into In Go Fay v.  Bank of the Philippines whatever weight they choose upon such
consideration. The position Islands,   this
26
Court held that testimony and may reject it, if they find
of the writer, the condition carelessness, spontaneity, that it is consistent with the facts in the
of the surface on which unpremeditation, and speed in signing case or otherwise unreasonable.  29

the paper where the are evidence of genuineness.

questioned signature is In U . S.  v. Kosel,   it was ruled that
27
In the same manner, whether or not
written is placed, his state dissimilarity in certain letters in a certain ballots were marked had been
of mind, feelings and handwriting may be attributed to the addressed by the COMELEC by
nerves, and the kind of mental and physical condition of the personally and actually examining the
pen and/or paper used, signer and his position when he signed. ballots themselves. We find no
played an important role Grief, anger, vexation, stimulant, compelling reasons to disturb its
on the general appearance pressure and weather have some findings.
of the signature. Unless, influence in one's writing. Because of
therefore, there is, in a these, it is an accepted fact that it is
In closing, we would like to stress a
well-founded rule ensconced in our
jurisprudence that laws and statutes
governing election contests especially
appreciation of ballots must be liberally
construed to the end that the will of the
electorate in the choice of public officials
may not be defeated by technical
infirmities.   An election protest is
30

imbued with public interest so much so

that the need to dispel uncertainties
which becloud the real choice of the
people is imperative.

Prescinding from the foregoing, we find

that respondent COMELEC did not act
with grave abuse of discretion in G.R.
No. 132435. The petitions in G.R. Nos.
126669, 127900 and 128800 are
rendered moot by the preceding
disquisition.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

petition in G.R. No. 132435 is hereby
DISMISSED. The status quo order
issued by this Court on February 24,
1998 is LIFTED. The petitions in G.R.
Nos. 126669, 127900 and 128800 are
rendered moot and academic by the
foregoing disquisition.

Further, this decision is immediately

executory in view of the shortness of
time between now and the next
elections and to prevent the case from
becoming moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.
[G.R. Nos. 154796-97. October 23, The Facts before the barangay elections on 15 July
2003.] 2002.

RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA @ On 10 June 2002, Bautista filed his During the 15 July 2002 barangay
"OCA", Petitioner, v. HONORABLE certificate of candidacy for Punong elections, Bautista and private
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Barangay in Lumbangan for the 15 July respondent Divina Alcoreza ("Alcoreza")
JOSEFINA P. JAREÑO, HON. MAYOR 2002 barangay elections. Election were candidates for the position of
RAYMUND M. APACIBLE, Officer Josefina P. Jareño ("Election Punong Barangay in Lumbangan.
FRANCISCA C. RODRIGUEZ, Officer Jareño") refused to accept Bautista obtained the highest number of
AGRIPINA B. ANTIG, MARIA G. Bautista’s certificate of candidacy votes (719) while Alcoreza came in
CANOVAS, and DIVINA because he was not a registered voter in second with 522 votes, or a margin of
ALCOREZA, Respondents. Lumbangan. On 11 June 2002, Bautista 197 votes. Thus, the Lumbangan Board
filed an action for mandamus against of Canvassers ("Board of Canvassers") 7
DECISION Election Officer Jareño with the Regional proclaimed Bautista as the elected
Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 14 Punong Barangay 8 on 15 July 2002. On
("trial court"). 3 On 1 July 2002, the 8 August 2002, Bautista took his oath of
CARPIO, J.: trial court ordered Election Officer office as Punong Barangay before
Jareño to accept Bautista’s certificate of Congresswoman Eileen Ermita-Buhain of
candidacy and to include his name in the First District of Batangas. On 16
The Case the certified list of candidates for August 2002, Bautista again took his
Punong Barangay. The trial court ruled oath of office during a mass oath-taking
that Section 7 (g) of COMELEC ceremony administered by Nasugbu
This is a petition for certiorari and Resolution No. 4801 4 mandates Municipal Mayor Raymund Apacible.
prohibition with a prayer for the Election Officer Jareño to include the
issuance of a temporary restraining name of Bautista in the certified list of Meanwhile, COMELEC issued Resolution
order to nullify Resolution Nos. 5404 candidates until the COMELEC directs No. 5404 on 23 July 2002 and
and 5584 of the Commission on otherwise. 5 In compliance with the trial Resolution No. 5584 on 10 August 2002
Elections ("COMELEC") en banc. court’s order, Election Officer Jareño ("COMELEC Resolutions"). In Resolution
Resolution No. 5404 1 dated 23 July included Bautista in the certified list of No. 5404, the COMELEC en banc
2002 ordered the deletion of Raymundo candidates for Punong Barangay. At the resolved to cancel Bautista’s certificate
A. Bautista’s ("Bautista") name from the same time, Election Officer Jareño of candidacy. The COMELEC en banc
official list of candidates for the position referred the matter of Bautista’s directed the Election Officer to delete
of Punong Barangay of Barangay inclusion in the certified list of Bautista’s name from the official list of
Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas candidates with the COMELEC Law candidates. The dispositive portion of
("Lumbangan") in the 15 July 2002 Department on 5 July 2002. 6 On 11 Resolution No. 5404 reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

elections. Resolution No. 5584 2 dated July 2002, the COMELEC Law
10 August 2002 provided for the policy Department recommended the Considering the foregoing, the
of the COMELEC regarding proclaimed cancellation of Bautista’s certificate of Commission, RESOLVED, as it hereby
candidates found to be ineligible for not candidacy since he was not registered RESOLVES, to ADOPT the
being registered voters in the place as a voter in Lumbangan. The COMELEC recommendation, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

where they ran for office. en banc failed to act on the COMELEC
Law Department’s recommendation 1. To DENY due course to/or cancel the
certificates of candidacy of the (a) For a proclaimed candidate whose Canvassers for the purpose of
following: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library certificate of candidacy was denied due proclaiming the duly-elected candidates
course to or cancelled by virtue of a and correcting the Certificate of Canvass
A. For Barangay Officials: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Resolution of the Commission En Banc of Proclamation.
albeit such Resolution did not arrive on
1. CONRADO S. PEDRAZA — Navotas time. (c) For a proclaimed candidate who is
found to be ineligible only after his
2. PIO B. MALIGAYA — Sampaga 1. To DIRECT the Election Officers proclamation (i.e., There is no
concerned to implement the resolution Resolution denying due course to or
3. PATERNO H. MENDOZA — Sampaga of the Commission deleting the name of canceling his certificate of candidacy
all of Balayan, Batangas. the candidate whose certificate of and there is no petition for
candidacy was denied due course; disqualification pending against him
B. a. RAY OCA A. BAUTISTA, candidate before his proclamation.)
for Punong Barangay of Brgy. 2. To DIRECT the candidate whose
Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas, for not name was ordered deleted to cease and 1. To DISMISS any and all cases
being registered voters of barangays desist from taking his oath of office or questioning the eligibility of such
where they are running for an office; from assuming the position to which he candidate for LACK OF JURISDICTION,
was elected, unless a temporary the proper remedy being a quo warranto
2. To DIRECT the Election Officers of restraining order was issued by the case before the metropolitan or
Balayan, Batangas and Nasugbu, Supreme Court; and municipal trial court.
Batangas, to delete their names in the
official list of candidates in their 3. To RECONVENE the Board of In a letter dated 19 August 2002, 9
respective Barangays without prejudice Canvassers for the purpose of COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda
to the filing of complaint against them proclaiming the duly-elected candidates Tancangco directed Election Officer
for misrepresentation under Section 74 and correcting the Certificate of Canvass Jareño to (1) delete the name of
of the Omnibus Election Code if the of Proclamation. Bautista from the official list of
evidence so warrants. candidates for Punong Barangay of
(b) For a proclaimed candidate who is Barangay Lumbangan; (2) order the
Let the Law Department implement this subsequently declared disqualified by Board of Canvassers of Lumbangan to
resolution. the Commission in the disqualification reconvene for the purpose of
case filed against him prior to his proclaiming the elected Punong
On the other hand, Resolution No. 5584 proclamation. Barangay with due notice to all
expressed COMELEC’s policy regarding candidates concerned; and (3) direct
proclaimed candidates found to be 1. To DIRECT the proclaimed the proclaimed disqualified candidate
ineligible for not being registered voters disqualified candidate to cease and Bautista to cease and desist from taking
in the place of their election, thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library desist from taking his oath of office or his oath of office or from assuming the
from assuming the position to which he position which he won in the elections,
ON PROCLAIMED CANDIDATES FOUND was elected, unless a temporary citing COMELEC Resolution Nos. 5404
TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR BEING NOT restraining order was issued by the and 5584. Consequently, Election
REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE PLACE Supreme Court; and Officer Jareño issued on 20 August 2002
WHERE THEY WERE ELECTED. an Order 10 deleting the name of
2. To RECONVENE the Board of Bautista from the list of candidates for
Punong Barangay. The Order also 3. Whether it was proper to proclaim Procedure prohibits a motion to
prohibited Bautista from assuming the Alcoreza as Punong Barangay in view of reconsider a resolution of the COMELEC
position and discharging the functions of the alleged disqualification of the en banc except in cases involving
Punong Barangay of Lumbangan winning candidate Bautista. election offenses. As held in Angelia v.
pursuant to the COMELEC Resolutions. Commission on Elections: 14
The Board of Canvassers reconvened on The Court’s Ruling
23 August 2002 and after making the We hold that petitioner acted correctly
necessary corrections in the Certificate in filing the present petition because the
of Canvass of Votes, proclaimed Before considering the merits of the resolution of the COMELEC in question is
Alcoreza as the winning Punong case, we shall first resolve the not subject to reconsideration and,
Barangay. 11 Alcoreza thus assumed procedural questions raised by therefore, any party who disagreed with
the post of Punong Barangay of respondents. Respondents contend that it only had one recourse, and that was
Lumbangan. a motion for reconsideration of the to file a petition for certiorari under Rule
assailed COMELEC Resolutions is a 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
On 26 August 2002, Bautista wrote a prerequisite to the filing of a petition 13, §1 of the COMELEC Rules of
letter to COMELEC requesting the latter for certiorari and prohibition. Absent any Procedure provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

for reconsideration of the COMELEC extraordinary circumstances, a party

Resolutions. who has filed a motion for What Pleadings are Not Allowed. — The
reconsideration should wait for the following pleadings are riot allowed: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On 9 September 2002, while his letter resolution of the motion before filing the
for reconsideration was still pending petition for certiorari. Respondents x           x          x
with the COMELEC, Bautista filed this allege that the instant petition is
petition for certiorari and prohibition premature because Bautista has a
with a prayer for the issuance of a pending motion for reconsideration of d) motion for reconsideration of an en
temporary restraining order. the COMELEC Resolutions. Respondents banc ruling, resolution, order or decision
claim that Bautista filed the instant except in election offense cases;
The Issues petition barely two weeks after filing the
motion for reconsideration with the x           x          x
COMELEC en banc without waiting for
The issues raised are: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library the resolution of his motion. 12
As the case before the COMELEC did not
1. Whether the COMELEC en banc The contention of respondents is wrong. involve an election offense,
committed grave abuse of discretion The case 13 cited by respondents refers reconsideration of the COMELEC
amounting to excess or lack of to a motion for reconsideration pending resolution was not possible and
jurisdiction when it issued Resolution before the COMELEC en banc seeking petitioner had no appeal or any plain,
Nos. 5404 and 5584; the reconsideration of a resolution speedy, and adequate remedy in the
rendered by a COMELEC division. Rule ordinary course of law. For him to wait
2. Whether the COMELEC deprived 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of until the COMELEC denied his motion
Bautista of due process when the Procedure allows a motion to reconsider would be to allow the reglementary
COMELEC en banc issued Resolution a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of period for filing a petition
Nos. 5404 and 5584; and a division. However, Section 1 (d), Rule for certiorari with this Court to run and
13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of expire.
 COMELEC to pass upon the qualification election." cralaw virtua1aw library

The instant controversy involves of candidates for elective office.

resolutions issued by the COMELEC en Furthermore, respondents submit that In relation thereto, Rule 23 of the
banc which do not pertain to election the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to cancel the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides
offenses. Hence, a special civil action certificate of candidacy of disqualified that a petition to deny due course to or
for certiorari is the proper remedy 15 in candidates is already settled cancel a certificate of candidacy for an
accordance with Section 2, Rule 64 of jurisprudence. 17 elective office may be filed with the Law
the Rules of Court which provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Department of the COMELEC on the
Respondents cited cases to support their ground that the candidate has made a
SEC. 2. Mode of review. — A judgment claim that the COMELEC has jurisdiction false material representation in his
or final order or resolution of the to cancel the certificates of candidacy of certificate. The petition may be heard
Commission on Elections and the disqualified candidates. However, the and evidence received by any official
Commission on Audit may be brought COMELEC heard these cases first in designated by the COMELEC after which
by the aggrieved party to the Supreme division and not en banc in the first the case shall be decided by the
Court on certiorari under Rule 65 except instance. COMELEC itself.
as hereinafter provided. (Emphasis
supplied) In Garvida v. Sales, Jr., 18 the Court Under the same Rules of Procedure,
held that it is the COMELEC sitting in jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
Whether the COMELEC en banc division and not the COMELEC en banc certificate of candidacy lies with the
committed grave abuse of discretion which has jurisdiction over petitions to COMELEC sitting in Division, not en
amounting to excess or lack of cancel a certificate of candidacy. The banc. Cases before a Division may only
jurisdiction in issuing Resolution Nos. Court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library be entertained by the COMELEC en banc
5404 and 5584 when the required number of votes to
. . . The Omnibus Election Code, in reach a decision, resolution, order or
Bautista argues that without any Section 78, Article IX, governs the ruling is not obtained in the Division.
disqualification case formally filed procedure to deny due course to or Moreover, only motions to reconsider
against him, the COMELEC has no cancel a certificate of candidacy, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings
jurisdiction to take cognizance of his of the COMELEC in Division are resolved
case. The COMELEC cannot motu "Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to by the COMELEC en banc.
proprio act on the issue of his alleged or cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A
lack of qualification. Even assuming that verified petition seeking to deny due It is therefore the COMELEC sitting in
there was a disqualification case filed course or to cancel a certificate of Divisions that can hear and decide
against him, it is the COMELEC sitting in candidacy may be filed by any person election cases. This is clear from Section
division which has jurisdiction and not exclusively on the ground that any 3 of the said Rules thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

the COMELEC en banc. 16 material representation contained

therein as required under Section 74 "Sec. 3. The Commission in Sitting in
On the other hand, respondents allege hereof is false. The petition may be filed Divisions. — The Commission shall sit in
that the Constitution vests the COMELEC at any time not later than twenty-five two (2) Divisions to hear and decide
with the power to enforce and days from the time of filing of the protests or petitions in ordinary actions,
administer all laws and regulations certificate of candidacy and shall be special actions, special cases,
relative to the conduct of elections. The decided, after due notice and hearing, provisional remedies, contempt and
Constitution thus empowers the not later than fifteen days before special proceedings except in
accreditation of citizens’ arms of the administrative and quasi-judicial 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC
Commission." cralaw virtua1aw library functions in Villarosa v. Commission on exercises both administrative and quasi-
Elections: 19 judicial powers. The COMELEC’s
In the instant case, the COMELEC en administrative powers are found in
banc did not refer the case to any of its In the concurring opinion of Justice Section 2 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),
Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It Antonio in University of Nueva Caceres and (9) of Article IX-C. The 1987
therefore acted without jurisdiction or v. Martinez, 56 SCRA 148, he noted that Constitution does not prescribe how the
with grave abuse of discretion when it COMELEC should exercise its
entertained the petition and issued the (t)he term "administrative" connotes, or administrative powers, whether en banc
order of May 2, 1996. (Emphasis pertains, to "administration, especially or in division. The Constitution merely
supplied) management, as by managing or vests the COMELEC’s administrative
conducting, directing or superintending, powers in the "Commission on
In this case, Election Officer Jareño the execution, application, or conduct of Elections," while providing that the
reported to the COMELEC Law persons or things." It does not entail an COMELEC "may sit en banc or in two
Department Bautista’s ineligibility for opportunity to be heard, the production divisions." Clearly, the COMELEC en
being a non-registered voter. The and weighing of evidence, and a banc can act directly on matters falling
COMELEC Law Department decision or resolution thereon. within its administrative powers.
recommended to the COMELEC en banc Indeed, this has been the practice of the
to deny due course or to cancel While a "quasi judicial function" is COMELEC both under the 1973 and
Bautista’s certificate of candidacy. The 1987 Constitutions.
COMELEC en banc approved the A term which applies to the action,
recommendation in Resolution No. 5404 discretion, etc., of public administrative On the other hand, the COMELEC’s
dated 23 July 2002. officers or bodies, who are required to quasi-judicial powers are found in
investigate facts, or ascertain the Section 2 (2) of Article IX-C, to wit: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

A division of the COMELEC should have existence of facts, hold hearings, and
first heard this case. The COMELEC en draw conclusions from them, as a basis "Section 2. The Commission on Elections
banc can only act on the case if there is for their official action and to exercise shall exercise the following powers and
a motion for reconsideration of the discretion of a judicial nature. functions: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

decision of the COMELEC division. (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, the COMELEC en banc acted x           x          x
without jurisdiction when it ordered the In the exercise of its adjudicatory or
cancellation of Bautista’s certificate of quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution
candidacy without first referring the mandates the COMELEC to hear and (2) Exercise exclusive original
case to a division for summary hearing. decide cases first by division and upon jurisdiction over all contests relating to
motion for reconsideration, by the the elections, returns, and qualifications
The proceeding on the cancellation of a COMELEC en banc. 20 In Baytan v. of all elective regional, provincial, and
certificate of candidacy does not merely COMELEC, 21 the Court expounded on city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
pertain to the administrative functions the administrative and quasi-judicial over all contests involving elective
of the COMELEC. Cancellation powers of the COMELEC. The Court municipal officials decided by trial courts
proceedings involve the COMELEC’s explained: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
of general jurisdiction, or involving
quasi judicial functions. The Court elective barangay officials decided by
discussed the difference between Under Section 2, Article IX-C of the trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
 frowned upon is absolute lack of notice
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Whether the COMELEC deprived and hearing. . . (Emphasis supplied)
Commission on election contests Bautista of due process when it issued
involving elective municipal and Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584 The opportunity to be heard does not
barangay offices shall be final, only refer to the right to present verbal
executory, and not appealable." cralaw virtua1aw library Bautista alleges that the COMELEC arguments in court during a formal
denied him due process because there hearing. 25 There is due process when a
The COMELEC’s exercise of its quasi- was no notice and hearing prior to the party is able to present evidence in the
judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of issuance of Resolution Nos. 5404 and form of pleadings. 26 However, the
Article IX-C which expressly requires 5584. He became aware of the issuance COMELEC did not give Bautista such
that all election cases, including pre- of the COMELEC Resolutions only when opportunity to explain his side. The
proclamation controversies, shall be he received a copy of Election Officer COMELEC en banc issued Resolution
decided by the COMELEC in division, Jareño’s Order dated 20 August 2002 Nos. 5404 and 5584 without prior notice
and the motion for reconsideration shall ordering him to cease and desist from and hearing.
be decided by the COMELEC en banc. It assuming the position of Punong
follows, as held by the Court in Barangay. 22 We cannot ignore the importance of
Canicosa, that the COMELEC is prior notice and hearing. Severe
mandated to decide cases first in The Solicitor General submits that the consequences attach to the COMELEC
division, and then upon motion for COMELEC did not deprive Bautista of Resolutions which not only ordered the
reconsideration en banc, only when the due process. Bautista had the chance to cancellation of the certificate of
COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial be heard and to present his side when candidacy of Bautista but also the
powers. (Emphasis supplied) he filed a letter to the COMELEC en banc annulment of his proclamation as
requesting reconsideration of the Punong Barangay. What is involved here
Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993 Resolutions. 23 is not just the right to be voted for
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition public office but the right to hold public
for the denial or cancellation of a This Court has explained the nature of office. As held in Sandoval v.
certificate of candidacy must be heard due process in Stayfast Philippines Commission on Elections: 27
summarily after due notice. It is thus Corporation v. NLRC: 24
clear that cancellation proceedings . . . Although the COMELEC is clothed
involve the exercise of the quasi-judicial The essence of due process is simply with jurisdiction over the subject matter
functions of the COMELEC which the the opportunity to be heard, or as and issue of SPC No. 98-143 and SPC
COMELEC in division should first decide. applied to administrative proceedings, No. 98-206, we find the exercise of its
More so in this case where the an opportunity to explain one’s side or jurisdiction tainted with illegality. We
cancellation proceedings originated not an opportunity to seek a reconsideration hold that its order to set aside the
from a petition but from a report of the of the action or ruling complained of. proclamation of petitioner is invalid for
election officer regarding the lack of having been rendered without due
qualification of the candidate in the A formal or trial-type hearing is not at process of law. Procedural due process
barangay election. The COMELEC en all times and in all instances essential. demands prior notice and hearing. Then
banc cannot short cut the proceedings The requirements are satisfied where after the hearing, it is also necessary
by acting on the case without a prior the parties are afforded fair and that the tribunal show substantial
action by a division because it denies reasonable opportunity to explain their evidence to support its ruling. In other
due process to the candidate. side of the controversy at hand. What is words, due process requires that a party
be given an opportunity to adduce his resolution except in cases involving false.
evidence to support his side of the case election offenses.
and that the evidence should be Sec. 2. Period to File Petition. — The
considered in the adjudication of the Respondents likewise submit that there petition must be filed within five (5)
case. The facts show that COMELEC set was no need for presentation and days following the last day for the filing
aside the proclamation of petitioner evaluation of evidence since the issue of of certificates of candidacy.
without benefit of prior notice and whether Bautista was a registered voter
hearing and it rendered the questioned is easily resolved by looking at the Sec. 3. Summary Proceeding. — The
order based solely on private COMELEC registration records. 28 This petition shall be heard summarily after
respondent’s allegations. We held in reasoning fails to consider the instances due notice.
Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph where a voter may be excluded through
inadvertence or registered with an Sec. 4. Delegation of Reception of
"Petitioner cannot be deprived of his erroneous or misspelled name. 29 Evidence. — The Commission may
office without due process of law. Indeed, if it was just a simple matter of designate any of its officials who are
Although public office is not property looking at the record of registered members of the Philippine Bar to hear
under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of voters, then the COMELEC would not the case and receive evidence.
the Constitution, and one cannot acquire have included Section 7 (g) 30 in its (Emphasis supplied)
a vested right to public office, it is, Resolution No. 4801. This Section allows
nevertheless, a protected right. Due candidates who are not registered A summary proceeding does not mean
process in proceedings before the voters to be included in the certified list that the COMELEC could do away with
COMELEC, exercising its quasi-judicial of candidates until the COMELEC directs the requirements of notice and hearing.
functions, requires due notice and otherwise. The COMELEC should have at least
hearing, among others. Thus, although given notice to Bautista to give him the
the COMELEC possesses, in appropriate Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of chance to adduce evidence to explain
cases, the power to annul or suspend Procedure provides for the twin his side in the cancellation proceeding.
the proclamation of any candidate, we requirements of prior notice and The COMELEC en banc deprived Bautista
had ruled in Farinas v. Commission on hearing, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library of procedural due process of law when it
Elections, Reyes v. Commission on approved the report and
Elections and Gallardo v. Commission on Rule 23 — Petition to Deny Due Course recommendation of the Law Department
Elections that the COMELEC is without to or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy without notice and hearing. 31
power to partially or totally annul a
proclamation or suspend the effects of a Section 1. Grounds for Denial of Whether Bautista was a registered voter
proclamation without notice and Certificate of Candidacy. — A petition to of Barangay Lumbangan when he filed
hearing." (Emphasis supplied) deny due course to or cancel, a his certificate of candidacy
certificate of candidacy for any elective
The fact that Bautista was able to file a office may be filed with the Law The events 32 that transpired after the
letter with the COMELEC en banc Department of the Commission by any 15 July 2002 elections necessitate the
requesting for reconsideration of the citizen of voting age or a duly registered early resolution of this case. The Court
Resolutions is beside the point. To political party, organization, or coalition deems it proper not to remand the case
reiterate, the 1993 COMELEC Rules of of political parties on the exclusive to the COMELEC to avoid further delay.
Procedure prohibit a motion for ground that any material representation The Court will resolve this case based
reconsideration of a COMELEC en banc contained therein as required by law is on the pleadings submitted by the
parties.
Thus, in the 1958 case of Rocha v.
Under the Revised Administrative Code, Cordis, 36 the Court held that a (e) Candidates for the position of
33 one of the qualifications of an candidate for an elective municipal punong barangay or member of the
elective municipal officer is that he must office did not have to be a registered sangguniang barangay must be at least
be a "qualified voter" in his municipality. voter in the municipality to qualify to eighteen (18) years of age on election
Section 2174 of the Revised run for an elective municipal office. day.
Administrative Code reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Citing the earlier case of Yra v. Abaño,
37 the Court ruled that the words x           x          x
Section 2174. Qualifications of elective "qualified elector" meant a person who
municipal officer. — An elective had all the qualifications provided by
municipal officer must, at the time of law to be a voter and not a person These qualifications were reiterated in
the election, be a qualified voter in his registered in the electoral list. In the Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No.
municipality and must have been same vein, the term "qualified" when 4801 dated 23 May 2002 which
resident therein for at least one year, applied to a voter does not necessarily prescribed the guidelines on the filing of
and must not be less than twenty-three mean that a person must be a certificates of candidacy in connection
years of age. He must also be able to registered voter. with the 15 July 2002 elections. Section
read and write intelligently either 2 reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

English, Spanish, or the local dialect. However, under the Local Government
(Emphasis supplied) Code of 1991, 38 which took effect on 1 Sec. 2. Qualifications. — (a) Candidates
January 1992, an elective local official, for Punong Barangay and Sangguniang
On the other hand, under the Republic including a Punong Barangay, must not Barangay Kagawad must be: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Act No. 2370, 34 otherwise known as only be a "qualified elector" or a

the Barrio Charter, a candidate for the "qualified voter," he must also be a (1) Filipino citizens;
barrio council 35 must be a "qualified "registered voter." 39 Section 39 of the
elector." Section 8 of the Barrio Charter Local Government Code provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(2) At least 18 years old on election
reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
day;
SEC. 39. Qualifications. — (a) An
Section 8. Qualifications for election to elective local official must be a citizen of (3) Able to read and write Pilipino or any
the barrio council. — Candidates for the Philippines; a registered voter in the local language or dialect; and
election to the barrio council: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library barangay, municipality, city, or province
or, in the case of a member of the (4) Registered voters of the barangay
(a) Must be a qualified elector and must sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang where they intend to run for office and
have been a resident of the barrio for at panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the residents thereof for at least one (1)
least six months prior to the election; district where he intends to be elected; year immediately preceding the day of
and a resident therein for at least one (1) the election. (Emphasis supplied)
year immediately preceding the day of
(b) Must not have been convicted of a the election; and able to read and write Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No.
crime involving moral turpitude or of a Filipino or any other local language or 4801 likewise requires the Election
crime which carries a penalty of at least dialect. Officer to verify whether the candidates
one year imprisonment. (Emphasis are registered voters and possess all the
supplied) x           x          x qualifications of a candidate. Thus,
Section 7 (f) and (g) read: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library registered voter of Barangay year 2001 but I found out that my name
Lumbangan, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library was no longer included in the list of
(f) Before the preparation of the registered voters at Barangay
certified lists of candidates it shall be AFFIDAVIT Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas.
the duty of the Election Officer to: (1)
verify whether all candidates for That I, RAYMUNDO A. @ OCA 4. Sometime in the year 2002, I
barangay and sangguniang kabataan BAUTISTA, of legal age, married, personally went to the Office of the
positions are registered voters of the Mechanical Engineer by profession, Local Election Registrar particularly
barangay where they file their Filipino citizen and have been residing at talking to Miss Josefina P. Jareño in
certificates of candidacy; and (2) Sitio Calamundingan, Barangay order to register because as I know, to
examine the entries of the certificates of Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas, after run for the Office of Barangay
candidacy and determine on the basis of being duly sworn according to law Chairman, I have to be a registered
said entries whether the candidate depose and say: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library voter in our Barangay.
concerned possesses all the
qualifications of a candidate. 1. That I was born at Barangay 5. However, I was denied registration
Tumalim, Nasugbu, Batangas, on Match because according to her, her Office is
(g) If there are candidates who are not 15, 1954 and upon reaching the age of not open for registration at any time
registered voters in the barangay where four (4) our family transferred to Sitio and I should wait for the General
they run for barangay or sangguniang Calamundingan, Barangay Lumbangan, Registration and for that reason I was
kabataan positions or do not possess all Nasugbu, Batangas and I have been not able to register.
the other qualifications of a candidate, permanently residing thereat since that
he shall make the corresponding report time up to the present, and this fact can x           x          x
by REGISTERED MAIL and by RUSH be attested to by our immediate
TELEGRAM to the Law Department of neighbors.
the Commission within three (3) days 11. That had I known that there is a
from the last day for filing the 2. That since the time I reached the age provision in Section 52, under
certificates of candidacy, copy furnished of majority, I have participated both in paragraph (k) A, when Miss Josefina P.
the Provincial Election Supervisor and the National and Local Elections up to Jareño denied my request for
the Regional Election Director. The the year 1995 and as matter of fact I registration as a voter, I would have
names of said candidates, however, ran for the Office of member of the filed a Petition for Mandamus with the
shall still be included in the certified lists Municipal Council in the year 1992 proper Court so that she can be ordered
of candidates until the Commission Elections. to register me as a voter in Barangay
directs otherwise. (Emphasis supplied) Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas so that
3. Sometime during the late part of the any and all technicality may be
It is thus clear that the law as it now year 1995, I went to the United States avoided." (Emphasis supplied)
stands requires a candidate for Punong of America scounting (sic) for a good
Barangay to be a registered voter of the job but I was not able to find one so I According to Bautista’s affidavit, he was
barangay where he intends to run for went home in the year 2000 but again practically out of the country from 1995
office. believing that I could land a job in the until 2001. When the certified list of
United States, I again went there but I voters ceased to be effective and
Bautista admitted in his affidavit 40 was not able to get a job therein and so operative after the barangay elections in
dated 24 August 2002 that he was not a I went back to the Philippines in the 1997, qualified voters had to register
again to vote in any election. ninety (90) days before a special any other proof like a duly accomplished
Apparently, Bautista failed to register election. application form for registration to
during the general registration of voters substantiate his claim that he indeed
conducted by the COMELEC in 1997 x           x          x attempted to register anew. On the
since he was still out of the country other hand, Election Officer Jareño
during that time. Republic Act No. 8189 denies Bautista’s allegations in her
("The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996") SEC. 10. Registration of Voters. — A comment filed on 10 October 2002,
provides for a system of continuing qualified voter shall be registered in the thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

registration of voters. Thus, Bautista permanent list of voters in a precinct of

should have registered anew in the the city or municipality where he resides COMMENT
office of the Election Officer when he to be able to vote in any election. To
came back to the Philippines in 2001 register as a voter, he shall personally COMES NOW Respondent JOSEPINA P.
and learned that his name was no accomplish an application form for JARENO (sic) and to this Honorable
longer included in the roster of registration as prescribed by the Supreme Court by way of comment to
registered voters. The pertinent Commission in three (3) copies before the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
provisions of RA No. 8189 read: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
the Election Officer on any date during with Prayer for the Issuance of
office hours after having acquired the Temporary Restraining Order, filed by
SEC. 7. General Registration of Voters. qualifications of a voter. (Emphasis herein Petitioner, most respectfully
— Immediately after the barangay supplied) states that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

elections in 1997, the existing certified

list of voters shall cease to be effective x           x          x 1. Respondent JOSEPINA P. JAREÑO
and operative. For purposes of the May (sic) is the Election Officer of Nasugbu,
1998 elections and all elections, Batangas, while petitioner, RAYMUNDO
plebiscites, referenda, initiatives, and It is thus clear that Bautista was remiss A. BAUTISTA was one of the candidates
recall subsequent thereto, the in his duty to ensure his right to vote for the Barangay Chairman of Barangay
Commission shall undertake a general and to be voted for public office. As Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas, in the
registration of voters before the Board early as 2001, he was already aware recently concluded barangay elections;
of Election Inspectors on June 14, 15, that his name was no longer included in
21 and 22 and, subject to the discretion the roster of registered voters. Yet, 2. Based on the records in our files,
of the Commission, on June 28 and 29, Bautista chose not to register anew that petitioner was not and is not a
1997 in accordance with this Act. year despite his knowledge that he registered voter of Barangay
needed to register as a voter in the Lumbangan or any other barangays in
SEC. 8. System of Continuing barangay to run for the office of Punong Nasugbu, Batangas;
Registration of Voters. — The personal Barangay.
filing of application of registration of 3. There was never an instance during
voters shall be conducted daily in the Bautista alleges that his non-registration the period starting June 1997 up to
office of the Election Officer during as a voter of Barangay Lumbangan was December 26, 2001 when registration of
regular office hours. No registration due to the refusal of Election Officer voters for the updating of the Voter’s
shall, however be conducted during the Jareño to register him sometime in Registration Record had been
period starting one hundred twenty January 2002. 41 Aside from his bare undertaken by the Commission on
(120) days before a regular election and allegation that he tried to register in Elections on an "on again/off again"
January 2002, Bautista did not proffer system, did petitioner RAYMUNDO
BAUTISTA come to our office to check or certificate of candidacy rests at the very membership in the House of
ensure that he is still in the active list of core of the electoral process. 43 Under Representatives, not even the will of a
voters of Barangay Lumbangan, i.e., Section 78 of the Omnibus Election majority or plurality of the voters of the
assuming that he was registered as a Code, false representation of a material Second District of Makati City would
voter thereof, in the first place; fact in the certificate of candidacy is a substitute for a requirement mandated
ground for the denial or cancellation of by the fundamental law itself.
4. The last day of registration of voters the certificate of candidacy. The
(new or transferee) had been last material misrepresentation Indeed, the electorate cannot amend or
December 26, 2001, and registration contemplated by Section 78 refers to waive the qualifications prescribed by
shall resume again, this coming qualifications for elective office. A law for elective office. The will of the
September 16, 2002. In the meantime, candidate guilty of misrepresentation people as expressed through the ballot
no general registration nor special may be (1) prevented from running, or cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. 46
registration had been mandated by the (2) if elected, from serving, or (3) The fact that Bautista, a non-registered
Commission on Election (COMELEC, for prosecuted for violation of the election voter, was elected to the office of
brevity) between the period December laws. 44 Punong Barangay does not erase the
27, 2001 until September 15, 2002; fact that he lacks one of the
Invoking salus populi est suprema lex, qualifications for Punong Barangay.
5. I only met petitioner RAYMUNDO Bautista argues that the people’s choice
BAUTISTA for the first time when he expressed in the local elections deserves Whether it was proper to proclaim
came to our office to file his Certificate respect. Bautista’s invocation of the Alcoreza as Punong Barangay in view of
of Candidacy last June 10, 2002, which liberal interpretation of election laws is ineligibility of the winning candidate
was the last day set by the COMELEC for unavailing. As held in Aquino v.
the filing of Certificates of Candidacy; Commission on Elections: 45 Bautista subscribes to the view of the
Solicitor General that under the law and
x           x          x In fine, we are left with no choice but to jurisprudence, the COMELEC cannot
affirm the COMELEC’s conclusion proclaim as winner the second placer in
declaring herein petitioner ineligible for case of ineligibility of the winning
Bautista was aware when he filed his the elective position as Representative candidate.
certificate of candidacy for the office of of Makati City’s Second District on the
Punong Barangay that he lacked one of basis of respondent commission’s The Solicitor General submits that the
the qualifications — that of being a finding that petitioner lacks the one year disqualification of the winning candidate
registered voter in the barangay where residence in the district mandated by Bautista does not result in the
he ran for office. He therefore made a the 1987 Constitution. A democratic proclamation of Alcoreza who obtained
misrepresentation of a material fact government is necessarily a government the second highest number of votes
when he made a false statement in his of laws. In a republican government because Alcoreza was obviously not the
certificate of candidacy that he was a those laws are themselves ordained by choice of the electorate. The Solicitor
registered voter in Barangay the people. Through their General emphasized that the COMELEC
Lumbangan. 42 An elective office is a representatives, they dictate the declared Bautista ineligible for the post
public trust. He who aspires for elective qualifications necessary for service in of Punong Barangay only after his
office should not make a mockery of the government positions. And as petitioner election and proclamation as the
electoral process by falsely representing clearly lacks one of the essential winning candidate.
himself. The importance of a valid qualifications for running for
Respondent Alcoreza, however, alleges en banc issued Resolution No. 5404, stray, void, or meaningless.
that her proclamation as the elected adopting the recommendation of the
Punong Barangay was legal and valid. COMELEC Law Department and directing The Local Government Code provides for
Alcoreza claims her case falls under the the Election Officer to delete Bautista’s the rule regarding permanent vacancy
exception to the rule that the name from the official list of candidates. in the Office of the Punong Barangay,
disqualification of the winning candidate thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

does not entitle the candidate with the Thus, when the electorate voted for
next higher number of votes to be Bautista as Punong Barangay on 15 July SEC. 44. Permanent vacancies in the
proclaimed winner. Alcoreza cites Grego 2002, it was under the belief that he Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor,
v. COMELEC 47 which held that the was qualified. There is no presumption Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. — If a
exception is predicated on the that the electorate agreed to the permanent vacancy occurs in the office
concurrence of two assumptions, invalidation of their votes as stray votes of the governor or mayor, the vice-
namely: (1) the one who obtained the in case of Bautista’s disqualification. 51 governor or vice-mayor concerned shall
highest number of votes is disqualified; The Court cannot adhere to the theory become the governor or mayor. If a
and (2) the electorate is fully aware in of respondent Alcoreza that the votes permanent vacancy occurs in the offices
fact and in law of a candidate’s cast in favor of Bautista are stray votes. of the governor, vice-governor, mayor,
disqualification so as to bring such 52 A subsequent finding by the or vice-mayor, the highest ranking
awareness within the realm of notoriety COMELEC en banc that Bautista is sanggunian member or, in the case of
but would nonetheless cast their votes ineligible cannot retroact to the date of his permanent inability, the second
in favor of the ineligible candidate. elections so as to invalidate the votes highest ranking sanggunian member,
cast for him. 53 As held in Domino v. shall become the governor, vice-
This Court agrees with the view of the COMELEC: 54 governor, mayor or vice-mayor, as the
Solicitor General. It is now settled case may be. Subsequent vacancies in
doctrine that the COMELEC cannot Contrary to the claim of INTERVENOR, the said office shall be filled
proclaim as winner the candidate who petitioner was not notoriously known by automatically by the other sanggunian
obtains the second highest number of the public as an ineligible candidate. members according to their ranking as
votes in case the winning candidate is Although the resolution declaring him defined herein.
ineligible or disqualified. 48 The ineligible as candidate was rendered
exception to this well-settled rule was before the election, however, the same (b) If a permanent vacancy occurs in
mentioned in Labo, Jr. v. Commission is not yet final and executory. In fact, it the office of the punong barangay
on Elections 49 and reiterated in Grego was no less than the COMELEC in its member, the highest ranking
v. COMELEC. 50 However, the facts Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. sangguniang barangay member, or in
warranting the exception to the rule do 3046 that allowed DOMINO to be voted the case of his permanent disability, the
not obtain in the present case. for the office and ordered that the votes second highest ranking sanggunian
cast for him be counted as the member, shall become the punong
Although the COMELEC Law Department Resolution declaring him ineligible has barangay.
recommended to deny due course or to not yet attained finality. Thus the votes
cancel the certificate of candidacy of cast for DOMINO are presumed to have (c) A tie between or among the highest
Bautista on 11 July 2002, the COMELEC been cast in the sincere belief that he ranking sanggunian members shall be
en banc failed to act on it before the 15 was a qualified candidate, without any resolved by the drawing of lots.
July 2002 barangay elections. It was intention to misapply their franchise.
only on 23 July 2002 that the COMELEC Thus, said votes can not be treated as (d) The successors as defined herein
shall serve only the unexpired terms of
their predecessors. SO ORDERED.

For purposes of this Chapter, a

permanent vacancy arises when an
elective local official fills a higher vacant
office, refuses to assume office, fails to
qualify, dies, is removed from office,
voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise
permanently incapacitated to discharge
the functions of his office.

For purposes of succession as provided

in this Chapter, ranking in the
sanggunian shall be determined on the
basis of the proportion of votes obtained
by each winning candidate to the total
number of registered voters in each
district in the immediately preceding
local election. (Emphasis supplied)

Since Bautista failed to qualify for the

position of Punong Barangay, the
highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member, or in the case of his
permanent disability, the second highest
ranking sangguniang member, shall
become the Punong Barangay. 55

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

Petitioner Raymundo A. Bautista is
ineligible for the position of Punong
Barangay of Barangay Lumbangan for
not being a registered voter of Barangay
Lumbangan. The proclamation of the
second placer Divina Alcoreza as winner
in lieu of Bautista is void. Instead, the
highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member of Barangay Lumbangan shall
assume the office of Punong Barangay
of Lumbangan for the unexpired portion
of the term.
G.R. Nos. 111624-25 March 9, 1995 objection of private respondent.  From
1
candidate
the said ruling, private respondent Micu Alfonso C.
ALFONSO C. BINCE, JR., petitioner, appealed to the Commission on Bince in the
vs. Elections (COMELEC), which docketed municipality
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, the case as SPC No. 92-208. of San
PROVINCIAL BOARD OF Quintin,
CANVASSERS OF PANGASINAN, On June 6, 1992, the COMELEC en Pangasinan
MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF banc promulgated a resolution which is 1,055
CANVASSERS OF TAYUG AND SAN reads: votes
MANUEL, PANGASINAN AND whereas
EMILIANO MICU, respondents. Acting on the appeal filed petitioner/ap
by petitioner-appellant pellant Atty.
Atty. Emiliano S. Micu to Emiliano S.
the ruling of the Provincial Micu
KAPUNAN, J.: Board of Canvassers of obtained
Pangasinan, dated May 21, 1,535 votes
Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. and 1992, the Commission en for the same
private respondent Emiliano S. Micu banc tabulated the votes municipality.
were among the candidates in the obtained by candidates
synchronized elections of May 11, 1992 Atty. Emiliano S. Micu and Accordingly, the Provincial
for a seat in the Sanguniang Atty. Alfonso C. Bince for Board of Canvassers for
Panlalawigan  of the Province of the position of the province of Pangasinan
Pangasinan allotted to its Sixth Sangguniang Panlalawigan is directed to CREDIT in
Legislative District. member of the province of favor of
Pangasinan, using as basis petitioner/appellant Atty.
Ten (10) municipalities, including San thereof the statement of Emiliano S. Micu with
Quintin, Tayug and San Manuel, votes by precinct 1,535 votes and candidate
comprise the said district. submitted by the Alfonso C. Bince with
municipality of San 1,055 votes in the
Quintin, Pangasinan, as municipality of San
During the canvassing of the Certificates
(sic) a result of said Quintin, Pangasinan.2

of Canvass (COC's) for these ten (10)

municipalities by respondent Provincial examination, the
Board of Canvassers (PBC) on May 20, Commission rules, as Twenty-one (21) days after the canvass
1992, private respondent Micu objected follows: of the COCs for the nine (9)
to the inclusion of the COC for San municipalities was completed on May
Quintin on the ground that it contained 1. That the 20, 1992, private respondent Micu
false statements. Accordingly, the COCs actual together with the Municipal Boards of
for the remaining nine (9) municipalities number of Canvassers (MBCs) of Tayug and San
were included in the canvass. On May votes Manuel filed with the PBC petitions for
21, 1992, the PBC rules against the obtained by correction of the Statements of Votes
(SOVs) earlier prepared for alledged
manifest errors committed in the Tayug and San Manuel, Pangasinan to Canvass of Tayug and San Manuel,
computation thereof. correct the Statement of Votes and Pangasinan which corrections if to be
Certificates of Canvass and on the basis considered by the Board in its canvass
In view of the motion of herein of the corrected documents, the Board and proclamation, candidate Emiliano
petitioner to implement the Resolution (PBC) will continue the canvass and will win by 72 votes. On the other hand,
of June 6, 1992 which was alleged to thereafter proclaim the winning if these corrections will not be
have become final, the PBC, on June 18, candidate.5
considered, candidate Alfonso Bince, Jr.
1992, credited in favor of the petitioner will win by one (1) vote.  On even date,
7

and private respondent the votes for On June 25, 1992, petitioner Bince the COMELEC promulgated its
each as indicated in the said resolution appealed from the above ruling allowing resolution, the dispositive portion of
and on the basis of the COCs for San the correction alleging that the PBC had which reads:
Quintin and the other nine (9) no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
municipalities, petitioner had a total of The appeal was docketed as SPC No. (1) To RECONVENE
27,370 votes while the private 92-384. immediately and complete
respondent had 27,369 votes. Petitioner the canvass of the
who won by a margin of 1 vote was not, On July 8, 1992, private respondent Certificates of Votes, as
however, proclaimed winner because of Micu filed before the COMELEC an corrected, of the
the absence of authority from the urgent motion for the issuance of an municipalities comprising
COMELEC. order directing the PBC to reconvene the 6th District of
and proceed with the canvass. He Pangasinan;
Accordingly, petitioner filed a formal alleged that the promulgation of
motion for such authority. COMELEC Resolution No. 2489 on June (2) To PROCLAIM the
29, 1992 affirmed the ruling of the PBC winning candidate for
On June 29, 1992, the COMELEC en dated June 24, 1992. Similarly, Member of the provincial
banc promulgated a Supplemental petitioner Bince filed an urgent petition Board, 6th District of
Order  directing the PBC "to reconvene,
3 to cite Atty. Felimon Asperin and Supt. Pangasinan, on the basis
continue with the provincial canvass and Primo. A. Mina, Chairman and Member, of the completed and
proclaim the winning candidates for respectively, of the PBC, for Contempt corrected Certificates of
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the with alternative prayer for proclamation Canvass, aforesaid; in
Province of Pangasinan, and other as winner and Injunction with prayer for accordance with the law,
candidates for provincial offices who the issuance of Temporary Restraining the rules and guidelines on
have not been proclaimed  as of that
4 Order (TRO). canvassing and
date. proclamation. 8

On July 9, 1992, the PBC Chairman,

In the meantime, on June 24, 1992, the Atty. Felimon Asperin, filed a petition As directed therein, the PBC on July 21,
PBC, acting on the petitions for with the COMELEC seeking a "definitive 1992, by a vote of 2-1 with its Chairman
correction of the SOVs of Tayug and San ruling and a clear directive or order as Atty. Felimon Asperin dissenting,
Manuel filed by private respondent and to who of the two (2) contending parties proclaimed candidate Bince as the duly
the MBCs of the said municipalities, should be proclaimed"  averring that
6
elected member of the Sangguniang
rules "to allow the Municipal Boards of "there were corrections already made in Panlalawigan  of Pangasinan. Assailing
Canvassers of the municipalities of a separate sheet of paper of the the proclamation of Bince, private
Statements of Votes and Certificates of respondent Micu filed an Urgent Motion
for Contempt and to Annul Proclamation Canvass, aforesaid; The case was docketed as G.R. No.
and Amended Urgent Petition for instead they excluded the 106291.
Contempt and Annul Proclamation on corrected Certificated of
July 22 and 29, 1992, respectively, Canvass of the Municipal On February 9, 1993, the Court en
alleging that the PBC defied the Boards of Canvassers of banc   granted the petition ratiocinating
10

directive of the COMELEC in its Tayug and San Manuel, that:

resolution of July 9, 1992. Acting Pangasinan;
thereon, the COMELEC promulgated a Respondent COMELEC
resolution on July 29, 1992, the decretal 2. To ANNUL the acted without jurisdiction
portion of which reads: proclamation dated 21 July or with grave abuse of
1992, by the said discretion in annulling the
The Commission RESOLVED, as it Provincial Board of petitioner's proclamation
hereby RESOLVES: Canvassers (dissented by without the requisite due
Chairman Felimon notice and hearing,
1. To direct Prosecutor Asperin), of candidate thereby depriving the
Jose Antonio Guillermo Alfonso Bince; latter of due process.
and Supt. Primo Mina, Moreover, there was no
vice-chairman and 3. To DIRECT the valid correction of the
secretayr, respectively, of Provincial Board of SOVs and COCs for the
the Provincial Board of Canvassers to recovene municipalities of Tayug
Canvassers of Pangasinan, immediately and proclaim and San Manuel to warrant
to show cause why they the winning candidate for the annullment of the
should not be declared in the second position of the petitioner's proclamation.
contempt of defying and Provincial Board, 6th
disobeying the Resolution District of Pangasinan, on 1. Petitioner had been
of this Commission dated the basis of the completed proclaimed, had taken his
09 July 1992, directing and corrected Certificates oath of office and had
them to RECOVENE of Canvass submitted by assumed the position of
immediately and complete the Municipal Boards of the second elected
the canvass of the Canvassers of all the member of
Certificates of Votes as municipalities in the 6th the Sangguniang
corrected, of the Municipal District of Pangasinan, in Panlalawigan  of the
Boards of Canvassers of accordance with law. 9
Province of Pangasinan for
the Municipalities its Sixth Legislative
comprising the 6th District Consequently, petitioner filed a special District. Such proclamation
of Pangasinan; and to civil action for certiorari before this enjoys the presumption of
PROCLAIM the winning Court seeking to set aside the foregoing regularly and validity. The
candidate of the Provincial resolution of the COMELEC, contending ruling of the majority of
Board, 6th District of that the same was promulgated without the PBC to proclaim the
Pangasinan, on the basis prior notice and hearing with respect to petitioner is based on its
of the completed and SPC No. 92-208 and SPC No. 92-384. interpretation of the 9 July
corrected Certificates of 1992 Resolution of
respondent COMELEC Board, 6th (Article III, 1987
which does not expressly District of Constitution), and one
single out the corrected Pangasinan, cannot acquire a vested
COCs of Tayug and San on the basis right to public office
Manuel; since, as of that of (CRUZ, I.A., Constitutional
time, the only corrected the complete Law, 1991 ed., 101), it is,
COC which existed was d and nevertheless, a protected
that for San Quintin, which corrected Ce right (BERNAS J., The
was made by the PBC on rtificates of Constitution of the
18 June 1992, the Canvass, Republic of the Philippines,
majority of the PBC cannot aforesaid; in vol. I, 1987 ed.,
be faulted for ruling the accordance 40, citing Segovia vs.
way it did. the 9 July 1992 with the law, Noel, 47 Phil. 543 [1925]
Resolution (Rollo, p. 51) the rules and and Borja vs. Agoncillo, 46
merely directed it: guideline on Phil. 432 [1924]). Due
canvassing process in proceedings
(1) To and before the respondent
RECOVENE proclamation COMELEC, exercising its
immediately . (Emphasis quasi-judicial functions,
and complete supplied) requires due notice and
the canvass hearing, among others.
of the The PBC thus had every Thus, although the
Certificates reason to believe that the COMELEC possesses, in
of Votes, as phrase "completed and appropriate cases, the
corrected, of corrected" COCs could only power to annul or suspend
the Municipal refer to the nine 99) COCs the proclamation of any
Boards of for the nine municipalities, candidate (Section 248,
Canvassers canvass for which was Omnibus Election Code
of completed on 21 May [B.P. Blg. 881]), We had
the municipa 1992, and that of San ruled in Farinas
lities Quintin, respectively. vs. Commission on
comprising Verily, the above Elections (G.R. No. 81763,
the 6th resolution is vague and 3 March 1988), Reyes
District of ambiguous. vs. Commission on
Pangasinan; Elections G.R. No. 81856,
Petitioner cannot be 3 March 1988)
(2) To deprived of his office and Gallardo
PROCLAIM without due process of vs. Commission on
the winning law. Although public office Elections (G.R. No. 85974,
candidate for is not  property under 2 May 1989) that the
Member of Section 1 of the Bill of COMELEC is without power
the Provincial Rights of the Constitution to partially or totally annul
a proclamation or suspend Hence, the COMELEC en due to the appeal
the effects of a banc had no jurisdiction to seasonably interposed by
proclamation without decide on the aforesaid to the petitioner to the
notice and hearing. annul the proclamation; COMELEC or the fact that
consequently, its 29 July said members simply
xxx xxx xxx 1992 Resolution is motion chose not to act thereon.
is null and void. For this As already adverted to the
Furthermore, the said reason too, the so-called "corrected"
motion to annul COMELEC en Statements of Votes and
proclamation was treated banc Resolution of 6 June Certificates of Canvass
by the respondent 1992 in SPC No. 92-2()8 consist of sheets of paper
COMELEC as a Special resolving the private signed by the respective
Case (SPC) because its respondent's appeal from Election Registrars of
ruling therein was made in the ruling of the PBC with Tayug (Annex "F-l" of
connection with SPC No. respect to the COC of San Comment of private
92-208 and SPC No. 92- Quintin is similarly void. respondent; Annex "A" of
384. Special Cases under Consolidated Reply of
the COMELEC RULES OF 2. It is to be noted, as petitioner) and San Manuel
PROCEDURE involve the correctly stressed by the (Annex "F-2, Id.; Annex
pre-proclamation petitioner, that there are "B", Id.). These are not
controversies (Rule 27 in no valid corrected valid corrections because
relation to Section 4(h)l Statements of Votes and the Election Registrars, as
Rule 1, and Section 4, Certificates of Canvass for Chairmen of the MBCs
Rule 7). We have Tayug and San Manuel; cannot, by themselves, act
categorically declared thus, any reference to for their Section 225 of the
in Sarmiento such would be clearly respective Board. Section
vs. Commission on unfounded. While it may 225 of the Omnibus
Elections (G.R. No. be true that on 24 June Election Code (B.P. Blg.
105628, and companion 1992, the PBC, acting on 881) provides that "[A]
cases, 6 August 1992) that simultaneous petitions to majority vote of all the
pursuant to Section 3, correct the SOVs and members of the board of
Article IX-C of the 1987 COCs for Tayug and San canvassers shall be
Constitution, . . . the Manuel ordered the MBCs necessary to render a
commission en banc does for these two (2) decision." That majority
not have jurisdiction to municipalities to make the means at least two (2) of
hear and decide pre- appropriate corrections in the three (3) members
proclamation cases at the the said SOVs and their constituting the Board
first instance. Such cases corresponding COCs, none (Section 20(c) of the
should first be referred to of said Boards convened to Electoral Reforms Law of
a division the members of actually 1987 (R.A. No. 6646)
implement the order. Such provides that the
failure could have been "municipal board of
canvassers shall be corrections into the SOV Even if We are to assume
composed of the election and COC which were for the sake of argument
registrar or a originally prepared and that these sheets of paper
representative of the submitted by the MBC or constitute sufficient
Commission, as chairman, by preparing a new SOV corrections, they are,
the municipal treasurer, as and COC incorporating nevertheless, void and of
vice-chairman, and the therein the authorized no effect. At the time the
most senior district school corrections. Thus, the Election Registrars
supervisor or in his statement in the 29 July prepared them — on 6 July
absence a principal of the 1992 Resolution of the 1992 — respondent
school district or the COMELEC referring to "the COMELEC had not yet
elementary school, as Certificates of Canvass of acted on the petitioner's
members"). As to why the the municipal Boards of appeal (SPC No. 92-384)
Election Registrars, in their Canvassers of Tayug and from the 24 June 1992
capacities as Chairmen, San Manuel" (Last clause, ruling of the PBC
were 7th only ones who paragraph 1 of the authorizing the
prepared the so-called dispositive portion, Annex corrections. Petitioner
correction sheets, is "A" of Petition: Rollo 15), maintains that until now,
beyond Us. There is no is palpably unfounded. The his appeal has not been
showing that the other Commission could have 7 resolved. The public
members of the Boards been misled by Atty. respondent, on the other
were no longer available. Asperin's ambiguous hand, through the Office of
Since they are from the reference to "corrections the Solicitor General,
Province of Pangasinan, already made in separate claims that the same had
they could have been sheets of paper of the been:
easily summoned by the Statements of Votes and
PBC to appear before it Certificate of Canvass of . . . resolved
and effect the corrections Tayug and San Manuel, in the
on the Statements of Pangasinan" (Quoted in questioned
Votes and Certificates of the Resolution of 9 July resolution of
Canvass. 1992; Id., 50-51), in his July 29,
petition asking the 1992, where
Besides, by no stretch of COMELEC to rule on who COMELEC
the imagination can these shall be proclaimed. affirmed
sheets of paper be However, if it only took respondents
considered as the the trouble to carefully (sic) Board's
corrected SOVs and COCs. examine what was held correction
Corrections in a Statement out to be as the corrected that
of Vote and a Certificate of documents, respondent petitioner
Canvass could only be COMELEC should not have only received
accomplished either by been misled. 2,415 votes
inserting the authorized in Tayug and
 2,179 in San 29 July 1992 that SPC No. pursuant to Section 3,
Manuel 92-384 was resolved; Article IX-C of the 1987
(see p. 2, consequently, the so- constitution and Our ruling
Annex "A", called "correction sheets" in Sarmiento
Petition) were still prematurely vs. Commission on
(Rollo, p. 71) prepared. In any event, Elections. Moreover, the
the COMELEC could not COMELEC's claim that the
On the same have validly ruled on such questioned resolution
matter, the appeal in its 29 July 1992 affirmed the correction
private Resolution because the made by the Board is
respondent same was promulgated to totally baseless. The PBC
asserts that: resolve the Urgent Motion did not make any
For Contempt and to Annul corrections. It merely
This SPC-92- Proclamation filed by the ordered the Municipal
384, is private respondent. Boards of Canvassers of
however, Furthermore, before the Tayug and San Manuel to
deemed resolution of SPC No. 92- make such corrections. As
terminated 384 on the earlier stated, however,
and the abovementioned date, no the said MBCs did not
ruling of the hearing was set or convene to make these
PBC is conducted to resolve the corrections. It was the
likewise pending motion. Chairmen alone who
deemed Therefore, on this ground signed the sheets of paper
affirmed by alone, the 29 July 1992 purporting to be
virtue of the Resolution, even if it was corrections.
2nd par., meant to resolve the
Sec. 16, R.A. appeal, is a patent nullity For being clearly
No. for having been issued in inconsistent with the
7166, supra  gross violation of the intention and official stand
and requirement of notice and of respondent COMELEC,
Comelec en hearing mandated by private respondent
banc Resoluti Section 246 of the COMELEC private
on No. Omnibus Election Code, in respondent's theory of
2489, supra, relation to Section 18 of termination under the
dated June R.A. No. 7166 and Section second paragraph of
29, 1992 6, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Section 16 of R.A. No.
(Id., 36); Rules of Procedure, and 7166, and the consequent
for having been resolved affirmance of the ruling of
If We follow the by the COMELEC en the PBC ordering the
respondent COMELEC's banc at the first instance. correction of the number
contention to its logical The case should have been of votes, must necessarily
conclusion, it was only on referred first to a division fail.
 The foregoing considered, Court. Private respondent was obviously PBC of June 24, 1992 granting the same
the proclamation of the referring to SPC No. 92-208 and SPC were valid so that the withdrawal of
private respondent on, 13 No. 92-384, both cases left unresolved Bince's appeal in SPC No. 92-384 firmly
August 1992 by the by the COMELEC. affirmed the PBC ruling of June 24,
Provincial Board of 1992 allowing the corrections.
Canvassers of Pangasinan Consequently, the First Division of the
is null and void. COMELEC set the cases for hearing on On July 15, 1993, the First Division of
March 8, 1993. During the hearing, both the COMELEC promulgated a Resolution,
WHEREFORE, the instant Micu and Bince orally manifested the the dispositive portion of which reads:
petition is GRANTED. The withdrawal of their respective appeals.
challenged resolution of Also withdrawn were the petitions to Viewed from the foregoing
the respondent disqualify Atty. Asperin and to cite the considerations, the
Commission on Elections Board for contempt. The parties agreed Commission (First
of 29 July 1992 and the to file their respective Division) holds that the
proclamation of the private memoranda/position papers by March petitioner Alfonso C. Bince
respondent on 13 August 15, 1993. Jr. is entitled to sit as
1992 as the second member of the
Member of Petitioner Bince filed his Position Paper Sangguniang
the Sangguniang on March 12, 1993 arguing that the Panlalawigan, Sixth
Panlalawigan of the withdrawal of SPC No. 92-208 affirmed District of Pangasinan.
Province of Pangasinan, the ruling of the PBC dated May 21,
representing its Sixth 1992 and even if it were not withdrawn, ACCORDINGLY, the
Legislative District Section 16 of R.A. 7166 would have Commission (First
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE worked to terminate the appeal. Bince Division) RESOLVED, as it
and respondent likewise asserts that his appeal in SPC hereby RESOLVES, to
Commission on Elections is No. 92-384 became moot and academic AFFIRM the proclamation
DIRECTED to resolve the in view of this Court's ruling nullifying of petitioner Alfonso C.
pending incidents the June 24, 1992 order of the PBC Bince, Jr. by the Provincial
conformably with the granting the petitions for correction of Board of Canvassers of
foregoing disquisitions and the SOVs and COCs of Tayug and San Pangasinan on 21 July
pronouncements. Manuel aside from being superseded by 1992 as the duly elected
the PBC ruling proclaiming him on July member of the
No costs. 21, 1992. Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of the Sixth District of the
SO ORDERED. 11
On the other hand, private respondent Province of Pangasinan. 12

Micu, in his Position Paper filed on

On February 23, 1993, private March 15, 1993 postulated that the On July 20, 1993, private respondent
respondent Micu filed an Urgent petitions filed on June 11, 1992 for the Micu filed a Motion for reconsideration of
Omnibus Motion before the COMELEC correction of the SOVs and COCs of the above-quoted resolution.
praying that the latter hear and resolve Tayug and San Manuel under Section 6
the pending incidents referred to by this of Rule 27 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, as well as the ruling of the
On September 9, 1993, the Legislative District of the proclamation of petitioner, hence,
COMELEC en banc granted the private Pangasinan. our directive to respondent COMELEC to
respondentls motion for reconsideration resolve the pending incidents of the
in a resolution which dispositively reads SO ORDERED.  13 case so as to ascertain the true and
as follows: lawful winner of the said elections. In
This is the resolution assailed in the effect, petitioner's proclamation only
WHEREFORE, premises instant petition for certiorari. enjoyed the presumption of regularity
considered, the Motion for and validity of an official act. It was not
Reconsideration filed by We do not find merit in this petition and categorically declared valid.
respondent Emiliano S. accordingly rule against petitioner.
Micu is granted. The Neither can the COMELEC be faulted for
Resolution of the Respondent COMELEC did not act subsequently annulling the proclamation
Commission First Division without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of petitioner Bince on account of a
is hereby SET ASIDE. The of discretion in annulling the mathematical error in addition
proclamation of petitioner proclamation of petitioner Alfonso Bince, committed by respondent MBCs in the
Alfonso Bince, Jr. on July Jr. and in directing the Provincial Board computation of the votes received by
21, 1992 is hereby of Canvassers of Pangasinan to order both petitioner and private respondent.
declared null and void. the Municipal Boards of Canvassers of
Accordingly, the Provincial Tayug and San Manuel to make the The petitions to correct manifest errors
Board of Canvassers is necessary corrections in the SOVs and were filed on time, that is, before the
hereby directed to COCs in said municipalities and to petitioner's proclamation on July 21,
reconvene, with proper proclaim the winner in the sixth 1992. The petition of the MBC of San
notices, and to order the legislative district of Pangasinan. Manuel was filed on June 4, 1992 while
Municipal Board of that of still, the MBC of Tayug was filed
Canvassers of San Manuel At the outset, it is worthy to observe on June 5, 1992. Still, private
and Tayug to make the that no error was committed by respondent's petition was filed with the
necessary corrections in respondent COMELEC when it resolved MBCs of Tayug and San Manuel on June
the SOVs and COCs in the the "pending incidents" of the instant 10, 1992 and June 11, 1992,
said municipalities. case pursuant to the decision of this respectively, definitely well within the
Thereafter, the Provincial Court in the aforesaid case period required by Section 6 (now
Board of Canvassers is of Bince,  Jr.  v. COMELEC on February 9, Section 7), Rule 27 of the COMELEC
directed to include the 1993 Petitioner's contention that his Rules of Procedure. Section 6 clearly
results in the said proclamation has long been affirmed provides that the petition for correction
municipalities in its and confirmed by this Court in the may be filed at any time before
canvass. aforesaid case is baseless. In Bince, we proclamation of a winner, thus:
nullified the proclamation of private
The PBC is likewise respondent because the same was done Sec. 6. Correction of
ordered to proclaim the without the requisite due notice and errors in tabulation or
second elected member of hearing, thereby depriving the petitioner tallying of results by the
the Sangguniang of his right to due process. In so doing, board of
Panlalawigan of the Sixth however, we did not affirm nor confirm canvassers. —  (a) Where
it is clearly shown before
proclamation that manifest may appeal therefrom to Assuming for the sake of argument that
errors were committed in the Commission within the petition was filed out of time, this
the tabulation or tallying twenty-four (24) hours incident alone will not thwart the proper
of election returns, or from the promulgation. determination and resolution of the
certificates of canvass, instant case on substantial grounds.
during the canvassing as (d) Once an appeal is Adherence to a technicality that would
where (1) a copy of the made, the board of put a stamp of validity on a palpably
election returns of one canvassers shall not void proclamation, with the inevitable
precinct or two or more proclaim the winning result of frustrating the people's will
copies of a certificate of candidates, unless their cannot be countenanced. In Benito
canvass was tabulated votes are not affected by v.  COMELEC,   categorically
14
declared
more than once, (2) two the appeal. that:
copies of the election
returns or certificate of (e) The appeal must . . . Adjudication of cases
canvass were tabulated implead as respondents all on substantive merits and
separately, (3) there had parties who may be not on technicalities has
been a mistake in the adversely affected been consistently observed
adding or copying of the thereby. by this Court. In the case
figures into the certificate of Juliano vs. Court of
of canvass or into the (f) Upon receipt of the Appeals (20 SCRA 808)
statement of votes, or (4) appeal, the Clerk of Court cited in Duremdes
so-called election returns concerned shall forthwith vs. Commission on
from non-existent issue summons, together Elections (178 SCRA 746),
precincts were included in with a copy of the appeal, this Court had the
the canvass, the board to the respondents. occasion to declare that:
may, motu propio, or upon
verified petition by any (g) The Clerk of Court Well-settled
candidate, political party, concerned shall is the
organization or coalition of immediately set the appeal doctrine that
political parties, after due for hearing. election
notice and hearing, correct contests
the errors committed. involve
(h) The appeal shall be
heard an decided by he public
(b) The order for Commission en interest, and
correction must be in banc (Emphasis ours). technicalities
writing and must be and
promulgated. procedural
The rule is plain and simple. It
needs no other interpretation barriers
(c) Any candidate, political contrary to petitioner's should not be
party, organization or protestation. allowed to
coalition of political parties stand if they
aggrieved by said order constitute an
obstacle to v. Elections (119 SCRA 465),
the Macalanang, this doctrine was
determinatio G.R. No. reiterated and the Court
n of the true L-22779, went on to state that:
will of the March 31,
electorate in 1965; Since the
the choice of Cauton v. early case
their elective Commission of Gardiner
officials. And on Elections, v.  Romulo (2
also settled G.R. No. L- 6 Phil. 521),
is the rule 25467, April this Court
that laws 27, 1967). In has made it
governing an election clear that it
election case the frowns upon
contests court has an any
must be imperative interpretatio
liberally duty to n of the law
construed to ascertain all or the rules
the end that means within that would
the will of its command hinder in any
the people in who is the way not only
the choice of real the free and
public candidate intelligent
officials may elected by casting of the
not be the votes in an
defeated by electorate (I election but
mere basco v. Ilao, also the
technical G.R. No. L- correct
objections 17512, ascertainmen
(Gardiner v. December t of the
Romulo, 26 29, 1960). . . results, This
Phil. 521; . (Juliano vs. bent or
Galang v. Court of disposition
Miranda, 35 Appeals, sup continues to
Phil. 269; ra, pp. 818- the present.
Jalandoni 819). (Id., at p.
v. Sarcon, G. (Emphasis 474).
R. No. ours)
L-6496, The same principle still
January 27, In the later case holds true today.
1962; of Rodriguez Technicalities of the legal
Macasunding vs. Commission on rules enunciated in the
 election laws should not Consequently, by margin of 72 votes,
frustrate the determination private respondent indisputably won the
of the popular will. challenged seat in the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan  of the sixth district of
Undoubtedly therefore, the only issue Pangasinan. Petitioner's proclamation
that remains unresolved is the and assumption into public office was
allowance of the correction of what are therefore flawed from the beginning, the
purely mathematical and/or mechanical same having been based on a faulty
errors in the addition of the votes tabulation. Hence, respondent COMELEC
received by both candidates. It does not did not commit grave abuse of
involve the opening of ballot boxes; discretion in setting aside the illegal
neither does it involve the examination proclamation.
and/or appreciation of ballots. The
correction sought by private respondent As a parting note, we reiterate' our
and respondent MBCs of Tayug and San concern with respect to insignificant
Manuel is correction of manifest disputes plaguing this Court. Trifles such
mistakes in mathematical addition. as the one at issue should not, as much
Certainly, this only calls for a mere as possible, reach this Court, clog its
clerical act of reflecting the true and docket, demand precious judicial time
correct votes received by the candidates and waste valuable taxpayers' money, if
by the MBCs involved. In this case, the they can be settled below without
manifest errors sought to be corrected prejudice to any party or to the ends of
involve the proper and diligent addition justice.
of the votes in the municipalities of
Tayug and San Manuel, Pangasinan. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
hereby DISMISSED with costs against
In Tayug, the total votes received by petitioner.
petitioner Bince was erroneously
recorded as 2,486 when it should only SO ORDERED.
have been 2,415. Petitioner Bince, in
effect, was credited by 71 votes more.

In San Manuel, petitioner Bince received

2,179 votes but was credited with 6
votes more, hence, the SOV reflected
the total number of votes as 2,185. On
the other hand, the same SOV indicated
that private respondent Micu garnered
2,892 votes but he actually received
only 2,888, hence was credited in
excess of 4 votes.
G.R. No. 123037 March 21, 1997 District of Palawan were said document is attached
tainted with massive hereto as Annex "B".
TEODORO Q. PEÑA, petitioner, fraud, widespread vote-
vs. buying, intimidation and 9. Had the massive fraud,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES terrorism and other widespread intimidation
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and serious irregularities and terrorism and other
ALFREDO E. ABUEG JR., respondents. committed before, during serious irregularities not
and after the voting, and been committed, the result
during the counting of of the elections for
votes and the preparation Member of the House of
TORRES, JR., J.: of election returns and Representatives would
certificates of canvass have been different and
Assailed herein is the October 12, 1995 which affected the results the protestant would have
Resolution  of
1
the House of of the election. Among the garnered the highest
Representatives Electoral Tribunal fraudulent acts committed number of votes for the
(HRET) dismissing the Petition Ad were the massive vote- Office of Member of the
Cautelam of the Petitioner Teodoro Q. buying and intimidation of House of Representatives
Peña in HRET Case No. 95-014. voters, disenfranchisement in the Second District of
Petitioner questioned the election of the of petitioner's known Palawan, which was the
private respondent Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr. supporters through true expression of the will
as Member of the House of systematic deletion of of the voters of the
Representatives representing the names from the lists of Province of Palawan.
Second District of the province of voters, allowing persons to
Palawan. vote in excess of the 10. The proclamation by
number of registered the members of the
voters, misappreciation, Provincial Board of
Petitioner and the private respondent
misreading and non- Canvassers of Palawan
were contenders for the said
reading of protestant's that the protestee was
Congressional Office in the May 8, 1995
ballots and other allegedly the duly elected
elections. On May 12, 1995, upon
irregularities. Member of the House of
canvassing the votes cast, the Provincial
Board of Canvassers of Palawan Representatives for the
proclaimed the private respondent as 8. According to the Second District of Palawan
the winner. Statement of Votes by is contrary to law and to
Precinct/Municipality/City, the true expression of the
the protestee allegedly will of the voters of the
On May 22, 1995, the instant petition
obtained 52,967 votes, Province of Palawan. 2
was filed with the HRET, wherein the
while the protestant
petitioner, as protestant, averred that:
allegedly obtained 46,023 Private respondent-Protestee Abueg
votes, or a difference of filed an Answer With Affirmative
7. The elections in the
6,944 votes. A copy of Defense, Counterclaim and Counter-
precincts of the Second
Protest  on June 5, 1995, to which Peña
3
Princesa City and the that legal votes were
filed a Reply on June 23, 1995. municipalities of Aborlan, rejected and illegal votes
Subsequent to the filing of his Answer, Balabac, Bataraza, received, the motion of
Abueg filed a Motion to Dismiss  the 4
Brooke's Point, Narra, protest should state in
Petition on June 22, 1995, averring that Quezon, and Marcos what precincts such
the HRET has not acquired jurisdiction (Ordinance appended to irregularities occurred, . . .
over the petition, the same being the 1973 Constitution). The specification in the
insufficient in form and substance. In The Protestant failed to motion of protest of the
essence, the motion to dismiss anchors specify which are the 700 election precinct or
its challenge on the fact that the petition precincts, out of the said precincts where the
failed to allege the precincts where the 743 precincts, that are alleged irregularities
massive fraud and disenfranchisement included in his protest; he occurred, is required in
of voters occurred, nor did it point out even failed to allege the order to apprise the
how many votes would be gained by the municipalities where the contestee of the issues
protestant as a result of the same. protested precincts are which he has to meet. . . .
located. Worse, the body
Petitioner filed an Opposition to the of the Petition does not In its more recent
Motion to Dismiss  on July 10, 1995,
5 even mention the 700 resolution in Grand
attaching thereto a Summary of precincts. Reference to Alliance for Democracy
Contested Precincts, naming 700 them is made only in the (GAD) vs. COMELEC (G.R.
precincts where election irregularities Prayer. These omissions No. 78302, May 26, 1987,
allegedly occurred. prevent Protestee from 150 SCRA 665), the
being apprised of the Supreme Court held that
In its Resolution of October 12, 1995, issues which he has to the petition therein "could
the respondent HRET ruled that meet and make it virtually have been dismissed
although it had jurisdiction over the impossible for the Tribunal outright as deficient in
petition, as the sole judge of all contests to determine which ballot form and substance, being
relating to the election, returns and boxes have to be couched in general terms
qualifications of the members of the collected. only, without precise
House of Representatives, the said indication of the time,
petition, however, fails to state a cause The Supreme Court, place and manner of the
of action, and is therefore, insufficient in in Fernando vs. Pastor M. commission of the alleged
form and substance, meriting its Endencia, Judge of First irregularities."
dismissal. Instance of Bulacan, et al.
(No. 46099, 66 Phil 148, xxx xxx xxx
The HRET states pertinently: 150, August 30, 1938)
observed that, "[w]hile the Similarly, this Tribunal, in
There are 743 precincts in election law does not say dismissing an election
the second congressional so directly, it is clearly protest, observed that the
district of Palawan which is inferred from its relevant protest, in general
comprised of Puerto provisions that where the language, "impugns,
grounds of contest are contests and protests the
illegal, improper and Moreover, in a Resolution has likewise failed to
fraudulent electoral promulgated on 17 June specify the 47 precincts he
practices, acts and deeds" 1995, the Commission on contests in his Counter-
of the protestee and Elections en Protest. This omission
"impugns and contests all banc (COMELEC) merely renders Protestee's
the election returns in the dismissed herein Counter-Protest defective
lone district of Petitioner's Petition (SPA for insufficiency in form
Catanduanes." The Case No. 95-258) to and substance and for
tribunal held that this declare a failure of failure to state a cause of
scattershot allegation is elections in the second action. It does not cure
not allowed in election district of Palawan. Copy the fatal defects in
contests and that "it is of said Resolution was sent Protestant's Petition.
necessary to make a to Petitioner Peña through
precise indication of the registered mail and was WHEREFORE, for failure of
precincts protested and a received by him on 28 the Petition (Protest) to
specification of the claimed June 1995. Since state a cause of action
offenses to have been Petitioner did not appeal because it is fatally
committed by the parties." from the Resolution, it insufficient in form and
(Alberto vs. Tapia, HRET became final on 3 July substance, the Tribunal
Case No. 37, January 23, 1995 pursuant to Section Resolved to GRANT
1989) 13 (b), Rule 18 of the Protestee's Motion to
COMELEC Rules of Dismiss and to DISMISS,
While Protestant has Procedure. Even assuming as it hereby DISMISSES,
attached as Annex "A" to that SPA Case No. 95-258 the instant Petition of
his Opposition to the had tolled the running of Protest. As a logical
Motion to Dismiss, filed on the period to file a protest consequence thereof and
10 July 1995, a Summary and Protestant Peña's also for the same reason,
of contested Precincts, the Petition Ad Cautelam was Protestee's Counter-
defects in his Protest were thus converted into a Protest is DISMISSED.
not cured thereby as the regular protest (not Ad
Summary was submitted Cautelam) effective upon No pronouncements as to
only after the Motion to the finality of the official costs.
Dismiss had been filed. COMELEC resolution,
The Opposition and the thereby providing him an SO ORDERED. 6

attached Summary do not opportunity to amend it to

amend the original cure the defects cited Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of
Petition. There is not even above, Protestant took no the said resolution was denied by the
a prayer in the Opposition positive and affirmative respondent tribunal on November 14,
suggesting such steps for that purpose. 1995.
amendment.
Protestant alleges in his
Opposition that Protestee
In this Petition for Certiorari, filed on an election protest can be entertained Moreover, the fact that the HRET did not
December 29, 1995, petitioner argues by the HRET. To support his submission, summarily dismiss the Petition Ad
that the respondent HRET acted with petitioner cites the cases of Yalung vs. Cautelam, and instead, required the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to Atienza, 52 Phil 781, Arao vs. COMELEC, private respondent Abueg to file an
having acted without or in excess of 210 SCRA 790 and Gallares vs. Answer, the HRET has thus made a prior
jurisdiction in dismissing the election Casenas, 48 Phil 362, the latter stating determination that the petition is
protest of petitioner considering that: that: sufficient in form and substance.

I From a reading of the We do not agree,

allegations of the protest,
THE PETITION AD it may be seen that frauds, In the first place, in requiring the
CAUTELAM DATED 22 MAY irregularities and violations private respondent to answer the
1995 STATED A CAUSE OF of the law are alleged petition, the HRET was not ruling on the
ACTION AND IS therein, which, if true, formal and substantive sufficiency of the
SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND would undoubtedly change petition. The order to require an answer
SUBSTANCE. the result of the elections. is but a matter of course, as under the
Revised Rules of Procedure of the HRET,
II The fact that in the protest it is provided that:
the number of votes which
ASSUMING ARGUENDO TH would result in favor of the RULE 22. Summons. —
AT THE PETITION WAS protestant after the Upon the filing of the
INITIALLY DEFECTIVE judicial counting is not petition, the Clerk of the
BECAUSE IT FAILED TO specified, does not affect Tribunal shall forthwith
SPECIFY THE CONTESTED the right of the protestant, issue the corresponding
PRECINCTS, SAID DEFECT for it being known that summons to the protestee
WAS CURED WHEN said omission is a defect of or respondent together
PETITIONER SUBMITTED A the protest, the same may with a copy of the petition,
SUMMARY OF THE be cured by a specification requiring him within ten
CONTESTED PRECINCTS of the votes mentioned in (10) days from receipt
WHICH FORMS PART OF paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of thereof to file his answer.
THE RECORD OF THE the protest, without
RESPONDENT HRET. thereby adding new As to the adequacy of the protest, we
grounds for those already agree with respondent HRET in ruling
It is the Petitioner's view that the alleged by the protestant. for the insufficiency of the same.
instant election protest is sufficient in
form and substance even while failing to Applying the same principle to the A perusal of the Petition Ad Cautelam,
specify the precincts where irregularities specification of precincts in the instant reveals that Petitioner makes no specific
allegedly occurred. Nowhere is it case, the defect in the petition should mention of the precincts where
provided that the specification of the have been cured by the opposition to widespread election, fraud and
precincts is a jurisdictional requirement the private respondent's Motion to irregularities occured. This is a fatal
that must be complied with in order that Dismiss. omission, as it goes into the very
substance of the protest. Under Section of crabs pulling at each other, racing to In sum, this Court's jurisdiction to
21 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of disembank from the water. review decisions and orders of electoral
HRET, insufficiency in form and tribunals operates only upon a showing
substance of the petition constitutes a On his second point of argument, of grave abuse of discretion on the part
ground for the immediate dismissal of Petitioner likewise fails to impress. The of the tribunal. Only where such grave
the Petition. Court has already ruled in Joker P. abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall
Arroyo vs. HRET,  that
7
substantial the Court interfere with the electoral
The prescription that the petition must amendments to the protest may be tribunal's judgment. There is no such
be sufficient in form and substance allowed only within the same period for showing in the present petition.
means that the petition must be more filing the election protest, which, under
than merely rhetorical. If the allegations Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court
contained therein are unsupported by is ten (10) days after the proclamation hereby resolves to DISMISS the present
even the faintest whisper of authority in of the winner. petition for lack of merit. The Resolution
fact and law, then there is no other of the respondent House of
course than to dismiss the petition, While it is conceded that statutes Representatives Electoral Tribunal dated
otherwise, the assumption of an elected providing for election contests are to be October 12, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.
public official may, and will always be liberally construed to the end that the
held up by petitions of this sort by the will of the people in the choice of public SO ORDERED,
losing candidate. officers may not be defeated by mere
technical questions, the rule likewise
Notably, the instant petition ad stands, that in an election protest, the
cautelam  poses a more serious protestant must stand or fall upon the
inadequacy than a mere failure to issues he had raised in his original or
specify the number of votes which amended pleading filed prior to the
would inure to the protestant, as was lapse of the statutory period for filing of
the case in Gallares vs. Casenas, or the the protest. 8

failure to impugn the validity of some of

the ballots cast, as in Yalung Admittedly, the rule is well-established
vs. Atienza, supra, both of which cases that the power to annul an election
were decided in the 1920s. The defect in should be exercised with the greatest
the instant case arises from the failure care as it involves the free and fair
to allege the contested precincts. Only a expression of the popular will. It is only
bare allegation of "massive fraud, in extreme cases of fraud and under
widespread intimidation and terrorism circumstances which demonstrate to the
and other serious irregularities", without fullest degree a fundamental and
specification, and substantiation, of wanton disregard of the law that
where and how these occurrences took elections are annulled, and then only
place, appears in the petition. We when it becomes impossible to take any
cannot allow an election protest based other step.  . . . This is as it should be,
9

on such flimsy averments to prosper, for the democratic system is good for
otherwise, the whole election process the many although abhorred by a few.
will deteriorate into an endless stream
EN BANC in SPA No. 92-147 and SPA No. Hadji Murad Ogca but placing
92-145 denying the Motion to the information that he died on
G.R. No. 106053 August 17, Suspend the Proclamation of May 20, 1992 for the purpose
1994 Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca of applying the rule on legal
in the event that he is elected succession to office pursuant to
OTTOMAMA mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Section 44 of R. A. 7160.
BENITO, Petitioner, v. COMMI
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Sur; (b) Resolution dated June

SSION ON ELECTIONS, 29, 1992 in SPC No. 92-303 Petitioner assails the above-
ABDALAWE M. PAGRANGAN, directing the Municipal Board of mentioned resolutions on the
and the Heirs of the Canvassers of Balabagan, ground that they were issued
Deceased Mayoralty Lanao del Sur to proclaim the without jurisdiction and/or with
Candidate MURAD KISMEN candidate who obtained the grave abuse of discretion
SAMPIANO OGCA, highest number of votes during amounting to lack of
represented by CABILI the May 11, 1992 election as jurisdiction. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SAMPIANO, Respondents. the winner for the contested

office; and (c) Resolution dated The facts of the case are as
Pedro Q. Quadra and follows:
July 6, 1992 in SPC No. 92- chanrobles virtual law library

Macarupung B. Dibaratun for

163, SPC No. 92-303, and SPC
petitioner. Petitioner Ottomama Benito
No. 92-357 declaring the
chanrobles virtual law library

and the deceased Hadji Murad

proclamation of Ottomama
Mangurun B. Batuampar and Kismen Sampiano Ogca were
Benito as winning candidate for
Romaraban D. Macabantog for candidates for mayor in the
mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del
private respondents. municipality of Balabagan,
Sur null and void and of no
Lanao del Sur in the May 11,
KAPUNAN, J.: force and effect. In the last
1992 election.
resolution, the Municipal Board
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

This special civil action of Canvassers was likewise

On May 1, 1992, Commission
for certiorari seeks to set aside directed to set aside the
on Elections (COMELEC)
the following resolutions of certificate of canvass and
Deputy for Balabagan, Lanao
respondent Commission on proclamation and to prepare a
del Sur, Sultan Kisa D.
Elections (COMELEC), viz: (a) new certificate of canvass
Mikunug filed a petition for
Resolution dated June 11, 1992 indicating therein that the
disqualification against Murad
winning candidate for mayor is
Kismen Sampiano Ogca. In the meantime, on May 20, Meanwhile, the Municipal Board
Mikunug alleged that at around 1992, candidate Ogca was of Canvassers when asked to
five o'clock in the afternoon of killed in an ambush while exclude from tallying, counting
April 28, 1992, while inside a returning home from the and canvassing all votes for
billiard hall, Ogca asked him to residence of Lanao del Sur and in the name of deceased
work for the former's re- Governor Saidamen mayoralty candidate Ogca,
election. However, when Pangarungan in Marawi City.
virtual law library
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles ruled, on May 30, 1992, that:
Mikunug refused, Ogca struck
him on the head with a billiard On the same date, petitioner, 1. The Board shall continue
cue. 1chanrobles virtual law library
probably not aware of the counting/tabulating all the
death of his opponent, filed a votes cast for deceased
On May 6, 1992, the COMELEC motion to suspend the Mayoralty Candidate Murad K.
referred the disqualification proclamation of Ogca as S. Ogca and Vice Mayoralty
petition to its Law Department elected mayor of Balabagan, Candidate Cadal Luks in the
for investigation. 2In turn, the Lanao del Sur, contending that Statement of Votes by
Law Department referred the there was strong evidence of Municipality/Precinct (CE Form
same to the Director of the guilt against him in the No. 20-A) for purposes of
Office of the Regional Election disqualification case. 5
chanrobles virtual law library
records only and for the
Director of Cotabato City for reference and guidance of the
investigation. 3 chanrobles virtual law library
Resolving the motion to Commission on Elections, but it
suspend proclamation, the shall not include them
On June 10, 1992, the Regional COMELEC, on June 11, 1992, (Deceased Candidates) in the
Election Director of Cotabato denied the same stating that Certificate of Canvass and
City issued a resolution stating Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca Proclamation of winning
that there was a  prima was dead, hence, his candidates (CE Form No. 25) in
facie  case against Ogca and proclamation as winner was case they won (sic), it being
that the latter was probably essential to pave the way for moot and academic.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

guilty of the charges in the succession by the Vice-Mayor-

petition for disqualification. 4 chanrobles virtual law library
elect as provided for in Section 2. The Board shall exclude the
44 of the Local Government names of the deceased
Thereafter, nothing more was Code of 1991 (R. A. 7160). 6 chanrobles virtual law library
Mayoralty candidate Murad K.
heard of the petition for S. Ogca and Vice Mayoralty
disqualification. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

candidate Cadal Luks from the

list of the LIVING candidates number of votes during the force and effect. The certificate
including the votes obtained by May 11, 1992 election. 9 chanrobles virtual law library of canvass and proclamation
them (Deceased Candidates), was set aside. The Municipal
considering that their deaths On June 30, 1992 at two Board of Canvassers was
are of public knowledge and o'clock in the afternoon, the likewise directed to prepare a
admitted by both parties, and Municipal Board of Canvassers new certificate of canvass
thereafter proclaim the winning proclaimed petitioner indicating therein that the
candidates for Municipal Ottomama Benito as the duly winning candidate for mayor
Officials, subject to the elected mayor of the was Hadji Murad Ogca but with
confirmation of the municipality of Balabagan, the information, in parenthesis,
10
Commission on Elections.  7 Lanao del Sur.  chanrobles virtual law library

that he died on May 20, 1992,

for the purpose of applying the
On June 4, 1992, herein On July 1, 1992, the Election rule on legal succession to
private respondents appealed Registrar and Chairman of the office pursuant to Section 44 of
the above ruling to the Board of Canvassers of R. A. No. 7160. 12
Balabagan, Lanao del Sur
chanrobles virtual law library

COMELEC praying that the

Municipal Board of Canvassers submitted a memorandum to Hence, the instant petition. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

be enjoined from implementing the COMELEC informing it that

its ruling and that it be directed the Board of Canvassers of Petitioner faults the COMELEC
to ascertain the results of the Balabagan had proclaimed with lack of jurisdiction and/or
elections and to proclaim the Ottomama Benito as mayor- with grave abuse of discretion
candidate obtaining the highest elect of the said town. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library amounting to lack of
number of votes as the jurisdiction for the following
winner. 8 On July 2, 1992, petitioner reasons,  viz:
took his oath of office before
chanrobles virtual law library

On June 29, 1992, the Secretary of Interior and Local xxx xxx xxx
COMELEC resolved to direct the Government Rafael Alunan
Municipal Board of Canvassers III. 11
chanrobles virtual law library
COMELEC HAS NO
of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur to JURISDICTION OVER SPC NO.
proclaim as winner for the On July 6, 1992, the COMELEC 92- 303. THAT JUNE 29, 1992
contested office the candidate issued a resolution declaring RESOLUTION IS NULL AND
who obtained the highest the proclamation of petitioner VOID AB INITIO
an absolute nullity and of no
xxx xxx xxx Murad Sampiano Ogca of votes cast in the election for
obtained a total of 3,699 votes that office, no one can be
THE COMELEC RESOLUTION OF as against petitioner's 2,644. declared elected in his place. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles

JULY 6, 1992 [ANNEX A] IS

virtual law library

Thereupon, it was the duty of

ALSO NULL AND VOID the Municipal Board of The fact that the candidate
BECAUSE THE COMELEC HAS Canvassers to proclaim as who obtained the highest
NO JURISDICTION. IT WAS winner the candidate who number of votes dies, or is
ALSO ISSUED IN VIOLATION obtained the highest number of later declared to be disqualified
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. votes. However, the Municipal or not eligible for the office to
Board of Canvassers, instead of which he was elected does not
xxx xxx xxx performing what was necessarily entitle the
incumbent upon it, that is, to candidate who obtained the
THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER second highest number of
proclaim Ogca as the winner
OF JUNE 11, 1992 ISSUED IN votes to be declared the winner
but with the information that
SPA NOS. 92-147 AND 92-146 of the elective office. 15For to
he died, to give way to legal
(sic) DENYING THE MOTION TO allow the defeated and
succession to office, went on to
SUSPEND PROCLAMATION repudiated candidate to take
proclaim herein petitioner, the
WAS ISSUED WITH GRAVE over the mayoralty despite his
candidate who obtained the
ABUSE OF DISCRETION rejection by the electorate is to
second highest number of
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF disenfranchise the electorate
votes as winner, believing that
JURISDICTION. 13 without any fault on their part
the death of Ogca rendered his
victory and proclamation moot and to undermine the
The petition must fail.
and academic. 14This cannot be importance and meaning of
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The proclamation of petitioner countenanced. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

democracy and the people's
Ottomama Benito as mayor- right to elect officials of their
In every election, the people's choice. 16
elect of Balabagan, Lanao del chanrobles virtual law library

choice is the paramount

Sur, by the Municipal Board of
consideration and their It is petitioner's further
Canvassers was not a valid
expressed will must, at all submission that the appeal
proclamation. It appears from
times, be given effect. When filed by the heirs of the
the record that during the May
the majority speaks and elects deceased mayoralty candidate
11, 1992 election, the
into office a candidate by from the May 30, 1992 ruling
deceased mayoralty candidate
giving him the highest number of the Balabagan Municipal
Board of Canvassers was filed interest, and technicalities and In the later case of Rodriguez
out of time, the same having procedural barriers should not vs. Commission on
20
been submitted a day late. be allowed to stand if they Elections,  this doctrine was
Records bear out that herein constitute and obstacle to the reiterated and the Court went
private respondents filed their determination of the true will on to state that:
appeal from the May 30, 1992 of the electorate in the choice
ruling only on June 4, 1992, in of their elective officials. And Since the early case
violation of Section 19 of also settled is the rule that of Gardiner v. Romulo  (26 Phil.
Republic Act No. 7166, which laws governing election 521), this Court has made it
provides that a party adversely contests must be liberally clear that it frowns upon any
affected by a ruling of the construed to the end that the interpretation of the law or the
Board of Canvassers must will of the people in the choice rules that would hinder in any
appeal the same to the of public officials may not be way not only the free and
Commission within three (3) defeated by mere technical intelligent casting of the votes
days from the said ruling. objections. (Gardiner v. in an election but also the
However, adherence to a Romulo, 26 Phil. 521; Galang correct ascertainment of the
technicality here would put a v. Miranda, 35 Phil. 269; results. This bent or disposition
stamp of validity on petitioner's Jalandoni v. Sarcon, G. R. No. continues to the present. 21
palpably void proclamation, L-6496, January 27, 1962;
with the inevitable result of Macasunding v. Macalañang, G. The same principle still holds
frustrating the popular will. R. No. L-22779, March 31, true today. Technicalities of the
Adjudication of cases on 1965; Cauton v. Commission legal rules enunciated in the
substantive merits and not on on Elections, G. R. No. L- election laws should not
technicalities has been 25467, April 27, 1967). In an frustrate the determination of
consistently observed by this election case the court has an the popular will.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Court. In the case of Juliano imperative duty to ascertain by

Where, as in this case, the
vs. Court of Appeals 17cited all means within its command
proclamation is null and void,
in Duremdes vs. Commission who is the real candidate
the same is no proclamation at
on Elections, 18this Court had elected by the electorate
all and the proclaimed
the occasion to declare that: (Ibasco v. Ilao, G. R. No. L-
candidate's assumption of
17512, December 29,
Well-settled is the doctrine that 19 office does not deprive the
1960). . . . 
election contests involve public COMELEC of the power to
declare such nullity and annul been declared by finally
the proclamation. 22 chanrobles virtual law library judgment to be disqualified. In
the present case, there is no
Consequently, petitioner's final judgment declaring the
contention that the deceased Ogca disqualified,
Commission on Elections had hence, the provision does not
no jurisdiction to resolve the cover him. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

appeal filed by herein private

respondents turns to naught. WHEREFORE, premises
The said appeal, though filed a considered, the instant petition
day too late, was not frivolous. is hereby DISMISSED for lack
Neither was it interposed for of merit.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

dilatory purposes. It sought to

give effect, not to frustrate, the SO ORDERED.
will of the people. Therefore,
we declare the questioned
resolutions dated June 29,
1992 and July 6, 1992 of the
public respondent valid and
effective.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Finally, the resolution of the

COMELEC dated June 11, 1992
denying the petitioner's motion
to suspend proclamation of
deceased candidate Ogca is
likewise assailed. Petitioner
argues that the votes for
deceased Ogca should not have
been counted based on Section
6 of R. A. No. 6640. This
provision, however, applies
only to candidates who have
EN BANC the ballot boxes were transmitted to the 5. Before the termination of the
Kalimodan Hall, Provincial Capitol of counting of votes and the consolidation
[G.R. No. 139357. May 5, 2000.] lanao del Sur at Marawi City where the of the results, the machine operator and
automated counting of votes and the Election Officer carried away from
ABDULMADID P.B. canvass of election returns were the Kalimodan Hall the diskette and
MARUHOM, Petitioner, v. centralized; brought the same to the down town
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and without the knowledge of the private
HADJI JAMIL 3. During the counting of votes, serious respondent’s watchers or
DIMAPORO, Respondents. irregularities, anomalies and electoral representatives;
frauds were committed at the instance
DECISION of petitioner or his followers in that 6. As a result of the foregoing
votes actually casted (sic) for the irregularities, anomalies and electoral
private respondent were not counted frauds, the petitioner was illegally
YNARES- SANTIAGO, J.: and credited in his favor thru (sic) the proclaimed as winner because he
concerted acts, conspiracy and appeared to have obtained 2,020 votes
manipulation of the Board of Election while the private respondent garnered
Whether or not a motion to dismiss, Inspectors, military, Election Officer and 2,000 votes with a slight margin of only
filed after an answer has been filed, is a the machine Operator who happens to 20 votes;
prohibited pleading in an election be a nephew of the petitioner;
protest pending before the Regional 7. After the counting of votes, the ballot
Trial Court is the issue posed in this 4. In Precincts Nos. 1A-1A1, 7A1, 8A, boxes were kept at the Kalimodan Hall,
petition for certiorari with prayer for 10A-10A1 and 11A about 115 official Provincial Capitol, Marawi City guarded
preliminary injunction challenging the ballots were refused or rejected by the and secured by military and PNP
Resolution of the Commission on counting machine which the private personnel together with the watchers
Elections (COMELEC) dated July 6, 1999 respondent’s watchers or representatives of the petitioner and the
1 dismissing Comelec Case SPR No. 52- representatives have requested and private respondent and other candidates
98. chanrobles.com : virtual law library
insisted to be re-fed to the automated or political parties until they were
machine for the second and third times transported and delivered to the
The COMELEC’s challenged order pursuant to the provisions of Comelec respondent court at Malabang, Lanao
summarizes the relevant facts of the Resolution No. 3030 but their requests del Sur sometime on August 13, 1998
controversy thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
were not heeded by the Election Officer by 1Lt. Napisa AG together with the
and the Machine Operator, Solaiman duly authorized representatives of both
1. Petitioner and private respondent Rasad, who is a close kin of the parties. chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

were both candidates for Mayor in the Petitioner, and instead considered the
Municipality of Maragong, Lanao del Sur said ballots as finally rejected, while in x           x          x
and voted as such in the last May 11, Precincts Nos. 12A, 23A1 and 6A,
1998 national and local election (sic). around 56 found therein which were not
Petitioner is a re-electionist and a drawn from the official ballots and were 1. On May 22, 1998, private
veteran politician; included in the counting of votes over respondent, knowing that he was
the objection of the private respondent’s cheated and the true winner for Mayor,
2. The election in Marogong functioned watchers or representative;chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red
filed before this Honorable Commission
on May 11, 1998, and after the voting a petition to annul the proclamation of
petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom as the respondent’s motion to withdraw commence the revision of ballots, the
duly elected Mayor of Marogong, Lanao petition in SPC No. 98-228 and petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom thru
del Sur docketed as SPC No. 98-226. 2 considered the same withdrawn. 6 . . . counsel orally moved for the dismissal
of the protest on the grounds that (1)
2. As precautionary measure to avoid 6. Upon receipt of a copy of said order, The ballot boxes containing the ballots
any technicality, private respondent dated July 17, 1998, private respondent in the protested and counter-protested
filed on May 25, 1998, an ordinary filed an urgent motion before the precincts have been violated; (2)
"Protest ad Cautelam" against the respondent court on July 27, 1998, Automated counting of ballots does not
petitioner before the Regional Trial praying for the issuance of an order contemplate a manual recount of the
Court, Branch 11, Malabang, Lanao del directing the proper officials officers ballots; and (3) Protestant is guilty of
Sur entitled "Hadji Jamil D. Dimaporo v. concerned to bring and produce before forum shopping warranting summary
Abdulmadid Maruhom" for election said court the ballot boxes subjects of dismissal of the petitioner of the
protest (Manual Judicial Recount, the protest and counter-protest and to protest.
revision and reappreciation of ballots) set the case for hearing as mandated by
docketed as Election Case No. 11-127. 3 law. 7 . . . 10. The private respondent thru (sic)
undersigned counsel, vigorously
3. On June 1, 1998, petitioner 7. After the delivery of the ballot boxes opposed the said oral motion to dismiss
Abdulmadid Maruhom filed an answer involved in the protest and counter- and orally argued that the motion is
with counter-protest in Election Case protest, the public respondent issued an clearly dilatory having been made only
No. 11-127 special and affirmative order, dated August 17, 1998, setting after the Revision Committee has been
defenses and counter-protest. 4 In his Election Case No. 11-127 for hearing (a) ordered to commence the revision of
answer petitioner prayed to hold in for the creation of the Committee on ballots on September 1, 1998 and
abeyance further proceedings since the Revision and appointment of the maintained that (1) The motion to
protest is ad cautelam or subject to the Chairman and Members thereof; (b) dismiss is not allowed in an election
petition filed before this Honorable making of the cash deposit and payment protest; (2) The sanctity and integrity of
Commission. of the revisor’s compensation; (c) the ballot have been preserved and
partial determination of the case, etc. never violated; (3) The automated
4. On July 2, 1998, before SPC No. 98- on September 1, 1998, at 8:30 o’clock counting of ballots does not preclude
228 could be set for hearing by this in the morning. 8 the filing of the election protest for the
Honorable Commission, the private judicial recount and revision of ballots;
respondent as petitioner therein, filed a 8. When the case was called for hearing and (4) The private respondent is not
motion to withdraw his petition in said on September 2, 1998, a Revision guilty of forum shopping because his
SPC No. 98-228 albeit said case was Committee was created and its petition of protest is clearly and
among those cases the proceedings of membership were duly appointed in explicitly a Protest Ad Cautelam in view
which were ordered to be continued open court which committee was of the pendency of his petition before
beyond June 30, 1998, under Comelec directed by respondent court to finish this Honorable Commission which was
Resolution No. 3049 promulgated on the revision of ballots, if possible, within withdrawn by the private respondent
June 29, 1998. 5 . . 20 days from the commencement of the before it could be set for hearing or
revision 9 . . . acted upon by his Honorable
5. On July 17, 1998, an order was Commission. chanrobles.com.ph : red

issued by this Honorable Commission, 9. After the Revision Committee was

(First Division) granting the private directed by the respondent to 11. After the oral arguments of both
parties, the petitioner’s counsel asked o’clock in the morning for their oath Honorable Commission shall have been
that he be given ample time to file a taking and to receive the instruction of finally resolved, copy of which was
written Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and the court in the revision of the ballots served upon the undersigned counsel
the respondent court thru then Acting and other allied matters. 15 only on December 12, 1998, at 10:50
Presiding Judge Rasad Balindong, issued A.M. 19 . . .
an order dated September 2, 1998, 15. On November 18, 1998, the
giving ten (10) days to Atty. Tingcap T. petitioner filed a motion for 18. That before the undersigned counsel
Mortaba to file an Omnibus Motion in reconsideration of the order dated could file his opposition to said urgent
substantiation of all the oral motions he November 10, 1998, 16 and on motion on December 14, 1998 and in
made, furnishing a copy thereof to the November 23, 1998, private respondent the absence of a restraining order or
undersigned counsel for the private filed a vigorous opposition [to motion] writ of preliminary injunction issued by
respondent who was likewise given an for reconsideration. 17 (the COMELEC), the respondent judge
equal period of time to comment. 10 already issued an order granting the
16. Finding no compelling reason to same notion and ordering the Revision
12. On September 11, 1998, petitioner disturb its order dated November 10, Committee to hold in abeyance the
filed his motion to dismiss 11 and on 1998, the respondent court issued the scheduled revision of ballots on
September 21, 1998, the private assailed order dated December 1, 1998 December 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1998,
respondent filed a vigorous opposition which denied the motion for etc. until further order from the
to motion to dismiss. 12 reconsideration for lack of merit. In the court. . . 20
same order, the respondent court
13. During the hearing on the motion to reiterated its previous order to the Petitioner alleges that in dismissing the
dismiss and the opposition thereto on members of the Revision Committee to petition the COMELEC acted in excess
September 21, 1998, the petitioner’s take their oaths before Atty. Raqueza T. of, or with garve abuse of discretion,
counsel requested for ample time to file Umbaro Atty. Khalil Laguindab and amounting to lack of jurisdiction in —
a rejoinder to the vigorous opposition to thereafter to convene and start the
motion to dismiss submitted by the revision of ballots on December 14, 15, 1.] holding that a motion to dismiss an
private respondent which was granted 16, 17 and 18, 1998, morning and election protest case filed in the
by the court and on September 28, afternoon. 18 Regional Trial Court is a prohibited
1998, petitioner filed his rejoinder 13 pleading;
and on October 5, 1998 private 17. As a diabolical scheme to cause
respondent filed his comment 14 thereto further delay of the proceedings of the 2.] holding that the motion to dismiss
and thereafter all incidents were case more specifically the revision of filed after the answer is not allowed;
submitted for resolution of the court. ballots, the petitioner filed on December
10, 1998, the instant petition 3.] failing to resolve the issues raised in
14. On November 10, 1998, the for certiorari and prohibition with prayer SPR No. 52-98 which are sufficient legal
respondent court thru Honorable for preliminary injunction and on bases to dismiss Election Case No. 11-
Presiding Judge Moslemen T. December 11, 1998, petitioner filed an 127.
Macarambon, issued the assailed order urgent motion before the respondent
denying the petitioner’s motion dismiss court praying that further proceedings in In sum, petitioner insists that in
for lack of merit and ordering the Election Case No. 11-127 be deferred refusing to pass upon the three (3)
Revision Committee to report to the until after protestee’s petition principal issues raised in COMELEC Case
court on November 19, 1998, at 8;30 for certiorari and prohibition before this SPR No. 52-98, to wit: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
 on Elections, by constitutional mandate strategists, and its knowledge derived
1. Whether or not public respondent must do everything in its power to from actual experience in dealing with
acted in excess of, or with grave abuse secure a fair and honest canvass of the political controversies, is in a peculiarly
of discretion, amounting to lack of votes cast in the elections. In the advantageous position to decide
jurisdiction in holding that a motion to performance of its duties, the complex political questions. . . . There
dismiss an election protest case in the Commission must be given a are no ready made formulas for solving
Regional Trial Court is a prohibited considerable latitude in adopting means public problems. Time and experience
pleading:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library and methods that will insure the are necessary to evolve patterns that
accomplishment of the great objective will serve the ends of good government.
2. Whether or not public respondent for which it was created — to promote In the matter of the administration of
acted in excess of, or with grave abuse free, orderly and honest elections. The laws relative to the conduct of
of discretion, amounting to lack of choice of means taken by the election . . . we must not by any
jurisdiction, in holding that a motion to Commission on Elections, unless they excessive zeal take away from the
dismiss filed after the answer to an are clearly illegal or constitute grave Commission on Elections that initiative
election protest case in the Regional abuse of discretion, should not be which by constitutional and legal
Trial court is not allowed; and interfered with. 21 mandates properly belongs to it. chanrobles.com.ph:red

3. Whether or not public respondent Section 2 (1) of Article IX of the Succinctly stated, laws and statutes
gravely abused its discretion amounting Constitution gives the COMELEC the governing election contests especially
to lack of jurisdiction, in failing to broad power to "enforce and administer the appreciation of ballots must be
resolve the relevant material and all laws and regulations relative to the liberally construed to the end that the
substantial issues raised in SPR No. 52- conduct of an election, plebscite, will of the electorate in the choice of
98. initiative, referendum and recall." There public officials may not be defeated by
can hardly be any doubt that the text technical infirmities. 23 An election
the COMELEC "abdicated its duty under and intent of this constitutional protest is imbued with public interest so
its own rules of procedure and under the provision is to give COMELEC all the much so that the need to dispel
Constitution and the election laws." necessary and incidental powers for it to uncertainties which becloud the real
Such abdication of duty, according to achieve the holding of free, orderly, choice of the people is imperative, 24
petitioner, amounts to grave abuse of honest, peaceful and credible elections. much more so in this case considering
discretion amounting to lack of that a mere twenty (20) votes separates
jurisdiction. In accordance with this intent, the Court the winner from the loser of the
has been liberal in defining the contested election results.
It must be borne in mind that the parameters of the COMELEC’s powers in
purpose of governing statutes on the conducting election Sumulong v. The primordial issue to be resolved
conduct of elections — COMELEC 22 aptly points out that — herein is whether or not the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in
. . . [i]s to protect the integrity of Politics is a practical matter, and dismissing SPR No. 52-98.
elections to suppress all evils that may political questions must be dealt with
violate its purity and defeat the will of realistically — not from the standpoint In support of his cause, petitioner insists
the voters. The purity of the elections is of pure theory. The Commission on that there is "nothing irregular or
one of the most fundamental requisites Elections, because of its fact-finding anomalous in the filing of the motion to
of popular government. The Commission facilities, its contacts with political dismiss" after the filing of the answer
because in effect he is merely insisting and over the vigorous opposition of the due course to petitioner’s prayer for writ
on a preliminary hearing of his special private respondent the same was of preliminary injunction, the trial court,
and affirmative defenses. Thus, he granted by the court and the petitioner upon motion of the private respondent,
claims that the summary dismissal of was given a period of ten (10) days to issued an order for the revision of
his motion to dismiss is tainted with file the same and the private respondent ballots on February 8, 1999. 32 On said
grave abuse of discretion amounting to was likewise given a period of ten (10) day, neither the petitioner’s counsel nor
lack or excess of jurisdiction. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary days to file his comment; chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red his designated revisors appeared,
instead the petitioner, assisted by his
We disagree. 3. On September 11, 1998, the motion numerous armed men, numbering
to dismiss 26 and during the hearing on around 30 stated (sic) in strategic
The filing of the motion to dismiss, in the said motion and the opposition 27 places, prevented the court personnel to
fact, appears to be part of a perfidious thereto on September 21, 1998, the enter the court premises. Were it not for
plot to prevent the early termination of petitioner again asked for ample time to the maximum tolerance exercised by
the proceedings in Election Case No. file a rejoinder to the vigorous the PNP personnel and the intervention
4847 as evidenced by a confluence of opposition to motion to dismiss which of the local datus/leaders, there would
events clearly showing a pattern of was again granted by the court and it have been bloodshed;
delay employed by petitioner to avert was only on September 28, 1998 that
the revision ballots. These events, said rejoinder was filed; 7. On February 9, 1999, the petitioner’s
pointed out by private respondent 25 counsel filed a withdrawal of appearance
and borne by the record, show that — 4. After a denial of the motion to with the attached letter-request of the
dismiss on November 10, 1998, 28 the petitioner asking for the deferment of
1. It was only on September 1, 1999 petitioner filed a motion for the revision of ballots for at least two(2)
after the creation of the Revision reconsideration on November 18, 1998; weeks to enable him to engage the
Committee and the appointment of its 29 services of another counsel. Considering
Chairman and Members and after the that the early disposition of the case
said committee was ordered by the trial 5. When the motion for reconsideration which would frustrate the ends of
court to commence the revision and to was denied on December 1, 1998, 30 justice, the court held in abeyance its
render its report within 20 days that the petitioner filed on December 18, 1998 ruling on the withdrawal of appearance
petitioner orally moved for the dismissal before the Commission on Elections a of and directed petitioner’s counsel to
of the case on the flimsy grounds that petition for certiorari and prohibition handle the case after the appearance of
(1) the ballot boxes subject of the with prayer for preliminary injunction a new counsel; 33
protest and counter-protest have been and asked the trial court to defer the
violated; (2) the automated counting of proceedings of Election Case No. 11-27 8. To further delay the proceedings of
ballots does not contemplate a manual until after his petition shall have been the case, the petitioner filed a petition
recount of ballots; and (3) protestant is finally resolved which was granted by for transfer of venue of the trial to from
guilty of forum-shopping warranting the trial court. Hence, the scheduled RTC, Branch 11, Malabang, Lanao del
summary dismissal of the protest; revision of the ballots on December 14, Sur to Iligan City or in Metro Manila
15, 16 and 17, 1998 was cancelled and which the private respondent did not
2. After the oral arguments on the oral the proceedings of the case held in oppose so as not to delay the early
motion to dismiss the petitioner abeyance; 31 resolution of this Honorable Supreme
requested for ample time within which Court on the said petition;
to file an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss 6. As the Comelec En Banc did not give
9. Again, the proceedings of the case appear[ed] to be adverse to him" 36 or election protest; and c.] private
was held in abeyance in view of the right after the creation of the Revision respondent is guilty of forum-shopping,
pendency of the said petition for Committee had been ordered by the are enough grounds to dismiss the case.
transfer of venue; trial court. If petitioner truly intended to
move for the preliminary hearing of his We remain unconvinced.
10. After the dismissal of the petition in special and affirmative defenses as he
Election Case No. 52-98, the petitioner claims, then he should have As aptly observed by the COMELEC in
filed the instant petition simultaneously moved for the the challenged Resolution, these
for certiorari before this Honorable preliminary hearing of his special and grounds are "evidentiary in nature and
Supreme Court with a prayer for affirmative defenses at the time he filed can be best ventilated during the trial of
issuance of temporary restraining order; his answer. Otherwise, he should have the case." 38 It needs be stressed in
filed his motion to dismiss "within the this regard that the purpose of an
11. As a diabolical scheme to cause time for but before filing the election protest is to ascertain whether
further delay of the proceedings of the answer . . ." pursuant to Section 1, Rule the candidate proclaimed elected by the
case, the petitioner filed an urgent 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. chanrobles board of canvassers is really the lawful
motion before this Honorable Supreme choice of the electorate. 39 In an
virtual lawlibrary

Court praying for the immediate Suffice it to state in this regard that election contest where the correctness
issuance of a TRO directing the such a whimsical change of mind by of the number of votes is involved, the
Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch III, Iligan petitioner can not be countenanced best and most conclusive evidence are
City to cease, desist and refrain from much more so in election cases where the ballots themselves: where the
conducting any further proceedings of time is of the essence in the resolution ballots can not be produced or are not
Election Case No. 4847 until the instant thereof. Indeed, the Omnibus Election available, the election returns would be
case shall have been resolved. This Code states in no uncertain terms that the best evidence. 40 In this case, the
Honorable Supreme Court, without — counted official ballots are available and
granting the prayer for TRO, directed there is no evidence, other than the
the RTC, Branch III, Iligan City not to SECTION 258. Preferential disposition of bare allegation of petitioner, that the
promulgate any decision in the said contests in courts. The RTC, in their sanctity of the ballot boxes subject
election case until further order[s] from respective cases, shall give preference matter of the protest have been violated
this most Honorable Court. 34 to election contests over all other cases, or the official ballots contained therein
except those of habeas corpus, and shall impaired. The best way, therefore, to
It is clear, given the foregoing facts of , without delay, hear and within thirty test the truthfulness of petitioners claim
this case, that the roundabout manner (30) days from the date of their is to open the ballot boxes in the
within which petitioner virtually submission for decision, but in every protested precincts followed by the
substituted his answer by belatedly case within six (6) months after filing, examination, revision, recounting and
filing a motion to dismiss three (3) decide the same . . . 37 (emphasis re-appreciation of the official ballots
months later is a frivolous resort to and Italics supplied) therein contained in accordance with law
procedure calculated to frustrate the will and pertinent rules on the matter.
of the electorate. As pointedly observed Petitioner further argues that his Needless to state this can only be done
by the COMELEC in its challenged submissions that a.] the integrity of the through a full-blown trial on the merits,
Resolution dated July 6, 1999, 35 ballot boxes has been violated; b.] only not a peremptory resolution of the
petitioner only filed his motion to rejected ballots or ballots manually motion to dismiss on the basis of the
dismiss "when the results of the trial counted are the proper subjects of an bare and one-sided averments made
therein. chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red in defining the parameters powers of already justified the determination of
COMELEC in the conduct of our elections the issues through a judicial revision
Petitioner’s reliance on COMELEC . . . In the case a bar, the COMELEC and recounting of the ballots pursuant
Resolution No. 2868 41 to support his order for a manual count was not only to Section 255 of the Omnibus Election
restrictive claim that only rejected reasonable. It was the only way to Code which provides that —
ballots or ballots manually counted in count the decisive local votes . . . The
case of failure of the automated bottom line is that by means of the SECTION 255. Judicial counting of votes
counting machines are the proper manual count, the will of the voters of in election contest. — Where allegations
subjects of an election protest, is just as Sulu was honestly determined. We in a protest or counter-protest so
unpersuasive. cannot kick away the will of the people warrant or whenever in the opinion of
by giving a literal interpretation to R.A. the court the interests of justice so
There is admittedly a lacuna leges R.A. 8436 did not prohibit manual counting require, it shall immediately order the
No. 8436 which prescribes the adoption when machine count does not work. book of voters, ballot boxes and their
of an automated election system. Counting is part and parcel of the keys, ballots and other documents used
However, while conceding as much, this conduct of an election which is under in the election be brought before it and
Court ruled in Tupay Loong v. the control and supervision of the that the ballots be examined and votes
COMELEC, 42 that the Commission is COMELEC . . . recounted. (Emphasis supplied)
nevertheless not precluded from
conducting a manual count when the . . . Our elections are not conducted So too must fall petitioner’s procedural
automated counting system fails, under laboratory conditions. In running objection that private respondent should
reasoning thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library for public offices, candidates do not be faulted for forum-shopping vis-a-vis
follow the rules of Emily Post. Too often, this Court’s pronouncement in Samad v.
. . . In enacting R.A. No. 8436, COMELEC has to make snap judgments COMELEC 44 which states in no
Congress obviously failed to provide a to meet unforeseen circumstances that uncertain terms that —
remedy where the error in counting is threaten to subvert the will of our
not machine related for human foresight voters. In the process, the actions of As a general rule, the filing of an
is not all seeing. We hold, however, that COMELEC may not be impeccable, election protest or a petition for quo
the vacuum in the law cannot prevent indeed, may even be debatable. We warranto precludes the subsequent filing
the COMELEC from levitating above the cannot, however, engage in a swivel of a pre-proclamation controversy, or
problem. Section 2(1) of Article IX (C) chair criticism of these actions often amounts to the abandonment of one
of the Constitution gives the COMELEC taken under very difficult earlier filed, thus depriving the
the broad power" to enforce and circumstances. chanrobles.com : chanrobles.com.ph COMELEC of the authority to inquire into
administer all laws and regulations and pass upon the title of the protestee
relative to the conduct of an election, Verily, the legal compass from which the or the validity of his proclamation. The
plebscite, initiative, referendum and COMELEC should take its bearings in reason is that once the the competent
recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent acting upon election controversies is the tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an
of this provision is to give the COMELEC principle that "clean elections control election protest or a petition for quo
all the necessary and incidental powers the appropriateness of the remedy." 43 warranto, all questions relative thereto
for it to achieve the objective of holding will have to be decided in the case itself
free, orderly honest, peaceful and Be that as it may, the fact is the and not in another proceedings. This
credible elections. Congruent to this averments in petitioner’s counter- procedure will prevent confusion and
intent this Court has not been niggardly protest and private respondent’s protest conflict of authority. Conformably, we
have ruled in a number of cases that it provided that motions to dismiss and petitioner be dissatisfied with the
after a proclamation has been made, a bill of particulars are not allowed in outcome of the case in the lower court,
pre-proclamation case before the election protests or quo warranto cases he can still appeal, as his relief, to this
COMELEC is no longer viable. pending before regular courts. Commission within the reglementary
period provided by law. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The rule admits of exceptions, however, Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC

as where:(1) the board of canvassers cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing Moreover —
was improperly constituted; (2) quo of a certain pleading in the regular
warranto was not the proper remedy; courts. The power to promulgate rules At balance, the question really boils
(3) what was filed was not really a concerning pleadings, practice and down to a choice of philosophy and
petition for quo warranto or an election procedure in all courts is vested in the perception of how to interpret and apply
protest but a petition to annul a Supreme Court. 47 the laws relating to elections; literal or
proclamation; (4) the filing of a quo liberal; the letter or the spirit; the
warranto petition to annul a The foregoing pronouncement, however, naked provision or the ultimate
proclamation controversy or was made will not extricate petitioner from his purpose; legal syllogism or substantial
ad cautelam; and (5) the proclamation predicament because the denial of justice; in isolation or in the context of
was null and void.chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary petitioner’s motion to dismiss was based social conditions; harshly against or
on the fact that the other grounds relied gently in favor of the voter’s obvious
Petitioner’s argument that the filing of a therein was considered unmeritorious choice. In applying elections laws, it
motion to dismiss in an election contest and not because the said motion is a would be far better to err in favor of
filed with a regular court is not prohibited pleading in electoral protest popular sovereignty than to be right in
prohibited pleading is well taken. As we cases. While the challenged COMELEC complex but little understood legalisms.
pointed in Melendres, Jr. v. COMELEC: Resolution may not have been entirely 48
45 correct in dismissing the petition in this
regard, the soundness of its discretion WHEREFORE, in view of all the
Neither can petitioner seek refuge to accord unto the trial court the foregoing, the petition is hereby
behind his argument that the motion to competence to resolve the factual issues DISMISSED for lack of merit.
dismiss filed by private respondent is a raised in the controversy can not be
prohibited pleading under Section 1, doubted. Indeed, as reasoned by the SO ORDERED.
Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of COMELEC, the —
Procedure because the said provision
refers to proceedings filed before the . . . Commission assumes the
COMELEC. The applicable provisions on competence of the trial court to handle
the matter are found in Part VI of the electoral protest and cannot encroach
Rules of Procedure titled "PROVISIONS on its original and exclusive jurisdiction
GOVERNING ELECTION CONTESTS on electoral protest cases involving the
BEFORE TRIAL COURT" and as this contested mayoralty seat. To our mind,
Court pointedly stated in Aruelo v. Court the trial court should be allowed to
of Appeals. 46 resolve the case on the merits to be
able to rule on the factual and legal
It must be noted that nowhere in Part grounds raised by the petitioner as his
VI of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is defenses in his Answer. Should the
EN BANC DUREMDES was the official candidate of 4. On 30 January 1988, PENAFLORIDA
the Liberal Party (LP) and PDP-Laban filed, also with the COMELEC, a Petition
G.R. No. 86362-63 October 27, 1989 coalition, while PENAFLORIDA was the seeking the annulment of election
official candidate of the Lakas ng Bansa returns and the suspension of the
RAMON D. DUREMDES, petitioner, (Lakas). proclamation of any candidate, docketed
vs. as SPC Case No. 88-448 (Annex
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 2. During the canvass of votes by the "Q," Ibid., p. 96, Rollo).
PROVINCIAL BOARD OF Provincial Board of Canvassers of Iloilo,
CANVASSERS OF ILOILO, LAKAS NG which lasted from 20 January to 31 5. On 31 January 1988, in a
BANSA and CIPRIANO B. January 1988, PENAFLORIDA objected "Certification of Canvass of Votes and
PENAFLORIDA, respondents. verbally to some 110 election returns Proclamation of the Winning Candidates
from various precincts, which he for Provincial Offices" (Form No. 26,
Panganiban, Benitez, Barinaga & followed up with written objections. The Annex "N," Ibid., p. 84, Rollo), the
Bautista Law Offices, Lead Counsel for Board overruled the same in separate Board proclaimed DUREMDES as the
petitioner. Orders either because they were not duly elected Vice- Governor, together
timely filed or that the formal defects with the duly elected Governor and only
Nery D. Duremdes Co-counsel for did not affect the genuineness of the eight (8) members of the Sangguniang
petitioner. returns, or that in case of allegations of Panlalawigan of Iloilo. Certified to was
tampering, no evidence was presented that DUREMDES had
Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla to support the charge. The Board thus garnered 157,361 votes (the number of
Law Offices for private respondent. ordered the inclusion of the questioned his uncontested votes)
election returns. This was reflected in a in 2,377 precincts.
separate column under the heading
"Contested/Deferred Votes" in the Apparently, the Board had made the
"Certificate of Votes of Candidates" proclamation upon DUREMDES'
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
(Form No. 13A, Annex "K," Petition, p. "Manifestation and Motion," dated the
60 Rollo). same day, 31 January 1988, that "the
At stake in this election controversy is contested returns will not adversely
the Vice-gubernatorial position of the
3. Under date of 29 January 1988, affect the uncontested results of the
Province of Iloilo. PENAFLORIDA and the Lakas filed with election (See Section 245, Omnibus
the COMELEC an "Appeal by Way of a Election Code) ... because of the
The chronology of the facts and of the Petition for Review," from the aforesaid absolute certainty that candidate Ramon
case follows: rulings of the Board pleading, among Duremdes has obtained the highest
others, for the exclusion of the number of votes, whether or not the
1. In the 18 January 1988 elections, questioned election returns and for contested votes were excluded."
petitioner Ramon D. DUREMDES, private PENAFLORIDA's proclamation as the
respondent Cipriano B. PENAFLORIDA, elected Vice-Governor of Iloilo (Annex 6. The tabulated data in the Certificate
and Rufino Palabrica ran for the office of "L," Ibid., p. 62, Rollo). of Votes of Candidates (Annex "K,"
Vice-Governor of the Province of Iloilo. Petition) is reproduced below in so far
as the protagonists herein are
concerned, with the totals and/or for a recanvassing of the objected 2. Sustaining the
remainders supplied by us: election returns. proclamation of the
winning candidate for
10. On 4 April 1988, the COMELEC Vice- Governor;
  Non-Contested
granted a Motion for the consolidation of
    SPC Case No. 88-653 with SPC Case No. 3. Directing the Provincial
88-448. Board of Canvassers to
    immediately reconvene
11. On 20 June 1988, PENAFLORIDA and to include in the
DUREMDES 157,361 filed with the COMELEC a Supplemental canvass the questioned
Petition ('in amplification of the election returns; and
PENAFLORIDA 150,075 Amended petition for verification and thereafter to proclaim the
correction") charging, among others, winning candidates for the
  7,286
that DUREMDES was proclaimed "on the Ninth (9th) and Tenth
basis of increased votes in the unofficial (10th) slots for the
6. On 2 February 1988, DUREMDES took and separately tallied Statement of Sangguniang Panlalawigan
his oath and assumed office (Annex Votes, more than what was actually of the Province of Iloilo;
"O," Ibid.). reflected in the Election Returns." and

7. Also on 2 February 1988, an 12. On 20 September 1988, the 4. Directing the Law
"Intervention with Motion to Dismiss" COMELEC (Second Division), after Department of the
was filed by DUREMDES and two other hearing, issued a Per Commission to conduct a
candidates for the Sangguniang Curiam Resolution, sustaining the thorough investigation into
Panlalawigan, seeking the denial of rulings of the Board of Canvassers on the matter of the reported
PENAFLORIDA's Petition for Annulment PENAFLORIDA's objections as well as falsification of the
before the COMELEC, for lack of merit. DUREMDES' proclamation. The decretal transcripts of the
portion of that Resolution reads: stenographic notes of
8. On 12 February 1988, Perla S. Stenographer Nelly C.
Zulueta (also an Intervenor in SPC Case WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF Escana to determine the
No. 88-448), filed SPC Case No. 88-653 ALL THE FOREGOING, parties responsible
pleading that she be proclaimed as one judgment is hereby therefor and to cause the
of the winning candidates in the 10- rendered: filing of the necessary
member Iloilo Sangguniang criminal complaint against
Panlalawigan. 1. Sustaining and affirming those probably guilty
the rulings of the thereof as the evidence
9. On 8 March 1988, PENAFLORIDA filed Provincial Board of may warrant, and if the
an Amended Petition challenging, in Canvassers of Iloilo on the assistance of the National
addition, the legality of the composition objections interposed by Bureau of Investigation or
of the Provincial Board of Canvassers, "a petitioner on the inclusion any other investigative
ground just known lately," and praying in the canvass of the arm of the Government for
questioned returns; that purpose is necessary,
 to request for such WHEREFORE, IN THE returns and
assistance. LIGHT OF ALL THE thereafter to
FOREGOING, judgment is proclaim the
No pronouncement as to hereby rendered: winning
costs. (pp. 137-138, Rollo) candidates
(Italics ours). 1. Affirming the following for the Ninth
parts of the dispositive (9th) and
13. On 27 September 1988, portion of the Resolution Tenth (10th)
PENAFLORIDA moved for of the Second Division slots for the
reconsideration, whereupon, the Second promulgated on 20 Sangguniang
Division certified and elevated the case September 1988: Panlalawigan
to the COMELEC en banc. of the
1. Sustaining Province of
14. On 4 October 1988, PENAFLORIDA and affirming Iloilo; and
filed a Motion to Suspend the rulings of
Implementation of the Second Division the Provincial 3. Directing
Resolution of 20 September 1988 Board of the Law
pending resolution of his Motion for Canvassers Department
Reconsideration, which suspension was of Iloilo on of the
granted by the COMELEC on 5 October the Commission
1988. objections to conduct a
interposed thorough
15. In the meantime, on 10 December by petitioner investigation
1988, the Board reconvened for the on the into the
purpose of proclaiming the 9th and 10th inclusion in matter of the
placers for the Sangguniang the canvass reported
Panlalawigan of Iloilo. It was at the of the falsification
scheduled promulgation of 15 December questioned of the
1988 that the Chairman of the Board returns. transcripts of
openly admitted the existence of the
discrepancies between the entries of 2. Directing stenographic
votes in the Statement of Votes and the the Provincial notes of
votes reflected in the questioned Board of Stenographer
election returns (P. 6, COMELEC en Canvassers Nelly Escana
banc Decision). to to determine
immediately the parties
16. On 12 January 1989, the reconvene responsible
COMELEC en banc rendered the and to therefor and
assailed Per Curiam  Decision with the include in the to cause the
following disposition: canvass the fling of the
questioned necessary
election criminal
 complaint Governor of DUREMDES faults the COMELEC with
against those Iloilo. grave abuse of discretion for having
probably disregarded the well-settled doctrines
guilty thereof 3. Declaring as null and (1) that matters of protest, objections
as the void the proclamation of or issues not originally raised before the
evidence Intervenor Ramon Board of Canvassers upon the opening
may warrant, Duremdes; of the returns, cannot be raised for the
and if the first time before the COMELEC; and (2)
assistance of 4. Directing the Provincial that after a proclamation has been
the National Board of Canvassers of made, a pre-proclamation controversy is
Bureau of Iloilo to immediately no longer viable, the proper recourse,
Investigation reconvene and to include being an election protest.
or any other in the canvass of votes for
investigative Vice-Governor the It is true that, before the Board of
arm of the questioned/contested Canvassers, PENAFLORIDA did not raise
Government returns. For that purpose, in issue the matter of the discrepancies
for that the Board shall make a between the number of votes appearing
purpose is formal tabulation of the in the Statement of Votes and that in
necessary, to results of the contested the Election Returns. As a matter of fact
request for returns and shall prepare a that matter is not even listed as one of
such new Statement of Votes the issues that may be raised in pre-
assistance. and Certificate of Canvass; proclamation controversies under
and Section 243 of the Omnibus Election
2. Reversing that part of Code.1

the dispositive portion 5. Directing the Provincial

which reads: Board of Canvassers to Nonetheless, as aptly stated in the
thereafter proclaim the assailed COMELEC en banc Decision:
2. Sustaining winning candidate for
the Vice-Governor of Iloilo Indeed, errors in the
proclamation (pp. 38-40, Rollo). (Italics Statement of Votes do not
of the ours) indubitably appear to be
winning issues that may be raised
candidate for His proclamation having been nullified in a pre-proclamation
Vice- by the COMELEC, DUREMDES avails of controversy under Section
Governor this recourse. 243 of the Omnibus
and setting Election Code. In this
aside the On 17 January 1989, the Court ordered respect, the law is silent
proclamation that the status quo existing prior to the as to when the same may
of Intervenor promulgation of the above COMELEC en be raised. We are,
Ramon banc Decision be maintained until however, not unmindful of
Duremdes as further orders. the fact that the statement
Vice- of votes supports the
 certificate of canvass and affecting elections" (Article IX[C] Cognizance may also be taken of the
shall be the basis of Section 2[3], 1987 Constitution), a fact that at the time PENAFLORIDA filed
proclamation (Sec. 231, question pertaining to the proceedings the Supplemental Petition on 20 June
paragraph 2). of said Board may be raised directly 1988, there was no clear-cut rule on the
Consequently, any error in with the COMELEC as a pre- matter. It was only in the COMELEC
the Statement of Votes proclamation controversy. Rules of Procedure, which took effect on
would affect the 15 November 1988, wherein it was
proclamation made on the Sec. 241. Definition. — A provided under subparagraph (2),
basis thereof. The true will pre-proclamation paragraph (a), Section 4 of Rule 27,
of the electorate may thus controversy refers to any that the matter of correction of the
be not fully and faithfully question pertaining to or statement of votes may be the subject
reflected by the affecting the proceedings of a pre-proclamation case which may
proclamation (at pp. 7-8). of the board of canvassers be filed directly with the Commission.
which may be raised by Nonetheless, there should be no
We find no grave abuse of discretion in any candidate or by any question, considering the aforequoted
the foregoing COMELEC pronouncement. registered political party or Section 241 in relation to Section 227 of
The Statement of Votes is a tabulation coalition of political parties the Omnibus Election Code, that the
per precinct of the votes garnered by before the board or directy issue is one that can be raised directly
the candidates as reflected in the with the Commission, or with the COMELEC. It is a procedure
election returns. Its preparation is an any matter raised under that best recommends itself specially
administrative function of the Board of Sections 233, 234, 235 considering that the Statement of Votes
Canvassers. As pointed out by the and 236 in relation to the is a vital component in the electoral
Solicitor General, "it is a purely exploration, transmission, process. It supports the Certificate of
mechanical act of the Board of receipt, custody and Canvass and is the basis for
Canvassers in the performance of which appreciation of the election proclamation.
the Commission has direct control and returns (Omnibus Election
supervision," pursuant to Section 227 of Code). (Italics supplied). SEC. 231. Canvass by the
the Omnibus Election Code. board. —
When so elevated, the COMELEC acts in
Sec. 227. Supervision and the exercise of its original jurisdiction xxx xxx xxx
control over board of for which reason it is not indispensable
canvassers. — The that the issue be raised before the The respective board of
Commission shall have Board of Canvassers during the canvassers shall prepare a
direct control and canvassing. The COMELEC is not certificate of canvass duly
supervision over the board discharging its appellate jurisdiction signed and affixed with the
of canvassers. under Section 245 of the Omnibus imprint of the thumb of
Election Code, which has to do with the right hand of each
xxx xxx xxx contests regarding the inclusion or member, supported by a
exclusion in the canvass of any election statement of the votes
By virtue of that power, added to its returns, with a prescribed appellate received by each candidate
overall function to "decide all questions procedure to follow.2
in each polling place and,
on the basis thereof, shall
 proclaim as elected the the tampering of the questioned election null and void because a pre-
candidates who obtained returns (p. 7, Ibid.). proclamation controversy is not proper
the highest number of after a proclamation has been made,
votes cast in the province, Under the circumstances, therefore, and the proper recourse being an election
city, municipality or considering that any error in the protest. This is on the assumption,
barangay. Failure to Statement of Votes would affect the however, that there has been a valid
comply with this proclamation made on the basis thereof, proclamation. Where a proclamation is
requirement shall and primordially, in order to determine null and void, the proclamation is no
constitute an election the true will of the electorate, the proclamation at all and the proclaimed
offense. COMELEC Decision ordering the Board of candidate's assumption of office cannot
Canvassers to reconvene and prepare a deprive the COMELEC of the power to
xxx xxx xxx new Statement of Votes and Certificate declare such nullity and annul the
of Canvass should be upheld. proclamation (Aguam vs. COMELEC, L-
DUREMDES also calls attention to Rule 28955, 28 May 1968, 23 SCRA 883).
13, Section 1 (g) of the COMELEC Rules The Commission on
of Procedure, which does not allow the Elections has ample power DUREMDES' proclamation must be
filing of supplemental pleadings. As to see to it that elections deemed to have been null and void. It
stated heretofore, however, these Rules are held in a clean and was made on 31 January 1988 after
took effect only on 15 November 1988, orderly manner and it may PENAFLORIDA had filed with the
or five months after the Supplemental decide all questions COMELEC on 29 January 1988 an
Petition was filed. Said rule, therefore, affecting the elections. It "Appeal by Way of a Petition for Review"
cannot be given retroactive effect the has original jurisdiction on from the rulings of the Board, and on 30
legal truth being that laws of procedure all matters relating to January 1988, a Petition for the
may be retroactively applied provided election returns, including annulment of' election returns and the
no substantial rights are impaired the verification of the suspension of the proclamation of any
(Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. number of votes received candidate (SPC Case No. 88-448). The
30821, December 14,1988). by opposing candidates in COMELEC had not resolved either
the election returns as Petition at the time the proclamation
That discrepancies exist between the compared to the was made. Pursuant to Sections
entries in the Statement of Votes and statement of votes in 245, supra, and 238 of the Omnibus
that reflected in the questioned election order to insure that the Election Code, therefore, the Board of
returns, was openly admitted by the true will of the people is Canvassers should not have proclaimed
Chairman of the Board of Canvassers at known. Such clerical error any candidate without waiting for the
the scheduled promulgation on 15 in the statement of votes authorization by the COMELEC. Any
December 1988 of the 9th and 10th can be ordered corrected proclamation thus made is void ab
placers of the Sangguniang by the COMELEC (Villaroya initio.
Panlalawigan (p. 6, COMELEC Decision). vs. Comelec, L-79646-
What is more, it is also admitted by the 47,13 November 1987,155 SEC. 238. Canvass of
parties except that PENAFLORIDA SCRA 633). remaining or unquestioned
assails the correctness of the Statement returns to continue. —  In
of Votes, while DUREMDES maintains its It is DUREMDES' further submission that cases under Sections 233,
correctness but avers the possibility of his proclamation could not be declared 234, 235 and 236 hereof,
 the board of canvassers "contested/deferred votes" of the the choice of public
shall continue the canvass candidates concerned. officials may not be
of the remaining or defeated by mere technical
unquestioned election DUREMDES' proclamation having been objections. In an election
returns. If, after the based on an incomplete canvass, no case the court has an
canvass of all the said grave abuse of discretion can be imperative duty to
returns, it should be ascribed to the COMELEC for directing ascertain by all means
determined that the the Provincial Board of Canvassers of within its command who is
returns which have been Iloilo "to immediately reconvene and to the real candidate elected
set aside will affect the include in the canvass of votes for Vice- by the electorate" (Juliano
result of the election, no Governor the questioned/contested vs. CA and Sinsuat, 20
proclamation shall be returns." All the votes cast in an election SCRA 808, 818-19, July
made except upon orders must be considered because to 28,1967).
of the Commission after disregard returns is in effect to
due notice and hearing. disenfranchise the voters (Mutuc vs. WHEREFORE, absent any grave abuse of
Any proclamation made in COMELEC, L-28517, February 21, 1968, discretion on the part of respondent
violation hereof shall be 22 SCRA 662). A canvass can not be Commission on Elections, this Petition
null and void. reflective of the true vote of the for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
electorate unless all returns are The status quo Order heretofore issued
In this case, with 110 contested election considered and none is omitted (Datu is hereby ordered LIFTED. No costs.
returns and 25,930 ballots questioned Sinsuat vs. Pendatun, L-31501, June 30,
(COMELEC Resolution, September 1970, 33 SCRA 630). SO ORDERED.
20,1988, p. 4, p. 115, Rollo),
DUREMDES' margin of 7,286 non- Over and above all else, the
contested votes could very well be off- determination of the true will of the
set. electorate should be the paramount
consideration.
Moreover, DUREMDES' proclamation
was made on the basis of an official Election contests involve
canvass of the votes cast in 2,377 public interest.
precincts only (Annex "N," Petition), Technicalities and
when there were actually 2,487 procedural barriers should
precincts. The votes in 110 precincts, not be allowed to stand if
therefore, were not included, which is they constitute an obstacle
exactly the number of 110 election to the determination of the
returns questioned by PENAFLORIDA. true will of the electorate
Further, DUREMDES was certified to in the choice of their
have garnered 157,361 votes (ibid.), elective officials ... Laws
which number represents the non- governing election
contested votes only, and clearly contests must be liberally
excludes the totality of the construed to the end that
the will of the people in