7.

Concerned citizen found minutes of the counting, keys, locks and metal seal in the
EN BANC COMELEC area for disposal as trash;

8. Board of Election Inspectors have volunteered information that they placed the
copy of the election returns meant for the City Board of Canvassers in the ballot
[G.R. No. 134096. March 3, 1999] boxes deposited with the City Treasurer allegedly due to fatigue and lack of sleep;

9. Ballot boxes were never in the custody of the COMELEC and neither the parties
nor their watchers were allowed to enter the restricted area where these boxes
passed through on the way to the basement of the City Hall where they were
JOSEPH PETER S. SISON, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. supposedly kept; and

10. In the elections in Barangay New Era, there was a clear pattern of voting which
DECISION
would show that the election returns were manufactured and that no actual voting
ROMERO, J.: by duly qualified voters took place therein.

While the petition was pending before the COMELEC, the City Board of Canvassers
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court proclaimed the winners of the elections in Quezon City, including the winning candidate for
which impugns the Resolution[1] of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) the post of vice mayor.On June 22, 1998, the COMELEC promulgated its challenged resolution
dated June 22, 1998 that dismissed petitioner Joseph Peter S. Sison's earlier petition [2] in SPC No. dismissing the petition before it on the ground (1) that the allegations therein were not
98-134, entitled In the Matter of the Petition to Suspend the Canvassing of Votes and/or supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) that the grounds recited were not among the pre-
Proclamation in Quezon City and to Declare a Failure of Elections. proclamation issues set fourth in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166.[5]
It appears that while the election returns were being canvassed by the Quezon City Hence, this petition.
Board of Canvassers but before the winning candidates were proclaimed, petitioner
commenced suit before the COMELEC by filing a petition seeking to suspend the canvassing Alleging that COMELEC overstepped the limits of reasonable exercise of discretion in
of votes and/or proclamation in Quezon City and to declare a failure of elections. The said dismissing SPC No. 98-134, petitioner argues in the main that the electoral body failed to afford
petition was supposedly filed pursuant to Section 6 [3] of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas him basic due process, that is, the right to a hearing and presentation of evidence before
Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended) on the ground of massive and orchestrated fraud and acts ruling on his petition. He then proceeded to argue that the election returns themselves, as well
analogous thereto which occurred after the voting and during the preparation of election as the minutes of the canvassing committee of the City Board of Canvassers were, by
returns and in the custody or canvass thereof, which resulted in a failure to elect.[4] themselves, sufficient evidence to support the petition.

In support of his allegation of massive and orchestrated fraud, petitioner cited specific Upon a meticulous study of the parties arguments together with the pertinent statutory
instances which are summarized and set forth below: provisions and jurisprudence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no compelling reason why
we should withhold our imprimatur from the questioned resolution.
1. The Board of Canvassers announced that election returns with no inner seal would
be included in the canvass; At the outset, we notice that petitioner exhibits an ambivalent stand as to what exactly is
the nature of the remedy he availed of at the time he initiated proceedings before the
2. Board of Election Inspectors brought home copies of election returns meant for the COMELEC in SPC No. 98-134. At the start, he anchors his initiatory petition under Section 6 [6] of
City Board of Canvassers; the Omnibus Election Code regarding failure of elections but he later builds his case as a pre-
proclamation controversy which is covered by Sections 241-248 of the Omnibus Election Code,
3. Petitioner, through counsel, raised written objections to the inclusion in the canvass
as amended by R.A. No. 7166.[7] In this respect, the rule is, what conjointly determine the nature
of election returns which were either tampered with, altered or falsified, or otherwise
of a pleading are the allegations therein made in good faith, the stage of the proceeding at
not authentic;
which it is filed, and the primary objective of the party filing the same.
4. According to the minutes of the City Board of Canvassers, there were precincts
In any case, petitioner nonetheless cannot succeed in either of the remedies he opted to
with missing election returns;
pursue. Recently, in Matalam v. Commission on Elections,[8] we have already declared that a
5. Several election returns with no data on the number of votes cast for vice pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or
mayoralty position; declaration of failure of elections, founded as they are on different grounds.

6. Highly suspicious persons sneaking in some election returns and documents into Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there are only three
the canvassing area; (3) instances where a failure of elections may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any
polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, First, we note that his citation of Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code as basis for his
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling place had been right to present evidence is misplaced. The phrase after due notice refers only to a situation
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force where the COMELEC decides and, in fact, takes steps to either partially or totally suspend or
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and annul the proclamation of any candidate-elect. Verba legis non est recedendum. From the
during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass words of the statute there should be no departure. The statutory provision cannot be
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, expanded to embrace any other situation not contemplated therein such as the one at bar
terrorism , fraud, or other analogous causes.[9] (Underscoring supplied) We have painstakingly where the COMELEC is not taking any step to suspend or annul a proclamation.
examined petitioners petition before the COMELEC but found nothing therein that could
support an action for declaration of failure of elections. He never alleged at all that elections Second, presentation of evidence before the COMELEC is not at all indispensable in order
were either not held or suspended. Furthermore, petitioners claim of failure to elect stood as a to satisfy the demands of due process. Under the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7166,
bare conclusion bereft of any substantive support to describe just exactly how the failure to particularly Section 18 thereof, all that is required now is that the COMELEC shall dispose of pre-
elect came about. proclamation controversies on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the
board of canvassers. This is but in keeping with the policy of the law that cases of this nature
With respect to pre-proclamation controversy, it is well to note that the scope of pre- should be summarily decided and the will of the electorate as reflected on the election returns
proclamation controversy is only limited to the issues enumerated under Section 243 [10] of the be determined as speedily as possible. What exactly those records and evidence are upon
Omnibus Election Code, and the enumeration therein is restrictive and exclusive. [11] The reason which the COMELEC based its resolution and how they have been appreciated in respect of
underlying the delimitation both of substantive ground and procedure is the policy of the their sufficiency, are beyond this Courts scrutiny. But we have reason to believe, owing to the
election law that pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with presumption of regularity of performance of official duty and the precept that factual findings
the law's desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible.[12] That is of the COMELEC based on its assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence, are
why such questions which require more deliberate and necessarily longer consideration, are conclusive upon the court, that the COMELEC did arrive at its conclusion with due regard to
left for examination in the corresponding election protest.[13] the available evidence before it. That this is so can, in fact, be gleaned from petitioners own
allegation and admission in his petition that the election returns themselves as well as the
However, with the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested, the minutes of the Canvassing Committees and the City Board of Canvassers x x x are in the
question of whether the petition raised issues proper for a pre-proclamation controversy is possession of the COMELEC.[17] He even cites paragraph (g), Section 20 of the Omnibus
already of no consequence since the well-entrench rule in such situation is that a pre- Election Code to validate such allegation. Hence, it is not really correct to say that the
proclamation case before the COMELEC is no longer viable, the more appropriate remedies COMELEC acted without evidentiary basis at all or that petitioner was deprived of his right to
being a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.[14] We have carefully reviewed due process.
all recognized exceptions[15] to the foregoing rule but found nothing that could possibly apply
to the instant case based on the recitations of the petition.What is more, in paragraph 3 of the WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
COMELECs Omnibus Resolution No. 3049 (Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases) dated June jurisdiction on the part of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the instant
29, 1998, it is clearly stated therein that All other pre-proclamation cases x x x shall be deemed petition is hereby DISMISSED. Consequently, the resolution of COMELEC in SPC No. 98-134
terminated pursuant to Section 16, R. A. 7166.[16] (Underscoring supplied). Section 16 which is dated June 22, 1998 is AFFIRMED.
referred to in the aforecited omnibus resolution refers to the termination of pre-proclamation
cases when the term of the office involved has already begun, which is precisely what obtains No costs.
here. We are, of course, aware that petitioner cites the said omnibus resolution in maintaining SO ORDERED.
that his petition is one of those cases which should have remained active pursuant to
paragraph 4 thereof. That exception, however, operates only when what is involved is not a Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima,
pre-proclamation controversy such as petitions for disqualification, failure of elections or Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
analogous cases. But as we have earlier declared, his petition, though assuming to seek a Vitug, J., on official business abroad.
declaration of failure of elections, is actually a case of pre-proclamation controversy and, Panganiban, J., on leave.
hence, not falling within the ambit of the exception. In any case, that omnibus resolution Pardo, J., no part.
would not have been applied in the first place because that was issued posterior to the date
when the herein challenge resolution was promulgated which is June 22, 1998. There was no
provision that such omnibus resolution should have retroactive effect.

Finally, as to petitioners claim that he was deprived of his right to due process in that he
was not allowed to present his evidence before the COMELEC to support his petition, the same
must likewise fail.