Bandala Vs Com en Banc
Bandala Vs Com en Banc
Bandala Vs Com en Banc
EN BANC
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Election cases involve not only the adjudication of the private interests of rival
candidates, but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds
the real choice of the electorate with respect to whom shall discharge the prerogatives
of the offices within their gift.
[1]
Thus, election cases are imbued with public interest. Laws governing election contests
must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. [2]
Lack of inner seal of an election return does not necessarily mean that the same is
spurious and/or was tampered with. Such tampering, or its being spurious must appear
on the face of the election return itself. It is the ministerial function of the board of
canvassers to count the results as they appear in the returns which on their face do not
reveal any irregularities or falsities. [Cf. Balindong vs. Commission on Elections, 27
SCRA 567]
Significantly, we observe that what the petitioner has presented were just affidavits
mostly executed by his supporters, the nature of which has been ruled by the Supreme
Court as self-serving. [Casimiro vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 627] We cannot just rely
on this kind of evidence because what is at stake is the paramount interest of the
electorate.
Finally, our General Instructions for the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI)
[COMELEC Resolution No. 3742] does not require the indication by the poll
watchers of their respective political party/candidate being represented. What the rule
instructs is this:
SEC. 45. Preparation of election returns and tally board. The boards shall prepare in
their own handwriting the election returns and tally board simultaneously with the
counting of votes in their respective polling places. The election returns shall be
prepared in seven (7) copies. x x x
d) The watchers if any, shall affix their signatures and imprint their thumb marks on
the right hand portion of the election returns and the tally board; and
xxx
Clearly, nothing in the afore-quoted rule requires the poll watcher to indicate the
party/candidate he represents.[4]
1. EXCLUDE the one hundred one (101) election returns found without the inner
paper seals enumerated in the Canvassing Report of the City Board of
Canvassers of Oroquieta City dated 24 May 2001, from the canvass;
5. DIRECT the New City Board of Canvassers for Oroquieta City to CONVENE
with notice to the parties, upon finality of this Resolution, CANVASS the
election returns and, thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning candidate for Mayor
of Oroquieta City.
6. The aforenamed BEIs, with the exception of the BEI of Precinct No. 134A of
Barangay Dolipos Alto, composed of Catalina J. Bajade as Chairman, Emma
J. Aganos as Poll Clerk, and Rosenda P. Baloncio as Third Member and the
Chairperson, Margie B. Lamparas of the BEI of Precinct No. 145A1 of
Barangay Upper Lamac, are recommended to be charged administratively
before the Department of Education.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. On August 27, 2003, we
issued a status quo ante order.
Petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of
discretion (1) in excluding 101 election returns based on a formal defect of
lack of inner paper seals in the election returns; and (2) in nullifying her
proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor of Oroquieta City.
The petition is impressed with merit.
I
May the ground of lack of inner paper seals in the election returns be considered a
proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy?
SEC. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. - The following
shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to
be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other
authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Section 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation,
or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
There being no inner paper seals pasted on 101 election returns coming
from numerous polling precincts, the COMELEC en banc then concluded that
the election returns in question appear to be obviously falsified and/or
manufactured, the results of which certainly affected the standing of
respondent. According to the COMELEC en banc, this is an issue (under Sec.
243 (b) in the enumeration) that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy.
The lack of inner paper seals in the election returns does not justify their
exclusion from the canvassing. Indeed, it is not a proper subject of a pre-
proclamation controversy.
In the Matter of the Petition to Exclude Election Returns contained in Nine
(9) Ballot Boxes, Amelita S. Navarro vs. Commission on Election, we held:[5]
"While the aforesaid grounds (lack of inner and outer paper seals and lack of
signatures of watchers, among others) may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules
governing the preparation and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not
necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the subject election returns
as to warrant their exclusion from the canvassing. The grounds for objection to
the election returns made by petitioners are clearly defects in form insufficient to
support a conclusion that the election returns were tampered with or spurious."
While the aforesaid grounds may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules governing
the preparation and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not
necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the subject election returns
as to warrant their exclusion from canvassing. The grounds for objection to the
election returns made by petitioners are clearly defects in form insufficient to support
a conclusion that the election returns were tampered with or spurious. x x x. On the
basis of formal defects alone, such palpable irregularity cannot be said to have been
established herein.
II
May the COMELEC look beyond the election returns and receive evidence aliunde
in a pre-proclamation controversy?
Assuming that the ground of lack of inner paper seals in election returns is
a proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC cannot
investigate and receive evidence to determine why those inner paper seals
are missing.
A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the
election returns on their face and the COMELEC as a general rule need
not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate the alleged
election irregularities. [7]
In its assailed Resolution, the COMELEC en banc held that the City Board
of Canvassers acted without authority when it arbitrarily proclaimed petitioner
herein as the duly elected mayor of Oroquieta City, in gross violation of
Section 20 (i) of Republic Act 7166 which reads:
xxx
(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless
authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it
on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation in violation hereof shall be void
ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the
election."
Suffice it to state that the above provision applies only where the objection
deals with a pre-proclamation controversy, not where, as in the present case,
it raises or deals with no such controversy. It bears reiterating that the lack of
[9]
inner paper seals in the election returns is not a proper subject of a pre-
proclamation controversy. Respondents recourse should have been to file an
election protest. Where a party raises issues, the resolution of which would
compel the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which
appear prima facie regular on their face, his proper remedy is an election
protest. In this proceeding, the parties may litigate all the legal and factual
issues raised by them in as much detail as they may deem necessary or
appropriate. [10]