SARMIENTO V. COMELEC (1992)
Petitioners impugn several resolutions issued by the COMELEC as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in that, inter alia, the Commission, sitting en banc, took cognizance of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any of its Divisions. The subject matter of the resolutions involved exclusion from canvass of certain election returns and opposition to the composition of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. HELD: (1) Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides: “The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.” It is clear from the above quoted provision of the 1987 Constitution that election cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance. (2) Appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers are cognizable by any of the Divisions to which they are assigned and not by the Commission en banc. The COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the abovementioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and must be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the Commission for proper referral to a Division. (3) “All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. HOWEVER, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.”
ONG JR. V. COMELEC G.R. No. 105717 |December 23, 1992 Petitioner Ong and private respondent Lucero were candidates for the congressional seat of the second district of Northern Samar during the May 1992 elections. Ong garnered 204 more votes than Lucero. Subsequently, Lucero filed a petition with the COMELEC for the suspension of the proclamation of Ong and for a recount of some precincts with prayer for the holding of special elections. Acting on the petition, the COMELEC en banc ordered Provincial Board of Canvassers not to reconvene and to stop the canvassing of votes, considering “the pendency of a pre-proclamation controversy before the COMELEC.” In a subsequent resolution, the COMELEC also granted Lucero’s prayer for a recounting of votes. Hence, Ong filed petition for certiorari on the ground that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the chairman of the PBC of Northern Samar not to reconvene the board and in granting a recount of the ballots. HELD: (1) The COMELEC en banc gravely abused its jurisdiction when it ordered a recount in the precincts because these are matters which should have been first referred to its division. (2) The COMELEC indiscriminately issued the order of recount even before the remedies under the law as stated in Sections 233 and 234 of the Omnibus Election Code have been complied with. Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code does not authorize a recount. Indeed, nowhere in Section 233 is there any mention of a recount of ballots. Instead, the remedy under said Section is a referral to other authentic copies of election returns issued by the Commission. It bears stressing that under Sections 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code, an order for a recount shall be issued only as a last resort and only if the Commission is satisfied that the identity and integrity of the ballots have not been violated. (3) The allegations of private respondent as contained in his petition for the suspension of the proclamation of the winner of the second district of Northern Samar evidently involve pre-proclamation issues, specifically on the preparation of election returns. Consequently, since for purposes of elections, no preproclamation case is allowed against a candidate of the House of Representatives as stated in Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it issued its order suspending the proclamation of the winner of the congressional seat. (4) Private respondent’s reliance on the Lim v. COMELEC case, where the SC held that not all pre-proclamation issues are barred by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, must similarly fail because in that case, petitioner Lim questioned the illegal composition of the Municipal Board of Canvassers and the irregular appointment of the Board of Election Inspectors, a pre-proclamation ground which evidently has no connection with the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns. As such, we ruled that the illegal composition of the Board of Canvassers under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code may still be raised under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, before either the Board of Canvassers or the COMELEC, in accordance with Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7166.
CANICOSA V. COMELEC G.R. No. 120318 | December 5, 1997 Petitioner Canicosa and private respondent Lajara were candidates for mayor in Calamba, Laguna during the May 1995 elections. After the canvassing, Lajara was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvasser. Thereafter, Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a petition to declare failure of election and to declare null and void the canvass and proclamation because of alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and accounting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting and delay in the delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to the office of the Municipal Treasurer. In its decision, the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election. HELD: (1) There are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely: i)
The election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; ii) The election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or iii) After the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.
(2) Averment that more than one-half of the legitimate voters were not able to vote is not a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election. (3) The grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, at least two (2) conditions must concur: i)
ii)
No voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and The votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election. From the face of the instant petition, it is readily apparent that an election took place and that it did not result in a failure to elect.
(4) The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to vote which is a justiciable issue properly recognized by the regular courts. — Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections, the final list of voters was posted in each precinct. Based on the lists thus posted Canicosa could have filed a petition for inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts. (5) The correction of the manifest mistake in mathematical addition calls for a mere clerical task of the board of canvassers. The remedy invoked was purely
administrative. The issue concerning registration of voters, which Canicosa cited as a ground in his petition for declaration of failure of election, is an administrative question. Likewise, questions as to whether elections have been held or whether certain returns were falsified or manufactured and therefore should be excluded from the canvass do not involve the right to vote. Such questions are properly within the administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC, hence, may be acted upon directly by the COMELEC en banc without having to pass through any of its divisions. The provision in the constitution mandating the COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by COMELEC en banc, not applicable if the case about to be resolved is purely administrative in nature.
RAMIREZ V. COMELEC G.R. No. 122013 | March 26, 1997 Petitioner Jose C. Ramirez and private respondent Alfredo I. Go were candidates for vice mayor in the election of May 1995. Ramirez was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) on the basis of results showing that he obtained 1,367 votes against private respondent’s 1,235 votes. Go filed in the COMELEC a petition for the correction of what he claimed was manifest error in the Statement of Votes. He alleged that, based on the entries in the Statement of Votes, he obtained 1,515 votes as against petitioner’s 1,367 votes but that because of error in addition, he was credited with 1,235. Acting on the petition, the COMELEC en banc issued directed the MBC to reconvene and re-compute the votes in the Statement of Votes and proclaim the winning candidate for vice mayor accordingly. Ramirez then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking the annulment COMELEC’s order. Ramirez contends that (1) the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction because the case was resolved by it without having been first acted upon by any of its divisions, and (2) the MBC had already made motu proprio a correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes in its certification and thus it was a grave abuse of its discretion for the COMELEC to order a re-computation of votes based on the allegedly uncorrected Statement of Votes. HELD: (1) Rule 27, Section 5 of the 1993 Rules of the COMELEC expressly provides that pre-proclamation controversies involving, inter alia, manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results may be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court this Court approved the assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC en banc over petitions for correction of manifest error directly filed with it. In any event, Ramirez is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc. Not only did he participate in the proceedings, but he also sought affirmative relief from the COMELEC en banc by filing a CounterProtest. It is certainly not right for a party taking part in proceedings and submitting his case for decision to attack the decision later for lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal because the decision turns out to be adverse to him. (2) The corrections should be made either by inserting corrections in the Statement of Votes which was originally prepared and submitted by the MBC, or by preparing an entirely new Statement of Votes incorporating therein the corrections. The certification issued by the MBC is thus not the proper
way to correct manifest errors in the Statement of Votes. More importantly, the corrections should be based on the election returns but here the corrections appear to have been made by the MBC on the bases of the Certificates of Votes issued (3) The Statement of Votes is a vital component of the electoral process. It supports the Certificate of Canvass and is the basis for proclamation. But in this case the Statement of Votes was not even prepared until after the proclamation of the winning candidate. This is contrary to the Omnibus Election Code.
