Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMELEC
137 SCRA 366
Pampanga, to canvass the election returns from the voting centers in the
province. By 11:30 o'clock in the evening of May 16, 1984, the canvass of all
election returns from all the voting centers of Pampanga had been
It was only after the canvass had been completed did Petitioner Guiao
there was duress, intimidation, falsification, and the canvassed returns were
Comelec's copy was not authentic, statistically improbable; and, that persons
the Board of Canvassers nevertheless held a hearing on the same day. The
Chairman of the Board of Canvassers, Atty. Manuel Lucero also sent to the
Objections were raised after the completion of the canvass and requesting
substantiate the same. It also appears that at said hearing, there was
presented to the Board the request of the petitioner, thru his counsel Atty.
Said request was denied by the Board on the grounds that said petitioner's
counsel should have been ready with his evidence to support his objections,
the hearing being summary in nature and also to preclude further delay in
to the COMELEC.
accordingly DISMISSED.
inclusion in the canvass of any election returns shall submit their written
the actual canvassing of the election returns, that is, during the second
stage of the proceedings as pointed above since it is only during this stage
objections be filed only during this stage because it is only during this stage
of the canvass when the inclusion or exclusion of any return is in issue and
being passed upon by the board. If during this stage, after the board has
examined the returns and ruled to include them to the canvass with the
without any objection representatives of the political parties and without any
representatives, they are included in the canvass and the parties are
estopped from questioning the inclusion of the returns in the canvass and
from the denying the admissibility of said returns in the canvass and from
denying the admissibility of said returns for purposes of the canvass after
This must be so since at the third stage of the canvass, the inclusion or
exclusion of any election return is no longer in issue. The issue in this third
the canvass.
the canvass during this stage is determined and as established by the board
winning candidates.
stage, that is during the actual canvassing of the election returns, becomes
express when said Section 54 states "The Board shall defer the canvass of
the contested returns and shall not make any ruling thereon until after all
How can the board of canvassers defer the canvass of the contested
returns if these written objections are submitted after the second stage, that
returns all over again which otherwise was regularly conducted without any
objection from the political party representatives and the candidate or their
resolution of the Comelec (First Division) directing the inclusion of five (5)
canvass of votes for the May 14, 2001 election in the municipality of Sultan
were candidates for the position of the mayor of the municipality of Sultan sa
For the canvassing of votes of the May 14, 2001 election returns, the
the canvassing on May 16, 2001, election returns in Precinct Nos. 15A,
25A/26A, 66A, and 68A/69A were presented. On May 18, 2001, respondent
filed a petition to inhibit Alid and Abo, which resulted in the suspension of the
with Roihaida Khalid and Noron Gonina, as members of the municipal board
of canvassers. The canvassing was again suspended when both Khalid and
stated that at around 6:00 in the morning of that day, chairperson Mamalinta
called him up and informed him that she would convene the board of
canvassers, with instruction for him not to attend because he was already
replaced. He further stated that on May 28, 2001, Rufden Mangelen called
the municipal board of canvassers issued four (4) separate rulings excluding
the above-cited five (5) election returns. Particularly, the municipal board of
canvassers ruled that the Election Returns were tampered with or were not
original.
At this point, respondent orally manifested his intention to appeal the
ruling, and simultaneously filed a verified notice of appeal, which Bai Haidy
accept.
offices. The board proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of the
municipality.
any candidate as winner, except upon its authorization after it has ruled on
the appeal of the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation thereof
shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect
the results of the election. This provision is mandatory and requires strict
observance.
Section 20 (i), Republic Act No. 7166 where Comelec Resolution No.3848
(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner
unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the
made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns
made on May 31, 2001 after respondent manifested his intention to appeal
Comelec. Pursuant to Section 20 (i), Republic Act No. 7166, the municipal
board of canvassers may not proclaim any candidate without waiting for the
margin of 149 votes over respondent, and there were 944 registered voters
from the five excluded election returns, the results of the municipal election
true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is
omitted. When the municipal board of canvassers disregarded the five (5)
precincts.
Thus, the Comelec did not abuse its discretion for convening a new
returns and, thereafter proclaiming the winning candidate for mayor and
Time and again, the Court has given its imprimatur on the principle
illegally made. The fact that a candidate illegally proclaimed has assumed
office is not a bar to the exercise of such power. It is also true that after
Aguam, to wit:
easily supervene. It may not be out of place to state that in the long history
victory, i. e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has
tactics, may well frustrate the will of the electorate. And what if the
take election returns out of the reach of the unscrupulous; and to prevent
office.”
SALLY A. LEE vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 157004. JULY 4, 2003.
were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City, Sorsogon in the May 14, 2001
elections.
that 1) no entries were made for the position of congressman, and 2) Laban
returns.
that 1) the omitted entry in the election return pertains to the position of
the utilization of the watchers, who were under the direct supervision of the
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), was limited only to the filling up of the
entries affecting the party-list and justified by the severe lack of personnel to
perform the task, and 3) the alleged defect does not affect the integrity of
On May 18, 2001, the Board of Canvassers (BOC), finding that the 1)
questioned election return was clear and regular on its face, 2) there was no
list, and 3) the grounds relied upon by private respondent are all directed
against the proceedings of the BEI and not the BOC, ruled for the inclusion of
the return. Private respondent thereupon filed on the same day a notice of
In the meantime, or on May 19, 2001, the BOC proclaimed the winning
Private respondent thus filed on May 23, 2001 before the COMELEC a
petition assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the exclusion of the
Petitioner filed her answer to the COMELEC petition, praying for its
petitioner.
ISSUES
I.
II.
III.
controversy:
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects,
at bar, there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine, several
entries having been omitted in the questioned election return, the doctrine
does not apply. The COMELEC is thus not powerless to determine if there is
She posits that the omission of entries was not done with malice or bad faith
nor meant to subvert the true will of the people, and that the election return
signatures and thumbmarks of the six watchers and all the members of the
BEI. Finally, she posits that an incomplete election return is not necessarily
As to the third error raised by petitioner, she argues that the January
without giving her notice, and that were it not for her counsel’s "accidental"
visit to the COMELEC on January 13, 2003, said counsel would not have
known that said resolution was already promulgated and the 5-day period
within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro-
period for the filing of an appeal commences from the date of receipt of copy
Comelec Rules of Procedure when she stated that "Unlike other cases, the
reglamentary period within which a party can have the decision or resolution
dictate that the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration must have to be
Further, the doctrine laid down in the case of Lindo v. Comelec (194
SCRA 25) would have supported the proposition that the additional
requirement imposed by the COMELEC Rules on advance notice of
promulgation does not form part of the process of promulgation and that the
failure to serve such notice in advance did not prejudice the rights of the
parties and did not vitiate the validity of the decision nor of the
resolution in question.
regularly performed.
determined the integrity of the ballot box, the ballot-contents of which were
tallied and reflected in the return, and if it was intact, it should have ordered
its opening for a recounting of the ballots if their integrity was similarly
intact. So instructs Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which reads:
appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the election
returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all members of the board of
election inspectors concerned by the most expeditious means, for the same
initials: Provided, further, That if the votes omitted in the returns cannot be
Commission, after satisfying itself that the identity and integrity of the ballot
box have not been violated, shall order the board of election inspectors to
open the ballot box, and, also after satisfying itself that the integrity of the
ballots therein has been duly preserved, order the board of election
inspectors to count the votes for the candidate whose votes have been
omitted with notice thereof to all candidates for the position involved and
provision shall not be lost or affected by the fact that an election protest is
tampered with, altered or falsified after they have left the hands of the board
persons other than the members of the board of election inspectors, the
board of canvassers shall use other copies of said election returns and if
necessary, the copy inside the ballot box which upon previous authority
hereof. If the other copies of the returns are likewise tampered with, altered,
prepared by persons other than the board of election inspectors, the board of
canvassers or any candidate affected shall bring the matter to the attention
of the Commission. The Commission shall then, after giving notice to all
candidates concerned and after satisfying itself that the integrity of the
ballot box and, likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots
therein has been duly preserved shall order the board of election inspectors
to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new return
which shall then be used by the board of canvassers as basis of the canvass.
xxx
As to the election return for Precinct No. 20-A, we ruled that the COMELEC
precinct. Since the return was incomplete for it lacked the data as to
Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which deals with material defects
in election returns. Thus, we ruled that the COMELEC should have first
determined the integrity of the ballot box, ordered the opening thereof and
recounted the ballots therein after satisfying itself that the integrity of the
xxx
If the integrity of the ballot box had been violated, then there would be
no need to open it. If not, and upon opening it there is evidence that the
thereof, and the COMELEC would then seal the box and order its
Sec. 237. When integrity of ballots is violated. - If upon the opening of the
ballot box as ordered by the Commission under Sections 234, 235 and 236,
not recount the ballots but shall forthwith seal the ballot box and order its
safekeeping.
WHEREFORE, the COMELEC is, in accordance with the foregoing
integrity of the ballot box, the ballot-contents of which were tallied and
reflected in the questioned return, is intact and, if in the affirmative and the
integrity of the ballots is likewise intact, to order the Sorsogon City Board of
basis of canvass by said board; otherwise the ballot box should no longer be
opened or the ballots should no longer be recounted as the case may be, in
which case an order for the safekeeping of the ballot box should be issued.
The Status Quo Ante Order issued on February 18, 2003 is hereby
DISSOLVED.