ELECTION LAW BATCH 4

58. Samad vs. COMELEC

Facts: Samad and Pagayao were both proclaimed as mayor elect by two different canvassing boards. One board, which
declared samad as mayor, was headed by Pagayao and the other was headed by Saga. Samad sought the nullification of
the proclamation made in favor of Abdula and the calling of a special election in three precincts. On the other hand,
Abdula prayed that the proclamation of Samad be nullified and that he be enjoined from assuming as mayor of
Kabuntalan. Comelec then summoned both election registrars saga and pagayao to appear before the comelec; ordered an
ivestigation to be conducted and required elec supervisor Cabacungan to comment on the petition. Petitioner filed in the
Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City an action against the private respondent for quo warranto and prohibition with
preliminary injunction wc was granted. After finding that both cert off canvass and proclamation prepared by Saga and
Pagayao, COMELEC directed the Office of the Executive Director to constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the
purpose of verifying which of the two sets of statements of votes upon which the two different proclamation documents
were based was genuine, without prejudice to the resolution of the prayer for special elections in Kabuntalan. In need of a
temporary OIC-mayor, Abdula was appointed by pres fidel ramos. Such designation was questioned by Samad.

Issue: Whether jurisdiction over the present controversy remained with the COMELEC or was vested in the Regional
Trial Court of Cotabato City upon the filing of the petition for quo warranto?

Ruling: YES. Jurisdiction remained with COMELEC. Both petitions in the COMELEC and in the Regional Trial Court of
Cotabato were directed at the illegality of the composition of the Saga board and of the proclamation of the private
respondent. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. Further, COMELEC Resolution No. 2489 stated that
all pending petitions for disqualification, failure of elections or analogous cases, not being pre-proclamation controversies,
shall remain active cases, the proceedings to continue beyond June 30, 1992, until the issues therein are finally resolved
by the Commission. Samads petition for the nullification of proclamation of abdula was not only for the annulment of
Abdula's proclamation but also for the holding of special elections in three precincts since it was reported that 2 precints
were not included in the counting. In addition to that, the board of canvassers headed by Saga, which proclaimed abdula
as mayor, was illegally constituted because it was not approved by election supervisor Atty. Cabacungan, which prompted
COMELEC to also create a special board of canvassers to continue the canvassing of votes in said province. Even
assuming the petition was a purely pre-proclamation case, it could nevertheless continue beyond June 30, 1992 because it
was declared by COMELEC that the issue raised is meritorious. Moreover the quo warranto proceedings was not a proper
remedy because both the petitioner and the private respondent claimed to have assumed the office of the mayor of
Kabuntalan whereas the purpose of such proceeding is to unseat an official on the ground of disloyalty and fraud.

As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of
a pre-proclamation controversy, or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the
COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his
proclamation. The reason is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition
for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding.
This procedure will prevent confusion and conflict of authority. Conformably, we have ruled in a number of cases that
after a proclamation has been made, a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is no longer viable. The rule admits of
exceptions, however, as where: 1) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; 2) quo warranto was not the proper
remedy; 3) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a
proclamation; 4) the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the
pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and 5) the proclamation was null and void.

59. Sarmiento vs. COMELEC

(Disregard facts. Proceed with the issue right away  )

Facts: The special civil actions for certiorari, hereby jointly resolved, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seek to
set aside the Resolutions of respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the following Special Cases (SPC):
 1) G.R. No. 105628 -- SPC No. 92-266 granting the appeal from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
Virac, Catanduanes which ordered the exclusion from the canvass of one (1) election return;
2) G.R. No. 105725 -- SPC No. 92-323 reversing the ruling of the City Board of Canvassers of Iriga City which
ordered the exclusion from the canvass of six (6) election returns and in UND No. 92-243 ordering the said Board
of Canvassers to include in the canvass the election returns involved therein;
3) G.R. No. 105727 -- SPC No. 92-288 dismissing the appeal of petitioner from the ruling of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Catanduanes which ordered the inclusion in the canvass the certificate of canvass for the
municipality of Virac, excluding the returns from 48 precincts;
4) G.R. No. 105730 -- SPC No. 92-315 affirming the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte which dismissed petitioner's opposition to the composition of the said Municipal
Board of Canvassers;
5) G.R. No. 105771 -- SPC No. 92-271 affirming the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Cabusao,
Camarines Sur which, among others, rejected petitioner's objection to certain election returns;
6) G.R. No. 105778 -- SPC No. 92-039 dismissing said case for non-compliance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166;

7) G.R. No. 105797 -- SPC No. 92-153 affirming the rulings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Davao
Oriental which rejected petitioner's objections to the canvass of some certificates of canvass;
8) G.R. No. 105919 -- SPC No. 92-293 dismissing petitioner's appeal from the ruling of the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Upi Nuro, Maguindanao;
9) G.R. No. 105977 -- SPC No. 92-087 denying the amended pre-proclamation petition, which is an appeal from the
rulings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Ternate, Cavite, and denying a subsequent motion to resolve the
issues raised in said amended petition.
Comments had been filed only in G.R. No. 105727 and G.R. No. 105797. This Court dispenses with the Comments in the
other cases.

Issue: Whether the challenged resolutions above specified have 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?

Ruling: Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides:

"SEC. 3. 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 indivision, provided that motions for recon
sideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc." (Emphasis supplied).

The 1973 Constitution prescribed another rule. Its Section 3, subdivision C of Article XII provided as follows:

"SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided
by divisions, except contests involving Members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall be heard and decided en banc. x
x x"

It is clear from the abovequoted 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. In the COMELEC RULES
OF PROCEDURE, pre-proclamation cases are classified as Special Cases[1] and, in compliance with the above provision
of the Constitution, the two (2) Divisions of the Commission are vested with the authority to hear and decide these Special
Cases.[2] Rule 27 thereof governs Special Cases; specifically, Section 9 of the said Rule provides that 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. Said Section reads:

"SEC. 9. Appeals from rulings of Board of Canvassers. -- (a) A party aggrieved by an oral ruling of the board of
canvassers who had stated orally his intent to appeal said ruling shall, within five days following receipt of a copy of the
written ruling of the board of canvassers, file with the Commission a verified appeal, furnishing a copy thereof to the
board of canvassers and the adverse party.
(b) The appeal filed with the Commission shall be docketed by the Clerk of Court concerned.

(c) The answer/opposition shall be verified.

(d) The Division to which the case is assigned shall immediately set the case for hearing." (Emphasis supplied)

A motion to reconsider the decision or resolution of the Division concerned may be filed within five (5) days from its
promulgation.[3] The Clerk of Court of the Division shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the
Presiding Commissioner of such fact; in turn, the latter shall certify the case to the Commission en banc.[4] Thereafter, the
Clerk of Court of the Commission shall calendar the motion for reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en
banc within ten (10) days from the certification.[5]

Indisputably then, 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.

In view of RA 7166, par. 16 which provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before it shall be deemed terminated
at the beginning of the term of the office involved, and since the terms of the offices involved in the cases subject of these
petitions commenced at noon of 30 June 1992, these cases have thus been rendered moot and their resolution would only
be and exercise in futility.

60. Dagloc vs. COMELEC

Facts: Dagloc is questioning the ruling of the COMELEC en banc to exclude certain election returns for being spurious
due in part to the alleged disqualification of some members of the board of election inspectors (BEI) and that the BEI
committed illegal acts, such that the votes reported in the subject returns do not reflect the true will of the electorate.
However, in arriving at the resolution, the COMELEC en banc also gave great weight to the affidavit of the BEI members
which were supposed to prove the regularity of the BEI’s assigned task. The COMELEC en banc found that these
affidavits lacked signatures of the BEI members.

Issue: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ecluding certain election returns for being
spurious?

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to: (1) challenges directed against the
composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers (not the BEI), or (2) challenges related to election returns to which
a party must have made specific objections. This case falls under the second category (2) and that the COMELEC en
banc’s findings on the nine election returns are anchored on “the manner of their preparation,” which it found to be a
sham. This ground is a pre-proclamation issue under sec. 241 and 243 in relation to sec. 235.
Furthermore, the doctrine that “as long as the returns appear to be authentic, and duly accomplished on their face, the
Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting and counting
of the votes,” is not applicable in this case due to the following reasons: (1) the COMELEC has authority to review the
rulings of the Board of Canvassers in a pre-proclamation controversy; (2) the COMELEC en banc found that the nine
election returns are fraudulent in the manner of their preparation; and (3) the allegations of irregularity is not in the casting
and counting of votes but in the preparation of the election returns (tampered, falsified and were prepared under duress,
threats, coercion and intimidation). Given this factual finding, doubt is cast on the authentic appearance of said returns.

The subject election returns cannot be accorded prima facie status as genuine reports of the results of the counts of votes.

However, the proper remedy in case of spurious election returns is not outright exclusion on the ground that they were
fraudulently prepared by some members or non-members of the BEI. Doing so would disenfranchise the voters. What the
COMELEC should have done is to ascertain whether the integrity of the ballots was violated. If it was not, then a
recounting of ballots is in order and Board will use new returns. If it was violated, then the COMELEC need not recount
but should seal the ballot box and order its safekeeping.

COMELEC has no jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies in presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and
congressional elections; Correction of Manifest Error in the Statement of Votes may be filed directly with COMELEC en
banc.

The foregoing enumeration is restrictive and elusive. In the present case, the objections initially raised by private
respondent before the Municipal Board of Canvassers were proper in a pre-proclamation controversy, i.e., the election
returns is obviously manufactured and/or falsified, it is not authentic, it contains alterations.

LUCMAN vs COMELEC ( page 411)

Facts: The objections initially raised by private respondent before the Municipal Board of Canvassers were proper in a
pre-proclamation controversy, i.e., the election returns is obviously manufactured and/or falsified, it is not authentic, it
contains alterations. However, in his appeal to the COMELEC, he further alleged that the elections held in the precincts
clustered in the Pooni Lomabao Central Elementary were tainted with massive election irregularities. According to private
respondent, there were "massive substitution of voters, snatching of ballots from the voters by people identified with the
Lucman who filled them up against the will of the voters, force or coercion, threats, intimidation, casting of votes by
double registrants in the same precincts (double entry), and flying voters …"18 Private respondent also alleged that the
counting of votes on May 11, 2004, were not prepared simultaneously with the appreciation of the ballots/counting of
votes, in violation of Section 44 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6667 (March 16, 2004). Also, private respondent’s
watchers were threatened by petitioner’s watchers, forcing them to leave the counting room, and that the Board of
Election Inspectors merely copied the entries on the tally boards and records of votes made by petitioner’s watchers.
Finally, private respondent alleged that the denial to his objections to the contested election returns were not made by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers in the prescribed form, and that despite his manifestation that he will appeal the Board’s
ruling on the returns, it proceeded with petitioner’s proclamation.19

Obviously, the foregoing allegations pertain not only to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
the election returns, but to the conduct of the elections as well.

Issue:Whether the grounds relied upon by private respondent are proper in a pre-proclamation controversy
Ruling: No. Pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and
proceedings before said Board relating to particular election returns to which private respondent should have made
specific verbal objections subsequently reduced to writing. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination
of the election returns on their face. As a rule, the COMELEC is limited to an examination of the election returns on their
face.20 It is beyond the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to go beyond the face of the returns or investigate election irregularities.

UTUTALUM VS COMELEC( page 412)

Facts: Petitioner Ututalum and private respondent, Arden S. Anni, were among the candidates in the last 30 May 1987
Congressional elections for the Second District of Sulu. 30 May was the date reset by the COMELEC from the 11 May
1987 elections. during the canvass of votes, Petitioner Ututalum, without availing of verbal objections, filed written
objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground that they "appear to be tampered with or falsified" owing to the "great
excess of votes" appearing in said returns. He then claimed that multiplying the 42 precincts of Siasi by 300 voters per
precinct, there should have been only 12,600 registered voters and not 36,663 voters who cast their votes, thereby
exceeding the actual authorized voters by 23,947 "ghost voters." (In his Petition, however, he admits that an error was
committed since "in the May 30,1987 elections, Siasi had 148 precincts" (p. 6, Rollo). He then prayed for the exclusion
from the canvass of any election returns from Siasi.
Issue:Whether padding the list of voters is ground for a pre-proclamation controvery
Ruling: Padding the list of voters is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation controversy.

DIPATUAN VS COMELEC( page 412)

Facts: During the recanvass, petitioner objected to the inclusion of the election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17,
contending that the returns from the two (2) precincts were spurious and manufactured". In this connection, petitioner
seasonable converted his oral objection into written form and submitted certified copies of the voting records and voter's
affidavits and affidavits of witnesses. The petitioner claimed that the questioned returns were "obviously manufactured"
within the eaning of Section 243 (c) of the Omnibus Election Code and that therefore a pre-proclamation controversy
existed which must be resolved before proclamation of the winning candidates.
Issue:Whether the padding of the list of voters is a ground for pre-proclamation controversy
Ruling: Although the padding of the list of Voters may constitute fraud or that the Board of Election) Inspectors may have
fraudulently conspired in its preparation, it would not be a valid Basis for a pre-proclamation controversy either. For
whenever irregularities, such as fraud, are asserted, the proper course of action is an election protest.

ESPIDOL VS COMELEC( page 415)

Facts: Petitioner Raymond P. Espidol and private respondent Wilfredo L. Tabag were rival candidates for Mayor of the
Municipality of Ramon, Isabela, On May 14, 2004, the MBC reconvened and resumed the canvassing of the election
returns. The canvassing continued until the evening of May 15, 2005. During the said proceedings, private respondent
Tabag, through his lawyers, orally sought the exclusion of several election returns from the precincts, Private respondent
Tabag objected to the inclusion of these election returns on the following grounds: (1) that the security envelopes
containing the election returns did not have the proper seals as required by Section 212 of the Omnibus Election Code
(OEC); (2) that the election returns did not bear the signature of the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) as
required by the same law; and (3) that the election returns did not have the thumbprints of the members of the BEI in the
box provided for the purpose, and in some, the thumbprints and signatures of the BEI at the close of each entry or at the
end of each tally/taras of each candidate were superimposed on the said tally/taras, thereby obscuring the number of votes
obtained by each at the end of every entry. Petitioner Espidol contended that the grounds raised by private respondent
Tabag were not proper for a pre-proclamation controversy
Issue:Whether the lack of inner paper seals, lack of signature of BEI chairman, absence of thumbmarks on the election
returns, among others, are merely defects in form and not proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy?
Ruling: Admittedly, the Court had the occasion to state that lack of inner paper seals in the election returns does not
justify their exclusion from canvassing and that such is not proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy.42However,
in the present case, aside from the lack of inner paper seals, private respondent Tabag raised other grounds for the
exclusion of certain election returns, including lack of signature of the Chairman of the BEI and absence of thumbmarks
of the members of the BEI. Consequently, the absence of these signatures and thumbmarks rendered the said election
returns materially defective and, therefore, proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy

CEBRO VS COMELEC( page 416)

(Exclude facts. Proceed to doctrine)

Facts: Petitioners Bienvenido A. Cerbo, Jr., Angelo O. Montilla, and Geronimo P. Arzagon were candidates for
representative, governor and vice-governor, respectively of Sultan Kudarat in the May 10, 2004 elections. Respondents
Suharto T. Mangudadatu, Datu Pax S. Mangudadatu and Donato A. Ligo, on the other hand, were petitioners’ respective
opponents for the same positions.During the provincial canvassing of the Municipal Certificates of Canvass (COCs) by
the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC), petitioners objected to the inclusion of the COC of the Municipality of
Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat. The PBOC overruled the objection on May 15, 2004. On even date, petitioners filed with the
PBOC a notice of appeal, but they did not pursue the appeal. During the provincial canvassing of the Municipal
Certificates of Canvass (COCs) by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC), petitioners objected to the inclusion of
the COC of the Municipality of Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat. The PBOC overruled the objection on May 15, 2004. On even
date, petitioners filed with the PBOC a notice of appeal, but they did not pursue the appeal.The following day or on May
16, 2004, petitioners filed with the PBOC a "Petition for Correction of Manifest Errorsand/or to Exclude Certificates of
Canvass of the Municipalities of Palimbang and Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat."1 In said petition, petitioners prayed that the
proclamation of the congressional and local positions be held in abeyance until such time that the manifest errors were
rectified. The PBOC verbally denied the petition and no appeal was taken therefrom.The PBOC thus proclaimed, also on
May 16, 2004, respondents as winners of the contested positions.On May 31, 2004, petitioners filed with the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) a "Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors and Annulment of Proclamation" 2 alleging, inter
alia, that the proclamation of respondents was surreptitious, haphazard and illegal as the same was made despite the filing
with the PBOC of a notice of appeal of its May 15, 2004 ruling and of a petition for correction of manifest errors. They
thus prayed that the proclamation of respondents be set aside and that the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC)
of Palimbang be directed to reconvene and make the necessary corrections, and to proclaim the winning candidates based
thereon.
Issue:Whether the petitioners complied with COMELEC’s rules of procedure
Ruling: petitioners , indeed, failed to comply with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, DOCTRINE: A petition for
correction of manifest errors filed directly with the COMELEC should thus pertain to errors that could not have been
discovered during the canvassing, despite the exercise of due diligence. Petitioner Arzagon, however, together with the
other petitioners, initially filed a petition for correction of manifest errors with the PBOC, evidently showing that the
errors sought to be corrected were discovered during the canvassing.On his failure to appeal the PBOC’s dismissal of his
petition for correction of manifest errors, petitioner Arzagon claims that the PBOC did not indicate the reasons therefor,
hence, he was prevented from appealing the same.Even if, however, this Court may, in the interest of justice, treat the
petition for correction of manifest errors filed with the COMELEC as an appeal from the PBOC’s verbal ruling denying
petitioners’ similar petition filed with the latter, its dismissal by the COMELEC is in order.
TOPIC: SECTION 243 (Discrepancies in returns)

Jonas Taguiam v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 184801, July 30, 2009

(Proceed to doctrine)

J. Ynares-Santiago, ponente
 Jonas Taguiam and Anthony Tuddao were candidates for the position of Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Tuguegarao City in Cagayan during the 2007 National and Local Elections. On May 19, 2007, Taguiam was
proclaimed by the City Board of Canvassers (CBCOC) as the 12th ranking and winning candidate for the said
position (with 10,981 votes). Tuddao ranked 13th (with 10,971 votes).
 On May 25, 2007, Tuddao filed with the COMELEC a petition for correction of manifest errors in the election
returns and statement of votes for 27 clustered precincts, and for the annulment of Taguiam’s proclamation.
Tuddao alleged that he was credited with less votes in several statement of votes by precincts where Taguiam was
credited with more votes. Taguiam later argued that the petition should be dismissed for having been filed late for
six days after the proclamation of the winning candidates. The COMELEC responded that the belated filing of the
petition by Tuddao cannot deter its authority in ascertaining the true will of the electorate.
 The COMELEC noted the following discrepancies:
o With regard to the votes of Tuddao – there must be an addition of 19 votes.
o With regard to the votes of Taguiam – there must be a deduction of 24 votes.
 The COMELEC held that Tuddao was the rightful 12th winning candidate. Taguiam filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC en banc on October 9, 2008.
Issue(s)/Ruling(s)
1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it took cognizance of private respondent’s petition despite its late filing.

No. Under the rules, petitions for correction must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation
and must implead all candidates who may be adversely affected thereby. However, while the petition was indeed filed
beyond the 5-day reglementary period, the COMELEC however has discretion to suspend its rules of procedure or any
portion thereof. Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure provides that the rules shall be liberally construed. Moreover, Section
4 likewise provides that the COMELEC may suspend the application of its own rules in the interest of justice and speedy
disposition of all matters pending before it.

Citing the case of Torres vs. COMELEC, the Court reiterated that while the remedy of the losing party is an election
protest after his opponent has already been proclaimed as winning candidate, such recourse is on the assumption,
however, that there has been a valid proclamation. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no
proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to
declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.

It is significant to note that petitioner did not assail the factual findings of the COMELEC of manifest error in the
tabulation of votes but only raised issues on the foregoing technicalities. Hence, COMELEC’s unrebutted findings of fact
are therefore sustained. Hence, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in annulling the
proclamation of Taguiam. Said proclamation is flawed from the beginning because it did not reflect the true will of the
electorate. Having based on a faulty tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of.

Sebastian v. COMELEC
G.R. Nos. 139573-75, March 7, 2000

(Proceed to doctrine.)

J. Quisumbing
 June Genevieve Sebastian was the mayoralty candidate of the Reporma Party in Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte,
during the May 11, 1998 elections. Dario Romano was her running mate. Salvador Royo, on the other hand, was
the mayoralty candidate of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, while private respondent Eric Estela was his candidate for
vice mayor.
 On election day, as the Municipal Board of Canvassers was preparing to canvass the election returns, Sebastian
and Romano sought the exclusion from the canvass of several election returns from certain precincts in Barangay
Kimamon, New Katipunan, Lunga-og, Balagunan, Pantaron, and Tibal-og, under the claim that the said returns
were prepared under extreme duress, threat, intimidation and political pressure and influence.
 The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied the petition. When said petition was appealed to the COMELEC First
Division, it dismissed the same. Meanwhile, the COMELEC Second Division ruled in favor of Sebastian and
Romano and ordered the exclusion of 25 election returns from the canvass of votes in Sto. Tomas.

Issue(s)/Ruling(s)
1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion when it unilaterally disregarded the
overwhelming evidence of coercion, undue influence, and as well as all environmental circumstances that
attended the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the twenty-five (25) contested returns.

DOCTRINE: This petition stemmed from a pre-proclamation controversy. In a long line of cases, we have consistently
held that a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face. The COMELEC
as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged election irregularities. We see no
reason to depart from this rule in this petition. In our view, there is no exceptional circumstance present in this
controversy similar to that proved in the Antonio case, aforecited, where the COMELEC as well as the Court found
"precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of sufficient notice to the Board, and disregard of manifest irregularities in the face
of the questioned returns"[11]to justify the summary annulment of the canvass and the annulment of petitioner Antonio's
proclamation. Rather, we are guided here by the holding of the Court in the case of Matalam, in Maguindanao, where it is
said:

"...Because what [petitioner] is asking for necessarily postulates a full reception of evidence aliunde and the meticulous
examination of voluminous election documents, it is clearly anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy which, by its
very nature, is to be heard summarily and decided on as promptly as possible."

To require the COMELEC to examine the circumstances surrounding the preparation of election returns would run
counter to the rule that a pre-proclamation controversy should be summarily decided. Here, we note favorably the position
taken by the Office of the Solicitor General. Petitioners have not demonstrated precisely how the preparation and
appreciation of election returns were adversely affected by, as alleged by petitioners, "harassments of petitioners'
supporters," "midnight convoys of armed men riding in motorcycles," and "raids by the military in different houses" in
Sto. Tomas.

Anni vs. Rasul

(Proceed to doctrine)

 Pending before the Court is petitioners’ motion for reconsideration dated September 16, 1972 praying for
reconsideration or modification of the decision of August 30, 1972 under which Resolution RR-1162 dated March
21, 1972 of the Comelec ordering the proclamation of Julkipli Anni and Santanina Rasul as two of the winning
candidates for members of the provincial board of Sulu (since they could no longer be dislodged by the results of
another pending case C-339 questioning the returns in 164 other precincts involving some 8,000 votes in some
eleven other municipalities and affecting only the possible winner of the third and last board seat) was upheld,
resulting in the proclamation and seating of said Julkipli Anni and Santanina Rasul, by virtue of the decision
having been ordered to be executory upon promulgation.
 The burden of the motion is that the Court’s ratio decidendi that questions concerning alleged falsification or
tampering of returns and asking for their exclusion in the canvass should first be raised before the canvassing
board, subject to appeal from its decision to the Comelec (as specifically ordered by Comelec in its Resolution
No. 78 of November 26, 1971 directing that all such questions should “be initially raised before the board during
the canvass”) * should equally apply to the 164 election returns sought to be questioned in pending Case C-339 of
the Comelec.

Issue(s)/Ruling(s)
1. Was the dismissal of the appealed petition proper notwithstanding the fact that there were alleged falsification and
tampering of returns which were raised for the first time at the COMELEC?

Yes. The Court believes that this question, is best raised and resolved in Case L-35918 entitled “Julasiri M. Anni vs. Muss
Izquierdo, et al.,” concerning the two principal protagonists for the third and last board seat and whose fate depends upon
the Comelec action on the inclusion or exclusion of the questioned returns of said 164 precincts which is pending
decision, with the express qualification that the question of whether the said 164 election returns could be ordered
excluded by Comelec notwithstanding their not having been, initially questioned before the provincial canvassing board
was in no way resolved by the Court’s decision of August 30, 1972 in the case at bar, since it was not directly in issue
herein as far as the merits of the case are concerned, and Muss lzquierdo who would be directly affected by the Court’s
resolution of the question is not even a party and has not been heard herein.

DOCTRINE: To allow a respondent in the COMELEC to raise belated questions concerning returns at any time during
the pendency of the case on review before the COMELEC notwithstanding that he has not originally raised such questions
before the canvassing board and only when he finds his position endangered would mean undue delays in the pre-
proclamation proceedings before the COMELEC.

The dismissal of the petition at bar could therefore be in no way construed to be an advance ruling of this Court on the
question of propriety and validity of the examination ordered by Comelec in the same Resolution RR-1162 of the
questioned 164 election returns which, as expressly stated in the decision had no materiality to the dispute here and could
not “conceivably alter the winner status of Julkipli Anni and respondent Rasul.” (at pp. 8-9)

Uso Dan Aguam v. COMELEC and Alim Balindong

G.R. No. L-28955, May 28, 1968

(Proceed to doctrine.)

 In the November, 1967 elections, amongst the aspirants for Mayor of Ganassi, Lanao del Sur, were: petitioner
Uso Dan Aguam, respondent Alim Balindong, and Ali Daud B. Marohombsar. At the canvassing held in Marawi
City on November 20, 1967, petitioner Aguam was proclaimed Mayor-elect of Ganassi, with a margin of only
two votes. Petitioner took his oath and thereafter assumed office as Mayor of Ganassi.
 On January 6, 1968, respondent Balindong went to Comelec with a petition for the annulment of the November
20, 1967 canvass and proclamation, and for the opening of the ballot box in Precinct 8. Respondent averred that
the election return for Precinct 8 was tampered with by making it appear that Alim Balindong obtained 8 votes in
said precinct when in fact he obtained 13 votes; and that as a result of such tampering, petitioner Uso Dan Aguam
herein was made to win against respondent Alim Balindong by a margin of 3 votes.
 Petitioner Aguam seeks to annul the resolution of the respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) of April
27, 1968 declaring that it has jurisdiction to open the ballot box in Precinct 8 of the municipality of Ganassi,
Lanao del Sur, and to conduct an investigation into the authentic electoral return therefrom, upon petition of
respondent Alim Balindong.
 Moreover, petitioner stresses that Balindong filed his petition on July 6, 1968 (i.e. long after the proclamation of
November 20, 1967). It is petitioner’s claim that since the two-week period from proclamation, allowed for
protests, had long elapsed. Comelec is without power to entertain the same – it had no jurisdiction.

1. Was the petitioner correct in asserting that COMELEC had no jurisdiction because the petition by Balindong was
filed way ahead of the date of procalamation?

No. DOCTRINE: The election law does not provide for a time limit within which a candidate may challenge the validity
of a proclamation before Comelec. We are unprepared to say that inaction for an unreasonable period may not block him.
Even then, considering the steps taken by respondent, first, in the Court of First Instance, and second, in the Comelec, the
time gap between the alleged illegal proclamation of November 20, 1967 and the petition before Comelec of January 6,
1968 does not authorize this Court to say that respondent Alim Balindong is guilty of laches.

We hold that Balindong's petition before Comelec was timely filed; and that Comelec has jurisdiction to inquire into the
nullity of the November 20, 1967 proclamation, and consequently to inquire into the tampering of the election return in
Precinct 8.

Harlin Castillo Abayon v. COMELEC and Raul Daza

G.R. No. 181295, April 2, 2009

J. Chico-Nazario

Facts:
 Abayon and Raul Daza were candidates for the Office of the Governor of the Province of Northern Samar during
the 14 May 2007 elections. On May 19, 2007, Abayon filed a pre-proclamation protest before the Provincial
Board of Canvassers of Northern Samar to exclude the certificates of canvass of various municipalities in the
province that were alleged to have been prepared under duress, threats, and intimidation.
  On May 20, Daza was proclaimed as the winning candidate. The next day, Abayon filed with the COMELEC a
petition to exclude the COCs which were alleged to have been prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation. On the same day, Abayon also filed a petition seeking to nullify Daza’s proclamation, and another
petition calling for the failure of elections in the questioned municipalities.
 On October 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division dismissed Abayon’s election protest for having been filed out
of time. Under Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code, an election protest should be filed within 10 days from
the date of the proclamation of the results of the election. Since Daza was proclaimed on May 20, Abayon only
had until May 30 to file his election protest. However, he filed his election protest only on June 29.

Issue(s)/Ruling(s)
1. Whether the mere filing of a pre-proclamation case, regardless of the issues raised therein, suspends the ten-day
period for the filing of an election protest.

No. In Dagloc v. Commission on Elections,[21] this Court clarified that the petition to annul or to suspend the
proclamation, which Section 248 refers to, and which suspends the running of the period within which to file the election
protest or quo warranto proceedings, must be a pre-proclamation controversy. The Court, thus, decreed in the same case
that a petition for the declaration of failure of election was not a pre-proclamation controversy and, therefore, did not
suspend the running of the reglementary period within which to file an election protest or quo warrantoproceedings.

In this case, it is worthy to reiterate that on 20 May 2007, Daza was already proclaimed the winning candidate for the
Office of Governor of the Province of Nothern Samar in the 14 May 2007 elections. Abayon had until 30 May 2007 to file
his election protest. Yet, he filed EPC No. 2007-62, his Petition of Protest only on 29 June 2007, or almost 40 days after
Dazas proclamation.

Moreover, Abayn’s petitions for the declaration of failure of elections in the various municipalities cannot suspend the
ten-day period for filing an election protest. The grounds that must support a pre-proclamation controversy are limited by
the Omnibus Election Code to the following:
a. Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
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;
c. The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic; and
d. When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affect the standing of the aggrieved candidate/s.

The enumeration above is restrictive and exclusive. Thus, in the absence of any clear showing or proof that the election
returns canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects; appear to have been tampered with, falsified or prepared
under duress; and/or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate, which would affect the result of the
election, a petition cannot be properly considered as a pre-proclamation controversy. None of the aforementioned
circumstances fall under the enumeration of issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.