Administrative and Election Laws

Bernice Raya M. Dumaoang

Joel P. Quiño, Mary Antonette Dangoy, Jospehine Abing, Joy Ann Cabatingan, Tessa Cang, Wilfredo Calo, Homer
Canen, Jose Cagang, Alberto Cabatingan and Francisco Oliverio, Petitioners

vs.

Commission on Elections and Ritchie Wagas, Respondents

Petitioner Quiño and Respondent Wagas both ran for Municipal Mayor of Compostela, Cebu during the May 2010
elections. Petitioner Dangoy was a candidate for vice-mayor, and the other petitioners ran for municipal councilors.

Quiño won with a margin of votes of more than 2,000 over Wagas. Quiño, along with the rest of the petitioners who were
winning candidates were proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC).

After filing for an Election Protest with the RTC Mandaue City (May 14, 2010), Wagas filed a petition for annulment of
proclamation in the COMELEC (May 21, 2010) claiming that:

1.) After the proclamation, it was discovered that the Audit/print Logs of the Consolidating Machines did not reflect
at least 14 precincts, and despite such absence, the Machine generated Certificate of Canvass and Statement of
Votes. As it appeared that the election returns of the 14 precincts were already stored in the machines, the same
were therefore falsified;
2.) There was an irregularity in Precinct No. 19 because the Electronic Election Results (EERs) showed that more
than 700 votes were cast but the SOV reflected only 10 votes.

On June 18, 2010, Wagas filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to Suspend the Effect of Proclamation, which the
COMELEC Second Division granted. It again granted Wagas’ Amended Petition for Proclamation annulling altogether
the proclamation of the presumptive winning candidates

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Commission en banc which the latter denied. It reasoned that: the
Commission has the authority to annul the proclamation of any candidate if it discovers that the proclamation proceeds
from an invalid and insufficient ground. A proclamation based on an invalid canvass is no proclamation at all. Since the
results of the 14 precincts were not transmitted and therefore were not included in the final canvass of votes, the
Commission found the proclamation of the presumptive winners as invalid.

On the other hand, the dissenting Commissioners opined:

1.) Nothing in the records would prove that the results of the 14 precincts were NOT transmitted and NOT included
in the canvassing of votes;

2.) With the advent of the Automated Election System, the scope of pre-proclamation controversy has been limited
onto only two issues: a) illegal composition of the Board of Canvassers; and b) illegal proceedings, as when there
is precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of sufficient notice to the BOC, and improper venue;

3.) Under COMELEC Resolution No. 8809 in relation to RA 9369, there shall be no pre-proclamation cases in issues
concerning to the generation, transmission, receipt and custody, and appreciation of election results or certificates
of canvass.

Obviously, the alleged irregularities in the audit logs and transmission do not fall within the ambit of pre-
proclamation controversy;

4.) Assuming that the Commission may validly rule on that issue, it is doomed to fail since jurisprudence dictates that
there is a presumption that an election was honestly conducted, and the burden of proof to show otherwise is on
the party assailing the results. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, the Certificate of Canvass and the
SOV are deemed to have been regularly issued;
5.) Annulment of proclamation is not at all times necessary even when there is an error in the transmission of election
results. There must first be a determination of whether the discrepancy would materially affect the results. If, after
the reconciliation of votes, the previously proclaimed candidate still managed to obtain the plurality of votes, then
the annulment of proclamation is futile. In the case, Precinct No. 19 has a total of 979 registered voters. The
margin of votes between Quiño and Wagas was 2,381 votes. Even if all of the 979 votes were to be given to
Wagas, Quiño would still emerge as the winner. Thus, annulment was not necessary.

Quiño and the other petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in conjunction
with Section 2 of Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedures as amended seeking to annul the Resolutions of the
COMELEC Second Division and en banc (annulment of proclamation and denial of MR, respectively).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the instant petition may prosper.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the instant petition have become moot and academic. The Special Board of Canvassers
of Compostela, Cebu has already proclaimed the petitioners as the winning candidates.

In the case of Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, the Court ruled that a case becomes moot and academic when there
is no longer an actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.

In Gancho-on vs Secretary of Labor and Employment, it further ruled that a declaration on a moot and academic case
would be of no practical use or purpose.

The instant petition was dismissed on the ground of mootness.