Dimaporo and Ututalum vs.

Comelec (1990)

Summary Cases:

● Dimaporo and Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections (Comelec)

Subject: No necessity to apply the Lagumbay doctrine; Pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved
in summary proceedings; Remedy of petitioners; Limitations of pre-preclamation controversies;
Mandatory requirement to comply with procedure for pre-proclamation controversies

Facts:

1990, an election for Regional Governor, Regional Vice-Governor for the Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) was conducted pursuant to Republic Act No. 6734, the Organic Act creating that
Autonomous Region.

Sultan Mohammad and Nurhussein Ututalum (petitioners) were the official candidates of the United
Opposition (KBL-NP) coalition party while Zacaria Candao and Benjamin Loong (respondents) were the
official candidates of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) party.

G.R. Nos. 93201-04

During the canvass, petitioners raised objections to the inclusion of certain election returns. From
adverse rulings of the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers and the Regional Board of Canvassers,
petitioners appealed to the Commission on Elections ("Comelec"). Petitioners claimed that the
questioned election returns were "spurious, obviously manufactured and/or statistically improbable.”

The First Division of the Comelec dismissed all the appeals for lack of merit and for lack of jurisdiction,
particularly: (a) the objections raised against the election returns were "merely generalizations" and not
supported by substantial evidence, and (b) that petitioners had not filed a written intent to appeal from
the rulings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers.

Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc which modified the First Division by ordering the exclusion
from the canvass of the election returns from 88 precincts for being "statistically improbable." The
Comelec En Banc applied Lagumbay v. Comelec where all the candidates of one party garnered all the
votes, each of them receiving exactly the same number of votes, while all the candidates of the opposing
party getting uniformly and precisely nothing. In Lagumbay, the Court held such returns to be
"statistically improbable" and "obviously manufactured", the fraud being so palpable from the return itself
that there was no reason to give the return prima facie value and that consequently, evidence aliunde to
show fraud was entirely unnecessary.

G.R. No. 93205

During the canvass of election returns from the Municipality of Languyan in the Province of Tawi-Tawi,
petitioners objected to the inclusion of the election returns from 36 precincts. In the questioned precincts,
100% or 99% of registered voters are recorded to have cast their votes, and respondents obtained all
the votes cast while petitioners got a uniform zero vote.

The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Tawi-Tawi overruled the objections of petitioners for failure to
present evidence aliunde of the fraud alleged. Petitioners appealed to the Comelec.

The Second Division of the Comelec reversed the Board of Canvassers by ordering the exclusion of 15
| Page 1 of 4
election returns under the authority of the Lagumbay doctrine of "statistical improbability". The inclusion
of the remaining election returns from 21 other precincts was in effect sustained since not all the
candidates of the LDP had received exactly the same number of vote. Petitioners appealed to the
Comelec En Banc which appeal was denied.

G.R. No. 93602

Petitioners objected to the election returns from certain precincts in 6 municipalities in Maguindanao.
From adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed to the
Comelec. They alleged that in some precincts, the "number of votes counted" exceeded the number of
registered voters. Also, a shooting war occurred between the MNLF and MILF so that no elections were
conducted in such barangays, but that notwithstanding, the returns from those barangays showed "a
very high percentage of voting."

The Comelec Second Division dismissed petitioner's appeal. The Comelec En Banc sustained the
dismissal

Petition

In the present consolidated petitions, the Court will determine whether the Comelec En Banc committed
grave abuse of discretion in the above cases.

Held:

No necessity to apply the Lagumbay doctrine

1. Respondents Candao and Loong have demonstrated that even if their votes embraced in the
contested election returns from the provinces of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi are nullified as requested by
petitioners, such nullification will not affect the vote of the respondents. Hence, there is no need to pass
upon and resolve the central issue raised by petitioners - whether or not the Lagumbay doctrine of
"statistical improbability" should be expanded to apply to election returns differing from the specific
factual situation dealt with in Lagumbay. In the cases at bar, whatever conclusion the Court might have
reached on this issue would merely constitute dictum, considering that even if the Court were to nullify all
the returns objected to by petitioners on grounds of "statistical improbability", respondents Candao and
Loong would still show a very substantial margin over the total votes of petitioner.

Pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved in summary proceedings

2. The Court has also taken particular account of the need for speedy resolution of these cases,
considering the length of time which has gone by since the election was held last 17 February 1990
without the winning candidates for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor being proclaimed.
The public policy involved in the rule that pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved in summary
proceedings, is very real and insistent. The public interest requires that the position for the filling of which
the election was held should be filled as promptly as possible, even if the proclamation of the winning
candidates be provisional in nature, in the sense that such would be subject to the results of the election
protest or protests that may be expected to be filed.

Remedy of petitioners

3. Petitioners' principal remedy is to file election protests before the Comelec (Article IX [C] [2] [2], 1987
Constitution) - and there to litigate all the issues raised by them in as much detail as they might deem
| Page 2 of 4
necessary or appropriate. Another remedy open to petitioners is the filing of criminal charges for election
offenses against those who, petitioners believe, are responsible for the frauds and assorted trickery
alleged to have been committed.

Limitations of pre-preclamation controversies

4. In G.R. No. 93602, petitioners claimed that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it refused
to order the expert technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the registered voters
affixed to their voter's affidavits and to the lists of voters in the voting records in the contested precincts.

5. Since Dianalan vs. Comelec (1987), the examination of voter's affidavits and voting records on the
ground that there was massive substitute voting or that no elections were held, has been definitely ruled
out by the Supreme Court. For to accept the grounds cited, and to allow the procedure suggested, is to
expand the narrow and exclusive grounds defined by law for initiating and sustaining pre-proclamation
controversies.

6. In earlier cases, the court ruled that the Commission on Elections could investigate charges of
irregularities in the conduct of the elections as an incident of its power to canvass the votes and proclaim
the winners; and this was possible because its jurisdiction over pre-proclamation questions was not
limited then and subject to Comelec abuse. Now it is expressly limited under Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code and cannot extend beyond the matters exclusively enumerated therein. A reading of this
section will readily show that it applies only to the specific deficiencies therein enumerated and that
questions relating to alleged irregularities in the voting such as fraud, substitution or vote-buying and
terrorism are proper matters for election protests.

7. The policy consideration underlying the delimitation both of substantive ground and procedure is the
policy to determine as quickly as possible the result of the election on the basis of canvass. To uphold
otherwise is to allow the prolonged and indefinite suspension of resolutions on pre-proclamation
controversies by the simple expedient of resorting to the examination of voluminous documents. This
process can be used in a full-blown judicial inquiry incident to an election protest.

8. Under the regime of the Omnibus Election Code, pre-proclamation controversies are properly limited
to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before such Board of
Canvassers, and not the Board of Election inspectors nor proceedings before such latter Board. Such
challenges should relate to particular election returns to which petitioner should have made specific
verbal objection subsequently confirmed in writing.

9. In a pre-proclamation controversy, it is axiomatic that the Comelec is not to look beyond or

behind election returns which are on their face regular and authentic returns. A party seeking to
raise issues resolution of which would compel the Comelec to pierce the veil, so to speak, of election
returns prima facie regular, has his proper remedy in a regular election protest. By their nature, and
given the obvious public interest in the speedy determination of the results of elections, pre-proclamation
controversies are to be resolved in summary proceedings

Mandatory requirement to comply with procedure for pre-proclamation controversies

10. The Comelec held that petitioners' failure to present evidence before the Maguindanao Provincial
Board of Canvassers was fatal. The issue refers to the procedure to be observed in the registration of
objections at the board of canvassers level and the bringing of adverse rulings on appeal to the
Commission. We reiterate the mandatory requirement to comply with procedure for pre-proclamation
controversies in view of the public policy to have a quick determination of the result of the election. By
| Page 3 of 4
their nature, pre-proclamation controversies already delay proclamation. To allow the deviation from
procedural requirements is to open cases of this nature to protracted uncertainty because new grounds
and new issues can be raised at the different levels of jurisdiction. Even ordinary cases not impressed
with public policy considerations are not allowed to be litigated this way.

| Page 4 of 4