1

1. SALIC VS COMELEC; GR NO. 157007

FACTS:
DECS District Head Babaino P. Macadato, had inhibited himself from serving on the MBC by
reason of his relationship to some local candidates.
NOTE: Under the Omnibus Election Code- "Relationship with candidates and other members. – The chairman and the members of the board of
canvassers shall not be related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the candidates whose votes will be canvassed by
said board, or to any member of the same board."

The proper composition of the board is a matter of controversy. The dispute refers to who
really was the lawful Third Member of the board. The petitioner’s claim that Catambac
Mimbantas ("Mimbantas") legally served as the Third Member of the MBC, while private
respondents insist that it was Ismael Magarang ("Magarang") instead. But, the latter’s
signature in the COC was allegedly forged.A two Municipal Boards of Canvassers ("MBC"),
with varying members participating, proclaimed different sets of municipal candidates as
winners. Thereafter, a factual finding revealed that Mimbantas was not a principal, but an
ordinary elementary public school teacher.

ISSUE: W/N Mimbatas is the rightful 3rd member.

RULING: NO

The law explicitly prescribes the minimum qualifications of who may sit as the substitute Third
Member of the MBC in the absence of the most senior school district supervisor. The
substitute must be a principal of the school district or the elementary school.

As admitted by Mimbantas herself in her testimony before the Ad Hoc Committee, she is not
a principal of the school district or the elementary school but an Elementary Public School
Teacher I. Thus, her designation by the District In-Charge to the Butig MBC, though
unrebutted, is null and void.

The personality of the designating authority is not even relevant in the case of Mimbantas, as
she does not possess the minimum qualifications as defined by law. If the law prescribes
qualifications for appointment to a public office, the appointee must possess such statutory
qualifications to make the appointment valid.

Consequently, the Macabayao-Mimbintas COC proclaiming Pet. Salic as mayor is void. The
only valid signature thereon is that of Chairman Macabayao's, but he alone cannot bind or
speak for the entire MBC.

2. Ditual vs Comelec
(it’s a consolidated case with Salic vs Comelec)
Facts: In the local elections in Butig, Lanao del Sur, two Municipal Boards of Canvassers
("MBC"), with varying members participating, proclaimed different sets of municipal
candidates as winners. The Comelec nullified the conflicting proclamations of the two boards
and ordered the constitution of a new MBC. A Petition for Certiorari was filed by Pauli
Dimnatang Ditual A.B.M. ("Ditual"), a candidate for municipal vice-mayor of the same town,
seeking to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC which annulled the proclamations of
Salic and Ditual.
2

This controversy arose from confusion over the identity of the 3rd member of the MBC,
whether it was Mimbantas or Magarang. The first 2 members were Macabayo and Palawan.
Macabayag-Mimbantas proclaimed Silac (mayor), Ditual (vice-mayor), etc.
Palawan-Magarang proclaimed another candidate for the position. It was found out that
Mimbantas was not qualified to sit on the MBC, thus the Comelec nullified their proclamation.
Issue: WON Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the proclamations.
Ruling: No. The law explicitly prescribes the minimum qualifications of who may sit as the
substitute Third Member of the MBC in the absence of the most senior school district
supervisor. The substitute must be a principal of the school district or the elementary school.
The assailed Resolution made a factual finding that Mimbantas was not a principal, but an
ordinary elementary public school teacher. Thus, her designation by the District In-Charge to
the Butig MBC, though unrebutted, is null and void. Salic does not refute the finding and there
is no compelling reason for the Court to overturn it. Clearly then, Mimbantas was not qualified
to sit on the MBC, even assuming she was designated by the DECS District-In-Charge. The
personality of the designating authority is not even relevant in the case of Mimbantas, as she
does not possess the minimum qualifications as defined by law. If the law prescribes
qualifications for appointment to a public office, the appointee must possess such statutory
qualifications to make the appointment valid.

3. Abes vs Comelec 21 SCRA 1252

Facts: Petitioners, candidates of the Liberal Party, the Nacionalista Reform Party and the
Quezon City Citizens League for Good Government, first went to the Commission on
Elections (Comelec). Upon the claim that more than 50% of the registered voters were not
able to vote during the elections of November 14, 1967, they prayed for Comelec's
declaration that there was failure of election. They petitioned for suspension of the canvass
and the proclamation of winning candidates. They sought nullification, too, of elections in
Quezon City for city officials and asked that new elections be held. Comelec, in a minute
resolution denied the petition, ordered the board of canvassers to proceed with the canvass
but not to proclaim any winning candidate for city offices and gave petitioners time "to go to
the Supreme Court for the proper remedy." Petitioners thus came to this Court on certiorari
with a prayer for preliminary injunction.
Issue: Whether or not the boards of canvassers are a ministerial body
Ruling: Yes. The Court denied the petition and reiterated that the board of canvassers is a
ministerial body. It is enjoined by lawto canvass all votes on election returns submitted to it in
due form. Its powers are limited generally to the mechanical or mathematical function of
ascertaining and declaring the apparent result of the election by adding or compiling the votes
cast for each candidate as shown on the face of the returns before them, and then declaring or
certifying the result so ascertained. Comelec is the constitutional body charged with the duty
to enforce all laws relative to elections, duty bound to see to it that the board of canvassers
perform its proper function.
3

G.R. No. L-28396 December 29, 1967

4. AGRIPINO DEMAFILES
vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Under ministerial

FACTS:
The petitioner and the private respondent are vying for the mayoralty inSebaste in Antique.
The petitioner protested the board's action of rejecting the return from precinct 7 and the
subsequent proclamation of private respondent, and challenging the right of two board
members to sit, considering that they were reelectionists.
The COMELEC ruled to annul the canvass and proclamation of the local officials. It ordered
the appointment of substitutes of the two board members being complained of and directed to
canvass anew the results of the election.
In turn, Galido asked for a reconsideration which the COMELEC granted.
Failing to secure a reconsideration of this latter resolution, Demafiles filed the instant petition
for mandamus and certiorari.

ISSUE:
WON the provincial board members, who were candidates for reelection, were disqualified
from sitting in the board in its capacity as a municipal board of canvassers
WON the Commission on Elections can order the board of canvassers to count a return from
a given precinct

HELD:
(1) The court held (1) that a provincial board cannot act as a municipal board of
canvassers where a municipal council has been formed; (2) that provincial board
members who are candidates for reelection are disqualified to sit in the board and (3)
that a board of canvassers which excludes from canvass the return from a precinct
acts "in contravention of law."

(2) It Is now settled doctrine that the COMELEC has the power to annul an illegal
canvass and an illegal proclamation as when they are based on incomplete returns,
and order a new canvass to be made by counting the returns wrongfully excluded.If it
has power to direct that certain copies of election returns be used in preference to
other copies of the same returns,there is no reason why it cannot direct canvassing
bodies to count all turns which are otherwise regular. Indeed, it is its duty to do so,
failing which it may be compelled by mandamus. It is the ministerial function of the
board of canvassers to count the results as they appeal in the returns which on their
face do not reveal any irregularities or falsities.

ACCORDINGLY, the resolutions of the Commission on Elections are set aside.

4

5. Espino vs Zaldivar
COMELEC issued an order enjoining the board from canvassing the election returns without
COMELEC’s prior order. The Board nonetheless proceeded to canvass the returns from
entire province.

COMELEC issued a resolution directing the board to canvass the votes using the Municipal
Treasurer’s copies, instead of those of the Provincial Treasurer, in the six precincts of Aglipay
and thereafter proclaim candidates elected. This is because of the alleged finding of
irregularities in the Provincial Treasurer’s copies of returns.

The petition herein states that on the very same day, the board of canvassers signed the
certificate of canvass and proclamation and proclaimed Corazon Espino over Dumlao.

A new board was constituted and tallied the votes using the figures appearing in the
Municipal Treasurer’s copies, as a result, Dumlao was proclaimed Governor-elect.

Issue: W/N substituting erring members of the board of canvassers is valid.

Held: Yes.

Where the board of canvassers disobeyed the comelec order to use genuine copies of return,
and made an irregular proclamation of one of the candidates with the use of unassailably
falsified copies of returns, substitutes for the erring members of the board may be appointed.
PACIFICADOR VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 581 SCRA 372, G.R. NO. 178259
MARCH 13, 2009
FACTS: During the May 14, 2007 elections, Pacificador and Plameras, Jr., and Perez
(private respondent), then the incumbent Governor of Antique, ran as candidates for the
position of Governor.
After the elections, petitioners filed a petition for suspension of the canvassing of votes for the
position of Governor and/or suspension of the proclamation of private respondent before the
COMELEC. They alleged that the canvassing of votes by the Provincial Board of Canvassers
(PBOC) was attended by fraud because the election returns were prepared under duress and
bore fraudulent entries.
COMELEC’s Second Division ruled against petitioners on the suspension case, finding “no
overwhelming need to suspend the canvassing of votes as well as the proclamation of the
candidate…”
In the meantime, the COMELEC First Division, dismissed petitioners’ PBOC appeal and
created a new PBOC to be composed of Atty. Renato A. Mabutay as Chairman, Atty. Tomas
Valera as Vice-Chairman, and Atty. Elizabeth Doronila as Member-Secretary (Mabutay
PBOC). COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution relieving the Mabutay PBOC and
creating, in its stead, a still another PBOC composed of respondents Atty. Daisy Real, Atty.
Jessie Suarez and Atty. Mavil Majarucon (Majarucon PBOC) as Chairman, Vice-Chairman
and Member-Secretary, respectively, and ordering it to convene and proclaim the winning
candidates.
Petitioners contend that the Majarucon PBOC is illegal, being violative of Sec. 2 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 7859 which provides that the relief of the Board of Canvassers
(BOC) must be for cause, and Sec. 21 of Republic Act. No. 6646 (An Act Introducing
Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for other Purposes) which states that the
substitute BOC must be composed of the therein named officials in their order of appearance,
viz., the Provincial Auditor, the Register of Deeds, the Clerk of Court nominated by the
5

Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, and any other available appointive provincial
official.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC’s choice of officials to substitute the members of the BOC is
limited only to those enumerated under Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 6646
RULING: NO. Members of Board of Canvassers (BOCs) can be filled up by the COMELEC
not only from those expressly mentioned in Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 6646, but from others
outside if the former are not available.
7. FERMIN v COMELEC
Petitioner Fermin and private respondent Macacua were candidates for Mayor in the
Municipality of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan
proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of Kabuntalan. The COMELEC, however,
annulled the proclamation due to the failure of clustered polling Precinct No. 25A/26A to
function in Barangay Guiawa, Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The existence of 264 registered
voters in the clustered precinct would affect the results of the election. Thus, the COMELEC
scheduled a special election in clustered Precinct No. 25A/26A on July 28, 2004.
ISSUE: W/N Comelec gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of the case.
RULING: NO. Sec. 227 of the Omnibus Election Code vested Comelec with the power of
direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers. When it took cognizance of the
allegations of electoral fraud and violence in the second special elections held in Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao, it did not abuse its discretion in annulling the proceedings of Special Public
Hearing conducted on May 14, 2006 and set aside the proclamation of petitioner.
8.Aratuc vs. COMELEC

Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari where Aratuc et al. sought the suspension of the canvass
then being undertaken by respondent Board in Cotabato city. A Supervening Panel
headed by COMELEC Hon. Venancio S. Duque had conducted the
hearings of the complaints of the petitioners therein of the alleged irregularities in the
election records of the mentioned provinces. The Regional Board of Canvassers
issued a resolution, over the objection of the Konsensiya ng Bayan candidates, declaring all
the eight Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan candidates elected. Appeal was taken by the KB
candidates to the Comelec. The Comelec issued its questioned
resolution declaring seven KBL candidates and one KB candidate as having obtained the first
eight places, and ordering the Regional Board of Canvassers to
proclaim the winning candidates.

Issue: W/N the COMELEC committed GADALEJ

Ruling: No.
As the Superior administrative body having control over boards of canvassers, the
Comelec may review the actuations of the Regional Board of Canvassers, such as by
extending its inquiry beyond the election records of the voting centers in questions.
6

The fact of the matter is that the authority of the Commission in reviewing actuations of board
of canvassers does not spring from any appellate jurisdiction conferred by any specific
provision of law, for there is none such provision anywhere in the Election Code, but from the
plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it by the above-quoted
provisions of Section 168.

10. Quilala vs. Comelec 188 SCRA 502 (1990)

Facts: Petitioner Cirilo M. Quilala was KBL candidate for Mayor in the Municipality of
Currimao, Ilocos Norte while private respondent Wilbur Go was the official administration
candidate for the same position in Jan. 18, 1988 elections.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers completed its canvass in the afternoon of Jan. 19, and
immediately thereafter proclaimed the winning candidate in the person of Wilbur C. Go.
On Jan. 21, 1988, petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC principally anchored on
allegation that petitioner was not represented in the canvassing of election returns.
Respondent COMELEC issued its decision dismissing the petition and confirming the validity
of the proceeding of the Board of Canvassers.
Petitioner filed a case for annulment of the proclamation on the ground that he was not
represented when the canvass of the election returns was resumed, as he was not notified of
the time and place of the resetting of the canvassing.
Issue: Whether or not the canvass is valid.
Held: Petitioner may not claim ignorance of the aforesaid provisions as these are matters
directly affecting his political fortune. Consequently, with or without notice, it was the duty of
the petitioner and all candidates for that matter to assign their watchers or representatives in
the counting of votes and canvassing of election returns in order to insure the sanctity and
purity of the ballots.
Book: With or without notice, it was the duty of the petitioner and all candidates for that
matter to assign their watchers or representatives in the counting of votes and canvassing of
election returns in order to insure the security and purity of the ballots. It is a matter of judicial
notice that the candidates, their representatives and watchers station or deploys themselves
among the various voting through the counting of votes in the voting centers until the
completion of the canvassing of election returns so that they can make of record in the
minutes of the election committee and canvassing board their objections or remarks
regarding the conduct of the proceedings.

11. SARIO MALINIAS vs COMELEC G.R. No. 146943 October 4, 2002

FACTS:
Petitioner Malinias iled a complaint with the COMELEC's Law Department for violation of
Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646 against the provincial election supervisor and the board of
canvassers in the Mountain Province alleging that a police checkpoint at Nacagang,
Sabangan, Mountain Province blocked their supporters who were on their way to Bontoc, and
prevented them from proceeding to the Provincial Capitol Building. Malinias and Pilando
further alleged that policemen, upon orders of private respondents, prevented their
supporters, who nevertheless eventually reached the Provincial Capitol Building, from
entering the capitol grounds.
7

ISSUE: WON the election supervisor and board canvassers violated Sec 25 of RA No. 6646
which provides the right to be present and to counsel during canvass?

HELD:
No. In the present case, Malinias miserably failed to substantiate his claim that private
respondents denied him his right to be present during the canvassing. There was even no
showing that Malinias was within the vicinity of the Provincial Capitol Building or that private
respondents prevented him from entering the canvassing room. R.A. No. 6646 does not
punish a violation of Section 25 of the law as a criminal election offense. Section 25 merely
highlights one of the recognized rights of a political party or candidate during elections, aimed
at providing an effective safeguard against fraud or irregularities in the canvassing of election
returns. Section 2719 of R.A. No. 6646, which specifies the election offenses punishable
under this law, does not include Section 25.
12. SANCHEZ vs COMELEC
GR. No. L-78461; August 12, 1987

FACTS: After the first senatorial elections under the 1987 Constitution, Sanchez, a candidate
therein, filed before the COMELEC to conduct a recount of the votes. Allegedly, votes
intended for him, which were merely written as “Sanchez”, were considered as stray votes
because of the sameness of his last name to that of Gil Sanchez – another candidate who
was later disqualified. Sanchez was then running as the 25th in ranking among the candidates
(Sanchez vs COMELEC). He filed an urgent petition to re-count or re-appreciate those votes
in favor of him. Meanwhile, Rasul and Enrile, ranked 23rd and 24threspectively intervened and
filed before the COMELEC requesting the latter to proclaim them as the duly elected senators
elect completing the 24 senators-elect. They moved to dismiss Sanchez’ petition. Rasul’s
lead over Enrile is just about 1,910 and there were just 3 municipalities left to be counted
(31,000 votes). Enrile’s lead over Sanchez was 73,034 votes. COMELEC then
denied Sanchez’ petition. Subsequently, COMELEC declared Rasul as the 23rd senator-elect
but there was still a mathematical possibility that Enrile can overtake Rasul. Enrile opposed
Rasul’s proclamation as the 23rd senator-elect and he averred that COMELEC should
complete the canvassing first before declaring who placed 23rd and 24th respectively (Enrile
vs COMELEC and Razul). COMELEC justified Rasul’s proclamation on the ground that since
the remaining 3 municipalities is in Muslim Mindanao, and that Rasul is a Muslim, there is a
logical presumption that majority of the votes therefrom would be for Rasul. While this was
foregoing, COMELEC, by a vote of 5 to 2 reversed its earlier decision in denyingSanchez’
petition and it granted Sanchez’ request for recount and re-appreciation. Enrile then filed a
petition against COMELEC and Sanchez (Enrile vs COMELEC and Sanchez). Enrile alleged
that the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in granting Sanchez’ petition for recount and
abused its discretion in refusing to proclaim him (Enrile) on the ground that Sanchez’ petition
for recount is not a pre-proclamation controversy which involves issues affecting extrinsic
validity, and not intrinsic validity, of the said election returns and that Rasul’s lead over him
was only 1,916 votes while his lead overSanchez was 73,034 votes, with only 31,000 votes
remaining to be canvassed in 3 towns, could not offset his lead over Sanchez.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sanchez’ petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of ballots filed
with the Comelec may be considered a summary pre-proclamation controversy falling
within the Comelec’s exclusive jurisdiction (Sec. 242, Omnibus Election Code) or properly
pertains to the realm of election protest falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal as “the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualification of the [Senate's] members.” (Art. VI, Sec. 17, Constitution).

HELD: NO. Sanchez’ petition must fail. The appreciation of the ballots cast in the precincts is
not a "proceeding of the board of canvassers" for purposes of preproclamation proceedings
8

under section 241, Omnibus Election Code, but of the boards of election inspectors who are
called upon to count and appreciate the votes in accordance with the rules of appreciation
provided in section 211, Omnibus Election Code. Otherwise stated, the appreciation of ballots
is not part of the proceedings of the board of canvassers. The function of ballots appreciation
is performed by the boards of election inspectors at the precinct level.

13. Mutuc vs. Comelec

Facts:
In counting the votes from the various precincts in Makati, the municipal board of
canvassers was confronted with an election return which, while listing the names of the
candidates, contained no entry at all of the votes cast for them. This was the return from
precinct 124. As a result, counting had to be stopped.
The board asked the Comelec on November 24 to be allowed to proceed with the
proclamation of the winning candidates, disregarding for this purpose the return from precinct
124, on the claim that as the Comelec's copy of the return showed that there was a total of
only 263 votes cast in that precinct, the results of that election would not materially be
changed by their inclusion.
The Comelec granted the request on the same day and set the proclamation of the winners
for the following day, November 25. Accordingly, the board of canvassers reconvened and
proclaimed the respondents elected to the various elective offices in Makati on the basis of
the canvass it had so far made, minus the return from precinct 124.
Issue: Whether or not the proclamation is void for failing to include in the canvass returns
from precint 124?
Ruling:
Yes. It is now a settled doctrine that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and
cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. Indeed, it is the ministerial duty of a
municipal canvassing body to count the votes cast "in the same manner as hereinbefore
provided for the provincial board of canvassers," which means to say to count all the votes
cast. Why must all the votes be counted when there is a need to finish the canvass on
time so that proclamation can be made before the beginning of the term of office?
Because to disregard returns is in effect to disfranchise the voters.
14. Hontiveros v. Altavas 24 Phil 632 (Canvass of all votes essential)
Facts Plaintiff and the defendant herein were each candidates for governor of the Province of
Capiz. It was found that the defendant, Jose Altavas, had been elected governor by a
majority of votes, and the plaintiff, Ramon Hontiveros, presented a protest and asked that the
election returns from the various municipalities be revised. In accordance with section 27 of
Act No. 1582, he presented a bond guaranteeing the payment of all of the costs which might
be incurred by reason of his protest. The said returns were recanvassed. The votes were
recounted and it was that Ramon Hontiveros had received a majority of the votes. An appeal
was taken to the Supreme Court where all of the questions were considered and the decision
of the lower court was revoked "without costs to either party in this court." The cause was
returned to the lower court, and later the motion in the present case was presented.
Issue: W/N the board is authorized to declare the election of any candidates prior to the
completion of its canvass of all the votes.
9

Held: No. Section 25 requires that the provincial board of canvassers make (a) one statement
of all votes cast for each candidate to the Assembly in each Assembly district, and (b) one
statement of all votes cast for provincial officers, before the announcement of any of the
returns. The board is not authorized to declare the election of any of the candidates
prior to the completion of its canvass of all the votes.
The board must (1) make a canvass of all the votes cast in the province, (2) make one
statement of all votes cast for each candidate for the Assembly in each Assembly district, (3)
make one statement of all the votes cast for provincial officers, and (4) upon the completion of
this work determine who was elected to each office.
What the board actually did was (1) make a canvass of all the votes for members of the
Assembly and for provincial governor, (2) make one statement of all the votes cast for each
candidate for the Assembly in each Assembly district, (3) make a statement of all the votes
cast for provincial governor, and (4) upon the completion of this work determine who was
elected as delegate to the Assembly from each Assembly district, and which the .. is elected
provincial governor. It had not terminated its duty as a board of canvassers. The task of
compiling the votes cast for the office of third member of the provincial board and
announcing the result was still to be undertaken. In announcing the returns for some of
the offices before the two statements required of it were made, the board departed from the
letter and the spirit of the law. It is evident that the provincial board of canvassers had not
completed its canvass.
16. Sema v. COMELEC G.R. No. 134163-4 Dec. 13, 2000 (Canvass of all votes essential)
Facts: Muslimin Sema and Rodel Maara were two (2) of the eleven (11) candidates for city
mayor of Cotabato City. Sema filed a petition for exclusion of 30 election returns with the
City Board of Canvassers (CBC) on the ground that the same were, among others,
allegedly tampered with or falsified. Initially, CBC denied the petitions for exclusion of the 28
out of the 30 alleged election returns, but subsequently CBC issued another order, this time
granting Semas petition for exclusion of the thirty (30) election returns.
Upon the resumption of the canvassing, Maara called the CBCs attention to the fact that it
had already ruled upon and dismissed the petition for exclusion of Sema in its prior Orders,
and such orders had already become final and executory because no appeal was taken
therefrom. But the CBC ignored the manifestation, explaining that the previous orders did not
include Semas objections.
Sema and the other winning candidates for the City of Cotabato were proclaimed by the CBC.
Notably, said proclamation was based on the canvass with the alleged thirty (30) returns
having been excluded. Maara appealed to the COMELEC, anchoring his arguments on the
ground that the exclusion of the 30 election returns were illegal, considering that the CBC had
already dismissed the petition for exclusion.
Issue: Was the proclamation of Sema valid?
Held: No. Accordingly, the proclamation of Sema is null and void as it was based on an
incomplete canvass. An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a
valid proclamation. A proclamation made where the contested returns set aside will
affect the result of the election and the board of canvassers proceeded to proclaim
without the authority from the COMELEC is null and void.
It may be recalled that on May 22, 1998, the CBC issued an order dismissing 13 of the 30
petitions for exclusion filed by Sema. On May 23, 1998, the CBC issued another order
10

dismissing 15 of the remaining 17 petitions for exclusion he filed. He did not appeal from
these orders within the reglementary period, consequently, the same (first Order) already
became final.
Manara vs Comelec

Facts: Petitions for exclusion of 30 election returns were filed by Sema, who is running as
mayor for the city of Cotabato. The City Board of Canvassers(CBC) ruled against the
exclusion of 28 election returns, which, Sema did not appeal. Subsequently, the CBC issued
another order to grant Sema’s petition and exclude all 30 election returns, which resulted to
his win. Manara, the losing candidate against Sema, filed a petition questioning the validity of
the proclamation of Sema contending that he received the order of exclusion of election
returns on the same date that the CBC pronounced its completion of canvass, and when he
gave his notice of appeal, the CBC failed to rule over it until it adjourned on the same date.
Manara also claims that the CBC was without authority when it further issued an order of
exclusion of said returns despite the issuance of the prior order which, due to no appeal from
Sema, has become final and executory.

Issue: Won the proclamation of Sema as Mayor of Cotabato valid

Held: No. A proclamation made where the contested returns that were set aside will affect the
result of the election and where the board of canvassers proceeded to proclaim without
authority from the Comelec is null and void. The proclamation of Sema was based on an
incomplete canvass which is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation.
Trinidad v COMELEC 320 SCRA 836 (1990)

Facts:
Petitioner Wenceslao Trinidad and private respondent Jovito Claudio both ran for the
position of mayor of Pasay City in the May 11, 1998 elections. Claudio was proclaimed by the
Pasay City Board of Canvassers as the elected mayor with 55,325 votes over petitioner
Trinidad’s 55,097 votes.
On May 23, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for correction of manifest errors and annulment
of proclamation claiming that he would obtain a plurality of 54,916 votes as against private
respondents 54,857.
On June 8, 1998, petitioner filed a supplemental petition averring an error in the
Summary of Statement of Votes for District II of Pasay City (No. 094338). It was alleged that
in the said summary of statement of votes Trinidad gathered 1009 votes per Statement of
Vote (SOV) No. 094284. But in SOV No. 094284 it was reflected therein that he obtained
1099 votes.
The COMELEC ordered the Pasay City Board of Canvassers to re-convene and
re-canvass the Election Returns correcting the manifest clerical errors therein and also
correcting the discrepancy between SOV 094284 and SOV 094338, as above indicated. The
Commission also dismissed the petition for annulment of proclamation of respondents Jovito
O. Claudio … and the Supplemental Petition for correction of the Summary of the Statement of
Votes.

Issues:
PROCEDURAL: Whether or not the petitions were filed within the reglementary period
SUBSTANTIVE: Whether or not the supplemental petition is a petition for annulment or a
petition for the correction of manifest errors?

Rulings:

PROCEDURAL: A pre-proclamation controversy praying for the correction of manifest errors

must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation while an election
11

protest must be filed within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the election. At
this juncture, we have to point out that the said Manifestation and Comments (petitions),
whether it be considered a pre-proclamation controversy or an election protest, was filed
beyond the reglementary period to do so. BUT! The court finds a reason to suspend the
COMELEC rules of procedure in order to resolve the issues raised in the Supplemental
Petition.

SUBSTANTIVE: Contrary to what the COMELEC perceived, the Supplemental Petition is a

petition for correction of manifest errors, not a petition for declaration of nullity.
Some of the definitions given for the word manifest are that it is evident to the eye and
understanding; visible to the eye; that which is open, palpable, uncontrovertible; needing no
evidence to make it more clear; not obscure or hidden. A manifest clerical error is ... one that is
visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to the eye
of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which may, by evidence dehors
the record be shown to have been committed.
Moreover, a supplemental petition merely supplies deficiencies in aid of the original
petition. It cannot be used to introduce a new matter or a new cause of action or defense
which is precisely what the petitioner had done in the instant case. It was a prohibited
pleading.

Llana v COMELEC
Facts: PBOC proclaimed the winning candidates including petitioner. Private respondent filed
an election protest with the electoral contest adjudication department of the respondent.
Respondent first division granted private respondent petition for correction of manifest error
and more.
Petitioner maintains that respondent is without jurisdiction to treat private respondent’s
petition for electoral protest as a case for correction of manifest error.
Issue: did the respondent 1st division committed error?
Ruling: NO.
The prayer in a pleading does not constitute an essential part of the allegation determinative
of the jurisdiction of a court. The COMELEC’s resolution ordering the necessary
correction of the statement of votes to reflect the true will of the people is in order.

20. Counting of votes of deceased candidate

235 SCRA 436 Aug. 17, 1994
Ottomama Benito v. COMELEC
FACTS: Benito and the deceased Ogca were mayoral candidates in the municipality of
Balabagan, Lanao del Sur. COMELEC Deputy, Mikunug filed a petition for disqualification
against Ogca for striking him on the head with a billiard cue when he refused to help Ogca
with his re-election. The matter was referred to the Law Dept. for investigation and eventually,
it was found that there was a prima facie case against Ogca. However, Ogca was killed in an
ambush. Unaware of Ogca’s death, Benito filed a motion to suspend Ogca’s proclamation,
stating that there was strong evidence against him in the disqualification case. COMELEC
12

dismissed, because Ogca’s proclamation was required in order for the Vice Mayor to succeed
Ogca.
MBC excluded Ogca’s name in the tallying. And when directed by the COMELEC to proclaim
the candidate with the most votes, MBC proclaimed Benito as the winner. Benito took his
oath of office. COMELEC issued a resolution directing MBC to declare the nullity of Benito’s
proclamation and to proclaim Ogca as the winner, but with indication that he already died.
[Ogca had more votes.]
ISSUE: WON Benito’s proclamation is valid considering he is the candidate with the 2nd
highest number of votes.
HELD: No. The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes dies or is
later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not
necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be
declared the winner of the elective office. Allowing the defeated and repudiated candidate to
take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the
electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of
democracy and the people's right to elect officials of their choice.
21. City Board of Canvassers, Tacloban City vs. Moscoso
Facts: Respondent Jose Hidalgo was a candidate for the office of city councilor of Tacloban.
Hidalgo filed a petition in the court of First Instance of Leyte, presided by respondent Judge
Segundo Moscoso, praying that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the board
of canvassers from canvassing the votes cut in the city and from proclaiming the elected city
officials, and that, after hearing, the injunction be made permanent. The petition alleged
several grounds, to wit: that the city treasurer was not authorized to convene the board of
canvassers, being neither the chairman nor a member thereof; that the members of the board
were not duly qualified to act as such; and that the board could not canvass the votes in part,
that is, without also including the votes cast for the offices of Governor, Vice-Governor and
members of the Provincial Board.
The city board of canvassers, petitioner here, moved reconsider the order of December 3,
1959, and after motion was denied, commenced the instant proceeding certiorari and
prohibition to review and annul the actions of respondent Judge and to restrain him from
further taking cognizance of the action.
Issue: W/N there suspension of the canvass and proclamation is valid
Ruling: No. Where the petition does not indicate that the election returns have been falsified
after they had left the hands of the election inspectors or that such returns are not genuine,
the Supreme Court cannot give its stamp of approval to suspend canvass and proclamation.
22. Purisima v Salanga
Facts:
Petitioner Purisima and respondent Cordero are candidates for any of the three
offices of Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur. During the canvass, petitioner notes that
the returns from precints (41) in all, showed on their face that the words and figures for
Gregorio Cordero had been “obviously and manifestly erased” and superimposed with other
words and figures.
Purisima requested for suspension of the canvass, which the board denied upon the
ground that it was not yet ascertainable whether the discrepancies would materially affect the
13

result. After the canvass, Cordero got the last spot with 1, 857 votes more than Purisima. The
petitioner again called the attention to the erasures which the board again denied and
proceeded with the proclamation of Cordero. Purisima went to the COMELEC to annul the
canvass and proclamation to which the Commission responded by passing a resolution
annulling the canvass and proclamation.

Issue:
Whether or not erasures and superimpositions on election returns warrants suspension
of the canvass
Ruling:
Yes. It is the duty of the board of canvassers to suspend the canvass in case of patent
irregularity in the election returns. In the present case, there were patent erasures and
superimpositions, in words and figures on the face of the election returns submitted to the
board of canvassers. It was therefore imperative for the board to stop the canvass so as to
allow time for verification of authentic copies and recourse to the courts. A canvass or
proclamation made notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting proper remedies, is
null and void. In fact, as stated, the Commission on Elections declared the canvass and
proclamation, made by respondent provincial board of canvassers, null and void.

Annulment of Proclamation

FLAUTA v. COMELEC

Facts:

Petitioner Rafael Flauta, Jr. was proclaimed mayor of the municipality of Senator
Ninoy Aquino in Sultan Kudarat. The herein respondent Board of Canvassers (BOC).

The Chairman and the Secretary of the Board of Canvassers took away with them the
Statements of Votes pertaining to 81 out of the 106 precincts of the municipality or more than
75% of total number of precincts,

Issue:

WON it was proper to proclaim Flauta as mayor considering the aforementioned

circumstances.

Ruling:

NO.

It was a patent error to conduct a proclamation of supposed winning candidates

following such highly anomalous circumstance.
14

The statutory power of supervision and control by the COMELEC over the boards of
canvassers includes the power to revise or reverse the action of the boards, as well as to do
what the boards should have done. Such power includes the authority to initiate motu propio
such steps or actions as may be required pursuant to law, like reviewing the actions of the
board; conducting an inquiry affecting the genuineness of election returns beyond the
election records of the polling places involved; annulling canvass or proclamations based on
incomplete returns or on incorrect or tampered returns; invalidating a canvass or
proclamation made in an unauthorized meeting of the board of canvassers either because it
lacked a quorum or because the board did not meet at all; or requiring the board to convene.

25. Sandoval v. COMELEC

Facts:
Petitioner and private respondent herein were candidates for the congressional seat for the
Malabon-Navotas legislative district during the elections held on May 11, 1998. After
canvassing the Municipal certificates of canvass, the district board of canvassers proclaimed
petitioner the duly elected congressman. The petitioner took his oath of office on the same
day. Private respondent filed with the Comelec a petition, which sought the annulment of
petitioner’s proclamation. He alleged that there was a verbal order from the Comelec
Chairman to suspend the canvass and proclamation of the winning candidate, but the district
board of canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclamation despite the said verbal
order. He also alleged that there was non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass,
which would result in an incomplete canvass of the election returns. The Comelec en banc
issued an order setting aside the proclamation of petitioner and ruled the proclamation as
void.
Issue: WON notice and hearing is required for annulment of proclamation.
Ruling:
Yes. The annulment of proclamation may be initiated at the initiative of the Comelec or by
written petition, but in either case, notice and hearing is required. The hearing must be held
before the Comelec rules on the petition. Where the Comelec first issued an order annulling
the proclamation of petitioner and then set the date of the hearing, the order is void.

26. Antonio vs Comelec

32 SCRA319 (1970)

FACTS:
Independent candidate Rufino Antonio, Jr. Congressman-elect for the lone congressional
district of Batanes was proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers. Liberal Party and
Nacionalista Party official candidates filed independent petitions with Comelec contesting the
proclamation of Antonio on the basis of terrorism practiced by armed men brought to Batanes
by candidate Antonio.
15

Mr. Antonio involved the famous “Suzuki Boys” who were involved in the elections in Batanes
in 1969. This became a celebrated case that grabbed the headlines from November 1969
and for several months thererafter. Pres. Marcos even “made drama” by ordering a sea and
air blockade of Batanes to interdict the Suzuki boys, but who were smarter than he thought
and had left the islands immediately after the elections.
Mr. Antonio had been proclaimed and took the oath as member of the Congress. When he
went to the House of Representatives to ask for a room assignment, he was told that the
Comelec had suspended the effects of his proclamation. The Comelec had done so without
prior notice and hearing. The Comelec then proceeded to hear and decide the case for
alleged terrorism against Antonio, even though the defeated candidate had filed an election
protest with the HRET. The father of Antonio and Comelec Chairman Jaime Ferrer were
political enemies, the elder Antonio having defeated Ferrer for a seat in Congress. But Ferrer
did not recuse himself, but actively participated in the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not notice and hearing are required before annulling a proclamation.
RULING:
Yes. The requirement of notice and hearing before annulling a proclamation or suspending
the effects thereof is a sound rule of long-standing. The Comelec ignored this rule. Hence,
the Supreme Court sanctioned it.

27. Sandoval vs Comelec

Facts: Petitioner and private respondent Canuto Senen Greta were candidates for the
congressional seat for the Malabon-Navotas legislative district during the elections held on
May 11, 1998. After canvassing the municipal certificates of canvass, the district board of
canvassers proclaimed Sandoval as the duly elected congressman. Private respondent filed
with the Comelec a petition, which sought the annulment of petitioner's proclamation. He
alleged that there was a verbal order from the Comelec Chairman to suspend the canvass and
proclamation of the winning candidate, but the district board of canvassers proceeded with the
canvass and proclamation despite the said verbal order. He also alleged that there was
non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, which would result in an incomplete
canvass of the election returns. The Comelec en banc, within a few days and without prior
notice and hearing, annulled the proclamation after Congressman Sandoval had taken the
oath, assumed office, and obtained a room assignment in Congress. Hence, this petition for
certiorari seeking the annulment and reversal of the Comelec order.
Issue: WON the order to set aside the proclamation of petitioner is valid.
Ruling: No. It’s invalid having been rendered without due process of law. Procedural due
process demands prior notice and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also necessary that the
tribunal show substantial evidence to support its ruling. In other words, due process requires
that a party be given an opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and
that the evidence should be considered in the adjudication of the case. The facts show that
COMELEC set aside the proclamation of petitioner , without the benefit of prior notice and
hearing and it rendered the questioned order based solely on private respondent's allegations.
Petitioner cannot be deprived of his office without due process of law. Although public office
is not property under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, and one cannot
acquire a vested right to public office, it is, nevertheless, a protected right.
16

Note: The book mentioned Sandoval instituted an impeachment proceeding against certain
Comelec members for ignorance of the law and other reasons, but President Estrada
reportedly prevailed on the father of Sandoval not to pursue it since he wanted to appoint
those Comelec members to the Supreme Court.

28. LOZANIDA VS COMELEC 1999

FACTS

Romeo Lonzanida was duly elected and served 3 consecutive terms as municipal mayor of
San Antonio, Zambales but his third was contested which in a decision declared a failure of
elections and the result of the election as null and void.

Lonzanida thereafter again filed his certificate of candidacy for mayo. COMELEC disqualified
him upon a finding that he had served three consecutive terms as mayor.

ISSUE
whether petitioner Lonzanida’s 3rd assumption of office as mayor may be considered as
service of one full term for the purpose of applying the three-term limit for elective local
government officials.

RULING: NO
A proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all and while a
proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the proclamation of the
Board of Canvassers he is only a presumptive winner who assumes office subject to
the final outcome of the election protest.

This Court held that two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: 1)
that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local
government post and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.

The two requisites for the application of the three term rule are absent. the petitioner did not
fully serve the 3rd mayoral term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of office. After a
re-appreciation and revision of the contested ballots the COMELEC itself declared by final
judgment that petitioner Lonzanida lost and his previous proclamation as winner was
declared null and void.
17

29. PANTALEON PACIS, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ATANACIO

NEGRE and MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN,
respondents. G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968

Facts: Primarily to be tested in this is the validity of the last canvass in Precincts 19, 21 and
22 and the subsequent proclamation of Atanacio Negre as Mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan.The returns in the above-mentioned precincts were contested as a result of the
shooting incident on November 15, 1967 in the vicinity of polling places Nos. 18, 19, 21 and
22 located in the school building at Namuac barrio where then Vice Mayor Manuel Franco
was killed. The inspectors had fled and left open and unsealed some of the election
documents, ballot boxes and election paraphernalia. It was discovered the following day that
some election returns were either tampered or sealed or placed inside the envelopes, and the
tally sheets and tally board were all missing.

Negre filed in court an election protest after he had petitioned the comelec to suspend or
annul the canvass of the votes and or annul the election returns. The petition sought to
impugn not necessarily the election of his opponent as mayor but the election returns and
ballots cast in the questioned precincts and the proclamation of Pacis and also sougt to
enjoin Pacis from assuming office.
Issue: Whether or not thejudicial recount proper when all the copies of election returns are
tampered?

Ruling: No. Nothing in the election code would give the court power to compel the board of
canvassers to file a petition for recount. It would seem thus that such a petition for recount
should be a voluntary act. For indeed, Section 163 of the Code says that such a petition may
be submitted either by the board or by "any candidate affected."

But we are confronted with tampered returns from Precincts 19 and 21. Petitioner himself
here asked that the returns for these two precincts be declared "as falsified". As to Precinct
22, we have said, and so did Comelec say, that the return for that precinct is no return at all;
all the copies thereof were made at the point of a gun. These are the circumstances which
would deter us from stamping our approval to the petition under Section 163 of the Code.
Because, there is no discrepancy between the different copies of the election returns.

30. Miralles vs. Gariando, 2 SCRA 63, No. L-16584 May 23, 1961
Judicial Interference
Miralles, et al., were candidates for the offices of mayor, vice-mayor, and councilors.
Francisco G. Gariando et al., were also candidates for the same municipal offices in the same
elections who allegedly failed to file their certificates of candidacy as required by law. They
allegedly filed with the municipal secretary merely unsigned mimeographed copies of their
supposed certificates of candidacy.
Miralles et al., filed with the Court of First Instance a petition for prohibition and mandamus
praying that the municipal board of canvassers of Alangalang be prohibited from making a
canvass of the election held in connection with the municipal officials while at the same lime
praying that said board be ordered to proclaim petitioners as the duly elected officials of said
18

municipality being the only unopposed candidate for the offices specified in their certificates
of candidacy and that, pending action on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
restraining the municipal board of canvassers from making the canvass of the election for
said offices as required by law.
Issue: Whether or not the courts may intervene the duty of the MBC
Ruling: No. It being the imperative duty of the board of canvassers to meet immediately after
the election, the courts cannot intervene to prevent that board from fulfilling such duty, except
only in those cases that are expressly provided for in Section 163 of the Revised Election
Code.
Sec. 163. When statements of a precinct are contradictory. - In case it appears to the
provincial board of canvassers that another copy or other authentic copies of the statement
from an election precinct submitted to the board given to a candidate a different number of
votes and the difference affects the result of the election, the Court of First Instance of the
province, upon motion of the board or of any candidate affected, may proceed to recount the
votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose of determining which is the true statement or
which is the true result of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for the office in question.
Notice of such proceeding shall be given to all candidates affected. (C.A. 357-158)

31. Borja vs Comelec

Jose Capco Jr. was elected vice-mayor of Pateros in the 1988 election. On September 2,
1989 he became mayor, by operation of law upon the death of the incumbent mayor. He was
elected for mayor in the 1992 election and was re-elected in the 1995 election. He filed a
certificate of candidacy for mayor relative to the upcoming 1998 elections. Petitioner who was
a candidate for mayor sought the disqualification of Jose Capco Jr. Capco got the majority of
votes and was proclaimed as mayor of Pateros.

Issue: W/N the proclamation was valid.

Ruling: Yes.

A proclamation enjoys the presumption of regularity and validity. To destroy the presumption,
the challenger must convincingly show that his opponent’s victory was procured through extra
legal means.

This he tried to do by alleging matters which he thought constituted failure of election (lack of
notice of the date and time of canvass, fraud, violence, terrorism, etc… These grounds,
however, are only in an election contest but not in a petition to nullify a proclamation.
PEOPLE VS. BASILLA, 179 SCRA 87, G.R. NOS. 83938-40 NOVEMBER 6, 1989
FACTS: As an aftermath of the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, complaints for
violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code were filed with the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Masbate against the private respondents as follows:
 by Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Governor, against the
spouses Jaime and Adoracion Tayong—for vote-buying;
 by Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot—also for vote buying; and
 by PC/Sgt. Arturo Rebaya against Melchor Yanson—for carrying of deadly weapon.
19

In 3 separate orders, all dated 6 October 1987, and identical in tenor save for the names of
the accused respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio dismissed the 3 informations filed
by the Provincial Fiscal.
The instant Petition for Review assails the 3 orders dismissing the 3 criminal informations
against the private respondents, as constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction. The Petition argues principally that the COMELEC has authority to deputize
the chief state prosecutors, provincial and city fiscals and their assistants, under Sections 2 (4)
and (8), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, and that the Comelec did deputize such
prosecution officers to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints for alleged violation of
election laws and to institute criminal informations therefor.
The private respondents contended that the deputation by the Comelec of the prosecuting
arms of the Government would be warranted only before the elections and only to ensure free,
honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the peace-keeping
functions of policemen, lack substance.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC may avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
the Government
RULING: YES. As provided under Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution the
COMELEC can “Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it
has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.”
There is nothing in the said provision of the Constitution which requires such a pinched and
niggardly interpretation of the authority of the Comelec to appoint as its deputies, officials or
employees of other agencies and instrumentalities of the government.
33. MALINIAS v COMELEC
Petitioner Malinias was a candidate for governor whereas Pilando was a candidate for
congressional representative of Mountain Province. They filed a complaint with the
COMELEC’s Law Department for violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646, and Sections 232
and 261 (i) of B.P. Blg. 881, against Victor Dominguez, Teofilo Corpuz, Anacleto Tangilag,
Thomas Bayugan, Jose Bagwan who was then Provincial Election Supervisor, and the
members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers. Victor Dominguez was then the incumbent
Congressman of Poblacion, Sabangan, Mountain Province. Teofilo Corpuz was then the
Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police in Mountain Province while Anacleto
Tangilag was then the Chief of Police of the Municipality of Bontoc, Mountain Province.
Malinias and Pilando alleged that a police checkpoint blocked their supporters and prevented
them from proceeding to the Provincial Capitol Building.
ISSUE: W/N COMELEC may recommend to the proper authority the suspension or removal
of private respondents from office.
RULING: YES. The Comelec may recommend to the proper authority the suspension or
removal of any government official or employee found guilty of violation of election laws or
failure to comply with Comelec orders or rulings.
(But in this case, COMELEC dismissed complaint of Malinias and Pilando for insufficient
evidence, and committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction)
20

34. Balindong vs Comelec

Facts:
Parties in the case are mayoralty candidates in Malamang, Lanao del sur. On first
canvassing, Anwar won the race. Aklima filed an action for the exclusion of the ballot boxes in
38 precincts. When the MBC reconvened, Atty. Badelles Macaan, acting as counsel for
Aklima, filed an objection to the inclusion of all the election returns, invoking as grounds the
illegal proceedings of the Board of Canvassers and violation of Section 25(l) of COMELEC
Resolution No. 3848.

Aklima filed another petition, praying that the MBC be ordered to reconvene and
re-canvass, this time, the election returns in 38 precincts only, without stating, however, their
specific precinct numbers; the proceedings of the MBC declared illegal; the municipal
canvass transferred to a safer venue; and, the proclamation of any municipal candidate
suspended or annulled. In his Amended Petition, Aklima further whittled down the number of
contested election returns, this time seeking the annulment of the election results in five (5)
precincts only, namely: Precincts 18A, 80A, 127A/128A, 133A/134A and 47A/48A. According
to him, the election returns in the five (5) precincts were products of fraud, forgery, terrorism
and other forms of irregularities. He likewise sought the annulment of the proclamation of
Anwar.

Issue: W/N Comelec en banc has jurisdiction over this case

Ruling:

No.

Under R.A. No. 7166, matters raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the OEC in
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the
election returns shall be brought in the first instance before the board of canvassers
only. In the case at bar, at no instance did Aklima claim that he specifically objected to the
inclusion of the returns for Precincts 80A and 47A/48A at the MBC level. Neither did he even
dispute Anwars assertion that he failed to make such claim before the canvassing board. In
fact, it was only in the amended petition that he alleged that the election returns for the two (2)
precincts were falsified. Thus, it was beyond the authority of the COMELEC to entertain the
belated objections to the election returns.

35. Batterina vs Comelec

Facts:

Petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina was a candidate for Governor of Ilocos Sur in the
special local elections held on 25 January 1988. The other petitioners were candidates for
Vice Governor and Provincial Board Members, in the same local elections. In the course of
the canvass proceedings, verbal objections were raised by petitioners to certain election
returns based on the grounds mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236, in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt and custody of the election returns. The objections were
aimed at excluding the election returns from the canvass. Petitioners submitted to the
BOARD their objections in written form within twenty four (24) hours from the time the verbal
objections were made as required in Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code. On
September 6, 1990, the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution affirming the different dated
21

Resolutions proclaiming respondents Evaristo C. Singson as the duly elected Governor of

Ilocos Sur, Mariano M. Tajon as Vice Governor and the others as Members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province.

Issue:

Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its en banc
resolution

Held:

No.

The BOC can make no proclamation without authorization from the COMELEC until after the
latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. It is not enough
that the election returns are objected to. Such allegation, absent any evidence, does
not operate to exclude the same from the canvassing. Moreover, formal defects alone
are not sufficient to establish palpable irregularity that would make its authenticity
questionable. COMELEC cannot be faulted for dismissing their petitions without
hearing. Canvass proceedings are administrative and summary in nature.

(BOOK) The grounds raised by petitioners for the exclusion of the election returns
from the canvassing, as stated in their "Appeal Memorandum" before the COMELEC (Rollo,
p. 92), refer to the failure to close the entries with the signatures of the election inspectors;
lack of inner and outer paper seals; canvassing by the BOARD of copies not intended for it;
lack of time and date of receipt by the BOARD of election returns; lack of signatures of
petitioners' watchers; and lack of authority of the person receiving the election returns.

(BOOK) While the aforesaid grounds may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules
governing the preparation and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not
necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the subject election returns as to
warrant their exclusion from the canvassing. The grounds for objection to the election returns
made by petitioners are clearly defects in form insufficient to support a conclusion that the
election returns were tampered with or spurious. "A conclusion that an election return is
obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass
must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof

The BOC can make no proclamation without authorization from the COMELEC until after the
latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. It is not enough
that the election returns are objected to. Such allegation, absent any evidence, does not
operate to exclude the same from the canvassing. Moreover, formal defects alone are not
sufficient to establish palpable irregularity that would make its authenticity questionable.
COMELEC cannot be faulted for dismissing their petitions without hearing. Canvass
proceedings are administrative and summary in nature

36. Ocampo vs Comelec GR No. 136282, February 15, 2000

Facts: Francisco D. Ocampo and Arthur L. Salalila were candidates for Mayor in the
Municipality of Sta. Rita, Province of Pampanga during the May 1998 elections. There were
22

78 precincts in said municipality. During the canvassing of the election returns petitioner
moved for the exclusion of the election returns in 8 precincts from Barangay Basilia
considering that the turnout of votes was allegedly lopsided against his favor.
The grounds for the exclusion of the election returns in the aforementioned precincts were: i.e:
(1) that the same were obviously manufactured; (2) they were defective for they contained no
data on the number of registered votes in the precinct, actual number of votes cast and the
number of valid votes cast; and (3) other alleged discrepancies in the data on votes cast and
total number of registered voters and excess ballots.
Finding the contested election returns to be genuine and authentic and without merit, the
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) ruled to order the inclusion in the canvass of the
contested election returns. COMELEC Second Division, rendered a Resolution stating that
Respondent MBC should have at least suspended its canvass in so far as the question or
contested election returns were concerned. But it was subsequently reversed and set aside
by COMELEC en banc, thereby stating that the suspension of the effects of the proclamation
of the respondent/appellee, ARTHUR L. SALALILA, is hereby lifted.
Issue: whether or not to include in the canvass the contested election returns
Held: Yes, Include. Formal defects are not grounds for excluding an election return.
Book: Petitioner claims that the election returns did not contain data as required by OEC
Section 212, more specifically, the number of registered voters in the precinct, actual number
of votes cast and the number of valid votes cast, and that the absence of such data without
any explanation or correction on the part of the Board of Election Inspectors who prepared
those election documents renders them invalid. However, nothing in said provision
provides for the exclusion of the election returns. Such omitted data are merely formal
defects and not so material as to affect the votes of the candidates obtained in the
election.
37. SALLY A. LEE vs COMELEC and Leovic R. Dioneda G.R. No. 157004 July 4, 2003
FACTS:
Leovic R. Dioneda, a candidate for mayor in Sorsogon, objected to the inclusion of
Election Return No. 41150266 for Precinct No. 28A2 in barangay Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon
City on the grounds that 1) no entries were made for the position of congressman, and 2)
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) watchers were utilized to fill up election returns. This
was granted by the COMELEC despite opposition by petitioner, Sally Lee.

ISSUE: WON the exclusion made by the COMELEC is proper?

HELD:
No. The Court ruled that the COMELEC, in ordering the exclusion of the questioned
returns, should have 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 as instructed by Section 234
of the Omnibus Election Code.

WHEREFORE, the COMELEC is, in accordance with the foregoing discussion, hereby
DIRECTED to determine within twenty days whether the 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 Election Inspectors to recount the votes cast in Precinct No. 28A2 in Barangay
Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City and prepare a new return to serve as basis of canvass by said
board; otherwise the ballot box should no longer be opened or the ballots should no longer be
23

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.
38. SANCHEZ vs COMELEC
GR. No. L-78461; August 12, 1987

FACTS: After the first senatorial elections under the 1987 Constitution, Sanchez, a candidate
therein, filed before the COMELEC to conduct a recount of the votes. Allegedly, votes
intended for him, which were merely written as “Sanchez”, were considered as stray votes
because of the sameness of his last name to that of Gil Sanchez – another candidate who
was later disqualified. Sanchez was then running as the 25th in ranking among the candidates
(Sanchez vs COMELEC). He filed an urgent petition to re-count or re-appreciate those votes
in favor of him. Meanwhile, Rasul and Enrile, ranked 23rd and 24threspectively intervened and
filed before the COMELEC requesting the latter to proclaim them as the duly elected senators
elect completing the 24 senators-elect. They moved to dismiss Sanchez’ petition. Rasul’s
lead over Enrile is just about 1,910 and there were just 3 municipalities left to be counted
(31,000 votes). Enrile’s lead over Sanchez was 73,034 votes. COMELEC then
denied Sanchez’ petition. Subsequently, COMELEC declared Rasul as the 23rd senator-elect
but there was still a mathematical possibility that Enrile can overtake Rasul. Enrile opposed
Rasul’s proclamation as the 23rd senator-elect and he averred that COMELEC should
complete the canvassing first before declaring who placed 23rd and 24th respectively (Enrile
vs COMELEC and Razul). COMELEC justified Rasul’s proclamation on the ground that since
the remaining 3 municipalities is in Muslim Mindanao, and that Rasul is a Muslim, there is a
logical presumption that majority of the votes therefrom would be for Rasul. While this was
foregoing, COMELEC, by a vote of 5 to 2 reversed its earlier decision in denyingSanchez’
petition and it granted Sanchez’ request for recount and re-appreciation. Enrile then filed a
petition against COMELEC and Sanchez (Enrile vs COMELEC and Sanchez). Enrile alleged
that the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in granting Sanchez’ petition for recount and
abused its discretion in refusing to proclaim him (Enrile) on the ground that Sanchez’ petition
for recount is not a pre-proclamation controversy which involves issues affecting extrinsic
validity, and not intrinsic validity, of the said election returns and that Rasul’s lead over him
was only 1,916 votes while his lead overSanchez was 73,034 votes, with only 31,000 votes
remaining to be canvassed in 3 towns, could not offset his lead over Sanchez.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sanchez’ petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of ballots filed
with the Comelec may be considered a summary pre-proclamation controversy falling within
the Comelec’s exclusive jurisdiction (Sec. 242, Omnibus Election Code).

HELD: NO. Sanchez anchors his petition for re-count and/or re-appreciation on Section 243,
paragraph (b) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 234 thereof with regard to
material defects in canvassed election returns. He contends that the canvassed returns
discarding "Sanchez" votes as stray were "incomplete" and therefore warrant a recount or
re-appreciation of the ballots under Section 234. A simple reading of the basic provisions of
the cited Section shows readily its inapplicability. By legal definition and by the very
instructions of the Comelec (Res. No. 1865, Sec. 6, promulgated on March 11, 1987), an
election return is incomplete if there is "omission in the election returns of the name of any
candidate and/or his corresponding votes" (Sec, 234) or "in case the number of votes for a
candidate has been omitted." (Sec. 6, Res. No. 1865) Here, the election returns
are complete and indicate the name of Sanchez as well as the total number of
votes that were counted and appreciated as votes in his favor by the boards of
inspectors. The fact that some votes written solely as "Sanchez" were declared stray
votes because of the inspectors' erroneous belief that Gil Sanchez had not been
disqualified as a candidate, involves an erroneous appreciation of the ballots. It is
24

established by the law as well as jurisprudence (the cited section being a substantial
reproduction of Section 172 of the 1978 Election Code and previous election laws) that
errors in the appreciation of ballots by the board of inspectors are proper subject for
election protest and not for recount or reappreciation of the ballots.
39. Siquian s. Comelec
In the canvassing of votes, petitioner interposed no objections to the inclusion of election
returns from several precincts. It was only on May 16, 1998 that he presented objections to
the inclusion of certain returns on various grounds such as the presence of the Barangay
Captain in the polling areas, that the latter was influencing his constituents to vote for a
certain candidate, and the election returns were accomplished in areas outside of the polling
centers.
After proceeding with the canvassing, the Board granted the exclusion sought for with respect
to those in other precincts. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with the
Commission en banc which on October 6, 1998 ruled that all the election returns which
petitioner initially sought to exclude be included in the canvassing. Thereafter, private
respondent was proclaimed winner on October 12, 1998.
In a petition for certiorari before this Court, petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to
respondent COMELEC in allowing the inclusion of the election returns from the precincts
which were ordered excluded by the Board of Canvassers.
Issue: Whether or not Comelec acted with GAD in ordering the inclusion of precints initially
excluded by the BOC?
Ruling:
No. Section 20 of R.A 7166 and Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution 2962 requires that
an oral objection to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns in the canvassing
shall be submitted to the Chairman of the Board of Canvassers at the time the
questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass. It is not denied by
petitioner that the objections interposed were made after the election returns in certain
precincts were included in the canvass. Such belated objections are fatal to
petitioner's cause. Compliance with the period set for objections on exclusion and
inclusion of election returns is mandatory. Otherwise, to allow objections after the
canvassing would be to open the floodgates to schemes designed to delay the
proclamation and frustrate the electorate's will by some candidates who feels that the
only way to fight for a lost cause is to delay the proclamation of the winner. It should
be noted that proceedings before the Board of Canvassers is summary in nature which
is why the law grants the parties a short period to submit objections and the Board a
short period to rule on matters brought to them.
(Main Point- Petitioner should orally object to the inclusion of the returns from certain precints
in the earliest opportunity at the time such returns are being presented for inclusion)

40. Balindong v. COMELEC (Jurisdiction of canvasser)

Facts: Parties in the case are mayoralty candidates in Malamang, Lanao del sur. On first
canvassing, Anwar won the race. Aklima filed an action for the exclusion of the ballot boxes in
38 precincts. When the MBC reconvened, Atty. Badelles Macaan, acting as counsel for
Aklima, filed an objection to the inclusion of all the election returns, invoking as grounds the
25

illegal proceedings of the Board of Canvassers and violation of Section 25(l) of COMELEC
Resolution No. 3848.
Aklima filed another petition, praying that the MBC be ordered to reconvene and re-canvass,
this time, the election returns in 38 precincts only, without stating, however, their specific
precinct numbers; the proceedings of the MBC declared illegal; the municipal canvass
transferred to a safer venue; and, the proclamation of any municipal candidate suspended or
annulled. In his Amended Petition, Aklima further whittled down the number of contested
election returns, this time seeking the annulment of the election results in five (5) precincts
only, namely: Precincts 18A, 80A, 127A/128A, 133A/134A and 47A/48A. According to him,
the election returns in the five (5) precincts were products of fraud, forgery, terrorism and
other forms of irregularities. He likewise sought the annulment of the proclamation of Anwar.
Issue: Whether the COMELEC had authority to pass upon the validity of the two (2) election
returns which were not objected to before the canvassing board
Held: In the case at bar, at no instance did Aklima claim that he specifically objected to
the inclusion of the returns for Precincts 80A and 47A/48A at the MBC level. Neither
did he even dispute Anwars assertion that he failed to make such claim before the
canvassing board. In fact, it was only in the amended petition in SPC No. 01-175 that
he alleged that the election returns for the two (2) precincts were falsified. Thus, it was
beyond the authority of the COMELEC to entertain the belated objections to the
election returns.

40. PATORAY vs. COMELEC

Facts: Petitioner Patoray and private respondent Disomimba were the mayoralty candidates
of Tamporan, Lanao del Sur during the May 8, 1995 elections. During the canvassing of the
votes by the MBC, private respondent objected to the inclusion of election returns from 4
precincts “for being substituted, fraudulent and obviously manufacture “ but the same was
denied by the MBC. On appeal, the COMELEC Second Division ordered the exclusion from
the count of election returns from 2 precincts owing to discrepancy between the “taras” and the
written figures and the incomplete data as to provincial and congressional candidates. The
COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and ordered the
constitution of a new MBC to implement the second Division’s resolution.

Petitioner Patoray filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the COMELEC.

Issue: Whether the exclusion of the 2 election returns was the proper remedy to answer the
discrepancy between the taras and the written figures and the incompleteness of the data as
to provincial and congressional candidates?

Held: No. The Supreme Court held that the discrepancy between the taras and the written
figure and the incomplete data as to the provincial and congressional candidates found in the
excluded election returns constituted materials defects in the election return. While the
COMELEC was correct in excluding the 2 election returns, in addition it should have also
ordered a recount of the votes cast in the 2 precincts (OEC Sec. 236). Its failure to do this
resulted in the disenfranchisement of the voters in these precincts. The recounting of the votes
is consistent with the summary nature of proceedings involving pre-proclamation
controversies.
26

42. Lee v. COMELEC G.R. No. 157004 Jul. 4, 2003 (Jurisdiction of canvasser)
Facts: Petitioner Sally A. Lee (Lee) and respondent Leovic R. Dioneda (Dioneda) were
candidates for Mayor of Sorsogon City. During the canvassing of the election returns, counsel
for Dioneda moved for the exclusion of Election Return No.41150266 for Precinct No. 28A2
from Barangay Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City on the ground that no entries were made forthe
position of congressman and that Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) watchers were
utilized to fill up electionreturns.The Board of Canvassers (BOC) ruled in favor of Lee on the
ground that the questioned election return was clear andregular on its face, the BOC then
proclaimed Lee as the winning candidate for Mayor of Sorsogon City. Dioneda then filed a
petition to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for annulment of Lee‘s proclamation
and the exclusion of the questioned election return.
The COMELEC Second Division granted Dioneda‘s petition and accordingly excluded the
questioned return from the canvass and nullified the proclamation of Lee. Lee filed a Motion
for Reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC En Banc.
Issue: W/N COMELEC erred in resorting to the Certificate of Votes in excluding the return
Held: Yes. Since the return was incomplete for it lacked the data as to provincial and
congressional candidates, the applicable provision would be Section 234 of the Omnibus
Election Code which deals with material defects in election returns.—As to the election return
for Precinct No. 20-A, we ruled that the COMELEC erred in resorting to the Certificate of
Votes in excluding the return in said precinct. Since the return was incomplete for it lacked the
data as to provincial and congressional candidates, the applicable provision would be 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 ballots is intact.
Basarte vs Comelec

Facts: Jarito was proclaimed the winner of the mayoralty run for the municipality of Silvino
Lobos, Northern Samar. Petitioner contests his win saying that there was a tampered election
return which was included in the canvass. Such tampering was evident because the page 2
of the election return was missing despite the existence of page 3. Said page contains the
names of various officials’ number of votes. Despite this, Board of Canvassers proceeded
with canvassing and proclaimed Jarito as the winner, because they claimed that they cannot
look beyond to verify the regularity of the returns if they appear to be authentic and duly
accomplished on their face.

Issue: won Canvassers were correct despite the absence of the page2 of the return

Held: No. The principle does not apply where there is a prima facie showing that the return is
not genuine. Said principle presupposes that the returns appear to be authentic and duly
accomplished on their face. In this case, there is a prima facie showing that the return is not
genuine as several entries having been omitted due to the absence of the said page.
Purisima v Salanga 15 SCRA 704 (1965)
Facts: In the election of November 12, 1963, Amante Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were
among the candidates for any of the three offices of Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur.
Purisima noted during the canvass that the returns from some precincts, showed on their face
that the words and figures for Cordero's votes had been "obviously and manifestly erased"
27

and superimposed with other words and figures. For purposes of comparison, the
Nacionalista Party copies of the returns for the aforesaid precincts were submitted to the
board. A discrepancy of 5,042 votes in favor of Cordero was thereby found.
The board of canvassers finished the canvass and proclaimed Cordero the winner. Purisima
filed a petition in the Commission on Elections to annul the canvass and proclamation, which
was granted.

Purisima then filed in the Court of First Instance a petition for recount under Section 163 of
the Revised Election Code. Subsequently, motions to dismiss the same were filed by the
board of canvassers and by Cordero. In his motion to dismiss, Cordero admitted the erasures
and discrepancies on the face of the returns from 41 precincts, but denied that said erasures
were due to tampering or falsification.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition for recount. Judge stated that some of the
requisites were not present, namely: first, that it appears to the provincial board of canvassers
that a discrepancy exists; second, that said discrepancy is between the copy submitted to the
board and another authentic copy thereof; third, that said authentic copy must also be
submitted to the board.

Issue: Whether or not the concurrence of the Board of Canvassers is required for the filing
of a petition for recount
Ruling: No. A candidate affected can file the petition for recount, even if he does so alone,
without the concurrence of the provincial board of canvassers (Cawa v. Del Rosario,
L-16837-40, May 30,1960). From the fact, therefore, that the provincial board of canvassers
has not petitioned for a recount it cannot be inferred that they were not convinced a
discrepancy existed.

In fact, when Purisima first called attention to the discrepancy between the Nacionalista Party
copies and the Provincial Treasurer's copies, the board of canvassers admitted the
discrepancy but stated that it was not yet ascertainable whether the discrepancy would
amount to enough votes as to affect the result. There is no more question now that the
number of votes involved in said discrepancy is more than enough to alter the result.

Finally, in the motion to dismiss filed by the board of canvassers, the existence of the
discrepancy is not disputed, and the board merely raises the defense that the recount is up to
the court and not to said board

Ewoc v COMELEC
(DETERMINATION OF INTEGRITY)
Facts: Where the Mun. Board of Canvassers (MBOC) found that: (a) in Precinct No. 26 A, 72
out of 198 ballots appeared to have been prepared by two or more persons; (b) in precinct No.
27A/28A, there were a total of 249 official ballots , and there were 249 lower stubs compared
to 247 upper stubs as per physical count; (c) in Precinct No. 39A, there was a 100% voter
turnout, and that 151 ballots appeared to have been prepared by one and the same person or
by two or more persons; and (d) in Precinct No. 40A/41A, 224 voters actually voted despite
the fact that there were only 221 registered voters, and that 169 ballots appeared to have
been prepared by one and the same person and that individual ballots were prepared by two
28

or more persons which conclusions were arrived at by consulting the minutes of voting and
counting that shows that there were no assisted illiterate or disabled voters thereby
eliminating any possible explanation for the similar handwriting used in the ballots. The said
suspicious election returns were excluded in the counting.
Issue: Whether or not the exclusion was proper?
Ruling: YES. MBOC acted properly in excluding the questioned election returns in the
canvass pursuant to sec. 237 of the omnibus election code.

45.1. Meaning of Results of Election

GR. 113107 & 113509
Wilmar P. Lucero v. COMELEC
FACTS: Jose L. Ong, Jr. had a lead of 204 votes. However, PBC’s tally did not include
Precinct No. 7 of the municipality of Silvino Lobos[SL], where the submitted election returns
had not been canvassed because they were illegible; Prec. 13 of SL because the ballot boxes
were snatched; Prec. 16 of SL where all copies of the election returns were missing. Lucero
requested COMELEC to suspend Ong’s proclamation, to hold a special election for Prec. 13,
and to recount the votes in the 52 precincts. COMELEC directed PBC to desist from
reconvening until further orders. Ong moved to lift the suspension of PBC’s proceedings.
In 1994, COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution ordering a re-tabulation of the
votes including the results of Precinct 16 and the ‘COMELEC-copy’ of the results for Prec. 7,
a special election for Precinct 13, and a recount of Precinct 7 conditioned upon the results of
Prec. 13. Lucero and Ong contested to this.
Lucero - the count of the ballots in Precinct No. 7 of Silvino Lobos must be unconditional
because the election returns therefrom are invalid
Ong – questions the authority of the COMELEC to call for a special election in Precinct No.
13 almost two years after the regular election.
ISSUE: WON there should first be a count of the ballots of Prec. No. 7 of SL before
determining the necessity of holding a special election in Prec. No. 13 of SL.
HELD: Yes. It is an uncontroverted fact that an election was held in Precinct No. 7. None
was held in Precinct No. 13 for reasons the parties fully knew. Pursuant to Section 6 of the
Omnibus Election Code, a special election may be held in Precinct No. 13 only if the failure
of the election therein "would affect the result of the election."
This "result of the election" means the net result of the election in the rest of the precincts in a
given constituency, such that if the margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest rival
in the latter precincts is less than the total number of votes in the precinct where there was
failure of election, then such failure would certainly affect "the result of the election"; hence, a
special election must be held. Consequently, the holding of a special election in Precinct No.
13 can only be determined after the votes in Precinct No. 7 shall have been included in the
canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers.
Barbers v. COMELEC
29

Facts:
Robert Z. Barbers and Rodolfo Biazon were candidates for re-election to the Senate. the
COMELEC promulgated resolution proclaiming Biazon as “the 12th ranking duly elected 12th
Senator. According to COMELEC, Biazon obtained 10,685 more votes than Barbers. The
COMELEC stated that this difference will not materially be affected by the votes in certain
precincts where there was failure of elections.
Barbers filed a petition to annul the proclamation of Biazon as Senator claiming that the
latter’s proclamation was void, illegal and premature being based on an incomplete canvass.
Barbers asserted that the remaining uncanvassed COCs and votes and the results of the
special elections, which were still to be conducted, would undoubtedly affect the results of the
elections.
Barbers claims there could be no valid proclamation based on an incomplete canvass.
COMELEC denied Barbers’ petition. MR denied by COMELEC en banc. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
W/N there is a valid proclamation despite having an incomplete canvass.
Held:
No. The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the election returns
have been received by it, may terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on
the basis of the available election returns if the missing election returns will not affect the
results of the election. Notwithstanding the fact that not all of the COCs have been received
or canvassed, the NBC may terminate the canvass if the missing COCs would no longer
affect the results of the elections. In the present case, the report which the COMELEC
Supervisory Committee submitted on 29 June 2004 shows that Barbers obtained 6,736 votes
in areas where results were not included in the national canvass. As for Biazon, he garnered
2,263 votes. Also, the Supervisory Committee's report shows that the total number of
registered voters in areas where special elections were still to be conducted was only 2,931,
covering only 19 precincts in three municipalities. From the above summation, the lead of
private respondent over petitioner undoubtedly was reduced to six thousand two hundred
twelve (6,212). Assuming that the remaining uncanvassed votes of two thousand nine
hundred thirty-one (2,931) in places where special elections are yet to be held were all votes
in favor of petitioner Barbers, nevertheless, this will not materially affect the results of the
election Even if private respondent's lead was decreased to three thousand two hundred
ninety-nine (3,299) votes, he remains to be the winner and therefore the lawful occupant of
the 12th slot for the senatorial position.
47. Munoz v Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner Rommel Munoz and private respondent Irwin Baldo were candidates for
mayor of Camalig, Albay. After the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) convened and
canvassed the election returns (ERs) the lawyers of private respondent objected to the
inclusion of the26 ERs from various precincts which have a total votes of 5,178, based on the
grounds such as: lack of inner seal; lack of material data, lack signatures and etc. The MBC
30

denied the objections and ruled to include the objected

ERs in the canvass. Private respondent appealed the said ruling to the COMELEC.
Despite the pendency of the appeal, petitioner was proclaimed as the winner who obtained a
margin of 762 votes over the private respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not the votes in the contested 26 election returns adversely affect the result of
the election

Ruling:

Yes. In the case at bar, petitioner obtained a margin of 762 votes over the private
respondent based on the canvass of the uncontested ERs whereas the total number of votes
in the 26 contested ERs is 5,178, which is higher than the 762-lead of the petitioner over the
private respondent. Clearly, the results of the election would be adversely affected by the
uncanvassed returns.