Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. Nos. 93201-04. June 26, 1990.
_______________
* EN BANC.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
770
varying degrees, from the specific fact situation dealt with by the
Court in Lagumbay as “statistically improbable” and hence
excludable from canvass as “obviously manufactured” without
need of evidence aliunde. In the specific circumstances of the
cases at bar, whatever conclusion the Court might have reached
on this issue would, strictly speaking, merely constitute dictum,
considering that even if the Court were to nullify all the returns
objected to by petitioners on grounds of “statistical improbability”,
private respondents Candao and Loong would still show a very
substantial margin over the total votes of petitioners. Such
nullification will not, in other words, materially affect the results
of the election per the official certificates of canvass.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
771
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
772
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
RESOLUTION
FELICIANO, J.:
774
The common ground for the three (3) appeals from the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu was that the
questioned election returns were “spurious, obviously
manufactured and/or statistically improbable.” The ground
for the appeal from the Regional Board of Canvassers was
that the certificates of canvass (from the Sulu Provincial
Board of Canvassers) were “falsified” since they included
the same election returns disputed before the Provincial
Board and appealed to the Comelec, and that the Regional
Board of Canvassers had proceeded with the canvass
despite perfection of petitioners’ appeals.
All appeals involving the questioned election returns
and certificates of canvass from the Province of Sulu were
consolidated before the Comelec. By a Resolution dated 21
March 1990, the First Division of the Comelec dismissed all
the appeals for lack of merit and for lack of jurisdiction.
The principal grounds on which the First Division rested
its Resolution were: (a) the objections raised against the
election returns were “merely generalizations”; (b)
petitioners had failed to adduce before the Provincial Board
of Canvassers substantial evidence to establish the factual
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
______________
775
tion returns from Datu Piang, Datu Paglas and South Upi,
which petitioners wished to contest.
The grounds alleged by petitioners for contesting these
election returns were various and included: that an
unusually high proportion of registered voters in certain
precincts were recorded as having cast their votes; that the
Boards of Election Inspectors in certain precincts in some
of the municipalities involved did not prepare the election
returns simultaneously with the counting of the ballots
but, on the contrary, prepared them elsewhere than at the
election precincts, e.g., in the offices of the Municipal
Mayors; that in certain precincts, the members of the
Boards of Election Inspectors did not report to their
respective polling places so that no elections were
conducted in said precincts; that in some precincts, “the
number of votes counted” exceeded the number of
registered voters; that in other precints, the number “of
votes counted” exceeded the number “of voters who
allegedly voted”; that in several precincts, the residents of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
II
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
________________
780
3b
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
3b
‘G’ to ‘O’ of the Petition) 80,560 80,349b
Total votes contested by the
petitioners from the Provinces _____ _____
of Tawi-Tawi and Sulu 94,0243c 93,813”c
_______________
3 Id.
3a Per the figures given in petitioners’ Opposition to Motion to Lift, this
figure should be only 11,307 (Rollo, p. 381; in G.R. Nos. 93201-04). While
petitioners’ Opposition did not indicate the source of that figure, we have
for present purposes only adopted the higher, and hence more
conservative, figure set out in private respondents’ Urgent Motion to Lift.
3b The original figure in Table II was 65,402. Petitioners in their
Opposition to Motion to Lift, however, claim that private respondents did
not appeal the Decision of the Comelec excluding the eighty-eight (88)
election returns from the Province of Sulu. According to petitioners, the
eighty-eight (88) election returns embraced 27,477 votes for private
respondent Candao and 27,477 votes for private respondent Loong. Also
according to petitioners, the votes embraced in the election returns from
the precincts covered by their appeals in SPC Nos. 90-002, 90-004 and 90-
017 are: 53,083 for Candao and 52,872 for Loong (Rollo, p. 380; in G.R.
Nos. 93201-04). Adding the votes already excluded by the Comelec and the
votes being appealed by petitioners, we get the figures of 80,560 contested
votes for Candao and 80,349 contested votes for Loong. For conservatism
in this computation, we accepted petitioners’ figures in their Opposition to
Motion to Lift although no official sources are cited by petitioners.
3c The original figures set out in Table II were 78, 866 contested votes
for Candao and 78,866 contested votes for Loong. With the corrections set
out in 3.b. above, these original figures became arithmetically wrong.
781
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
Less:
Contested votes
in Tawi-Tawi as
per Table II (13,464) — (13,464) —
Contested votes
in Sulu as per
4b
Table II (80,560) — (80,349) —
Totals after
4c
deductions 321,011 269,106 211,412c 133,170
—— —— —— ——
Remaining vote-
lead after
4d
deductions 51,905 78,242”d
_______________
4 Id., p. 235.
4a The original figures in Table III were: 422,035 for Candao and
285,225 for Loong. With the corrections indicated in footnotes 2.c. and 2.d.
above, these original figures had to be changed.
4b The original figures in Table III were 65,402 for Candao and 65,402
for Loong. With the changes indicated in footnote 3.b. above, these original
figures had to be changed.
4c The original figures in Table III were 343,169 for Candao and
206,359 for Loong. With the changes indicated in footnotes 4.a. and 4.b.
above, these original figures became arithmetically wrong and have been
changed.
4d The original figures in Table III were 74,063 for Candao and 73,189
for Loong. With the changes indicated in 4.c. above, these original figures
became arithmetically wrong and have accordingly been changed.
782
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
_________________
783
784
“On the first point, it should be pointed out that since Dianalan
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 79712, November 12, 1987,
the examination of voter’s affidavits and voting records on the
ground that there was massive substitute voting or that no
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
elections were held, has been definitely ruled out by the Supreme
Court. For to accept the grounds cited, and to allow the procedure
suggested, is to expand the narrow and exclusive grounds defined
by law for initiating and sustaining pre-proclamation
controversies. As explained in Dianalan supra.
‘In truth, the defects alleged by private respondent and intervenors are
not pre-proclamation matters within the contemplation of Section 243 of
the Election Code, but fall under the jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals
as sole judges of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of the members of Congress. The cases cited by the
respondents and intervenors, in traverse of the petition were decided at a
time when our election law did not specifically provide for the settlement
of the pre-proclamation controversy or specify the matters coming
thereunder. Diaz v. Commission on Elections, 24 SCRA 426; Estaniel v.
Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 436; and Usman v. Commission on
Elections, 42 SCRA 667, were decided in 1971, and Lagumbay v. Climaco
and Comelec, 16 SCRA 175, even earlier, in 1966. All these cases ruled
that the Commission on Elections could investigate charges of
irregularities in the conduct of the elections as an incident of its power to
canvass the votes and proclaim the winners; and this was possible
because its jurisdiction over pre-proclamation questions was not limited
then and subject to Comelec abuse. Now it is expressly limited to, under
Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code passed on November 28, 1985
with these safeguards extracted by the substantial opposition in the
Batasan, and cannot extend beyond the matters exclusively enumerated
therein. A reading of this section will readily show that it applies only to
the specific deficiencies therein enumerated and that questions relating
to alleged irregularities in the voting such as fraud, substitution or vote-
buying and terrorism are proper matters for election protests.’
785
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
“1. We start by noting that the Comelec (both Second Division and
that Commission En Banc) correctly emphasized that, under the
regime of the Omnibus Election Code, pre-proclamation
controversies are properly limited to challenges directed against
the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before such Board of
Canvassers, and not the Board of Election Inspectors nor
proceedings before such latter Board (Grand Alliance for
Democracy v. Commission on Elections, 150 SCRA 665 [1987];
Sanchez v. Commission on Elections, 153 SCRA 67 [1987] and
that such challenges should relate to particular election returns to
which petitioner should have made specific verbal objection
subsequently confirmed in writing (Section 245, Omnibus Election
Code; Pausing v. Yorac, et al., G.R. No. 82700, 4 August 1988;
Endique v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 82020-21, 22
November 1988). In a pre-proclamation controversy, it is
axiomatic that the Comelec is not to look beyond or behind election
returns which are on their face regular and authentic returns. A
party seeking to raise issues resolution of which would compel the
Comelec to pierce the veil, so to speak, of election returns prima
facie regular, has his proper remedy in a regular election protest.
By their nature, and given the obvious public interest in the speedy
determination of the results of elections, pre-proclamation
controversies are to be resolved in summary proceedings (Section
246, Omnibus Election Code; Espaldon v. Commission on
Elections, G.R.
_______________
786
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
_______________
787
_______________
788
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
——o0o——
790
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22