Sei sulla pagina 1di 22

11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 769


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

*
G.R. Nos. 93201-04. June 26, 1990.

SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and


NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM, petitioners, vs.
COMMISION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA CANDAO and
BENJAMIN T. LOONG, respondents.
*
G.R. No. 93205. June 26, 1990.

SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and


NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM, petitioners, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA CANDAO and
BENJAMIN T. LOONG, respondents.
*
G.R. No. 93502. June 26, 1990.

SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and


NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM, petitioners, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA CANDAO and
BENJAMIN T. LOONG, respondents.

Election Law; Doctrine of “statistical improbability” does not


apply where nullification of contested returns would still show
respondent COMELEC-declared winner as still leading by a
substantial margin.—From the foregoing tables, the substantial
correctness of the data therein not having been successfully
contested by petitioners, it appears to the Court that there is no
need to pass upon and resolve the central issue raised by
petitioners—whether or not the doctrine of “statistical
improbability” adopted in Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections
should be re-examined with a view to expanding the scope thereof,
i.e., with a view to characterizing election returns differing, in

_______________

* EN BANC.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

770

770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

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.

Same; Declaration of winner in pre-proclamation


controversies requires speedy action; Remedy of loser is to file an
election protest.—In resolving upon this course of action, the
Court has also taken particular account of the need for speedy
resolution of these cases, considering the length of time which has
gone by since the election was held last 17 February 1990 without
the winning candidates for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-
Governor being proclaimed. The public policy involved in the rule
that pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved in summary
proceedings, is very real and insistent. The public interest
requires that the positions for the filing of which the election was
held should be filled as promptly as possible, even if the
proclamation of the winning candidates be provisional in nature,
in the sense that such would be subject to the results of the
election protest or protests that may be expected to be filed. The
Court is bound by high duty and responsibility to give effect to
this public policy which is enshrined in statutory norms (infra).
Petitioners’ principal remedy is to file election protests before the
appropriate agency of government—i.e., the Comelec (Article IX
[C] [2] [2], 1987 Constitution)—and there to litigate all the issues
raised by them in as much detail as they might deem necessary or
appropriate. Another remedy open to petitioners is the filing of
criminal charges for election offenses against those who,
petitioners believe, are responsible for the frauds and assorted
trickery alleged to have been committed.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Same; In pre-proclamation cases, an examination of


fingerprints and handwritings appearing on voters’ list and other
records cannot be ordered.—Petitioners ask the Court to re-
examine its decision in Dianalan v. Commission on Elections, so
as to permit petitioners to subject to handwriting and fingerprint
examination the voter’s affidavits and voting lists and other
voting records in the contested precincts. We are not persuaded by
petitioners’ arguments on this point.

771

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 771

Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

It is important to bear in mind that the nature, scope and ambit


of a pre-proclamation controversy as set out in Dianalan and
Dipatuan and the other cases there cited are determined by
statutory provisions: Sections 243 (entitled “Issues that may be
Raised in Pre-Proclamation Controversy”), 245 (“Contested
Election Returns”) and 246 (“Summary Proceedings before the
Commission”) of the Omnibus Election Code. As pointed out above
in Dipatuan, these statutory provisions reflect a very definite
view of what public policy requires on the matter. It may well be
true that that public policy may occasionally permit the
occurrence of “grab the proclamation and prolong the protest”
situations; that public policy, however, balances the possibility of
such situations against the shortening of the period during which
no winners are proclaimed, a period commonly fraught with
tension and danger for the public at large. For those who disagree
with that public policy, the appropriate recourse is not to ask this
Court to abandon caselaw which merely interprets faithfully
existing statutory norms, to engage in judicial legislation and in
effect to rewrite portions of the Omnibus Election Code. The
appropriate recourse is, of course, to the Legislative Department
of the Government and to ask that Department to strike a new
and different equilibrium in the balancing of the public interests
at stake.

Same; In pre-proclamation controversies the rules on


presenting evidence and appealing from the rulings of the Board of
Canvassers are mandatory.—On the second and third issues
raised by petitioners, the Comelec En Banc Decision of 4 June
1990 said: “[The second and third issues raised by petitioners] are
related to each other. They refer to the procedure to be observed
in the registration of objections at the board of canvassers level

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

and the bringing of adverse rulings on appeal to the Commission.


We reiterate the mandatory requirement to comply with procedure
for pre-proclamation controversies in view of the public policy to
have a quick determination of the result of the election. By [their]
nature, pre-proclamation controversies already delay
proclamation. To allow the deviation from procedural
requirements is to open cases of this nature to protracted
uncertainty because new grounds and new issues can be raised at
the different levels of jurisdiction. Even ordinary cases not
impressed with public policy considerations are not allowed to be
litigated this way.” (Italics supplied) Once more, we agree with
the above ruling of the Comelec since that ruling simply flows
from the character and scope of a pre-proclamation controversy
under the Omnibus Election Code.

772

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

GUTIERREZ, JR., J., Separate statement:

Election Law; There were glaring anomalies in the conduct of


elections for Mindanao autonomous government.—However, I
would like to go on record that I found it difficult to concur in this
case because there are indeed glaring anomalies in the conduct of
the regional elections for the autonomous government of Muslim
Mindanao. Inspite of the 24 year old doctrine in Lagumbay v.
COMELEC (16 SCRA 175 [1966]), there is exactly the same
massive defiance of law which initially led to the statistical
improbability ruling. The election anomalies are committed in
such a crude and flaunting manner as to insult the intelligence.

Same; There should be better supervision on the handling of


election returns at precinct level.—I believe that the remedy is in a
better supervision of the handling of the elections at the precinct
level. The problem cannot be solved once the returns have been
submitted. It seems that when our brothers and sisters in
Mindanao complain of indifference to their plight and neglect of
their needs, they are not referring to the infrastructure and
economy alone. Equally important is the development of
democratic and political processes. Implied in the allegations of
massive fraud is that government officials either participated in
or were indifferent to the cheating. Neither the COMELEC nor
this Court can do much if certain officials who should guard the
polls with zeal take advantage of the situation or condone the
perpetration of anomalies.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the


Commission on Elections.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.


     Pedro Q. Quadra for petitioners.

RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.:

On 17 February 1990, an election for Regional Governor,


Regional Vice-Governor and members of the Regional
Assembly for the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
was conducted pursuant to Republic Act No. 6734, the
Organic Act creating that Autonomous Region. Petitioners
Sultan Mohammad Ali Dimaporo and Nurhussein
Ututalum were the official
773

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 773


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

candidates of the United Opposition (“KBL-NP”) coalition


party for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor,
respectively, in that election. Private respondents Zacaria
Candao and Benjamin T. Loong were the official candidates
for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor,
respectively, of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(“LDP”) party.

1. G.R. Nos. 93201-04


During the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers
of the Province of Sulu of the election returns from the
First and Second Congressional Districts of Sulu,
petitioners raised objections to the inclusion in the canvass
of certain election returns. From adverse rulings of the
Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed
to the Commission on Elections (“Comelec”) where the
appeals were docketed as SPC Nos. 90-002, 90-004 and 90-
017. During the canvass of certificates of canvass
conducted by the Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners
raised the same objections. From an adverse ruling of the
Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed once
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

more to the Comelec, this appeal being docketed as SPC


No. 90-019.
The contested election returns are from certain precincts
of the following municipalities in the Province of Sulu:

1. Municipality of Parang 50 precincts


2. Municipality of Maimbung 34 precincts
3. Municipality of Lugus 20 precincts
4. Municipality of Luuk 20 precincts
5. Municipality of Panamao 51 precincts
6. Municipality of Panglima Estino  
  (also known as New Panamao) 36 precincts
7. Municipality of Pandami 18 precincts
8. Municipality of Tongkil 16 precincts
9. Municipality of Kalinggalan  
  Caluang 14 precincts
  Total 259 precincts

774

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

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

basis of their objections; and (c) that petitioners had not


filed a written intent to appeal from the rulings of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers.
Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc. On 10
May 1990, the Comelec En Banc issued a Resolution which
modified the Resolution of its First Division by ordering the
exclusion from the canvass of the election returns from
eighty-eight (88) precincts in the municipalities listed
above for being “statisti-cally improbable.” The same
Resolution dismissed the appeals insofar as the other
election returns are concerned.
In reaching this conclusion, the Comelec1 En Banc
applied Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections where the
Supreme Court dealt with election returns showing the
unique uniformity of all votes (being equal to the total
number of registered voters) being cast in favor of all the
candidates belonging to one party, while all the candidates
of the opposing party were uniformly reflected as getting
zero votes; that is, all the candidates of one party garnering
all the votes, each of them receiv-

______________

1 16 SCRA 175 (1966).

775

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 775


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

ing exactly the same number of votes, while all the


candidates of the opposing party getting uniformly and
precisely nothing. In Lagumbay, the Court held such
returns to be “statistically improbable” and “obviously
manufactured”, the fraud being so palpable from the return
itself that there was no reason to give the return prima
facie value and that consequently, evidence aliunde to show
fraud was entirely unnecessary.
The Comelec En Banc applied the Lagumbay doctrine by
ordering the exclusion from the canvass of election returns
which fell precisely within the factual situation dealt with
in Lagumbay, and permitting the inclusion of election
returns showing results differing in varying degrees from
the Lagumbay factual situation.

2. G.R. No. 93205


During the canvass of election returns from the
Municipality of Languyan in the Province of Tawi-Tawi,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

petitioners objected to the inclusion of the election returns


from thirty-six (36) precincts in said Municipality, upon the
same ground that those returns were “obviously
manufactured” because the results reflected therein were
“statistically improbable”. Petitioners contended that in the
questioned precincts, 100% or 99% of registered voters are
recorded to have cast their votes, and that private
respondents obtained all the votes cast while petitioners
got a uniform zero vote. The Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Tawi-Tawi overruled the objections of
petitioners for failure to present evidence aliunde of the
fraud alleged. Petitioners appealed to the Comelec, their
appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90-005.
In its Decision dated 17 April 1990, the Second Division
of the Comelec reversed the Tawi-Tawi Provincial Board of
Canvassers by ordering the exclusion of fifteen (15) election
returns under the authority of the Lagumbay doctrine of
“statistical improbability”. The inclusion of the remaining
election returns from twenty-one (21) other precincts was
in effect sustained as falling outside the ambit of the
Lagumbay doctrine, since not all the candidates of the LDP
had received exactly the same number of votes. Other
candidates including those belonging to petitioners’ party,
in many but not in all cases, got zero votes.
776

776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

There were other precincts where candidates other than


the official LDP candidates were credited with differing
numbers of votes.
Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc which
appeal (or “Motion for Partial Reconsideration”) was denied
by its Resolution dated 10 May 1990.
Petitioners are now before the Court on Petition for
Certiorari in both G.R. Nos. 93201-04 (concerning the
election returns in the Province of Sulu) and 93205
(concerning the election returns in the Province of Tawi-
Tawi. By a Resolution of the Court dated 17 May 1990,
G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205 were consolidated.
In the same Resolution, the Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order requiring the respondent Comelec to
refrain from proclaiming the winning candidates for
Governor and Vice-Governor of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao until further orders from the Court,
while leaving the Comelec free to proceed with the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

canvassing of the election returns from the remaining


precincts of the areas covered by the Autonomous Region.

3. G.R. No. 93502


During the canvassing by the Provincial Board of
Canvassers for the Province of Maguindanao, petitioners
objected to the election returns from certain precincts in six
(6) municipalities (Pagalunggan, Maganoy, Ampatuan,
Sultan sa Barokis, Buluan, and Talayan) in Maguindanao.
From adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board
of Canvassers, petitioners appealed on 26 February 1990 to
the Comelec, the appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90-016.
One day later, on 27 February 1990, petitioners filed an
“Amended Appeal” which included objections to returns
from three (3) additional municipalities (Datu Piang, Datu
Paglas and South Upi). This “amended” pleading, however,
did not specify the precincts returns from which were being
assailed; neither did it set out the grounds for petitioners’
objections thereto. On 13 March 1990, eighteen (18) days
from service of the written rulings of the Maguindanao
Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners filed with the
Comelec another document purporting to list the specific
elec-
777

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 777


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

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

the constituent barangays evacuated their homes because


of “a shooting war between the MNLF and the MILF” so
that no elections were conducted in such barangays, but
notwithstanding such circumstances, the returns from
those barangays showed “a very high percentage of voting”;
and that the returns from certain precints showed that
such returns were all prepared by only one person.
Petitioners asked the Comelec to order the voter’s
affidavits and the lists of voters in the contested precints to
be subjected to expert examination of the signatures and
thumbmarks of the registered voters therein.
By a Decision dated 7 May 1990, the Comelec Second
Division, after ruling on each objection to election returns
contested, dismissed petitioners’ appeal, save only the
appeal with respect to the election returns from Precincts 9
and 10 of the Municipality of Talayan, Maguindanao,
which returns were objected to as incomplete, and which
the Comelec Second Division excluded from the canvass, it
appearing from the Minutes of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers that the Boards of Election Inspectors of
Talayan had not been summoned to explain the omission of
material data in those returns.
Petitioners moved to reconsider the Decision of the
Comelec Second Division. In a Decision dated 4 June 1990,
the Comelec En Banc denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and sustained
778

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

the Decision of the Second Division of the Comelec.

II

1. G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205: The Issues Raised


Petitioners raised the following principal issues in these
consolidated cases:

1. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion


in not excluding the returns from the remaining
171 contested precincts in Sulu and the remaining
21 election returns in Tawi-Tawi, inclusion of which
was allowed pursuant to the Comelec’s strict and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

restrictive application of the doctrine of “statistical


improbability”; and
2. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion
in disregarding other evidence (evidence aliunde)
submitted by petitioners in their effort to show that
the contested election returns were “obviously
manufactured”.

Petitioners now ask the Court to set aside the En Banc


Decision of the Comelec dated 10 May 1990 insofar as that
Decision had refused to reject and exclude the other
election returns assailed by petitioners as “statistically
improbable”.
On 21 May 1990, private respondents Candao and Loong
filed an “Urgent Motion to Lift the Temporary Restraining
Order” arguing that even if their votes embraced in the
contested election returns from the provinces of Sulu and
Tawi-Tawi are nullified as requested by petitioners, such
nullification will not affect the vote lead of the private
respondents. In this Urgent Motion to Lift, private
respondents set out the following table of numbers of votes
credited to petitioners and to private respondents, in the
official certificates of canvass of the provinces of Sulu,
Tawi-Tawi, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao, which
certificates were annexed to the Urgent Motion to Lift:
779

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 779


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections
2
“Table I

Province Candao Dimaporo Loong Ututalum


Tawi-Tawi 36,543 31,391 33,253 28,945
Sulu:
a. 1st district 57,814 441,875 53,850 45,011
b. 2nd district 79,376 38,820 90,170 26,910
Lanao del Sur
2a
a. 1st district 32,920 59,757 11,183 5,521
b. 2nd district 43,486 56,203 19,872 15,690
Maguindanao
a. 1st district 59,197 24,777 41,708 7,855
b. 2nd district 105,699 16,301 55,1892b 3,238
2c 2d
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
2c 2d
Totals 415,035 269,106 305,225 133,170
2e 2f
Total Vote-Lead 145,929 172,055”

Close examination of the respective certificates of canvass


shows some clerical errors in the original Table I presented
by private respondents. In substantially reproducing Table
I above, we have corrected the clerical errors as indicated
in footnotes below.

________________

2 Rollo, p. 234, in G.R. Nos. 93201-04.


2a The original figure in Table I was 39,920; this is erroneous per the
Certificate of Canvass, First District, Lanao del Sur; Rollo, p. 241, in G.R.
Nos. 93201-04.
2b The original figure in Table I was 35,189; this is erroneous per the
certificate of canvass, Second District, Maguindanao; Rollo, p. 241, id.
2c The original figure in Table I was 422,035. With the correction in 2.a.
above, the original figure became arithmetically wrong.
2d The original figure in Table I was 285,225. With the correction in 2.b.
above, this original figure became arithmetically wrong.
2e The original figure in Table I was 152,929. With the correction in 2.a
this original figure became arithmetically wrong.
2f The original figure in Table I was 152,055; with the correction in 2.b.,
this figure became arithmetically wrong.

780

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

Private respondents also set out a second table showing the


number of contested votes of private respondents Candao
and Loong. Again, Table II below reflects the corrections
we have made in the original Table I in the Motion to Lift,
after study and consideration of the “Opposition to the
Motion to Lift Restraining Order” filed on 4 June 1990 by
petitioners—
3
“Table II
  Number of Contested Votes
  Candao Loong
Tawi-Tawi (as per Annex ‘A’ of
3a
Annex ‘D’ of the Petition) 13,464 13,464a
Sulu (as per page 2 and Annexes

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

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 781


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

On Table III below, the number of contested votes of


private respondents Candao and Loong are subtracted from
their respective total votes per official certificates of
canvass:
4
“Table III

  Candao Dimaporo Loong Ututalum


Total votes obtained
4a
as per Table I 415,035 269,016 305,255a 133,170

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

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

From the foregoing tables, the substantial correctness of


the data therein not having been successfully contested by
petitioners, it appears to the Court that there is no need to
pass upon and resolve the central issue raised by
petitioners—whether or not the doctrine of “statistical
improbability” adopted in Lagumbay v. Commission on
Elections (supra) should be re-examined with a view to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

expanding the scope thereof, i.e., with a view to


characterizing election returns differing, in 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 a5 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.
In resolving upon this course of action, the Court has
also taken particular account of the need for speedy
resolution of these cases, considering the length of time
which has gone by since the election was held last 17
February 1990 without the

_________________

5 In the interest of a balanced presentation, we must note that private


respondents have stated that they had received, in, e.g., a number of
precincts in the Province of Sulu, zero votes while petitioners were
credited with exactly the same number of votes: Municipality of Talipao—
14 precincts; Municipality of Indanan—8 precincts; Municipality of Siasi
—9 precincts; and Municipality of Kalinggalan Caluang—5 precincts.
Private respondents also claim that in certain precincts, i.e., Municipality
of Siasi, Province of Sulu, petitioner Dimaporo received more than 1,000
votes while the average number of votes in a precinct is only between 300
to 400 voters. See private respondents’ Comment dated 28 May 1990;
Rollo, pp. 330-332, in G.R. Nos. 93201-04.

783

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 783


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

winning candidates for Regional Governor and Regional


Vice-Governor being proclaimed. The public policy involved
in the rule that pre-proclamation controversies shall be
resolved in summary proceedings, is very real and
insistent. The public interest requires that the position for
the filing of which the election was held should be filled as
promptly as possible, even if the proclamation of the
winning candidates be provisional in nature, in the sense
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

that such would be subject to the results of the election


protest or protests that may be expected to be filed. The
Court is bound by high duty and responsibility to give
effect to this public policy which is enshrined in statutory
norms (infra). Petitioners’ principal remedy is to file
election protests before the appropriate agency of
government—i.e., the Comelec (Article IX [C] [2] [2], 1987
Constitution)—and there to litigate all the issues raised by
them in as much detail as they might deem necessary or
appropriate. Another remedy open to petitioners is the
filing of criminal charges for election offenses against those
who, petitioners believe, are responsible for the frauds and
assorted trickery alleged to have been committed.

2. G.R. Nos. 93502; The Issues Raised


In this third Petition for Certiorari, petitioners raised the
following issues:

1. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion


when it refused to order the expert technical
examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of
the registered voters affixed to their voter’s
affidavits and to the lists of voters in the voting
records in the contested precints;
2. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion
when it rejected as filed out of time petitioners’
appeal from adverse rulings of the Maguindanao
Provincial Board of Canvassers relating to certain
assailed election returns from the Municipalities of
Datu Piang, Datu Paglas and South Upi; and
3. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion
in holding that petitioners’ failure to present
evidence before the Maguindanao Provincial Board
of Canvassers was fatal.

784

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

In respect of the first issue raised by petitioners, the


Comelec En Banc in its 4 June 1990 Decision said:

“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.’

The policy consideration underlying the delimitation both of


substantive ground and procedure is the policy to determine as
quickly as possible the result of the election on the basis of canvass.
Espaldon vs.

785

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 785


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78987, August 25, 1987;


Bautista vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78994, March 10,
1988; Alonto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28490,
February 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 878. To uphold the position of the
appellant is to allow the prolonged and indefinite suspension of
resolutions on pre-proclamation controversies by the simple
expedient of resorting to the examination of voluminous

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

documents. This process can be used in a full-blown judicial


inquiry incident to an election protest. This rule has been
reiterated by the Supreme Court in Dipatuan
6
vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 86117, May 8, 1990.” (Italics supplied)

We agree with the Comelec’s view of the law on this


matter; we see no abuse, and much less a grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Comelec in so ruling. In the
very7
recent case of Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections, et
al., this Court said in a unanimous decision:

“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.

_______________

6 Rollo, pp. 104-105, in G.R. No. 93502.


7 G.R. No. 86117, 8 May 1990.

786

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

No. 78987, 25 August 1987; Pasion v. Commission on Elections,


109 SCRA 238 [1981]; Bautista v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 78994, 10 March 1988). The delicate policy equilibrium here
involved was explained by the Court in the following terms in
Alonto v. Commission on Elections (22 SCRA 878, 884-886 (1968):

‘[P]re-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided,


consistent with the law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be
delayed as little as possible x x x [and that the Comelec and the courts
should guard both] against proclamation grabbing through tampered
returns as well as against attempts to paralyze canvassing and
proclamation in order to prolong hold-overs.’ ” (Italics supplied)

Petitioners ask the Court to re-examine 8


its decision in
Dianalan v. Commission on Elections, so as to permit
petitioners to subject to handwriting and fingerprint
examination the voter’s affidavits and voting lists and
other voting records in the contested precincts. We are not
persuaded by petitioners’ arguments on this point. It is
important to bear in mind that the nature, scope and ambit
of a pre-proclamation controversy as set out in Dianalan
and Dipatuan and the other cases there cited are
determined by statutory provisions: Sections 243 (entitled
“Issues that may be Raised in Pre-Proclamation
Controversy”), 245 (“Contested Election Returns”) and 246
(“Summary Proceedings before the Commission”) of the
Omnibus Election Code. As pointed out above in Dipatuan,
these statutory provisions reflect a very definite view of
what public policy requires on the matter. It may well be
true that that public policy may occasionally permit the
occurrence of “grab the proclamation and prolong the
protest” situations; that public policy, however, balances
the possibility of such situations against the shortening of
the period during which no winners are proclaimed, a
period commonly fraught with tension and danger for the
public at large. For those who disagree with that public
policy, the appropriate recourse is not to ask this Court to
abandon caselaw which merely interprets faithfully
existing statutory norms, to engage in judicial legislation
and in effect to rewrite portions of the Omnibus Election
Code. The appropri-

_______________

8 G.R. No. 79712, 12 November 1987.

787

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 787


www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

ate recourse is, of course, to the Legislative Department of


the Government and to ask that Department to strike a
new and different equilibrium in the balancing of the
public interests at stake.
On the second and third issues raised by petitioners, the
Comelec En Banc Decision of 4 June 1990 said:

“[The second and third issues raised by petitioners] are related to


each other. They refer to the procedure to be observed in the
registration of objections at the board of canvassers level and the
bringing of adverse rulings on appeal to the Commission. We
reiterate the mandatory requirement to comply with procedure for
pre-proclamation controversies in view of the public policy to have
a quick determination of the result of the election. By [their]
nature, pre-proclamation controversies already delay
proclamation. To allow the deviation from procedural
requirements is to open cases of this nature to protracted
uncertainty because new grounds and new issues can be raised at
the different levels of jurisdiction. Even ordinary cases not
impressed with public
9
policy considerations are not allowed to be
litigated this way.” (Italics supplied)

Once more, we agree with the above ruling of the Comelec


since that ruling simply flows from the character and scope
of a pre-proclamation controversy under the Omnibus
Election Code.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the
Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 93201-04, 93205 and
93502 for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order
dated 17 May 1990 issued in G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205
is hereby LIFTED. In G.R. No. 93502, the Court also
Resolved to DISPENSE with the Comments of public and
private respondents. This Resolution is immediately
executory.

          Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz,


Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortés, Griño-
Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
     Gutierrez, Jr., J., Please see concurring statement.

_______________

9 Rollo, pp. 105-106, in G.R. No. 93502.

788

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

GUTIERREZ, JR., J., Separate Statement

I agree with the conclusion of the Court that there is no


need to go into the issue of whether or not certain
“statistically improbable” results should be nullified if any
such nullification will not materially affect the overall
election results. We would be engaging in an academic
exercise.
However, I would like to go on record that I found it
difficult to concur in this case because there are indeed
glaring anomalies in the conduct of the regional elections
for the autonomous government of Muslim Mindanao.
Inspite of the 24 year old doctrine in Lagumbay v.
COMELEC (16 SCRA 175 [1966]), there is exactly the same
massive defiance of law which initially led to the statistical
improbability ruling. The election anomalies are committed
in such a crude and flaunting manner as to insult the
intelligence.
It is disturbing when case after case comes to this Court
presenting unbelievable election returns. In this petition,
for instance, in nine (9) towns of Sulu, candidates Candao
and Loong received exactly the same number of votes in
each of 197 precincts for a total of 65,402 votes each while
candidates Dimaporo and Ututalum each received zero
votes in all 197 precincts of those nine (9) municipalities.
As stated in Lagumbay, if the watchers of Dimaporo and
Ututalum betrayed their party, the voting and counting of
ballots in each precinct was a sham and a mockery. It is
reported that in some precincts, the Board of Inspectors
never reported for work. How could the elections be
conducted and the returns prepared if there were no boards
of inspectors? In some cases, more than the number of
registered voters cast their ballots or only one person
prepared all the ballots. Yet, the returns appear genuine.
The COMELEC suggests an expansion of the
parameters of statistical improbability to avoid obviously
manufactured, spurious, unnatural, and unbelievable
returns. The problem is, as stated in Pacis v. COMELEC
(25 SCRA 377 [1968]), electoral frauds are diverse and
beyond anticipation. Since COMELEC decisions invariably
come up to us, we would be treading into the quicksand of
thousands of conceivable situations, something which we,
obviously, should not undertake.
I believe that the remedy is in a better supervision of the
789

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

VOL. 186, JUNE 26, 1990 789


Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections

handling of the elections at the precinct level. The problem


cannot be solved once the returns have been submitted. It
seems that when our brothers and sisters in Mindanao
complain of indifference to their plight and neglect of their
needs, they are not referring to the infrastructure and
economy alone. Equally important is the development of
democratic and political processes. Implied in the
allegations of massive fraud is that government officials
either participated in or were indifferent to the cheating.
Neither the COMELEC nor this Court can do much if
certain officials who should guard the polls with zeal take
advantage of the situation or condone the perpetration of
anomalies.
In suggesting that Congress should strike a new and
different equilibrium in the balancing of the public
interests at stake, we may not be going into the heart of the
problem. Statistically improbable results may flatter the
ego of incumbent officials but they insult the intelligence
and reflect a failure to help the voters express their free
and genuine will. What is needed is a system which makes
public officers and political leaders lead the way towards
political maturity.
Petitions dismissed.

Notes.—A judge in correction proceeding, may not go to


the extent of having the ballot box opened and counting the
votes. (Tiglao vs. COMELEC, 34 SCRA 456).
There is no res judicata in a recount where the
proclamation is void. (Javier vs. COMELEC, 13 SCRA 156).

——o0o——

790

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175cfb0b9a4cdd0bdce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22

Potrebbero piacerti anche