EN BANC
RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALAMBA LAGUNA and SEVERINO LAJARA,
respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for mayor in
Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 May 1995 elections. After obtaining a
majority of some 24,000 votes Lajara was
proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May 1995 Canicosa filed with
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a Petition to Declare
Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation because
of alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of votes,
preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying,
unregistered voters voting, and delay in the delivery of election documents and
paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer. Canicosa
particularly averred that: (a) the names of the registered voters
did not appear in the list of voters in their precincts; (b) more than one-half
of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with strangers voting
in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he actually received;
(d) control data of the election returns was not filled up in some precincts;
(e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were
unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f)
there was delay in the delivery of election returns. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed
the petition on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a
declaration of failure of election.
Indeed, the grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of
failure of election. Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, reads:
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If,
on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on
the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the
closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or
suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after
due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election
not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the
cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or
failure to elect.
Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of
election may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the
election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law
for the closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in
a failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.
Canicosa
bewails that the names of the registered voters in the various precincts did
not appear in their respective lists of voters. But this is not a ground
to declare a failure of election. The filing of a petition for declaration
of failure of election therefore is not the proper remedy. The day
following the last day for registration of voters, the poll clerk delivers a
certified list of voters to the election registrar, election supervisor and the
COMELEC, copies
of which are open to public inspection. On the same day, the poll
clerk posts a copy of the list of registered voters in each polling
place. Each member of the board of election inspectors retains a copy of
the list which may be inspected by the public in their residence or in their
office during office hours.
Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on 8 May 1995 the
final list of voters was posted in each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of RA No.
7166. Based on the lists thus posted Canicosa could have filed a petition for
inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts. The question of
inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to vote which is not within the
power and authority of COMELEC
to rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to vote is a
justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular courts. Section 138,
Art. XII, of the Omnibus Election Code states:
Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. -
The municipal and metropolitan trial courts shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters of inclusion and exclusion of voters
from the list in their respective municipalities or cities. Decisions of
the municipal or metropolitan trial courts may be appealed directly by the
aggrieved party to the proper regional trial court within five days from
receipts of notice thereof, otherwise said decision of the municipal or
metropolitan trial court shall decide the appeal within ten days from the time
the appeal was received and its decision shall be immediately final and
executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the
courts (Sec. 37, PD 1896, as amended).
On the other hand, Canicosa could have also filed with the COMELEC a verified complaint seeking the
annulment of the book of voters pursuant to Sec. 10, of RA No. 7166:
Sec. 10. Annulment of the List of Voters. - Any book
of voters the preparation of which has been affected with fraud, bribery,
forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or any other similar irregularity
or which is statistically improbable may be annulled after due notice and
hearing by the Commission motu propio or after the filing of a
verified complaint: Provided, that no order, ruling or
decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed within sixty (60) days
before an election.
If indeed the situation herein described was common in almost all
of the 557 precincts as alleged by Canicosa, then it was
more expedient on his part to avail of the remedies provided by law in order to
maintain the integrity of the election. Since Canicosa failed to resort to any of the above
options, the permanent list of voters as finally corrected before the election
remains conclusive on the question as to who had the right to vote in that
election, although not in subsequent elections.
Canicosa
also avers that more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered voters
were not able to vote, instead, strangers voted in their behalf. Again,
this is not a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election.
Canicosa was allowed
to appoint a watcher in every precinct. The watcher is empowered by law
to challenge any illegal voter. Thus, Secs. 199 and 202, Art. XVII, of
the Omnibus Election Code, provide:
Sec. 199. Challenge of illegal voters. - (a)
Any voter, or watcher may challenge any person offering to vote for not being
registered, for using the name of another or suffering from existing
disqualification. In such case, the board of election inspectors shall
satisfy itself as to whether or not the ground for the challenge is true by
requiring proof of registration or identity of the voter x x x x
Sec. 202. Record of challenges and oaths. - The poll
clerk shall keep a prescribed record of challenges and oaths taken in
connection therewith and the resolution of the board of election inspectors in
each case and, upon the termination of the voting, shall certify that it
contains all the challenges made x x x x
The claim of Canicosa
that he was credited with less votes than he actually received and that the
control data of the election returns was not filled up should have been raised
in the first instance before the board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers. Section 179, Art. XV, of the Omnibus Election Code clearly
provides for the rights and duties of watchers -
Sec. 179. Rights and duties of watchers. - x x x
x The watchers x x x shall have the right to witness and inform themselves of
the proceedings of the board of election inspectors x x x to file a protest
against any irregularity or violation of law which they believe may have been
committed by the board of election inspectors or by any of its members or by
any persons, to obtain from the board of election inspectors a certificate as
to the filing of such protest and/or of the resolution thereon x x x and to be
furnished with a certificate of the number of votes in words and figures cast
for each candidate, duly signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and all the
members of the board of election inspectors x x x x
To safeguard and maintain the sanctity of election returns, Sec.
212, Art. XVIII, of the Omnibus Election Code states -
Sec. 212. Election returns. - x x x x
Immediately upon the accomplishment of the election returns, each copy thereof
shall be sealed in the presence of the watchers and the public, and placed in
the proper envelope, which shall likewise be sealed and distributed as herein
provided.
Furthermore, it is provided in Sec. 215 of the Omnibus
Election Code that -
Sec. 215. Board of election inspectors to issue a
certificate of the number of votes polled by the candidates for an office
to the watchers. - After the announcement of the results of the
election and before leaving the polling place, it shall be the duty of the
board of election inspectors to issue a certificate of the number of votes
received by a candidate upon request of the watchers. All members of the
board of election inspectors shall sign the certificate.
Supplementing the preceding provisions, Secs. 16 and 17 of RA No.
6646 also require -
Sec. 16. Certification of votes. - After the counting
of the votes cast in the precinct and announcement of the results of the
election, and before leaving the polling place, the board of election
inspectors shall issue a certificate of votes upon request of the duly
accredited watchers x x x x
Sec. 17. Certificate of Votes as Evidence. - The
provisions of Secs. 235 and 236 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 notwithstanding, the
certificate of votes shall be admissible in evidence to prove tampering,
alteration, falsification or anomaly committed in the election returns
concerned x x x x
From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that in case of inconsistency
as to the number of votes written in the election returns and the certificate
of votes, a petition for correction of election returns must immediately be
filed with COMELEC by
all or a majority of the members of the board of election inspectors or any
candidate affected by the error or mistake. In order to make out a case
for correction of election returns, there must be an error and at least a
majority of the members of the board of election inspectors agrees that such
error existed. Canicosa
never mentioned that he petitioned for the correction of the election returns
before the COMELEC
Canicosa
complains that the election returns were delivered late and the ballot boxes
brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e., without padlocks
nor self-locking metal seals. These bare allegations cannot impel us to
declare failure of election. Assuming that the election returns were
delivered late, we still cannot see why we should declare a failure to
elect. The late deliveries did not convert the election held in Calamba
into a mockery or farce to make us conclude that there was indeed a failure of
election.
In fine, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any
of the instances enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code. In Mitmug v. Commission on Elections we ruled that before COMELEC can act on
a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, at least two (2)
conditions must concur: (a) no voting has taken place in the precincts on
the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
resulted in failure to elect; and, (b) the votes that were not cast would
affect the result of the election. From the face of the
instant petition, it is readily apparent than an election took place and that
it did not result in a failure to elect.
Canicosa
finally insists that it was error on the part of COMELEC sitting en banc to
rule on his petition. He maintains that his petition should have first
been heard by a division of COMELEC
and later by the COMELEC
en banc upon motion for reconsideration, pursuant to
Sec. 3, Art. IX-C, of the Constitution.
But this provision applies only when the COMELEC acts in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions and not when it merely exercises
purely administrative functions. To reiterate, the grounds cited by
Canicosa in his
petition are that: (a) the names of the registered voters did not
appear in the list of voters in their respective precincts; (b) more than
one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with
strangers voting in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he
actually received; (d) the control data of the election returns was not filled
up in some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer were unsecured, i. e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals;
and, (f) there was delay in the delivery of election returns.
Clearly, all these matters require the exercise by the COMELEC of its
administrative functions. Section 2, Art. IX-C, of the 1987 Constitution
grants extensive administrative powers to the COMELEC with regard to the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
elections. Likewise, Sec. 52 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, states:
Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the
Commission on Elections. - In addition to the powers and
functions conferred upon it by the Constitution, the Commission shall have
exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest
elections x x x x
Quite obviously, it is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by Division
and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is
when it is jurisdictional. In the instant case, as aforestated, the
issues presented demand only the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions.
The COMELEC
exercises direct and immediate supervision and control over national and local
officials or employees, including members of any national or local law
enforcement agency and instrumentality of the government required by law to
perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. Its power of direct
supervision and control includes the power to review, modify or set aside any
act of such national and local officials. It exercises immediate
supervision and control over the members of the boards of election
inspectors and canvassers. Its statutory power of supervision and
control includes the power to revise, reverse or set aside the
action of the boards, as well as to do what the boards should
have done, even if questions relative thereto
have not been elevated to it by an
aggrieved party, for such power includes the authority to
initiate motu proprio or by itself such steps or
actions as may be required pursuant to law.
Specifically, Canicosa
alleged that he was credited with less votes than he actually received.
But he did not raise any objection before the Municipal Board of Canvassers;
instead, he went directly to the COMELEC. He now claims, after the COMELEC en banc dismissed
his petition, that it was error on the part of COMELEC to rule on his petition while sitting en
banc.
We have already disposed of this issue in Castromayor v.
Commission on Elections thus should be
pinpointed out, in this connection, that what is involved here is a simple
problem of arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per
precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election
returns. In making the correction in computation, the MBC will be acting
in an administrative capacity, under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence, any
question pertaining to the proceedings of the MBC may be raised directly to the
COMELEC en banc in
the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions affecting
elections.
Moreover, it is expressly provided in Rule 27, Sec. 7, of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure that any party dissatisfied with the ruling of the board of
canvassers shall have a right to appeal to the COMELEC en banc:
Sec. 7. Correction of Errors in Tabulation or Tallying of
Results by the Board of Canvassers. - (a) Where it is clearly shown
before proclamation that manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or
tallying or election returns, or certificates of canvass, during the canvassing
as where (1) a copy of the election returns of one precinct or two or more
copies of a certificate of canvass were tabulated more than once, (2) two
copies of the election returns or certificate of canvass were tabulated
separately, (3) there was a mistake in the adding or copying of the
figures into the certificate of canvass
or into the statement of votes by precinct, or (4)
so-called election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the
canvass, the board may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any
candidate, political party, organization or coalition of
political parties, after due notice and hearing,
correct the errors committed x x x x (h) The appeal shall be heard and decided
by the Commission en banc.
In Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections it was made to appear
in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning
Candidates that respondent therein received 4,951 votes or more than what
he actually obtained. In resolving the case we ruled that the correction
of the manifest mistake in mathematical addition calls for a mere clerical task
of the board of canvassers. The remedy invoked was purely
administrative. In Feliciano v. Lugay we categorized the
issue concerning registration of voters, which Canicosa cited as a ground in his petition for
declaration of failure of election, as an administrative question.
Likewise, questions as to whether elections have been held or whether certain
returns were falsified or manufactured and therefore should be excluded from
the canvass do not involve the right to vote. Such questions are properly
within the administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC, hence, may be acted
upon directly by the COMELEC
en banc without having to pass through any of its divisions.
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed
by public respondent Commission on Elections, the petition is DISMISSED and
its Resolution en banc of 23 May 1995 dismissing the petition
before it on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a
declaration of failure of election is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno,
Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco, Panganiban, and Martinez, JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., on leave.
The Commission on
Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
election cases including pre-proclamation controversies. All such
election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions
for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en
banc.
No comments:
Post a Comment