EN
BANC
MICHAEL
O.
MASTURA,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 124521
January
29, 1998
-versus-
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
[SECOND DIVISION],
THE NEW
MUNICIPAL
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF
MATANOG,
MAGUINDANAO,
THE NEW PROVINCIAL
BOARD OF
CANVASSERS
OF MAGUINDANAO AND
DIDAGEN P.
DILANGALEN,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO,
J :
This Petition for
Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or
Restraining Order seeks to reverse, annul or set aside: [a] the 29
February
1996 Order of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which
annulled and set aside the canvass made by the original Municipal Board
of Canvassers of Matanog, Maguindanao, created a new set of Municipal
and
Provincial Board of Canvassers and directing them to recanvass the
votes
using the COMELEC copy of the election returns and to proclaim the duly
elected Member of the House of Representatives, First District of
Maguindanao;
[b] the 5 March 1996 Order of the COMELEC Second Division which merely
noted the Urgent Motion to Examine and Verify the Canvassed MBC Copies
of Election Returns, COMELEC Copy of the Certificate of Canvass and the
accompanying Statement of Votes; [c] the 14 March 1996 Order denying
the
Urgent Motion to Defer Implementation of the 29 February 1996 Order;
and
[d] the 20 March 1996 Order denying Mastura's Motion for
Reconsideration
of the 29 February 1996 Order.
Petitioner Michael
O. Mastura and private respondent, Didagen P. Dilangalen, were
congressional
candidates for the first district of Maguindanao during the 8 May 1995
elections. In the canvassing of votes, Dilangalen objected to the
inclusion
of the Certificate of Canvass of the Municipality of Matanog on the
ground
that the same was allegedly tampered. Acting on the objection, the
COMELEC
Second Division ordered the production and examination of the election
returns of the Municipality of Matanog. In the course of the
examination
four [4] ballot boxes were produced and opened. Ballot Box No. 1
contained
the MTC Judge copy of the election returns, Ballot Box No. 2 the
Provincial
Board of Canvassers copy of the election returns, Ballot Box No. 3 the
COMELEC copy of the election returns, and Ballot Box No. 4 the
Provincial
Board of Canvassers copy of the Municipal Certificate of Canvass of
Matanog
with its supporting Statement of Votes.
Upon examination and
comparison of the copies of the election returns of the MTC Judge and
the
COMELEC, the COMELEC Second Division found that indeed, the Certificate
of Canvass of the Municipality of Matanog had been tampered with.
Consequently,
the COMELEC Second Division issued the herein assailed Order of 29
February
1996 annulling the Certificate of Canvass of Matanog thus -
After comparing the
fifty-seven [57] election returns, Municipal Trial Court copy [Judge
copy]
with the Comelec copy as to the number of votes obtained by candidates
Didagen P. Dilangalen and Michael O. Mastura, both in words and figures
and the taras, the Second Division, finding that no inconsistencies
exist
between the two [2] copies of the election returns, and finding further
that the Statement of Votes submitted by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers
of Matanog, Maguindanao is not reflective of the true votes obtained in
the election returns per verification, hereby annuls the canvass made
by
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Matanog, Maguindanao.
WHEREFORE, the
canvass
conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers for the position of
Member,
House of Representatives (First District) is hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE.
A new Municipal Board
of Canvassers for the Municipality of Matanog, Maguindanao is hereby
constituted
to conduct a new recanvassing at the Comelec Session Hall at
Intramuros,
Manila, prepare a new Certificate of Canvass using the Comelec copy of
the election returns and, thereafter, to immediately submit the new
Certificate
of Canvass to the new Provincial Board of Canvassers as herein
constituted.[1]
The following day, Mastura
filed an Urgent Motion to Examine and Verify the Canvassed MBC Copies
of
the Election Returns and the COMELEC Copy of the Certificate of Canvass
and Accompanying Statement of Votes. The COMELEC Second Division merely
noted the motion in view of the 29 February 1996 Order.[2]
Thereafter, Mastura
filed an Urgent Motion to Defer Implementation of the 29 February 1996
Order. Mastura argued that the 29 February 1996 Order was issued
precipitately
and prematurely considering that some other documents, particularly the
Certificate of Canvass of Matanog which he considered necessary for the
resolution of the issue, was yet to be produced and examined. The
COMELEC
Second Division denied the motion:
[I]t appearing that
when the Commission opened the election returns for Matanog,
Maguindanao,
particularly the Judge copy and the Comelec copy and made comparison
thereof
to ascertain the actual votes of candidates Didagen P. Dilangalen and
Michael
O. Mastura per precinct which consists of fifty-seven [57] precincts,
in
compliance with the Supreme Court resolution, the results thereof fully
convinced the Commission of the manifest irregularity committed in the
Statement of Votes by precincts. Thus, it annuals the canvass made by
the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Matanog, Maguindanao.
Clearly, on the basis of
the results of the primary documents, there is no need for the
examination
and opening of other documents mentioned in the motion of private
respondent.
Besides, the opening of other documents will entail more delay in the
proclamation
of the rightful winner for the position of Member, House of
Representatives,
First District of Maguindanao.[3]
Meanwhile, the new
Municipal Board of Canvassers convened and recanvassed the votes.
During
the proceedings, Mastura objected to the inclusion of fifty [50] out of
the fifty-seven [57] election returns on the ground that the COMELEC
copy
of the election returns was not reflective of the true results unless
compared
with the copy of the original Municipal Board of Canvassers. But the
new
Municipal Board of Canvassers believed otherwise; hence, it included in
the canvass the fifty [50] election returns objected to by Mastura who
thereafter walked out while the new Municipal Board of Canvassers
continued
with the Canvassing.
After the proceedings
in the Municipal Board of Canvassers, the Provincial Board of
Canvassers
convened and prepared the Certificate of Canvass and Statement of Votes
of the Municipality of Matanog. As a result, private respondent
Dilangalen
was proclaimed the duly elected member of the House of Representatives,
First District of Maguindanao.
Mastura now comes to
Us imputing to public respondent COMELEC Second Division grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders of
29
February 1996, 5 March 1996, 14 March 1996, and 20 March 1996.
We find no grave abuse
of discretion on the part of respondent COMELEC. It is settled
jurisprudence
that COMELEC can suspend the canvass of votes pending its inquiry
whether
there exists a discrepancy between the various copies of election
returns
from the disputed voting centers. Corollarily, once the election
returns
were found to be falsified or tampered with, the COMELEC can annul the
illegal canvass and order the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and
proclaim
the winners on the basis of the genuine returns or, if it should
refuse,
replace the members of the board or proclaim the winners itself.[4]
This was exactly what
happened in the instant petition. Dilangalen objected to the inclusion
of the Certificate of Canvass of the Municipality of Matanog and,
acting
on the objection, COMELEC ordered the production and examination of the
MTC Judge copy and the COMELEC copy of the election returns. Based on
the
comparison, the COMELEC Second Division found and concluded that indeed
the Certificate of Canvass of the Municipality of Matanog was tampered
with. Consequently, it ordered its annulment and created a new set of
Municipal
and Provincial Boards of Canvassers to recanvass the votes. After the
recanvassing,
Dilangalen emerged as the winner and was thereafter proclaimed the duly
elected member of the House of Representatives, First District of
Maguindanao.
That the Certificate
of Canvass of the Municipality of Matanog was tampered with is a
factual
finding of the COMELEC. Absent any showing of abuse of discretion
amounting
to lack of jurisdiction, this Court should refrain from reviewing the
same,
and must accord it instead the respect it deserves. The rule that
factual
findings of administrative bodies will not be disturbed by courts of
justice
except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence
in support of such findings should be applied with greater force when
it
concerns the COMELEC, as the framers of the Constitution intended to
place
the COMELEC - created and explicitly made independent by the
Constitution
itself - on a level higher than statutory administrative organs. The
COMELEC
has broad powers to ascertain the true results of the election by means
available to it. For the attainment of that end, it is not strictly
bound
by the rules of evidence.[5]
Pursuant to its
administrative
functions, the COMELEC exercises direct supervision and control over
the
proceedings before the Board of Canvassers. In Aratuc v. Commission on
Elections,[6]
We held:
While nominally, the
procedure of bringing to the Commission objections to the actuations of
boards of canvassers has been quite loosely referred to in certain
quarters,
even by the Commission and by this Court as an appeal, the fact of the
matter is that the authority of the Commission in reviewing such
actuations
does not spring from any appellant 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. And in
administrative
law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting citation
here, that a superior body or office having supervision and control
over
another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to
have
done.
Also in Lucman v. Dimaporo,[7]
We ruled:
The function of a
canvassing
board in the canvass of the returns is purely ministerial in nature.
Equally
ministerial, therefore, is the function of the Commission on Elections,
in the exercise of its supervisory power over said Board, pursuant to
our
Constitution and laws. So long as the election returns have been
accomplished
in due form, the Board, and on appeal therefrom, the Commission on
Elections
must include said returns in the canvass.
In Abes v. Commission on
Elections,[8]
We emphasized:
The Board of
Canvassers
is a ministerial body. It is enjoined by law to canvass all votes on
election
returns submitted to it in due form. It has been said, and properly,
that
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.
Pertinent rulings of this
Court have since defined Comelec's powers in pursuance of its
supervisory
or administrative authority over officials charged with specific duties
under the election code. It is within the legitimate concerns of
Comelec
to annul a canvass or proclamation based on incomplete returns, or on
incorrect
or tampered returns; annul 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. Neither Constitution nor statute
has granted Comelec or board of canvassers the power, in the canvass of
election returns, to look beyond the face thereof, once satisfied of
their
authenticity.
The assailed Orders
having been issued pursuant to COMELEC's administrative powers and in
the
absence of any finding of grave abuse of discretion, judicial
interference
is, therefore, unnecessary and uncalled for. Consequently, the
questioned
Orders must perforce be upheld.
Additionally, Secs.
27, 28 and 29 of R. A. No. 7166[9]
provide:
Sec. 27. Number
of Copies of Election Returns and Their Distribution. - The board
of
election inspectors shall prepare in handwriting the election returns
in
their respective polling places, in the number of copies herein
provided
and in the form to be prescribed and provided by the Commission. The
copies
of the election returns shall be distributed as follows: [a] In the
election
of members of the House of Representatives: 1) The first copy shall be
delivered to the city or municipal board of canvassers; 2) The second
copy,
to the Congress directed to the President of the Senate; 3) The third
copy,
to the Commission; 4) The fourth copy, to the provincial board of
canvassers;
5) The fifth copy, to the city or municipal treasurer; 6) The sixth
copy
shall be given to the city or municipal trial court judge or in his
absence
to any official who may be designated by the Commission. The city or
municipal
trial court judge or the official designated by the Commission shall
keep
his copies of the election returns sealed and unopened. Said copy may
be
opened only during the canvass upon order of the board of canvassers
for
purposes of comparison with other copies of the returns whose
authenticity
is in question; and, 7) The seventh copy shall be deposited inside the
compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots.
Sec. 28. Canvassing
by Provincial, City, District and Municipal Boards of Canvassers. -
[a] The city or municipal board of canvassers shall canvass the
election
returns for members of the House of Representatives and/or elective
provincial
and city or municipal officials. Upon completion of the canvass, it
shall
prepare the certificate of canvass for Members of the House of
Representatives.
Sec. 29. Number
of Copies of Certificate of Canvass and their Distribution. - [a]
The
certificate of canvass for Members of the House of Representatives
shall
be prepared in seven (7) copies by the city or municipal board of
canvassers
and distributed as follows: 1) The first copy shall be delivered to the
provincial board of canvassers; 2) The second copy shall be sent to the
commission; 3) The third copy shall be kept by the chairman of the
board;
4) The fourth copy shall be given to the citizens arm designated by the
Commission to conduct a media-based unofficial count; and, 5) The
fifth,
sixth and seventh copies shall be given to the representatives of any
three
(3) of the six (6) major political parties in accordance with the
voluntary
agreement of the parties.
In the instant petition,
petitioner Mastura argues that the COMELEC Second Division should have
made use of the Municipal Board of Canvassers copy of the election
returns
for the simple reason that it is the original copy. This is a
misconception.
All the seven [7] copies of the election returns are all original
copies,
although the copy for the Municipal Board of Canvassers is designated
as
the first copy. This designation is only for the purpose of
distribution
and does not in any way accord said copy the status of being the only
original
copy. Consequently, it was properly within the exercise of its
discretion
when COMELEC ordered the production and examination of the MTC Judge
copy
and the COMELEC copy of the election returns. COMELEC is not required
to
retrieve and examine all the seven [7] copies of the election returns.
Additionally, Sec.
15 of R.A. No. 7166 does not, in any way, specify that the COMELEC
should
use the Municipal Board of Canvassers copy in correcting manifest
error.
COMELEC is in fact given enough leeway in this regard:
Sec. 15. Pre-Proclamation
Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator
and
Member of the House of Representatives. - For purposes of the
elections
for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of
Representatives,
no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the
preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns
or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does
not
preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio
or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest
errors
in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.
There
is another reason
for denying the instant petition. When petitioner's motion for
reconsideration
of the 29 February 1996 Order was denied for being interlocutory in
nature,
petitioner should have sought prior recourse from the COMELEC en
banc
before coming to this Court pursuant to Sec. 3, Art. IX-C, of the
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, finding
no grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent Commission
on Elections Second Division, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The
assailed
Orders of 29 February 1996, 5 March 1996, 14 March 1996 and 20 March
1996
of the COMELEC Second Division are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco,
Panganiban,
Martinez, JJ ., concur.
________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
29 February 1996 Order of the COMELEC Second Division, Annex "A,"
Rollo,
pp. 63-44.
[2]
5 March 1996 Order of the COMELEC Second Division, Annex "B," Rollo,
pp.
45-46.
[3]
14 March 1996 Order of the COMELEC Second Division, Annex "C," Rollo,
pp.
48-50.
[4]
Agpalo, Ruben E., Comments on the Omnibus Election Code, pp. 78-79.'
[5]
Id., pp. 86-87.
[6]
Nos. L-49705-06, 8 February 1979, 88 SCRA 251.
[7]
No. L-31558, 29 May 1970, 33 SCRA 388.
[8]
No. L-28348, 15 December 1967, 21 SCRA 1255.
[9]
The Synchronized Elections and Electoral Reforms Law of 1991. |