EN BANC
IN THE MATTER OF
THE PETITION TO EXCLUDE ELECTION
RETURNS CONTAINED
IN NINE (9) BALLOT BOXES, ETC.chanrobles virtual law library
AMELITA
S.
NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
150799
February 3, 2003
-versus-
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS
OF SANTIAGO CITY,
ISABEL AND JOSE C. MIRANDA,
Respondents.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
AMELITA S. NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
-versus-
|
THE
MEMBERS OF
THE
TASK FORCE, NAMELY: ATTY. ARMANDO C. VELASCO,ATTY. JULIUS TORRES
AND ATTY. CESAR M. TORRADO, and THE NEW MEMBERSOF THE BOARD OF
CANVASSERS NAMELY: ATTY. JOSSLYN DE MESA (CHAIRMAN),ATTY. WANDA TALOSIG
(MEMBER),
ATTY. NELIA AUREUS (MEMBER), AS CONSTITUTEDUNDER RESOLUTION
No. 4990 PROMULGATED ON 28 JUNE 2001,
Respondents. |
chan
robles virtual law library
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chan
robles virtual law library
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before this Court is
a Petition for
Certiorari and
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court which seeks to set aside the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)
En Banc Resolution[1]
denying petitioner’s petition for exclusion of election returns.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The antecedent facts
of the case are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Amelita S. Navarro (petitioner)
and Jose C. Miranda (private respondent) were candidates for mayor of
Santiago
City, Isabela in the May 14, 2001 elections.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 15, 2001, the
City Board of Canvassers (BOC) convened for the canvassing of the
election
returns.[3]
Upon opening of the envelope containing the first return, counsel for
petitioner
objected on the ground that the return was not properly sealed in
accordance
with the Omnibus Election Code.[4]
Also alleging that in fact 95% of the returns in the first ballot box
was
not properly sealed, petitioner objected to the inclusion thereof.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The following day or
on May 16, 2001, petitioner filed before the BOC a petition[6]
to exclude the election returns contained in 9 ballot boxes on the
ground
that they were not secured with the required 3 padlocks.[7]
On account of the filing of such petition, the BOC suspended the
canvassing.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Decision of May 19,
2001,[9]
the BOC denied the petition to exclude the election returns contained
in
the questioned 9 ballot boxes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner appealed[10]
to the COMELEC the BOC Resolution denying her petition for exclusion of
election returns contained in the contested ballot boxes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, the
BOC declared the formal adjournment of the canvassing proceedings. The
winning candidates for local positions, however, were not proclaimed in
view of the pending appeal of petitioner with the COMELEC.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Resolution of June
6, 2001,[12]
the COMELEC En Banc ordered the BOC to complete the canvassing of
election
returns and proclaim all winning local candidates in Santiago City
before
June 30, 2001. Pursuant to said resolution, the BOC proclaimed on July
4, 2001 the winning local candidates of Santiago City including herein
respondent Miranda who was proclaimed city mayor.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Resolution of July
9, 2001,[14]
the COMELEC Second Division, finding that "the allegations of the
appeal
(of petitioner from the BOC Resolution denying the exclusion of the
election
returns contained in the contested ballot boxes) do.not raise a
genuine
pre-proclamation controversy" as she was questioning "the condition of
the ballot boxes", denied petitioner’s appeal. Her motion for
reconsideration
was likewise denied by the COMELEC En Banc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition,
petitioner alleging that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"THE RESPONDENT
COMMISSION
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION
WHEN IT RULED THAT SECURING THE BALLOT BOXES CONTAINING THE ELECTION
RETURNS
AND THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUIRED PADLOCKS THEREIN ARE NOT PART OF THE
PROCEDURE
OF THE CBOC.[15]
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE RESPONDENT
COMMISSION
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION
WHEN IT RULED THAT PROCLAMATION MAY BE MADE PENDING APPEAL."[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issues to be resolved
are thus as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Whether the lack
of the required number of padlocks on the ballot boxes containing the
election
returns is a proper issue in a pre-proclamation case; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Whether a proclamation
may be made pending appeal from the BOC Resolution denying the
exclusion
of election returns.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code enumerates the issues that may be raised in a
pre-proclamation
controversy, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Illegal composition
or proceeding of the board of canvassers;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) The canvassed election
returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered
with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in
other
authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235, and
236
of this Code;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) The election returns
were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they
are obviously manufactured or not authentic; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) When substitute or
fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the
results
of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or
candidates.cralaw:red
The enumeration is exclusive.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is petitioner’s contention
that "proceeding" as used in paragraph (a) of the above-cited provision
refers to the entirety of the steps that have to be done by the BOC
from
the time it is created to constitute a Reception and Custody Group up
to
the time it has completed the canvass and proclaimed a winner.[18]
Petitioner thus concludes that the BOC failed to comply with COMELEC En
Banc Resolution No. 3848 otherwise known as the "General Instructions
for
Municipal/ City/ Provincial Board of Canvassers" in connection with the
May 14, 2001 national and local elections, the pertinent provisions of
which are:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SEC. 21 Safekeeping
of transmitted Election Returns or Certificate of Canvass. - The Board
shall place the Election Returns/ Certificate of Canvass in ballot
boxes
that shall be locked with three padlocks and one serially numbered
self-locking
metal seal. The members of the Board shall keep a key to the three
padlocks.
The serial number of every metal seal used shall be entered in the
minutes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The said ballot boxes
shall be kept in a safe and secured room before, during and after the
canvass.
The room shall be locked with three padlocks with the keys thereof kept
by each member of the Board."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
"SEC. 25 Canvassing
Procedure. - The Board shall comply with the following rules:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
b) The Reception and
Custody Group shall, after recording all the data required under Sec.
23
hereof, place all envelopes containing Election Returns/Certificate of
Canvass received by it inside an empty ballot box.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the ballot box
is already full or when there is no more Election Returns/Certificate
of
Canvass to be received, the Reception and Custody Group shall close the
ballot box and lock the same with padlock and metal seal. The Reception
and Custody Group shall submit the locked ballot box to the Board, for
assignment to the Canvassing Committee, if any, together with the list
of precinct numbers or city/municipality of the Election
Returns/Certificate
of Canvass contained therein. For this purpose, the Reception and
custody
Group shall maintain a record of the Election Returns/Certificate of
Canvass
submitted to the Board."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
SEC. 26 Adjournment/Suspension
of canvass. A. In case of adjournment or suspension of canvass:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
c) The remaining unopened
envelopes and Statement of Votes containing the page partial total
shall
be placed in the ballot box provided for the purpose for which shall be
locked with three padlocks and self-locking metal seals. The members of
the Board shall keep the keys to each padlock.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
B. Upon resumption of
the canvass:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) The secretary of
the Board shall verify and enter in the minutes of the three padlocks
and
the metal seal, as well as its serial number.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
Continuing, petitioner
argues that when the BOC failed to comply with the procedure prescribed
by the COMELEC, the proceedings before it became illegal and its
illegality
was a proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court is not persuaded.
Non-compliance by a BOC of the prescribed canvassing procedure is not
an
"illegal proceeding" under paragraph (a) of Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code, given the summary nature of a pre-proclamation
controversy,
consistent with the law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be
delayed
as little as possible.[19]
A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the
election
returns on their face and the COMELEC as a general rule need not go
beyond
the face of the returns and investigate the alleged election
irregularities.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner’s allegation
that the absence of the required number of padlocks puts into question
the integrity of the election returns fails, she not having alleged nor
proved that the election returns showed on their face tampering or
alteration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case of Baterina,
et al. v. COMELEC[21]
is, contrary to the contention of petitioner, applicable to the case at
bar. In Baterina, the therein petitioners contested the legality of the
proceedings before the BOC, questioning "the failure to close the
entries
with the signatures of election inspectors; lack of inner and outer
paper
seals; canvassing by the BOARD of copies not intended for it; lack of
time
and date of receipt by the BOARD of election returns; lack of
signatures
of petitioners’ watchers; and lack of authority of the person receiving
the election returns." Held this Court:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"While the aforesaid
grounds may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules governing the
preparation
and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not
necessarily
affect the authenticity and genuineness of the subject election returns
as to warrant their exclusion from the canvassing. The grounds for
objection
to the election returns made by petitioners are clearly defects in form
insufficient to support a conclusion that the election returns were
tampered
with or spurious."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The ground raised by
herein petitioner partakes of the nature of those raised in Baterina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In any event, as correctly
observed by the COMELEC, petitioner did not adduce substantial and
convincing
evidence to support her objection[22]
to the inclusion of the contested returns. She merely posited that
since
the contested ballot boxes did not have the required number of
padlocks,
the returns were exposed to tampering, substitution, alteration and
switching.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the contention
that the proclamation of private respondent is null and void, it having
been made by the BOC during the pendency at the COMELEC Second Division
of petitioner’s appeal from the BOC’s denial of her petition for
exclusion
of the returns[24]
in the questioned ballot boxes, this Court finds no error, let alone
grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC En Banc which ordered
the
proclamation. Petitioner’s argument that this is a violation of
Republic
Act 7166, specifically Section 20 thereof which reads:
"Section 20. Procedure
in Disposition of Contested Election Returns. -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
(i) The board of canvassers
shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the
Commission
after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by
the losing party. Any proclamation in violation hereof shall be void ab
initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the
results
of the election."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
is without merit. As
correctly ruled by the COMELEC, petitioner’s reliance on said Section
is
misplaced.[25]
The Section applies only where the objection deals with a
pre-proclamation
controversy, not where, as in the present petition, it raises or deals
with no such controversy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DISMISSED for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs against petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 107-118.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 12-14, 107.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 119 -122.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Vide COMELEC Elections Officer Decision of May 19, 2001, Rollo at
123-125,
which states that the petition for exclusion of election returns "is
anchored
on the ground that each one of the said nine (9) ballot boxes
containing
the ELECTION RETURNS was provided with only ONE (1) padlock".
[8]
Rollo at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 123-125.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 126-236, 108.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 19, 108.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Rollo. at 270-273.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 111.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 107-118.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id. at 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Sanchez v. COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67 (1987)
[18]
Rollo at 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Abella v. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509 (1989) citing Alonto v. COMELEC, 22
SCRA 878 (1968).
[20]
Sebastian v. COMELEC, 327 SCRA 406 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
205 SCRA 1 (1992).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Rollo at 113.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Rollo at 131-138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id. at 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 116.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred | 
