Santos v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the canvass of votes for the Mayor of Hagonoy in the November 1959 elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers encountered an issue with the election return from Precinct No. 7. The entries for Mayor showed "Emilio Santos" credited with "Thirty" (30) votes in one entry and "One hundred nine" (109) votes in another, while "Nena S. Marucot" received "Two" (2) votes and "Segundo Gonzales" received "One" (1) vote. Procedural History: The canvass of Precinct No. 7 was suspended due to the discrepancy. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) telegraphed instructions to continue the canvass without the votes from Precinct No. 7 and to withhold proclamation if these votes would materially affect the result. Candidate Emilio Perez filed a petition for recounting in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan. During the CFI hearing, all four copies of the election return were examined. The CFI observed that "Emilio Perez" had 30 votes and "Emilio Santos" had 109 votes in the copies for the COMELEC and Provincial Treasurer. In the Municipal Treasurer's copy, the court noted that the second "Emilio" could be read as "Santos," thus concluding there was no discrepancy as "Emilio" on the first space must refer to "Emilio Perez." Consequently, Perez withdrew his petition. Subsequently, some members of the board requested the COMELEC for the original copy of the election return for Precinct No. 7. The COMELEC authorized the issuance of a photostatic copy. A meeting was called for December 3, 1959, to terminate the canvass and make proclamations. However, the chairman convened an earlier meeting at 8:00 AM, where a proclamation for Emilio Santos was presented for signing, despite objections from COMELEC's Special Attorney Bautista that Precinct No. 7 had not been canvassed. Five members walked out, and substitutes were appointed. The reconstituted board then completed the canvass, including Precinct No. 7, and proclaimed Emilio Perez as mayor-elect. The original board members who did not walk out proclaimed Emilio Santos. The COMELEC annulled the first proclamation and upheld the second. Santos then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Emilio C. Santos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to nullify the resolution of the Commission on Elections and the proclamation of Emilio Perez. Santos argued that the proclamation in his favor by the original board of canvassers was legal and valid, and that the subsequent proclamation of Emilio Perez by the reconstituted board was void. He contended that the COMELEC's directives were improperly followed or disregarded, leading to an erroneous annulment of his proclamation.
Issue(s)
Whether the first proclamation of Emilio Santos as Mayor-elect by the original Municipal Board of Canvassers was valid. Whether the second proclamation of Emilio Perez as Mayor-elect by the reconstituted Municipal Board of Canvassers was valid. Whether the resolution of the Commission on Elections annulling the first proclamation and upholding the second was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court declared both proclamations of December 3, 1959, null and void. It directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers, composed of the present members of the municipal council, to proceed with a new canvass of the original return in Precinct No. 7 and, based on its result and those of already canvassed precincts, to proclaim the candidate who received a plurality of votes. If doubts arise regarding names or if the return appears to contain the same candidate's name twice, the Board is to determine the correct name based on the CFI's findings in Case No. 2080, or suspend proclamation to allow for a recount if discrepancies persist, abiding by judicial resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the first proclamation of Emilio Santos was null and void. This was because it was made in direct contravention of the COMELEC's telegram dated November 19, 1959, which explicitly instructed the board to "hold action on pricinct seven until the party affected can bring case to court" and "to hold proclamation until furhter orders of commission." The insistence on meeting in the morning and proceeding with the proclamation, despite the COMELEC's supervisory authority and the fact that the disputed election return for Precinct No. 7 had not been properly canvassed, demonstrated a clear intent to "railroad" Santos's proclamation. Furthermore, the proclamation was signed by only five members of the ten-member board, which did not constitute a majority, rendering the action procedurally defective. On Issue 2: The Court also declared the second proclamation of Emilio Perez, made by the reconstituted board, as null and void. The primary reason was that the canvass was not based on the original election return for Precinct No. 7, as prescribed by law. Instead, the reconstituted board used a photostatic copy of the duplicate return belonging to the COMELEC. The Court emphasized that it is a dangerous precedent to allow the use of any copy of the return other than the original, especially without establishing the unavailability of the original. The five substitute members appointed by the COMELEC had not seen the original return, which was locked in a ballot box, and no adequate measures were taken to procure it. This procedural flaw invalidated the canvass and subsequent proclamation. On Issue 3: The Court agreed with the COMELEC's resolution to annul the first proclamation and upheld the principle that election proceedings must strictly adhere to legal requirements and COMELEC directives. While the COMELEC's decision to annul the first proclamation was correct due to the procedural infirmities and disregard for COMELEC orders, the Court found that the second proclamation was also invalid due to the use of a copy instead of the original election return. Therefore, the Court modified the COMELEC's resolution by declaring both proclamations void and directing a new canvass by the newly elected municipal council, ensuring that the process would be conducted in accordance with law, using the original return for Precinct No. 7 and resolving any discrepancies based on prior judicial findings or allowing for a recount if necessary.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) declaring null and void both proclamations made on December 3, 1959. The Court held that the first proclamation, favoring Emilio Santos, was invalid because it was made in disregard of the COMELEC's telegram instructing the board to withhold action on Precinct No. 7 and to hold proclamation until further orders. This proclamation was also flawed as it was made without canvassing the disputed return of Precinct No. 7 and was signed by only five members, not a majority, of the ten-member board. The second proclamation, favoring Emilio Perez, was also declared void because the reconstituted board used a photostatic copy of the election return for Precinct No. 7 instead of the original return, which is the legally prescribed basis for canvassing. Consequently, the Court directed a new canvass by the newly elected municipal council.