Demafiles v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The newly created Municipality of Sebaste, Antique held its first election for officers on November 14, 1967, with Agripino Demafiles and Benito B. Galido as candidates for mayor. Procedural History: Respondent Galido requested the provincial board, acting as municipal board of canvassers, to disregard the election return from precinct 7 due to an alleged excess of voters over registered voters, a claim supported by a certificate from the municipal election registrar. The board rejected the return and proclaimed Galido as mayor-elect. Petitioner Demafiles protested to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), challenging the rejection of the precinct 7 return, Galido's proclamation, and the qualification of two board members. The COMELEC initially annulled the canvass and proclamation, ordering a new canvass, but later reversed its decision upon Galido's motion for reconsideration, upholding the original canvass and proclamation. The Petition: Demafiles filed a petition for mandamus and certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the COMELEC's resolution, annul Galido's proclamation, and compel the COMELEC to appoint substitute board members and order a new canvass that includes the precinct 7 return.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent board of canvassers had the power to reject the return from precinct 7 based on an election registrar's certificate. Whether provincial board members who were candidates for reelection were disqualified from sitting in the board when it acted as a municipal board of canvassers. Whether the Commission on Elections has the power to order the board of canvassers to count a return from a given precinct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated December 4 and 8, 1967, annulled the canvass of returns and the proclamation of respondent Benito B. Galido. It directed the COMELEC to appoint new members to the board of canvassers and to order the reconstituted board to convene, canvass all votes including those in the precinct 7 return, and proclaim the winning candidates based on the results.
Ratio Decidendi
On the power to reject election returns: The Court held that a canvassing board performs a purely ministerial function, which is to compile and add the results as they appear in the returns. The board may be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns, meaning they are not forged or spurious and are signed by the proper officers. However, they may not reject returns due to informalities or because of illegal and fraudulent practices. The Court distinguished this case from Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections, where the fraud was so palpable from the return itself (res ipsa loquitur). In the present case, the return showed nothing on its face indicating falsity; the discrepancy only appeared when compared with the election registrar's certificate. Such a question of validity should be threshed out in an election contest, not during canvassing. Therefore, the rejection of the precinct 7 return was improper. On the disqualification of reelectionist board members: The Court affirmed that provincial board members who are candidates for reelection are disqualified from sitting in the board when it performs duties related to an election, citing Section 28 of the Revised Election Code. The statute's language is all-inclusive, making no distinction between the provincial board acting as a provincial board of canvassers and acting as a municipal canvassing body for new municipalities. The maxim ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos (where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish) applies. Thus, the participation of the two reelectionist board members rendered the board's actions invalid. On the COMELEC's power to order a new canvass: The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that the COMELEC has the power to annul an illegal canvass and proclamation, especially when based on incomplete returns, and to order a new canvass. If the COMELEC can direct the use of certain copies of returns over others, it can also direct canvassing bodies to count all regular returns. It is the COMELEC's duty to ensure a proper canvass, and failure to do so can be compelled by mandamus. The ministerial function of the board of canvassers is to count results from returns that do not, on their face, reveal irregularities or falsities. Therefore, the COMELEC had the authority to order the inclusion of the precinct 7 return.
Main Doctrine
A board of canvassers performs a purely ministerial function of compiling and adding results from election returns. It cannot pass upon the validity of an election return or exclude it based on evidence aliunde, unless the falsity is so palpable from the return itself. Members of a provincial board who are candidates for reelection are disqualified from sitting in the board when it acts as a municipal board of canvassers.