Tagoranao v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the November 14, 1967 general elections for mayor in Marantao, Lanao del Sur, Cota Cornell (Liberal Party) and Naga Tagoranao and Hadji Mangata Mangondato (Nacionalista Party) were among the candidates. Cornell petitioned the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to annul elections in several precincts due to fraud and terrorism, alleging followers of Tagoranao seized ballots, filled them for Tagoranao, and placed them in ballot boxes. The Comelec ordered the municipal board of canvassers to suspend canvassing and proclamation pending investigation. Procedural History: Despite the Comelec's order, the board of canvassers proclaimed Tagoranao mayor-elect. The Comelec annulled this proclamation. Mangondato then petitioned the Comelec to permanently annul Tagoranao's proclamation, reject returns from specific precincts as "obviously manufactured," and declare him elected. Tagoranao opposed, citing Mangondato's prior filing of an action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) for annulment of returns, arguing it constituted splitting a cause of action and that fraud/terrorism were matters for election protest. Cornell later filed a petition asking the Comelec to reject returns from precincts 1 and 13, alleging they were not signed by Liberal Party inspectors and that the counting occurred on November 20 at Camp Keithley instead of the polling place on election day, contrary to the Revised Election Code. Tagoranao denied forged signatures and claimed the counting practice at Camp Keithley was to prevent a repeat of past election issues. The Petition: On January 3, 1968, the Comelec affirmed its voiding of Tagoranao's proclamation, denied Cornell's petition for rejection of returns from precincts 1 and 13, but granted Mangondato's petition by ordering the exclusion of the return from precinct 2 as "obviously manufactured." This effectively signaled Mangondato's proclamation. Tagoranao moved for reconsideration. Cornell also moved for reconsideration, asking for rejection of returns from precincts 1 and 13 and exclusion of precinct 2, and also moved for suspension of proceedings, claiming a prejudicial question due to a prior petition to annul the registry list of voters. The Comelec denied these motions. Both Cornell and Tagoranao filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Comelec has the power to nullify votes based on a petition to annul the registry list of voters. Whether the Comelec should have ordered the exclusion of returns from precincts 1 and 13 due to alleged forged signatures of LP inspectors and the counting of votes at Camp Keithley on a date after the election. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in rejecting the return from precinct 2 as "obviously manufactured." Whether the filing of an election protest in the Court of First Instance divested the Comelec of its jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the Comelec's decision and resolution insofar as they directed the exclusion from the canvass of the return from precinct 2. The Court directed the Comelec to order the municipal board of canvassers to convene without delay, canvass all votes including those from precinct 2 as reflected in its return, and proclaim the winning candidates.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Comelec's power to nullify votes based on registry list annulment: The Court held that the Comelec does not have the power to decide questions involving the right to vote or to nullify votes based on the annulment of a registry list. This power is vested exclusively in courts and electoral tribunals. To allow the Comelec to do so would be to permit it to exercise a power that is impliedly withheld from it. The Court cited Nacionalista Party v. Commission on Election to emphasize that the power to decide election contests, which includes determining the validity or nullity of questioned votes, is exclusively within the domain of courts and electoral tribunals, not the Comelec. On the exclusion of returns from precincts 1 and 13: The Court stated that whether the returns in question were spurious was a matter that should have been laid before the board of canvassers, not the Comelec. Regarding the counting of votes at Camp Keithley on a date after the election, the Court invoked its ruling in Alonto v. Commission on Elections, which involved similar elections in Lanao del Sur. The Court acknowledged that external circumstances might compel the transfer of ballot boxes and inspectors to places of safety to avoid the frustration of the popular will, especially where political passions run rife and armed persons are loose. It would be unrealistic to deny the Comelec the authority to provide adequate safeguards to permit the results of voting to be properly ascertained, free from threats and pressure, if not actual bloodshed. Requiring election officials to disregard their safety and stick to their posts in the face of imminent violence would be an extreme idolatry of the letter of the law and would tend to frustrate its primary end of ascertaining the true will of the people. On the rejection of the return from precinct 2 as "obviously manufactured": The Court found that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in rejecting the return from precinct 2. While the Comelec cited statistical impossibilities and discrepancies appearing on the face of the return and in comparison with other records, the Court held that such defects were not apparent on the face of the return itself. The Court distinguished this from cases where a return does not speak the truth, stating that the issue of whether votes were cast through fraud and irregularities requires proof and time, which is not permissible during the prompt proclamation of elected officials. The Court reiterated that canvassing boards must exercise "extreme caution" in rejecting returns and may do so only when the returns are palpably irregular. Rejecting the return would disenfranchise voters. The Court cited Demafiles v. Commission on Elections to emphasize that if a defect is not apparent on the face of the return, the issue should be threshed out in an election protest. On Comelec jurisdiction despite election protest: The Court dismissed Tagoranao's contention that Mangondato's election protest in the CFI divested the Comelec of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the election case had since been dismissed by the lower court and that Mangondato's petition before the Comelec was filed earlier. Furthermore, the Court cited its own jurisprudence holding that where the proclamation itself is illegal, the Comelec may still assume jurisdiction notwithstanding the filing of an election protest.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) may order the exclusion of election returns only when they are palpably irregular or obviously manufactured, and the determination of whether votes were cast through fraud and irregularities requires proof and time, which is not permissible during the prompt proclamation of elected officials. The issue of whether votes were cast through fraud and irregularities is a matter for an election protest.