Solidum v. Macalalag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the 1967 elections for eight council seats in Ibajay, Aklan, Esperanza Solidum and Catalino Sulam were candidates. During the canvassing of votes on November 20, 1967, it was discovered that the election return from Precinct 25 did not include any votes for Catalino Sulam. The municipal board of canvassers, with a majority of four members, proceeded to proclaim Esperanza Solidum as the eighth councilor-elect, despite the absence of Sulam's votes from Precinct 25. Solidum would have won by 27 votes based on this incomplete canvass. However, if Sulam had received the 34 votes he claimed from Precinct 25, he would have won by a margin of seven votes. Procedural History: On November 22, 1967, three election inspectors and the poll clerk from Precinct 25 executed an affidavit stating that Catalino Sulam had received 34 votes in that precinct, which were omitted from the election return due to inadvertence. Esperanza Solidum took her oath of office on the same day. The Commission on Elections advised the filing of a petition for correction of returns and suspension of proclamation. Consequently, on December 1, 1967, Catalino Sulam filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Aklan, seeking the correction of the election return for Precinct 25 or a judicial recount, and a subsequent re-canvass and proclamation in his favor. The respondent judge issued an ex-parte preliminary injunction on December 4, 1967, enjoining Solidum from taking her oath of office. Despite Solidum's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the judge set the election case for hearing. During a subsequent hearing on December 14, 1967, the judge ordered the opening of the ballot box for Precinct 25, and the tally sheet confirmed Sulam's 34 votes. The Petition: Esperanza Solidum filed this original action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Aklan to hear the election case. Solidum argued that Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code did not permit a recount as there was no discrepancy between copies of the same return. The Supreme Court, however, found that while a recount might not be applicable, the petition for correction of the election return was valid under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, given the unanimous acknowledgment of error by the board of inspectors. The Court also ruled that the proclamation made by the board of canvassers was null and void because it was based on incomplete returns. Furthermore, even if the proclamation were valid, the petition for correction was filed within the two-week period for contesting elections, as established in De Leon vs. Imperial, thus the Court of First Instance retained jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied Solidum's petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Aklan has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition for correction of election returns and/or judicial recount. Whether the proclamation of Esperanza Solidum as councilor-elect is valid.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied. The proclamation of Esperanza Solidum is declared null and void. The Court of First Instance of Aklan has jurisdiction to order the correction of election returns.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the proclamation: The proclamation of Esperanza Solidum as the eighth councilor-elect was made on incomplete returns, as the votes for Catalino Sulam in Precinct 25 were omitted. Such a proclamation is null and void. The board of canvassers should have suspended the canvassing upon discovering the omission, especially since the election records and the election inspectors were readily available. The act of proceeding with the canvass and proclamation over the objection of other members and despite knowledge of a potential error demonstrates a disregard for the true will of the electorate. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a proclamation made on incomplete returns is invalid, citing cases like Mutuc vs. Commission on Elections. The omission in the election return from Precinct 25 was confirmed by the unanimous affidavit of the board of inspectors and later by the tally sheet found inside the ballot box, indicating that Sulam indeed received 34 votes. Allowing the proclamation to stand based on a technicality rather than factual accuracy would frustrate the will of the people. On the jurisdiction of the lower court: The petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction of the lower court is based on the argument that Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code do not apply as there is no discrepancy between copies of the same return. While this may be true regarding a judicial recount under those specific sections, it does not preclude the court's jurisdiction to order the correction of election returns. Section 154 of the Revised Election Code allows for alterations or amendments to election statements only upon order of a competent court. In this case, the members of the board of inspectors unanimously represented that the omission was an honest mistake and prayed for its correction. This unanimity paves the way for the application of Section 154. The Supreme Court has affirmed that courts of first instance have the power to order the correction of election returns when there is a clear showing of honest error, as established in Rabe vs. Commission on Elections. Furthermore, even if the proclamation were considered valid, the petition for correction was filed within the two-week period prescribed for election contests, thus preserving the court's jurisdiction to act on the matter, as established in De Leon vs. Imperial.
Main Doctrine
A proclamation made on incomplete returns, where votes due to a candidate have not been included, is null and void. Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction to order the correction of election returns upon a unanimous representation of the board of inspectors that an omission was a mistake, even if no discrepancy exists between copies of the same return.