Ho v. Municipal Board of Canvassers
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the November 1967 elections, Binging Ho and Bonsan Go were candidates for municipal mayor of Bongao, Sulu. A discrepancy arose in the election return for Precinct No. 13, where the votes for mayor were listed as "ONE HUNDRED" (100) for Binging Ho and "ONE HUNDRED SEVEN" (107) for Bonsan Go. The municipal board of canvassers initially deferred canvassing this return. Returns from other precincts showed Binging Ho with 1,599 votes and Bonsan Go with 1,582 votes. 2. Procedural History: Binging Ho filed a petition for a judicial recount of ballots in Precinct No. 13, alleging that the discrepancy of 20 votes would materially affect the election outcome. Ho also sought to annul the proclamation of Bonsan Go as mayor, which was allegedly made by a partial board of canvassers without notice. The Commission on Elections later declared Go's proclamation void. The Court of First Instance of Sulu denied Go's motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear the recount petition. On March 26, 1968, the court ordered a recount, which resulted in Binging Ho receiving 112 votes and Bonsan Go receiving 98 votes. The court then ordered the municipal board of canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winner based on the judicial recount for Precinct No. 13 and the returns from other precincts. Respondent Bonsan Go appealed these orders. 3. The Petition: The respondent-appellant, Bonsan Go, challenges the constitutionality of Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, arguing that these provisions unconstitutionally confer administrative functions (judicial recount) upon the courts, infringing upon the powers vested in the Commission on Elections. He contends that recounting votes is an administrative or quasi-judicial function that should fall under the COMELEC's purview. The petitioner-appellee, Binging Ho, argues that the initial determination of whether a discrepancy warrants a recount is a judicial function, and the subsequent recount is an adjunct to this judicial determination, permissible under legislative discretion for expediency. The Supreme Court is asked to rule on the constitutionality of the court's authority to order and conduct judicial recounts.
Issue(s)
Whether Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, insofar as they confer the power of judicial recount upon courts of first instance, violate the constitutional mandates on the separation of powers and the exclusive authority of the Commission on Elections over administrative election matters. Whether the discrepancy in the election return for Precinct No. 13 warranted a judicial recount.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Court of First Instance. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongao, Sulu, was ordered to convene within 3 days from receipt of the decision to canvass all returns, including the judicial recount return from Precinct No. 13, and to proclaim the winning candidate based on the total votes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code: The Court held that the power of courts of first instance to order and conduct a judicial recount is a valid exercise of judicial power. The actual recount is a necessary consequence of the court's resolution of a preliminary controversy, which is the judicial determination of whether sufficient facts exist to warrant the opening of ballot boxes and the recount of ballots under Section 163 of the Election Code. This preliminary finding is essentially a judicial function, involving the ascertainment of facts, passing upon their sufficiency, and applying the law to the controversy. While the physical recount itself might be considered administrative, its inclusion as an adjunct to the court's preceding judicial determination was within the legislative discretion for expediency. The Court distinguished this from purely administrative questions reserved for the Commission on Elections, emphasizing that the authority to order a recount was not exclusively vested by the Constitution in any entity, thus allowing the legislature to confer it upon the courts of first instance. The Court cited Ramos vs. Commission on Elections to underscore the advisability of this function being discharged by the court of first instance for prompt settlement of controversies and restoration of public tranquility. The argument that this would lead to multiplicity of suits was deemed invalid against a lawful grant of authority. On the warrant for judicial recount: The Court found that there was a clear discrepancy between the words and figures in the election return for Precinct No. 13 regarding the votes for candidate Go, and this discrepancy would materially affect the election result. Since there was no showing of alteration or falsification of the return, a judicial recount was clearly warranted pursuant to Section 163, in relation to Section 168, of the Revised Election Code.
Main Doctrine
The authority of courts of first instance to order and conduct a judicial recount of ballots, as provided in the Revised Election Code, is a valid exercise of judicial power, as it is preceded by a judicial determination of the existence of facts warranting such recount, and is not an unconstitutional encroachment upon the administrative functions of the Commission on Elections.