Tiglao v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the November 1969 elections for Congressman in the second district of Pampanga, petitioner Rogelio O. Tiglao and respondent Cornelio Sanga were candidates. The Provincial Board of Canvassers commenced its canvass on December 11, 1969, and terminated on December 17, 1969, except for returns from sixteen precincts in San Luis found to be "not authentic." The matter was elevated to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Procedural History: Petitioner Tiglao petitioned COMELEC for a review of the canvassing board's actions regarding various returns, specifically questioning returns from Apalit and other municipalities, alleging omissions and preparation at gunpoint. COMELEC issued resolutions directing the use of COMELEC copies for some precincts, requiring a bill of particulars for others, and resolving some questions while deferring others. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, alleging returns were prepared at gunpoint, and prayed for ballot boxes to be opened and votes recounted. COMELEC reconsidered its resolution for certain San Luis precincts, ordering respondent Sanga to answer the gunpoint allegations, and made rulings on specific precincts regarding vote discrepancies and the need for judicial recount. Petitioner filed a bill of particulars and supporting affidavits alleging returns were prepared at gunpoint and noting discrepancies and tamperings in COMELEC copies compared to provincial treasurer's copies. COMELEC resolved it lacked the power to open ballot boxes for certain San Luis precincts and that the gunpoint allegations would not benefit petitioner as he garnered more votes in those returns. COMELEC also ruled no evidence supported the gunpoint claim for Apalit returns. COMELEC declared no necessity to compare Apalit copies as provincial treasurer's copies were found authentic, ruled on tampered returns in San Luis Precinct 8, and confirmed the canvassing board's action. Finally, COMELEC found some Apalit returns clean, noted honest mistakes in omitting Tiglao's name in Apalit Precincts 35-A and 36 but deemed judicial correction unavailable due to inspectors' lack of memory, and credited Sanga with 75 votes in San Simon Precinct 6 due to a superimposition deemed a correction. COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the presumptive winner. Meanwhile, petitions for judicial correction of election returns were filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga, alleging mistakes in crediting Tiglao with votes due to armed men entering polling places. The CFI authorized corrections, adding 336 votes for Tiglao. Respondent Sanga moved for reconsideration, and the CFI modified its order, setting aside corrections for certain precincts where COMELEC had already acted, but reaffirming others. The CFI later reconsidered and authorized corrections for several precincts. Petitioner Tiglao also filed a petition for judicial recount for specific precincts, later withdrawing it for some. The Petition: Petitioner Tiglao appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, seeking to direct COMELEC to order reconvening of inspectors for San Luis precincts to open ballot boxes and prepare new returns; to direct comparison of Apalit returns to determine if made by different hands; to reject the San Simon Precinct 6 return and deduct Sanga's votes; to order recount for Apalit Precincts 35-A and 36; and to suspend proclamation pending determination of judicial recount and correction petitions.
Issue(s)
Whether COMELEC erred in refusing to order the opening of ballot boxes and recounting of votes in certain San Luis precincts where returns were allegedly prepared at gunpoint. Whether COMELEC erred in refusing to order a comparison of election returns from Apalit precincts to ascertain if they were prepared by different hands. Whether COMELEC erred in crediting respondent Sanga with 75 votes in San Simon Precinct 6 based on a superimposition deemed a correction. Whether COMELEC erred in deeming judicial correction unavailable for Apalit Precincts 35-A and 36 due to the inspectors' inability to recall Tiglao's votes. Whether proclamation should be held in abeyance pending the resolution of issues before the Court of First Instance.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The COMELEC resolution ordering proclamation is set aside. Proclamation is held in abeyance until pending issues in the Court of First Instance are determined. COMELEC is directed to credit no vote for respondent Sanga in Precinct 6, San Simon, and to order the boards of inspectors of Precincts 35-A and 36, Apalit, to open ballot boxes, count votes, and make new returns.
Ratio Decidendi
On the refusal to open ballot boxes in San Luis precincts: The Court found that COMELEC's reasoning that opening ballot boxes would not benefit petitioner was flawed. While COMELEC has the power to exclude gunpoint returns, its refusal to investigate further by opening the boxes denied petitioner a proper remedy. The Court emphasized that COMELEC's broad powers include ensuring free, orderly, and honest elections, which necessitates addressing allegations of returns prepared under duress. The Court noted that the CFI was already handling some of these precincts, and the pending issues before it should be resolved promptly. On the comparison of Apalit returns: The Court found no error in COMELEC's refusal to compare different copies of the Apalit returns. The canvassing board had already found the provincial treasurer's copies to be authentic and untampered. Since petitioner conceded that the COMELEC copies were tampered, using the authentic provincial treasurer's copies was logical and sufficient. There was no need for further comparison to ascertain if different hands prepared the copies, as the authenticity of one set was established. On Precinct 6, San Simon: The Court disagreed with COMELEC's classification of the superimposition of "75" over "O" as a mere correction. Citing Balindong vs. Commission on Elections, the Court held that election returns must be maintained inviolate. Any alteration, even if made by inspectors, requires proper authorization and cannot be done without initialing by the board members. The fact that the chairman made the change but forgot to initial it meant the original entry of zero votes for Sanga should prevail. The Court disallowed the 75 votes credited to Sanga based on this tampered return. On Apalit Precincts 35-A and 36: The Court found that the omission of Tiglao's name from the returns rendered them incomplete, violating Section 150 of the Revised Election Code, which mandates that returns be made, complete, and signed. An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis for proclamation. The Court ruled that COMELEC should have ordered the boards of inspectors to open the ballot boxes, count Tiglao's votes, and prepare new returns, following the procedure outlined in Mutuc vs. Commission on Elections. On holding proclamation in abeyance: The Court agreed that proclamation should be held in abeyance. This was due to the unresolved issues pending before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, specifically concerning the petitions for judicial recount and correction of returns. The Court stressed the importance of resolving these matters promptly to allow for a complete and accurate canvass before any proclamation is made.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has broad powers to ensure free, orderly, and honest elections, which includes directing the opening of ballot boxes and the preparation of new returns when election returns are incomplete or tampered with, subject to procedural rules and existing jurisprudence.