Bashier v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the election of delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention for the lone district of Lanao del Sur. Eighteen candidates vied for six delegate positions. Allegations of irregularities, including gunpoint returns, spurious returns, and instances where no actual election took place, arose concerning the election returns from several municipalities. 2. Procedural History: Following the November 11, 1970 election, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) addressed numerous objections to the election returns. After initial tabulations and rulings on various objections, Comelec issued Resolution No. RR-913 on June 14, 1971, declaring returns from Malabang, Balabagan, Balindong, and specific precincts in Tubaran as spurious or non-existent due to widespread fraud and lack of actual voting. Comelec ordered these returns excluded from the canvass. However, Comelec found insufficient evidence to exclude returns from Binidayan and certain precincts in Tubaran. This resolution led to three separate petitions for review and/or certiorari before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Sheik Achmad Bashier, Macapanton Abbas Jr., and Ansare Sacar Basman, each seeking to improve their electoral standing, filed petitions for review and/or certiorari. They challenged Comelec's Resolution No. RR-913, primarily arguing for the exclusion of additional returns from municipalities like Balabagan and Balindong, and questioning the inclusion of returns from Binidayan and Tubaran. Petitioners also raised arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for Comelec's findings, the propriety of excluding returns based on excess votes, and the possibility of special elections. The Supreme Court consolidated these petitions and issued a restraining order against the enforcement of Comelec's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring certain election returns spurious based on technical expert analysis of signatures and thumbprints. Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) correctly included returns from Binidayan and Tubaran where voting records were unavailable for technical verification. Whether returns showing 'excess votes' exceeding 40% of the maximum possible votes must be excluded as manufactured per se.
Ruling
The petitions are dismissed. The resolution of the Commission on Elections dated June 14, 1971, and its earlier related rulings are affirmed. The restraining orders issued by the Supreme Court are lifted. The Commission on Elections is directed to order the canvassing board of Lanao del Sur to reconvene, complete the canvass, and proclaim the winning candidates for the three remaining seats.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) properly excluded the returns from Malabang, Balabagan, and Balindong because their prima facie status was destroyed by clear evidence of fraud. Technical reports revealed that in many precincts, hundreds of voters were voted for by only two or three individuals, and thumbmarks were deliberately smudged to prevent detection. Applying the doctrine in Diaz v. COMELEC, the Court emphasized that when returns are shown to be the result of a systematic plan to count spurious ballots, they are manufactured and cannot be included in the canvass. The evidence indicated that the blurring of thumbprints was a 'transparent device' used by malefactors to frustrate the identification of substitute voters. Consequently, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not err in treating these as 'no returns' at all, as they failed to represent a valid count of legitimate votes. On Issue 2: Regarding the returns from Binidayan and Tubaran, the Court sustained the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)'s decision to include them because there was no sufficient evidence to prove they were spurious. Because the precinct books and voting records were stolen or not accomplished, the Fingerprint Identification Division could not conduct the necessary matching to establish substitute voting. The Court ruled that in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, the basic rule of according returns a prima facie status must be applied to avoid disenfranchising voters. While petitioner Abbas urged the opening of ballot boxes to retrieve stubs for matching, the Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) correctly refused, as such a procedure would exceed the summary nature of pre-proclamation proceedings. Any challenge to these specific returns is better addressed in a full electoral protest where a wider range of evidence can be presented. On Issue 3: The Court affirmed the exclusion of returns showing 'greatly excessive votes,' specifically those where the votes cast exceeded the maximum possible by 40% or more. Such massive discrepancies were held to rule out the possibility of honest mistake, thereby branding the returns as manufactured. Petitioner Basman's attempt to question returns with lesser 'excess votes' for the first time before the Supreme Court was rejected. The Court noted that a party is bound by the theory they adopt in the lower proceedings and cannot raise new grounds on appeal. Since the 40% threshold established that the returns were mathematically impossible and likely fraudulent, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was within its powers to exclude them to preserve the integrity of the election process.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to exclude election returns found to be spurious or where no election was held, based on substantial evidence such as fingerprint and handwriting examinations, even in pre-proclamation proceedings. Such findings, when supported by evidence, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent grave abuse of discretion. Appeals from interlocutory rulings of COMELEC are premature until a final resolution is issued.