Guiao v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the election for the Batasan Pambansa in Pampanga on May 14, 1984. The Provincial Board of Canvassers convened to canvass the election returns, and by May 16, 1984, the canvass was completed without objection. The tabulation revealed the top four vote-getters: Juanita L. Nepomuceno, Egmidio L. Lingad, Rafael L. Lazatin, and Aber P. Canlas. Petitioner Bren Z. Guiao placed fifth. Shortly after the completion of the canvass, at approximately 12:50 AM on May 17, 1984, petitioner submitted written objections to the inclusion of election returns from 31 voting centers, alleging various irregularities such as incompleteness, duress, intimidation, falsification, and statistically improbable results. Procedural History: The Provincial Board of Canvassers, after receiving petitioner's belated objections, scheduled a hearing for May 17, 1984. The Board Chairman sought authorization from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proceed with the proclamation of winning candidates, pending the hearing on the objections. The COMELEC granted this request. The petitioner's objections were later dismissed by the Board for failure to substantiate them, and a request for subpoenas to election committee members was denied as dilatory. The winning candidates, including respondent Aber P. Canlas, were proclaimed on May 17, 1984. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC on May 18, 1984, seeking to annul the proceedings and proclamation due to the denial of his right to present evidence. A subsequent petition on May 22, 1984, sought annulment of Canlas's proclamation for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 and denying due process. The COMELEC's First Division dismissed this petition on June 28, 1984, without prejudice to filing an election protest. Petitioner appealed this resolution to the COMELEC en banc. The Petition: On July 24, 1984, petitioner filed a verified Petition for certiorari with this Court, seeking to review the COMELEC en banc's resolution of July 18, 1984, which denied his motion to nullify the proclamation of Aber Canlas. Petitioner argued that the proclamation was premature, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Javier vs. COMELEC, which held that proclamations made before the expiration of the appeal period are void. The COMELEC en banc, however, found the facts of the cited case distinguishable and inapplicable. The COMELEC en banc subsequently upheld the validity of Canlas's proclamation and dismissed petitioner's appeal in a resolution dated August 4, 1984. Petitioner then filed a supplemental petition for certiorari and review, incorporating the subsequent COMELEC proceedings. This Court, after reviewing the petition and related pleadings, found no merit in petitioner's case and dismissed the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the written objections to the election returns were timely filed. Whether the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) acted within its authority in proclaiming the winning candidates. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to annul the proclamation and in considering the case submitted for resolution without petitioner's evidence. Whether the composition of the Provincial Board of Canvassers was illegal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The proclamation of respondent Aber P. Canlas is upheld. The resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of objections: The Court held that petitioner's written objections were not timely filed. Section 54 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 requires that written objections to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns must be submitted to the Chairman of the Board of Canvassers during the actual canvassing of the election returns (the second stage of the proceedings). Petitioner submitted his objections only after the canvass was completed and the votes were tallied, which was during the third stage. The law envisions that objections should be raised while the board is actively canvassing and tallying, allowing it to defer the canvass of contested returns. Allowing objections after the canvass would require reopening proceedings and would be contrary to the summary nature of canvass proceedings. The Court reiterated that objections must be presented during the canvassing stage, not after the tallying of votes has been completed. The belatedness of the submission rendered the challenge futile. On the authority of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) to proclaim: The Court found no legal impediment to the proclamation made by the PBC. The PBC had obtained prior authorization from the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates. Furthermore, since petitioner's objections were not timely filed, Section 54 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, which prohibits proclamation unless authorized and requires deferral of canvass for contested returns, could not be availed of by the petitioner. The prohibition against proclamation is premised on the deferral of contested returns, a situation that did not arise here as no returns were contested during the canvass. The Court also noted that Section 56 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 allows for the partial or advance proclamation of winning candidates whose election is not affected by pre-proclamation controversies, but this provision pertains to situations before any proclamation is made. The Court clarified that the function of a PBC is purely ministerial, limited to compiling and adding results from the returns, and they cannot pass upon the validity of election returns or election frauds. On the COMELEC's actions and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The COMELEC en banc correctly distinguished the present case from Javier v. COMELEC, finding the facts different and the cited rulings inapplicable. The COMELEC's denial of petitioner's motion to annul the proclamation was justified. The COMELEC's decision to consider the case submitted for resolution without petitioner's evidence was also upheld, as the COMELEC deemed petitioner's actions as dilatory maneuvers. The COMELEC had previously granted postponements, and petitioner's counsel was expected to be ready with his evidence. The COMELEC correctly noted that the issue of jurisdiction, if raised, could be raised at any stage. The Court found that the COMELEC acted within its authority in managing its proceedings and in considering the case submitted when petitioner failed to present evidence after being given ample opportunity. On the composition of the Provincial Board of Canvassers: The Court found the contention regarding the illegal composition of the PBC to be untenable. Atty. Manuel Lucero was lawfully designated as Chairman of the PBC of Pampanga by the COMELEC Chairman. The designation was made because the position of Provincial Election Officer was vacant, and the designated officer-in-charge was also serving as Election Registrar of San Fernando, Pampanga. Atty. Lucero's experience as Acting Regional Election Director and the proximity of his office made him a suitable choice. The COMELEC's explanation for the designation was found to be lawful and properly authorized.
Main Doctrine
Objections to election returns must be filed during the actual canvassing stage (second stage) and before the tallying of votes. Belated objections filed after the completion of the canvass are considered untimely and cannot be used to invalidate the canvass or proclamation. Boards of Canvassers perform a purely ministerial function and cannot pass upon election frauds or irregularities, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in pre-proclamation controversies.