Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 14, 1984 elections for assemblyman in Cagayan de Oro City, Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. (PDP-LABAN) was proclaimed the winner over Pedro N. Roa (KBL). Prior to the elections, COMELEC denied PDP-LABAN's accreditation as the dominant opposition party. After the proclamation, Roa filed several pleadings with COMELEC, including a Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, an Urgent Appeal for annulment of canvass and proclamation, and a Supplement to Urgent Appeal, assailing the proceedings of the City Board of Canvassers and the inclusion of certain election returns. Pimentel was later impleaded as a respondent. Procedural History: The COMELEC (Second Division) issued resolutions on June 20, 1984, and July 10, 1984, ordering the transfer of contested election returns to Manila and denying Pimentel's Motion to Dismiss. Pimentel filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin COMELEC from enforcing its resolutions and from proceeding with PPC No. 16-14, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on August 9, 1984, enjoining the transfer of election documents. On October 24, 1984, COMELEC promulgated a decision declaring Pimentel's proclamation null and void, annulling specific election returns, deducting votes, and proclaiming Roa as the winner. The Supreme Court subsequently issued another TRO on October 31, 1984, enjoining both Pimentel and Roa from discharging their functions as assemblyman. The Court then conducted its own revision of ballots and election returns from 225 voting centers. The Petition: Pimentel filed an original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, praying to enjoin COMELEC from enforcing its resolutions and from further proceeding with PPC No. 16-14, alleging lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and his person. He also sought to cite COMELEC officials for contempt for disobeying the Court's TRO.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC (Second Division) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its resolutions dated June 20, 1984, July 10, 1984, and its decision dated October 24, 1984, in annulling the proclamation of petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. and declaring respondent Pedro N. Roa the winner; and whether the COMELEC erred in declaring null and void the proclamation of petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. and in proclaiming respondent Pedro N. Roa as the duly elected Member of the Batasang Pambansa. Whether the COMELEC correctly annulled election returns based on the evidence presented. Whether, based on the findings of the Supreme Court's own revision, Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. obtained the highest number of votes and should be proclaimed the winner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the decision of the respondent COMELEC (Second Division) dated October 24, 1984. The Temporary Restraining Order previously issued was lifted insofar as it concerned petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. The decision is immediately executory, without prejudice to the right of respondent Roa to file a regular election protest within ten (10) days from the finality of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and the proclamation of the winner: The Court found that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in annulling the proclamation of Pimentel and declaring Roa the winner. The COMELEC's conclusion that there was a serious common irregularity in the preparation of 87 election returns was based mainly on the joint affidavit of seven members of Pimentel's "Vigilantes '84" and affidavits of KBL inspectors/watchers and registered voters. However, the Court's own revision of ballots and election returns from 225 voting centers found no indication of tampering with ballot boxes and that the ballots cast tallied with the votes recorded in the election returns. The Court reiterated the doctrine that COMELEC must exercise extreme caution in rejecting or excluding election returns, and may do so only upon conclusive proof that the returns are obviously manufactured. Based on the findings of its own revision, the Supreme Court determined that petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the COMELEC's decision to annul Pimentel's proclamation and declare Roa the winner was set aside. On the annulment of election returns: The COMELEC's annulment of 87 election returns was found to be unsubstantiated. The evidence presented by Roa, including the joint affidavit of "Vigilantes '84" members alleging that election returns were prepared before the counting of ballots, was not considered conclusive by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that the delivery of election returns to the Board of Canvassers was not in accordance with law does not automatically render them invalid. The Court's own revision process revealed no significant tampering and found that the ballots tallied with the election returns. Minor discrepancies were attributed to human error. On the determination of the winner based on the Supreme Court's revision: The revision revealed that Pimentel garnered a majority of votes even after deducting objections raised by Roa, and that the copies of election returns from the election registrar and the Board of Canvassers also showed Pimentel with a majority.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in a pre-proclamation controversy, may annul and set aside a COMELEC decision that declares null and void the proclamation of a winning candidate and declares another as the winner, especially when the COMELEC's findings of serious common irregularity in the preparation of election returns are not supported by conclusive proof and are contradicted by the Court's own revision of ballots and election returns.