Villaroja v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the congressional election in Cagayan de Oro City between Roderico Villaroya and Benedicta B. Roa. Following the May 11, 1987 elections, the City Board of Canvassers reported that Villaroya garnered 908,222 votes and Roa received 38,196 votes, giving Villaroya a plurality of 26 votes. However, Villaroya was not proclaimed due to a protest filed by Roa's lawyers. 2. Procedural History: Roa initially filed a petition with the COMELEC on May 17, 1987, contesting election returns from seven precincts. Subsequently, on May 22 and 23, 1987, Roa filed a protest and an amended protest with the City Board of Canvassers regarding an alleged clerical error in the statement of votes for Precinct No. 302-A, where her votes were reportedly undercounted by 57. When the Board failed to act, Roa filed a supplemental petition with the COMELEC. The COMELEC's Second Division ordered the City Board of Canvassers to reconvene and verify the election returns for Precinct No. 302-A. This order was challenged by Villaroya through a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, which was denied. The COMELEC en banc then directed the constitution of a new City Board of Canvassers to verify the return and proclaim the winner. Following this verification, which confirmed Roa's higher vote count, she was proclaimed the winner. Villaroya then filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Villaroya filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC lacked appellate jurisdiction to entertain Roa's petition because the issue was not raised before the Board of Canvassers during the canvassing and that the matter should have been an election contest before the House Electoral Tribunal, not a pre-proclamation controversy. He further contended that the COMELEC's decision authorizing the verification was illegal and issued with grave abuse of discretion. Villaroya also alleged that the proclamation occurred in defiance of a COMELEC order to suspend the proceedings. He sought to nullify Roa's proclamation and requested a recount in other precincts or all precincts.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the City Board of Canvassers to verify the election returns of Precinct No. 302-A (Macabalan) as to the number of votes received by respondent Roa compared to the statement of votes. Whether Roa's protests were filed seasonably. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the matter as a pre-proclamation controversy. Whether the proclamation of respondent Roa was conducted in accordance with law and COMELEC orders.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The restraining orders of September 8, 1987, and September 17, 1987, are DISSOLVED and immediately executory. Respondent Benedicta B. Roa is entitled to sit as the representative of Cagayan de Oro City.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and the seasonableness of Roa's protests: The COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the verification of the election returns for Precinct No. 302-A. The crucial issue was a clerical error in the Statement of Votes (SOV) prepared by the City Board of Canvassers, where Roa's votes were recorded as 54 instead of the actual 111 as per the election return. Roa and her watchers discovered this discrepancy only upon receipt of the official copy of the SOV on May 21, 1987. Consequently, Roa acted expeditiously by filing a protest and an amended protest with the City Board of Canvassers on May 22 and 23, 1987, respectively. Since the Board failed to convene and act on these protests, Roa's subsequent filing of a supplemental petition directly with the COMELEC was justified. The Court affirmed that the COMELEC has original jurisdiction over all contests relating to election returns and the power to decide all questions affecting elections, including the correction of clerical errors in the canvass to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The protests were deemed seasonably filed because Roa could not have known of the discrepancy until she obtained the SOV, and her immediate action upon discovery negated any claim of sleeping on her rights. The COMELEC's cognizance of the supplemental petition was supported by established jurisprudence, emphasizing the Commission's duty to ensure the integrity of election results. On the nature of the controversy as a pre-proclamation controversy: The issue presented was a proper subject for a pre-proclamation controversy, not an election contest. The core of the dispute was not the validity of the votes cast or the conduct of the election itself within Precinct No. 302-A, but rather a discrepancy between the election return and the SOV, which affected the initial tabulation and the proclamation of the winning candidate. The COMELEC's intervention was to correct a clerical error in the canvassing process before the final proclamation. The Court reiterated that when election irregularities are not apparent on the face of the election returns, a candidate may file an objection directly with the COMELEC, invoking its original jurisdiction. This is distinct from an election protest, which typically involves challenging the results after proclamation and is usually brought before the electoral tribunal. The COMELEC's role here was to ensure the accuracy of the canvass based on the election returns, thereby upholding the true results of the election as certified by the Board of Election Inspectors. On the COMELEC's authority to order verification: The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's authority to order the verification of election returns from ballot boxes and compare them with the statement of votes. Citing Cauton vs. COMELEC and Albano vs. Arranz, the Court emphasized that the COMELEC has the power to investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass made by the board of canvassers. When the COMELEC is convinced that the election returns in the hands of the board of canvassers do not constitute the proper basis for ascertaining the true results of the election, it is its duty to order that the proper basis be obtained or made available. In this case, the clear discrepancy between the election return for Precinct No. 302-A and the SOV necessitated such verification to ensure that the true will of the electorate was reflected. The COMELEC's action was aimed at correcting a tabulation error, not at re-evaluating the votes themselves, thereby fulfilling its mandate to enforce election laws and administer elections. On the procedural irregularities during proclamation: The Court found no positive evidence that the members of the new City Board of Canvassers defied the COMELEC's order to suspend the canvassing or that they received such order before completing their task. The telegram from the COMELEC to suspend the canvass was received by RCPI in Cagayan de Oro City at 5:20 P.M. on September 6, 1987, after the verification of the election return (11:00 A.M. to 12:50 P.M.) and Roa's proclamation (4:00 P.M.). The claim of Atty. Barbac refusing a phone call was unsubstantiated, as there was no telephone in the session hall, and the affidavit only mentioned the phone being hung up. Therefore, the proclamation was deemed valid under the circumstances, and the Court upheld the COMELEC's decision to allow it after the verification process.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections has jurisdiction to order the verification of election returns from ballot boxes and comparison with the statement of votes to correct clerical errors in tabulation, even if the issue was not raised before the Board of Canvassers during the canvassing, as long as the protest is filed seasonably upon discovery of the discrepancy. Such action falls within the COMELEC's original jurisdiction over matters affecting elections and election returns, aimed at ascertaining the true will of the electorate.