Ututalum v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Nurhussein A. Ututalum and respondent Arden S. Anni were candidates in the May 30, 1987 Congressional elections for the Second District of Sulu. Election returns from Siasi showed Anni receiving a substantial majority of votes, but if these returns were excluded, Ututalum would have a significant lead. Ututalum alleged that the Siasi returns were tampered with or falsified due to a great excess of votes, claiming the number of voters exceeded registered voters by a substantial margin, suggesting the presence of "ghost voters." 2. Procedural History: Ututalum filed written objections to the Siasi election returns during the canvass, which were dismissed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as untimely and not falling under the enumerated grounds for objection in the Election Code. Ututalum appealed this dismissal to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Subsequently, Ututalum filed two petitions with the COMELEC: one seeking a declaration of failure of elections in Siasi and annulment of Anni's proclamation, and another specifically praying for the annulment of Anni's proclamation and his own. The COMELEC, in a consolidated resolution, denied Ututalum's petitions, advising him to file an election protest. Meanwhile, a separate COMELEC resolution, later affirmed by the Supreme Court, annulled the List of Voters for Siasi due to massive irregularities, leading Ututalum to file a supplemental pleading incorporating this annulment into his petitions. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Ututalum seeks reversal of the COMELEC's resolutions denying his petitions, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. He contends that the issue of "obviously manufactured returns" is a proper subject for a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. Ututalum further argues that the Siasi returns should be excluded because the List of Voters on which they were based was subsequently annulled, and that this annulment should be applied retroactively. He also asserts that the doctrine of res judicata should apply based on the annulment of the voter list. The Supreme Court, however, found that the padding of the voter's list is not a ground for pre-proclamation controversy and that the annulment of the voter list in a separate proceeding cannot retroactively nullify election returns. The Court also noted that respondent Anni had already been proclaimed and assumed office, rendering the pre-proclamation controversy moot and academic, with the proper remedy being an election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's petitions. Whether the issue of "obviously manufactured returns" due to a padded voter's list is a proper subject for a pre-proclamation controversy. Whether the annulment of the Siasi List of Voters in a separate proceeding should be applied retroactively to annul the election returns from the May 30, 1987 Congressional elections. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to the annulment of the List of Voters. Whether the pre-proclamation controversy is moot. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's petitions, and whether the issue of "obviously manufactured returns" due to a padded voter's list is a proper subject for a pre-proclamation controversy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections are affirmed. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's denial of the petitions: The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's contention that the Siasi returns were "obviously manufactured" was not justifiable given the factual setting. While the Lagumbay case allowed for the exclusion of returns showing a "great excess of votes," the Siasi returns, when considered against the original List of Voters, did not prima facie demonstrate such an excess, as the number of voters who actually voted was within the registered number. Furthermore, the Lagumbay case involved the manufacture of returns by those preparing them, which was not the situation here; instead, the issue concerned the preparation of the registry list of voters. On whether padded voter's list is a proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy: The Court reiterated that padded voter's lists, massive fraud, and terrorism are not among the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. These are proper grounds for an election protest, as explicitly stated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code and affirmed in previous rulings like Espaldon vs. COMELEC. The scope of a pre-proclamation controversy is strictly limited to the grounds enumerated in Section 243, which are restrictive and exclusive. On the retroactive application of the annulled List of Voters: The Court ruled that allowing the COMELEC to retroactively apply the annulment of the Siasi List of Voters to the May 30, 1987 elections would be to empower it to annul a previous election based on a subsequent annulment of a registry list in a proceeding where the petitioner was not a party. This cannot be done, as established in Bashier vs. COMELEC, where it was held that the subsequent annulment of a voting list in a separate proceeding cannot retroactively nullify accepted election returns without due process. The List of Voters used in the 1987 elections was valid and unquestioned at the time, serving as the only legitimate basis for voting. On the application of res judicata: The Court found that the doctrine of res judicata could not be applied. The indispensable requisites for res judicata, namely, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action, were not all present. Moreover, applying the annulment retroactively would disenfranchise valid votes cast in the Congressional elections, which the Court sought to avoid. On the mootness of the pre-proclamation controversy: Finally, the Court invoked the doctrine that when a respondent has already been proclaimed as the elected representative and has assumed office, a pre-proclamation controversy becomes moot and academic. The proper remedy thereafter is an election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, as established in Padilla vs. COMELEC and Antonio vs. COMELEC. This procedural posture renders the petition moot. Combined Ratios: The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's contention that the Siasi returns were "obviously manufactured" was not justifiable given the factual setting. While the Lagumbay case allowed for the exclusion of returns showing a "great excess of votes," the Siasi returns, when considered against the original List of Voters, did not prima facie demonstrate such an excess, as the number of voters who actually voted was within the registered number. Furthermore, the Lagumbay case involved the manufacture of returns by those preparing them, which was not the situation here; instead, the issue concerned the preparation of the registry list of voters. The Court reiterated that padded voter's lists, massive fraud, and terrorism are not among the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. These are proper grounds for an election protest, as explicitly stated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code and affirmed in previous rulings like Espaldon vs. COMELEC. The scope of a pre-proclamation controversy is strictly limited to the grounds enumerated in Section 243, which are restrictive and exclusive.
Main Doctrine
A padded voter's list, massive fraud, and terrorism are not proper grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy but are issues for an election protest. The annulment of a voter's list in a separate proceeding cannot retroactively nullify election returns from a previous election without due process, especially when the candidates in the annulled proceeding were not parties.