Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Dimangadap Dipatuan and private respondent Aleem Hosain Amanoddin were candidates for Mayor in the 1988 special local elections in Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur. Two municipal boards of canvassers made separate proclamations: one excluded election returns from Precincts Nos. 15, 17, and 21, proclaiming Dipatuan; another, after canvassing all returns, proclaimed Amanoddin. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) set aside both proclamations, deeming the first premature and the second from an improperly constituted board. 2. Procedural History: A Special Board of Canvassers was convened by the Comelec to recanvass the votes. Petitioner Dipatuan objected to the inclusion of election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17, alleging they were "obviously manufactured" and "spurious." He cited irregularities such as alphabetical and chronological voting, illiterate voters suddenly able to write, unverified voting by veiled individuals, discrepancies in signatures, and falsification of voting records by election inspectors. The Special Board denied the objections and included the returns. The Comelec Second Division and the Comelec En Banc affirmed this, holding that the issues raised did not constitute a pre-proclamation controversy and that petitioner's recourse was an election protest. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the Comelec decisions. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, but Amanoddin had already been proclaimed Mayor. The Court later issued a resolution recognizing Amanoddin as Mayor pending the resolution of the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17 of Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur, were "obviously manufactured" such that their inclusion in the canvass presented a pre-proclamation controversy; and whether irregularities such as alphabetical and chronological voting, issues with illiterate voters, and questionable affidavits, support a finding that the returns were "obviously manufactured." Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the inclusion of the questioned election returns, considering the evidence presented.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections. The Court affirmed the Comelec's decisions dated November 8, 1988, and December 22, 1988, which ordered the inclusion of the election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17 in the canvass.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the questioned returns were "obviously manufactured" and constituted a pre-proclamation controversy, and on the alleged irregularities of alphabetical and chronological voting, illiterate voters, and affidavits: The Court reiterated that issues concerning "obviously manufactured" or inauthentic election returns are proper for a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243(c) of the Omnibus Election Code, but the defect must be evident from the face of the returns themselves, or they must not have been made or issued by the Board of Election Inspectors. Padding of voters' lists or fraudulent conspiracy by the Board of Election Inspectors are grounds for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy. The Comelec Second Division's finding that mere alphabetical and chronological voting is not sufficient evidence of fraud was sustained, invoking the presumption of regularity. Regarding illiterate voters, the Omnibus Election Code is not entirely clear on the procedure, and the Court applied the presumption of regularity. The affidavits were not direct and conclusive evidence. Comparing signatures and thumbmarks would necessitate a full-blown election protest. On the overall finding of no grave abuse of discretion: Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Comelec. The Comelec's decisions to include the questioned returns and to consider the issues as grounds for an election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy were deemed proper.
Main Doctrine
Allegations of fraud in the preparation of election returns by the Board of Election Inspectors, such as padding of voters' lists or irregularities in recording votes of illiterate voters, do not constitute 'obviously manufactured' returns cognizable in a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues are proper grounds for an election protest.