Dalog v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the January 18, 1988 local elections for Provincial Governor and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Mountain Province, disputes arose concerning the inclusion and exclusion of certain election returns during the canvassing by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC). Procedural History: The PBC issued a resolution on March 17, 1988, excluding twenty-one (21) election returns and including thirty-seven (37) others. Affected candidates appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC's Second Division ordered the inclusion of the 21 previously excluded returns and affirmed the inclusion of the others. Motions for reconsideration were filed by some candidates. The COMELEC En Banc, after examining all copies of the controverted election returns, issued a resolution on October 23, 1989, directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers to complete the canvass by including six (6) specific election returns and excluding fifteen (15) others. The Petition: Petitioners Maximo B. Dalog, et al. assailed the COMELEC En Banc resolution, arguing it violated provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and seeking the inclusion of fifteen (15) excluded returns. Petitioners Louis F. Claver, Jr., et al. also filed a petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC for neglecting to decide certain contested returns and for capriciously voting to examine only the 21 excluded returns without examining 15 included returns.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its resolution dated October 23, 1989, directing the inclusion and exclusion of specific election returns. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding fifteen (15) election returns from the canvass without observing the procedure outlined in Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code for tampered or falsified returns. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in passing sub silencio upon fifteen (15) contested returns that were included in the canvass by the PBC and the COMELEC's Second Division but opposed by petitioners Claver and Akiate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order issued on October 27, 1989, was lifted. The decision was immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion regarding the COMELEC's resolution dated October 23, 1989: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The COMELEC En Banc meticulously examined all available copies of the controverted election returns to resolve the questions raised against their genuineness and authenticity. The process involved securing copies from various custodians, allowing parties to examine them, and individual examination by each COMELEC member. The resulting decision reflected a thorough consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, leading to a determination of which returns should be included or excluded in the canvass. The Court deferred to the COMELEC's factual findings, which were not tainted with error. On the issue of excluding fifteen (15) election returns without observing Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code: The Court ruled that petitioner Dalog's argument that the COMELEC should have ordered a recount under Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. Dalog had previously maintained that these returns were genuine and untampered. By failing to invoke the remedy of recount during the proceedings before the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) and the COMELEC, he was deemed to have waived it. The Court emphasized that it was too late at that juncture to return the cases to the COMELEC to ascertain the integrity of the ballot boxes and ballots, as this would entail a tedious and time-consuming process that would prejudice the constituents of Mountain Province. Petitioners were advised to avail themselves of the remedy of an election protest for such a recount. On the issue of the COMELEC passing sub silencio upon fifteen (15) contested returns: The Court found no merit in the allegation that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion by not explicitly ruling on the fifteen (15) contested returns that the PBC and the COMELEC's Second Division had ordered included in the canvass, despite opposition from petitioners Claver and Akiate. The silence of the COMELEC En Banc's decision was interpreted as an affirmation of the findings and conclusions of the Second Division. The Second Division had previously ascertained the integrity of these returns after examination and hearing witnesses, noting that the objections did not go into the integrity of the election results or referred to mere formal defects. These factual findings of the Second Division were not reviewable by the Supreme Court as they were not tainted with error. Similar to the previous issue, the Court noted that petitioners still had recourse to an election protest to have the votes recounted and verified.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's resolution directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers to complete the canvass by including certain election returns and excluding others, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court also held that a party who failed to invoke the remedy of recount during the proceedings before the Provincial Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC is deemed to have waived it, and it is too late to raise it for the first time before the Supreme Court.