Bince, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the proclamation of election winners for two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan's Sixth Legislative District following the May 11, 1992 synchronized elections. Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. and private respondent Emiliano Micu were among the candidates. The controversy arose from contested vote counts and alleged manifest errors in the Certificates of Canvass (COCs) and Statements of Votes (SOVs) for certain municipalities within the district, specifically San Quintin, Tayug, and San Manuel. 2. Procedural History: Following the initial canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) on May 21, 1992, where private respondent's objection to the San Quintin COC was overruled, an appeal was lodged with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), docketed as SPC No. 92-208. The COMELEC, on June 6, 1992, directed the PBC to credit specific vote counts for Bince and Micu in San Quintin. Subsequently, on June 11, 1992, petitions for correction of SOVs for Tayug and San Manuel were filed. The PBC, on June 18, 1992, credited votes based on the June 6 COMELEC resolution, leading to Bince having a one-vote lead. Petitioner was not proclaimed due to lack of COMELEC authority. Meanwhile, on June 24, 1992, the PBC, under a new head, heard testimonies regarding alleged errors in Tayug and San Manuel SOVs, despite petitioner's objections, and ruled to allow corrections. Petitioner appealed this ruling to the COMELEC (SPC No. 92-384). On July 1, 1992, a report was submitted indicating potential vote shifts favoring Micu if corrections were made. On July 9, 1992, the COMELEC directed the PBC to complete the canvass based on corrected COCs. On July 21, 1992, the PBC, with one dissent, proclaimed Bince as the second winning candidate, interpreting the COMELEC's July 9 directive to apply to already completed and corrected COCs. Private respondent then filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to Annul Proclamation with the COMELEC. 3. The Petition: This case is a special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioner Bince, seeking to annul the COMELEC's July 29, 1992 Resolution. Petitioner argues that the resolution was ultra vires, void ab initio, and violative of due process because it was issued ex-parte without notice or hearing. He also contends it violates the COMELEC's own rules and that alleged corrections to COCs were invalid. The petition further asserts that the COMELEC en banc lacked jurisdiction to hear pre-proclamation controversies at the first instance and that the purported corrections for Tayug and San Manuel were not validly made, as they were not incorporated into the official SOVs and COCs by a majority of the respective Municipal Boards of Canvassers. The COMELEC's resolution annulled Bince's proclamation and directed a new proclamation based on corrected COCs, which was subsequently done in favor of Micu on August 13, 1992, after the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in annulling petitioner's proclamation without due notice and hearing, and whether the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases at the first instance. Whether there were valid corrections of the SOVs and COCs for Tayug and San Manuel to warrant the annulment of petitioner's proclamation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the COMELEC's 29 July 1992 Resolution and the proclamation of private respondent on 13 August 1992. The COMELEC was directed to resolve the pending incidents conformably with the Court's disquisitions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction, due process violation, and jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases: The Supreme Court held that the respondent COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in annulling the petitioner's proclamation without the requisite due notice and hearing, thereby depriving the latter of due process. The Court reiterated its rulings in Fariñas vs. Commission on Elections, Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, and Gallardo vs. Commission on Elections, emphasizing that the COMELEC is without power to annul or suspend a proclamation without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Rama's recommendation for a show cause order before annulling the proclamation was deemed a correct adherence to the due process requirement. The Court also found that the COMELEC en banc lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the pre-proclamation case (motion to annul proclamation) at the first instance, as such cases should be referred to a division, citing Sarmiento vs. Commission on Elections and Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution. Consequently, the COMELEC en banc Resolution of 29 July 1992, and even the earlier resolution of 6 June 1992 in SPC No. 92-208, were declared null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction and in violation of due process. On the validity of corrections to SOVs and COCs: The Court found no valid corrected Statements of Votes (SOVs) and Certificates of Canvass (COCs) for Tayug and San Manuel. The alleged corrections were merely on separate sheets of paper signed by the Election Registrars/Chairmen of the MBCs, not by a majority vote of the entire Board of Canvassers as required by Section 225 of the Omnibus Election Code. These sheets were not incorporated into the original SOVs and COCs, nor were new SOVs and COCs prepared. Furthermore, these purported corrections were made prematurely on 6 July 1992, before the COMELEC had resolved petitioner's appeal (SPC No. 92-384) regarding the authorization of such corrections. The COMELEC's claim that its 29 July 1992 resolution affirmed the corrections was deemed baseless, as the PBC itself had not made the corrections but merely ordered the MBCs to do so, and the MBCs did not convene to implement the order. Therefore, the reference to "completed and corrected Certificates of Canvass" in the COMELEC's resolutions was unfounded, and the proclamation of private respondent based on these alleged corrections was null and void.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot annul or suspend the proclamation of a candidate without affording the candidate due notice and hearing. Furthermore, the COMELEC en banc does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases at the first instance; such cases must first be referred to a division. Corrections to Statements of Votes and Certificates of Canvass must be made in accordance with law, requiring the concurrence of the entire Board of Canvassers, not just the Chairman.