Bince, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. and private respondent Emiliano S. Micu were candidates for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1992 elections. The dispute centers on the correct tally of votes for the Sixth Legislative District, which comprises ten municipalities. A key issue involved the inclusion or exclusion of Certificates of Canvass (COCs) and Statements of Votes (SOVs) from San Quintin, Tayug, and San Manuel, and whether alleged manifest errors in tabulation could be corrected. Procedural History: The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) initially excluded the COC for San Quintin based on an objection by Micu, but later ruled against the objection. Micu appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which ordered the inclusion of San Quintin's votes, resulting in Bince leading by one vote. Subsequently, Micu and the Municipal Boards of Canvassers (MBCs) of Tayug and San Manuel filed petitions for correction of alleged manifest errors in their SOVs. The PBC allowed these corrections, which would have given Micu a lead. Bince appealed this decision, arguing the PBC lacked jurisdiction. The COMELEC, in a series of resolutions, annulled Bince's proclamation and directed a recount based on corrected SOVs, leading to Bince filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. This Court initially annulled the COMELEC's resolution, citing lack of due process and invalid corrections, and remanded the case for resolution of pending incidents. The COMELEC's First Division initially affirmed Bince's proclamation, but the COMELEC en banc later reversed this, declaring Bince's proclamation void and ordering corrections and a new proclamation. This en banc resolution is the subject of the current petition. The Petition: Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. filed this petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the COMELEC en banc resolution of September 9, 1993. Bince contends that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in annulling his proclamation and directing the PBC to order corrections to the SOVs and COCs of Tayug and San Manuel. He argues that his proclamation had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a previous ruling, that the corrections were invalid, and that the COMELEC en banc resolution was issued without due process. The Supreme Court, however, found that its previous ruling only annulled the COMELEC's prior resolution for lack of due process and did not affirm Bince's proclamation, but rather remanded the case for proper resolution. The Court also found that the petitions for correction of manifest mathematical errors were filed within the period allowed by law and that adherence to technicalities should not defeat the true will of the electorate. Ultimately, the Court determined that based on corrected tallies, Micu had a 72-vote lead, rendering Bince's proclamation flawed.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in annulling petitioner Bince's proclamation without prior notice and hearing. Whether the corrections made to the Statements of Votes (SOVs) and Certificates of Canvass (COCs) for Tayug and San Manuel were valid. Whether the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction to hear pre-proclamation cases at the first instance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the COMELEC en banc did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in annulling Bince's proclamation and directing further proceedings. The Court found that the initial annulment by the Supreme Court was due to lack of due process, not an affirmation of Bince's proclamation. The COMELEC was therefore still empowered to resolve pending incidents. The Court also found that the petitions to correct manifest errors were filed on time and that the corrections sought were purely mathematical, which should not be thwarted by technicalities that would frustrate the people's will. The Court concluded that based on corrected tallies, private respondent Micu won by a margin of 72 votes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and due process: The Supreme Court clarified that its previous ruling in G.R. No. 106291 did not affirm petitioner Bince's proclamation but rather nullified the COMELEC's resolution annulling it due to lack of due process. This left the pending incidents unresolved, and the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to address them. The COMELEC's subsequent resolution, which annulled Bince's proclamation and ordered further proceedings, was therefore a valid exercise of its authority to resolve these pending matters. The Court reiterated that due process requires notice and hearing before a proclamation can be annulled, but this principle was not violated in the subsequent proceedings that led to the assailed resolution, as the COMELEC was merely resolving the case based on the Supreme Court's directive. On the validity of corrections to SOVs and COCs: The Court found that the petitions to correct manifest errors in the tabulation and tallying of votes for Tayug and San Manuel were filed within the period prescribed by law, specifically before the proclamation of a winner. Section 6 of Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure allows for such corrections upon verified petition and after due notice and hearing. The Court emphasized that adherence to technicalities should not prevail over the substantive merits of the case, especially when doing so would result in frustrating the true will of the electorate. The Court noted that the errors sought to be corrected were purely mathematical and clerical in nature, involving the correct addition of votes, and not the opening of ballot boxes or appreciation of ballots. On the COMELEC en banc's jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases: The Court reiterated its ruling in Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC en banc does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases at the first instance; such cases should first be referred to a division. However, in the context of the present case, the Supreme Court's directive in its February 9, 1993 decision to resolve pending incidents effectively placed the matter before the COMELEC for proper disposition. The subsequent resolution by the COMELEC en banc was a consequence of the Supreme Court's mandate to resolve these pending incidents, which included the annulment of a proclamation made without due process and the subsequent need to determine the lawful winner. The Court also noted that the COMELEC en banc's resolution of July 29, 1992, which was previously annulled by the Supreme Court, was indeed void for lack of jurisdiction and due process. However, the subsequent resolution of September 9, 1993, was a consequence of the Supreme Court's directive to resolve the pending incidents, which the COMELEC en banc was then empowered to do.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot annul a proclamation without affording the proclaimed candidate due notice and hearing. Furthermore, corrections to election returns must be made by the proper board of canvassers, with a majority vote, and not by individual members or in an unauthorized manner. The COMELEC en banc also lacks jurisdiction to hear pre-proclamation cases at the first instance.