Balindong v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sultan Amer Balindong and private respondent Cabib A. Tanog were candidates for mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur in the May 8, 1995 elections. After canvassing, Tanog was credited with 2,271 votes and Balindong with 2,122 votes, a margin of 149 votes for Tanog. Petitioner filed a petition to annul Tanog's proclamation, alleging that the polling place for Precinct No. 4 was transferred from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo without notice and hearing, preventing his supporters in Lumbac from voting. He also alleged that the election return from Precinct No. 4 was manufactured due to massive substitute voting, which could be proven by a technical examination of signatures and thumbmarks in the List of Voters and Voters' Affidavits. The Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) transferred the polling place citing lack of a public school and the need to insure free elections, with the resolution signed by the BEI members and watchers, though petitioner claimed his watchers were intimidated. Petitioner also alleged that BEI members, relatives of Tanog, allowed supporters of Tanog to fill out ballots. A petition for disqualification of BEI members was filed but not acted upon. Petitioner objected to the inclusion of Precinct No. 4's return in the canvass, submitting affidavits from 63 voters who allegedly could not vote. Despite the objection, the return was included, and Tanog was proclaimed mayor. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed petitioner's petition to annul the proclamation and his supplemental petition, ruling that the grounds raised were proper for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this, finding the transfer of the polling place illegal but holding that a failure of election could not be declared because voting did occur and the uncast votes (estimated at 66 voters, with 63 affidavits) would not affect the 149-vote margin. The COMELEC also denied the request for a technical examination, citing jurisprudence that such examination is prohibited in pre-proclamation cases unless the manufactured nature of the return is obvious on its face. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to annul the results of Precinct No. 4 despite finding the polling place transfer illegal, in refusing to order a technical examination, and in not annulling the proclamation.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to annul the proclamation and in refusing to order a technical examination of election documents. Whether the transfer of the polling place and the alleged irregularities constitute grounds for a declaration of failure of election or annulment of the proclamation. Whether the issues raised are proper for a pre-proclamation controversy or an election protest.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the proper remedy for the issues raised by the petitioner is an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy. The temporary restraining order issued was lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the request for technical examination: The Court held that a technical examination of voting paraphernalia, involving the analysis and comparison of voters' signatures and thumbprints, is prohibited in pre-proclamation cases. This is because pre-proclamation controversies are mandated by law to be expeditiously resolved without involving evidence aliunde and the examination of voluminous documents, which would cause delay and defeat the summary nature of such proceedings. The exception is when the manufactured nature of the election return is obvious on the face of the returns, which was not the case here. The petitioner's allegation of "massive substitute voting" was not proven and required evidence beyond the election returns themselves. The Court emphasized that election documents cannot be examined on a mere hunch or whim of a losing candidate without factual basis, as this would allow them to trifle with the will of the people. On the declaration of failure of election and annulment of proclamation: The Court affirmed the COMELEC's finding that a failure of election could not be declared. For a failure of election to be declared under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), two conditions must concur: (1) no voting has taken place or there was a failure to elect, and (2) the uncast votes would affect the result of the election. In this case, voting did take place in Precinct No. 4. Furthermore, even if all the 63 voters who submitted affidavits had voted for the petitioner, his total votes would only increase to 2,185, which is still less than private respondent's 2,271 votes. The margin of 149 votes would not have been overcome, thus the alleged disfranchisement did not affect the election results. Therefore, the mere illegality of the transfer of the polling place, without more, did not warrant the annulment of the proclamation. On the propriety of a pre-proclamation controversy versus an election protest: The Court reiterated that a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face and does not allow for investigation of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes. Allegations of "massive substitute voting" and "manufactured" election returns, which require a technical examination of signatures and thumbprints on voters' lists and affidavits, are matters that fall outside the scope of a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues are cognizable only in an election protest, where evidence aliunde can be presented and examined. The COMELEC correctly ruled that the grounds relied upon by the petitioner were proper for an election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy.
Main Doctrine
A pre-proclamation controversy is not the proper remedy to question alleged irregularities in the casting or counting of votes, such as massive substitute voting, which require a technical examination of election documents. Such issues are proper in an election protest. Furthermore, a declaration of failure of election requires that no voting has taken place or that there was a failure to elect, and that the uncast votes would affect the election results; mere irregularities in the transfer of a polling place, if the election proceeded and the results are not affected, do not warrant annulment of proclamation.