Pendatun Salih v. Commission on Elections, Omarhassim Abdulmunap and Fawsi Alonzo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 1995 elections for Mayor of Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi, petitioner Pendatun Salih and respondents Fawzi Alonzo and Omarhassim Abdulmunap were candidates. Five election returns (Precincts 10, 10-A, 16, 21, and 21-A) were contested. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) initially ruled to include them, but the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), on appeal, ordered the exclusion of Precincts 10 and 10-A based on allegations of sham voting and manufactured returns. Following this exclusion, Salih was proclaimed the winner on June 30, 1995. Procedural History: On the same day as the proclamation, respondents filed Motions for Reconsideration (MR). Despite these pending MRs, the Second Division issued an order on July 11, 1995, deeming the cases 'terminated' pursuant to an Omnibus Resolution. Respondent Alonzo moved to reconsider this termination and elevate the matter to the COMELEC En Banc. On December 15, 1995, the COMELEC En Banc reversed the Second Division, ordering the inclusion of Precincts 10 and 10-A and nullifying Salih's proclamation because it was based on an incomplete canvass and made while MRs were pending. The Petition: Petitioner Salih filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion by assuming jurisdiction over cases already 'terminated' by the Second Division. Salih further contended that the Second Division was correct in excluding the returns from Precincts 10 and 10-A because they were allegedly manufactured and fraudulent, as supported by affidavits from the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI).
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case after the Second Division had deemed it terminated. Whether the election returns from Precincts 10 and 10-A should be excluded in a pre-proclamation controversy based on allegations of sham voting and fraud supported by affidavits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and DISSOLVED the Temporary Restraining Order. The Court held that the COMELEC En Banc correctly assumed jurisdiction and properly ordered the inclusion of the contested returns.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Second Division actually exceeded its powers when it terminated the case while timely motions for reconsideration were still pending and unacted upon. The pendency of these motions rendered the termination order ineffective because the right of a party to seek reconsideration cannot be defeated by a 'careless measure' of ipso facto terminating a case. Under the law, a proclamation made during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration is null and void, as seen in Tatlonghari v. COMELEC. Therefore, the En Banc had the inherent authority to rectify the procedural error of the Division and resolve the substantive merits of the motions. On Issue 2: Applying the landmark doctrine in Loong v. COMELEC, the Court held that the returns from Precincts 10 and 10-A must be included because they were prima facie regular and untampered on their face. The Second Division erred in excluding them based on affidavits alleging sham voting, as pre-proclamation controversies are summary and do not allow for evidence aliunde to pierce the veil of regular returns. Allegations that clean returns are in fact sham due to fraud or terrorism are inappropriate for pre-proclamation cases and must be raised in an election protest. The Court emphasized that the policy of the law is to determine election results quickly based on the canvass of returns that appear authentic. Since there were no physical alterations or defects on the face of the returns for Precincts 10 and 10-A, their exclusion was legally groundless in a pre-proclamation context.
Main Doctrine
The prevailing doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence is that as long as election returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot look beyond or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes. Pre-proclamation controversies are summary in nature and are intended to resolve the results of an election quickly without the need for meticulous technical examinations or evidence aliunde. Issues involving fraud, terrorism, or sham voting which require the piercing of the veil of prima facie regular returns are properly cognizable only in a regular election protest. Consequently, a proclamation based on an incomplete canvass or made during the pendency of a timely motion for reconsideration is null and void.