Jamil v. The Commission On Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Abdullah A. Jamil and private respondent Alinader Balindong were mayoralty candidates in Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur, during the May 8, 1995 elections. During the canvassing, Balindong objected to the inclusion of four election returns from Precinct Nos. 5, 10-1, 20-1, and 20, alleging duress, spuriousness, and lack of signatures. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), initially headed by Saadia Sansarona, issued 'rulings' that merely 'set aside' these returns for further investigation rather than definitively excluding or including them. Procedural History: A new MBC was constituted under Casan T. Macadato. Macadato conducted an investigation and submitted a report to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) recommending the inclusion of the contested returns, but the board did not issue a formal collective ruling. While appeals (SPC No. 95-271 and SPC No. 95-272) were pending before the COMELEC, the Macadato MBC proclaimed Jamil as the winner on June 26, 1995. Subsequently, the COMELEC Second Division annulled Jamil's proclamation and ordered a new MBC (headed by Darangina Cariga) to proclaim Balindong, which occurred on September 5, 1995. Jamil moved for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. The Petition: Jamil filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court after the COMELEC En Banc, in a 3-3 tie vote, denied his motion for reconsideration. Jamil argued that his proclamation was valid as it was based on a complete canvass, whereas Balindong's was based on an incomplete one. He further contended that the vote of Commissioner Graduacion Claravall, who had allegedly expressed support for him before her death, should have been counted to break the tie in his favor.
Issue(s)
Whether the proclamation of Abdullah Jamil by the Macadato Board was valid. Whether the proclamation of Alinader Balindong by the Cariga Board was valid. Whether the 3-3 tie vote of the COMELEC En Banc, excluding the vote of the deceased Commissioner Claravall, was procedurally correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court SUSTAINED the annulment of Jamil's proclamation, DECLARED Balindong's proclamation null and void, and ORDERED the COMELEC to resolve the pending inclusion/exclusion incidents and create a Special Municipal Board of Canvassers to conduct a proper canvass and proclaim the rightful winner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Jamil's proclamation was void because it lacked a definitive ruling by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) regarding the contested returns. The investigation report signed by Chairman Macadato alone was a mere recommendation and did not constitute a valid board action. Furthermore, the proclamation violated Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which prohibits the proclamation of a candidate while returns are contested unless specifically authorized by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Since no such authority was granted and the canvass was effectively incomplete due to the lack of formal rulings on the contested returns, the proclamation had no legal basis. Applying Benito v. COMELEC, the Court noted that a void proclamation is no proclamation at all. On Issue 2: The proclamation of Balindong was similarly declared null and void because it was predicated on an incomplete canvass. The Cariga Board relied on the 'rulings' of the previous Sansarona MBC, which had merely 'set aside' the challenged returns for further investigation rather than resolving their inclusion. Jurisprudence, including Samar v. COMELEC and Mutuc v. COMELEC, establishes that an incomplete canvass is illegal as it disenfranchises voters and fails to reflect the true will of the electorate. All votes cast must be counted, and all returns presented must be considered for a canvass to be valid. Consequently, a proclamation based on a canvass that excludes contested returns without a final determination is a nullity. On Issue 3: The Court held that the COMELEC En Banc correctly applied Rule 18, Section 6 of its Rules of Procedure, which dictates that if the Commission is equally divided in opinion on a motion for reconsideration, the motion is denied. Regarding Commissioner Claravall, the Court emphasized that a decision only becomes binding upon valid promulgation. Since Claravall passed away 29 days before the resolution was promulgated, her provisional vote was automatically withdrawn. Citing Araneta v. Dinglasan and Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. IAC, the Court clarified that a member of a collegiate court must be in office at the time of signing and promulgation for their vote to be valid. The death of a public official extinguishes all rights and duties pertinent to the office, including the power to participate in a final decision.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that a valid election proclamation must be predicated upon a complete and valid canvass of all votes cast. Any proclamation made while election returns are contested and without express authorization from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is void ab initio. Additionally, in collegiate bodies, a decision or resolution becomes binding only upon its valid promulgation; if a member who participated in the deliberations dies or vacates their office before the date of promulgation, their vote is automatically withdrawn and cannot be counted toward the majority.