Mascara v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Michael O. Mastura and private respondent Didagen P. Dilangalen were candidates for Member of the House of Representatives for the First District of Maguindanao in the May 8, 1995 elections. Dilangalen objected to the inclusion of the Certificate of Canvass of Matanog, Maguindanao, alleging it was tampered. Procedural History: The COMELEC Second Division ordered the production and examination of election returns for Matanog. Upon comparison of the MTC Judge copy and the COMELEC copy, the COMELEC found inconsistencies between the Statement of Votes and the election returns, leading it to annul the canvass made by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Matanog. A new MBC and Provincial Board of Canvassers were constituted to conduct a recanvass using the COMELEC copy of the election returns. Petitioner Mastura filed several motions, including a motion to defer implementation, which were denied by the COMELEC. During the recanvass, Mastura objected to 50 out of 57 election returns but walked out when his objections were overruled. Subsequently, Dilangalen was proclaimed the winner. The Petition: Mastura filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the COMELEC Second Division for issuing the assailed orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders dated February 29, 1996, March 5, 1996, March 14, 1996, and March 20, 1996; and whether the COMELEC erred in annulling the canvass made by the original Municipal Board of Canvassers of Matanog and ordering a recanvass using the COMELEC copy of the election returns, considering its authority to do so. Whether the COMELEC erred in annulling the canvass made by the original Municipal Board of Canvassers of Matanog and ordering a recanvass using the COMELEC copy of the election returns, specifically concerning the factual findings, supervisory powers, ministerial nature of canvassing, and status of election return copies.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Orders of the COMELEC Second Division are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's authority to annul canvass and order recanvass, and on the COMELEC's factual findings: The Court held that it is settled jurisprudence that the COMELEC can suspend the canvass of votes pending an inquiry into discrepancies between various copies of election returns. Once returns are found to be falsified or tampered with, the COMELEC can annul the illegal canvass and order a reconvening of the Board of Canvassers to proclaim winners based on genuine returns, or replace the board members, or proclaim the winners itself. This was precisely what occurred in the instant case, where the COMELEC, after finding the Certificate of Canvass of Matanog to be tampered with, annulled the canvass and ordered a recanvass. The Court emphasized that the finding that the Certificate of Canvass of Matanog was tampered with is a factual finding of the COMELEC. Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court must refrain from reviewing such findings and accord them the respect due to the COMELEC, which is placed on a higher level than statutory administrative organs. The COMELEC possesses broad powers to ascertain election results and is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence. On the COMELEC's supervisory and control powers, the ministerial nature of canvassing, and the status of election return copies: The Court reiterated that the COMELEC exercises direct supervision and control over proceedings before the Board of Canvassers. Its authority in reviewing the actuations of boards of canvassers stems from its plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision, not from any specific appellant jurisdiction. A superior body may do directly what a subordinate body is supposed to do or ought to have done. The function of a canvassing board is purely ministerial. Similarly, the function of the COMELEC, in exercising its supervisory power over the Board of Canvassers, is also ministerial. So long as election returns are accomplished in due form, they must be included in the canvass. However, the COMELEC is duty-bound to see that the board of canvassers performs its proper function and can annul a canvass based on incomplete, incorrect, or tampered returns. The Court clarified that all seven copies of the election returns are original copies. The designation of the Municipal Board of Canvassers copy as the 'first copy' is merely for distribution purposes and does not grant it exclusive status as the only original. Therefore, it was within the COMELEC's discretion to order the production and examination of the MTC Judge copy and the COMELEC copy of the election returns.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election, including the authority to annul a canvass based on tampered or falsified election returns and to order a recanvass. Factual findings of the COMELEC on election matters, absent grave abuse of discretion, are accorded respect.