Cordero v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the May 1998 elections for mayor in Estancia, Iloilo, petitioner Rene Cordero contested the inclusion of election returns from several precincts, alleging tampering, alteration, manufacturing, and lack of material data. Despite these objections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) included the questioned returns in the canvass. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed the MBOC's actions to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on May 25, 1998, and again on July 11, 1998, seeking the exclusion of contested election returns. The Comelec (Second Division) issued a Resolution on July 28, 1998, affirming the MBOC's rulings and directing the MBOC to reconvene and finish the canvassing. The Comelec en banc denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on August 13, 1998. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Comelec Resolutions. He sought the nullification of the Comelec Resolutions, the exclusion of contested election returns, and the proclamation of the winning candidate based on uncontested returns. The Supreme Court issued temporary restraining orders to prevent the proclamation of the winning candidate.
Issue(s)
Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeals for failure to attach written objections and supporting evidence. Whether the Comelec erred in ordering the inclusion of protested election returns in the canvass, and whether the Comelec erred in ruling that appeals from the MBOC should be summarily dismissed without the required forms and evidence. Whether the Comelec erred in finding that petitioner failed to justify the exclusion of contested returns, and whether the affidavits submitted by the petitioner were sufficient.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections. The assailed Resolutions were affirmed, and the Temporary Restraining Orders were lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural requirement for appeals in pre-proclamation controversies: The Court reiterated that in pre-proclamation controversies, the rules on presenting evidence and appealing the rulings of the board of canvassers are mandatory. Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7166 clearly outlines the procedure: oral objections must be made, followed by written objections in the prescribed Comelec form within twenty-four (24) hours, along with supporting evidence. Any appeal brought before the Comelec without the accomplished forms and appended evidence shall be summarily dismissed, as mandated by Subsection (h) of Section 20. The petitioner's failure to comply with this mandatory procedure, specifically by not attaching his written objections and supporting evidence to his appeals, warranted the summary dismissal of his appeals by the Comelec. The Court emphasized that the burden lies with the petitioner to prove a prima facie case and present evidence that the exclusion sought would change the election results. On the inclusion of protested election returns and the summary dismissal of appeals: The Court affirmed that absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the Comelec, an administrative agency with particular expertise, are binding on the Supreme Court. The Comelec's finding that the petitioner failed to justify the exclusion of the returns and that the affidavits were insufficient was sustained. The Court noted that the petitioner did not even attach evidence to his written objections, further weakening his appeal. The Court stressed that election controversies based on flimsy averments should not be allowed to prosper, as they can lead to endless challenges that disrupt the election process. On the sufficiency of evidence and affidavits: The Court held that mere allegations that an election return is spurious, altered, or manufactured do not automatically operate to exclude it from the canvassing. The summary nature of pre-proclamation controversies requires resolution based on arguments and evidence submitted within the period allowed by law. The Court found that the petitioner miserably failed to justify the exclusion of the returns based on the evidence adduced. The affidavits submitted by the petitioner were deemed insufficient to establish the truth of his allegations that the returns were tampered with, contained material defects, were manufactured, or not authentic. The Court cited previous rulings emphasizing that conclusions of manufactured or false election returns must be approached with extreme caution and require the most convincing proof, and that reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits.
Main Doctrine
In pre-proclamation controversies, objections to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns must be in writing, in the form prescribed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), and must be accompanied by supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this mandatory procedure results in the summary dismissal of the appeal.