Belac v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominador T. Belac (LAMMP) and Rommel Diasen (LAKAS-NUCD) were candidates for governor in Kalinga. During the canvassing of election results for the May 11, 1998 elections, Diasen objected to the inclusion of election returns from 42 precincts in Pinukpuk and 28 precincts in Tinglayan, alleging falsification, tampering, and discrepancies. The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) proceeded with the canvass, including the Pinukpuk returns, and ruled to issue a certificate of correction for Tinglayan returns due to mere error. Belac was proclaimed governor on May 19, 1998. Procedural History: Diasen appealed to the COMELEC (First Division), which dismissed his appeal. Diasen filed a motion for reconsideration, which was elevated to the COMELEC en banc. While pending, the PBC Chairman unilaterally proclaimed Belac. Diasen filed another petition to dispute this proclamation. The COMELEC en banc, in a 3-3 vote, issued a Resolution on February 22, 2000, modifying the First Division's ruling by directing the exclusion of votes from contested precincts and affirming investigations. Due to the tie, a rehearing was set. On February 28, 2000, the PBC proclaimed Diasen, who took his oath. The COMELEC en banc then issued an order on March 9, 2000, directing Diasen to cease and desist from discharging his duties and requiring comments on the proclamation's validity. The COMELEC (Second Division) later declared Belac's proclamation void. On November 16, 2000, the COMELEC en banc, with new members, issued another Resolution granting the motion for reconsideration, affirming Diasen's proclamation, recalling the cease and desist order, and affirming investigations. The Petition: Belac filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the COMELEC en banc's February 22, 2000 and November 16, 2000 Resolutions, alleging grave abuse of discretion, denial of due process due to delay, and improper exclusion of election returns.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions. Whether the COMELEC erred in modifying the ruling of its First Division and in considering the votes of retired Commissioners. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding election returns from Pinukpuk and Tinglayan despite alleged lack of legal and factual bases. Whether the COMELEC can go beyond the face of the election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the COMELEC en banc's Resolutions dated February 22, 2000, and November 16, 2000, and affirmed the COMELEC (First Division)'s Resolution dated June 4, 1998. The COMELEC was directed to forthwith conduct the proclamation of petitioner Dominador Belac in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's authority to go beyond the face of election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy: The Court held that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting respondent Diasen's motion for reconsideration. In pre-proclamation controversies, the COMELEC is generally restricted to examining the election returns and cannot go beyond or behind them to investigate irregularities, unless these are manifest on the face of the returns. The allegations of padding of votes ('Operation Dagdag'), tampering, falsification, and that returns were prepared before counting, as raised by Diasen, required evidence aliunde (external evidence). Such issues are proper for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy. The Court reiterated the rulings in Matalam, Loong, and Dipatuan, emphasizing that as long as election returns appear regular on their face, the Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC cannot look beyond them. The COMELEC's finding that the returns were manufactured based on handwriting analysis went beyond its limited jurisdiction in a pre-proclamation case. The Court found that the COMELEC's action in looking beyond the face of the documents exceeded its authority. On the validity of the February 22, 2000 Resolution and the votes of retired Commissioners: The Court ruled that the votes of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani, who had retired on February 15, 2000, prior to the promulgation of the February 22, 2000 Resolution, should not have been counted. Citing Jamil v. Comelec and Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. v. Comelec, the Court explained that a decision becomes binding only upon promulgation, and a member who has vacated office before promulgation cannot validly participate. Therefore, the February 22, 2000 Resolution, which resulted in a 3-3 tie due to the invalid votes, was null and void. Consequently, there was no equally divided vote that necessitated a rehearing under Rule 18, Section 6 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Court affirmed the Resolution of the COMELEC (First Division) dated June 4, 1998, as the tie meant the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. On the exclusion of election returns: The Court found that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the 42 election returns for Pinukpuk and 28 for Tinglayan. The grounds raised by Diasen, such as falsification and discrepancies, were not manifest on the face of the election returns. The Provincial Board of Canvassers had found the Certificate of Canvass for Tinglayan regular on its face, and the grounds raised by Diasen were not among those enumerated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. For Pinukpuk, the Board corrected discrepancies based on the election returns themselves, pursuant to general instructions. The COMELEC's subsequent finding of manufactured returns based on handwriting analysis was deemed an act beyond its jurisdiction in a pre-proclamation controversy. Therefore, the exclusion was improper. On the delay in disposition: The Court noted that pre-proclamation controversies are mandated by law to be summarily disposed of. The delay in resolving Diasen's motion for reconsideration (almost two years) and the subsequent resolution of the rehearing (almost nine months) violated this mandate and the right to speedy disposition of cases. This prolonged delay, coupled with the procedural errors, contributed to the finding of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
In a pre-proclamation controversy, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is generally restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them to investigate election irregularities, unless such irregularities are manifest on the face of the returns themselves. Allegations of irregularities that require evidence aliunde are proper subjects for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.