Utto v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Abdulkarim D. Utto and respondent Datu Almansa B. Angas were candidates for the position of mayor in the May 14, 2001 election in Sultan sa Barongis, Maguindanao. During the canvassing of votes, the municipal board of canvassers excluded five election returns from Precinct Nos. 15A, 25A/26A, 66A, 68A/69A, and 126A/127A, citing various irregularities such as the use of non-original copies, apparent tampering, missing seals, and deliberate cutting of envelopes. Despite these exclusions, the board proceeded to proclaim petitioner Utto as the duly elected mayor. Procedural History: Following the exclusion of the election returns and the subsequent proclamation of petitioner Utto, respondent Angas filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) seeking to annul the proclamation and include the excluded returns. The Comelec, First Division, initially ordered the inclusion of the returns and annulled Utto's proclamation. Petitioner Utto moved for reconsideration, arguing a violation of due process. The Comelec en banc denied the motion for reconsideration, affirming the First Division's resolution and ordering the creation of a new board of canvassers to re-canvass the disputed returns and proclaim the winning candidate. The Petition: Petitioner Abdulkarim D. Utto filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the resolutions of the Comelec en banc. He argued that his proclamation was illegally annulled without due process, citing the case of Velayo v. Comelec. He contended that he was not properly impleaded as a party in the Comelec proceedings and was not given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The petition also sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the implementation of the Comelec's resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's right to due process was violated by the Comelec's annulment of his proclamation without prior notice and hearing. Whether the exclusion of the five election returns by the municipal board of canvassers was justified. Whether the proclamation of the petitioner as mayor was valid despite the pending appeal and the exclusion of election returns that could materially affect the results. Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the inclusion of the excluded election returns and annulling the proclamation, and whether the amendment of the appeal to include the petitioner was illegal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the resolutions of the Comelec en banc. The Court held that the petitioner's proclamation was void ab initio because it was made in violation of law, specifically Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166 and Section 38(9) of Comelec Resolution No. 3848, which mandate that no proclamation shall be made without the Comelec's authorization after an appeal on contested returns has been filed. The Court found that the petitioner was duly notified of the proceedings and was given an opportunity to be heard, particularly during the hearing on his motion for reconsideration before the Comelec en banc. The Court also ruled that the exclusion of the election returns was not justified and that the Comelec did not abuse its discretion in ordering their inclusion and annulling the illegal proclamation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The Court found that the petitioner's claim of violation of due process was unsubstantiated. The records showed that the petitioner was duly notified of the appeal and annulment proceedings through telegram and registered mail. Furthermore, he was given a full opportunity to present his case during the hearing on his motion for reconsideration before the Comelec en banc, where he failed to present controverting evidence to justify the exclusion of the election returns. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard and to explain one's side, which the petitioner was afforded. On the justification for excluding election returns: The Court, adopting the findings of the Comelec, determined that the grounds for excluding the election returns were formal defects that did not affect their genuineness. For instance, the use of a ballot box copy when the Board copy was unavailable was permissible, and the alleged tampering in one return did not pertain to the mayoralty candidates. The exclusion of returns due to broken seals or missing outer seals was also deemed insufficient to warrant exclusion, especially when the integrity of the returns could still be ascertained or other authentic copies were available. The Comelec correctly applied jurisprudence that formal defects should not disenfranchise voters. On the validity of the proclamation: The Court reiterated that a proclamation made in violation of Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166 and Section 38(9) of Comelec Resolution No. 3848 is void ab initio. Petitioner's proclamation on May 31, 2001, occurred after respondent manifested his intention to appeal and attempted to file a notice of appeal, which was refused. Given the significant number of registered voters in the excluded precincts (944) compared to petitioner's slim margin of victory (149 votes), the exclusion of these returns would materially affect the election results. Therefore, the proclamation was premature and illegal, as it preempted the Comelec's ruling on the contested returns. On the Comelec's authority to annul the proclamation and the amendment of the appeal: The Court affirmed that the Comelec has the authority to annul any canvass and proclamation that is illegally made. The fact that the illegally proclaimed candidate has assumed office does not divest the Comelec of this power. The Court emphasized that allowing illegal proclamations to ripen into legal assumptions of office would frustrate the will of the electorate and encourage dilatory tactics in election contests, as highlighted in previous rulings. The Comelec's action in convening a new board of canvassers and ordering the inclusion of uncanvassed returns was a proper exercise of its power to correct illegal proceedings. The Court found petitioner's contention that the amendment of the appeal to include him as a party respondent was illegal without prior leave of court to be erroneous. Under Rule 9, Section 1 of the 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure, a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served. Since no responsive pleading had been served by the petitioner at the time the appeal was amended, the amendment was permissible.
Main Doctrine
A proclamation made in violation of the mandatory procedure for the disposition of contested election returns, specifically by proceeding with proclamation without awaiting the Commission on Elections' (Comelec) authorization after an appeal has been filed, is void ab initio, especially when the contested returns would materially affect the election results. The assumption of office by a candidate illegally proclaimed does not divest the Comelec of its power to declare such proclamation a nullity.