Lee v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sally A. Lee and Leovic R. Dioneda were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City in the May 14, 2001 elections. During the canvassing, counsel for Dioneda objected to the inclusion of Election Return No. 41150266 for Precinct No. 28A2 due to omitted entries for congressman and the utilization of LDP watchers in filling up the return. Lee countered that the omission pertained to a non-pre-proclamation issue, the watchers acted under BEI supervision, and the defect did not affect the return's integrity. Procedural History: The Board of Canvassers (BOC) included the questioned return, finding it clear and regular on its face. Dioneda appealed, and the COMELEC Second Division granted his petition, excluding the return and nullifying Lee's proclamation. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this resolution. Lee filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Lee argued that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to go behind election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy, gravely abused its discretion, and committed procedural lapses.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to go beyond or behind election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding the questioned election return and nullifying the proclamation. Whether procedural lapses affected the fairness of the COMELEC's resolutions, and whether the proper procedure was followed for addressing material defects in election returns.
Ruling
The Supreme Court directed the COMELEC to determine within twenty days whether the integrity of the ballot box for Precinct No. 28A2 is intact. If it is, and the integrity of the ballots is likewise intact, the COMELEC is ordered to direct the Sorsogon City Board of Election Inspectors to recount the votes and prepare a new return. Otherwise, the ballot box shall not be opened, or the ballots recounted, and an order for its safekeeping shall be issued. The Status Quo Ante Order was dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction in pre-proclamation controversies: The Court held that the doctrine restricting COMELEC to examining returns on their face applies only when the returns appear authentic and duly accomplished. In this case, the prima facie showing of omitted entries warranted COMELEC's examination to determine the return's genuineness. The COMELEC is not powerless to investigate if there is a basis for exclusion when a return is not genuine. On the COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the BEI members' explanations for the omitted entries (fatigue, forgetfulness) were unsatisfactory. The admission that party watchers participated in preparing the return, particularly for the party-list, raised doubts about the return's authenticity and preparation. The COMELEC correctly ruled that votes do not vanish and that omitted entries require a reasonable explanation, absent which doubt arises. On procedural lapses and the proper procedure for material defects: The Court found no merit in Lee's argument regarding lack of notice of promulgation. It reiterated the doctrine in Lindo v. Commission on Elections that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration runs from actual receipt of the resolution, not from promulgation, especially when not promulgated in open hearing. The Court also presumed that official duty was regularly performed regarding the non-indication of the ponente for the En Banc resolution. The Court emphasized that when material defects in election returns are found, Sections 234 and 235 of the Omnibus Election Code mandate a determination of the integrity of the ballot box and ballots before any recounting. The COMELEC erred in directly excluding the return without first ascertaining the integrity of the ballot box and ballots, as established in Patoray v. Commission on Elections.
Main Doctrine
In cases involving alleged material defects in election returns, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) must first determine the integrity of the ballot box and, if intact, order a recount of the ballots, provided their integrity is also preserved. If the integrity of the ballot box or ballots is violated, no recounting shall be done.