Balindong v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anwar Balindong, a candidate for Mayor of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, sought to set aside a COMELEC Resolution ordering the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) to reconvene, exclude an election return, and credit votes from one precinct to another candidate, Amir-Oden Balindong. Anwar, Aklima Balindong, and Amir-Oden Balindong were mayoral candidates. The MBC convened on May 17, 2001, with parties agreeing to open and appreciate all election returns promptly. Aklima, through his representative, objected to the inclusion of election returns for Precincts 127A/128A and 18A due to alleged fraud, irregularities, and violence. Aklima also filed a petition to disqualify the MBC chairman, which was denied. On May 18, 2001, Aklima's counsel objected to all election returns, citing illegal proceedings and violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3848. The MBC denied this objection, noting Aklima's prior participation and lack of specific objections to the genuineness of the returns. Aklima filed an appeal (SPC No. 01-063) and later another petition (SPC No. 01-175) seeking to declare MBC proceedings illegal and to reconvene and re-canvass specific precincts. In an amended petition, Aklima sought the annulment of election results in five precincts (18A, 80A, 127A/128A, 133A/134A, and 47A/48A) due to fraud, forgery, and terrorism, and annulment of Anwar's proclamation. The COMELEC consolidated the cases and, in an Order dated October 15, 2001, characterized them as pre-proclamation controversies, ordering a hearing and the presentation of ballot boxes and BEI chairmen. Anwar argued that Aklima's failure to object to the returns for Precincts 80A and 47A/48A at the MBC level was fatal. The COMELEC examined the canvassing copies of these returns and declared the cases submitted. Procedural History: On July 4, 2002, the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution excluding the election return for Precinct 80A and awarding the 88 votes from Precinct 47A/48A to Amir-Oden Balindong, which were initially credited to Anwar. The COMELEC found erasures and alterations in the Precinct 47A/48A return and evidence of erasure with a white substance in the Precinct 80A return. The COMELEC ordered the MBC to reconvene and act on these directives. Anwar filed the present petition, assailing the COMELEC Resolution for acting with grave abuse of discretion, primarily for taking cognizance of the cases en banc in the first instance and for acting on returns not objected to before the MBC. The Petition: Anwar Balindong petitions the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC Resolution, arguing that the COMELEC en banc lacked jurisdiction to hear pre-proclamation controversies at the first instance and that it erred in acting on election returns (Precincts 80A and 47A/48A) to which no objection was raised before the MBC. He also contended that even if the COMELEC could act, it should have ordered a recount of votes under Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies at the first instance. Whether the COMELEC had authority to pass upon the validity of the two (2) election returns which were not objected to before the canvassing board. Whether the COMELEC acted properly in declaring the two (2) returns tampered and thereafter totally excluding the first return, and ordering the votes in the second return credited from Anwar to another candidate, without examining other copies of the returns or ordering a recount of the ballots by the BEIs concerned.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the COMELEC Resolution dated July 4, 2002, and ordered the COMELEC to assign the consolidated cases to one of its divisions for resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc over pre-proclamation controversies: The Court held that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the consolidated cases at the first instance. Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution mandates that election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must first be heard and decided by a division of the COMELEC. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, as consistently ruled by the Supreme Court in cases such as Sarmiento v. COMELEC. The COMELEC's reliance on its Resolution No. 00-0046 and the case of Laodenio v. COMELEC was deemed misplaced, as the latter case did not establish COMELEC en banc jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies at the first instance. The consolidated cases, involving alleged tampering of election returns, were correctly characterized as pre-proclamation controversies, necessitating referral to a COMELEC division. On the authority to pass upon election returns not objected to before the MBC: The Court ruled that the COMELEC exceeded its authority in entertaining the belated objections to the election returns for Precincts 80A and 47A/48A. Under Republic Act No. 7166 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2962, matters concerning the inclusion or exclusion of election returns must be raised before the Board of Canvassers at the time the questioned return is presented for canvassing. Aklima's failure to object to these specific returns at the MBC level rendered his subsequent objections in the COMELEC belated and fatal to his cause, as per the ruling in Siquian v. COMELEC. The proceedings before the Board of Canvassers are summary, and compliance with the period for objections is mandatory to prevent schemes that delay proclamation. On the COMELEC's action regarding the tampered returns: The Court found the COMELEC's actions in excluding the return for Precinct 80A and re-crediting votes from Precinct 47A/48A to be improper and lacking in due process. The COMELEC failed to observe the procedure prescribed in Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code. Instead of examining other copies of the questioned returns or ordering a recount of the ballots by the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) concerned, the COMELEC summarily excluded one return and reallocated votes from another based solely on the canvassing copies used by the MBC. This precipitate exclusion disenfranchised voters, and the reallocation of votes was made without sufficient examination, especially considering the BEI's affidavit and the overall Statement of Votes which indicated that Anwar, not Amir-Oden, was the recipient of the 88 votes. The COMELEC's selective and divergent treatment of the two returns was also criticized.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections en banc does not have the authority to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies at the first instance; such cases must first be heard and decided by a division of the Commission. Furthermore, objections to election returns not raised before the Municipal Board of Canvassers are considered belated and beyond the authority of the COMELEC to entertain. In cases of tampered or falsified election returns, the COMELEC must follow the procedure outlined in Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code, which includes examining other copies of the returns and, if necessary, ordering a recount of the ballots.