Bandala v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nancy Soriano Bandala and Alejandro G. Berenguel were rival candidates for mayor in Oroquieta City during the May 14, 2001 elections. During the canvass of election returns, respondent Berenguel objected to the inclusion of eighty (80) election returns, citing reasons such as the absence of inner paper seals, the lack of party affiliation for watchers-signatories, and missing pages in some returns. The City Board of Canvassers overruled these objections and proceeded with the canvass, leading to the proclamation of petitioner Bandala as the duly elected mayor. Procedural History: Respondent Berenguel appealed the City Board of Canvassers' ruling to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC's Second Division affirmed the City Board's decision, holding that the lack of inner seals did not automatically render returns spurious and that the board's function was ministerial. Subsequently, Berenguel filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc. On August 14, 2003, the COMELEC en banc reversed the Second Division's resolution, excluding 101 election returns for lacking inner paper seals and nullifying Bandala's proclamation. A new Board of Canvassers was constituted to re-canvass the returns and proclaim the rightful winner. The Petition: Petitioner Nancy Soriano Bandala filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the COMELEC en banc's August 14, 2003 Resolution. She contends that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by excluding 101 election returns based solely on the formal defect of missing inner paper seals, arguing this is not a proper issue for a pre-proclamation controversy. Furthermore, she argues that the COMELEC en banc improperly nullified her proclamation, as the issues raised should have been addressed in an election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy, which is limited to examining the returns on their face.
Issue(s)
Whether the ground of lack of inner paper seals in election returns is a proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy. Whether the COMELEC can look beyond the election returns and receive evidence aliunde in a pre-proclamation controversy. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the proclamation of petitioner as mayor of Oroquieta City.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The challenged Resolution dated August 14, 2003, of the COMELEC en banc is reversed and set aside. The Resolution dated September 5, 2002, of the COMELEC Second Division is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether lack of inner paper seals is a proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy: The Court held that the lack of inner paper seals in election returns does not justify their exclusion from the canvassing and is not a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy. Citing In the Matter of the Petition to Exclude Election Returns contained in Nine (9) Ballot Boxes, Amelita S. Navarro vs. Commission on Election, the Court reiterated that such grounds, including lack of inner and outer paper seals and lack of signatures of watchers, may involve a violation of rules but do not necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the returns. These are clearly defects in form, insufficient to support a conclusion that the election returns were tampered with or spurious. The Court emphasized that on the basis of formal defects alone, palpable irregularity cannot be established. On the issue of whether the COMELEC can look beyond the election returns and receive evidence aliunde in a pre-proclamation controversy: The Court ruled that a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face. The COMELEC, as a general rule, need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged election irregularities. In Matalam vs. Commission on Elections, the Court stressed that the COMELEC is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities. Therefore, the COMELEC acted beyond its jurisdiction when it directed an investigation to determine the reason for the missing inner paper seals. On the issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the proclamation of petitioner: The Court found that the COMELEC en banc erred in nullifying the proclamation based on Section 20(i) of Republic Act 7166. This provision applies only when the objection deals with a pre-proclamation controversy. Since the lack of inner paper seals is not a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy, the respondent's recourse should have been to file an election protest. In an election protest, parties may litigate all legal and factual issues in detail, including those that compel the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns that appear prima facie regular on their face. The Court concluded that the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The lack of inner paper seals in election returns constitutes a formal defect insufficient to warrant their exclusion from canvassing in a pre-proclamation controversy, as such issues do not necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the returns. The COMELEC, in a pre-proclamation controversy, is generally restricted to an examination of the election returns on their face and cannot go beyond or behind them to investigate alleged election irregularities.