Baddiri v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edilwasif T. Baddiri, Alkhadar T. Loong, and Nijar I. Hassan were candidates for Board Member in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sulu during the May 10, 2004 elections. A dispute arose concerning the Certificate of Canvass of Votes for the Municipality of Patikul, where Baddiri was initially credited with 4,873 votes. Respondent Loong alleged a manifest error, claiming Baddiri should have received only 2,873 votes, a discrepancy of 2,000 votes. Procedural History: On May 17, 2004, Loong filed a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error with the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu, supported by an affidavit from the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Patikul admitting the error. Baddiri opposed this petition. The Provincial Board of Canvassers granted the correction on May 19, 2004, resulting in Baddiri being excluded from the winning slate. Baddiri appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which was dismissed by the First Division on July 8, 2004. Baddiri's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc on October 1, 2004. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the COMELEC's resolutions. Petitioner Baddiri argues that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. His grounds include the COMELEC disregarding established rules on jurisdiction, the absence of manifest errors, the COMELEC ignoring clear evidence, respondent Loong's belated objection constituting estoppel, and a violation of Baddiri's right to due process. Baddiri specifically contends that the error was not a manifest error as defined by COMELEC rules and that the Provincial Board of Canvassers lacked jurisdiction to correct an error in a municipal certificate of canvass.
Issue(s)
Whether or not there was manifest error in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes from the Municipality of Patikul, Sulu. Whether or not the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu had jurisdiction over the Petition for Correction of Manifest Error filed by respondent Loong. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Ruling of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution of the COMELEC, First Division, promulgated on July 8, 2004, and the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc, promulgated on October 1, 2004, are hereby AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of manifest error: The Court affirmed the COMELEC's finding that there was a manifest error in the addition of votes for petitioner Baddiri. The Certificate of Canvass from Patikul, Sulu, showed 4,873 votes for Baddiri, while the supporting Statements of Votes by Precincts indicated a correct total of 2,873 votes. This discrepancy, amounting to an excess of 2,000 votes, clearly falls under subparagraph 5 of Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669, which defines manifest error as a mistake in the addition of the votes of any candidate. The admission by the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Patikul, Sulu, regarding the error further substantiated this finding. The factual findings of the COMELEC, supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court, rendering petitioner's contention of no manifest error without merit. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of Sulu had jurisdiction over the Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. Petitioner's reliance on Section 319 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669 was misplaced as it pertains to pre-proclamation cases not allowed for national positions. The pertinent rule is Section 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which allows a Board of Canvassers to correct manifest errors in tabulation or tallying before proclamation. This provision implies that either the municipal or provincial board of canvassers can take cognizance of such petitions. Since the canvassing proceedings for the subject position were already before the PBC and the petition was filed with it prior to proclamation, the PBC correctly assumed jurisdiction. The Court also found no violation of due process, as petitioner was able to file an Opposition and contest the claim before the PBC. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in affirming the ruling of the PBC. The COMELEC correctly applied the rules regarding the correction of manifest errors, particularly the mistake in addition of votes. The petition was filed before proclamation, and the COMELEC liberally construed its rules, as it may suspend them in the interest of justice. The Court also dismissed the argument of estoppel, as the petition was filed within the period allowed by Section 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which permits such correction at any time before proclamation. The COMELEC's en banc resolution further examined the original Statement of Votes by Precincts and found no signs of tampering, confirming the corrected vote count.
Main Doctrine
A manifest error in the addition of votes in a certificate of canvass, discovered before proclamation and admitted by the municipal board of canvassers, may be corrected by the provincial board of canvassers upon petition, even if the municipal board of canvassers prepared the erroneous document, provided due notice and hearing are given.