Marabur v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Anwar "Ano" S. Marabur and respondent Omar "Bornok" Mahamad, Jr. were candidates for councilor in Marawi City in the 10 May 2004 elections. The Marawi City Board of Canvassers (CBC) convened to canvass election returns. An objection was raised regarding the election return from Precinct No. 108-A, Barangay Lomidong. Procedural History: The CBC initially ruled to include the contested return. Respondent's counsel objected to its tabulation, alleging tampering. The CBC suspended proceedings but later resumed, including the contested return despite continued objections and an offer of evidence from the respondent. The CBC proclaimed petitioner as the 10th ranking councilor, ruling that respondent failed to comply with mandatory requirements for objections and that there was no convincing proof of tampering. Respondent filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), alleging the election return was tampered, showing petitioner received 150 votes instead of 50, and that the CBC disregarded objections and denied appeal. The COMELEC Second Division annulled petitioner's proclamation, finding the CBC violated Section 20 of RA 7166 and that the contested return was clearly tampered. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this ruling. The Petition: Petitioner assails the COMELEC resolutions annulling his proclamation, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in annulling the proclamation of petitioner as the 10th ranking and winning candidate for councilor of Marawi City; and whether the procedure outlined in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7166 governing the disposition of contested election returns was observed. Whether the contested election return was regular and whether issues relating to the qualifications of candidates are proper in pre-proclamation controversies.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution dated 21 February 2005 of the Commission on Elections Second Division and the Resolution dated 6 September 2005 of the Commission on Elections En Banc in SPC No. 04-204 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and observance of Section 20 of RA 7166: The Court found that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CBC contravened several provisions of Section 20 of RA 7166. Specifically, the CBC ignored respondent's manifestation to appeal, failed to suspend the canvass, and proclaimed petitioner without COMELEC authorization, violating paragraphs (e), (f), and (i). Paragraph (i) explicitly states that any proclamation made without COMELEC authorization after the COMELEC has ruled on objections is void ab initio. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not frustrate the electorate's will. Although respondent failed to submit a formal written objection, his submission of evidence within the prescribed period constituted substantial compliance, especially given the glaring irregularity of the election return. The COMELEC's finding that the election return was tampered, based on visual inspection and the affidavit of the Board of Election Inspectors, was given weight by the Supreme Court. On the issue of the contested election return's regularity and respondent's qualifications: The Court found the COMELEC's determination that the contested election return was clearly tampered to be binding. The joint affidavit of the Board of Election Inspectors in Precinct No. 108-A attested that petitioner received only 50 votes, not 150 as indicated in the contested return. The Court noted that the election return did not appear regular on its face, making the rule against looking beyond the return inapplicable. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the return, including its disappearance and reappearance, further supported the finding of tampering. The CBC's inclusion of this tampered return in the canvass and subsequent proclamation of petitioner, in defiance of Section 20(i) of RA 7166, was deemed a violation. The Court agreed with the COMELEC that issues relating to the qualifications of candidates are not proper in pre-proclamation controversies. A pre-proclamation controversy is defined by the Omnibus Election Code as questions affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers or matters related to the election returns themselves. Therefore, respondent's alleged lack of registration in Barangay Marinaut East was irrelevant to the pre-proclamation case.
Main Doctrine
A proclamation made in violation of Section 20(i) of RA 7166, which prohibits proclamation without COMELEC authorization after objections have been raised and appealed, is void ab initio. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not obstruct the determination of the electorate's true will.