Cambe v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the May 14, 2007 elections for the Sangguniang Bayan of Lasam, Cagayan, petitioner Randy C. Cambe and private respondent Dominador M. Go were candidates. Election Return No. 9601666 for clustered precinct numbers 66A and 68 was presented for canvassing. Go orally moved for its exclusion, alleging it was manufactured and that the total votes cast for vice-mayoralty candidates exceeded the registered voters. Go later filed a written petition/opposition, stating the contested return would affect the 8th position in the Municipal Councilor race. If the return were included, Cambe would win the 8th seat by 21 votes; if excluded, Go would win by 6 votes. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed winners for mayor, vice-mayor, and 7 Sangguniang Bayan Members, leaving the 8th slot pending the canvassing of the questioned return. Procedural History: The MBC directed Cambe to comment on Go's petition. On May 22, 2007, the MBC ruled to exclude Election Return No. 9601666, citing "fraud, material defect, tamper[ing], and statistical improbability." On the same day, the MBC proclaimed Go as the 8th elected member. Cambe filed his written opposition to the exclusion petition later that day. He received a copy of the MBC's ruling on May 25, 2007, and filed a notice of appeal with the MBC on May 28, 2007, followed by an appeal memorandum with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on May 30, 2007. The Petition: On June 28, 2007, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 8212, which deemed SPC Case No. 07-212 dismissed because it was not included in the list of cases to be heard beyond June 30, 2007. Cambe filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the COMELEC en banc's resolution for gravely abusing its discretion in dismissing his appeal, which upheld the MBC's exclusion of the election return and led to Go's proclamation. Cambe argued that the COMELEC en banc lacked jurisdiction in the first instance and that Go's proclamation was invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. Whether the proclamation of Go is valid. Whether the COMELEC acted properly in sustaining the ruling of the MBC which outrightly excluded the questioned election return.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. 8212 of the Commission on Elections en banc dated June 28, 2007 is SET ASIDE insofar as SPC Case No. 07-212 is concerned. The Commission is ordered to raffle said case to one of its divisions, which is hereby directed to resolve the same with deliberate dispatch. In the meantime, the position for the eighth (8th) Member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Lasam, Cagayan is DECLARED VACANT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc over pre-proclamation controversies: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC en banc does not possess jurisdiction in the first instance, whether original or appellate, over election cases and pre-proclamation controversies. Such disputes must first be heard and adjudicated at the division level, as mandated by Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution. The Court clarified that this requirement applies when the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial powers. In this case, the petition involving the exclusion of an election return constituted a pre-proclamation case, necessitating adjudication by a COMELEC division first. The COMELEC en banc's resolution was therefore declared void for failing to comply with constitutional and jurisprudential requirements. On the validity of Go's proclamation: The Court ruled that Go's proclamation was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166. This section mandates that after the board rules on contested returns, it must suspend the canvass and proclamation to allow the adversely affected party to appeal. The MBC's action of proclaiming Go immediately after excluding the election return deprived Cambe of his right to appeal and rendered the proclamation void ab initio. The Court emphasized that hasty proclamations, especially when they can be challenged, should be prevented to avoid frustrating the will of the electorate and to prevent illegal assumption of office. On the proper treatment of the questioned election return: The Court reiterated that a Board of Canvassers generally cannot look beyond authentic election returns. However, this rule does not apply when there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine or authentic. In this case, Election Return No. 9601666 was not regular on its face because the total votes cast for vice-mayor exceeded the number of registered voters. Therefore, the COMELEC had the authority to ascertain the merits of the exclusion petition. The MBC's outright exclusion of the return, without complying with the procedures outlined in Sections 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), was improper and resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters. The MBC should have followed the prescribed procedure, which may involve examining other copies of the return or, if necessary, ordering a recount after ensuring the integrity of the ballot box and ballots.
Main Doctrine
The Commission en banc does not have jurisdiction in the first instance over pre-proclamation controversies; such cases should be heard and decided first at the division level. Furthermore, a proclamation made in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166, particularly the suspension of canvass and proclamation pending appeal, is void ab initio.