|
OMAR M. “SOLITARIO”
ALI, Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LANAO DEL SUR, and MAMINTAL A. ADIONG,
JR., Respondents. |
G.R. No. 181837
Present: Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,* Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco,
Jr., nachura, leonardo-de
castro, BRION,** and PERALTA,** JJ. Promulgated: February 4,
2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for certiorari assails the Resolution[1] dated
The facts of this case are as follows:
Petitioner Omar M. “Solitario” Ali and Mamintal A.
Adiong, Jr. were candidates for the position of Governor of the
During the canvassing by the PBOC, Ali objected to the
inclusion in the canvass of the MCOCs coming from the Municipalities of Picong,
Ganassi, Buadiposo-Buntong and Bumbaran of the
On
On
In a Resolution dated
Records reveal that there are three (3) matters subject for resolution
in the instant case. These are: (i) the main pre-proclamation case involving
the appeals from the rulings of the PBOC of Lanao del Sur covering the
municipalities of Picong, Ganassi, Buadiposo-Buntong and Bumbaran; (ii) the
motion to annul the proclamation of private respondent Adiong on
To end this controversy, We deem it proper to resolve all these issues
in a single resolution, taking into account all the arguments raised by both
parties during the hearing of this case and the pieces of evidence submitted to
this Commission.
The Omnibus Election Code particularly Section 243 thereof specifically
enumerates the issues that may be raised in [a] pre-proclamation controversy, viz:
“x x x x
a. Illegal composition or proceedings of
the board of canvassers;
b. The canvassed election returns are
incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified,
or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies
thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
c. The election returns were prepared under
duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured
or not authentic; and
d. When substitute or fraudulent returns in
controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected
the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.”
The objections made by the appellant in the inclusion of the election
returns of the different municipalities being the subject of the main appeal
from the ruling of the PBOC are hereunder discussed and ruled:
1. In the
It is the contention of the appellant that the proceedings of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers were illegal, null and void ab initio
because the 29 election returns pertaining to Picong were not signed by the
proper authorities, hence, the Municipal Board of Canvasser’s Certificate of
Canvass was illegally prepared.
To support his allegations in this case, appellant presented the list
of the names of individuals who allegedly served as BEI’s in this municipality
prepared by the counsel of congressional candidate Macabangkit Lanto. The list was then compared with the TENTATIVE
(SIC) CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS FOR THE
FORTHCOMING NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS for the
We are not convinced.
We note that the tentative list of the chairmen
and members of the Board of Election Inspectors was prepared on
Aside from the fact that the issue on the alleged replacement [of] the
BEI’s was not a proper subject of pre-proclamation controversy, no report or
statements of violence, untoward incidents or irregularities were submitted
involving the elections in Picong.
Hence, the claim of the appellant that fraud and irregularities were
committed during the elections in Picong has absolutely no basis.
2. In the
Appellant seeks for the exclusion of the Municipal
Certificate of Canvass (MCOC) of Ganassi for being incomplete. The ballots pertaining to the six (6)
precincts (32A, 33A, 34A, 35A, 36A and 37A, all of Ganassi) were still to be
counted by the BEIs. As regards the
other precincts, it is the contention of the appellant that the ballots were
counted without the presence of the watchers of the appellant because they were
forcibly excluded by the Election Officer during the counting of the ballots.
We are not persuaded.
As regards the exclusion based on incomplete canvass,
the same has been rendered moot by the conduct of Special Elections in Lanao
del Sur on
“With respect to the ground of exclusion based on incomplete canvass in
the Municipality of Ganassi, it must be stressed that this matter became moot
in view of the fact [that] after the conduct of the June 20, 2007 Special
Elections in the said province, the six (6) ballot boxes that were specifically
mentioned were counted and canvassed by the new MBOC of Ganassi. A municipal COC was prepared and submitted
for canvass to the respondent Board.”
Anent the other grounds cited by the Appellant, We, found them not to
be proper subjects of [a] pre-proclamation controversy so as to warrant the
exclusion of the said returns. In fine,
the inclusion of said returns by the PBOC in the canvass was justified.
3. In the
It is the contention of the appellant that Municipal Certificate of
Canvass (MCOC) of Buadiposo-Buntong is obviously manufactured because the total
number of the votes credited to all candidates for governor in the said
municipality exceeded the actual number of voters who actually voted by two
thousand forty-nine (2,049).
Appellant further argues that the MBOC of Buadiposo-Buntong padded a
total of six hundred (600) votes in favor of Adiong. To bolster his allegations, he cited the
affidavits of two tabulators namely Abdulcarim B. Pangcatan and Elizabeth
Titiban Mla, stating that they increased the votes of Adiong by more than six
hundred (600) distributed to the fifty one (51) precincts of the said
municipality.
We note that the appellant filed a Motion to Correct Manifest Errors in
the Certificate of Canvass of Buadiposo-Buntong regarding the excess votes.
Aside from affidavits, no evidence was presented by the appellant to
substantiate his allegation on the said excess votes. Although in his petition, appellant alleged
that in due time he will present his evidence regarding the result of the
elections per election return, to date, however no returns were presented to
substantiate his claim. Thus, in the
absence of proof, the result of the elections in Buadiposo-Buntong cannot be
disregarded and excluded with the resulting disenfranchisement of the
voters. The election returns reflecting
the number of votes obtained by the candidates must be accorded prima facie
status as bona fide reports of the voting for canvassing and
proclamation purposes. The burden of
proof is on the appellant to prove otherwise.
Moreso, by simply claiming excess votes without specifying how it
occurred and what document/s shall be corrected, runs counter to the provision
on manifest error under SEC. 35 of Comelec Resolution No. 7859, to wit:
“SEC. 35.
Manifest error. – There is manifest error in the tabulation or tallying of the
results during the canvassing where:
1) A copy of
the election return or certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once;
2) Two or
more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two or more copies of
certificates of canvass were tabulated separately;
3) There was
[a] mistake in the copying of the figures from the election returns to the SOV
by precinct or from the municipal/city Certificates of canvass to the SOV by
Municipality; or from the Provincial/City Certificate of Canvass to the SOV by
province/city;
4) Returns
from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass; or
5) There was
a mistake in the addition of the votes in any candidate.
In the absence of proof showing compliance with the
requirements of the law, any bare assertion for correction of manifest error
must not be given credence.
4. In the
Appellant [prays] for the exclusion of the Municipal Certificate of
Canvass (MCOC) of this municipality on the sole ground that the counting of
votes involving the different precincts was done in Bumbaran and not in
We take notice however, that in Minute Resolution No. 07-0925 following
the Special En Banc Meeting of the Commission on
“xxx, all requests/recommendations by the EOs in the
ARMM for transfer of polling places; clustering of precincts; and transfer of
counting and canvassing venues shall be approved by the Regional Election
Director and submit a report thereon to the Commissioner-in-Charge.”
And in [a] Memorandum dated April 30, 2007 addressed to the
Commissioner-in-Charge of the ARMM and signed by [the] ARMM Regional Election
Director, the Comelec field personnel in the said area proposed, among others,
that the counting for all municipalities in Lanao del Sur be centralized in
Marawi City EXCEPT in Bumbaran where the counting should be done in Bumbaran also.
Thus, we find no reason to lend credence to the claim that it was
prohibited to do the counting in Bumbaran.
To reiterate, appellant in this case failed to convince Us that the
grounds relied upon by him in his Consolidated Appeal are proper subjects of
pre-proclamation controversy.
It has been held that the scope of pre-proclamation controversy is
limited to the issues enumerated in Sec. 243 and that the enumeration is
restrictive and exclusive.
It is a well-entrenched rule that in a pre-proclamation controversy,
the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not to look beyond or behind the
election returns which are on their face regular and authentic returns. Given the summary nature of the
pre-proclamation controversy, there is no room in the presentation of evidence aliunde,
the inspection of voluminous documents and for meticulous technical
examinations which take-up considerable time.
The remedy available to appellant is to file an election protest.
We note that respondent Adiong was already proclaimed as winning
gubernatorial candidate of Lanao del Sur during the
In view of the foregoing, the Commission (Second Division) RESOLVED
as it hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the herein consolidated appeal
for lack of merit. The motion to annul
the proclamation of respondent Adiong is DENIED. The motion to correct manifest error
involving the results of the election in the municipality [of]
Buadiposo-Buntong is DISMISSED for failure of the appellant to submit
evidence in support thereof.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, this case is hereby DISMISSED for LACK of
MERIT.[9]
Ali filed a motion for reconsideration of the
above-mentioned resolution before the Comelec En Banc. However, in a Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for
reconsideration is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Hence, this petition before us
now where Ali raises the following issues:
I.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT DECLARING THAT THERE WAS A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 20 (i) OF R.A. 7166 AND SEC. 39 (13) OF COMELEC RESOLUTION
NO. 7859 BY THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS WHEN IT PROCLAIMED RESPONDENT
MAMINTAL ADIONG JR. AS THE ALLEGED WINNER OF THE GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION IN
LANAO DEL SUR; AND IN NOT NULLIFYING THE SAID PROCLAMATION IN SPITE [OF] THE
PENDENCY OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL AND MOTION TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERROR BEFORE
THE COMMISSION SECOND DIVISION, AND THE ABSENCE OF AN AUTHORITY TO PROCLAIM
FROM THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THE PROCLAMATION WAS MADE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT THIS CASE DOES
NOT INVOLVE ANY VALID PRE-PROCLAMATION ISSUE IN SPITE [OF] AMPLE PROOFS
PRESENTED THAT THE ELECTION RETURNS WERE IN FACT ERRONEOUS AND MANUFACTURED AND
THE CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS AND STATEMENTS OF VOTES WERE BASED ON THESE
ERRONEOUS AND MANUFACTURED ELECTION RETURNS.[11]
Thus, in our view, the main issue to be resolved in
this case is whether or not the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion
and/or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing Ali’s consolidated appeal, Motion to
Annul Proclamation and Motion to Correct Manifest Errors.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere
abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is
exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal
hostility. The abuse must be so patent
and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[12] Absent a
clear showing of grave abuse of power or discretion on the part of the Comelec,
this Court may not validly conduct an incursion and meddle with the affairs
exclusively within the province of the Comelec – a body accorded independence
by no less than the fundamental law.[13]
A review of the ruling of the Comelec Second Division
shows that, in resolving the case, the Comelec examined the records and
pertinent election documents as well as assessed the evidence submitted by the
parties. The Comelec meticulously and
succinctly discussed the issues pertaining to the certificates of canvass
coming from the Municipalities of Picong, Ganassi, Buadiposo-Buntong and
Bumbaran in the
Moreover, the Comelec is the specialized agency tasked
with the supervision of elections all over the country. Its findings of fact, when supported by
substantial evidence, are final, non-reviewable, and binding upon this Court. The appreciation of cited
election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the Comelec. Worth stressing, this Court is not a trier of
facts and it will only step
in if there is a showing that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion.[14]
There being no grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the Comelec, in our considered view, this petition should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Resolution dated
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
(On
official leave) ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
(On leave) ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
|
(On leave) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
||
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
* On official leave.
** On leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 36-56.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Mayor Basmala v. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 176724, October 6, 2008, pp. 1, 4.
[13] Akbayan-Youth v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 318, 342.
[14] Mayor Basmala v. Commission on Elections, et al., supra at 4-5.