Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
MargaritoSuliguin was one of the candidates for Sangguniang
Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna during 10 May 2004 elections.
Around 6pm, same date: Municipal Board of Canvassers
convened to canvass the votes for all candidates. Suliguin received
6,605 votes while EcelsonSumague received 6,647. However in
Statement of Votes covering Precincts 1A-19A, Sumague appears to
have received 644 votes only when he actually received 844.
MBOC failed to notice discrepancy &Suliguin was proclaimed as 8 th
SB member.
Sumague requested for recomputation of votes, pointing out
that
he
officially
garnered
6,647
votes.
MBOC
summongSumague&Suliguin to a conference. MBOC discovered
that it had failed to credit Sumague his 200 votes & that he should
have been proclaimed instead of Suliguin.
26 May 04: MBOC filed before COMELEC a Petition to Correct
Entries in SOV for Councilor.
In meantime, 9 Jun: Suliguin took his oath.
21 July: COMELEC 1stDiv granted MBOCs petition & nullified the
proclamation of Suliguin, ordered proclamation of Sumague.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC erred in granting petition of MBOC to nullify
Suliguins proclamation because petition should have been filed not
later than 5 days following date of proclamation
HELD:
Negative. In an election case, the Comelec is mandated to
ascertain by all means within its command who the real candidate
elected by the electorate is. The Court frowns upon any
interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way
not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election
but also the correct ascertainment of the results.
Simple mathematical procedure of adding the total number of
votes garnered by Sumague as appearing in SOVs would readily
reveal the result that he has 42 votes more than Suliguin. Such
result would, in effect, dislodge Suliguin from said post & entitle
Sumague to occupy 8th seat of SB of Nagcarlan, Laguna. Suliguin
himself never disputed the discrepancy in the total number of
votes garnered by Sumague, and instead questioned the
personality of the MBOC to file the petition and insisted that such
petition was not filed on time.
Sec. 3&4 of Rule 1 of Comelec ROP provide that such rules may
be liberally construed in the interest of justice. Comelec has the
discretion to liberally construe its rules & at the same time,
suspend the rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
Disputes in the outcome of elections involve public interest; as
such, technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed
to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the
true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials.
Laws governing such disputes must be liberally construed to the
end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may
not be defeated by mere technical objections.
What is involved in the present petition is the correction of a
manifest error in reflecting the actual total number of votes for a
particular candidate. A manifest clerical error is "one that is visible
to the eye or obvious to the understanding and is apparent from
the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not
include an error which may, by evidence dehorns the record be
shown to have been committed."
MBOC is merely doing its function that is mandated by law to
canvass votes in the election returns submitted to it in due form,
adding or compiling the votes cast for each candidate as shown in
the face of such returns and eventually proclaim the winning
candidates.
A subsequent annulment of the proclamation of the respondent
does not constitute a clear violation of his right. In the first place,
there is no valid proclamation to speak of. He was not elected by a
majority or plurality of voters. His alleged right was based on an
erroneous proclamation. By any mathematical formulation, the
respondent cannot be construed to have obtained such plurality of
votes; otherwise, it would be sheer absurdity to proclaim a
repudiated candidate as the choice of the voters. "Where a
proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation
at all and the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot
deprive the COMELEC of the power to make such declaration a
nullity."
real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall discharge the
prerogatives of the office within their gift.
TAGUIAM vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
OnasTaguiam& Anthony Tuddao were candidates for position of
SangguniangPanglungsod of Tuguegarao during 2007 elections.
19 May 07: Taguiam was proclaimed by City BOC as 12 th
ranking & winning candidate for said position with 10,981 votes
while Tuddao obtained 10,971 votes.
25 May: Tuddao filed with COMELEC a petition for correction of
manifest errors in Election Returns & SOVs for 27 clustered
precincts & annulment of proclamation of affected winning
candidate. Alleged that he was credited with less votes in several
SOV by Precincts.
CBOC of Tuguegarao denied Tuddaos allegations & maintained
that Taguiam garnered more votes. COMELEC 2ndDiv issued
resolution, stating that CBOC is directed to reconvene & correct
errors in SOVs. Also held that belated filing of Tuddaos petition
cannot deter its authority to ascertain the true will of the electorate
and thereafter affirm such will.
Thereafter, COMELEC concluded that 9 votes should be added
to the no. of votes garnered by Tuddao while 24 should be
deducted from Taguiams. hence, Tudao gained 10,980 while
Taguiam, 10,957. Hence, Tuddao was winning candidate for 12 th
position.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it took cognizance
of Tuddaos petition for correction of manifest errors in the ERs &
SOVs despite its late filing
HELD:
Negative. Records show that Taguiam was declared the 12th
winning candidate based on SOVPs containing mathematical &
clerical errors. The total number of votes in the SOVPs of the
identified precincts are markedly different from the votes tabulated
in their respective ERs, i.e., Taguiam was given additional votes
while Tuddaosvotes were reduced, which altered the outcome of
the election.
It is significant to note that Taguiam did not assail the factual
findings of the COMELEC of manifest error in the tabulation of votes
but only raised issues on the foregoing technicalities.
No grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in
annulling the proclamation ofTaguiam. Said proclamation is flawed
from the beginning because it did not reflect the true and
legitimate will of the electorate. Having been based on a faulty
tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of.
Reiterated liberal construction of Comelec ROP.
Construction/Limitations;
Comelec Rules of Procedure
Section
3,
winner, believing that the death of Ogca rendered his victory and
proclamation moot and academic.
In every election, the people's choice is the paramount
consideration and their expressed will must, at all times, be given
effect. When the majority speaks and elects into office a candidate
by giving him the highest number of votes cast in the election for
that office, no one can be declared elected in his place.
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes dies, or is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for
the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be
declared the winner of the elective office. For to allow the defeated
and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his
rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate
without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance
and meaning of democracy and the people's right to elect officials
of their choice.
Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws
should not frustrate the determination of the popular will.
Benito argues that the votes for deceased Ogca should not
have been counted based on Sec. 6 of RA 6640. This provision,
however, applies only to candidates who have been declared by
finally judgment to be disqualified. In the present case, there is no
final judgment declaring the deceased Ogca disqualified, hence,
the provision does not cover him.
BINCE vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
Alfonso Bince&EmilianoMicuwere among the candidates in 11
May 92 elections for seat in SangguiniangPanlalawigan of
Pangasinan allotted to 6thDist, comprising 10 municipalities.
During canvassing of COCs for 10 municipaities, Micu objected
to inclusion of COC for San Quintin on ground that it contained false
statements. COCs for remaining 9 municipalities were included.
However, PBC ruled against objection of Micu.
Micu appealed to COMELEC re said ruling. COMELEC en banc
promulgated resolution, stating that the actual no. of votes
obtained by Bince is 1,055 while that of Micu is 1,535.
21 days after canvass for 9 muni was completed, Micu with MBC
of Tayug& San Manuel filed with PBC petitions for correction of
SOVs earlier prepared for alleged manifest errors committed in
computation thereof.
18 Jun: PBC credited in favor of Bince and Micu that votes for
each as indicated in COMELEC resolution. Based on COCs, Bince
had 27,370 votes while Micu had 27,369 votes. Bince was not
proclaimed as winner because of absence of authority from
COMELEC.
Bince filed formal motion for such authority.
29 Jun: COMELEC en banc promulgated supplemental order,
directing PBC to reconvene, continue with provincial canvass &
proclaim winning candidates.
25 Jun: Bince appealed the above ruling allowing correction
alleging that PBC had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
21 Jul: PBC proclaimed Bince as elected member of SP. Micu
filed urgent motion for contempt & to annul proclamation of Bince.
COMELEC resolved & annulled proclamation of Bince, directing PBC
to reconvene & proclaim winning candidate.
Bince filed special civil action contening that it was
promulgated without prior notice & hearing.
9 Feb 93: Court en banc granted, ruling that Bince has been
proclaimed & this proclamation enjoys presumption of regularity &
validity, that he cannot be deprived of his office without due
process.
15 Jul: COMELEC 1stDiv promulgated resolution, stating that
Bince is entitled to sit as member of SP. Micu filed Motion for
Reconsideration. COMELEC en banc granted Micus motion &
annulled Binces proclamation.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it annulled Binces
proclamation
HELD:
Negative. No error was committed by COMELEC when it
resolved the "pending incidents" of the case pursuant to the
decision of SC in the aforesaid case of Bincev. COMELEC on 9 Feb
93. In Bince, we nullified the proclamation of Micu because the
same was done without the requisite due notice and hearing,