7/28/2019 Elec Law Report

1/3

I. CORRECTION OF MANIFEST OF ERRORS

The BOC may motu proprio or upon certain petition of aninterested party correct manifest errors in the certificate ofcanvass of election return.

RA 7166 states,

Section 15.Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Electionsfor President Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House

of Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for President,Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House ofRepresentatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed onmatters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, c

ustody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificatesof canvass, as the case may be. However, this does notpreclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu

propio or upon written complaint of an interested person tocorrect manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or electionreturns before it.

Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the boardof canvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with theCommission in accordance with Section 19 hereof.

Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipalboard of canvassers, or on the municipal certificates of canvassbefore the provincial board of canvassers or district boards ofcanvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noticed inthe minutes of their respective proceedings.

Grounds:

1. copy of an election return or certificate of canvasswas tabulated more than once

2. two or more copies of the same election return orcertificate of canvass were tabulated separately

3. there was a mistake in copying the figures I ntothe statement of votes or certificate of canvass

Errors in the addition in the certificate of canvassmay be corrected (Lucero vs Comelec)

4. Returns from non-existent precincts were includedin the canvass

II. ISSUES NOT COVERED BY PRE-PROCLAMATIONCASES

A. Issues involving the casting or counting of the

ballots are not proper in pre-proclamation cases

Illustrative Case:Villegas vs Comelec: L-52463

An election protest was filed by petitioner againstprivate respondent Lorenzo G. Teves, who was duly-proclaimed provincial governor of Negros Oriental bythe Board of Canvassers, having obtained 160,592votes as against 65,204 votes of petitioner. Thespecific question is whether under the particularcircumstances of this controversy, it should be througha protest and not through a pre-proclamation suit.

* Use of illegal election propaganda, vote buying-terrorism of the voters are not proper issues in pre-proclamation cases.

B. Administrative lapses which do not affect the

authenticity of an election returns cannot serve asa basis for annulling the election return

Illustrative Case:Baterina vs Comelec: Gr. No. 95347-49

Petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina was a candidate forGovernor of Ilocos Sur in the special local electionsheld on 25 January 1988. The other petitioners,Octavio Villanueva and Evelyn Valdez, Felimon Sison,Leonardo Roldan, Gil Ballesteros, Benjamin Galapia,Erwin Reyes-Ulep, and Nathaniel Escobar, werecandidates for Vice Governor and Provincial BoardMembers, respectively, in the same local elections.Petitioners ran under the banner of the Lakas ngBansa. Private respondent Evaristo Singson, on theother hand, was also a candidate for Governor of IlocosSur. Private respondent Mariano Tajon was acandidate for Vice Governor. The rest of the privaterespondents were candidates for the other disputedpositions.

The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sur(BOARD) has likewise been impleaded in this petition.

The canvassing of the election returns commenced asthe ballot boxes containing the returns from the variousmunicipalities of Ilocos Sur were received by theBOARD.

In the course of the canvass proceedings, verbalobjections were raised by petitioners to certain electionreturns based on the grounds mentioned in Sections233 (lost or destroyed election returns), 234 (materialdefects in the election returns), 235 (tampered orfalsified election returns) and 236 (discrepancies inelection returns), in relation to the preparation,transmission, receipt and custody of the electionreturns. The objections were aimed at excluding theelection returns from the canvass.

* There is no evidence presented to public respondentthat the election returns were falsified

C. Where the threats of the followers of a candidatedid not affect the genuineness of the electionreturn, it should not be excluded

Illustrative Case:

Salvacion vs Comelec: Gr. No. L-84673-74

Petitioner contends that public respondent cannotdisturb the findings of the Municipal Board ofCanvassers and of its First Division there being noshowing of grave abuse of discretion on their part.Petitioner adds that the finding made by the Boardregarding the election return of Precinct No. 12 is that"it was prepared under circumstances of duress,threats, coercion and intimidation" so that the Boardacted correctly in not counting any votes from saidprecinct. It is also pointed out that contrary to therequirements of the law that the election return shall beaccomplished simultaneously or as the ballots are

7/28/2019 Elec Law Report

2/3

counted by the Board of Election Inspectors, 5 thequestioned election return was actually prepared inanother place, in a "shop" after all the ballots werecounted by said Board of Election Inspectors in anotherplace.* There is no evidence presented to public respondentthat the election return in question was falsified in sucha way that the true results of the voting have beenaltered

D. An election return which is statistically improbableis obviously fabricated and should not be counted

Illustrative Case:Ocampo vs Comelec

* Where only one candidate of a party got all the votersin the same precincts and his opponent got zero, theother candidates of the other party for other posistionsreceived votes, and the number of votes cast were lessthan the number of registered voters, the electionreturns are not statistically improbable

E. Duress in preparation of an election return cannotbe raised in a pre-proclamation use, because itcannot be decided summarily

Illustrative Case:Sebastian vs Comelec: Gr. No. 139573-75

Petitioner June Genevieve Sebastian was themayoralty candidate of the Reporma Party in Sto.Tomas, Davao del Norte, during the May 11, 1998elections. Petitioner Dario Romano was her runningmate. Private respondent Salvador Royo was themayoralty candidate of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, whileprivate respondent Eric Estela was his candidate forvice mayor.

On election day, as the Municipal Board of Canvassers

was preparing to canvass the election returns,petitioners sought the exclusion from the canvass ofseveral election returns from certain precincts inbarangays Kimamon, New Katipunan, Lunga-og,Balagunan, Pantaron, and Tibal-og. 1Petitionersclaimed that the election returns from these areas wereprepared under "extreme duress, threat, intimidationand political pressure and influence." 2Petitioners alsomanifested that four election returns were missing.

It is worth noting that petitioners do not claim that thereturns themselves are not regular, genuine orauthentic. Petitioners admit that the alleged fraud,deceit, and intimidation came from external sources,and, therefore, not manifest on the face of the returns.The alleged fraudulent scheme was designed,according to petitioners, precisely to avoid detection onthe face of the returns.

* To require the Comelec to examine circumstancessurrounding the preparation of election returns wouldrun counter to the rule that pre-proclamationcontroversy should be summarily decided

F. Irregularities which do not appear on the face ofthe election returns, such as a claim that they wereprepared by persons other than the members of the

board of inspectors, cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation case

Illustrative Case:Belac vs Comelec: Gr. No. 145802

Rommel Diasen of the LAMMP and Dominador Belacof the LAKAS-NUCD were candidates for governor inthe province of Kalinga during the May 11, 1998national and local elections. On May 14, 1998, theProvincial Board of Canvassers started to canvass the

results of the election.

On May 15, 1998, when the Certificate of Canvass andStatement of Votes for the municipality of Pinukpukwere scheduled for canvassing, Diasen objected to theinclusion of the election returns of 42 precincts in thesaid municipality.

Within twenty-four (24) hours therefrom, Diasen filedwith the Kalinga Provincial Board of Canvassers apetition for exclusion of the Certificates of Canvass andStatements of Votes for Pinukpuk and Tinglayan,alleging in the main that:

1. The Certificates of Canvass and Statements ofVotes were not prepared by the Board of ElectionInspectors as the same were not signed by therespective watchers for the candidates' political parties.

2. There were discrepancies in the tally of votes. Theofficial LAMMP copies of the official returns have alesser number of votes than those appearing in theStatements of Votes for the said municipalities.

* Respondent did not say that the alleged irregularitiesappear on the face of the election returns. Obviouslythat they came from external sources and therefore,not manifest of an election return.

G. A candidate for mayor who finished second cannotbe proclaimed simply because the candidate whoreceived the highest number of votes died, sincehe was not the choice of the people

Petitioner Ottomama Benito and the deceased Hadji MuradKismen Sampiano Ogca were candidates for mayor in themunicipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur in the May 11,1992 election. Candidate Ogca was killed in an ambushwhile returning home from the residence of Lanao del SurGovernor Saidamen Pangarungan in Marawi City.

On the same date, petitioner, probably not aware of the

death of his opponent, filed a motion to suspend theproclamation of Ogca as elected mayor of Balabagan,Lanao del Sur, contending that there was strong evidence ofguilt against him in the disqualification case.

Resolving the motion to suspend proclamation, theCOMELEC, on June 11, 1992, denied the same stating thatMurad Kismen Sampiano Ogca was dead, hence, hisproclamation as winner was essential to pave the way forsuccession by the Vice-Mayor-elect as provided for inSection 44 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R. A.7160)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_139573_75_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_139573_75_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_139573_75_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_139573_75_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_139573_75_2000.html#fnt2

7/28/2019 Elec Law Report

3/3

Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involvepublic interest, and technicalities and procedural barriersshould not be allowed to stand if they constitute andobstacle to the determination of the true will of theelectorate in the choice of their elective officials. And alsosettled is the rule that laws governing election contests mustbe liberally construed to the end that the will of the people inthe choice of public officials may not be defeated by meretechnical objections

** The fact that the candidate who obtained the highestnumber of votes dies, or is later declared to be disqualified

or not eligible for the office to which he was elected doesnot necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained thesecond highest number of votes to be declared the winnerof the elective office. 15For to allow the defeated andrepudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite hisrejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electoratewithout any fault on their part and to undermine theimportance and meaning of democracy and the people'sright to elect officials of their choice