8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

1/21

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-22335 December 31, 1965

AMANTE P. PURISIMA, Petitioner, vs. HON. ANGELINO C.SALANGA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur.THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, THECOMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and GREGORIOCORDERO,Respondents.

BENGZON, J.P., J.: chanrobles virtual law library

In the election of November 12, 1963, Amante Purisima andGregorio Cordero were among the candidates for any of thethree offices of Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur. Afterthe election or on November 25, 1963 the provincial board ofcanvassers met and started canvassing the returns for saidoffice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law l ibrary

Purisima noted during the canvass that the returns from some

precincts, forty-one (41) in all, showed on their face that thewords and figures for Cordero's votes had been "obviously andmanifestly erased" and superimposed with other words andfigures. For purposes of comparison, the Nacionalista Partycopies of the returns for the aforesaid precincts were submittedto the board. A discrepancy of 5,042 votes in favor of Corderowas thereby found, thus:

Provincial Treasurer's copy: 7,277 votes for Cordero

Nacionalista Party's copy 2,235 votes for Cordero

A request for suspension of the canvass was thereupon madeby Purisima. The board of canvassers denied said requestupon the ground that it was not yet ascertainable if thediscrepancies would materially affect the result. Canvass

proceeded.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After the returns had all been read, the result for the office ofthird (and last) member of the Provincial Board was thefollowing:

Cordero 41,229 votes

Purisima 39,372 votes.

Difference 1,857 votes

Purisima again called attention to the erasures anddiscrepancies and asked for suspension of canvass - for him tohave recourse to judicial remedy. Denying said request, theboard of canvassers finished the canvass and proclaimedCordero the winner, on November28.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On November 29, Purisima filed a petition in the Commissionon Elections to annul the canvass and proclamation above-mentioned. The Commission on Elections issued a resolutionon November 30, annulling the canvass and proclamation, asregards Cordero andPurisima.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Purisima, on December 10, filed in the Court of First Instance apetition for recount under Section 163 of the Revised ElectionCode. Subsequently, motions to dismiss the same were filedby the board of canvassers and by Cordero. In his motion todismiss, Cordero admitted the erasures and discrepancies onthe face of the returns from 41 precincts, but denied that saiderasures were due to tampering orfalsification.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After a preliminary hearing on the motions to dismiss, theCourt of First Instance, on December 27, dismissed the

petition for recount. And on December 28, Cordero filed in theCommission on Elections a motion for resumption of thecanvass.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Purisima, on January 2, 1964, moved for reconsideration of theCourt of First Instance's order of dismissal. In the same case,he also filed, on January 8, a petition for preliminary injunctionto restrain the holding of another canvass. Annexed to said

petition were certified photostatic copies of the Comelec'scopies of the returns from the 41 precincts in question.Furthermore, Purisima filed with the Commission on Elections,on January 11, an opposition to the resumption of thecanvass.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Alleging that the Commission on Elections was about to orderthe canvass resumed, Purisima came to this Court, on January17, 1964, by petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.Petitioner asked that the lower court's order dismissing his

petition for recount be set aside and that the Commission onElections be enjoined from ordering resumption of the canvassuntil after the judicialrecount.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On January 22, 1964 we ordered respondents to answer, andallowed preliminary injunction to be issued as prayed for uponthe posting of a bond of P500.00. After respondents filed theiranswer the case was heard and submitted fordecision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The requisites for judicial recount are set forth in Section 163of the Revised Election Code:

When statements of precinct are contradictory. - In case itappears to the provincial board of canvassers that anothercopy or other authentic copies of the statement from anelection precinct submitted to the board give to a candidate adifferent number of votes and the difference affects the resultof the election, the Court of First Instance of the province, uponmotion of the board or of any candidate affected, may proceedto recount the votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose ofdetermining which is the true statement or which is the trueresult of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for theoffice in question. Notice of such proceeding shall be given toall candidates affected.

In dismissing the petition for recount, respondent Judge statedthat some of the requisites were not present, namely: first, thatit appears to the provincial board of canvassers that adiscrepancy exists; second, that said discrepancy is betweenthe copy submitted to the board and another authentic copythereof; third, that said authentic copy must also be submitted

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

2/21

to the board.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

First of all, it is not disputed that a candidate affected can filethe petition for recount, even if he does so alone, without theconcurrence of the provincial board of canvassers (Cawa v.Del Rosario, L-16837-40, May 30,1960). From the fact,therefore, that the provincial board of canvassers has not

petitioned for a recount it cannot be inferred that they were notconvinced a discrepancyexisted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In fact, when Purisima first called attention to the discrepancybetween the Nacionalista Party copies and the ProvincialTreasurer's copies, the board of canvassers admitted thediscrepancy but stated that it was not yet ascertainablewhether the discrepancy would amount to enough votes as toaffect the result. There is no more question now that thenumber of votes involved in said discrepancy is more thanenough to alter theresult.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law l ibrary

Finally, in the motion to dismiss filed by the board ofcanvassers, the existence of the discrepancy is not disputed,and the board merely raises the defense that the recount is upto the court and not to said board (Annex D,Petition).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Passing on to the next point, the basis of the petition forrecount was not merely a discrepancy between theNacionalista Party copies and the Provincial Treasurer's copiesof the returns. Paragraph 8 of said petition shows that, inaddition, the Commission on Elections' copies were reliedupon:

That as a result of the aforesaid erasures, tampering andapparent falsifications, there exist discrepancies between theProvincial Treasurer's copies (the basis of the canvass) of theelection returns in the precincts in question, on one hand, andthe copies pertaining to the Nacionalista Party and those

pertaining to the Commission on Elections, on the other, andthat said discrepancies materially affect the result of theelection as between herein petitioner and respondent GregorioCordero;

Accordingly, even assuming for the nonce - a point we do nothere decide - that the Nacionalista Party copies are not copiesthat may be the basis of a petition for recount, the fact remainsthat the Commission on Elections' copies were said to reflectthe same discrepancy with the Provincial Treasurer's copies. Itis settled that the Commission on Elections' copies areauthentic copies within the meaning of Section 163 of theRevised Election Code (Laws in v. Escalona, L-22540, July 31,1964; Matanog v. Alejandro, L-22502-08, June 30,1964.) chanrobles virtual law library

The trial court. however, ruled that the Commission onElections' copies had no application to the petition for recountbecause they were not submitted to the board of canvassers.The record definitely shows that the reason why Purisima wasnot able to submit to the board said Commission on Elections'copies was because the board declined to suspend thecanvass and

proclamation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It is the duty of the board of canvassers to suspend thecanvass in case of patent irregularity in the election returns. Inthe present case, there were patent erasures andsuperimpositions, in words and figures on the face of theelection returns submitted to the board of canvassers. It wastherefore imperative for the board to stop the canvass so as toallow time for verification of authentic copies and recourse tothe courts (Javier v. Commission on Elections, L-22248,January 30, 1965). A canvass or proclamation made

notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting properremedies, is null and void (Ibid.). In fact, as stated, theCommission on Elections declared the canvass and

proclamation, made by respondent provincial board ofcanvassers, null andvoid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Since the board of canvassers prevented Purisima fromsecuring the Commission on Elections' copies of the returns toestablish a discrepancy between them and the ProvincialTreasurer's copies, the failure to submit the Commission onElections' copies to said board should not prejudice Purisima's

right to petition for recount before the court. It was thereforegrave abuse of discretion for respondent court to refuse toconsider the Commission on Elections' copies, regardless ofthe patent and admitted irregularities on the face of theProvincial Treasurer's copies and the alleged discrepancyamounting to thousands of votes sufficient to affect theresults.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Interpretation of election laws should give effect to theexpressed will of the electorate. Patent erasures andsuperimpositions in words and figures of the votes stated in theelection returns strike at the reliability of said returns as basis

for canvass and proclamation. A comparison with the othercopies, and, in case of discrepancy, a recount, is the only wayto remove grave doubts as to the correctness of said returnsas well as of ascertaining that they reflect the will of the

people.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the dismissal of the petition for recount is setaside, respondent Judge is ordered to proceed with the petitionfor recount, and respondents Commission on Elections andProvincial Board of Canvassers are enjoined, until after thetermination of proceedings in the petition for recount, fromordering or holding another canvass and proclamation as

between petitioner Purisima and respondentCordero.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-48609 October 10, 1941

JUAN SUMULONG, in his capacity as President of thePAGKAKAISA NG BAYAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

3/21

ABAD SANTOS, J.: chanrobles virtual law l ibrary

The Commission on Elections, acting under the authority ofsection 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657, adopted a resolution

providing for the appointment of election inspectors to beproposed by the political parties and persons named therein.One of those parties, Pagkakaisa Ng Bayan, of which

petitioner is the President, claiming the exclusive right to propose the appointment of such inspectors, now seeks tonullify that resolution on the ground that section 5 ofCommonwealth Act No. 657 is unconstitutional, in so farrequires that a political party must have polled at least ten percentum of the total number of votes cast in the precedingelection in order to have the right to propose the appointmentof one inspector and his substitute. Petitioner contends thatthis requirement of section 5 is a subject not expressed in thetitle of the Act, and that its conclusion in that sectioncontravenes the provision of the Constitution that "No bill whichmay be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subjectwhich shall be expressed in the title of the bill." Constitution

Article VI, section 21 (1) chanrobles virtual law library

Commonwealth Act No. 657 is entitled "An Act to recognize theCommission on Elections." It implements the provisions of theConstitution by reorganizing the Commission on Electionscreated under Commonwealth Act No. 607, and converting itinto the Commission on Elections established under Article Xof the Constitution. Among the powers conferred by theConstitution on the Commissions on Elections is that ofdeciding administrative questions affecting the appointment ofelection inspectors; and section 5 of Commonwealth Act No.657 provides, among other things, that "the Commission onElections shall, directly or through its authorized provincial

representatives, appoint a board of election inspectors for eachelection precinct, to be composed of three inspectors and pollclerk." It further provides that the appointment of one inspectorand his substitute and the poll clerk and his substitute shall be

proposed by the party which polled the largest number of votesin the preceding election, and that the appointment of anotherinspector and his substitute shall be proposed by the partywhich polled the next largest number of votes, if the sameconstitute at least ten per centum of the total number of votesof cast in the saidelection.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shallbe expressed in its title should be reasonably construed so asnot to interfere unduly with the enactment of necessarylegislation. It should be given a practical rather than technicalconstruction. It should be a sufficient compliance with suchrequirement if the title express the general subject and all the

provisions of the statute are germane to that general subject. As stated by the Supreme Court of the United States: "Wemust give the constitutional provision a reasonableconstruction and effect. The constitution requires no law toembrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in

its title. Now the object may be very comprehensive and still bewithout objection, and the one before us is of that character.But it is by no means essential that every end and meansnecessary or convenient for the accomplishment of the generalobject should be either referred to or necessarily indicated bythe title. All that can reasonably be required is, that the titleshall not be made to cover legislation incongruous in itself, andwhich by no fair intendment can be considered as having anecessary or proper connection." (Blair v. Chicago, 26 S. Ct.427, 201 U. S. 400, 50 L. ed. 801.) chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It seems evident, in the light of the relevant provisions of theConstitution, Act No. 657 has a necessary and properconnection with the reorganization of the Commission onElections, which is the subject expressed in the Title of the Act.Under the Constitution the Commission on Elections isempowered to decide administrative questions affecting theappointment of election inspectors and other election officials,and the requirement that, to be entitled to propose theappointment of one inspector and his substitute, a political

party must have polled at least ten per centum of the totalnumber of votes cast in the preceding election, is germane tothe general subject of the reorganization of the Commission onElections.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We find no merit in petitioner's contention that, if its validity isupheld, section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 would havethe effect of nullifying the decision of this court in G.R. No.47940, Juan Sumulong vs. The Commission on Elections. Thatdecision involved controversies arising out of the elections heldon December 10, 1940. It construed section 70 of the Election

Code in the sense that it gave the Pagkakaisa Ng Bayan theright to propose an inspector for each and every election

precinct in the municipality of Baun, Province of Batangas. The judgment entered pursuant to that decision had long beenexecuted when Commonwealth Act No. 657 wasapproved.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It is true that if the law had remained unchanged, the doctrinelaid down in the case mentioned would apply to future similarcases. But there is no principle or rule of law which preventsthe legislative from amending statutes merely because the

interpretation given to such statute by the courts wouldrendered nugatory. Instances abound where legislative actshave either been either been repealed or amended after thecourts have had occasion to interpret and apply them. Thequestion is one of power, and it cannot be seriously that theorganization of the boards of election inspectors is a propersubject for legislative cognizance. Because of the theory ofseparation of the powers of government, it is a firmlyestablished principle that the propriety, wisdom andexpendiency of legislation are exclusively matters forlegislative determination. The remedy against unwiselegislation is an appeal not to the courts, but to the people who

elect the members of the legislativebody.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Its remains to consider petitioner's contention that theresolution of the Commission on Elections, by giving the so-called rebel candidate or free-zone faction of the NationalistaParty the right to propose one election inspector for each of the

precincts in each of the fifty-three legislative districtsmentioned in paragraph IV of the petition, contravenes section5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657. He argues that under thatsection the Nationalista Party has the right to propose one, andonly one inspector for each precinct, and that the resolution

has the effect of giving that party two inspectors in each andevery precinct within those legislative districts. The argumentstems from a misapprehension of the provisions of said section5. That section provides, among other things: First, that theappointment of one inspector and his substitute and the pollclerk and his substitute shall be proposed by the party which

polled the largest number of votes at the preceding election;second, that the appointment of another inspector and hissubstitute shall be proposed by the party which polled the nextlargest number of votes, if the same constitute at least ten percentum of the total number of votes cast in the said election;

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

4/21

and third, that the third inspector and his substitute shall bechosen by the Commission on Elections, and this thirdinspector shall be the chairman of the board. It also provides,that if the representatives of the national directorates of

political parties should fail to propose the names of persons tobe appointed as election inspectors in their respectivelegislative districts, or if there be no political party entitled to

propose the appointment of any inspectors, the Commissionshall, at its discretion, choose said inspectors and their

substitutes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In the instant case, appears that in the fifty-three legislativedistricts under consideration none of the minority partiesobtained in the preceding election the minimum number ofvotes required to entitle it to propose the appointment ofelection inspectors. The question presented, therefore, iswhether the Commission on Elections, in giving so-called rebelcandidates and free-zone factions of the Nationalista Party theright to propose election inspectors for the fifty-three legislativedistricts, has acted within the limits of the discretion given by

section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 to the Commission onElections in the choice of election inspectors where none of theminority parties is entitled to propose the appointment of suchinspectors is not absolute, but limited by the provision of the

Act that the majority party shall have the right to propose onlyone inspector. We think that this is taking a rather narrow viewof the law. We are inclined to take a more liberalview.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Commission on Elections is a constitutional body. It isIntended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme ofgovernment. In the discharge of its functions, it should not be

hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in thecase of a less responsible organization. The Commission mayerr, so may this court also. It should be allowed considerablelatitude in devising means and methods that will insure theaccomplishment of the great objective for which it was created- free, orderly and honest elections. We may not agree fullywith its choice of means, but unless these are clearly illegal orconstitute gross abuse of discretion, this court should notinterfere. Politics is a practical matter, and political questionsmust be dealt with realistically - not from the standpoint of puretheory. The Commission on Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its

knowledge derived from actual experience in dealing withpolitical controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous positionto decide complex politicalquestions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It the answer to the petition filed in this case, it is stated that inproviding for the appointment of election inspectors for the fifty-three legislative districts, the Commission on Elections tookinto account the circumstances of each particular district,having considered, among other factors, the availability ofteachers and other government employees and the strength of

the opposing parties, factions and candidates; and adopted thefollowing formula:

a. In districts where the majority party is not opposed by anyopposition party of substantial political strength, and where thereal opposition therein is represented by a candidate who has

proven his political strength in the past according to therecords of the Commission, said candidate is given theminority inspector, irrespective of his

party.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

b. In districts where opposition has not obtained at least 10 percent of the total votes cast, but shows sufficient politicalstrength as evidenced by the Commission's records, theminority inspector is given to such opposition

party.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

c. In districts where the majority party is not opposed by anyopposition party nor by any candidate of substantial strength,teachers are appointed as minorityinspectors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

d. In districts where the opposition has not shown any politicalstrength, the minority inspector is denied them in order to avoidthe trafficking with the appointment of inspectors.

There are no ready-made formulas for solving public problems.Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that willserve the ends of good government. In the matter of theadministration of the laws relative to the conduct of elections,as well as in the appointment of election inspectors, we mustnot by any excessive take away from the Commission onElections the initiative belongs to it. Due regard to theindependent character of the Commission, as ordained in theConstitution, requires that the power of this court to review theacts of that body should, as a general proposition, be usedsparingly but firmly in appropriate cases. We are not satisfiedthat the present suit is one of suchcases.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The order of the Commission on Elections is affirmed withcosts against the petitioner.

Diaz, Moran, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Separate Opinions

OZAETA, J., concurring and dissenting: chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

I concur on the constitutionality of section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657, but dissent on the interpretation given by theCommission on Elections to said section for the same reasonsstated in my dissenting opinions in the cases ofVinzons vs.Commission on Elections, G. R. No. 48596; Rimando vs.Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 48603; andSumulong vs.Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 48634.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

5/21

G.R. No. L-25467 April 27, 1967

LUCAS V. CAUTON, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and PABLOSANIDAD, respondents.

Antonio Barredo for petitioner.Ramon Barrios for respondent Commission on Elections.Pablo C. Sanidad and F. D. Villanueva and Associates forrespondent Sanidad.

ZALDIVAR, J.:

In the national elections held on November 9, 1965, petitionerLucas V. Cauton and respondent Pablo Sanidad, along withGodofredo S. Reyes, were candidates for the office ofRepresentative in the second congressional district of IlocosSur.

During the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers ofIlocos Sur of the votes cast for the candidates forRepresentative in the second congressional district of IlocosSur, and particularly after the Board had opened the envelopescontaining the copies of the election returns from each of theelection precincts in the municipalities of Candon, Santiagoand Sta. Cruz that were presented by the Provincial Treasurerof Ilocos Sur to the Board, respondent Sanidad brought to theattention of the Board the fact that the entries of votes for thecandidates for Representative in those copies of the electionreturns that came from the envelopes presented by the

provincial treasurer differed from the entries appearing in the

copies of the returns from the same election precincts thatwere in the possession of the Liberal Party.1wph1.t

Respondent Sanidad filed a petition with the Commission onElections praying for the opening of the ballot boxes in all the

precincts of Candon, Santiago and Sta. Cruz, in order toretrieve the election returns deposited therein so that thoseelection returns might be used in the canvass of the votes forthe candidates for Representative in the second district ofIlocos Sur, and that in the meantime the Provincial Board ofCanvassers of Ilocos Sur be ordered to refrain from

proclaiming the winning candidate for the office of

Representative in said district. The Commission on Electionsissued the restraining order prayed for by respondent Sanidadand set his petition for hearing.

After hearing, the Commission on Elections found "that it hadbeen clearly established that the copies of the election returnsfor the Municipal Treasurer, for the Commission on Electionsand for the Provincial Treasurer for the municipality of SantaCruz have uniform alterations in the entries of the votes castfor representative showing different number of votes comparedwith the Liberal Party copies, while the copies of the electionreturns for the Commission on Elections and the Provincial

Treasurer for the municipalities of Candon and Santiago havelikewise uniform alterations and showing different numberscompared with the Liberal Party copies ...."1The copies of theelection returns that were furnished the municipal treasurers ofCandon and Santiago were never verified because themunicipal treasurers of those two municipalities did not complywith the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Commission onElections directing them to bring to the Commission the copiesof the election returns of the precincts in their respectivemunicipalities that were in their possession.

On December 22, 1965, respondent Commission on Electionsissued an order providing, among others, that

... to enable the aggrieved party to establishdiscrepancy between copies of the election returns

provided by law in the aforementioned precincts forthe purpose of obtaining judicial remedy under the

provisions of Section 163 of the Revised ElectionCode, the Commission Resolved ... to directimmediately the opening of the ballot boxes of themunicipalities of Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiagowhich are now impounded and under the custody ofthe Zone Commander of the 1st PC Zone in CampOlivas, San Fernando, Pampanga solely for the

purpose of retrieving therefrom the correspondingelection returns, copies for the ballot box, in all the

precincts of said municipalities.

Pursuant to the instructions of respondent Commission,contained in the resolution of December 22, 1965, the ballotboxes from all the precincts in the municipalities of Candon,Sta. Cruz and Santiago were opened by the Chief of the LawEnforcement Division of the Commission, Atty. FernandoGorospe, Jr., in the presence of witnesses, and the envelopescontaining the election returns found inside the ballot boxeswere taken and brought to Manila on December 23, 1965.

On the same date, December 23, 1965, herein petitioner,Lucas V. Cauton, filed before this Court a petition for certiorariand prohibition with preliminary injunction, praying that theresolution of the respondent Commission on Elections datedDecember 22, 1965 ordering the opening of the ballot boxesused in all the precincts of Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago inthe elections of November 9, 1965 be annulled and set aside.The petition further prays that the Commission on Elections berestrained from opening, the envelopes containing the electionreturns found in the afore-mentioned ballot boxes and beordered to return the said envelopes to the correspondingballot boxes. In his petition, petitioner alleges that therespondent Commission on Elections acted without or inexcess of its jurisdiction in issuing the resolution of December22, 1965. This Court gave due course to the petition, but didnot issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. This

petition is now the case before Us.

Upon instructions by respondent Commission on Elections, onDecember 28, 1966, the envelopes that were taken from theballot boxes were opened and the election returns were takenout and their contents examined and recorded by a committeeappointed by the Commission. This was done in a formalhearing with notice to the parties concerned.

Respondent Pablo C. Sanidad filed his answer to instantpetition on January 5, 1966, admitting some of the allegationsand denying others, and maintaining that the Commission onElections had acted well within the bounds of its authority inissuing the order of December 22, 1965. RespondentCommission on Elections also filed its answer on January 5,1966, maintaining that it has authority under the law to orderthe opening of the ballot boxes as stated in its resolution ofDecember 22, 1965.

In the meantime, on the basis of the discrepancies in theentries of the votes for the candidates for Representative,between the election returns taken out of the ballot boxes thatwere opened by order of the Commission of Elections and theelection returns submitted by the Provincial Treasurer of Ilocos

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

6/21

Sur to the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sur,respondent Pablo C. Sanidad filed a petition with the Court ofFirst Instance of Ilocos Sur, docketed as Election Case No. 16-N, for a recount of the votes in all the precincts of Candon, Sta.Cruz and Santiago, pursuant to the provisions of Section 163of the Revised Election Code.

On February 14, 1966, petitioner filed before this Court inurgent motion, in this case, praying for the issuance of anorder enjoining the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur(Branch II-Narvacan) from further proceeding with ElectionCase No. 16-N, abovementioned, pending final decision of theinstance case, upon the ground that the recount of the ballotsin that case in the court below would render the instant casemoot and academic. This motion was denied by this Court in aresolution dated February 17, 1966.

The principal issue in the present case revolves on the of theresolution of the respondent Commission of Elections, datedDecember 22, 1965, which orders the opening of the ballotboxes used in all the precincts in the municipalities of Candon,Sta. Cruz and Santiago, Ilocos Sur, during the elections ofNovember 9, 1965 for the purpose of retrieving therefrom thecorresponding election returns, copies for the ballot box, "toenable the aggrieved party to establish discrepancy betweencopies of the election returns provided by law in theaforementioned precincts for the purpose of obtaining judicialremedy under the provisions of Section 163 of the RevisedElection Code."

It is the stand of the petitioner that respondent Commission onElections is without jurisdiction to issue, or has acted in excessof jurisdiction in issuing, the resolution in question, so that saidresolution is null and void and should not be given legal forceand effect. The petitioner contends that under Section 157 ofthe Revised Election Code the Commission on Elections hasauthority to order the opening of the ballot boxes "only inconnection with an investigation conducted for the purpose ofhelping the prosecution of any violation of the election laws orfor the purely administrative purpose but not when the sole

purpose is, as in this case, to assist a party in trying to win theelection ...." The petitioner further, contends that "the mere factthat the copies of the returns in the precincts in question in the

possession of the Liberal Party do not tally with the returnsinvolving the same precincts in the possession of the

Provincial Treasurer, the Commission of Elections and theNacionalista Party as well does not legally support the validityof the resolution of the respondent Commission in question...."2

We cannot sustain the stand of the petitioner. We believe thatin issuing the resolution in question the Commission onElections simply performed a function as authorized by theConstitution, that is, to "have exclusive charge of theenforcement and administration of all laws relative to theconduct of elections and ... exercise all other functions whichmay be conferred upon it by law." The Commission has the

power to decide all administrative questions affecting elections,except the question involving the right to vote.3

This Court in a line of decisions has ruled that the Commissionon Election has the power to investigate and act on the

propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns made bythe board of canvassers. In the case of Albano vs. Arranz, L-19260, January 31, 1962, this Court, through Mr. Justice J.B.L.Reyes, held as follows:

The suspension of the proclamation of the winningcandidate pending an inquiry into irregularitiesbrought to the attention of the Commission onElections was well within its administrative

jurisdiction, in view of the exclusive authorityconferred upon it by the Constitution (Art. X ) for theadministration and enforcement of all laws relative toelections. The Commission certainly had the right toinquire whether or not discrepancies existed between

the various copies of election returns for the precinctsin question, and suspend the canvass all themeantime so the parties could ask for a recount incase of variance ....'

What the respondent Commission on Elections did in the casenow before Us is just what is contemplated in the abovequotedruling of this Court. The power of the Commission on Electionsin this respect is simply administrative and supervisory intended to secure the proclamation of the winning candidatebased on the true count of the votes cast. When theCommission on Elections exercises this power the purpose is

not for the Commission to help a candidate win the election butto bring about the canvass of the true results of the electionsas certified by the boards of election inspectors in every

precinct. The object of the canvass is to determine the result ofthe elections based on the official election returns. In order thatthe result of the canvass would reflect the true expression ofthe people's will in the choice of their elective officials, thecanvass must be based on true, genuine, correct, nayuntampered, election returns. It is in this proceedings that theCommission on Elections exercises its supervisory andadministrative power in the enforcement of laws relative to theconduct of elections, by seeing to it that the canvass is based

on the election returns as actually certified by the members ofthe board of inspectors. Once the Commission on Elections isconvinced that the elections returns in the hands of the boardof canvassers do not constitute the proper basis inascertaining the true result of the elections, it should be itsconcern, nay its duty, to order the taking of such steps as maybe necessary in order that the proper basis for the canvass isobtained or made available.

The election law requires the board of inspectors to preparefour copies of the election return in each precinct one to bedeposited in the ballot box, one to be delivered to the

municipal treasurer, one to be sent to the provincial treasurer,and one to be sent to the Commission on Elections. In thecase of the canvass of the election returns for candidates for

provincial or national offices, the election returns received bythe provincial treasurer from the boards of inspectors are used.It is the duty of the provincial treasurer to turn over to the

provincial board of canvassers the election returns received byhim from the boards of inspectors. If the Commission onElections is duly informed and it so finds, in appropriate

proceedings, that the election returns in the hands of theprovincial treasurer are tampered, then the Commission shouldafford the candidate adversely affected by the tampering an

opportunity to show that there exist authentic copies of thesame election returns which are not tampered. A recourse maybe had to the copies received by the Commission on Electionsand to the copies received by the municipal treasurer. If it isshown, that the copies in the hands of the Commission onElections and of the municipal treasurer are similarly tamperedas the copies in the hands of the provincial treasurer, then itbecomes evident that all the three copies of the electionreturns outside the ballot box do not constitute a reliable basisfor a canvass. The only copies left to be checked, whether theyare also tampered or not, are the ones inside the ballot boxes.

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

7/21

Certainly, the Commission on Elections, in the exercise of its power to administer and enforce the laws relative to theconduct of elections, may order the opening of the ballot boxesto ascertain whether the copy inside each ballot box is alsotampered like the three copies outside the ballot box,corresponding to each precinct. The Commission on Electionsmay do this on its own initiative, or upon petition by the proper

party. Once it is found that the copy of the election returninside the ballot box is untampered, the Commission on

Elections would then have accomplished two things, namely:(1) secured a basis for the prosecution for the violation of thelaws relative to elections, and (2) afforded the party aggrievedby the alteration of the election returns outside the ballot box abasis for a judicial recount of the votes as provided for inSection 163 of the Revised Election Code. Thus, theCommission on Elections has thereby made available the

proper and reliable basis for the canvass of the votes that willlead to the proclamation by the board of canvassers of the truewinner in the elections. In so doing the Commission onElections, as we have said, had performed its constitutionalduty of administering and enforcing the laws relative to the

conduct of elections with a view to promoting clean and honestelections the very purpose for which the Commission onElections was created by constitutional mandate.

In the case now before Us, the Commission on Electionsissued the questioned resolution "after hearing the argumentsof the petitioner and the opposition thereto and consideringthat it has been clearly established that the copies of theelection returns for the Municipal Treasurer, for theCommission on Elections and for the Provincial Treasurer forthe municipality of Sta. Cruz have uniform alteration in theentries of the votes cast for representative showing different

number of votes compared with the Liberal Party copies, whilethe copies of the election returns for the Commission ofElections and the Provincial Treasurer for the municipalities ofCandon and Santiago have likewise uniform alterations andshowing different numbers compared with the Liberal Partycopies ..."5Indeed, in the face of this finding by the Commissionon Elections, which indicates a clear violation of the electionlaw, and which indicates an attempt to procure the

proclamation of the winner in the elections for Representativein the second congressional district of Ilocos Sur by the use oftampered election returns, can the Commission on Electionsbe remiss in the performance of its duties as a constitutional

body committed with the exclusive charge of the enforcementand administration of all laws relative to the conduct ofelections? The Revised Election Code gives to theCommission on Elections the direct and immediate supervisionover provincial, municipal and city officials designated by lawto perform duties relative to the conduct of elections andincluded among these officials are members of the provincialboard of canvassers.6The provincial board of canvassers isenjoined by law to canvass all the votes cast forRepresentatives on the basis of the election returns producedby the provincial treasurer.7The Commission on Elections hasa duty to enforce this law and it has the duty to see to it that

the election returns to be used for canvassing must be genuineand authentic, not falsified or tampered with. Where theelection returns produced by the provincial treasurer havebeen shown to have been tampered, and all the other copiesoutside the ballot boxes have also been shown to have beentampered or falsified, it is certainly within the power of theCommission on Elections to issue such order as wouldascertain the existence of the genuine, authentic anduntampered election returns, and thus open the way for thesummary recount of the votes, in accordance with law, for the

purposes only of the canvass of the votes and the

proclamation of the candidate found to have obtained thehighest number of votes. In the case now before Us, it is foundby the Commission on Elections that no other copies can behad except those deposited in the ballot boxes. Hence, thenecessity for the Commission to order the retrieving of thecopies of the election returns from the ballot boxes. An order tothis effect does not affect the right to vote or the validity of anyvote cast, so that it is perfectly within the power of theCommission on Elections to issue such an order in the

exercise of its exclusive power to administer and enforce thelaws relative to the conduct of elections. It would indeed beabsurd to say that the Commission on Elections has a legalduty to perform and at the same time it is denied the necessarymeans to perform said duty.

The purpose of the Revised Election Code is to protect theintegrity of elections and to suppress all evils that may violateits purity and defeat the will of the voters.8The purity of theelections is one of the most fundamental requisites of populargovernment.9The Commission on Elections, by constitutionalmandate, must do everything in its power to secure a fair and

honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections. In the performance of its duties, the Commission must be given aconsiderable latitude in adopting means and methods that willinsure the accomplishment of the great objective for which itwas created to promote free, orderly, and honest elections.The choice of means taken by the Commission on Elections,unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse ofdiscretion, should not be interfered with.10Technicalities, whichare not conducive to free, orderly and honest elections, but onthe contrary may defeat the will of the sovereign people asexpressed in their votes, should not be allowed to hamper theCommission on Elections in the performance of its duties. To

sustain the petitioner in the present case is to deny theCommission on Elections the power to retrieve the copies ofthe election returns from the ballot boxes in order that the truenumber of votes cast for a candidate may be known and thus

permit a canvass on the basis of election returns that arepatently falsified. We cannot, and We must not, sanction thestand of petitioner.

As We have adverted to, the Commission on Elections has thepower to inquire whether there exist discrepancies among thevarious copies of the election returns.11Of all the copies

prepared by the board of inspectors the copy least susceptible

to being tampered with is the one deposited in the ballot box.Where the three copies outside the ballot boxes appear tohave been uniformly altered, there is no plausible reason whythe copy deposited in the ballot box may not be used todetermine whether discrepancies exist in the various copies.Inasmuch as the Commission on Elections has the right todetermine whether said discrepancies exist, it must also havethe right to consult said returns, which cannot be done unlessthe ballot boxes are opened. It is noteworthy that the RevisedElection Code does not provide that it is the courts that havethe power to order the opening of the ballot box in a situationlike this.

Section 157 of the Revised Election Code, on which petitionerherein relies in support of his stand in the present case,authorizes the opening of the ballot box whenever it is thesubject of an official investigation. It provides:

The municipal treasurer shall keep the boxesunopened in his possession in a secure place andunder his responsibility for three months, unless theyare the subject of an official investigation, or acomponent court or tribunal shall demand them

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

8/21

sooner, or the competent authority shall order theirpreservation for a longer time in connection with anypending contest or investigation.

Under this section the ballot boxes may be opened in casethere is an election contest. They may also be opened even ifthere is no election contest when their contents have to beused as evidence in the prosecution of electionfrauds.12Moreover, they may be opened when they are thesubject of any official investigation which may be ordered by acompetent court or other competent authority.13The"competent authority" must include the Commission onElections which is charged with the administration andenforcement of the laws relative to the conduct of elections. Inthe instant case the Commission on Elections found that it hasbeen clearly established that the election returns outside theballot boxes, in all the precincts in the municipalities ofCandon, Santiago and Sta. Cruz, have been tampered with. Itis within the power of the Commission to order theinvestigation of that apparent anomaly that has connection withthe conduct of elections. The investigation may be in

connection with the prosecution for the violations of theelection laws and at the same time to ascertain the condition ofthe election returns inside the ballot boxes as compared withthe election returns outside the ballot boxes, for the same

precincts. The opening of the ballot boxes may, therefore, beprayed for by a candidate who is prejudiced by the apparentfalsification of the election returns outside the ballot boxes, andin ordering the opening of the ballot boxes the purpose of theCommission is not to help a particular candidate win anelection but to properly administer and enforce the lawsrelative to the conduct of elections.

From what has been said We hold that the order of December22, 1965, being questioned by the petitioner in the presentcase, was perfectly within the power of the Commission onElections to issue.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition in thepresent case is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. Itis so ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal,Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 133676. April 14, 1999]

TUPAY T. LOONG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ONELECTIONS and ABDUSAKUR TAN, respondents,YUSOP JIKIRI, intervenor.

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J.:

In a bid to improve our elections, Congress enacted R.A.No. 8436 on December 22, 1997 prescribing the adoption ofan automatedelection system. The new system was used inthe May 11, 1998 regular elections held in the AutonomousRegion in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which includes theProvince of Sulu. Atty. Jose Tolentino, Jr. headed the

COMELEC Task Force to have administrative oversight of theelections in Sulu.

The voting in Sulu was relatively peaceful andorderly.[1]The problem started during the automated countingof votes for the local officials of Sulu at the Sulu StateCollege. At about 6 a.m. of May 12, 1998, some electioninspectors and watchers informed Atty. Tolentino, Jr. ofdiscrepancies between the election returns and the votes cast

for the mayoralty candidates in the municipality of Pata. Someballots picked at random by Atty. Tolentino, Jr. confirmed thatvotes in favor of a mayoralty candidate were not reflected inthe printed election returns. He suspended the automatedcounting of ballots in Pata and immediately communicated the

problem to the technical experts of COMELEC and thesuppliers of the automated machine. After consultations, theexperts told him that the problem was caused by themisalignment of the ovals opposite the names of candidates inthe local ballots. They found nothing wrong with theautomated machines. The error was in the printing of the localballots, as a consequence of which, the automated machines

failed to read them correctly.[2]

At 12:30 p.m. of the same day, Atty. Tolentino, Jr. called

for an emergency meeting of the local candidates and themilitary-police officials overseeing the Sulu elections. Thosewho attended were the various candidates for governor,namely, petitioner Tupay Loong, private respondent AbdusakurTan, intervenor Yusop Jikiri and Kimar Tulawie. Also inattendance were Brig. Gen. Edgardo Espinosa, AFP, Marineforces, Southern Philippines, Brig. Gen. Percival Subala, AFP,3rd Marine Brigade, Supt. Charlemagne Alejandrino, ProvincialDirector, Sulu, PNP Command and congressional candidateBensandi Tulawie.[3]

The meeting discussed how the ballots in Pata should becounted in light of the misaligned ovals. There was lack ofagreement. Those who recommended a shift to manual countwere Brig. Generals Espinosa and Subala, PNP Director

Alejandrino, gubernatorial candidates Tan and Tulawie andcongressional candidate Bensandi Tulawie. Those whoinsisted on an automated count were gubernatorial candidatesLoong and Jikiri. In view of their differences in opinion, Atty.Tolentino, Jr. requested the parties to submit their written

position papers.[4]

Reports that the automated counting of ballots in

other municipalities in Sulu was not working well were receivedby theCOMELEC Task Force. Local ballots in five (5)municipalities were rejected by the automatedmachines. These municipalities wereTalipao, Siasi, Tudanan,Tapul and Jolo. The ballots were rejected because they hadthe wrong sequence code.[5]

Private respondent Tan and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. sentseparate communications to the COMELEC en banc inManila. Still, on May 12, 1998, Tan requested for thesuspension of the automated counting of ballots throughout theSulu province.[6]On the same day, COMELEC issued Minute

Resolution No. 98-1747 ordering a manual count but only inthe municipality of Pata. The resolution reads:[7]

"x x x x x x x x x

"In the matter of the Petition dated May 12, 1998 of AbdusakurTan, Governor, Sulu, to suspend or stop counting of ballotsthrough automation (sic) machines for the following grounds,quoted to wit

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

9/21

'1.. The Election Returns for the Municipality of Pata, Provinceof Sulu-District II do not reflect or reveal the mandate of thevoters:

'DISCUSSIONS

'That the watchers called the attention of our political leadersand candidates regarding their discovery that the electionreturns generated after the last ballots for a precinct isscanned revealed that some candidates obtained zero votes,among others the Provincial Board Members, Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and the councilors for the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP;

'That the top ballot, however, reveals that the ballots containedvotes for Anton Burahan, candidate for Municipal Mayor whilethe Election Return shows zero vote;

'That further review of the Election Return reveals that JohnMasillam, candidate for Mayor under the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP-MNLF obtains (sic) 100% votes of the total number of

voters who actually voted;

'The foregoing discrepancies were likewise noted andconfirmed by the chairmen, poll clerks and members of theBoard of Election Inspectors (BEI) such as Rena Jawan,Matanka Hajirul, Dulba Kadil, Teddy Mirajuli, Rainer Talcon,Mike Jupakal, Armina Akmad, Romulo Roldan and LermaMarawali to mention some;

'The Pata incident can be confirmed by no less than Atty. JoseTolentino, Head, Task Force Sulu, whose attention was calledregarding the discrepancies;

'The foregoing is a clear evidence that the automated machine(scanner) cannot be relied upon as to truly reflect the contentsof the ballots. If such happened in the Municipality of Pata, it isvery possible that the same is happening in the counting ofvotes in the other municipalities of this province. If this will notbe suspended or stopped, the use of automated machines willserve as a vehicle to frustrate the will of the sovereign peopleof Sulu;

'Wherefore, the foregoing premises considered and in theinterest of an honest and orderly election, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Commission that an Order be issuedimmediately suspending or stopping the use of the automatedmachine (scanner) in the counting of votes for all the eighteen(18) municipalities in the Province of Sulu and in lieu thereof,to avoid delay, counting be done through the usual way knownand tested by us.'

"While the commission does not agree with the conclusionsstated in the petition, and the failure of the machine to read thevotes may have been occasioned by other factors, a matterthat requires immediate investigation, but in the public interest,the Commission,

'RESOLVED to grant the Petition dated May 12, 1998 and toOrder that the counting of votes shall be done manually intheMunicipality of PATA, the only place in Sulu where theautomated machine failed to read the ballots, subject to noticeto all partiesconcerned."'

Before midnight of May 12,1998, Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was ableto send to the COMELEC en banc his report andrecommendation, urging the use of the manual count in theentire Province of Sulu, viz:[8]

"The undersigned stopped the counting in the municipality ofPata since he discovered that votes for a candidate for mayorwas credited in favor of the other candidate. Verification withthe Sulu Technical Staff, including Pat Squires of ES & S,reveals that the cause of the error is the way the ballot was

printed. Aside from misalignment of the ovals and use ofcodes assigned to another municipality (which caused therejection of all local ballots in one precinct in Talipao), errormessages appeared on the screen although the actual

condition of the ballots would have shown a differentmessage. Because of these, the undersigned directed thatcounting for all ballots in Sulu be stopped to enable theCommission to determine the problem and rectify the same. Itis submitted that stopping the counting is more in consonancewith the Commission's mandate than proceeding with anautomated but inaccurate count.

"In view of the error discovered in Pata and the undersigned'sorder to suspend the counting, the following documents weresubmitted to him.

"1. Unsigned letter dated May 12, 1998 submitted byCongressman Tulawie for manual counting and canvassing;

"2. Petition of Governor Sakur Tan for manual counting;

"3. Position paper of Tupay Loong, Benjamin Loong and AsaniTamang for automated count;

"4. MNLF Position for automated count; and

"5. Recommendation of General E.V. Espinosa, General PM

Subala, and PD CS Alejandrino for manual count;

"Additional marines have been deployed at the SSC. Theundersigned is not sure if it is merely intended to tame adisorderly crowd, inside and outside SSC, or a show of force.

"It is submitted that since an error was discovered ina machine which is supposed to have an error rate of 1:1,000,000, not a few people would believe that this error inPata would extend to the other municipalities. Whether or notthis is true, it would be more prudent to stay away from alifeless thing that has sown tension and anxiety among and

between the voters of Sulu.

Res

pectful

lysubmitte

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

10/21

d:12May

1998(Sgd.

)J

OSEM.TOLEN

TINO,JR."

The next day, May 13, 1998, COMELEC issuedResolution No. 98-1750 approving Atty. Tolentino, Jr.'srecommendation and the manner of its implementation assuggested by Executive Director Resurreccion Z. Borra. TheResolution reads:[9]

"In the matter of the Memorandum dated 13 May 1998 ofExecutive Director Resurreccion Z. Borra, pertinent portion ofwhich is quoted as follows:

"In connection with Min. Res. No. 98-1747 promulgated May12, 1998 which resolved to order that the counting of votesshall be done manually in the municipality of Pata, the only

place in Sulu where the automated counting machine failed toread the ballots, subject to notice to all parties concerned,please find the following:

"1. Handwritten Memo of Director Jose M. Tolentino, Jr.,Task Force Head, Sulu, addressed to the Executive Directoron the subject counting and canvassing in the municipality ofPata due to the errors of the counting of votes by the machinebrought about by the error in the printing of the ballot, causingmisalignment of ovals and use of codes assigned to anothermunicipality.

He recommended to revert to the manual counting of votes inthe whole of Sulu. He attached the stand of CongressmanTulawie, Governor Sakur Tan and recommendation ofBrigadier General Edgardo Espinosa, General Percival Subla,P/Supt. Charlemagne Alejandrino for manual counting. The

position paper of former Governor Tupay Loong, Mr. BenjaminLoong and Mr. Asani S. Tammang, who are candidates forGovernor and Congressman of 1st and 2nd Districtsrespectively, who wanted the continuation of the automated

counting.

"While the forces of AFP are ready to provide arm (sic) securityto our Comelec officials, BEIs and other deputies, the politicaltensions and imminent violence and bloodshed may not be

prevented, as per report received, the MNLF forces arereadying their forces to surround the venue for automatedcounting and canvassing in Sulu in order that the automation

process will continue.

"Director Borra recommends, that while he supports MinuteResolution No. 98-1747, implementation thereof shall be doneas follows:

"1. That all the counting machines from Jolo, Sulu betransported back by C130 to Manila and be located at theavailable space at PICC for purposes of both automated andmanual operations. This approach will keep the COMELECofficials away from violence and bloodshed between the twocamps who are determined to slug each other as abovementioned in Jolo, Sulu. Only authorized political party andcandidate watchers will be allowed in PICC with propersecurity, both inside and outside the perimeters of the venue atPICC.

"2. With this process, there will be an objective analysis andsupervision of the automated and manual operations by boththe MIS and Technical Expert of the ES & S away from thethundering mortars and the sounds of sophisticated heavyweapons from both sides of the warring factions.

"3. Lastly, it will be directly under the close supervision andcontrol of Commission on Elections En Banc.

"RESOLVED:

"1. To transport all counting machines from Jolo, Sulu byC130 to Manila for purposes of both automated and manualoperations, with notice to all parties concerned;

"2. To authorize the official travel of the board ofcanvassers concerned for the conduct of the automated andmanual operations of the counting of votes at PICC under theclose supervision and control of the Commission En Banc. Forthis purpose, to make available a designated space at thePICC;

"3. To authorize the presence of only the duly authorizedrepresentative of the political parties concerned and thecandidates watchers both outside and inside the perimeters ofthe venue at PICC."

Atty. Tolentino, Jr. furnished the parties with copies ofMinute Resolution No. 98-1750 and called for another meetingthe next day, May 14, 1998, to discuss the implementation ofthe resolution.[10] The meeting was attended by the parties, byLt. Gen. Joselin Nazareno, then the Chief of the AFP SouthernCommand, the NAMFREL, media, and the public. Especially

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

11/21

discussed was the manner of transporting the ballots and thecounting machines to the PICC in Manila. They agreed toallow each political party to have at least one (1) escort/watcher for every municipality to acompany the flight. TwoC130s were used for the purpose.[11]

On May 15, 1998, the COMELEC en banc issued MinuteResolution No. 98-1796 laying down the rules for the manualcount,viz:[12]

"In the matter of the Memorandum dated 15 May 1998 ofExecutive Director Resurreccion Z. Borra, quoted to wit:

'In the implementation of COMELEC Min. Resolution No. 98-1750 promulgated 13 May 1998 in the manual counting ofvotes of Pata, Sulu, and in view of the arrival of the countingmachines, ballot boxes, documents and other election

paraphernalia for the whole province of Sulu now stored inPICC, as well as the arrival of the Municipal Board ofCanvassers of said Municipality in Sulu, and after conferencewith some members of the Senior Staff and Technical

Committee of this Commission, the following are herebyrespectfully recommended:

'1. Manual counting of the local ballots of the automatedelection system in Pata, Sulu;

'2. Automated counting of the national ballots consideringthat there are no questions raised on the National ElectiveOfficials as pre-printed in the mark-sensed ballots;

'3. The creation of the following Special Boards ofInspectors under the supervision of Atty. Jose M. Tolentino,

Jr., Task Force Head, Sulu, namely:

a) Atty. Mamasapunod M. AguamMs. Gloria Fernandez

Ms. Esperanza Nicolas

b) Director Ester L. Villaflor-RoxasMs. Celia Romero

Ms. Rebecca Macaraya

c) Atty. Zenaida S. SorianoMs. Jocelyn Guiang

Ma. Jacelyn Tan

d) Atty. Erlinda C. EchaviaMs. Theresa A. Torralba

Ms. Ma. Carmen Llamas

e) Director Estrella P. de MesaMs. Teresita Velasco

Ms. Nelly Jaena

'4. Additional Special Board of Inspectors may be created

when necesary.

'5. The Provincial Board of Canvassers which by standingResolution is headed by the Task Force Sulu Head shallconsolidate the manual and automated results as submitted bythe Municipal Boards of Canvassers of the whole province withtwo members composed of Directors Estrella P. de Mesa andEster L. Villaflor-Roxas;

'6. The political parties and the candidates in Sulu as wellas the Party-List Candidates are authorized to appoint theirown watchers upon approval of the Commission',

'RESOLVED to approve the foregoing recommendations in theimplementation of Min. Resolution No. 98-1750 promulgatedon 13 May 1998 providing for the manual counting of votes inthe municipality of Pata, Sulu.

'RESOLVED, moreover, considering the recommendation ofComm. Manolo B. Gorospe, Commissioner-In-Charge, ARMM,to conduct a parallel manual counting on all 18 municipalitiesof Sulu as a final guidance of the reliability of the countingmachine which will serve as basis for the proclamation of thewinning candidates and for future reference on the use of theautomated counting machine."'

On May 18, 1998, petitioner filed his objection to MinuteResolution No. 98-1796, viz:[13]

"1. The minute resolution under agenda No. 98-1796 violatesthe provisions of Republic Act No. 8436 providing for anautomated counting of the ballots in the Autonomous Region inMuslim Mindanao. The automated counting is mandatory andcould not be substituted by a manual counting. Where themachines are allegedly defective, the only remedy provided forby law is to replace the machine. Manual counting is

prohibited by law;

"2. There are strong indications that in the municipality of Patathe ballots of the said municipality were rejected by thecounting machine because the ballots were tampered and/or

the texture of the ballots fed to the counting machine are notthe official ballots of the Comelec;

"3. The automated counting machines of the Comelec havebeen designed in such a way that only genuine official ballotscould be read and counted by the machine;

"4. The counting machines in the other municipalities are inorder. In fact, the automated counting has alreadystarted. The automated counting in the municipalities of Lugusand Panglima Tahil has been completed. There is no legalbasis for the 'parallel manual counting' ordained in the disputed

minute resolution."

Nonetheless, COMELEC started the manual count on thesame date, May 18,1998.

On May 25, 1998, petitioner filed with this Court a petitionfor certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt. He contended that: (a) COMELEC issued MinuteResolution Nos. 98-1747, 98-1750, and 98-1798 without priornotice and hearing to him; (b) the order for manual countingviolated R.A. No. 8436; (c) manual counting gave "opportunityto the following election cheatings," namely:

"(a) The counting by human hands of the tampered, fake andcounterfeit ballots which the counting machines have been

programmed to reject (Section 7, 8 & 9 of Rep. Act 8436).

"(b) The opportunity to substitute the ballots all stored at thePICC. In fact, no less than the head of the COMELEC TaskForce of Sulu, Atty. Jose M. Tolentino, Jr. who recommendedto the COMELEC the anomalous manual counting, hadapproached the watchers of petitioners to allow the retrieval ofthe ballots, saying "tayo, tayo lang mga watchers, pag-usapan

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

12/21

natin," dearly indicating overtures of possible bribery of thewatchers of petitioner (ANNEX E).

"(c) With the creation by the COMELEC of only 22 Boards ofElection Inspectors to manually count the 1,194 precincts, themanipulators are given sufficient time to change and tamperthe ballots to be manually counted.

"(d) There is the opportunity of delaying the proclamation of thewinning candidates through the usually dilatory moves in a pre-

proclamation controversy because the returns and certificatesof canvass are already human (sic) made. In the automatedcounting there is no room for any dilatory pre-proclamationcontroversy because the returns and the MBC and PBCcertificates of canvass are machine made and immediate

proclamation is ordained thereafter."

Petitioner then prayed:

"WHEREFORE, it is most especially prayed of the Honorable

Court that:

"1. upon filing of this petition, a temporary restraining order beissued enjoining the COMELEC from conducting a manualcounting of the ballots of the 1,194 precincts of the 18municipalities of the Province of Sulu but instead proceed withthe automated counting of the ballots, preparation of theelection returns and MBC, PBC certificates of canvass and

proclaim the winning candidates on the basis of the automatedcounting and consolidation of results;

"2. this petition be given due course and the respondents be

required to answer;

"3. after due hearing, the questioned COMELEC En BancMinute Resolutions of May 12, 13, 15, and 17, 1998 be alldeclared null and void ab initio for having been issued without

jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack of jurisdiction and for being in violation of due process oflaw;

" 4. the winning candidates of the Province of Sulu be proclaimed on the basis of the results of the automatedcounting, automated election returns, automated MBC and

PBC certificates of canvass;

"x x x."

On June 8, 1998, private respondent Tan wasproclaimed governor- elect of Sulu on the basis of the manualcount.[14]Privaterespondent garnered 43,573 votes. Petitionerwas third with 35,452 votes or a difference of 8,121 votes.

On June 23, 1998, this Court required the respondents tofile their Comment to the petition and directed the parties "tomaintain the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of the

petition."[15]The vice-governor elect was allowed to temporarily

discharge the powers and functions of governor.

On August 20, 1998, Yusop Jikiri, the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP-MNLF candidate for governor filed a motion forintervention and a Memorandum in Intervention.[16] The resultof the manual count showed he received 38,993 votes and

placed second. Similarly, he alleged denial of due process,lack of factual basis of the COMELEC resolutions and illegalityof manual count in light of R.A. No. 8436. TheCourt noted hisintervention.[17] As similar petition for intervention filed by

Abdulwahid Sahidulla, a candidate for vice-governor, onOctober 7, 1998 was denied as it was filed too late.

In due time, the parties filed their respectiveComments. On September 25, 1998, the Court heard the

parties in oral arguments[18]which was followed by thesubmission of their written memoranda.

The issues for resolution are the following:

1. Whether or not a petition for certiorari andprohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Courtis the appropriate remedy to invalidate thedisputed COMELEC resolutions.

2. Assuming the appropriateness of the remedy,whether or not COMELEC committed graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack of

jurisdiction in ordering a manual count.

2.a. Is there a legal basis for the manualcount?

2-b. Are its factual bases reasonable?2.c. Were the petitioner and the intervenor

denied due process by the COMELEC when itordered a manual count?

3. Assuming the manual count is illegal and that itsresult is unreliable, whether or not it is proper tocall for a special election for the position ofgovernor of Sulu.

We shall resolve the issues in seriatim.

First. We hold that certiorari is the proper remedy of the

petitioner. Section 7, Article IX(A) of the 1987 Constitutionstates that if "unless provided by this Constitution or by law,any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may bebrought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved

party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof." Wehave interpreted this provision to mean final orders, rulings anddecisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of itsadjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.[19]Contrariwise,administrative orders of the COMELEC are not, as a generalrule, fit subjects of a petition for certiorari. The main issue inthe case at bar is whether the COMELEC gravely abused itsdiscretion when it ordered a manual count of the 1998 Sulu

local elections. A resolution of the issue will involve aninterpretation of R.A. No. 8436 on automated election inrelation to the broad power of the COMELEC under Section2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution "to enforce andadminister all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of anelection x x x." The issue is not only legal but one of firstimpression and undoubtedly suffused with significance to theentire nation. It is adjudicatory of the right of the petitioner, the

private respondent and the intervenor to the position ofgovernor of Sulu. These are enough considerations to call foran exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.

Second. The big issue, one of first impression, is

whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered a manualcount in light of R.A. No. 8436. The post election realities onground will show that the order for a manual count cannot becharacterized as arbitrary, capricious or whimsical.

a. It is well established that the automatedmachines failed to read correctly the ballots inthe municipality of Pata. A mayoralty candidate,Mr. Anton Burahan, obtained zero votes despitethe representations of the Chairman of the

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

13/21

Board of Election Inspectors and others thatthey voted for him. Another candidate garnered100% of the votes.

b. It is likewise conceded that the automatedmachines rejected and would not count the localballots in the municipalities of Talipao, Siasi,Indanan, Tapal and Jolo.

c. These flaws in the automated counting of localballots in the municipalities of Pata, Talipao,Siasi, Indanan, Tapal and Jolo were carefullyanalyzed by the technical experts of COMELECand the supplier of the automated machines. Allof them found nothing wrong with the automatedmachines. They traced the problem to the

printing of local ballots by the National PrintingOffice. In the case of the municipality of Pata, itwas discovered that the ovals of the local ballotswere misaligned and could not be read correctlyby the automated machines. In the case of themunicipalities of Talipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapal

and Jolo, it turned out that the local ballotscontained the wrong sequence code. Eachmunicipality was assigned a sequence code asa security measure. Ballots with the wrongsequence code were programmed to be rejectedby the automated machines.

It is plain that to continue with the automated count inthese five (5) municipalities would result in a grossly erroneouscount. It cannot also be gainsaid that the count in these five(5) municipalities will affect the local elections in Sulu. Therewas no need for more sampling of local ballots in these

municipalities as they suffered from the same defects. All localballots in Pata with misaligned ovals will be erroneously readby the automated machines. Similarly, all local ballots inTalipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapal and Jolo with wrong sequencecodes are certain to be rejected by the automatedmachines. There is no showing in the records that the localballots in these five (5) municipalities are dissimilar whichcould justify the call for their greater sampling.

Third. These failures of automated counting created postelection tension in Sulu, a province with a history of violentelections. COMELEC had to act decisively in view of the fastdeteriorating peace and order situation caused by the delay in

the counting of votes. The evidence of this fragile peace andorder cannot be downgraded. In his handwritten report to theCOMELEC dated May 12, 1998, Atty. Tolentino, Jr. stated:

"x x x

"Additional marines have been deployed at the SSC. Theundersigned is not sure if it is merely intended to tame adisorderly crowd inside and outside SSC, or a show of force.

"It is submitted that since an error was discovered in amachine which is supposed to have an error rate of

1:1,000,000, not a few people would believe that this error inPata would extend to the other municipalities. Whether or notthis is true, it would be more prudent to stay away from alifeless thing that has sown tension and anxiety among andbetween the voters of Sulu."

Executive Director Resurreccion Z. Borra, Task Force Head, ARMM in his May 13,1998 Memorandum to the COMELEClikewise stated:

"x x x

"While the forces of AFP are ready to provide arm (sic) securityto our COMELEC officials, BEI's and other deputies, the

political tensions and imminent violence and bloodshed maynot be prevented, as per report received, the MNLF forces arereadying their forces to surround the venue for automatedcounting and canvassing in Sulu in order that automation

process will continue."

Last but not the least, the military and the police authoritiesunanimously recommended manual counting to preserve

peace and order. Brig. Gen. Edgardo V. Espinosa,Commanding General, Marine Forces Southern Philippines,Brig. Gen. Percival M. Subala, Commanding General, 3rdMarine Brigade, and Supt. Charlemagne S. Alejandrino,Provincial Director, Sulu PNP Command explained that it "x x xwill not only serve the interest of majority of the political partiesinvolved in the electoral process but also serve the interest ofthe military and police forces in maintaining peace and orderthroughout the province of Sulu."

An automated count of the local votes in Sulu would have

resulted in a wrong count, a travesty of the sovereignty of theelectorate. Its aftermath could have been abloodbath. COMELEC avoided this imminent probability byordering a manual count of the votes. It would be the height ofirony if the Court condemns COMELEC for aborting violence inthe Sulu elections.

Fourth. We also find that petitioner Loong and intervenorJikiri were not denied due process. The Tolentinomemorandum clearly shows that they were given everyopportunity to oppose the manual count of the local ballots inSulu. They were orally heard. They later submitted written

position papers. Their representatives escorted the transfer of

the ballots and the automated machines from Sulu toManila. Their watchers observed the manual count frombeginning to end. We quote the Tolentino memorandum, viz:

"x x x

"On or about 6:00 a.m. of May 12, 1998, while automatedcounting of all the ballots for the province of Sulu was beingconducted at the counting center located at the Sulu StateCollege, the COMELEC Sulu Task Force Head (TF Head)

proceeded to the room where the counting machine assignedto the municipality of Pata was installed to verify the cause of

the commotion therein.

"During the interview conducted by the TF Head, the membersof the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) and watchers presentin said room stated that the counting machine assigned to themunicipality of Pata did not reflect the true results of the votingthereat. The members of the BEI complained that their voteswere not reflected in the printout of the election returns since

per election returns of their precincts, the candidate they votedfor obtained "zero". After verifying the printout of someelection returns as against the official ballots, the TF Headdiscovered that votes cast in favor of a mayoralty candidate

were credited in favor of his opponents.

"In his attempt to remedy the situation, the TF Headsuspended the counting of all ballots for said municipality toenable COMELEC field technicians to determine the cause ofthe technical error, rectify the same, and thereafter proceedwith automated counting. In the meantime, the counting of theballots for the other municipalities proceeded under theautomated system.

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

14/21

"Technical experts of the supplier based in Manila wereinformed of the problem and after numerous consultationsthrough long distance calls, the technical experts concludedthat the cause of the error was in the manner the ballots forlocal positions were printed by the National Printing Office(NPO), namely, that the ovals opposite the names of thecandidates were not properly aligned. As regards the ballotsfor national positions, no error was found.

"Since the problem was not machine-related, it was obviousthat the use of counting machines from other municipalities tocount the ballots of the municipality of Pata would still result inthe same erroneous count. Thus, it was found necessary todetermine the extent of the error in the ballot printing processbefore proceeding with the automated counting.

"To avoid a situation where proceeding with automation willresult in an erroneous count, the TF Head, on or about 11:45a.m. ordered the suspension of the counting of all ballots in the

province to enable him to call a meeting with the heads of thepolitical parties which fielded candidates in the province, informthem of the technical error, and find solutions to the problem.

"On or about 12:30 p.m., the TF Head presided over aconference at Camp General Bautista (3rd Marine Brigade) todiscuss the process by which the will of the electorate could bedetermined. Present during the meeting were:

1. Brig. Gen. Edgardo EspinozaMarine Forces, Southern Philippines

2. Brig. Gen. Percival Subala

3rd Marine Brigade

3. Provincial Dir. Charlemagne AlejandrinoSulu PNP Command

4. Gubernatorial Candidate Tupay LoongLAKAS-NUCD Loong Wing

5. Gubernatorial Candidate Abdusakur TanLAKAS-NUCD Tan Wing

6. Gubernatorial Candidate Yusop Jikiri

LAKAS-NUCD-MNLF Wing

7. Gubernatorial Candidate Kimar TulawieLAMMP

8. Congressional Candidate Bensaudi TulawieLAMMP

"During said meeting, all of the above parties verballyadvanced their respective positions. Those in favor of amanual count were:

1. Brig. Gen. Edgardo Espinoza

2. Brig. Gen. Percival Subala

3. Provincial Dir. Charlemagne Alenjandrino

4. Gubernatorial Candidate Abdusakur Tan

5. Gubernatorial Candidate Kimar Tulawie

6. Congressional Candidate Bensaudi Tulawie and those infavor of an automated count were:

1. Gubernatorial Candidate Tupay Loong

2. Gubernatorial Candidate Yusop Jikiri

"Said parties were then requested by the TF Head to submittheir respective position papers so that the same may be

forwarded to the Commission en banc, together with therecommendations of the TF Head.

'The TF Head returned to the counting center at the Sulu StateCollege and called his technical staff to determine the extent ofthe technical error and to enable him to submit the appropriaterecommendation to the Commission en banc.

"Upon consultation with the technical staff, it was discoveredthat in the Municipality of Talipao, some of the local ballotswere rejected by the machine. Verification showed that whilethe ballots were genuine, ballot paper bearing a wrong

"sequence code" was used by the NPO during the printingprocess.

"Briefly, the following is the manner by which a sequencecode" determined genuineness of a ballot. A municipality isassigned a specific machine (except for Jolo, which wasassigned two (2) machines, and sharing of one (1) machine bytwo (2) municipalities, namely, H.P. Tahil and Maimbung,Pandami and K. Caluang, Pata and Tongkil and Panamao andLugus). A machine is then assigned a specific "sequencecode" as one of the security features to detect whether theballots passing through it are genuine. Since a counting

machine is programmed to read the specific "sequence code"assigned to it, ballots which bear a "sequence code" assignedto another machine/municipality, even if said ballots weregenuine, will be rejected by the machine.

"Other municipalities, such as Siasi, Indanan, Tapul and Joloalso had the same problem of rejected ballots. However, sincethe machine operators were not aware that one of the reasonsfor rejection of ballots is the use of wrong "sequence code",they failed to determine whether the cause for rejection ofballots for said municipalities was the same as that for themunicipality of Talipao.

"In the case of 'misaligned ovals', the counting machine will notreject the ballot because all the security features, such as"sequence code", are present in the ballot, however, since theoval is misaligned or not placed in its proper position, themachine will credit the shaded oval for the position where themachine is programmed to "read" the oval. Thus, instead ofrejecting the ballot, the machine will credit the votes of acandidate in favor of his opponent, or in the adjacent spacewhere the oval should be properly placed.

"It could not be determined if the other municipalities also had

the same technical error in their official ballots since the"misaligned ovals" were discovered only after members of theBoard of Election Inspectors of the Municipality of Patacomplained that their votes were not reflected in the printout ofthe election returns.

"As the extent or coverage of the technical errors could not bedetermined, the TF Head, upon consultation with his technicalstaff, was of the belief that it would be more prudent to count

8/6/2019 Elections June 21 2011

15/21

the ballots manually than to proceed with an automatedsystem which will result in an erroneous count.

"The TF Head thus ordered the indefinite suspension ofcounting of ballots until such time as the Commission shallhave resolved the petition/position papers to be submitted bythe parties. The TF Head and his staff returned to CampGeneral Bautista to await the submission of the position

papers of the parties concerned.

"Upon receipt of the position papers of the parties, the TFHead faxed the same in the evening of May 12, 1998, togetherwith his handwritten recommendation to proceed with amanual count." Attached are copies of the recommendationsof the TF Head (Annex "1"), and the position papers of thePhilippine Marines and Philippine National Police (Annex "2"),LAKAS-NUCD Tan Wing Annex (Annex "3"), Lakas-NUCDLoong Wing (Annex "4"), LAKAS-NUCD-MNLF Wing (Annex"5") and LAMMP (Annex "6"). Said recommendations and

position papers were the bases for the promulgation ofCOMELEC Minute Resolution No. 98-1750 dated May 13,1998 (Annex "7"), directing among other things, that the ballotsand counting machines be transported by C130 to Manila forboth automated and manual operations.

"Minute Resolution No. 98-1750 was received by the TF Headthrough fax on or about 5:30 in the evening of May 13,1998. Copies were then served through personal delivery tothe heads of the political parties, with notice to them thatanother conference will beconducted at the 3rd Marine Brigadeon May 14, 1998 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, this time, withLt. General Joselin Nazareno, then AFP Commander,Southern Command. Attached is a copy of said notice (Annex"8") bearing the signatures of candidates Tan (Annex "8-

A") and Loong (Annex "8-B"), and the representativesof candidates Tulawie (Annex "8-C") and Jikiri (Annex "8-D").

"On May 14, 1998, the TF Head presided over said conferencein the presence of the heads of the political parties of Sulu,together with their counsel, including Lt. Gen. Nazareno, Brig.Gen. Subala, representatives of the NAMFREL, media and the

public.

"After hearing the sides of all parties concerned, including thatof NAMFREL, the procedure by which the ballots and countingmachines were to be transported to Manila was finalized, witheach political party authorized to send at least one (1)escort/watcher for every municipality to accompany the ballotboxes and counting machines from the counting center at theSulu State College to the Sulu Airport up to the PICC,where the COMELEC was then conducting itsSenatorial Canvass. There being four parties, a total ofseventy-two (72) escorts/watchers accompanied the ballotsand counting machines.

"Two C130s left Sulu on May 15, 1998 to transport all theballot boxes and counting machines, accompanied by all theauthorized escorts.