Hidden irregularities

This election case is very relevant in this coming May elections. It highlights one of the many election irregularities that may be committed with impurity simply because the election rules make it possible. Because of cases like this, candidates who may have valid cause to complain are discouraged from pursuing their case because of the time, effort and cost especially after the alleged "winners" are already in power.

The case stemmed from the mayoralty elections in a town in Mindanao. The opposing candidates for mayor were Sally and Antonio. Their respective running mates were Ruperto and Nestor.

On election day, as the municipal board of canvassers was preparing to canvass the election returns, Sally and Ruperto sought the exclusion from the canvass of several election returns from certain precincts in several barangays. They claimed that the election returns from these areas were prepared under extreme duress, threat, intimidation and political pressure and influence. Specifically, Sally and Ruperto alleged that there were "harassments of their supporters, midnight convoys of armed men riding in motorcycles and raids by the military in different houses". According to Sally and Ruperto, while the returns themselves appear regular on their face it was only because the fraud and scheme were designed to precisely avoid detection on the face of the returns. Nevertheless, their preparation was marred by undue influence and intimidation thus affecting their regularity, due execution and authenticity. So this justifies the examination beyond the face of the returns.

The municipal board of canvassers however denied Sally and Ruperto’s petition, prompting the latter to appeal to the Comelec. The Second Division of the Comelec resolved the appeal in favor of Sally and Ruperto and ordered the exclusion of 25 election returns from the canvass of votes.

Upon the motion for reconsideration of said resolution, the Comelec en banc reversed the ruling of the COMELEC Second Division. The Comelec en banc pointed out that it could not justifiably exclude from the canvass of votes, in a pre-proclamation controversy, those 25 election returns that on their face appear regular because a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the examination of incomplete, falsified or materially defective returns which appear as such on their face. Where the issues raised would require it to look beyond the face of the returns, the proper remedy is a regular election protest, concluded the Comelec.

Was the COMELEC correct?

Yes.

A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of election returns on their face. The Comelec as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged election irregularities. The only exception is when there is "precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of sufficient notice to the board and disregard of manifest irregularities in the face of the questioned return". These exceptional circumstances are not present in this case. What Sally and Ruperto are asking for necessarily postulates a full reception of evidence aliunde (evidence from external sources) and the meticulous examination of voluminous election documents. This would run counter to the rule that a pre-proclamation controversy should be summarily decided and is limited to incomplete, falsified or materially defective returns which appear as such on their face.

Where the resolution of the issues raised would require the Comelec to "pierce the veil" of election returns that appear prima facie regular, the remedy is a regular election protest in which the parties may litigate all the legal and factual issues raised by them in as much detail as they may deem necessary or appropriate (Sebastian et. al. vs. Comelec, et. al. G.R. No 139573-75 March 7, 2000).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]