EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 148941-42 March 12, 2002
TEODORO O. O’HARA, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BINANGONAN, RIZAL, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF RIZAL and JOVITA RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
KAPUNAN, J.:
In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, petitioner seeks to set aside the Resolution1 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc that annulled the proclamation of petitioner Teodoro O. O’Hara as elected Vice-Governor, province of Rizal and to proclaim respondent Jovita Rodriguez as the duly elected Vice-Governor of Rizal.
Petitioner and respondent Jovita Rodriguez were candidates for the position of vice-governor, province of Rizal during the May 14, 2001 elections.
On May 19, 2001, upon conclusion of the canvassing of the certificate of canvass coming from the thirteen municipalities and one component city of Rizal, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected vice-governor with 216,798 votes over respondent Rodriguez’s 215,443 votes.
On May 23, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Binangonan, Rizal filed with the COMELEC en banc, a petition to correct entries in the certificate of canvass of votes, entitled "In the Matter of Correction of Entries In the Certificate of Canvass for the Position of Vice-Governor in the Province of Rizal in the Municipality of Binangonan."2 It was alleged that there were typographical errors in the number of votes garnered by petitioner and respondent resulting in the addition of 7,000 votes to petitioner. More specifically, the MBC of Binangonan claimed:
"7. That after the submission of the final copy to the Provincial Board of Canvassers and furnishing copies to all concerned we were surprised when we heard over the radio about the complaint of Mr. Jose Concepcion of NAMFREL, about the dagdag-bawas on the votes obtained by the two (2) candidates for Vice-Governor and we tried to review and check all the entries in the Statement of Votes (SOV) and we did not notice any error; it was only in Certificate of Canvass wherein the number of votes of the two (2) candidates for Vice-Governor were erroneously typed, indicating 35,754 votes for Teodoro O’Hara instead of the actual total of 28,754 and 18, 871 for Jovita Rodriguez instead of the actual 18,870 votes;
"8. That the error was due to the fact that the votes of 7,000 which is the sub-total of one hundred precincts was brought forwarded thereby including the same in the total which is indicated in the last page of the tabulation which is 28,754; hence the grand total, instead of 28,754 became 35,754."3
The MBC of Binangonan submitted the affidavit of Evelyn Ramirez, the Municipal Accountant of Binangonan, Rizal, admitting that she committed the mathematical error.4
On May 25, 2001, respondent Rodriguez filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the proclamation of the winning candidate for vice-governor of the province of Rizal, and to correct an alleged manifest mathematical error.5 Respondent Rodriguez asserted that after the mathematical error would have been corrected, she would obtain a plurality of 215,422 votes as against petitioner’s 209,798.
Petitioner filed his answer to the petition, arguing that there was no manifest error apparent in the certificate of canvass which respondent Rodriguez and the MBC of Binangonan sought to correct, and that respondent Rodriguez’s petition was filed out of time.
On July 25, 2001, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution in the cases, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petitions are GRANTED. Accordingly, the proclamation of Respondent Teodoro O. O’Hara as elected Vice-Governor of Rizal is hereby annulled. The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Rizal is hereby ordered as follows:
(a) To reconvene and correct the manifest mathematical error in the votes obtained by respondent O’Hara from 216,798 to 209,798 and as well as the votes for Petitioner Rodriguez from 215,423 to 215,422 as appearing in the Statement of Votes by Municipality.
b) To proclaim Jovita Rodriguez as the duly elected Vice-Governor of Rizal.
SO ORDERED.
Accordingly, on July 27, 2001, the PBC of Rizal reconvened. However, petitioner was not notified of the proceedings of the PBC of Rizal.
On the same day, the PBC of Rizal issued another certificate of canvass of votes and proclamation of the winning candidates for provincial officers, and on the basis thereof proclaimed private respondent as the duly elected Vice-Governor of Rizal. Immediately, respondent Rodriguez took her oath of office before Judge Leila Suarez Acebo, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
Hence, this petition.6
On July 31, 2001, the Court issued a temporary restraining order directing respondents "to CEASE and DESIST from implementing COMELEC Resolution dated 25 July 2001 issued in SPC Case Nos. 01-165 and SPC Case No. 01-129."7
On August 2, 2001, respondent Rodriguez filed a manifestation alleging that the temporary restraining order issued by this Court has been rendered moot and academic since she had assumed the office of Vice-Governor of Rizal.8
Thus, on August 14, 2001, the Court issued a resolution to the effect that "the temporary restraining order remains effective and is extended to restrain respondent from assuming the office of the vice-governor."9
Petitioner raises the following issues before the Court:
(1) Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it annulled the proclamation of petitioner as vice-governor of Rizal.
(2) Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the provincial board of canvassers of Rizal to reconvene and correct the alleged manifest mathematical error supposedly committed by the municipal board of canvassers of Binangonan, Rizal.
(3) Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the provincial board of canvassers of Rizal to proclaim respondent Rodriguez as the duly elected vice-governor of Rizal, despite the fact that the resolution dated 25 July 2001 had not yet attained finality.
We find the petition impressed with merit.
In any election contest, the ultimate issue is to determine the electoral will. In other words, who among the candidates was the voters’ choice.
In this jurisdiction, an election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote," through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate."10 An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people. Specifically, the term election, in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes.11
Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.12
The petition of the MBC of Binangonan, Rizal, before the COMELEC alleges in pertinent part:
6. That after finalizing the Certificate of Canvass, same was reviewed by all of us and being confident that it was prepared by an accountant whom the community regards as an honest person, we, Chairman and Members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers signed the same without noticing any mistake;
7. That after the submission of the final copy to the Provincial Board of Canvassers and furnishing copies to all concerned we were surprised when we heard over the radio about the complaint of Mr. Jose Concepcion of NAMFREL, about the dagdag-bawas on the votes obtained by the two (2) candidates for Vice Governor and we tried to review and check all the entries in the Statement of Votes (SOV) and we did not notice any error; it was only in the Certificate of Canvass wherein the number of votes of the two (2) candidates for vice-governor were erroneously typed, indicating 35,754 votes for Teodoro O’Hara instead of the actual total 28,754 and 18,871 for Jovita Rodriguez instead of the actual 18,870 votes;
8. That the error was due to the fact that the votes of 7,000 which was the sub-total of one hundred precincts was brought forwarded thereby including the same in the total which is indicated in the last page of the tabulation which is 28,754; hence the grand total instead of 28,754 became 35,754.
It is apparent that the errors do not appear on the face of the certificate of canvass that respondent Rodriguez sought to be corrected. There is nothing on the certificate of canvass that shows the addition of 7,000 votes in favor of petitioner. Likewise, the MBC of Binangonan failed to specify the one hundred precincts whence the 7,000 votes came. Clearly then, the petition filed by the municipal board of canvassers of Binangonan does not merely seek the correction of a manifest error but calls for the examination of the election returns from the 100 precincts and the recount of the votes therefrom.
As previously stated, the MBC of Binangonan, Rizal explains the discrepancy or error as follows:
8. That the error was due to the fact that the votes of 7,000 which is the sub-total of one hundred precincts was brought forwarded (sic) thereby including the same in the total which is indicated in the last page of the tabulation which is 28,754; hence the grand tabulation which is 28,754 became 35,754; x x x13
This was affirmed by Evelyn Ramirez, the Municipal Accountant of Binangonan, Rizal and tabulator who stated:
6. That due to fatigue, sleepless nights and physical exhaustion, I did not notice that the sub-total of 7,000 from the preceding page was carried forward in the addition of the votes of the last remaining precincts and reflected in the grand total 35,754 instead of 28,754 which is the actual count.14
Clearly, the MBC of Binangonan and Evelyn Ramirez tried to explain the alleged error by referring to a "preceding page’ of a certain document which, however, was neither identified nor presented in evidence. They also mentioned "100 remaining precincts" but neither the COMELEC nor the MBC of Binangonan or PBC of Rizal either the respondents were able to identify the said precincts. In fine, there is nothing on record to show where the "sub-total of 7,000 from the preceding page was carried forward in the addition of the votes of the last remaining precincts" (according to Evelyn Ramirez who attempted to rationalize her "mistake") can be located. These circumstances render their statement suspect.1âwphi1.nęt
Despite the confusing explanation of the MBC of Binangonan, the COMELEC relied heavily thereon when it issued the assailed resolution. The correction of the certificate of canvass necessitates the examination of several documents which the MBC of Binangonan and Evelyn Ramirez mentioned in their petition and affidavit, respectively. Specifically, the correction of the MBC of Binangonan's mistake, if any, requires the examination of the election returns of the alleged "100 precincts" and the supposed "preceding page." The COMELEC cannot simply rely on the Statement of Votes per precinct submitted by respondents to determine the true mandate of the electorate of Rizal considering that these Statements of Votes were prepared by the very same members of the MBC of Binangonan, Rizal who claimed to have made a mistake due to "fatigue, sleepless nights and physical exhaustion." Reliance on the Statement of Votes per precinct would have been proper had the COMELEC determined if these individuals did not commit any other mistake in the tabulation or preparation of the Statements of Votes.
Indeed, the alleged error which the COMELEC perceived to be manifest from the certificate of canvass does not fall under the definition of "manifest error" which we laid down in the case of Trinidad vs. Commission on Elections:15
Some of the definitions given for the word "manifest" are that it is evident to the eye and understanding; visible to the eye; that which is open, palpable, uncontrovertible; needing no evidence to make it more clear; not obscure or hidden. xxx.
"A manifest clerical error is –
" …. one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have committed xxx."
In the case of Chavez vs. Comelec,16 this Court explained that:
x x x To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.
The alleged error which the MBC of Binangonan committed and which it attributes to physical exhaustion and sleepless nights, is obviously not a plain error apparent from the Certificate of Canvass. It would have been more prudent to order at least the examination of the election returns to verify the existence of the alleged error instead of concluding outright that the Statements of Votes submitted by respondents were accurate and correctly prepared. A more thorough study of the matter would have been more appropriate under the circumstances specially considering that what is at stake is the sanctity of the right of suffrage which we are bound to uphold.
Equally important to note is the fact that the COMELEC relied heavily on the self-serving affidavits of the members of the MBC of Binangonan, Rizal, in order to justify its ruling, completely forgetting that reliance thereon has long been frowned upon because:
It should be emphasized that in arriving at the conclusion that there was a serious common irregularity in the preparation of 87 election returns, respondent Comelec relied mainly on the joint affidavit of seven (7) members of Pimentel’s so-called "Vigilantes ‘84’" and on the affidavits of some KBL inspectors/watchers and registered voters. Respondent Comelec, based solely on the aforesaid affidavits presented before it, made the sweeping conclusion that the 87 election returns have lost their authenticity and genuineness and must be considered as falsified returns which would necessitate their exclusion from the canvass. This conclusion reached by the respondent Comelec runs counter to the settled doctrine that the Comelec must exercise "extreme caution" in rejecting or excluding election returns and may do so only upon conclusive proof that the returns are obviously manufactured. (Anni vs. Isquierdo, et al., L-35918, June 28, 1974, reaffirmed and reiterated in Aratuc vs. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251, 282-283). The respondent Comelec should have compared its own copies of the election returns with the copies of the election returns of both parties pertaining to the 225 voting centers, which copies were furnished them separately from the copies submitted to the Board of Canvassers. (Sec. 42, Batas Pambansa No. 637.17
The aforequoted case was later on cited in Casimiro vs. Comelec:18
Petitioners likewise submitted the Affidavit of Atty. Paterno Lubaton, one of petitioners’ lawyers, which they claim showed in detail all the fraud, irregularities and anomalies concerning the election returns before and during the canvassing of the election returns first in Las Piñas and later at the COMELEC main office. Petitioners claim that the latter part of the Affidavit also detailed the "patently partial and biased actuations of the Board of Canvassers, especially its Chairman." Petitioners further decry the fact that no hearing was conducted by the Second Division of the COMELEC where petitioners could have presented the affiants as their witnesses.
Obviously, the evidence relied upon mainly by petitioners to support their charges of fraud and irregularities in the election returns and in the canvassing consisted of Affidavits prepared by their own representatives. The self-serving nature of the said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As this Court has pronounced, reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits. (Underscoring ours.)
As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, the affidavits and supposed admissions of the members of the MBC of Binangonan have no probative value and cannot, therefore, be the basis of the nullification of his proclamation.
In this connection, it must be noted that in its petition, the MBC of Binangonan stated that Evelyn Ramirez had her tabulation typed "by her typist purposely to finalize the subject Certificate of Canvass for signatures of the chairman and members of the municipal board of canvassers before submitting the same to the provincial board of canvassers for canvassing and proclamation of the winners.19 Otherwise stated, the MBC of Binangonan alleged that the Certificate of Canvass which the COMELEC ordered corrected was prepared by another person who neither testified nor executed a sworn statement. On this score, it is more justifiable to disregard the claims of the MBC and the affidavit of Evelyn Ramirez.
Significantly, the "careful process" observed by the COMELEC in resolving the instant case consisted of only two (2) hearings:
June 15, 2001. Considering that petitioner received Summons and copies of the Petition and Notice of Hearing in SPC No. 01-129 only that morning, petitioner’s counsel prayed for five (5) days to file his Answer thereto. COMELEC reset the hearing, including the hearing for SPC No. 01-165, to 25 June 2001
June 25, 2001. Parties were directed to file their Memoranda. Thereafter, case was submitted for resolution.
Considering the factual issues involved, the COMELEC should have conducted further investigation or at least a technical inspection or examination of election returns to verify the existence of the alleged error before it gave credence to the statements of the MBC of Binangonan and concluding outright that the Statement of Votes submitted by respondents were accurate. The COMELEC cannot simply rely on these Statement of Votes because they were prepared by the same members of the MBC who claimed to have made a mistake due to "fatigue, sleepless nights and physical exhaustion." It would have been more prudent to make a determination whether these same individuals committed any other mistake in the tabulation or statement of votes.
Even based on the statements/affidavits of the MBC of Binangonan, it is apparent that the errors sought to be corrected do not appear on the face of the certificate of canvass. As above-stated, the alleged error which the COMELEC perceived to be manifest does not fall under the definition of "manifest error" which was laid down in Trinidad vs. COMELEC and Chavez vs. COMELEC.
Section 7, Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC does not apply to the case at bar because it refers to correction of errors by the board of canvassers before a candidate can be proclaimed. Thus, had the alleged error really been manifest, respondent surely would have sought the correction before the Board of Canvassers even before petitioner was proclaimed as the winning candidate.
Considering, however, that petitioner had already been proclaimed as the Vice-Governor of Rizal, respondents filed their petitions with the COMELEC. The applicable provision, therefore, is Section 5 of Rule 27 which states:
Sec. 5. Pre-Proclamation Controversies Which May be Filed Directly with the Commission. - (a) The following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed directly with the Commission:
xxx
(2) When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing as where xxx (3) there had been a mistake in the copying of the figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate of canvass, or xxx and such errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidate had already been made.
(b) xxx
If the Petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation and must implead all candidates who may be adversely affected thereby.
The above-quoted provision requires that the correction be one involving a manifest error such as "a mistake in the copying of the figures into the Statement of Votes or into the Certificate of Canvass." The provision, however, also requires that "such errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence."
The rationale for the provision is obvious. If the error sought to be corrected is truly a manifest error, then the matter should have already been raised before the board of canvassers. The exception is if the error is one that "could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence." In the case at bar, the error allegedly committed by the MBC of Binangonan, which it attempted to describe and rationalize in their affidavits, is one that should have been discovered even with ordinary diligence. The truth of the matter, however, is that the error, even assuming it to be true, is not manifest and was not apparent from the Certificate of Canvass and, therefore, cannot be corrected simply by correction of alleged tabulation error.
Certainly, the present controversy does not merely involve a mistake in the addition of the votes appearing on the Statement of Votes per precinct or an erroneous copying of figures in the Certificate of Canvass. We are called upon to protect the sovereign will of the people of Rizal and not to stifle or frustrate it. Thus, we must employ all means bestowed upon us to safeguard the rule of the majority.
In Aguam vs. Commission on Elections,20 we ruled that:
"The great breadth of the constitutional and statutory powers granted Comelec has brought to the fore judicial pronouncements which have long become guidelines. Time and again, this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that Comelec is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made. x x x"
The Court once more reiterates that the Constitution gives the Commission on Elections the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall."21 The Commission indisputably exercises the power of supervision and control over boards of election inspectors and boards of canvassers. The Commission must do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections.22 The Constitution upgraded to a constitutional status the statutory authority under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 to grant the Commission broad and more flexible powers to effectively perform its duties and to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, and to serve as the guardian of the people’s sacred right of suffrage.23
In the absence of any manifest error in the certificate of canvass sought to be corrected, the Commission should have ordered the re-canvass of the election returns or the re-counting of the ballots in the municipality of Binangonan in order to validate the claim of the MBC.
If after the re-canvass of the election returns or the re-counting of the official ballots, the clerical error or mathematical mistake in the addition of the votes had been be established, the Commission should have annulled the canvass and proclamation based on the erroneous certificate of canvass. If the records had borne out that petitioner’s proclamation was the result of a clerical error or simple mathematical mistake in the addition of votes and did not reflect the true and legitimate will of the electorate, there could have been no valid proclamation to speak of. The issue would involve a pre-proclamation controversy not proper at this time.24
The wisdom of the order to examine the election returns is in consonance with the Court’s holding that:
x x x. Between another copy of the COC and the election returns, the latter could provide a more accurate basis for the determination of the true and genuine results of the votes cast. This is obvious because the former constitutes a mere summary of the latter and errors, deliberate or otherwise, may be committed in entering therein the figures obtained from the election returns. Besides, among the copies of the election returns readily available to the Commission, those intended specifically for it are the least likely to be tampered with after leaving the hands of the board of election inspectors. Thus, the wisdom of using such copies is beyond question. xxx25
Should, however, the Commission finds discrepancies in the election returns, Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code provides the remedy, to wit:
Sec. 236. Discrepancies in election returns. – In case it appears to the board of canvassers that there exists discrepancies in the other authentic copies of the election returns from a polling place or discrepancies in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the same return, and in either case the difference affects the results of the election, the Commission, upon motion of the board of canvassers or any candidate affected and after due notice to all candidates concerned, shall proceed summarily to determine whether the integrity of the box had been preserved, and once satisfied thereof shall order the opening of the ballot box to recount.
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Resolution dated July 25, 2001 of the Commission on Elections, en banc.26
The Commission on Elections is hereby ordered:
1. Within five (5) days from notice hereof, to reconvene the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Binangonan, Rizal, to recanvass the election returns pertaining to the votes of petitioner and respondent Rodriguez or position of vice-governor, which shall within forty-eight (48) hours from reconvening, deliver to the provincial board of canvassers the result of the recanvass;
2. Within five (5) days after receipt of the certificate of canvass of the municipal board of canvassers, reconvene the provincial board of canvassers which shall within seventy-two (72) hours therefrom:
(a) Re-tabulate the total number of votes for the petitioner and respondent Rodriguez as prepared and submitted by the municipal board of canvassers of Binangonan, and to enter the same in the certificate of provincial canvass;
(b) After retabulation, to sum up anew the certificate of provincial canvass the canvassed certificate of canvass of all the municipalities pertaining to the position of vice-governor;
(c) Thereafter, pursuant to the Omnibus Election Code, pertinent election laws, rules and regulations of the Commission, proclaim the winning candidate for vice-governor, province of Rizal.
In the meantime, the temporary restraining order we issued on July 31, 2001, as clarified in the resolution of August 14, 2001, shall remain in effect until the provincial board of canvassers of Rizal shall have made its final proclamation of the winning candidate for the position of Vice-Governor, province of Rizal.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nęt
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Quisumbing, Buena, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., see Dissent.
Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Carpio, JJ., join the dissenting opinion of J. Puno.
Ynares-Santiago, J., no part.
Footnote
1 Dated July 25, 2001 in SPC Case No. 01-165 and SPC Case No. 01-129.
2 Docketed as SPC Case No. 01-129, Rollo, pp. 45-48.
3 Petition, Annex "D," Rollo, pp. 45-48.
4 Petition, Annex "O," Rollo, pp. 95-97.
5 Docketed as SPC Case No. 01-165, Rollo, pp. 38-44.
6 Filed on July 30, 2001, Rollo, pp. 3-30.
7 Id., at 106-107.
8 Id., at 115-119.
9 Id., at 122.
10 Taule v. Santos, 200 SCRA 512, 519 (1991).
11 Carlos v. Angeles, 345 SCRA 123 (2000).
12 Benito v. Commission on Elections, 235 SCRA 436, 442 (1994).
13 Petition to Correct Entries in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes, p. 2 (SPC Case No. 01-129).
14 Affidavit of Evelyn Ramirez, p. 1.
15 320 SCRA 836, 843 (1999).
16 211 SCRA 315 (1992).
17 Pimentel, Jr. vs. Comelec, 126, 140 SCRA 148 (1985).
18 171 SCRA 468, 477 (1989).
19 Petition in SPC Ca No. 01-129, p. 2.
20 23 SCRA 883 (1968).
21 Loong v. Comelec, 365 Phil. 386, 420 (1999).
22 Olano v. Ronquillo, 8 SCRA 204 (1963).
23 Gallardo v. Tabamo, Jr., 218 SCRA 253 (1993).
24 Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections, 199 SCRA 849 (1991).
25 Pangarungan v. Comelec, 216 SCRA 522-539 (1992).
26 In SPC Case No. 01-165 and SPC Case No. 01-129.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
