In the case of *Rasmia Romato Salic v. COMELEC*, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of the legitimacy of municipal boards of canvassers (MBCs) in the Philippines. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s decision to annul conflicting proclamations made by two different MBCs in Butig, Lanao del Sur, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for the composition of such boards and of safeguarding the integrity of election returns, particularly concerning the proper handling of returns with mismatched serial numbers to prevent electoral fraud. The ruling underscores the COMELEC’s authority to ensure fair and credible elections by scrutinizing the composition and actions of local canvassing boards.

Ballots and Boards: When Conflicting Proclamations Cloud Electoral Legitimacy

In the 2001 local elections in Butig, Lanao del Sur, a perplexing situation arose when two purported Municipal Boards of Canvassers (MBCs) each proclaimed different sets of winners. This sparked legal turmoil that questioned the very foundation of electoral legitimacy. At the heart of the controversy was the mayorship, fiercely contested between Rasmia Romato Salic and Dimnatang L. Pansar, alongside the vice-mayoral race between Pauli Dimnatang Ditual A.B.M. and Monabantog Kiram. The central legal question was, which set of proclaimed winners were legitimate, and what actions should the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) take to resolve the conflict?

The saga began with the transfer of vote counting to Marawi City, following COMELEC Resolution No. 4307. As mandated by law, the MBC of Butig was to conduct the canvass of municipal election returns. However, controversy arose regarding the board’s composition. While the designation of Musa Macabayao as Chairman and Mesug Palawan as Vice-Chairman was uncontested, the true identity of the Third Member became a heated point of contention. Salic and Ditual asserted that Catambac Mimbantas legally served as the Third Member, while Pansar and Kiram insisted it was Ismael Magarang. The legal consequences hinged on determining which individual legitimately held the position, as it would dictate the validity of the proclamations issued by the board.

On June 10, 2001, Salic was proclaimed mayor, and Ditual was proclaimed vice-mayor. This proclamation was based on a Certificate of Canvass (COC) signed by Macabayao and Mimbantas, representing the Macabayao-Mimbantas board. However, this COC was based on returns from only thirty-six out of forty precincts. The returns from the other four precincts were excluded due to alleged irregularities, such as false or manufactured returns with mismatched serial numbers. This exclusion became a significant point of contention, as it raised questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the validity of the Macabayao-Mimbantas board’s actions. Pansar challenged the authority of the Macabayao-Mimbantas board, asserting that Magarang was the rightful Third Member.

Pansar claimed that the official board was Macabayao, Palawan, and Magarang. According to Pansar, this board canvassed all forty election returns until Macabayao declared a recess and left with the election paraphernalia. When Macabayao failed to return, Palawan and Magarang, allegedly upon instruction, continued the canvass. This Palawan-Magarang board issued a separate COC on June 17, 2001, proclaiming Pansar as the elected mayor. Critically, this board inexplicably did not proclaim a winner for the vice-mayor position. This second proclamation, based on all forty precincts, directly conflicted with the earlier Macabayao-Mimbantas proclamation, setting the stage for legal intervention and a thorough examination of the canvassing process.

In response to the conflicting proclamations, Salic filed a petition with the COMELEC, seeking to invalidate the Palawan-Magarang COC. To ascertain the facts, the COMELEC created an Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate the election. This committee gathered documents, memoranda, and testimonies. Kiram, the vice-mayoral candidate, also filed a petition that was initially dismissed but later revived through a motion to intervene. Ultimately, the COMELEC Second Division declared the Macabayao-Mimbantas COC a “sham” and ordered the exclusion of returns from certain precincts in the Palawan-Magarang COC, nullifying Pansar’s proclamation. The COMELEC then ordered the constitution of a new MBC to complete the canvass, and resort to a recount if necessary.

The COMELEC’s decision hinged on several factors. First, the determination of the rightful Third Member of the MBC was based on Republic Act No. 6646, which dictates that the Third Member must be the most senior district school supervisor, or in their absence, a school principal. The COMELEC found that Mimbantas was merely a teacher, while Magarang was an acting principal, making Magarang the legitimate Third Member. Second, the COMELEC found that returns from Precincts No. 1A/2A, 7A/8A, and 9A/10A had varying serial numbers on the pages of the set of returns for each precinct. Section 212 of the Omnibus Election Code mandates the exclusion of such returns. The COMELEC ruled that the Palawan-Magarang board erred in canvassing these irregular returns.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, delved into the COMELEC’s findings regarding the composition of the MBC. The Court cited Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6646, which outlines the qualifications for members of the municipal board of canvassers. According to the statute, the board should comprise the election registrar, the municipal treasurer, and the most senior district school supervisor, or, in their absence, a principal of the school district or the elementary school. The Court emphasized that the qualifications are not discretionary but mandatory, stating, “If the law prescribes qualifications for appointment to a public office, the appointee must possess such statutory qualifications to make the appointment valid.”

Building on this principle, the Court examined the COMELEC’s finding that Mimbantas was not a principal, but an ordinary teacher. This critical fact rendered Mimbantas unqualified to sit on the MBC. Thus, the Macabayao-Mimbintas COC proclaiming Salic as mayor was deemed invalid because it lacked the proper composition as mandated by the law. In contrast, the COMELEC had determined that Magarang was qualified to sit on the MBC. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s findings, highlighting the factual basis that Magarang performed the duties of a member of the MBC. The Court also noted the serious irregularities on the part of the Macabayao-Mimbantas board, specifically pointing to erasures and superimpositions on the Statement of Votes (SOV) that cast doubt on the document’s veracity.

Addressing the issue of the excluded election returns, the Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s reliance on Section 212 of the Omnibus Election Code. This section provides that “Any election return with a separately printed serial number or which bears a different serial number from that assigned to the particular polling place concerned shall not be canvassed.” In this case, the election returns from Precincts No. 1A/2A, 7A/8A, and 9A/10A had varying serial numbers, triggering the application of Section 212. The Court quoted the COMELEC’s explanation that variance in the serial numbers demolishes the presumption of regularity and treats such returns as manufactured or falsified documents. The Supreme Court, thus, upheld the COMELEC’s directive for a new MBC to be constituted and for the recount of ballots, as a recourse to Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code, which specifies the procedure to be followed when election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified. In affirming this, the Court made it abundantly clear that the COMELEC is well within its mandate to ensure the integrity of election results by scrutinizing returns that raise red flags for potential fraud.

The ruling has significant implications for Philippine election law. It underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the statutory requirements for the composition of canvassing boards. This serves as a reminder to election officials that non-compliance can lead to the invalidation of proclamations. Further, the ruling emphasizes the crucial role of the COMELEC in safeguarding the integrity of election returns. By ordering the exclusion of returns with mismatched serial numbers and directing a recount, the COMELEC demonstrated its commitment to preventing electoral fraud. The Court noted, “As the body mandated by the Constitution to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, it is the bounden duty of the COMELEC to ensure that the will of the electorate prevails.”

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was the legitimacy of the proclamations made by conflicting Municipal Boards of Canvassers (MBCs) in Butig, Lanao del Sur, during the 2001 local elections. The Court had to determine which MBC was properly constituted and whether the COMELEC acted correctly in annulling the proclamations.
Why were the proclamations of Salic and Ditual initially nullified?	The proclamations were nullified because the Macabayao-Mimbintas board, which proclaimed them, was deemed illegally constituted. Mimbantas was not qualified to be the Third Member of the MBC because she was not a school principal, as required by law.
What was the basis for excluding the election returns from Precincts No. 1A/2A, 7A/8A, and 9A/10A?	The election returns from these precincts were excluded because they had varying serial numbers on their pages. Section 212 of the Omnibus Election Code mandates that any election return with mismatched serial numbers should not be canvassed.
What remedy did the COMELEC order to address the irregularities in the election returns?	The COMELEC ordered the constitution of a new MBC composed of COMELEC lawyers to complete the canvass. It also directed the new MBC to use the ballot box copies of the returns and, if necessary, conduct a recount of the votes cast in the contested precincts.
Why did the Palawan-Magarang board not proclaim a vice-mayor?	The Palawan-Magarang board did not proclaim a vice-mayor, and the Supreme Court noted this omission as an anomaly. The board crossed out all the entries of votes cast for all the vice-mayoral candidates, indicating a deliberate intent to frustrate the will of the electorate.
Did the Supreme Court find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC?	No, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s decisions to annul the proclamations, exclude the irregular returns, and order a recount.
What was the final order of the Supreme Court regarding the vice-mayoral position?	The Supreme Court modified the COMELEC’s resolution to include a recanvass of the election returns for the vice-mayor position from all forty precincts. The newly-constituted MBC was ordered to complete the canvass and proclaim the duly elected vice-mayor.
What is the significance of this case for Philippine election law?	This case underscores the importance of strictly adhering to the statutory requirements for the composition of canvassing boards and safeguarding the integrity of election returns. It emphasizes the COMELEC’s role in ensuring fair and credible elections by scrutinizing the actions of local canvassing boards.

In conclusion, the *Salic v. COMELEC* case reaffirms the COMELEC’s authority to ensure the integrity of Philippine elections by closely scrutinizing the composition and actions of local canvassing boards. The decision emphasizes the need for strict adherence to statutory requirements and reinforces measures to prevent electoral fraud, solidifying the COMELEC’s critical role in upholding the democratic process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RASMIA ROMATO SALIC VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND DIMNATANG L. PANSAR, G.R. No. 157007, March 17, 2004