The Supreme Court has affirmed that a proclamation based on an illegal canvass can be voided, even after a candidate has assumed office. This ruling emphasizes the importance of following prescribed procedures during the canvassing of election returns. It underscores the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) authority to ensure that election outcomes reflect the genuine will of the electorate by adhering to the legal requirements for canvassing contested election returns and ensuring fair proceedings. Ultimately, it prevents candidates proclaimed without proper canvassing or facing valid objections from consolidating their power.

Dubious Returns: Was the Mayor’s Proclamation a Travesty of the Electoral Process?

Raymond P. Espidol, then a re-electionist, was proclaimed the duly-elected municipal mayor of Ramon, Isabela, during the May 10, 2004 elections. His rival, Wilfredo Tabag, filed a petition with the COMELEC for annulment of Espidol’s proclamation, alleging irregularities in the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC). Tabag claimed that the MBC acted with grave abuse of discretion in proclaiming Espidol as the winner despite pending and unresolved appeals, petitions for exclusion that lacked proper hearing and written rulings, and returns whose integrity he challenged. The COMELEC en banc affirmed the Second Division’s Resolution that found the MBC did not adhere to canvassing procedures and formally annulled Espidol’s proclamation, which led Espidol to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion.

Section 20 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7166 outlines the procedures for the disposition of contested election returns. This law requires that any candidate contesting the inclusion or exclusion of election returns must submit their objections orally to the chairman of the board of canvassers, with such objection to be recorded in the minutes. Simultaneously, the objecting party must enter their objection in a prescribed written form and, within 24 hours, submit evidence supporting their claim. This process ensures transparency and provides an opportunity for the board to consider all presented evidence before making a ruling. The law mandates the board to enter its ruling on a prescribed form, authenticated by the signatures of its members.

In the present case, Tabag’s lawyers sought the exclusion of election returns based on various grounds, including the absence of inner paper seals, lack of signatures from the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) chairmen, and the absence of thumbprints of the BEI members. The MBC included the contested election returns despite these objections and failed to provide written rulings on these petitions for exclusion. De Guzman, Chairman of the MBC, even admitted the board did not provide any formal or written rulings on the objections raised. Moreover, evidence showed the MBC proclaimed Espidol barely 12 hours after the conclusion of the canvassing of votes, which deprived Tabag of the chance to substantiate his objections with evidence and written arguments.

Espidol maintained that the MBC should not be faulted for failing to make written rulings on Tabag’s objections, given that most were not reduced to writing, violating Section 20(c) of R.A. No. 7166. The Supreme Court did not agree with this strict construction, opining that a submission of the written objection within 24 hours of the oral objection is substantial compliance with the law. The Supreme Court stated that strict compliance with Section 20(c) is not necessary for objections that are in the interest of fair elections. The Court then explained the issues raised were indeed proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy. The lack of signatures and thumbmarks rendered the said election returns materially defective.

Sec. 234. Material defects in the election returns. – If it should appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all the members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction.

This landmark case emphasized that the board of canvassers must enter its rulings in writing, stating that failure to do so prejudices the objecting party’s right to elevate the matter to the COMELEC for review. Without written rulings, the COMELEC cannot evaluate the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of contested returns, potentially leading to a proclamation based on flawed data. The Supreme Court held that Espidol’s proclamation was premature and unlawful. By extension, Tabag was deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the COMELEC. Citing Jamil v. Comelec, the Supreme Court emphasized that when no ruling is issued on the inclusion or exclusion of disputed returns, no complete and valid canvass exists, which is a prerequisite to a valid proclamation.

In addition to the violations of canvassing procedure, the COMELEC Second Division discovered discrepancies between the votes cast for mayoralty candidates and the number of registered voters who actually voted. The total votes for mayoralty candidates exceeded the actual voters by 858. Likewise, Chairman De Guzman himself admitted the presence of threats and intimidation that hurried the process. Overall, the Court ruled that COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and the Supreme Court denied the petition.

FAQs

What was the main issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the proclamation of Raymond Espidol as mayor due to irregularities in the canvassing of election returns.
What are some grounds for contesting election returns?	Election returns can be contested if they are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies. Also, they can be contested if returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation.
What did Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166 say about objecting to election returns?	This law states that objections must be made orally and in writing, with the objecting party providing evidence within 24 hours. The Board of Canvassers must then rule on these objections in writing.
Why were the signatures and thumbprints of the BEI members important?	Their presence serves as an authentication measure to ensure the integrity of the election returns. The absence of these signatures and thumbprints renders the election returns materially defective.
Can a winning candidate’s proclamation be annulled after they’ve assumed office?	Yes, if the proclamation was based on an illegal canvass or other serious irregularities. The COMELEC’s authority to annul illegal proclamations persists even after the candidate has assumed office.
What is the remedy if one believes an election was improperly decided?	The remedy depends on the stage of the election process. Before proclamation, a party can contest the results via pre-proclamation controversies; after proclamation, the recourse is typically an election protest.
Why didn’t strict compliance with Section 20(c) matter?	Substantial compliance is enough when the written objection is made within 24 hours from when the oral objection was made, and objections are in the interest of fair elections.
What happens when the number of votes doesn’t match registered voters?	This is evidence that there was likely a deliberate attempt to pad the results, indicating a compromised election process and necessitating further review.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the necessity for election authorities to strictly adhere to the prescribed procedures for canvassing and ruling on contested returns. Ensuring this adherence can prevent fraudulent proclamations. This upholds the sanctity of the ballot and the democratic process itself.

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: Espidol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164922, October 11, 2005