Fair Elections Require Complete and Valid Canvassing: A Case of Disputed Returns

TLDR: This case highlights the critical importance of a complete and valid canvass in Philippine elections. Both proclamations in this case were deemed invalid because the canvassing process was flawed, emphasizing the need for election boards to follow procedures meticulously and for the COMELEC to resolve disputes promptly to ensure the true will of the electorate is upheld. When election returns are contested, the board must follow specific procedures and obtain authorization from the COMELEC before proclaiming a winner. Failure to do so can invalidate the entire process.

G.R. No. 123648, December 15, 1997

Introduction

Imagine casting your vote, believing it will contribute to the democratic process. But what if the election returns from your precinct are contested, and the Board of Canvassers (MBC) fails to properly address the objections? This scenario can lead to disputes, invalid proclamations, and a challenge to the very foundation of a fair election. The case of Abdullah A. Jamil vs. The Commission on Elections illustrates the critical importance of a complete and valid canvass in Philippine elections, emphasizing the need for election boards to follow procedures meticulously and for the COMELEC to resolve disputes promptly.

In the 1995 mayoral race of Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur, Abdullah A. Jamil and Alinader Balindong were the leading candidates. During the canvassing of election returns, objections were raised regarding the validity of returns from several precincts. The ensuing disputes led to two separate proclamations, each claiming victory. The Supreme Court was ultimately tasked with determining which, if any, of these proclamations was valid.

Legal Context

Philippine election law is governed primarily by the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and Republic Act No. 7166, which outline the procedures for conducting elections, canvassing votes, and resolving disputes. Key provisions relevant to this case include:

• Section 245 of the OEC: This section governs contested election returns, requiring the Board of Canvassers to defer canvassing contested returns and to submit objections to the COMELEC for resolution before proclaiming a winner. The exact provision states: “The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party and any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.”
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 18, Section 6: This rule addresses situations where the COMELEC en banc is equally divided in opinion, stating that the motion shall be denied.

These provisions ensure that all votes are properly counted and that any objections are thoroughly reviewed before a winner is declared. Previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Samad v. COMELEC, have consistently held that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation.

Case Breakdown

The drama unfolded in Sultan Gumander following the May 8, 1995 elections:

1. Initial Objections: During the canvassing, private respondent Balindong objected to the inclusion of returns from Precincts 5, 10-1, 20-1, and 20, citing duress, spuriousness, and missing original copies.
2. Sansarona MBC “Rulings”: The initial MBC, led by Saadia Sansarona, issued “rulings” that merely set aside the returns for further investigation, without making definitive decisions.
3. Macadato MBC Takes Over: A new MBC, chaired by Casan Macadato, was formed. Macadato conducted investigations and recommended including the returns, but again, without a formal ruling.
4. Conflicting Appeals: Balindong appealed the inclusion of Precinct 20 returns (SPC No. 95-271), while Jamil appealed the setting aside of returns from Precincts 5, 10-1, and 20-1 (SPC No. 95-272).
5. First Proclamation: Despite the pending appeals, the Macadato Board proclaimed Jamil as the winner.
6. COMELEC Intervention: The COMELEC’s Second Division annulled Jamil’s proclamation and ordered a new MBC to proclaim Balindong.
7. Second Proclamation: The new MBC, led by Darangina Cariga, proclaimed Balindong as the winner.
8. COMELEC En Banc Deadlock: The COMELEC en banc was evenly divided on Jamil’s motion for reconsideration, resulting in the denial of the motion.

The Supreme Court highlighted the flaws in both proclamations. Regarding Jamil’s proclamation, the Court emphasized that the Macadato MBC’s investigation report was not a definitive ruling and that “[t]here being no ruling on the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed returns, there could have been no complete and valid canvass which is a prerequisite to a valid proclamation.” Furthermore, the Court cited Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, noting that the MBC lacked COMELEC authorization to proclaim a winner while returns were contested.

As for Balindong’s proclamation, the Court stated that it “was not predicated on a complete and valid canvass, but on supposed ‘rulings’ of the Sansarona MBC which merely ‘set aside for further investigation’ the three (3) challenged election returns from Precinct Nos. 5, 10-1 and 20-1.” The Court reiterated the established rule that an incomplete canvass cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation.

Practical Implications

This case underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedures in election canvassing and dispute resolution. For candidates and political parties, it serves as a reminder to:

• Scrutinize the Canvassing Process: Closely monitor the canvassing of election returns and promptly raise objections to any irregularities.
• Follow Legal Procedures: Ensure that all objections and appeals are filed in accordance with the prescribed timelines and procedures.
• Seek COMELEC Authorization: Be aware that the Board of Canvassers cannot proclaim a winner if returns are contested unless authorized by the COMELEC.

Key Lessons

• Complete Canvass is Essential: A valid proclamation requires a complete canvass of all election returns.
• Proper Rulings are Necessary: The MBC must issue definitive rulings on the inclusion or exclusion of contested returns.
• COMELEC Authorization is Mandatory: Proclamation cannot occur without COMELEC authorization when returns are contested.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens if the Board of Canvassers fails to rule on objections to election returns?

A: If the Board of Canvassers fails to issue definitive rulings on objections, the canvass is considered incomplete, and any subsequent proclamation may be deemed invalid.

Q: Can a candidate be proclaimed winner if there are pending appeals regarding contested election returns?

A: No, the Board of Canvassers cannot proclaim a winner if there are pending appeals regarding contested election returns unless authorized by the COMELEC.

Q: What is the effect of an incomplete canvass on the validity of an election?

A: An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. It effectively disenfranchises the voters in the affected precincts.

Q: What recourse does a candidate have if they believe the canvassing process was flawed?

A: A candidate can file an appeal with the COMELEC, seeking to annul the proclamation and order a new canvass based on proper procedures.

Q: What is the role of the COMELEC in resolving election disputes?

A: The COMELEC has the authority to resolve election disputes, including objections to election returns, and to ensure that the canvassing process is conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

ASG Law specializes in election law and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.