ASG Law

Tag: Discrepancy in Election Returns

  • When Figures and Words Disagree: Understanding Election Recounts in the Philippines

    Ensuring Election Integrity: When Discrepancies in Election Returns Mandate a Recount

    TLDR: Philippine election law prioritizes the accurate reflection of the people’s will. When there’s a clear discrepancy between the number of votes written in words and figures in election returns that could affect the election outcome, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to order a recount to ascertain the true results. This case reinforces that procedural technicalities should not overshadow the paramount importance of accurately counting votes and ensuring the rightful winner is proclaimed.

    Manuel V. Olondriz, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Marites G. Fragata, G.R. No. 135084, August 25, 1999

    Introduction

    Imagine election night: tensions are high, every vote counts, and the difference between victory and defeat can hinge on a handful of ballots. But what happens when the official election returns themselves contain errors? In the Philippines, election integrity is paramount, and the law provides mechanisms to address discrepancies that could undermine the democratic process. The case of Olondriz v. COMELEC highlights the crucial role of recounts in resolving disputes arising from conflicting entries in election returns, particularly when the written words and numerical figures for votes do not match. This case underscores the principle that the ultimate goal of election law is to ascertain and give effect to the genuine will of the electorate, even if it means opening ballot boxes to ensure accuracy.

    This dispute arose from the 1998 mayoral elections in Juban, Sorsogon, where a razor-thin margin separated two candidates. A simple numerical discrepancy in one precinct’s election return sparked a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, ultimately clarifying the powers of the COMELEC in ensuring accurate vote counts and upholding the sanctity of the ballot.

    Legal Framework for Election Recounts Due to Discrepancies

    Philippine election law, specifically the Omnibus Election Code, recognizes that errors can occur in the manual tabulation and recording of votes. To address this, Section 236 of the Code provides a clear mechanism for resolving discrepancies in election returns. This section is not meant to initiate a full-blown election protest, which is a separate and more extensive process. Instead, it offers a swift remedy to correct simple arithmetical errors or clerical mistakes that appear on the face of the election documents.

    Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code explicitly states:

    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 ballot box had been preserved, and once satisfied thereof shall order the opening of the ballot box to recount the votes cast in the polling place solely for the purpose of determining the true result of the count of votes of the candidates concerned.

    This provision empowers the COMELEC to act when discrepancies, such as conflicting word and figure representations of votes, are brought to light. The key elements that trigger COMELEC’s authority under Section 236 are:

    • Existence of Discrepancies: The discrepancy must be evident in the election returns themselves, either between different copies or within the same return (words vs. figures).
    • Impact on Election Results: The discrepancy must be significant enough to potentially alter the outcome of the election. A minor, inconsequential error might not warrant a recount.
    • Integrity of Ballot Box: COMELEC must be satisfied that the integrity of the ballot box has been maintained, ensuring that the ballots inside remain untampered and reliable.

    Crucially, a recount under Section 236 is limited in scope. As the Supreme Court emphasized, it is a “mathematical counting of the votes” and “does not involve any appreciation of ballots or the determination of their validity as is required in an election contest.” This distinction is vital because it streamlines the process, allowing for a quick resolution focused solely on correcting numerical errors without delving into complex ballot adjudication.

    The Case of Olondriz v. COMELEC: A Fight Over Two Votes

    In the Juban, Sorsogon mayoral race of 1998, Manuel V. Olondriz, Jr. and Marites G. Fragata were locked in a tight contest. During the canvassing of votes, a watcher for Fragata noticed a discrepancy in the election return from Precinct No. 22-A. The return stated that Olondriz received “sixty-six (66)” votes in figures, but “fifty-six (56)” votes in words. This ten-vote difference was critical because, based on the initial canvass, Olondriz was leading Fragata by a mere two votes: 4,500 to 4,498.

    Fragata’s watcher raised the issue with the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), but the MBC decided to favor the figures, crediting Olondriz with 66 votes. Fragata objected and filed a petition to suspend the proclamation, which was denied. Despite Fragata’s notice of appeal to the COMELEC, the MBC proceeded to proclaim Olondriz as the winner.

    Undeterred, Fragata elevated the matter to the COMELEC, arguing that the discrepancy warranted a recount. The COMELEC’s Second Division sided with Fragata, annulling Olondriz’s proclamation and ordering the MBC to reconvene, open the ballot box from Precinct No. 22-A, and recount the votes. The COMELEC resolution stated:

    “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the proclamation of private respondent Manuel Olondriz, Jr., as the duly elected mayor of Juban, Sorsogon is DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

    Consequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Juban, Sorsogon is hereby ORDERED to RECONVENE, OPEN the ballot box in Precinct No. 22-A, following strictly section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and include the tally thereof to the result of all the election returns previously canvassed; PREPARE a new Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning Candidates [C.E. Form No. 25] and, thereafter PROCLAIM the winning candidate for mayor.”

    Olondriz sought reconsideration from the COMELEC en banc, but it was denied. Interestingly, while the motion for reconsideration was pending, the MBC reconvened and opened the ballot box. However, instead of conducting a physical recount as ordered by the COMELEC Second Division, they simply examined the election return inside the box. The MBC claimed to have “verified” the tally marks and concluded that Olondriz indeed received 66 votes based on tally marks, despite the discrepancy in words and figures on the return itself. Consequently, they again proclaimed Olondriz as mayor.

    This led to Olondriz filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a recount. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the COMELEC’s decision. The Court reasoned:

    “From the foregoing, it is clear that a recount of votes is in order where a discrepancy exists between the votes written in words or in figures… The reason for this provision is to offer a prompt relief to a simple controversy and to restore public tranquility by dispelling all doubts as to the true and correct number of the votes cast in a given polling place. That way, the chances whereby a candidate may grab a proclamation to which he is not entitled to are minimized.”

    The Supreme Court emphasized that in such a close election, resolving the discrepancy through a recount was not only legally sound but also essential to ensure fairness and public confidence in the electoral process. The Court dismissed Olondriz’s petition, affirming the COMELEC’s order for a recount.

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    The Olondriz v. COMELEC case serves as a clear reminder of the importance of accuracy in election returns and the mechanisms available to correct errors. It reinforces the COMELEC’s authority to order recounts in cases of significant discrepancies, even after a proclamation has been made. This ruling has several practical implications for candidates, election watchers, and the electoral process as a whole:

    • Vigilance in Canvassing: Candidates and their watchers must be diligent during the canvassing process. Scrutinizing election returns for discrepancies, especially in close races, is crucial.
    • Proper Documentation is Key: Election officials must ensure accuracy and consistency when preparing election returns, paying close attention to both the numerical figures and the written words representing the votes.
    • Recounts as a Remedy: Section 236 provides a valuable tool for quickly addressing discrepancies without resorting to lengthy and costly election protests. It prioritizes a swift factual verification of votes.
    • Public Trust and Confidence: By upholding the COMELEC’s power to order recounts, the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that ensuring accurate vote counts is paramount to maintaining public trust in the integrity of elections.

    Key Lessons from Olondriz v. COMELEC:

    • Discrepancies Matter: Even seemingly small discrepancies in election returns, especially in tight races, can have significant legal consequences.
    • Recounts are Not Election Protests: Recounts under Section 236 are a limited remedy focused on correcting numerical errors, distinct from full-blown election protests.
    • COMELEC’s Authority is Broad: The COMELEC has broad authority to ensure fair and accurate elections, including the power to order recounts to resolve discrepancies.
    • Substance Over Form: The Supreme Court prioritizes the substance of the election – the actual votes cast – over procedural technicalities, ensuring the true will of the electorate prevails.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What kind of discrepancies in election returns can trigger a recount?

    A: Discrepancies between the number of votes written in words and figures, or discrepancies between different copies of the election returns from the same precinct, can trigger a recount under Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code.

    Q: Who can request a recount due to discrepancies?

    A: The Board of Canvassers or any candidate affected by the discrepancy can request a recount from the COMELEC.

    Q: Is a recount the same as an election protest?

    A: No. A recount under Section 236 is a summary procedure to correct numerical errors in election returns. An election protest is a more comprehensive legal action that questions the validity of ballots or the conduct of the election itself.

    Q: What is the scope of a recount under Section 236?

    A: A recount under Section 236 is limited to a physical count of the ballots to correct the specific discrepancy. It does not involve a general review of all ballots or issues of ballot validity.

    Q: What happens if the recount changes the election results?

    A: If the recount reveals a different winner, the COMELEC will order the proclamation of the rightful winner based on the corrected vote count.

    Q: Can a proclamation be annulled if a discrepancy is discovered after the proclamation?

    A: Yes, as demonstrated in the Olondriz case, a proclamation can be annulled if a significant discrepancy is discovered, and a recount is ordered to correct the results.

    Q: What should candidates and watchers do if they suspect a discrepancy?

    A: They should immediately bring the discrepancy to the attention of the Board of Canvassers and formally request a review and correction, potentially including a recount if necessary.

    Q: Does the COMELEC automatically order a recount for every discrepancy?

    A: No, the discrepancy must be significant enough to potentially affect the election results, and the COMELEC must be satisfied that the integrity of the ballot box has been preserved before ordering a recount.

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




    Source: Supreme Court E-Library

    This page was dynamically generated

    by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)