G.R. No. L-33325. December 29, 1971
MASTURA USMAN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LUIS QUIBRANZA, RESPONDENTS.
CASTRO, J.:
Pursuant to Republic Act 6132,[1]
election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention was held throughout the
nation on November 10, 1970. Republic Act 6132 called for the election of
three hundred and twenty delegates apportioned among sixty-seven representative
districts.
Section 2 of the aforestated law, inter alia,
allocated three delegates to represent the lone district of Lanao
del Norte, including Iligan City.
Twenty-nine candidates contended for the three seats thus allotted.
On November 12, 1970,
Luis Quibranza, Francisco Abalos,
Alfredo Bosico, Luis Buendia
and Bonifacio Legaspi
(hereinafter referred to as the Comelec petitioners),
candidates for delegate in the aforementioned district, petitioned the
Commission on Elections (hereinafter referred to as the Comelec)
for a declaration of nullity of the election returns from all the precincts of
seven municipalities and municipal districts – Karomatan,
Pantao-Ragat, Matungao, Munai, Tangcal, Magsaysay, and Nunungan – and
four barrios – Kapatagan, Salvador, Lala, and Kauswagan – of Lanao del Norte. The
Comelec petitioners alleged as grounds that in the
said municipalities and barrios, no actual voting took place because of
“terrorism and other machinations,” and that
“fictitious election returns were prepared under duress, and
the influence of terrorism and/or bribery wherein, it was made to appear that
certain favored candidates obtained most, if not all the votes fictitiously
cast therein, while petitioners were made to appear as having obtained very
few, if no votes at all.”
The Comelec
petitioners particularly stressed that the canvassing of the fictitious votes
and the preparation of the election returns from the precincts of Karomatan were in violation of the procedure laid down in
resolution 769 of the Comelec. They prayed for the holding of a special
election in the municipalities and barrios concerned and, ad interim, the suspension of the
canvass as well as the proclamation of the winning candidates until after
hearing and decision on the merits of the petition.
The initial canvass of
all the election returns from all the precincts of Lanao
del Norte showed the following results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the exclusion, however, of the tally
of the election returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan,
the results would be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On November 14, 1970,
the Comelec issued two resolutions ordering the board
of canvassers to canvass the election returns in Manila,
ordering the same board to desist from proclaiming the winning candidates until
further orders, and setting the petition for hearing in Manila
to ascertain the truth of the allegation that no voting took place in the
disputed precincts.
On November 24, 1970, the Comelec
petitioners, joined by another candidate, Potri Ali Pacasum, amended their petition, asking for the exclusion
of the election returns from the precincts of the barrios of Kapatagan, Salvador, Lala, and Kauswagan, except those from precincts 16 and 24 of Kapatagan and precincts 14 and 14-A of Salvador, and
repeating their allegation that no elections actually took place in the
questioned precincts,
“and/or in the remote possibility that elections had been
initiated, they were suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of
the voting because of violence or terrorism and that the votes not cast therein
are sufficient to affect the results of the elections,”
and adding that the election returns from
the said precincts
“… were prepared prior to the elections, and/ or had been
tampered with and/or are statistically improbable in that the number of voters
who allegedly cast their votes
is out of proportion to the actual population in those municipalities and municipal
districts concerned.”
Mariano Badelles, Cornelio Sugano and Mastura Usman (hereinafter
referred to as the Comelec respondents), candidates
affected by the petition, two of whom appeared as frontrunners per the initial
canvass of all the election returns from all the precincts of Lanao del Norte, filed an amended answer dated November 26,
1970 wherein they vehemently denied the allegations of the Comelec
petitioners, brushing them off as “preposterous and without basis both in
fact and in law.” Claiming that “free clean, peaceful and
orderly” elections took place in all the places and precincts enumerated
by the Comelec petitioners, they asked for the
dismissal of the petition on the ground of lack of cause of action.
At a preliminary conference between the parties, they assented to
the summoning by the Comelec of the chairmen of the boards of inspectors of Karomatan to testify in Manila. They also agreed to allow the chairmen of the
boards of inspectors of the other municipalities to testify in Iligan City. The Comelec then
subpoenaed the 42 chairmen of the boards of inspectors of Karomatan. On December
9, 1970, a number of them arrived in Manila.
At the hearing, four chairmen testified, three of whom declared that the elections in their respective
precincts were “free, honest
and orderly.” Of the three, however, one broke down on cross-examination
and revealed what really transpired in his precinct on election day. He related that only about 10% to 20% of the registered voters in his
precinct actually voted and that armed men prepared and filled up the rest of
the ballots. In addition, he stated that
two unidentified men gave him a
piece of paper with the names of five candidates written thereon with the corresponding number of votes “they were supposed to
receive in the precinct.” The
unidentified men told him to
give the indicated number of votes
to the persons listed the piece of paper; so the board prepared the election returns in accordance with their
instructions.
The fourth chairman who
testified revealed that on the day before
the elections, the members of the
boards of inspectors, having been summoned, appeared at the office of the mayor where they were questioned
on their “willingness to cooperate”
by making some candidates win in their
respective precincts. She further
testified that on election day,
about twenty Muslims appeared in
her precinct who prepared and filled up the ballots and thumbmarked
and signed the voting record.
In the meantime, the Comelec, upon the application of the Comelec petitioners, ordered the production in Manila of
the precinct books of voters for Karomatan,
including CE forms 39 (lists of voters who voted) used in connection with the 1970 elections.
On December
12, 1970, the Comelec, by resolution, directed the chief of its
Fingerprint Identification Division, Jose Abrigo, to
examine all the precinct books of voters for Karomatan,
together with the CE forms 39
accomplished in connection with the 1970 elections, to determine:
“a. Whether the thumbmark
affixed on the 1970 voting record of each voter on Form No. 1 coincides with
the thumbmark of the voters on the face of said Form
No. 1 and also in the 1970 Form No. 39;
“b. How many are there where the thumbmark on Form 1, the voting record and Form 39 are by
the same persons indicating that the registered voter had cast his vote in the
precinct?
“c. How many are there where the thumb?mark
on Form 1, the voting record and Form 39 are by more than one person?
“d. Are there thumbmarks
in Form 39 which appear more than once, indicating that one person affixed his thumbmark more than once?
“e. Are there thumbmarks
appearing in more than one voting record also indicating that one person
affixed his thumbmark in two or more voting records
in Form 1?”,
and in the case of blurred thumbmarks or thumbmarks not
capable of being used as bases for identification, to examine the signatures in
CE form 1, the voting record, and CE form 39 instead. The Comelec ordered
Abrigo to submit his report thereon.
In the same resolution, the Comelec
ordered the suspension of the examination of the other chairmen of the boards
of inspectors.
On December 21, 1970,
Abrigo having submitted a partial report, the Comelec directed him to withdraw the same and submit a
complete one. Abrigo
thereafter submitted two reports dated December
28, 1970 and January 21,
1971. Subsequently, the Comelec ordered the revision of both reports for easier
understanding and the inclusion of the report of the NBI handwriting
experts. On February 9, 1971, Abrigo
submitted the revised report which introduced no changes with regard to the
findings made in the previous reports.
The revised report stated that the Fingerprint Identification
Division of the Comelec, in six teams of three
members each, examined, analyzed and made a comparison of the registered
voter’s right hand thumbmark appearing on the voter’s
registration record (front side of CE form 1) with that appearing on the voting
record (back side of CE form 1) and/or on the list of voters who voted (CE form
39), to determine whether or not the registered voter actually voted. The revised report also stated that the
examiners made no analysis in those instances wherein a person appears to have
voted as his name appears on CE form 39 but has no CE form 1, or wherein a
voter failed to place his thumbmark on CE form 39 and
on the back side of CE form 1. The
revised report showed the following results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The revised report revealed the following results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to the blurred, smudged or
faint thumbmarks, the revised report explained, the
Questioned Documents experts of the NBI detailed with the Comelec
instead made a comparison of the signatures appearing on the registration
record and voting record. The results of
the examination are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
On March 12, 1971 the Comelec issued
Resolution RR-892 wherein, among others, it (1) declared, by unanimous vote,
the returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan as
“spurious and/or manufactured;” (2) ordered, by unanimous vote, the
exclusion from the canvass for the election of delegates for Lanao del Norte the aforesaid returns; and (3) by unanimous
vote, held as unnecessary any further hearing on the petition relating to the
disputed returns from Pantao-Ragat, Matungao, Munai, Tangcal, Magsaysay, Nunungan, Kapatagan, and
Salvador, “it appearing that the results of the election would no longer
be affected by questioned returns from said municipalities after the rejection
of the returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan,”
and directed the board of canvasser to include the returns from the said
municipalities’ in the canvass.
The Comelec found that
“in the 42 precincts of Karomatan,
there were 9,419 registered voters; and that 9,557 had actually voted, or that
138 votes were in excess of the number of registered voters. Of these 9,557 who voted, only 239 had been
established to have actually voted among the registered voters in all the 42
precincts; that 6,147 of the registered voters had been voted for by substitute
voters, while an additional 673 persons who were not registered in any of the
42 precincts were able to vote without using the name of any of the registered
voters. 2,498 of those who voted could
not be determined whether they were registered voters or persons who voted in
substitution of the registered voters.”
Continuing, the Comelec
observed that
“(I)n all the 42 precincts, many of the registered voters have
been voted for by persons other than the registered voters; in several
precincts, several groups of thumbprints and signatures were made by one
person; in majority cases, none or only one each thumbprint or signature
appears to belong to a registered voter in the precinct but those identified as
registered voters who voted in the precincts were probably those who were able
to vote before the substitute voters had voted.
A very high percentage of voting could be noted in these 42 precincts,
there having been 100% voting in 10 precincts, and with more than 100% in 7
precincts where there is an excess of votes over the registered voters. There was also an excess of votes in the
whole town by 138 votes over the number of registered voters.”
Anent the testimony of the chairmen of the boards of inspectors
relating to the “free, honest, and orderly” elections in their respective
precincts and the joint affidavits of the members of the aforesaid boards
attesting to the orderliness and peacefulness of the elections in the precincts
wherein they served, the Comelec stated that the
findings of its Fingerprint Identification Division and of the NBI handwriting
experts conclusively belie the statements of the aforementioned members of the
boards of inspectors of Karomatan. Rejecting the veracity of their statements,
the Comelec opined that the members of the boards of
inspectors were
“co-conspirators or hostages of the perpetrators of a deeply
rooted practice spawned by the political caciquism of
Karomatan, unwilling to tell the truth either because
they would thereby be admitting their guilty participation or exposing
themselves and their families to reprisals.”
In rejecting the election
returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan, the Comelec stated:
“An election return is a report prepared and certified as
true and correct by the members of the board of election inspectors of the
election in their respective precincts, showing how the votes had been read,
counted and tallied by the board and the number of votes received by
candidates. But an election return
presupposes that there is a bona fide, not a sham election, conducted in the
precinct where only the registered voters had voted. But if the election is sham, how can the
board of inspectors make a report on the presumptive result of the election in
their respective precincts? How can said
returns be accorded any prima facie value?
x x x.”
“What the board of inspectors of Karomatan
should have done was to certify that there was no voting in their precinct
since the registered voters did not vote but somebody else voted in their
names. When instead of doing this they
prepared the returns and certified to a falsehood, the returns prepared by them
must be considered spurious, false or manufactured returns and in fact is no
return at all.”
As to the question of
whether or not to hold a special election in Karomatan,
two members of the Comelec voted down the calling of
such a special election and directed the completion of the canvass on the basis
of the valid returns from the rest of the precincts of Lanao
del Norte, and the proclamation, upon authority of Antonio, Jr. vs. Comelec, et al. (32 SCRA 319), of the third winning
candidate. The third Comelec
member held the view that the finding by the Comelec
that the registered voters in the 42 precincts of Karomatan
had not voted amounts to a finding of failure of election in the said 42 precincts. He opined that pursuant to section 17 (e)
of Republic Act 6132, the situation
necessarily called for the holding of a special election in Karomatan.
Thus, Usman,
on March 22, 1971, filed the present petition for review,[2]
(1) challenging t4 jurisdiction of
the Comelec in resolving the issue relating to the
genuineness and authenticity of the disputed election returns, and in inquiring into the regularity or irregularity
of the thumbmarks and signatures of the voters
who voted; (2) questioning the regularity of the proceedings adopted by the Comelec in relation to the exercise of its jurisdiction;
and (3) assailing the probative value of the findings made regarding the
signatures and thumbmarks of the voters who voted in
the 42 precincts of Karomatan. Usman prayed for
(1) the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Comelec from enforcing its resolution dated March 12, 1971
and stopping the proclamation of the winning candidates tentatively set on
March 25, 1971; (2) the setting aside of the Comelec
resolution dated March 12, 1971 and the inclusion of the results from the 42
precincts of Karomatan in the canvass of the
election returns and his proclamation as the winning candidate; and (3) in case
this Court sustains the aforesaid Comelec resolution
the calling of a special election in all the 42 precincts of Karomatan, pursuant to section 17 (e)[3]
of Republic Act 6132.
On March 23, 1971,
this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Comelec from enforcing its Resolution dated March 12, 1971 and from proceeding
with the proclamation of the winning candidate temporarily scheduled on March 25, 1971.
The Comelec
filed its answer on April 6, 1971; Quibranza his on April
13, 1971. Both the Comelec
and Quibranza vehemently refute Usman’s
claim of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Comelec
to inquire into the regularity or irregularity of the thumbmarks
and signatures of the voters who voted relative to its inquiry into the
genuineness and authenticity of the election returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan. Regarding
the regularity of the proceedings questioned by Usman,
the Comelec and Quibranza
maintain that the action filed by the former – a special civil action for
certiorari – excludes any consideration of procedural errors.
After hearing of the case
on April 21, 1971,
this Court required the parties to submit their memoranda in amplification of
their arguments. Quibranza
filed his on May 3, 1971; Usman his on May 5,
1971.
In his memorandum, Usman repeats his
arguments in support of his stand that the Comelec
lacks jurisdiction to inquire into the regularity
or irregularity of the thumbmarks and signatures of
the voters who voted and claims denial of due process, alleging that the Comelec gave him no opportunity
“to engage the
services of a handwriting expert
and a fingerprint expert to
examine the thumbmarks and signatures of the
registered voters who voted in all
the 42 precincts of Karomatan, Lanao
del Norte,”
and
that the said Comelec refused to divulge
“the qualification, competency, educational back ground and
training, if any, of all the members of the six (6) teams who allegedly
conducted the so called expert examination of thumbmarks.”
Then, this Court, in a
resolution dated May 17, 1971, set aside the Comelec
resolution of March 12, 1971 and remanded the case to the Comelec to enable it to reopen the proceedings
“for the purpose of giving petitioner Usman
a reasonable period of thirty (30) days from receipt of its order implementing
this decision, within which to summarily present whatever competent evidence he
may have, expert or otherwise, tending either to show the lack of
qualifications of the Comelec thumbprint or,
handwriting experts or to rebut their findings, on the basis of which the Comelec has ruled that the returns from the 42 precincts in
question of Karomatan, Lanao
del Norte ‘are spurious and/or manufactured returns and as such should be
excluded from the canvass for the election of delegates for the lone congressional
district of Lanao del Norte’.”
The
majority of this Court stated in the resolution that the Comelec
failed to fully recognize and respect Usman’s right
to due process when
“(a) petitioner Usman was
not allowed by the Comelec, without sufficient
reasons, to present any evidence to rebut the findings of its experts regarding
the thumbprints and signatures in the C.E. Forms 1 and their corresponding C.E.
Forms 39 submitted to them to the effect that out of the total of 9,557 votes cast in the said 42 precincts in Karomatan, only 239 had been established to have been cast
by duly registered voters, 673 had been cast by non-registered persons, 6,147
had been cast by substitute voters and 2,498 had been cast by persons whose
thumbprints and signatures are not definitely identifiable; (b) the qualifications
of almost all of sad experts were not duly disclosed, much less proven during
the hearing, thus depriving the petitioner, inspite
of his request, of the opportunity to properly scrutinize them; and (c) only
the chief of said experts, Jose M. Abrigo, who had
not personally examined and studied all the thumbprints and signatures in
question, was called to testify, albeit aided by his assistants, and his
testimony on cross-examination appears to have been unduly limited by the Comelec; not to mention the fact that the several reports
of the experts of the Comelec, and of the National
Bureau of Investigation, who, with the exception of only Eduardo V. Maniwang, were not called to testify, are not clearly
consistent with each other.”
Pursuant to the aforestated resolution,
the Comelec reopened the proceedings and set the case
for hearing on June 29, 1971.
At the resumed hearing, Usman, asked to
present his evidence, informed the Comelec of his
desire to call to the witness stand the Comelec
fingerprint examiners who personally studied the precinct books of voters and
CE forms 39 of Karomatan. So the Comelec, on
July 9, 10, 17 and 20, 1971, called the 18 fingerprint examiners to the witness
stand and Usman questioned them as to their
qualifications. Usman
also informed the Comelec of his intention to present
one fingerprint and handwriting expert after he finished with his interrogation
of all the Comelec fingerprint examiners. However, after the questioning of the Comelec fingerprint examiners, Usman
notified the Comelec that instead of presenting any
expert witness, he intended to submit affidavits of voters of Karomatan.
On July 9, 1971
Usman also petitioned the Comelec
to send a team of 21 Comelec lawyers to Karomatan to take the affidavits of the registered voters,
members of the boards of election inspectors, government officials and
employees, and religious and civic leaders of the said municipality. On July
14, 1971 Quibranza opposed the
aforementioned petition, stating that the move was “another maneuver to
prolong and delay the case.” Subsequently, on July 17, 1971, the Comelec
resolved to allow Usman to secure the affidavits
subject to the following conditions:
“A. The affidavits may be sworn to before any
Notary Public or Municipal Judge;
“B. The affidavits shall not only be sworn to by
affiants but shall also contain:
1) Three (3) facsimile signatures of the affiants;
2) Fingerprints of the two (2) hands of the affiant which must be legible,
otherwise, the affidavit shall not be considered; and
3) The affidavit shall contain the precinct number
where the affiant voted in the last election or the precinct number where the
affiant served in the last election in case of members of the Board of
Inspectors;
“C. Candidate Mastura Usman shall have until July 30, 1971 to submit to the Commission such affidavits;
and
“D. Upon the suggestion of Counsel Pedro Quadra,
the other candidates for the position of delegate in the province
of Lanao del Norte
shall be notified of the date and time of the taking of the said affidavits,
who may be present personally or thru their authorized representatives.”
On July 30, 1971,
the day set for the presentation of the affidavits, the counsel for Usman informed the Comelec that
he had not yet received the said affidavits, and asked for an extension up to August 9, 1971 to submit them. He also manifested that the extension would
be the last and that he would rest his case on the basis of the affidavits
secured on August 9, 1971.
On August 9, 1971,
the counsel for Usman again asked for a resetting of
the hearing for August 13, 1971
on the ground of non-receipt of the affidavits from Karomatan. Over the objections of the counsel for Quibranza, the Comelec reset the
hearing to August 13, 1971.
At the hearing at 10 o’clock
in the morning of August 13, 1971,
Usman’s counsel asked for a recess as he expected the
arrival of the affidavits that morning.
Thus the Comelec, to give the counsel for Usman ample time to sort out the affidavits for an orderly
presentation, re-scheduled the case for hearing the following Monday, August 16, 1971.
Came Monday morning and the counsel for Usman
failed to appear. Instead, he sent his
secretary to deliver the affidavits, together with a motion for postponement
and a petition asking for more time within which to gather additional
affidavits. Usman’s
counsel, in asking for postponement, alleged as cause his appearance before the
Criminal Circuit Court in Baguio City in connection
with the hearing of the criminal case against Vincent Crisologo. The Comelec, before
acting on the motion for postponement, called the secretary to the witness
stand to find out the reason for the non-appearance of Usman’s
counsel despite the fact that the Comelec had reset
the case to August 16, 1971
with the counsel’s prior knowledge and for his convenience. The Comelec found
out that Usman’s counsel gave his secretary
instructions to bring the affidavits to the Comelec
only the preceding night and that two other lawyers, belonging to the said
counsel’s law office, were also handling the Crisologo
case in Baguio City.
So the Comelec denied the motion for
postponement.
Anent the affidavits, the counsel for Quibranza
objected to their admission in evidence on the ground of non-compliance with
the conditions laid down by the Comelec. The Comelec sustained
the objection of Quibranza’s counsel and denied the
admission of the affidavits.
Nonetheless, the Comelec ordered the inclusion
of the affidavits as part of the records of the case. Quibranza’s counsel
not having any rebuttal evidence to present, the Comelec
considered the case submitted for resolution.
The Comelec, in its resolution of August 21, 1971, found no basis to
reconsider its findings based on the reports of the fingerprint and
handwriting experts, and resolved to confirm its previous ruling declaring the
returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan as
“spurious and manufactured” returns and ordering their exclusion from
the canvass. On the question of whether
or not to call a special election, the Comelec
chairman maintained his original view relating to the completion of the canvass
on the basis of the valid returns from the rest of the precincts of the lone
district of Lanao del Norte and the proclamation of
the third winning candidate on the basis of the said canvass. The other member maintained his original view
on the need of holding a special election in the 42 precincts of Karomatan. And
because of the retirement of the third commissioner, the Comelec
found itself in a deadlock on the issue of whether to call a special election in
Karomatan or to proclaim the third winning candidate
on the basis of the canvass of all the valid returns from the remaining precincts
of Lanao del Norte.
Upon the voluminous record of the case at bar,[4]
the mass of accumulated facts graphically narrated by the parties, and the
various arguments advanced, the issue tendered for resolution, as we see it,
relates fundamentally to the authority of the Comelec
to declare the election returns from the 42 precincts of Karomatan
as “spurious and/or manufactured” and to exclude them from the
canvass.
Usman’s main argument hinges entirely
on what he views as the well-circumscribed jurisdiction of the Comelec in pre-proclamation controversies. He argues that the Comelec,
in such proceedings – summary in nature and character – has jurisdiction only
to determine questions relating to the qualification of the members of the
board of canvassers, the completeness or incompleteness of a canvass, and the
integrity and authenticity of election returns.
The Comelec, in its inquiry, Usman states, should concern itself only with the integrity
and authenticity of the election returns, and not their veracity – that is,
whether the said returns are genuine, whether they are forged and spurious,
whether they were signed by the proper officers, and whether they were signed
under duress and/or intimidation by the election inspectors. The Comelec should
decide the question of the integrity and authenticity of the election returns
solely on the basis of the face of the said returns since it has no legal
authority to receive evidence aliunde in that
regard.
Usman further alleges that the
questions of the validity of the ballots cast in support of the election
returns and the regularity of the voting, have no relevance whatsoever to the
integrity and authenticity of the election returns. The power to reject and set aside the said
election returns on the ground of the invalidity of the ballots cast in support
thereof pertains solely to the Constitutional Convention.
Therefore, Usman points out, the Comelec has
no authority at all to receive evidence aliunde
to determine the regularity or irregularity of the voting in the 42 precincts
of Karomatan or to ascertain the genuineness or
falsity of the thumbmarks and signatures of the
registered voters who voted, for the purpose of deciding the question of the
integrity and authenticity of the election returns. Usman attributes
the Comelec’s lack of jurisdiction to two factors –
the first, the summary nature and character of a pre-proclamation controversy
which requires the termination of the proceedings with the least possible
delay; the second, the limited composition and restricted organization of the Comelec which render it incapable of exercising the
authority questioned.
Quibranza, for his part, argues that
the Comelec has authority to admit evidence aliunde in a controversy arising in the course of
canvass proceedings. True, he states,
regarding election returns objected to on the ground of defects patent on the
face of the said returns – like tampered returns or returns with erasures and
alterations – the Comelec has no jurisdiction to go
beyond the face of the election returns.
Nevertheless, regarding election returns objected to on some grounds not
discernible from the face of the said returns – like coerced, gunpoint,
spurious or manufactured returns – the Comelec has
authority to admit evidence aliunde to rebut
the value of the returns as prima facie evidence of the count of
votes in the precincts involved.
Similarly, Quibranza asserts, the Comelec has jurisdiction to receive evidence aliunde that would show that “registered voters
did not in fact vote, but that other persons voted for them.” In such an
event where a great majority of substitutes voted in lieu of those duly
registered as voters, the election returns drawn up on the basis of the votes
cast by the substitute voters should be considered as spurious returns and
should consequently not be accorded prima facie value. Certainly, there could be no genuine and
regular returns certifying to the results of an election that did not, in law,
take place.
Quibranza finally avers that the Comelec acted within its authority when it ordered – for
the purpose of determining whether or not validly registered voters actually
voted in the precincts in dispute – the examination and analysis of the
standard thumbmarks and signatures appearing on the
voters’ registration records and their comparison with those found on the
voting records and/or list of voters who voted.
In doing so, he adds, the Comelec concerned
itself only with the conduct of the elections in Karomatan
in consonance with its constitutional duty to enforce and administer “all
laws relative to the conduct of elections” and to insure “free,
orderly, and honest elections.”
Indeed, the case at bar directly confronts this Court with a
problem fraught, not with fancied serious effects, but with possible
far-reaching consequences attendant to the flood of pre-proclamation
controversies that could be brought before the Comelec. Mindful of the vital role of the Comelec of insuring free, orderly and honest elections
pursuant to the mandates of the Constitution and the Election Code, on the one
hand, and of the diverse – and oftentimes, novel – anomalous devices and
schemes aimed at subverting the popular will ingeniously conceived and practised by unscrupulous politicians and their followers,
on the Other hand, we approach and view the problem with utmost concern and
circumspection.
The broad power of the Comelec,
conferred upon it by the Constitution, to enforce and administer “all laws
relative to the conduct of elections” and to decide all administrative
questions affecting elections “for the purpose of insuring free, orderly
and honest elections,” has been the key in the resolution of many
pre-proclamation controversies involving the integrity and authenticity of
election returns. Invoking the aforestated power of the Comelec,
we justified the action and upheld the authority of the Comelec
to order the exclusion of “obviously manufactured” returns,[5]
or tampered returns,[6]
or returns prepared under threats and coercion or under circumstances affecting
the returns’ integrity and authenticity,[7]
emphasizing the duty of the Comelec to see to the use
and inclusion in the canvass of only genuine and regular election returns for
determining the true result of the elections.
Several circumstances, defying exact description and dependent
mainly on the factual milieu of the particular controversy, have the effect of
destroying the integrity and authenticity of disputed election returns and of
avoiding their prima facie value and character. If satisfactorily proven, although in a
summary proceeding, such circumstances as alleged by the affected or interested
parties, stamp the election returns with the indelible mark of falsity and
irregularity, and, consequently, of unreliability, and justify their exclusion
from the canvass.
Remarkably, Quibranza, in the petitions
he filed (together with Abalos, Bosico,
Buendia, Legaspi and Pacasum) with the Comelec,
alleged that no actual voting took place in the precincts in question. Determined to pursue its quest for the truth,
the Comelec summoned the 42 chairmen of the boards of
inspectors of Karomatan to testify in Manila. And because only a number of the chairmen
arrived to give their versions of what supposedly happened in their respective
precincts, the Comelec deemed it proper to resort to
the more convincing mode of discovery.
It thus ordered the production in Manila
of the precinct books of voters and CE forms 39 of Karomatan. Then it directed the chief of its Fingerprint
Identification Division to conduct examination, comparison and analysis of the
fingerprints appearing on the voters’ registration records and on the voting
records and/or lists of voters who voted.
With regard to those voters with blurred, smudged or faint fingerprints,
the Comelec referred their records to the Questioned
Documents experts of the NBI for examination and analysis of their signatures.
In the performance of its duty to guard against the use and
inclusion of returns prepared under circumstances showing their falsity in the
canvass of election results, the Comelec should not
be hampered in the choice of effective means and methods to fully ascertain the
genuineness and regularity of disputed election returns. To establish the indubitable existence of any
of such circumstances – necessarily not evident from an examination of the
election returns themselves – demands recourse to proof independent of the
election returns or to evidence aliunde.
At this juncture, we find it necessary to mention that the
results of the examination and analysis of the voters’ fingerprints and
signatures indicating that many of the registered voters have been voted for by
persons not even registered in the 42 precincts of Karomatan,
constituted not the sole factor which prompted the Comelec
to declare the 42 election returns as “spurious and/ or
manufactured.” A totality
of circumstances – not merely of persuasive but of compelling character – led
the Comelec to consider and conclude that the
aforesaid election returns are “spurious and/or manufactured” and
therefore unworthy of inclusion in the canvass of the election results. The Comelec heavily
relied on the following noteworthy circumstances:
1. The very high percentage
of voting in the 42 precincts of Karomatan – with
100% voting in 10 precincts, and with more than 100% voting in 7 precincts
where the number of votes exceeded the number of registered voters – in the
whole town of Karomatan, there appeared an excess of
138 votes over the number of registered voters;
2. The day before the
elections, the members of the boards of inspectors of Karomatan
were summoned to the office of the mayor where they were “asked” to
“cooperate” by making some candidates win in their respective
precincts;
3. The members of the boards
of inspectors of Karomatan, either out of fear due to
terrorism or in connivance with those responsible for the election anomalies,
allowed voting by persons other than those registered as voters in their
respective precincts;
4. The other
irregularities – among them, multiple
registration, blurred fingerprints making identification impossible, and ID
pictures attached to CE forms 1 showing the registered voters as minors – appearing
in the precinct books of voters of Karomatan making
possible the perpetration of the election anomalies; and
5. The notorious election
record of Karomatan in previous elections since 1953
indicating a phenomenal increase in the voting population.[8]
The record shows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We fully agree with the Comelec that
the totality of all the foregoing circumstances, taken together with the
findings of the Fingerprint Identification Division of the Comelec
and of the Questioned Documents experts of the NBI, more than suffices to
completely overcome the prima facie value of the 42 election
returns from Karomatan, strongly belying their
integrity and authenticity.[9]
These circumstances definitely point, not merely to a few isolated instances
of irregularities affecting the integrity and authenticity of the election
returns, but to an organized, well-directed large-scale operation to make a
mockery of the elections in Karomatan. We find and so hold that the election returns
from the 42 precincts in question were prepared under circumstances
conclusively showing that they are false, and are so devoid of value as to be
completely unworthy of inclusion in the canvass. We have no alternative but to affirm the Comelec’s finding that they are spurious and manufactured.
The only question that remains relates to Usman’s
plea for the holding of a special election in Karomatan. With section 17 (e) of Republic Act 6132 in
mind, Usman considers it mandatory on the part of the
Comelec to call for a special election in the
precincts concerned if it found that
“no voting has been held or that voting has been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting in any precinct or
precincts because of force majeure,
violence or terrorism, and the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect
the results of the election.”
Quibranza counters that the aforestated provision of law leaves to the discretion of
the Comelec the calling of a special election. In addition, he submits that the said
provision finds no application in the case at bar because of the
non-fulfillment of one of the conditions laid down by section 17 (e), which
condition is that the “votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the
results of the election.” Usman, according to Quibranza, adduced no evidence whatsoever to show that the
“votes not cast” in Karomatan would alter
the results of the election.
In resolving this question, as previously stated, the Comelec commissioners, per the resolution dated August 21, 1971, failed to reach a
consensus. One commissioner believed
that the canvass should be completed on the basis of the valid returns from,
the other precincts of Lanao del Norte and that the
proclamation of the third winning candidate on the basis of the said canvass
should logically follow; the other commissioner maintained his original view
that there is need of a special election in Karomatan.
A reading of
section 17 (e) of Republic Act 6132 makes it apparent that Congress has
delegated to the Comelec the power to call for a
special election – a power essentially legislative in nature, being merely an
incident to or an extension or modality of the power to fix the date of the
elections.[10]
However, in the proper exercise of the delegated power, Congress saw fit to
require the Comelec to ascertain that (1) no voting
has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force majeure, violence or
terrorism, and (2) that the votes not cast therein suffice, to affect
the results of the elections. The
language of the provision clearly requires the concurrence of the two
circumstances to justify the calling of a special election.
The Comelec concedes that what
transpired in Karomatan constitutes “not merely
a simple case of irregularity in the voting but a case of no voting or no
election at all.” However, the Comelec
attributes this to “massive fraud” rather than to force majeure, violence or terrorism
– the three causes explicitly enumerated by section 17 (e). Unlike section 17 (d) which empowers the Comelec to postpone the election in any political division
or subdivision whenever it finds that the holding of a free, orderly and honest
election therein is rendered impossible by reason of fraud, violence, coercion,
terrorism, or any other serious cause or causes, section 17 (e) excludes the
situation where no voting has been held because of fraud. Furthermore, doubt exists whether or not the
irregularities committed in Karomatan properly
partake of violence or terrorism. This being the case, we find that the first
circumstance is not attendant.
As to the second circumstance, therefore, we find it unnecessary
to indulge in surmises.[11]
ACCORDINGLY, (1) the petition is dismissed; (2) the
resolution of the Commission on Elections dated August 21, 1971 is affirmed; and (3) the restraining order
dated March 23, 1971 issued
by this Court is lifted. The Commission
on Elections is directed to order the board of canvassers to convene without
delay and forthwith proceed with and complete the canvass of the election
returns from all the precincts of Lanao del Norte,
excluding therefrom all the election returns from the
42 precincts of Karomatan, and thereafter proclaim
accordingly the winning candidate for the third Constitutional Convention seat
allotted to the said province. This
judgment is hereby declared immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., did not take part.
[1]
AN ACT IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES NUMBERED TWO AS AMENDED BY
RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES NUMBERED FOUR OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES CALLING
FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PROVIDING FOR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
THEREIN AND OTHER DETAILS RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF DELEGATES TO AND THE
HOLDING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC
ACT FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FOURTEEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (otherwise
known as the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act).
[2]
Considered by this Court as a special civil
action per Resolution dated March 23, 1971.
[3]
Section 17 (e) states:
“(e) Whenever the Commission determines, after
notice and hearing, that no voting has been held or that voting has been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting in any precinct or
precincts because of force majeure,
violence or terrorism, and the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect
the results of the election, the Commission may call for the holding or
continuation of the election in the precinct or precincts concerned. Pending such call, no candidate whose election
may be affected by the holding or continuation of the election, shall be
proclaimed elected.”
[4]
A consolidation of G. R. Nos. L-33325 and L-34043.
[5]
Lagumbay vs. Climaco
and Comelec, 16 SCRA 175.
[6]
Cauton vs. Comelec
and Sanidad, 19 SCRA 911.
[7]
Pacis vs. Comelec,
25 SCRA 391; Antonio, Jr. vs. Comelec, et
al., 32 SCRA 319.
[8]
Parenthetically, the Comelec, considering
circumstances 3 and 4, motu proprio initiated proceedings for the
annulment of the precinct books of voters of Karomatan
pursuant to its authority to annul precinct books of voters not prepared in
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 3588, as amended, or prepared
with attendant serious irregularities.
[9]
A phase of the controversy at bar, although not constituting a determinant
factor, deserves passing mention. The
intervening period of about seven months from November 10, 1970 (the day of the election of delegates
to the Constitutional Convention) to June
1, 1971 (the day of the inaugural opening of the Convention itself)
provided the Comelec with sufficient time to fully
inquire into the irregularities committed with connection with the conduct of
the said elections. This available time,
in addition to the Comelec’s “fact-finding
facilities, its contact with political strategists, and its knowledge derived
from actual experience in dealing with political controversies” (Sumulong vs. Comelec, 73
Phil. 288), enabled it to make a meticulous and extensive study of the
existence, nature and causes of the irregularities which attended the
elections.
[10]
Ututalum vs. Comelec
and Anni, 15 SCRA 465.
[11]
Prescinding from the matter of the exclusion from the
canvass of all the 42 election returns from Karomatan,
resulting in the non-inclusion of the 239 votes found by the Comelec to have been actually cast by registered voters in
their respective precincts, it is to be observed that crediting all the 239
votes in favor of Usman would not suffice to alter
the results. Usman
would have a resulting total of only 14,450 votes against Quibranza’s
17, 739.