JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO AND MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SAN JUAN, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

Estrada versus Navarro

The Case

This is the case of Estrada versus Navarro, decided in December 1967. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, a candidate for Municipal Mayor of San Juan, Rizal, brought two separate petitions against Judge Pedro C. Navarro, against his rival candidate Braulio Sto. Domingo, and against the Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Juan, Rizal. The first is an original petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction, directed against an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal refusing to correct an election return. The second is a petition for review of an order of the Commission on Elections refusing to disregard another election return as manufactured. The case matters because it fixes the strict, summary character of the remedy for correcting an election return, and because it tempers the doctrine on obviously manufactured returns with a requirement of extreme caution and convincing proof.

Procedural History

In the first matter, two members of the board of election inspectors of precinct 93 filed with the court of Judge Pedro C. Navarro a petition for correction or amendment of the election return. Estrada and Sto. Domingo were allowed to intervene. On Sto. Domingo's motion to dismiss, the court dismissed the petition, and it denied Estrada's motion for reconsideration. Estrada then came to the Supreme Court on an original petition for certiorari, and the Court gave due course and issued a temporary restraining order against any proclamation.

In the second matter, Estrada applied to the Commission on Elections for an order directing the municipal board of canvassers to reject or disregard the return of precinct 94 as clearly manufactured. The Commission denied him, and he brought a petition for review to the Supreme Court. The two cases were argued and submitted jointly.

Facts

Estrada and Sto. Domingo were contending candidates for Municipal Mayor of San Juan, Rizal, in the election of November 14, 1967. Estrada's real name is Joseph Ejercito, but a court order of September 15, 1967 had authorized him to use his screen name, Joseph Estrada. His certificate of candidacy carried the name Joseph Ejercito Estrada.

In precinct 93, the board of election inspectors, by a vote of two to one, resolved not to count in his favor ballots on which he was voted for as Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Joseph, J. Estrada, or Estrada, on the ground that none of these is his real name. At least 36 votes for him were therefore not counted. Two inspectors then sought correction of the return to add those votes, but the third inspector and the poll clerk executed an affidavit that they were not aware of any error and did not consent to the correction.

In precinct 94, the return showed 409 registered voters, 229 who actually voted, and 300 ballots in the compartment for valid ballots, with 298 votes in the aggregate credited to the four candidates for mayor. On its face this seemed mathematically impossible. But the minutes of voting, an official document, showed 299 persons actually voted, and that one of the 300 ballots was marked and placed in the envelope for marked ballots.

Issues

• Whether or not the correction of the election return in precinct 93 may be judicially ordered under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code.
• Whether or not the election return in precinct 94 may be annulled or disregarded in the canvass as obviously manufactured.

Applicable Provisions

Section 154 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Section 154. Alterations in the statement. After the announcement of the result of the election in the polling place, the board of inspectors shall not make any alteration or amendment in any of its statements, unless it be so ordered by a competent court.

This is the provision under which the correction of the return in precinct 93 was sought, and it confines alteration to a summary judicial order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that two requisites must concur for correction of an election return: there must be an error in the return itself, and the members of the board of election inspectors must be unanimous that the error exists and be willing to rectify it. Neither requisite is present. The return accurately reflects the tally as read and counted; the error lies in the appreciation of the ballots, not in the return. And there is no unanimity, for the third inspector and the poll clerk refused their consent. The Court added that the claim of at least 36 uncounted votes is too tenuous and speculative, since verifying it would require examining the ballots themselves, their legibility and placement. The Court acknowledged the apparent injustice, but held that the timely remedy was with the Commission on Elections, not correction of the return.

On the second issue, the Court held that a conclusion that a return is obviously manufactured must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof. Any plausible explanation acceptable to a reasonable man suffices to avoid nullification and the resulting disfranchisement of voters. Here the minutes of voting showed 299 voters, so the entry of 229 was a mere clerical error, and the sum of 298 votes for four candidates, with one ballot marked, supported that figure. The return could not be annulled.

Doctrine

Correction of an election return under Section 154 is a summary remedy that requires two concurring requisites: an error in the return itself, and unanimity of all the members of the board of election inspectors that the error exists and willingness to rectify it. A mistake in the appreciation of ballots is not an error in the return, and it calls for a recount or revision, not summary correction. A return may be disregarded as obviously manufactured only upon the most convincing proof, and any plausible explanation acceptable to a reasonable man defeats outright nullification.

Disposition

Both petitions were dismissed and the restraining orders lifted, so Sto. Domingo and the board of canvassers prevailed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the twin requisites for correcting a return: an error in the return itself, and unanimity of the inspectors. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between correction of a return and a recount, and the cautious standard for annulling a return as manufactured.