G.R. Nos. L-28590 and L-28598. March 12, 1968
NAGA TAGORANAO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MARANTAO, LANAO DEL SUR AND MANGATA MANGONDATO, RESPONDENTS. COTA CORNELL, PETITI…
CASTRO, J.:
Cota Cornell, Naga Tagoranao and Hadji Mangata Mangondato were three of the four mayoralty candidates in the general elections held on November 14, 1967 in the municipality of Marantao, Lanao del Sur.
The day after the elections, Cornell, the Liberal Party candidate, asked the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) to annul the elections in precincts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, and 15 on the ground of fraud and
terrorism. He charged that followers of Tagoranao, a Nacionalista Party candidate, fired their guns and, in the ensuing confusion, seized the ballots,
filled them up for Tagoranao, and dropped them in the ballot box. Acting on this petition, the Comelec ordered the board of canvassers of Marantao to suspend the canvass and proclamation of the
winning candidates until the matter could be investigated. At the same
time it wired the municipal
treasurer to report compliance with this order.
Both telegrams were sent
on November 22, but the board of canvassers just the same met on that day in Camp Keithley in Marawi City and proclaimed Tagoranao
mayor-elect of Marantao. When apprised, therefore of this action of
the board, the Comelec, on December
2, 1967, annulled
the proclamation of Tagoranao.
On December 12, Mangondato, another
candidate of the Nacionalista Party, asked the Comelec (1) to annul permanently Tagoranao’s
proclamation on the ground that it was made in violation of the Comelec’s restraining order, (2) to order the rejection of
the returns from precincts 1, 2,13, and 14 as “obviously
manufactured,” and (3) to declare him elected mayor of Marantao,
Tagoranao entered his appearance and asked the Comelec to throw out Mangondato’s
petition. He contended that Mangondato had earlier filed in the Court of First Instance
of Lanao del Sur an action
for the annulment of the returns in question and that to permit him to maintain
his action would actually be to allow him to split a single cause of
action. He also argued that the frauds
and terrorism which Mangondato had denounced as
having attended the election in the precincts in question could be the subject
only of an election protest.
On December 20 Cornell in turn filed a petition with the Comelec in which he asked that the board of canvassers be
ordered to reject the returns from precinctss 1 and
13. Accordingly to him the returns were
not signed by LP inspectors, and the counting of votes was made by the board of
inspectors at Camp Keithley on November 20,
instead of in the polling place on the day of the election (November 14, 1967)
as provided in the Revised Election Code.
In passing, it may be stated here that while denominated
“supplemental,” the petition was actually an amendment of Cornell’s
original petition filed on November 14, for now he limited his prayer for
exclusion to the returns from precincts 1 and 13 (he originally asked for the exclusion of the returns from 4 other
precincts), and changed the basis of his action from fraud and terrorism to the
fact that the counting of votes was held at a place and on a day other than
those specified by law. In his answer, Tagoranao denied that the signatures of the LP inspectors
were forged and claimed that counting of votes was made in Camp
Keithley,
after the elections, in line with a practice adopted since 1951 to prevent a repetition of the infamous 1949 elections
in Lanao.
On January 3, 1968 the Comelec rendered
a decision, affirming its original order of December 2, 1967 voiding Tagoranao’s proclamation, and denying Cornell’s petition
for the rejection of the returns from precincts 1 and 13, even as it granted Mangondato’s petition by
ordering the canvassing board to exclude the return from precinct 2 as
“obviously manufactured.”
The result was virtually
to signal the proclamation of hangondato, as the
rejection of the return from precinct would mean a loss of 366 votes for Tagoranao. Thus what began as an effort to turn the
tide, as it were, in favor of Cote Cornell ended in the virtual proclamation of
another candidate, Hadji Mangata
Mangondato.
The observation[1] has once been made that any enemy of
the common enemy is, if not necessarily a friend, at least a potential ally. This is so only to the extent that the
parties remain in status quo. For as
this case amply demonstrates, upon the fall of the erstwhile common enemy, his
position is taken over by the once potential ally.
Accordingly, Tagoranao moved for a reconsideration. On January 8,
in a move obviously intended to block Mangondato’s
proclamation, Cornell for his part asked for the suspension of the proceedings,
claiming that he had filed on October 31, 1967 with the Comelec a
petition for the annulment of the registry list of voters, and that the issue
posed by his petition was a prejudicial question. Curiously enough, he moved, the following day, for the reconsideration of the Comelec decision insofar as it refused to order the
rejection of the returns from precincts 1 and 13 and ordered the exclusion of the return from precinct 2. On
January 23, the Comelec denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Tagoranao
and Cornell, and on January 29 it declared that the motion to hold action in abeyance must be deemed to have likewise been denied.
Both Cornell and Tagoranao have come to this
Court on petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
In L-28598, Cornell
charges the Comelec with neglect of duty in not ordering the rejection of the returns from precincts 1, 2, 5, 13,
14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20.
According to him the votes cast in those precincts were
based on the registry list whose nullification he had sought even before the election. While conceding that the Comelec
has no power to decide questions
involving the right to vote, Cornell nevertheless
argues that without valid
registration the votes cast are “void ab initio” so that “in legal contemplation, there are no votes cast, hence, the COMELEC will not be annulling a vote for none has
been cast.”
This is nothing but sophistry, to dispose of which it should be sufficient to quote what
this Court said in Nacionalista Party v.
Commission on Elections:[2] “The power to decide election contests Lwhich
is vested exclusively in the courts
and in the electoral tribunals
of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives” necessarily includes the power to determine the validity
or nullity of the votes questioned by either of the
contestants.” If that power is vested in the courts and in the electoral
tribunals alone, as in fact it is, then the incidental power to determine the
validity or nullity of the votes must perforce be deemed impliedly withheld
from any other body or tribunal such as the Comelec.
Still
it is claimed that the Comelec should have ordered the returns from
precincts 1 and 13 excluded from
canvass, first, because the signatures of the LP inspectors were forged and, second, because the counting of
votes by the board of inspectors was held at Camp Keithley
in Marawi City (some 9 kilometers from the polling
places) and on a day (November 20) after the election, contrary to the
provisions of the Election Code.
Whether
the returns in question are spurious is a question that should have been laid
before the board of canvassers, not before the Comelec.[3]
With
respect to the second point raised, this Court has recently held
in Alonto v. Commission on Elections,[4] which involves the elections held on November
14, 1967 in 27 other municipalities of Lanao
del Sur:
“It requires no great effort to
understand that external circumstances may occasionally compel the transfer of
the ballot boxes and inspectors to places of safety in order to avoid
frustration of the popular will. Where
political passions run rife, and armed persons are running loose, adequate
protection can not be afforded to the election officers in each and every
precinct, because law officers would be spread
out thin and their effectiveness nullified. It would be unrealistic to deny the Comelec the authority to provide adequate safeguards to
permit the results of the voting to be properly ascertained, free from threats and pressure, if not
actual bloodshed. To require election officials to disregard their own safety, risk
their lives and stick to their posts
in the face of imminent violence would
be not only extreme idolatry of the
letter of the law, but would tend to frustrate its primary and of
ascertaining the true will of the people.”
It
is finally contended that the Camelec gravely abused its
discretion in rejecting the return from
precinct 2 as “obviously manufactured.” A similar claim is made by Nap Tagoranao in his petition in G.R. No. L-28590. We shall take up both arguments jointly since they raise the same issue, but before we
do so, we
shall dispose of the other point raised in Tagoranao’s petition, namely, that the filing of Mangondato’s election protest in the Court of First Instance divested the Comelec
of its jurisdiction over this case.
The election case, however, has since been dismissed by the lower court
upon motion of Mangondato, not to mention the fact that Mangondato’s petition before the
Co melee was filed earlier on December 12
than his protest in the lower court which was filed only two days after, on December
14. What is more, as this Court recently held,
where the proclamation itself is illegal the Comelec
may still assume jurisdiction notwithstanding the filing of an election protest.[5]
And now to the common
issue raised by Cornell and Tagoranao, namely, that the return from precinct 2
cannot be stigmatized as “obviously manufactured” within the
intendment of Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections.[6]
In its January
3, 1968 decision rejecting
the return in question, the Comelec said:
“/I/t
has been established thru the investigation of Commission attorneys sent to Lanao del Sur that there
were frauds and terrorism, shooting and explosion of dynamite in the area
where this polling place is located. The official
ballots intended to be used in said precinct
were snatched and taken away by the followers of mayoralty candidate Naga Tagoranao, were accomplished
outside of the polling places by these men (Annex ‘A-E, petition of Mangondato),
and were later on stuffed and placed inside a kerosene can which was used as a ballot box in lieu of the
ballot box supplied by the Commission.
There is no evidence to show that the use of the kerosene can was with prior approval of the Commission or any of its authorized
representatives nor was it later confirmed by the Commission.
“In Precinct 2 there are 259 registered voters (see certified
list of names, Annexes ‘1’ ‘1-1,1 ‘1-2’, petition of Mangondato). The records of the Commission show that 4 pads or a total of 450 ballots were issued to Precinct 2. It appears, however, that 570 official
ballots were actually found inside the kerosene can, thus, even if all the 450
ballots in Precinct 2 were used there would still be an excess of 120 ballots
inside the kerosene can. The returns itself show that mayoralty
candidates Cota Cornell obtained 11 votes; Palao Mama – 10 votes; Mangata Mangondato – 2 votes; and Naga Tagoranao – 366 votes, or a total 389 valid ballots cast for the office of the
Mayor alone. Again, even if all the 259 registered voters of
Precinct 2 voted, there would still be 130 more votes cast and counted in Precinct
2. And furthermore, even if all the 259
registered voters of Precinct 2 voted for Naga Tagoranao only, still the 366 votes received by Naga Tagoranao is 107 more votes
than the total number of registered voters for Precinct 2. This is not only
statistically improbable, this is impossible.
One look at the election returns for Precinct 2 and the falsity of the
same will stare at you in the face. There
is even no need, in this case, to go behind the returnsto prove its falsity. Everything considered – the incidents before,
during and after the voting in Precinct 2, the face of the returns itself, the
only justifiable conclusion would be that the returns corresponding to this
precinct is an obviously manufactured return.”
In its resolution dated January 23 1968, denying Cornell and Tagoranao’s
motion for reconsideration, the Comelec said:
“The election return of Precinct 2 is blank with respect to
the data on the number of voters who registered and number of voters who actually
voted, as well as on the data on the
number of ballots received by the Board of Inspectors and the number of ballots
used in the voting, although, the plebiscite return of Precinct 2 prepared by
the same Board of Inspectors states that the number of voters who registered is
375 and the same number of
voters voted. On the basis of 375
as the number of voters registered in
the precinct, there are still more votes credited to candidates for mayor, because,
as stated in the decision of the Commission on January 3, 1968 a total of 389
votes were credited for all the candidates for mayor or an excess of 14 votes
over the number of voters registered, assuming
that all said voters voted.
“There
is one more patent fact appearing on the face of said election return of
Precinct 2 which shows that this
election return is obviously manufactured, namely,
the votes for senators as they are hereunder reproduce.
|
|
As
shown above, five senatorial candidates received
exactly the same votes of 375 each.
What is more, three of these candidates, namely – Benitez, Espinosa
and Peres are Nacionalistas and two, namely – Katigbak and Rodrigo are Liberals. No more
convincing proof than this could
be produced to prove that this election return is manufactured. For it is indeed statistically improbable
that the alleged 375 registered voters, claimed to have all voted, should one and all equally and in the same manner vote for three Nacionalista
candidates and two Liberal candidates for senator. This is contrary to all records and experience in elections. And then, there are nine candidates, including Asaas Usman, who received votes ranging from 300 to 375, or a tots number of votes credited for these nine candidates of 3,265. But the maximum total number of votes that
could be cast by the 375 voters, assuming
that all
of them voted and that each
of them cast his vote for eight candidates for senators, will be only 3,000 votes. But here, the total
number of votes credited for the aforesaid nine candidates for senator is
3,265, thereby producing an excess of 265 votes credited for senator. The foregoing facts appearing on the face of
said election return itself show that the election return is obviously
manufactured.”
What we said in Demafiles v.
Commission on Elections[7] is here applicable with equal propriety and
vigor. The return in this case shows nothing on its face from which the canvassers might
conclude that it does not speak the truth.
It is only when it is compared with the certification of the election register, or with the Comelec
record of the number of ballots issued to precinct 2, or with the plebiscite
return that a discrepancy appears. In
other words, the defect is not apparent and therefore the return is by no means “obviously manufactured” —
if “manufactured” it is — so as to justify its exclusion. This is not to belittle the claim that more
votes were cast than there were voters.
Perhaps that is true. The point simply is that this question should be
threshed out in an election protest.
This Court has heretofore held that a canvassing board may apply
to the Comelec for authority to use another copy of an election return where the
one before it is falsified[8]
or where it is so incomplete that the number of votes cast for each candidate
cannot be determined.[9]
But here the problem is not that
posed by a return that does not speak the truth but, possibly, if we are to
believe Mangondato, that presented by ballots which
have been fraudulently dropped in the ballot box and there commingled with the
genuine ones. For all that we know a
count of the ballots will confirm the statement in the return that 366 votes were actually cast for Tagoranao
in precinct 2, in which event the integrity of the return will have been
established. Whether the 366 votes were
cast through fraud and other irregularities, as both Mangondato and Cornell claim and as
the Comelec found, is altogether a different matter. That question would require proof and,
necessarily, time, which the need for the prompt proclamation of elected officials
would not permit.
On the other hand, to reject the return, as Mangondato
urges, would be to disfranchise voters.
It bears strong emphasis to state here that canvassing boards must
exercise “extreme caution” in rejecting returns and the may do so
only when the returns are palpably irregular.[10]
ACCORDINGLY, the decision dated January 3, 1968 and the
resolution dated January 23, 1968 of the Commission on Elections are set aside only in so far as they direct the exclusion from the canvass of
the return from precinct 2. The Commission
is hereby directed to order the municipal board of canvassers of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, (1) to
convene without delay for the purpose of canvassing all the votes cast in that
municipality including those cast in precinct 2 as reflected in the return therefrom, and (2) to proclaim the winning candidates in
accordance with the results of such canvass.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., on leave.
[1]
S. P. Lopez, The Split of the Communist Camp – Its Meaning to Us, The Manila
Times, April 29, 1964, at 18, col. 4.
[2]
85 Phil. 149, 155-56 (1949) (emphasis added).
[3]
See Id.
[4]
G.R. No. L-28490,
Feb. 28, 1968.
[5]
Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28517, Feb. 21,1968.
[6]
G.R. No. L-25444, Jan. 31,
1966, 16 S.Ct. Ann. 175.
[7]
G.R. No. L-28396,
Dec. 29, 1967, 1967D PHILD 937.
[8]
Ong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28415,
Jan. 28, 1968;
Espino v. Zaldivar, G.R.
No. L-22325, Dec. 11, 1967, 1967D
PHILD 670.
[9]
Mutuc v. Commission on
Elections, supra, note 5.
[10]
Estrada v. Navarro, G.R. Nos. L-28340
& L-28374, Dec 29, 1967, 1967D
PHILD 929.