EDGAR U. ILARDE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MAMINTAL TAMANO AND RAFAEL PALMARES, RESPONDENTS.

The Commission on lections (COMELEC) in its certification of canvass
of December 27, 1969 of the votes cast for the office of senator in the regular
elections held on November 11, 1969, certified that the following candi­dates
received the highest number of votes cast therein in the order named: Arturo M.
Tolentino, Gil J. Puyat,
Jose W. Diokno, Lorenzo Sumulong,
Ambrosio Padilla, Gerardo M. Roxas
and Rene Espina, with votes ranging from 4,826,809
votes for Senator Tolentino as first placer to
3,668,334 for Senator Espina as 7th placer, and
accordingly proclaimed them as the first seven duly elected senators in the
said elections.

The COMELEC also certified that respondent Mamintal
A. Tamano was the eighth winning
candidate for senator with 3,458,193 votes, followed by his co-respondent
Rafael Palmares in ninth place with 3,393,677 votes,
and by petitioner Edgar U. Ilarde in tenth place with
3,154,908 votes.

The COMELEC, however, did not proclaim respondent Tamano pending finality of its unanimous resolution dated
December 26, 1969, denying the petition filed with it by petitioner Ilarde to exclude from the canvass the returns from 3,572
precincts from various municipalities all over the Philippines involving
487,323 votes, and likewise denying the petition filed with it by respondent Palmares for the exclusion of the returns from 852
precincts from four provinces in Mindanao involving a difference of 85,138
votes in favor of respondent Tamano, and thereby
resulting in Tamano maintaining his eighth position
among the winners in the senatorial canvass.

The COMELEC in its resolution dated January 3, 1970 denied petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration but granted petitioner’s request for a five-day extension to
file a petition with the Court and secure a restraining order against the
proclamation of respondent Tamano as the eighth
senator-elect.

Hence the present petition wherein it is alleged that the COMELEC
acted in excess of its jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion in
depriving petitioner of fair and adequate opportunity to present his evidence
and thereby substantiate his objections to the questioned returns and that
petitioner has no other adequate or speedy remedy in the ordinary course of
law.  Petitioner prays that the Court set
aside the questioned COMELEC resolutions and order respondent COMELEC “to give
(him) the chance to cross-examine the experts whose opinions were relied upon
by it, to instruct the different teams to make the reports in compliance with
its resolution of December 19, 1969, and thereafter, to receive whatever
evidence the petitioner may adduce in support of his Amended Petition (Annex
“A”), and to decide thereafter, accordingly.”

Respondent Palmares filed in due course
his “Answer with Affirmative Relief,” joining petitioner’s prayer for
the setting aside of the questioned COMELEC resolutions and reiterating the
prayer in his petition with the COMELEC that the court order the exclusion from
the canvas of the votes returned from the 852 precincts questioned by him on
the ground of statistical improbability. 
The Court issued a temporary restraining order, required the respondents
to file their answers and heard the parties on January 21, 1970.

In the 3,572 precincts involving 487,323 votes
questioned by petitioner, respondents Tamano and Palmares obtained in the senatorial canvass 357,884 votes
and 298,403 votes, respectively, with petitioner obtaining 26,578 votes.  The difference between eighth place winner Tamano and ninth-placer Palmares
is 64,516 votes, while Tamano’s margin over
tenth-placer Ilarde is 303,285 votes.  Petitioner thus claims that if the 3,572
disputed precincts were excluded from the canvass, he would displace Tamano from eighth position, (since Tamano’s
overall majority of 303,285 votes would be wiped out with the exclusion of Tamano’s 357,884 votes and of Ilarde’s
26,578 votes in the disputed precincts, or a net deduction of 331,306 votes
from Tamano’s over-all total votes, leaving a
deficiency of 28,021 which would then presumably be petitioner’s winning
margin, if he could otherwise overcome Palmares’s
over-all 238,769-vote lead over him).  Palmares on the other hand, claims that excluding Tamano’s 123,338 votes and his 38,200 votes from 852
precincts in four Mindanao provinces questioned by Palmares
would result in his displacing Tamano from the eighth
winning position, (since Tamano’s over-all winning
margin of 64,516 votes would thereby be wiped out by the exclusion of the
disputed difference of 85,138 votes,^[1]
leaving a deficiency of 20,522 votes which would then be Palmares‘
over-all winning margin).

Petitioner Ilarde classified the
disputed 3,572 precinct returns into four categories which shall now be taken
up seriatim.

1.       Under Categories A,
B-1, B-2 and b-3, petitioner seeks the exclusion of the questioned returns for
being statistically improbable while admitting that they do not fall squarely
within the doctrine of statistical improbability enunciated in the case of Lagumbay vs. Climaco, L-25444,
January 31, 1966.  The Court finds that
the COMELEC adhered to its admonition to canvassers in subsequently decided
cases of proceeding With extreme caution in rejecting returns as obviously
manufactured because of statistical improbability, and of viewing the doctrine
restrictively so as not to result in the disenfranchisement of innocent voters,
and therefore ruled properly against petitioner’s urging to expand the
doctrine’s application.^[2]
The thrust of all the subsequent cases is to restrict the doctrine of the Lagumbay case to the unique uniformity of tally in favor of
candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of the opposing
candidates in the same locality, such as to make the fraud “palpable from
the return itself…(and) there is no reason to accept it and give it prima
facie value”, and leading to no other reasonable conclusion than that the
returns were obviously manufactured because they were as “utterly improbable
and clearly increcible” as “to win the
sweepstakes ten times.” Here, the citing of certain instances where Tamano obtained 100% of the votes cast or an overwhelming
majority thereof in his bailiwicks in Mindanao as against a much lesser number
of votes cast for his opponents is inadequate to justify the exclusion of the
returns as obviously manufactured for reasons of statistical
improbability.  The same finding holds
true with regard to the instances cited where the COMELEC ruled against the
exclusion of some returns questioned by petitioner, since the COMELEC found
that the number of votes cast in favor of Tamano were
not greatly in excess of the registered number of voters and could be
attributed to mistakes or errors of the poll inspectors, while it had rejected
other returns where such excess was very great. 
(Alonto vs. Comelec, supra.)

Without passing upon the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as to the
affirmative relief sought by Palmares, with respect
to the 852 Mindanao returns questioned by him, notwithstanding his not having
appealed from the December 26, 1969 resolution on the ground that his Motion
for Reconsideration is still pending with the COMELEC, this ruling likewise
disposes of the issue raised by Palmares.  Admittedly, Palmares
stakes his claim as winner on the expansion of the application of the Lagumbay doctrine, which is herein rejected. The following
table compiled by the Court from the COMELEC’s canvassed
votes, (Annex 4, COMELEC’s Answer), showing that the
three contenders obtained an overwhelming majority of the votes cast in their
respective home bases of Lanao del Sur and Marawi City for Tamano, Iloilo Province and Iloilo City for Palmares, and Camarines Sur and Iriga City for Ilarde, bears out the validity of the Court’s restrictive
view against any expansion of the Lagumbay doctrine
of statistical improbability, for otherwise the overwhelming majorities
received by the parties would have to be cancelled out, and in Palmares‘ case, he would be the loser by 56,002 cancelled
votes as against Tamano.

VOTES RECEIVED BY

2.  The Court finds no compelling
reason to set aside the COMELEC’s ruling dismissing
petitioner’s objections to the returns under Categories B-4 and B-5.  Assistant Director Arsenio
Maclan of the Bureau of Printing had examined 51
sample returns in the presence of the parties’ representatives and had duly
reported to the COMELEC that they were “genuine as far as the printing and
other mechanical entries made on the form are concerned” and that the
papers used “were the same papers stored and furnished by the Bureau of
Supply.” The COMELEC’s Chief, Fingerprint
Identification Bureau and the Assistant Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation Questioned Documents Divisors had examined the specimens of
returns alleged to be written by one hand, likewise in the presence of the
parties’ representatives, and had reported that “they were written by
different persons.”

Copies of said reports of Team VI were timely furnished the
parties on December 23, 1969.  (Annex 6, Comelec
Answer).  Petitioner, on the basis of
general objections would insist that he be given the opportunity to cross-examine
the experts whose opinions were relied upon by the COMELEC and present his own
witnesses, notwithstanding his failure to specify his exceptions to their
reports not only before the COMELEC but even here in his petition with this
Court and in his Memorandum of January 21, 1970.

Petitioner has not made out a case for deviating from the policy
of the election law that “pre-proclamation controversies should be
summarily decided, consistent with law’s desire that the canvass and
proclamation be delayed as little as possible.” (Alonto vs. Comelec, supra).

3.  The Court finds that
petitioner has not substantiated his complaint that the procedure followed by
the COMELEC in the canvassing was “very illogical and very
unsystematic” and that it acted “with extreme haste.” Petitioner
makes this charge particularly with reference to the different objections
raised by him under Category C showing allegedly fatal defects, as listed in
his Amended Bill of Particulars and grouped into five main headings in the
COMELEC resolution of December 26,
1969.

When the tabulation of senatorial votes was first started in
November, 1969, the parties were represented and interposed their objections and
observations on the returns.  As stated
in the COMELEC resolution, 590 returns were questioned and elevated to the
COMELEC for ruling, out of which no less than 81 returns were found to be
fatally defective and excluded from the canvass of votes for senator.  Annexes 3, 3-1 to 3-6 of the COMELEC answer
reproduce the numerous COMELEC resolutions numbering 81 issued continuously by
it on December 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 24, 1969 in resolving the controversial
claims raised by the parties, as recorded therein.

The COMELEC later allowed petitioner to further amend and amplify
his bill of particulars and placed at the disposal of the parties the election
returns and the facilities of its office. 
It thereupon created under its December
19, 1969 resolution 6 three-member teams or committees of COMELEC
lawyers, later increased to 16 teams, which re-examined for the second time,
also in the presence of the parties’ representatives 2,590 questioned
returns.  The reports of these 16 teams
are submitted as Annexes 6, 6-1 to 6-15 of the COMELEC answer, and bear the
signatures or initials of the three contending parties’ representa­tives
acknowledging receipt of copies thereof on December 23 and 24, 1969.

After going over the reports and recommendations of the 16 teams,
the COMELEC found that the objections raised by Ilarde and Palmares “are
substantiated only with respect to 294 out of the 2,590 returns examined.  However, the defects in these 294 cases,
involving 28,063 votes for Tamano, 20,264 votes for Palmares and 1,884 votes for Ilarde,
are at most formal defects such as –

“Signatures appearing on the return
different from those on the envelope.

“Incomplete signatures of members of the
board of inspectors.

“Signatures on envelopes incomplete.

“Signatures on return or envelope written
illegibly.

“Signatures on envelope appear to have been written by one
person.

“Signatures on return appear to have been written by one
person.

“Incomplete and/or no entry on data on
votes.

“Votes for one senatorial candidate exceeded total actual
voters.

“Tampered return containing erasures and
alterations.

“Tampered seal on return or envelope.”

which do not go
into the substance of the manner of the preparation of the return as will
affect its integrity or validity to warrant its being set aside and excluded
from the canvass … and even assuming them to be substantial and fatal to the
validity of the returns, their totality would not affect the results.”

The parties had one day from receipt of the team reports to
submit their exceptions thereto.  None
was filed by petitioner, although he states in his Memorandum that he asked on December 23, 1969 for a 24-hour
extension to file his Exception or Memorandum. 
His Motion for Reconsideration shows the voidness
of the charge of prematurity and extreme haste that
he makes against the COMELEC.  (Annex H,
Petition).  The grounds that he gives
therein, namely, failure of most of the teams to allow his representatives to
insert into the minutes their observations and comments, his not being allowed
to present his evidence and that his objection under Category D (returns
obtained through force and violence) should include not only the 123 precincts
specified by him but also all the other unspecified precinct returns with
pending congressional contests on similar charges, do not detract from the
correctness of the COMELEC resolution. 
If there were any untranscribed decisive
observations that would have altered the COMELEC resolution, petitioner should
have specified them with precision in his Motion for Reconsideration, but until
now at this late hour he has yet to make them. 
As already indicated in paragraph 2 hereof, canvass proceedings are
administrative and summary in nature, and a strong prima facie
case backed up by a specific offer of the evidence and indication of its nature
and importance has to be made out to warrant the reception of evidence aliunde and the presentation of witnesses and the
delays necessarily entailed thereby. 
Otherwise, the paralization of canvassing and
proclamation proceedings leading to a vacuum in so important and sensitive an
office as that of Senator of the Republic could easily be brought about – this
time involving the eighth place and next time involving perhaps all the eight
places, when it is considered that the position of senator is voted for,
nation-wide by all the voters of the 66 provinces and 57 cities comprising the
Philippines.

The personal review and initialing by the members of the COMELEC
of each of the 3,572 returns involved negate the petitioner’s unwarranted
charge of “extreme haste.”

4.  The COMELEC did not err,
finally, in ruling that it was not necessary to receive any evidence on the 123
returns questioned by petitioner as having been obtained through violence and
force, (Category D) on the ground that the number of votes involved (Tamano – 7,724; Palmares –
12,552; and Ilarde – 1,209), would not affect the
result, not to mention that no prima facie case to warrant the
reception of evidence, e.g. affidavits of the chairmen and poll clerks of the
precincts involved, has been presented by petitioner.  The general allegation of petitioner that his
objections include an unspecified number of precinct returns involved in
congressional districts with pending cases due to terrorism and other similar
charges is unten­able.  Aside from being
unsubstantiated, the pendency of charges of returns
having been obtained through force and violence in congressional districts does
not automatically mean their applicability to the national office of senator.^[3]

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the
petition and dissolving the temporary restraining order issued on January 10, 1969 by the Court.  The Commission should therefore forthwith
execute its Resolution dated December 26, 1969 and accordingly issue the
corresponding Certification of Canvass of the votes cast for respondent Tamano as the eighth winning candidate for Senator in the
November 11, 1969 elections and proclaim him accordingly, not later than noon
of Saturday, January 24, 1970. This decision shall be executory
upon promulgation.

NO COSTS.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Not 85,038 votes, as stated by Palmares in his
Answer.

^[2] Sangki vs. Comelec, L-28359,
Dec. 26, 1967; Estrada vs. Comelec, L-28374,
Dec. 29, 1967; Demafiles vs. Comelec, L-28396, Dec. 29, 1967; Alonto
vs. Comelec, L-28290, Feb. 28, 1968; Tagoranao vs. Comelec,
L-28950, March 12, 1968 and Una Kibad
vs. Comelec, L-28469, May 7, 1968.

^[3] See
Alonto vs. Comelec, supra.