G.R. No. L-33453. November 29, 1971
JOSE M. ESTANIEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF COTABATO, MANIB MANAMPAN, ABDULRAHMAN BIDES, RITA BALTAZAR AND MUSIB BUAT,…
TEEHANKEE, J.:
Petition for certiorari
and prohibition to set aside the questioned resolution of the Comelec, for summarily having dismissed herein petitioner’s
petition with the Comelec “for failure to
establish sufficient grounds for the rejection of the returns from Pikit, Pagalungan, Maganoy and Dinaig” in Cotabato province, affecting the tenth and last delegate
seat of said province to the Constitutional Convention of 1971.
The questioned Comelec Resolution
RR-899 dated April 29, 1911 recounts how after its hearing and resolving the
referral of the provincial board of canvassers of the returns of the elections
for constitutional convention delegates held in November, 1970, as disputed by
the various candidates, the canvassing board on March 18, 1971, pursuant to its
directive, proclaimed the first nine winning candidates, namely M. ADIL, A.
VELASCO, D. SINSUAT, S. SAMBULAOAN, L. AMPATUAN, A. BADOY, Jr., M. CAMELLO, S.
MASTURA and S. TOCAO.
What remains in contention is tenth place, i.
e. who is entitled to be proclaimed as the tenth
placer and last winning candidate, Cotabato being alloted ten (10) delegates to the Constitutional Convention
under Republic Act No. 6132.
Three principal contenders from among the sixty-one (61) candidates
(less the above-named nine acknowledged winners, or more accurately from the
remaining 52 candidates) vied for this tenth and last winning place, namely,
respondent Manib Manampan,
petitioner Jose M. Estaniel and candidate A. Bagundang.
As per the tentative tabulation of the Comelec,
Manampan would win this last and tenth winning spot,
with Estaniel and Bagundang
at 14th and 15th spots, respectively, among the first 15 front-winning
candidates, as follows:
1. M. ADIL – 57,484
2. A. VELASCO – 52,967
3. D. SINSUAT – 45,769
4. S. SAMBULAOAN – 45,118
5. L. AMPATUA – 42,877
6. A. BADOY, Jr. – 42,289
7. M. CAMELLO – 40,880
8. M. MASTURA – 39,424
9. S. TOCAO – 38,948
10. MANAMPAN – 37,682
11. BIDES –
34,687
12. BALTAZAR – 34,015
13. BUAT –
32,624
14. ESTANIEL – 32,422
15. BAGUNDANG – 32,226
Both Bagundang and Estaniel
had filed separate petitions with Comelec, whereby
each of them likewise claimed to be entitled to the tenth winning spot. In Estaniel’s case,
were his petition to be sustained arid should the handwriting and fingerprint
examination bear out his allegations of “massive substitution of
registered voters” with the consequent rejection and exclusion from
canvass of the election returns from the four towns questioned by him, he would
be raised to the tenth winning spot (without affecting the nine acknowledged
winners) but the line-up and standings of the “magic ten” winners
would be as follows:
NAME OF CANDIDATES VOTES
GARNERED
1. VELASCO, A. 47,378
2. BADOY, A. JR. 39,543
3. ADIL, M. 38,615
4. CAMELLO, M. 37,422
5. SINSUAT, D. 34,596
6. AMPATUAN, L. 31,783
7. TOCAO, S. 31,137
8. MASTURA, M. 29,957
9. SAMBULAOAN, S. 29,088
10. ESTANIEL, J. 28,104[1]
Bagundang prayed for the exclusion from
the canvass of the election returns from the five towns of Pikit,
Pagalungan, Datu Piang, President Roxas and Magpet, “on the ground that said election returns did not
reflect the will of the electorate as they were manufactured and had no
relation to the votes found inside the ballot box.[2]
Petitioner Estaniel prayed for the
exclusion from the canvass of the election returns from four towns, the same
two towns of Pikit and Pagalungan
questioned by Bagundang, besides two other towns of Maganoy and Dinaig. Estaniel expressly
advanced “the ground that no true and expressive elections were therein
held and if there be any, such were minimal or disregarded, as in all the
towns in question ballots were either filled up by a few unauthorized hands
or the returns accomplished as fancy gusto and scheme permitted. It is in fact even seriously doubted that ballots,
lawfully or unlawfully filled up, can be found in the ballot boxes in these
municipalities in such pretentions and claims as
written out in the corresponding tally sheets, if any there be and in the
returns (all copies).[3]
He also cited the ”unlikely” and “highly
suspicious” voting percentages in said towns, as follows:
“1. PAGALUNGAN ………………….. 98%
2. MAGANOY ……………………… 89.03%
3. PIKIT ……………………………. 83.68%
4. DINAIG ………………………….. 88. 6%
(N. B. These percentages are
more or less accurate, that is, not fractionally accurate. For Pagalungan,
the computation is based on all 36 precincts except Precinct 5 which omits the
entry; for Maganoy, on all 49 precincts except
Precinct 3 which was not canvassed; for Pikit, on all
58 precincts except one unnamed precinct which was uncanvassed.)”[4]
Petitioner Estaniel also cited specific
precincts therein, where “several contiguous precincts recorded
100% voting percentages,” and “where the voting shows a pattern of
dubious ilk, taking the four towns collectively or separately”[5]
for the same set of ten to eleven candidates.
Petitioner Estaniel complains that
after the Comelec conducted on January 15, 1971 in
Manila the first and only hearing (which hearing was in connection with Pikit and Pagalungan alone, and
was incomplete with only two witnesses being able to testify for candidate Bagundang) the Comelec motu proprio and
without explanation cancelled, until further notice, the continuation of the
hearings it had scheduled for January 27-30, 1971 at Cotabato
City (which were expressly ordered by it to be “intransferable
in character”), to hear the testimonies of the chairmen of the boards Of
inspectors in the above questioned towns.
Petitioner Estaniel further complains
that while the Comelec, as early as the lone hearing
of January 15, 1971 had called for the precinct books of voters and the CE Form
39’s in the questioned towns for examination and analysis by its and the NBI’s handwriting and fingerprint experts and technicians,
and such voting records are actually in its custody, (to determine whether the
returns are manufactured, should the examination show that the
“voting” was but by a few hands or by fake or fictitious voters,
euphemistically called by the Comelec as
“substitute voters”), the Comelec
“unreasonably deviated from the standard procedure it has applied in cases
of similar nature as in the Karomatan case; Sagada case; Cadiz case Sulu
case; and Lanao case” and did not have such
examination and analysis carried out.
Instead, the Comelec issued its
questioned resolution of April 19,
1971, wherein it ordered the dismissals of both the petitions of Bagundang and Estaniel on the
same ground of “failure to establish sufficient grounds for the rejection
of the returns” from the towns respectively questioned by them.
The said resolution has become final as against candidate Bagundang who filed no appeal therefrom.
Estaniel, however, timely filed the
present petition. Upon his motion, the
Court issued on April 29, 1971
the writ of preliminary injunction restraining the reconvening of the Cotabato provincial canvassing board for the purpose of
completing the canvass and proclaiming the tenth winning candidate for delegate
from the province.
The Comelec justified its resolution
dismissing the two petitions, as follows:
On Bagundang’s petition, it held that
“in the absence, therefore, of any strong and convincing evidence
appearing on the face of the returns that said returns are manufactured and
the figures therein were just prepared according to the fancy of the
inspectors without regard to the contents of the ballot box, the Commission
would not be justified in rejecting the returns as manufactured returns.”[6]
Realizing, however, that its present procedure differed from that
followed by it in the Karomatan and other cases,
where it had not merely relied on the face of the returns, but had
resorted to examination and analysis of the signatures and thumbprints
to arrive at its conclusion that the elections were “sham” and the
returns rejected as “manufactured returns”, the Comelec
sought to make the following distinction:
“The Commission would like to distinguish the present case and
that of Karomatan where the Commission ruled the
election returns were manufactured. The rationale
of the decision of the Commission in the Karomatan
case is that the election in the 42 precincts of Karomatan
was sham and tantamount to no election at all since out of 9, 557 who voted in
the 42 precincts, only 239 were found to be those of the registered voters in
said 42 precincts. This finding of
illegal voting was more than sufficient to overcome the presumptions of
regularity and justified the rejection of the returns as manufactured returns. In the present case, we find no conclusive
evidence to warrant a finding that the election returns should not be accorded
any prima facie value because no elections were actually held. As a matter of fact, the allegation of
BAGUNDANG that many of his votes were not counted but were read as votes for
other candidates assumes that there was voting.
How could he claim that he got at least 3 000 votes in each of the towns
of Pikit, Pagalungan and in
Datu Piang unless more than
three thousand voted in these towns? In
the final analysis, BAGUNDANG’s thesis is actually
one against the regularity of the counting of the votes, an incident of the
election, and not one of ‘no election‘ like what happened in Karomatan. This is a
matter to be ventilated in an election protest.”[7]
Resolving Estaniel’s petition “as
an incident or dependent upon Bagundang’s petition”,
when as justifiably complained of by Estaniel, the
two petitions “are separate and distinct from one another aside from
containing substantially different allegations of facts,” the Comelec dismissed Estaniel’s
petition, as follows:
“For the same reasons, the Commission finds the petition
of ESTANIEL to be without merit insofar as he questioned the returns from Pagalungan and Pikit, the same
towns included in the petition of BAGUNDANG.
The result of upholding the returns from these two (2) towns would be
that the returns from all the other towns questioned by ESTANIEL would no
longer affect the result of the elections.
The inclusion in the canvass of the returns from Pikit
and Pagalungan would be fatal to the pretension of
ESTANIEL of joining the winning candidates.
“Moreover, the Commission notes that the main contention
of ESTANIEL is that the returns from Pikit, Pagalungan, Maganoy and Dinaig were manufactured because of the high percentages
of voting in these towns, namely: Pagalungan – 98%; Maganoy – 89. 03%; Pikit – 83.68%; and Dinaig – 88.6%.
The returns, however, from said towns cannot be excluded from the
canvass merely on said grounds for the doctrine of manufactured returns based
on statistical improbability as laid down, in the LAGUMBAY case is that all the
candidates of one party had obtained 100%, either of all the registered
voters or of the votes cast while all the candidates of the other party
received uniformly zero. The Commission
further doubts the application of the LAGUMBAY doctrine in the election for
Constitutional delegates because of the fact that the participation of the
political parties in said elections had been banned and that all candidates are
supposed to be independent candidates running on their own without support from
any political party or civic organization.”[8]
The Court finds that the petition, based on the various
complaints of petitioner as summarized above, has merit and should be granted.
1. The record amply shows
that the Comelec, at the first and only hearing held
by it on January 15, 1971
had directed the transfer to Manila
of the voting records in the questioned towns and their examination by its
fingerprints division. Commissioner Patajo thus made it of record:
“COMMISSIONER PATAJO:
We cannot resume the
hearing this afternoon.
ATTY. BAGUNDANG:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER PATAJO:
We will, therefore,
resume this beginning January 27 to 30, 1970 in Cotabato
City, and the Recording Secretary to issue subpoena to the Chairman of the
Boards of Inspectors of Pagalungan, Dinaig, Pikit, Pres. Roxas, Maganoy, Magpet and also, to direct the transfer of the precinct
books of voters of said municipalities and Form 39 to Manila so that they could
be submitted for examination by the Fingerprints Division of the Commission. All parties are hereby notified and no
further notices will be issued except to the candidates who are not present in
this hearing. Notify the candidates who
are not presented. We would ask that you
will all be ready on January 27. We
cannot give additional dates, You must be ready with
the witnesses.”[9]
And the Comelec chairman had likewise
announced such examination and that it would question the chairmen of the
boards of inspectors of the questioned towns at the forthcoming hearings set in
Cotabato City,
since “you know that there have been anomalies committed in Cotabato every (time) during elections”:
“CHAIRMAN:
You know that there
have been anomalies committed in Cotabato every
(time) during elections and we are suggesting that we hold the hearings in Cotabato City so that we can subpoenae
the Chairmen of the Boards of Inspectors of these towns that are being
questioned and we like to call for the precinct books of voters and Form 39 so
that we can look into all of these.”[10]
2. The Comelec
has not established any sufficiently persuasive ground for cancelling
the Cotabato
City hearings and the examination
and analysis by its handwriting and fingerprint experts of the voting records
which have been in its custody since last January.
As against the Comelec’s silence on the
matter, petitioner has presented the certification dated June 26, 1971 of Atty. Wilfredo
Bueno, officer-in-charge of the office of the provincial
election supervisor in Cotabato
City
“That this scheduled hearing never
took place in Cotabato City since the COMELEC called
this off acting on the Omnibus petition filed by Attys. Sergio Tocao, Midpantao Adil, Sandiale Sambulawan, Michael Mastura and
Mrs. Linda Ampatuan to reconsider its (COMELEC) order
to hold hearing in Cotabato City, having among other
things as a ground the unfavorable peace and order situation prevailing then at
that time.
“That from the date the COMELEC called
off the scheduled hearing the undersigned knows no knowledge of any further
order, directive or notice to conduct a hearing or of any actual hearing on the
same said petitions, that took place thereafter in Cotabato
City.”[11]
Nothing has been said as to why, notwithstanding that the peace
and order situation presumably sufficiently improved afterwards, the
continuation of the hearings has not been set and held, in order to give
petitioner his day in court.
Neither has any valid reason been given by Comelec
for its unexplained act of not implementing and in effect recalling sub rosa its own announced action of causing the
examination and analysis of the voting records in the questioned towns and for
abruptly considering the hearings terminated, when petitioner had not yet
begun, much less submitted his case.
3. Comelec’s
ground for dismissing Bagundang’s petition (that Bagundang’s “thesis is actually one against the
regularity of the counting of the votes, an incident of the election, and not
one of ‘no elections’) could not validly be invoked and used by it as the same
ground for dismissing petitioner Estaniel’s
petition, insofar as the returns from the two towns of Pikit
and Pagalungan commonly questioned by the two
complainants were concerned.
Herein petitioner’s thesis, as expressly averred in his verified
petition before the Comelec, was that “no true
and expressive elections were therein held and if there be any, such were
minimal or disregarded, as in all the towns in question ballots were either
filled up by a few unauthorized hands or the returns accomplished as fancy,
gusto and scheme permitted” – which was but another way of alleging the
existence of “massive substitute voting” held to be anathema by the Comelec, since it necessarily signifies that the returns are
“manufactured returns” which should be entirely rejected.
Hence, the Comelec itself, on the
strength thereof and of its own notice that “there have been anomalies
committed in Cotabato every (time) during
elections”, had ordered the holding of hearings to question the chairmen
of the boards of inspectors (as it had done in Karomatan,
Sagada, etc.) and to have the signatures and
fingerprints of the voting records examined and analyzed – which, however, it
has failed to implement and carry out up to now.
This was concededly the main contention of petitioner Estaniel, and was so duly acted upon by the Comelec until it reversed itself per its questioned
resolution. The unusually high
percentage of voting in the questioned towns was not the main
contention of Estaniel, as now erroneously stated in
the resolution. As correctly stated in
the present petition, petitioner “had invited (Comelec’s)
attention to these high voting percentages simply as an index to the failure of
election or that substitute voters voted in these towns.”
4. Comelec’s
principal defense in the present case, i. e.
“that the examination of election records for purposes of determining
irregularities in voting procedures is a matter of discretion on the part of
the Commission on Elections depending upon the facts and circumstances of the
case”[12]
must necessarily fail. Here, Comelec did in fact exercise its discretion and order the
examination and analysis of the voting records signatures and fingerprints as
well as the questioning of the chairmen of the boards of inspectors, in order
to determine the genuineness or falsity of the election returns. It cannot recall such exercise of discretion
without valid reason and justification.
In the Sagada case resolver
just now by the Court in Diaz vs. Comelec,
L-33378, and likewise involving a delegate seat (from the Mountain Province for
the Constitutional Convention under Republic Act No. 6132, the Court sanctioned
the Comelec’s procedure, upon establishment of a
strong prima facie case, of causing the examination and analysis of the
signatures and fingerprints of the precinct books of voters and the CE 39’s and
voting records, in order to determine whether the reported elections were sham
and tantamount to no election at all and accordingly accord no prima facie
value to the election returns and reject them as manufactured and false
returns.
The Court, however, therein emphasized through Mr. Justice Reyes
that “justice and equity imperatively demand that there should be no
discrimination in the application of the rules by Comelec.”
5. The abrupt cancellation
of further hearings and the non-implementation of the announced examination and
analysis of the voting records give strong weight to petitioner’s submittal
that he has not been afforded his right to due process and a fair and full
hearing. Bagundang’s
concession in his petition of mere irregularity in the counting of the votes
could not be extended to herein petitioner’s own petition complaining of no
elections and manufactured returns – by virtue of the maxim of res inter alios acta alteri nocere
non debet.[13]
Much as the Court wishes to pronounce finis to this contest,
(which must have been likewise the Comelec’s
well-meaning but erroneously implemented motivation for its questioned resolution),
it is therefore constrained to remand the case to the Comelec,
in the interest of the electorate of Cotabato as well
as of the contending candidates, for the carrying out of the examination and
analysis by Comelec’s own and deputized fingerprint
and handwriting experts of the voting records in the four municipalities of Pikit, Pagalungan, Maganoy and Dinaig, and for the
questioning of the chairmen of the boards of inspectors in said four towns,
during the November, 1970 elections for Constitutional Convention delegates, to
the extent necessary for Comelec to determine whether
or not the elections therein were sham and the corresponding election returns
should be rejected and excluded as manufactured returns and insofar as the
results for tenth place winner would be affected thereby.
ACCORDINGLY, the writs of certiorari and prohibition
are granted and the questioned Comelec resolution
RR- 89 of April 19, 1971,
specifically paragraphs 2 and 3 of its dispositive
portion, is hereby annulled and set aside.
The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued against said
resolution is hereby made permanent. The
case is remanded to the Comelec for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, and particularly, as set forth
in the preceding paragraph, whereafter the Comelec shall direct the provincial canvassing board to
reconvene and proclaim whomsoever among the remaining fifty-two (52) candidates
is the tenth place winner, in accordance with its findings, as to the
inclusion or exclusion of the questioned returns from the four towns subject of
petitioner Estaniel’s petition. In view of the urgency of the case, involving
as it does, the determination of who is entitled to be pro claimed and to
discharge the functions of tenth delegate from Cotabato
to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, this decision is hereby declared to be
immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Barredo, Villamor,
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
The total votes credited to him and his closest opponents for 10th spot in
these four towns were as follows:
MANAMPAN 17, 145
BUAT 15, 173
BAGUNDANG 12, 932
BALTAZAR 10, 895
BIDES 9, 575
ESTANIEL 5, 318
[2] Comelec
Resolution, Annex B, petition, p. 5.
[3] Estaniel’s petition before Comelec,
Annex A, petition, par. IV, emphasis furnished.
[4] Idem (Estaniel’s petition before Comelec, par. IV).
[5] Idem.
[6]
Emphasis furnished, Comelec Resolution, Annex B
petition.
[7] Idem.
[8] Idem.
[9] T.s.n. Jan. 15,
1971, pp. 137-138; quoted in petitioner’s memo; emphasis supplied.
[10]
Idem, p. 135; note in parentheses and emphasis supplied.
[11]
Annex C, petitioner’s memorandum.
[12] Comelec answer,
par. 2(a).
[13] “SEC. 25. Admission by third party.
– The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, and proceedings against one cannot affect another, except
as hereinafter provided.” (Rule 130, Rules of Court)