FILEMON SALCEDO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, LEON S. MAMPUSTI AND LUCIANO A. JOSON, RESPONDENTS.

Salcedo versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Filemon Salcedo, Jr. against the Commission on Elections and two private respondents, Leon Mampusti and Luciano Joson. Salcedo had been proclaimed mayor-elect of the newly created municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro, and the Commission on Elections entertained a petition to annul that proclamation. Salcedo came to the Supreme Court to stop the Commission, arguing that it had no jurisdiction over such a petition. The case matters because it fixes the reach of the Commission's supervisory power over boards of canvassers: whether the Commission may entertain a petition to prevent a proclamation, and not merely to annul one already made.

Procedural History

This was the second time the proclamation of the mayor of Bansud reached the Supreme Court. In the earlier case, Salcedo had questioned the authority of the Commission on Elections to annul the proclamation made in his favor by the Provincial Board of Oriental Mindoro. The Supreme Court upheld the Commission, set aside the proclamation, and ordered the existing municipal council to meet as the municipal board of canvassers, make a new canvass, and proclaim the winning candidates. That decision became final and executory.

After the second canvass, Mampusti and Joson filed a petition with the Commission on Elections praying for annulment of the canvass and proclamation. Salcedo filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Commission had no jurisdiction. The Commission denied the motion to dismiss, denied the motion for reconsideration, and set the petition for hearing. Salcedo then filed this original action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, contesting the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Facts

After the earlier decision became final, the Commission instructed the Municipal Council of Bansud to proceed with the canvass, and sent its representative, Atty. Osmundo Oppus, to supervise. The municipal board of canvassers met for the second time and canvassed the votes for municipal offices. When the municipal treasurer's copy of the election return for Precinct Number 2 was read, it was discovered that the votes of Salcedo and Mampusti did not tally with the votes in the certified photostatic copy of the same return held by the Commission on Elections. The treasurer's copy showed Salcedo with 95 votes and Mampusti with 148; the Commission's copy showed Salcedo with only 75 votes and Mampusti with 168.

The discrepancy affected the result. On the first return, Salcedo would total 1,248 votes against Mampusti's 1,216; on the second copy, Salcedo would have only 1,228 and Mampusti 1,236. Atty. Oppus instructed the board to continue the canvass and proclaim only the winning candidates for vice-mayor and councilors, but to refrain from proclaiming the mayor-elect so that any interested party could seek the proper court remedy. Despite that order, the board proclaimed Salcedo as mayor-elect. Oppus sent a telegram to the Commission reporting the discrepancy and the defiance of his order.

On March 29, 1960, Mampusti and Joson filed with the Commission a petition for annulment of the canvass and proclamation, alleging violation of the election law, the rules of the Commission, and the specific instructions of its representative. Salcedo opposed, questioning jurisdiction. The Commission denied his motion to dismiss and set the case for hearing, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections has jurisdiction to entertain a petition to annul a canvass and proclamation made by a municipal board of canvassers despite the instruction of the Commission's representative to suspend the proclamation.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections may entertain a petition to prevent a proclamation, and not merely to annul one already made.

Applicable Provisions

Section 163 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Section 163. When statements of a precinct are contradictory. In case it appears to the provincial canvassers that another copy or authentic copies of the statement from an election precinct submitted to the board give to a candidate a different number of votes and the difference affects the result of the election, the Court of First Instance of the province, upon motion of the board or any candidate affected, may proceed to recount the votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose of determining which is the true statement or which is the true result of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for the office in question. Notice of such proceeding shall be given to all candidates affected.

This provision supplies the remedy of judicial recount when copies of a precinct return contradict each other and the difference affects the result, which is exactly the situation in Precinct Number 2.

Section 168 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Section 168. Canvass of the Election for municipal offices. The municipal board of canvassers shall meet immediately after the election. The municipal treasurer shall produce before it the statements of election from the different election precincts filed with him, and the board shall count the votes cast for candidates for municipal offices and proclaim as elected for said offices those who have polled the largest number of votes for the different offices, in the same manner as hereinbefore provided for the provincial board, and to that end it shall have the same powers including that of resorting to the court in the case of contradictory statements. The municipal board of canvassers shall not recount the ballots nor examine any one of them but shall proceed upon the statements presented to it. In case of contradictions or discrepancies between the copies of the same statements, the procedure provided in section one hundred and sixty-three of this Code shall be followed.

This provision makes the Section 163 procedure applicable to municipal canvasses and authorizes the board itself, or any candidate affected, to resort to the court.

Letter k of the Commission's instructions in its Case Number 334 provides:

k. If it should clearly appear that another copy or other authentic copies of the statements of the election results from an election precinct submitted to the board give to a candidate a different number of votes and the difference affects the result of the election, the canvass for the precinct or precincts affected shall be suspended and reported immediately to the Commission on Elections, without prejudice to the immediate filing by the aggrieved party of a motion before the court of first instance for the recount of the votes cast in the precinct or precincts concerned, for the sole purpose of determining which is the true statement or which is the true result of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for the office in question; provided, that the board shall continue the canvass of the remaining election returns until finished, and, provided, further, that in the meantime no proclamation of the winning candidates shall be made until further orders from the Commission on Elections or competent court, and any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be considered null and void ab initio.

This instruction is the rule the board violated when it proclaimed Salcedo despite the order to suspend the proclamation of the mayor-elect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission on Elections has jurisdiction. It had repeatedly held that the Commission may annul proclamations on grounds such as an illegal canvass, a proclamation based on incomplete returns, a proclamation made despite a timely petition to correct an inadvertent mistake, and a proclamation made in an unauthorized meeting of the board held against the express instructions of the Commission in the exercise of its supervisory powers. The Court quoted its own ruling in the Lacson case:

In line with its duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and to insure free, orderly and honest elections, the Commission on Elections may take appropriate measures in order that the rights of the proper parties to avail of the benefits granted by the Constitution and the Revised Election Code, such, for instance, as Section 154 of the said Code, may not be defeated.

On the second issue, the Court held that the power to annul carries with it the power to prevent. It reasoned that it would be incongruous to declare the Commission with authority to annul a proclamation under certain circumstances and without authority to entertain and investigate a petition to prevent such a proclamation under the same circumstances and conditions. The Commission therefore acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining the petition of Mampusti and Joson.

Doctrine

The Commission on Elections has the authority to annul proclamations made by boards of canvassers in violation of the election law, the rules of the Commission, or the express instructions of its representative. That power to annul necessarily includes the power to entertain a petition to prevent a proclamation under the same circumstances, for the greater power includes the lesser. Where copies of a precinct return are contradictory and the difference affects the result, the board or any candidate affected may resort to the Court of First Instance for a recount under Section 163, in relation to Section 168, of the Revised Election Code, and the board must suspend the canvass of the affected precinct and refrain from proclaiming the winning candidates until further orders.

Disposition

The Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Commission on Elections, dismissed the petition, and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, with costs against Salcedo.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the power to annul a proclamation includes the power to prevent one, so the Commission on Elections may entertain a petition to stop a proclamation made against its instructions. Examiners use this case on the supervisory powers of the Commission on Elections over boards of canvassers and on the remedy of judicial recount for contradictory election returns.