SALVADOR Q. PEDIDO AND THE FIRST MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CAN­VASSERS FOR PIODURAN, ALBAY, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ATTY. GERTRUDO KALAMBAKAL, ATTY. BARBARA PORTUGAL,…

Pedido versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Salvador Q. Pedido, together with the first municipal board of canvassers of Pioduran, Albay, against the Commission on Elections and the officials who carried out its directives, namely Attorneys Gertrudo Kalambakal and Barbara Portugal, and against the rival mayoral candidate Protesto Pavia. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the proclamation of Protesto Pavia as mayor-elect and to uphold the earlier proclamation of Salvador Q. Pedido. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules of election law: a canvass must be made from the election returns themselves, and the Commission on Elections may annul an illegal canvass and proclamation even after a candidate has been proclaimed and has taken his oath.

Procedural History

The controversy began before the municipal board of canvassers of Pioduran, Albay, which split into what the decision calls the first board, the second board, and the third board. The Comelec supervisor on the ground, Gertrudo Kalambakal, set aside the proclamations of December 14 and December 22, suspended the recalcitrant members of the first board, and appointed a new board, which proclaimed Protesto Pavia on December 28, 1967. On January 5, 1968, the Commission on Elections confirmed the supervisor's acts and adopted the December 28 certificate of canvass and proclamation as the valid one. From that resolution, Salvador Q. Pedido and the first board came directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, asking that the proclamation of Protesto Pavia be declared null and void.

Facts

In the elections of November 14, 1967, the candidates for mayor of Pioduran, Albay were the reelectionist Salvador Q. Pedido and Protesto Pavia. On December 13, 1967, the first board of canvassers convened. After canvassing twenty-seven precincts, it opened the return for the twenty-eighth precinct and found that it was white with serial number 439026 instead of the usual pink with serial number 439011. An objection was raised, the election registrar Barbara Portugal asked the board to proceed, but the board resolved to send the return back to the board of inspectors to explain the discrepancy. All the members left except Ildefonso Nuñez.

The next day, the registrar directed the first board to reconvene. It refused. She then named a second board, which completed the canvass using the same tally sheet verified against the election returns, and on December 14, 1967 proclaimed Protesto Pavia as mayor-elect with 2,143 votes against 2,086 for Salvador Q. Pedido. On December 19, the Commission on Elections directed its attorney Gertrudo Kalambakal to proceed to Pioduran, to bring the Commission's copy of the return for the twenty-eighth precinct, and to supervise the canvass and proclamation with authority to suspend recalcitrant members and appoint their substitutes.

On December 22, 1967, the first board convened again, in the house of Mayor Pedido, without notice to the election registrar or the municipal treasurer, and without the election returns or any official documents before it. It prepared an improvised tally sheet and proclaimed Salvador Q. Pedido as winner with 2,131 votes against 2,098. On December 27, the supervisor set aside both earlier proclamations and ordered the first board to convene the next day. Only its chairman appeared, twice, and he insisted that the December 22 proclamation be respected. The supervisor suspended the members and appointed a third board, which canvassed all the returns using the Commission's copy for the twenty-eighth precinct and proclaimed Protesto Pavia on December 28, 1967 with 2,143 votes against 2,086. The Commission confirmed this on January 5, 1968.

Issues

• Whether or not the proclamation of December 22, 1967 made by the first board is valid.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted within its jurisdiction in annulling that proclamation and in confirming the acts of its supervisor, even after Salvador Q. Pedido had been proclaimed and had taken his oath of office.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of the Revised Election Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

The Commission on Elections shall have direct and immediate supervision over the municipal board of canvassers, and may suspend from the performance of their duties any member of the board of canvassers who shall fail to comply with its instructions, orders, decisions, or rulings and appoint their temporary substitutes.

This is the provision on which the Court rests the power of the Commission to suspend the first board and to appoint the third board that proclaimed Protesto Pavia.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the December 22 proclamation is null and void, for two reasons. First, no canvass at all was made on that day. The board did not examine the election returns, which were in the possession of the municipal treasurer, who was not even notified. It merely added up its own noted record from the first meeting. The Court stressed that the board of canvassers is to be guided by election returns which are in due form, and that a canvass made on incomplete returns may be annulled. Without the returns, the Court asked, what is there to canvass? Second, the improvised tally showed figure-manipulation. In Precincts 7 and 8, Pedido's votes were raised by forty-five while Pavia's were cut by forty-five, although the same first board had already canvassed those precincts on December 13. The Court condemned this deliberate attempt to frustrate the people's will.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction. Its power of direct and immediate supervision carries with it the power to suspend disobedient members and appoint substitutes, and the supervisor gave the first board every chance to convene before he acted. The Court ruled that the Commission is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made, and that a valid proclamation by the Commission does not deprive it of that authority.

Doctrine

A canvass can only be made from the election returns. A proclamation without a canvass, or one based on an improvised tally rather than on the returns, is null and void. The board of canvassers must be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns, and a canvass made on incomplete returns may be annulled.

Under Section 3 of the Revised Election Code, the Commission on Elections has direct and immediate supervision over municipal boards of canvassers, and may suspend members who fail to comply with its instructions, orders, decisions, or rulings and appoint their temporary substitutes. The Commission may annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made, even after the candidate has been proclaimed and has taken his oath.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The December 22, 1967 proclamation of Salvador Q. Pedido and his oath of office were declared null and void, the December 28, 1967 proclamation of Protesto Pavia was declared valid, and the resolution of the Commission on Elections of January 5, 1968 was affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize the line that without the returns there is nothing to canvass, so a proclamation built on an improvised tally is void. Examiners use this case on the supervisory power of the Commission on Elections to suspend a board of canvassers and annul an illegal proclamation even after the winning candidate has taken his oath.