ABDULLAH SANGKI, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF NORTHERN COTABATO, AND SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, RESPONDENTS. CONSTANCIA SALUDO, …

Sangki versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court by Abdullah Sangki, official Nacionalista Party candidate for Governor of Northern Cotabato, joined by intervenors Constancia Saludo and Jose Torres, candidates for Vice-Governor and Board Member. They ask the Court to reject the election returns from all eighteen precincts of Pagalungan and eleven precincts of Pikit, and to restrain the provincial board of canvassers from canvassing those returns and from proclaiming Salipada Pendatun, the Liberal Party candidate for Governor, as Governor-elect. The case matters because it is the Court's own limit on the doctrine of statistical improbabilities it had forged in Lagumbay versus Climaco — it tells us when zero votes are merely suspicious and when they are so incredible that returns may be rejected outright.

Procedural History

The petition to reject the returns was first filed with the provincial board of canvassers of Northern Cotabato. On November 30, 1967, the board denied the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner then went to the Commission on Elections, which on December 2, 1967, by a two-to-one vote, declined to review the board's resolution, holding that its authority over provincial and local canvass is only supervisory in character. Petitioner came to the Supreme Court on certiorari on December 5, 1967, and on December 7, 1967, the Court issued a restraining order in his favor. The intervenors' prayer for injunction came too late, because the winning candidates except for Governor had already been proclaimed. The case was heard and resolved on the preliminary injunction issue.

Facts

In the November 1967 elections in Northern Cotabato, petitioner Sangki ran for Governor against respondent Pendatun. In all eighteen precincts of Pagalungan, the returns reported zero votes for Sangki while all votes counted went to Pendatun; in twelve of those precincts, all votes actually cast were tallied for Pendatun. In the eleven questioned precincts of Pikit, Sangki likewise received identical zero votes while all voters unanimously cast their votes for Pendatun, and in six of those precincts the total number of registered voters equalled the number of ballots given to Pendatun. Intervenor Saludo allegedly obtained zero votes in all those precincts except one in Pagalungan where she was credited with two votes, and intervenor Torres appeared to have received zero votes except in one Pikit precinct where he garnered one hundred votes.

Pendatun answered with affidavits of a good number of Nacionalista Party inspectors themselves, explaining that some did not vote because they were not able to register; that two inspectors in Pagalungan voted for the Liberal Party candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor because those candidates were, in their words, more qualified than the former two who are foreign to our Municipality; and that other inspectors believed the Liberal Party candidates were more qualified.

The board of canvassers refused to reject the returns, and the Commission on Elections refused to review that refusal, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the election returns from the questioned precincts of Pagalungan and Pikit should be rejected as statistically improbable under the doctrine of Lagumbay versus Climaco.
• Whether or not the provincial board of canvassers, sustained by the Commission on Elections, properly performed its functions in refusing to reject the canvass of those returns.
• Whether or not petitioner and intervenors are entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it applies the doctrine of statistical improbabilities from Lagumbay versus Climaco and quotes the rule on the ministerial duty of canvassing boards from Dizon versus Provincial Board of Canvassers:

The board of official canvassers to whom the boards of election of the several divisions return their certificate showing the number of votes cast for each candidate, is liable to err in overestimating its powers. Whenever it is suggested that illegal votes have been received or that there were other fraudulent practices at the election, it is apt to imagine that it is its duty to inquire into these alleged frauds and to decide on the legality of the votes. Its duty, however, is almost wholly ministerial to take the returns as made from the different voting precincts, add them up, and declare the result. Questions of illegal voting and fraudulent practices are passed on by another tribunal. The canvassers are to be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns, that is that the papers presented to them are not forged and spurious, that they are returns, and are signed by the proper officers; but when so satisfied they may not reject any returns because of informalities in them or because of illegal and fraudulent practices in the election. The simple purpose and duty of the canvassing board is to ascertain and declare the apparent result of the voting. All other questions are to be tried before the court or other tribunal for contesting elections or in quo warranto proceedings.

This defines the narrow power of the board and explains why it did not overstep its authority in refusing to reject the returns.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the returns were not statistically improbable. The bare fact that candidates received zero votes is not enough. In Lagumbay, the number of registered voters in about fifty precincts equalled the number of ballots reportedly cast and tallied for every candidate of one party only, and all eight Liberal Party senatorial candidates received exactly the same number of votes while all eight Nacionalista candidates got precisely nothing. Here, the number of registered voters was not the same as the number of ballots cast and tallied, only Sangki and Saludo were shown to have received zero votes while other Nacionalista candidates were not blanked, and candidate Magnolia Antonino, who is not of the Liberal Party, received a liberal share of the votes in all the questioned precincts. The Court noted that Lagumbay itself did not foreclose the possibility that a party inspector might vote for a candidate of an opposing party, and that a no-vote is but one strand in the web of circumstantial evidence that returns are obviously manufactured. Here the circumstantial evidence was not overwhelming.

On the second issue, the Court held that the board of canvassers, sustained by the Commission on Elections, properly performed its functions and did well in not overstepping its authority, applying the Dizon rule quoted above. The Court also said it should not unduly expand the reach of the statistically improbable doctrine.

On the third issue, the Court held that the right to the injunctive relief demanded must be clear and unmistakable, and here it was far from being so. The Court pointed petitioner and intervenors to the remedy in law — the corresponding election protest in the proper forum, the courts of justice.

Doctrine

A candidate's receipt of zero votes in an election return does not, by itself, make the return statistically improbable. The doctrine of statistical improbabilities requires a pattern so incredible that the return is manifestly fabricated — as in Lagumbay, where registered voters equalled ballots cast and every candidate of one party received exactly the same number while every candidate of the other party received nothing. The board of canvassers performs a ministerial duty: it takes the returns as made, adds them up, and declares the result; questions of illegal voting and fraudulent practices belong to the courts in an election protest or quo warranto proceeding. A writ of preliminary injunction requires a right that is clear and unmistakable.

Disposition

The Court lifted the restraining order and denied the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, leaving petitioner and intervenors to their election protest in the proper forum.

Remember This

Zero votes alone do not make a return statistically improbable; the Lagumbay doctrine demands the full pattern of identical tallies and blanked-out opposing candidates. Examiners use this case to test the limits of the statistical improbability doctrine and the ministerial duty of boards of canvassers.