FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

This case was originally an urgent petition ad cautelam
praying, among others, for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) from proclaiming the
24th highest senatorial candidate.

The antecedents facts are as follows:

On May 5, 1992, this Court issued a Resolution in GR No. 104704,
entitled “Francisco Chavez v. Comelec et al.,” disqualifying Melchor
Chavez, private respondent therein, from running for the Office of Senator in
the May 11, 1992 elections.

The above-mentioned resolution was received by respondent Comelec
on May 6, 1992. On the same day,
petitioner filed an urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it (1)
disseminate through the fastest available means this Court’s Resolution dated
May 5, 1992 to all regional election directors, provincial election
supervisors, city and municipal election registrars, boards of election
inspectors, the six (6) accredited political parties and the general public;
and (2) order said election officials to delete the name of Melchor Chavez as
printed in the certified list of candidates, tally sheets, election returns and
“to count all votes cast for the disqualified Melchor Chavez in favor of
Francisco I. Chavez x x x.”

On May 8, 1992, the Comelec issued Res. No. 92-1322 which
resolved to delete the name of Melchor Chavez from the list of qualified
candidates. However, it failed to order
the crediting of all “Chavez” votes in favor of petitioner as well as
the cancellation of Melchor Chavez name in the list of qualified candidates.

According to petitioner, the Comelec failed to perform its
mandatory function under Sec. 7, RA 7166 which states that if a candidate has
been disqualified, it shall be the duty of the Commission to instruct without
delay the deletion of the name of said candidate.

Thus, the name of Melchor Chavez remained undeleted in the list
of qualified candidates on election day.

Confusion arose, allegedly nationwide, as the “Chavez”
votes were either declared stray or invalidated by the Boards of Election
Inspectors (BEIs).

On May 11, 1992, Commissioner Rama of respondent Comelec issued a
directive over radio and TV ordering all “Chavez” votes to be
credited in favor of petitioner. Petitioner contends that the radio and TV announcements did not reach
the BEI at the 170,354 precincts nationwide. As a result, “Chavez” votes were not credited in favor of
petitioner.

On May 12, 1992, Comelec issued another Resolution directing all
municipal and city election registrars throughout the country to examine the
minutes of voting submitted by the BEIs and to credit all the
“Chavez” votes, which have been declared stray or invalidated by the
BEIs, in favor of petitioner.

Petitioner maintains that the said resolution proved futile
because it did not reach all the various BEIs of the 170,354 election precincts
throughout the country on time for implementation and that the minutes of
voting did not indicate the number of “Chavez” votes which were
declared stray or invalidated.

On May 14, 1992, petitioner sent a letter to the Comelec
requesting the latter to devise ways and means in crediting “Chavez”
votes in his favor but the respondent Commission failed to act on said
letter/complaint.

On May 23, 1992, petitioner filed an urgent petition before the
respondent Comelec praying the latter to (1) implement its May 12, 1992
resolution with costs de officio; (2) to re-open the ballot boxes
in 13 provinces including the National Capital Region involving some 80,348
precincts (p. 9 of petition) and to scan for the “Chavez” votes for
purposes of crediting the same in his favor; (3) make the appropriate entries
in the election returns/certificates of canvass; and (4) to suspend the
proclamation of the 24 winning candidates.

Dissatisfied with the failure of respondent Comelec to act on his
petition, petitioner filed, as aforesaid, this urgent petition for prohibition
and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order, enjoining the Comelec from proclaiming the 24th highest
senatorial candidate, without first implementing respondent Comelec’s
resolution of May 12, 1992 and acting upon petitioner’s letter/complaint dated
May 14, 1992 and urgent petition dated May 22, 1992.

It is the submission of petitioner that assuming only ten (10)
“Chavez” votes were invalidated per precinct, he would have lost at
least 1.7 million votes (considering that there are more than 170,000 precincts
nationwide); the result of which will affect the 24 ranking senatorial
candidates.

Petitioner alleges that respondent Comelec acted capriciously and
whimsically and with grave abuse of discretion and therefore prays that the
Comelec be enjoined from proclaiming the 24th winning senatorial candidate
until after his petition before the Commission is resolved.

On June 4, 1992, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order
enjoining respondent Comelec from proclaiming the 24th winning senatorial
candidate and set the case for hearing on June 9, 1992.

On the same day (June 4, 1992), petitioner filed a manifestation
stating that on May 30, 1992, his urgent petition dated May 22, 1992 was
dismissed by respondent Comelec and prayed that the petition ad cautelam
at bar be considered a regular petition.

On June 8, 1992, Senator Agapito Aquino*
filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene with Comment in Intervention praying for
the dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the law does not allow
pre-proclamation controversy involving the election of members of the Senate.

After hearing the arguments of the parties on June 9, 1992, the
Court resolved to lift the temporary restraining order in the afternoon of the
same day (June 9, 1992).

Coming now to the merits, We find the petition devoid of any.

As stated earlier, petitioner’s urgent petition dated May 22,
1992 was dismissed by respondent Comelec on May 30, 1992. Had it not been prayed that the proclamation of the 24th winning
senatorial candidate be suspended; which this Court granted on June 4, 1992,
the instant petition would have been dismissed outright for having become moot
and academic. But even then, this Court
could not have acted favorably on petitioner’s
plaint.

The alleged inaction of respondent Comelec in ordering the
deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name in the list of qualified candidates does not
call for the exercise of the Court’s function of judicial review. This Court can review the decisions or
orders of the Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of discretion committed by
it in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers and not those arising from the
exercise of its administrative functions. Respondent Commission’s alleged failure to implement its own resolution
is undoubtedly administrative in nature, hence, beyond judicial interference
(See Filipinas Engineering Co. v. Ferrer,
135 SCRA 25 [1985]; Aratuc v. Commission on Elections, 88 SCRA 251 [1979]; see
also Pungutan v. Abubakar, 43 SCRA 1 [1972]). As aptly observed by the Solicitor General, respondent Comelec
can administratively undo what it has
administratively left undone (Manifestation, p. 2). Moreover, respondent Comelec has in fact, on
May 6, 1992 to be exact, ordered the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name not only
on the official list of candidates, but also on the election returns, tally
sheet and certificate of canvass (Comment, p. 7). Hence, petitioner’s allegation that respondent Comelec failed to
implement Res. No. 92-132 does not hold water.

Be that as it may, there are other compelling reasons why the
instant petition is bound to fail.

A simple reading of the petition would readily show that
petitioner has no cause of action, the controversy presented being one in the
nature of a pre-proclamation*.

While the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over
pre-proclamation controversies involving local elective officials (Sec. 242. Omnibus
Election Code), nevertheless, pre-proclamation cases are not allowed in
elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of
Representatives.

Sec. 15 of Republic Act 7166 provides:

“Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for
President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of
Representatives. — For purposes of the
elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of
Representatives, no pre?proclamation cases shall
be allowed on matters relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns or
the certificate of canvass, as the case
may be. However, this
does not preclude the authority of the
appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or
upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest
errors in the certificate of canvass or
election returns before it. (underscoring supplied)

x x x

“Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal
board of canvassers, or on the municipal certificates of canvass before the
provincial boards of canvassers or district board of canvassers in Metro Manila
Area, shall be specifically noted in the minutes of their respective
proceedings.”

It is clear from the above-quoted provision of the law that
“pre-proclamation cases (are) not allowed in elections for President,
Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives.” What
is allowed is the correction of “manifest errors
in the certificate of canvass or election returns.” To be manifest, the
errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election
returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made
before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their
respective proceedings.

In the case at bar, however, petitioner prays not only for a
restraining order enjoining “the proclamation of the 24th highest ranking
senatorial candidate without first acting upon petitioner’s letter/complaint
dated May 14, 1992 and urgent petition dated May 22, 1992” but also prays
that judgment be rendered requiring the Comelec to re-open the ballot
boxes in 80,348 precincts in 13 provinces therein enumerated (Petition,
p. 9) including Metro Manila, scan the ballots for “Chavez” votes
which were invalidated or declared stray and credit said scanned
“Chavez” votes in favor of petitioner.

It is quite obvious that petitioner’s prayer does not call for
the correction of “manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or
election returns” before the Comelec but for the re-opening of the ballot
boxes and appreciation of the ballots contained therein. Indeed, petitioner has not even pointed to
any “manifest error” in the certificates of canvass or election
returns he desires to be rectified. There being none, petitioner’s proper recourse is to file a regular
election protest which, under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code,
exclusively pertains to the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

Thus, Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution provides that
“(t)he Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of their respective Members. x x x” (underscoring
supplied). The word “sole”
underscores the exclusivity of the Tribunals jurisdiction over election
contests relating to their respective Members (Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the
House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692 [1991]; Lazatin v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 168 SCRA 391 [1988]; Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 [1936]). It is
therefore crystal clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
instant petition. It is the Senate
Electoral Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the complaint of
petitioner involving as it does, contest relating to the election of a member
of the Senate. As aforesaid,
petitioner’s proper recourse is to file a regular election protest before the
Senate Electoral Tribunal after the winning senatorial candidates have been
proclaimed.

Petitioner argues, on the other hand, that a recount before the
Senate Electoral Tribunal where he would be forced
to shell out the expenses imposes not only a property requirement for the
enjoyment of the right to be voted upon but also a price on the right of
suffrage which would ultimately stifle the sovereign will.

The argument, however, is beside the point. The law is very clear on the matter and it
is not right for petitioner to ask this Court to abandon settled jurisprudence,
engage in judicial legislation, amend the Constitution and alter the Omnibus
Election Code. The mandatory procedures
laid down by the existing law in cases like the one at bar must be faithfully
followed lest we allow anarchy to reign. The proper recourse is for petitioner to ask not this Court but the
Legislature to enact remedial measures.

Finally, the instant petition falls squarely with the case of
Sanchez v. Commission on Elections (153 SCRA 67 [1987]) and the disposition
arrived therein finds application in the case at bar, mutatis mutandis:

“Sanchez anchors his petition for recount and/or
reappreciation on Section 243, paragraph (b) of the Omnibus Election Code in
relation to Section 234 thereof with regard to material defects in canvassed
election returns. He contends that the
canvassed returns discarding “Sanchez” votes as stray were
“incomplete” and therefore warrant a recount or reappreciation of the
ballots under Section 234. x x x

“x x x The
fact that some votes written solely
as Sanchez” were declared stray votes
because of the inspectors’ erroneous belief
that Sanchez had not been disqualified as a candidate, involves an erroneous
appreciation of the ballots. It is established by
the law as well as jurisprudence x x x that
errors in the appreciation of ballots
by the board of inspectors are proper
subject for election protest and not for
recount or reappreciation of ballots.

“2.     The appreciation of the ballots cast in the precincts is not a
‘proceeding of the board of canvassers’ for purposes of pre-proclamation
proceedings under Section 241, Omnibus Election
Code, but of the boards of election
inspectors who are called upon to count
and appreciate the votes in accordance
with the rules of appreciation provided
in Section 211, Omnibus Election Code. Otherwise stated, the appreciation
of ballots is not part of the proceedings
of the board of canvassers. The function of ballots appreciation is
performed by the boards of election inspectors at the precinct level. (Underscoring supplied)

“3. The scope of
pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under Sec. 243
of the Omnibus Election Code. The
enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation
controversy is restrictive and exclusive. In the absence of any clear showing or proof that the election returns
canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (sec. 234), appear to have
been tampered with, falsified or prepared under duress (sec. 235) and/or
contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate, the difference of
which affects the result of the election (sec. 236), which are the only
instances where a pre-proclamation recount may be resorted to, granted the
preservation of the integrity of the ballot box and its contents, Sanchez’
petition must fail. The complete
election returns whose authenticity is not in question, must be prima facie
considered valid for the purpose of canvassing the same and proclamation of the
winning candidates.

x x x

“7. The ground for
recount relied upon by Sanchez is clearly not among the issues that may be
raised in pre-proclamation controversy. His allegation of invalidation of “Sanchez” votes intended for
him bear no relation to the correctness and authenticity of the election
returns canvassed. Neither the
Constitution nor statute has granted the Comelec or the board of canvassers the
power in the canvass of election returns to look beyond the face thereof, once
satisfied of their authenticity (Abes v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1252, 1256).”

In the case at bar, petitioner’s allegation that
“Chavez” votes were either invalidated or declared stray has no
relation to the correctness or authenticity of the election returns canvassed. Otherwise stated, petitioner has not
demonstrated any manifest error in the certificates of canvass or election
returns before the Comelec which would warrant their correction. As the authenticity of the certificates of
canvass or election returns are not questioned, they must be prima facie
considered valid for purposes of canvassing the same and proclamation of the
winning candidates (Sanchez v. Comelec, supra).

Premises considered, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant
petition for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Padilla, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero,
Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

*
Ranked as the 24th winning senatorial candidate in the official canvass of
Comelec

*
Pre-proclamation controversy is defined as “any question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any
candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political
parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised
under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.”
(Sec. 241 Omnibus Election Code)