G.R. No. 107847. June 02, 1994
IRMA C. ALFONSO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE CITY OF MANILA, AND ALBERTO A. DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.
QUIASON, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari, assailing the
Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 6, 1992,
which denied petitioner’s demand for a recount of the ballots under Article 234
of the Omnibus Election Code and the Resolution dated November 13, 1992, which
denied her motion for reconsideration.
We dismiss the petition.
I
In the May 11, 1992 elections, Pedro Alfonso ran for councilor in
the First District of Manila, which is entitled to elect six councilors.
On the eve of the elections, Pedro Alfonso died. At about 2:45 A.M. of May 11, 1992, his
daughter Irma Alfonso, petitioner herein, filed her certificate of candidacy in
substitution for her deceased father.
After the canvassing of the election returns by respondent City
Board of Canvassers, the results of the elections for councilors for the First
District of Manila were announced as follows:
1) Nieva, Ernesto – 60,101
2) Gonzales, Gonzalo – 44,744
3) Lopez, Honorio – 35,803
4) Alfonso, Pedro – 34,648
5) Cailian, Avelino – 32,462
6) Ocampo, Roberto – 31,264
7) Domingo, Alberto – 28,715
(Rollo,
p. 6).
Apparently, the respondent City Board of Canvassers added the
votes of Pedro Alfonso to those of petitioner’s thereby placing her in the
fourth slot. Consequently, private
respondent questioned such action in a petition filed on May 29, 1992. He prayed that the votes cast for Pedro
Alfonso be declared as stray votes and that, accordingly, he be proclaimed as
the sixth winner for councilor in the First District of Manila.
On June 3, 1992, the COMELEC resolved private respondent’s
petition as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
1) To GRANT the petition and to DECLARE all
votes cast in favor of Pedro Alfonso as stray votes;
2) To CREDIT in favor of respondent Irma Alfonso
only those votes cast with the name “ALFONSO” or IRMA ALFONSO; and
3) To DIRECT the City Board of Canvassers for
the First District of Manila, to reconvene the canvass and proclaim the winning
candidate/s for the position of city councilors for the First District of
Manila (Rollo, p. 46).
Petitioner thereby questioned said resolution before this Court
in G.R. No. 105577, entitled “Irma Alfonso, as a substitute of candidate
Pedro Alfonso v. COMELEC.”
On June 16, 1992, the Court dismissed the aforesaid petition in a
minute resolution, after finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the COMELEC.
Similarly, respondent City Board of Canvassers filed a Motion for
Clarification to the COMELEC en banc, asking that:
xxx xxx xxx
1) it should clarify its resolution of June 3,
1992 by stating whether the City Board of Canvassers and/or the Board of
Election Inspectors shall conduct a recount of the ballots or not;
2) the Honorable Commission should instruct the
City Board of Canvassers on how to implement par. 2 of the dispositive portion
of the resolution of June 3, 1992 (Rollo, p. 53).
COMELEC then clarified its resolution in an Order dated November
4, 1992, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
“RESOLVED to clarify the Resolution of
the Commission of June 3, 1992 as follows:
1. To grant the petition and to declare all
votes cast in favor of Pedro Alfonso as stray votes;
2) To credit in favor of respondent Irma Alfonso
only those votes cast with the name “Alfonso” or Irma Alfonso;
3) To direct the City Board of Canvassers for
the First District of Manila, to reconvene, canvass the election returns
submitted by the board of election inspectors, without opening any ballot box
containing the official ballots and proclaim the winning candidate for the
sixth position of city councilor in the First District of the City of Manila;
and
4) Let the Law Department implement this
resolution” (Rollo, p. 20).
Petitioner moved for a partial reconsideration of the said order,
invoking Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code and asking that all votes
cast in favor of Pedro Alfonso be credited as the votes of Irma
“Pete” Alfonso.
On November 23, 1992, COMELEC denied petitioner’s motion for
partial reconsideration and directed respondent City Board of Canvassers to
implement the Order dated November 4, 1992.
On December 1, 1992, petitioner instituted the present action,
questioning the denial of her motion for a recount of the ballots pursuant to
Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code. On December 10, 1992, we issued a temporary restraining order.
Meanwhile, respondent City Board of Canvassers reconvened to
implement the COMELEC’s Order, obtaining the following results:
ALFONSO, IRMA – 7,588
ALFONSO, PEDRO – 23,644
DOMINGO, ALBERTO – 25,825
In the course of the canvass, petitioner sought to exclude or set
aside 740 election returns on the grounds that her name and votes were omitted
therein.
On December 8, 1992, respondent City Board of Canvassers issued a
resolution, denying the motion and resolving that:
xxx xxx xxx
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Board, conformably with the
provisions of the second paragraph of Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code,
in relation to Sec. 27, paragraph (h) of Comelec Resolution No. 2413 dated
April 15, 1992 and acting pursuant to Resolutions, respectively dated November
4, 1992 and November 23, 1992, hereby finds that candidate ALBERTO DOMINGO
appears to be the winning candidate for the Sixth position of City Councilor in
the First District of the City of Manila.
ACCORDINGLY, let the proclamation of candidate-elect ALBERTO
DOMINGO be held on DECEMBER 14, 1992 at 10:00 A.M. at Office of the Election
Officer, Philippine Geriatrics Foundation Bldg., I, Lions Road, Arroceros
Street, Manila (pp. 3-4, ibid)” (Rollo, p. 165).
On the same date, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the
COMELEC.
Considering that a temporary restraining order was issued by this
Court on December 10, 1992 in the instant petition, petitioner did not pursue
her appeal to the COMELEC.
Petitioner submits for our resolution, the following issues:
1
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER MAY STILL QUESTION
RESPONDENT COMELEC’S RULING THAT THE VOTES CAST IN FAVOR OF DECEASED PEDRO
ALFONSO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED STRAY VOTES.
2
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COMELEC ACTED
WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A RECOUNT OF
THE BALLOTS.
3
WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE RIPE
FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.
The instant petition must fail.
II
Anent the first issue, there is no question that the votes in
favor of Pedro Alfonso shall be declared as stray votes and only those votes
cast with the name “Alfonso” or “Irma” shall be counted in
favor of petitioner as ruled by the COMELEC in its Resolution dated June 3,
1992. This was the holding of this
Court in the Resolution issued on June 16, 1992 in G.R. No. 105577 entitled
“Irma Alfonso, as a substitute candidate of Pedro Alfonso v.
Comelec.” Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC
in issuing its resolution dated June 3, 1992, the Court thereby dismissed the
petition. This issue can not be raised
anew in the present petition. There is,
therefore, no merit with the assertion that the votes cast in favor of Pedro
Alfonso must be counted in favor of petitioner.
Invoking Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code, petitioner
claims that a recount or reopening of the ballots boxes is necessary,
considering that in some election returns, her name was omitted and that of her
father was not deleted. She argues that
it would be difficult to determine which votes should be credited in her favor
by a mere re-canvass.
At the outset, petitioner’s prayer for a reopening of the ballots
is not a proper issue for a pre-proclamation controversy. The issues raised by petitioner should be
threshed out in election protest. The
case of Chavez v. Comelec, 211 SCRA 315 (1992), citing Sanchez
v. Comelec, 153 SCRA 67 (1987) is quite instructive on the
matter. In said case, we held:
xxx xxx xxx
“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.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx The fact that some votes written solely as Sanchez’ were
declared stray votes because of the inspectors’ erroneous belief that Gil
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.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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).”
xxx xxx xxx
We can not over-emphasize the public policy involved in the rule
that pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved in summary
proceedings. The public interest
requires that:
xxx xxx xxx
“xxx that the position for the filing of which the election
was held should be filled as promptly as possible, even if the proclamation of
the winning candidates be provisional in nature, in the sense that such would
be subject to the results of the election protest or protests that may be
expected to be filed. The Court is
bound by high duty and responsibility to give effect to this public policy
which is enshrined in statutory norms (infra). Petitioners’ principal remedy is to file election protests before the
appropriate agency of government-i.e., the Comelec (Article IX[C] [2] [2], 1987
Constitution)- and there to litigate all the issues raised by them in as much
detail as they might deem necessary or appropriate xxx” (Dimaporo v. Comelec,
186 SCRA 769 [1990]).
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued on December 8, 1992 is LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,
Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Regalado, Puno, and Kapunan, JJ., no part.