FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND CANUTO SENEN A. ORETA, RESPONDENTS.

Sandoval versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Federico Sandoval against the Commission on Elections and his rival, Canuto Senen Oreta. Sandoval had been proclaimed congressman-elect for the Malabon-Navotas legislative district, and the Commission on Elections, sitting en banc, set that proclamation aside. Sandoval asked the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's order. The case matters because it draws the boundary between two things that look alike: the power of the Commission to correct a manifest error in a certificate of canvass, which the law allows even in congressional elections, and the power to annul a proclamation, which the law allows only after due notice and hearing.

Procedural History

The controversy began before the municipal board of canvassers of Malabon and then before the district board of canvassers for Malabon and Navotas. From the district board, Oreta went to the Commission on Elections en banc, filing a petition to correct manifest error and later a petition to annul the proclamation. On June 2, 1998, the Commission en banc issued the assailed order setting aside Sandoval's proclamation. Sandoval then came directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, and the Court issued a temporary restraining order directing the Commission to cease and desist from enforcing the questioned order. The Commission nevertheless conducted a hearing on June 9, 1998. The Solicitor General first filed a manifestation finding the order null and void, and his successor later withdrew that manifestation and upheld the order. The case was decided by the Supreme Court in January 2000.

Facts

Sandoval and Oreta, together with several other candidates, vied for the congressional seat of the Malabon-Navotas legislative district in the election of May 11, 1998. In Malabon, the municipal board of canvassers formed a reception group and several canvassing committees to speed up the canvass. On May 16, 1998, Oreta's counsel asked the Malabon election officer for a complete list of the statements of votes, a list of precincts with the votes canvassed for each candidate, and permission to audit the tabulation reports. The board denied the requests, saying that counsel had no right to conduct an audit and that granting the requests would delay the proceedings.

On May 17, 1998, the Malabon board finished and issued a certificate of canvass stating that it had canvassed 804 out of 805 precincts. It showed Oreta leading in Malabon with 57,760 votes against Sandoval's 42,892. That same day, Oreta's authorized representative wrote the Commission Chairman to say that several election returns had not been included in the canvass, and asked that the certificate be declared not final. On May 23, 1998, Oreta filed with the Commission a petition to correct manifest error, alleging that only 790 election returns had actually been canvassed although the certificate showed 804, and that the results in 14 election returns had not been recorded in the statement of votes.

Meanwhile, the Navotas canvass was disrupted by a riotous exchange among supporters of opposing mayoralty candidates, and the Commission moved the venue to the Philippine International Convention Center in Manila. On May 27, 1998, the Chairman issued a memorandum authorizing the district board of canvassers to reconvene, complete the canvass, and proclaim the winning congressional candidate. On May 28, 1998, the district board convened. It examined the statement of votes and the certificate of canvass and found that 804 election returns had been canvassed by the Malabon board. It denied Oreta's request to suspend the canvass, noting the absence of a restraining order, the Chairman's memorandum, the absence of any irregularity on the face of the certificates, and the absence of a pre-proclamation contest for congressman. The district board then canvassed the municipal certificates and proclaimed Sandoval the winner with 82,339 votes against Oreta's 80,319. Sandoval took his oath of office the same day. Oreta then filed an urgent appeal and a separate urgent petition seeking to annul the proclamation, and on June 2, 1998, the Commission en banc set the proclamation aside.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections has jurisdiction over the petitions seeking correction of an alleged manifest error in the certificate of canvass issued by the Malabon municipal board of canvassers.
• Whether or not the Commission's order setting aside Sandoval's proclamation was valid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15 of Republic Act 7166 provides:

Section 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Members 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 election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.

This is the provision that decides the first issue: it bars pre-proclamation cases in congressional elections but expressly preserves the correction of manifest errors.

Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. It may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with the succeeding sections.

This is the provision that decides the second issue: the power to annul a proclamation is conditioned on due notice and hearing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Commission. As a general rule, candidates may file pre-proclamation cases, and the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies. Section 15 of Republic Act 7166 carves out an exception for presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections, to avoid delay that might leave a vacuum in these sensitive posts. But the same section contains an exception to the exception: it does not preclude the correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns. The Court reasoned that correcting a manifest error does not prolong the canvass or delay the proclamation. The Court also held that the authority to rule on such petitions is vested in the Commission en banc, and that jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of the petition, regardless of whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. On the claim that Oreta should first have gone to the municipal board, the Court found sufficient compliance because the issue had been raised before the district board before the proclamation, and it was impossible for Oreta to raise it earlier since he had no copy of the statement of votes at the time of the municipal canvass.

On the second issue, the Court held that although the Commission had jurisdiction, its order was invalid for having been rendered without due process of law. Procedural due process demands prior notice and hearing, and after the hearing the tribunal must show substantial evidence to support its ruling. The Commission set aside the proclamation without prior notice and hearing, based solely on Oreta's allegations. The Court stressed that although public office is not property and one cannot acquire a vested right to it, it is nevertheless a protected right, and the Commission is without power to annul a proclamation without notice and hearing. On Oreta's argument that Section 242 allows the Commission to act on its own motion, the Court answered that the phrase "motu proprio" in that provision is qualified by the words "after due notice and hearing."

Doctrine

First, in congressional, senatorial, presidential, and vice-presidential elections, no pre-proclamation cases are allowed, but the appropriate canvassing body may, on its own motion or on written complaint of an interested person, correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it. Second, the Commission on Elections en banc has jurisdiction over a petition to correct a manifest error, and jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the petition, not by the petitioner's entitlement to relief. Third, the Commission may annul or suspend a proclamation only after due notice and hearing; its power to act on its own motion does not dispense with that requirement, because public office, though not property, is a protected right.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court set aside the Commission's order annulling Sandoval's proclamation, and Sandoval prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: no pre-proclamation cases in congressional elections, except correction of manifest errors, and no annulment of a proclamation without due notice and hearing. Examiners use this case to test the exception to the exception in Section 15 of Republic Act 7166 and the due process requirement in Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code.