RENE CORDERO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ESTANCIA, ILOILO AND TRUMAN LIM, RESPONDENTS.

Cordero versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Rene Cordero against the Commission on Elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Estancia, Iloilo, and Truman Lim. Cordero and Lim were rival candidates for mayor of Estancia in the May 1998 elections. Cordero objected to the inclusion of several election returns in the canvass, and when the board of canvassers included them anyway, he appealed to the Commission on Elections. The Commission dismissed his appeals because he failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for pre-proclamation controversies. The case matters because it settles, in the clearest terms, that the written-objection and evidence requirements of Republic Act No. 7166 are mandatory, and that an appeal filed without the accomplished forms and supporting evidence must be summarily dismissed.

Procedural History

During the canvassing, Cordero contested the inclusion of election returns from several precincts. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Estancia overruled his objections and included the questioned returns in the canvass. Cordero appealed the board's action to the Commission on Elections, and later filed a second appeal covering another set of contested returns. In both appeals he sought the exclusion of those returns.

The Commission on Elections, Second Division, issued a resolution affirming the rulings of the board, holding that Cordero had failed to comply with the procedure prescribed by the Commission's rules, and directing the board to reconvene, finish the canvass, and proclaim the winning mayoralty candidate. Cordero moved for reconsideration, but the Commission en banc denied the motion and affirmed the assailed resolution. Cordero then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, and the Court issued temporary restraining orders first against the proclamation, and later directing Lim to cease and desist from assuming the office of mayor or to vacate it.

Facts

In the May 1998 elections, Rene Cordero and Truman Lim were candidates for mayor of Estancia, Iloilo. During the canvassing by the municipal board of canvassers, Cordero, through counsel, contested the inclusion of election returns from several precincts. He objected on the ground that the returns were tampered with, altered, manufactured, or lacked material data. Despite these objections, the board included the questioned returns in the canvass.

Cordero appealed the board's action to the Commission on Elections, and later filed a second appeal covering a different set of contested returns. In both appeals he sought the exclusion of those returns. The Commission found that he had failed to attach to his appeals his written objections and the evidence in support of them, as the rules required.

The Commission dismissed the appeals and directed the board to reconvene and finish the canvass and proclaim the winner. The board reconvened, and Lim was proclaimed as early as August 21, 1998. The Supreme Court then issued restraining orders against the proclamation and against Lim's assumption of office, and the case was submitted for resolution.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Cordero's appeals on the ground that he failed to attach his written objections and supporting evidence.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections erred in ordering that the contested election returns be included in the canvass.
• Whether or not the affidavits submitted by Cordero were sufficient to justify the exclusion of the contested returns.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7166 provides:

SEC. 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns. -- (a) Any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any election returns on any of the grounds authorized under Article XX or Sections 234, 235 and 236 of Article XIX of the Omnibus Election Code shall submit their oral objection to the chairman of the board of canvassers at the time the questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass. Such objection shall be recorded in the minutes of the canvass.

This subsection fixes the moment and manner of objecting: the objection is made orally, at the time the questioned return is presented, and is recorded in the minutes.

(b) Upon receipt of any such objection, the board of canvassers shall automatically defer the canvass of the contested returns and shall proceed to canvass the returns which are not contested by any party.

This subsection requires the board to set aside the contested returns and continue with the uncontested ones.

(c) Simultaneous with the oral objection, the objecting party shall also enter his objection in the form for written objections to be prescribed by the Commission. Within twenty-four (24) hours from and after the presentation of such an objection, the objecting party shall submit the evidence in support of the objection, which shall be attached to the form for written objections. Within the same period of twenty-four (24) hours after presentation of the objection, any party may file a written and verified opposition to the objection in the form also to be prescribed by the Commission, attaching thereto supporting evidence, if any. The board shall not entertain any objection or opposition unless reduced to writing in the prescribed forms.

This is the heart of the case: the objection must be entered in the prescribed form, and the supporting evidence must be submitted within twenty-four hours and attached to that form.

(d) Upon receipt of the evidence, the board shall take up the contested returns, consider the written objections thereto and opposition, if any, and summarily and immediately rule thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on the prescribed form and authenticate the same by the signatures of its members.

This subsection governs how the board rules on the contested returns once the evidence is before it.

(e) Any party adversely affected by the ruling of the board shall immediately inform the board if he intends to appeal said ruling. The board shall enter said information in the minutes of the canvass, set aside the returns and proceed to consider the other returns.

This subsection marks the start of the appeal process before the board itself.

(f) After all the uncontested returns have been canvassed and the contested returns ruled upon by it, the board shall suspend the canvass. Within forty-eight (48) hours therefrom, any party adversely affected by the ruling may file with the board a written and verified notice of appeal; and within an unextendible period of five (5) days thereafter, an appeal may be taken to the Commission.

This subsection sets the periods for the notice of appeal and for the appeal to the Commission.

(g) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the board shall make an appropriate report to the Commission, elevating therewith the complete records and evidence submitted in the canvass, and furnishing the parties with copies of the report.

This subsection requires the board to elevate the complete records and evidence to the Commission.

(h) On the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the board, the Commission shall decide summarily the appeal within seven (7) days from the receipt of said records and evidence. Any appeal brought before the Commission on the ruling of the board, without the accomplished forms and the evidence appended thereto, shall be summarily dismissed.

This is the provision the Court applied: an appeal without the accomplished forms and appended evidence must be summarily dismissed.

(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.

This subsection bars proclamation without the Commission's authorization while objections are pending on appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion. The procedure in pre-proclamation controversies is mandatory. The objecting party must not only reduce his objections to writing in the prescribed form; he must also present evidence in support within twenty-four hours. Under Subsection h, noncompliance results in the summary dismissal of the appeal. The Court stressed that the burden lies on the petitioner to prove a prima facie case and to present evidence that the exclusion he seeks will change the results of the election.

On the second issue, the Court held that a mere allegation that an election return is spurious, altered, or manufactured does not automatically operate to exclude it from the canvass. Absent clear and convincing evidence, the election returns and the canvassing proceedings must be upheld.

On the third issue, the Court held that mere affidavits cannot be relied on. The summary nature of a pre-proclamation controversy allows it to be resolved on the arguments and evidence submitted within the period allowed by law, which is why appending the evidence is crucial. The Court also held that the factual findings of the Commission, absent grave abuse of discretion, are binding on the Court.

Doctrine

In pre-proclamation controversies, the rules on presenting evidence and appealing the rulings of the board of canvassers are mandatory. The objecting party must enter his objection in the form prescribed by the Commission, and within twenty-four hours submit the evidence in support of the objection, attached to that form. An appeal brought before the Commission without the accomplished forms and the evidence appended thereto shall be summarily dismissed. A mere allegation that a return is spurious, altered, or manufactured does not automatically exclude it from the canvass; absent clear and convincing evidence, the returns and the canvassing proceedings are upheld, and mere affidavits cannot be relied on.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion; the assailed resolutions were affirmed, the temporary restraining orders were lifted, and costs were taxed against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the rule of Section 20, Subsection h, of Republic Act No. 7166: an appeal without the accomplished forms and appended evidence is summarily dismissed. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory character of pre-proclamation procedure and the burden of proof resting on the objecting party.