EMILIO C. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Santos versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition brought by Emilio Santos against the Commission on Elections and the members of the municipal board of canvassers of Hagonoy, Bulacan, arising from the contested mayoralty canvass and proclamation following the elections of November 1959. Two rival proclamations of mayor-elect were issued on the same day, December 3, 1959 — one in the morning by the original board of canvassers in favor of Santos, and one in the afternoon by a reconstituted board in favor of Emilio Perez. The case matters because it fixes the supervisory authority of the Commission on Elections over boards of canvassers, the majority requirement for a valid proclamation, and the rule that a canvass must rest on the original return prescribed by law, not on a mere copy.

Procedural History

The dispute began before the municipal board of canvassers of Hagonoy, Bulacan, which suspended the canvass of the return for Precinct Number 7 and adjourned without deciding how the votes in that precinct should be counted. Candidate Emilio Perez then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for a recount of the votes in Precinct Number 7. After examining all four copies of the return, the trial court observed that there was no discrepancy, since the return could be read as crediting Emilio Perez with 30 votes and Emilio Santos with 109 votes; on that observation Perez withdrew his petition, and the withdrawal was granted.

The Commission on Elections, after hearing, annulled the first proclamation in favor of Santos and upheld the proclamation of Perez made by the reconstituted board. Santos then resorted to the Supreme Court in certiorari and prohibition, asking that the resolution of the Commission and the proclamation of Perez be declared null and void. The Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, the respondents answered, and the case was heard and submitted for decision.

Facts

During the canvass on November 19, 1959, when the board reached the return of Precinct Number 7, some members insisted that the entries for mayor showed two spaces bearing the name Emilio — one credited with 30 votes and one with 109 votes — alongside two votes for Nena Marucot and one for Segundo Gonzales. The board suspended the canvass of that precinct and finished all the other returns of the 91 precincts on November 21, 1959, still without deciding the status of the Precinct Number 7 return, in view of the Commission's telegraphic instruction that the board continue the canvass without counting the votes for Emilio Perez and Emilio Santos in that precinct, and that if those votes would materially affect the result, the board should withhold proclamation and give any interested party the opportunity to seek a remedy in court.

Perez petitioned the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for a recount. When all four copies of the return were produced, the court observed that the copies for the Commission and for the provincial treasurer credited Perez with 30 votes and Santos with 109 votes, and that in the copy for the municipal treasurer the second surname could be read as Santos, so that the first Emilio necessarily referred to Perez and there was no discrepancy. Perez withdrew his petition, and the withdrawal was granted on December 1, 1959.

The Commission authorized the issuance of a photostatic copy of its copy of the return for the use of the board, and its special attorney set the continuation of the canvass and proclamation for two o'clock in the afternoon of December 3, 1959. Instead, the chairman called a meeting at eight o'clock in the morning of that day and produced a typewritten certificate of canvass and proclamation for signature, over the objection of the Commission's representative that Precinct Number 7 had not been canvassed. Five members walked out; the special attorney suspended them, appointed substitutes, and the reconstituted board finished the canvass using the photostatic copy and proclaimed Perez as mayor-elect. The morning proclamation, signed by only five of the ten members, credited Santos with both the 30 and the 109 votes, giving him 6,936 votes against 6,911 for Perez, a plurality of 25.

Issues

• Whether or not the first proclamation in favor of Emilio Santos, issued by the original board of canvassers in the morning of December 3, 1959, is valid.
• Whether or not the second proclamation in favor of Emilio Perez, issued by the reconstituted board of canvassers in the afternoon of December 3, 1959, is valid.
• Whether or not a new canvass and proclamation may be ordered, and by whom.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of the Revised Election Law, cited by the Court as the source of the Commission's power to appoint substitutes, provides the authority under which the reconstituted board was formed:

Section 3 of the Revised Election Law.

The Court invoked this provision only to identify the source of the appointing power, and then measured the substitutes' canvass against the requirement of law that it be made upon the original return.

Section 167 of the Revised Election Code, cited by the Court for the proper course of action, provides:

Section 167 of the Revised Election Code.

This is the provision under which the newly elected municipal council, sitting as the board of canvassers, must carry out the new canvass and proclamation.

Section 168 of the Revised Election Code, cited by the Court for the remedy of recount, provides:

Section 168 of the Revised Election Code.

This is the provision the board must observe, suspending proclamation to allow the party concerned to petition for a recount of the ballots where the return appears to contain the same candidate's name twice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the first proclamation null and void and of no force or effect. It was unauthorized, because the Commission, in the exercise of its supervisory powers, had expressly instructed the board by telegram not only:

to hold action on precinct seven until the party affected can bring case to court,

but also:

to hold proclamation until further orders of commission unquote stop.

The Commission had convened the board for the afternoon, not the morning, and the insistence on meeting in the morning to proclaim Santos in disregard of that supervisory authority clearly evidenced a plan to railroad his proclamation. Worse still, no canvass of the votes of Precinct Number 7 had been made, and the proclamation was signed by only five of the ten members, which is not a majority. The inclusion of both the 30 and the 109 votes for Santos, so as to make him win, was without authority of the board and therefore a nullity.

On the second issue, the Court likewise declared the second proclamation null and void. The reconstituted board's canvass was not made on the basis of the original return for Precinct Number 7 received by the municipal treasurer, as prescribed by law, but upon a photostatic copy of the duplicate received by the Commission. The five substitutes had never seen the original return, which had been locked inside an unused ballot box, and no effort appeared to have been made to procure it. The Court warned that it would be a dangerous precedent to authorize a board of canvassers to use any copy of the return other than the one indicated by law without first establishing that the latter is not available.

On the third issue, the Court held that the proper course is a new canvass and proclamation, to be carried out by the newly elected municipal council pursuant to Section 167.

Doctrine

A board of canvassers acts under the supervisory authority of the Commission on Elections; a proclamation made in defiance of the Commission's lawful instructions, and without the required canvass, is null and void. A proclamation signed by only five of ten members is not the act of the board, because it lacks a majority. A canvass must be made upon the original return prescribed by law; a copy may be used only after it is first established that the original is not available. Where the return appears to contain the same candidate's name written twice, the board must suspend proclamation to give the party concerned the opportunity to petition for a recount under Section 168, and must abide by the judicial resolution. The remedy of a new canvass lies with the newly elected municipal council under Section 167.

Disposition

The Court modified the resolution of the Commission on Elections: it declared both proclamations of December 3, 1959 null and void, directed the municipal board of canvassers composed of the present members of the municipal council to canvass the original return of Precinct Number 7 and proclaim the candidate with a plurality, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and taxed costs against Emilio Santos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a canvass must rest on the original return, and a proclamation needs a majority of the board acting under the Commission's supervision. Examiners use this case on the supervisory powers of the Commission on Elections, the validity of proclamations, and the hierarchy of election returns.