MS. BAIRANSALAM LAUT LUCMAN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOSAMA M. PANDI, RESPONDENTS.

Lucman versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition brought by Bairansalam Laut Lucman against the Commission on Elections and her rival candidate, Mosama M. Pandi. Lucman had been proclaimed mayor of Poona-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, after the May 2004 elections, but the Commission on Elections annulled that proclamation and ordered an examination of voter records in the contested precincts. The case matters because it draws the boundary between a pre-proclamation controversy, which is summary and confined to the face of the election returns, and an election protest, which is the proper forum for allegations of fraud, terrorism, and other irregularities in the conduct of the elections.

Procedural History

During the canvassing, Pandi objected to several election returns before the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Poona-Bayabao. The Board overruled the objections and proclaimed Lucman as the winning candidate. Pandi appealed to the Commission on Elections, and also moved to annul the proclamation or suspend its effects. The First Division of the Commission issued an order annulling Lucman's proclamation, directing the Vice-Mayor to assume the position, and ordering the Commission's document examiners to examine the lists of voters with voting records and the voter registration records of the contested precincts. Lucman moved for reconsideration, which was certified to the Commission en banc. The Commission en banc first issued a temporary restraining order and a status quo ante order, but later denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the First Division's order. Lucman then filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Lucman and Pandi were rival mayoralty candidates in Poona-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, in the elections of May 10, 2004. During the canvassing, Pandi objected to the inclusion of several election returns, although only six remained in controversy. His objections were that the returns were obviously manufactured or falsified, that they were not authentic, that they contained alterations, and that they were incomplete. The Municipal Board of Canvassers overruled these objections and proclaimed Lucman as the winning candidate. Lucman won over Pandi by a margin of sixteen votes.

Pandi appealed to the Commission on Elections. In his appeal, he went beyond his original objections and alleged massive fraud and irregularities in the conduct of the elections: force, threat, and intimidation against voters, double voting, substitution of voters, snatching of ballots, padding of ballots, and flying voters. He also alleged that the counting was not done simultaneously with the appreciation of the ballots, that his watchers were threatened and forced to leave the counting room, and that the Board of Election Inspectors merely copied entries prepared by Lucman's watchers.

The First Division of the Commission annulled Lucman's proclamation and ordered an examination of the voter records to determine whether actual voting by registered voters had taken place. The Commission en banc affirmed. Lucman brought the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commission had gravely abused its discretion in entertaining what was in truth an election protest.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal filed by Pandi before the Commission on Elections raised a proper pre-proclamation controversy.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling Lucman's proclamation and in ordering the examination of the lists of voters and voter registration records.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the appeal despite the alleged failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 20 of Republic Act Number 7166 and the failure to implead indispensable parties.

Applicable Provisions

Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code defines a pre-proclamation controversy:

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.

This definition anchors the Court's holding that the controversy must concern the proceedings of the board of canvassers or the returns themselves, not the conduct of the elections.

Section 243 of the same Code enumerates the issues that may be raised:

SEC. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy: (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; (b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 of this Code; (c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and (d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.

The Court held that this enumeration is restrictive and exclusive, so any issue outside it cannot be litigated in a pre-proclamation controversy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Pandi's appeal did not raise a proper pre-proclamation controversy. His original objections before the Board were proper, because they concerned returns that were allegedly manufactured, falsified, altered, or incomplete. But in his appeal, he alleged massive substitution of voters, snatching of ballots, force and intimidation, double voting, and flying voters. These allegations pertained not only to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election returns, but to the conduct of the elections as well. The Court stressed that a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face, and that it is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction to go beyond the face of the returns or investigate election irregularities. The proceedings are summary, and the reception of evidence aliunde, such as the lists of voters and voter registration records, is proscribed. Issues of fraud or terrorism are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy and should be resolved in a regular election protest before the Regional Trial Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal, annulling the proclamation, and ordering the examination of voter records. All subsequent actions of the Commission were therefore null and void, correctible by certiorari.

On the third issue, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the remaining grounds, since they had been rendered moot and academic by the ruling on the principal issue.

Doctrine

A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face. The Commission on Elections cannot pierce the veil of returns that appear prima facie regular, nor receive evidence aliunde, because the proceedings are summary in nature. The issues that may be raised are those enumerated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that enumeration is restrictive and exclusive. Allegations of fraud, terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities in the conduct of the elections are proper grounds for a regular election protest before the Regional Trial Court, not for a pre-proclamation controversy.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the assailed orders of the Commission were set aside for lack of jurisdiction, Pandi's appeals were dismissed without prejudice to a regular election protest, and Lucman's proclamation was maintained, allowing her to assume the office of mayor.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a pre-proclamation controversy looks only at the face of the election returns, and fraud and terrorism belong to an election protest. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate's allegations fall within the exclusive enumeration of Section 243 or must be litigated in a regular election protest before the Regional Trial Court.