OMAR M. “SOLITARIO” ALI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LANAO DEL SUR, AND MAMINTAL A. ADIONG, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Ali versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Omar M. Ali, who ran under the nickname Solitario, against the Commission on Elections, its Provincial Board of Canvassers of Lanao del Sur, and his rival for governor, Mamintal Adiong, Junior. Ali lost the May 2007 gubernatorial race and asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Commission's refusal to exclude several municipal certificates of canvass, to annul Adiong's proclamation, and to correct alleged manifest errors. The case matters because it draws the outer boundary of a pre-proclamation controversy: it tells us exactly which objections a canvassing board and the Commission may entertain, and which must be litigated instead in an election protest.

Procedural History

During the provincial canvass, Ali objected to the inclusion of the municipal certificates of canvass of Picong, Ganassi, Buadiposo-Buntong, and Bumbaran. The Provincial Board of Canvassers denied every objection, and Adiong was proclaimed the winner. Ali then filed a consolidated appeal with the Commission on Elections, followed by a motion to annul the proclamation and a motion to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass of Buadiposo-Buntong.

The Commission's Second Division dismissed the consolidated appeal, denied the motion to annul the proclamation, and dismissed the motion to correct manifest errors for lack of evidence. Ali moved for reconsideration, and the Commission en banc dismissed the motion. Ali then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

Ali and Adiong were candidates for governor of Lanao del Sur in the May 14, 2007 elections. After the voting, the Provincial Board of Canvassers began canvassing the municipal certificates of canvass, and Ali raised objections to four municipalities.

For Picong, he claimed that twenty-nine election returns were signed not by authorized members of the Board of Election Inspectors but by civilians acting without authority. For Ganassi, he claimed that ballots in six precincts were not counted, or were counted without the presence of watchers. For Buadiposo-Buntong, he claimed that the total votes credited to the four candidates for governor exceeded the total number of voters, showing the certificate was manufactured, and he later alleged that six hundred votes were padded in favor of Adiong, citing the affidavits of two tabulators. For Bumbaran, he claimed that counting was done in Bumbaran instead of Marawi City, contrary to a Comelec directive.

The Board denied all objections and Adiong was proclaimed. Before the Commission, Ali added his motion to annul the proclamation and his motion to correct manifest errors. The Commission found that the alleged replacement of Board of Election Inspectors in Picong rested only on a tentative list prepared months before the elections; that the Ganassi objection had been rendered moot by special elections held on June 20, 2007, in which the six precincts were counted and canvassed; that the Buadiposo-Buntong padding claim rested on affidavits without any election returns or other proof; and that the Bumbaran counting had in fact been proposed and approved for that very municipality. The Commission en banc affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing Ali's consolidated appeal, motion to annul proclamation, and motion to correct manifest errors.
• Whether or not the Provincial Board of Canvassers violated the law in proclaiming Adiong while a consolidated appeal and a motion to correct manifest errors were pending, and without authority from the Commission.
• Whether or not the objections raised by Ali were proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy.

Applicable Provisions

Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, which the Commission quoted as the exclusive list of issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy, provides:

Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; 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; The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and 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.

This enumeration is the measuring stick for every objection Ali raised, and the Court treats it as restrictive and exclusive.

Section 35 of Comelec Resolution Number 7859, which the Commission quoted on the meaning of manifest error, provides:

Section 35. Manifest error. There is manifest error in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing where: 1) A copy of the election return or certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once; 2) Two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two or more copies of certificates of canvass were tabulated separately; 3) There was a mistake in the copying of the figures from the election returns to the SOV by precinct or from the municipal or city Certificates of canvass to the SOV by Municipality; or from the Provincial or City Certificate of Canvass to the SOV by province or city; 4) Returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass; or 5) There was a mistake in the addition of the votes in any candidate.

This defines the narrow corrections a board may make during canvassing, and Ali's bare claim of excess votes fit none of these categories.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. The Commission had examined the records and election documents and discussed each municipality in turn, so it could not be faulted. Its findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence, are final and binding on the Court, which is not a trier of facts.

On the second issue, the Court found no valid reason to annul the proclamation, since Adiong had already been proclaimed and the consolidated appeal had been dismissed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the objections were not proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy. The scope of that controversy is limited to the issues enumerated in Section 243, and the enumeration is restrictive and exclusive. The Court stressed that in such a proceeding the board and the Commission do not look beyond or behind election returns that are regular and authentic on their face, and that the summary nature of the remedy leaves no room for evidence aliunde, inspection of voluminous documents, or meticulous technical examinations. The remedy available to Ali was an election protest.

Doctrine

A pre-proclamation controversy is confined to the four issues listed in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that list is restrictive and exclusive. Objections outside the list, such as the alleged replacement of Board of Election Inspectors or claims of padding supported only by affidavits, must be raised in an election protest.

Canvassing bodies do not look beyond or behind election returns that are regular and authentic on their face, and election returns are accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the voting, with the burden of proof on the one who attacks them.

Manifest error under Section 35 of Comelec Resolution Number 7859 is limited to the five enumerated situations, and a bare assertion for correction, unsupported by proof, must not be given credence.

Findings of fact of the Commission on Elections, when supported by substantial evidence, are final, non-reviewable, and binding on the Supreme Court, and certiorari lies only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the resolutions of the Commission's Second Division and en banc were affirmed; Adiong prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the scope of a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to Section 243 and that the enumeration is restrictive and exclusive, so the canvassing board never looks behind returns regular on their face. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between a pre-proclamation controversy and an election protest, and the standard for grave abuse of discretion in Comelec findings of fact.