G.R. No. 24395. August 03, 1925
NICOLAS RAFOLS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF CEBU, RESPONDENTS.
VILLAMOR, J.:
That upon the giving of a proper bond by the petitioner a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the respondents, their
attorneys, agents and representatives, deputies and other persons
acting in their behalf and under their directions, pending the
disposition of this proceeding, to refrain from opening or causing to
be opened the ballot boxes of Pinamungahan, and from making any
canvassing of the votes cast in said municipality for the offices of
senator and representative in the general elections held June 2, 1925; (b)
that said writ of preliminary injunction be communicated by telegraph
to the respondents, without prejudice of sending them later on the writ
by mail, in view of the fact that it is probable that if it is not
communicated by telegraph the respondents may not be notified before
the next Monday, June 22, 1925, the date fixed for the opening of the
ballot boxes; and (c) that after due hearing, a final order be
entered by this Honorable Court enjoining the respondents, their
attorneys, deputies, representatives, agents and other persons acting
under their direction absolutely to refrain from opening the ballot
boxes of Pinamungahan for the purpose of making an examination of the
votes cast for the offices of senator and representative in the said
municipality in the general elections held June 2, 1925.
As
prayed for in this petition, the Justice of this court, who was acting
in vacation, issued, on June 19, 1925, a writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining the respondents. pending the decision of this action, from
opening or permitting to be opened the ballot boxes of the municipality
of Pinamungahan for the purpose of making a new canvass of the votes
cast in said municipality for the offices of senator and representative
in the last general elections held June 2, 1925.
In the
complaint it is alleged: (1) That the respondent provincial fiscal of
Cebu having received information about serious violations of the
Election Law committed by the election inspectors of the municipality
of Pinamungahan, applied to the Court of First Instance of said
province for the opening of the ballot boxes of the electoral precincts
of Pinamungahan for the purpose of canvassing carefully and determining
the true number of votes received by the candidates for senator and
representative, Messrs. Rodriguez and Noel; (2) that the Court of First
Instance of Cebu of June 6, 1925, granted the petition of the Fiscal
and ordered the opening of said ballot boxes of the precincts of
Pinamungahan and of all the papers and documents relative thereto for
the purpose of making an examination of, and ascertaining, the true
votes obtained by the candidates Rodriguez and Noel and for the purpose
of investigating other acts connected with said supposed violations;
and (3) that the new canvassing that the respondents are attempting to
make for the purpose of ascertaining the true number of votes cast in
favor of the candidates for senator and representative, Messrs.
Rodriguez and Noel, is not authorized by the law and tends to submit to
a judicial controversy the election of the petitioner and the
inspectors’ return proclaiming him as candidate reelected for the
office of Representative for the Sixth District of Cebu, which
constitutes an invasion of the constitutional privilege granted by the
Jones Law exclusively to the House of Representatives to take
cognizance of, hold proceeding upon, and decide protests against the
election and certificate of election of a representative elect.
The respondent judge of First Instance of Cebu admits in his answer
having ordered the opening of the ballot boxes in question, but denies
that the same was issued unlawfully and alleges that said order was
issued only in order that the respondent fiscal might determine,
through an examination of said boxes and their contents, whether or not
the fiscal should institute criminal actions. And that neither the
respondent fiscal nor the respondent judge has any intention or desire
to make a new canvass of the votes cast in favor of the petitioner,
Rafols, as candidate for Representative for the Sixth District of Cebu
or in favor of any other candidate for said office.
The respondent provincial fiscal of Cebu after denying the facts set forth in the complaint, alleges as a defense: (a)
That from the investigations conducted by him regarding the supposed
violations committed by the election inspectors of the four electoral
precincts of the municipality of Pinamungahan it appeared, in his
opinion, that the election inspectors of said municipality had
committed violations of the Election Law; (b) that for the
purpose of verifying the truth and correctness of the evidence obtained
by him it was necessary to open the ballot boxes of Pinamungahan; and (c)
that while the deputy fiscal, Ramon A. Noel, has not made an accurate
statement in his petition to the court under date of June 6, 1925,
which is cited in the complaint, yet the true object of the fiscal of
Cebu in applying to the court for the opening of the aforesaid ballot
boxes is simply to examine, under the supervision of the court, the
ballots deposited in said boxes for the purpose of verifying the result
of the investigation made by the fiscal in order to determine the
proper criminal action against the persons responsible for the fraud
and not for the purpose of making a special canvass of the votes of any
candidate. And as another defense the respondent fiscal alleges that
section 479 of the Election Law, as amended by section 25 of Act No.
3210, clearly and expressly authorizes the opening of the boxes by
order of the Court of First Instance motu proprio, or upon the petition of a party if the interests of justice so require.
It appears from the complaint and answer that the deputy fiscal of Cebu
filed with the Court of First Instance of the same province on June 6,
1925, the following motion:
“HON. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, “SIR:
According to reliable information, a serious violation of the Election
Law was committed in the municipality of Pinamungahan in that the
inspectors of the three precincts of said municipality voluntarily and
unlawfully refused to count the votes in favor of Messrs. Pedro
Rodriguez and Pastor Noel, candidates for senator and representative
respectively of this province, said inspectors having certified in
their election returns that none of said candidates had received any
vote.“This office is intending to prosecute the authors of said violation and the undersigned respectfully prays your Honor that the ballot boxes of said precincts be opened for the purpose of making a minute examination, and ascertaining the true number of votes obtained by Messrs. Rodriguez and Noel.
“We
pray that the court set the tenth day instant for the opening of the
boxes and the making of the examination and that the court itself be
present at the opening and the examination.
“Very respectfully, (Sgd.) “RAMON A. NOEL
On the same date the court entered the following order:
“A written petition having been presented in this court by the
prosecuting attorney, alleging that certain violations of the Election
Law had been committed in the last elections in the municipality of
Pinamungahan, Cebu, the court orders the opening of all the ballot boxes of the precincts of Pinamungahan and of all the papers and other documents connected therewith, for the purpose of making another examination of,
and ascertaining, the true votes obtained by the candidates Rodriguez
and Noel and investigating all the other acts connected with said
supposed violations.“Said opening will be made before this
court with the attendance of the prosecuting attorney and in the
presence, upon due notice, of the aforesaid Messrs. Rodriguez and Noel.“The
presiding judge in Branch I of this court having the right to enjoy
vacation in the month of June, this case is transferred to Hon.
Guillermo F. Pablo, auxiliary judge of this district, for its hearing
and decision and other necessary proceedings.“It is understood that upon the return of the presiding judge of Branch I of this court for the holding of ordinary sessions, this case
shall be returned to him unless by acts done and decrees issued by the
Hon. Guillermo F. Pablo it is made more proper that he should continue to hear and decide said case.“Cebu, Cebu, June 6, 1925.
“ADOLPH WlSLIZENUS
The
authenticity of the petition of the Deputy Fiscal of Cebu, as well as
of the order of the court dated June 6, 1925, having been admitted,
although the respondents explain in their answer the intention with
which said petition and order were written, the legal question at issue
in this proceeding is whether or not a Court of First Instance upon the
petition of the provincial fiscal may order the opening of the ballot
boxes for the purpose of making a careful canvass and determination of
the true number of votes obtained by the candidates for senator and
representative in a specific electoral district.
Section 479 of the Election Law, as lastly amended by section 25 of Act No. 3210, provides:
“Contests
in all elections for the determination of which provision has not been
made otherwise shall be heard by the Court of First Instance having
jurisdiction in the judicial district in which the election was held,
upon motion by any registered candidates voted for at such election.
The contests shall be filed with the court within two weeks after the
proclamation.“Such court shall have exclusive and final
jurisdiction, except as hereinafter provided. Upon petition of an
interested party, or of its own accord if the interests of justice
require it, said court shall forthwith cause the registration lists,
ballot boxes, ballots, and other documents used at such election to be
brought before it and examined, and to appoint the necessary officers
therefore and to fix their compensation, which shall not exceed five
pesos per diem each and shall be payable in the first instance out of
the provincial treasury.”* * * * * * *
This legal provision granting the courts of first instance jurisdiction
over election contests has been construed by this court on several
occasions, especially in the cases of Hontiveros vs. Altavas (24 Phil., 632); Manalo vs. Sevilla (24 Phil., 609); Valenzuela vs.
Judge of First Instance of Bulacan (40 Phil., 163); and it was
uniformly held that said jurisdiction presupposes the filing in court
of an election protest.
From a reading of the above quoted
legal provision, it will be observed that the jurisdiction granted by
law to the courts of first instance refers only to contested elections
to which there is no other legal provision applicable. And it is a
well-known fact that section 18 of the Jones Law confers exclusive
jurisdiction upon the Senate and the House of Representatives to hear
and determine election protests against the members elect of each
respective house. (Veloso vs. Boards of Canvassers of Leyte and Samar, 39 Phil., 886.)
It is true that the very same provision of law conferring jurisdiction
upon Courts of First Instance to try election protests, among other
things, provided that “Upon petition of an interested party, or of its
own accord if the interests of justice require it, said court shall
forthwith cause the registration lists, ballot boxes, ballots, and
other documents used at such election to be brought before it and
examined, * * , *.” In our opinion, however, this must be understood as
referring to an election falling within the jurisdiction of the court
of first instance, which is not the case here.
Section 38 of Act No. 3030, amending section 468 of the Election Law provides:
”
‘The municipal treasurer shall retain the boxes unopened in his
possession in a safe place and under his responsibility, until the
final decision of any election contest, and in any event for six
months, subject to the order of the court of competent jurisdiction or
other officer specially authorized by law to open the same.’ “
This provision of the Election Law clearly indicates that the ballot
boxes, which must be kept by the municipal treasurer after the
elections, are subject to the order of the courts of competent
jurisdiction until the final determination of any protest, or at any
event, if no protest is presented, for the period of six months.
Without determining now who is this “other officer specially authorized
by law to open the same,” we believe that even after the expiration of
the time for filing protests, a court of competent jurisdiction in
criminal cases may order the opening of the said ballot boxes if same
are presented in evidence either by the prosecution or by the defense.
Limiting ourselves, then, to the issue joined in this action, we are of
the opinion and so hold that the lack of jurisdiction is a ground for
the granting of the writ prayed for (22 R. G. L., 20, and cases cited).
And courts of first instance, being without jurisdiction to hear and
determine protests against the election of members of the House of
Representatives, cannot legally order the opening of the ballot boxes
for the purpose of making a canvass and determining the true number of
votes cast for senator and representative in the last general elections
held on June 2, 1925. Wherefore, the remedy as prayed for in the
complaint must issue, thus making absolute the preliminary injunction
issued by the Justice, acting in vacation, on June 19, 1925. It must be
understood, however, that this prohibition does not affect the power of
the Court of First Instance of Cebu to order the opening of the ballot
boxes of the municipality of Pinamungahan in the case of the municipal
election protest, which according to the answer of the respondent
judge, is now pending in the said court.
In reaching this
conclusion, we desire to state that we have carefully weighed the
arguments set forth by the respondent provincial fiscal, that he should
be given all the facilities for the prosecution of violators of the
Election Law. There can be no question that a provincial fiscal should
be given all the necessary means in order to prosecute violators of the
law. We believe, however, that when the law specifies the cases when
the ballot boxes may be opened, it is our duty to exact compliance with
the provisions of the law. The law, after ordering that the voting
shall be held secretly, ordains that the ballots be kept in boxes
solidly constructed and sealed with three different locks and keys; and
the jurisprudence, on the other hand, has laid down rules of precaution
for the opening of the election boxes, all of which show that the
election boxes must not be opened by guess work or merely for the sake
of discovering possible violators of the law; that the box containing
the evidence of popular sovereignty, that is, the will of the electors,
must not be exposed to examination without a justifiable motive and
when permitted, only in those cases mentioned by the law, so as not to
jeopardize the secret which is one of the fundamental principles
underlying the right of suffrage. After all, with the evidence secured
by the respondent fiscal in his investigation, as appears in his
answer, he had enough basis for filing a complaint against the alleged
violators of the law and he had the right to introduce as a part of his
evidence the contents of the ballot boxes here in question and the
court with jurisdiction over the case may validly order the opening of
said boxes.
The order prayed for is granted without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.