DIMANGADAP DIPATUAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALEEM HOSAIN AMANODDIN, ALEEM ABBAS MOHAMMAD HABIB, HADJI SALIC IMAM, IBRA P. BALI, MAMENTAL NAGA, CADAR G. USM…

Dipatuan versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Dimangadap Dipatuan against the Commission on Elections and the private respondents led by Aleem Hosain Amanoddin. Dipatuan and Amanoddin were rival candidates for Mayor of Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur, in the special local elections of February 1988. Dipatuan asks the Supreme Court to set aside the resolutions of the Comelec Second Division and the Comelec En Banc ordering the inclusion, in the canvass, of the election returns from two precincts that he claims were spurious and manufactured. The case matters because it draws the boundary between a pre-proclamation controversy, which is summary in nature, and a regular election protest, which is the proper forum for allegations of fraud committed before or during the voting itself.

Procedural History

Two separate boards of canvassers purported to act in Bacolod Grande. The board chaired by Samuel Minalang finished canvassing on 21 February 1988 but proclaimed Amanoddin only on 29 February 1988. Earlier, on 25 February 1988, a separate board headed by Mamacaog Manggray proclaimed Dipatuan as Mayor after excluding the returns from three precincts. The Comelec En Banc set aside both proclamations, holding the first premature and the second made by a board that had not been properly constituted. The Comelec then convened a Special Board of Canvassers in Manila to recanvass the returns. Dipatuan objected to the inclusion of the returns from two precincts, and the Special Board denied his objections and ordered their inclusion. On appeal, the Comelec Second Division sustained the Special Board and ordered the proclamation of the winning candidates. The Comelec En Banc affirmed and denied reconsideration. Dipatuan then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, with a prayer for a restraining order. The Court issued a temporary restraining order, but the Special Board had already proclaimed the private respondents on 28 December 1988. The Court later directed that Amanoddin, having been proclaimed, be recognized as Mayor pending resolution of the merits.

Facts

In the special local elections of 1 February 1988, Dipatuan and Amanoddin vied for Mayor of Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur. When the Special Board of Canvassers conducted its recanvass in Manila, Dipatuan objected to the returns from Precincts 15 and 17, contending that they were obviously manufactured within the meaning of the Omnibus Election Code. He reduced his oral objections to writing and submitted voting records, voter's affidavits, and affidavits of witnesses.

Dipatuan alleged that in Precinct 15, of 248 persons who actually voted, 187 arrived and voted precisely in alphabetical and chronological order; that 85 of these were illiterates who suddenly learned to write their names in the voting list; and that many persons with veiled faces were allowed to vote without verification of identity. In Precinct 17, he alleged that 93 voters voted in alphabetical and chronological order, that 45 illiterate voters suddenly learned to write their names, and that veiled persons voted without confirmation of identity. In both precincts, he claimed discrepancies between signatures in the voter's affidavits and in the voting record, and that members of the Boards of Election Inspectors falsified the records.

The private respondents explained that the two precincts were in the poblacion, that voters converged early on election day, and that to avoid trouble the Boards of Election Inspectors called out names in alphabetical order to keep order. The Comelec found the evidence ambiguous and invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

Issues

• Whether or not the election returns from Precincts 15 and 17 were obviously manufactured, such that their inclusion in the canvass presented a pre-proclamation controversy to be resolved before proclamation.
• Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in sustaining the inclusion of the questioned returns and in holding that the proper remedy was an election protest.

Applicable Provisions

Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. -- The following shall be the proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy: x x x (c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic: and x x x

This provision defines the closed list of issues that may be raised before proclamation, and the Court used it to test whether Dipatuan's allegations fell within a pre-proclamation controversy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that while the issues raised were, in principle, proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy, the fact that returns are obviously manufactured must be evident from the face of the returns themselves. Dipatuan did not claim that the returns were not made by the Boards of Election Inspectors or were manufactured by unknown third parties; he did not claim the returns were inauthentic. What he contended was that genuine returns reflecting fraudulent acts done before or by the Boards of Election Inspectors should be deemed obviously manufactured. The Court rejected this, citing its earlier ruling that padding of the list of voters or fraudulent conspiracy in its preparation is not a valid basis for a pre-proclamation controversy, and that whenever irregularities such as fraud are asserted, the proper course is an election protest.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It noted that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges against the Board of Canvassers and not the Board of Election Inspectors, and that the Comelec does not look behind returns that are regular and authentic on their face. The Court accepted that alphabetical and chronological voting is not itself proof of fraud, since in some precincts of Lanao it is imposed to promote an orderly election. It found the evidence on illiterate voters ambiguous, since the law does not clearly prescribe how the voting record is to reflect that an illiterate has voted. It also held that the affidavits came from affiants closely connected to the petitioner rather than independent witnesses, and that comparing signatures and thumbmarks would require a regular election protest, not a summary proceeding.

Doctrine

A pre-proclamation controversy is summary in nature and is confined to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and to the issues listed in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. For election returns to be deemed obviously manufactured, the defect must be evident from the face of the returns themselves; returns that are genuine and authentic on their face cannot be pierced in a pre-proclamation proceeding. Allegations of fraud, vote buying, terrorism, or irregularities committed before or by the Boards of Election Inspectors are proper grounds for a regular election protest, not for a pre-proclamation controversy. The Comelec does not look behind returns that are prima facie regular, and the policy is to avoid disenfranchising the greater number of voters through the misdeeds of a relative few.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the decisions of the Comelec were upheld, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that obvious manufacture must appear on the face of the returns; fraud committed before or by the Boards of Election Inspectors belongs to an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy. Examiners use this case to test the scope of Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code and the distinction between a summary pre-proclamation controversy and a regular election protest.