Digest: Abes v. Commission on Elections (21 SCRA 1255, 1967)

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ELECTIONS; BOARD OF CANVASSERS; DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS. — The board of canvassers is a ministerial body. It is enjoined by law to canvass all votes on election returns submitted to it in due form. It has been said, and properly, that its powers are "limited generally to the mechanical or mathematical function of ascertaining and declaring the apparent result of the election by adding or compiling the votes cast for each candidate as shown on the face of the returns before them, and then declaring or certifying the result so ascertained."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; ID. — COMELEC is the constitutional body charged with the duty to enforce all laws relative to elections, duty bound to see to it that the board of canvassers perform its proper function. Pertinent rulings of this Court have since defined Comelec’s powers in pursuance of its supervisory or administrative authority over officials charged with specific duties under the election code. It is within the legitimate concerns of Comelec to annul a canvass or proclamation based on incomplete returns, or on incorrect or tampered returns; annul a canvass or proclamation made in an unauthorized meeting of the board of canvassers either because it lacked a quorum or because the board did not meet at all. Neither Constitution nor statute has granted Comelec or the board of canvassers the power, in the canvass of election returns, to look beyond the face thereof, once satisfied of their authenticity.

3. ID.; ID.; ELECTION RETURNS; SUSPENSION OF CANVASS UNWARRANTED IN CASE AT BAR. — Petitioners argue that the canvassing should be stopped. But nothing in the petition herein would indicate that the returns were falsified after they left the hands of election inspectors or that the returns are not genuine. The petition stresses the existence of other irregularities. For Us now to give our stamp of approval to the petition to suspend canvass and proclamation is to stop both Comelec and the board of canvassers: the first, from performing its constitutional and legal duty to administer the election laws and supervise elections; and the second, from discharging its legal obligation to canvass the returns and proclaim the elected candidates. And worse, to suspend canvassing and proclamation at this late date may result in a vacuum in office of Quezon City elective officials after the term of the present incumbents shall have ended on December 31, 1967. Some such eventuality must be prevented. Canvassing and proclamation must proceed.

4. ID.; ID.; COMELEC WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ANNUL AN ELECTION. — Nothing in Section 2, Article X of the Constitution will imply authority for Comelec to annul an election. So, too, did the Revised Election Code withhold from Comelec the specific power to annul an election. The boundaries of the forbidden area into which Comelec may not tread are also marked by jurisprudence. That Comelec is not the proper forum to seek annulment of an election based on terrorism, frauds and other illegal practices, is a principle emphasized in decisions of this Court. Expressive of this rule is the following culled from Nacionalista Party v. Commission on Elections, 85 Phil. 149, 155-156." . . the power vested in the Commission to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and to insure free, orderly, and honest elections... is preventive only and not curative also; that is to say, it is intended to prevent any and all forms of election fraud or violation of the Election Law, but if it fails to accomplish that purpose it is not the Commission on Elections that is charged with the duty to cure or remedy the resulting evil but some other agencies of the Government ..." In the more recent case of Ututalum v. Commission on Elections, L-25349, Dec. 3, 1965, this Court bolstered jurisprudence on this point by reiterating that Comelec’s powers are "essentially executive (`enforcement’) and administrative (`administration’) in nature."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; QUESTION OF ELECTION IRREGULARITIES TO BE VENTILATED IN A REGULAR ELECTION PROTEST. — The course to pursue is pointed out in City Board of Canvassers v. Moscoso, L-16365, Sept. 30, 1963 — "The question of whether or not there had been terrorism, vote-buying and other irregularities in the 1959 elections in Tacloban City should be ventilated in a regular election protest, pursuant to section 174 of the Election Code, and not in a petition to enjoin the city board of canvassers from canvassing the election returns and proclaiming the winning candidates for municipal offices. The duty of the board in this regard is more or less ministerial; it does not pass upon the validity or invalidity of the ballots cast, and its action is necessarily without prejudice to the determination of such question in a proper court proceeding later. This proceeding, under section 174, should be filed within two weeks after the proclamation of the result of the election and hence necessarily implies a previous canvass of the votes by the board of canvassers...."cralaw virtua1aw library

6. ID.; ID.; COMELEC WITHOUT THE POWER TO DIRECT THE HOLDING OF NEW ELECTIONS. — There is no constitutional or legal precept that empowers the Comelec to direct a new election after one had already been held. All that there is in the statute books is Section 8 of the Revised Election Code which empowers the President to postpone an election fixed by law upon recommendation of the Comelec, but this refers to postponement before elections, and not a remedy thereafter.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; MANDAMUS WILL NOT ISSUE IN THE ABSENCE OF COMELEC’S LEGAL DUTY TO ANNUL THE ELECTIONS. — The petition in effect seeks to nullify Comelec’s order denying the petition for the suspension of the canvass and the proclamation of the winning candidates. There was no lack nor excess of jurisdiction. No grave abuse of discretion was involved. Correctly did Comelec decline to direct the Quezon City board of canvassers to suspend canvass and proclamation. Comelec is powerless to annul the election. Nor can it direct a new election. We cannot compel Comelec to act as petitioners prayed for. Absent Comelec’s legal duty, mandamus will no issue.

Facts: Petitioners’ cry for relief, so their petition avers, is planted upon the constitutional mandate of free, orderly, and honest elections. 1 Specifically, they list a number of represented acts. Amongst these are: (1) blank official registration forms were taken from the office of the Quezon City Comelec Registrar several weeks before election day, November 14, 1967; (2) active campaigning within the polling places by Nacionalista leaders or sympathizers of Nacionalista candidates were allowed; (3) voters were permitted to vote on mere mimeographed notices of certain Nacionalista candidates; (4) voters were compelled to fill their official ballots on open tables, desks and in many precincts outside the polling places; (5) forms of petitions for inclusion proceedings were obtainable only in the offices of candidates of the Nacionalista Party; (6) thousands of voters were allowed to vote on the strength of inclusion orders issued indiscriminately by two City Judges on election day; (7) thousands of voters sympathetic to the Nacionalista candidates were allowed to vote beyond the hours for voting allowed by law; (8) thousands of voters’ I.D. registration cards of voters sympathetic to non-Nacionalista candidates were thrown and scattered in the Office of the Nacionalista candidate for Mayor; (9) voters’ I.D. cards were delivered by partisan leaders of respondents Nacionalista candidates, and those who did not signify their Reference for Nacionalista candidates were not given their I.D. cards, (10) the office of the corporation of which respondent Ismael Mathay, Jr. is the President was used as a place of registration which is "unauthorized" ; (11) most of the precinct books of voters were not sealed within the deadline fixed by law; and (12) the resulting effect of irregularities is that about 51% of the registered voters were disenfranchised.

Petitioners, candidates of the Liberal Party, the Nacionalista Reform Party and the Quezon City Citizens League for Good Government, first went to the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Upon the claim that more than 50% of the registered voters were not able to vote during the elections of November 14, 1967, they prayed for Comelec’s declaration that there was failure of election. They petitioned for suspension of the canvass and the proclamation of winning candidates. They sought nullification, too, of elections in Quezon City for city officials and asked that new elections be held. Comelec, in a minute resolution of November 23, 1967, denied the petition, ordered the board of canvassers to proceed with the canvass but not to proclaim any winning candidate for city offices and gave petitioners time "to go to the Supreme Court for the proper remedy.

Issue: whether or not there had been terrorism, vote- buying and other irregularities in the 1959 elections in Tacloban City should be ventilated in a regular election protest, pursuant to section 174 of the Election Code, and not in a petition to enjoin the city board of canvassers from canvassing the election returns and proclaiming the winning candidates for municipal offices.

Ruling: The board of canvassers is a ministerial body. It is enjoined by law to canvass all votes on election returns submitted to it in due form. It has been said, and properly, that its powers are "limited generally to the mechanical or mathematical function of ascertaining and declaring the apparent result of the election by adding or compiling the votes cast for each candidate as shown on the face of the returns before them, and then declaring or certifying the result so ascertained."