Chavez v. COMELEC

Chavez v. COMELEC

Bidin, J.

Facts:

                Petition for the issuance of a TRO enjoining COMELEC from proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate.

May 5, 1992 - Court issued a Resolution of the case “Francisco Chavez v. Comelec , et al.,” disqualifying Melchor Chavez from running for Senator in the May 11, 1992 elections. The petitioner then filed an urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it (1) disseminate to all its agents and the general public the resolution; and (2) order said election officials to delete the name of Melchor Chavez as printed in the certified list of candidates, tally sheets, election returns and “to count all votes cast for the disqualified Melchor, Chavez in favor of Francisco I. Chavez . . . .”

May 8, 1992 - Comelec issued a resolution which resolved to delete the name of Melchor Chavez from the list of qualified candidates. However, it failed to order the crediting of all “Chavez” votes in favor of petitioner as well as the cancellation of Melchor Chavez name in the list of qualified candidates. On Election Day, Melchor Chavez remained undeleted in the list of qualified candidates. Commissioner Rama issued a directive over the radio and TV ordering that all “Chavez” votes be credited to the petitioner however it did not reach all the precincts.

Petitioner claims that the Comelec failed to perform its mandatory function under Sec. 7, RA 7166 which states that if a candidate has been disqualified, it shall be the duty of the Commission to instruct without delay the deletion of the name of said candidate.

Confusion arose as the “Chavez” votes were either declared stray or invalidated by the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs).As a result, “Chavez” votes were not credited in favor of petitioner.

May 12, 1992 - Comelec issued another Resolution directing all municipal and city election registrars throughout the country to examine the minutes of voting submitted by the BEIs and to credit all the “Chavez” votes, which have been declared stray or invalidated by the BEIs, in favor of petitioner.

Petitioner maintains that the said resolution proved futile because it did not reach all the various BEIs throughout the country on time for implementation and that the minutes of voting did not indicate the number of “Chavez” votes which were declared stray or invalidated.

May 23, 1992, petitioner filed an urgent petition before the respondent Comelec praying the latter to (1) implement its May 12, 1992 resolution with costs de officio; (2) to re-open the ballot boxes to scan for the “Chavez” votes for purposes of crediting the same in his favor; (3) make the appropriate entries in the election returns/certificates of canvass; and (4) to suspend the proclamation of the 24 winning candidates.

Dissatisfied with the failure of respondent Comelec to act on his petition, petitioner filed this urgent petition for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, enjoining the Comelec from proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate, without first implementing Comelec’s resolution of May 12, 1992 and acting upon petitioner 􀀀s letter/complaint dated May 14, 1992 and urgent petition dated May 22, 1992. Petitioner alleges that respondent Comelec acted capriciously and whimsically and with grave abuse of discretion.

June 8, 1992, Sen. Agapito Aquino prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the law does not allow pre-proclamation controversy involving the election of members of the Senate.

Issue:

                whether or not SC has jurisdiction over the case

Held:

                Jurisdiction - The alleged inaction of Comelec in ordering the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name in the list of qualified candidates does not call for the exercise of the Court’s function of judicial review. The Court can review the decisions or orders of the Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of discretion committed by it in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers and not those arising from the exercise of its administrative functions.

                Comelec can administratively undo what it has administratively left undone. Comelec has ordered the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name not only on the official list of candidates, but also on the election returns, tally sheet and certificate of canvass. Hence, petitioner 􀀀s allegation that respondent Comelec failed to implement the resolutions does not hold water.

                Petitioner has no cause of action, the controversy being in the nature of a pre-proclamation. While the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies involving local elective officials, such are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives.

Sec. 15 of Republic Act 7166 provides:

Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.

xxx xxx xxx

Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or on the municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial boards of canvassers or district board of canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.

What is allowed is the correction of “manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns.” To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.

The petitioner’s prayer does not call for the correction of “manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election returns” before the Comelec but for the reopening of the ballot boxes and appreciation of the ballots contained therein. He has not even pointed to any “manifest error” in the certificates of canvass or election returns he desires to be rectified. There being none, the proper recourse is to file a regular

- Sanchez v. Commission on Elections: “… (1) Errors in the appreciation of ballots by the board of inspectors are proper subject for election protest and not for recount or re-appreciation of ballots. (2) The appreciation of ballots is not part of the proceedings of the board of canvassers. The function of ballots appreciation is performed by the board election inspectors at the precinct level. (3) The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under Sec. 243 OEC. The complete election returns whose authenticity is not in question, must be prima facie considered valid for the purpose of canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning candidates.

“The ground for recount relied upon by Sanchez is clearly not among the issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. His allegation of invalidation of “Sanchez” votes intended for him bear no relation to the correctness and authenticity of the election returns canvassed. Neither the Constitution nor statute has granted the 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 (Abes v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1252, 1256).”

Petitioner has not demonstrated any manifest error in the certificates of canvas s or election returns before the Comelec which would warrant their correction.

Note:

                Pre-proclamation controversy is defined as “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.” [Sec. 241, Omnibus Election Code).