BREN Z. GUIAO vs.

COMELEC 137 SCRA 366 FACTS OF THE CASE Petitioner Guiao was a candidate for Assemblyman in the May, 1984 elections in Pampanga. At seven o'clock in the evening, the Provincial Board of Canvassers met at the Conference Hall, Provincial Capitol in San Fernando, Pampanga, to canvass the election returns from the voting centers in the province. By 11:30 o'clock in the evening of May 16, 1984, the canvass of all election returns from all the voting centers of Pampanga had been completed without any objection raised by anyone to any of the canvassed returns. Petitioner Guiao garnered 5th place. It was only after the canvass had been completed did Petitioner Guiao submit to the Board of Canvassers his written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of election returns from various voting centers of different municipalities, on grounds that the canvassed returns were incomplete; that there was duress, intimidation, falsification, and the canvassed returns were obviously manufactured; that there were threats, coercion; and that Comelec's copy was not authentic, statistically improbable; and, that persons in Saudi Arabia were made to appear as if they had voted. Notwithstanding delay in the submission of these written objections, the Board of Canvassers nevertheless held a hearing on the same day. The Chairman of the Board of Canvassers, Atty. Manuel Lucero also sent to the Commission on Elections a memorandum, stating and informing that the Objections were raised after the completion of the canvass and requesting that the Provincial Board of Canvassers in Pampanga be authorized to proclaim the winning candidate based on the results of the completed canvass without prejudice to the outcome of the hearing on the objections. In a resolution dated May 17, 1984, the COMELEC granted the request of the Chairman of the Provincial Board of Canvassers. The petitioner's objections were later dismissed by the Board of Canvassers for failure to substantiate the same. It also appears that at said hearing, there was presented to the Board the request of the petitioner, thru his counsel Atty. Suarez, that subpoena be issued to the members of the Citizens Election Committee from various voting centers enumerated in the written objections. Said request was denied by the Board on the grounds that said petitioner's counsel should have been ready with his evidence to support his objections, the hearing being summary in nature and also to preclude further delay in the proclamation of the winning candidates. Petitioner appealed the matter to the COMELEC. Eventually, the COMELEC 1st Division resolved to sustain the proclamation of Assemblyman ABER CANLAS made by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Pampanga in connection with the May 14, 1984 election as hereby AFFIRMED and the appeal of the Petitioner-Appellant BREN GUIAO accordingly DISMISSED.

SUPREME COURT RULING Section 54 of Batas Pambansa No. 697 states that any candidate, political party coalition of political parties, contesting the exclusion or inclusion in the canvass of any election returns shall submit their written objections to the Chairman of Canvassers. From the provision of said Section 54 it can be inferred that these written objections must be submitted or manifested in order that it can be reflected in the minutes of canvass during the actual canvassing of the election returns, that is, during the second stage of the proceedings as pointed above since it is only during this stage that the board determines the inclusion or exclusion of the returns by opening and examining the returns to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the same. The summary nature of the proceedings require that the written objections be filed only during this stage because it is only during this stage of the canvass when the inclusion or exclusion of any return is in issue and being passed upon by the board. If during this stage, after the board has examined the returns and ruled to include them to the canvass with the acquiescence or approval of the representatives of the political parties and without any objection representatives of the political parties and without any objection written or verbal, from any of the candidates or their representatives, they are included in the canvass and the parties are estopped from questioning the inclusion of the returns in the canvass and from the denying the admissibility of said returns in the canvass and from denying the admissibility of said returns for purposes of the canvass after the second stage of the canvass. This must be so since at the third stage of the canvass, the inclusion or exclusion of any election return is no longer in issue. The issue in this third stage is the correctness or incorrectness of the mathematical computation and tabulation of the total voters received by the candidates as a result of the canvass. Once the correctness of the mathematical computation of the result of the canvass during this stage is determined and as established by the board of canvassers, the fourth stage remains to be a formality which should not be delayed by frivolous, imaginary and untimely unsubstantiated objections to election returns, intended to prevent or hinder the proclamation of the winning candidates. That these written objections must be submitted during the second stage, that is during the actual canvassing of the election returns, becomes express when said Section 54 states "The Board shall defer the canvass of the contested returns and shall not make any ruling thereon until after all the uncontested election returns have been canvassed. How can the board of canvassers defer the canvass of the contested returns if these written objections are submitted after the second stage, that is after the canvassing of said returns? To allow these written objections to prosper after the canvassing would be requiring the board of canvassers to reopen the canvass of election returns all over again which otherwise was regularly conducted without any objection from the political party representatives and the candidate or their representatives. This would not be in keeping with the summary nature of the canvass proceedings. CASTROMAYOR vs. COMELEC (250 SCRA298) Pre-Proclamation Controversy, D. Procedure Facts: Petitioner Castromayor was a candidate for a seat in the eight-member Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality of Calinog, Iloilo in the elections held in May 1995. The winners were proclaimed on the basis of the canvass which showed that petitioner received votes for the eighth place. When Alice Garin, Chairman of the MBC, rechecked the totals in the Statement of Votes the following day, she discovered that the number of votes cast for Nilda Demorito, as member of the Sanguniang Bayan, was 62 more than that credited to her. As Garin later explained to the Provincial Election Supervisor, the returns from one precinct had been overlooked in the computation of the totals,

therefore, the total number of votes cast for Demorito was 51 votes more than the votes cast for petitioner. Garin reported the matter to the Regional Election Director, who advised her to request authority from the COMELEC to reconvene for the purpose of correcting the error. A fax letter was sent to the Law Department of the COMELEC in Manila explaining the problem and asking for the authority to reconvene and correct the error, to annul the proclamation of petitioner and proclaim Demorito as the eighth member of the Sangguniang Bayan. A formal letter was later sent to the COMELEC and the same issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Castromayor and proclaimed Demorito as the duly elected eighth member. Petitioner protested the proposed action and questioned the legality of the actuations of Garin. Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when he was not afforded with right to refute the resolution of the COMELEC? Held: No. MBC proclamations may be raised directly to the COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections. What has just been said also disposes of petitioners other contention that because his proclamation has already been made, any remedy of the losing party is an election protest. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. The MBCs action to reconvene for purposes of correction of errors is valid under Rule 27 Sec. 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Though it pertains to pre-proclamation proceedings and here proclamation of petitioner has been made, there is nothing to suggest the it cannot be applied to the case at bar, in which the validity of the proclamation is precisely in question. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ( 211 SCRA 315 ) Pre-Proclamation Controversy, A. Defined Facts: On May 5, 1992, this Court issued a Resolution in GR No. 104704, disqualifying Melchor Chavez, private respondent therein, from running for the Office of Senator in the May 11, 1992 elections. Petitioner filed an urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it (1) disseminate through the fastest available means this Courts Resolution dated May 5, 1992 to all regional election directors, provincial election supervisors, city and municipal election registrars, boards of election inspectors, the six (6) accredited political parties and the general public; 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. On May 8, 1992, the Comelec issued Res. No. 92-1322 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. Issue: Whether or not the law allows pre-proclamation controversy involving the election of the members of the Senate. Held: A simple reading of the petition would readily show that petitioner has no cause of action, the controversy presented being one in the nature of a pre-proclamation. While the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies involving local elective officials (Sec. 242, Omnibus Election Code), nevertheless, preproclamation cases are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. Sec. 15 of Republic Act 7166 provides: 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. SALLY A. LEE vs. COMELEC FACTS OF THE CASE Sally A. Lee (petitioner) and Leovic R. Dioneda (private respondent) were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City, Sorsogon in the May 14, 2001 elections. During the canvassing of the election returns, counsel for private respondent objected to the inclusion of Election Return No. 41150266 for Precinct No. 28A2 in barangay Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City on the grounds that 1) no entries were made for the position of congressman, and 2) Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) watchers were utilized to fill up election returns. In her opposition to private respondents objection, petitioner alleged that 1) the omitted entry in the election return pertains to the position of congressman which cannot be a subject of pre-proclamation controversy, 2) the utilization of the watchers, who were under the direct supervision of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), was limited only to the filling up of the entries affecting the party-list and justified by the severe lack of personnel to perform the task, and 3) the alleged defect does not affect the integrity of the election return. On May 18, 2001, the Board of Canvassers (BOC), finding that the 1) questioned election return was clear and regular on its face, 2) there was no preproclamation for members of the House of Representatives and party list, and 3) the grounds relied upon by private respondent are all directed against the proceedings of the BEI and not the BOC, ruled for the inclusion of the return. Private respondent thereupon filed on the same day a notice of appeal of the BOC ruling. In the meantime, or on May 19, 2001, the BOC proclaimed the winning candidates, including petitioner as city mayor. Private respondent thus filed on May 23, 2001 before the COMELEC a petition assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the exclusion of the questioned election return and the annulment of petitioners proclamation. Petitioner filed her answer to the COMELEC petition, praying for its dismissal. By Resolution of January 10, 2003, the COMELEC Second Division granted the petition of private respondent and accordingly excluded the questioned return from the canvass and nullified the proclamation of petitioner. ISSUES I.

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GO BEYOND OR BEHIND ELECTION RETURNS AND INVESTIGATE ELECTION IRREGULARITIES IN PREPROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY. II. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RENDERED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS DESPITE THE CLEAR AND APPARENT LACK OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE SAME. III. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED PROCEDURAL LAPSES IN THE PROMULGATION OF THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS WHICH AFFECTS THE FAIRNESS STANDARD. SUPREME COURT RULING Petitioners argument is bereft of merit. Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code provides: Section 243. Issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy: (a) Illegal composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers; (b) 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; (c )The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and (d) 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. The doctrine cited by petitioner presupposes that the returns "appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face." Where, as in the case at bar, there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in the questioned election return, the doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC is thus not powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the questioned election return. As to the second error raised by petitioner, she claims that contrary to the findings of the COMELEC, there is no evidence on record that an LDP watcher participated in the preparation of the questioned election return. She posits that the omission of entries was not done with malice or bad faith nor meant to subvert the true will of the people, and that the election return in question is clear and regular on its face, duly authenticated by the signatures and thumbmarks of the six watchers and all the members of the BEI. Finally, she posits that an incomplete election return is not necessarily spurious, manufactured or fraudulent to necessitate its exclusion. As to the third error raised by petitioner, she argues that the January 10, 2003 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division was promulgated without giving her notice, and that were it not for her counsels "accidental" visit to the COMELEC on January 13, 2003, said counsel would not have known that said resolution was already promulgated and the 5-day period from the date of promulgation to file a motion for reconsideration, as provided under the following provision of Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, would have lapsed: Section 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. - A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspend the execution or implementation of the decision, resolution, order and ruling. In Lindo v. Commission on Elections, this Court held that the 5-day period for the filing of an appeal commences from the date of receipt of copy of the decision. As correctly ruled by the COMELEC: The petitioner misinterpreted the provision of Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure when she stated that "Unlike other cases, the reglamentary period within which a party can have the decision or resolution reviewed on motion for reconsideration runs from the date of promulgation." When not promulgated in open hearing, a simple procedural sense would dictate that the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration must have to be tolled from the date of receipt of the decision/resolution involved. Further, the doctrine laid down in the case of Lindo v. Comelec (194 SCRA 25) would have supported the proposition that the additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC Rules on advance notice of promulgation does not form part of the process of promulgation and that the failure to serve such notice in advance did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did not vitiate the validity of the decision nor of the promulgation, as the period for the unsatisfied party to move for reconsideration can be exercised - not from the date of promulgation, as misconstrued by petitioner, but from her actual receipt of a copy of the resolution in question. As to the non-indication of the ponente of the COMELEC En Banc Resolution, petitioner merely proffers a possibility of violation of the COMELEC Rules. It is presumed, however, that an official duty has been regularly performed. The lack of merit of petitioners arguments notwithstanding, the COMELEC, in ordering the exclusion of the questioned return, should have determined the integrity of the ballot box, the ballot-contents of which were tallied and reflected in the return, and if it was intact, it should have ordered its opening for a recounting of the ballots if their integrity was similarly intact. So instructs Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which reads: Section 234. Material defects in the election returns. - If it should clearly appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction. Provided, That in case of the omission in the election returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes, the board of canvassers shall require the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the necessary data in the election returns and affix therein their initials: Provided, further, That if the votes omitted

in the returns cannot be ascertained by other means except by recounting the ballots, the Commission, after satisfying itself that the identity and integrity of the ballot box have not been violated, shall order the board of election inspectors to open the ballot box, and, also after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved, order the board of election inspectors to count the votes for the candidate whose votes have been omitted with notice thereof to all candidates for the position involved and thereafter complete the returns. The right of a candidate to avail of this provision shall not be lost or affected by the fact that an election protest is subsequently filed by any of the candidates. And so does Section 235 of the same Code which provides: Section 235. When election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified. - If the election returns submitted to the board of canvassers appear to be tampered with, altered or falsified after they have left the hands of the board of election inspectors under duress, force, intimidation, or prepared by persons other than the members of the board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers shall use other copies of said election returns and if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box which upon previous authority given by the Commission may be retrieved in accordance with Section 220 hereof. If the other copies of the returns are likewise tampered with, altered, falsified, not authentic, prepared under duress, force, intimidation, or prepared by persons other than the board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers or any candidate affected shall bring the matter to the attention of the Commission. The Commission shall then, after giving notice to all candidates concerned and after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballot box and, likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved shall order the board of election inspectors to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new return which shall then be used by the board of canvassers as basis of the canvass. Thus, this Court in Patoray v. Commission on Elections[25] held: As to the election return for Precinct No. 20-A, we ruled that the COMELEC erred in resorting to the Certificate of Votes in excluding the return in said precinct. Since the return was incomplete for it lacked the data as to provincial and congressional candidates, the applicable provision would be Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which deals with material defects in election returns. Thus, we ruled that the COMELEC should have first determined the integrity of the ballot box, ordered the opening thereof and recounted the ballots therein after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots is intact. We then directed the COMELEC to issue another Order in accordance with said Decision. If the integrity of the ballot box had been violated, then there would be no need to open it. If not, and upon opening it there is evidence that the integrity of the ballots had been violated, there would be no recounting thereof, and the COMELEC would then seal the box and order its safekeeping. Thus Section 237 of the Omnibus Election Code provides: Sec. 237. When integrity of ballots is violated. - If upon the opening of the ballot box as ordered by the Commission under Sections 234, 235 and 236, hereof, it should appear that there are evidence or signs of replacement, tampering or violation of the integrity of the ballots, the Commission shall not recount the ballots but shall forthwith seal the ballot box and order its safekeeping. WHEREFORE, the COMELEC is, in accordance with the foregoing discussion, hereby DIRECTED to determine within twenty days whether the integrity of the ballot box, the ballot-contents of which were tallied and reflected in the questioned return, is intact and, if in the affirmative and the integrity of the ballots is likewise intact, to order the Sorsogon City Board of Election Inspectors to recount the votes cast in Precinct No. 28A2 in Barangay Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City and prepare a new return to serve as basis of canvass by said board; otherwise the ballot box should no longer be opened or the ballots should no longer be recounted as the case may be, in which case an order for the safekeeping of the ballot box should be issued. The Status Quo Ante Order issued on February 18, 2003 is hereby DISSOLVED. LAGUMBAY vs. COMELEC ( 16 SCRA 175, 1966 ) Pre-Proclamation Controversy, C. Issues Which May Be Raised Facts: This is a petition for revision of the order of the COMELEC refusing to reject returns of certain precincts of some municipalities in Mindanao which were obviously manufactured. It appeared that all the 8 candidates of the Liberal party garnered all the votes, with each of them receiving exactly the same number of votes while all the 8 candidates of the Nacionalista party getting zero. Issue: Whether the COMELEC was correct in not rejecting obviously manufactured election returns of certain questioned precincts. Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. There is no such thing as blockvoting now-a-days. The election returns showing all 8 candidates of the Liberal party getting all the votes, with each one of them getting the same number of votes while the 8 nacionalista candidates got zero are evidently false or fabricated because of the inherent improbability of such a result. It is against statistical improbabilities especially because al least 1 vote should have been received by the Nacionalista candidates, i.e. the Nacionalista inspector. While it is possible that the inspector did not like his partys senatorial live-up, it is not, however, possible that he disliked all of such candidates and it is also not likely that he favored all the 8 candidates of the Liberal party. Hence, most probably, he was made to sign an obviously false return by force or duress. If he signed voluntarily, then he betrayed his party and any voting or counting of ballots was a fraud and a mockery of the popular will. Rejecting such returns on the ground that they are manifestly fabricated or falsified would constitute a practical approach to the COMELECs mission to insure a free and honest elections. ABDULAKARIM D. UTTO vs. COMELEC FACTS OF THE CASE This petition for certiorari and prohibition seeks to annul the resolutions of the Commission on Elections en banc, affirming in toto the resolution of the Comelec (First Division) directing the inclusion of five (5) election returns excluded by the municipal board of canvassers during the canvass of votes for the May 14, 2001 election in the municipality of Sultan sa Barongis, Maguindanao and finding petitioners proclamation to be illegal and void ab initio. Petitioner Abdulkarim D. Utto and respondent Datu Almansa B. Angas were candidates for the position of the mayor of the municipality of Sultan sa Barongis, Maguindanao in the May 14, 2001 election. For the canvassing of votes of the May 14, 2001 election returns, the original municipal board of canvassers was composed of Nena Alid as chairman, and Maceda Lidasan Abo and Noron Gonina, as members. During the canvassing on May 16, 2001, election returns in Precinct Nos. 15A, 25A/26A, 66A, and 68A/69A were

presented. On May 18, 2001, respondent filed a petition to inhibit Alid and Abo, which resulted in the suspension of the canvassing. Alid and Abo inhibited themselves from the proceedings. On May 24, 2001, Bai Haidy D. Mamalinta took over as chairperson, with Roihaida Khalid and Noron Gonina, as members of the municipal board of canvassers. The canvassing was again suspended when both Khalid and Gonina also inhibited themselves from participating in the proceedings. On May 27, 2001, the provincial election supervisor designated Rufden Mangelen and Tamano Diolanen as members of the municipal board of canvassers. In an affidavit executed on May 31, 2001, Tamano Diolanen stated that at around 6:00 in the morning of that day, chairperson Mamalinta called him up and informed him that she would convene the board of canvassers, with instruction for him not to attend because he was already replaced. He further stated that on May 28, 2001, Rufden Mangelen called him up to tell him of his (Mangelen) decision to inhibit himself as member of the board of canvassers due to pressure exerted by chairperson Mamalinta. In the morning of May 31, 2001, the municipal board of canvassers convened with chairperson Mamalinta and member Asuncion Corazon Reneido present. The other member, Mowakiram Samuang was absent. Before the start of the canvass, chairperson Mamalinta distributed to the parties present a report on the status of canvassing. Out of the 98 precincts, the municipal board of canvassers issued four (4) separate rulings excluding the above-cited five (5) election returns. Particularly, the municipal board of canvassers ruled that the Election Returns were tampered with or were not original. At this point, respondent orally manifested his intention to appeal the ruling, and simultaneously filed a verified notice of appeal, which Bai Haidy D. Mamalinta (chairperson of the municipal board of canvassers) refused to accept. Meanwhile, despite respondents manifestation, the municipal board of canvassers proceeded with the proclamation of the candidates for municipal offices. The board proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of the municipality. SUPREME COURT RULING Section 38 (9), Comelec Resolution No. 3848[45] provided the procedure in the disposition of contested election returns and certificate of canvass. The Comelec precludes the board of canvassers from proclaiming any candidate as winner, except upon its authorization after it has ruled on the appeal of the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation thereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election. This provision is mandatory and requires strict observance. Section 20 (i), Republic Act No. 7166 where Comelec Resolution No.3848 finds basis further states: SEC. 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns.--(a) x x x (i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election. Consequently, petitioners proclamation was null and void. It was made on May 31, 2001 after respondent manifested his intention to appeal the ruling of the board of canvassers. On the day of the proclamation, respondent attempted to file a verified notice of appeal, but the chairperson of the municipal board of canvassers refused to accept the appeal. Within the reglementary period for filing an appeal, respondent went to the Comelec. Pursuant to Section 20 (i), Republic Act No. 7166, the municipal board of canvassers may not proclaim any candidate without waiting for the authorization of the Comelec. Considering that petitioner had a very small margin of 149 votes over respondent, and there were 944 registered voters from the five excluded election returns, the results of the municipal election would be undoubtedly adversely affected by the contested returns. The proclamation thus made is void ab initio. It is now settled that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted. When the municipal board of canvassers disregarded the five (5) election returns, it in effect disenfranchised the voters of the excluded precincts. Thus, the Comelec did not abuse its discretion for convening a new board of canvassers and directing the inclusion of the uncanvassed election returns and, thereafter proclaiming the winning candidate for mayor and other municipal officials. Time and again, the Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that Comelec is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation illegally made. The fact that a candidate illegally proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise of such power. It is also true that after proclamation, the remedy of a party aggrieved in an election is an election protest. This is on the assumption, however, that there has been a valid proclamation. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot deprive Comelec of the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. The reason behind the view herein expressed is as aptly elucidated in Aguam, to wit: We draw from past experience. A pattern of conduct observed in past elections has been the pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest-slogan of some candidates or parties. Really, were a victim of a proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene. It may not be out of place to state that in the long history of election contests in this country, as observed in Lagumbay vs. Climaco, a successful contestant in an election protest often wins but a mere pyrrhic victory, i. e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has expired. Protests, counter-protests, revisions of ballots, appeals, dilatory tactics, may well frustrate the will of the electorate. And what if the protestant may not have the resources and an unwavering determination with which to sustain a long drawn-out election contest? In this context therefore all efforts should be strained - as far as is humanly possible - to take election returns out of the reach of the unscrupulous; and to prevent illegal or fraudulent proclamation from ripening into illegal assumption of office. SANCHEZ vs. COMELEC ( 153 SCRA 67, 1987 ) Counting of Votes, A. Rules for Appreciation of Ballots Facts: Augusto Sanchez filed his petition praying that respondent Comelec be directed to conduct a recount of the votes cast in the May 11, 1987 senatorial elections to determine the true number of votes to be credited to him on the ground that the votes intended for him were declared as stray votes because of the sameness of his surname with that of disqualified candidate Gil Sanchez, whose name had not been crossed out from the election returns.

Issue: Whether his petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of ballots filed with the Comelec may be considered a summary pre-proclamation controversy falling within the Comelecs exclusive jurisdiction. Held: Petitioner contends that the canvassed returns discarding Sanchez votes as stray were incomplete and therefore warrant a recount or re-appreciation of the ballots under Section 234. A simple reading of the basic provisions of the cited section shows readily its inapplicability. By legal definition and by the very instructions of the Comelec, an election return is incomplete if there is omission in the election returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes or in case the number of votes for a candidate has been omitted. Here, the election returns are complete and indicate the name of Sanchez as well as the total number of votes that were counted and appreciated as votes in his favor by the boards of inspectors. The fact that the some votes written solely as Sanchez were declared stray votes because of the inspectors erroneous belief that Gil Sanchez had not been disqualified as a candidate, involves an erroneous appreciation of the ballots. It is established by law as well as by jurisprudence that errors in the appreciation of ballots by the board of inspectors are proper subjects for election protest and not for recount or re-appreciation of ballots. The appreciation of ballots cast in the precincts is not a proceeding of the board of canvassers for purposes of pre-proclamation proceedings, but of the board of election inspectors who are called upon to count and appreciate the votes in accordance with the rules of appreciation provided in section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code. JAVIER vs. COMELEC ( 144 SCRA 194 ) Election Contests, G. Interpretation of Certain Words and Phrases Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. The former appeared to enjoy more popular support but the latter had the advantage of being the nominee of the KBL with all its perquisites of power. On the eve of the elections, the bitter contest between the two came to a head when several followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly by the latters men. Seven suspects, including respondent Pacificador, are now facing trial for these murders. Conceivably, it intimidated voters against supporting the Opposition candidate or into supporting the candidate of the ruling party. It was in this atmosphere that the voting was held, and the post-election developments were to run true to form. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondents proclamation, the petitioner went to the Comelec to question the canvass of the election returns. His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court, arguing that the proclamation was void because made only by a division and not by the Comelec en banc as required by the Constitution. Issue: Whether or not the Second Division of the Comelec authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23, 1984, proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the election. Held: Article XII-C, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution provides that: The COMELEC may sit en banc or in three divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided by divisions except contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall be heard and decided en banc.