I.

CORRECTION OF MANIFEST OF ERRORS The BOC may motu proprio or upon certain petition of an interested party correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass of election return. B. RA 7166 states, Section 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, c ustody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates 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. Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with the Commission in accordance with Section 19 hereof. Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or on the municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial board of canvassers or district boards of canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noticed in the minutes of their respective proceedings. Grounds: 1. 2. 3. copy of an election return or certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once two or more copies of the same election return or certificate of canvass were tabulated separately there was a mistake in copying the figures I nto the statement of votes or certificate of canvass Errors in the addition in the certificate of canvass may be corrected (Lucero vs Comelec) 4. Returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass C.

* Use of illegal election propaganda, vote buyingterrorism of the voters are not proper issues in preproclamation cases. Administrative lapses which do not affect the authenticity of an election returns cannot serve as a basis for annulling the election return Illustrative Case: Baterina vs Comelec: Gr. No. 95347-49 Petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina was a candidate for Governor of Ilocos Sur in the special local elections held on 25 January 1988. The other petitioners, Octavio Villanueva and Evelyn Valdez, Felimon Sison, Leonardo Roldan, Gil Ballesteros, Benjamin Galapia, Erwin Reyes-Ulep, and Nathaniel Escobar, were candidates for Vice Governor and Provincial Board Members, respectively, in the same local elections. Petitioners ran under the banner of the Lakas ng Bansa. Private respondent Evaristo Singson, on the other hand, was also a candidate for Governor of Ilocos Sur. Private respondent Mariano Tajon was a candidate for Vice Governor. The rest of the private respondents were candidates for the other disputed positions. The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sur (BOARD) has likewise been impleaded in this petition. The canvassing of the election returns commenced as the ballot boxes containing the returns from the various municipalities of Ilocos Sur were received by the BOARD. In the course of the canvass proceedings, verbal objections were raised by petitioners to certain election returns based on the grounds mentioned in Sections 233 (lost or destroyed election returns), 234 (material defects in the election returns), 235 (tampered or falsified election returns) and 236 (discrepancies in election returns), in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt and custody of the election returns. The objections were aimed at excluding the election returns from the canvass. * There is no evidence presented to public respondent that the election returns were falsified

II.

ISSUES NOT COVERED BY PRE-PROCLAMATION CASES Issues involving the casting or counting of the ballots are not proper in pre-proclamation cases Illustrative Case: Villegas vs Comelec: L-52463 An election protest was filed by petitioner against private respondent Lorenzo G. Teves, who was dulyproclaimed provincial governor of Negros Oriental by the Board of Canvassers, having obtained 160,592 votes as against 65,204 votes of petitioner. The specific question is whether under the particular circumstances of this controversy, it should be through a protest and not through a pre-proclamation suit.

Where the threats of the followers of a candidate did not affect the genuineness of the election return, it should not be excluded Illustrative Case: Salvacion vs Comelec: Gr. No. L-84673-74 Petitioner contends that public respondent cannot disturb the findings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers and of its First Division there being no showing of grave abuse of discretion on their part. Petitioner adds that the finding made by the Board regarding the election return of Precinct No. 12 is that "it was prepared under circumstances of duress, threats, coercion and intimidation" so that the Board acted correctly in not counting any votes from said precinct. It is also pointed out that contrary to the requirements of the law that the election return shall be accomplished simultaneously or as the ballots are

A.

counted by the Board of Election Inspectors, 5 the questioned election return was actually prepared in another place, in a "shop" after all the ballots were counted by said Board of Election Inspectors in another place. * There is no evidence presented to public respondent that the election return in question was falsified in such a way that the true results of the voting have been altered D. An election return which is statistically improbable is obviously fabricated and should not be counted Illustrative Case: Ocampo vs Comelec * Where only one candidate of a party got all the voters in the same precincts and his opponent got zero, the other candidates of the other party for other posistions received votes, and the number of votes cast were less than the number of registered voters, the election returns are not statistically improbable E. Duress in preparation of an election return cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation use, because it cannot be decided summarily Illustrative Case: Sebastian vs Comelec: Gr. No. 139573-75 Petitioner June Genevieve Sebastian was the mayoralty candidate of the Reporma Party in Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte, during the May 11, 1998 elections. Petitioner Dario Romano was her running mate. Private respondent Salvador Royo was the mayoralty candidate of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, while private respondent Eric Estela was his candidate for vice mayor. On election day, as the Municipal Board of Canvassers was preparing to canvass the election returns, petitioners sought the exclusion from the canvass of several election returns from certain precincts in barangays Kimamon, New Katipunan, Lunga-og, Balagunan, Pantaron, and Tibal-og. 1 Petitioners claimed that the election returns from these areas were prepared under "extreme duress, threat, intimidation and political pressure and influence." 2Petitioners also manifested that four election returns were missing. It is worth noting that petitioners do not claim that the returns themselves are not regular, genuine or authentic. Petitioners admit that the alleged fraud, deceit, and intimidation came from external sources, and, therefore, not manifest on the face of the returns. The alleged fraudulent scheme was designed, according to petitioners, precisely to avoid detection on the face of the returns. * To require the Comelec to examine circumstances surrounding the preparation of election returns would run counter to the rule that pre-proclamation controversy should be summarily decided

board of inspectors, cannot be raised in a preproclamation case Illustrative Case: Belac vs Comelec: Gr. No. 145802

Rommel Diasen of the LAMMP and Dominador Belac of the LAKAS-NUCD were candidates for governor in the province of Kalinga during the May 11, 1998 national and local elections. On May 14, 1998, the Provincial Board of Canvassers started to canvass the results of the election. On May 15, 1998, when the Certificate of Canvass and Statement of Votes for the municipality of Pinukpuk were scheduled for canvassing, Diasen objected to the inclusion of the election returns of 42 precincts in the said municipality. Within twenty-four (24) hours therefrom, Diasen filed with the Kalinga Provincial Board of Canvassers a petition for exclusion of the Certificates of Canvass and Statements of Votes for Pinukpuk and Tinglayan, alleging in the main that: 1. The Certificates of Canvass and Statements of Votes were not prepared by the Board of Election Inspectors as the same were not signed by the respective watchers for the candidates' political parties. 2. There were discrepancies in the tally of votes. The official LAMMP copies of the official returns have a lesser number of votes than those appearing in the Statements of Votes for the said municipalities. * Respondent did not say that the alleged irregularities appear on the face of the election returns. Obviously that they came from external sources and therefore, not manifest of an election return.

G.

A candidate for mayor who finished second cannot be proclaimed simply because the candidate who received the highest number of votes died, since he was not the choice of the people

Petitioner Ottomama Benito and the deceased Hadji Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1992 election. Candidate Ogca was killed in an ambush while returning home from the residence of Lanao del Sur Governor Saidamen Pangarungan in Marawi City. On the same date, petitioner, probably not aware of the death of his opponent, filed a motion to suspend the proclamation of Ogca as elected mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, contending that there was strong evidence of guilt against him in the disqualification case. Resolving the motion to suspend proclamation, the COMELEC, on June 11, 1992, denied the same stating that Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca was dead, hence, his proclamation as winner was essential to pave the way for succession by the Vice-Mayor-elect as provided for in Section 44 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R. A. 7160)

F.

Irregularities which do not appear on the face of the election returns, such as a claim that they were prepared by persons other than the members of the

Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute and obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. And also settled is the rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections ** The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes dies, or is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. 15 For to allow the defeated and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the people's right to elect officials of their choice