INTRODUCTION

Most, if not all, Filipinos would agree that the right to vote or participate in the selection
of our future public leaders is one of the most fundamental rights that must be exercised.
However, a long line of jurisprudence as well as experience would suggest that our country is
not one of those who hold a clean election. From the existence of flying voters as well as the
dead ones down to violence in the canvassing, you name it, and for sure it has happen in the
Philippines.
Garnering the majority of votes, that is the main goal of every electoral candidate.
Surprisingly, the willingness to serve the people might only come second. With the system we
have, we all are aware that every step of the process is vulnerable to fraud and manipulation.
With this fact, it is important for the candidates as well as their supporters to acquaint
themselves with the legal remedies granted by law with respect to election controversies.
During the May 2010 Elections, the Philippines took a step forward in ensuring a
transparent and fairer election so as to fully reflect the will of the electorate. However, in many
areas in the country, there were reports of irregularities in the conduct of the election. Some
would say that the adoption of the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machine voting system
created another avenue for those who want to defraud the people during the election. The
adoption of the said technology further requires for a firmer legal mechanism to address the
problems for those who are wronged during the election.
There are two (2) remedies which are provided in order to address issues properly
raised

during

the electionpre-proclamation

controversy and

election

protest.

Both

mechanisms refers to questions on the proceedings in the transfer, preparation and submission
of election returns so as to fully ascertain whether or not the candidate elected is really the
lawful choice of the electorate.
Our group is tasked to discuss the minutiae of a pre-proclamation controversy, its
purpose, grounds and the procedure of invoking such remedy. With the recent development in
our election system, the group will also discuss about the changes in advancing a preproclamation controversy with respect to the Automated Election System.

LESSON PROPER
I. Introduction of the topic to be discussed

3 minutes

II. Class will be divided into two (2) big groups they shall be seated together

2 minutes

III. First reporter will discuss on the definition of pre-proclamation controversy, purpose, nature,
issues that can be properly raised, the grounds provided for under the Automated Election
System and the jurisdiction regarding a pre-proclamation controversy
10 minutes
IV. Second reporter will discuss about the restrictions when a pre-proclamation controversy is
raised and the reasons thereof, the issues that cannot be raised in a PPC
10 minutes
V. ACTIVITY

7 minutes

INSTRUCTIONS
1.
The group will ask their classmates to each write at least 2 questions on a piece of paper
provided by the group regarding the topics that have already been discussed.
2.
Then the group will collect the papers and draw 3 questions that will be answered by
their classmates chosen randomly.

This activity will serve as a recap of the topics that has been discussed by the previous
reporters.

VI. ACTIVITY

10 minutes

INSTRUCTIONS
1.

The group will utilize the groupings made earlier in class.

2.
The group will give out 2 envelopes and 2 manila papers that contains pieces of paper.
Said pieces of paper contain the steps on the procedures in undertaking a PPC.
3.
Each group will be tasked to lay out in the Manila Papers provided a schematic diagram
regarding the procedure in the initiation of a proceeding in a PPC.

This activity will somehow give introduction to the topic that will be discussed by the next
reporter. The reporter himself shall check on the work of each group to see to it who got the
perfect diagram. The group with least mistakes will win.

VII. The last reporter shall discuss the procedures on the initiation of a PPC with the Board of
Canvassers, COMELEC and the procedure when an issue or controversy is discovered after the
official proclamation of the supposed results.
10 minutes
VIII. Short quiz to be rendered by the group as an evaluation.

8 minutes

EVALUATION
1. Which of the following cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy?
a. Illegal composition or proceedings of the Board of Canvassers;
b. The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion or intimidation, or they
are obviously manufactured or not authentic;
c. Illegal preparation of List of Voters by Board of Election Inspectors
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.
Answer: C
The enumeration of issues under Sec. 243 of OEC that can be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy is restrictive and exclusive. Illegal preparation of List of Voters by the BEI is not among
them.

2. Which of the following has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation
controversies?
a. Board of Election Inspectors
b. Supreme Court
c. RTC
d. COMELEC
Answer: D. This is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
3. Statement 1: All selection cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
Statement 2: Rule 27, Sec. 4 Comelec Rules of Procedure provides that a pre-proclamation
controversy may be filed directly with COMELEC en banc in certain cases provided for under the
rules
a.
b.
c.
d.

Both statements are true

Both statements are false
Only the first statement is true
Only the second statement is true

Answer: A
Article IX-C, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution
The Commission may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
Rule 27, Sec. 4 Comelec Rules of Procedure provides that a pre-proclamation controversy may be filed
directly with the Comelecen banc:

When petition is for correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes or in the tabulation
or tallying of the results; and

When the issue involves the illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers as
when majority or all of the members do not hold legal appointments or are in fact usurpers; or

when the canvassing has been a mere ceremony that was pre-determined and manipulated
to result in nothing but a ham as where there was convergence of circumstances of
precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of sufficient notice to the members of the board of
canvassers and disregard of manifest irregularities on the face of the questioned returns or
certificates of canvass in appropriate cases.
4. A pre-proclamation controversy is ________ in nature.
a. fast
b. summary
c. lengthy
d. conventional
Answer: B
In addition to the restrictive and exclusive scope of its subject matter, all pre-proclamation controversies
on election returns or certificates of canvass shall be disposed of summarily - first, by the board of
canvassers, and then, by the Comelec.
Republic Act No. 7166
SEC. 18.Summary Disposition of Pre-proclamation Controversies. - All pre-proclamation controversies on
election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by
the board of canvassers, be disposed of summarily by the Commission within seven (7) days from receipt
thereof. Its decisions shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt by the losing party
of the decision of the Commission
5. Generally, the following candidates are prohibited from filing pre-proclamation cases except
a. Mayoral candidates
b. Presidential candidates
c. Vice-presidential candidates
d. Senatorial candidates
Answer: A
Section 15 of RA 7166 prohibits candidates in the presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and
congressional elections from filing pre-proclamation cases.

6. The enumeration of issues under Sec. 243 of OEC to be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy
is
a. restrictive and exclusive
b. expandable
c. flexible and adaptable
d. both a and b
Answer: A
7. The following can raise a pre-proclamation controversy EXCEPT:
a. a registered political party
b. registered coalition of political parties
c. spouse of the candidate
d. any candidate
Answer: C
Sec. 242 of the Omnibus Election Code
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to 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 parties before the board of canvassers or directly with the Commission, or any matter under Sections

233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
the election returns.
8. Which of the following issues can be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy?
a. Cases that require the appreciation of ballots
b. Cases that require the appreciation of ballots
c. Illegal composition or proceeding of the BOC
d. Issue on re-opening of ballots
Answer: C
The enumeration of issues under Sec. 243 of OEC is restrictive and exclusive. One of the issues
enumerated is the illegal composition or proceeding of the BOC.
9.

Pre-proclamation controversies must be heard:

a.
ex parte
b.
in a trial
c.
summarily without need of trial
d. either b or c

Answer: C
Republic Act No. 7166
SEC. 18.Summary Disposition of Pre-proclamation Controversies. - All pre-proclamation controversies on
election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by
the board of canvassers, be disposed of summarily by the Commission within seven (7) days from receipt
thereof. Its decisions shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt by the losing party
of the decision of the Commission

10. Statement 1: Pre-proclamation controversies must be directly heard and decided by the
Comelecen banc.
Statement 2: Pre-proclamation controversies must be first heard and decided by a division of the
Comelec, and then by the en banc if a motion for reconsideration were filed.
a.
b.
c.
d.

Both statements are true

Both statements are false
Only Statement 1 is true
Only Statement 2 is true

Article IX-C, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution

The Commission may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

The Constitution clearly mandates that pre-proclamation controversies must be first heard and decided by
a division of the Comelec, and then by the en banc if a motion for reconsideration is filed.

CLOSURE
The assigned task for the group will end upon the submission of all the test sheets from
their classmates.

CASE DIGESTS
ARBONIDA VS COMELEC
G.R. No. 167137, March 14, 2007
Facts:

Arbonida and Caringal were candidates for the Sangguniang Bayan of Tanza, Cavite during
the May 10, 2004 local elections.
After the canvassing of votes, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tanza (MBOC)
proclaimed Arbonida the eighth winning candidate with 14,620 votes as against the 14,552
votes of Caringal.
On June 16, 2004, Caringal filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to annul Arbonidas
proclamation on the ground of manifest errors in the statement of votes by precinct (SOVP).
Caringal alleged that the MBOC committed mistakes in the copying of figures from the
election returns to the SOVPs.
Arbonida filed a motion to dismissarguing that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petition since dagdag-bawasdid not constitute manifest error but rather a
ground for an election protest. He also claimed that a pre-proclamation controversy was no
longer viable after the proclamation of the winning candidate.
After an examination and comparison of the subject election returns and SOVPs, the
COMELEC found that there indeed existed discrepancies in the number of votes sufficient to
have an effect on the last place for municipal councilor being contested.
Consequently, in its Resolution, the COMELEC First Division annulled the proclamation of
Arbonida and instead proclaimed Caringal as the duly elected eighth municipal councilor of
Tanza, Cavite.
On appeal, Comelec en banc denied Arnidos Motion for Reconsideration.

Issues:

Whether the petition filed is a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy; and

Whether the COMELEC First Division is without jurisdiction to issue the resolution.

Ruling:

The petition filed by Caringal before the COMELEC involves a pre-proclamation controversy and
not an election contest. Although the petition alleged fraud, the remedy sought was merely for
correction of erroneous entries in the statements of votes which were based on the election
returns.
The Constitution clearly mandates that pre-proclamation controversies must be first heard and
decided by a division of the Comelec, and then by the en banc if a motion for reconsideration
were filed.
The requirement of hearing and decision of election cases including pre-proclamation
controversies, at the first instance by a division of the Comelec, and not by it as a whole, is
mandatory and jurisdictional.The Constitutional provision yields to no other interpretation other
than what its plain meaning presents.

ALFONSO vs. COMELEC

GR 107847, June 2, 1997
Facts:
In the May 11, 1992 elections, Pedro Alfonso ran for councilor in the First District of Manila,
which is entitled to elect six councilors. On the eve of the elections, Pedro Alfonso died. His
daughter Irma Alfonso, petitioner herein, filed her certificate of candidacy in substitution for her
deceased father. After the canvassing of the election returns by respondent City Board of
Canvassers, the results of the elections for councilors for the First District of Manila were
announced as follows: 1st - Ernesto Nieva-60101, 2nd - Gonzalo Gonzales-44744, 3rd - Honorio
Lopez-35803, 4th - Pedro Alfonso-34648, 5th - Avelino Cailian-32462, 6th - Roberto Ocampo31264, 7th - Alberto Domingo-28715.
Apparently, the City Board of Canvassers added the votes of Pedro Alfonso to those of
petitioners thereby placing her in the fourth slot. Consequently, private respondent questioned
such action. He prayed that the votes cast for Pedro Alfonso be declared as stray votes and that,
he be proclaimed as the sixth winner for councilor. The COMELEC resolved private respondents
petition declaring votes cast in favor of Pedro Alfonso as stray votes and to CREDIT in favor of
respondent Irma Alfonso only those votes cast with the name ALFONSO or IRMA ALFONSO.
Petitioner thereby questioned said resolution before this Court, which dismissed the aforesaid
petition in a minute resolution, after finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC.
Issue:
Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners
motion for recount?
Held:
No. At the outset, petitioners prayer for a reopening of the ballots is not a proper issue for a preproclamation controversy. The issues raised by petitioner should be threshed out in election
protest. 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. The appreciation of the ballots
cast in the precincts is not a proceeding of the board of canvassers for purposes of preproclamation proceedings under Section 241, Omnibus Election Code, but of the boards of
election inspectors who are called upon to count and appreciate the votes in accordance with the
rules of appreciation provided in Section 211, Omnibus Election Code. Otherwise stated, the
appreciation of ballots is not part of the proceedings of the board of canvassers. 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.

SABDULLAH MACABAGO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JAMAEL SALACOP

FACTS
Petitioner Sabdullah T. Macabago was proclaimed Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur.
Petitioner had alead of 198 votes over private respondent Jamael M. Salacop.
Private respondent filed a petition against petitioner and the proclaimed vice mayor of Saguiran,
Lanao del Sur,for the alleged fact that there was a massive substitution of voters, rampant and
pervasive irregularities in voting procedures in some precincts and a failure of the Board
of Election Inspectors (BEI) to comply with Sections 28 and 29 of Comelec Resolution No. 3743
and Section 193 of the Omnibus Election Code, thus rendering the election process in
those precincts a sham and a mockery and the proclamation of the winning
candidates a nullity.
In support of his petition, private respondent appended thereto photocopies of
random Voters Registration Records (VRRs) evidencing the fraud and deceit
that allegedly permeated the electoral process, as well as affidavits tending to prove
that serious irregularities were committed in the conduct of the elections in the
subject precincts. The petitioner denied the material and averred that it is a preproclamation controversy.
The COMELEC En Banc took cognizance of the petition and issued an order directing
the Election Officer of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur, to bring to and produce before the
COMELEC Office in Manila the original VRRs of the questioned precincts for technical
examination
After its examination of the evidence submitted by petitioner, the COMELEC
concluded that there was convincing proof of massive fraud in the conduct of the
elections in the four (4) precincts that necessitated a technical examination of the
original copies of the VRRs and their comparison with the voters signatures and
fingerprints.
ISSUE: W/N this was a proper ground for a pre-proclamation controversy

RULING: NO. The fraud and irregularities catalogued by private respondent required the
reception of evidence aliunde. These grounds are not proper bases for a pre-proclamation
controversy but are appropriate for a regular election contest within the original jurisdiction
of the RTC.

GROUP 4
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
LESSON PLAN

Seballos, Ariane Stephanie A.

Sususco, Missela

Suan, Bea
Toral, Marco Angelo
Yam-oc, Dori