COMELEC’s Power to Correct Election Result Errors After Proclamation

Atty. Rosauro I. Torres vs. Commission on Elections and Vicente Rafael A. De Peralta, G.R. No. 121031, March 26, 1997

Imagine a scenario where a candidate is initially proclaimed the winner in an election, only to have the results later corrected due to a simple mathematical error. This raises a critical question: does the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) have the authority to rectify such errors, even after a proclamation has been made? This case clarifies the extent of COMELEC’s power to correct errors in election results, ensuring the true will of the electorate prevails.

This case revolves around the proclamation of Atty. Rosauro I. Torres as a winning candidate for Municipal Councilor, which was later found to be based on an error in the computation of votes. The COMELEC ordered a correction and proclaimed Vicente Rafael A. de Peralta as the rightful winner. The central legal question is whether COMELEC can annul a proclamation based on a mathematical error and order a new proclamation.

Understanding COMELEC’s Role in Election Oversight

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) plays a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of Philippine elections. Its powers are defined by the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC’s functions include administering elections, enforcing election laws, and resolving election disputes.

Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution outlines COMELEC’s powers and functions, including the authority to “decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections.” This broad mandate empowers COMELEC to address various issues that may arise during the electoral process.

Section 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure addresses the correction of errors in tabulation or tallying of results by the Board of Canvassers. It states that “where it is clearly shown before proclamation that manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying of election returns… the board may motu proprio or upon verified petition by any candidate… after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed.”

For example, if a board of canvassers mistakenly adds votes intended for one candidate to another, COMELEC has the authority to correct the error to ensure the accurate reflection of the voters’ choices. This power is essential for maintaining the credibility of elections.

The Case of Atty. Torres: A Fight for the Councilor Seat

The story begins in Tanza, Cavite, during the 1995 municipal elections. After the votes were tallied, Atty. Rosauro I. Torres was proclaimed as the fifth winning candidate for Municipal Councilor. However, this victory was short-lived.

Two days later, the Municipal Board of Canvassers requested COMELEC to correct the number of votes garnered by Atty. Torres. They discovered that votes intended for another candidate, Bernardo C. Dimaala, had been erroneously added to Torres’ total. This mistake, if corrected, would place Vicente Rafael A. de Peralta in the winning circle instead of Torres.

The procedural journey unfolded as follows:

• The Municipal Board of Canvassers requests COMELEC for correction of the number of votes garnered by petitioner.
• COMELEC sets the case for hearing and summonses Atty. Torres and Vicente Rafael A. de Peralta.
• Atty. Torres files an answer alleging that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
• COMELEC issues a resolution granting the request for correction and orders the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim Vicente Rafael A. de Peralta as the eighth winning councilor.

Atty. Torres challenged COMELEC’s decision, arguing that the Board of Canvassers lacked the authority to request the correction and that COMELEC overstepped its jurisdiction. He cited previous cases, such as Respicio v. Cusi, arguing that corrections are only allowed before proclamation. He elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

However, COMELEC maintained that the proclamation of Torres was flawed due to a clerical error. They relied on precedents like Villaroya v. COMELEC and Tatlonghari v. Comelec, asserting their original jurisdiction over matters related to election returns and their authority to correct purely mathematical errors.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with COMELEC. The Court emphasized that the error was purely mathematical and that correcting it was within COMELEC’s administrative capacity. The Court quoted:

“Since the Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.”

The Court further stated:

“In making the correction in the computation the Municipal Board of Canvassers acted in an administrative capacity under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Pursuant to its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections, the COMELEC En Banc has authority to resolve any question pertaining to the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers.”

Practical Implications: Ensuring Election Integrity

This ruling reinforces COMELEC’s power to correct mathematical errors in election results, even after a proclamation. This is crucial for upholding the integrity of elections and ensuring that the true will of the people is reflected in the final outcome. The decision clarifies that COMELEC’s oversight extends to rectifying administrative errors that may affect the validity of a proclamation.

For candidates and political parties, this case underscores the importance of meticulous scrutiny of election returns and the prompt reporting of any discrepancies. It also highlights the need to understand the procedural remedies available to address errors in vote tabulation.

For example, if a candidate suspects a mathematical error in the Statement of Votes, they should immediately file a verified petition with COMELEC, requesting a correction. This action can prevent an erroneous proclamation and ensure a fair election outcome.

Key Lessons:

• COMELEC has the authority to correct mathematical errors in election results, even after a proclamation.
• This power is essential for upholding the integrity of elections and ensuring the true will of the people is reflected.
• Candidates and political parties must be vigilant in scrutinizing election returns and reporting any discrepancies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can COMELEC correct election results after a winner has been proclaimed?

A: Yes, COMELEC can correct election results even after a proclamation, particularly if the error is purely mathematical or clerical.

Q: What type of errors can COMELEC correct after proclamation?

A: COMELEC can correct manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of election returns, such as mistakes in adding figures or including returns from non-existent precincts.

Q: What should a candidate do if they suspect an error in the election results?

A: A candidate should file a verified petition with COMELEC, requesting a correction of the error. This should be done promptly after the discovery of the discrepancy.

Q: Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction over election disputes after proclamation?

A: The Regional Trial Court typically handles election protests, which are filed after a proclamation. However, COMELEC retains jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies and the correction of manifest errors.

Q: What is the difference between an election protest and a pre-proclamation controversy?

A: An election protest is a challenge to the results of an election after a proclamation has been made, while a pre-proclamation controversy involves issues raised before the proclamation, such as errors in the counting or tabulation of votes.

Q: What happens if the Municipal Board of Canvassers makes a mistake in counting the votes?

A: The Municipal Board of Canvassers, under the supervision of COMELEC, has the authority to reconvene and correct any mathematical errors in the counting of votes.

Q: What is the role of the Statement of Votes in the election process?

A: The Statement of Votes is a tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. It serves as the basis for the Certificate of Canvass and the proclamation of winners.

ASG Law specializes in election law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.