Understanding When a Special Election Can Be Overturned in the Philippines

G.R. No. 121331, August 28, 1996

Imagine waiting in line for hours to vote, only to find out later that your vote might not even count. The integrity of elections is paramount, but what happens when things go wrong? This case, Gerry B. Garay v. Commission on Elections and Jaime Gata, Jr., delves into the complexities of election failures, special elections, and the evidence needed to determine the true will of the electorate. It highlights the importance of following established procedures and the limitations of relying on secondary evidence when primary election documents are compromised.

The Legal Framework of Philippine Elections

Philippine election law is governed primarily by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) and Republic Act No. 7166 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987). These laws outline the procedures for conducting elections, canvassing votes, and resolving disputes. A central tenet is ensuring the sanctity of the ballot and the accurate recording of votes. When election returns are missing or compromised, the law provides mechanisms for determining the true results, but these mechanisms are strictly construed.

Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code addresses special elections. It stipulates the requirements for holding a special election when a failure of election is declared. The Comelec must provide notice and hearing before a special election may be held. The special election is called when no voting has taken place or the election resulted in a failure to elect, and the votes not cast would affect the results of the election.

Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code discusses the canvass by the board. It states that the respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the votes received by each candidate in each polling place and, on the basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest number of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay.

Section 17 of R.A. No. 6646 outlines the admissibility of Certificates of Votes as evidence. It states:

“SEC. 17. Certificate of Votes as Evidence. – The provisions of Sections 235 and 236 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 notwithstanding, the certificate of votes shall be admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any anomaly committed in the election returns concerned, when duly authenticated by testimonial or documentary evidence presented to the board of canvassers by at least two members of the board of election inspectors who issued the certificate: Provided, That failure to present any certificate of votes shall not be a bar to the presentation of other evidence to impugn the authenticity of the election returns.”

This provision clarifies that a certificate of votes is not a primary basis for canvassing but rather corroborative evidence to demonstrate fraud or irregularities in election returns.

The Garay vs. COMELEC Case: A Battle Over Votes

In the May 8, 1995 elections in Matnog, Sorsogon, Gerry Garay and Jaime Gata, Jr. were vying for the vice-mayoralty. After canvassing 73 precincts, Garay led by 20 votes. However, the ballot box from precinct 30-A in Barangay Culasi was seized by armed men, along with election returns and other vital documents. This missing ballot box became the crux of the dispute.

Gata sought to be proclaimed winner based on a certificate of votes and a tally board, both indicating he won precinct 30-A. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) refused. While Gata’s appeal was pending before the COMELEC, a special election was held in precinct 30-A. Garay won that special election and was proclaimed Vice-Mayor.

The COMELEC First Division initially denied Gata’s appeal due to missing documents. However, the COMELEC En Banc later reversed this decision, annulled the special election, and directed the MBC to use the tally board to canvass the votes, declaring Gata the winner.

Garay challenged this decision, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Supreme Court then considered the issue of whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the special election and relying on the tally board and certificate of votes.

Here are the key points in the Supreme Court’s reasoning:

• The Certificate of Votes and the Tally Board were already available to the COMELEC before the special election was conducted, implying the COMELEC initially deemed them insufficient.
• A Certificate of Votes is only admissible as evidence to prove tampering, alteration, or falsification of election returns, not as a primary basis for canvassing.
• The Tally Board’s late appearance (attached to Gata’s appeal) made it unreliable, especially since the ballot box and all election documents were lost.

The Court emphasized the importance of the special election:

“Since the validity and binding force of this special election has not been put at issue and since for all it is worth, such electoral exercise, both in the casting and canvassing of votes, was conducted regularly and peacefully, then this Court’s duty is to resolve the issue ‘in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority’ as expressed in such special election…”

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion. It set aside the COMELEC resolution and directed the denial of Gata’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Practical Implications for Future Elections

This case underscores the importance of preserving the integrity of election documents and adhering to established procedures. It also highlights the limitations of using secondary evidence when primary documents like election returns are missing. The COMELEC must act judiciously and consistently in its decisions, and the will of the electorate, as expressed in a validly conducted election, should be given paramount importance.

Key Lessons:

• Preserve Election Documents: Ensure the security and integrity of ballot boxes and election returns.
• Adhere to Procedures: Follow the prescribed legal procedures for canvassing votes and resolving disputes.
• Understand Evidence Limitations: Recognize that Certificates of Votes and Tally Boards are secondary evidence and have limited value without primary election returns.
• Respect the Electorate’s Will: Give paramount importance to the outcome of a validly conducted election.

Hypothetical Example: Imagine a scenario where a fire destroys election returns in several precincts. Can the COMELEC rely solely on tally boards recovered from those precincts to determine the winner? Based on this case, the answer is likely no. A special election might be necessary if the missing returns affect the outcome and the integrity of the tally boards is questionable.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is a “failure of election”?

A: A failure of election occurs when no voting takes place or the election results in a failure to elect, and the votes not cast would affect the election’s outcome.

Q: What happens when election returns are missing?

A: The board of canvassers should try to obtain the missing returns. If that’s impossible, the COMELEC may authorize using authentic copies or certified copies. If those aren’t available, and the missing returns affect the election’s outcome, a special election might be necessary.

Q: Can a Certificate of Votes be used to proclaim a winner?

A: Generally, no. A Certificate of Votes is primarily used to prove tampering or anomalies in election returns, not as a primary basis for canvassing.

Q: What is the role of the COMELEC in election disputes?

A: The COMELEC has the constitutional authority to enforce and administer all laws relating to the conduct of elections. This includes resolving disputes and ensuring fair and honest elections.

Q: What is grave abuse of discretion?

A: Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

Q: How does a special election affect an ongoing appeal?

A: If a special election is validly conducted and participated in by the parties, it can render an appeal related to the original election moot and academic.

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