The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) must initially hear pre-proclamation controversies at the division level, not directly in the en banc. This ensures a structured review process where cases are first assessed by a smaller group before potentially reaching the full Commission. The decision emphasizes adherence to constitutional and procedural rules, protecting against potential overreach and ensuring fair and thorough evaluation of election disputes. This ruling safeguards the electoral process by upholding the importance of established procedures and preventing circumvention of the intended review mechanisms.

Election Returns Under Scrutiny: Can COMELEC Bypass Due Process?

In Anwar Berua Balindong v. COMELEC, the central issue revolved around whether the COMELEC acted correctly in resolving a pre-proclamation dispute concerning the election for Mayor of Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The controversy arose when Aklima Jaafar Balindong, a candidate who lost by a narrow margin, questioned the validity of election returns from several precincts, alleging fraud and irregularities. The COMELEC en banc took cognizance of the case directly, ultimately excluding one election return entirely and reallocating votes from another precinct, a move challenged by the winning candidate, Anwar Balindong. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the COMELEC adhered to constitutional and procedural rules in resolving this dispute, focusing particularly on the initial jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the two-tiered structure established by the Constitution for the COMELEC’s handling of election cases. According to Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must first be heard and decided at the division level. This requirement, the Court emphasized, is not merely procedural but jurisdictional, meaning the COMELEC en banc lacks the authority to hear such cases at the first instance. Citing the landmark case of Sarmiento v. COMELEC, the Court reiterated that any resolution issued by the COMELEC en banc without prior review by a division is null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.

Building on this principle, the Court distinguished between pre-proclamation controversies and other election disputes, highlighting that the former involve questions pertaining to the proceedings of the board of canvassers, as outlined in Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). These issues range from illegal composition of the board to allegations of tampered or falsified election returns. In the Balindong case, Aklima’s petitions questioned both the regularity of the canvassing process and the authenticity of certain election returns, clearly placing the matter within the ambit of a pre-proclamation controversy.

The COMELEC had relied on its Resolution No. 00-0046, which cited Laodenio v. COMELEC, asserting that the COMELEC en banc may directly assume jurisdiction over petitions to declare illegal the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers. However, the Court found this reliance misplaced, noting that the jurisdictional issue was not raised or addressed in Laodenio. Moreover, the Court observed that Aklima had effectively abandoned the claim of illegal MBC proceedings by amending his petition to focus solely on allegations of electoral fraud and terrorism in specific precincts.

Addressing the specific election returns in question, the Court examined the COMELEC’s handling of Precincts 80A and 47A/48A. The COMELEC excluded the return for Precinct 80A based on perceived erasures, while reallocating votes in Precinct 47A/48A based on alleged tampering. The Court noted that under R.A. No. 7166 and Section 235 of the OEC, any objections to election returns must be raised before the board of canvassers in the first instance. Since Aklima failed to object to the inclusion of the returns for Precincts 80A and 47A/48A at the MBC level, the COMELEC exceeded its authority by entertaining belated objections.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 235 of the OEC prescribes a specific procedure for handling election returns suspected of tampering or falsification. This procedure involves examining other copies of the returns and, if necessary, ordering a recount of the ballots. The COMELEC failed to follow this procedure, examining only the returns used by the MBC and neglecting to consider other copies or order a recount. This procedural lapse, the Court reasoned, resulted in the unjustified disenfranchisement of voters in Precinct 80A and the arbitrary reallocation of votes in Precinct 47A/48A. The Court criticized the COMELEC’s “selective or disparate approach” to the two returns, which ultimately altered the election outcome.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction to initially hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies, or if it should have been handled first by one of its divisions. The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC must adhere to the constitutional requirement of initial division-level review.
What is a pre-proclamation controversy?	A pre-proclamation controversy involves questions affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers, including issues like tampered election returns or illegal board composition. It arises before the official proclamation of election results.
What did the COMELEC do in this case that was questioned?	The COMELEC en banc directly took cognizance of the case, excluded an election return, and reallocated votes without the case first being heard by a division. This action was deemed a violation of constitutional and procedural rules.
Why did the Supreme Court say the COMELEC’s actions were incorrect?	The Court cited Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, which mandates that election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must initially be heard and decided at the division level. This requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be bypassed.
What is the significance of the Sarmiento v. COMELEC case mentioned in the ruling?	Sarmiento v. COMELEC is a key precedent that established the principle that the COMELEC en banc does not have the authority to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies at the first instance. The Balindong case reaffirms and applies this principle.
What should the COMELEC have done with the questioned election returns?	The COMELEC should have examined other copies of the returns and, if necessary, ordered a recount of the ballots, following the procedure outlined in Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code. This procedure was not followed in this case.
What was the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the COMELEC’s resolution and ordering the Commission to assign the cases to one of its divisions for further proceedings. This decision reinforces procedural due process in election disputes.
Why is it important that pre-proclamation controversies are heard at the division level first?	It ensures a structured review process where cases are first assessed by a smaller group before potentially reaching the full Commission. This structure allows for more efficient handling of disputes while adhering to established procedures.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to established legal procedures in election disputes. By emphasizing the COMELEC’s initial jurisdictional limitations and the specific steps required when handling potentially fraudulent election returns, the Court reinforced the principles of fairness, due process, and the protection of the electorate’s will. The COMELEC is now mandated to proceed with the case by assigning it to a division for a thorough review in accordance with established protocols.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Anwar Berua Balindong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 153991-92, October 16, 2003