In election law, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of raising timely objections during canvassing. The Court affirmed the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) decision, highlighting that objections to election returns must be made before the city or municipal board of canvassers when the questioned returns are presented. Failing to do so forfeits the right to challenge those returns later in a pre-proclamation controversy. This ruling underscores strict adherence to procedural rules in election disputes to ensure the swift and orderly determination of the people’s will.

Canvassing Conundrums: When Do Election Objections Count?

The case of Danilo “Dan” Fernandez versus the Commission on Elections and Teresita Lazaro stemmed from the 2004 gubernatorial race in Laguna. Fernandez contested the proclamation of Lazaro as governor, alleging irregularities in the election returns from San Pablo City and Biñan. He claimed tampering increased Lazaro’s votes, and he raised these objections before the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC). However, the COMELEC found that Fernandez failed to lodge formal, written objections with the appropriate city and municipal boards of canvassers. This failure proved fatal to his case. This leads to the question: What is the proper procedure for objecting to election returns, and what happens if a candidate fails to follow it?

The Supreme Court emphasized that **strict adherence to procedural rules** is paramount in election disputes. According to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166, matters concerning the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns must be raised in the first instance before the board of canvassers. Specifically, objections must be presented to the chairman of the city or municipal board of canvassers at the time the questioned returns are presented for inclusion in the canvass. The Court found that Fernandez’s objections were raised prematurely before the provincial board and, even then, were not accompanied by the required written objections and supporting evidence.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the timing of objections is not merely a technicality, but a mandatory requirement. Allowing belated objections would open the door to delay tactics and frustrate the electorate’s will. The proceedings before the Board of Canvassers are intended to be summary in nature, requiring prompt submission and resolution of objections. The fact that the COMELEC’s First Division initially ordered an examination of election returns did not excuse Fernandez’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements. The COMELEC En Banc ultimately upheld the dismissal of his petition, finding that a technical examination of the returns was unnecessary given his procedural lapses.

Furthermore, the Court reinforced the COMELEC’s expertise in election matters. The COMELEC, as a specialized constitutional body, is entrusted with enforcing election laws and regulations. Its findings of fact are afforded great weight by the courts and should not be disturbed absent a substantial showing of error. In this case, the Court found no reason to question the COMELEC’s findings that Fernandez failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for contesting election returns. The Supreme Court also noted that Fernandez attempted to introduce new issues late in the proceedings, specifically regarding alleged errors in the certificates of canvass from additional localities such as Calamba City, Nagcarlan, Cabuyao, San Pedro and Sta. Rosa. The court held that because these arguments amounted to a substantial amendment to the petition they could not be admitted as evidence.

The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedure outlined in Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669, which implements Section 17 of RA 7166. This section mandates that a party contesting an election return must simultaneously make an oral and written objection during the canvass proceedings, presenting evidence within 24 hours. The procedure’s mandatory nature is to be observed to ensure impartiality and a swift resolution to disputes.

Section 36. Procedure in disposition of contested election returns/certificate of canvass. – The following procedure is mandatory and shall be strictly observed by the board of canvassers:

(a) Any candidate, political or coalition of political parties contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any election return/certificate of canvass on any of the grounds authorized under Article XX (Pre-Proclamation Controversies) or Sections 234, 235, and 236 of Article XIX of the Omnibus Election Code shall submit their oral objections to the chairman of the board of canvassers at the time the questioned return/certificate is presented for inclusion in the canvass. Such objection shall be recorded in the minutes of the canvass.

The Court found that Fernandez failed to present simultaneous oral and written objections and to present evidence of such objections within 24 hours. Furthermore, the Court asserted that Fernandez’s allegation that there were manifest errors in the COCV and SOVP raised at the Memorandum was merely a “different story” and should not be taken into account. By failing to adhere to these requirements, he forfeited his right to challenge the election returns and attempt to overturn the decision. The ruling underscores the importance of being familiar with and strictly following election laws when there are concerns that influence an election’s validity.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Danilo Fernandez properly followed the procedure for objecting to election returns during the canvassing process. The Court looked to see if he raised timely and formal objections with the correct boards.
What is a pre-proclamation controversy?	A pre-proclamation controversy refers to disputes arising after the election but before the proclamation of the winning candidate. These controversies often involve questions about the validity of election returns or the conduct of the canvassing process.
What is the role of the Board of Canvassers?	The Board of Canvassers is responsible for tallying the election results and proclaiming the winning candidates. They must consider and rule on any objections raised during the canvassing process in the method prescribed by law.
What does RA 7166 say about pre-proclamation controversies?	RA 7166, Section 17 dictates the procedure for filing disputes and what courts should be consulted first depending on the nature of the issue in the dispute.
Why is the timing of objections important?	The timing of objections is crucial to prevent delays and ensure the swift resolution of election disputes. Belated objections can disrupt the canvassing process and frustrate the will of the electorate.
What are the requirements for a valid objection?	To lodge a valid objection, a party must make a simultaneous oral and written objection to the inclusion of contested returns during the canvass proceedings. They must also present evidence supporting their claims within 24 hours.
What happens if a party fails to comply with the objection requirements?	Failure to comply with the mandatory procedure, such as the requirement of making objections during the original proceedings before they had concluded and while evidence of such claims could still be provided, can result in the summary dismissal of the appeal. It is then as if they never raised the issue in the first place.
What weight do courts give the COMELEC’s findings?	Courts generally afford great weight to the COMELEC’s findings of fact, recognizing its expertise in election matters. These findings are considered conclusive absent a substantial showing of error or abuse of discretion.

This case serves as a crucial reminder for candidates and their legal teams to meticulously observe election laws and procedural rules. Failure to do so can have significant consequences, potentially jeopardizing their chances of successfully challenging election results. It highlights the necessity of seeking legal counsel to be fully aware of all the rules, policies, and deadlines surrounding challenges in pre-proclamation procedures to be most effective.

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: Danilo “Dan” Fernandez, vs. Commission on Elections and Teresita Lazaro, G.R. NO. 171821, October 09, 2006