In the case of Basarte v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court addressed the controversy surrounding an election return with a missing page and questionable irregularities. The Court underscored that COMELEC must adhere to its rules to ensure fairness, especially concerning motions for reconsideration. Despite acknowledging irregularities in the questioned election return, the Court ultimately denied the petition because the petitioner failed to conclusively prove that the inclusion or exclusion of the contested election return would materially alter the election’s outcome.

The Case of the Missing Page: Can an Incomplete Election Return Alter the Outcome?

Gabriel Garduce Basarte and Noel Jarito were mayoral candidates in Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar, during the 2004 elections. Following the canvassing of election returns, Basarte contested Election Return No. 04101444 from Precinct No. 17A, alleging it had been tampered with and that a crucial page was missing. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) initially dismissed Basarte’s petition, a decision later affirmed by the COMELEC First Division. The COMELEC en banc upheld this affirmation, prompting Basarte to appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC.

Basarte argued that the COMELEC’s resolution defied its procedural rules, specifically Section 1, Rule 4, which prevents a member from being the ponente in a motion to reconsider a decision they initially wrote. Building on this, Basarte claimed the COMELEC overlooked evidence that cast doubt on the integrity of the questioned election return. Crucially, the undisputed facts included that the election return lacked a page that was supposed to contain information about candidates for Provincial Board Member and mayor.

The core of the controversy revolved around the missing page and its implications for the integrity of the election return. The MBC stated that the Chairman of the BEI testified that the page did not exist in the original documents received. The COMELEC, however, never fully addressed the issue of the missing names and corresponding votes for the seven Provincial Board Member candidates. Commissioner Sadain’s dissenting opinion highlighted this discrepancy, stating the uncorroborated explanation failed to account for those votes, further casting doubt on the authenticity of the return.

The majority opinion holds that the instant petition for exclusion of election return should be dismissed because the election return under scrutiny is genuine and authentic… The explanation of the Chairman of the BEI is problematic in a lot of aspects. Nothing in the records further reflects an official account of the proceedings held before the Board of Canvassers, not even a transcript of the said explanation rendered by the BEI Chairman or, at the least, a copy of the minutes of the BOC proceedings.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the prevailing rule assumes that election returns must “appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face.” Yet, the questioned election return contained omissions that directly contradicted this assumption, revealing that several entries were absent from the assailed return. In effect, the principle was deemed inapplicable because a genuine return did not, in fact, exist.

Furthermore, Section 243 (d) of the Omnibus Election Code necessitates proof that the contested election return would materially affect the election results. While the Supreme Court found merit in Basarte’s arguments regarding the irregularities, his failure to sufficiently demonstrate that the questioned return would alter the election outcome proved fatal to his case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the election return did not contain the signatures or the tabulation of votes cast in favor of the candidate, rendering it impossible to determine whether the returns were manipulated and to what extent.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an election return with a missing page and alleged irregularities should be excluded from the canvass, and whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its handling of the case.
What did the petitioner claim about the election return?	The petitioner, Gabriel Garduce Basarte, claimed that the election return was tampered with and missing a page that contained votes for local positions, particularly the mayoral candidates and candidates for Provincial Board Member.
What was the explanation for the missing page?	The Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) testified that the election return was received without the second page, which should have included the Provincial Board Member tabulation.
Did the Supreme Court find any irregularities in the COMELEC proceedings?	Yes, the Supreme Court noted that the COMELEC’s resolution violated its procedural rules regarding motions for reconsideration and that there were glaring irregularities in the assailed election return.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the petition despite finding irregularities?	The Court denied the petition because the petitioner failed to prove that the inclusion or exclusion of the contested election return would materially affect the results of the election.
What does ‘materially affect’ mean in this context?	‘Materially affect’ means that the irregularities in the election return must be significant enough to change the outcome of the election. The petitioner must show that without the contested return, a different candidate would have won.
What is the Omnibus Election Code?	The Omnibus Election Code is the primary law governing elections in the Philippines. It outlines the rules and procedures for conducting elections, including the canvassing of votes and resolution of election disputes.
What rule did COMELEC violate in this case?	COMELEC violated Section 1, Rule 4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which states that no member shall be the ponente of an en banc decision on a motion to reconsider a decision written by them in a division.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court acknowledged procedural lapses and questioned the integrity of the election return, the petitioner’s failure to conclusively prove that the irregularities materially affected the election’s outcome ultimately led to the dismissal of the petition. This case underscores the importance of demonstrating the materiality of contested election returns to successfully challenge election results.

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: GABRIEL GARDUCE BASARTE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 169413, May 09, 2007