into the canvassing area;

[G.R. No. 134096. March 3, 1999.]

7. Concerned citizen found minutes of the counting, keys, locks and metal seal
JOSEPH PETER S. SISON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON in the COMELEC area for disposal as trash;
ELECTIONS, Respondents.
8. Board of Election Inspectors have volunteered information that they placed
the copy of the election returns meant for the City Board of Canvassers in the
DECISION ballot boxes deposited with the City Treasurer allegedly due to fatigue and lack
of sleep;

9. Ballot boxes were never in the custody of the COMELEC and neither the
ROMERO, J.: parties nor their watchers were allowed to enter the restricted area where
these boxes passed through on the way to the basement of the City Hall where
they were supposedly kept; and
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court which impugns the Resolution 1 of public respondent Commission on 10. In the election in Barangay New Era, there was a clear patters of voting
Elections (COMELEC) dated June 22, 1998 that dismissed petitioner Joseph which would show that the election returns were manufactured and that no
Peter S. Sison’s earlier petition 2 in SPC No. 98-134, entitled "In the Matter of actual voting by duly qualified voters took place therein.
the Petition to Suspend the Canvassing of Votes and/or Proclamation in Quezon
City and to Declare a Failure of Elections."chanroble svirtual lawlib rary While the petition was pending before the COMELEC, the City Board of
Canvassers proclaimed the winners of the elections in Quezon City, including
It appears that while the election returns were being canvassed by the Quezon the winning candidate for the post of vice mayor. On June 22, 1998, the
City Board of Canvassers but before the winning candidates were proclaimed, COMELEC promulgated its challenged resolution dismissing the petition before
petitioner commenced suit before the COMELEC by filing a petition seeking to it on the ground (1) that the allegations therein were not supported by
suspend the canvassing of votes and/or proclamation in Quezon City and to sufficient evidence, and (2) the grounds recited were not among the pre-
declare a failure of elections. The said petition was supposedly filed pursuant to proclamation issues set fourth in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166. 5
Section 6 3 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as
amended) on the ground of "massive and orchestrated fraud and acts Hence this petition.
analogous thereto which occurred after the voting and during the preparation
of election returns and in the custody or canvass thereof, which resulted in a Alleging that COMELEC overstepped the limits of reasonable exercise of
failure to elect." 4 discretion in dismissing SPC No. 98-134, petitioner argues in the main that the
electoral body failed to afford him basic due process, that is, the right to a
In support of his allegation of massive and orchestrated fraud, petitioner cited hearing and presentation of evidence before ruling on his petition. He then
specific instances which are summarized and set forth below: cha nrob 1es vi rtua l 1aw lib ra ry proceeded to argue that the election returns themselves, as well as the
minutes of the canvassing committee of the City Board of Canvassers were, by
1. The Board of Canvassers announced that election returns with no inner seal themselves, sufficient evidence to support the petition.
would be included in the canvass;
Upon a meticulous study of the parties’ arguments together with the pertinent
2. Board of Election Inspectors brought home copies of election returns meant statutory provisions and jurisprudence, this Court is of the opinion that there is
for the City Board of Canvassers; no compelling reason why we should withhold our imprimatur from the
questioned resolution.
3. Petitioner, through counsel, raised written objections to the inclusion in the
canvass of election returns which were either tampered with, altered or At the outset, we notice that petitioner exhibits an ambivalent stand as to what
falsified, or otherwise not authentic; exactly is the nature of the remedy he availed of at the time he initiated
proceedings before the COMELEC in SPC No. 98-134. At the start, he anchors
4. According to the minutes of the City Board of Canvassers, there were his initiatory petition under Section 6 6 of the Omnibus Election Code regarding
precincts with missing election returns; failure of elections but he later builds his case as a pre-proclamation
controversy which is covered by Sections 241-248 of the Omnibus Election
5. Several election returns with no data on the number of votes cast for vice Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7166. 7 In this respect, the rule is, what
mayoralty position; conjointly determine the nature of a pleading are the allegations therein made
in good faith, the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed, and the primary
6. Highly suspicious persons sneaking in some election returns and documents objective of the party filing the same.
 That exception, however operates only when what is involved is not a pre-
In any case, petitioner nonetheless cannot succeed in either of the remedies he proclamation controversy such as petition for disqualification, failure of
opted to pursue. Recently, in Matalam v. Commission on Elections, 8 we have elections or analogous cases. But as we have earlier declared, his petition,
already declared that a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an though, assuming to seek a declaration of failure of elections, is actually a case
action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections, of pre-proclamation controversy and, hence, not falling within the ambit of the
founded as they are on different grounds. exception. In any case, that omnibus resolution would not have been applied in
the first place because that was issued posterior to the date when the herein
Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there are challenge resolution was promulgated which is June 22, 1998. There was no
only three (3) instances where a failure of elections may be declared, namely: provision that such omnibus resolution should have retroactive effect. chanrob les.com: cralaw: red

(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous Finally, as to petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of his right to due process
causes; (b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the in that he was not allowed to present his evidence before the COMELEC to
hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, support his petition, the same must likewise fail.
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting
and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the First, we note that his citation of Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code as
custody or canvass thereof, such election result in a failure to elect on account basis for his right to present his evidence is misplaced. The phrase "after due
of force majeure, violence, terrorism , fraud, or other analogous causes. 9 notice" refers only to a situation where the COMELEC decides and, in fact,
(Emphasis supplied) We have painstakingly examined petitioner’s petition takes steps to either partially or totally suspend or annul the proclamation of
before the COMELEC but found nothing therein that could support an action for any candidate-elect. Verba legis non est recedendum. From the words of the
declaration of failure of elections. He never alleged at all that elections were statute there should be no departure. The statutory provision cannot be
either not held or suspended. Furthermore, petitioner’s claim of failure to elect expanded to embrace any other situation not contemplated therein such as the
stood as a bare conclusion bereft of any substantive support to describe just one at bar where the COMELEC is not taking any step to suspend or annul a
exactly how the failure to elect came about. proclamation.

With respect to pre-proclamation controversy, it is well to note that the scope Second, presentation of evidence before the COMELEC is not at all
of pre-proclamation controversy is only limited to the issues enumerated under indispensable in order to satisfy the demands of due process. Under the
Section 243 10 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the enumeration therein is amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7166, particularly Section 18 thereof, all
restrictive and exclusive. 11 The reason underlying the delimitation both of that is required now is that the COMELEC shall dispose of pre-proclamation
substantive ground and procedure is the policy of the election law that pre- controversies "on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the
proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with the board of canvassers." This is but in keeping with the policy of the law that
law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. cases of this nature should be summarily decided and the will of the electorate
12 That is why such questions which require more deliberate and necessarily as reflected on the election returns be determined as speedily as possible.
longer consideration, are left for examination in the corresponding election What exactly those records and evidence are upon which the COMELEC based
protest. 13 its resolution and how they have been appreciated in respect of their
sufficiency, are beyond this Court’s scrutiny. But we have reason to believe,
However, with the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position owing to the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty and the
contested, the question of whether the petition raised issues proper for a pre- precept that factual findings of the COMELEC based on its assessments and
proclamation controversy is already of no consequence since the well-entrench duly supported by gathered evidence, are conclusive upon the court, that the
rule in such situation is that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is no COMELEC did arrive at its conclusion with due regard to the available evidence
longer viable, the more appropriate remedies being a regular election protest before it. That this is so can, in fact, be gleaned from petitioner’s own
or a petition for quo warranto. 14 We have carefully reviewed all recognized allegation and admission in his petition that "the election returns themselves as
exceptions 15 to the foregoing rule but found nothing that could possibly apply well as the minutes of the Canvassing Committees and the City Board of
to the instant case based on the recitations of the petition. What is more, in Canvassers . . . are in the possession of the COMELEC." 17 He even cites
paragraph 3 of the COMELEC’s Omnibus Resolution No. 3049 (Omnibus paragraph (g), Section 20 of the Omnibus Election Code to validate such
Resolution on Pending Cases) dated June 29, 1998, it is clearly stated therein allegation. Hence, it is not really correct to say that the COMELEC acted
that "All other pre-proclamation cases . . . shall be deemed terminated without evidentiary basis at all or that petitioner was deprived of his right to
pursuant to Section 16, R. A. 7166. 16 (Emphasis supplied). Section 16 which due process.
is referred to in the aforecited omnibus resolution refers to the termination of
pre-proclamation cases when the term of office involved has already begun, WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
which is precisely what obtains here. We are, of course aware that petitioner of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent Commission on Elections
cites the said omnibus resolution in maintaining that his petition is one of those (COMELEC), the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Consequently, the
cases which should have remained active pursuant to paragraph 4 thereof. resolution of COMELEC in SPC No. 98-134 dated June 22, 1998 is AFFIRMED.
 COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election,
No costs. two conditions must concur: (1) no voting has taken place in the precincts on
the date fixed by law or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
SO ORDERED. chanrobles law l ibra ry : red results in failure to elect: and (2) the votes not cast would affect the result of
the election.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Purisima, Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. 10. Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. —
The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
Vitug, J., on official business abroad. controversy.

Panganiban, J., is on leave. (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;

Pardo, J., took no part. (b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects,
appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same
Endnotes: returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234,
235 and 236 of this Code;

(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
1. Rollo, pp. 23-28.
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were
2. Ibid., pp. 37-43. canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the
aggrieved candidate or candidates.
3. Section 6. Failure of election. — If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place 11. Sanchez v. Commission on Elections, 153 SCRA 68 (1987), reiterated in
has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour Matalam v. Commission on Elections, supra.
fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or 12. Salih v. Commission on Elections, 279 SCRA 19 (1997)
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the 13. Abella v. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509.
election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or 14. Laodenio v. Commission on Elections, 276 SCRA 705 (1997); Torres v.
continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 583 (1997)
to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days 15. Laodenio v. Commission on Elections, supra. These exceptions are: (1) the
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (2) quo warranto was not the
election or failure to elect. (Sec. 7, 1978 EC) proper remedy; (3) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or
an election protest but a petition to annul the proclamation; (4) the filing of a
4. Id., p. 5. quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without
prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam, and
5. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED NATIONAL AND LOCAL (5) the proclamation was null and void.
ELECTIONS AND FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," Approved: November 26, 1991. 16. The SUPREME COURT, in Penaflorida v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 241 (1997),
justified the omnibus resolution’s validity in this wise: "In the case at bar,
6. See note 3. there is no showing that the Omnibus Resolution was adopted by the COMELEC
in order to render moot and academic pre-proclamation cases covered by it.
7. See note 5. Rather it was because the term of office of elective officials was about to begin
and, unless the several pre-proclamation controversies were terminated, the
8. 271 SCRA 733 (1997) result would be that many offices would have no incumbents." cralaw virtua 1aw lib rary

9. Canicosa v. Commission on Elections, 282 SCRA 512 (1997). In Mitmug v. 17. Rollo, p. 12.
Commission on Elections, 230 SCRA 54, we have declared that before the