Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF

SUPREME COURT CABUSAO, NEBRIDO F. SANTIAGO, and EUGENIO AGUILAR, respondents.

Manila
G.R. No. 105778 August 6, 1992
EN BANC
MARIO S. MANLICLIC, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF
G. R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 GEN. NATIVIDAD, NUEVA ECIJA, BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS OF
PRECINCT NOS. 12-A AND 13, BARANGAY MATAAS NA KAHOY, GEN.
RODULFO SARMIENTO, petitioner, NATIVIDAD, NUEVA ECIJA; BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS OF
vs. PRECINCT NOS. 15-A, BARANGAY PICALEON, GEN. NATIVIDAD, NUEVA
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ECIJA; PRECINCT NO. 25-A OF SAPANG BATO, GEN. NATIVIDAD, NUEVA
VIRAC and JOSE "CITO" ALBERTO II, respondents. ECIJA; THE ELECTION REGISTRAR and APOLONIO PASCUAL, respondents.

G.R. No. 105725 August 6, 1992 G.R. No. 105797 August 6, 1992

EMMANUEL R. ALFELOR, petitioner, FRANCISCO G. RABAT, petitioner,

vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF IRIGA COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF
CITY and JOSE C. VILLANUEVA, respondents. DAVAO ORIENTAL and ROSALIND YBASCO LOPEZ, respondents.

G.R. No. 105727 August 6, 1992 G-R. No. 105919 August 6, 1992

LEANDRO I. VERCELES, SR., petitioner, DATU MOHAMMAD A. SINSUAT, petitioner,

vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DATU MICHAEL SINSUAT and ATTY. RUBEN
CATANDUANES and ROSALIE ALBERTO-ESTACIO, respondents. PLATON, respondents.

G.R. No. 105730 August 6, 1992 G.R. No. 105977 August 6, 1992

JESUS TYPOCO, JR., petitioner, ROSARIO A. VELASCO, petitioner,

vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF
CAMARINES NORTE, and MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF JOSE TERNATE, CAVITE, and CONDRADO LINDO, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, CAMARINES NORTE, respondents.

G.R. No. 105771 August 6, 1992

ALBERTO U. GENOVA, JR., petitioner,

vs.
RESOLUTION 8) G.R. No. 105919 — SPC No. 92-293 dismissing petitioner's appeal
from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Upi Nuro,
Maguindanao;

DAVIDE, JR., J.: 9) G.R. No. 105977 — SPC No. 92-087 denying the amended pre-
proclamation petition, which is an appeal from the rulings of the
The special civil actions for certiorari hereby jointly resolved, filed under Rule 65 of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Ternate, Cavite, and denying a
Rules of Court, seek to set aside the Resolutions of respondent Commission on subsequent motion to resolve the issues raised in said amended
Elections (COMELEC) in the following Special Cases (SPC): petition.

1) G.R. No. 105628 — SPC No. 92-266 granting the appeal from the Comments had been filed only in G.R. No. 105727 and G.R. No. 105797. This Court
ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Virac, Catanduanes dispenses with the Comments in the other cases.
which ordered the exclusion from the canvass of one (1) election return;
Petitioners impugn the challenged resolutions above specified as having been issued
2) G.R. No. 105725 — SPC No. 92-323 reversing the ruling of the City with grave abuse of discretion in that, inter alia, the Commission, sitting en banc, took
Board of Canvassers of Iriga City which ordered the exclusion from the cognizance of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any of its
canvass of six (6) election returns and in UND No. 92-243 ordering the Divisions.
said Board of Canvassers to include in the canvass the election returns
involved therein; Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides:

3) G.R. No. 105727 — SPC No. 92-288 dismissing the appeal of Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
petitioner from the ruling of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
Catanduanes which ordered the inclusion in the canvass the certificate expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
of canvass for the municipality of Virac, excluding the returns from 48 controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
precincts; division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be
decided by the Commission en banc. (Emphasis supplied).
4) G.R. No. 105730 — SPC No. 92-315 affirming the ruling of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte The 1973 Constitution prescribed another rule. Its Section 3, subdivision C of Article
which dismissed petitioner's opposition to the composition of the said XII provided as follows:
Municipal Board of Canvassers;
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three
5) G.R. No. 105771 — SPC No. 92-271 affirming the ruling of the divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided by divisions,
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Cabusao, Camarines Sur which, except contests involving Members of the Batasang Pambansa, which
among others, rejected petitioner's objection to certain election returns; shall be heard and decided en banc. . . .

6) G.R. No. 105778 — SPC No. 92-039 dismissing said case for non- It is clear from the abovequoted provision of the 1987 Constitution that election cases
compliance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166; include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and
decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission, sitting en banc, does not
7) G.R. No. 105797 — SPC No. 92-153 affirming the rulings of the have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance. In the COMELEC
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Davao Oriental which rejected RULES OF PROCEDURE, pre-proclamation cases are classified as Special
petitioner's objections to the canvass of some certificates of canvass; Cases 1 and, in compliance with the above provision of the Constitution, the two (2)
Divisions of the Commission are vested with the authority to hear and decide these cases pending before it shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the
Special Cases. 2 Rule 27 thereof governs Special Cases; specifically, Section 9 of the office involved. The said section provides as follows:
said Rule provides that appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers are
cognizable by any of the Divisions to which they are assigned and not by the xxx xxx xxx
Commission en banc. Said Section reads:
All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be
Sec. 9. Appeals from rulings of Board of Canvassers. — (a) A party deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved
aggrieved by an oral ruling of the board of canvassers who had stated and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed
orally his intent to appeal said ruling shall, within five days following affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by
receipt of a copy of the written ruling of the board of canvassers, file the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the
with the Commission a verified appeal, furnishing a copy thereof to the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines
board of canvassers and the adverse party. that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order
for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been
(b) The appeal filed with the Commission shall be docketed by the Clerk issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
of Court concerned.
The terms of the offices involved in the Special Cases subject of these petitions
(c) The answer/opposition shall be verified. commenced at noon of 30 June 1992. 7 These cases have thus been rendered moot
and such a resolution would only be an exercise in futility.
(d) The Division to which the case is assigned shall immediately set the
case for hearing. (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the instant petitions are DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing by
petitioners of regular election protests. If the winning candidates for the positions
xxx xxx xxx involved in the Special Cases subject of these petitions have already been proclaimed,
the running of the period to file the protests shall be deemed suspended by the
A motion to reconsider the decision or resolution of the Division concerned may be pendency of such cases before the COMELEC and of these petitions before this Court.
filed within five (5) days from its promulgation. 3 The Clerk of Court of the Division shall,
within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner The Temporary Restraining Orders issued in G.R. No. 105727, G.R. No. 105730 and
of such fact; in turn, the latter shall certify the case to the Commission en G.R. No. 105797 are hereby LIFTED.
banc. 4Thereafter, the Clerk of Court of the Commission shall calendar the motion for
reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en banc within ten (10) days from SO ORDERED.
the certification. 5
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,
Indisputably then, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ. concur.
abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the abovementioned
Special Cases without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions are,
therefore, null and void and must be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed
pending before the Commission for proper referral to a Division.
Separate Opinions
A resolution directing the COMELEC to assign said Special Cases to the Divisions
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 3 of its Rules on assignment of cases would, logically, be CRUZ, J., concurring:
in order. However, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 6 provides that all pre-proclamation
My brother Feliciano submits powerfully persuasive arguments, as usual, and I am expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
tempted to join him except for the prescription of the Constitution. Article IX-C, Section controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
3, says quite clearly: division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be
decided by the Commission en banc.
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to It is important to start with the general proposition that the Comelec may sit En Banc or
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation in two (2) divisions. It is also helpful to note that the powers and functions of the
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in Commission as specified in Article IX(C)(2) of the Constitution are lodged in "The
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be Commission on Elections" as a whole; Section 2 did not try to distinguish between
decided by the Commission en banc. powers and functions which are to be exercised En Banc and those to be exercised
by Divisions.
The language of the provision suggests that it is jurisdictional and not merely directory
and therefore requires that all election cases be heard first by the division, whose The second important constitutional principle is that the fundamental objective of the
decision may be reconsidered only by the Commission en banc. above-quoted Article IX(C)(3) is the expediting of the disposition of both election cases
and pre-proclamation controversies. We have, in many cases, stressed heavily the
The Supreme Court itself cannot consider in the first instance cases coming under the need for disposing of election protests as rapidly as possible. 1 We have also many
exclusive original jurisdiction of a lower court, like a petition for declaratory relief. Even times ruled that pre-proclamation controversies are administrative and summary in
in the interest of a speedy administration of justice, we can exercise only appellate character and are to be resolved with the utmost dispatch subject, of course, to the
jurisdiction over such a case under Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the Constitution. requirements of notice to the parties and fairness in procedure. 2

I find the quoted provision ill-considered, to say the least, in view of the practical Thirdly, I submit it is clear that the term "election cases" in the last sentence of Article
difficulties it may spawn. But we are dealing with a mandatory provision of the IX(C)(3) is properly read as referring to election contests or election protests,
Constitution which, unless amended (corrected may be a better word), must be and not to all proceedings or controversies arising out of or relating to elections. Article
observed. IX(C)(3), in its first sentence, clearly distinguishes "election cases" from "pre-
proclamation controversies," and extends the constitutional objective of expeditious
FELICIANO, J., concurring and dissenting disposition not only to "election cases" but also to "pre-proclamation controversies."
Thus, while the second sentence of Article IX(C)(3) speaks of "all such election cases,"
I concur in the result reached by the majority in the captioned cases, i.e., the dismissal there is no indiscriminate lumping together of election protests or election cases
of the various Petitions for Certiorari in the cases disposed of by this Joint Resolution. properly so-called with pre-proclamation controversies.

I am, however, compelled to dissent from the Joint Resolution to the extent that It is pointed out by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, J., that Rule 3(3) of
Resolution holds that the Comelec En Banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave the Rules of Procedure of the Comelec (Comelec Rules) provides that:
abuse of discretion, when it dismissed, for instance, the appeal from the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Cabusao, Camarines Sur, of petitioner Genova, among Sec. 3. The Commission sitting in divisions. — The Commission shall
others, without first referring such appeal to either of its Divisions, and holding such sit in two (2) divisions to hear and decide protests or petitions in
dismissal as null and void and setting the same aside. ordinary actions, special actions, special cases, provisional remedies,
contempt and special proceedings except in accreditation of citizen's
Article IX(C)(3) of the 1987 Constitution reads as follows: arms of the Commission. (Emphasis supplied)

Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two that "special cases" embrace pre-proclamation controversies (Rule 27,
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to Comelec Rules), and that Rule 27(9) of the Comelec Rules states, among other
things, that
(d) the Division to which [the appeal from rulings of a Board of months from the date of the order, unless otherwise directed by the
Canvassers] is assigned shall immediately set the case for hearing. Commission.

The majority is here, of course, trying to interpret Article IX(C)(3) of the 1987 Sec. 7. Partial determination of the case. — The Commission or the
Constitution by referring to relevant provisions of the Comelec Rules adopted Division concerned may direct the protestant and, in case there is a
after the 1987 Constitution went into effect. From the foregoing, my learned counter-protest, the counter-protestant, to state and designate in
brother Davide concludes that writing his or their choice of the precincts, numbering not more than
twenty-five (25%) per centum of the total number of precincts involved
[i]t is clear from [Article IX(C)(3) of the 1987 Constitution] that election in the protest and counter-protest, if any, whose ballot boxes shall first
cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must be opened, and shall thereafter make a partial determination of the
first be heard and decided by a Division of the Commission. The case . . .
Commission en banc does not have the authority to hear and decide it
at the first instance. . . . xxx xxx xxx

It seems to me, however, that Rules 3(3) and 27(9)(d) of the Comelec Rules Rule 30 — Injunction.
were not intended to establish a wall of separation between the Divisions and the
Commission En Banc. Thus, for instance, while election cases properly so-called are Sec. 1. Preliminary Injunction. — The Commission or any of its
designated as "ordinary actions" and assigned to the Divisions, the Comelec Rules Divisions may grant preliminary injunction in any ordinary action,
authorize the Commission itself to intervene or act in such ordinary actions. For special action, special case, or special relief pending before it.
instance:
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 20 — Election Protests
(Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Another difficulty with the position taken by the majority is that under the Comelec
Sec. 6. Revision of ballots. — When the allegations in a protest or Rules, not all pre-proclamation controversies are necessarily assigned to a Division.
counter-protest so warrant, orwhenever in the opinion of the There are certain pre-proclamation controversies which, under the Comelec Rules,
Commission or Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall are to be filed directly with the Commission and to be heard and decided by the
immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list Commission En Banc:
of voters with voting records, book of voters, and other documents used
in the election to be brought before the Commission, and shall order Rule 27 — Pre-Proclamation Controversies
the revision of the ballots. For this purpose, the Commission may
constitute a committee on the revision of ballots, to be composed of a xxx xxx xxx
chairman, who shall be a lawyer from the Commission, and two
members, one member and his substitute to be proposed by the Sec. 4. Pre-proclamation controversies which may be filled directly with
protestant, and the other member and his substitute by the protestee. the Commission.— (a) Thefollowing pre-proclamation
controversies may be filed directly with the Commission:
The revision of the ballots shall be made in the office of the Clerk of
Court concerned at such places as the Commission or the
(1) When the issue involves the illegal composition or
Division shall designate, and shall be completed within three (3)
proceedings of the board of canvassers as when a
majority or all the of the members do not hold legal
appointments or are in fact usurpers; or when the the two [2] Divisions of the Commission) were present when these cases were
canvassing has been a mere ceremony that was pre- disposed of and dismissed, it will be seen that, literally, the several appeals were heard
determined and manipulated to result in nothing but a by all the members of a Division and at the same time by all the members of the
sham as where there was convergence of Commission En Banc. It may be seen then that the second sentence of Article IX(C)(3)
circumstances of precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of the 1987 Constitution, quoted above, has been literally and effectively complied
of sufficient notice to the members of the board of with. To say, therefore, that the cases here involved must first be decided by a Division
canvassers and disregard of manifest irregularities on and then only referred to the Commission En Banc by a motion for reconsideration,
the facts of the questioned returns or certificates of appears to be an exaltation of form over substance. The present situation must be
canvass in appropriate cases; distinguished from a situation where a constitutional or statutory provision requires a
matter to be resolved by a Commission En Banc but is instead resolved only by a
(2) When the issue involves the correction of manifest Division of that Commission or body. In this latter situation, the decision of a Division
errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results during of the Commission or other agency is not reasonably to be equated with the decision
the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election of the Commission En Banc; for the latter is necessarily composed of more
returns or certificate of canvass was tabulated more commissioners than constitute one division thereof.
than once, (2) two or more copies of the election returns
of one precinct, or two or more copies of certificate of Finally, assuming arguendo that the majority have correctly read Article IX(C)(3) of the
canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there had been 1987 Constitution, it should still be pointed out that most, if not all, of the cases or
a mistake in the copying of the figures into the statement proceedings at bar, and the other seven hundred (700) plus cases or proceedings
of votes or into the certificate of canvass, or (4) so-called which the Commission En Banc summarily and similarly disposed of, are not even
returns from non-existent precincts were included in the genuine pre-proclamation controversies. Only certain statutorily defined grounds or
canvass, but such errors could not have been issues may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. In the case(s) at bar, the
discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise grounds or issues sought to be raised by the individual petitioners are so insubstantial
of due diligence and proclamation of the winning in nature as to fall considerably short of a genuine pre-proclamation controversy.
candidates had already been made. Indeed, in most if not all of the cases at bar, the grounds raised and the evidence
submitted are so slight and tenuous as to lead to the belief that they were initiated for
xxx xxx xxx no more edifying reason than to delay the proclamation of the winners (per
canvassing) in the elections sought to be disputed. Had the Commission En
(d) The Clerk of Court concerned shall immediately set the petition for Banc taken seriously (undeservedly, in my view) the seven hundred (700) plus
hearing. proceedings before it and required each to be heard first by Division and then by the
Commission En Banc on a motion for reconsideration, several years would doubtless
(e) The petition shall be heard and decided by the Commission en have been required to dispose of all those proceedings, had Section 16 of R.A. No.
banc. 7166 not been enacted.

xxx xxx xxx My ultimate submission is that we must read the second sentence of Article IX(C)(3)
of the 1987 Constitution in such a manner as to avoid handcuffing, as it were, the
(Emphasis supplied) Comelec and denying it the essential flexibility it badly needs to be able to carry out
the basic constitutional mandate of "expedit[ing] disposition of election [protests and]
pre-proclamation controversies." This teleological or purpose-oriented reading may be
There is another factor which needs to be considered. The appeals of the various
achieved by regarding that second sentence as directory and not mandatory (or
petitioners in these cases from rulings of the several Boards of Canvassers involved
jurisdictional) in character. The legal distinction between directory and mandatory
(whether municipal or provincial) were resolved by the Commission directly. Since all
provisions is as applicable to fundamental as it is to statutory laws. 3 The
the members of the Commission En Banc (and therefore, all the members of each of
characterization of a constitutional or statutory provision as directory rather than
mandatory is not determined simply by the particular grammatical terms employed;
indeed, the problem of distinguishing between directory and mandatory language
would not arise if the use of "will" or "shall" instead of "may" were regarded as
conclusive. That characterization is most rationally made on the basis of the major
purpose or objective which shines through the constitutional language and which must
be given effect.

Alternatively, the second sentence of Article IX(C)(3) of the 1987 Constitution may be
read, without departing from the literal terms used in that provision, as encompassing
only election cases properly so called, i.e., election protests, and not pre-proclamation
controversies.

For all the foregoing, I reach the conclusion that the Commission En banc did not act
with grave abuse of discretion nor without or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the
alleged pre-proclamation controversies at bar, without first requiring each and
everyone of them to be heard in Division.