CHAVEZ - v - COMELEC
G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992, BIDIN, J.
2.
Petitioner filed an
urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it
Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.
Facts:
1.
Court issued a
Resolution in "Francisco Chavez v. Comelec, et al.," disqualifying
Melchor Chavez, private respondent therein, from running for the Office of
Senator in the May 11, 1992 elections.
a.
(1) disseminate through
the fastest available means this Court's Resolution to all regional election
directors, provincial election supervisors, city and municipal election
registrars, boards of election inspectors, the six accredited political parties
and the general public; and
b.
(2) order said election
officials to delete the name of Melchor Chavez as printed in the certified list
of candidates tally sheets, election returns and "to count all votes cast
for the disqualified Melchor Chavez in favor of Francisco I. Chavez . . .
."
Comelec Action
|
Response of Petitioner
|
Comelec issued a
resolution which resolved to delete the name of Melchor Chavez from the list
of qualified candidates. However, it failed to order the crediting of all
"Chavez" votes in favor of petitioner as well as the cancellation
of Melchor Chavez' name in the list of qualified candidates.
|
According to
petitioner, the Comelec failed to perform its mandatory function under Sec.
7, RA 7166 which states that if a candidate has been disqualified, it shall
be the duty of the Commission to instruct without delay the deletion of the
name of said candidate.
|
3.
Confusion arose,
allegedly nationwide, as the "Chavez" votes were either declared
stray or invalidated by the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs).
Comelec Action
|
Response of Petitioner
|
Commissioner Rama
issued a directive over radio and TV ordering all "Chavez" votes to
be credited in favor of petitioner.
Comelec issued another
Resolution directing all municipal and city election registrars throughout
the country to examine the minutes of voting submitted by the BEIs and to
credit all the "Chavez" votes, which have been declared stray or
invalidated by the BEIs, in favor of petitioner.
|
Petitioner contends
that the radio and TV announcements did not reach the BEI nationwide.
Petitioner maintains
that the said resolution proved futile the minutes of voting did not indicate
the number of "Chavez" votes which were declared stray or
invalidated.
|
4.
Petitioner sent a letter
to the Comelec requesting the latter to devise ways and means in crediting
"Chavez" votes in his favor but the respondent Commission failed to
act on said letter/complaint.
5.
Petitioner filed an
urgent petition before the respondent Comelec praying the latter to
a.
(1) implement its May
12, 1992 resolution;
b.
(2) to re-open the ballot boxes in 13
provinces and to scan for the "Chavez" votes for purposes of
crediting the same in his favor;
c.
(3) make the appropriate
entries in the election returns/certificates of canvass; and
d.
(4) to suspend the
proclamation of the 24 winning candidates.
6.
Dissatisfied with the
failure of respondent Comelec to act on his petition, petitioner filed, this urgent petition for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the
issuance of a TRO, enjoining the Comelec from proclaiming the 24th highest
senatorial candidate
7.
Court issued a TRO enjoining
respondent Comelec from proclaiming the 24th winning senatorial candidate and
set the case for hearing.
8.
Petitioner filed a
manifestation stating his urgent petition was dismissed by respondent Comelec
and prayed that the petition ad
cautelam at bar be considered
a regular petition.
9.
Senator Agapito Aquino filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene
with Comment in Intervention praying for the dismissal of the instant petition
on the ground that the law does not allow pre-proclamation controversy
involving the election of members of the Senate.
10.
Court resolved to lift
the TRO.
Issue: Whether or not case must prosper.
Held: No. Dismissed.
A.
The alleged inaction of
respondent Comelec in ordering the deletion of Melchor Chavez's name in the
list of qualified candidates does not call for the exercise of the Court's
function of judicial review. Court can review the decisions or orders of the Comelec
only in cases of grave abuse of discretion committed by it in the discharge of
its quasi-judicial powers and not
those arising from the exercise of its administrative functions. Respondent
Commission's alleged failure to implement its own resolution is undoubtedly
administrative in nature, hence, beyond judicial interference.
Respondent Comelec ordered the deletion of Melchor
Chavez's name not only on the official list of candidates, but also on the
election returns, tally sheet and certificate of canvass. Hence, petitioner's
allegation that respondent Comelec failed to implement its resolution does not
hold water.
B.
A
simple reading of the petition would readily show that petitioner has no cause
of action, the controversy presented being one in the nature of a
pre-proclamation.
pre-proclamation.
While the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction
over pre-proclamation controversies involving local elective officials (Sec.
242, Omnibus Election Code), nevertheless, pre-proclamation cases are not
allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the
House of Representatives.
Sec. 15 of Republic Act
7166 provides:
Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.
What is allowed is the correction of
"manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns."
To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of
canvass or election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto
must have been made before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in
the minutes of their respective proceedings.
Petitioner has not demonstrated any manifest error
in the certificates of canvass or election returns before the Comelec which
would warrant their correction. Petitioner's allegation that "Chavez"
votes were either invalidated or declared stray has no relation to the
correctness or authenticity of the election returns canvassed. As the
authenticity of the certificates of canvass or election returns are not
questioned, they must be prima
facie considered valid for
purposes of canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning candidates
(Sanchez v. Comelec, supra).
Petitioner prays not only for a restraining order
enjoining the proclamation of the 24th highest ranking senatorial candidate but
also prays that judgment be rendered requiring the Comelec to re-open the ballot boxes in 13 provinces, scan the ballots for
"Chavez" votes which were invalidated or declared stray and credit
said scanned "Chavez" votes in favor of petitioner.
Petitioner's proper recourse is to file a regular
election protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal after the winning
senatorial candidates have been proclaimed.
Sec.
17, Art. VI of the Constitution provides that "(t)he Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. .
. ." The word "sole" underscores the exclusivity of the
Tribunals' jurisdiction over election contests relating to their respective
Members. It is therefore crystal clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the instant petition. It is the Senate Electoral Tribunal which has
exclusive jurisdiction to act on the complaint of petitioner involving, as it
does, contest relating to the election of a member of the Senate.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
