NACIONALISTA PARTY - v - COMELEC
[G.R. No. L-3521. December 13, 1949.] OZAETA, J.
THE NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Claro M. Recto, Manuel C. Briones, Jesus G. Barrera, J. Antonio Araneta and
Jesus P. Morfe, for Petitioners.
Vicente de Vera, Leopoldo Rovira and Rodrigo D. Perez Jr. for Respondent.
Facts:
1.
The petitioner Nacionalista Party is a national political party with
official candidates for all the offices involved in the last national
elections, and the other petitioners are the eight candidates for senators of
said party.
2.
Several weeks before the holding of the last national elections, some of
the petitioners made representations to the respondent that in view of the
state of terrorism and political persecutions existing in the provinces of
Negros Occidental and Lanao against the persons of the candidates, leaders, and
sympathizers of the petitioners, intended to prevent the free expression of the
voters’ will in the national elections scheduled for November 8, 1949, and
considering the rampant violation of the Election Law which were committed in
said provinces to the prejudice of the petitioners during the two registration
days, consisting among others of the padding of the electoral census in many of
the municipal districts of Lanao, it had become impossible to hold free,
orderly, and honest elections in said provinces.
3.
In view of said representations the respondent Commission, after
considering the evidence presented before it, approved a resolution on November
4, 1949, wherein it found in substance
4.
Upon findings the Commission recommended to the President of the
Philippines the postponement of the election in the entire province of Negros
Occidental and in various specified municipal districts of Lanao.
5.
The President chose not to follow said recommendation, and did not
suspend the elections in the two provinces in question.
6.
Hence this petition for mandamus to compel the Commission to exclude
(not to count) the votes cast for senators in the provinces of Negros
Occidental and Lanao during the last elections in the canvass to be performed
by it pursuant to section 166 of the Revised Election Code.
Issue: whether or not the Commission on
Elections is empowered to annul an election in any political division or
subdivision because of alleged terrorism or fraud committed in connection
therewith.
Held: Petition denied.
Section 2 of Article X of the Constitution provides: "The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of the
enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections
and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law.
It shall decide, save those involving the right to vote, all administrative
questions, affecting elections, including the determination of the number and
location of polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and
other election officials. All law-enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of
the Government, when so required by the Commission, shall act as its deputies
for the purpose of insuring free, orderly, and honest elections. The decisions,
orders, and rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme
Court."
Supplementing and in a way implementing that constitutional provision are, in
so far as pertinent here, sections 8 and 166 of the Revised Election Code,
which read as follows: "SEC. 8. Postponement of election. — When for any
serious cause the holding of an election should become impossible in any
political division or subdivision, the President, upon recommendation of the
Commission on Elections, shall postpone the election therein for such time as
he may deem necessary.
"SEC. 166. Canvass of votes for President, Vice
President and Senators. — Thirty days after the elections have been held, the
Commission on Elections shall meet in session and shall publicly count the
votes cast for Senators. The registered candidates in the number of Senators required
to be elected who obtained the highest number of votes shall be declared
elected. A copy of such statement shall be furnished to the Secretary of the
Senate and to each elected candidate."
Germane to the above constitutional and statutory provisions is section 11 of
Article VI of the Constitution, which reads as follows: "SEC. 11. The 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. xxx"
We note from the text that the power to decide questions involving the right to
vote is expressly withheld from the Commission although the right to vote is
provided in the Election Law, the enforcement and administration of which is
placed in the exclusive charge of the Commission. Parallel to the withholding
of such power from the Commission is the vesting in other agencies of the more
inclusive power to decide all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the members of Congress, namely, the Electoral Tribunal of
the Senate in the case of the senators and the Electoral Tribunal of the House
of Representatives in the case of the members of the latter. Election contests involving
provincial and municipal officials are entrusted to the courts. (Sections 172
et seq., Revised Election Code.) The power to decide election contests
necessarily includes the power to determine the validity or nullity of the
votes questioned by either of the contestants.
Thus, in so far as contests relating to the election of senators and
representatives are concerned, not even this court is empowered to
intervene.
Section 166 of the Revised Election Code
constitutes the Commission on Elections as a national board of
canvassers with respect to the election of senators, who under section 2 of
Article VI of the Constitution are chosen at large by the qualified electors of
the Philippines. In the absence of any provision in the law making the members
of a canvassing board judges of the election and giving them full power and
authority to approve thereof or set it aside and order a new election, "such
a board is considered to be merely a ministerial body, which is empowered only
to accept as correct returns transmitted to it, which are in due form, and to
ascertain and declare the result as it appears therefrom. Questions of
illegal voting and fraudulent practices are passed on by another tribunal. The
canvassers are to be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns — namely, that
the papers presented to them are not forged and spurious, that they are
returns, and that they are signed by the proper officers. When so satisfied,
however, they may not reject any returns because of informalities in them or
because of illegal and fraudulent practices in the election. . . . Where
the returns are obviously manufactured, as where they show a great excess of
votes over what could legally have been cast, the board will not be compelled
to canvass them."
Upon the facts and the law as above expounded, we have no authority to grant
the remedy prayed for. The writ of mandamus
lies "when any tribunal, corporation, board, or person unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law." (Section 3, Rule 67.)
We have seen that it is not the duty of the Commission on Elections to
pass upon the legality of an election alleged to have been tainted with fraud,
intimidation, or other violation of the Election Law. On the
contrary, it is its ministerial duty to count the votes appearing in the
election returns after satisfying itself of the genuineness of said returns.
What in effect the petitioners seek is to require the respondent to desist from
performing a ministerial duty.
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.
