G.R. No. 167033; April 12, 2006
ESTRELITA “NENG” JULIANO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MUSLIMIN SEMA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Estrelita Juliano and respondent Muslimin Sema were candidates for Mayor of Cotabato City in the May 2004 elections. The canvassing of election returns was conducted by three successive City Boards of Canvassers (CBOCs). The third CBOC, chaired by Atty. Lintang Bedol (Bedol Board), after transferring the canvassing venue to the COMELEC main office in Manila, issued a notice stating that the resumption of canvassing would be on June 2, 2004. However, the Bedol Board resumed canvassing a day earlier, on June 1, 2004, at 1:45 p.m. During this June 1 session, the Board ruled on all contested returns, denied all petitions for their exclusion, canvassed the returns, and proclaimed respondent Sema as the duly elected Mayor. Petitioner filed a pre-proclamation controversy before the COMELEC to nullify the canvass proceedings and proclamation, alleging: (1) she was not notified of the advanced June 1 canvassing, rendering it illegal; (2) 108 election returns were spurious and manufactured; (3) the CBOC should have suspended the proclamation as per COMELEC rules; and (4) 54 election returns were included in the canvass but were not part of an earlier inventory. The COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the petition, finding the returns to be in order on their face and ruling that the issues required looking beyond the face of the returns, which is not proper in a pre-proclamation controversy. It also held that petitioner was deemed notified of the June 1 canvassing because one of her alleged counsels, Atty. Ronald Javines, and her watchers were present. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching affidavits disavowing that she engaged Atty. Javines’s services. The COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution penned by Commissioner Javier dated February 10, 2005, voted 3-3-1 (three in favor of granting the motion, three dissenting, one taking no part). This Resolution would have granted the motion, annulled Sema’s proclamation, and ordered an examination of the 108 returns. However, due to the equally divided vote and after a “re-consultation,” the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order, also dated February 10, 2005, affirming the 2nd Division’s dismissal pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lack of notice to petitioner of the June 1, 2004 canvassing was cured by the presence of her watcher and Atty. Ronald Javines.
2. Whether the COMELEC has the power to (i) determine the authenticity of election returns; (ii) investigate beyond the returns; and (iii) adopt means to ascertain their authenticity.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REMANDED the case to the COMELEC En Banc.
1. On the Procedural Issue and Remand: The Court found that the COMELEC En Banc failed to comply with its own procedural rules. Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandates that when the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, “the case shall be reheard.” The COMELEC En Banc, after an initial 3-3-1 vote, conducted only a “re-consultation” and not a “rehearing.” The Court held that a “re-consultation” is not the same as a “rehearing,” which implies a re-examination of the matter, including potentially receiving further evidence or arguments. Since the required rehearing was not conducted, the Order affirming the 2nd Division’s Resolution was issued in violation of the COMELEC’s rules. Therefore, the case must be remanded to the COMELEC En Banc to conduct the mandatory rehearing.
2. On the Substantive Issues: The Supreme Court refrained from ruling on the substantive issues raised by petitioner (the lack of notice and the COMELEC’s power to examine returns) because the case was being remanded on a procedural ground. The Court emphasized that it is for the COMELEC En Banc, after a proper rehearing, to resolve these substantive questions in the first instance. The Court’s decision was limited to correcting the COMELEC’s procedural lapse.
Dispositive Portion:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC En Banc is ORDERED to conduct forthwith the rehearing required under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and render the appropriate decision thereon. SO ORDERED.”