G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

On May 5, 1992, the Supreme Court disqualified Melchor Chavez from running for Senator. The COMELEC received the resolution on May 6, 1992. Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez filed an urgent motion with the COMELEC praying for the dissemination of the disqualification and for the crediting of all votes cast for “Chavez” in his favor. On May 8, 1992, the COMELEC issued a resolution to delete Melchor Chavez’s name from the list of qualified candidates but did not order the crediting of votes. Consequently, on election day, May 11, 1992, “Chavez” votes were either declared stray or invalidated by the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs). The COMELEC later issued directives via radio/TV and a resolution on May 12, 1992, to credit “Chavez” votes to the petitioner, but petitioner contended these were not effectively implemented nationwide. On May 30, 1992, the COMELEC dismissed petitioner’s urgent petition dated May 22, 1992, which prayed for the implementation of the May 12 resolution, the re-opening of ballot boxes in numerous precincts to scan for “Chavez” votes, and the suspension of the proclamation of the 24 winning senatorial candidates. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the COMELEC from proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate without first acting on his complaints.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can grant the petitioner’s requests, which include enjoining the proclamation of a senatorial candidate and compelling the COMELEC to re-open ballot boxes and credit stray “Chavez” votes in his favor, through a pre-proclamation controversy.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that:
1. The issues raised by the petitioner constitute a pre-proclamation controversy. Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166 , pre-proclamation cases are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives. The only exception allowed is the correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before the appropriate canvassing body.
2. The petitioner’s prayer to re-open ballot boxes, scan ballots, and credit votes does not involve the correction of a manifest error appearing on the face of the election returns or certificates of canvass. His allegation that “Chavez” votes were invalidated has no relation to the correctness or authenticity of the election returns canvassed.
3. The proper recourse for the petitioner is to file a regular election protest, which, under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution , falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral Tribunal as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
4. Furthermore, the Court noted that the COMELEC’s alleged failure to implement its resolution is administrative in nature, and the Court’s power of judicial review over COMELEC decisions is limited to cases of grave abuse of discretion in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers.