GR 135627; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135627 December 9, 1999
ROGELIO G. SIQUIAN, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FELICITAS P. ONG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rogelio Siquian, Jr. and private respondent Felicitas Ong were candidates for mayor of Angadanan, Isabela in the May 11, 1998 elections. During the initial canvassing, Siquian interposed no objections to the inclusion of election returns from several precincts. It was only on May 16, 1998, after the canvassing had concluded and Ong had been proclaimed winner (a proclamation later annulled by the COMELEC First Division), that Siquian presented objections to specific returns. His grounds included alleged undue influence by a Barangay Captain and that some returns were accomplished outside polling centers. The Municipal Board of Canvassers, upon reconvening, denied exclusion for some returns and granted it for others. Both parties appealed to the COMELEC First Division, which affirmed the Board’s rulings. Ong’s motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc was granted, leading to an October 6, 1998 resolution ordering the inclusion of all returns Siquian had sought to exclude. Ong was subsequently proclaimed winner on October 12, 1998.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns?
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the mandatory and summary nature of pre-proclamation proceedings. Section 20 of R.A. 7166 and Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution 2962 require that any oral objection to an election return must be made at the precise time the return is presented for inclusion in the canvass. Petitioner Siquian admitted his objections were made belatedly, after the returns had already been included. This fatal procedural lapse justified the COMELEC’s dismissal of his objections. Liberal interpretation of election laws is inapplicable here, as it is intended to uphold the popular will, not to excuse delays that frustrate proclamation.
Furthermore, even assuming timely objections, Siquian’s substantive claims lacked merit. Allegations that votes were cast under influence or that returns were prepared under duress, coercion, or intimidation are not proper grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy before a Board of Canvassers. The Board’s function is ministerial; it cannot look beyond election returns that appear authentic and regular on their face. Such issues concerning the conduct of the voting and counting are proper subjects for a regular election protest, where evidence can be fully ventilated. Siquian failed to present specific, substantiated objections to the facial regularity of the returns. Therefore, the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction in including the returns and dismissing the petition.