G.R. No. 150111 ; January 31, 2002
ABDULAKARIM D. UTTO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DATU ALMANSA B. ANGAS and THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULTAN SA BARONGIS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Abdulkarim D. Utto and respondent Datu Almansa B. Angas were candidates for mayor of Sultan sa Barongis, Maguindanao, in the May 14, 2001 elections. During canvassing, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC), after multiple member inhibitions, excluded five election returns from Precincts 15A, 25A/26A, 66A, 68A/69A, and 126A/127A due to alleged irregularities like missing seals, tampered data, and non-original copies. Respondent Angas immediately manifested his intention to appeal this exclusion. Despite this, the MBOC, chaired by Bai Haidy D. Mamalinta, proceeded to proclaim Utto as the winning candidate.
Angas filed a verified appeal with the COMELEC, arguing the exclusion was unjustified and moved to annul Utto’s proclamation. He contended that the MBOC violated Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166 , which mandates suspension of proclamation pending appeal if contested returns would affect the election results. The total registered voters from the excluded precincts was 944, while Utto’s proclaimed lead was only 149 votes, indicating the returns would materially affect the outcome.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC correctly annulled petitioner Utto’s proclamation for violating the mandatory procedure under Section 20(i) of R.A. 7166.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s resolutions annulling Utto’s proclamation as void ab initio. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of Section 20(i) of R.A. 7166. This provision explicitly states that a board of canvassers “shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal.” Any proclamation made in violation of this rule is void from the beginning, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results.
The Court emphasized that this rule is not merely directory but mandatory. Its purpose is to prevent premature proclamations that could render an appeal moot. Here, the MBOC’s act of proclaiming Utto while an appeal on the exclusion of returns was pending constituted a clear violation. The mathematical certainty that the 944 votes from the excluded precincts could overturn Utto’s 149-vote margin meant the returns would adversely affect the election results. Therefore, the MBOC had a positive duty to suspend the proclamation and await COMELEC’s ruling. By proceeding despite the pending appeal, the MBOC acted without jurisdiction, rendering Utto’s proclamation legally void. The COMELEC correctly exercised its constitutional power to enforce election laws and annul an illegal proclamation.