G.R. Nos. 153991-92; October 16, 2003
ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG and AKLIMA JAAFAR BALINDONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Anwar Balindong and private respondent Aklima Balindong were candidates for Mayor of Malabang, Lanao del Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections. During the canvass by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), Aklima, through representatives, filed objections to specific election returns on grounds of fraud, irregularities, and illegal proceedings. The MBC denied these objections and proceeded with the canvass, proclaiming Anwar as the winning mayor by a margin of 52 votes. Aklima subsequently filed two petitions (SPC No. 01-063 and SPC No. 01-175) before the COMELEC, initially contesting numerous precincts but later amending his petition to specifically challenge the election returns from five precincts, alleging they were products of fraud and terrorism. The COMELEC consolidated the cases and, after proceedings, issued a Resolution dated July 4, 2002, ordering the MBC to reconvene, exclude the return from Precinct 80A, and credit 88 votes from Precinct 47A/48A to another candidate, Amir-Oden Balindong, not to Aklima.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution which modified the results of the canvass based on grounds not properly raised as a pre-proclamation controversy before the board of canvassers.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the COMELEC Resolution. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and scope of a pre-proclamation controversy under the Omnibus Election Code. The Court held that the grounds invoked by Aklima before the COMELEC—specifically that the election returns for Precincts 80A and 47A/48A were “manufactured” or “not authentic”—were proper issues for a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Code. However, a fatal procedural defect existed. The records clearly showed that Aklima failed to specifically object to the inclusion of these two precinct returns before the MBC during the canvassing. His objections before the MBC were directed at other precincts (127A/128A and 18A). Objections to Precincts 80A and 47A/48A were raised for the first time only in his amended petition before the COMELEC. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that objections to election returns on grounds of being manufactured or not authentic must be made before the board of canvassers to allow for an initial examination and ruling. Failure to raise such objections at that level is a waiver, and the COMELEC cannot, on appeal, entertain grounds not previously raised. Since Aklima did not comply with this mandatory procedure, the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion in excluding the return for Precinct 80A and reallocating votes from Precinct 47A/48A. The proclamation by the MBC, based on the uncontested inclusion of these returns, must therefore stand.