GR 157004; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157004; July 4, 2003
SALLY A. LEE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LEOVIC R. DIONEDA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sally A. Lee and private respondent Leovic R. Dioneda were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City in the May 14, 2001 elections. During canvassing, Dioneda objected to the inclusion of Election Return No. 41150266 from Precinct No. 28A2 on grounds that it contained no entries for the position of congressman and that watchers from a political party were utilized to fill up entries in the return. The Board of Canvassers (BOC) included the return, finding it clear and regular on its face. Lee was subsequently proclaimed mayor.
Dioneda appealed to the COMELEC, which granted his petition. The COMELEC Second Division excluded the questioned return, nullified Lee’s proclamation, and ordered a new BOC to reconvene and proclaim a winner based on a new canvass excluding that return. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this resolution. Lee filed the present petition, arguing the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in a pre-proclamation controversy by investigating election irregularities behind the return.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the election return and nullifying the proclamation in the context of a pre-proclamation controversy.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the limited scope of pre-proclamation controversies under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. The grounds raised by Dioneda—the incomplete entries and the utilization of watchers—pertain to the proceedings of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) and the preparation of the return, not to the canvassing proceedings of the BOC. In a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC and the BOC are generally confined to an examination of the election returns on their face for completeness and regularity; they cannot go beyond or behind the returns to investigate alleged irregularities in their preparation.
The Court cited the precedent of Loong v. Commission on Elections, which held that questions relating to the correctness of the contents of returns, arising from the conduct of the BEI, are not proper in a pre-proclamation case but are matters for an election protest. Since the return was incomplete, the proper procedure under Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code was for the COMELEC to first determine the integrity of the ballot box and, if intact, order a recount of the ballots to prepare a new return. The COMELEC’s direct exclusion of the return and annulment of the proclamation without this determination was a capricious disregard of established procedure. The Court directed the COMELEC to determine the integrity of the ballot box and ballots from the precinct and proceed in accordance with Section 234.