G.R. No. L-31566 February 18, 1970
ROGELIO O. TIGLAO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CORNELIO SANGA and BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PAMPANGA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rogelio O. Tiglao and respondent Cornelio Sanga were candidates for Congressman for the second district of Pampanga in the November 1969 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers commenced canvass on December 11, 1969, but could not conclude it due to sixteen precinct returns from San Luis found “not authentic.” The matter was referred to the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Tiglao petitioned Comelec questioning various returns, specifically alleging that his name and votes were omitted from the returns of Precincts 35-A and 36 of Apalit. Comelec, in its resolutions, directed the use of its copies for the San Luis returns and required Tiglao to submit particulars for the Apalit returns. Tiglao later moved for reconsideration, alleging the San Luis returns were prepared at gunpoint, and requested the opening of ballot boxes, counting of ballots, and preparation of new returns. Comelec, on January 8, 1970, ruled it had no power to open ballot boxes and count votes, and found no evidence the Apalit returns were made at gunpoint. On January 26, 1970, Comelec ordered the board to reconvene and recanvass, and to proclaim the presumptive winner, showing Sanga leading by 247 votes. Tiglao filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on January 30, 1970, seeking various reliefs including the opening of ballot boxes for specified San Luis precincts, comparison of Apalit returns, rejection of a San Simon return, correction of the Apalit returns where his name was omitted, and to stop any proclamation. The Supreme Court stopped the proclamation. Meanwhile, petitions for judicial correction of election returns under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code were filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga for several San Luis precincts, alleging mistakes due to armed intimidation. The court authorized corrections, crediting Tiglao with additional votes. Tiglao also filed a petition for judicial recount for certain precincts, later withdrawing it for Precincts 35-A and 36 of Apalit.

ISSUE

The primary issues involve the powers and duties of the Comelec in dealing with election returns alleged to be prepared under duress or containing errors and omissions, and the propriety of ordering the opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballots to correct such returns.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. It set aside the Comelec resolution of January 26, 1970 ordering proclamation. It directed that the proclamation of the winning candidate be held in abeyance until pending questions in the Pampanga court are finally determined. The Court further directed Comelec to credit no vote for Sanga in Precinct 6, San Simon, and to order the boards of inspectors of Precincts 35-A and 36, Apalit, to open the ballot boxes, count the votes, and make new returns. The Court held that Comelec, under its broad powers to insure free, orderly, and honest elections, should have ordered the opening of the ballot boxes for Precincts 35-A and 36 to retrieve the copy of the return or count the ballots to complete the returns, following the procedure outlined in Mutuc vs. Commission on Elections. The Comelec’s view that it lacked power to open ballot boxes and that judicial correction was the proper but time-barred remedy was erroneous.