G.R. Nos. 84843-44; January 22, 1990
NURHUSSEIN A. UTUTALUM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ARDEN S. ANNI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nurhussein A. Ututalum and private respondent Arden S. Anni were candidates for Congress in the Second District of Sulu in the May 30, 1987 elections. During the canvass on June 4, 1987, Ututalum filed written objections to the election returns from the Municipality of Siasi, alleging they were “obviously manufactured” due to a statistically improbable number of votes. He argued the returns showed 35,581 votes for Anni out of 39,801 registered voters, vastly exceeding the expected number of voters per precinct. The Provincial Board of Canvassers dismissed his objections as filed out of time and for raising grounds not enumerated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. Ututalum appealed to the COMELEC. Meanwhile, on June 14, 1987, the Board proclaimed Anni as the winner, who then assumed office.
In a separate proceeding (SPC Case No. 87-624), initiated by another candidate for local office, the COMELEC, in a Resolution affirmed by the Supreme Court, annulled the Siasi List of Voters due to massive irregularities, finding it statistically improbable. A new registration yielded only 12,555 voters. Ututalum filed a supplemental pleading with the COMELEC, urging that this annulment be applied to his pending petitions to exclude the Siasi returns and annul Anni’s proclamation.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Ututalum’s pre-proclamation petitions, which sought the exclusion of the Siasi election returns based on the alleged manufacture of returns and the subsequent judicial annulment of the voter list.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC Resolutions. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, the issue raised by Ututalum—”padded voters’ list” and “massive fraud”—is not among the allowable issues in a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. While Section 243(c) allows a challenge on the ground that returns are “obviously manufactured,” the Court distinguished this from challenges based on irregularities in the voter registry or fraud in the voting process itself. The alleged padding pertains to the preparation of the list of voters, not the preparation of the election returns, and thus constitutes a matter properly adjudicated in an election protest, not a pre-proclamation case.
Second, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the annulment of the Siasi voter list from the separate local election case. The requisite identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action is absent. Moreover, applying that annulment to nullify all votes from Siasi in the congressional race would result in the mass disenfranchisement of innocent, valid voters, which the Court seeks to avoid.
Finally, and decisively, the pre-proclamation controversy became moot and academic upon Anni’s proclamation and assumption of office. Following settled jurisprudence, notably Padilla vs. COMELEC and Antonio vs. COMELEC, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken an oath, and begun exercising the functions of office, the proper remedy for the losing candidate is to file an election contest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The COMELEC, therefore, correctly advised Ututalum to pursue an election protest. No grave abuse of discretion was found in its rulings.