G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968
USO DAN AGUAM, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ALIM BALINDONG, respondents.

FACTS

In the November 1967 elections for Mayor of Ganassi, Lanao del Sur, petitioner Uso Dan Aguam (official Liberal Party candidate) and respondent Alim Balindong (independent Liberal) were candidates. On November 20, 1967, the municipal board of canvassers, using advanced copies of election returns, proclaimed Aguam as the winner with 575 votes against Balindong’s 572 votes. Aguam assumed office on December 30, 1967. On November 21, 1967, Balindong filed a petition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Lanao del Sur to restrain the canvass and proclamation, alleging irregularities including tampering of the election return from Precinct 8. The CFI dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on December 21, 1967. On January 6, 1968, Balindong filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) seeking annulment of the canvass and proclamation and the opening of the ballot box for Precinct 8. He alleged the board was illegally constituted, the canvass was fraudulent and without notice, and the Precinct 8 return was tampered to show he received 8 votes instead of 13. The Comelec, on April 27, 1968, issued a resolution declaring it had jurisdiction to open the ballot box and investigate the authenticity of the return. Aguam filed the present certiorari and prohibition petition, arguing Comelec lacked jurisdiction as the petition was filed out of time and it had no power to order a ballot box opening after proclamation.

ISSUE

Whether the Comelec has jurisdiction to annul a canvass and proclamation and to order the opening of a ballot box to investigate the authenticity of an election return after a candidate has been proclaimed and has assumed office.

RULING

Yes. The petition is denied. The Comelec has the constitutional and statutory authority to annul any illegally made canvass and proclamation, even after the proclaimed candidate has assumed office. The power extends to inquiring into the nullity of a proclamation and investigating allegations of tampering with election returns. A proclamation based on advanced copies of returns (which cannot be the basis for a valid proclamation) and allegedly made without notice to candidates, is suspect and its validity can be challenged before the Comelec. The fact that the two-week period for filing election protests had elapsed does not bar a petition questioning the validity of the proclamation itself, as a null and void proclamation is no proclamation at all. The Comelec’s resolution to open the ballot box for Precinct 8 was proper to determine the genuineness of the return, especially given the discrepancy between the Comelec copy of the return (showing 8 votes for Balindong with heavy pencil marks) and the certificate of votes from the board of inspectors (showing 13 votes). Balindong’s petition before Comelec was timely filed, considering his prior action in the CFI and the absence of a specific statutory time limit for challenging a proclamation’s validity before Comelec. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court is set aside.