G.R. No. L-29051 July 28, 1969
BINGING HO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BONGAO, SULU, and BONSAN GO, respondents, BONSAN GO, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

In the November 1967 elections, Binging Ho and Bonsan Go were candidates for municipal mayor of Bongao, Sulu. During the canvass, the municipal board of canvassers found a discrepancy in the election return for Precinct No. 13, which showed for the office of mayor: Binging Ho with “ONE HUNDRED” (100) and Bonsan Go with “ONE HUNDRED SEVEN” (107). The board held this return in abeyance. The canvass of returns from all other precincts showed Binging Ho with 1,599 votes and Bonsan Go with 1,582 votes. Binging Ho filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Sulu for a judicial recount of the ballots in Precinct No. 13, alleging the discrepancy involved 20 votes which could materially affect the result. He also sought to annul a proclamation of Bonsan Go made by six members of the board on November 17, 1967. The Commission on Elections later declared that proclamation null and void. The trial court granted the petition for recount. The judicial recount for Precinct No. 13 showed Binging Ho obtained 112 votes against 98 for Bonsan Go. The court then ordered the municipal board of canvassers to convene, canvass the votes using the judicial canvass return for Precinct No. 13, and proclaim the winner based on the total votes from all precincts. Bonsan Go appealed these orders.

ISSUE

Whether Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, which confer upon the Court of First Instance the power to conduct a judicial recount of ballots, are unconstitutional for violating the constitutional mandates on judicial power and the administrative authority of the Commission on Elections.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court and upheld the constitutionality of the recount provisions. The Court ruled that the ascertainment of whether sufficient facts exist to warrant a recount under Section 163 is an exercise of judicial power. The subsequent physical recount, while administrative in nature, is a necessary adjunct to this judicial determination and was within the legislative discretion to confer upon the trial court for expediency. The authority granted to the Commission on Elections by the Constitution is limited to questions purely administrative in nature, such as the determination of polling places and appointment of officials, and does not include the jurisdiction to order a recount. Since the Constitution did not vest this recount jurisdiction in any specific entity, its conferment upon the court of first instance by the Election Code is within the legislature’s power. The Court ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to convene within three days to canvass all returns, including the judicial return from Precinct No. 13, and proclaim the winning candidate.