GR L 31566 Fernando (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31566, August 31, 1970
ROGELIO O. TIGLAO, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CORNELIO SANGA and THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PAMPANGA, Respondents.
FACTS
This case involves a petition concerning election proceedings. The main decision, written by Justice Teehankee, directed the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in specified election correction proceedings, to conduct a new hearing with due notice to affected candidates. The court was instructed, upon a prima facie showing of errors by the boards of inspectors and a preliminary finding that the identity and integrity of the ballot boxes and ballots were preserved, to open the ballot boxes and conduct a summary arithmetical recount of the ballots. Justice Fernando, in his concurring opinion, agrees with the result but expresses reservations about the broader procedural implications set forth in the majority opinion.
ISSUE
Whether the concurring opinion of Justice Fernando agrees with the majority’s directive for notice, hearing, and a ballot recount in the specific correction proceedings under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, and whether he agrees that such a recount procedure should be inflexibly required in all future correction proceedings.
RULING
Justice Fernando concurs in the result of the majority decision. He agrees that in the specific correction proceedings, affected candidates must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with due process. He also agrees that, given the facts of this case, a recount is necessary if the integrity of the ballot boxes and ballots is preserved. However, he dissents from the view that the procedure of opening ballot boxes and conducting a summary recount must be invariably and rigidly followed in all future correction proceedings. He believes the matter should be left to the discretion of the lower court and is not prepared to endorse an inflexible rule or the invocation of the Court’s rule-making power for this purpose. He expresses concern that the majority opinion may obscure nuances and implications, particularly by not sufficiently distinguishing between correction and recount proceedings and by potentially undervaluing the need for prompt expedition of pre-proclamation proceedings.