G.R. No. L-33541 January 20, 1972
ABDULGAFAR PUNGUTAN, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULU, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a petition filed by respondent Benjamin Abubakar and other candidates, alleging that no genuine elections were held in the municipalities of Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk in Sulu due to massive violence, terrorism, and fraud during the 1970 Constitutional Convention elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) conducted hearings, receiving oral testimony from election officials and teachers, and ordered a forensic examination of the precinct books of voters, comparing fingerprints and signatures from the election returns (CE Forms No. 1 and No. 39) with the registration records. The examination revealed overwhelming evidence of substitute voting and ballot preparation by armed individuals. For instance, in Siasi, out of 20,970 apparent votes, only 460 were definitively cast by registered voters. In Tapul, only 3 thumbprints matched registered voters out of 11,575 votes. Similar massive irregularities were found in Parang and Luuk.
Based on this evidence, COMELEC issued Resolution No. RR-904, declaring the elections in these municipalities a sham and excluding the returns from 290 precincts as “spurious or manufactured and therefore no returns at all.” This exclusion altered the canvass results, causing petitioner Abdulgafar Pungutan, who would have otherwise won the last delegate seat, to lose to respondent Abubakar. Pungutan filed this petition for review, challenging COMELEC’s authority to exclude the returns based on such evidence and alleging that this action constituted a prohibited determination of the right to vote.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether COMELEC had the power to exclude election returns as spurious based on oral testimony and forensic examination of voting records, and (2) whether such exclusion constituted an unconstitutional adjudication of the right to vote.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained the COMELEC resolution, dismissing the petition. On the first issue, the Court, citing its recent precedent in Usman v. COMELEC, held that COMELEC possesses the constitutional authority to enforce election laws and ensure free, orderly, and honest elections. When evidence conclusively establishes that returns are manufactured—meaning no actual election by the electorate occurred—COMELEC can legally exclude such returns from the canvass. They are treated as non-existent, not merely irregular. The extensive forensic evidence here, showing systematic substitute voting and coercion, amply supported COMELEC’s finding that the returns were spurious fabrications.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that excluding manufactured returns does not constitute a prohibited determination of the right to vote. The constitutional prohibition (then Article X, Section 2) bars COMELEC from judicially deciding questions regarding an individual’s qualifications to vote. Here, COMELEC did not rule on any voter’s eligibility. Instead, it made an administrative determination, based on overwhelming evidence, that the purported returns did not reflect any genuine expression of the popular will. This action was within its administrative mandate to ascertain the existence of valid returns for canvassing. The Court emphasized that allowing such sham returns would subvert popular sovereignty. The power to reject spurious returns is essential to COMELEC’s duty to protect the integrity of the electoral process.