G.R. No. L-34880 October 27, 1972
SULTAN RASUMAN DIPATUAN and HADJI MAMADRA ALAWI, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BACOLOD GRANDE, MACABOROD BALINDONG and HADJI HASAN ALI DINO API, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Sultan Rasuman Dipatuan and Hadji Mamadra Alawi were candidates for Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur, in the November 8, 1971 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed them as the winning candidates on November 9, 1971. Their opponents, private respondents Macaborod Balindong and Hadji Hasan Ali Dino Api, did not raise any objections before the Municipal Board of Canvassers regarding the election returns from Precincts 7, 7-A, 8, 9, and 10 during the canvassing proceedings. Subsequently, on November 15, 1971, the private respondents filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to exclude the returns from those precincts, alleging they were spurious or manufactured. The COMELEC, in a resolution dated March 10, 1972, granted the petition, declared the subject returns as spurious, excluded them from the canvass, set aside the petitioners’ proclamation, and ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidates based on the remaining returns.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the petition to exclude election returns and nullifying a proclamation despite the private respondents’ failure to raise their objections before the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the COMELEC resolution, and made permanent the restraining order. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of hierarchy of objections and the constitutional limits of COMELEC’s authority. The Court held that objections to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns in a canvass must initially be presented to the board of canvassers. This allows the board to perform its ministerial duty and create a proper record for any subsequent judicial or administrative review. By failing to raise their objections before the Municipal Board of Canvassers, the private respondents waived their right to later challenge the returns before the COMELEC on those grounds. The COMELEC’s act of entertaining the petition and excluding the returns constituted a grave abuse of discretion because it violated this settled procedural rule. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the COMELEC’s constitutional power is limited to the enforcement and administration of election laws. It does not include the judicial power to adjudicate pre-proclamation controversies involving the correctness or authenticity of returns, which properly belongs to the courts. The COMELEC’s order to reconvene the board and recanvass based on its exclusion of returns effectively exercised a power beyond its jurisdiction. The petitioners’ valid proclamation, made prior to the COMELEC’s interference without any pending objection at the canvassing level, must therefore be upheld.