G.R. No. L-34904. June 28, 1974.
JULASIRI M. ANNI and HAD HASSAN TAWASIL, petitioners, vs. SANTANINA RASUL, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULU, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Julasiri M. Anni and Had Hassan Tawasil. The motion seeks reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s August 30, 1972 decision, which upheld COMELEC Resolution RR-1162. That resolution ordered the proclamation of Julkipli Anni and Santanina Rasul as winning candidates for the provincial board of Sulu. The Court had ruled that their victory was already mathematically assured, as the pending COMELEC Case C-339—which questioned returns from 164 precincts—could only affect the winner of the third and final board seat, not their positions. Consequently, the decision was made immediately executory, leading to their proclamation and seating.
The petitioners’ motion argues that the legal principle applied by the Court should extend to the 164 returns in the separate Case C-339. The Court’s ratio decidendi in its August 1972 decision was that questions regarding alleged falsification or tampering of election returns must first be raised before the provincial board of canvassers during the canvass, as per COMELEC Resolution No. 78, with any appeal properly taken to the COMELEC. Petitioners contend this same procedural requirement should govern the examination of the 164 returns in the pending case.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on the procedural requirement to initially question election returns before the canvassing board applies to and should resolve the fate of the 164 election returns contested in the separate, pending COMELEC Case C-339.

RULING

The Supreme Court resolved to address the petitioners’ motion within the context of a related case, G.R. No. L-35918, entitled “Julasiri M. Anni vs. Muss Izquierdo, et al.” The Court clarified that its August 30, 1972 decision in the instant case did not rule on the propriety of examining the 164 returns in Case C-339. That issue was not directly before the Court, as the contested returns pertained solely to the dispute over the third provincial board seat and had no material bearing on the proclaimed victories of Julkipli Anni and Santanina Rasul. The Court explicitly stated that the results from those 164 precincts could not conceivably alter the winner status of the two proclaimed candidates.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a ruling on the procedural question regarding the 164 returns would directly affect Muss Izquierdo, a principal protagonist for the third seat, who was not a party to the instant case and had not been heard. Therefore, to rule on the motion here would be to issue an advance ruling without due process for an absent, indispensable party. The dismissal of the original petition in this case could not be construed as a precedent or decision on the validity of COMELEC’s examination order for those specific returns. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration was to be resolved in the decision for Case L-35918, where all relevant parties and issues were properly joined.