G.R. No. 124041 - Balindong vs. Commission on Elections

Sultan Amer Balindong, petitioner, and Cabib A. Tanog, private respondent, were candidates for municipal mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur in the May 8, 1995 elections.
The canvass revealed that Tanog obtained 2,271 votes while Balindong got 2,122 votes, with Tanog leading by a margin of 149 votes.

On May 17, 1995, Balindong filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to suspend and/or annul the proclamation of Tanog as mayor, alleging irregularities during the elections in a specific precinct (Precinct No. 4).
Balindong claimed that the polling place in Precinct No. 4 had been transferred without proper notice and hearing from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo; this allegedly resulted in his supporters in Lumbac being deprived of their opportunity to vote.
He added that the election return from Precinct No. 4 was “obviously manufactured” due to “massive substitute voting,” and thus petitioned for a technical examination of signatures and thumbmarks on the List of Voters (C.E. Form No. 2) and Voters’ Affidavits (C.E. Form No. 1).

On the morning of election day, the Board of Election Inspectors shifted the polling place from the Lumbac Primary School (Barangay Lumbac) to the Pualas Elementary School (Barangay Talambo) on the ground that there was no available public school or building in Lumbac to ensure free elections.
The resolution for the transfer was endorsed by the chairman, the poll clerk, and the member of the Board, along with two candidate watchers—who later were alleged to have signed under duress—with alleged familial ties to Tanog.
Petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking the disqualification of the Board members, citing potential conflicts of interest, but this petition was not acted upon by the Office of the Municipal Election Officer due to its proximity to the election day.

Balindong submitted an objection on May 15, 1995, contesting the inclusion of the questionable election return from Precinct No. 4, supported by a complaint-affidavit signed by 63 voters who claimed they were unable to cast their vote.
Despite his objection, the return from Precinct No. 4 was incorporated into the canvass, leading to Tanog’s proclamation on May 16, 1995.
Petitioner then filed a Petition to Suspend/Annul the proclamation and a Supplemental Petition, which included his demand for the technical examination of electoral documents.

The Second Division of the COMELEC, in its resolution dated June 26, 1995, dismissed the petitioner’s petitions on the ground that the issues raised were more appropriate for an election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy.
The COMELEC en banc later affirmed the dismissal, noting that although the transfer of the polling place was illegal—being done without the required notice and hearing and violating provisions (AA 153-154) of the Omnibus Election Code—the conditions necessary to declare a failure of election did not exist.
The COMELEC further ruled that the failure of election declaration requires:

No voting to have taken place or, if voting took place, results that lead to a failure to elect; and
That the uncast votes would be sufficient to alter the outcome.

In this case, even if all 66 uncast or disputed votes had been for the petitioner, the margin of 149 votes in favor of Tanog would not have been overcome.
The COMELEC also declined a technical examination of the electoral documents, citing limitations imposed on pre-proclamation controversies and referring to previous cases that restricted such inquiries to avoid delays.

On March 19, 1996, a temporary restraining order was issued by the Court, ordering Tanog to cease the exercise of mayoral functions pending further orders.
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed on the merits, and the temporary restraining order was lifted effective immediately, directing the petitioner to instead file an election protest before the Regional Trial Court to challenge the electoral irregularities.

Whether the petitioner’s remedy of seeking suspension and/or annulment of the proclamation in a pre-proclamation controversy was proper, or whether his concerns should have been raised through an election protest before the Regional Trial Court.
Whether the COMELEC properly delimited its review to the face of the election returns without ordering a technical examination of the voter signatures and thumbmarks.

Whether the illegal transfer of the polling place from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo, despite being a breach of procedural mandates, warranted a declaration of failure of election.
Whether the alleged disenfranchisement of 66 voters in Precinct No. 4 was sufficient to affect the outcome of the election.

Whether the allegations of “massive substitute voting” and that the election return was “obviously manufactured” on the face of the documents were supported by clear, admissible evidence.
Whether ordering a technical examination of the voter documents was within the judicial or administrative prerogatives in pre-proclamation controversies.