Title
Baterina vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 95347-49
Decision Date
Jan 6, 1992
Petitioners contested Ilocos Sur's 1988 election results, alleging irregularities in returns; COMELEC upheld the proclamation, citing formal defects. Supreme Court denied certiorari, validating the election outcome.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 95347-49)

Facts:

Election Background

  • Petitioners, led by Salacnib F. Baterina, were candidates for various provincial positions in Ilocos Sur during the special local elections held on 25 January 1988. They ran under the banner of Lakas ng Bansa.
  • Private respondents, including Evaristo "Titong" Singson, were also candidates for the same positions, with Singson running for Governor.
  • The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sur (BOARD) was responsible for canvassing the election returns.

Canvassing and Objections

  • During the canvassing, petitioners raised verbal objections to certain election returns based on alleged violations of Sections 233-236 of the Omnibus Election Code, including:
    • Lost or destroyed election returns (Section 233).
    • Material defects in the election returns (Section 234).
    • Tampered or falsified election returns (Section 235).
    • Discrepancies in election returns (Section 236).
  • Petitioners submitted written objections within 24 hours, as required by Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, and filed written protests with the BOARD.

BOARD's Rulings

  • The BOARD, in resolutions dated 29, 30, and 31 January 1988, denied petitioners' objections, ruling that the alleged defects were merely formal and did not affect the authenticity, validity, or genuineness of the election returns.

Appeals to COMELEC

  • On 30 January 1988, petitioners filed a Petition Contesting the Legality of the Proceedings of the Board of Canvassers (SPC No. 88-453) with the COMELEC, seeking to restrain the canvassing and proclamation of winning candidates.
  • On 31 January 1988, the BOARD proclaimed private respondents as the winning candidates.
  • On 1 February 1988, petitioners filed an Appeal (SPC No. 88-490) and an Appeal Memorandum (SPC No. 88-506) with the COMELEC, challenging the BOARD's rulings on the election returns.
  • On 9 February 1988, petitioners filed an Addendum to Appeal Memorandum, seeking to annul the proclamation or declare a failure of elections.

COMELEC's Decisions

  • On 23 March 1988, the First Division of the COMELEC dismissed the Suspension of Proclamation Case (SPC No. 88-453), stating that the winning candidates had already been proclaimed on 31 January 1988 (erroneously stated as 21 January 1988 in the resolution).
  • On 5 June 1989, the Second Division dismissed petitioners' appeals (SPC Nos. 88-490 and 88-506), ruling that no substantial objections had been raised against the election returns.
  • On 6 September 1990, the COMELEC en banc upheld the dismissals, finding no genuine pre-proclamation controversies.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Proclamation Validity: Under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, a proclamation is void ab initio only if made without COMELEC authorization while an appeal is pending. In this case, no appeal was pending at the time of the proclamation, making it valid.
  2. Formal Defects in Election Returns: The grounds for objection raised by petitioners (e.g., lack of watchers' signatures, missing seals) were formal defects that did not affect the integrity or authenticity of the election returns. The Court emphasized that extreme caution is required before rejecting election returns, and formal defects alone are insufficient to warrant exclusion.
  3. Summary Nature of Canvass Proceedings: Canvass proceedings are administrative and summary in nature. A strong prima facie case backed by specific evidence is required to warrant a full hearing. Petitioners failed to present such evidence, making a hearing unnecessary.
  4. Role of Watchers' Signatures: The absence of watchers' signatures does not render election returns spurious. Under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6646, watchers' signatures are not mandatory, and their absence does not create a presumption of fraud.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's dismissal of the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The proclamation of private respondents was valid, and the objections to the election returns were insufficient to warrant their exclusion from the canvass. The proper remedy for petitioners was an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.