Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33541)
Facts:
Abdulgafar Pungutan v. Benjamin Abubakar, Commission on Elections, and the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu, G.R. No. L-33541, January 20, 1972, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Abdulgafar Pungutan was a candidate for the third delegate seat to the 1971 Constitutional Convention from the lone district of Sulu; respondent Benjamin Abubakar and others were rival candidates. Respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu are also parties. Abubakar and other candidates filed a petition on December 16, 1970 (superseding an earlier December 7 petition) alleging that in the municipalities of Siasi, Tapul, Parang and Luuk no true elections had been held because of massive violence, terrorism and fraud; they sought exclusion of the returns from those areas.
Comelec investigated: it took oral testimony from precinct chairmen and teachers-inspectors, examined precinct books and CE Forms (voter registration and voting records), and had thumbprints and signatures examined by the Fingerprint Identification Division and the NBI. Comelec found striking discrepancies and widespread substitute voting, blurred or non-matching thumbprints, armed men controlling precincts, ballot boxes moved before polls closed, and precincts reporting 100% voting. Quantitatively, Comelec determined that returns from 107 precincts of Siasi, 56 of Tapul, 67 of Parang and 60 of Luuk were spurious or manufactured and should be treated as “no returns at all.” It held further hearings on other municipalities unnecessary for the purpose of completing the canvass and directed the Provincial Board of Canvassers to exclude the identified returns and proclaim the winners.
Petitioner Pungutan — who stood to lose the third seat if the contested returns were excluded — timely filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court on May 22, 1971 seeking to set aside Comelec’s May 14, 1971 resolution. The Court required answers (filed June 4, 1971), heard oral argument (June 8, 1971; petitioner represented by Jose W. Diokno; respondent Abubakar by Jovito...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Elections have the administrative power to disregard and annul the contested election returns from the precincts in Siasi, Tapul, Parang and Luuk as spurious or manufactured?
- Did Comelec’s exclusion of those returns transgress the constitutional prohibition against deciding matters involving the right to vote and thus usurp a judicial function?
- If Comelec's power was sustained, was a special electi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)