Title
Supreme Court
Balindong vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 124041
Decision Date
Aug 9, 1996
Election dispute over illegal polling place transfer; COMELEC ruled no failure of election, insufficient uncast votes to alter result; remedy lies in election protest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124041)

Election Results and Allegations

In the elections held on May 8, 1995, Cabib Tanog received 2,271 votes, while Sultan Balindong received 2,122 votes, resulting in a margin of victory of 149 votes for Tanog. Following the elections, Balindong filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul Tanog's proclamation. He alleged that there was an unlawful transfer of the polling place for Precinct No. 4 from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo, which he argued led to the disenfranchisement of his supporters due to a lack of notice and hearing.

Petitioner’s Claims

Balindong’s allegations included claims of “massive substitute voting,” asserting that the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proceeded with the canvass despite knowing the returns from Precinct No. 4 were questionable. It was alleged that members of the Board had familial ties to Tanog, which they argued compromised the legitimacy of the election results. To support his claims, Balindong submitted an affidavit from 63 voters who stated they could not cast their votes, reinforcing his arguments regarding the illegitimacy of the election returns for that precinct.

COMELEC Decisions and Legal Standards

The COMELEC dismissed Balindong's petitions on June 26, 1995, recognizing the illegal transfer of the polling place but ruling that it did not justify a declaration of failure of election. The Court emphasized that to declare a failure of election, certain conditions must be met, notably that no voting occurred or that the votes not cast would materially affect the results of the election. The COMELEC determined that only 66 registered voters in Precinct No. 4 were disenfranchised, and even if those votes had all gone to Balindong, it would not have altered the outcome in his favor.

Pre-Proclamation vs. Post-Proclamation

The ruling highlighted the distinction between a pre-proclamation controversy and an election protest. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to issues evident on the face of the election returns, and the COMELEC cannot investigate irregularities behind the results. In contrast, Balindong's claims hinged on deeper allegations of fraud and misconduct that could be appropriately pursued through an election protest in a different legal avenue.

Denial of Technical Examination

Petitioner Balindong sought a technical examination of the voters' signatures and documents to substantiate his claims of fraud. The Court denied this request, citing precedent that such examinations could not be conducted merely on assertions of irregularity without substantial proo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.