G.R. No. 144197 - Ong vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144197)

Factual Background

In the May 11, 1998 local elections, William P. Ong and Isagani B. Rizon were candidates for mayor of Baroy, Lanao del Norte. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed William P. Ong as winner on May 13, 1998 by fifty-one votes, reporting totals of Ong 4,472 and Rizon 4,421. On May 22, 1998, Isagani B. Rizon filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court, Lanao del Norte, docketed as Election Case No. 07-431, contesting votes in five clustered precincts. The parties waived revision in three precincts; ballot boxes were opened in Precincts 8A and 28A/28A1 only.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court conducted revision of the opened ballots and on March 25, 1999 rendered a decision annulling forty-five votes for Ong and invalidating two votes for Rizon, thereby reducing Ong’s lead to eight votes with totals Ong 4,427 and Rizon 4,419. Isagani B. Rizon appealed to the Commission on Elections, which docketed the appeal as EAC No. A-12-99.

Comelec Second Division and En Banc Resolutions

On February 1, 2000, the Comelec Second Division issued a resolution finding serious reversible errors in the trial court’s appraisal, invalidating sixty-three votes for Ong and eight votes for Rizon, and announcing final totals Ong 4,409 and Rizon 4,413, a lead of four for Rizon. William P. Ong moved for reconsideration on February 7, 2000. On August 15, 2000, the Comelec en banc affirmed the Second Division but reduced respondent’s lead by one vote, resulting in totals Ong 4,411 and Rizon 4,414, a lead of three for Rizon.

Issues Presented

The petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64 challenged the Comelec en banc resolution as patently illegal and tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The primary issue was whether the Comelec correctly invalidated particular contested ballots and whether the Court should set aside the Comelec en banc declaration of Isagani B. Rizon as winner.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that the Comelec en banc resolution erred in invalidating ballots credited to him and thus misapplied the legal standards for what constitutes a marked ballot and for stray votes. The petition specifically disputed Comelec’s invalidation of sixty-one ballots counted for Ong and seven ballots counted for Rizon in the Comelec enumeration. Comelec’s determinations, as reflected in its Second Division and en banc resolutions, characterized numerous ballots as marked or identified and therefore invalid.

Supreme Court’s Review

The Court undertook a thorough visual and legal examination of the contested ballots and applied the statutory standards in the Omnibus Election Code and controlling precedents. The Court reiterated the governing rule in paragraph 18, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code and Section 211(22) of the Omnibus Election Code that the use of two or more kinds of writing, accidental flourishes, or similar features did not invalidate a ballot unless it clearly appeared that they were deliberately put to serve as identification marks. The Court treated stray votes under Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code as votes that do not invalidate the whole ballot.

Findings on Particular Ballots

The Court found many of the ballots which the Comelec had invalidated to be valid for William P. Ong because the writings on those ballots did not manifest an intent to identify the voter. The Court held that printed names such as "NIKKI" or nicknames and appellations of well-known personalities written in senatorial slots constituted stray votes or expressions of preference and did not mark the ballots. The Court also found that the appearance of print and script on a single ballot did not necessarily indicate two writers absent clear evidence of identification intent. Conversely, the Court affirmed Comelec’s invalidation of ballots where repeated impertinent, irrelevant, or unnecessary words or initials were written in different and repeated instances on the ballot, reasoning that such markings reasonably indicated an intent to identify the voter. The Court applied the Neighborhood Rule and the idem sonans principle to uphold ballots where variations or similar-sounding writings did not show intent to mark.

Recalculation of Votes

Applying its findings, the Court adjusted the Comelec totals. Starting from the Comelec en banc totals of Ong 4,411 and Rizon 4,414, the Court credited an additional twenty votes to Ong and an additional five votes to Rizon based on ballots the Court adjudged valid but not included in the Comelec totals. The recalculation produced final totals Ong 4,431 and Rizon 4,419. The Court concluded that William P. Ong prevailed by a margin of twelve votes.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court, by decision dated December 13, 2000, reversed and set aside the Comelec en banc resolution of August 15, 2000 that declared Isagani B. Rizon as winner in the May 11, 1998 elections. The Court adjudged William P. Ong as the duly elected mayor of the municipality of Baroy, Lanao del Norte, in the May 11, 1998 elections, with a margin of twelve votes. The Court made permanent the status quo order issued on August 29, 2000 and imposed no costs. The decision was by the Supreme Court, En Banc, with the named justices concurring.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its decision on statutory provisions and precedents. It enforced the narrow construction of exceptions in paragraph 18, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code and Section 211(22) of the Omnibus Election Code,

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 144197)

Parties and Procedural Posture

WILLIAM P. ONG was the protestee and later petitioner who sought certiorari and prohibition with injunctive relief challenging a Comelec resolution.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS was the administrative body whose en banc resolution reversing a trial court finding was assailed.
ISAGANI B. RIZON was the protestant and respondent who contested the mayoralty votes of Baroy, Lanao del Norte.
The petition invoked Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the Comelec.
The case arose from Election Case No. 07-431 filed in the Regional Trial Court, Lanao del Norte and administrative appeal EAC No. A-12-99 before the Comelec.

Key Factual Allegations

WILLIAM P. ONG and ISAGANI B. RIZON were opposing candidates for mayor in the May 11, 1998 local elections.
The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed ONG as winner with 4,472 votes against RIZON's 4,421 votes, a margin of fifty-one votes.
RIZON filed an election protest contesting votes in five clustered precincts but waived revision of ballots in three of them so only Precincts 8A and 28A/28A1 ballot boxes were opened.
The trial court annulled forty-five votes for ONG and invalidated two votes for RIZON, reducing ONG's lead to eight votes (4,427 vs. 4,419).
The Comelec Second Division reversed and invalidated sixty-three votes for ONG and eight for RIZON, resulting in a four-vote lead for RIZON (4,413 vs. 4,409).
The Comelec en banc affirmed the Second Division but reduced RIZON's lead by one vote to three (4,414 vs. 4,411), prompting the present petition.

Trial and Administrative History

The trial court decision dated March 25, 1999 adjudicated specific ballots and adjusted the municipal canvass totals in favor of ONG by eight votes.
The Comelec Second Division rendered its resolution on February 1, 2000, reversing the trial court on numerous ballots and giving RIZON a four-vote lead.
ONG filed a motion for reconsideration on February 7, 2000, which culminated in the Comelec en banc resolution of August 15, 2000 that affirmed the Second Division with a one-vote modification.
ONG filed the petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunctive relief on August 17, 2000 to contest the Comelec en banc determination.

Statutory Framework

The Court applied the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and specifically relied on Section 211 (22) regarding marks, identification and the validity of ballots.
The Court treated stray votes under Section 211 (19) of the Omnibus Election Code as votes for persons not candidates or for wrong offices that do not invalidate the entire ballot.
The Court applied the rule stated in Section 149, paragraph 18 of the Revised Election Code as expounded in prior jurisprudence concerning the use of two kinds of writing on a ballot.
The Court referenced Section 211 (9) in relation to erased names and the validity of subsequently clearly written names.

Issues Presented

Whether the Co