Title
Penson vs. Commission on Elections, Constituted as the National Board of Canvassers for Senators and Party-List Representatives
Case
G.R. No. 211636
Decision Date
Sep 28, 2021
Petitioners challenged COMELEC's 2013 senatorial proclamation, alleging irregularities in canvassing and RMA. SC dismissed, citing SET's exclusive jurisdiction over election contests.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211636)

Petition for Certiorari

The petitioners filed a certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, claiming grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC-NBOC in proclaiming the winning candidates for the Senate elections held on May 13, 2013. The petition challenged the validity of NBOC Resolutions No. 004-13 and No. 0010-13, which proclaimed twelve senators as duly elected, and questioned the accuracy and credibility of the election results.

Legislative Background

The legislative foundation for the electoral process in question stems from R.A. No. 8436, which established an Automated Election System (AES) intended to facilitate free, credible, and efficient elections. Subsequent amendments under R.A. No. 9369 further refined the framework for these elections and the responsibilities of the NBOC, including the use of electronic transmission for canvassing votes and the requirement for a Random Manual Audit (RMA).

Canvassing and Proclamation of Election Results

Following the elections on May 13, 2013, the COMELEC-NBOC conducted a canvass of votes based on electronically transmitted certificates. They issued Resolution No. 004-13, partially proclaiming twelve candidates based on the results, stating that the remaining uncanvassed votes would not materially affect the outcome. Resolution No. 0010-13 later confirmed these candidates as officially elected senators.

Grounds for Petitioners' Claims

In their petition, the petitioners articulated several grievances against the COMELEC-NBOC's actions, asserting that:

  1. Premature Proclamation: They argued that the proclamation of the senators was premature given inaccuracies in the election returns, particularly highlighting discrepancies revealed during the RMA.
  2. Termination of Canvassing: Petitioners claimed that the NBOC's conclusion to halt canvassing due to the assertion that remaining votes would not affect the results lacked transparency, particularly as relevant vote counts were not disclosed.
  3. Failure of Authentication: They alleged non-compliance with the statutory requirement of authentication for electronically transmitted results, asserting that the required digital signatures were absent.
  4. Ignoring Technical Findings: Allegations were made regarding the NBOC's disregard for findings of the Technical Evaluation Committee concerning the integrity of canvassed results, which the petitioners claimed led to the proclamation of "accidental senators."
  5. Lack of Transparency: The petitioners contended that the NBOC did not adequately make public important data related to the election audit, undermining public confidence and transparency.

Response of the COMELEC-NBOC

The COMELEC-NBOC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered these claims on procedural and substantive grounds. They argued that:

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction: The OSG asserted that the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) was the appropriate forum for contesting the outcome of senatorial elections, as it is the sole judge of such matters under the Constitution.
  2. Adequate Remedies: The OSG maintained that the petitioners had access to adequate remedies by way of an election protest filed with the SET, thereby negating the necessity for certiorari.
  3. Merit of Resolutions: They asserted that the NBOC acted appropriately and within its mandate, emphasizing that the alleged discrepancies in the RMA did not constitute grave abuse of discretion and that claims of manipulation lacked supporting evidence.

Issues for Resolution

The core issue revolved around whether the actions of the COMELEC-NBOC in proclaiming the candidates constituted grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction, necessitating judicial review.

Court's Ruling

The Court ruled that the petition lacked merit, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the SET to hear election contests involving senators. Th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.