G.R. No. 93201-04 - Sultan Mohamad Ali B. Dimaporo vs. Commision on Election

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 93201-04 June 26, 1990

SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM,petitioners,
vs.
COMMISION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA CANDAO and BENJAMIN T. LOONG,respondents.

G.R. No. 93205 June 26, 1990

SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM,petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA CANDAO and BENJAMIN T. LOONG,respondents.

G.R. No. 93502 June 26, 1990

SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM,petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA CANDAO and BENJAMIN T. LOONG,respondents.

Pedro Q. Quadra for petitioners.

R E S O L U T I O N

FELICIANO,J.:

On 17 February 1990, an election for Regional Governor, Regional Vice-Governor and members of the Regional Assembly for the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao was conducted pursuant to Republic Act No. 6734, the Organic Act creating that Autonomous Region. Petitioners Sultan Mohammad Ali Dimaporo and Nurhussein Ututalum were the official candidates of the United Opposition ("KBL-NP") coalition party for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor, respectively, in that election. Private respondents Zacaria Candao and Benjamin T. Loong were the official candidates for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor, respectively, of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino ("LDP") party.

I

1.G.R. Nos. 93201-04

During the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of the Province of Sulu of the election returns from the First and Second Congressional Districts of Sulu, petitioners raised objections to theinclusionin the canvass of certain election returns. From adverse rulings of the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed to the Commission on Elections ("Comelec") where the appeals were docketed as SPC Nos. 90-002, 90-004 and 90-017. During the canvass of certificates of canvass conducted by the Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners raised the same objections. From an adverse ruling of the Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed once more to the Comelec, this appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90019.

The contested election returns are from certain precincts of the following municipalities in the Province of Sulu:

The common ground for the three (3) appeals from the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu was that the questioned election returns were "spurious, obviously manufactured and/or statistically improbable." The ground for the appeal from the Regional Board of Canvassers was that the certificates of canvass (from the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers) were 'falsified" since they included the same election returns disputed before the Provincial Board and appealed to the Comelec, and that the Regional Board of Canvassers had proceeded with the canvass despite perfection of petitioners' appeals.

All appeals involving the questioned election returns and certificates of canvass from the Province of Sulu were consolidated before the Comelec. By a Resolution dated 21 March 1990, the First Division of the Comelec dismissed all the appeals for lack of merit and for lack of jurisdiction- The principal grounds on which the First Division rested its Resolution were: (a) the objections raised against the election returns were "merely generalizations"; (b) petitioners had failed to adduce before the Provincial Board of Canvassers substantial evidence to establish the factual basis of their objections; and (c) that petitioners had not filed a written intent to appeal from the rulings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers.

Petitioners appealed to the ComelecEn Banc.On 10 May 1990, the ComelecEn Bancissued a Resolution which modified the Resolution of its First Division by ordering the exclusion from the canvass of the election returns from eighty-eight (88) precincts in the municipalities listed above for being "statistically improbable." The same Resolution dismissed the appeals insofar as the other election returns are concerned.

In reaching this conclusion, the ComelecEn BancappealedLagumbay v. Commission on Elections'1where the Supreme Court dealt with election returns showing the unique uniformity of all votes (being equal to the total number of registered voters) being cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to one party, while all the candidates of the opposing party were uniformly reflected as getting zero votes; that is, an the candidates of one party garnering all the votes, each of them receiving exactly the same number of votes, while all the candidates of the opposing party getting uniformly and precisely nothing. InLagumbay,the Court held such returns to be "statistically improbable" and "obviously manufactured", the fraud being so palpable from the return itself that there was no reason to give the returnprima facievalue and that consequently, evidence aliunde to show fraud was entirely unnecessary. The ComelecEn Bancapplied the Lagumbay doctrine by ordering theexclusionfrom the canvass of election returns which fell precisely within the factual situation dealt with inLagumbay,and permitting theinclusionof election returns showing results differing in varying degrees from theLagumbayfactual situation.

2.G.R. No. 93205

During the canvass of election returns from the Municipality of Languyan in the Province of Tawi-Tawi, petitioners objected to theinclusionof the election returns from thirty-six (36) precincts in said Municipality, upon the same ground that those returns were "obviously manufactured" because the results reflected therein were "statistically improbable". Petitioners contended that in the questioned precincts, 100% or 99% of registered voters are recorded to have cast their votes, and that private respondents obtained all the votes cast while petitioners got a uniform zero vote. The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Tawi-Tawi overruled the objections of petitioners for failure to present evidencealiundeof the fraud alleged. Petitioners appealed to the Comelec, their appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90-005.

In its Decision dated 17 April 1990, the Second Division of the Comelec reversed the Tawi-Tawi Provincial Board of Canvassers by ordering theexclusionof fifteen (15) election returns under the authority of theLagumbaydoctrine of "statistical improbability". Theinclusionof the remaining election returns from twenty-one (21) other precincts was in effect sustained as falling outside the ambit of theLagumbaydoctrine, since not all the candidates of the LDP had received exactly the same number of votes. Other candidates including those belonging to petitioners' party, in many but not in all cases, got zero votes. There were other precincts where candidates other than the official LDP candidates were credited with differing numbers of votes.

Petitioners appealed to the ComelecEn Bancwhich appeal (or "Motion for Partial Reconsideration") was denied by its Resolution dated 10 May 1990.

Petitioners are now before the Court on Petition for certiorari in both G.R. Nos. 93201-04 (concerning the election returns in the Province of Sulu) and 93205 (concerning the election returns in the Province of Tawi-Tawi. By a Resolution of the Court dated 17 May 1990, G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205 were consolidated.

In the same Resolution, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order requiring the respondent Comelec to refrain from proclaiming the winning candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao until further orders from the Court, while leaving the Comelec free to proceed with the canvassing of the election returns from the remaining precincts of the areas covered by the Autonomous Region.

3.G.R. No. 93502

During the canvassing by the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Maguindanao, petitioners objected to the election returns from certain precincts in six (6) municipalities (Pagalunggan, Maganoy, Ampatuan, Sultan sa Barokis, Buluan, and Talayan) in Maguindanao. From adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed on 26 February 1990 to the Comelec, the appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90-016. One day later, on 27 February 1990, petitioners filed an "Amended Appeal" which included objections to returns from three (3) additional municipalities (Datu Piang, Datu Pagla's and South Upi). This "amended" pleading, however, did not specify the precincts returns from which were being assailed; neither did it set out the grounds for petitioners' objections thereto. On 13 March 1990, eighteen (18) days from service of the written rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners filed with the Comelec another document purporting to list the specific election returns from Datu Piang, Datu Paglas and South Upi, which petitioners wished to contest.

The grounds alleged by petitioners for contesting these election returns were various and included: that an unusually high proportion of registered voters in certain precincts were recorded as having cast their votes; that the Boards of Election Inspectors in certain precincts in some of the municipalities involved did not prepare the election returns simultaneously with the counting of the ballots but, on the contrary, prepared them elsewhere than at the election precincts, e.g., in the offices of the Municipal Mayors; that in certain precincts, the members of the Boards of Election Inspectors did not report to their respective polling places so that no elections were conducted in said precincts; that in some precincts, "the number of votes counted" exceeded the number of registered voters; that in other precints, the number "of votes counted" exceeded the number "of voters who allegedly voted"; that in several precincts, the residents of the constituent barangays evacuated their homes because of "a shooting war between the MNLF and the MILF" so that no elections were conducted in such barangays, but notwithstanding such circumstances, the returns from those barangays showed "a very high percentage of voting"; and that the returns from certain precints showed that such returns were all prepared by only one person. Petitioners asked the Comelec to order the voter's affidavits and the lists of voters in the contested precints to be subjected to expert examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the registered voters therein.

By a Decision dated 7 May 1990, the Comelec Second Division, after ruling on each objection to election returns contested, dismissed petitioners' appeal, save only the appeal with respect to the election returns from Precincts 9 and 10 of the Municipality of Talayan, Maguindanao, which returns were objected to as incomplete, and which the Comelec Second Division excluded from the canvass, it appearing from the Minutes of the Provincial Board of Canvassers that the Boards of Election Inspectors of Talayan had not been summoned to explain the omission of material data in those returns.

Petitioners moved to reconsider the Decision of the Comelec Second Division. In a Decision dated 4 June 1990, the ComelecEn Bancdenied the Motion for Reconsideration and sustained the Decision of the Second Division of the Comelec.

II

1.G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205: The Issues Raised

Petitioners raised the following principal issues in these consolidated cases:

Petitioners now ask the Court to set aside theEn BancDecision of the Comelec dated 10 May 1990 insofar as that Decision had refused to reject and exclude the other election returns assailed by petitioners as "statistically improbable".

On 21 May 1990, private respondents Candao and Loong filed an "Urgent Motion to Lift the Temporary Restraining Order" arguing that even if their votes embraced in the contested election returns from the provinces of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi are nullified as requested by petitioners, such nullification will not affect the vote lead of the private respondents. In this Urgent Motion to Lift, private respondents set out the following table of numbers of votes credited to petitioners and to private respondents, in the official certificates of canvass of the provinces of Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao, which certificates were annexed to the Urgent Motion to Lift:

Close examination of the respective certificates of canvass shows some clerical errors in the original Table I presented by private respondents. In substantially reproducing Table I above, we have corrected the clerical errors as indicated in footnotes below.

Private respondents also set out a second table showing the number of contested votes of private respondents Candao and Loong. Again, Table II below reflects the corrections we have made in the original Table I in the Motion to Lift, after study and consideration of the "Opposition to the Motion to Lift Restraining Order" filed on 4 June 1990 by petitioners —

On Table III below, the number of contested votes of private respondents Candao and Loong are subtracted from their respective total votes per official certificates of canvass:

From the foregoing tables, the substantial correctness of the data therein not having been successfully contested by petitioners, it appears to the Court that there is no need to pass upon and resolve the central issue raised by petitioners-whether or not the doctrine of 'statistical improbability" adopted inLagumbay v. Commission on Elections(supra) should be re-examined with a view to expanding the scope thereof, i.e., with a view to characterizing election returns differing, in varying degrees, from the specific fact situation dealt with by the Court inLagumbayas "statistically improbable" and hence excludable from canvass as "obviously manufactured" without need of evidencealiunde.In the specific circumstances of the cases at bar, whatever conclusion the Court might have reached on this issue would, strictly speaking, merely constitutedictum,considering that even if the Court were to nullify all the returns objected to by petitioners on grounds of "statistical improbability", private respondents Candao and Loong would still show a very substantial margin over the total votes of petitioners.5Such nullification will not, in other words, materially affect the results of the election per the official certificates of canvass.

In resolving upon this course of action, the Court has also taken particular account of the need for speedy resolution of these cases, considering the length of time which has gone by since the election was held last 17 February 1990 without the winning candidates for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor being proclaimed.ℒαwρhi৷The public policy involved in the rule that pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved insummaryproceedings, is very real and insistent. The public interest requires that the position for the filing of which the election was held should be filled as promptly as possible, even if the proclamation of the winning candidates beprovisionalin nature, in the sense that such would be subject to the results of the election protest or protests that may be expected to be filed. The Court is bound by high duty and responsibility to give effect to this public policy which is enshrined in statutory norms (infra). Petitioners' principal remedy is to file election protests before the appropriate agency of government-i.e., the Comelec (Article IX [C] [2] [2], 1987 Constitution)-and there to litigate all the issues raised by them in as much detail as they might deem necessary or appropriate. Another remedy open to petitioners is the filing of criminal charges for election offenses against those who, petitioners believe, are responsible for the frauds and assorted trickery alleged to have been committed.

2.G.R. Nos. 93502; The Issues Raised

In this third Petition forCertiorari,petitioners raised the following issues:

In respect of the first issue raised by petitioners, the ComelecEn Bancin its 4 June 1990 Decision said:

We agree with the Comelec's view of the law on this matter; we see no abuse, and much less a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec in so ruling. In the very recent case ofDipatuan v. Commission on Elections, et al.,7this Court said in a unanimous decision:

Petitioners ask the Court to re-examine its decision inDianalan v. Commission on Elections,8so as to permit petitioners to subject to handwriting and fingerprint examination the votees affidavits and voting lists and other voting records in the contested precincts. We are not persuaded by petitioners' arguments on this point. It is important to bear in mind that the nature, scope and ambit of a pre-proclamation controversy as set out inDianalanandDipatuanand the other cases there cited are determined by statutory provisions: Sections 243 (entitled 'Issues that may be Raised in Pre-Proclamation Controversy'), 245 ("Contested Election Returns") and 246 ('Summary Proceedings before the Commission") of the Omnibus Election Code. As pointed out above inDipatuan,these statutory provisions reflect a very definite view of what public policy requires on the matter. It may well be true that public policy may occasionally permit the occurence of "grab the proclamation and prolong the protest' situations; that public policy, however, balances the possibility of such situations against the shortening of the period during which no winners are proclaimed, a period commonly fraught with tension and danger for the public at largo. For those who disagree with that public policy, the appropriate recourse is not to ask this Court to abandon case law which merely interprets faithfully existing statutory norms, to engage injudicial legislation and in effect to rewrite portions of the Omnibus Election Code. The appropriate recourse is, of course, to the Legislative Department of the Government and to ask that Department to strike a new and different equilibrium in the balancing of the public interests at stake.

On the second and third issues raised by petitioners, the ComelecEn BancDecision of 4 June 1990 said:

Once more, we agree with the above ruling of the Comelec since that ruling simply flows from the character and scope of a pre-proclamation controversy under the Omnibus Election Code.

ACCORDINGLY,the Court Resolved toDISMISSthe Petitions forcertiorariin G.R. Nos. 93201-04, 93205 and 93502 for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order dated 17 May 1990 issued in G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205 is hereby Lifted. In G.R. No. 93502, the Court also Resolved toDISPENSEwith the Comments of public and private respondents. This Resolution is immediately executory.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Separate Opinion

GUTIERREZ, JR.,J.,concurring:

I agree with the conclusion of the Court that there is no need to go into the issue of whether or not certain "statistically improbable'. results should be nullified if any such nullification will not materially affect the overall election results. We would be engaging in an academic exercise.

However, I would like to go on record that I found it difficult to concur in this case because there are indeed glaring anomalies in the conduct of the regional elections for the autonomous government of Muslim Mindanao. Inspire of the 24 year old doctrine inLagumbay v. COMELEC(16 SCRA 175 [1966]), there is exactly the same massive defiance of law which initially led to the statistical improbability ruling. The election anomalies are committed in such a crude and flaunting manner as to insult the intelligence.

It is disturbing when case after case comes to this Court presenting unbelievable election returns. In this petition, for instance, in nine (9) towns of Sulu, candidates Candao and Loong received exactly the same number of votes in each of 197 precincts for a total of 65,402 votes each while candidates Dimaporo and Ututalum each receivedzerovotes in all 197 precincts of those nine (9) municipalities. As stated inLagumbay,if the watchers of Dimaporo and Ututalum betrayed their party, the voting and counting of ballots in each precinct was a sham and a mockery. It is reported that in some precincts, the Board of Inspectors never reported for work. How could the elections be conducted and the returns prepared if there were no boards of inspectors? In some cases, more than the number of registered voters cast their ballots or only one person prepared all the ballots. Yet, the returns appear genuine.

The COMELEC suggests an expansion of the parameters of statistical improbability to avoid obviously manufactured, spurious, unnatural, and unbelievable returns. The problem is, as stated inPacis v. COMELEC(25 SCRA 377 [1968]), electoral frauds are diverse and beyond anticipation. Since COMELEC decisions invariably come up to us, we would be treading into the quicksand of thousands of conceivable situations, something which we, obviously, should not undertake.

I believe that the remedy is in a better supervision of the handling of the elections at the precinct level. The problem cannot be solved once the returns have been submitted. It seems that when our brothers and sisters in Mindanao complain of indifference to their plight and neglect of their needs, they are not referring to the infrastructure and economy alone. Equally important is the development of democratic and political processes. Implied in the allegations of massive fraud is that government officials either participated in or were indifferent to the cheating. Neither the COMELEC nor this Court can do much if certain officials who should guard the polls with zeal take advantage of the situation or condone the perpetration of anomalies.

In suggesting that Congress should strike a new and different equilibrium in the balancing of the public interests at stake, we may not be going into the heart of the problem. Statistically improbable results may flatter the ego of incumbent officials but they insult the intelligence and reflect a failure to help the voters express their free and genuine will. What is needed is a system which makes public officers and political leaders lead the way towards political maturity.