This case demonstrates the tedious process in the counting of votes and the ease with which irregularities may be committed in view of the numerous copies of documents involved in the process. The documents here are the election returns which reflect the results of the counting of votes by the Board of Election Inspectors in the precincts, and the Certificate of Canvass which is the result of the canvassing or the examination and tallying of all precinct election results by the Local Board of Canvassers.
The case involved the congressional election in a Mindanao province last 1995. The main protagonists were Oscar and Dado (not their true names). After the voting and the counting of votes in the 57 precincts of a municipality, six copies of these returns were prepared: the first copy to the Municipal Board of Canvassers, the second copy to the Election Registrar for transmittal to the Provincial Board of Canvassers; copy no. 3 also to the Election Registrar for transmittal to the Commission on Elections (Comelec); fourth copy to the Municipal Treasurer; the fifth copy to be deposited in the compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots; and the sixth copy to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge.
After the Municipal Board of Canvassers finished its canvassing, it prepared and forwarded the Certificate of Canvass and the supporting statement of votes (SOV), to the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the canvassing of all the votes in all the other municipalities of the province to determine the winner of the congressional elections. Apparently, the results of the election in the municipality of Oscar and Dado were vital in determining who won in the congressional race.
In the canvassing by the Provincial Board, Dado objected to the inclusion of the Certificate of Canvass in his municipality on the ground that the same was allegedly tampered. Acting on the objection, the Comelec ordered the production and examination of the election returns of said municipality. The ballot boxes containing the copies of the election returns for the MTC judge, the Provincial Board of Canvassers and the Comelec as well as the ballot box containing the copy of the Certificate of Canvass and Statement of Votes were thus opened. Upon examination of the copies of the election returns of the MTC and the Comelec, the Comelec found that indeed the Certificate of Canvass had been tampered as it did not reflect the true votes obtained in the election returns. So the Comelec annulled and set aside the canvass conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, ordered the constitution of a new Board to conduct the re-canvassing.
The following day, Oscar questioned the Comelec order. He asked that the Comelec verify its own copy of the Certificate of Canvass in the municipality with the copy submitted by the municipality to the Provincial Board of Canvassers. But the Comelec merely noted Oscar’s motion while the new Municipal Board of Canvassers proceeded with the re-canvassing. Despite Oscar’s objection to the inclusion of the 50 out of the 57 election returns, the new Board included them and came out with the result in which Dado emerged as the winner.
Oscar questioned the Comelec action as a grave abuse of discretion. Was Oscar correct?
No. The factual finding of the Comelec that the Certificate of Canvass of the municipality was tampered with deserves respect. It will not be disturbed except when there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof. The Comelec has broad powers to ascertain the true results of the election by means available to it.
Pursuant to its administrative functions, the Comelec exercises direct supervision and control over proceedings of the Board of Canvassers. The Board of Canvassers, on the other hand, is a ministerial body. Its powers are limited generally to the mechanical or mathematical function of ascertaining and declaring the apparent result of the election by adding or compiling the votes cast for each candidate as shown on the face of the returns before them and then declaring or certifying the result so ascertained (Mastura vs. Comelec, G. R. 124521, Jan. 16, 1998).
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net or jose@ sisonph.com