What must be done if there is a discrepancy between the words and figures in the number of votes appearing in the election return of a precinct? This is the question raised and answered in this case between Nandy and Rita who were the opposing candidates for mayor of an island municipality in Southern Luzon.
During the canvass of the votes cast for the candidates in said municipality, a watcher of Rita noted a discrepancy between the words and figures in the number of votes of Nandy in the election return of Precinct 22. On the face of the return, the votes cast for Nandy were sixty-six (66) written in figures and fifty-six (56) written in words. When this was brought to the attention of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), the MBC decided to credit Nandy with sixty-six (66), the number of votes written in figures. So after the canvassing, Nandy garnered a total of 4,500 votes while Rita got a total of 4,498 votes or a margin of only two votes.
Despite Rita’s petition to suspend the proclamation, the MBC still issued a certificate of canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates wherein it proclaimed Nandy as the winner in the election.
On appeal to the Comelec, the second division issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Nandy and ordered the MBC to reconvene, open the ballot box of Precinct 22 and prepare a new certificate of Canvass.
Nandy moved to reconsider said resolution. But while his motion was pending the MBC already convened and opened the ballot box pursuant to the Comelec resolution. But no recount of the votes was conducted despite Rita’s motions. Instead, the MBC merely examined the election return and found that there was no sign of tampering. It also verified that the “taras” as counted for the first 100 votes was 29 for Nandy but the written figure was blurred. On the next line the taras counted was 37 for Nandy and the figure was also blurred. So the MBC decided that by adding 29 taras and 37 taras, Nandy got 66 votes as reflected in the election return. Thus it once more proclaimed Nandy as the duly elected mayor.
In the meantime the Comelec also ruled on Nandy’s motion for reconsideration and denied the same. It maintained that Nandy’s proclamation was premature and ordered the MBC to reconvene, summon the election inspectors, reopen the ballot box, conduct a physical recount of the votes for Nandy and correct the entries for mayor if necessary. Thereafter, the MBC was ordered to prepare a new certificate of canvass and proclaim the winning candidate. Nandy questioned this resolution. He said that the Comelec should not have ordered the re-opening of the ballot box and recount the votes casts for mayor in Precinct 22 because the MBC has already examined the election return and found no sign of tampering. Was Nandy correct?
No. It is clear from Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code that a recount of votes is in order where a discrepancy exists between the votes written in words or in figures. The recount merely consists in the mathematical counting of the votes received by each candidate and it does not involve any appreciation of ballots or the determination of their validity as required in an election contest. This will offer a prompt relief to a simple controversy and restore public tranquility by dispelling all doubts as to the true and correct number of the votes cast in a given polling place. That way, the chances whereby a candidate may grab a proclamation to which he is not entitled are minimized.
The electorate deserves to know who the true winner is. Public interest and the sovereign will of the people expressed in their ballots must, at all times, be the paramount consideration in an election controversy (Olandriz Jr. vs. Comelec G.R. No. 135084 Aug. 25, 1999).
* * *
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net