Shootout: Holdaper patay

What objections can be raised before the Board of Canvassers? And when should they be raised? Can a candidate in an election raise objections before the Board of Canvassers against certain election returns which on their faces appear to be authentic and duly accomplished? These are the issues raised in this election case involving Nena and Nano.

Nena and Nano were candidates for mayor of a municipality in the last May 11, 1998 election. In the canvassing of votes, Nano initially interposed no objections to the inclusion of election returns from several precincts. But later on, on May 16, 1998 after the Board of Canvassers had canvassed all the election returns and when Nena was already proclaimed winner, Nano questioned before the Comelec the Board’s action and objected to the inclusion of certain election returns on various grounds such as the presence of the barangay captain in the polling areas who influenced his constituents to vote for a certain candidate, and that said election returns were accomplished outside the polling centers.

On June 15, 1998, the Comelec annulled the proclamation, enjoined the proclaimed candidates from assuming their posts and ordered the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and to finish the canvassing.

In the recanvassing, the Board denied the exclusion of some returns in three precincts but granted the exclusion in six other precincts as requested by Nano. Both candidates appealed this ruling to the Comelec which affirmed the rulings of the Board, ordered it to continue the canvassing and proclaim the winner. It was Nena’s turn now to file a motion for reconsideration of said Comelec ruling. And the Comelec indeed reconsidered its previous ruling and in turn ruled in October 6, 1998 that all the election returns which Nano initially sought to exclude, be included in the canvassing. As a result, Nena was finally proclaimed the winner. On October 12, 1998, Nano questioned said Comelec ruling before the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. According to Nano, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the inclusion of the election returns from the six precincts which were ordered excluded by the Board of Canvassers. Was Nano correct?

No. Oral objections to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns in the canvassing shall be submitted to the chairman of the Board of Canvassers at the time the questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass (Sect. 20 RA 7166 and Section 36 Comelec Resolution 2962). Compliance with the period set for objections is mandatory. Otherwise, to allow objections after the canvassing would be to open the floodgates to schemes designed to delay the proclamation and frustrate the electorates’ will by some candidates who feel that the only way to fight for a lost cause is to delay the proclamation of the winners. The proceedings before the Board of Canvassers is summary in nature which is why the law grants the parties a short period to submit objections and the Board to rule on matters brought to them.

In this case, it is not denied that the objections interposed by Nano were made after the election returns in certain precincts were already included in the canvass. His plea for a liberal interpretation of technical rules and allow his untimely objections cannot be granted. Liberal construction of election laws applies only when it becomes necessary to uphold the people’s voice.

Even assuming that his objections were timely filed and his grounds that the barangay captain influenced the casting of votes were true, the same can no longer be considered since the winners were already proclaimed and there is no sufficient evidence that the Board of Canvassers has made an invalid proclamation. As long as the election returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting and counting of votes. Objections that certain votes were not freely cast is not a valid ground for a pre-proclamation controversy and is beyond the competence of the Board. A party such as Nano, seeking to raise issues, the resolution of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear prima facie regular on their face, has his proper remedy in a regular election protest (Siquian, Jr. vs. Comelec, et. al. G.R. No. 135627 December 9, 1999).

This case once more demonstrates that in an election the name of the game is to beat the other to the draw in being “proclaimed” winner. After proclamation it is an uphill, costly and protracted battle. Sometimes the people’s voice will no longer be known the next election has already arrived.

E-mail us at [email protected]