G.R. No.

157007 March 17, 2004

RASMIA ROMATO SALIC, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and DIMNATANG
L. PANSAR, respondents.

FACTS :

Salic, Dimnatang L. Pansar ("Pansar"), Ditual, and Monabantog Kiram ("Kiram") ran for Butig mayor
and vice-mayor.

COMELEC Resolution No. 4307 moved Butig vote counting and canvassing to the Provincial Capitol
Complex in Marawi City, like other municipalities.

The Butig MBC canvassed municipal election returns as necessary. However, board composition is
disputed. The parties agree that Musa Macabayao ("Macabayao") and Mesug Palawan ("Palawan")
are board chairman and vice-chairman.

The legitimate Third Member of the Board is debated. Private respondents say Ismael Magarang
("Magarang") was the Third Member, whereas petitioners say Catambac Mimbantas ("Mimbantas")
was.

On June 10, 2001, Chairman Macabayao and Mimbantas as Third Member signed a Certificate of
Canvass and Proclamation ("COC") declaring Salic the duly elected mayor of Butig. The
Macabayao-Mimbantas canvassing board chose Ditual vice-mayor and councillors.

On June 13, 2001, Macabayao declared himself Butig's Acting Election Officer and delivered
Mimbantas and his COC to the COMELEC's Election Records and Statistics Division ("ERSD").11
This COC used returns from 36 of Butig's 40 precincts. Salic asked Macabayao-Mimbantas to
withhold returns from the other four precincts.

The evidence and pages 1 and 2 for Local Positions with serial numbers 68090057, 68090035, and
68090036 reveal that a biassed Board of Election Inspectors fabricated the election return.12

Pansar said the Macabayao-Mimbantas board acted improperly. He claims Macabayao, Palawan,
and Magarang finished their board duties at the municipal canvass opening on June 7, 2001.

Macabayao recessed the board on June 10, 2001, and reconvened the next day after canvassing all
forty election returns. Macabayao left with the required electoral equipment to proclaim winners. The
next day, the board reconvened without him. Datusalangit Macalaba requested Palawan and
Magarang canvass.

Palawan-Magarang announced a second COC on 17 June 2001, recognising Pansar mayor and a
different set of municipal councillors as winners than Mambuyao-Mimbantas.

Interestingly, Palawan-Macarang did not elect a vice-mayor. Palawan-Macarang COC used returns
from all 40 precincts, including the four excluded by Mambuyao-Mimbantas.

The same day that the COC was announced, Palawan and Magarang signed the COMELEC
transmittal letter.
Salic asked COMELEC to erase the Palawan-Magarang COC from the records for being void ab
initio on June 25, 2001. Salic alleged that Mimbantas, not Magarang, was the Third Member and that
Palawan's 17 June 2001 COC signature was fraudulent.

On September 20, 2001, the Second Division dismissed Vice-Mayoral Candidate Kiram's COMELEC
Petition25 against Ditual, the MBC, and the BEI.

Ditual's vice-mayorship rendered Kiram's pre-proclamation dispute moot, according to the Second
Division.

Kiram filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and/or to Admit Petition in Intervention (with associated
Petition) in SPC No. 01-337.27 on February 15, 2002, unabated. He asked the MBC to reconvene to
tabulate all precinct results, including the four disputed ones, and declare the vice-mayor winner.

July 5, 2002's Second Division Resolution28 declared the Macabayao-Mimbantas COC a "sham"
and nullified Salic, Ditual, and the eight councillors' proclamations.

The Palawan-Magarang board could not declare Pansar mayor because the Second Division
excluded returns from three clustered precincts.29 Second Division approved Ad Hoc Committee's
finding that Magarang was MBC's Third Member, not Mimbantas. A Palawan-Magarang board was
the only permitted MBC.30

Second Division overturned Ad Hoc Committee's motion and revoked Pansar's mayorship.

The Second Division appointed a three-COMELEC lawyer MBC. It ordered the new MBC to canvass
Precincts No. 1A/2A, 7A/8A, and 9A/10A ballot box copies of returns and check their integrity before
opening them.

Salic's Motion for Reconsideration of the Second Division's Resolution was denied by the
COMELEC en banc on February 6, 2003, adopting the dispositive section.34 Salic persevered in this
Court petition.

Ditual was outraged by the Second Division Resolution, despite her claim that she was not a party to
S.P. No. 01-273.

The COMELEC en banc confirmed the Second Division Resolution on 6 February 2003, citing
Ditual's arguments. This Court received her Certiorari38 petition, G.R. No. 157019. The Court
consolidated Salic and Ditual's applications June 10, 2003.39 Salic and Ditual petitioned for a TRO
to stop the COMELEC from enforcing their contested resolutions. The Court denied TRO.

ISSUE :

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
annulling Salic's proclamation as mayor, in ordering the recount of ballots in the three (3) excluded
precincts, and in failing to exclude the returns from Precincts No. 11A/12A.

RULING :

Based on the SOV signed by the Palawan-Magarang board, it is apparent that the exclusion of the
returns from the four (4) contested precincts would greatly benefit Salic. The vote tallies reveal that
Salic received a disproportionately low number of votes in the precincts, compared to Pansar. But 52
this fact alone does not conclusively establish the commission of irregularities, much more provide
legal basis for excluding the returns from the precincts. Indeed, there could be a plausible
explanation for her receiving relatively fewer votes in the precincts. Hence, there must be a legal
justification for excluding the returns from the precincts.

Such legal justification exists for the exclusion of the returns from Precincts No. 1A/2A, 7A/8A and
9A/10A. Section 212 of the Omnibus Election Code is clear and specific on how the returns such as
those from the three (3) precincts should be treated. The penultimate paragraph of the Section is
pointedly instructive, viz:

Any election return with a separately printed serial number or which bears a different serial
number from that assigned to the particular polling place concerned shall not be canvassed.
This is to be determined by the board of canvassers prior to its canvassing on the basis of
the certification of the provincial, city or municipal treasurer as to the serial number of the
election return assigned to the said voting precinct, unless the Commission shall order in
writing for its canvassing, stating the reason for the variance in serial numbers.

The COMELEC states the reason for the rule in the assailed Order:

Where the law outrightly (sic) and explicitly DIRECTS the board of canvassers to EXCLUDE
election returns when the serial number appearing in the election return is different from that
assigned to the precinct concerned, and necessarily, when there is a variance in the serial
numbers of the pages of one set of election returns, the presumption of regularity in the due
execution and preparation of the election return is entirely demolished, such that the reverse
is the evidentiary norm, i.e., said election returns are presumed MANUFACTURED and
therefore treated as falsified documents unless proven otherwise through an explanation of
the legal custodian and distributor of the election returns.

The exclusion of the election returns from the three (3) precincts is warranted and, more importantly,
uncontroverted. None of the parties has posed any objection to the move. Salic, however, maintains
that the return from Precincts No. 11A/12A should be excluded as well, alleging that the BEI
members of the precinct participated in illegal substitute voting in the precinct.

Surprisingly, the Solicitor General, as counsel for the COMELEC, agrees with Salic also on the
exclusion of the return from Precincts No. 11A/12A.

The Court, however, is unable to agree that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
ordering the inclusion of the return from Precincts No. 11A/12A in the canvass.

The evidence presented by Salic for the exclusion of the return from Precincts No. 11A/12A consists
of a "certification" purportedly signed by Election Officer Taha Casidar, and a handwritten
"certification" allegedly executed by the members of the Board of Election Inspectors for Precincts
No. 11A/12A.

The COMELEC, and before it, the Ad Hoc Committee chose not to consider the "certifications," and
the Court cannot fault them for having done so. On their faces, the "certifications" appear as
unauthenticated.

The only basis for excluding the four (4) questioned election returns is the discrepancy in the serial
numbers on the pages thereof and not, as Salic claims, the alleged participation of the BEI members
in the commission of election frauds.
The claim is unproven and thus bereft of merit. The very case Salic cites in her petition provides the
59

unequivocal standard that there must be "unrebutted clear and convincing evidence before the
COMELEC that not only did the inspectors not comply with the duty required of them by law but that
serious defects shown by the voting records amounting to falsification thereof could not have
happened without the active participation of the inspectors themselves." There is no such
60

"unrebutted clear and convincing evidence" in this case.

The COMELEC directed the utilization of the ballot box copies of the election returns from the
contested precincts for the purpose of completing the canvass and, as an alternative, the recount of
the votes cast in the precincts in the event the pages of the returns are likewise found to be have
varying serial numbers. This is the procedure laid down in Section 235 of the Omnibus Election
Code in situations where the election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified. As the 61

COMELEC First Division noted, Section 212 of the Omnibus Election Code does not explicitly
provide for a remedy where the pages of the election returns contain varying serial numbers which is
the situation governed by the Section. But the silence of the Section does not signify any legislative
intent to disenfranchise the voters of the precincts in question. The procedure laid down in Section
235 may also apply to the returns whose pages bear dissimilar numbers since such returns also
appear to be unauthentic, such as those with varying serial numbers.

In all, Salic's petition must fail as it is unable to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the COMELEC.

There is another compelling reason for the affirmance of the COMELEC's annulment of
Ditual's proclamation. Ditual draws her supposed right to public office from her proclamation
by the Macabayao-Mimbantas board. But as, we declared earlier, it was illegally constituted
and as such its acts and declarations are null and void. As Ditual's claim to the vice-
mayoralty has emanated from an illegal source, evidently it cannot be sustained. 65

One final note. For no apparent reason, the Palawan-Magarang board refused to proclaim a winning
vice-mayoral candidate. Worse, the parties and even the COMELEC seem to ignore that fact, as if
the issue would fade away by pretending the anomaly had not existed.

While the Macabayao-Mimbantas board canvassed the returns for vice-mayor and proclaimed a
winning candidate, its acts however are void. On the other hand, a perusal of the SOV prepared by
the Palawan-Magarang board reveals that it crossed out all the entries of votes cast for all the vice-
mayoral candidates. Even curiouser is the fact that the Palawan-Magarang board tabulated the
votes cast for Ditual in only half of the forty (40) precincts, not bothering to write down the number of
votes cast for Ditual in the other twenty (20) precincts. Apart from per se smacking of irregularity, the
acts reveal a deliberate intent on the Palawan-Magarang board's part to frustrate the will of the Butig
electorate.

The proclamation of all the winning candidates in the municipal elections is a ministerial duty of the
canvassing board.

As the body mandated by the Constitution to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct
of elections is the bounden duty of the COMELEC to ensure that the will of the electorate prevails.
However, as of now there is no basis for the proclamation of the winning candidate for vice-
mayor. The COMELEC decided to limit the canvass of the election returns from the four (4)
contested precincts. In order to determine the winning vice-mayoral candidate, however, it is
necessary and proper for the new Butig MBC to recanvass the returns for vice-mayor in all
the forty (40) precincts of the municipality.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated Petitions are DISMISSED. The assailed
COMELEC Resolutions are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the newly-constituted
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Butig, Lanao del Sur, is ordered to conduct also a recanvass of
the election returns from all the forty (40) precincts of the Municipality with respect to the position of
vice-mayor, complete the same and the canvass of the returns for the position of mayor, and
proclaim the duly elected mayor and vice-mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur, within five (5) days from
receipt hereof.

This Decision is declared final and immediately executory.