G.R. Nos.

154442-47 December 10, 2003

SALIPONGAN L. DAGLOC, petitioner,

vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BAI SUSAN A. SAMAD and KENNEDY P.
DILANGALEN, respondents

FACRS :PROCLAMATION

Bai, May 14, 2001 Maguindanao mayor candidates were Susan A. Samad ("Samad"),
Salipongan I. Dagloc ("Dagloc"), and Kennedy Dilangalen ("Dilangalen").

Samad, Dagloc, and Dilangalen rejected changing election returns from multiple
precincts during Kabuntalan's canvass.

Samad claimed that Brgy. Bagumbayan Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B, 33A, and 33B
were altered and prepared under duress, threats, coercion, and intimidation.

Samad failed to present proof within 24 hours of her protest, therefore the Kabuntalan
Municipal Board of Canvassers denied her requests to remove the May 23 and 26, 2001
election returns. Samad appealed Board findings to COMELEC on June 1 and 5, 2001.

Dagloc questioned the inclusion of Precinct Nos. 78A/79A, 80A/81A, and 82A election
returns since the ballots were tallied and prepared in a private house by a barangay
chairman, an alleged Samad buddy and political backer.

Dagloc opposed deleting election returns from Precinct Nos. 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 83A,
and 84A6 since they were normal and stated voting errors.

Dagloc claimed the COMELEC permitted voting in Sixth Infantry Division, Philippine
Army gymnasium Precincts 78A/79A, 80A/81A, 82A, 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 83A, and 84A
in Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao

To satisfy Dagloc, the Board canvassed Precinct Nos. 78A/79A, 80A/81A, and 82A
election returns and allowed Samad to remove those from 58A/59A, 70A, 71A, 83A, and
84A.

Dagloc appealed the Board's rulings to COMELEC as SPC 01-282 on June 7, 2001.

Dilangalen repeatedly requested election returns be removed from canvassing.

Dilangalen said the Board rejected his petitions and investigated returns. His pre-
proclamation case reached COMELEC.

Dagloc challenged and suspended a bogus declaration on June 13, 2001.

Dagloc argued that the Board's Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning
Municipal Office Candidates (CEF No. 25) was illegal since two people forced Samud's
signature and Linaban was absent at 10:10 p.m. on June 6, 2001 Dagiloc wanted
Samad's declaration revoked.

Samad et al. argued that the second proclamation was invalid since it was made
without notice or hearing, signed by Andamen K. Samud under Dagloc's armed men,
and declared just five councillors.1COMELEC merged Dagloc, Samad, et al., and
Dilangalen's six cases.

COMELEC, Second Division ("Second Division") explained that the contested returns are
election returns from Precinct Nos. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B/3B, 3A, 5A/6A, 17A, 31A, 31B,
32A/32B, 33A/33B, 34A/35A, 36A/37A, 38A, e45A/46B, 45B/46A, 58A/59A, 70A, 71

Second Division found petitioners' pre-proclamation contention concerns—tampered,

forged, created, or spurious returns, returns made under pressure, threats, coercion,
etc.—appropriate under Omnibus Election Code.

Without proof of patent abnormalities, the Second Division advised against scrutinising
election records. The Board of Canvassers cannot investigate vote anomalies if results
appear complete and authentic.

The Linaban Board's written rulings excluded Precinct Nos. 31A, 31B, 32A/32B,
33A/33B, and 45A (should have been 70A, 71A, 83A, and 84A) due to alleged election
irregularities by some Board of Election Inspectors ("BEI") members and the
disqualification of some members, as shown by Usman's purported affidavits

The Second Division found other reasons to remove the contested returns:

1. Precincts 31A, 32A/32B, 36A/37A, 45A/46B, 70A, 80A/81A, and 82A lack Voters and
Ballots data. However, omission does not invalidate election results. Election results are
unaffected by the defect.

2. Precinct 5A/6A, 38A, and 71A Election Returns—Words and figures obliterated some
candidates' votes. COMELEC Resolution 3848 Section 30 mandates election returns.

3. Precinct 2B/3B, 31B, 34A/35A, 45B/46A, 78A/79A, and 83A Election Results
Countersigned superimpositions and erasures fixed clerical errors.

We include election returns from Precincts 1A/1B, 2A, 3A, 17A, 58A/59A, 72A, and
84A19 because to their frequency. Second Division invalidated Samad, et al.'s first and
Dagloc's second proclamations.
Second Division COMELEC invalidated Samad, et al.'s Certificate of Canvass and
Proclamation of Winning Candidates for Local Positions (CEF No. 25) and Dagloc's
Certificate.

Dagloc raised these issues in this cert petition on August 15, 2002:

By failing to remove SPC No. 01-342 for violating RA 7166 Section 20 and Comelec
Resolution No. 3848 Section 38.30, the respondent COMELEC abused its discretion and
lacked

Petitioner Dagloc's party partner and Kabuntalan, Maguindanao vice-mayor candidate

Mohidin S. Lauban filed a petition-in-intervention and leave to intervene on September
16, 2002. Lauban accused the COMELEC of significant discretionary misuse and
jurisdictional overreach.

(1) not informing him of the aggregated cases and annulling his proclamation in breach
of due process, and

(2) nine election returns excluded for illegal pre-proclamation objections.

The Court granted Lauban's motion and ordered respondents to comment on his
petition-in-intervention on October 1, 2002.

Finally, respondent Samad stated in her Comment to Dagloc's petition for certiorari that
Dagloc filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam with the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato
City on September 13, 2002, which is pending

ISSUE :

Whether or not the COMELEC erred in proclaiming Samad.

RULING :

The Supreme Court held that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to: (1)
challenges directed against the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers
(not the BEI), or (2) challenges related to election returns to which a party must have
made specific objections. This case falls under the second category (2) and that the
COMELEC en banc’s findings on the nine election returns are anchored on “the manner
of their preparation,” which it found to be a sham. This ground is a pre-proclamation
issue under sec. 241 and 243 in relation to sec. 235.

Furthermore, the doctrine that “as long as the returns appear to be authentic, and duly
accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind
them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting and counting of the votes,” is
not applicable in this case due to the following reasons: (1) the COMELEC has authority
to review the rulings of the Board of Canvassers in a pre-proclamation controversy; (2)
the COMELEC en banc found that the nine election returns are fraudulent in the manner
of their preparation; and (3) the allegations of irregularity is not in the casting and
counting of votes but in the preparation of the election returns (tampered, falsified and
were prepared under duress, threats, coercion and intimidation).

Given this factual finding, doubt is cast on the authentic appearance of said returns.
Hence, the subject election returns cannot be accorded prima facie status as genuine
reports of the results of the counts of votes.

However, the proper remedy in case of spurious election returns is not outright
exclusion on the ground that they were fraudulently prepared by some members or
non-members of the BEI. Doing so would disenfranchise the voters. What the
COMELEC should have done is to ascertain whether the integrity of the ballots was
violated. If it was not, then a recounting of ballots is in order and Board will use new
returns. If it was violated, then the COMELEC need not recount but should seal the
ballot box and order its safekeeping.