Dimaporo v. Elections

FELICIANO, J.:

On 17 February 1990, an election for Regional Governor, Regional Vice-Governor and members of the Regional Assembly for the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao was conducted pursuant to Republic Act No. 6734, the Organic Act creating that Autonomous Region. Petitioners Sultan Mohammad Ali Dimaporo and Nurhussein Ututalum were the official candidates of the United Opposition ("KBL-NP") coalition party for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor, respectively, in that election. Private respondents Zacaria Candao and Benjamin T. Loong were the official candidates for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor, respectively, of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino ("LDP") party.

I 1. G.R. Nos. 93201-04 During the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of the Province of Sulu of the election returns from the First and Second Congressional Districts of Sulu, petitioners raised objections to the inclusion in the canvass of certain election returns. From adverse rulings of the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed to the Commission on Elections ("Comelec") where the appeals were docketed as SPC Nos. 90-002, 90-004 and 90-017.

During the canvass of certificates of canvass conducted by the Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners raised the same objections. From an adverse ruling of the Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed once more to the Comelec, this appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90019. The contested election returns are from certain precincts of the following municipalities in the Province of Sulu: 1.

Municipality of Parang 50 precincts 2. Municipality of Maimbung 34 precincts 3. Municipality of Lugus 20 precincts 4.

Municipality of Luuk 20 precincts 5. Municipality of Panamao 51 precincts 6. Municipality of Panglima Estino (also known as New Panamao) 36 precincts 7.

Municipality of Pandami 18 precincts 8. Municipality of Tongkil 16 precincts 9. Municipality of Kalinggalan Caluang 14 precincts Total 259 precincts The common ground for the three (3) appeals from the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu was that the questioned election returns were "spurious, obviously manufactured and/or statistically improbable."

The ground for the appeal from the Regional Board of Canvassers was that the certificates of canvass (from the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers) were 'falsified" since they included the same election returns disputed before the Provincial Board and appealed to the Comelec, and that the Regional Board of Canvassers had proceeded with the canvass despite perfection of petitioners' appeals. All appeals involving the questioned election returns and certificates of canvass from the Province of Sulu were consolidated before the Comelec.

By a Resolution dated 21 March 1990, the First Division of the Comelec dismissed all the appeals for lack of merit and for lack of jurisdiction- The principal grounds on which the First Division rested its Resolution were: (a) the objections raised against the election returns were "merely generalizations"; (b) petitioners had failed to adduce before the Provincial Board of Canvassers substantial evidence to establish the factual basis of their objections; and (c) that petitioners had not filed a written intent to appeal from the rulings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers.

Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc. On 10 May 1990, the Comelec En Banc issued a Resolution which modified the Resolution of its First Division by ordering the exclusion from the canvass of the election returns from eighty-eight (88) precincts in the municipalities listed above for being "statistically improbable." The same Resolution dismissed the appeals insofar as the other election returns are concerned.

In reaching this conclusion, the Comelec En Banc appealed Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections'1 Lagumbay, the Court held such returns to be "statistically improbable" and "obviously manufactured", the fraud being so palpable from the return itself that there was no reason to give the return prima facie value and that consequently, evidence aliunde to show fraud was entirely unnecessary. The Comelec En Banc applied the Lagumbay doctrine by ordering the exclusion from the canvass of election returns which fell precisely within the factual situation dealt with in Lagumbay, and permitting the inclusion of election returns showing results differing in varying degrees from the Lagumbay factual situation.

2. G.R. No. 93205 During the canvass of election returns from the Municipality of Languyan in the Province of Tawi-Tawi, petitioners objected to the inclusion of the election returns from thirty-six (36) precincts in said Municipality, upon the same ground that those returns were "obviously manufactured" because the results reflected therein were "statistically improbable".

Petitioners contended that in the questioned precincts, 100% or 99% of registered voters are recorded to have cast their votes, and that private respondents obtained all the votes cast while petitioners got a uniform zero vote. The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Tawi-Tawi overruled the objections of petitioners for failure to present evidence aliunde of the fraud alleged. Petitioners appealed to the Comelec, their appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90-005.

In its Decision dated 17 April 1990, the Second Division of the Comelec reversed the Tawi-Tawi Provincial Board of Canvassers by ordering the exclusion of fifteen (15) election returns under the authority of the Lagumbay doctrine of "statistical improbability". The inclusion of the remaining election returns from twenty-one (21) other precincts was in effect sustained as falling outside the ambit of the Lagumbay doctrine, since not all the candidates of the LDP had received exactly the same number of votes. Other candidates including those belonging to petitioners' party, in many but not in all cases, got zero votes.

There were other precincts where candidates other than the official LDP candidates were credited with differing numbers of votes. Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc which appeal (or "Motion for Partial Reconsideration") was denied by its Resolution dated 10 May 1990. Petitioners are now before the Court on Petition for certiorari in both G.R. Nos. 93201-04 (concerning the election returns in the Province of Sulu) and 93205 (concerning the election returns in the Province of Tawi-Tawi.

By a Resolution of the Court dated 17 May 1990, G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205 were consolidated. In the same Resolution, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order requiring the respondent Comelec to refrain from proclaiming the winning candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao until further orders from the Court, while leaving the Comelec free to proceed with the canvassing of the election returns from the remaining precincts of the areas covered by the Autonomous Region. 3.

G.R. No. 93502 During the canvassing by the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Maguindanao, petitioners objected to the election returns from certain precincts in six (6) municipalities (Pagalunggan, Maganoy, Ampatuan, Sultan sa Barokis, Buluan, and Talayan) in Maguindanao.

From adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed on 26 February 1990 to the Comelec, the appeal being docketed as SPC No. 90-016. One day later, on 27 February 1990, petitioners filed an "Amended Appeal" which included objections to returns from three (3) additional municipalities (Datu Piang, Datu Pagla's and South Upi).

This "amended" pleading, however, did not specify the precincts returns from which were being assailed; neither did it set out the grounds for petitioners' objections thereto. On 13 March 1990, eighteen (18) days from service of the written rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers, petitioners filed with the Comelec another document purporting to list the specific election returns from Datu Piang, Datu Paglas and South Upi, which petitioners wished to contest.

The grounds alleged by petitioners for contesting these election returns were various and included: that an unusually high proportion of registered voters in certain precincts were recorded as having cast their votes; that the Boards of Election Inspectors in certain precincts in some of the municipalities involved did not prepare the election returns simultaneously with the counting of the ballots but, on the contrary, prepared them elsewhere than at the election precincts, e.g., in the offices of the Municipal Mayors; that in certain precincts, the members of the Boards of Election Inspectors did not report to their respective polling places so that no elections were conducted in said precincts; that in some precincts, "the number of votes counted" exceeded the number of registered voters; that in other precints, the number "of votes counted" exceeded the number "of voters who allegedly voted"; that in several precincts, the residents of the constituent barangays evacuated their homes because of "a shooting war between the MNLF and the MILF"

so that no elections were conducted in such barangays, but notwithstanding such circumstances, the returns from those barangays showed "a very high percentage of voting"; and that the returns from certain precints showed that such returns were all prepared by only one person. Petitioners asked the Comelec to order the voter's affidavits and the lists of voters in the contested precints to be subjected to expert examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the registered voters therein. By a Decision dated 7 May 1990, the Comelec Second Division, after ruling on each objection to election returns contested, dismissed petitioners' appeal, save only the appeal with respect to the election returns from Precincts 9 and 10 of the Municipality of Talayan, Maguindanao, which returns were objected to as incomplete, and which the Comelec Second Division excluded from the canvass, it appearing from the Minutes of the Provincial Board of Canvassers that the Boards of Election Inspectors of Talayan had not been summoned to explain the omission of material data in those returns.

Petitioners moved to reconsider the Decision of the Comelec Second Division. In a Decision dated 4 June 1990, the Comelec En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration and sustained the Decision of the Second Division of the Comelec. II 1.

G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205: The Issues Raised Petitioners raised the following principal issues in these consolidated cases: 1. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in not excluding the returns from the remaining 171 contested precincts in Sulu and the remaining 21 election returns in Tawi-Tawi, inclusion of which was allowed pursuant to the Comelec's strict and restrictive application of the doctrine of "statistical improbability"; and 2. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in disregarding other evidence (evidence aliunde) submitted by petitioners in their effort to show that the contested election returns were "obviously manufactured".

Petitioners now ask the Court to set aside the En Banc Decision of the Comelec dated 10 May 1990 insofar as that Decision had refused to reject and exclude the other election returns assailed by petitioners as "statistically improbable". On 21 May 1990, private respondents Candao and Loong filed an "Urgent Motion to Lift the Temporary Restraining Order" arguing that even if their votes embraced in the contested election returns from the provinces of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi are nullified as requested by petitioners, such nullification will not affect the vote lead of the private respondents.

In this Urgent Motion to Lift, private respondents set out the following table of numbers of votes credited to petitioners and to private respondents, in the official certificates of canvass of the provinces of Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao, which certificates were annexed to the Urgent Motion to Lift: "Table I2 Province Candao Dimaporo Loong Ututalum Tawi-Tawi 36,543 31,391 33,253 28,945 Sulu: a. 1st district 57,814 441,875 53,850 45,011 b. 2nd district 79,376 38,820 90,170 26,910 Lanao del Sur a.

1st district 32,920a 59,757 11,183 5,521 b. 2nd district 43,486 56,203 19,872 15,690 Maguindanao a. 1st district 59,197 24,777 41,708 7,855 b.

2nd district 105,699