Anni v. Izquierdo

TEEHANKEE, J.:

The Court sets aside the questioned Comelec resolution which ordered the outright exclusion and rejection of the returns of 89 precincts from 7 Sulu municipalities as "manufactured returns" (because of excess votes) and thereby excluded over 5,000 votes for petitioner notwithstanding the admitted existence of actual voting therein and their having been duly verified by the Comelec examination of the registration and voting records to have been validly cast by the duly registered voters, which if not arbitrarily rejected, were much more than sufficient to maintain petitioner's margin of victory over respondent for the third and last provincial board member seat of Sulu. After the November 8, 1971 local elections, two petitions were filed with respondent Comelec involving the proclamation of the winning candidates for provincial officials of the province of Sulu.

The first of said petitions filed by Santanina Rasul, LP candidate for provincial board member and docketed as Case No. C-294 asserted her right to be proclaimed as one of the three duly elected provincial board members as against her opponents. The second petition docketed as Case No. 339 was filed by Salih Ututalum, Yahya Radjae, Muss lzguierdo and Ismael Ratag, LP candidates for governor, vice-governor and provincial board members, respectively, against their NP counterpart-opponents, namely, Murphy Sangkula, Cauti Lim, Julasiri Anni, Julkipli Anni and Hadji Hassan Tawasil, who had garnered the highest number of votes in the provincial canvassing board's tally. Comelec initially heard the two petitions jointly.

After preliminary examination, it found that the results for governor would no longer be altered by the questioned returns and authorized per its resolution of January 24, 1972 the proclamation of Murphy Sangkula as governor. In suspending proclamation, Comelec per its resolution No. 78 of November 26, 1971 resolved inter alia that "all questions regarding the returns be initially raised before the board during the canvass" and that "upon termination of the canvass, (the board) give the candidates reasonable time within which to appeal its rulings to the commission and in the meantime to desist from proclaiming the winning candidates."

Comelec next resolved Rasul's case and held per its resolutions Nos. RR-1161 and 1162 dated March 20 and 21, 1972 that Julkipli Anni and Santanina Rasul could no longer be affected by pending disputes over questioned returns in the second petition which was still pending (Case C-339) and that they should be proclaimed as two of the winning candidates for provincial board member without awaiting the Comelec's final action on said pending petition. This gave rise to the case of Julasiri M. Anni and Hadji Hassan Tawasil vs. Santanina Rasul, et al.1 wherein the Court in its decision of August 30, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the first case) upheld the questioned Comelec resolutions. The canvassing board's unofficial tally (since Comelec has ordered suspension of the proclamation) showed the four front-running candidates for the three positions of provincial board member, as follows: Candidates for Board Member Votes per returns Plurality over Rasul.

ANNI, Julkipli 40,923 votes 14,484 votes ANNI, Julasiri 37,009 votes 10,570 votes TAWASIL, Hassan 27,714 votes 1,275 votes RASUL, Santanina 26,439 votes Our decision in the first case then showed that with Comelec's exclusion of six (6) returns from Tapul on grounds of statistical improbability (involving 730 votes) and of thirty-one returns from Siasi and Tapul on the ground that they were spurious or manufactured returns (involving 3,212 votes), the standing of the five front-running candidates, as compared to the unofficial tally was altered with Rasul irretrievably dislodging Tawasil from the winners' circle of three, as follows: 1. ANNI, JULKIPLI 36,930 votes 2. ANNI, JULASIRI 33,162 votes 3.

RASUL, SANTANINA 26,406 votes 4. TAWASIL, HASSAN 24,244 votes 5. IZQUIERDO, MUSS 23,554 votes Our decision therein further pointed out that "Respondent Rasul further showed that the remaining examination of 164 precinct books of voters in Case C-339 could not possibly affect her winner's standing, for if the 164 returns were found and declared to be spurious or manufactured as a result of `massive substitute and/or multiple voting,' the parties most adversely affected thereby would be the herein petitioners, since they stood to lose the most `votes,' and petitioner Julasiri Anni would furthermore be dislodged by Muss lzquierdo, (one of the petitioners in C-339 and a co-candidate of Rasul on the same ticket) while Rasul would be catapulated to top place with the highest number of votes for provincial board member, as follows: Candidate Unofficial Total Votes Total Excluded "Votes"

Total Valid Votes RASUL, Santanina 26,439 2,258 24,181 IZQUIERDO, Muss 23,623 1,631 21,992 ANNI, Julkipli 40,923 19,394 21,529 ANNI, Julasiri 37,009 18,993 18,016 TAWASIL, Hassan 27,714 14,958 12,756 As stated in our said decision, two issues were raised by therein petitioners Julasiri Anni and Hassan Tawasil against the disputed Comelec resolutions which would proclaim Rasul ahead of them as board member. On the first issue, Julasiri and Tawasil invoked the pending examination of the precinct books of 164 precincts involving some 8,000 votes which if they were upheld as valid, might alter the result. But we found that the facts and figures as per the above-quoted projected table of possible excluded votes could in no way "conceivably alter the winner status of Julkipli Anni and respondent Rasul"

- since Julkipli and Rasul were thereby shown to be "certain of election . . .

regardless of the results of the examination of the 164 precincts" and it was only Julasiri Anni in third position then who might be displaced by Muss Izquierdo in the winners' circle "if the returns of the 164 precincts involved are rejected." As further stated in our decision in the first case, "(T)he second issue raised by petitioners is that Comelec as a matter of fairness, since the voting records of the 164 precincts questioned in Case C-339 are still being examined by the experts to determine the genuineness or spuriousness of the corresponding returns, should have also granted their motion of March 12, 1972 similarly questioning as spurious the returns in 75 precincts where respondent Rasul obtained substantial votes and requesting also a similar examination by the experts of the precinct books of voters therein, with the projected result that the exclusion of such returns would show Rasul as not entitled to the victory claimed by her."

The Court sustained Comelec's denial of the examination of the returns of 75 Rasul precincts as sought by therein petitioners, stating that petitioners "never questioned them in the first instance during the canvassing before the provincial canvassing board, prescinding from the apparent insufficiency of the allegations and supporting documents of their motion of March 12, 1972 to justify Comelec's ordering the examination of the 75 precinct books sought by them." We further stressed therein that " `(I)t is well settled that the question whether certain returns are falsified or have been tampered with and should not be included in the canvass, must first be raised before the board of canvassers, subject to appeal from its decision to the COMELEC.' As stated in Lucman vs Dimaporo, Comelec exercises appellate jurisdiction in passing upon questions raised to it on appeal from the canvassing board's action of say, denying exclusion of returns challenged by the petitioner-appellant.

Thus, the Court emphasized, `petitioner could not legally raise before the commission in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction any question not originally set up before said board.'" Petitioners therein filed in due course their motion for reconsideration invoking that the Court's own ratio decidendi in rejecting the examination of the 75 Rasul precincts sought by them for not having been "initially raised before the board during the canvass" should equally apply to the 164 election precinct returns sought to be examined in pending Case C-339 of the Comelec.

The Court required Comelec's comment which was filed in due course and petitioners filed their reply, and the motion for reconsideration remained pending until the Court's resolution of even date stating that its dismissal of the petition in the first case could not be construed as an advance ruling on the propriety and validity of the examination ordered by Comelec in the same Resolution RR-1162 of the questioned 164 election returns which had no bearing therein and that it would resolve the said pending issue in the case at bar. Comelec, meanwhile, without awaiting for the Court's action on the motion for reconsideration proceeded with the examination of the 164 questioned precinct returns and handed down its Resolution RR-1191 of November 28, 1972 ordering the exclusion of the returns from 89 precincts therein enumerated in seven municipalities of Sulu2 on the ground that "the excess of votes received by the candidates over the number of maximum possible votes in the precinct is very great"3 and ordered the total exclusion from the canvass of the returns as "manufactured returns"

notwithstanding the admitted existence of voting and a great number of valid votes obtained by Anni, which if not arbitrarily excluded, were much more than sufficient to maintain Anni's victory over Izquierdo.

Hence, the present petition for the setting aside of the Comelec resolution and for the inclusion and counting in petitioner Anni's favor of the thousands of votes (around 5,000) validly cast for him as found in the very same resolution where Comelec noted from its handwriting experts' examination that "the handwritings and signatures appearing in the voting records were identical to the handwritings appearing in CE Form 1, in other words, those of the registered voters."4 The Court finds merit in the petition. 1. The Court will first dispose of the preliminary procedural questions.

Petitioner questions Comelec's authority to have proceeded with the examination of the precinct books (CE Form 1) of the questioned 164 precincts notwithstanding the pendency of his motion for reconsideration in the first case seeking to disauthorize such examination on the ground that the returns from said 164 precincts had not been initially questioned before the canvassing board and that Comelec in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction could not pass upon the questions belatedly raised by respondent Izquierdo who had not timely and properly challenged them during the canvass (in the same manner that Comelec's action in the first case in denying therein petitioners' belated motion for an examination of the voting records of 75 Rasul precincts was sustained by this Court). This is in fact the burden of petitioner Anni's motion for reconsideration in the first case, which the Court in its resolution of even date has announced it will resolve instead in the case at bar as the proper setting.

While Comelec recognized that the objection timely raised before it was "an issue of fact, namely, whether or not petitioners had questioned the above-mentioned returns during the canvassing" it simply required the parties to submit their respective memoranda attaching thereto their evidence and perfunctorily determined on the basis of a letter petition of respondent dated November 25, 19715 listing the objections to the precinct returns from eleven municipalities that the objections had been timely raised before the canvassing board. While petitioner has raised substantial factual questions not frontally met by respondent, such as that the canvass had already been terminated before Izquierdo even presented his alleged objections, and that the minutes of the canvass show no such objections having been raised, still petitioner can only blame himself, for as stated by Comelec in its resolution "In the memorandum filed by respondents [referring to herein petitioner Anni and Tawasil] they failed to submit any evidence to support their contention that petitioners [referring to herein respondent and his co-candidates] did not question the returns from the 164 precincts aforementioned during the canvass.

. . ."6 At any rate, as will be hereafter seen, this factual question is not decisive of the merits of the petition, which the Court resolves on the basis of the results of the questioned examination of the registration and voting records of the 164 precincts involved.

2. The determination of the merits has entailed considerable difficulty and study because of the imprecision of the data and statements in the questioned Comelec resolution itself as well as in the pleadings of the parties, particularly the petition, which has constrained the Court itself to work out and compute the figures and data involved instead of such matters being normally submitted to it in clear, concise and precise form. For example, the exact total number of election returns ordered excluded by Comelec is not given in its resolution.ℒαwρhi৷ It merely listed the precincts in the seven municipalities with a statement of the alleged "maximum votes possible"

and alleged "votes in excess of maximum" of each candidate in each precinct without giving the total number of precincts excluded, and total number of votes in excess of maximum of each candidate in each precinct.

Petitioner in his own petition adds to the confusion when he refers to fifty-six (56) precinct returns (without specification) that had been ordered excluded, while respondent in his answer states (likewise without specification) that Comelec ordered the exclusion and rejection of a total of eighty-nine (89) out of the 164 questioned returns. The Court's own verification from the data given in the Comelec resolution shows that out of the 164 questioned returns in eleven (11) municipalities where the voters' registration and voting records were examined by the Comelec and NBI fingerprint and handwriting experts, a total of 147 precinct records in seven (7) municipalities7 were considered and listed down by the Comelec with regard to the examination of the handwritings and signatures of the voters. As per the Comelec resolution itself, "the NBI handwriting examiners in examining the handwriting and signatures of the voters referred to them were able to ascertain the cases where the handwritings and signatures appearing in the voting records were identical to the handwritings appearing in CE Form 1, in other words, those of the registered voters.

They also found cases where the handwritings appearing in the voting records were of persons other than the registered voters. There were still however, quite the number of cases where the handwriting experts could not render an opinion one way or the other. "

Comelec gave the combined results of the fingerprint and handwriting examination of the registration and voting records of the voters in the 147 precincts, as follows: Positive Opinion