View full case

ABDULLAH A. JAMIL v. COMELEC

FACTS:

Abdullah Jamil and Alinader Balindong were candidates for mayor in Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur. During the canvassing of the election returns, Balindong objected to the inclusion of four election returns based on various grounds. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) ruled on three of the objections and set aside the election returns for further investigation. The composition of the MBC changed, and a new chairman took over. The new MBC denied the petition for exclusion of one election return and resumed its canvassing using a different copy of another election return. The MBC conducted an investigation and submitted a report highlighting conflicting affidavits. The case involves appeals filed by Balindong and Jamil challenging the rulings of the MBC and the COMELEC’s order affirming the rulings. The reconstituted MBC found no defect in the election returns from the three precincts previously set aside and recommended their inclusion in the canvass. The board of canvassers submitted an answer and sworn statements affirming the authenticity of the election returns in the precincts. The board included the returns in the canvass, and after including these returns, Abdullah Jamil was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of Sultan Gumander.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the proclamation of petitioner as the winning candidate for mayor was without the authority of the COMELEC.

  2. Whether a new Board of Canvassers should be constituted.

  3. Which of the two proclamations made by two different Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBCs) in Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur is valid?

  4. Whether the manner and procedure by which the members of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) voted in the instant case was in accordance with their own Rules of Procedure.

  5. Whether the proclamation of petitioner Jamil as winner of the mayoralty race is valid.

  6. Whether the proclamation of private respondent Balindong as winner of the mayoralty race is valid.

  7. Whether the evenly divided (3-3) vote of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in its February 12, 1996 Resolution is proper.

  8. Whether a judge or member of a collegiate court who has vacated his office has his vote automatically withdrawn or cancelled.

  9. Whether the proceedings and decisions of the court remain valid even if a judge or member has vacated his office before promulgation.

RULING:

  1. The Second Division of the COMELEC annulled the proclamation of the petitioner as the winning candidate for mayor on the ground that it was without the authority of the COMELEC.

  2. The Second Division of the COMELEC relieved the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sultan Gumander of its duties and functions and directed the Regional Election Director to constitute a new Municipal Board of Canvassers for the municipality.

  3. The proclamation of private respondent Alinader Balindong dated September 5, 1995, by the Cariga Board, is valid. The proclamation of petitioner Abdullah Jamil dated June 26, 1995, by the Macadato Board, was based on an incomplete canvass because three election returns were excluded from the canvass. The "rulings" made by the Sansarona MBC on May 23, 1995, were not definitive exclusions but deferred the inclusion of the election returns for "further investigation." The Macadato MBC, led by Casan Macadato, conducted further investigation and ruled to include the election returns from Precinct No. 20. Therefore, the proclamation by the Macadato Board was invalid.

  4. The manner and procedure by which the members of the COMELEC voted in the instant case was in accordance with their own Rules of Procedure. The Commissioners were evenly divided in their opinion, and after re-hearing and deliberation, they remained evenly divided. Pursuant to Rule 18, Section 6 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Jamil was denied.

  5. The proclamation of petitioner Jamil as winner of the mayoralty race is invalid. The investigation report submitted by the Macadato MBC to the COMELEC did not make a definitive pronouncement or disposition resolving the issues regarding the questioned returns, but only recommended the inclusion of the disputed returns. Therefore, there was no ruling on the inclusion or exclusion of the returns, making the canvass incomplete and invalid. Furthermore, the proclamation violated Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, as no authority was given by the COMELEC for the proclamation of petitioner Jamil.

  6. The proclamation of private respondent Balindong as winner of the mayoralty race is also invalid. It was based on supposed "rulings" of the Sansarona MBC, which only "set aside for further investigation" the challenged election returns. An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. All the votes cast in the election must be counted and all the returns presented to the board must be considered. The proclamation of private respondent had no basis in fact and in law.

  7. The evenly divided (3-3) vote of the COMELEC in its February 12, 1996 Resolution is proper. Rule 18, Section 6 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure states that when the COMELEC en banc is equally divided in opinion, the case shall be reheard. If rehearing does not reach a decision, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission, and in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was deemed denied for failing to get a majority vote.

  8. Yes, a judge or member of a collegiate court who has vacated his office has his vote automatically withdrawn or cancelled.

  9. Yes, the proceedings and decisions of the court remain valid even if a judge or member has vacated his office before promulgation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The board of canvassers has the duty to proclaim the winning candidate for mayor in accordance with the order of the COMELEC. (Duty of the board of canvassers)

  • The proclamation made by the Municipal Board of Canvassers without the authority of the COMELEC is contrary to law and jurisprudence and may be annulled. (Proclamation without authority)

  • Proclamations based on an incomplete canvass are invalid.

  • "Rulings" that defer inclusion of election returns for further investigation are not definitive exclusions.

  • The COMELEC can evenly divide in opinion, and Rule 18, Section 6 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure allows for the denial of a motion for reconsideration in such cases.

  • An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. All votes cast in the election must be counted and all returns presented to the board must be considered.

  • Proclamation by a Board of Canvassers of a candidate as the winner is prohibited where returns are contested, unless authorized by the COMELEC.

  • When the COMELEC en banc is evenly divided in opinion and cannot reach a decision, the case shall be reheard. If rehearing still does not reach a decision, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission, and in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed.

  • A decision becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated and not before.

  • The true decision of the court is the decision signed by the justices and duly promulgated.

  • Before a decision is signed and promulgated, all opinions and conclusions stated during and after the deliberation of the court remain in the breasts of the justices and are binding upon no one.

  • At any time before promulgation, the ponencia may be changed by the ponente, and a judge may still withdraw his concurrence and register a qualification or dissent.

  • If a judge or member of a collegiate court has already vacated his office at the time of promulgation, his vote is automatically withdrawn.

  • The vote cast by a member of the court after deliberation is always understood to be subject to confirmation at the time he has to sign the decision to be promulgated.

  • The purpose of the practice of preserving freedom of action till the last moment when a decision has to be signed is to allow the justices to take full advantage of what they may believe to be the best fruit of their most mature reflection and deliberation.