View full case

DOMINADOR T. BELAC v. COMELEC

FACTS:

This case involves a disputed election for the position of Governor in Kalinga Province. Rommel Diasen and Dominador Belac were candidates for governor in the May 1998 elections. Diasen objected to the inclusion of election returns from certain precincts in Pinukpuk and Tinglayan. Diasen filed a petition for exclusion of the Certificates of Canvass and Statements of Votes, alleging discrepancies. The Provincial Board of Canvassers included the results of Pinukpuk but issued a certificate of correction for the returns of Tinglayan. Belac was proclaimed as the duly elected governor on May 19, 1998. Diasen appealed to the COMELEC, which dismissed his appeal. Diasen filed a motion for reconsideration, but Belac was already proclaimed as governor before it was resolved. Diasen filed a separate petition disputing Belac's proclamation. On February 22, 2000, the COMELEC en banc modified the ruling, directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvassing of votes with deductions from the excluded precincts. Belac filed a motion to desist from implementing the resolution.

On February 11, 2000, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Belac as governor. Diasen filed a petition with the COMELEC for correction of errors and investigation of irregularities. The COMELEC re-heard Diasen's petition and proclaimed him as governor on February 28, 2000. However, on March 9, 2000, the COMELEC directed Diasen to cease and desist from discharging the duties until further orders. The COMELEC declared Belac's proclamation null and void on October 3, 2000. The COMELEC en banc affirmed Diasen's proclamation as governor on November 16, 2000, and ordered the recall of the cease and desist order. Belac filed a petition before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC.

Belac filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, questioning the COMELEC's decision in a pre-proclamation case. The COMELEC argued that there were irregularities in the questioned election returns that justified their exclusion. Diasen argued that Belac cannot be considered the duly elected governor and that he was not deprived of due process before the COMELEC. The main issue is whether the COMELEC can go beyond the face of the election returns in a pre-proclamation case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the COMELEC can go beyond the face of the election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy.

  2. Whether the grounds raised by respondent Diasen in his petition with the Provincial Board of Canvassers fall within the restrictive and exclusive enumeration of issues in a pre-proclamation controversy.

  3. Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) exceeded its authority by looking beyond the face of the election documents in determining the validity of the election returns.

  4. Whether the respondents properly availed of the legal remedy for their concerns.

  5. Whether the vote of a judge or member of a collegiate court is automatically withdrawn or cancelled if they vacate their office before the promulgation of a decision or resolution.

  6. Whether a decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated.

  7. Whether the petitioner has the legal standing to file the present case.

  8. Whether the respondent was denied due process when the case was resolved by summary judgment.

RULING:

  1. The COMELEC cannot go beyond the face of the election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy. The issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy are limited to those enumerated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code.

  2. The grounds raised by respondent Diasen in his petition with the Provincial Board of Canvassers do not fall within the restrictive and exclusive enumeration of issues in a pre-proclamation controversy. Therefore, his petition fails.

  3. Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted the respondent's motion for reconsideration and looked beyond the face of the documents. In pre-proclamation controversies, the COMELEC is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is not authorized to investigate irregularities. The prevailing doctrine is that as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot scrutinize the casting or counting of votes.

  4. No, the respondents should have availed of the proper legal remedy or recourse, such as an election protest. The procedural flaw in this case caused prejudice to the litigants and impaired the proper administration of justice.

  5. Yes, the vote of a judge or member of a collegiate court is automatically withdrawn or cancelled if they vacate their office before the promulgation of a decision or resolution.

  6. Yes, a decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated.

  7. The petitioner has the legal standing to file the present case because it is a person aggrieved by the alleged violations of its rights.

  8. The respondent was not denied due process when the case was resolved by summary judgment because it had the opportunity to present its arguments and evidence, and it failed to timely file its opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy are limited to those enumerated in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. (Sanchez vs. COMELEC)

  • The enumeration of issues in a pre-proclamation controversy is restrictive and exclusive.

  • The COMELEC cannot go beyond the face of the election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy.

  • In pre-proclamation controversies, the COMELEC is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or investigate irregularities in the casting or counting of votes.

  • Election returns that appear to be regular and authentic on their face should not be subject to scrutiny by the Board of Canvassers.

  • Pre-proclamation controversies are resolved in summary proceedings without the need to present evidence aliunde or go through voluminous documents.

  • When challenging the validity of election returns, the proper remedy is a regular election protest.

  • A decision or resolution of a court becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated and not before.

  • If a judge or member of a collegiate court vacates their office before the promulgation of a decision, their vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled.

  • Members of a court can still withdraw their concurrence, register a qualification or dissent before the decision is promulgated.

  • Pre-proclamation controversies should be resolved in summary proceedings and disposed of without any unnecessary delay.

  • Legal standing refers to a personal and substantial interest in the case, and highlights the requirement that only those with a real interest in the outcome of the controversy should be allowed to engage the courts to seek redress.

  • Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to present its arguments and evidence before a decision is made. However, due process does not mean that a party has an absolute right to a full-blown trial, as summary judgments are allowed under certain circumstances if there is no genuine issue of material fact.