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. 90-019.

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

2.  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 applied Lagumbayv. Commision on Elections^[1] where the Supreme Court dealt with election returns showing the unique uniformity of all votes (being equal to the total number of registered voters) being cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to one party, while all the candidates of the opposing party were uniformly reflected as getting zero votes; that is, all the candidates of one party garnering all the votes, each of them receiving exactly the same number of votes, while all the candidates of the opposing party getting uniformly and precisely nothing.  In 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 Paglas 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 precincts, 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 precincts 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 precincts 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 I[2]
Province	Candao	Dimaporo	Loong	Ututalum
Tawi-Tawi	36,543	31,391	33,253	28,945
Sulu:
a.  1st district	57,814	41,857	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	16,301	55,189b	3,238
T o t a l s	415,035c	269,106	305,225d	133,170
Total Vote-Lead	145,929e		172,055"f

Close examination of the respective certificates of canvass shows some clerical errors in the original Table I presented by private respondents.  In substantially reproducing Table I above, we have corrected the clerical errors as indicated in footnotes below.

Private respondents also set out a second table showing the number of contested votes of private respondents Candao and Loong.  Again, Table II below reflects the corrections we have made in the original Table I in the Motion to Lift, after study and consideration of the "Opposition to the Motion to Lift Restraining Order" filed on 4 June 1990 by petitioners --

"Table II[3]
Number of Contested Votes
Candao		Loong
Tawi-Tawi (as per Annex 'A' of Annex 'D' of the Petition)	13,464a	13,464a
Sulu (as per page 2 and Annexes 'G' to 'O' of the Petition)	80,560b	80,349b
Total votes contested by the petitioners from the Provinces of Tawi-Tawi and Sulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	94,024c	93,813"c

On Table III below, the number of contested votes of private respondents Candao and Loong are subtracted from their respective total votes per official certificates of canvass:

"Table III[4]
Candao		Dimaporo	Loong	Ututalum
Total votes obtained as per Table I	415,035a	269,016	305,255a	133,170
Less:
Contested votes in Tawi-Tawi as per Table II	(13,464)		(13,464)
Contested votes in Sulu as per Table II	(80,560)b	_______	(80,349)b	________
Totals after Deductions	321,011c	269,106	211,412c	133,170
Remaining vote- lead after deductions	51,905d		78,242"d

From the foregoing tables, the substantial correctness of the data therein not having been successfully contested by petitioners, it appears to the Court that there is no need to pass upon and resolve the central issue raised by petitioners -- whether or not the doctrine of "statistical improbability" adopted in Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections (supra) should be re-examined with a view to expanding the scope thereof, i.e., with a view to characterizing election returns differing, in varying degrees, from the specific fact situation dealt with by the Court in Lagumbay as "statistically improbable" and hence excludable from canvass as "obviously manufactured" without need of evidence aliunde.  In the specific circumstances of the cases at bar, whatever conclusion the Court might have reached on this issue would, strictly speaking, merely constitute dictum, considering that even if the Court were to nullify all the returns objected to by petitioners on grounds of "statistical improbability", private respondents Candao and Loong would still show a very substantial margin over the total votes of petitioners.^[5] Such nullification will not, in other words, materially affect the results of the election per the official certificates of canvass.

In resolving upon this course of action, the Court has also taken particular account of the need for speedy resolution of these cases, considering the length of time which has gone by since the election was held last 17 February 1990 without the winning candidates for Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor being proclaimed.  The public policy involved in the rule that pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved in summary proceedings, is very real and insistent.  The public interest requires that the positions for the filling of which the election was held should be filled as promptly as possible, even if the proclamation of the winning candidates be provisional in nature, in the sense that such would be subject to the results of the election protest or protests that may be expected to be filed.  The Court is bound by high duty and responsibility to give effect to this public policy which is enshrined in statutory norms (infra).  Petitioners' principal remedy is to file election protests before the appropriate agency of government -- i.e., the Comelec (Article IX [C] [2] [2], 1987 Constitution) -- and there to litigate all the issues raised by them in as much detail as they might deem necessary or appropriate.  Another remedy open to petitioners is the filing of criminal charges for election offenses against those who, petitioners believe, are responsible for the frauds and assorted trickery alleged to have been committed.

2. G.R. No. 93502:  The Issues Raised

In this third Petition for Certiorari, petitioners raised the following issues:

1.  Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it refused to order the expert technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the registered voters affixed to their voter's affidavits and to the lists of voters in the voting records in the contested precincts;

2.  Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it rejected as filed out of time petitioners' appeal from adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers relating to certain assailed election returns from the Municipalities of Datu Piang, Datu Paglas and South Upi; and

3.  Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in holding that petitioners' failure to present evidence before the­ Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers was fatal.

In respect of the first issue raised by petitioners, the Comelec En Banc in its 4 June 1990 Decision said:

"On the first point, it should be pointed out that since Dianalan vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 79712, November 12, 1987, the examination of voter's affidavits and voting records on the ground that there was massive substitute voting or that no elections were held, has been definitely ruled out by the Supreme Court.  For to accept the grounds cited, and to allow the procedure suggested, is to expand the narrow and exclusive grounds defined by law for initiating and sustaining pre-proclamation controversies.  As explained in Dianalan supra.

'In truth, the defects alleged by private respondent and intervenors are not pre-proclamation matters within the contemplation of Section 243 of the Election Code, but fall under the jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals as sole judges of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of the members of Congress.  The cases cited by the respondents and intervenors, in traverse of the petition were decided at a time when our election law did not specifically provide for the settlement of the pre-proclamation controversy or specify the matters coming thereunder.  Diaz v. Commission on Elections, 24 SCRA 426; Estaniel v. Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 436; and Usman v. Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 667, were decided in 1971, and Lagumbay v. Climaco and Comelec, 16 SCRA 175, even earlier, in 1966.  All these cases ruled that the Commission on Elections could investigate charges of irregularities in the conduct of the elections as an incident of its power to canvass the votes and proclaim the winners; and this was possible because its jurisdiction over pre-proclamation questions was not limited then and subject to Comelec abuse.  Now it is expressly limited to, under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code passed on November 28, 1985 with these safeguards extracted by the substantial opposition in the Batasan, and cannot extend beyond the matters exclusively enumerated therein.  A reading of this section will readily show that it applies only to the specific deficiencies therein enumerated and that questions relating to alleged irregularities in the voting such as fraud, substitution or vote-buying and terrorism are proper matters for election protests.'

The policy consideration underlying the delimitation both of substantive ground and procedure is the policy to determine as quickly as possible the result of the election on the basis of canvass.  Espaldon vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78987, August 25, 1987; Bautista vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78994, March 10, 1988; Alonto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28490, February 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 878.  To uphold the position of the appellant is to allow the prolonged and indefinite suspension of resolutions on pre-proclamation controversies by the simple expedient of resorting to the examination of voluminous documents.  This process can be used in a full-blown judicial inquiry incident to an election protest.  This rule has been reiterated by the Supreme Corut in Dipatuan vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 86117, May 8, 1990."^[6] (Underscoring supplied)

We agree with the Comelec's view of the law on this matter; we see no abuse, and much less a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec in so ruling.  In the very recent case of Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections, et. al.,^[7] this Court said in a unanimous decision:

"1.     We start by noting that the Comelec (both Second Division and the Commission En Banc) correctly emphasized that, under the regime of the Omnibus Election Code, pre-proclamation controversies are properly limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before such Board of Canvassers, and not the Board of Election Inspectors nor proceedings before such latter Board (Grand Alliance for Democracy v. Commission on Elections, 150 SCRA 665 [1987]; Sanchez v. Commission on Elections, 153 SCRA 67 [1987]) and that such challenges should relate to particular election returns to which petitioner should have made specific verbal objection subsequently confirmed in writing (Section 245, Omnibus Election Code; Pausing v. Yorac, et al., G.R. No. 82700, 4 August 1988; Endique v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 82020-21, 22 November 1988).  In a pre-proclamation controversy, it is axiomatic that the Comelec is not to look beyond or behind election returns which are on their face regular and authentic returns.  A party seeking to raise issues resolution of which would compel the Comelec to pierce the veil, so to speak, of election returns prima facie regular, has his proper remedy in a regular election protest.  By their nature, and given the obvious public interest in the speedy determination of the results of elections, pre-proclamation controversies are to be resolved in summary proceedings (Section 246, Omnibus Election Code; Espaldon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78987, 25 August 1987; Pasion v. Commission on Elections, 109 SCRA 238 [1981]; Bautista v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78994, 10 March 1988).  The delicate policy equilibrium here involved was explained by the Court in the following terms in Alonto v. Commission on Elections (22 SCRA 878, 884-886 (1968):

'[P]re-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible x x x [and that the Comelec and the courts should guard both] against proclamation grabbing through tampered returns as well as against attempts to paralyze canvassing and proclamation in order to prolong hold-overs.' " (Under­scoring supplied)

Petitioners ask the Court to re-examine its decision in Dianalan v. Commission on Elections,^[8] so as to permit petitioners to subject to handwriting and fingerprint examination the voter's affidavits and voting lists and other voting records in the contested precincts.  We are not persuaded by petitioners' arguments on this point.  It is important to bear in mind that the nature, scope and ambit of a pre-proclamation controversy as set out in Dianalan and Dipatuan and the other cases there cited are determined by statutory provisions:  Sections 243 (entitled "Issues that may be Raised in Pre-Proclamation Controversy"), 245 ("Contested Election Returns") and 246 ("Summary Proceedings before the Commission") of the Omnibus Election Code.  As pointed out above in Dipatuan, these statutory provisions reflect a very definite view of what public policy requires on the matter.  It may well be true that that public policy may occasionally permit the occurrence of "grab the proclamation and prolong the protest" situations; that public policy, however, balances the possibility of such situations against the shortening of the period during which no winners are proclaimed, a period commonly fraught with tension and danger for the public at large.  For those who disagree with that public policy, the appropriate recourse is not to ask this Court to abandon case law which merely interprets faithfully existing statutory norms, to engage in judicial legislation and in effect to rewrite portions of the Omnibus Election Code.  The appropriate recourse is, of course, to the Legislative Department of the Government and to ask that Department to strike a new and different equilibrium in the balancing of the public interests at stake.

On the second and third issues raised by petitioners, the Comelec En Banc Decision of 4 June 1990 said:

"[The second and third issues raised by petitioners] are related to each other.  They refer to the procedure to be observed in the registration of objections at the board of canvassers level and the bringing of adverse rulings on appeal to the Commission.  We reiterate the mandatory requirement to comply with procedure for pre-proclamation controversies in view of the public policy to have a quick determination of the result of the election.  By [their] nature, pre-proclamation controversies already delay proclamation.  To allow the deviation from procedural requirements is to open cases of this nature to protracted uncertainty because new grounds and new issues can be raised at the different levels of jurisdiction.  Even ordinary cases not impressed with public policy considerations are not allowed to be litigated this way."^[9] (Underscoring supplied)

Once more, we agree with the above ruling of the Comelec since that ruling simply flows from the character and scope of a pre-proclamation controversy under the Omnibus Election Code.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 93201-04, 93205 and 93502 for lack of merit.  The Temporary Restraining Order dated 17 May 1990 issued in G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205 is hereby LIFTED.  In G.R. No. 93502, the Court also Resolved to DISPENSE with the Comments of public and private respondents.  This Resolution is immediately executory.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., see concurring statement.

---

^[1] 16 SCRA 175 (1966).

^[2] Rollo, p. 234, in G.R. Nos. 93201-04.

2a The original figure in Table I was 39,920; this is erroneous per the Certificate of Canvass, First District, Lanao del Sur; Rollo, p. 241, in G.R. Nos. 93201-04.

2b The original figure in Table I was 35,189; this is erroneous per the certificate of canvass, Second District, Maguindanao; Rollo, p. 241, id.

2c The original figure in Table I was 422,035.  With the correction in 2.a. above, the original figure became arithmetically wrong.

2d The original figure in Table I was 285,225.  With the correction in 2.b. above, this original figure became arithmetically wrong.

2e The original figure in Table I was 152,929.  With the correction in 2.a. this original figure became arithmetically wrong.

2f The original figure in Table I was 152,055; with the correction in 2.b., this figure became arithmetically wrong.

^[3] Id.

3a Per the figures given in petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Lift, this figure should be only 11,307 (Rollo, p. 381; in G.R. Nos. 93201-04).  While petitioners' Opposition did not indicate the source of that figure, we have for present purposes only adopted the higher, and hence more conservative, figure set out in private respondents' Urgent Motion to Lift.

3b The original figure in Table II was 65,402.  Petitioners in their Opposition to Motion to Lift, however, claim that private respondents did not appeal the Decision of the Comelec excluding the eighty-eight (88) election returns from the Province of Sulu.  According to petitioners, the eighty-eight (88) election returns embraced 27,477 votes for private respondent Candao and 27,477 votes for private respondent Loong.  Also according to petitioners, the votes embraced in the election returns from the precincts covered by their appeals in SPC Nos. 90-002, 90-004 and 90-017 are:  53,083 for Candao and 52,872 for Loong (Rollo, p. 380; in G.R. Nos. 93201-04).  Adding the votes already excluded by the Comelec and the votes being appealed by petitioners, we get the figures of 80,560 contested votes for Candao and 80,349 contested votes for Loong.  For conservatism in this computation, we accepted petitioners' figures in their Opposition to Motion to Lift although no official sources are cited by petitioners.

3c The original figures set out in Table II were 78,866 contested votes for Candao and 78,866 contested votes for Loong.  With the corrections set out in 3.b. above, these original figures became arithmetically wrong.

^[4] Id., p. 235.

4a The original figures in Table III were:  422,035 for Candao and 285,225 for Loong.  With the corrections indicated in footnotes 2.c. and 2.d. above, these original figures had to be changed.

4b The original figures in Table III were 65,402 for Candao and 65,402 for Loong.  With the changes indicated in footnote 3.b. above, these original figures had to be changed.

4c The original figures in Table III were 343,169 for Candao and 206,359 for Loong.  With the changes indicated in footnotes 4.a. and 4.b. above, these original figures became arithmetically wrong and have been changed.

4d The original figures in Table III were 74,063 for Candao and 73,189 for Loong.  With the changes indicated in 4.c. above, these original figures became arithmetically wrong and have accordingly been changed.

^[5] In the interest of a balanced presentation, we must note that private respondents have stated that they had received, in, e.g., a number of precincts in the Province of Sulu, zero votes while petitioners were credited with exactly the same number of votes:  Municipality of Talipao -- 14 precincts; Municipality of Indanan -- 8 precincts; Municipality of Siasi -- 9 precincts; and Municipality of Kalinggalan Caluang -- 5 precincts.  Private respondents also claim that in certain precincts, i.e., Municipality of Siasi, Province of Sulu, petitioner Dimaporo received more than 1,000 votes while the average number of votes in a precinct is only between 300 to 400 voters.  See private respondents' Comment dated 28 May 1990; Rollo, pp. 330-332, in G.R. Nos. 93201-04.

^[6] Rollo, pp. 104-105, in G.R. No. 93502.

^[7] G.R. No. 86117, 8 May 1990.

^[8] G.R. No. 79712, 12 November 1987.

^[9] Rollo, pp. 105-106, in G.R. No. 93502.

---

Normal Clean 6 pt 6 pt 0 3 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 style-->