Pre-Proclamation Controversy & Election Protest
Pre-Proclamation Controversy & Election Protest
Pre-Proclamation Controversy & Election Protest
In the case of Lucman v. COMELEC (462 SCRA 299 [2005]), the Supreme Court explained that a pre-
proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face. “…..the
objections initially raised by private respondent before the Municipal Board of Canvassers were proper in
a pre-proclamation controversy, i.e., the election returns is obviously manufactured and/or falsified, it is
not authentic, it contains alterations. However, in his appeal to the COMELEC, he further alleged that the
elections held in the precincts clustered in the Pooni Lomabao Central Elementary were tainted with
massive election irregularities. According to private respondent, there were “massive substitution of
voters, snatching of ballots from the voters by people identified with the Lucman who filled them up
against the will of the voters, force or coercion, threats, intimidation, casting of votes by double
registrants in the same precincts (double entry), and flying voters …” Private respondent also alleged that
the counting of votes on May 11, 2004, were not prepared simultaneously with the appreciation of the
ballots/ counting of votes, in violation of Section 44 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6667 (March 16,
2004). Also, private respondent’s watchers were threatened by petitioner’s watchers, forcing them to leave
the counting room, and that the Board of Election Inspectors merely copied the entries on the tally boards
and records of votes made by petitioner’s watchers. Finally, private respondent alleged that the denial to
his objections to the contested election returns were not made by the Municipal Board of Canvassers in
the prescribed form, and that despite his manifestation that he will appeal the Board’s ruling on the
returns, it proceeded with petitioner’s proclamation.
Obviously, the foregoing allegations pertain not only to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns, but to the conduct of the elections as well. Pre-proclamation
controversies are limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before
said Board relating to particular election returns to which private respondent should have made specific
verbal objections subsequently reduced to writing. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an
examination of the election returns on their face. As a rule, the COMELEC is limited to an examination of
the election returns on their face. It is beyond the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to go beyond the face of the
returns or investigate election irregularities.”
In Bautista v. COMELEC (G. R. No. 78994, March 11, 1988): the Supreme Court ruled:
“The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under Sec. 243 of the
Omnibus Election Code. The enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation
controversy, is restrictive and exclusive. In the absence of any clear showing or proof that the election
returns canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (Sec. 234), appear to have been tampered
with, falsified or prepared under duress (Sec. 235) and/or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to
any candidate, the difference of which affects the result of the election (Sec. 236), which are the only
instances where a pre-proclamation recount may be resorted to, granted the preservation of the integrity
of the ballot box and its contents, Sanchez’ petition must fail. The complete election returns whose
authenticity is not in question, must be prima facie considered, valid for the purpose of canvassing the
same and proclamation of the winning candidates.
To expand the issues beyond those enumerated under Sec. 243 and allow a recount/re-appreciation of
votes in every instance where a claim of mis-declaration of stray votes is made would open the floodgates
to such claims and paralyze canvass and proclamation proceedings, given the propensity of the losers to
demand a recount. The law and public policy mandate that all pre-proclamation controversies shall be
heard summarily by the Commission after due notice and hearing and just as summarily decided. (Sec.
246, Omnibus Election Code).”
The Supreme Court Speaks: Grounds for Pre-proclamation Controversy are Decided Summarily
Quick Guide on Pre-Proclamation Controversy
& Election Protest
Where and how must a pre-proclamation controversy be raised?
Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the BOC may be initiated in the
BOC or directly with the Commission, with a verified petition, clearly stating the specific
ground/s for the illegality of the composition and/or proceedings of the board
(COMELEC Resolution 8804, Rule 4, Section 3).
What are the procedures for a pre-proclamation controversy on the ground of illegal
composition and illegal proceedings of Board of Canvassers ?
In case the petition is filed before the BOC: Upon receipt of the verified petition, the
BOC shall immediately announce the fact of the filing of said petition and the ground/s
raised therein. The BOC shall immediately deliberate on the petition, and within a period
of twenty-four (24) hours, make a prompt resolution thereon, which resolution shall be
reduced into writing.
Should the BOC decide in favor of the petition, it shall immediately inform the
Commission of its resolution. Thereafter, the Commission shall make the appropriate
action thereon. In no case shall the receipt by the BOC of the electronically transmitted
precinct, municipal, city, or provincial results, be suspended by the filing of said petition.
The petitioner may appeal an adverse resolution by the BOC to the COMELEC, by
notifying the BOC of his or her intent to appeal, through a verbal, and a written and
verified Notice of Appeal. The notice on the BOC shall not suspend the formal
proclamation of the official results of the election, until the final resolution of the appeal.
Within forty-eight (48) hours from such notice to the BOC, the petitioner shall submit
before the Board a Memorandum on Appeal stating the reasons why the resolution
being questioned is erroneous and should be reversed.
Upon receipt by the BOC of the petitioner’s memorandum on appeal, the Board shall
forward the entire records of the petition at the expense of the petitioner.
Upon receipt of the records herein referred to, the petition shall be docketed by the
Clerk of Commission and submitted to the COMELEC en banc for consideration and
decision.
Within five (5) days therefrom the COMELEC en banc shall render its decision on the
appeal. If filed directly with the Commission, the petition shall be heard by the
COMELEC en banc under the following procedures.
Upon receipt of the petition by the COMELEC, the Clerk of the Commission shall docket
the same and forthwith send summons to the BOC concerned with an order directing it
to submit, through the fastest verifiable means available, its answer within forty eight
(48) hours.
The COMELEC en banc shall resolve the petition within five (5) days from the filing of
the answer, or upon the expiration of the period to file the same (COMELEC Resolution
8804, Rule 4, Section 5).
What is the remedy if the illegal proceedings of the BOC is discovered after Proclamation?
If the illegality of the proceedings of the BOC is discovered after the official proclamation
of the supposed results, a verified petition to annul the proclamation may be filed before
COMELEC within ten (10) days after the day of proclamation. Upon receipt of the
verified petition, the Clerk of the Commission shall have the same docketed and
forthwith issue summons to the parties to be affected by the petition, with a directive for
the latter to file their answer within five (5) days from receipt.
Thereafter the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution, which shall not be later
seven (7) days from receipt of the answer (COMELEC Resolution 8804, Rule 4, Section 6).
What are the rights of political parties and candidates before the Board of Canvassers in
pre-proclamation cases?
All registered political parties, organizations, or coalitions of political parties, and
accredited citizens’ arms, and candidates, have the right to be present and to be
represented by counsel during the canvass of election returns, or certificates of
canvass.
Only one counsel may argue for each registered political party, organization, or coalition
of political parties, accredited citizens’ arm or candidate. No dilatory action shall be
allowed by the BOC. It may impose time limits for oral arguments.
All registered political parties, organizations, or coalitions of political parties, and
candidates, are entitled to obtain a copy of the Statement of Votes per precinct and a
copy of the certificate of canvass duly authenticated by the BOC (COMELEC Resolution
8804, Rule 3, Section 3).
Can a pre-proclamation controversy subsist even after the start of the term of office of the
position contested?
No. All pre-proclamation cases pending before the COMELEC shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the
board of canvassers concerned deemed affirmed. This is without prejudice to the filing
of regular election protest by aggrieved party.
Election Protest
Election Protest
The Supreme Court Speaks: Who is the proper party to file an election protest?
In POE, JR. vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (P.E.T. CASE No. 002 March 29, 2005) the Supreme Court
ruled that the widow cannot substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the pendency of the
latter’s protest case.
“The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential election protest is Rule 14 of the PET (Presidential
Electoral Tribunal) Rules. It provides Rule 14. Election Protest.–Only the registered candidate for
President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who received the second or third highest number of
votes may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, by filing a
verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the
proclamation of the winner.
Pursuant to this rule, only two persons, the 2nd and 3rd placers, may contest the election. By this express
enumeration, the rule makers have in effect determined the real parties in interest concerning an ongoing
election contest. It envisioned a scenario where, if the declared winner had not been truly voted upon by
the electorate, the candidate who received that 2nd or the 3rd highest number of votes would be the
legitimate beneficiary in a successful election contest.
This Tribunal, however, does not have any rule on substitution nor intervention but it does allow for the
analogous and suppletory application of the Rules of Court, decisions of the Supreme Court, and the
decisions of the electoral tribunals.
Rule 3, Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of Court. This rule allows substitution by a legal
representative. It can be gleaned from the citation of this rule that movant/intervenor seeks to appear
before this Tribunal as the legal representative/substitute of the late protestant prescribed by said Section
16. However, in our application of this rule to an election contest, we have every time ruled that a public
office is personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon death. Thus, we
consistently rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs in election contests where the protestant dies
during the pendency of the protest. In Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias, we recognized substitution upon the
death of the protestee but denied substitution by the widow or heirs since they are not the real parties in
interest. Similarly, in the later case of De la Victoria v. Commission on Elections, we struck down the
claim of the surviving spouse and children of the protestee to the contested office for the same reason.
Even in analogous cases before other electoral tribunals, involving substitution by the widow of a
deceased protestant, in cases where the widow is not a real party in interest, we denied substitution by the
wife or heirs. This is not to say that death of the protestant necessarily abates the pending action. We have
held as early as Vda. de De Mesa (1966) that while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to
the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the
protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings. Hence, we have allowed substitution and intervention but only by a real party in interest. A
real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is
entitled to the avails of the suit. In Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias and Lomugdang v. Javier, we permitted
substitution by the vice-mayor since the vice-mayor is a real party in interest considering that if the
protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the vice-mayor succeeds to the office of the mayor that
becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office. In contrast, herein movant/intervenor, Mrs.
FPJ, herself denies any claim to the august office of President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case,
we can conclude that protestant’s widow is not a real party in interest to this election protest.”
Is manual recount of the votes allowed under the Precinct Count Optical Scan (POCS
Automated Election System?
Yes. According to COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, recount of votes on the ballots shall
be done manually and visually, but only after it has been determined that the integrity of
the ballots has been preserved.
How will it be determined whether the integrity of the ballots has been preserved?
Prior to the actual conduct of the recount of the votes, the recount committee is required
to authenticate each and every ballot to make sure that they were the same ballots that
were cast and fed to the PCOS machine during the elections. The authentication shall
be through the use of the PCOS machine actually used during the elections in the
subject precinct, or by another device certified by the Commission as one that can
perform the desired authentication requirement through the use of bar code and
ultraviolet ray code detection mechanism (COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, Rule 15, section
6).
Election Protest Quo Warranto
Barangay Officials Municipal Trial Court / Metropolitan Trial Court 10 days from proclamation 10
days from proclamation Municipal Officials Regional Trial Court 10 days from proclamation 10
days from proclamation Regional, Provincial, and City Officials COMELEC 10 days from
proclamation 10 days from proclamation Members of House of Representatives House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal 10 days from proclamation 10 days from proclamation
Members of Senate Senate Electoral Tribunal 15 days from proclamation 10 days from
proclamation President and Vice President Presidential Electoral Tribunal 30 days from
proclamation 10 days from proclamation.
Election Protest
What are the procedures for resolving an election protest?
A. Filing of Protest: Within 10 days from proclamation of results of election.
B. Issuance of Summons: Within 24 hours from receipt of election protest or petition for quo
warranto.
C. Date of Filing the Answer: the answer must be filed within five (5) days from service of
summons and a copy of the petition, answer shall be filed in three legible copies, with
proof of service of a copy upon the protestant or petitioner.
D. Preliminary Conference: Within 3 days from the filing of the last responsive pleading
allowed by the Rules, or the expiration of the same period without any responsive having
been filed, the court shall conduct a mandatory preliminary conference among the parties
to consider:
1. The Simplification of issues;
2. The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
3. The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admission of facts and of documents to
avoid unnecessary proof;
4. The limitation of the number of witnesses;
5. The nature of the testimonies of the witnesses and whether they relate to evidence
aliunde the ballots, or otherwise;
6. The withdrawal of certain protested or counterprotested precincts (especially those
where the ballot boxes or ballots are unavailable or are missing and cannot be located
or destroyed due to natural disasters or calamities);
7. The number of revision committees to be constituted;
8. The procedure to be followed in case the election protest or counter-protest seeks,
wholly or partially, for the examination, verification, verification or re-tabulation of
election returns;
9. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case;