Ppc Presentationb

7/23/2019 Ppc Presentationb

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ppc-presentationb 1/64



What is a

Pre-proclamationControversy?



Sec. 241 of the OmnibusElection CodeA pre-proclamation controversy refers to any questionpertaining to or aecting the proceedings of the boardof canvassers which may be raised by any candidate orby any registered political party or coalition of parties

before the board of canvassers or directly with theCommission, or any matter under ections !"", !"#,!"$ and !"% in relation to the preparation, transmission,receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns&

ec& !"" - When the election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed

ec& !"# ( )aterial defects in the election returns

ec& !"$ ( When election returns appear tampered with or falsi*ed

ec& !"% ( +iscrepancies in election returns



What is the purposeof a

Pre-proclamationcontroversy?



he purpose of a Pre-proclamation controversyis to ascertain the winners in the election on

the basis of the election returns dulyauthenticated by the board of inspectors andadmitted by the board of canvassers Abella v.Larrazabal,18 SC!A "#$1%8%&'.



Natureummary. and

/ntended to put a stop to the pernicious

practice of unscrupulous candidates of0grabbing the proclamation and prolongingthe protest1&



What are the grounds fora Pre-proclamation

Controversy?



he grounds for Pre-proclamationcontroversy are the following23& /llegal composition or proceedings of the 4oard of

Canvassers.!& he canvassed returns are incomplete, contain

material defects, appear to be tampered with orfalsi*ed, or contain discrepancies in the samereturns or in authentic copies thereof.

"& he election returns were prepared under duress,threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they areobviously manufactured or not authentic. and,

#& When substitute or fraudulent returns incontroverted polling places were canvassed, theresults of which materially aect the standing ofthe aggrieved candidate or candidates&



5or the )ay 36, !636 elections,

C7)898C has restricted the grounds orpre-proclamation controversies, asfollows2

a: /llegal composition of the 47C. and

b: /llegal proceedings of the 47C CO)ELEC!esolution884, !ule *, Section 1'.



/llegal composition orproceedings of the 4oard ofCanvassers here is illegal composition of the 47C when,

among other similar circumstances, any of the

members do not possess legal quali*cationsand appointments& he informationtechnology capable person required to assistthe 47C by ;epublic Act <o& ="%= shall be

included as among those whose lac> ofquali*cations may be questioned CO)ELEC!esolution 884, !ule 4, Section 1'.



Illegal proceedings oftheBoard of Canvassers here is illegal proceedings of the 47C when the

canvassing is a sham or mere ceremon+ , the

results of which are re-determined and maniulated as when any of the followingcircumstances are present2

3&precipitate canvassing.

!&terrorism.

"&lac> of sucient notice to the members of the47C@s.

#&/mproper venue

CO)ELEC !esolution 884, !ule 4, Section 2'



;8)8)48;2/n the case of Lucman v. CO)ELEC 4#2 SC!A

2%% $2"&', the Sureme Court eplainedthat a pre-proclamation controversy is limitedto an eamination of the election returns ontheir face&



Jurisdiction he COMEEC has eclusive Burisdiction to hear

and decide pre-proclamation controversies&

Article /0-C, Sec. 2 *' of the 1%8 Constitution

he Commission shall decide, ecept thoseinvolving the right to vote, all !uestionsa"ecting elections.



Article /0-C, Sec. * of the 1%8

Constitution

he Commission may sit en banc or in two

divisions, and shall promulgate its rules ofprocedure in order to epedite disposition ofelection cases, including pre-proclamationcontroversies. #ll such election cases

shall $e heard and decided in division%provided that motions forreconsideration of decisions shall $edecided $y the Commission en $anc.



he &ivisions of the Commission are vestedwith the authority to hear and decide these0special cases1and have to be heard andadBudicated *rst at this level&



#r$onida vs. Comelec%

'.(. )o. *+,*,%March *% /00,



3actsArbonida and Caringal were candidates for the San55unian5 6a+an of

ana, Cavite during the )ay 36, !66# local elections&

After the canvassing of votes, the )unicipal 4oard of Canvassers of ana )47C: proclaimed Arbonida the eighth winning candidate with3#,%!6 votes as against the 3#,$$! votes of Caringal&

7n Dune 3%, !66#, Caringal *led a petition with the C7)898C see>ingto annul Arbonida@s proclamation on the ground of manifest errors inthe statement of votes by precinct 7EP:& Caringal alleged that the)47C committed mista>es in the copying of *gures from the electionreturns to the 7EPs&

Arbonida *led a motion to dismiss arguing that the C7)898C had no

Burisdiction to ta>e cogniance of the petition since da5da5-ba7asdidnot constitute manifest error but rather a ground for an election

protest& Fe also claimed that a pre-proclamation controversy was nolonger viable after the proclamation of the winning candidate&



After an eamination and comparison of the subBectelection returns and 7EPs, the C7)898C foundthat there indeed eisted discrepancies in the

number of votes sucient to have an eect on thelast place for municipal councilor being contested&

Consequently, in its ;esolution, the C7)898C 5irst+ivision annulled the proclamation of Arbonida and

instead proclaimed Caringal as the duly electedeighth municipal councilor of ana, Cavite&

7n appeal, Comelec en banc denied Arnido@s)otion for ;econsideration&



/ssuesWhether the petition *led is a proper subBect

of a pre-proclamation controversy. and

Whether the C7)898C 5irst +ivision is without Burisdiction to issue the resolution&



!ulin5 he petition *led by Caringal before the C7)898Cinvolves a pre-proclamation controversy and not anelection contest& Although the petition allegedfraud, the remedy sought was merely for correctionof erroneous entries in the statements of votes

which were based on the election returns&

he Constitution clearly mandates that pre-proclamation controversies must be *rst heard and

decided by a division of the Comelec, and then bythe en banc if a motion for reconsideration were

*led&



he requirement of hearing and decision ofelection cases including pre-proclamationcontroversies, at the *rst instance by adivision of the Comelec, and not by it as awhole, is mandatory and Burisdictional& heConstitutional provision yields to no otherinterpretation other than what its plain

meaning presents&



Ecetions

;ule !G, ec& # Comelec ;ules of Procedure

provides that a pre-proclamation controversymay be *led directly with the Comelec en$anc1

When petition is for correction of manifesterrors in the tatement of Eotes or in thetabulation or tallying of the results. and



When the issue involves the illegal composition orproceedings of the board of canvassers as whenmaBority or all of the members do not hold legalappointments or are in fact usurpers. or when thecanvassing has been a mere ceremony that was pre-

determined and manipulated to result in nothing buta ham as where there was convergence ofcircumstances of precipitate canvassing, terrorism,lac> of sucient notice to the members of the board

of canvassers and disregard of manifestirregularities on the face of the questioned returns orcerti*cates of canvass in appropriate cases&

O O C O 3



)O2 #OWE& I) EEC2IO)34O( P(E3I&E)2% 5ICE-

P(E3I&E)2% 3E)#2O( #)&MEMBE( O4 26E 6O73E O4(EP(E3E)2#2I5E3

ection 3$ of ;A G3%% provides2

3ec. *8 9re-9roclamation Cases :ot Allo7ed /n Elections for9resident, ;ice-9resident, Senator, and )ember of the <ouse of!eresentatives- 5or purposes of the elections for President, Eice-President, enator and )ember of the Fouse of ;epresentatives,no pre-proclamation cases shall $e allo9ed on matters

relating to the preparation% transmission% receipt% custodyand appreciation of the election returns or the certi:catesof canvass% as the case may $e& Fowever, this does notpreclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motupropio or upon written complaint of an interested person tocorrect manifest errors in the certi*cate of canvass or election

returns before it&



0he C7)898C has eclusive Burisdiction over all proclamationcontroversies& As an exception, however, to the general rule,

ection 3$ of ;A G3%% prohibits candidates in the presidential,vice-presidential, senatorial and congressional elections from *lingpre-proclamation cases&

he law, nonetheless, provides as an exception to the

exception. he second sentence of ection 3$ allows the *ling ofpetitions for correction of manifest errors in the certi*cate ofcanvass or election returns even in elections for president, vice-president and members of the Fouse of ;epresentatives for thesimple reason that the correction of manifest error will notprolong the process of canvassing nor delay the proclamation of

the winner in the election& Chave v& Comelec, !33 C;A "3$3==!::



;epublic Act ="%= amended ec&3$ and ec&"6 of ;A G3%%2

3EC.*8& 9re - roclamation Cases in Elections for 9resident, ;ice-9resident, Senator, and )ember of the <ouse of !eresentatives. - 5or

purpose of the elections for president, vice - president, senator, andmember of the Fouse of ;epresentatives, no pre-proclamation casesshall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission,receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or the certi*cates

of canvass, as the case may be, e;cept as provided for in 3ection0 hereof.

3EC. 0& Con5ress as the :ational 6oard of Canvassers for the Electionof 9resident and ;ice 9resident The Commission en banc as theNational Board of Canvassers for the election of senators:

=etermination of Authenticit+ and =ue Eecution of Certi>cates of

Canvass&- Congress and the Commission en banc shall determine theauthenticity and due eecution of the certi*cate of canvas for presidentand vice - president and senators, respectively, as accomplished andtransmitted to it by the local boards of canvassers,



he enumeration of issues under ec& !#" of

78C is restrictive and e;clusive&



What are the issues

that cannot $e raised

in a pre-proclamationcontroversy?



Cases that require the

appreciation of ballots he appreciation of the ballots cast in the

precincts is not a 0proceeding of the board ofcanvassers1, but of the boards of electioninspectors who are called upon to count andappreciate the votes in accordance with the

rules of appreciation provided in ection !33,78C&

Appreciation and technical eamination ofballots would be more properly dealt with inan election protest



echnical eamination ofthe signatures and thumb

mar>s of voters

=As long as the returns appear to beauthentic and duly accomplished on theirface, the 4oard of Canvassers cannot loo>beyond or behind them to verify allegations ofirregularities in the casting or counting ofvotes1&

COMEEC



oong v. COMEEC%'( )o. *0,>*-*8% May

*+%*+=Corollarily, technical eamination of voting

paraphernalia involving analysis andcomparison of voter@s signatures andthumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated bylaw to be epeditiously resolved without

involving evidence aliunde eamination ofvoluminous documents which ta>e up muchtime and cause delay underlying thesummary nature of pre-proclamation

controversies1&



;e-opening of ballot

boes

/t is not a proper issue for a pre-proclamationcontroversy& /t should be threshed out in anelection protest& Alfonso v& C7)898C, H; <o&36GI#G, Dune !, 3==#:



Padding of ;egistry 9istof Eoters/t is not among the issues that may be raised in

a pre-proclamation controversy& /t is a properground for election protest&



Challenges directedagainst the 4oard of8lection /nspectors

A pre-proclamation controversy is limited tochallenges directed against the 4oard of

Canvassers, not the 4oard of 8lection/nspectors&



#4O)3O vs.COMEEC

'( *0,>,% @une /%*,



4acts /n the )ay 33, 3==! elections, Pedro Alfonso ran for councilor in the

5irst +istrict of )anila, which is entitled to elect si councilors& 7n theeve of the elections, Pedro Alfonso died& Fis daughter /rma Alfonso,petitioner herein, *led her certi*cate of candidacy in substitution for her

deceased father& After the canvassing of the election returns byrespondent City 4oard of Canvassers, the results of the elections forcouncilors for the 5irst +istrict of )anila were announced as follows2

3st - 8rnesto <ieva-%6363,

!nd - Honalo Honales-##G##,

"rd - Fonorio 9ope-"$I6",

#th - Pedro Alfonso-"#%#I,

$th - Avelino Cailian-"!#%!,

%th - ;oberto 7campo-"3!%#,Gth - Alberto +omingo-!IG3$&



Apparently, the City 4oard of Canvassers added the votes of

Pedro Alfonso to those of petitioner@s thereby placing her inthe fourth slot& Consequently, private respondent questionedsuch action& Fe prayed that the votes cast for Pedro Alfonsobe declared as stray votes and that, he be proclaimed as thesith winner for councilor& he C7)898C resolved private

respondent@s petition declaring votes cast in favor of PedroAlfonso as stray votes and to C;8+/ in favor of respondent/rma Alfonso only those votes cast with the name0A957<71 or /;)A A957<7& Petitioner thereby questionedsaid resolution before this Court, which dismissed the

aforesaid petition in a minute resolution, after *nding nograve abuse of discretion on the part of the C7)898C&



Issue

Whether or not the C7)898C acted with

grave abuse of discretion in denying thepetitioner@s motion for recount?



(uling<o& At the outset, petitioner@s prayer for a reopening of the ballots is not

a proper issue for a pre-proclamation controversy& he issues raised by

petitioner should be threshed out in election protest& 8rrors in theappreciation of ballots by the board of inspectors are proper subBect forelection protest and not for recount or re-appreciation of ballots&

he appreciation of the ballots cast in the precincts is not a Jproceedingof the board of canvassers@ for purposes of pre-proclamationproceedings under ection !#3, 7mnibus 8lection Code, but of the

boards of election inspectors who are called upon to count andappreciate the votes in accordance with the rules of appreciationprovided in ection !33, 7mnibus 8lection Code& 7therwise stated, theappreciation of ballots is not part of the proceedings of the board ofcanvassers& he complete election returns whose authenticity is not inquestion, must be prima facie considered valid for the purpose of

canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning candidates&



#ctions for annulment

in pre-proclamationcontroversies

When Actions for Annulment of 8lection ;eturns

may be proper grounds for pre-proclamationcontroversies2 speci*c irregularities such as2

3&5raud

!&ubstitution or vote-buying

"& errorism



he C7)898C may conduct technicaleamination of election documents andcompare and analye voters@ signatures and

*ngerprints in order to determine whether ornot the elections had been free, honest, andclean&

E"ect of :ling pre



E"ect of :ling pre-proclamationcontroversy

ec& !#I provides that the *ling with the

Commission of a petition to annul or suspendthe proclamation of any candidate shallsuspend the running of the period withinwhich to *le an election protest or ?uo

7arranto proceedings&



ec& !#! provides that the Commission shallhave eclusive Burisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies& /t may motu

rorio or upon written petition, and after duenotice and hearing, order the partial or totalsuspension of the proclamation of anycandidate-elect or annul partially or totally

any proclamation, if one has been made asthe evidence shall warrant&



E"ect of proclamation

of 9inning candidate

A pre-proclamation controversy shall no

longer be viable after the proclamation andassumption into oce by the candidate whoseelection is contested&

hould be dismissed and instead, *le anelection protest



ProcedureComposition and Proceedings of the 4oard of CanvassersWhere2 4oard of Canvassers or directly with the C7)898C

C7)898C ;ules require that any such petition must be *ledimmediately when the board begins to act as such or at thetime the appointment of the member whose capacity to sitis obBected to& 7therwise, waived&

Within !# hours, the 4oard ma>es a ruling hours wKnotice tothe petitioner Appeal2 C7)898C

Within $ days from *ling of appeal, the C7)898C 8n 4ancshall decide Appeal2 C petition for certiorari: within "6d from receipt of copy of

adverse decision



8lection ;eturns and

Certi*cates of CanvassWhere2 4oard47C cannot inquire into the manner of the

preparation of the returns by the board ofelection inspectors and the defects theretomust be plainly visible 0on its face1



9ee v& C7)898C2if the apparent return loo>s regular on its facebut one can present prima facie evidence thatthough apparently regular, is not genuine not

only because it may have been transmittedfrom an irregular and unocial site, theC78)89C may not be entirely powerless to*nd a basis for the eclusion of the contested

return& his requires technical epertise&



purious election returns must be obBected to7;A99L before the chairperson of the 4oardwhen it is open presented for inclusion&7therwise, waived&

7bBections made after canvass are deemed late

7bBections must be faithfully recorded, notedand entered in the minutes of the canvass wKthe date and hour



7bBecting party shall also enter his obBectionsin written form

Within !# hours from presentation of writtenobBection, the obBector must submit evidence

Adverse party may, !# hours after this, *le awritten and veri*ed opposition

7bBections or 7ppositions shall be formallyadmitted by the Chairman

Chairman then signs the bac> of every pageof evidence



47C then summarily, and immediately rules,signed by the members

Parties wishing to appeal shall inform the4oard& he latter shall then enter such appealin the minutes and set aside the contested

returns&



Correction of )anifest

8rrors in tabulationWhere manual:2 4oard of Canvassers or direct to

C7)898C

7bviously, in automated elections, tabulation is done

electronically/f adversely aected, inform 47C of intent to appeal

47C shall enter the information in the minutes and setaside the contested returns and meantime, suspend the

canvass&Within #I hours, the party aected by the 47C@s ruling

may *le a written and veri*ed notice of appeal wK the47C



Within $ days ta>e an appeal to the C7)898C period

non-etendable: Appeal must contain all the duly accomplished forms

/mmediately after receipt of notice of appeal, the 47C

shall ma>e a report to the C7)898C, elevate thecomplete records, and furnish the parties with copiesof the report

C7)898C shall decide the appeal within G days fromreceipt&



7nce the appeal has been duly *led wK the C7)898C,47C shall not proclaim any candidate unlessauthoried by the Commission after the latter has ruledon the appeal& A<L P;7C9A)A/7< )A+8 /<E/79A/7< 75 F/ / E7/+ unless the contested

returns will not change the result of the election

he decision of the C7)898C shall be eecutor after Gdays from its receipt by the losing party&

Appeal from this shall be ta>en with the C via petitionfor certiorari "6 days from receipt&



P(OCE&7(E 7)&E(26E #72OM#2E&

EEC2IO) 3A32EM#E3



/f *led directly with the 47C



/f *led directly with the C7)898C

Proce ure t e



Proce ure t eillegality of

proceedings of theBOC 9as discovered

after the oDcialproclamation of the

supposed results



3#B&7#6 M#C#B#'O vs. COMMI33IO) O)

EEC2IO)3 and @#M#E 3##COP



4#C23Petitioner abdullah & )acabago was proclaimed

)unicipal )ayor of aguiran, 9anao del ur&

Petitioner had alead of 3=I votes over private respondent Damael )& alacop&

Private respondent *led a petition against petitioner and

the proclaimed vice mayor of aguiran, 9anao del ur,forthe alleged fact that there was a massive su$stitution of voters, rampant and pervasive irregularities invoting procedures in some precincts and a failure of the4oard of 8lection /nspectors 48/: to comply with ections

!I and != of Comelec ;esolution <o& "G#" and ection3=" of the 7mnibus 8lection Code, thus rendering theelection process in those precincts a sham and a moc>eryand the proclamation of the winning candidates a nullity&



/n support of his petition, private respondent

appended thereto photocopies of randomEoters ;egistration ;ecords E;;s: evidencing

the fraud and deceit that allegedly permeatedthe electoral process, as well as adavitstending to prove that serious irregularities

were committed in the conduct of the

elections in the subBect precincts& he petitioner denied the material and averredthat it is a pre-proclamation controversy&



he C7)898C 8n 4anc too> cogniance of the petition andissued an order directing the 8lection 7cer of aguiran,9anao del ur, to bring to and produce before theC7)898C 7ce in )anila the original E;;s of thequestioned precincts for technical eamination

After its eamination of the evidence submitted bypetitioner, the C7)898C concluded that there wasconvincing proof of massive fraud in the conduct of theelections in the four #: precincts that necessitated a

technical eamination of the original copies of theE;;s and their comparison with the voters@ signatures and*ngerprints&



I337EWK< this was a proper ground for a pre-

proclamation controversy



(7I)'<7& he fraud and irregularities catalogued byprivate respondent required the reception ofevidence aliunde. hese grounds are not

proper bases for a pre-proclamationcontroversy but are appropriate for a regularelection contest within the original Burisdictionof the ;C&

Ppc Presentationb

Documents

Transcript of Ppc Presentationb