Balindong v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 124041 (August 9, 1996)

Sultan Amer Balindong's election challenge was dismissed; SC found claims didn't affect results.

Facts:

Petitioner Sultan Amer Balindong and private respondent Cabib A. Tanog were candidates for the position of municipal mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur during the elections held on May 8, 1995. Following the canvass, Tanog was declared the winner with 2,271 votes, while Balindong received 2,122 votes, resulting in a margin of 149 votes in favor of Tanog.

On May 17, 1995, Balindong filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to suspend or annul Tanog's proclamation, alleging that the polling place for Precinct No. 4 had been improperly transferred from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo without prior notice or hearing. This transfer allegedly disenfranchised voters from Lumbac, who were primarily Balindong's supporters. He claimed that the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proceeded with the canvass despite his objections, including the election return from the disputed precinct.

On June 17, 1995, Balindong submitted a supplemental petition, asserting that the election return from Precinct No. 4 was "obviously manufactured" due to "massive substitute voting." He requested a technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks on the List of Voters and Voters' Affidavits from that precinct.

The Board of Election Inspectors had transferred the polling place on election day, citing the lack of a public school in Lumbac and concerns for free elections. The resolution for the transfer was signed by the Board members and watchers, although Balindong claimed his watchers were intimidated into signing. He also filed a petition for the disqualification of the Board members due to their familial ties to Tanog, but it was not acted upon before the election.

Despite Balindong's objections and a complaint-affidavit from 63 voters who claimed they were unable to vote, the election returns from Precinct No. 4 were included in the canvass. Following the proclamation of Tanog as mayor on May 16, 1995, Balindong filed his petitions with the COMELEC.

The COMELEC dismissed Balindong's petitions on June 26, 1995, ruling that the issues raised were more appropriate for an election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy. This decision was affirmed upon reconsideration by the COMELEC en banc.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the transfer of the polling place from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo was valid and if it warranted the annulment of Tanog's proclamation.
  2. Whether the alleged disenfranchisement of voters and the claims of "massive substitute voting" justified a declaration of failure of election.
  3. Whether the COMELEC erred in denying Balindong's request for a technical examination of the election documents.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Balindong):

    • Argued that the transfer of the polling place was illegal and disenfranchised his supporters, which affected the election results.
    • Claimed that the election return from Precinct No. 4 was manufactured due to massive substitute voting and requested a technical examination to prove this.
    • Contended that the COMELEC's refusal to annul the proclamation constituted grave abuse of discretion.

  • Respondents (COMELEC and Tanog):

    • Asserted that while the transfer of the polling place was illegal, it did not constitute a failure of election since voting occurred and the number of disenfranchised voters (66) was insufficient to affect the election outcome.
    • Argued that the allegations of fraud and irregularities were unsubstantiated and that the election returns appeared authentic on their face.
    • Maintained that the issues raised were more suitable for an election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed Balindong's petition, affirming the COMELEC's decision. The Court reasoned that the mere illegality of the polling place transfer did not automatically lead to a declaration of failure of election. It emphasized that for such a declaration to be warranted, the number of uncast votes must significantly affect the election results. In this case, even if all disenfranchised voters had voted for Balindong, he would still have lost by a margin of 86 votes.

The Court also ruled that the COMELEC was correct in denying the request for a technical examination of the election documents. It reiterated that in pre-proclamation controversies, the COMELEC is limited to examining the election returns as they appear and cannot investigate allegations of irregularities unless the returns are obviously manufactured. The Court found no evidence of such manufacturing in this case.

Finally, the Court concluded that Balindong's appropriate remedy was to file an election protest before the Regional Trial Court, where he could present evidence regarding the alleged irregularities and their impact on the election results.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The legality of polling place transfers must comply with the Omnibus Election Code, and violations do not automatically result in a failure of election unless they materially affect the outcome.
  2. In pre-proclamation controversies, the COMELEC is restricted to examining the election returns on their face and cannot delve into allegations of fraud or irregularities unless they are evident from the returns themselves.
  3. The appropriate remedy for a losing candidate alleging election irregularities is to file an election protest rather than seek annulment of the proclamation through a pre-proclamation controversy.