547 Phil. 226
QUISUMBING, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to GRANT the instant petition finding it imbued with merit.On appeal, the COMELEC en banc denied the motion for reconsideration:
The proclamation of ANTENOR A. ARBONIDA as the eighth (8th) Municipal Councilor of Tanza, Cavite in the May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections is hereby ANNULLED and he is ORDERED to CEASE AND DESIST from exercising the powers and duties of the aforesaid office and to VACATE the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tanza, Cavite are (sic) hereby DIRECTED to RECONVENE, make the proper corrections and PROCLAIM petitioner ROMEO C. CARINGAL as the duly elected eighth (8th) Municipal Council of Tanza, Cavite in the May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections.[5]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for LACK OF MERIT.Petitioner now raises the following issues for this Court's consideration:
Accordingly, the status quo ante order issued by this Commission on 14 December 2004 is hereby lifted. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tanza, Cavite is therefore directed to (i) reconvene after due notice to all concerned parties, (ii) correct the errors in the Statement of Votes by Precinct based on the figures appearing on the election returns of the subject precincts, (iii) prepare a new Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation and thereafter, (iv) proclaim Romeo C. Caringal as the 8th winning candidate for Sangguniang Bayan of Tanza, Cavite, during the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections.x x x x[6]
Simply stated, the issues for our resolution are (1) whether the petition filed is a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy; (2) if so, whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed beyond the period provided by law and the rules; and (3) whether the COMELEC First Division is without jurisdiction to issue the November 18, 2004 resolution.I.
WHETHER OR NOT, CONSIDERING THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, SPC NO. 04-274 IS A PRE-PROCLAMATION CASE, AND EVEN IF IT WERE, WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE FILED BEYOND FIVE (5) DAYS FROM PROCLAMATION;II.
WHETHER OR NOT CARINGAL COULD CHANGE HIS CAUSE OF ACTION TO ONE FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF PROCLAMATION WHICH COULD BE BEYOND FIVE DAYS FROM PROCLAMATION - (35 days from proclamation)[;]III.
AND ASSUMING COMELEC HAS JURISDICTION OVER SPC NO. 04-274 WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE RESOLVED BY THE DIVISION OF THE COMMISSION;IV.
WHETHER OR NOT GIVEN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE VALIDLY FILED[;]V.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC COULD VALIDLY SUSPEND THE RULES IN THE CASE AT BAR WHERE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE MAIN CASE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC COULD VALIDLY SUSPEND THE RULES IN THE CASE AT BAR TO JUSTIFY ITS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION;VI.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2005...AND OF NOVEMBER 18, 2004...SHOULD BE NULLIFIED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF COMELEC.[7]
An examination and comparison of the subject Election Returns and the Statement of Votes by Precincts clearly reveals that there were indeed discrepancies in the number of votes reflected between the two documents. The discrepancies stand thus:The Omnibus Election Code defines a pre-proclamation controversy as follows:INCREASE FOR THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT [ARBONIDA]
PRECINCT NO. VOTES AS PER ELECTION RETURNS VOTES IN STATEMENT OF VOTES PER PRECINCT 48C 35 55 49A 26 36 50B 37 57 50C 22 32 84C
53 65 96A 25 35 100A 23 33 100B 57 77 101A 47 57 104A 67 77 104C 66 76 105A/106A 73 83 107A 55 65 107B 61 67 107C 57 67 107D/107E 78 88 32A 24 34 32D 31 51 32E 21 41 TOTAL: 858 TOTAL: 1098[12] DECREASE FOR PETITIONER [CARINGAL] PRECINCT NO. VOTES AS PER ELECTION RETURNS VOTES IN STATEMENT OF VOTES PER PRECINCT 29B 27 21 143C 43 42 TOTAL: 70 TOTAL: 63
x x x x
By virtue of these errors, private respondent [Arbonida] gained two hundred forty (240) additional votes. Deducting it from the fourteen thousand six hundred twenty (14,620) he supposedly received, as reflected in the Statement of Votes by Precinct, private respondent [Arbonida] wound up with fourteen thousand three hundred eighty (14,380) votes.
As regard (sic) the petitioner [Caringal], a total of seven (7) votes were subtracted from his votes. Adding it to the fourteen thousand five hundred fifty-two (14,552) votes he obtained, as written in the Statement of Votes by Precinct, petitioner [Caringal] should instead have fourteen thousand five hundred fifty-nine (14,559) votes.
Therefore, seeing that, between the two, the petitioner [Caringal] garnered more votes, he, and not the private respondent [Arbonida], should have been proclaimed as the duly elected eighth (8th) Municipal Councilor of Tanza, Cavite.[13]
Sec. 241. Definition. - A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.In this case, the petition filed by Caringal before the COMELEC involves a pre-proclamation controversy and not an election contest. Although the petition alleged fraud, the remedy sought was merely for correction of erroneous entries in the statements of votes which were based on the election returns.
...While our election laws are silent when such and similar petitions may be filed directly with the COMELEC, the above-quoted Section 5, Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five (5) days following the date of proclamation. The COMELEC, however, could suspend its own Rules of Procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate. For adherence to technicality that would put a stamp on a palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will, cannot be countenanced.[19]And so it is in the case at bar.
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. (Emphasis supplied.)The Constitution clearly mandates that pre-proclamation controversies must be first heard and decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the en banc if a motion for reconsideration were filed. This Court has consistently ruled that the requirement of hearing and decision of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance by a division of the COMELEC, and not by it as a whole, is mandatory and jurisdictional.[21] The constitutional provision yields to no other interpretation other than what its plain meaning presents.