509 Phil. 364
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
1. The MBOC acted in violation of RA 7166 and Comelec Resolution No. 2962 (6669) and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in proclaiming private respondent (Espidol) as winner despite the pending and unresolved appeals before it, the railroading of petitions for exclusion without any hearing and written rulings thereon, and the petitions for exclusion which were not acted and ruled upon by it, considering that the contested returns will adversely affect the results of the election.On June 9, 2004, the COMELEC Second Division issued summonses with notice of hearing on June 17, 2004. During the said hearing, the parties made their respective manifestations. Subsequently, petitioner Espidol was given five (5) days to file his Answer-Memorandum, while private respondent Tabag and De Guzman were also given the same period to file their respective memoranda. On June 21, 2004, private respondent Tabag filed his Memorandum, while petitioner Espidol and De Guzman filed their respective Answer-Memoranda on June 22, 2004.[20]
2. The proclamation by the board of private respondent as winner, is vitiated by duress, coercion, intimidation and threats and the mob rule, and the preparation of the election returns in certain barangays of the municipality is likewise vitiated by intimidation and threats resulting to falsified and materially defective returns and failure of elections and, therefore, not made freely and voluntarily as the true will of the electorate, considering that the contested returns will affect the results of the election.
3. The integrity, genuineness and sanctity of the contested election returns have been violated because the security envelopes containing the election returns do not have the proper seals provided by the commission for the purpose when prepared by the BEI until the same were subsequently transmitted to and canvassed by the MBOC, the election returns did not bear the signature of the chairman of the BEIs, the election returns do not have the thumbmarks/thumbprints of the members of the BEI in the boxes provided for the purpose, and in some, the thumbmarks and signatures of the BEI at the close of each entry or at the end of each tally/taras of each candidate were superimposed on the said tally/taras thereby obscuring the number of votes obtained by each at the end of every entry.
4. Discrepancy in the statement of votes by precinct of the MBOC where the sum total of the number of votes obtained by the three (3) mayoralty candidates is greater than the number of those who actually voted in all the 117 precincts of the municipality of Ramon, Isabela.[19]
Due to the seriousness of the allegation that the Board of Canvassers issued the proclamation even before questions involving the validity of returns which will affect the result of the election are resolved by the Commission, which is clearly in violation of the above mandated procedure, and, further, that the proclamation of private respondent [referring to Espidol] as the Mayor-elect of the Municipality of Ramon, Isabela was allegedly issued under duress, and with intimidation, coercion and threats, the Commission (Second Division) hereby orders that the effect of the proclamation of private respondent Raymond P. Espidol be suspended until the issues raised on the irregularities and alleged duress in the issuance of the proclamation be resolved on the merit.In defiance of the said order, petitioner Espidol took his oath of office as Mayor of Ramon, Isabela on June 25, 2004.[25] Consequently, on June 26, 2004, private respondent Tabag filed with the COMELEC an urgent motion to annul the oath of petitioner Espidol and to restrain him from assuming the duties and functions of the Municipal Mayor of Ramon, Isabela. Private respondent Tabag also prayed that petitioner Espidol be cited for contempt for blatantly disregarding the June 23, 2004 Order.[26]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Second Division of the Commission hereby SUSPENDS THE EFFECT OF THE PROCLAMATION of private respondent Raymond P. Espidol, with the note that the instant petition shall be resolved on the merit with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.[24]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent [referring to petitioner Espidol] is hereby directed to submit his comment to the above motion within five (5) days from notice. A stern warning is further directed upon respondent to refrain from committing acts which are in contravention of the Commission's June 23, 2004 Order and which tend to obstruct the proper resolution by the Commission of the present controversy, lest a severe sanction shall be imposed upon the same.Notwithstanding the two orders, on June 30, 2004 - the beginning of the term of office of all elective officials - Espidol assumed office as Mayor of Ramon, Isabela and has since been discharging its functions and duties.
SO ORDERED.[27]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition to Annul the Proclamation of Respondent Raymond P. Espidol, as Mayor of Ramon, Isabela, is hereby GRANTED; consequently, the proclamation of Respondent Raymond P. Espidol is hereby declared NULL and VOID. A Municipal Board of Canvassers shall be reconstituted to conduct a re-canvassing of the election returns strictly adhering to the prescribed procedures for canvassing and in handling contested election returns; meanwhile, the Vice-Mayor elect shall temporarily assume the mayoralty post as Acting Mayor, until further notice; furthermore, the Provincial Commanding Officer of the Philippine National Police in the Province of Isabela is hereby deputized, together with the Chief of Police of the Municipality of Ramon, Isabela, to assist the Election Officer of the same municipality, in ensuring that this resolution be immediately enforced. Let a copy of this resolution be furnished to the Department of Interior and Local Government for their information and guidance in implementing the provision on temporary succession in the local government as provided in the Local Government Code.On July 21, 2004, petitioner Espidol filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC Second Division.[30]
The charge of indirect contempt against respondent Raymond P. Espidol shall be treated as a separate case and subjected to a hearing in compliance with the requirements of due process. Petitioner is further advised that the appropriate complaint for election offense against the alleged offenders be filed with the Commission.
SO ORDERED.[29]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission En Banc hereby DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration of Private Respondent for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Second Division of the Commission ANNULLING THE PROCLAMATION of Private Respondent Raymond Espidol. We further AFFIRM the Second Division's issuance of the interlocutory order SUSPENDING THE EFFECT OF THE PROCLAMATION of Private Respondent Raymond Espidol. We further emphasize that private respondent Raymond Espidol has no authority to assume the Office of the Mayor from the very beginning or on June 30, 2004, his proclamation being null and void ab initio. Private respondent Raymond Espidol is hereby directed to physically vacate the Office of the Mayor for having no authority to assume and remain therein. Accordingly, as provided in the Local Government Code, the Vice-Mayor is hereby directed to assume the Office of the Mayor temporarily until the controversy as to who shall assume the post shall have been resolved. Let a copy of this resolution be issued to the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Philippine National Police for their information and guidance. Furthermore, the Provincial Commander of the Philippine National Police of the Province of Isabela, as assisted by the Municipal Chief of Police of Ramon, Isabela is hereby DEPUTIZED TO ASSIST the Election Officer of Ramon, Isabela or any authorized representative of the Commission on Elections, and ENSURE that this resolution be ENFORCED.The COMELEC en banc affirmed the findings of the Second Division as it held that "the proclamation of petitioner Espidol is null and void for having been made amidst questionable circumstances, particularly by railroading the proclamation, as admitted by the Chairman of the MBC, when he failed or refused to follow the canvassing procedure, especially the issuance of written rulings in the disposition of objected election returns." This fact, according to the COMELEC en banc, is also revealed by the minutes of the board of canvassers when no report was made that written rulings were issued in the disposition of the objections to the election returns. The COMELEC en banc thus ruled that the Second Division was correct in preliminarily suspending the effects of petitioner Espidol's proclamation and eventually annulling the same.
SO ORDERED.[32]
Petitioner Espidol contends that De Guzman's tale of threats and intimidation should have been taken by the COMELEC with a grain of salt. It being "patently baseless and totally fabricated," the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in swallowing the same "hook, line and sinker." Petitioner Espidol also assails the COMELEC Second Division's interlocutory order suspending the effects of his proclamation, claiming that the same was issued without the required notice and hearing.IDid respondent COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it resolved to affirm the 16 July 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division which erroneously held that the MBC of Ramon, Isabela did not follow the prescribed procedure in disposing the private respondents objection to certain ERs[?]IIDid respondent COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it held that the petitioner's proclamation was vitiated by threat, intimidation, coercion and duress[?]IIIDid respondent COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion [a]mounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it suspended the effects of the petitioner's proclamation[?][35]
Section 234. Material defects in the election returns. - If it should clearly appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction.In his Comment,[36] private respondent Tabag supports the findings of the COMELEC. In addition, he avers that the petition is defective since it failed to implead Vice-Mayor Mercedez M. Vizcarra, who is now the Acting Mayor of Ramon, Isabela. He argues that Vice-Mayor Vizcarra is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the action may be had.
Provided, That in case of the omission in the election returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes, the board of canvassers shall require the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the necessary data in the election returns and affix therein their initials: Provided, further, That if the votes omitted in the returns cannot be ascertained by other means except by recounting the ballots, the Commission, after satisfying itself that the identity and integrity of the ballot box have not been violated, shall order the board of election inspectors to open the ballot box, and, also after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved, order the board of election inspectors to count the votes for the candidate whose votes have been omitted with notice thereof to all candidates for the position involved and thereafter complete the returns.
The right of a candidate to avail of this provision shall not be lost or affected by the fact that an election protest is subsequently filed by any of the candidates.
(a) Any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any election returns on any of the grounds authorized under Article XX or Section 234, 235 and 236 of Article XIX of the Omnibus Election Code shall submit their oral objection to the chairman of the board of canvassers at the time the questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass. Such objection shall be recorded in the minutes of the canvass.In the present case, private respondent Tabag, through his lawyers, sought during the canvassing the exclusion of several election returns on various grounds, among them: lack of inner paper seals, lack of signature of the Chairman of the BEI, absence of thumbmarks of the members of the BEI, etc. These objections were tabulated[38] as follows:
(b) Upon receipt of any such objection, the board of canvassers shall automatically defer the canvass of the contested returns and shall proceed to canvass the returns which are not contested by any party.
(c) Simultaneous with the oral objection, the objecting party shall also enter his objection in the form for written objections to be prescribed by the Commission. Within twenty-four (24) hours from and after the presentation of such an objection, the objecting party shall submit the evidence in support of the objection, which shall be attached to the form for written objections. Within the same period of twenty-four (24) hours after presentation of the objection, any party may file a written and verified opposition to the objection in the form also to be prescribed by the Commission, attaching thereto supporting evidence, if any. The board shall not entertain any objection or opposition unless reduced to writing in the prescribed forms.
The evidence attached to the objection or opposition submitted by the parties, shall be immediately and formally admitted into the records of the board by the chairman affixing his signature at the back of each and every page thereof.
(d) Upon receipt of the evidence, the board shall take up the contested returns, consider the written objections thereto and opposition, if any, and summarily and immediately rule thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on the prescribed form and authenticate the same by the signatures of its members.
(e) Any party adversely affected by the ruling of the board shall immediately inform the board if he intends to appeal said ruling. The board shall enter said information in the minutes of the canvass, set aside the returns and proceed to consider the other returns.
(f) After all the uncontested returns have been canvassed and the contested returns ruled upon by it, the board shall suspend the canvass. Within forty-eight (48) hours therefrom, any party adversely affected by the ruling may file with the board a written and verified notice of appeal; and within an unextendible period of five (5) days thereafter, an appeal may be taken to the Commission.
(g) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the board shall make an appropriate report to the Commission, elevating therewith the complete records and evidence submitted in the canvass, and furnishing the parties with copies of the report.
(h) On the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the board, the Commission shall decide summarily the appeal within seven (7) days from receipt of the said records and evidence. Any appeal brought before the Commission on the ruling of the board, without the accomplished forms and the evidence appended thereto, shall be summarily dismissed.
The decision of the Commission shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt thereof by the losing party.
(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.[37]
Precint Number | | Number of Votes Cast |
2A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 151 |
4A/7A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 174 |
10A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 138 |
49A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 135 |
52A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 136 |
57A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 146 |
66A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 137 |
93A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 168 |
95/96A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 198 |
97A/98A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 178 |
103A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 164 |
112A | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; verbally appealed while written Notice of Appeal was not acted upon. | 141 |
15A | - petition for exclusion filed by respondent but inclusion was ruled by MBOC without written ruling; no appeal from private respondent. | 145 |
24A | - petition for exclusion filed by respondent but inclusion was ruled by MBOC without written ruling; no appeal from private respondent. | 132* |
47A & B | - petition for exclusion filed by petitioner but inclusion was ruled by MBOC without written ruling; no appeal from private respondent. | 242* |
63A | - petition for exclusion filed by respondent but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; no appeal from private respondent. | 138* |
88A | - petition for exclusion filed by respondent but inclusion was ordered by MBOC without written ruling; no appeal from private respondent. | 164* |
92A/94 | -canvass was deferred by MBOC for lack of summation on the first page of the ER but the inclusion thereafter was made without written ruling of the MBOC. | 188* |
50A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 158 |
56A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 149 |
60A/62A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 210 |
74A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 144 |
83A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 145 |
121A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 169 |
123A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 149 |
114A | - petition for exclusion with offer of evidence in writing was submitted in the morning but was not acted and not ruled upon, thereafter, MBOC proclaimed the respondent. | 161 |
There is no debate that an oral objection must be reduced into writing. Even the case laws cited by private respondent [referring to Espidol] assert the same requirement. However, there was never any discussion that the same shall be submitted at the same moment as the oral objection. The requirement therefore that written objections must be submitted simultaneously is just limited to the provision itself.Petitioner Espidol likewise justifies the MBC's failure to rule on the objections of private respondent Tabag by stating that these were not proper for pre-proclamation controversy; hence, the dismissal thereof by the MBC was proper. This contention deserves scant consideration.
To advance, therefore, the technical interpretation of the word simultaneous, is to require that written objections should be submitted at the same time with the oral objection. The fact that the rule speaks of an oral objection separate from the written form contemplates that both forms may be submitted at different moments, as long as this is done within reasonable time. Hence, if a counsel submits his written objection an hour later, the same may be considered compliance with the rule. The same may be the situation if counsel may submit his written objections at the end of the canvassing for the day. The question, therefore, is up to when "reasonable time" be in the submission of written objections.
The interpretation must be put in the context of the whole process of disposing objected returns. Considering that the objections have to be ruled upon by the board of canvassers based on the evidence which are required to be submitted within twenty-four (24) hours, the board, therefore, has to wait for at least twenty-four (24) hours, before they could rule on the objection. Hence, even if the board already has the written objections with them, they still cannot rule on the same until the evidence has been submitted within twenty-four (24) hours.
It is therefore, the consideration of this Commission that the board of canvassers should not rule on the objections of the parties until the twenty-four-hour (24) period has lapsed, unless they already have with them the written objections as well as the evidence. In that case, submission of written objections within twenty-four (24) hours together with the evidence, may be considered substantial compliance with the rule.[39]
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;Admittedly, the Court had the occasion to state that lack of inner paper seals in the election returns does not justify their exclusion from canvassing and that such is not proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy.[42] However, in the present case, aside from the lack of inner paper seals, private respondent Tabag raised other grounds for the exclusion of certain election returns, including lack of signature of the Chairman of the BEI and absence of thumbmarks of the members of the BEI.
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in another authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controversy polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.[41]
Sec. 212. Election returns. - The board of election inspectors shall prepare the election returns simultaneously with the counting of the votes in the polling place as prescribed in Section 210 hereof. The return shall be prepared in sextuplicate. The recording of votes shall be made as prescribed in said section. The entry of votes in words and figures for each candidate shall be closed with the signature and the clear imprint of the thumbmark of the right hand of all the members, likewise to be affixed in full view of the public, immediately after the last vote recorded or immediately after the name of the candidate who did not receive any vote.In relation thereto, the pertinent proviso of Section 234 of the OEC is quoted anew:...
If the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the members of the board of election inspectors or some as required in this provision are missing in the election returns, the board of canvassers may summon the members of the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the returns.
Sec. 234. Material defects in the election returns. - If it should appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all the members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction'Consequently, the absence of these signatures and thumbmarks rendered the said election returns materially defective and, therefore, proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy particularly falling under paragraph (b) of Section 243 of the OEC which is quoted anew:
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in another authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;Granting arguendo that the objections interposed by private respondent Tabag were not proper for a pre-proclamation controversy, nonetheless, the MBC should have made written rulings thereon. Under Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166, the board of canvassers is mandated to grant an objecting party 24 hours from the time of the presentation of the oral objection to submit its evidence. Thereafter, the other party is also given 24 hours to submit its opposition. If no opposition has been filed, the board shall rule on the objections and enter its ruling in the prescribed form and authenticate the same with the signatures of the members of the board. As earlier opined, De Guzman, as Chairman of the MBC, admitted in his Answer-Memorandum that the board did not make any written rulings on the objections interposed by private respondent Tabag, including those reduced to writing.
It is clear from this provision that the board of canvassers is under the obligation to make a written ruling on the formal objections made by any of the parties, who may then appeal the same to the COMELEC. It is equally clear that the failure or refusal of the board of canvassers to discharge this obligation should not in any way prejudice the objecting party's right to elevate the matter to the COMELEC for proper review. Otherwise, all that a board of canvassers partial to one of the candidates has to do to favor him would be to refuse to make a written ruling on his opponent's objections and thereby prevent their review by the COMELEC.[43]The Court notes that during the final day of the canvassing, or on May 15, 2004, private respondent Tabag made oral objections to the inclusion of several election returns. The canvassing concluded at about 9:30 p.m. of the said day. Barely 12 hours thereafter, or at 9:00 a.m. of May 16, 2004, the MBC proclaimed petitioner Espidol as the mayor-elect of Ramon, Isabela. By so doing, the MBC effectively deprived private respondent Tabag of the opportunity to seasonably substantiate his oral objections with evidence and submit the corresponding written objections. The proclamation of petitioner Espidol was clearly made with undue haste, considering that it was made even before the lapse of the 24-hour period given to private respondent Tabag under Section 20(c) of R.A. No. 7166 to submit the evidence and written objections in support of his oral objections. In other words, the MBC, without awaiting for or considering private respondent Tabag's evidence and written objections to support his oral objections and, consequently, without any lawful ruling thereon, proclaimed petitioner Espidol.
(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.The following pronouncement in Jamil v. Comelec[44] is likewise instructive:
It is our considered view that both proclamations of petitioner and private respondent are invalid.In addition, it is significant to note that the COMELEC Second Division found a discrepancy between the number of votes cast for the mayoralty candidates and the number of registered voters who actually voted. Upon verification of the SOV, the COMELEC Second Division discovered that the total number of those who actually voted was 17,207; on the other hand, the total number of votes cast for the mayoralty candidates added up to 18,065, hence, exceeding the total number of those who actually voted by 858. This finding was affirmed by the COMELEC en banc.
Clear it is that petitioner Jamil was proclaimed on June 26, 1995 after Casan Macadato, chairman of the second MBC, conducted an investigation with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of the returns from Precinct Nos. 5, 10-1 and 20-1 and after he submitted his investigation report, which he alone signed, to the COMELEC on June 5, 1995 merely recommending the inclusion of the three (3) returns in the canvass. As we have mentioned above, said investigation report was not in form or substance a ruling of the MBC because it did not make a definitive pronouncement or disposition resolving the issues regarding the questioned returns but only a recommendation to the COMELEC. There being no ruling on the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed returns, there could have been no complete and valid canvass which is a prerequisite to a valid proclamation.[45]
The above discrepancy may not yet overturn the alleged lead of respondent [referring to Espidol] from petitioner [referring to Tabag] but such figure tells of the fact that a deliberate attempt to pad one's votes may have transpired, and the Commission cannot just close its eyes to this travesty of the integrity of the electoral process. In addition to this, when We consider all the other circumstances surrounding the canvassing of the returns in Ramon, Isabela, including the admission of the MBOC Chairman of the presence of threats and intimidation, as well as the irregularities in the accomplishment of the election returns as found during the canvassing, We are led to conclude that the proceedings of the MBOC in Ramon, Isabela has been irregular and that the same has been vitiated with threats and intimidation, hence, annulment of Respondent's proclamation is in order.[49]Under the foregoing circumstances, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it nullified the proclamation of petitioner Espidol. In a long line of cases, the Court has affirmed the power of the COMELEC to annul an illegal canvass and proclamation.[50]
The order to suspend the effect of private respondent's [referring to petitioner Espidol] proclamation is an interlocutory order based on a prima facie finding that the allegations raised by the petitioner have merits. It is also intended to prevent private respondent from having the advantage of incumbency, hence, depriving him of the possibility of delaying the resolution of this case and of a possible election protest. If, on the other hand, private respondent is confident that he is the true winner of the election then such fact will come out during the re-canvassing of the election returns. However, if he has something to hide then his best strategy, indeed, is to grab the proclamation, assume the office and delay any controversy or protest filed against him until the end of the term of the subject office.In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[52] Clearly, petitioner Espidol was given full opportunity to present his side on the petition for annulment filed by private respondent Tabag.
Such interlocutory order was eventually justified by the actuation of private respondent of taking his oath of office and in actually assuming the post of Mayor despite the order suspending the effect of his proclamation. His counsel should have advised him to follow the order of the Commission and push for the immediate resolution of the controversy so that any doubt as regards his proclamation will immediately be erased, unless, such doubt is corroborated during the re-canvassing of the election returns.[51]
We draw from past experience. A pattern of conduct observed in past elections has been the "pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest-slogan" of some candidates or parties." Really, were a victim of a proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene. It may not be out of place to state that in the long history of election contests in this country, as served in Lagumbay v. Climaco, successful contestant in an election protest often wins but "a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has expired." Protests, counter-protests, revisions of ballots, appeals, dilatory tactics, may well frustrate the will of the electorate. And what if the protestant may not have the resources and an unwavering determination with which to sustain a long drawn-out election contest? In this context therefore all efforts should be strained - as far as is humanly possible - to take election returns out of the reach of the unscrupulous; and to prevent illegal or fraudulent proclamation from ripening into illegal assumption of office.[58]All told, the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming in toto the resolution of the Second Division annulling the proclamation of petitioner Espidol.