Dimaporo vs. COMELEC

A proclamation made before any status quo ante order or TRO is valid and, once the winning candidate takes his oath and assumes office, vests the HRET with exclusive jurisdiction over the congressional election contest, ending the COMELEC’s jurisdiction. The COMELEC may act on a petition to correct manifest errors in COCs under Section 15, R.A. No. 7166.

Imelda Q. Dimaporo and Vicente Belmonte competed for the House seat of the 1st Congressional District of Lanao del Norte in the May 14, 2007 elections. The district covered the Municipalities of Linamon, Kauswagan, Bacolod, Maigo, Kolambugan, Tubod, Baroy, and the City of Iligan. The dispute is governed by Section 15, R.A. No. 7166, which bars pre-proclamation cases in House elections except for correction of manifest errors, and by Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which vests the HRET with jurisdiction over contests involving House members.

Dimaporo and Belmonte were rival candidates for Representative of the 1st Congressional District of Lanao del Norte in the May 14, 2007 elections. The district was composed of the Municipalities of Linamon, Kauswagan, Bacolod, Maigo, Kolambugan, Tubod, Baroy, and the City of Iligan.

Sometime in the evening of May 19, 2007, the ballot boxes containing the COCs of Kauswagan, Bacolod, and Maigo were allegedly forcibly opened, their padlocks destroyed, and the envelopes containing the COCs and the Statement of Votes opened and violated. When the PBOC was about to resume canvassing at around 9:00 a.m. the succeeding day, the forced opening was discovered, prompting the PBOC to suspend the canvass. On May 22, 2007, the PBOC completed the canvass of the COCs for Iligan City and four municipalities—Linamon, Kolambugan, Tubod, and Baroy—and, upon adjournment that day, issued a Certification showing Belmonte leading with 52,783 votes, followed by Badelles with 39,315 votes, and Dimaporo in third place with 35,150 votes. On the same day, Commissioner-in-Charge of CARAGA Region Nicodemo Ferrer issued a Resolution ordering that the canvassing of the ballots contained in the tampered ballot boxes of Kauswagan, Maigo, and Bacolod be suspended until the NBI submitted its findings to the Commission.

On May 24, 2007, the NBI submitted its report. It found that the culprit(s) managed to enter the room of Vice-Governor Irma Umpa Ali, which was used as a staging and hiding place while persons were still allowed to enter the building during the canvassing; that on the night of May 19, 2007, the culprit(s) hid in that room and waited until no persons were allowed inside the building except the provincial guard on duty at the ground floor near the entrance door; and that the culprit(s) then entered the Session Hall by using a hard ID card or similar object inserted between the door and door-lock and destroyed the padlocks of the ballot boxes for Bacolod, Maigo, and Kauswagan. On the same day, Atty. Dennis L. Ausan, Regional Director, Region X, issued a Very Urgent Memorandum to the COMELEC En Banc enclosing the NBI report and recommending that the COMELEC En Banc order the PBOC to reconvene solely to retrieve the three envelopes supposedly containing the COCs from the three municipalities, open them in the presence of all watchers, counsels, representatives of all contending parties, and the accredited Citizens’ Arm, and turn them over to the NBI for technical examination by its questioned documents expert; the memorandum also requested that the PBOC turn over to the NBI the copies of the COCs for the three municipalities intended for the Commission and the Election Officer for comparison with those retrieved from the questioned ballot box.

On May 25, 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8073 adopting in part Atty. Ausan’s recommendation and directing the PBOC to immediately reconvene solely to retrieve the three envelopes supposedly containing the COCs from Kauswagan, Bacolod, and Maigo, to open them in the presence of all watchers, counsels, and representatives of all contending parties and the accredited Citizens’ Arm, and to direct the representatives of the dominant majority and minority parties to present their respective copies of the COCs for comparison with the COCs intended for the COMELEC and with the COCs inside the envelope just opened. The COMELEC further resolved that when discrepancies showed signs of tampering and falsifying, the PBOC was to immediately turn over to the NBI the copies of the COCs of the three municipalities intended for the Commission and the Election Officer for comparison with those retrieved from the questioned ballot boxes. On May 30, 2007, Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer issued a Memorandum relieving the PBOC of its functions and constituting a special provincial board of canvassers. He ordered that upon opening the envelopes containing the COCs found inside the tampered ballot boxes for Kauswagan, Maigo, and Bacolod, the same shall at once be canvassed in the presence of the candidates and/or their representatives, taking note of whatever objections they may interpose on any entries in said COCs. He also directed that no candidate be proclaimed until ordered by the Commission through the undersigned Commissioner-in-Charge of Region X, and that any appeal be immediately elevated to the Commission.

No canvassing took place on May 30, 2007 because a human barricade of some 100 persons blocked the entrance to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan building. The chairman and members of the new SPBOC arrived at the venue in Tubod, Lanao del Norte at 10:15 p.m. on May 31, 2007, but the human barricade had swelled to some 300 persons, so the canvassing still did not take place. On June 1, 2007, the new SPBOC convened and opened the ballot boxes for Kauswagan, Maigo, and Bacolod. As the SPBOC proceeded with the canvass, Belmonte objected to the inclusion of the COCs of the concerned municipalities on the grounds that there were manifest errors in the COCs; that the numbers of votes in words and in figures opposite the names of the candidates contained intercalations done through the application of a white correction fluid (“SnoPake”), which intercalations were visible to the naked eye; that the COCs were obviously manufactured; that the COCs were tampered or falsified; that the intercalations in the COCs were not made or prepared by the Municipal Board of Canvassers concerned; and that the SOVs likewise contained intercalations done through “SnoPake” resulting in an altered number of votes. Belmonte then filed his verified notice of appeal before the SPBOC on June 1, 2007, his appeal memorandum on June 5, 2007, and his alternative petition to correct manifest errors with the COMELEC on June 7, 2007. On September 26, 2007, before the SC issued any status quo ante order, Belmonte was proclaimed by the PBOC as the duly elected Member of the House of Representatives of the First Congressional District of Lanao del Norte; on the same day, he took his oath before Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. and assumed his duties.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction: Dimaporo claimed that the subject matter involved not manifest errors but the “preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation” of certificates of canvass, a matter outside the COMELEC’s jurisdiction when a congressional seat is involved; she cited Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166. She prayed for a TRO, reversal of the July 10, 2007 and September 5, 2007 resolutions, and proclamation as the duly elected Representative.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction: Whether the COMELEC may take cognizance of a petition to correct manifest errors in certificates of canvass in a congressional election despite the prohibition on pre-proclamation cases under Section 15, R.A. No. 7166.
• HRET Jurisdiction: Whether Belmonte’s proclamation, oath, and assumption of office before any status quo ante order or TRO vested the HRET with exclusive jurisdiction and warranted dismissal of Dimaporo’s petition.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction: Yes. Section 15, R.A. No. 7166 bars pre-proclamation cases on the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of COCs, but expressly does not preclude the appropriate canvassing body from correcting manifest errors motu proprio or upon written complaint. The COMELEC treated Belmonte’s petition as one for correction of manifest errors and was not amiss in acting on it.
• HRET Jurisdiction: Yes. Once Belmonte was proclaimed, took his oath, and assumed office before any status quo order, the HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction over the congressional election contest began and the COMELEC’s jurisdiction ended; the petition was dismissed.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction: The SC quoted Section 15, R.A. No. 7166: for elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases are allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns or COCs, except as provided in Section 30. But the same provision states that this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body, motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person, to correct manifest errors in the COC or election returns before it. The COMELEC Second Division conceded it had no jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases against House members but took cognizance of Belmonte’s petition as one for correction of manifest errors, which the SC noted is within its jurisdiction under the last sentence of Section 15. The SC then stated that the COMELEC was not amiss in quickly deciding Belmonte’s petition to correct manifest errors and proclaiming him the winner. Election cases are imbued with public interest; they involve not only the private interests of rival candidates but also the paramount need to dispel uncertainty over the electorate’s real choice. The policy of election law is that pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with the desire that canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible.
• HRET Jurisdiction: The SC applied Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution and its rulings in Lazatin vs. Commission on Elections and Aggabao vs. Commission on Elections. Under these, the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. The SC found that Belmonte was proclaimed by the PBOC on September 26, 2007, took his oath before Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. on the same day, and assumed his duties. At the time of proclamation, there had been no status quo ante order or TRO from the SC; the SC’s status quo order came on October 2, 2007, and the status quo ante order on October 3, 2007. The SC held that the proclamation was valid and vested the HRET with jurisdiction, as Belmonte had, with the taking of his oath, already become one of the HRET’s own. Since a proclamation had been made and Dimaporo, a defeated candidate, claimed to be the winner, jurisdiction over the case had already been transferred to the HRET. Dimaporo’s proper remedy was an election protest before the HRET.

• Manifest Error Exception to the Ban on Pre-Proclamation Cases — Section 15, R.A. No. 7166 prohibits pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns or COCs, except as provided in Section 30. The same provision does not preclude the appropriate canvassing body, motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person, from correcting manifest errors in the COC or election returns before it. The SC applied this by treating Belmonte’s petition as one for correction of manifest errors and saying the COMELEC was not amiss in acting on it.
• HRET Jurisdiction After Proclamation, Oath, and Assumption — The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. The SC applied this because Belmonte was proclaimed on September 26, 2007, took his oath before Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr., and assumed his duties before any status quo order; the HRET thus acquired jurisdiction, and Dimaporo’s remedy was an election protest before it.
• Validity of Proclamation Absent TRO or Status Quo Order — A proclamation made at a time when there is no status quo ante order or TRO from the court is valid and vests the HRET with jurisdiction. The SC applied this because the status quo order was issued only on October 2, 2007 and the status quo ante order on October 3, 2007, after Belmonte’s September 26, 2007 proclamation.
• Summary Disposition of Pre-Proclamation Controversies — Election cases are imbued with public interest and involve the paramount need to dispel uncertainty over the electorate’s real choice; pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, and canvass and proclamation delayed as little as possible. The SC applied this in saying the COMELEC was not amiss in quickly deciding Belmonte’s petition.

• “However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.” — The statutory basis for the COMELEC’s action on Belmonte’s petition as a correction of manifest errors under Section 15, R.A. No. 7166.
• “The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction overall contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.” — The rule on the transfer of jurisdiction from the COMELEC to the HRET after proclamation, oath, and assumption of office.
• “Considering that at the time of proclamation, there had yet been no status quo ante order or temporary restraining order from the court, such proclamation is valid and, as such, it has vested the HRET with jurisdiction over the case as Belmonte has, with the taking of his oath, already become one of their own.” — The SC’s application of the rule to Belmonte’s September 26, 2007 proclamation before the SC’s status quo orders.
• “Hence, should Dimaporo wish to pursue further her claim to the congressional seat, the filing of an election protest before the HRET would be the appropriate course of action.” — The remedy left to Dimaporo after the HRET’s jurisdiction vested.

• Lazatin vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-80007, January 25, 1988, 157 SCRA 337, 338 — Controlling precedent for the rule that once a candidate is proclaimed, takes his oath, and assumes office, the HRET, not the SC or COMELEC, has jurisdiction over the electoral protest.
• Aggabao vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 163756, January 26, 2005, 449 SCRA 400, 404-405 — Reiterated that the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of House members; COMELEC jurisdiction ends upon proclamation, oath, and assumption of office.
• Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 31775, December 28, 1970, 36 SCRA 582 — Cited for the principle that election cases are imbued with public interest.
• Vda. De Mesa vs. Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 533, 538 — Cited for the need to dispel uncertainty over the electorate’s real choice.
• Sanchez vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-78461, August 12, 1987, 153 SCRA 67, 75 — Cited for the policy that pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided and canvass and proclamation delayed as little as possible.

• Section 15, Republic Act No. 7166 — Prohibits pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns or COCs, except as provided in Section 30, but does not preclude the appropriate canvassing body, motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person, from correcting manifest errors in the COC or election returns before it. Applied to uphold the COMELEC’s action on Belmonte’s petition as a correction of manifest errors.
• Article VI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Cited for the HRET’s jurisdiction over contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Applied because Belmonte’s proclamation, oath, and assumption of office vested the HRET with jurisdiction.
• Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The procedural vehicle for Dimaporo’s petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC resolutions. The SC resolved and dismissed the petition.