Garcia vs. Commission on Elections

The COMELEC may exclude from the canvass election returns that are obviously manufactured, tampered, or prepared under threats and coercion, and its factual findings in a pre-proclamation controversy will be upheld absent grave abuse of discretion; an election protest filed ex abundante ad cautelam may be reinstated and held in abeyance pending final resolution of the pre-proclamation case.

Leonor A. Garcia was the Lapiang Pagkakaisa ng Bayan candidate for mayor of Cabanatuan City in the January 30, 1980 local elections, while Honorato C. Perez, Sr. was the incumbent mayor and the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan candidate for the same office. Their contest was governed by the 1973 Constitution and the 1978 Election Code, which gave the COMELEC direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers and made it the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies.

The mayoralty race in Cabanatuan City for the January 30, 1980 local elections pitted Leonor A. Garcia of the Lapiang Pagkakaisa ng Bayan against incumbent Mayor Honorato C. Perez, Sr. of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. On January 30, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers for Cabanatuan City, with City Election Registrar Wilfredo Navarro as chairman, convened and started canvassing the election returns. On January 31, 1980, Perez filed a petition with the Board praying for suspension of the canvass and proclamation of the winning candidates for city mayor and vice mayor, alleging that in various voting centers in 18 barangays the votes cast for the KBL were not credited in its favor despite protests by KBL watchers, rendering the returns defective and sufficient in quantity to substantially affect the results; he also prayed for a recounting of the ballots. On the same day, the COMELEC chairman sent a telegram to Navarro ordering the suspension of the canvass of the results for mayor in Cabanatuan City, citing Perez’s petition alleging rampant participation of flying voters, massive terrorism, and vote buying, and instructing Navarro to notify all parties and secure proper guards to protect the integrity of the returns.

On February 1, 1980, Perez filed an amended petition before the COMELEC praying for exclusion and/or annulment of election returns, suspension of canvassing and proclamation, and annulment of the certificates of candidacy of LPB candidates in Cabanatuan City, on grounds of massive vote-buying, terrorism, rampant participation of flying voters, non-counting of KBL votes, and other election irregularities in various voting centers, including those in Barangay Aduas, Dimasalang, Bantug Bulalo, San Isidro, and Supermarket. The COMELEC sent Special Action Team No. 9, composed of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, Atty. Benigno R. Lapitan, and Atty. Jose Balbuena, to exercise direct and immediate supervision and control in the area, and a memorandum to Navarro reaffirmed the telegraphic order and warned that the Board would be held in contempt and its proceedings declared null and void if it disobeyed. Despite these orders, on February 2, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers proclaimed Garcia and her running mate, Dr. Romeo Ortiz, as mayor and vice mayor, and proclaimed all eight KBL candidates as winning councilors. On February 4, 1980, Perez filed an urgent ex-parte motion to declare the proclamation null and void; on February 5, 1980, he filed a second amended petition alleging that Governor Eduardo Joson, a KBL candidate, did not support Perez but instead helped Garcia by using the military and armed supporters in subverting the will of the electorate through massive fraud, terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities.

On February 6, 1980, acting on Perez’s petition and the report of the Special Action Team stating that the canvass was made in the presence of armed men who exerted pressure on the Board, the COMELEC set aside the proclamation, constituted a new Board of Canvassers, and ordered the transmission of all election returns to its central office for recanvass. Garcia filed an action with the SC to stop the COMELEC from implementing its February 4, 1980 resolution, but the petition was dismissed. On February 26, 1980, the new City Board of Canvassers, headed by Edilberto Regalado as chairman, commenced the recanvass; Perez presented documentary evidence, the recanvass resumed on February 27 and 28, and on February 29 Garcia submitted her documentary evidence. On March 3, 1980, Perez filed a memorandum seeking nullification and/or exclusion of all election returns from 40 voting centers in nine barangays—Aduas, ACCFA (San Juan), Bantug Bulalo, Dimasalang, Fatima, San Isidro, San Josef Norte, San Roque, and Supermarket—on grounds including rampant terrorism, gun-point preparation of ballots, wanton vote-buying, participation of flying voters, and connivance and collusion with the Citizens Election Committee. On March 5, 1980, Garcia filed a memorandum praying that all the election returns in the nine barangays be included in the canvass as authentic and genuine.

On March 5, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers issued a resolution ruling that it was merely a ministerial body and that the grounds of terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities were not proper grounds for exclusion of election returns during canvassing, citing City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City vs. Moscoso; it admitted certain exhibits alleging that specific returns were not prepared by the CEC or were prepared under the supervision of Garcia’s leaders, and admitted Garcia’s affidavits from CEC members, but ruled that all 40 contested election returns should be included in the canvass. On March 6, 1980, the Board canvassed the returns and Garcia obtained 27,618 votes against Perez’s 25,391. Perez filed a notice of appeal with an urgent ex-parte motion for suspension or deferment of the canvass pending appeal, questioning the March 5 resolution and reiterating his grounds; the COMELEC restrained the proclamation. On March 11, 1980, the COMELEC heard the case, the parties presented oral arguments, dispensed with testimonial evidence, and agreed to submit the case after filing their memoranda; Perez filed a supplementary memorandum on March 14, 1980, and Garcia on March 17, 1980.

On March 27, 1980, the COMELEC issued a resolution granting Perez’s appeal, ordering the City Board of Canvassers to exclude the 40 questioned election returns from the canvass, and directing immediate proclamation of the winning candidates based on the recanvass after exclusion, without prejudice to an election protest within 10 days from proclamation and to criminal charges. The COMELEC found that six election returns were written by one and the same person and three returns were prepared by two different persons, indicating manufactured returns; that 20 election returns appeared tampered and/or manufactured because the signatures or initials of all CEC members did not appear after the last tally of votes for each candidate; and that 20 other election returns appeared adversely affected by criminal collusion of CEC members through the intervention and/or dictation of armed men of Garcia. It stated that its own handwriting experts confirmed findings that were already detectable by close scrutiny. Despite Garcia’s urgent ex-parte motion to hold implementation in abeyance, the City Board of Canvassers proceeded to canvass pursuant to the March 27 resolution and proclaimed Perez as winner with 22,179 votes over Garcia’s 20,071 votes (or 20,068 votes as stated at the November 8, 1980 hearing). Garcia filed a motion for reconsideration on March 31, 1980, which the COMELEC denied on April 16, 1980.

On April 7, 1980, Garcia filed with the COMELEC an election protest ex abundante ad cautelam, docketed as Election Protest Case No. 80-92, seeking revision, re-appreciation, and recounting of all votes cast in the 40 voting centers whose returns had been excluded, not because of any defect or irregularity in the election or any act of the CEC, but because the votes in those centers were not counted in the overall total. Perez filed an answer with special and affirmative defenses and a counter-protest, and separately moved to dismiss the protest. The COMELEC initially dismissed the protest on May 15, 1980 and confirmed Perez’s proclamation, but on June 18, 1980 it granted Garcia’s motion for reconsideration, reinstated the protest ex abundante ad cautelam, deferred action until Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44 was finally resolved, and reinstated Perez’s counter-protest while holding further action in abeyance. On July 10, 1980, the COMELEC denied Perez’s motion for partial reconsideration as unmeritorious and stated that no further motion for reconsideration would be entertained while awaiting the SC’s final decision in G.R. No. L-53793.

• Handwriting Expert Findings and Due Process: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion and denied her due process when it held that six election returns were written by one and the same person and three returns were prepared by two different persons based on the findings of the COMELEC handwriting expert, because no evidence on handwriting experts was presented from the Navarro Board to the Regalado Board to the COMELEC En Banc; the findings were made only after the parties submitted their memoranda and the case was deemed submitted, and she was never informed or furnished a copy of those findings, leaving her no opportunity to refute them.
• Omission of Signatures/Initials: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in holding that 20 election returns were tampered or manufactured and should be excluded because the signatures or initials of all CEC members did not appear after the last tally of votes for each candidate; under Section 172 of the 1978 Election Code, the remedy was to summon the CEC members to correct the omission in form or data, not to annul the returns and disenfranchise the voters.
• Collusion/Armed Men Findings: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding 20 other election returns on the ground that they were prepared through criminal collusion of CEC members through the intervention and/or dictation of armed men of Garcia, without stating which among the 20 were prepared voluntarily through criminal collusion or involuntarily through dictation of armed men.
• Reliance on Telegrams and PC Report: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in considering events reported through various self-serving telegrams and letters by Perez’s leaders before and during the elections, as against the findings after investigation by Philippine Constabulary Chief Major General Fidel Ramos, concurred in by the President, that the complaints of Perez and his brother-in-law Assemblyman Angel Concepcion were completely baseless, false, exaggerated, uncorroborated, and unsubstantiated and intended merely as a face-saving device.
• Weight of Affidavits: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in relying on the affidavits of paid KBL watchers and sympathizers alleging massive vote-buying, flying voters, terrorism, and other election irregularities, as against the affidavits and sworn statements of all the public school teachers who served as CEC members in all 40 voting centers whose returns were excluded; even granting such irregularities, they were not grounds for annulment of election returns but grounds for an election protest.
• Physical Impossibility: Petitioner argued that the six voting centers whose returns were allegedly written by one and the same person were geographically located in different barangays one to three kilometers apart, making it impossible for one man to prepare the returns and requiring superhuman capacity.

• Exclusion of the 40 Returns: Respondent Perez maintained that the 40 election returns should be excluded from the canvass because of massive terrorism, threats and coercion, gun-point preparation of ballots, criminal collusion of CEC members, intervention and/or dictation of armed men of Garcia, rampant vote-buying, flying voters, manufactured ballots, exclusion and disenfranchisement of duly registered voters, inclusion of unregistered voters through collusion of the CEC, premature closure of polling places, and forcible exclusion of his poll watchers and the public.
• Duplication and Jurisdictional Error: Respondent Perez argued that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and in disregard of the law when it reversed its previous resolution that Election Protest Case No. 80-92 was a mere motion for reconsideration of its resolution ordering the exclusion of the 40 election returns and a duplication of Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44, which was then on certiorari with the SC.
• Prematurity of Dismissal: Respondent Perez argued that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it held that it was premature to dismiss Election Protest Case No. 80-92 on the ground that it was merely a petition of protest ex abundante ad cautelam.
• Reinstatement of Protest: Respondent Perez argued that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it granted the motion for reconsideration and reinstated Election Protest Case No. 80-92.
• No Effect on Result: Respondent Perez argued that the continuance of the case would not alter the result of the election in Cabanatuan City.
• Mootness: Respondent Perez argued that whatever decision the SC might render in G.R. No. L-53793 would render Election Protest Case No. 80-92 moot and academic.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Exclusion of Returns: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the exclusion from the canvass of the 40 election returns from the 40 voting centers contested by Perez.
• Due Process — Handwriting Expert Findings: Whether Garcia was denied due process when the COMELEC relied on its handwriting experts’ findings without furnishing her a copy or giving her an opportunity to refute them.
• Omission of Signatures/Initials: Whether the omission of the signatures or initials of all CEC members after the entry of votes for each candidate justified exclusion of the returns rather than correction under Section 172 of the 1978 Election Code.
• Sufficiency of Findings — Collusion and Armed Men: Whether the COMELEC’s exclusion of 20 election returns on the ground of criminal collusion and intervention or dictation of armed men was valid without specifying which returns were prepared voluntarily or involuntarily.
• Weight of Evidence — Telegrams, Affidavits, and PC Report: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in relying on the telegrams and affidavits of Perez’s witnesses and in disregarding the contrary PC investigation report and the CEC affidavits.
• Pre-Proclamation vs. Election Protest: Whether massive vote-buying, flying voters, terrorism, and other election irregularities are grounds for exclusion of election returns in a pre-proclamation controversy or only in an election protest.
• Reinstatement and Mootness/Duplication: Whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in reinstating Election Protest Case No. 80-92 and deferring it pending final resolution of Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44, and whether the protest was a mere duplication or rendered moot by G.R. No. L-53793.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Exclusion of Returns: No. The COMELEC acted within its broad power to exclude obviously manufactured, tampered, or coerced returns; the SC found no grave abuse of discretion.
• Due Process — Handwriting Expert Findings: No. Garcia waived further presentation of evidence when the parties dispensed with testimonial evidence and submitted the case on memoranda; the expert findings merely confirmed the COMELEC’s independent scrutiny of the returns.
• Omission of Signatures/Initials: No. Section 172 imposes the duty to return returns for correction on the board of canvassers, not the COMELEC, and the omission of signatures or initials after the entries could not be corrected under that provision; it justified exclusion.
• Sufficiency of Findings — Collusion and Armed Men: No. The COMELEC’s findings were based on a close scrutiny of the returns and the totality of the evidence; it was not arbitrary to exclude the 20 returns.
• Weight of Evidence — Telegrams, Affidavits, and PC Report: No. The COMELEC was justified in crediting Perez’s specific affidavits over the identical general denials of Garcia’s witnesses, and the PC report relied on by Garcia was tainted by bias.
• Pre-Proclamation vs. Election Protest: No. The COMELEC may order exclusion of returns in a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 175 and its constitutional powers; the resolution was without prejudice to an election protest.
• Reinstatement and Mootness/Duplication: No. The COMELEC did not act without jurisdiction in reinstating the ex abundante ad cautelam protest and holding it in abeyance pending the pre-proclamation case; the protest was not rendered moot by G.R. No. L-53793.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Exclusion of Returns: The COMELEC has broad powers under the 1973 Constitution and the 1978 Election Code, including direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers and the exclusive power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections. The old doctrine that a board of canvassers is merely ministerial and cannot go behind the returns no longer prevails. The COMELEC may exclude returns that are obviously manufactured, tampered, or prepared under threats and coercion, as held in Lagumbay vs. Climaco and Comelec, Cauton vs. Comelec and Sanidad, Pacis vs. Comelec, and Antonio Jr. vs. Comelec. The COMELEC examined the 40 returns and found six written by one person, three prepared by two persons, 20 without the required signatures or initials after the entries, and 20 affected by collusion and armed men. It also considered the totality of the facts before, during, and after the elections, including the COMSAT and INP reports. Garcia failed to show patent and grave abuse; the SC will not substitute its judgment for the COMELEC’s absent whimsical or capricious action.
• Due Process — Handwriting Expert Findings: At the March 11, 1980 hearing, the parties dispensed with testimonial evidence, presented oral arguments, and agreed to submit the case after filing their memoranda. Garcia therefore waived further presentation of evidence. The COMELEC’s findings that six returns were written by one person and three by two persons were not based solely on the handwriting experts; the experts merely confirmed what the COMELEC had already found after a close scrutiny of the returns. There was no necessity for Garcia to refute the experts’ findings because the COMELEC had already made a prior conclusion based on independent evidence. Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections recognized the COMELEC’s authority to decide contested returns even without the aid of experts, using common sense and perception.
• Omission of Signatures/Initials: Section 172 of the 1978 Election Code provides that if some requisites of form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board shall return them to the corresponding election committee for correction. The duty is imposed on the board of canvassers, not on the COMELEC; when the law confers a power on the COMELEC, it expressly mentions the COMELEC by name, as in Sections 171, 173, 174, and 175. Section 156 requires the signatures of all CEC members 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, and such signatures close the entry of votes for each candidate. Correction under Section 172 can only be made when the returns are returned by the board to the election committee for correction long after the votes have been counted and the entries made. The omission of signatures or initials in the 14 election returns raised serious doubts as to their authenticity and genuineness; as held in Usman vs. Commission on Elections, such omissions stamp the returns with the indelible mark of falsity and irregularity and justify exclusion from the canvass.
• Sufficiency of Findings — Collusion and Armed Men: The COMELEC did not act arbitrarily in excluding the 20 returns affected by criminal collusion and the intervention or dictation of armed men. Its conclusion was based not only on the face of the returns but on evidence aliunde and the totality of the circumstances, including the reports of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala and Major Rogelio S. De Joya, which confirmed wholesale violations of the Election Code, terrorism, vote-buying, the presence of armed men, and the refusal of the City Board of Canvassers to stop the proclamation despite the COMELEC chairman’s telegram. The SC agreed that the totality of the facts and circumstances sufficiently overcame the prima facie value of the contested election returns. Garcia failed to show that the COMELEC acted whimsically or capriciously.
• Weight of Evidence — Telegrams, Affidavits, and PC Report: The COMELEC was justified in according more credence to Perez’s affidavits, which contained specific allegations of terrorism, vote-buying, flying voters, non-counting of KBL votes, and use of force and intimidation by Garcia’s followers in the counting of ballots and preparation of the returns. In contrast, the affidavits and sworn statements of Garcia’s witnesses were surprisingly identical or similar and consisted mainly of general denials; two CEC members, both public school teachers, subsequently revealed that they were coerced into signing their affidavits for Garcia. The investigation report of Brig. Gen. Vicente E. Eduardo relied on by Garcia was tainted with bias because his son was a candidate in one of the towns of Nueva Ecija. As between positive and negative evidence, the well-established rule affords greater weight and credence to the former.
• Pre-Proclamation vs. Election Protest: The contention that massive vote-buying, flying voters, terrorism, and other election irregularities are not grounds for annulment of election returns but only for an election protest is untenable. Lagumbay vs. Climaco and Comelec upheld the COMELEC’s authority to order the exclusion of obviously manufactured returns; Cauton vs. Comelec and Sanidad upheld exclusion of tampered returns; Pacis vs. Comelec and Antonio Jr. vs. Comelec upheld exclusion of returns prepared under threats and coercion or under circumstances affecting their integrity and authenticity. Section 175 of the 1978 Election Code makes the COMELEC the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and empowers it to suspend or annul a proclamation on the grounds mentioned in Sections 172, 173, and 174. The COMELEC’s resolution was without prejudice to an election protest.
• Reinstatement and Mootness/Duplication: Garcia’s election protest ex abundante ad cautelam sought revision, re-appreciation, and recounting of all votes cast in the 40 voting centers whose returns were excluded, not because of any defect or irregularity in the election or any act of the CEC, but because the votes in those centers were not counted in the overall total. That was practically the same issue raised in G.R. No. L-53793 and depended on its resolution. The COMELEC reinstated the protest and deferred action until Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44 was finally resolved. The SC dismissed both petitions without prejudice to the continuation of the election protest filed on April 7, 1980. The protest was not a mere duplication and was not rendered moot; it was properly held in abeyance pending the pre-proclamation case.

• COMELEC’s power to exclude election returns in pre-proclamation controversies — The COMELEC may exclude returns that are obviously manufactured, tampered, or prepared under threats and coercion. It has broad authority under the 1973 Constitution and the 1978 Election Code, direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers, and is the sole judge of pre-proclamation controversies. Applied: the SC upheld the exclusion of the 40 contested returns.
• Totality of circumstances and evidence aliunde — In determining the authenticity of election returns, the COMELEC may consider facts before, during, and after the elections and evidence independent of the returns themselves. Applied: the COMELEC relied on telegrams, COMSAT and INP reports, affidavits, and physical examination of the returns in excluding the 40 returns.
• Ministerial duty of board of canvassers is not absolute — The board of canvassers is not confined to accepting returns on their face; the old doctrine that it cannot go behind the returns no longer prevails because the COMELEC has broad powers over pre-proclamation controversies. Applied: the COMELEC could review and exclude returns that the City Board had included.
• Due process in administrative proceedings; waiver by submission — A party who dispenses with testimonial evidence and submits the case on memoranda waives further evidence; expert findings that merely confirm an independent scrutiny need not be separately refuted. Applied: Garcia was not denied due process when the COMELEC used its handwriting experts’ findings.
• Section 172 correction is limited to board of canvassers — The duty to return election returns for correction of omitted requisites of form or data is imposed on the board of canvassers, not the COMELEC; omissions of signatures or initials after the entries cannot be corrected under Section 172. Applied: the exclusion of 20 returns for lack of signatures or initials was upheld.
• Ex abundante ad cautelam election protest may be held in abeyance — A protest filed ex abundante ad cautelam may be reinstated and deferred pending final resolution of the pre-proclamation case; it is not a mere duplication if it seeks a recount of votes in excluded voting centers. Applied: the COMELEC’s reinstatement of Election Protest Case No. 80-92 was upheld.

• "The Commission shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory: It may, motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing order the suspension of the proclamation of a candidate elect or annul any proclamation, if one has been made, on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 172, 173 and 174 hereof." — This is Section 175 of the 1978 Election Code, the statutory basis for the COMELEC’s authority to exclude returns and order or annul proclamations in pre-proclamation cases.
• "It is patent that Section 172 imposes such a duty on the board of canvassers, not on the COMELEC." — The SC rejected Garcia’s argument that the COMELEC should have ordered the correction of omitted signatures or initials instead of excluding the returns.
• "The affidavits submitted by herein private respondent showed specific allegations of terrorism, vote-buying, use of flying voters, non-counting of KBL votes in favor of the KBL candidates, use of force and intimidation by the followers of petitioner Garcia in the counting of ballots and in the preparation of the election returns." — This explains why the COMELEC gave greater weight to Perez’s affidavits over Garcia’s identical general denials.
• "The purity of the elections is one of the most fundamental requisites of popular government." — The SC used this principle to support the COMELEC’s considerable latitude in adopting means and methods to secure a fair and honest canvass.

• Lagumbay vs. Climaco and Comelec, 16 SCRA 175 — Followed; upheld the COMELEC’s authority to order the exclusion of “obviously manufactured” returns.
• Cauton vs. Comelec and Sanidad, 19 SCRA 911 — Followed; upheld the exclusion of tampered returns and stressed the COMELEC’s latitude in securing a fair and honest canvass.
• Pacis vs. Comelec, 25 SCRA 377 — Followed; upheld the exclusion of returns prepared under threats and coercion.
• Antonio Jr. vs. Comelec, et al., 32 SCRA 319 — Followed; upheld the exclusion of returns prepared under circumstances affecting their integrity and authenticity.
• Usman vs. Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 686 — Followed; held that omissions of signatures or initials stamp election returns with falsity and irregularity and justify exclusion; evidence aliunde is allowed.
• Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections, 88 SCRA 251 — Followed; recognized the COMELEC’s authority to decide contested returns even without experts and held that the SC will not substitute its judgment absent grave abuse of discretion.
• Villegas vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-52463, September 4, 1980 — Cited with approval; recognized that the COMELEC’s competence over pre-proclamation controversies is greater under the 1973 Constitution.
• Sangki vs. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 1397 — Distinguished/limited; the old doctrine that the board of canvassers is merely ministerial and cannot go behind the returns no longer prevails.

• 1973 Constitution, Article XII, Sections 2(l) and 181 — Vested the COMELEC with the power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and to perform such other functions as may be provided by law; applied to uphold the COMELEC’s broad power over pre-proclamation controversies.
• 1978 Election Code, Section 164 — Placed boards of canvassers under the COMELEC’s direct control and supervision; applied to allow the COMELEC to review and exclude election returns.
• 1978 Election Code, Section 185 — Provided the COMELEC with power to enforce election laws; applied together with the constitutional provisions.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, Section 17 — Cited as a further statutory basis for the COMELEC’s authority.
• 1978 Election Code, Section 172 — Required the board of canvassers to return election returns to the election committee for correction of omitted requisites of form or data; the SC held the duty is on the board, not the COMELEC, and did not apply to the omission of signatures or initials after the entries.
• 1978 Election Code, Section 156 — Required the signatures of all CEC members 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, closing the entry of votes for each candidate; applied to treat the omission as a serious doubt on authenticity.
• 1978 Election Code, Section 175 — Made the COMELEC the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and empowered it to suspend or annul a proclamation on the grounds in Sections 172, 173, and 174; applied to uphold the exclusion of the 40 returns and the order to proclaim based on the recanvass.