Luna vs. Rodriguez

Election-law provisions on the conduct of elections are mandatory before the election but directory after the election, so absent fraud an election will not be annulled and innocent voters will not be deprived of their votes for irregularities committed by election officers—such as keeping polls open due to the inspectors’ own delay, assisting incapacitated voters without the oath, or constructing defective booths—while identified illegal ballots are excluded and the erring officers may be criminally prosecuted.

Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio Rodriguez, and Servando de los Angeles were rival candidates for governor of the Province of Rizal. The contest required the SC to construe the Election Law then in force—Act No. 1582, as amended by Act No. 2045, Act No. 2657, and Act No. 2711—particularly its provisions on polling hours, assistance to incapacitated voters, and voting booths. The statutory scheme imposed detailed duties on boards of inspectors and made violations punishable criminally.

In the election for governor of the Province of Rizal held on June 6, 1916, Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio Rodriguez, and Servando de los Angeles were the candidates. After the votes in the various municipalities were counted, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Eulogio Rodriguez as elected governor with 4,321 votes; Jose Lino Luna received 4,157 votes and Servando de los Angeles received 3,576 votes. Against the proclamation, Jose Lino Luna presented a protest in the Court of First Instance.

After the case was remanded for a new trial, Judge William E. McMahon presided and additional evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence from both trials, Judge McMahon found that the ballots cast for the various candidates were as indicated in the inspectors’ returns except in Taytay and Binangonan. In Taytay, he found that 50 ballots cast for Eulogio Rodriguez should not have been counted for him and ordered that number deducted from Rodriguez’s total; Rodriguez later admitted that the 50 votes should be deducted. In Binangonan, he found that the inspectors did not close the polls at 6 o’clock p.m. and that a large number of persons voted after that time, and he directed that Rodriguez’s total vote be reduced by the number of such votes without ascertaining how many had been cast for Rodriguez and how many for Luna.

In Binangonan, at 6 p.m. a large number of voters had not yet been able to vote, and an agreement was made between some of the candidates for office who were present and the board of inspectors to keep the polls open so that such electors might vote; no objection was made by any person at that time. One reason all the voters of the municipality had not voted before 6 p.m. was that the board of inspectors failed to have the list of voters properly prepared at 7 a.m., so that but few voters were able to vote before eleven or eleven-thirty in the morning. The record showed that Binangonan had 375 analfabetos and 164 other voters. The law required an analfabeto to take an oath and the oath to be filed; the inspectors needed time to ascertain whether the voter was in fact an analfabeto, to administer, prepare, sign, and file the oath, and two inspectors had to accompany the voter to the booth, assist him in preparing his ballot, and return to their positions. Even at one minute for that work, two inspectors would spend at least two minutes for each analfabeto, requiring 750 minutes or 12 1/2 hours for 375 analfabetos, plus time for the 164 other voters; it was practically impossible for all the voters of Binangonan to vote in the eleven hours prescribed by law even if the polls had opened promptly at 7 a.m. instead of nearly 11 a.m.

The record also showed that in many municipalities of the Province of Rizal a great many incapacitated persons voted without taking the required oath and were assisted by one inspector only in preparing their ballots, but such ballots were not identified. As to the voting booths, while there was some conflict in the evidence and the proof clearly showed that the booths were not constructed in strict accordance with the provisions of the law, a large preponderance of the evidence showed that the booths were constructed, defectively perhaps, in a manner that afforded each voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot in absolute secrecy.

Eulogio Rodriguez alleged that in the municipality of San Felipe Nery many irregularities were committed which should invalidate the election, including that the different columns of the polling list were not properly filled and that a number of voters voted who were not residents of the municipality. The evidence showed some grave irregularities by the board of inspectors, but the lower court found the evidence insufficient to justify nullifying the entire vote of the municipality.

• San Felipe Nery Poll List: Respondent-appellant alleged that in San Felipe Nery the different columns of the polling list were not properly filled.
• Nonresident Voters: Respondent-appellant alleged that in San Felipe Nery a number of voters voted who were not residents of the municipality.
• Nullification for Grave Irregularities: Respondent-appellant alleged that grave irregularities committed by the board of inspectors should invalidate the election.

• Effect of Holding Polls Open After Closing Hour: Whether the votes cast in Binangonan after 6 p.m., where the polls were kept open because the inspectors failed to prepare the voter list and many voters could not vote earlier, should be annulled or the election nullified absent fraud.
• Assistance to Incapacitated Voters Without Oath: Whether the ballots of incapacitated voters who voted without taking the required oath and were assisted by one inspector only should be rejected, or the precinct’s votes nullified, when the ballots were not identified.
• Failure to Provide Proper Voting Booths: Whether the election in Antipolo should be nullified because the voting booths were not constructed strictly according to law but afforded voters an opportunity to prepare their ballots in secrecy.
• San Felipe Nery Irregularities: Whether the election in San Felipe Nery should be nullified because the different columns of the polling list were not properly filled and a number of voters voted who were not residents of the municipality.
• Deduction of Identified Ballots in Taytay: Whether the 50 identified ballots counted for Rodriguez in Taytay should be deducted from his total.

• Effect of Holding Polls Open After Closing Hour: No. The votes cast in Binangonan should be counted for the respective candidates; the inspectors were justified in keeping the polls open for the special reason shown, and absent fraud the votes of innocent voters should not be annulled.
• Assistance to Incapacitated Voters Without Oath: No. While it was irregular to permit incapacitated voters to vote without the oath and with one inspector assisting, the ballots of innocent voters should not be nullified; only ballots of such persons as are identified should be annulled.
• Failure to Provide Proper Voting Booths: No. The Antipolo votes should not be nullified because, although the booths were not strictly compliant, the evidence showed they permitted voters to prepare ballots in absolute secrecy.
• San Felipe Nery Irregularities: No. The voter was not responsible for the polling list, and the evidence of irregularities, including alleged nonresident voters, was not sufficient to justify nullifying the entire vote of the municipality.
• Deduction of Identified Ballots in Taytay: Yes. The 50 identified ballots in Taytay should be deducted from Rodriguez’s total; Rodriguez admitted the deduction.

• Effect of Holding Polls Open After Closing Hour: The SC began from the statutory rule that polls shall be open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., with not more than one inspector absent at a time and for not more than twenty minutes (Sec. 21, Act No. 1582; Sec. 11, Act No. 2045; Sec. 543, Act No. 2657; Sec. 445, Act No. 2711). It held that election rules are mandatory before the election but directory after the election if possible, especially where holding them mandatory would deprive innocent voters of their votes without fault. The SC noted that the polls in Binangonan were kept open after 6 p.m. by agreement of some candidates and the inspectors, without objection, because the inspectors failed to prepare the voter list at 7 a.m. and many voters could not vote before 11 or 11:30 a.m.; the record also showed that, with 375 analfabetos and 164 other voters, it was practically impossible for all voters to vote within eleven hours even if the polls had opened promptly. No fraud was shown and no person voted who had no right to vote by reason of the extended hours. The SC therefore counted the Binangonan votes, but warned that if the polls were kept open for fraudulent purposes or to permit persons who had not appeared during regular hours to vote, the election of the precinct could be annulled. The remedy for the inspectors’ failure was a criminal action under Sec. 29 of Act No. 1582; Sec. 2632 of Act No. 2657; and Sec. 2639 of Act No. 2711.
• Assistance to Incapacitated Voters Without Oath: The SC quoted Sec. 12, Act No. 2045; Sec. 550, Act No. 2657; Sec. 453, Act No. 2711, which require (a) an oath that the voter is disabled, the nature of the disability, and that he desires the inspectors’ assistance; (b) a record of the oath filed with the municipal secretary; and (c) assistance by two inspectors belonging to different political parties. It held, following Paulino vs. Cailles, that ballots of incapacitated persons who voted without the oath, or were assisted by one inspector alone, or by two inspectors of the same party, should not be counted if identified; but absent fraud, the entire precinct’s ballots should not be invalidated merely because the inspectors failed in their duty. In this case, many incapacitated persons voted without the oath and were assisted by one inspector only, but the ballots were not identified, so they could not be rejected; the remedy was a criminal action against the inspectors. The SC also noted that the incapacity of the voters did not relieve them of responsibility under the law, citing Manalo vs. Sevilla and Gardiner vs. De Leon.
• Failure to Provide Proper Voting Booths: The SC held that the requirements for polling stations and booths may be departed from in some particulars if substantial secrecy is preserved; the primary object is to afford the voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot in secret. In Gardiner vs. Romulo, the failure to provide doors and guard rails and the placement of the writing shelf facing the side instead of the rear were, combined, a fatal disregard because they did not offer even substantial secrecy. In this case, although the booths were not constructed in strict accordance with the law, a large preponderance of the evidence showed that they were constructed, defectively perhaps, in a manner that afforded each voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot in absolute secrecy. The purpose of the law was therefore fulfilled, and the Antipolo votes should not be nullified.
• San Felipe Nery Irregularities: The SC held that even granting that the different columns of the polling list were not properly filled, the voter was in no way responsible. Filling the columns was a duty imposed on the election officers; if they failed to perform that duty, they were responsible, and the ballots of innocent voters should not be nullified for their failure. The remedy was a criminal action against the inspectors, not the nullification of innocent voters’ ballots. As to the alleged nonresident voters, the lower court had considered the question and refused to nullify the election; while the proof showed some grave irregularities by the board of inspectors, the SC was not persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to justify nullifying the entire vote of San Felipe Nery.
• Deduction of Identified Ballots in Taytay: The lower court, after examining the ballots in Taytay, found that 50 ballots counted for Rodriguez should not be counted for him and ordered the deduction. Rodriguez admitted that the 50 votes should be deducted from his total. The SC therefore deemed it unnecessary to discuss the reasons further and affirmed the deduction.

• Mandatory Before Election, Directory After Election — Election rules and regulations are mandatory before the election, but when enforcement is sought after the election they are directory only if possible, especially where holding them mandatory would deprive innocent voters of their votes without fault. The SC applied this to the Binangonan polls kept open after 6 p.m. and to the other irregularities, refusing to annul the election absent fraud.
• Protection of Innocent Voters from Election Officers’ Irregularities — Absent fraud, an election will not be annulled and innocent voters will not be deprived of their votes because election officers failed to perform their duties; the remedy is a criminal action against the erring officers. The SC applied this to the inspectors’ failure to prepare the voter list, their failure to require the oath from incapacitated voters, the defective booths, and the San Felipe Nery polling-list irregularities.
• Polls Kept Open After Closing Hour — Polls should be opened and closed strictly according to law, and voters who do not appear within the designated hours should not be allowed to vote after closing; but if a voter is prevented from voting by the inspectors’ failure to do their duty, then absent fraud neither the votes cast after the regular hour nor the entire precinct’s vote should be annulled. The exception does not apply where the polls are kept open for fraud or to permit persons who had not appeared during regular hours to vote. The SC applied the exception to Binangonan.
• Assistance to Incapacitated Voters — The law requires (a) an oath that the voter is disabled, the nature of the disability, and that he desires the inspectors’ assistance; (b) a record of the oath filed with the municipal secretary; and (c) assistance by two inspectors belonging to different political parties. Ballots of incapacitated voters who voted without the oath, or were assisted by one inspector alone, or by two inspectors of the same party, are excluded if identified; absent fraud, the entire precinct’s ballots are not invalidated, and the inspectors may be criminally prosecuted. The SC applied this to the unidentified ballots in many Rizal municipalities.
• Voting Booth Secrecy — The exact construction requirements for voting booths are not mandatory if the booths substantially afford the voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot in absolute secrecy; if they do not, the election may be annulled. The SC applied this to uphold the Antipolo votes despite defective booths.
• Identified Illegal Ballots — Only illegal ballots that are identified may be rejected; unidentified illegal ballots cannot be excluded without disenfranchising innocent voters. The SC applied this to the incapacitated voters’ ballots and to the 50 identified Taytay ballots.

• "It has been announced in many decisions that the rules and regulations, for the conduct of elections, are mandatory before the election, but when it is sought to enforce them after the election they are held to be directory only, if that is possible, especially where, if they are held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on their part." — The SC’s canonical statement of the directory-after-election rule, applied to uphold the Binangonan votes despite the polls being kept open.
• "The polls should be opened and closed in strict accord with the provisions of the law. Voters who do not appear and offer to vote within the hours designated by the law should not be permitted to vote after the time for closing the polls has arrived. Upon the other hand, if the voter is prevented, during the voting hours, from voting, and is not permitted to vote by reason of the failure of the inspectors to do their duty, then, certainly, in the absence of some fraud, neither such votes nor the entire vote of the precinct should be annulled simply because some votes were cast after the regular hour." — The SC states the general rule and the exception for polls kept open because of the inspectors’ own failure, which it applied to Binangonan.
• "We held in the case of Paulino vs. Cailles (R. G. No. 12753, 37 Phil. Rep., 825) that the ballots of incapacitated persons who voted without taking the oath or were assisted by one inspector alone, or by two belonging to the same party, should not be counted if such ballots could be identified. We further held that, in the absence of fraud, all of the ballots of the precinct should not be invalidated by the mere fact that the inspectors did not comply with their duty. Innocent voters should not be deprived of their participation in an election for a violation of the law for which they were in no way responsible and which they could not prevent." — The SC summarizes the rule on incapacitated voters: identified illegal ballots are excluded, but the precinct is not invalidated absent fraud.
• "Secrecy is the object of the booth. An opportunity to prepare his ballot in private is the purpose of the provision. When the booth affords that protection, the purpose of the law is fulfilled." — The SC uses this to uphold the Antipolo votes despite the booths not being strictly compliant.

• Paulino vs. Cailles, 37 Phil. Rep., 825 — Followed; held that ballots of incapacitated voters who voted without the oath or were assisted by one inspector or two of the same party should not be counted if identified, but absent fraud the precinct’s ballots should not be invalidated.
• Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil. Rep., 521 — Followed and distinguished; held that election-law departures due to honest mistake are directory if there is a free and honest expression of the popular will, but irregularities may nullify the election if designed to defeat the voters’ will; its booth ruling was distinguished because the Antipolo booths preserved secrecy.
• Patton vs. Watkins, 131 Ala., 387; 90 Am. State Rep., 43, 72 — Cited as supporting the rule that election regulations are mandatory before the election but directory after the election where innocent voters would otherwise be deprived of their votes.
• Jones vs. State, 153 Ind., 440 — Cited with Patton vs. Watkins for the same directory-after-election rule.
• People vs. Prewett, 124 Cal., 7 — Cited as supporting the exception that votes cast after the regular hour should not be annulled absent fraud where voters were prevented from voting by the inspectors’ failure to do their duty.
• Manalo vs. Sevilla, 24 Phil. Rep., 609 — Cited for the point that the ignorance of incapacitated voters does not relieve them of responsibility under the law nor from the effect of their failure to comply.
• Gardiner vs. De Leon, R. G. No. 12382, March 15, 1917 — Cited with Manalo vs. Sevilla on the responsibility of incapacitated voters.

• Section 21, Act No. 1582; Section 11, Act No. 2045; Section 543, Act No. 2657; Section 445, Act No. 2711 — Required polls to be open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., with not more than one inspector absent at a time and for not more than twenty minutes. Applied to the Binangonan polls kept open after 6 p.m.; the SC treated the closing-hour rule as directory after the election absent fraud.
• Section 12, Act No. 2045; Section 550, Act No. 2657; Section 453, Act No. 2711 — Required an oath of incapacity, a record of the oath filed with the municipal secretary, and assistance by two inspectors of different political parties. Applied to the incapacitated voters who voted without the oath and with one inspector assisting; their unidentified ballots were not rejected.
• Section 9, Act No. 1582, as amended by Section 512, Act No. 2657 and Section 415, Act No. 2711 — Required a sufficient number of voting booths, not less than one for every fifty voters, and prescribed their construction. Applied to the Antipolo booths; the SC held the purpose of secrecy was fulfilled despite non-strict construction.
• Section 29, Act No. 1582; Section 2632, Act No. 2657; Section 2639, Act No. 2711 — Imposed criminal liability on election inspectors who willfully decline or fail to perform their duties; Section 2632 prescribed imprisonment of one month to one year, or a fine of P200 to P500, or both. Applied as the remedy for the inspectors’ irregularities instead of nullifying innocent voters’ ballots.