Sinsuat vs. COMELEC

Ballot appreciation cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy, and the candidate obtaining the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed when the winning candidate is disqualified, unless the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of the disqualification at the time of the election.

Petitioners Datu Israel Sinsuat and Datu Jaberael Sinsuat were candidates for mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, in South Upi, Maguindanao during the May 2004 local elections. Multiple proclamations for the same positions occurred due to an incomplete canvass, prompting the COMELEC to annul them and appoint a Special Board of Canvassers (SBOC) to re-canvass all 35 precincts. Antonio Gunsi, Sr., the leading mayoralty candidate, faced a disqualification complaint filed by Israel before the elections; the COMELEC Second Division disqualified him for not being a registered resident, and the En Banc denied his motion for reconsideration on June 9, 2005. During the SBOC's re-canvass, 95 ballots from Precincts 15A and 17A were flagged, as the name "Jay" or "Sinsuat" appeared erased and replaced with the name or nickname of vice-mayoralty candidate Abdullah Campong.

• The 2004 Elections and Multiple Proclamations: Israel and Jaberael Sinsuat ran for mayor and vice-mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao in the May 2004 elections. Antonio Gunsi, Sr. ran for mayor. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed different sets of winners on different dates based on an incomplete canvass. The COMELEC First Division annulled these proclamations, and the En Banc subsequently ordered the creation of an SBOC to re-canvass all 35 precincts.
• Disqualification of the Leading Candidate: Before the elections, Israel filed a complaint for cancellation of Gunsi's certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC Second Division disqualified Gunsi for not being a registered resident of South Upi. The En Banc denied Gunsi's motion for reconsideration on June 9, 2005.
• The Contested Ballots and COMELEC Order: The SBOC submitted its report on May 16, 2005, showing Gunsi leading the mayoralty race and Campong leading the vice-mayoralty race. However, 95 ballots from Precincts 15A and 17A were contested, wherein the name "Jay" or "Sinsuat" for vice-mayor appeared erased and replaced with "Campong" or "Beds." The SBOC counted these ballots in favor of Campong but recommended that the COMELEC ascertain the integrity and validity of the ballots. On July 26, 2005, the COMELEC En Banc ordered the SBOC to proclaim Campong and the winning councilors. It declared that no mayor would be proclaimed due to Gunsi's disqualification and referred the vacancy to the DILG-ARMM for succession. Petitioners' motions to suspend this proclamation were denied on August 16, 2005, the COMELEC reiterating that ballot appreciation is a matter for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.

• Appreciation of Contested Ballots: Petitioners argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in not counting the 95 contested ballots in favor of Jaberael despite the SBOC's recommendation. They maintained that had these ballots been counted for Jaberael, he would have won the vice-mayoralty race. Petitioners insisted the COMELEC should have inspected and examined the contested ballots and made a definite ruling thereon.
• Proclamation of the Second-Placer: Petitioners claimed that Israel should be proclaimed mayor because the votes for the disqualified candidate, Gunsi, should be considered stray votes. They averred that Gunsi's disqualification became final and executory prior to the proclamation of any winning candidate, entitling the candidate with the next highest number of votes to the office.

• Mootness and Academicality: Respondent Campong argued that the case had become moot and academic because the assailed COMELEC order had become final and executory. He emphasized that he had already taken his oath as vice-mayor on August 25, 2005, and subsequently succeeded as mayor upon Gunsi's disqualification.
• Forum-Shopping: Campong contended that petitioners were guilty of forum-shopping because Jaberael had already filed an election protest, docketed as Case No. 2005-19, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, Branch XIV.
• Propriety of Ballot Appreciation: Campong argued that the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents is best left to the trial court hearing the election protest, not the COMELEC in a pre-proclamation controversy.

• Ballot Appreciation: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in declining to count the 95 contested ballots in favor of Jaberael during a pre-proclamation controversy.
• Proclamation of the Second-Placer: Whether petitioner Israel should be proclaimed mayor given the disqualification of the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes.

• Ballot Appreciation: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. Issues relative to the appreciation of ballots cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy, which is summary in nature and does not allow the presentation of evidence aliunde or meticulous technical examinations. Appreciation of ballots is the task of the board of election inspectors, not the board of canvassers, and questions related thereto are proper only in election protests. Furthermore, Jaberael's filing of an election protest with the trial court covering the same 95 contested ballots amounted to the abandonment of the pre-proclamation controversy, thereby depriving the COMELEC of authority to inquire into the validity of the proclamation.
• Proclamation of the Second-Placer: Israel cannot be proclaimed mayor. The settled doctrine is that the COMELEC cannot proclaim the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes when the winning candidate is disqualified. The exception—allowing the proclamation of the second-placer—requires the concurrence of two requisites: (1) the candidate with the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of the disqualification, bringing such awareness within the realm of notoriety, but nonetheless cast their votes for the ineligible candidate. Because Gunsi was disqualified by the COMELEC En Banc only after the election, the electorate voted under the belief that he was qualified; thus, the exception does not apply. The subsequent finding of ineligibility cannot retroact to the date of the elections to invalidate the votes cast for Gunsi as stray votes. The rules on succession under the Local Government Code apply, directing the vice-mayor to succeed the mayor who failed to qualify.

• Pre-proclamation controversy; limitations — A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers. It is summary in nature, disallowing the presentation of evidence aliunde, the inspection of voluminous documents, and meticulous technical examinations. Issues relative to the appreciation of ballots cannot be raised therein, as appreciation is the task of the board of election inspectors, not the board of canvassers.
• Abandonment of pre-proclamation controversy — The filing of an election protest precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed. This deprives the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation, ensuring that all questions relative to the protest are decided in a single proceeding to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
• Proclamation of second-placer upon disqualification of winning candidate — The COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is ineligible or disqualified. This rule admits an exception predicated on the concurrence of two requisites: (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate.

• "Well-settled is the rule that issues relative to the appreciation of ballots cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. Appreciation of ballots is the task of the board of election inspectors, not the board of canvassers, and questions related thereto are proper only in election protests."
• "It is now settled doctrine that the COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is ineligible or disqualified. This rule admits an exception. But this exception is predicated on the concurrence of two requisites, namely: (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate."

• Chu v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135423, November 29, 1999 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that pre-proclamation proceedings are summary in nature, without room for the presentation of evidence aliunde or meticulous technical examinations.
• Patoray v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125798, June 19, 1997 — Followed. Cited for the rule that issues relative to ballot appreciation cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy and are proper only in election protests.
• Dumayas, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 141952-53, April 20, 2001 — Followed. Cited for the rule that the filing of an election protest amounts to the abandonment of a pre-proclamation controversy.
• Bautista v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 154796-97, October 23, 2003 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that the COMELEC cannot proclaim the second-placer when the winning candidate is disqualified, and that a subsequent finding of ineligibility cannot retroact to invalidate votes cast for the disqualified candidate.
• Grego v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997 — Followed. Cited for the two requisites necessary to trigger the exception allowing the proclamation of the second-placer.
• Domino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999 — Followed. Cited for the principle that votes cast for a candidate not notoriously known to be ineligible at the time of the election cannot be considered stray votes.

• Omnibus Election Code, Art. XX, Sec. 241 — Defines a pre-proclamation controversy as any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns. Applied to delineate the proper scope and summary nature of the proceedings before the COMELEC.
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 18, Sec. 13(b) — Provides that the COMELEC En Banc’s decision directing the proclamation of winning candidates becomes final and executory after five days from promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court. Applied to underscore that, absent a restraining order from the Court, the proclamation must proceed.
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 35, Sec. 3 — Provides that a losing party may file an election contest within ten days following the date of proclamation. Applied to emphasize the proper remedy for ballot appreciation.
• Local Government Code of the Philippines, Section 44 — Governs permanent vacancies in the office of the mayor, providing that the vice-mayor shall succeed if the mayor fails to qualify. Applied to determine that the proclaimed vice-mayor, Campong, succeeds the disqualified mayor, Gunsi, rather than the second-placer, Israel.

Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr.