Ututalum v COMELEC

GR No. 84843-44

January 22, 1990

Facts

Petitioner and private respondent Anni were both candidates for the congressional seat of the
2nd district of Sulu, where the latter garnered 35,581 votes and the latter only 482 votes. Petitioner filed
a written objection to the canvassed returns, claiming that the returns “appear to be tampered or
falsified” referring to the excess of votes between the two.

Sulu’s Board of Canvassers dismissed the objections for mistiming and a lack of grounds as
enumerated in Sec. 243 of the Election Code. An appeal for a declaration of failure of election was filed
with the COMELEC, but was later denied after the Board of Canvassers forwarded petitioner’s initial
objections as well as their response to the COMELEC.

Private respondent Anni was proclaimed the winner for the positioner, but his victory was
subject to further scrutiny in further cases “annulling the Siasi list of voters on the ground of massive
irregularities committed in the preparation thereof and being statistically improbable”. This was a
decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in Anni v COMELEC, and upon notification of this controversy,
petitioner filed a supplemental pleading with the COMELEC entreating the annulment as application of
his previous petitions against the respondent.

In response, the COMELEC stated that the petition still lacks merit and the grounds pertained in
the petition are not those that can be contested in a pre-proclamation controversy. They further stated
that petitioner may file an election contest in the proper forum as reparations.

Petitioner contends that the issue he raised before the COMELEC is in reference to Sec. 243 Par.
C of the Election Code, which reads:
“Sec 243. The following shall be the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy

c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion or intimidation or they are
obviously manufactured or not authentic”

He implies that the above is proof that the matter is cognizable by the Commission. Hence, this petition
before the Supreme Court.

Issue

WON the irregularities in the Siasi voter list falls under “obviously manufactured” in Sec. 243 of
the Election Code.

Ruling

Supreme Court ruled that the Siasi returns cannot justifiable be considered as “obviously
manufactured” under Sec. 243. It cannot be prima facie presumed that the entirety of the private
respondent’s votes were manufactured, and thus its identification as “obviously manufactured” under
Sec. 243 cannot be held. SC affirmed the ruling in Espaldon v COMELEC, which identifies the offense in
this case as padding the voter list, and such an offense cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy. Furthermore, the contested Board of Canvassers are not even privy to the preparation of
the voter’s list, the subject of controversy in Anni v COMELEC. It is the responsibility of the Board of
Election Inspectors.

While the padding of the voter list may have been committed with fraud, it cannot be contested
in a pre-proclamation controversy, only in an election protest.

Furthermore, since the private respondent Anni had already been proclaimed as representative
of the district, future remedies sought by the petitioner no longer lies with the COMELEC, but with the
House of Representatives’ Electoral Tribunal.

The petition is dismissed, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of the respondent.