TEACHER - SUBJECT

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMISSION ONELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No.105323 July 03, 1992

PONENTE: BIDIN, J.
TOPIC: Pre-proclamation controversy

FACTS
On may 5, court issued a resolution to disqualify Melchor Chavez, private respondent
therein from running the Office of Senator in May 11, 1992 elections.
The resolution was received by respondent COMELEC on may 6. The very same day
petitioner filed an urgent motion for with COMELEC praying for
1. Disseminate through the fastest available means the court’s resolution;
2. To delete Chavez’s name from the printed certified list of candidates, tally sheets,
election returns, and to count all votes cast for the DISQUALIFIED Melchor Chavez to
Francisco Chavez (Petitioner)
This was issued on may 8,1992 by COMELEC, but failed to order the crediting of votes to
Petitioner as well as the cancellation of Melchor Chavez. Petitioner claims COMELEC failed to
perform its function under Sec. 7, RA 7166 which states that if a candidate has been
disqualified, it shall be the DUTY of the Commission to instruct WITHOUT DELAY the deletion of
the name of said candidate.
In this effect, Melchor Chavez’s name remains UNDELETED on the list on election day, which
caused confusion as the “CHAVEZ” votes were either declared stray or invalidated by the Boards
of Election Inspectors (BEIs)
On May 11, Commissioner of COMELEC issued a directive over Radio and TV ordering all
“Chavez” votes to be credited in favor of petitioner in which petitioner contended:
1. The announcement did not reach the BEI at the precincts nationwide in which votes
were not credited.
2. Petitioner maintains that said resolution proved futile because said resolution did not
reach all BEIs throughout the country ON TIME for implementation.
May 23, petitioner filed an urgent petition before the respondent praying for the following:
1. Implement is previous resolution with costs de officio (bearing its own expense)
2. Re-open the ballot boxes in the 13 provinces and scan for “CHAVEZ” votes to purposes
of crediting the same in petitioners favor
 3. Make appropriate entries in the election returns/certificates of canvass
4. To suspend the proclamation of the 24 winning candidates
Dissatisfied with the COMELEC to act on the petition, petitioner filed for urgent petition of
prohibition of mandamus, with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondent from proclaiming the 24 highest senatorial candidates without first
resolving the case.
Petitioner claims COMELEC acted capriciously and whimsically and with grave abuse of
discretion.
June 4, court issued a Temporary restraining order. on the same day filed a manifestation
praying that the petition ad cautelam ( for more abundant caution) be treated as a regular
petition
June 8, a motion for leave to intervene with comment in intervention praying for the
dismissal of the instant petition on ground that the law does not allow pre-proclamation
controversy involving the election of members of the senate.
ISSUE/S
May COMELEC act on Francisco’s prayer?
RULING
No. The jurisdiction that COMELEC has is over pre-proclamation controversies. Such is
not the case here firstly because pre-proclamation cases are not allowed for president, senator
and secondly because the case is not a pre-proclamation controversy.
Pre-proclamation controversies are those that call for correction of “manifest errors in
the certificates of canvass or election returns,” i.e. questions on authenticity of the election
returns canvassed.
Francisco’s prayer does not call for such but for the re-opening of the ballot boxes and
appreciation of the ballots. Under the Constitution (Art VI, Sec 17), the proper recourse is to file
a regular election protest with SET. As the authenticity of the election returns are not
questioned, they must be considered valid for purposes of canvassing.
DOCTRINE
Sec 15 of RA 7166 – no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election returns or the
certificate of canvass, as the case may be.
Sec 17, Art. VI – the senate and HR shall each have an electoral tribunal which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
members.