Election

Law

AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC
SITTING AS THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, THE SPECIAL
PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR MAGUINDANAO CHAIRED BY
ATTY. EMILIO S. SANTOS, and JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI
G. R. No. 178413
Oct. 2, 2001
Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS

This is a case for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by the petitioner
Aquilino L. Pimentel III with regard to the proceedings of the Special
Provincial Board of Canvassers for Maguindanao in re-canvassing the votes
therein to settle the 12th senatorial seat of the 14 May 2007 elections, now a
contest between him and private respondent, Juan Miguel F. Zubiri. Among
his claims in the case at bar is his question of the manner the re-canvassing
was being done where parties are not allowed to ask questions. He claims that
it deprives him of his right to due process and equal protection.

ISSUE

Whether or not the procedure followed by the Special Provincial Board
of Canvassers for Maguindanao was without legal basis and violative of
petitioner’s constitutional right to due process and equal protection.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure followed by the SPBOC –
Maguindanao was in order. The matter is a pre-proclamation controversy
defined by BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code as “any question pertaining
to or affecting the proceeding of the board of canvassers which may be raised
by any candidate or by any registered political party before the board or
directly with the Commission.” Further, according to Section 16 of Republic
Act No. 7166, pre-proclamation cases to resolve pre-proclamation
controversies are allowed in local elections. However, in Section 15 of the
same statute, this is prohibited as to elections for President, Vice-
President, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. RA
9369 amended Section 15 of RA 7166 by adding an excepting phrase to the
general prohibition against pre-proclamation controversies in elections for
President down to the Members of the House of Representatives. The
exemption is contained in Section 30 of RA 7166, likewise amended by RA
9369. This mandates Congress and the Commission en banc to determine
the authenticity and due execution of the certificate of canvass for
president and vice-president and senators, respectively as accomplished
and transmitted to it by the local board of canvassers. In elections for
House of Representatives up to the President, the general rule still is that the
pre-proclamation cases on matters relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass
are still prohibited. The recognized exceptions to the prohibition, namely:
(1) correction of manifest errors; (2) questions affecting the
composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; and (3)
determination of the authenticity and due execution of certificates of
canvass as provided in Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9369.

Pimentel argues that his pre-proclamation case is an exemption to the
prohibition. The Court ruled for the respondents. Undeniably, the SPBOC-
Maguindanao is not Congress nor COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC, as
specifically charged by law to perform such function; (1) Congress as the
NBC for the election for President and Vice-President; and (2) COMELEC en
banc as the NBC for the election for Senators. This is a case where the law is
clear. It speaks in a language that is categorical. It is quite explicit; it is too
plain to be misread. No interpretation is needed. All that is called for is to
apply the statutory command.

Even if there is still a need for this Court to construe Section 30 of
Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, it still cannot
extend the scope of said provision to local boards of canvassers. A
preproclamation case under Section 30 is allowed only as an exception to the
prohibition under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9369. According to the rules of statutory construction,
exceptions, as a general rule, are strictly, but reasonably construed; they
extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be
resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception. Where a
general rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not curtail
the former nor add to the latter by implication. A maxim of recognized
practicality is the rule that the expressed exception or exemption excludes
others. Exceptio firmat regulim in casibus non exceptis. The express mention of
exceptions operates to exclude other exceptions; conversely, those which are
not within the enumerated exceptions are deemed included in the general
rule. And, in the case, the exception applies only to Congress or the
COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC, and not the local boards of
canvassers who must still be deemed covered by the prohibition on pre-
proclamation controversies.

This Court finds Pimentel’s argument of deprivation of due process
problematic since he has not established what he is being deprived of: life,
liberty, or property. Pimentel cannot invoke denial of substantive due process
because he is not assailing any law, which, arbitrarily or without sufficient
justification, supposedly deprived him of life, liberty, or property. At most,
Pimentel can claim that he was denied procedural due process when he was
not allowed by the NBC and the SPBOC-Maguindanao to propound questions
to certain election officials. But even on this point, Pimentel fails to convince
this Court. Asking election officials questions and confronting them with
evidence are not part of the canvass proceedings. There is no statute or
regulation expressly providing for such a procedure.

With regard to his right to equal protection, he was in fact similarly
treated with other senatorial candidates, none were allowed to question the
canvassers.

Finding no basis for the other grounds as well, the Court dismissed the
petition.

Relevant Doctrine:

The petition is impressed with merit because the petitioner has been
proclaimed winner of the Congressional elections in the first district of
Pampanga, has taken his oath of office as such, and assumed his duties as
Congressman. For this Court to take cognizance of the electoral protest
against him would be to usurp the functions of the House Electoral Tribunal.
The alleged invalidity of the proclamation (which has been previously ordered
by the COMELEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection therewith,
and despite the pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, is a matter
that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound judgment of the
Electoral Tribunal.

It is therefore crystal clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a
petition for certiorari and mandamus on matters which may be threshed out
in an election contest. It is the SET which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on
the complaint of Pimentel involving, as it does, a contest relating to the
election of Zubiri, now a member of the Senate.