Mastura vs COMELEC

GR No. 124521 January 29, 1998

FACTS:
Mastura and Dilangalen were congressional candidates for the first district of Maguindanao in
the May 1995 elections. During the canvassing of votes, Dilangalen alleged that the Certificate of
Canvass of the Municipality of Matanog was tampered. The COMELEC Second Division (COMELEC) then
examined and compared the MTC Judge and COMELEC copies of the questioned election returns and
discovered that the certificate was in fact tampered with. By virtue of the assailed Feb 29, 1996 order,
the canvass was annulled and a new Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) was created to recanvass the
votes. The following day, Mastura motioned for the opening of the MBC copies of the election returns
and the COMELEC Copy of the Certificate of Canvass and Accompanying Statement of Votes. The
COMELEC Second Division merely noted the motion (March 5, 1996 Order). Thereafter, Mastura filed
another motion and argued that the Feb 29, 1996 order was issued prematurely since the other
documents which he considered necessary to the resolution of the issue were yet to be examined. The
motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied (March 14 and 20, 1996). In the
recanvassing, Mastura objected to the inclusion of 50 election returns, alleging that the COMELEC copy
must be compared with the original MBC copy. The new MBC did not agree and included in the canvass
the challenged election returns. Dilangalen was proclaimed the winning candidate. Hence, the present
case.

ISSUE:
WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed February
and March 1996 orders.

RULING:
No, respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The COMELEC is the constitutional body charged with the duty to enforce all laws relative to
elections and it ensures that the Board of Canvassers performs its proper function. It can suspend the
canvassing of votes while it examines whether there are discrepancies between various copies of
election returns from the disputed voting centers. Once the election returns are found to be falsified or
tampered with, it can annul the illegal canvass and order the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and
proclaim the winners based on the genuine returns or, if it should refuse, replace the members of the
board or proclaim the winners itself. Moreover, the functions of a canvassing board and the COMELEC
are purely ministerial in nature. As long as the election returns have been accomplished in due form, the
Board, and on appeal therefrom, the COMELEC, must include said returns in the canvass. The seven
copies of the certificate of canvass required in RA 7166 are all original copies and designated as such
only for the purpose of distribution.
In this case, the actions of the COMELEC were all in accordance with the aforementioned
provisions. Mastura also wrongly believed that the MBC copy should be the basis in determining
whether the questioned election returns are tampered with or falsified.
COMELEC was therefore properly within the exercise of its discretion when it ordered the
suspension of the canvassing of votes pending the examination of the election returns. Since the MTC
Judge and COMELEC copies of the election returns are considered original copies, the COMELEC should
not be required to retrieve and examine all the seven copies.