By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
In the case of RICARDO “BOY” CANICOSA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA and SEVERINO LAJARA, Respondents, (G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997), the Supreme Court was presented with an issue of whether or not to declare a failure of election in Calamba, Laguna. Justice Josue Bellosillo wrote the decision for the Court en banc.
Canicosa and Lajara were candidates for mayor for the May 8, 1995 elections.
Lajara was subsequently proclaimed winner, having obtained a majority of some 24,000 votes over Canicosa.
A week later, Canicosa filed a petition to declare a failure of election, alleging “widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting, and delay in the delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. Canicosa particularly averred that: (a) the names of the registered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their precincts; (b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with strangers voting in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he actually received; (d) control data of the election returns was not filled up in some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there was delay in the delivery of election returns.”
The COMELEC en banc dismissed Canicosa’s petition, stating that the “allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.” Aggrieved, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the COMELEC en banc and dismissed the instant petition. It held that:
“Indeed, the grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of failure of election. Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, reads:
- Failure of election. — If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.”
The Court explained that under Sec. 6 of BP 881 “there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody, or canvass thereof such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.”
The grounds invoked by Canicosa, said the Court, did not fall in the 3 instances.
Having disposed of the main issue of the case, the Court took the other contentions of Canicosa.
It considered that Canicosa alleged that “the names of the registered voters in the various precincts did not appear in their respective lists of voters.”
The Court said that “this is not a ground to declare a failure of election.” He should have filed “a petition for inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts”, pursuant to Section 138, Art. XII, of the Omnibus Election Code. In addition, he could have filed “a verified complaint seeking the annulment of the book of voters pursuant to Sec. 10, of RA No. 7166.”
“Since Canicosa,” the Court said, “failed to resort to any of the above options, the permanent list of voters as finally corrected before the election remains conclusive on the question as to who had the right to vote in that election, although not in subsequent elections.”
The Court also noted that Canicosa alleged that “more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote, instead, strangers voted on their behalf.”
It explained that “this is not a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election.” His watchers could have prevented this by challenging any illegal voter pursuant to Secs. 199 and 202, Art. XVII, of the Omnibus Election Code.
On the “claim of Canicosa that he was credited with less votes than he actually received and that the control data of the election returns was not filled,” the Court said that this “should have been raised in the first instance before the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers,” pursuant to Section 179, Art. XV, of the Omnibus Election Code, by his watchers.
Then, the Court concluded:
“In fine, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. In Mitmug v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 106270-73 February 10, 1994), we ruled that before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, at least two (2) conditions must concur. (a) no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and, (b) the votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election. From the face of the instant petition, it is readily apparent than an election took place and that it did not result in a failure to elect.”
The lesson of this case is that candidates should not take lightly the appointment of watchers, who are their eyes and ears in the polling places or precincts and in the board of canvassers, whether in the municipal, district, city or provincial board of canvassers.
Candidates should select watchers who are intelligent, vocal, vigilant and unafraid. They should train their watchers by teaching them their rights and obligations. They should send them to their precincts and canvassing centers with their substitute watchers in tow, and their appointment papers, IDs, ball pens, notebooks and flash lights in hand. If they fail to do any of these things, they will just be appointing watchers who will not be after their best interests. Their watchers will just be merely interested in their fees, nothing more, nothing less. And the lesson of Ricardo “Boy” Canicosa will be repeated over and over again.
