Presidential Electoral Tribunal Cases

8/19/2019 Presidential Electoral Tribunal Cases

1/33

G.R. No. 191618 November 23, 2010

ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, Petitioner,

vs.

PREI!ENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

NAC"URA, J.:

Confronting us is an undesignated petition1 led by tty. Ro!ulo ". #a$alintal %tty.

#a$alintal&, t'at (uestions t'e $onstitution of t'e Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal

%PE)& as an illegal and unaut'ori*ed progeny of Se$tion +,rti$le -II of t'e

Constitution

)'e Supre!e Court, sitting en ban$, s'all be t'e sole /udge of all $ontests relating

to t'e ele$tion, returns, and (uali$ations of t'e President or -i$e0President, and

!ay pro!ulgate its rules for t'e purpose.

'ile petitioner $on$edes t'at t'e Supre!e Court is 2aut'ori*ed to pro!ulgate its

rules for t'e purpose,2 'e $'afes at t'e $reation of a purportedly 2separate tribunal2

$o!ple!ented by a budget allo$ation, a seal, a set of personnel and $ondential

e!ployees, to e3e$t t'e $onstitutional !andate. Petitioner4s aver!ent is

supposedly supported by t'e provisions of t'e 556 Rules of t'e Presidential

Ele$toral )ribunal %556 PE) Rules&,7spe$i$ally

%1& Rule 7 8'i$' provides for !e!bers'ip of t'e PE) 8'erein t'e C'ief 9usti$eand t'e sso$iate 9usti$es are designated as 2C'air!an and #e!bers,2

respe$tively:

%& Rule ;%e& 8'i$' aut'ori*es t'e C'air!an of t'e PE) to appoint e!ployees

and $ondential e!ployees of every !e!ber t'ereof:

%7& Rule < 8'i$' provides for a separate 2d!inistrative Sta3 of t'e )ribunal2

8it' t'e appoint!ent of a Cler= and a Deputy Cler= of t'e )ribunal 8'o, at

t'e dis$retion of t'e PE), !ay designate t'e Cler= of Court %en ban$& as t'e

Cler= of t'e )ribunal: and

%+& Rule 11 8'i$' provides for a 2seal2 separate and distin$t fro! t'e

Supre!e Court seal.

>rudgingly, petitioner t'ro8s us a bone by a$=no8ledging t'at t'e invo=ed

$onstitutional provision does allo8 t'e 2appoint!ent of additional personnel.2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt1


2/33

?urt'er, petitioner 'ig'lig'ts our de$ision in "ua$ v. CO#E@EC+ 8'i$' perip'erally

de$lared t'at 2$ontests involving t'e President and t'e -i$e0President fall 8it'in t'e

eA$lusive original /urisdi$tion of t'e PE), A A A in t'e eAer$ise of (uasi0/udi$ial

po8er.2 On t'is point, petitioner reiterates t'at t'e $onstitution of t'e PE), 8it' t'e

designation of t'e #e!bers of t'e Court as C'air!an and #e!bers t'ereof,

$ontravenes Se$tion 1, rti$le -III of t'e Constitution, 8'i$' pro'ibits t'edesignation of #e!bers of t'e Supre!e Court and of ot'er $ourts establis'ed by

la8 to any agen$y perfor!ing (uasi0/udi$ial or ad!inistrative fun$tions.

)'e OB$e of t'e Soli$itor >eneral %OS>&, as dire$ted in our Resolution dated pril ,

515, led a Co!!ent6t'ereon. t t'e outset, t'e OS> points out t'at t'e petition

led by tty. #a$alintal is unspe$ied and 8it'out statutory basis: 2t'e liberal

approa$' in its preparation A A A is a violation of t'e 8ell =no8n rules of pra$ti$e

and pleading in t'is /urisdi$tion.2

In all, t'e OS> $rystalli*es t'e follo8ing issues for resolution of t'e Court

I

E)ER A A A PE)I)IONER S @OCS S)NDI )O ?I@E )E INS)N) PE)I)ION.

II

E)ER A A A )E CRE)ION O? )E PRESIDEN)I@ E@EC)OR@ )RI"N@ IS

NCONS)I))ION@ ?OR "EIN> -IO@)ION O? PR>RP F, SEC)ION + O?

R)IC@E -II O? )E 1N)ION O? #E#"ERS O? )E SPRE#E COR) S

#E#"ERS O? )E PRESIDEN)I@ E@EC)OR@ )RI"N@ IS NCONS)I))ION@ ?OR

"EIN> -IO@)ION O? SEC)ION 1, R)IC@E -III O? )E 1


3/33

e 8inno8 t'e !eanderings of petitioner into t'e singular issue of 8'et'er t'e

$onstitution of t'e PE), $o!posed of t'e #e!bers of t'is Court, is un$onstitutional,

and violates Se$tion +, rti$le -II and Se$tion 1, rti$le -III of t'e Constitution.

"ut rst, 8e dispose of t'e pro$edural issue of 8'et'er petitioner 'as standing to

le t'e present petition.

)'e issue of lo$us standi is derived fro! t'e follo8ing re(uisites of a /udi$ial in(uiry

1. )'ere !ust be an a$tual $ase or $ontroversy:

. )'e (uestion of $onstitutionality !ust be raised by t'e proper party:

7. )'e $onstitutional (uestion !ust be raised at t'e earliest possible

opportunity: and

+. )'e de$ision of t'e $onstitutional (uestion !ust be ne$essary to t'e

deter!ination of t'e $ase itself.;

On !ore t'an one o$$asion 8e 'ave $'ara$teri*ed a proper party as one 8'o 'as

sustained or is in i!!ediate danger of sustaining an in/ury as a result of t'e a$t

$o!plained of.


4/33

govern!ental agen$ies engaged in publi$ servi$e, t'e nited States Supre!e Court

laid do8n t'e !ore stringent 2dire$t in/ury2 test in EA Parte @evitt, later reaBr!ed in

)ileston v. ll!an. )'e sa!e Court ruled t'at for a private individual to invo=e t'e

/udi$ial po8er to deter!ine t'e validity of an eAe$utive or legislative a$tion, 'e

!ust s'o8 t'at 'e 'as sustained a dire$t in/ury as a result of t'at a$tion, and it is

not suB$ient t'at 'e 'as a general interest $o!!on to all !e!bers of t'e publi$.

)'is Court adopted t'e 2dire$t in/ury2 test in our /urisdi$tion. In People v. -era, it

'eld t'at t'e person 8'o i!pugns t'e validity of a statute !ust 'ave 2a personal

and substantial interest in t'e $ase su$' t'at 'e 'as sustained, or 8ill sustain dire$t

in/ury as a result.2 )'e -era do$trine 8as up'eld in a litany of $ases, su$' as,

Custodio v. President of t'e Senate, #anila Ra$e orse )rainers4 sso$iation v. De la

?uente, Pas$ual v. Se$retary of Publi$ or=s and nti0C'inese @eague of t'e

P'ilippines v. ?eliA.

o8ever, being a !ere pro$edural te$'ni$ality, t'e re(uire!ent of lo$us standi !ay

be 8aived by t'e Court in t'e eAer$ise of its dis$retion. )'is 8as done in t'e 1


5/33

%6& for legislators, t'ere !ust be a $lai! t'at t'e oB$ial a$tion $o!plained of

infringes upon t'eir prerogatives as legislators.

Contrary to t'e 8ell0settled a$tual and dire$t in/ury test, petitioner 'as si!ply

alleged a generali*ed interest in t'e out$o!e of t'is $ase, and su$$eeds only in

!uddling t'e issues. Paragrap' of t'e petition reads

. A A A Sin$e t'e $reation and $ontinued operation of t'e PE) involves t'e use of

publi$ funds and t'e issue raised 'erein is of trans$endental i!portan$e, it is

petitioner4s 'u!ble sub!ission t'at, as a $iti*en, a taApayer and a !e!ber of t'e

"R, 'e 'as t'e legal standing to le t'is petition.

"ut even if 'is sub!ission is valid, petitioner4s standing is still i!periled by t'e

8'ite elep'ant in t'e petition, i.e., 'is appearan$e as $ounsel for for!er President

>loria #a$apagal0rroyo %#a$apagal0rroyo& in t'e ele$tion protest led by 55+

presidential $andidate ?ernando Poe, 9r. before t'e Presidential Ele$toral

)ribunal,17be$ause /udi$ial in(uiry, as !entioned above, re(uires t'at t'e

$onstitutional (uestion be raised at t'e earliest possible opportunity.1+ Su$'

appearan$e as $ounsel before t'e )ribunal, to our !ind, 8ould 'ave been t'e rst

opportunity to $'allenge t'e $onstitutionality of t'e )ribunal4s $onstitution.

lt'oug' t'ere are re$ogni*ed eA$eptions to t'is re(uisite, 8e nd none in t'is

instan$e. Petitioner is un!ista=ably estopped fro! assailing t'e /urisdi$tion of t'e

PE) before 8'i$' tribunal 'e 'ad ubi(uitously appeared and 'ad a$=no8ledged its

/urisdi$tion in 55+. is failure to raise a seasonable $onstitutional $'allenge at t'at

ti!e, $oupled 8it' 'is un$onditional a$$eptan$e of t'e )ribunal4s aut'ority over t'e

$ase 'e 8as defending, translates to t'e $lear absen$e of an indispensable re(uisitefor t'e proper invo$ation of t'is Court4s po8er of /udi$ial revie8. Even on t'is s$ore

alone, t'e petition oug't to be dis!issed outrig't.

Prior to petitioner4s appearan$e as $ounsel for t'en protestee #a$apagal0rroyo, 8e

'ad o$$asion to aBr! t'e grant of original /urisdi$tion to t'is Court as a Presidential

Ele$toral )ribunal in t'e auspi$ious $ase of )e$son v. Co!!ission on

Ele$tions.16 )'us 0

Petitioners )e$son, et al., in >.R. No. 11+7+, and -ele*, in >.R. No. 117+, invo=e

t'e provisions of rti$le -II, Se$tion +, paragrap' F, of t'e 1


6/33

)'e provision is an innovation of t'e 1.R. Nos. 11+7+ and 117+ invo=e t'e Court4s eA$lusive /urisdi$tion under t'e

last paragrap' of Se$tion +, rti$le -II of t'e 1


7/33

ele$toral tribunals eAer$ise /urisdi$tion over ele$tion $ontests only after a $andidate

'as already been pro$lai!ed 8inner in an ele$tion. Rules 1+ and 16 of t'e Rules of

t'e Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal provide t'at, for President or -i$e0President,

ele$tion protest or %uo &arranto !ay be led after the procla#ation of the &inner .1F

Petitioner, a pro!inent ele$tion la8yer 8'o 'as led several $ases before t'is Courtinvolving $onstitutional and ele$tion la8 issues, in$luding, a!ong ot'ers, t'e

$onstitutionality of $ertain provisions of Republi$ $t %R..& No.


8/33

o8ever, 8'ere t'ere is a!biguity or doubt, t'e 8ords of t'e Constitution s'ould be

interpreted in a$$ordan$e 8it' t'e intent of its fra!ers or ratio legis et ani!a.

doubtful provision !ust be eAa!ined in lig't of t'e 'istory of t'e ti!es, and t'e

$ondition and $ir$u!stan$es surrounding t'e fra!ing of t'e Constitution.1 In

follo8ing t'is guideline, $ourts s'ould bear in !ind t'e ob/e$t soug't to be

a$$o!plis'ed in adopting a doubtful $onstitutional provision, and t'e evils soug't tobe prevented or re!edied. Conse(uently, t'e intent of t'e fra!ers and t'e people

ratifying t'e $onstitution, and not t'e panderings of self0indulgent !en, s'ould be

given e3e$t.

@ast, ut !agis valeat (ua! pereat H t'e Constitution is to be interpreted as a 8'ole.

e intoned t'us in t'e land!ar= $ase of Civil @iberties nion v. EAe$utive

Se$retary7

It is a 8ell0establis'ed rule in $onstitutional $onstru$tion t'at no one provision of t'e

Constitution is to be separated fro! all t'e ot'ers, to be $onsidered alone, but t'at

all t'e provisions bearing upon a parti$ular sub/e$t are to be broug't into vie8 and

to be so interpreted as to e3e$tuate t'e great purposes of t'e instru!ent. Se$tions

bearing on a parti$ular sub/e$t s'ould be $onsidered and interpreted toget'er as to

e3e$tuate t'e 8'ole purpose of t'e Constitution and one se$tion is not to be

allo8ed to defeat anot'er, if by any reasonable $onstru$tion, t'e t8o $an be !ade

to stand toget'er.

In ot'er 8ords, t'e $ourt !ust 'ar!oni*e t'e!, if pra$ti$able, and !ust lean in

favor of a $onstru$tion 8'i$' 8ill render every 8ord operative, rat'er t'an one

8'i$' !ay !a=e t'e 8ords idle and nugatory.

e 'ad earlier eApounded on t'is rule of $onstru$tion in C'iongbian v. De @eon, et

al., + to 8it

)J'e !e!bers of t'e Constitutional Convention $ould not 'ave dedi$ated a

provision of our Constitution !erely for t'e benet of one person 8it'out

$onsidering t'at it $ould also a3e$t ot'ers. 'en t'ey adopted subse$tion , t'ey

per!itted, if not 8illed, t'at said provision s'ould fun$tion to t'e full eAtent of its

substan$e and its ter!s, not by itself alone, but in $on/un$tion 8it' all ot'er

provisions of t'at great do$u!ent.

On its fa$e, t'e $ontentious $onstitutional provision does not spe$ify t'e

establis'!ent of t'e PE). "ut neit'er does it pre$lude, !u$' less pro'ibit,

ot'er8ise. It entertains divergent interpretations 8'i$', t'oug' una$$eptable to

petitioner, do not in$lude 'is restri$tive vie8 H one 8'i$' really does not o3er a

solution.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt24


9/33

Se$tion +, rti$le -II of t'e Constitution, t'e provision under s$rutiny, s'ould be

read 8it' ot'er related provisions of t'e Constitution su$' as t'e parallel provisions

on t'e Ele$toral )ribunals of t'e Senate and t'e ouse of Representatives.

"efore 8e resort to t'e re$ords of t'e Constitutional Co!!ission, 8e dis$uss t'e

fra!e8or= of /udi$ial po8er !apped out in t'e Constitution. Contrary to petitioner4sassertion, t'e Supre!e Court4s $onstitutional !andate to a$t as sole /udge of

ele$tion $ontests involving our $ountry4s 'ig'est publi$ oB$ials, and its rule0!a=ing

aut'ority in $onne$tion t'ere8it', is not restri$ted: it in$ludes all ne$essary po8ers

i!pli$it in t'e eAer$ise t'ereof.

e re$all t'e unpre$edented and trailbla*ing $ase of #ar$os v. #anglapus6

)'e 1)E I)S R@ES ?OR )E PRPOSE. )'is refers to t'e Supre!e Court sitting

en ban$. )'is is also to $onfer on t'e Supre!e Court eA$lusive aut'ority to ena$t

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt25


10/33

t'e ne$essary rules 8'ile a$ting as sole /udge of all $ontests relating to t'e ele$tion,

returns and (uali$ations of t'e President or -i$e0President.

#R. RE>@DO. #y personal position is t'at t'e rule0!a=ing po8er of t'e Supre!e

Court 8it' respe$t to its internal pro$edure is already i!pli$it under t'e rti$le on

t'e 9udi$iary: $onsidering, 'o8ever, t'at a$$ording to t'e Co!!issioner, t'epurpose of t'is is to indi$ate t'e sole po8er of t'e Supre!e Court 8it'out

intervention by t'e legislature in t'e pro!ulgation of its rules on t'is parti$ular

point, I t'in= I 8ill personally re$o!!end its a$$eptan$e to t'e Co!!ittee.

A A A A

#R. NO@@EDO. A A A.

it' respe$t to Se$tions 15 and 11 on page ;, I understand t'at t'e Co!!ittee 'as

also $reated an Ele$toral )ribunal in t'e Senate and a Co!!ission on ppoint!ents

8'i$' !ay $over !e!bers'ip fro! bot' ouses. "ut !y (uestion is It see!s to !e

t'at t'e $o!!ittee report does not indi$ate 8'i$' body s'ould pro!ulgate t'e

rules t'at s'all govern t'e Ele$toral )ribunal and t'e Co!!ission on ppoint!ents.

'o s'all t'en pro!ulgate t'e rules of t'ese bodiesL

#R. D-IDE. )'e Ele$toral )ribunal itself 8ill establis' and pro!ulgate its rules

be$ause it is a body distin$t and independent already fro! t'e ouse, and so 8it'

t'e Co!!ission on ppoint!ents also. It 8ill 'ave t'e aut'ority to pro!ulgate its

o8n rules.F

On anot'er point of dis$ussion relative to t'e grant of /udi$ial po8er, but e(ually$ogent, 8e listen to for!er C'ief 9usti$e Roberto Con$ep$ion

#R. SREM. )'an= you.

ould t'e Co!!issioner not $onsider t'at violative of t'e do$trine of separation of

po8ersL

#R. CONCEPCION. I t'in= Co!!issioner "ernas eAplained t'at t'is is a $ontest

bet8een t8o parties. )'is is a /udi$ial po8er.

#R. SREM. e =no8, but pra$ti$ally t'e Co!!ittee is giving to t'e /udi$iary t'e

rig't to de$lare 8'o 8ill be t'e President of our $ountry, 8'i$' to !e is a politi$al

a$tion.

#R. CONCEPCION. )'ere are legal rig'ts 8'i$' are enfor$eable under t'e la8, and

t'ese are essentially /usti$iable (uestions.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt27


11/33

#R. SREM. If t'e ele$tion $ontest proved to be long, burdenso!e and tedious,

pra$ti$ally all t'e ti!e of t'e Supre!e Court sitting en ban$ 8ould be o$$upied 8it'

it $onsidering t'at t'ey 8ill be going over !illions and !illions of ballots or ele$tion

returns, #ada! President.;

E$'oing t'e sa!e senti!ent and aBr!ing t'e grant of /udi$ial po8er to t'eSupre!e Court, 9usti$e ?loren* D. Regaladoentle!an 8ill

re!e!ber t'at in t'at ele$tion, @ope* 8as de$lared 8inner. e led a protest before

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt30


12/33

t'e Supre!e Court be$ause t'ere 8as a republi$ a$t 8'i$' $reated t'e Supre!e

Court as t'e Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal. )'e (uestion in t'is $ase 8as 8'et'er

ne8 po8ers $ould be given t'e Supre!e Court by la8. In e3e$t, t'e $oni$t 8as

a$tually 8'et'er t'ere 8as an atte!pt to $reate t8o Supre!e Courts and t'e

ans8er of t'e Supre!e Court 8as 2No, t'is did not involve t'e $reation of t8o

Supre!e Courts, but pre$isely 8e are giving ne8 /urisdi$tion to t'e Supre!e Court,as it is allo8ed by t'e Constitution. Congress !ay allo$ate various /urisdi$tions.2

"efore t'e passage of t'at republi$ a$t, in $ase t'ere 8as any $ontest bet8een t8o

presidential $andidates or t8o vi$e0presidential $andidates, no one 'ad /urisdi$tion

over it. So, it be$a!e ne$essary to $reate a Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal. 'at 8e

'ave done is to $onstitutionali*e 8'at 8as statutory but it is not an infringe!ent on

t'e separation of po8ers be$ause t'e po8er being given to t'e Supre!e Court is a

/udi$ial po8er.71

n!ista=able fro! t'e foregoing is t'at t'e eAer$ise of our po8er to /udge

presidential and vi$e0presidential ele$tion $ontests, as 8ell as t'e rule0!a=ing

po8er ad/un$t t'ereto, is plenary: it is not as restri$tive as petitioner 8ould interpret

it. In fa$t, for!er C'ief 9usti$e ilario >. Davide, 9r., 8'o proposed t'e insertion of

t'e p'rase, intended t'e Supre!e Court to eAer$ise eA$lusive aut'ority to

pro!ulgate its rules of pro$edure for t'at purpose. )o t'is, 9usti$e Regalado

fort'8it' assented and t'en e!p'asi*ed t'at t'e sole po8er oug't to be 8it'out

intervention by t'e legislative depart!ent. Evidently, even t'e legislature $annot

li!it t'e /udi$ial po8er to resolve presidential and vi$e0presidential ele$tion

$ontests and our rule0!a=ing po8er $onne$ted t'ereto.

)o fore$lose all argu!ents of petitioner, 8e reiterate t'at t'e establis'!ent of t'ePE) si!ply $onstitutionali*ed 8'at 8as statutory before t'e 1


13/33

)'e o!ission in t'e 1


14/33

In 1


15/33

referred to as 2C'air!an2 and 2#e!bers,2 respe$tively: %& t'e PE) uses a di3erent

seal: %7& t'e C'air!an is aut'ori*ed to appoint personnel: and %+& additional

$o!pensation is allo$ated to t'e 2#e!bers,2 in order to bolster 'is $lai! of inr!ity

in t'e establis'!ent of t'e PE), are too super$ial to !erit furt'er attention by t'e

Court.

"e t'at as it !ay, 8e 'asten to $larify t'e stru$ture of t'e PE) as a legiti!ate

progeny of Se$tion +, rti$le -II of t'e Constitution, $o!posed of !e!bers of t'e

Supre!e Court, sitting en ban$. )'e follo8ing eA$'ange in t'e 1. )'at (uestion 8ill be referred to Co!!issioner Con$ep$ion.

#R. CONCEPCION. )'is fun$tion 8as dis$'arged by t'e Supre!e Court t8i$e and

t'e Supre!e Court 8as able to dispose of ea$' $ase in a period of one year as

provided by la8. Of $ourse, t'at 8as probably during t'e late 1


16/33

Senator RoAas did not 8ant to 'ave a de$ision adverse to 'i!. )'e votes 8ere being

$ounted already, and 'e did not get 8'at 'e eApe$ted so rat'er t'an 'ave a

de$ision adverse to 'is protest, 'e 8it'dre8 t'e $ase.

A A A A

#R. SREM. I see. So t'e Co!!ission 8ould not 'ave any ob/e$tion to vesting in

t'e Supre!e Court t'is !atter of resolving presidential and vi$e0presidential

$ontestsL

#R. CONCEPCION. Personally, I 8ould not 'ave any ob/e$tion.

#R. SREM. )'an= you.

ould t'e Co!!issioner not $onsider t'at violative of t'e do$trine of separation of

po8ersL

#R. CONCEPCION. I t'in= Co!!issioner "ernas eAplained t'at t'is is a $ontest

bet8een t8o parties. )'is is a /udi$ial po8er.

#R. SREM. e =no8, but pra$ti$ally t'e Co!!ittee is giving to t'e /udi$iary t'e

rig't to de$lare 8'o 8ill be t'e President of our $ountry, 8'i$' to !e is a politi$al

a$tion.

#R. CONCEPCION. )'ere are legal rig'ts 8'i$' are enfor$eable under t'e la8, and

t'ese are essentially /usti$iable (uestions.

#R. SREM. If t'e ele$tion $ontest proved to be long, burdenso!e and tedious,

pra$ti$ally all t'e ti!e of t'e Supre!e Court sitting en ban$ 8ould be o$$upied 8it'

it $onsidering t'at t'ey 8ill be going over !illions and !illions of ballots or ele$tion

returns, #ada! President.

#R. CONCEPCION. )'e ti!e $onsu!ed or to be $onsu!ed in t'is $ontest for

President is dependent upon t'ey =ey nu!ber of tea!s of revisors. I 'ave no

eAperien$e insofar as $ontests in ot'er oB$es are $on$erned.

#R. SREM. lt'oug' t'ere is a re(uire!ent 'ere t'at t'e Supre!e Court is

!andated to sit en ban$L

#R. CONCEPCION. Kes.

#R. SREM. I see.


17/33

#R. CONCEPCION. )'e steps involved in t'is $ontest are ?irst, t'e ballot boAes are

opened before tea!s of t'ree, generally, a representative ea$' of t'e $ourt, of t'e

protestant and of t'e 2protestee.2 It is all a (uestions of 'o8 !any tea!s are

organi*ed. Of $ourse, t'at $an be eApensive, but it 8ould be eApensive 8'atever

$ourt one 8ould $'oose. )'ere 8ere ti!es t'at t'e Supre!e Court, 8it' so!eti!es

65 tea!s at t'e sa!e ti!e 8or=ing, 8ould $lassify t'e ob/e$tions, t'e =ind of proble!s, and t'e $ourt 8ould only go over t'e ob/e$ted votes on 8'i$' t'e parties

$ould not agree. So it is not as a8eso!e as it 8ould appear insofar as t'e Court is

$on$erned. 'at is a8eso!e is t'e $ost of t'e revision of t'e ballots be$ause ea$'

party 8ould 'ave to appoint one representative for every tea!, and t'at !ay ta=e

(uite a big a!ount.

#R. SREM. If 8e dra8 fro! t'e Co!!issioner4s eAperien$e 8'i$' 'e is s'aring

8it' us, 8'at 8ould be t'e reasonable period for t'e ele$tion $ontest to be

de$idedL

#R. CONCEPCION. Insofar as t'e Supre!e Court is $on$erned, t'e Supre!e Court

al8ays !anages to dispose of t'e $ase in one year.

#R. SREM. In one year. )'an= you for t'e $lari$ation.76

Obvious fro! t'e foregoing is t'e intent to besto8 independen$e to t'e Supre!e

Court as t'e PE), to underta=e t'e er$ulean tas= of de$iding ele$tion protests

involving presidential and vi$e0presidential $andidates in a$$ordan$e 8it' t'e

pro$ess outlined by for!er C'ief 9usti$e Roberto Con$ep$ion. It 8as !ade in

response to t'e $on$ern aired by delegate 9ose E. Suare* t'at t'e additional duty

!ay prove too burdenso!e for t'e Supre!e Court. )'is eApli$it grant of independen$e and of t'e plenary po8ers needed to dis$'arge t'is burden /usties

t'e budget allo$ation of t'e PE).

)'e $onfer!ent of additional /urisdi$tion to t'e Supre!e Court, 8it' t'e duty

$'ara$teri*ed as an 2a8eso!e2 tas=, in$ludes t'e !eans ne$essary to $arry it into

e3e$t under t'e do$trine of ne$essary i!pli$ation.7 e $annot overe!p'asi*e t'at

t'e abstra$tion of t'e PE) fro! t'e eApli$it grant of po8er to t'e Supre!e Court,

given our abundant eAperien$e, is not un8arranted.

plain reading of rti$le -II, Se$tion +, paragrap' F, readily reveals a grant of

aut'ority to t'e Supre!e Court sitting en ban$. In t'e sa!e vein, alt'oug' t'e

!et'od by 8'i$' t'e Supre!e Court eAer$ises t'is aut'ority is not spe$ied in t'e

provision, t'e grant of po8er does not $ontain any li!itation on t'e Supre!e

Court4s eAer$ise t'ereof. )'e Supre!e Court4s !et'od of de$iding presidential and

vi$e0presidential ele$tion $ontests, t'roug' t'e PE), is a$tually a derivative of t'e

eAer$ise of t'e prerogative $onferred by t'e afore(uoted $onstitutional provision.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt36


18/33

)'us, t'e subse(uent dire$tive in t'e provision for t'e Supre!e Court to

2pro!ulgate its rules for t'e purpose.2

)'e $onfer!ent of full aut'ority to t'e Supre!e Court, as a PE), is e(uivalent to t'e

full aut'ority $onferred upon t'e ele$toral tribunals of t'e Senate and t'e ouse of

Representatives, i.e., t'e Senate Ele$toral )ribunal %SE)& and t'e ouse of Representatives Ele$toral )ribunal %RE)&,7F 8'i$' 8e 'ave aBr!ed on nu!erous

o$$asions.7;

Parti$ularly $ogent are t'e dis$ussions of t'e Constitutional Co!!ission on t'e

parallel provisions of t'e SE) and t'e RE). )'e dis$ussions point to t'e inevitable

$on$lusion t'at t'e di3erent ele$toral tribunals, 8it' t'e Supre!e Court fun$tioning

as t'e PE), are $onstitutional bodies, independent of t'e t'ree depart!ents of

govern!ent H EAe$utive, @egislative, and 9udi$iary H but not separate t'erefro!.

#R. ##"ON>. A A A.

#y (uestions 8ill be very basi$ so 8e $an go as fast as 8e $an. In t'e $ase of t'e

ele$toral tribunal, eit'er of t'e ouse or of t'e Senate, is it $orre$t to say t'at t'ese

tribunals are $onstitutional $reationsL I 8ill distinguis' t'ese 8it' t'e $ase of t'e

)anodbayan and t'e Sandiganbayan 8'i$' are $reated by !andate of t'e

Constitution but t'ey are not $onstitutional $reations. Is t'at a good distin$tionL

A A A A

#R. ##"ON>. Could 8e, t'erefore, say t'at eit'er t'e Senate Ele$toral )ribunal

or t'e ouse Ele$toral )ribunal is a $onstitutional bodyL

#R. MCN. It is, #ada! President.

#R. ##"ON>. If it is a $onstitutional body, is it t'en sub/e$t to $onstitutional

restri$tionsL

#R. MCN. It 8ould be sub/e$t to $onstitutional restri$tions intended for t'at

body.

#R. ##"ON>. I see. "ut I 8ant to nd out if t'e ruling in t'e $ase of -era v.

velino, FF P'il. 1


19/33

)'e vie8 ta=en by 9usti$es dolfo S. *$una+5 and Regalado E. #aa!bong+1 is

s$'ooled by our 'olding in @ope* v. RoAas, et al.+

Se$tion 1 of Republi$ $t No. 1F


20/33

detra$ting fro! t'e fa$t t'at t'ere is only one Supre!e Court, one Court of ppeals,

and one $ourt of rst instan$e, $lot'ed 8it' aut'ority to dis$'arge said dual

fun$tions. $ourt of rst instan$e, 8'en perfor!ing t'e fun$tions of a probate $ourt

or a $ourt of land registration, or a $ourt of /uvenile and do!esti$ relations,

alt'oug' 8it' po8ers less broad t'an t'ose of a $ourt of rst instan$e, 'earing

ordinary a$tions, is not inferior to t'e latter, for one $annot be inferior to itself. Sotoo, t'e Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal is not inferior to t'e Supre!e Court, sin$e it is

t'e sa!e Court alt'oug' t'e fun$tions pe$uliar to said )ribunal are !ore li!ited in

s$ope t'an t'ose of t'e Supre!e Court in t'e eAer$ise of its ordinary fun$tions.

en$e, t'e ena$t!ent of Republi$ $t No. 1F


21/33

legally de!andable and enfor$eable2 ++ is apportioned to $ourts of /usti$e. it' t'e

advent of t'e 1overn!ent.2+6

)'e po8er 8aseApanded, but it re!ained absolute.

)'e set up e!bodied in t'e Constitution and statutes $'ara$teri*es t'e resolution of

ele$toral $ontests as essentially an eAer$ise of /udi$ial po8er.'aphi'

t t'e barangay and !uni$ipal levels, original and eA$lusive /urisdi$tion over

ele$tion $ontests is vested in t'e !uni$ipal or !etropolitan trial $ourts and t'e

regional trial $ourts, respe$tively.

t t'e 'ig'er levels H $ity, provin$ial, and regional, as 8ell as $ongressional and

senatorial H eA$lusive and original /urisdi$tion is lodged in t'e CO#E@EC and in t'e

ouse of Representatives and Senate Ele$toral )ribunals, 8'i$' are not, stri$tly and

literally spea=ing, $ourts of la8. lt'oug' not $ourts of la8, t'ey are, nonet'eless,

e!po8ered to resolve ele$tion $ontests 8'i$' involve, in essen$e, an eAer$ise of

/udi$ial po8er, be$ause of t'e eApli$it $onstitutional e!po8er!ent found in Se$tion

%&, rti$le I0C %for t'e CO#E@EC& and Se$tion 1F, rti$le -I %for t'e Senate and

ouse Ele$toral )ribunals& of t'e Constitution. "esides, 8'en t'e CO#E@EC, t'e

RE), and t'e SE) de$ide ele$tion $ontests, t'eir de$isions are still sub/e$t to

/udi$ial revie8 H via a petition for $ertiorari led by t'e proper party H if t'ere is a

s'o8ing t'at t'e de$ision 8as rendered 8it' grave abuse of dis$retion tanta!ount

to la$= or eA$ess of /urisdi$tion.+

It is also beyond $avil t'at 8'en t'e Supre!e Court, as PE), resolves a presidential

or vi$e0presidential ele$tion $ontest, it perfor!s 8'at is essentially a /udi$ial po8er.

In t'e land!ar= $ase of ngara v. Ele$toral Co!!ission,+F 9usti$e 9ose P. @aurel

enu$leated t'at 2it 8ould be in$on$eivable if t'e Constitution 'ad not provided for a

!e$'anis! by 8'i$' to dire$t t'e $ourse of govern!ent along $onstitutional

$'annels.2 In fa$t, ngara pointed out t'at 2tJ'e Constitution is a denition of t'e

po8ers of govern!ent.2 nd yet, at t'at ti!e, t'e 1


22/33

Constitution. On t'e 8'ole, t'e Constitution dra8s a t'in, but, nevert'eless, distin$t

line bet8een t'e PE) and t'e Supre!e Court.

If t'e logi$ of petitioner is to be follo8ed, all #e!bers of t'e Court, sitting in t'e

Senate and ouse Ele$toral )ribunals 8ould violate t'e $onstitutional pros$ription

found in Se$tion 1, rti$le -III. Surely, t'e petitioner 8ill be a!ong t'e rst toa$=no8ledge t'at t'is is not so. )'e Constitution 8'i$', in Se$tion 1F, rti$le -I,

eApli$itly provides t'at t'ree Supre!e Court 9usti$es s'all sit in t'e Senate and

ouse Ele$toral )ribunals, respe$tively, e3e$tively eAe!pts t'e 9usti$es0#e!bers

t'ereof fro! t'e pro'ibition in Se$tion 1, rti$le -III. In t'e sa!e vein, it is t'e

Constitution itself, in Se$tion +, rti$le -II, 8'i$' eAe!pts t'e #e!bers of t'e Court,

$onstituting t'e PE), fro! t'e sa!e pro'ibition.

e 'ave previously de$lared t'at t'e PE) is not si!ply an agen$y to 8'i$'

#e!bers of t'e Court 8ere designated. On$e again, t'e PE), as intended by t'e

fra!ers of t'e Constitution, is to be an institution independent, but not separate,

fro! t'e /udi$ial depart!ent, i.e., t'e Supre!e Court. #$Cullo$' v. State of

#aryland+


23/33

RONAL! ALLAN POE #.$.#. %ERNAN!O POE, &R., protestant, vs. GLORIA

MACAPAGAL'ARROYO, protestee.

R E O L U T I O N

(UIUMBING, J.)

The #oing (nger &rites, says O!ar Q'ayya! in t'e Rubayyat, and haing &rit,

#oes on$ )or all your piety nor &it, adds the poet, could lure it bac* to cancel half

a line+ nor all your tears &ash out a &ord of it$

Su$' is !y vie8 on t'e providential $ase for our $onsideration.

"efore t'is Ele$toral )ribunal, $o!posed pursuant to t'e Constitution, by all t'e

fteen !e!bers of t'e Supre!e Court, is a !atter of rst i!pression. e are

tas=ed not only to deter!ine, as originally prayed for, 8'o bet8een t'e Protestant

and t'e Protestee 8as t'e true 8inner in t'e #ay 15, 55+ Presidential Ele$tions,


24/33

but also to de$ide no8 8'et'er t'e Protestants 8ido8 %#rs. 9esusa Sonora Poe,

popularly =no8n as t'e $ine!a star Susan Ro$es& $ould intervene andor substitute

for t'e de$eased party, assu!ingarguendo t'at t'e protest $ould survive 'is deat'.

If one 8ere guided by fol= 8isdo! eApressed in t'e adage t'at in a de!o$ra$y,

t'e voi$e of t'e people is t'e voi$e of >od, t'en it 8ould appear our tas= 'ad been!ade easy by fateful events. Past !idnig't, in t'e early 'ours of 9une +, 55+, t'e

Congress as t'e representatives of t'e sovereign people and a$ting as t'e National

"oard of Canvassers, in a near0unani!ous roll0$all vote, pro$lai!ed #rs. >loria

#a$apagal rroyo %>#& t'e duly ele$ted President of t'e P'ilippines. S'e obtained

1,# on$e and for all. )'e ora$ular fun$tion

of t'is )ribunal, it 8ould appear, needs to be fully eAer$ised to !a=e !anifest 'ere

and abroad 8'o is t'e duly ele$ted leader of t'e ?ilipino nation. ll t'ese, despite

t'e fa$t t'at t'e sub!issions by t'e parties on t'eir respe$tive sides in t'e protest

and t'e $ounter0protest are t'us far, far fro! $o!pleted.

Needless to stress, t'is )ribunal $annot s'ir= its $onstitutional duty. Ket, neit'er

$ould it go beyond its !andate under t'e Constitution and t'e la8. ?urt'er, t'is

)ribunal is guided by its Rules, as 8ell as t'e Rules of Court in a suppletory !anner.

Considering t'e trans$endental i!portan$e of t'e ele$toral $ontest involving t'e

Presiden$y, a rus' to /udg!ent is si!ply out of t'e (uestion. Ket de$ide t'e !atter

8e !ust, 8it'out furt'er delay, to prevent popular unrest and avoid furt'er

destabili*ation of govern!ent at t'e 'ig'est level.

)oget'er 8it' t'e for!al Noti$e of t'e Deat' of Protestant, 'is $ounsel 'as

sub!itted to t'e )ribunal, dated 9anuary 15, 556, a #NI?ES))ION 8it' R>EN)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn1


25/33

PE)I)ION#O)ION to IN)ER-ENE S S"S)I))E ?OR DECESED PRO)ES)N) ?P9,

by t'e 8ido8, #rs. 9esusa Sonora Poe, 8'o signed t'e veri$ation and $erti$ation

t'erein.

s !ovantintervenor, #rs. ?P9 $lai!s t'at be$ause of t'e unti!ely de!ise of

'er 'usband and in representation not only of 'er de$eased 'usband but !ore sobe$ause of t'e para!ount interest of t'e ?ilipino people, t'ere is an urgent need for

'er to $ontinue and substitute for 'er late 'usband in t'e ele$tion protest initiated

by 'i! to as$ertain t'e true and genuine 8ill of t'e ele$torate in t'e 55+ ele$tions.

In support of 'er assertion, s'e $ites De Castro $ Co##ission on Elections,J and o#ugdang $ aier ,7J to t'e e3e$t t'at t'e deat' of t'e protestant does not

$onstitute a ground for t'e dis!issal of t'e $ontest nor oust t'e trial $ourt of t'e

/urisdi$tion to de$ide t'e ele$tion $ontest. S'e stresses nevert'eless t'at even if t'e

instant protest $ase su$$eeds, s'e is $ogni*ant t'at as a !ere substitute s'e $annot

su$$eed, assu!e or be entitled to said ele$tive oB$e, and 'er ut!ost $on$ern is not

personal but one t'at involves t'e publi$s interest. S'e prays, 'o8ever, t'at if

subse(uently deter!ined t'at t'e protestee >loria #a$apagal0rroyo did not get

t'e 'ig'est nu!ber of votes for president, for protestee to be disallo8ed fro!

re!aining in oB$e, and t'us prevented fro! eAer$ising t'e po8ers, duties,

responsibilities and prerogatives reserved only to t'e duly0ele$ted president or 'er

legiti!ate su$$essor.

In 'er Co!!ent, t'e Protestee, #rs. >#, relying on Vda$ de De !esa $

!encias+J and subse(uent $ases in$luding analogous $ases de$ided by t'e ouse of

Representatives Ele$toral )ribunal %RE)&, asserts t'at t'e 8ido8 of a de$eased

$andidate is not t'e proper party to repla$e t'e de$eased protestant sin$e a publi$

oB$e is personal and not a property t'at passes on to t'e 'eirs. S'e points out t'att'e 8ido8 'as no legal rig't to substitute for 'er 'usband in an ele$tion protest,

sin$e no su$' rig't survives t'e 'usband, $onsidering t'at t'e rig't to le an

ele$tion protest is personal and non0trans!issible.

Protestee also $ontends #rs. ?P9 $annot substitute for 'er de$eased 'usband

be$ause under t'e Rules of t'e Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal, only t'e registered

$andidates 8'o obtained t'e nd and 7rd 'ig'est votes for t'e presiden$y !ay

$ontest t'e ele$tion of t'e president and patently, #rs. ?P9 did not re$eive t'e

nd and 7rd 'ig'est votes for s'e 8as not even a $andidate for t'e presiden$y in t'e

ele$tion t'at is being $ontested.

Citing pertinent PE) Rules, protestee also stresses t'at t'is )ribunal 'as no

/urisdi$tion over a$tions of surviving spouses to as$ertain t'e vote of t'e ele$torate

as t'e )ribunal 'as /urisdi$tion only over ele$tion protests and %uo &arranto $ases.

$$ording to protestee, !ovantintervenor #rs. ?P9 $annot use t'e publi$

interest to /ustify 'er re(uest to be substituted for 'er 'usband. Publi$ interest, i.e.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/125249.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/125249.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn4


26/33

t'e need to dispel un$ertainty over t'e real $'oi$e of t'e ele$torate, is appli$able

only in ele$tion $ontests, not in an a$tion to !erely as$ertain t'e true and genuine

8ill of t'e people. S'e asserts t'at t'e only $ase 'erein $ogni*able by t'is )ribunal

is an ele$tion protest involving a protestant and a protestee, not bet8een t'e

ele$torate and t'e protestee. Citing analogous RE) $ases, protestee avers t'at in a

$ase 8'ere t'e protestant, t'e pri!ary adversary in an ele$tion protest $ase dies,t'e publi$ interest in said protest dies 8it' 'i!.

Protestee also $ontends t'at in t'e adversarial nature of a protest $ase 8'ere

one of t'e parties dies, a $orre$t ruling $annot be 'ad be$ause t'e dead protestant

$ould no longer refute 'is adversarys allegations be$ause deat' 'as rendered

'i! hors de co#bat .

?urt'er $iting Defensor-antiago $ .a#os,6J protestee points out t'at t'is

)ribunal, nonet'eless, $onr!ed its po8er to dis!iss an ele$toral $ase on te$'ni$al

grounds. S'e adds t'at if t'e )ribunal $an do so on a te$'ni$ality, all t'e !ore it

$ould for a stronger reason, t'at of protestants deat'.

In 'er Reply, !ovantintervenor argues t'at referen$e of protestee to t'e RE)

$ase of Abadilla $ Ablan,J 8as erroneous inas!u$' as said $ase 8as a

$ongressional protest and t'e $ontrolling $ase is De Castro. S'e li=e8ise $ontends

t'at protestant failed to distinguis' bet8een a rig't to an oB$e 8'i$' protestant

$on$edes is personal and non0trans!issible vis00vis t'e rig't to pursue t'e pro$ess

8'i$' is not personal but i!bued 8it' publi$ interest. S'e li=e8ise stresses t'at t'e

deat' of t'e protestant abolis'ed t'e personalprivate $'ara$ter of t'e protest, as

protestants rig't to assu!e if 'e prevails, ne$essarily disappears, and t'e sa!e

$annot be transferred to anyone else, protestants 8ido8 in$luded. S'e insists,'o8ever, t'at t'e publi$ interest re!ains. ?urt'er, !ovantintervenor posits t'at

t'e protest 'aving been $o!!en$ed $annot be abated by t'e deat' of t'e

protestant and t'e only real issue is t'e deter!ination of t'e proper substitute. S'e

avers t'at t'e )ribunals rule is $lear on 8'o $an $o!!en$e and initiate a protest

$o!pared to t'e persons 8'o $an initiate a %uo &arranto. S'e ad!its t'at in t'e

for!er, only t'e se$ond and t'ird pla$ers in t'e presidential ele$tion are aut'ori*ed

to $o!!en$e t'e $ontest, 8'ile in t'e latter, any voter !ay initiate t'e petition.

S'e $ontends t'at 8it' no personal interest involved, any registered voter $an

$ontinue t'e duly0$o!!en$ed protest as t'e real0party0in0interest 8'i$' is

analogous to a %uo &arranto. S'e $ontradi$ts protestee and insists t'at allo8ingany voter to substitute /ust li=e in a %uo &arranto 8ill not open t'e oodgate to

8'i!si$al protests, and t'e i!agined politi$al instability feared by protestee 8ill

even !ore be pronoun$ed if t'e protest is dis!issed. #ovantintervenor reiterates

t'at t'e issue at 'and involves /ust t'e $ontinuation of pro$eedings by allo8ing

substitution and t'e ta=ing over by t'e substitute of t'e prose$ution of t'e protest

already duly $o!!en$ed.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/pet_001.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/pet_001.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_002.htm#_ftn6


27/33

Plainly, t'e issue 'ere is #ay t'e 8ido8 substituteintervene for t'e protestant

8'o died during t'e penden$y of t'e latters protest $aseL

)'e funda!ental rule appli$able in a presidential ele$tion protest is Rule 1+ of

t'e PE) Rules. It provides,

Rule 1+. Election Protest .Only t'e registered $andidate for President or for -i$e0

President of t'e P'ilippines 8'o re$eived t'e se$ond or t'ird 'ig'est nu!ber of

votes !ay $ontest t'e ele$tion of t'e President or t'e -i$e0President, as t'e $ase

!ay be, by ling a veried petition 8it' t'e Cler= of t'e Presidential Ele$toral

)ribunal 8it'in t'irty %75& days after t'e pro$la!ation of t'e 8inner.

Pursuant to t'is rule, only t8o persons, t'e nd and 7rd pla$ers, !ay $ontest t'e

ele$tion. "y t'is eApress enu!eration, t'e rule !a=ers 'ave in e3e$t deter!ined

t'e real parties in interest $on$erning an on0going ele$tion $ontest. It envisioned a

s$enario 8'ere, if t'e de$lared 8inner 'ad not been truly voted upon by t'e

ele$torate, t'e $andidate 8'o re$eived t'at nd or t'e 7rd 'ig'est nu!ber of votes

8ould be t'e legiti!ate bene$iary in a su$$essful ele$tion $ontest.

)'is )ribunal, 'o8ever, does not 'ave any rule on substitution nor intervention

but it does allo8 for t'e analogous and suppletory appli$ation of t'e Rules of Court,

de$isions of t'e Supre!e Court, and t'e de$isions of t'e ele$toral tribunals. FJ

Rule 7, Se$tion 1 is t'e rule on substitution in t'e Rules of Court. ;J )'is rule

allo8s substitution by a legal representative. It $an be gleaned fro! t'e $itation of

t'is rule t'at !ovantintervenor see=s to appear before t'is )ribunal as t'e legal

representativesubstitute of t'e late protestant pres$ribed by said Se$tion 1.o8ever, in our appli$ation of t'is rule to an ele$tion $ontest, 8e 'ave every ti!e

ruled t'at a publi$ oB$e is personal to t'e publi$ oB$er and not a property

trans!issible to t'e 'eirs upon deat'.


28/33

deat' of eit'er 8ould oust t'e $ourt of all aut'ority to $ontinue t'e protest

pro$eedings.17J en$e, 8e 'ave allo8ed substitution and intervention but only by a

real party in interest. real party in interest is t'e party 8'o 8ould be beneted or

in/ured by t'e /udg!ent, and t'e party 8'o is entitled to t'e avails of t'e suit.1+J In Vda$ de De !esa $ !encias16J and o#ugdang $ aier ,1J8e per!itted

substitution by t'e vi$e0!ayor sin$e t'e vi$e0!ayor is a real party in interest$onsidering t'at if t'e protest su$$eeds and t'e protestee is unseated, t'e vi$e0

!ayor su$$eeds to t'e oB$e of t'e !ayor t'at be$o!es va$ant if t'e one duly

ele$ted $annot assu!e oB$e. In $ontrast, 'erein !ovantintervenor, #rs. ?P9,

'erself denies any $lai! to t'e august oB$e of President. )'us, given t'e

$ir$u!stan$es of t'is $ase, 8e $an $on$lude t'at protestants 8ido8 is not a real

party in interest to t'is ele$tion protest.

e are not una8are t'at a $ontest before ele$tion tribunals 'as t8o aspe$ts.

?irst, it is in pursuit of ones rig't to a publi$ oB$e, and se$ond, it is i!bued 8it'

publi$ interest.

Indeed t'e personal aspe$t of t'e $ase is ineAtri$ably lin=ed 8it' t'e publi$

interest. ?or an ele$tion protest involves not !erely $oni$ting private aspirations

but is i!bued 8it' publi$ interest 8'i$' raises it into a plane over and above

ordinary $ivil a$tions.1FJ "ut 'erein !ovantintervenor, #rs. ?P9, 'as overly stressed

t'at it is 8it' t'e para!ount publi$ interest in !ind t'at s'e desires to pursue t'e

pro$ess $o!!en$ed by 'er late 'usband. S'e avers t'at s'e is pursuing t'e

pro$ess to deter!ine 8'o truly 8on t'e ele$tion, as a servi$e to t'e ?ilipino people.

e laud 'er noble intention and 'er interest to nd out t'e true 8ill of t'e

ele$torate. o8ever, nobility of intention is not t'e point of referen$e in deter!ining

8'et'er a person !ay intervene in an ele$tion protest. Rule 1


29/33

Confor!ably t'en 8it' t'e la8, t'e rules and prevailing /urispruden$e, t'is

)ribunal nds no /ustiable reason to grant t'e petition!otion for intervention and

substitution.

*"ERE%ORE, t'e !otion of !ovantintervenor 9ESS SONOR POE a.=.a.

SSN ROCES to intervene and substitute for t'e de$eased protestant is DENIED forla$= of !erit.

$ting on t'e protest and $onsidering t'e Noti$e of t'e Deat', sub!itted by

$ounsel of protestant RON@D @@N POE, a.=.a. ?ERNNDO POE, 9R., 8e also

resolve t'at Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal Case No. 55, entitled .onald Allan Poe

a$*$a$ /ernando Poe, r$ $ 0loria !acapagal-Arroyo, s'ould be as it is 'ereby

DIS#ISSED on t'e ground t'at no real party in interest 'as $o!e for8ard 8it'in t'e

period allo8ed by la8, to intervene in t'is $ase or be substituted for t'e de$eased

protestant.

No pronoun$e!ent as to $osts.

O OR!ERE!.


30/33

P.E.T. CAE No. 003. M#r+ 31, 200-

LOREN B. LEGAR!A, protestant, vs. NOLI L. !E CATRO, protestee.

R E O L U T I O N

(UIUMBING, J.)

In a Re/oo41J dated 9anuary 1;, 556, t'e Presidential Ele$toral )ribunal

%PE)& $onr!ed t'e /urisdi$tion over t'e protest of @oren ". @egarda and denied t'e

!otion of protestee Noli @. de Castro for its outrig't dis!issal. )'e )ribunal furt'er

ordered $on$erned oB$ials to underta=e !easures for t'e prote$tion and

preservation of t'e ballot boAes and ele$tion do$u!ents sub/e$t of t'e protest.

On ?ebruary +, 556, protestee led a !otion for re$onsideration assailing t'e

said resolution. Protestee $ontends t'erein t'at

I

)IS ONOR"@E )RI"N@ ERRED IN R@IN> )) I) CN RE0CN-SS )E

E@EC)ION RE)RNS ND O)ER CN-SS DOC#EN)S DESPI)E )E -I@"I@I)K

O? )E "@@O)S.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_003.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/pet_003.htm#_ftn1


31/33

II

)IS ONOR"@E )RI"N@ ERRED IN R@IN> )) I) S )E POER )O

CORREC) #NI?ES) ERRORS IN )E E@EC)ION RE)RNS OR CER)I?IC)ES O?

CN-SS.

III

)IS ONOR"@E )RI"N@ ERRED IN )RNS?OR#IN> I)SE@? IN)O CN-SSIN>

"ODK.

I-

)IS ONOR"@E )RI"N@ ERRED IN R@IN> )) )E INS)N)

PE)I)IONPRO)ES) @@E>ED CSE O? C)ION S??ICIEN) )O CON)ES)

PRO)ES)EES -IC)ORK IN )E 15 #K 55+ -ICE0PRESIDEN)I@ E@EC)IONS.J

Protestee argues t'at 8'ere t'e $orre$tness of t'e nu!ber of votes is t'e issue,

t'e best eviden$e are t'e ballots:7J t'at t'e pro$ess of $orre$ting t'e !anifest

errors in t'e $erti$ates of $anvass or ele$tion returns is a fun$tion of t'e

$anvassing bodies:+J t'at on$e t'e $anvassing bodies 'ad done t'eir fun$tions, no

alteration or $orre$tion of !anifest errors $an be !ade:6J t'at sin$e t'e aut'ority of

t'e )ribunal involves an eAer$ise of /udi$ial po8er to deter!ine t'e fa$ts based on

t'e eviden$e presented and to apply t'e la8 based on t'e establis'ed fa$ts, it

$annot perfor! t'e !inisterial fun$tion of $anvassing ele$tion returns: J t'at t'e

aver!ents $ontained in t'e protest are !ere $on$lusions of la8 8'i$' are

inade(uate to for! a valid $ause of a$tion:FJ

t'at t'e allegations are not supportedby fa$ts:;J and t'at t'e allegations 8ere !erely $opied fro! a pleading in anot'er

ele$tion protest.


32/33

ele$tion, returns and (uali$ation of t'e President and -i$e0President is eApressly

vested in t'e PE), in Se$tion +, rti$le -II of t'e Constitution. In$luded t'erein is t'e

duty to $orre$t !anifest errors in t'e SO-s and COCs. 1J )'ere is no ne$essity, in

our vie8, to a!end t'e PE) Rules to perfor! t'is fun$tion 8it'in t'e a!bit of its

$onstitutional fun$tion.

e also note t'e apparent a!bivalen$e of t'e protestee relative to t'e )ribunals

/urisdi$tion over re0$anvass of t'e ele$tion returns. e $lai!s t'e )ribunals aut'ority

to re0$anvass is ineAorably lin=ed to itsJ $onstitutional !andate as t'e sole /udge of

all $ontests relating to t'e presidential and t'e vi$e0presidential ele$tions.17J Contrarily, 'e states t'at t'e )ribunal $annot re0$anvass and !ust resolve t'e

protest t'roug' revision of ballots. If 'e $ontends t'at t'e )ribunal 'as t'e aut'ority

to re0$anvass, t'ere is no reason 8'y it $annot perfor! t'is fun$tion no8. e agree

t'at t'e ballots are t'e best and !ost $on$lusive eviden$e in an ele$tion $ontest

8'ere t'e +orre+4e// o5 e 4mber o5 voe/ o5 e#+ +#4#e is involved.1+J o8ever, 8e do not nd any reason to resort to revision in t'e rst part of t'e

protest, $onsidering t'at t'e protestant $on$edes t'e $orre$tness of t'e ballot

results, $on$erning t'e 4mber o5 voe/ ob#4e b7 bo roe/#4 #4

roe/ee, and ree$ted in t'e ele$tion returns.16J Protestant !erely see=s

t'e +orre+o4 o5 m#45e/ error/, t'at is, errors in t'e pro$ess of di3erent levels

of transposition and addition of votes. Revision of ballots in $ase of !anifest errors,

in t'ese $ir$u!stan$es, !ig't only $ause un8arranted delay in t'e pro$eedings.

On t'e !atter of suB$ien$y of t'e protest, protestee failed to addu$e ne8

substantial argu!ents to reverse our ruling. e 'old t'at 8'ile Pea $ House of

.epresentaties Electoral Tribunal 1J on re(uisites of suB$ien$y of ele$tion protest

is still good la8, it is inappli$able in t'is $ase. e dis!issed t'e petitionin Pea be$ause it 5#e o /e+57 e +o4e/e re+4+/. In t'e instant

protest, protestant enu!erated all t'e provin$es, !uni$ipalities and $ities 8'ere

s'e (uestions # e re// 4 # e re+4+/ ere4. )'e protest 'ere is

suB$ient in for! and substantively, serious enoug' on its fa$e to pose a $'allenge

to protestees title to 'is oB$e. In our vie8, t'e instant protest $onsists of alleged

ulti!ate fa$ts, not !ere $on$lusions of la8, t'at need to be proven in due ti!e.

Considering t'at 8e nd t'e protest suB$ient in for! and substan$e, 8e !ust

again stress t'at 4o4 #/ 7e #/ bee4 rove #/ o e ver#+7 o5 e

#e#o4/. )'e protest is only suB$ient for t'e )ribunal to pro$eed and give t'eprotestant t'e opportunity to prove 'er $ase pursuant to Rule 1 of t'e PE) Rules.1FJ lt'oug' said rule only pertains to revision of ballots, not'ing 'erein prevents

t'e )ribunal fro! allo8ing or in$luding t'e $orre$tion of !anifest errors, pursuant to

t'e )ribunals rule0!a=ing po8er under Se$tion +, rti$le -II of t'e Constitution.1;J

On a related !atter, t'e protestant in 'er reer#4 moo41


33/33

8at$'ers. o8ever, t'e )ribunal 'as already ordered t'e prote$tion and

safeguarding of t'e sub/e$t ballot boAes: and it 'as issued also t'e appropriate

dire$tives to oB$ials $on$erned. t t'is point, 8e nd no s'o8ing of an i!perative

need for t'e relief prayed for, sin$e prote$tive and safeguard !easures are already

being underta=en by t'e $ustodians of t'e sub/e$t ballot boAes.

*"ERE%ORE, protestees !otion for re$onsideration is 'ereby DENIED I)

?IN@I)K for la$= of !erit. Protestants reiterating !otion for o$ular inspe$tion and

inventory0ta=ing 8it' very urgent prayer for t'e appoint!ent of 8at$'ers is also

DENIED for la$= of s'o8ing as to its a$tual ne$essity.

?urt'er, t'e protestant @OREN ". @E>RD is ORDERED to spe$ify, 8it'in ten

%15& days fro! noti$e, t'e t'ree %7& provin$es best eAe!plifying t'e !anifest errors

alleged in t'e rst part of 'er protest, and t'ree %7& provin$es best eAe!plifying t'e

frauds and irregularities alleged in t'e se$ond part of 'er protest, for t'e purpose

'erein elu$idated.

@astly, t'e )ribunal 'ereby ORDERS t'e Co!!ission on Ele$tions to S"#I),

8it'in 75 days 'ereof, t'e oB$ial pro/e$t of pre$in$ts of t'e #ay 55+ Ele$tions.

O OR!ERE!.

Presidential Electoral Tribunal Cases

Documents

Transcript of Presidential Electoral Tribunal Cases