EN BANC
ANUAR J. ABUBAKAR, G.R.
No. 173310
Petitioner,
-versus-
HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL and
NUR
G. JAAFAR,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
ANUAR J. ABUBAKAR, G.R. No. 173609
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO
MORALES,
CALLEJO,
SR.,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AZCUNA,
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and TINGA,
NUR G. JAAFAR, CHICO-NAZARIO,
Respondents. GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.
Promulgated:
March
7, 2007
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
The petition in G.R. No. 173310 seeks
to nullify Resolutions Nos. 06-047 and 06-053, dated
On the other hand, the petition in
G.R. No. 173609 seeks to nullify the Decision dated June 30, 2006 in the
election protest declaring private respondent as the duly elected
Representative of the Lone District of Tawi-Tawi Province in the May 10, 2004
elections and annulling petitioner’s proclamation, and to nullify the Resolution
dated August 3, 2006 which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
the Decision.
The facts are:
In the
On
Abubakar filed an Answer with Counter
Protest denying Jaafar’s allegations, and counter protested the election results in 160 precincts in nine of the ten municipalities of Tawi-Tawi
on the following grounds: illegal reading and counting of ballots; presence of
multiple ballots prepared by either one and the same person or individual
ballots accomplished by two persons; illegal reading and counting of fake,
unauthorized or unofficial ballots containing the protestant’s name; misreading
and/or misappreciation of ballots in protestant’s favor; illegally considering
the votes cast for protestee as stray votes; and prevalent erroneous counting
in the election returns of the protestee’s votes as votes for protestant.
During the preliminary conference
conducted on
(1) Mutual charges of election irregularities, fraudulent and illegal acts committed in favor of protestant or protestee, such as substitute or impostor voting, alteration or tampering of ballots and/or election returns, misreading or miscounting of votes, use of spurious ballots, use of genuine ballots but prepared by either one or the same person or by two persons;
(2) Re-count and re-appreciation of the ballots contested;
(3) Whether to dismiss the protest for lack of merit; and
(4) Whether to dismiss the protest for insufficiency in form and substance and for lack of cause of action.[1]
On
Acting on the affirmative defenses of
protestee, HRET issued Resolution No. 05-120 dated
From
HRET, thereafter, ordered the
revision of ballots of the 409 single and clustered contested precincts. Thus, from
On
In Resolution No. 06-047 dated
Neither expert testimony nor technical examination of the questioned ballots is necessary for the Tribunal to properly pass on the validity of the objections and claims. The Tribunal in its evaluation and appreciation of the ballots, which are the best and conclusive evidence in respect to the claims of markings, spuriousness and other defects therein, may determine for itself which claims are duly established.[2]
HRET thus stated, “The Tribunal sees
no need for the conduct of technical examination in this case, the ballots
subject of this protest case having been each fully scrutinized by its
members.”
Moreover, HRET noted the report of
the failure of the collection team, tasked to retrieve the ballot boxes and
other election documents from the
Abubakar’s motion for reconsideration
was denied by HRET in Resolution No. 06-053 dated
The
decision of the Tribunal to grant or deny a motion for technical examination as
provided for under Rule 43 of the HRET Rules is discretionary depending on the
circumstances obtaining in each case. For
instance, in the case of Mangotara v. Dimaporo, HRET Case No. 01-041, the
Tribunal granted the motion for technical examination because the Tribunal
cannot evaluate the questioned ballots because there were no ballots but only
election documents to consider. For this
reason, the Tribunal found it necessary to permit protestant to engage an expert
to assist him in the prosecution of his case.
Thus, the Tribunal through its appreciation of all protested and
counter-protested ballots, including those subject of the objections and claims
by each party and even those not claimed or objected to, can ascertain the
grounds invoked by the parties such as the genuineness of the ballots, identity
or similarity of handwritings, and whether such ballots are spurious or
tampered without the necessity of an expert or technical examination.
As
regards the photocopying of ballots, the Tribunal, in almost all case, has
allowed the photocopying of ballots and other election documents. However, in pursuit of its duty to preserve
and safeguard the sanctity of the ballots at all times, the Tribunal has
adopted stringent measures in allowing the photocopying of ballots and other
election documents. Thus, it should be simultaneous with the revision
proceedings.[3]
On
The
plurality of votes belongs to protestant [Jaafar] who garnered 27,257 votes as
against protestee [Abubakar] who obtained 25,705 votes.
Considering
that the results of final count after revision and appreciation of the ballots
show that the number of votes for protestant had overcome protestee’s
presumptive lead of two thousand and forty (2,040) votes as proclaimed, the
Tribunal DECLARES protestant Nur G. Jaafar as the duly elected
Representative of the Lone District of Tawi-Tawi Province in the
On
On July 18, 2006, Abubakar filed with
this Court a petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, TRO or Status Quo Order on the interlocutory orders of HRET or Resolutions Nos. 06-047 and 06-053 denying
petitioner’s motion to conduct a technical examination and to photocopy his
ballots. The petition was docketed as
G.R. No. 173310.
In a Resolution dated
On
In a Resolution dated
G.R. No. 173310
The subject matter of the petition in G.R. No.
173310 is the interlocutory order of HRET or Resolution No. 06-047 denying
petitioner’s motion to conduct a technical examination and to photocopy his
ballots, and Resolution No. 06-053, which denied his motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner points out
that the subject matter of this case is distinct and separate from his motion
for reconsideration of the Decision of HRET dated
Although petitioner admits that the
grant of the motion to conduct a technical examination is discretionary on the
part of HRET, petitioner still insists that the HRET committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying the twin motions, and that he was denied due process.
Petitioner prayed that this Court (1)
immediately issue a writ of preliminary
injunction, TRO or Status Quo Order enjoining HRET from resolving with
finality his motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated June 30, 2006 annulling
his proclamation and declaring private
respondent Jaafar as the Representative of Tawi-tawi; (2) direct HRET not to do
anything that would render this petition moot; (3) Nullify Resolutions Nos. 06-053
and 06-047; and (4) direct HRET to conduct a technical examination and allow
petitioner to photocopy his ballots.
The petition lacks merit.
As admitted by petitioner, the
allowance or disallowance of the technical examination is discretionary on the
part of HRET as provided by its rules;[5] hence, there was no denial of due process.
Here, petitioner seeks to compel HRET
to determine whether or not the 7,966 ballots of petitioner were prepared by
one person or prepared by assistors.
It must be pointed out that the 7,966
ballots for petitioner were rejected since they were considered to be written
by one person either because the
Minutes of Voting in the pertinent precincts did not indicate the existence of
assisted-voting or did not contain the names of the illliterate voters and their
assistors in violation of the HRET rules and guidelines.
Further, HRET rendered its decision
on the election protest on
G.R. No. 173609
The subject matter of G.R. No. 173609
is the Decision of HRET in the election protest. The main issue is whether or not HRET acted without or in excess of
its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
Decision dated June 30, 2006, which
annulled petitioner’s proclamation and declared private respondent as
the duly elected Representative of Tawi-Tawi Province.
Petitioner
also raised the following ancillary issues:
First, petitioner
argues that the Decision promulgated
on
The argument is without merit.
The pertinent provisions of the HRET Rules regarding the rendition and
promulgation of the questioned Decision are as follows:
Rule 69. Votes Required. – In passing on
all questions submitted to the Tribunal, all the Members present, including the
Chairman, shall vote. For the rendition
of decisions and the adoption of formal resolutions, the concurrence of at
least five (5) Members shall be necessary.
Rule 71. Procedure in Deciding Contests. – In rendering its
decisions, the Tribunal shall follow the procedure prescribed for the Supreme
Court in Sections 13 and 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Rule 73. Promulgation and Notice of Decisions. – After the
judgment and dissenting opinions, if any, are signed, they shall be
delivered for filing to the Secretary of the Tribunal who shall forthwith
indicate thereon the date of promulgation and cause true copies thereof to be
served upon the parties or their counsel, personally or by registered
mail.
In its Resolution dated
The Decision had the required number
of votes under Rule 68 of the HRET Rules since it was signed, as of
The Court agrees with the Tribunal that
the duty of the Secretary of the Tribunal to indicate the date of promulgation
and thereafter serve copies thereof to the parties as mandated by Rule 72 of
the HRET Rules is ministerial after the decision, signed by the members
present, is delivered and filed with the Secretary of the Tribunal so that
copies thereof can be furnished to the parties involved.
Second, petitioner contends that the testimonies of the nineteen
Chairpersons of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) were wrongfully
disregarded.
The contention lacks merit.
HRET resolved objections regarding ballots written by one person by
applying the following rule:
1.
Multiple Ballots Written By One Person – Pairs or
groups of ballots clearly prepared by one (1) person are invalid, except
where the Minutes of voting show that illiterate or physically disabled persons
voted with the aid of assistors. In
the latter case, the ballots are valid, provided the handwriting thereon was
similar to the signature of a registered assistor found in the Minutes of Voting, it being
presumed that similarly written ballots were prepared by the assistor, one for
himself and for not more than three (3) illiterate or disabled voters, unless
the assistor was a member of the Board of Election Inspectors, in which case,
the numerical limitation is not applicable.[6] (Emphasis supplied.)
It is noted that the nineteen BEI chairpersons
presented by petitioner as witnesses served in only two[7] of
the ten municipalities in Tawi-Tawi. Although
the BEI witnesses declared that there were illiterate voters who voted in their
respective precincts and that it was reflected in the Minutes of Voting of
the nineteen precincts, HRET found that such claim of assisted voting was indicated
in the Minutes of Voting of only ten precincts. However, the Minutes of Voting of the ten precincts
failed to state the names and signatures of the alleged assisted voters
and their respective assistors in violation of the aforecited HRET rule. Thus, the ballots written by one (WBO) in
said precincts were rejected. On the other hand, since the Minutes of Voting of
the nine other precincts did not state any assisted voting therein, the
WBO-ballots in the said precincts were also rejected. As between the testimonies of the BEI
Chairpersons and HRET’s actual findings per appreciation of the ballots and the
documents inside the ballot boxes, particularly the entries in the Minutes of
Voting, HRET correctly gave the latter greater weight. As stated by HRET, the
presumption of regularity in the public official’s performance of his duty
holds true only when it is not found to be
inconsistent with the facts.
Third, petitioner contends that invalidating 7,966 ballots in his favor, which were allegedly written-by-one person,
goes against the presumption of validity of votes and, in effect, 7966 voters were unable to vote.
The contention is untenable.
HRET aptly stated that the general
rule that all ballots are presumed to be valid is applied when there is doubt
in their appreciation, but not when clear and sufficient reasons justify the
nullification of the ballots. The 7,966 votes were correctly invalidated as
written by one person because aside from the observation that the ballots bore
similar/identical handwritings, the Minutes of Voting in numerous precincts had
no entries as to the names of the illiterate voters and their respective
assistors, contrary to the aforecited rule applied by HRET.
Fourth, petitioner
contends that since there is unusual discrepancy of votes stated in the election
returns and physical count of ballots, the election returns and not the ballots
should prevail. Moreover, if more than 50% of the votes are rejected, then
election returns, not the ballots should be used to establish the votes of
parties.
The contention is without merit.
HRET correctly considered the
examination of ballots as the best evidence.
In this case, the ballots were available and their integrity was
unquestioned. In an election contest
where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each
candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves.[8] It
is only when the ballots cannot be produced or are not available that recourse is
made to the election returns as evidence.[9]
Petitioner further alleged that 515
ballots in seven precincts in the
In its Resolution dated
As
regards the 515 ballots, in Precinct Nos. 2A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 11A, 12A,
all of Turtle Islands, which protestee alleged are still in the possession and
official custody of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tawi-Tawi because of two
(2) pending local election protests, records will show that all ballot boxes in
the contested precincts in Turtle Islands (Protested Precincts: Precinct Nos.
2A [Poblacion], 7A, 8A, 9A [Sitio Bacungan], 10A, 11A, 12A [Sitio Buan]; Counter-Protested Precincts: Precincts
Nos. 1A, 3A, 4A, 5A/6A [Barangay Dambila Poblacion], 13A, 14A, 15A [Barangay
Likud Bakkao]) have been collected by the Tribunal from the RTC of
Tawi-Tawi. There was no report on record
that some ballots in said precincts were left in the RTC of Tawi-Tawi.
Furthermore,
as correctly pointed out by the protestant, a comparison of the Minutes of
Revision Proceedings in the RTC of Tawi-Tawi (Exhibit 30) and the Revision
Reports of the Tribunal failed to show any discrepancy in the number of
official ballots inside the ballot boxes of said precincts.[10]
The Court notes that the certified
true copy of the Minutes of the Revision Proceedings (Annex “G”) in the RTC of
Tawi-Tawi, which was submitted by petitioner to prove that the 515 ballots for
petitioner were allegedly unappreciated in his favor by HRET, is dated “
This Court’s jurisdiction to review
decisions and resolutions of HRET operates only upon a showing of grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the Tribunal tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such grave abuse of discretion implies
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or
personal hostility.[11] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law.[12] It is absent in this case.
The declaration of HRET that private
respondent is the duly elected representative of Tawi-Tawi is based on the result
of the revision and appreciation of ballots in the protested and
counter-protested precincts. The HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion
in declaring private respondent Jaafar as the duly-elected Representative of
Tawi-Tawi Province and in annulling the proclamation of petitioner.
WHEREFORE,
the petition in G.R. No. 173310 is DISMISSED
for mootness, and the Resolutions dated
The petition in G.R. No. 173609 is DISMISSED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate
Justice MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo
(G.R. No. 173609), p. 74.
[2]
[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 173310), pp. 31-32.
[4] Rollo (G.R. No. 173609), p. 98.
[5] Rule 43. Technical Examination; Time Limits.—The motion for technical examination may be granted by the Tribunal in its discretion and under such conditions as it may impose. If granted, the movant shall schedule the technical examination, to start within ten (10) calendar days from the time he was notified of the granting of his Motion, notifying the other party and the Clerk of the Tribunal at least five (5) days in advance thereof. x x x
[6] Rollo (G.R. No. 173609), p. 81.
[7] Municipalities of Panglima Sugala
and
[8] Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 808,
[9] Ibid.
[10] Rollo (G.R. No. 173609), pp. 68-69.
[11] Batul v. Bayron, et al., G. R. Nos. 157687 and 158959, Feb. 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 26, 41.
[12] Ibid.