G.R. No. 185401 – HENRY “JUN” DUEÑAS,
JR., Petitioner, versus HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and
ANGELITO “JETT” P. REYES, Respondents.
Promulgated:
July
21, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
I respectfully register my dissent to
the ponencia of the Honorable Justice
Renato C. Corona and join the Honorable Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing in his
conclusion that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) acted
with grave abuse of discretion when, on November 27, 2008, it issued the
assailed Resolution No. 08-353 in HRET Case No. 07-027. I am in full agreement with the bases for Justice
Quisumbing’s dissent, which may be summarized, as follows:
1.
The Order to
proceed with the revision of the remaining 75% of the counter-protested
precincts—after completion of the revision of all the protested precincts, as
well as 25% of the precincts cited in the counter-protest—effectively violates
Rule 88 of the 2004 Rules of the HRET;
2.
The discretion of
the HRET has to be exercised within the confines of the guidelines prescribed
in the Rules;
3.
The number of fake/spurious
ballots that surfaced during the revision was inconsequential—87 ballots (as
claimed by the respondent, although petitioner admits only 75) being “a mere
fraction” of petitioner’s lead margin;
4.
To allow the
protestant (respondent) to rely on the results of the precincts not included in
his protest is tantamount to granting
him the right to substantially amend his protest by broadening its scope at
this very late date, in violation of Rule 28 of the 2004 HRET Rules; and
5.
The Tribunal has
no authority to use its own funds to cover the expenses of revision of the
remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts.
To
this enumeration of evidently compelling reasons, I wish to interpose, very
briefly, two points.
First, the discovery of some 75 (or 87)
fake or spurious ballots pales into insignificance and cannot be made as basis
for the course of action taken by the HRET.
According to the petitioner, the ballots were discovered in only 4 of
the 310 protested and counter-protested precincts already revised—2 in the
precincts covered by the protest and 2 in the precincts named in the
counter-protest.[1] Even
if it is conceded that all the 75 or 87 ballots were to be deducted from the
petitioner’s votes, per physical count on revision, the result would simply
involve the disregard of the spurious ballots and the maintenance of the vote
counts for the precincts in question, in accordance with the canvassed election
returns. In other words, the parties
would simply retain their respective total votes per the canvassed election
returns. Given that scenario, the
protestant would still not accomplish anything, as petitioner’s winning margin
would not be dented.
Second, in ordering the use of its own funds—public
funds—to cover the expenses which will be incurred in the revision of the remaining
75%
counter-protested precincts, the HRET
would violate Article 220[2] of
the Revised Penal Code, and even risk likely prosecution under Section 3(e)[3] of
Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
by causing undue injury to the Government and giving a party an unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of their judicial functions
through manifest partiality.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I
vote to GRANT the petition.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
[1] Petition.
[2] Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property.—Any public officer who shall apply any public funds or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such funds or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total value of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
[3] The provision reads:
SEC. 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers. ¾ In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
x x x x