!) Resibential Qelect Ral 'Urribunal:) Republic F Tbe Llbilippine

]Republic of tbe llbilippine~
!}resibential Qelectoral 'Urribunal

J)Nanila
FERDINAND "BONGBONG" R. P.E.T. Case No. 005

MARCOS, JR.,
Protestant, Present:
PERALTA, Chief Justice,

PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
GESMUNDO,
HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,
-versus-
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
DELOS SANTOS,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO, and
LOPEZ, J., JJ
n..- ~
MARIA LEONOR "LENI DAANG -•f'f
MATUWID" G. ROBREDO, Promulgated: Ji. .f..·
Protestee. Febr uary 16, 2021 . tf
x------------------------------------------------------------ V ----------x
DECISION
"New beginnings are often

disguised as painful endings. "
Lao Tzu
"Then you will know the truth,

and the truth will set you.fee. "
John 8:32
"But part ofsurviving is

being able to move on. "
Alexandra Braken,
The Darkest Minds
Decision 2 PET Case No. 005
LEONEN,J.:
An election protest is no ordinary petition. It alleges anomalies and

irregularities which, if proven true, would perniciously deprive a significant
portion of the voting population of its constitutionally protected right of
suffrage. Given this extraordinary nature, an election protestant takes on the
heavy burden of clearly and specifically alleging, and then proving, the
irregularities that led to a breakdown in our mechanisms for suffrage.
When the protestant fails to meet the strict requirement of specificity

and established rules on evidence to support the allegations of election
irregularities, the election protest must be dismissed.
The Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal),

resolves the June 29, 2016 Election Protest 1 (Protest) filed by protestant
Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr. (protestant), who challenges the
election and proclamation of Maria Leonor "Leni Daang Matuwid" G.
Robredo (protestee) as vice president in the 2016 national and local
elections.
Protestant and protestee were two of six candidates for vice president
during the May 9, 2016 elections. Protestee garnered 14,418,817 votes,
while protestant received 14,155,344 votes, giving protestee a slim margin
of only 263,473 votes over protestant. 2
On May 30, 2016, Congress issued Resolution of Both Houses No. 1,

which recognized the results of the canvass conducted and proclaimed
protestee as the duly elected Vice President of the Philippines. 3
On June 29, 2016, 4 protestant filed this Protest premised on two

causes of action:
A.
(First Cause of Action)
The proclamation of protestee Robredo as the duly elected [Vice

President] is null and void because the [Certificates of Canvass (COCs)]
generated by the [Consolidation and Canvass System (CCS)] are not
Rollo, Vols. I and II, pp. 1-1047.

2 Resolution of Both Houses No. I, Resolution of both houses approving the report of the joint
committee, declaring the results of the National Elections held on May 9, 2016, for the offices of
President and Vice President, and proclaiming the duly elected President and Vice President of the
Republic of the Philippines, May 30, 2016,
<http://www.senate.gov. phi 16th_congress/resolutions/j oint%20public%20session%20res%20both%20
houses%20no. l.pdf> (last accessed on January 31, 2021).
Id.
4
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39525.
authentic, and may not be used as basis to determine the number of votes
that the candidates for Vice President received.
B.
(Second Cause of Action)
Massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities, such as, but not
limited to terrorism, violence, force, threats, ... intimidation, pre-shading
of ballots, vote-buying, substitution of voters, flying voters, pre-loaded SD
cards, misreading of ballots, unexplained, irregular and improper rejection
of ballots containing votes for protestant Marcos, malfunctioning Vote
Counting Machines (VCMs), and abnormally high unaccounted
votes/undervotes for the position of [Vice President] compromised and
corrupted the conduct of the elections and the election results for the
position of [Vice President] in the protested precincts. 5 (Citation omitted)
On July 12, 2016, this Tribunal issued a Precautionary Protection

Order, 6 directing the Commission on Elections to safeguard the integrity of
all the ballot boxes, their contents, and other election paraphernalia in the
92,509 clustered precincts covered by the Protest. 7
This Tribunal then issued Summons 8 to protestee, directing her to file

her answer to the Protest.
In her Verified Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses and

Counter-Protest,9 protestee alleged that the Protest failed to provide the
specific acts or omissions that supposedly led to electoral frauds, anomalies,
or irregularities in the protested 92,509 clustered precincts. 10 She further
pointed out that the Protest was a pre-proclamation controversy, which
should have been lodged before the National Board of Canvassers, and not
before this Tribunal. 11
As counter-protest, protestee contested the election results gathered

from 7,547 clustered precincts in 13 provinces. 12 She alleged that vote-
buying, intimidation, substitution, and other irregularities occurred in these
provinces during the 2016 national and local elections. She stated that, had
protestant not resorted to electoral fraud in these provinces, she would have
received a higher number of votes. 13
Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 927-929.

Rollo, Vol. XX, pp. 16012-16013.
Id.
Id. at 16010-16013.
Rollo, Vols. XXI-XXVII, pp. 16155-21525.
10
Rollo, Vol. XXI, pp. 16177-16186.
11
Id. at 16167-16177.
12
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39529-39530. The provinces included in the Counter-Protest were Apayao,
Mountain Province, Abra, Kalinga, Bataan, Capiz, Aklan, Antiqne, Sarangani, Sulu, Sultan Kudarat,
South Cotabato, and North Cotabato.
13
Rollo, Vol. XXI, pp. 16406-16689.
Protestee then asked: (1) that a preliminary hearing be set; (2) that the
Protest be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for insufficiency in form
and substance; and (3) that her proclamation as vice president be affirmed. 14
In a January 24, 2017 Resolution, 15 this Tribunal confirmed that it had

jurisdiction over the Protest, as Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987
Constitution mandates it to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President[.]" 16
In the same Resolution, this Tribunal found the Protest to be sufficient

in form and substance. It also denied protestee's motion to dismiss the
Protest, along with the setting for preliminary hearing of her special and
affirmative defenses. 17
On February 27, 2017, protestee moved for the reconsideration 18 of

this Tribunal's January 24, 2017 Resolution.
On June 6, 2017, this Tribunal deferred 19 resolving protestee's Motion

for Reconsideration, protestant's Comment/Opposition20 to the Motion, as
well as protestee's Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit the Herein
Incorporated Reply to Protestant's Comment/Opposition,21 after the
preliminary conference.
14
Id. at 16690.
15
Rollo, Vol. XXIX, pp. 22459-A-22459-H.
16
CONST., art. VII, sec. 4 states:
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term
of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election
and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any
re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four
years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service
for the full term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held
on the second Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of
canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of
the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than
thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more
shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a
majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en bane, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
17
Rollo, Vol. XXIX, pp. 22459-A-22459-H.
18
Id. at 22674-22698.
19
Rollo, Vol. XXX, pp. 23285--23290.
20
Id. at 22900--22924.
21 Id. at 22990-23006.
On April 25, 2017, this Tribunal, among others, directed the parties to
file their respective preliminary conference briefs five days before the
scheduled preliminary conference. 22
On July 11, 2017, 23 the preliminary conference was held. There, with
protestant' s consent, this Tribunal categorized his causes of action into: first,
the annulment ofprotestee's proclamation; second, a revision and recount of
ballots in Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental; and third, the
annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan. The
causes of action were elaborated as follows:
First Cause of Action - Annulment of Proclamation
The proclamation of protestee Robredo as the duly elected Vice President

is null and void because the [certificates of canvass] generated by the
[consolidated canvassing system] are not authentic, and may not be used
as basis to determine the number of votes that the candidates for VICE
PRESIDENT received.
Second Cause of Action - Revision and Recount
Revision and recount of the paper ballots and/or the ballot images as well
as an examination, verification, and analysis of the voter's receipts,
election returns, audit logs, transmission logs, the list of voters,
particularly the [election day computerized voter's list], and [voters
registration record], the books of voters and other pertinent election
documents and/or paraphernalia used in the elections, as well as the
automated election equipment and records such as the [vote counting
machines], [consolidated canvassing system] units, SD cards (main and
backup), and the other data storage devices containing electronic data and
ballot images in ALL of the 36,465 protested clustered precincts pursuant
to Rules 38 to 45 of the 2010 PET Rules; and
Third Cause of Action -Annulment of Elections
Annulment of election results for the position of Vice President in the

provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao de! Sur[,] and Basilan, on the ground of
terrorism, intimidation[,] and harassment of voters as well as pre-shading
of ballots in all of the 2,756 protested clustered precincts that functioned
in the aforesaid areas. 24
In the interim, protestant had filed another Motion for Technical

Examination of the voters' signatures in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and
Basilan. This is a separate pleading from his Protest that also prayed for a
technical examination as part of his third cause of action. 25
22
Rollo, Vol. XXXI, pp. 23087-23091.
23
Id. at 23978-A-23798-E.
24
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39540.
25
Rollo, Vol. XXXI, pp. 23966-23972.
In an August 29, 2017 Resolution, 26 this Tribunal dismissed

protestant's first cause of action, pointing out that the veracity of his
allegations on the inauthenticity and unreliability of the certificates of
canvass could only be determined by a manual recount of all votes in all
precincts. 27 With protestant stating that he was limiting the manual recount
to his second and third causes of action, this Tribunal ruled that resolving the
first cause of action would have no practical effect. 28
This Tribunal likewise dismissed protestee's Motion for

Reconsideration and reiterated that the Protest was sufficient in form and
substance. 29
In the Preliminary Conference Order, 30 this Tribunal limited the issues

to protestant's second and third causes of action, and to protestee's Counter-
Protest. It then directed that the revision of ballots would begin with
protestant's designated pilot provinces, which were Camarines Sur, Iloilo,
and Negros Oriental. The pilot provinces would serve as test cases, and the
revision results would determine if this Tribunal would proceed with the
revision of ballots in the remaining contested clustered precincts .31
This Tribunal also reiterated the directive it had earlier issued in the
preliminary conference, to limit the parties' witnesses to three per clustered
precinct, and to submit a new list of witnesses that should include the
clustered precinct each witness would testify on. 32 It noted that protestant
had not yet submitted his witness list, and warned him that his failure to
comply would "be deemed a waiver of his right to name and identify his
witnesses, and to present them during the reception of evidence." 33
This Tribunal deferred action on protestant's motion for the technical

examination34 of the voters' signatures in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and
Basilan. It explained that to do so would be premature, as the result of the
revision of ballots and reception of evidence in the pilot provinces-
Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental-would determine if this
Tribunal would proceed with the other contested provinces. 35
On October 23, 2017, the ballot images for the protested clustered
precincts of the three pilot provinces were decrypted and printed. 36 The
26
Rollo, Vol. XXXII, pp. 24482-24515.
27
Id. at 24483-24484.
28
Id.
29
Rollo, Vol. XXIX, pp. 22674-22698.
30
Rollo, Vol. XXXII, pp. 24485-24514. The PCO is included in the August 29, 2017 Resolution.
31
Id.
32
Rollo, Vol. XXXII, p. 24501.
33
Id. at 24502.
34
Rollo, Vol. XLIX. p. 39545.
35
36
ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia were later retrieved from the
pilot provinces. 37
On January 16, 2018, this Tribunal issued its Revisor's Guide for the
Revision of Ballots under the Automated Election System (Revisor's Guide)
to govern revision proceedings in election protests. 38 Rule 4 of the Revisor's
Guide provided the four objectives of revision of ballots:
(a) To verify the physical count of the ballots;

(b) To recount the votes of the parties;
(c) To record the parties' objections and claims thereon; and
(d) To accordingly mark such ballots which were objected to and claimed
by the parties for purposes of identification during subsequent
examination by the Tribunal and for reception of evidence, if any. 39
Additionally, the revision of ballots from the pilot provinces went

through the following process:
[F]irst, prior to the actual recount of the votes of the parties, the [head
revisors] were required to authenticate the ballots to ensure their
genuineness, ensuring that the ballots contained all the security features of
the official ballots and using ultraviolet lamps which could detect the
hidden security marks; second, such [head revisors] segregated the ballots
which were read by the [vote-counting machines] into four (4) categories:
(1) Ballots for Protestant; (2) Ballots for Protestee; (3) Ballots for Other
Candidates; and (4) Ballots with Stray Votes (ballots with no votes or
those with more than one (1) vote for the Vice President position); third,
the revisors for protestant and protestee registered their respective
objections to the Ballots for Protestee and Ballots for Protestant,
respectively; fourth, both Party Revisors registered their claims on the
Ballots for Other Candidates and Ballots with Stray Votes;jifth, both Party
Revisors registered their claims on ballots that were rejected by the [vote
counting machines] and were not thus included in the ballot segregation, if
any; and lastly, each [revision committee] recorded all relevant data,
including the results of their revision, in a Revision Report signed by all
three (3) members and to which the claims and objections of the Party
Revisors were annexed for subsequent ruling by the Tribunal during the
appreciation stage. 40 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
The revision of ballots for the pilot provinces commenced on April 2,

2018, and ended on February 4, 2019. 41
The three pilot provinces had 5,418 clustered precincts, but this
Tribunal only revised paper ballots and decrypted ballot images from 5,415
37
Id. at 39550.
38
Id. at 39551.
39
Presidential Electoral Tribnnal's Revisor's Guide for the Revision of Ballots under the Automated
Election System (201 8), Rule 4.
40
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39553.
41
Id.
clustered precincts, as the Commission on Elections could not provide the

decrypted ballot images of the damaged and unreadable paper ballots of
three clustered precincts, namely: (1) Clustered Precinct 34, Barangay Nifio
Jesus, Bato, Camarines, Sur; (2) Clustered Precinct 13, Barangay Haring,
Canaman Camarines Sur; and (3) Clustered Precinct 27, Barangay Cubay,
San Joaquin, Iloilo. 42
Protestee then moved that the Revision Committees be directed to use

a 25% threshold in determining the validity of a marked oval, as this was
allegedly the threshold used during the 2016 national and local elections. 43
This Tribunal denied protestee's motion and ruled that her proposed
25% threshold was baseless. 44 It retained the 50% threshold under the 2010
Presidential Electoral Tribunal Rules, 45 and pointed out that the threshold
mentioned in the Revisor's Guide46 referred to the Rules' 50% threshold. 47
Protestee moved for reconsideration. Likewise, she furnished this

Tribunal, for the first time, with the Commission on Elections' En Banc
Resolution No. 16-0600, which adopted the Random Manual Audit Visual
Guidelines. 48
In its Comment, 49 the Commission on Elections confirmed that for the

2016 national and local elections, it set the threshold at 25% as it calibrated
the vote counting machines "to read marks that cover at least about 25%
42 Id.
43
Id. at 39555-39556.
44
Rollo, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 26366-26370.
45
PET RULES (20 I 0), Rule 43(1) states:
RULE 43. Conduct of the Revision. - The revision of votes shall be done through the use of
appropriate [precinct count optical scanJ machines or manually and visually, as the Tribunal may
determine, and according to the following procedures:
(1) In looking at the shades or marks used to register votes, the [revision committees] shall bear in mind
that the will of the voters reflected as votes in the ballots shall as much as possible be given effect,
setting aside any technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have been made by the
voter and shall be considered as such unless reasons exist that will justify their rejection. However,
marks or shades which are less than 50% of the oval shall not be considered as valid votes. Any issue
as to whether a certain mark or shade is within the threshold shall be determined by feeding the ballot
on the [precinct count optical scan] machine, and not by human determination.
46
Presidential Electoral Tribunal's Reviser's Guide for the Revision of Ballots under the Automated
Election System (2018), Rule 62 states:
RULE 62. Votes of the Parties. -After the segregation and classification of ballots, the Head Revisor
shall count the total number of ballots for the Protestant, Protestee, Other Candidates, and with Stray
Votes and record said matter on the appropriate spaces of the Revision Report.
In examining the shades or marks used to register the votes, the Head Reviser shall bear in mind that
the will of the voters reflected as votes in the ballots shall, as much as possible, be given effect, setting
aside any technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have been made by the voter
and shall be considered as such National and Local Elections reasons exist that will justify their
rejection. Any issue as to whether a certain mark or shade is within the threshold shall be resolved by
the assigned Revision Supervisor. Any objection to the ruling of the Revision Supervisor shall not
suspend the revision of a particular ballot box. The ballot in question may be claimed or objected to,
as the case may be, by the revisor of the party concerned.
47
Rollo, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 26366-26370.
48
Id. at 26483-26496.
49 Rollo, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 28970-28983.
Decision 9 PET Case No . 005
(when een by human eyes) of the oval for each candidate as valid votes." 50
It like ise stated that it used the 25% threshold for all the 2016 election
protest ases filed before it. 51
cting on protestee's Motion for Reconsideration, this Tribunal

directe the Head Revisors to compare the election returns with the total
number of votes read and counted by the vote counting machines. 52 It
explain d that the purpose of the revision process was to recount the votes
receive by confirming "how the [vote counting machines] read and counted
the vot s during the elections. " 53 It then laid down the following guidelines:
Hence, in the segregation of ballots, the Tribunal held that its Head
visors must be guided by the number of votes indicated in the Election
turns. The Tribunal held that, in using the Election Returns and not
1 erely adopting a specific shading threshold, the Tribunal's revision
p ocedure will be more flexible and adaptive to calibrations of the voting
o counting machines in the future. The Head Revisors were directed to
u e the Election Returns which normally would be inside the ballot boxes
r trieved. However, in their absence, the Head Revisors were directed to
u e the ce1iified true copies of Election Returns obtained from
C MELEC. As to those ballots already previously revised, the procedure
o verifying votes using the Election Returns was to be strictly enforced
d ring the appreciation stage by the Tribunal. 54
A cordingly, this Tribunal amended Rule 62 55 of the Revisor's Guide

to refer the segregated ballots to the election returns generated by the vote
countin machine and guidelines set by the Tribunal. It now reads:
RULE 62. Votes of the Parties. - The segregation and

c ssification of ballots shall be done by referring to the Election Return
'R) generated by the machine used in the elections. The Head Revisor
s all count the total number of ballots for the Protestant, Protestee, Other
C ndidates, and with Stray Votes and record said matter on the
a propriate spaces of the Revision Report.
In examining the shades or marks used to register the votes, the

ad Revisor shall bear in mind that the will of the voters reflected as
50
Id. at 8971.
51
Id. at 8972.
52
Rollo, Vol. XLI, pp. 32728- 32748.
53 Rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39558.
54
Id. at 9559.
55
Rule 6 of the Re visor's Guide originally read:
RULE 62. Votes of the Parties. - After the segregation and classification of ballots, the Head Reviser
shall unt the total number of ballots for the Protestant, Protestee, Other Candidates, and with Stray
Votes nd record said matter on the appropriate spaces of the Revision Report.
In exa nining the shades of marks used to register the votes, the Head Revisor shall bear in mind that
the wi I of the voters reflected as votes in the ballots shall, as much as possible, be given effect, setting
aside ny technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have been made by the voter
and sh II be considered as such unless reasons exist that will justify their rejection. Any issue as to
wheth r a certain mark or shade is within the threshold shall be resolved by the assigned Revisio n
Super isor. Any objection to the ruling of the Revi sion Supervisor shall not suspend the revision of a
partic lar ballot box. The ballot in question may be cla imed or objected to, as the case may be, by the
reviso of the party concerned.
votes in the ballots shall, as much as possible, be given effect, setting aside
any technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have
been made by the voter and shall be considered as such National and
Local Elections reasons exist that will justify their rejection. Any issue on
the segregation and classification of ballots by the Head Revisor shall be
resolved by the assigned Revision Supervisor, based on the guidelines set
by the Tribunal. Any objection to the ruling of the Revision Supervisor
shall not suspend the revision of a particular ballot box. The ballot in
question may be claimed or objected to, as the case may be, by the revisor
of the party concerned. 56 (Emphasis supplied)
The revision and recount proceedings in the 5,415 clustered precincts

in the three pilot provinces led to the following results: 57
[Protestee l [Protestant]
Camarines Sur 657,991 40,794
Iloilo 562,811 93,245
N egros Oriental 255,576 66,456
Total 1,476,378 200,495
On January 14, 2019, this Tribunal began its appreciation of the

revised ballots, primarily to ascertain and give effect to the voters' intent. It
then verified the physical count of the revised ballots and ruled on the
parties' respective claims and objections. 58 The appreciation process was
completed on August 14, 2019. 59
Acting on the objections registered by the parties, this Tribunal

deducted the following votes from the results of the revised ballots: 60
fProtestee1 [Protestant]
Camarines Sur (358) (8)
Iloilo (285) (34)
Negros Oriental (205) (56)
Total votes deducted (848) (98)
Next, acting on the claims made by the parties, the following votes
were added to the parties: 61
[Protesteel [Protestant]
Camarines Sur 12,004 734
Iloilo 16,825 2,127
N egros Oriental 5,819 1,254
Total votes added 34,648 4,115
56
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39557-39558.
57
Id. at 39565.
58
Id. at 39561.
59
Id.
60
Id. at 39569.
61
Id. at 39572.
This Tribunal then used the Provincial Certificates of Canvass to

ascertain the number of votes received by the parties from the pilot
provinces' 5,418 clustered precincts. However, this Tribunal subtracted the
votes from the three clustered precincts with unavailable paper ballots, thus
coming up with total votes in 5,415 clustered precincts: 62
[Protestee] [Protestant]
Votes in the 5,418 clustered precincts of 1,493,517 202,136
the three pilot provinces based on the
Provincial [Certificates of Canvass]
Less: Votes in the three (3) clustered (859) (51)
precincts with unavailable paper ballots
and ballots irna2:es
Total votes in the 5,415 clustered 1,492,658 202,085
nrecincts
This Tribunal then deducted the parties' votes from the 5,415
clustered precincts from their total votes as proclaimed by the National
Board of Canvassers (TOTAL A): 63
[Protestee] [Protestantl
Total votes as proclaimed 14,418,817 14,155,344
Less: Total votes m the 5,415 pilot (1,492,658) (202,085)
clustered orecincts
Total votes in the clustered precincts 12,926,159 13,953,259
other than the 5,415 pilot precincts
revised and annreciated ITOTAL A)
The rev1s10n and appreciation of ballots in the 5,415 clustered

precincts of the pilot provinces generated the following results (TOTAL
B):64
[Protestee l [Protestant l
Votes m the 5,415 pilot clustered 1,476,378 200,495
precincts after revision
Less: Votes deducted from sustained (848) (98)
objections
Total Votes in the 5,415 pilot clustered 1,475,530 200,397
precincts after revision after deducting
sustained objections
Add: Votes added due to admitted claims 34,648 4,115
(ballots with stray votes, ballots with
over-votes, and [vote counting machine]-
rejected ballots)
Total votes in the 5,415 oilot clustered 1,510,178 204,512
62
Id. at 39573.
63
Id. at 39574.
64 Id.
precincts after revision

I annreciation (TOTAL B)
Finally, this Tribunal added TOTAL A and TOTAL B to get the total
number of votes received by the parties after revision and appreciation of the
5,415 clustered precincts in the pilot provinces: 65
[Protesteel [Protestant]
Total votes in the clustered precincts 12,926,159 13,953,259
other than the 5,415 pilot clustered
precincts
Add: Total votes l1l the 5,415 pilot 1,510,178 204,512
clustered precincts after rev1s10n and
appreciation
Total votes in all clustered precincts 14,436,337 14,157,771
after revision and appreciation of the
ballots from the pilot clustered
precincts
Based on the final tally after revision and appreciation, this Tribunal
found that protestee increased her lead over protestant from 263,473 votes to
278,566 votes. 66
In the interest of due process, 67 this Tribunal required the parties to

submit their respective memoranda, addressing the following matters:
I. Their comments on the report on the revision and appreciation of votes

relating to the three pilot provinces, Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros
Oriental as it relates to the Second Cause of Action;
II. Their position on the following issues related to the Third Cause of
Action:
A) Whether or not the results in the revision and appreciation of
votes with respect to the Protestant's second cause of action moots
or renders unnecessary the consideration of the Protestant's Third
Cause of Action;
B) Whether or not the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the
competence to resolve the Third Cause of Action;
C) Assuming that the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the
competence to resolve the Third Cause of Action which is not
mooted by the results of Tribunal's findings with respect to the
second cause of action:
1) What are the filing rules and requirements that a party must
observe if he or she seeks the relief of annulment of elections
before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal?
2) What is the threshold of evidence that is required to prove
failure or annulment of elections?
65
Id. at 39574-39575.
66
Id. at 39575.
67 Id.
3) Will evidence other than those listed by the parties during

the preliminary conference be considered?
4) What percentage of votes/precincts needs to be proven as
having been affected by the grounds for failure or annulment of
elections?
5) Will the threshold apply per province or to all three (3)
provinces? Can there be failure or annulment in some but not
all three (3) provinces?
6) Should a similar pilot testing rule be equally applied in
annulment of election cases?
D) Assuming that the Tribunal is convinced that there is basis to
find for the Protestant in the Third Cause of Action:
1) Will this mean that the elections for all the elective
positions in the ballot be nullified with all its attendant legal
consequences?
2) Can our declaration as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
or the Supreme Court be a bar for any question relative to any
present and future electoral protest involving the same area and
for any position?
3) Will it be necessary to call for special elections for the
position of Vice President? If so, who has the competence to
call for such elections?
4) Will this mean "recovery" for the Protestant under Rule 65,
which will, in turn, mean revision of all his contested precincts
nationwide?
5) What will be the effect of our ruling on Protestant's Third
Cause of Action on protestee's counter protest? 68
In his Memorandum, 69 protestant claims that the Preliminary

Appreciation Committee erred several times during its revision and
appreciation of ballots.
First, he claims that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee erred in

overruling his objections 70 to protestee's ballots in the pilot provinces for
"lack of evidence aliunde" without giving him the opportunity to present
evidence supporting his pilot Protest. 71 He asserts that he was willing to
present evidence to substantiate his claims, yet his motion to set the case for
preliminary conference was not granted, leading to an "unfair and unjust"
situation. 72
Protestant then claims that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee

erred a second time in overruling his objections to the questionable ballots 73
in protestee's favor, which contained signatures of Board of Election
Inspectors that were "glaringly different" from the signatures indicated in
the other election documents. 74
68
Id. at 39576-39577.
69
Rollo, Vol. L, pp. 40341-40935.
70 Id.
71
Id. at 40649.
72
Id.
73 Id.
74
Id. at 40650.
Third, protestant asserts that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee

erred, yet again, when it counted unshaded75 and ambiguously76 shaded
ballots in protestee's favor.
He then asks this Tribunal to look into the ballots that the Preliminary
Appreciation Committee admitted as claims for protestee without specifying
why, 77 as well as the previously rejected ballots admitted by the Preliminary
Appreciation Committee. 78 He contends that it was wrong to consider the
rejected ballots in protestee's favor without first verifying the reason behind
the vote counting machines' rejection of the ballots and determining if the
concerned voters were issued replacement ballots. 79
Protestant also maintains that his three causes of action are distinct
from each other, 80 that the dismissal of one will not impact the other. 81
Further, he stresses that his third cause of action is for the annulment
of election results in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan due to
"terrorism, intimidation and harassment of voters, pre-shading of ballots,
and substitution ofvoters"; 82 thus, it was not covered by Rules 46 and 65 of
this Tribunal's Rules, because the relief asked for in the annulment of
elections does not require the revision and recount ofvotes. 83
Protestant invokes Tan v. Hataman, 84 a case decided by the

Commission on Elections. He narrates that in Tan, a technical examination
was conducted on the signatures and thumbprints in the voters registration
records, comparing them with the election day computerized voters list of
the 2016 elections. 85 The results allegedly showed a discrepancy in as much
as 40,528 signatures and 3,295 thumbprints. 86
This purportedly led the Voters Identification Division of the

Commission on Elections' Election Records and Statistics Department to
conclude that the 2016 elections had been marred by "different forms of
election fraud such as massive substituted voting." 87
75
Id. at 40651-40793.
76
Id. at 40794-40878.
77
Id. at 40879-40889.
78
Id. at 40889-40892.
79
Id. at 40892.
so Id. at 40896.
81
Id. at 40903.
82
Id. at 40904.
83 Id.
84
Docketed as EPC No. 2016-37.
85
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 40905.
86
Id.
87 Id.
Protestant maintains that because his causes of action are distinct from
each other, due process demands that he be allowed to present evidence for
his third cause of action. 88 He asserts that his third cause of action "cannot
be mooted by the results of the preliminary appreciation of the ballots
involved in the pilot precincts" as the two causes of action are mutually
exclusive. 89
Citing Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 90

protestant insists that a cause of action on the annulment of election results is
independent of a cause of action on the recount and revision ofballots. 91 He
avers that Abayon has made it clear that a dismissal under Rule 37 of the
2011 House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Rules, or the initial
revision of ballots to determine the merit or legitimacy of an election protest,
will not lead to the dismissal of an action for annulment of election results
on the ground of terrorism, as the two causes of action are different. 92
He then opines that Rule 37 of the 2011 House of Representatives

Electoral Tribunal Rules is the counterpart of Rule 65 of this Tribunal's
Rules; 93 thus, a dismissal of an election protest under Rule 65 is limited to
the judicial recount and revision of ballots. However, if the election protest
contains a cause of action distinct from revision and recount, that must
proceed independently. 94
Finally, protestant advances that if his third cause of action is given

due course, and he can prove his allegations of failure of elections in Lanao
del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan, only the tainted votes for the vice
presidency should be annulled and deducted from the votes received by both
protestant and protestee. He underscores that there is no need to conduct
special elections, as this may only lead to another election protest. 95
On the other hand, protestee underscores in her Memorandum 96 that

per this Tribunal's October 15, 2019 Resolution, her lead increased from
263,473 to 278,566 after the recount, revision, and appreciation of the
ballots from the three pilot provinces. 97
Still, protestee claims that this Tribunal erred in its rev1s10n and
appreciation of ballots. She posits that 848 votes were erroneously deducted
from her total votes, despite lack of evidence aliunde supporting protestant's
88
Id. at 40907--40908.
89 Id.
90
785 Phil. 683 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
91
Rollo, Vol. L, pp. 40908--40910.
92
ld. at 40920--40921.
93 Id.
94 Id. at 40921.
95 Id. at 40931--40932.
96
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39655--40098.
97
Id. at 39661.
objections. 98 She argues that these 99 must be added back to the final
count. 100
Protestee also contends that this Tribunal erred 101 in invalidating votes
due to alleged overvoting, despite the vote counting machines having
counted them 102 in her favor. She avers that this invalidation has
103
disenfranchised the voters.
She further asserts that this Tribunal erred, yet again, when it
invalidated ballots 104 without "specify[ing] the alleged markings on the
ballots which would invalidate the votes for protestee." 105
Protestee then assails this Tribunal's decision to add 714 votes in

protestant's favor, 106 when there was no shade in the oval beside protestant's
name in each of these votes. 107 She also questions why overvotes in her
favor were not counted, while protestant's claims on the same ground were
granted. 108 Other claims were likewise admitted when this Tribunal did not
even state its reasons. 109
In any case, protestee argues that the rev1s10n, recount, and re-
appreciation of the ballots affirmed her victory. 110 She maintains that under
Rule 65 of this Tribunal's Rules, the Protest must be dismissed for
protestant' s failure to establish any substantial recovery. 111
Protestee further asserts that protestant had already been given the
opportunity to substantiate his allegations, and as he failed to do so, this
Tribunal should not accommodate his whim at the expense of violating its
own rules. 112 On this point, protestee narrates how this Tribunal deferred
ruling on protestant's motion for technical examination pending the results
of the ballot revision of his designated pilot provinces twice. According to
her, this exhibited Rule 65' s mandatory nature. 113
98 Id. at 39666 and 39681.

99
Id. at 39667-39681.
100
Id. at 39666.
101
Id. at 3968 J.
102
Id. at 39682-39690.
103
Id. at 39690.
104
Id. at 39690-39703.
105
Id. at 39703.
106
Id.
107
Id. at 39703-39776.
108
Id. at 39776.
109 Id. at 39779.
110
Id. at 39782.
111
Id. at 39782-39783.
112
Id.
113
Id. at 39795.
Invoking Mutilan v. Commission on Elections, 114 protestee contends

that an annulment of elections is akin to a failure of elections, the
jurisdiction of which falls on the Commission on Elections. 115 She cites how
the Court in Abayon 116 declared that a resort to annulment of elections must
be made only in exceptional circumstances, 117 as it effectively invalidates
the whole ballot, and not only the votes for the protested position. 118
In maintaining that the Commission on Elections has made no reports

of election irregularities, protestee invokes Abayon, which upheld the
credibility of government agency statements over testimonies from a handful
of witnesses. 119 In any case, protestee argues that the 8,000 witnesses, 120
whom protestant sought to present to identify their signatures and ballots, 121
were not even registered voters in Basilan, where he sought to annul the
elections. 122 She also asserts that there is neither allegation nor proof
showing that she was responsible for the supposed fraud, anomalies, and
irregularities that protestant claims. 123
Protestee then opines that a technical examination of election day

computerized voters list is not a right. Before this may be allowed,
protestant must first establish that fraud was committed to favor protestee. 124
Protestee likewise asserts that protestant's invocation of Tan v.

Hataman to support his motion is misleading. She points out that the
Commission on Elections dismissed 125 the case on December 5, 2019 126
which, as protestee notes, protestant conveniently left out in his pleadings. 127
In any case, protestee argues that in an annulment of election case,

protestant must also prove that the fraud, anomalies, and irregularities
affected more than 50% of the votes cast in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao,
and Basilan-which he failed to do. 128
Finally, protestee advances that her Counter-Protest is an

"independent cause of action" which may only be dismissed upon the
114
548 Phil. 699 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
115
116
117
118
Id. at 39806.
119
Id. at 39804-39807.
120
Id. at 39811.
121
Id. at 39808.
122
Id. at 39811-39853.
123
Id. at 39854.
124 Id.
125
126
Id. at 40337-40340. Protest Annex A.
127
Id. at 39856-39857.
12s Id.
Protest's dismissal and continues to survive should this Tribunal proceed

with protestant's third cause of action. 129
In a September 29, 2020 Resolution, this Tribunal directed the

Commission on Elections to comment on protestant's factual allegation that
according to it, massive fraud had attended the 2016 elections. 130
Additionally, this Tribunal directed the Commission on Elections to

inform it: (1) if any petitions for failure of elections were filed in Lanao del
Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan, the provinces covered by protestant's third
cause of action; and (2) if any special elections as an offshoot of the
petitions were conducted in those provinces. 131
This Tribunal likewise directed the Commission on Elections, along

with the Office of the Solicitor General, to comment on the constitutional
issues raised by the parties. 132
In its Compliance 133 with the September 29, 2020 Resolution, the
Commission on Elections reports that during the 2016 national and local
elections, eight petitions 134 seeking to declare a failure of elections were
filed in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan. However, all eight
petitions were dismissed, and these rulings had reached finality. 135 The
Commission added that no special elections were held in these provinces. 136
The Commission on Elections likewise confirms that this Tribunal has

jurisdiction to annul the results of an election, as an "indispensable
consequence" of its constitutional mandate to decide election contests. 137 It
states that Abayon can be analogously applied to this Tribunal. 138 However,
it emphasizes that to respect the right of suffrage, "the strictest standards and
procedures of law must be set in place if [this Tribunal] becomes strongly
and positively convinced to annul the results of the elections." 139
The Commission on Elections then emphasizes that in Abayon, the

Court cited now Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta's (Chief Justice Peralta)
dissent in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's February 3,
129
Id. at 39864.
130
Rollo, Vol. L, pp. 41266-41270.
131
Id.
132
Id.
133
Id. at 41331-41360.
134
Id. at 41334-41338.
135
Id. at 41338.
136
Id.
137
Id. at 41342.
138
Id. at 41343.
139
Id.
2016 Decision in Daza v. Abayon. 140 In his dissent, 141 Chief Justice Peralta
posited that to merit the "drastic action of nullifying the election," the
illegality of the ballots must affect more than 50% of the votes cast in the
precincts sought to be annulled, and that lawful and unlawful ballots are
impossible to distinguish. 142
The Commission on Elections also points out that the Court in Abayon
had set out an additional requisite for the annulment of elections-that there
must be strong evidence that the protestee is responsible for the alleged
unlawful acts. 143
The Commission on Elections asserts that even if under Rule 65 of

this Tribunal's Rules, an election protest may be dismissed for failing to
prove fraud in its chosen pilot provinces, this Tribunal may still determine
the validity of protestant' s third cause of action. 144
However, the Commission on Elections underscores the stringent

requirements in Abayon as basis for proving failure or annulment of
elections and maintained that the threshold of more than 50% applies to all
provinces subject of the election protest. 145
Citing the differences between the remedies of annulment of elections

and declaration of failure of elections, the Commission on Elections states
that this Tribunal is empowered to declare annulment of elections without
holding special elections. 146
Finally, the Commission on Elections opines that Tan v. Hataman was

dismissed for mootness and was not resolved on the merits; hence, there was
no opportunity to rule on the findings of the Voters Identification Division
or to "pass upon its validity, merit and probative value." 147
In its Comment, 148 the Office of the Solicitor General argues that this
Tribunal can declare annulment or failure of elections without infringing
upon the Commission on Elections' constitutional mandate. 149 Additionally,
140
HRET Case No. 12-023 (EP), February 3, 2016, <https://hret.gov.ph/file-manager/2013-
20 I 6_ 023 _ decision-com.pdf> [Per R. Enverga, HRET].
141
J. Peralta, Dissenting Opinion in Daza v. Abayon, HRET Case No. 12-023 (EP), February 3, 2016,
<https://hret.gov.ph/file-manager/2013-2016_ 023 _ dissenting-com.pd£> [Per R. Enverga, HRET].
142
Rollo, Vol. L, pp. 41343-41344.
143
Id. at 41344.
144
Id. at 41346-41347.
145
Id. at 4 I 348-41349.
146
Id. at 41355-41356.
147
Id. at 41345-41346.
148
Id. at4!291-41330.
149
Id. at 41312-41314.
it states that this Tribunal has no concomitant power to direct the conduct of
special elections. 150
In his Consolidated Reply, 151 protestant concurs with the Commission

on Elections and the Office of the Solicitor General that this Tribunal
possesses the power to annul elections even without calling for special
elections; hence, there is no infringement on the powers and functions of the
Commission on Elections. 152
Protestant then posits that this Tribunal has "no power to declare
failure of elections" because such power, together with the power to call for
special elections, is within the Commission on Elections' jurisdiction. 153
Protestant adds that there is no need to call for special elections, as his
third cause of action prayed for the annulment of elections, not failure of
elections. 154 He then comments that the dismissal of all the petitions to
declare a failure of elections in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan is
irrelevant. 155
Protestant likewise avers that even if the election protest in Tan v.

Hataman was eventually mooted, the fact remained that upon a technical
examination, 40,528 signatures and 3,295 thumbprints in 508 established
precincts in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan were found to be not
identical with the original signatures or thumbprints of the legitimate voters
in those provinces. 156 This led the Voters Identification Division to conclude
that the 2016 elections in those provinces had been "marked with different
forms of election fraud such as massive substituted voting." 157
He emphasizes that the Commission on Elections admitted the

existence of the June 5, 2018 Dactyloscopic and Questioned Documents
Reports or the technical examination report submitted by the Voters
Identification Division of the Commission on Elections Election Records
and Statistics Department. 158
Protestant continues that, as confirmed by the Commission on

Elections and the ruling in Abayon, the results in the revision and
preliminary appreciation of ballots in his second cause of action will not
moot his third cause of action, these two being distinct, 159 with separate
150
Id. at 41317.
151
Rollo, Vol. LI, pp. 41937--41971.
152
Id. at 41941.
153
Id. at41943--41944.
154
Id. at41946--41947.
155
Id. at41947--41948.
156
Id. at41949--41950.
157
Id. at 41950.
158
Id.
159
Id. at 41951.
scopes. 160 Thus, he asserts that his third cause of action could be properly
recognized by this Tribunal, 161 which has the competence to resolve it. 162
!
Finally, protestant agrees with the Commission on Elec1ions that in an

action for annulment of elections, electoral tribunals may determine who
among the candidates obtained a majority of the legally cist votes. He
continues that only the election results connected with the election contest
will be affected in an annulment of elections, and not the entire election in
I
the affected precincts, as that pertains to a declaration of failure of
elections. 163 A declaration of annulment of elections does not'need a special
election over the contested position. 164
In her Consolidated Reply, 165 protestee submits that unµer Rule 65 of

this Tribunal's Rules, the Protest must be dismissed due to protestant's
failure to make out his case in the revision and appreciation of his three
chosen provinces. 166
Protestee maintains that allowing protestant's third cause of action

will give him six pilot provinces, a clear violation of Rule 65. 167 She also
adds that protestant's failure to prove his case after the revisio~, recount, and
appreciation of the ballots from his three pilot provinces rendered moot his
third cause of action for annulment of elections. 168
Protestee likewise belies protestant's claims that the Cpmmission on '
Elections has accepted the technical examination report from the Voters
Identification Division, and points out that it even stated that'the report has
no probative value. She stresses that she was not a party to tl;ie case of Tan
v. Hataman; thus, she was neither notified nor allowed to pa±ticipate in the
technical examination. 169
160
Id. at 41955.
161
Id. at 41956--41957.
162
Id. at 41960.
163
Id. at 41964.
164
Id. at 41965.
165
Id. at 4 I 852--41895.
166
Id. at 41868--41871.
167
Id. at 4 I 870. PET RULES (20 I 0), Rule 65 states: I
RULE 65. Dismissal; when proper. - The Tribunal may require the protestant or counter-protestant to
indicate, within a fixed period, the province or provinces numbering not mdre than three, best
exemplifying the frauds or irregularities alleged in his petition; and the revision of ballots and
reception of evidence will begin with such provinces. If upon examination of sudh ballots and proof,
and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into
account, the protestant or counter-protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest
may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the
protest. 1
The preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest
errors.
168 Rollo, Vol. LI, p. 41888.
169
Id. at41872--41874.
Moreover, protestee highlights that the report does not even account
for 10% of the clustered precincts in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and
Basilan, falling short of the 50% threshold of fraud set inAbayon. 170
Protestee then echoes the Commission on Elections' warning that the

annulment of elections is an extraordinary remedy, and as such, must be
granted with caution and only under exceptional circumstances. 171 She also
points out that protestant failed to allege that she directly caused the
electoral anomalies being complained of. 172
Finally, protestee reiterates that this Tribunal cannot proceed to

protestee's third cause of action without first resolving if protestant
substantiated his case through his pilot provinces. 173
On November 9, 2020, protestant sought the following: (1) that

Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) inhibit himself
from the case; (2) that the case be re-raffled to another justice; and (3) that
all pending incidents in this case be resolved. 174 He alleged that smce
October 2019, the Protest has "remained in limbo." 175
That same day, the Office of the Solicitor General, led by Solicitor
General Jose C. Calida, filed a similar Motion 176 arguing that, since the
Protest was raffled to Justice Leonen, "the people has (sic) been suspended
in animation for close to a year[.]" 177 It suggested that this inordinate delay
manifested Justice Leonen's bias and partiality against protestant. 178
Both protestant 179 and the Office of the Solicitor General 180 asserted
that Justice Leonen's strongly-worded dissent in the Marcos burial case
showed his bias against and animosity toward protestant and his family.
They also adverted to a newspaper article reporting that Justice Leonen had
lobbied for the dismissal of the Protest, signifying that he had prejudged the
case against protestant. 181
On November 17, 2020, this Tribunal denied 182 protestant's motion
110 Id.
171
Id. at41876-41877.
172
Id. at41878-41888.
173 Id.at41889.
174
Rollo, Vol. L, pp. 41462-41482, Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for
the: I. Inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen (Justice Leonen); II. Re-raffle of this
Election Protest; III. Resolution of all the Pending Incidents in the Above Entitled Case.
175
Id. at 41466.
176
Id. at 41491.
177
Id. at 41492.
11s Id.
179
Id. at 41467-41469.
180
Id. at 41492 and 41499-41502.
181
Id. at41472-41473 and41501-41502.
182
Id. at 41602-41632.
for inhibition. It also cautioned the parties and the Solicitor General, who is
not a party to the case, "to refrain from using language that undermines the
credibility and respect due to this Tribunal." 183 The Solicitor General was
likewise reminded that, as the People's Tribune, his client was the Republic
of the Philippines and not private individuals. 184
The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Tribunal resolves to

DENY protestant's Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus
Motion for the: I. Inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen;
II. Re-raffle of this Election Protest; III. Resolution of all the Pending
Incidents in the Above Entitled Case dated November 9, 2020.
The Office of the Solicitor General's Omnibus Motion (Motion for

Inhibition of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Reraffle) also
dated November 9, 2020 is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
The protestee's Countermanifestation (to the Strong Manifestation

with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for the: I. Inhibition of Associate
Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen; II. Re-raffle of this Election Protest; III.
Resolution of all the Pending Incidents in the Above Entitled Case dated
November 9, 2020) is NOTED.
Let a copy of this Resolution be served on the Office of the

Solicitor General.
SO ORDERED. 185 (Emphasis in the original)
For this Tribunal's resolution are the following issues:
First, whether or not protestant has sufficiently shown reasonable

recovery of votes after the revision and appreciation of ballots from the three
pilot provinces;
Second, whether or not unfavorable results of rev1s1on and

appreciation of votes in the second cause of action moots protestant's third
cause of action of annulment of election;
Third, whether or not the 2010 Presidential Electoral Tribunal Rules

allows for different pilot provinces per cause of action.
Fourth, whether or not the ruling on protestant's third cause of action

affects protestee's Counter-Protest; and
183 Id.at41630.
184 Id.
185
Id. at 4 I 63 l.
Finally, whether or not the grant of the third cause of action will result
in the calling of a special elections for the position of vice president and all
other local and national candidates.
A democracy is only as secure as its elections. It is only as resilient as

the faith of its people on its mechanisms for suffrage.
No electoral system is perfect, but doubts on the conduct of elections

must be met with caution. Doubting election results at every tum forces us
to run in circles. It hampers our development and frustrates the empowering
objectives of popular sovereignty. Without clearly established anomalies,
elections must be taken to have successfully manifested the free will of the
sovereign.
Any election protest challenging the results of an election must clearly

and specifically allege, and then prove, the irregularities that occurred.
Specifying the precincts where each violation occurred, and how it
transpired, is critical. Failure to do so warrants the protest's dismissal.
Allegations in election protests must be specific.
The results of an election may be challenged through different legal

vehicles: first, failure of election cases; second, pre-proclamation petitions;
and third, election contests. These have substantive and procedural
differences, with varying remedies, but what remains consistent across all
modalities is the requirement of specificity. Particularity on one's
allegations, grounds, and bases cuts across all mechanisms for challenging
election outcomes and must be present in all actions, regardless of the mode.
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, or the Omnibus Election Code, a

failure of election may be declared 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 . . . such
election results in a failure to elect, [or] in any of such cases the failure or
suspension of election would affect the result of the election[.]" 186 For its
declaration, the alleged illegality must have affected more than 50% of the
votes cast. 187
186
ELECTION CODE, sec. 6.
187
Carlos v. Angeles, 400 Phil. 405 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
A pre-proclamation controversy concerns questions affecting the

proceedings of the board of canvassers or "any matter raised under Sections
233, 234, 235, and 236 [of the Omnibus Election Code] in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election
returns." 188 Further, only the issues provided in Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. The
restrictive and exclusive 189 list includes:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;

(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain
discrepancies in the same returns or in the authentic copies thereof as
mentioned in Section 233, 234, 235, and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places
were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing
of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. 190
Under the Automated Election System, 191 pre-proclamation

controversies cover only two issues, both concerning the Board of
Canvassers: (a) its illegal composition; and (b) its illegal proceedings. 192
Finally, election contests, which only contemplate post-election

scenarios, 193 take the form of either an election protest or a petition for quo
warranto. 194 Although distinct, both actions aim to unseat a winning
candidate after proclamation and assumption of office. 195
An election protest involves "a contest between the defeated and

winning candidates on the grounds of fraud or irregularities in the casting
and counting of ballots, or in the preparation of the returns." 196 It is centered
on the issue of who actually and validly obtained the plurality ofvotes. 197
A petition for quo warranto is defined as "an action against a person

who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public
188
ELECTION CODE, sec. 24 I.
189
Suhuri v. COMELEC, 617 Phil. 852 (2009) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc] citing Mata/am v. COMELEC,
338 Phil. 447 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; and Sanchez v. COMELEC, 237 Phil. 69 (1987)
[Per Curiam, Eh Banc].
190
191
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (2010).
192
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (2010), Rule 3. sec. I.
193
Tecson v. COMELEC, 468 Phil. 421 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
194
A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, Rule I, sec. 3(t), 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts
Involving Elective Municipal Officials.
195
Tecson v. COMELEC, 468 Phil. 421 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
196
Samadv. COMELEC, 296 Phil. 509,521 (1993) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
191 Id.
office." 198 It is appropriate only "for the purpose of questioning the election
of a candidate on the ground of disloyalty or ineligibility." 199
The Constitution established distinct electoral tribunals to serve as

"the sole judge[ s] of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications" 200 concerning national elective positions. The Senate
Electoral Tribunal rules on senatorial contests; the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal on representatives; and the Supreme Court, as the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, on the president and vice president.
Jurisprudence discussing failure of election cases, pre-proclamation

controversies, and election contests reveals that specificity in bases and
allegations has always been critical to their appraisal.
As regards failure of elections, the Court emphasized in Pasandalan v.

Commission on Elections: 201
A petition for a declaration of failure of election must specifically

allege the essential grounds that would justify the exercise of this
extraordinary remedy. Otherwise, the Comelec can dismiss outright the
petition for lack of merit. No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to
the Comelec in such a case because the Comelec must exercise with
utmost circumspection the power to declare a failure of election to prevent
disenfranchising voters and frustrating the electorate's will. 202 (Emphasis
supplied)
The same is true of pre-proclamation controversies. Any challenge

that relates to election returns must likewise be anchored on specificity. For
instance, in Macabago v. Commission on Elections: 203
Pre-proclamation controversies are properly limited to challenges

directed against the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before said
Board relating to particular election returns to which private respondent
198
Tecson v. COMELEC, 468 Phil. 421,462 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
199
Samadv. COMELEC, 296 Phil. 509,521 (1993) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
20
° CONST., art. VI, sec. 17 provides:
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom
shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
CONST., art. VII, sec. 4(7) provides:
The Supreme Court, sitting en bane, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
201
434 Phil. 161 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
202
Id. at 167.
203
440 Phil. 683 (2002) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
should have made specific verbal objections subsequently reduced to

writing[. ]2°4 (Emphasis supplied)
In Macabago, the need to aver a particular controversy at the first

instance was emphasized. As pre-proclamation cases demand the petitioner
to raise illegality immediately,2° 5 there is a need for "specific verbal
objections subsequently reduced to writing." 206
Speaking on the functions of the Commission on Elections and the

House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal vis-a-vis election contests, the
Court has also been strict in requiring specification and substantiation. 207
The same wisdom must animate this Tribunal as we judge all

"contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" 208 of the
highest electoral positions in our Republic.
Considering that specificity is at the crux of post-election challenges,

in general, and election protests, in particular, it follows that petitions
wanting in this requisite must be dismissed.
II
This Tribunal likewise requires specific allegations m the protests

before it.
Rule 17 of A.M. No. 10-4-29-SC, the 2010 Rules of the Presidential

Electoral Tribunal, states:
RULE 17. Contents of the Protest or Petition. -
(A) An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall commonly

state the following facts:
(a) the position involved;
(b) the date of proclamation; and
(c) t,'ie number of votes credited to the parties per the

proclamation.
(B) A quo warranto petition shall also state:
204
Id. at 692.
205 Laodenio v. COMELEC, 342 Phil. 676 (1997) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].
206 Macabago v. COMELEC, 440 Phil. 683,692 (2002) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
207
Corvera v. Savilla, G.R. No. 208610 (Notice), November 11, 2014; Aguillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
197975-76 (Notice), March 19, 2013; Lloren v. COMELEC, 695 Phil. 288 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, En
Banc]; and Pena v. HRET, 337 Phil. 70 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
208 CONST., art. VU, sec. 4.
(a) the facts giving the petitioner _standing to file the petition;
(b) the legal requirements for the office and the disqualifications
prescribed by law;
(c) the protestee's ground for ineligibility or the specific acts of

disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
(C) An election protest shall also state:
(a) that the protestant was a candidate who had duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and had been voted for the same office.
(b) the total number of precincts of the region, province, or city

concerned;
(c) the protested precincts and votes of the parties to the protest in
such precincts per the Statement of Votes By Precinct or, if the
votes of the parties are not specified, an explanation why the
votes are not specified; and
( d) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of

showing the electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the
protested precincts. (Emphasis supplied)
Correlative provisions govern election contests under the jurisdiction

of other tribunals.
The 2013 Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the 2015 Rules
of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal both provide that "[a]n
election protest shall state ... the specific acts or omissions constituting the
electoral fraud, anomaly or irregularity in the contested precincts." 209
Specificity is also required by both Section 10 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-

SC, or the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts
Involving Elective Municipal Officials, and Rule 6, Section 7 of
Commission on Elections Resolution No. 8804, or the Rules of Procedure on
Disputes in an Automated Election System.
Section 10 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC states:
SECTION 10. Contests of the protest or petition. -
209
SET RULES (2013), Rule 22.
HRET RULES (2015), Rule 17 similarly states:
An election protest shall state:
(4) The specific acts or omissions complained of constituting the electoral frauds, anomalies or
irregularities in the contested precincts[.]
(a) An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall

commonly and specifically state the following facts:
(i) the position involved;
(ii) the date of proclamation; and
(iii) the number of votes credited to the parties per the

proclamation.
(b) A quo warranto petition shall also state:
(i) if the petitioner is not a candidate for the same

municipal position, the facts giving the petitioner
standing to file the petition;
(ii) the qualifications for the municipal office and the

disqualifications prescribed by law;
(iii) the petitioner's cited ground for ineligibility or the

specific acts of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines.
(c) An election protest shall also state:
(i) that the protestant was a candidate who had duly

filed a certificate of candidacy and had been voted
for the same office;
(ii) the total number of precincts in the municipality;
(iii) the protested precincts and votes of the parties are

not specified, an explanation why the votes are not
specified; and
(iv) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained

of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities
in the protested precincts. 210 (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 6, Section 7 of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 8804

similarly provides:
SECTION 7. Contests of the protest or petition. - An election protest or

petition for quo warranto shall specifically state the following facts:
a) The position involved

b) That the protestant was a candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same
office.
c) The date of proclamation; and
d) The number of votes credited to the parties per proclamation
210
A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC (2012), sec. 10.
An election protest shall also state:
e) The total number of precincts of the region, province or city

concerned;
f) The protested precincts and votes of the parties in the protested

precincts per the Statement of Votes By Precinct or, if the votes of
the parties are not specified an explanation why the votes are not
specified;
g) A detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of

showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the
protested precincts. 211 (Emphasis supplied)
Basic wisdom underlies the need for specific allegations before

entertaining pleas to set aside election outcomes. "The power to annul an
election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and
fair expression of the popular will." 212 A losing candidate cannot use an
election protest as an expedient means to unseat the winner, when they are
unsure of their factual bases. 213 "It is only in extreme cases of fraud and
under circumstances which demonstrate to the fellest degree a fundamental
and wanton disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and then only
when it becomes impossible to take any other step." 214
The Court has underscored that a protest wanting in specific factual

footing must be dismissed; "otherwise, the assumption of an elected public
official may, and will always be held up by petitions of this sort by the
losing candidate." 215 To entertain it would be to put no end to divisive and
disruptive electoral contests, 216 and "the whole election process will
deteriorate into an endless stream of crabs pulling at each other, racing to
disembark from the water." 217
The requirement of specificity deters fishing expeditions by losing

candidates who, without clear bases for challenging election outcomes, are
merely gambling with probabilities. 218 It prevents situations in which
sweeping allegations of electoral fraud are used by defeated contenders to
discover by happenstance surmised irregularities in elections.
The requirement also serves a practical purpose. As election protests

determine who secured the plurality of votes, they require a manual recount
and piecemeal scrutiny of ballots, demanding significant time and resources.
rn COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (2010). Rule 6. sec. 7.

212
Pena v. HRET, 337 Phil. 70, 78 (I 997) [Per J__ Torres. Sr., En Banc].
:m Id.
214
Id. at 78-79.
215
. Id . at 77 .
216
Agwllo v. COMELEC, G.R No. 197975-76 (Notice), March 19, 2013.
217
Pena v. HRET, 337 Phil. 70, 78 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
218
Abaya v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-56361, January 30, 1981 [Per J_ Abad Santos, En BSl)c].
Thus, even before the actual scrutiny of ballots, proceedings to determine the
sufficiency of a protest's allegations are required. 219 These include the
protestee's submission of an answer or countersprotest, 220 the parties'
submission of preliminary conference briefs, 221 a preliminary conference, 222
and the formation of revision committees. 223 Only then may this Tribunal
determine if proceeding with the scrutiny demanded by the protestant is
genuinely indispensable, or a mere superfluity that will needlessly expend
scarce time and resources.
Failing to forward a "detailed specification of the acts or omissions

complained of' 224 makes the protest insufficient in form and substance,
warranting its summary dismissal. 225
As mentioned earlier, the Court has been strict in requiring specificity.
In Corvera v. Savillo, 226 the losing mayoralty candidate filed an

election protest alleging "discrepancies in the Random Manual Audit,
glitches in the operation of the Precinct Count Optical Scan machines and
strange pattern of votes ... obtained by the administration, opposition and
independent candidates in the Certificate of Canvass." 227 The Court
sustained the Regional Trial Court in dismissing the protest after finding that
the requirements under A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC were not satisfied:
The [Regional Trial Court] extensively laid out the reasons and thoroughly
explained to the satisfaction of the Court why it ruled to dismiss the
election protest:
An intensive study and exhaustive analysis of the

allegations of the Petition revealed that the insufficiency in
substance arose from the failure of the protest to: (a)
indicate the total number of precincts in the municipality of
San Jose; (b) specifically state in detail the acts or
omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds,
anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts and
how the various irregularities and anomalies had affected
the results of the elections; (c) identify the precincts where
the PCOS machines malfunctioned or failed to accurately
account for the votes in favor of protestant; (d) allege with
particularity the number of precincts where the CF cards
were found defective; and (e) explain with particularity the
failure to transmit the results and in what precincts. The
foregoing considered, juxtaposed with the pertinent
219
PET RULES (2010), Rules 22-29.
220
PET RULES (2010), Rule 24 and Rule 29(b).
221
PET RULES (2010), Rule 29.
222
PET RULES (2010), Rule 37(a).
223
224
225
PET RULES (2010), Rule 2l(a).
226
G.R. No. 208610 (Notice), November 11, 2014.
221 Id.
prov1s1ons of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC quoted hereunder, it

succinctly appears that the instant election protest is
destined for doomsday. 228 (Citation omitted)
The Court stressed in Corvera that a protest lacking in detail as to the

"acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies, or
irregularities" 229 should be struck down for being insufficient in form and
substance. . Bare claims of "glitches," strange voting patterns, and
discrepancies in the audit, without more, were found to be hollow
accusations by a losing candidate unable to come to terms with defeat. 230 In
so ruling, the Court affirmed the need for strict compliance with the
specificity requirement.
Corvera follows a line of jurisprudence affirming that general and

sweeping allegations of election fraud and irregularities warrant a protest's
dismissal: Pena v. House ofRepresentatives Electoral Tribunal, 231 Aguillo v.
Commission on Elections, 232 and Lloren v. Commission on Elections. 233
In Pena, petitioner Teodoro Pefia, after losing in the congressional

elections, contested 700 out of 742 election precincts without specifically
pointing out the precincts where the anomalies and irregularities had
allegedly taken place. Pefia argued, as follows:
7. The elections in the precincts of the Second District of Palawan

were tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote-buying, intimidation and
terrorism and other serious irregularities committed before, during and
after the voting, and during the counting of votes and the preparation of
election returns and certificates of canvass which affected the results of
the election. Among the fraudulent acts committed were the massive vote-
buying and intimidation of voters, disenfranchisement of petitioner's
known supporters through systematic deletion of names from the list of
voters, allowing persons to vote in excess of the number of registered
voters, misappreciation, misreading and non-reading of protestant' s ballots
and other irregularities. 234 (Citation omitted)
The Court ruled that it was proper to dismiss Pefia's protest, noting
that it failed to point to where and how the alleged violations occurred. It
considered this omission fatal, as it went into the substance of the protest:
The prescription that the petition must be sufficient in form and

substance means that the petition must be more than merely rhetorical. If
228 Corvera v. Savi/lo, G.R. No. 208610 (Notice), November 11, 2014.
229
A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC (2010), Ruie 2, sec. 10, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the
Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officials.
23
° Corvera v. Savi/lo, G.R. No. 2086 IO (Notice), November 11, 20 I 4.
231 337 Phil. 70 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
232
G.R.No.197975-76(Notice),March 19,2013.
2
" 695 Phii. 288 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
234
Penav. HRET, 337 Phil. 70, 72 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
the allegations contained therein are unsupported by even the faintest

whisper of authority in_ fact and law, then there is no other course than to
dismiss the petition, othern,ise, the assumption of an elected official may,
and will always be held up by petitions of this sort by a losing
candidate. 235 (Emphasis supplied)
In Aguillo, petitioners Nila Aguillo and Benjamin Del Rosario

assailed the results of local elections in 133 clustered precincts in Cabuyao,
Laguna. They alleged "massive vote buying activities," 236 "repeated or
double transmission of results[,]" 237 and "several instances of glitches and
technical and electronic problems attending the counting and canvassing of
votes[. ]"238
The respondents assailed the protests for failing to specify the

precincts in which the supposed fraud transpired. In ruling for the
respondents, the Court invoked Rule 2, Section 10 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC,
on the rule requiring specificity. 239 Point by point, the Court addressed the
allegations in the protest. First, petitioners' claim of "repeated or double
transmission" 240 was easily belied by the statement of votes by precinct.
Second, the allegation of "massive vote buying" 241 was not supported by any
affidavit. Finally, the claim of "several instances of glitches and technical
and electronic problems attending the counting and canvassing of votes"242
was not supported by copies of election returns. Thus, the Court concluded:
[W]hat protestants entertain are mere doubts, fears and apprehensions in

the efficiency, accuracy and reliability of the automated elections,
[fueling] their self-serving belief that they probably won.
These doubts, fears[,] and expressions of probability are not

actionable. They do not constitute a cause of action simply because they .
are not yet in the realm of a wrong which is the essence of a cause of
action. 243 (Citation omitted)
In Lloren, the losing candidate for vice mayor assailed the results of
the 2010 elections, alleging "massive vote-buying, intimidation, defective
PCOS machines in all the clustered precincts, election fraud, and other
election-related manipulations[.]" 244 He failed, however, to indicate the
number of precincts in the municipality, leading the Court to affirm the
Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the protest:
235
Id. at 77.
236
Aguillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 197975-76 (Notice), March 19, 2013.
237 Id.
23s Id.
239
A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC (2010), Rule 2, sec. 10, Rules of Procedure in.Election Contests Before the
Courts Involving Municipai Officials. It requires "a detailed specification of the acts or omissions
complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities the protested precincts."
240
Aguillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 197975-76 (Notice), March 19, 2013
241 Id.
242 Id.
243 Id.
244
Lloren v. COMELEC, 695 Phil. 288,292 (2012) [Per J.. Bersamin, En Banc].
As the findings of the [Regional Trial Court] show, petitioner did

not indicate the total number of precincts in the municipality in his
election protest. The omission rendered the election protest insufficient in
form and content, and warranted its summary dismissal, in accordance
with Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in AM. No. 10-4-1-SC[.]245
Through Lloren, the Court hearkened to the imperative of making

specific allegations of fraud, irregularities, or anomalies, the failure of which
warrants a protest's dismissal.
There may have been cases, such as Cagas v. Commission on

Elections 246 (2012) and Panlilio v. Commission on Elections 247 (2009),
where the Court appeared lenient on the specificity requirement.
However, these cases never truly hinged on the requirement of

making specific factual allegations, but were decided on the basis of
jurisdiction. Thus, they set no binding precedent on the matter of specificity
in a protest's allegations.
Cagas 248 centered on whether the Court had jurisdiction over a

petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order of a Commission on
Elections Division. The Court ruled in the negative, as the proper remedy
was to seek a review of the order during the appeal of the Division's
decision. The Court's statement that it would respect the Commission on
Elections' "determination of the sufficiency of allegations contained in
election protests" 249 was nothing more than a preliminary statement on a
peripheral matter that was not yet ripe for consideration, as it remained
contingent on the Commission on Election's appraisal.
Similarly, Panlilio 250 involved an issue of jurisdiction. There, the

petitioner elevated to the Court interlocutory orders rendered by a
Commission on Elections Division. The Court ruled that it had no
jurisdiction. 251
On the other hand, Corvera, Aguillo, and Lloren have been more
definitive-leaving little, if any, doubt in their pronouncements.
245 Id. at 300.

246
679 Phil. 640 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin. En Banc].
247
610 Phil: 551 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En Banc].
248
Cagas v. Commission on Elections, 679 Phil. 640 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
249
Id. at 654.
250
610 Phil. 551 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En Banc].
251
Id. at 560. The Court ruled that under Rule 2, Section 5(c) of the 1993 Commission on Elections Rules
of Procedure, "any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be
resolved by the Commission en bane except motions on interlocutory orders of the Division, which
shall be resolved by the Division which issued the order."
Corvera minced no words m characterizing a protest wanting m

specific factual allegations:
The foregoing 252 considered, juxtaposed with the pertinent provisions of

A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC quoted hereunder, it succinctly appears that the
instant election protest is destined for doomsday. 253
Meanwhile, as Aguillo underscored:
An election protest is allowed to ascertain, not suppress, the true

will of the electorate. It is not meant to save face, to keep pride for the
loser. This is exactly the reason why an election protest is required to
state "a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of
showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested
precincts." An election protest which is not only divisive but also
disruptive of the affairs of a political unit cannot and should never be
allowed to proceed on mere belief and suspicion of a losing candidate. 254
Lloren's language also leaves no room for doubt. It characterized

dismissal as "mandatory":
The omission255 rendered the election protest insufficient in form and

content, and warranted its summary dismissal, in accordance with Section
12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, ...
We note that the summary dismissal of the election protest upon

any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 is mandatory. 256
III
This Protest could have been dismissed under Rule 21 of this

Tribunal's Rules. However, we painstakingly heard every argument to
afford the parties due process.
Protestant alleged in his Protest that:
Massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities, such as, but

not limited to terrorism, violence, force, threats, force, intimidating, pre-
shading of ballots, vote-buying, substitution of voters, flying voters, pre-
252
This refers to the protestant's failure to specifica11y state the following in the protest: total number of
precincts; detailed acts or omissions complained of showing fraud and irregularities; and specific
precincts where the PCOS machines malfunctioned.
253
Corvera v. Savi/io, G.R. No. 208610 (Notice), November i I, 2014.
254
255
This refers to the total number of precincts in the municipality.
256
Lloren v. COMELEC, 695 Phil. 288, 300-301 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
loaded SD cards, misreading of ballots, unexplained, irregular and

improper rejection of ballots containing votes for protestant Marcos,
malfunctioning Vote Counting Machine, and abnormally high
unaccounted votes/ under votes for the position of Vice President
compromised and corrupted the conduct of the elections and the election
results for the position of the Vice-President in the protested precincts. 257
These irregularities allegedly occurred in 39,221 clustered precincts

scattered in around 27 provinces and cities in the Philippines. 258 Of these
clustered precincts, he prayed for the annulment of elections in 2,756
clustered precincts, and the conduct of judicial revision of votes in the
remaining 36,465 clustered precincts. 259
Protestant's allegations appeared bare, laden with generic and

repetitious allegations, and lacked critical information as to the time, place,
and manner that the alleged irregularities.
For instance, in Lanao del Sur, protestant claimed the presence of

"violence, intimidation, and harassment of voters, as well as [the] illegal
composition of the [Board of Election Inspectors], and proliferation of batch
feeding of pre-shaded ballots in the clustered precincts" as supported by
seven affidavits. 260 However, he did not specify which precincts were
affected by the alleged irregularities.
In Maguindanao, protestant claimed "terrorism, violence, threats,

force, intimidation, pre-shaded ballots, massive substitution of voters and
ballot-snatching" as supported by two affidavits. 261 Similarly, there was no
particular precinct identified.
In Basilan, protestant contended that "official ballots . . . were not

delivered to the polling precincts on Election day," 262 and "pre-shading was
prevalent," 263 as supported by eight affidavits. 264 He indicated 11 out of the
alleged 422 affected precincts. 265
On protestant's claim that "terrorism, violence, force, threats, [and]

intimidation" 266 attended the elections, he made no mention of the acts that
shed light on how these occurred. The Protest was silent on how they
affected and disturbed the elections in the municipalities where these
257
Rol{o, Voi. II, pp. 928-929.
258
Id. at i 042.
259
Id. at 1039.
260 Id. at 965-968.
261
Id. at 968-970.
262
Id. at 970-974.
2s3 Id.
264 Id.
26:: Id.
266
Id. ar 928-929.
supposedly happened. He did not even point to the precincts where these
irregularities transpired.
Protestant also referred to the "abnormally high unaccounted votes I

undervotes" in 23 provinces and cities, but did not submit a single
supporting affidavit, let alone articulate a satisfactory recollection of how
these arose.
He likewise argued that the names of deceased persons were included

in the Precinct Computerized Voters List, 267 and that flying voters were
rampant as they took the place of said supposedly deceased voters. 268
Regrettably, he did not specify where these actually happened.
In any case, despite the blatant lack of specificity, this Tribunal still
proceeded to painstakingly scrutinized the attachments protestant appended
in his Protest.
Paragraph 7.14 of the Protest alleged that affiant Gonaranao P.

Corontoz269 is an election assistant in Marawi City270 in Lanao de! Sur, yet
his Judicial Affidavit, attached as Annex GG-7, stated that he is an election
assistant in the municipality ofTamparan. 271
In addition, Corontoz's Judicial Affidavit lacked the date of

examination:
Date and Place where examination was conducted:
June ___, 2016 at the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor

ay (sic) Provincial Capitol, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur[.] 272 (Emphasis in the
original)
Footnote 77 of the Protest stated that affiant Imelda N. Dungog's

(Dungog) Affidavit is attached as Annex QQ-4, 273 while Amalia S. Mitra's
(Mitra) is attached as Annex QQ-3. 274 However, upon review of the records,
Annex QQ-3 turned out to be Dungog's Affidavit, 275 while Annex QQ-4276
was Mitra's Affidavit. Apart from these lapses, Dungog stated that she went
to her precinct at 6:05 p.m., way past the official voting hours as prescribed
in the Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10088,277 from 6:00 a.m. to
261 Id.
268
Id. at 1019.
269
In the Judicial Affidavit, his name is spelied as "Gonaranao P. Corontos".
270
Rollo, Vol. II, p. 966.
271
Rollo, Vol. XIX, p. 15342, Protest Annex GG-7.
272
Id. at 15343.
273
Rollo, VoL II, p. 987.
274 Id.
275
Rollo, Vol. XIX, p. 15784. Protest Annex QQ-3.
276
Id. at 15787. Protest Annex QQ-4.
277
COMELEC Resolution No. 10088 (2016 ), sec. I amending sec. 11.
5 :00 p.m. only. It is not our business to speculate how Dungog cast her vote
when it supposedly had been more than an hour since the polls closed.
Paragraphs 7.130 and 7.131 of the Protest stated that a certain Roy A.
Timonio claimed that there was vote-buying from protestee's camp the night
before election day, and that members of the Board of Election Inspectors
"implemented a 'secure a number stub' scheme before the voters were
allowed to vote." 278 On the allegation of vote-buying, footnote 98 stated that
Roy A. Timonio's Affidavit is attached as Annex TT-3. 279 On the allegation
on "secure a number stub scheme," his Affidavit was supposedly attached as
Annex TT-9, per footnote 104. 280 Yet, upon verifying with the case records,
there was no Annex TT-9 attached to the Protest, thus the allegation on
"secure a number stub scheme" is unsupported.
Annexes UU-2 to UU-6 are missing critical information, particularly,

the number of votes obtained by protestant and protestee in certain areas in
Iloilo. 281 The same incomplete averments on specific details were found in
Annexes III-3, 282 III-4, 283 and III-5. 284
Annex WW-9, the Affidavit of a certain Cesar Reyes Aguinaldo, Jr.

(Aguinaldo) of Sabang Uno, Calauag, Quezon, left a blank on what date he
went to his precinct to vote. It also did not state who were the
disenfranchised voters. Portions of his Affidavit read:
2. On May_, 2016 at around 9:30AM in the morning/afternoon, I

went to Precint (sic) in order to participate in the 2016 National and Local
Elections;
5. I am executing the affidavit in order to support the truth (sic)

allegations that several irregularities were present during the recently
concluded elections and that the voters/supporters of
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ were positively disenfranchised without any
justification at all. 285
Amending Certain Provisions of Resolution No. 10057 dated February 11, 2016 or Otherwise Known
as the General Instructions for the Boards of Elections Inspectors (BEi) on the Testing and Sealing of
Vote Counting Machines (VCMs), and Voting, Counting and Transmission of Election Results in
Connection with the 09 May 2016 National and Local Elections.
278
Rollo, Vol. II, p. 993.
279Id.
2soId.
'" Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15866---15870, Protest Annex UU-2, Affidavit of Berdan Naive; Annex UU-3,
Affidavit of Henry Nufiez; Annex UU-4, Affidavit of Richard S. Terre; Annex UU-5, Affidavit of
Marifel Soriano; and Annex UU-6, Affidavit of.Jodae! Kayle Contreras, all from the Province oflloilo.
282
Id. at 15727, Protest Annex IIl-3, Affidavit of Lorenzo Sagucio, Jr. oflloilo City.
283
Id. at 15728, Protest Annex IIl-4, Affidavit ofJerson Jaranilla oflloilo City.
284
Id. at 15729, Protest Annex III-5, Affidavit oflmelda Malte oflloilo City.
285
Id. at 15915, Annex WW-9, Affidavit of Cesar Reyes Aguinaldo, Jr., Quezon Province.
In any case, Annex WW-9 does not convince this· Tribunal that the
voters of Quezon were disenfranchised. Aguinaldo stated that protestant's
supporters were not allowed to vote because their names "were not included
in the Precinct Computerized [Voters] List[.]" 286 He also stated that he
knew these voters to be registered and with an active status in the
Commission on Elections database. 287 However, it was entirely possible that
these voters were assigned in a different precinct. The Precinct
Computerized Voters List is limited to the names of registered voters
assigned to the particular precinct. It is immaterial for a supposed registered
voter to attest to personally knowing that certain registered supporters were
not in one list.
Like Annex WW-9, Annex DDD-2288 also lacked details on who were
the disenfranchised voters, this time in Daraga, Albay. 289
Even without scrutiny of the annexes, the Protest itself left several
blanks, likewise signifying the absence of important details:
Bukidnon
7.132. Protestant Marcos strongly rejects and disputes the election

results for the position of Vice-President as reflected above. This election
protest assails and impugns the elections results for the position of Vice-
President in each of the _ _ _ _ protested clustered precincts that
functioned in the province of Leyte because the same do not reflect the
true results of the elections thereat.
7 .13 7. In view of the foregoing, protestant Marcos prays for the

reopening of the protested ballot boxes and the manual recount, judicial
revision, technical examination and forensic investigation of the paper
ballots and/or the ballot images, voter's receipts, election returns, audit
logs, transmission logs, the lists of voters, particularly the Election Day
Computerized Voter's List (EDCVL), voters registration records (VRRs),
the books of voters and other pertinent election documents and/or
paraphernalia used in the elections, as well as the automated election
equipment and records such as the VCM, SD cards (main and back up)
and the other data storage devices containing electronic data and ballot
images in each of the _____ protested clustered precincts which
functioned in Bukidnon during the last elections. 290 (Emphasis in the
original)
zs6 Id.
2s1 Id.
288
Id. at 15602, Protest Annex DDD-2, Affidavit of Cannon Dyan, Manila.
zs9 Id.
290
Strangely, the allegation under paragraph 7.132 pertained to the

province ofLeyte, under the sub-heading Bukidnon. 291
Meanwhile, in Batangas and Cebu City:
7.178. In view of the foregoing, protestant Marcos prays for the

Computerized Voter's List (EDCVL), voters registration records (VRRs ),
functioned in Batangas province during the last elections." 292 (Emphasis
in the original)
7 .3 02 In view of the foregoing, protestant Marcos prays for the

Computerized Voters' List (EDCVL), voters registration records (VRRs),
functions in Cebu City during the last elections. 293 (Emphasis in the
original)
In addition, footnote 260 also left particular details blank. Protestant

did not indicate which annex pertained to the Certified True Copy of the
Certificate of Canvass of Zamboanga City:
260
Certified true copy of the City/Municipality Certificate of Canvass of
Zamboanga City is herein attached and made integral part of the
protest as ANNEX _ _.294 (Emphasis in the original)
It is not for this Tribunal to supply the missing details that protestant
failed to indicate.
291
Id. at 994.
292
Id. at 1004.
293
Id. at 1032.
294
Id. at 1034.
As in Pena, Corvera, Aguillo, and Lloren, unsubstantiated allegations

amount to nothing more than "mere doubts, fears and apprehensions" 295
which deserve scant consideration. "These doubts, fears, and expressions of
probability are not actionable. They do not constitute a cause of action
simply because they are not yet in the realm of a wrong which is the essence
of a cause of action." 296
We note that protestant's claims of:
... [m ]assive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities, such as, but
not limited to terrorism, violence, force, threats, force, intimidation, pre-
shading of ballots, vote-buying, substitution of voters, flying voters, pre-
loaded [Secure Digital] cards, misreading of ballots, unexplained, irregular
and improper rejection of ballots containing votes for protestant,
malfunctioning [vote counting machines], and abnormally high
unaccounted votes / under votes for the position of Vice President
compromised and corrupted the conduct of the elections and the election
results for the position of the Vice-President in the protested precincts297
are glaringly similar to the allegations of the protestants in Pena and Aguillo.
The allegations in Pena were articulated as follows:
7. The elections in the precincts of the Second District of Palawan were

tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote-buying, intimidation and
terrorism and other serious irregularities committed before, during and
after the voting, and during the counting of votes and the preparation of
election returns and certificates of canvass which affected the results of
the election. Among the fraudulent acts committed were the massive vote-
buying and intimidation of voters, disenfranchisement of petitioner's
knovvn supporters through systematic deletion of names from the lists of
voters, allowing persons to vote in excess of the number of registered
voters, misappreciation, misreading and non-reading of protestant's ballots
and other irregularities.
9. Had the massive fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism and

other serious irregularities not been committed, the result of the elections
for Member of the House of Representatives would have been different
and the protestant would have garnered the highest number of votes for the
Office of Member of the House of Representatives in the Second District
of Palawan, which was the true expression of the will of the voters of the
Province of Palawan. 298
Protestant's arguments in Aguillo were stated in this manner:
295
Aguil/o v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 197975-76, (Notice) March 19, 2013.
296 Id.
297
298
Pena v. HRET, 337 Phil. 70, 72-73 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
a. Various fraud and irregularities were prevalent at the precinct level, to

wit:
a.3. Another form of irregularity was the massive vote

buying activities, whether in the form of money or kind,
perpetrated by Protestee's allies, which further makes it
difficult to conclude that the May 10, 20 IO elections were
clean, credible, honest and democratic .....
a.4. Voters who have yet to cast their votes were no

longer allowed to vote at 7 o'clock in the evening of
election day even if they were within the thirty (30) meter
radius from the pooling place, only because they were
known supporters of herein Protestant[.] 299
The glaringly similar allegations in Pena and Aguillo failed to impress

the Court. There is no reason to treat this Protest differently. In fact, with
more reason should this Tribunal be strict, as it deals with the two highest
positions of power in our Republic.
Even though this Protest could have been dismissed under Rule 21 of
this Tribunal's Rules, we painstakingly heard every argument that this
Protest raised. We exercised prudence and made more than reasonable
allowances for protestant-proceeding with the preliminary conference and
permitting him to designate the maximum number of three pilot provinces
best signifying his allegations.
Throughout the proceedings, when protestant's allegations were

insufficient, this Tribunal resolved to direct him to allege with specificity. 300
On every motion, this Tribunal ordered the opposing party to comment.
When new arguments were surreptitiously raised or when allegations were
unsubstantiated, we directed that evidence be properly presented. 301
This Tribunal conducted retrieval, revision, and appreciation of more

than two million ballots from the pilot provinces that protestant designated.
299
300
Protestant preliminarily delineated his causes of action into two. After asking clarificatory questions
during the preliminary conference on July 11, 2017, this Tribunal categorized them into three causes of
action instead,.and dismissed his first cause of action for being '"meaningless and pointless[.]" (See
ro/lo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39523.-39579. Marcos, Jr. v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005 (Resolution),
October 15, 2019 [Per Curiam]). This Tribunal gave the parties a preliminary conference guide prior
to its conduct where it summarized their respective admissions, proposed stipulations, issues, and
witnesses. As the parties requested, this Tribunal also gave them the time to comment on it, and these
were adopted accordingly. Moreover, when this Tribunal released the results of the revision and
appreciation of ballots in the October 15, 2019 Resolution, it resolved to hear the parties again.
301
When protestant failed to specify his witnesses' corresponding clustered precincts after having been
directed to substantiate his allegations, this Tribunal required him to submit anew a list of his witnesses
and their corresponding clustered precincts, giving him a fresh period of time to do so. (Marcos, Jr. v.
Robredo, PE.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019 [Per Curiam, En Banc]).
In the October 15, 2019 Resolution, 302 this Tribunal informed the parties of
the results of the revision and appreciation of ballots in the 5,415 clustered
precincts in_ the pilot provinces.
Even as the results showed that protestant failed to establish massive

fraud or irregularities in his designated pilot provinces, this Tribunal opted
to take the prudent course yet again.
In the interest of due process, this Tribunal granted the parties another
opportunity to be heard on whether it should proceed with the case. The
parties were directed to submit a memorandum containing their comments
and positions on specifically delineated issues within 20 working days. 303
In separate motions, the parties requested for time to view, photocopy,

and secure hard copies of the voluminous records of the case. This Tribunal
granted their prayer in its November 5, 2019 Resolution. 304
Later, the parties each submitted a Memorandum, 305 as noted in this

Tribunai's January 7, 2020 Resolution. 306 Thereafter, several incidents
concerning the contracts of this Tribunal's personnel, commissioners, and
funding were resolved with dispatch.
In their respective memoranda, the parties made serious factual

allegations that warranted verification from the Commission on Elections.
They also raised constitutional issues, which led this Tribunal to require the
Office of the Solicitor General's comment for a fair and full resolution of
this Protest.
At every step, this Tribunal did not shirk its duty and afforded the
parties due process to make and defend their arguments in the proper forum.
IV
In election protests before this Tribunal, the mandatory ceiling in

designating pilot provinces is three. Failure to show substantial recovery of
votes in these pilot provinces entails the protest's dismissal. 307
302
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39523-39579. lvfarcos_. Jr. v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019
[Per Curiam, En Banc].
303
Id. at 54.
304
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39652-39653.
305
Id. at 39655--40098. Protestee's Memorandum; rollo, Vol. L, pp. 40341--40935, Protestant's
Memorandum.
306
Rollo, Voi. L, pp. 41169--41172.
3 7
o PET RULES (2010), Rule 65.
IV(A)
Rule 65 of this Tribunal's Rules mandates an election protest to be

dismissed when the results of the revision and appreciation of the ballots in
the pilot provinces do not support the allegation of fraud or irregularities. It
states:
RULE 65. Dismissal; when proper. - The Tribunal may require

the protestant or counter-protestant to indicate, within a fixed period, the
province or provinces numbering not more than three, best exemplifying
the frauds or irregularities alleged in his petition; and the revision of
ballots and reception of evidence will begin with such provinces. If upon
examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable
allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into
account, the protestant or counter-protestant will most probably fail to
make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further
consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.
The preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest
involves correction of manifest errors. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 65 gives this Tribunal the discretion to direct the protestant or

counter-protestant to designate the pilot provinces that would best exemplify
the alleged frauds or irregularities. This is apparent in the use of the
permissive word, may:
The word "may" in Rule 65 refers to the discretion of the Tribunal

to dismiss or not the protest, and if the Tribunal does not dismiss the
protest, to require the protestant to designate "not more than three" pilot
provinces, a mandatory ceiling. The word "may" recognizes that the
Tribunal may summarily dismiss the protest, in which event there will
be no reason to require the designation of pilot provinces. But if the
Tribunal does not dismiss the protest, there will be a need to designate
"not more than three" pilot provinces. The word "may" has never been
interpreted to pertain to the number of pilot provinces, which must be "not
more than three," a language which is a clear mandatory command that the
number of pilot provinces shall not exceed three. 308 (Emphasis in the
original)
While this Tribunal may direct the protestant to designate pilot

provinces, Rule 65 also provides a mandatory ceiling of "not more than three
pilot provinces," limiting its designation to a maximum of three.
A ceiling is likewise imposed in election protests lodged before the

Senate Electoral Tribunal 309 and the House of Representatives Electoral
308
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39580-39589. J. Carpio, Dissenting Opinion in Marcos, Jr. v. Robredo, P.E.T.
Case No. 005, October i5, 2019 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
309
SET RULES (2013), Rules 39 and 42 states:
RULE 39. Preliminary Conference: Purpose -After the filing of the last responsive pleading and the
issues have been joi..1ed; the Tribunal shall call the parties to preliminary conference to consider:
Tribunal. 310 In these tribunals, the protestant or protestee designates pilot

precincts which consist of not more than 25% of the total number of those
protested. The tribunals are mandated to direct the party to designate pilot
precincts that best exemplify the electoral fraud or anomaly, and no
discretion is afforded to them on this point.
Election protests filed before the trial courts and the Commission on
Elections require a similar limitation.
In election protests involving elective regional, provincial, and city

officials, Commission on Elections Resolution No. 8804, as amended, 311
requires the protestant to list, as early as in the preliminary conference, pilot
precincts for initial recount which are "at most twenty (20%) of the total
number of his [or her] protested clustered precincts, but in no case exceeding
two hundred (200) clustered precincts or be less than twenty (20) clustered
precincts" 312 that best illustrates the protest's merits.
In an election protest, the following shall also be considered:

e. The list ofpilot precincts consisting of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number
of contested precincts, which the party deems as best exemplifoing or demonstrating the electoral
fraud or anomaly pleaded[.] (Emphasis supplied)
See also:
RULE 42. Preliminary Conference Brief - Not later than five (5) working days before the
preliminary conference, the parties shall file with the Tribunal in fifteen (15) legible copies and serve
on the adverse party or parties, both through personal service, a preliminary conference brief, which
shall contain:
In an election protest, the preliminary conference brief shall also contain the following:
f. The list of pilot precincts consisting of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number
of contested precincts, which the party deems as best exemplifying or demonstrating the electoral fraud
or anomaly pleaded[.]
3 IO HRET RULES (2015), Rule 40 provides:
RULE 40. Post-Revision Determination of the Merit or Legitimacy of Protest Prior to Revision of
Counter-Protest; Pilot Precincts; Initial Revision and/or Technical Examination. - Any provision of
these Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, as soon as the issues in any contest before the Tribunal
have been joined, the protestant and the protestee shall be required to state and designate in the
preliminary conference brief, at most twenty-five (25%) percent of the total number of precincts
involved in the protest or counter-protest, as the case may be, which said parties deem as best
exemplifying or demonstrating the electoral irregularities or fraud pleaded by them.
The revision of the ballots or the examination, verification or re-tabulation of election returns and the
reception of evidence shall begin only with the designated pilot protested precincts.
The revision of ballots or the examination, verification or retabulation of election returns and the
reception of eVidence in the remaining seventy-five (75%) protested precincts and twenty-five percent
(25%) counter-protested precincts shall not commence until the Tribunal shall have determined
through appreciation of ballots or election documents and/or reception of evidence, within a period not
exceeding ten (I 0) successive working days, the merit or legitimacy of the protest, relative to the
designated pilot protested precincts.
Based on the results of such poSt-revision determination, the Tribunal may dismiss the protest without
further proceedings, if and when no rnasonable recovery was established from the pilot protested
precincts, or may proceed with the revision of the ballots or the examination, verification or re-
tabulation of election returns in the remaining contested precincts.
The foregoing shall likewise apply to the twenty-five percent (25%) of designated pilot counter-
protested precincts.
However, if the proclamation margin is only one thousand (1,000) votes or less, the revision of ballots
or t}ie examination, verification or re-tabulation of election returns and/or reception of evidence shall
cover all the contested precincts. (Emphasis supplied)
311
COMELEC Resolution No. 9164 (2011).
312
COMELEC Resolution No. 9164 (2011), sec. I.
A.M. · No. 10-4-l-SC313 and A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, 314 which

respectively govern election protests against elective municipal officials and
barangay officials, require the protestant in both cases to pinpoint "a number
of precincts, corresponding to twenty percent [20%} of the total revised
protested precincts, that will best attest to the votes recovered or will best
exemplify the frauds or irregularities pleaded" 315 to determine the merit of
the protest.
Clearly, there is a mandatory ceiling in designating pilot provinces

across different tribunals where election results may be contested, and for
good reason.
IV(B)
This Tribunal was explicit in imposing the mandatory ceiling in pilot

provinces to serve as a litmus test of the allegations in this protest.
As early as the preliminary conference in this case, this Tribunal has

explicitly stated that the pilot provinces shall serve as a litmus test "by
which the Tribunal will make a determination as to whether it would
proceed with the Protest-that is, retrieve and revise the ballots for the
remaining protested clustered precinct-or simply dismiss the Protest for
failure of the protestant to make out his case. "316 It is improper to impose
new rules when the purpose of the proceedings before this Tribunal had been
categorical at the outset. There is no reason to abandon this Tribunal's
unanimous ruling on this point.
When no substantial recovery of votes in the pilot provinces is shown,

the election protest must be dismissed. This principle is consistent across all
three tribunals.
In the Senate Electoral Tribunal:
RULE 76. Pilot Precincts; Initial Determination. - The revision

of the ballots or the correction of manifest errors and reception of evidence
shall begin wit.Ii pilot precincts. If after the appreciation of ballots or
election documents and/or reception of evidence in the pilot precincts, the
Tribunal determines that the officially proclaimed results of the contested
election will not be affected, the Tribunal shall dismiss the protest, counter
or cross protest without further proceedings. 317
:,i:; Rules of Procedure in Election Conte.sts Before the Courts involving Elective Municipal Officials
(20 I 0), Rule 10, sec. I 0.
314
Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay
Officials (2007). The title of the rules does not appear to have been aruended, but election protests
involving elective municipal officials are now covered by SC Administrative Matter No. 10-4-1-SC.
315
See A.M. No. L0-4-1-SC (2010), Ruie 10: sec. IO and A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (2007), Rule IO, sec. 9.
316 Rollo, Vol. XXXII, ·p. 24591.
317
SET RULES (2013), Rule 76.
Decision 47 PETCase No. 005
Likewise, in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal:
RULE 40. Post-Revision Determination of the Merit or

Legitimacy of Protest Prior to Revision of Counter-Protest; Pilot
Precincts; Initial Revision and/or Technical Examination. - ...
The revision of the ballots or the examination, verification or re-

tabulation of election returns and the reception of evidence shall begin
only with the designated pilot protested precincts.
The revision of ballots or the examination, verification or

retabulation of election returns and the reception of evidence in the
remaining seventy-five (75%) protested precincts and twenty-five percent
(25%) counter-protested precincts shall not commence until the Tribunal
shall have determined through appreciation of ballots or election
documents and/or reception of evidence, within a period not exceeding ten
(10) successive working days, the merit or legitimacy of the protest,
relative to the designated pilot protested precincts.
Based on the results of such post-revision determination, the

Tribunal may dismiss the protest without further proceedings, if and when
no reasonable recovery was established from the pilot protested precincts,
or may proceed with the revision of the ballots or the examination,
verification or re-tabulation of election returns in the remaining contested
precincts.
The foregoing shall likewise apply to the twenty-five percent

(25%) of designated pilot counter-protested precincts.
However, if the proclamation margin is only one thousand (1,000)

votes or less, the revision of ballots or the examination, verification or re-
tabulation of election returns and/or reception of evidence shall cover all
the contested precincts. 318 (Emphasis supplied)
For election protests involving elective regional, provincial, and city

officials:
Rule 15
Recount of Ballots
SECTION 6. Conduct of the Recount. - ...
(b) The recount of the ballots in the remaining contested precincts

shall not commence until th.e Division concerned shall have made a
determination on the merit of the protest based on the results of the
recount of the votes on the ballots from the pilot protested precincts and
the review of other documentary exhibits which the protestant may
submit. The documentary exhibits may be submitted by the protestant
'l'vithin a non-extendible period often (10) days from the completion of the
recount of the pilot protested precincts.
318
HRET RULES (2015), Rule 40.
Based on the above determination, the Division may dismiss the

protest, without farther proceedings, if no reasonable recovery could be
established from the JmQJ_protested precincts. Otherwise, the recount of
the ballots in the remaining protested precincts shall proceed. The recount
of the pilot counter-protested precincts if substantial recovery is likewise
established by the counter protestant, shall then follow. For this purpose,
there is substantial recovery when the protestant or counter protestant is
able to recover at least 20% of the overall vote lead of the protestee or
counter protestee. 319 (Emphasis supplied)
Similar language was employed concerning election protests against

elective municipal officials:
Rule 10
Revision of Ballots
SECTION 10. Post-revision determination of the merit of

legitimacy of the protest prior to revision of the counter-protest. - ....
Based on the results of this post-revision preliminary determination, the
court may dismiss the protest without farther proceedings if the validity of
the grounds for the protest is not established by the evidence from the
chosen twenty percent (20%) of the protested precincts; or proceed with
revision or examination of the ballots, or the verification or re-tabulation
of election returns in the counter-protested precincts. In the latter case, the
protestee shall be required to pay the cash deposit within a non-extendible
period of three (3) days from notice. 320 (Emphasis supplied.)
Finally, as to elective barangay officials:
Rule 10
Revision of Ballots
SECTION 9. Post-revision determination of the merit of

legitimacy of the protest prior to revision of the counter-protest. - ...
Based on the results of such post-revision determination, the court

may dismiss the protest without farther proceedings, if and when no
reasonable recovery was established from the twenty percent pinpointed
precincts, or proceed with revision of the ballots or the examination,
verification or re-tabulation of election returns in the counter-protested
precincts. 321 (Emphasis supplied)
The results upon examination of ballots in the pilot provinces

determine wheth,er this Tribunal should proceed with the retrieval and
319
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (201), as amended by Resolution No. 9720, Rule 15, sec. 6(b).
320
A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC (2010), Rule 10, sec. !0.
321
A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (2007), Rule IO, sec. 9.
revision of the remaining ballots in tbe other precincts. Thus, in this case, if
the results in the pilot provinces supported protestant's allegation of massive
fraud and irregularities in protestee 's favor, tbis Tribunal must proceed witb
the Protest. Otherwise, it must be dismissed. 322
Accordingly, in the Preliminary Conference Order, tbis Tribunal

directed protestant to designate three provinces that best exemplified the
frauds or irregularities he claims. 323 Protestant, in turn, chose Camarines
Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental. 324
A protestant or counter-protestant freely chooses their pilot provinces

and makes tbe representation before tbis Tribunal that tbese provinces best
exemplified tbe fraud or irregularities alleged in the Protest. Hence, the
chosen pilot provinces are expected to cover all the causes of actions on
these grounds. To allow a different set of pilot provinces for every cause of
action would be to contravene the mandatory ceiling of "not more tban
three" pilot provinces. 325
Additionally, providing different sets of pilot provinces for every

cause of action would amount to a fishing expedition, where tbe parties will
be emboldened to designate as many provinces or precincts as they can, in
tbe hope that one of them will prove their allegation of fraud or irregularity.
This, we cannot condone.
An election protest lodged before tbis Tribunal raises factual issues of

fraud, anomalies, or irregularities in tbe presidential and vice presidential
elections. Rule 65 itself refers to the "frauds or irregularities" 326 alleged in
the election protest. The expansive coverage of Rule 65 means that it
encompasses all mechanisms.
If, indeed, protestant was convinced of his claims in Lanao del Sur,
Maguindanao, and Basilan, tben he should have indicated those three as his
pilot provinces. But he did not, to no fault of this Tribunal.
The guidelines, incidents, proceedings, and findings in tbe revision

and appreciation of ballots were laid out in tbe October 15, 2019 Resolution
which this Tribunal unanimously passed. The ballots from tbe three pilot
provinces tbat protestant handpicked to substantiate his allegations-
Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental-were thoroughly scrutinized. 327
322 Rollo, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39523-39579. Marcos, Jr. v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019
[Per Curiam, En Banc].
323
Rollo, VoL XX.XII, p. 24591.
324 Id.
325
PET RULES{20r0), Rule 65.
326
327
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39542, October 15, 2019 Resolution.
As witnessed by the parties' representatives, this Tribunal went over the

ballots from 5,415 clustered precincts in these provinces. 328
Having carefully ruled on every claim and objection, this Tribunal

tallied 1,510,178 votes in protestee's favor, and 204,512 votes in protestant's
favor. It resulted in protestee increasing her lead over protestant from
263,473 to 278,566, 329 confirming her victory in the 2016 elections.
IV (C)
Protestant invoked Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal3 30 to justify that the third cause of action for annulment of elections
stands even if the result of the. revision and appreciation of ballots affirmed
protestee 's victory.
Both parties cited Abayon in their pleadings. This Tribunal takes the
opportunity to discuss the case.
Abayon involved Raul A. Daza's (Daza) election protest over the

position of Representative of the First Legislative District of Northern Samar
against Harlin C. Abayon (Abayon) concerning the 2013 elections. Abayon
won by 52 votes. 331
Daza assailed the results in 25 clustered precincts in the municipalities

of Biri, Capul, Catarman, Lavezares, San Isidro, and Victoria in Northern
Samar. He averred that there was terrorism, "massive fraud, vote-buying,
intimidation, employment of illegal and fraudulent devices and schemes
before, during, and after the elections" to benefit Abayon. 332
Upon revision of ballots, the House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal found that Abayon's votes increased by 28, and Daza's by 14.
However, Daza moved to withdraw his prayer for recount, revision, and
reappreciation of the ballots from the municipalities of Biri, Capul, and San
Isidro. He also prayed that the tribunal receive evidence on the issue of
terrorism. 333
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal eventually annulled

the results in five clustered precincts and deducted the votes which the
parties received in specific clustered precincts. It ruled that Daza established
328
Id. at 39565.
329
Id. at 39574.
330
331
Id. at 690--{)9 l.
332
Id. at 691.
333
Id. at 692.
that 50% of the votes cast in these clustered precincts were marred by
massive terrorism, and it was impossible to determine the good votes from
the bad. 334 Daza's proclamation as the winning candidate was hinged on the
following evidence:
The HRET highlighted that Daza presented testimonial and

documentary evidence showing that: (1) prior to the May 13, 2013
elections, the National Democratic Front-Eastern Visayas (NDF-EV) had
already shown its animosity and hostility towards him and his then
incumbent governor son through the posting on the NDF-EV website and
in conspicuous places statements declaring them as enemies of the people
of Northern Samar; (2) comic magazines vilifying them were distributed;
(3) "pulong-pulongs" were held in the concerned barangays where the
NDF-EV exhorted the resident-attendees to vote against him and in favor
of Abayon, threatening to comeback if the result were otherwise; (4) his
supporters and/or fellow Liberal Party candidates were prohibited from
campaigning for him, and also from mounting tarpaulins/posters and
distributing sample ballots; (5) Abayon had meetings with NDF-EV
officials, during which times, he gave them money and guns; and (6) NDF-
EV armed partisans were deployed around the school premises in the
concerned precincts on election day.
The HRET found that Daza had adduced convincing evidence to

establish that fear was instilled in the minds of hundreds of resident-voters
in the protested clustered precincts from the time they had attended the
"pulong-pulongs" up until the election day itself when armed partisans
were deployed to the schools to ensure that the voters would not vote for
him but for Abayon. 335
Sitting as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal, then Associate Justice Peralta dissented. He found no clear and
convincing evidence to warrant the annulment of election results in the five
clustered precincts. He opined that the testimonies failed to identify a single
ballot that was affected by terrorism. He added that there was no evidence
that the alleged acts of terrorism were of Abayon's doing. 336
He also pointed out that Daza's election protest, which alleged fraud,
terrorism, and violence, was in effect a petition to declare a failure of
elections, over which the Commission on Elections has exclusive
jurisdiction, and not the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. 337
Abayon filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. 338
334
Id. at 694.
335
Id. at 693.
336
Id. at 705-707.
337
J. Peralta, Dissenting Opinion in Daza v. Abayon, HRET Case No. 13-023(EP), February 3, 2016,
<https://hret.gov.ph/file-manager/2013-20 I 6_ 023 _ dissenting-com.pdf> 19-21 [Per R. Enverga,
HRET].
338
Abayon v. Daza, 785 Phil. 683,690 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
The Court held that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

has jurisdiction to annul the results:
Both Abayon and Daza do not contest the exclusive jurisdiction of

the HRET to decide election protests filed against members of the House
of Representatives. They, however, diverge as to the extent of its
jurisdiction.
An Election Protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from

office. It is strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning
candidates, based on the grounds of electoral frauds or irregularities. It
aims to determine who between them has actually obtained the majority of
the legal votes cast and, therefore, entitled to hold the office.
The Court agrees that the power of the HRET to annul elections
differ from the power granted to the COMELEC to declare failure of
elections. The Constitution no less, grants the HRET with exclusive
jurisdiction to decide all election contests involving the members of the
House of Representatives, which necessarily includes those which raise the
issue of fraud, terrorism or other irregularities committed before, during or
after the elections. To deprive the HRET the prerogative to annul
elections would undermine its constitutional fiat to decide election
contests. The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" should be
interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the validity of
the contestee's title. Consequently, the annulment of election results is but
a power concomitant to the HRET's constitutional mandate to determine
the validity of the contestee's title.
The power granted to the HRET by the Constitution is intended to

be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the
legislature. Thus, the HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives, may annul election results if in its determination, fraud,
terrorism or other electoral irregularities existed to warrant the annulment.
Because in doing so, it is merely exercising its constitutional duty to
ascertain who among the candidates received the majority of the valid
votes cast.
To the Court's mind, the HRET had jurisdiction to determine

whether t.1-:tere was terrorism in the contested precincts. In the event that the
HRET would conclude that terrorism indeed existed in the said precincts,
then it could annul the election results in the said precincts to the extent of
deducting the votes received by Daza and Abayon in order to remain
faithful to its constitutional mandate to determine who among the
candidates received the majority of the valid votes cast. 339
The Court continued that a resort to annulment of elections 1s

warranted only in exceptional circumstances:
It must be remembered that "[t]he power to declare a failure of

elections should be exercised with utmost care and only under
circumsta,.'l.ces which demonstrate beyond doubt that the disregard of the
339
Id. at 700-701.
law had been so fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is

impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful, or
to arrive at any certain result whatsoever, or that the great body of the
voters have been prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from
exercising their franchise." Consequently, a protestant alleging terrorism
in an election protest must establish by clear and convincing evidence that
the will of the majority has been muted by violence, intimidation or
threats.
The Court adopted Chief Justice Peralta's dissent, extensively quoting

portions of it, and ruled that Daza failed to present clear and compelling
evidence to annul the election results. The Court held that the evidence
presented was ''utterly weak, unclear and unconvincing." 340 It also adopted
Chief Justice Peralta's opinion which underscored the need to prove that the
protestee was responsible for the alleged terrorism and violence:
It is worthy to note that no evidence was presented which will

directly point to protestee as the one responsible for the incidents which
allegedly happened before and during the elections. Absent anything that
would concretely and· directly establish protestee as the one who had
induced or actually perpetrated the commission of terroristic acts and
demonstrate that those incidents were part of a scheme to frustrate the free
expression of the will of the electorate, the alluded handing of material
considerations, including guns, to the NDF-EV officials, and the garnering
of votes higher than those of the protestant in the protested clustered
precincts, do not per se make him responsible for the charges of
terrorism. 341
Abayon was reinstated as the duly elected representative of the First

Legislative District of Northern Samar. 342
In Abayon, the Court never truly hinged on the possibility of

entertaining a separate cause of action of annulment of elections after
determining the results of revision of ballots. The prayer for revision and
reappreciation of votes was withdrawn, and the protest was anchored on the
allegations of terrorism. Moreover, the case was decided on the extent of
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction on election
protests. Abayon set no binding precedent on whether a separate cause of
action may be entertained after revision and appreciation of ballots in pilot
provmces.
Thus, in this Protest, protestant is incorrect to invoke Abayon that his

third cause of action survives despite an unfavorable resolution of his second
cause of action.
340
Id. at 705.
341
Id. at 706.
342
Id. at 711.
To stress, this Tribunal's Rules directs the forthwith dismissal of an

election protest if, upon examining the ballots and proof in the three
provinces exemplifying the alleged fraud or irregularity, this "Tribunal is
convinced that ... the protestant or counter-protestant will most probably
fail to make out [their] case, without further consideration of the other
provinces mentioned in the protest."343 This is clear and is not susceptible to
any other interpretation.
Here, protestant failed to make out his case through his designated
pilot provinces. Thus, this Protest must be dismissed.
In the August 29, 2017 Resolution, this Tribunal noted protestant's

position that he would:
. . . no longer present any testimonial evidence to prove the material

allegations in so far as the thirty-six thousand four hundred sixty-five
(36,465) protested clustered precincts which functioned in the following
protested areas of Cebu Province, Leyte, Negros Occidental, Negros
Oriental, Masbate, Zamboanga de! Sur, Zamboanga de! Norte, Bukidnon,
Iloilo Province, Bohol, Quezon Province, Batangas, Western Samar,
Misamis Oriental, Camarines Sur, 2nd District of Northern Samar,
Palawan, Albay, Zamboanga Sibugay, Misamis Occidental, Pangasinan,
Isabela, Iloilo City, Bacolod City, Cebu City, Lapu-Lapu City, and
Zamboanga City are concerned. 344
This was reiterated in the October 15, 2019 Resolution:
As regards the Second Cause of Action, protestant maintained that

he would no longer present any testimonial evidence to prove the material
allegations insofar as the 36,465 protested clustered precincts were
concerned and would rely only on the results of the revision ofballots. 345
The second cause of action concerns whether protestant was able to

determine if there was reasonable recovery of votes based on the results of
the revision and appreciation of the protested ballots in protestant's chosen
pilot provinces. Since this Tribunal's Rules provided no numerical
equivalent to determine if protestant successfully made out his case,
protestant must convincingly show that it is possible for him to overcome
the protestee's lead. Only then will this Tribunal be compelled to proceed
with the revision and appreciation of the other contested areas.
343
344
Rollo, Vol. X..XXII, p. 24502, August 2Q, 2017 Resolution.
345
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39541, October 15, 2019 Resolution.·
This Tribunal analyzed the resulting votes in the pilot provinces for
protestant and protestee after the revision and appreciation. The ballots
lacking decrypted images were deducted from the total number of votes cast
in the pilot provinces because these ballots were not included in the revision.
In the October 15, 2019 Resolution, this Tribunal summarized the number of
revised ballots as follows:
Number of Ballots Revised

Number of Ballots deducted prior
Number
Pilot to Revision due to LACK OF Total number of
of Actual
Provinces DECRYPTED BALLOT Ballots Revised347
Voters
IMAGE346
Protestant Protestee Total
Camarin
841 ,496 348 39 676 715 840,781
es Sur
Iloilo 1,139,418
349 12 183 195 1,139,223
Province
Negros
658 ,924 350 0 0 0 658,924
Oriental
TOTAL 2,639,838 51 859 910 2,638,928
The total number of ballots for revision, 2,638,928, was divided into
protestant's (202,085) and protestee's (1,492,658) shares of votes based on
the Provincial Certificates of Canvass. The revision process left protestant
with 200,495 votes, while protestee was left with 1,476,378 votes. Each
party then raised claims and objections on these votes.
In the appreciation process, this Tribunal acted on the parties' claims

and objections, which led to protestant garnering a total of 204,512 votes,
and protestee garnering a total of 1,510,178 votes. The tables below
summarized the process and results as follows:
346
Id. at 39565.
347
Id. at 39564. October 15, 2019 Resolution. Total Number of Bailots Revised~ [Number of Actual
Voters]-· [Number of Ballots deducted prior to Revision due to LACK OF DECRYPTED BALLOT
IMAGE]
348
Rollo, Vol. XX, p. 15521, Protest Annex AAA (Provincial Certificate of Canvas).
349
Id. at 15856, Protest Annex UU (Provincial Certificate of Canvas).
350
Rollo, Vol. XIX, p. 15477, Protest Annex PP (Provincial Certificate of Canvas).
Number of Votes for Protestant after Revision and Appreciation

Number of
Number of
Votes Total Number
Ballots Number of Number of
Received by Number of Votes for
deducted prior Number of Votes After Votes added
Protestant of Votes Sustained Protestant
Pilot to Revision due Ballots to be Deducting to Protestant
based on after Objections after Revision
Provinces to LACK OF Revised for 355 Sustained after
Provincial Revision and
DECRYPTED Protestant3 53 354 Objections Appreciation
Certificate 356 Appreciation
BALLOT 357
of 358
Canvass 351
IMAGE352
Camarines
41,219359 39 41,180 40.794 8 40.786 734 41,520
Sur
Iloilo
94,41 I 12 94,399 93,245 34 93,211 2,127 95,338
Province
Negros
66,506 0 66,506 66,456 56 66,400 1,254 67,654
Oriental
TOTAL 202,136 51 202,085 200,495 98 200,397 4,115 204,512
Number of Votes for Protestee" after Revision and Appreciation
Number of
Number of
Votes
Ballots Number Number of Number of Total Number
Received by
Protestee
deducted prior of Ballots Sustained
Votes After Votes added of Votes for
Number of
Pilot to Revision due Revised Deducting to Protestee Protestee after
based on Votes after Objections
Province to LACK OF for Sustained after Revision and
Provincial Revision 363 364
DECRYPTED Protestee Objections Appreciation Appreciation
Certificate 362 365 366 367
BALLOT
of
IMAGE361
Canvass360
Camarines
664,190 676 663,514 657,991 358 657,633 12,004 669,637
Sur
Iloilo
573,729 183 573,546 562,811 285 562,526 16,825 579,351
Province
Negros 5,819 261,190
255,598 0 255,598 255,576 205 255,371
Oriental
TOTAL 1,493,517 859 1,492,658 1,476,378 848 1,475,530 34,648 1,510,178
351
Rollo, Vol. XXXII, p. 24491, August 29, 2017 Resolution.
352
353
Number of Ballots Revised for Protestant = [Number of Votes Received by Protestant based on
Provincial Certificate of CanvassJ - [Number of Ballots deducted prior to Revision due to LACK OF
DECRYPTED BALLOT IMAGE]
354
355
Id. at 39569.
356
Id. at 39574.
357
Id. at 39572.
358
Id. at 39574.
Total Number of Votes for Protestant after Revision and Appreciation = [Number of Votes After
Deducting Sustained Objections] + [Number of Votes added to Protestant after Revision and
Appreciation J.
359
Rollo, Vol. XXXJI, p. 24491, August 29, 2017 Resolution. See footnote 34 of the Resolution stating
that the figure should 41,2 I 9, per Protestant's Comment ot the Preliminary Conference Guides.
360 Id.
361
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39565, October 15, 2019 Resoiution.
362
Number of Ballots Revised for Protestee = [Number of Votes Received by Protestee based on
Provincial Certificate of Canvass] - [Total Number of Ballots deducted from Protestant prior to
Revision due to LACK OF DECRYPTED BALLOT IMAGE]
363
Rollo, VoL XLlX, p. 39565, October 15, 20 l 9 Resolution.
364
Id. at 39569.
365
Id. at 39574.
366
Id. at 39572.
367
Total Number of Votes for ·Protestant after Revision and Appreciation = [Number of Votes After
Deducting Sustained Objections J + [Number of Votes added to Protestant after Revision and
Appreciation].
After revision and appreciation, protestant's total number of votes

only increased by 204,512, while protestee's total number of votes increased
by 1,510,178. By this alone, protestant failed to show reasonable recovery
of votes in his designated pilot provinces which supposedly best exemplified
his allegations of fraud and irregularities. It fails to convince this Tribunal
that protestant can overcome protestee's lead.
It can be fairly deduced that if even if we break down these ballots by

clustered precincts or by the established precincts that comprise a clustered
precinct, none will demonstrate the fraud and irregularities protestant claims
to have happened in the pilot provinces.
Considering that protestant failed to make out his case, per this
Tribunal's Rules, this Protest must be forthwith dismissed "without further
consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest." 368
Justice Mario V. Lopez (Justice Lopez) concurs 369 with the ponencia's
finding that protestant failed to make out his case or show reasonable
recovery of votes for his second cause of action. He observes that "[i]ndeed,
the protestant failed to show that he will probably overcome the overall lead
of the protestee in his second cause of action." 370 As such, he agrees that
there is no more need to revise the ballots in protestant's remaining protested
clustered precincts. 371 Nonetheless, he proposes a formula to determine
reasonable recovery.
Justice Lopez proposes that this Tribunal should determine reasonable

recovery "based on the proportion of the protested clustered precincts (only
those revised) in the pilot provinces and the total number of protested
clustered precincts." 372 He continues that "if the protested pilot provinces
comprise 20% of the total number of protested clustered precincts, then the
determination of the reasonable recovery must use 20% as a basis for
reasonable recovery." 373
Using his proposed formula, Justice Lopez also concluded that

protestant failed to show reasonable recovery, as protestee's lead increased
by 15,093 votes 374 after the revision of the pilot provinces.
VI
A word on failure of elections and annulment of election results.

368
369
J_ Lopez, Reflections, pp. 1-11.
370
Id. at I.
311 Id.
372
Id. at 8.
373 Id.
374 Id.
In the course of this Protest, the parties appeared to have confused the
remedies of failure of elections and annulment of election results.
In Abayon, 375 where petitioner Abayon had argued that an annulment

of election results is similar to a declaration of failure of elections, 376 the
Court clarified the difference:
Consequently, the difference between the annulment of elections

by electoral tribunals and the declaration of failure of elections by the
COMELEC cannot be gainsaid. First, the former is an incident of the
judicial function of electoral tribunals while the latter is in the exercise of
the COMELEC's administrative function. Second, electoral tribunals only
annul the election results connected with the election contest before it
whereas the declaration of failure of elections by the COMELEC relates to
the entire election in the concerned precinct or political unit. As such, in
annulling elections, the HRET does so only to determine who among the
candidates garnered a majority of the legal votes cast. The COMELEC,
on the other hand, declares a failure of elections with the objective of
holding or continuing the elections, which were not held or were
suspended, or if there was one, resulted in a failure to elect. When
COMELEC declares a failure of elections, special elections will have to be
conducted. 377
Thus, the power to annul election results rests within the electoral
tribunals. This power is "an incident of the judicial function of electoral
tribunals," 378 and an indispensable consequence of the constitutional
mandate379 of electoral tribunals to decide all election contests within their
jurisdiction Abayon continued that two indispensable requisites must concur
to annul an election:
(1) The illegality of the ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%)
of the votes cast on the specific precinct or precincts sought to be
annulled, or in case of the entire municipality, more than fifty percent
(50%) of its total precincts and the votes cast therein; and
(2) It is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the

lawful and unlawful ballots. 380
375
376
Id. at 696.
377
Id. at 703-704.
378
Abayon v. HRET, 785 Phil. 683, 703 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
379
PET RULES (2010), Rule 7 provides:
RULE 7. Express and implied powers - The Tribunal shall exercise all powers expressly vested in it
by the Constitution or by law, and such other powers as may be inherent, necessary or incidental
thereto for the accomplishment of its purposes and functions.
380
Id. at 705 citing J. Peralta, Dissenting Opinion in Daza v. Abayon, HRET Case No. 13-023(EP),
February 3, 2016, <https://hret.gov.pcJfile-manager/20!3-2016_023_dissenting-com.pdf> [Per R.
Enverga, HRET].
Abayon also extensively discussed how "no evidence was presented

which will directly point to protestee as the one responsible for the incidents
which allegedly happened before and during the elections." 381
On the other hand, it is the Commission on Elections that can declare

a failure of elections, a power that it had been vested with as early as the
passage of the 1971 Election Code.
Republic Act No. 6388, or the 1971 Election Code, provided the
following grounds to proclaim a failure of elections: (1) force majeure; (2)
violence; (3) terrorism; or (4) fraud. It likewise provided the specific
instances when a failure of elections shall be declared. The only power that
the Supreme Court has is to confirm the date fixed by the Commission on
Elections to hold a special election:
SECTION 11. Failure of Election. - If, on account of force

majeure, violence, terrorism, or fraud, the election in any precinct or
precincts has not been held on the date herein fixed or has been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting and such failure
or suspension of election in any precinct or precincts would alter the result
of the election for any office to be voted in said election, the Commission
may, on the basis of a verified petition and after due notice and hearing,
call for the holding or continuation of the election on a date reasonably
close to the date of the election not held or suspended: Provided, however,
That the holding or continuation of the election on the date fixed by the
Commission shall not be effective unless confirmed by the Supreme
Court. For this purpose the Commission shall immediately certify to the
Supreme Court its resolution for review, transmitting with it the pertinent
records of the proceedings.
When the 1978 Election Code382 was decreed into law, it expanded
the grounds to proclaim the postponement of elections, including "loss or
destruction of election paraphernalia or records, . . . and other analogous
cause of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election
should become impossible":
SECTION 6. Postponement of election. - When for any serious

cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records,force majeure, and other analogous cause of such
a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should
become impossible in any voting center or political subdivision, the
Commission on Elections, which hereinafter shall be referred to as the
Commission, upon a verified petition and after due notice and hearing,
shall postpone the election therein for such time as it may deem necessary.
381 Id.
382
Presidential Decree No. 1296 (1978).
The 1978 Election Code also differentiated a failure of election from

the mere postponement of election. It then provided more comprehensive
guidelines on the Commission on Elections' exercise of the duty to call for a
special election. It stated:
SECTION 7. Failure of election. - If, on account of force

majeure, violence, terrorism, or fraud the election in any voting center has
not been held on the date fixed or has been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting and such failure or suspension of
election in any voting center would affect the result of the election, the
Commission may, on the basis of a verified petition and after due notice
and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held or suspended.
SECTION 8. Call of special election. - Special election shall be

called by the Commission by proclamation on a date to be fixed by it,
which shall specify the offices to be voted for, that it is for the purpose of
filling a vacancy or a newly created elective position, as the case may be.
The Commission shall send copies of the proclamation, in numbers
sufficient for due distribution and publication, to the provincial election
supervisor or city election registrar concerned, who in turn shall publish it
in their respective localities, by posting copies thereof in at least three
conspicuous places in the city or in each municipality in the building, the
public market, and his office, and one copy each in every voting center in
the city or province.
Pending an election to fill a vacancy arising from any cause in the

interim Batasang Pambansa, the vacancy shall be filled by majority vote of
the Members of the interim Batasang Pambansa on nomination of the
President.
The law then expanded and clarified the powers of the Commission
on Elections by instituting it as the "sole judge of all pre-proclamation
controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and
executory." 383
The rules were reiterated in the law384 governing the election of local
government officials:
SECTION 5. Failure of Election. - Whenever for any serious

cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure and other analogous causes of
such a nature that t.'le holding of a free, orderly and honest election should
become impossible, the election for a local office fails to take place on the
date fixed by law, or is suspended, or such election results in a failure to
383
Presidential Decree No. 1296 (1978), sec. i75 provides:
SECTION 175. Suspension and annulment of proclamation. - The Commission shall be the sole
judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and
executory. It may, motu. proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing order
suspension of the proclamation of a candidate-elect or annul any proclamation, if one has been made,
on any oft.l:ie grouuds mentioned in Sections 172, 17J and 174 hereof
384
Batas Pambansa Big. 52 (1979).
elect, the Commission on Elections shall, on the basis of a verified petition

and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the
election as soon as practicable.
Thereafter, the rules were also applied to the election of barangay

officials in the Barangay Election Act of 1982: 385
SECTION 16. Postponement or Failure of Election. - When for

any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of
election paraphernalia -or records, force majeure, and other analogous
causes of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election
should become impossible in any barangay, the Commission on Elections,
upon a verified petition, and after due notice and hearing, shall postpone
the election therein for such time as it may deem necessary.
If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, or other

analogous causes or fraud, the election in any barangay has not been held
on the date herein fixed or has been suspended before the hour fixed by
law for the closing of the voting therein and such failure or suspension of
election would affect the result of the election, the Commission on
Elections, on the basis of a verified petition and after due notice and
hearing, shall call for the holding or continuation of the election on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held or suspended.
In such case, the Minister of Local Government shall designate the

persons who shall temporarily act as Punong Barangay (Barangay
Captain) and Members of the Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Council).
When the conditions in these areas warrant, upon verification by

the Commission on Elections, or upon petition of at least thirty per centum
of the registered voters in the barangay concerned, it shall order the
holding of the barangay election. (Emphasis supplied)
Upon the enactment of the Omnibus Election Code, 386 the

Commission on Elections can now motu proprio 387 proclaim a failure of
election. The Code also provided for special elections regarding vacancy in
the Batasang Pambansa388 and at the barangay level. 389
385
Batas Pambansa Big. 222 (I 982).
386
ELECTION CODE, or Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (I 985).
387
ELECTION CODE, sec. 6 states:
SECTION 6. 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 ofa 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 cf the
election not held, suspended or which resU:lted 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.
388
389
In the 1988 Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Elections, Rule

26 laid down the process for proclaiming the postponement or failure of
election. In addition to repeating the guidelines set forth in the preceding
laws, it provided:
RULE26
Postponement or Suspension of Elections
SECTION 3. Motu Proprio Postponement. - When the

Commission acts motu proprio, notices of hearing must be sent to all
interested parties by the fastest means available.
SECTION 4. When Based Upon a Verified Petition. - Unless a

shorter period is deemed necessary by circumstances, within twenty-four
(24) hours from the filing of the petition, the Clerk of Court concerned
shall forthwith serve notices to all interested parties, indicating therein the
date of hearing, through the fastest means available.
SECTION 5. Time to File Opposition. - Unless a shorter period

is deemed necessary by the circumstances, within two (2) days from
receipt of the notice of hearing, any interested party may file an opposition
with the Law Department of the Commission.
SECTION 6. Summary Proceeding. - The hearing of the case

shal.l be summary in nature.
SECTION 7. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. - The

Commission may designate any of its officials who are members of the
Philippine Bar to hear the case and to receive evidence.
SECTION 8. Determination of Cessation of Cause. - The

determination of the cessation of the cause of the postponement or
suspension of election or failure of election falls within the exclusive
prerogative of the Commission.
Moreover, Republic Act No. 7056 390 and Republic Act No. 7166391
both provided that "[t]he postponement, declaration of failure of election,
and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the
Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) shall be decided only by
the Commission on Elections sitting en bane by a majority vote of its
members." 392
Republic Act No. 7056 added that the "causes for the declaration of a
failure of election may occur before or after the casting of votes or the day of
390
An Act Providing for the National and Local Elections in 1992, Pave the Way for Synchronized and
Simultaneous Elections Beginning 1995, and Authorizing Appropriations Therefor (1991).
391
An Act Providing for Synchronized National 'and Local Elections for the Electoral Reforms,
Authorizing Appropriations.Therefor, and for Other Purposes (I 991 ).
392 See Republic Act No. 7056 (1991), sec. 7 and Republic Act No. 7166 (1991), sec. 4.
the election." 393 Republic Act No. 7166 added that in cases of permanent
vacancies in Congress at least one year before the expiration of the term, the
Commission "shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not
earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the
occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate,
the special election shall be held simultaneously with the succeeding regular
election." 394
At bottom, the power to declare a failure of elections, and

consequently conduct special elections, is lodged exclusively with the
Commission on Elections. Meanwhile, an electoral tribunal, after
determining "who among the candidates garnered a majority of the legal
votes cast," 395 is empowered to annul election results for the contested
position before it.
The differences between the two remedies are clear and there is no
overlap in their functions. Nonetheless, declarations of failure of elections
and annulment of election results hinge on the same grounds and quantum of
evidence.
The Commission on Elections, upon petition or motu proprio, may

declare a failure of elections and call for special elections if it is shown with
strong and convincing evidence that "force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes" 396 made it impossible to hold the
scheduled elections.
Electoral tribunals may, in tum, annul election results if they are

strongly convinced that the conduct of elections was tainted with "fraud,
terrorism or other electoral irregularities existed to warrant the
annulment." 397 However, being drastic and extraordinary, the remedy of
annulment of elections must "be judiciously exercised with utmost caution
and resorted only in exceptional circumstances." 398
393
Republic Act No. 7056 (1991), sec. 7.
394
Republic Act No. 7166 (1991), sec. 4.
395
Abay/Jn v. HRET, 785 PhiL 683, 703 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
396 ELECTION CODE, sec. 6 provides:
Section 6. 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 resuits 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 s.hali, on the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and heari.ng, 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.
"' Abayon v. HRET, 785 Phil. 683, 701 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
398
Id. at 709.
On September 29, 2020, this Tribunal directed the Commission on

Elections to submit a report on whether petitions for failure of elections were
filed in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan in connection with the
2016 national and local elections. 399
Accordingly, the Commission on Elections reported that there were

indeed petitions filed for Lanao de! Sur and Maguindanao, but none m
Basilan. The Commission reported, as follows:
Province Case No. Case Title Nature of the Case Resolution

LANAODEL
SUR
Marawi City, SPA 16- In the matter of the Petition to Declare DISMISSE
Lanao de! Sur lll(FE) Petition to Declare Failure of Elections Don the
Failure of Elections merits.
in Marawi City
Marantao, Lanao SPA 16- In the matter of Declaration of DISMISSE
de! Sur 130 (FE) Declaring Failure of Failure of Don the
Elections in Elections, hold merits.
Barangays Bacong, Special Elections,
Daana lngud, orto
Matampay, Poona Annul/Exclude
Marantao, Kialdan, Election Returns
Lubo I and 2,
Lumbac Kialdan,
Mantapoli,
Pantiamas, Tuca
Kialdan and Punud
Proper of the
Municipality of
Marantao, Lanao de!
Sur and to hold
Special Elections or
to Annul/Exclude
Election Returns
therein
Samson U. Adiong
399
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41266--41286, September 29, 2020 Resolution.
Marantao, Lanao SPA 16- Alimoden Gura In the matter of the DISMISSE
de! Sur 131 (FE) Cornell v. The Petition to Declare Don the
Members of the BE! a Failure of merits.
of Clustered Precinct Election in
Nos. ofBrgys. Clustered Precinct
Mantapoli, No. 0043A, 0044A,
Pantaimas, Luba, 0045A, 0045B,
Kialdan, Tuka 0045C of Brgy.
Kialdan, Lumbac Luba, 0047A,
Kialdan; The MBOC 0047B, 0048A,
of the Municipality of 0048B of Brgy.
Marantao, Province Lumbac Kialdan,
of Lanao de! Sur, 0049A, 0050A,
Alahoding Maruhom, 0051 A, 0052A,
as the Vice Mayor, Brgy. Mantapoli,
Proclaimed in the 0079A, 0080A,
recently concluded 0081A, 0082A,
May 09, 2016 0083A ofBrgy.
National, Local and Tuca Kialdan;
ARMM Elections 0069A, 0070A,
0071A, 0071B of
Brgy. Pantaimas;
0040A, 0041A,
0042A, 0042B of
Brgy. Kialdan in
the Municipality of
Marantao, Province
of Lanao de! Sur.
MAGUINDANAO
Northern SPA 16- Magdon U. Dingalen For Annulment of DISMISSE
Kabuntalan, 114 (FE) v. Mohidin S. Lauban Elections and/or Don the
Maguindanao and the MBOC, Declaration of merits.
Northern Kabuntalan, Failure of Elections
Maguindanao and Annulment of
Proclamation
Pagalungan, SPA 16- Guimid P. Matalam For Annulment of DISMISSE

Maguindanao 122 (FE) and Arkan M. Elections and/or Don the
Matalam v. Salik Declaration of merits.
Mamasabulod, Failure of Elections
Abdillah and Annulment of
Mamasabulod and Proclamation
Municipal Board of
Canvassers (MBOC)
of Pagalungan,
Maguindanao
Sultan Kudarat, SPA 16- Ibrahim K. Ibrahim v. Petition for DISMISSE
Maguindanao 125 (FE) Shameem B. Mastura Annulment of Don the
Election Results merits.
and/or Declaration
of Failure of
Elections
Datu Unsay, SPA 16- Monawara Petition for DISMISSE
Maguindanao 132 (FE) Ampatuan, Annulment of Don the
Formerly Kamarudin Ibrahim, Proclamation merits.
SPC 16- Abdul Hamid andJor Declaration
016 Lumena, Tato G. of Failure of
Abdulradzak, Elections
Macmod Ebrahim,
Norodin Datuali,
Mulba Amoakav,
Zacaria Saway,
Mohammad Unggala
and Rocky Nacio, in
their capacities as
local candidates for
the May 9, 2016
elections in Datu
Unsay, Maguindanao
v. Reshal Ampatuan,
Janine Mamalapat,
Salahudin Tagadaya,
Zuhari Guiapal,
Wanay Dukay, Tho
Pasawilan,
Adbulrahim
Abdullah, Ging
Amman, Mohammad
Shamron Sapalon,
and Dor Engkel, in
their capacities as
proclaimed winning
local candidates for
the May 9, 2016
elections, and the
MBOC, all for the
Municipality of Datu
Unsav, Maguindanao
Sultan sa Barongis, SPA 16- Abubakar Katambak Petition for DISMISSE
Maguindanao 135 (FE) and Sukarno Badal v. Declaration of D due to
Formerly The MBOC of Sultan Nullity and/or non-
SPC 16- sa Barongis, Annulment of appearance
017 Maguindanao, Proclamation of both
Ramdatu Angas, and and/or Declaration parties400
Al-Fizzar Allandatu of Failure of
Angas Elections
All the cases in the Commission on Elections' report, except for one,
were dismissed on the merits. The Commission on Elections made findings
of fact which led it to conclude that there was no failure of elections or any
ground to annul the election results. This Tribunal respects the Commission
on Elections' rulings, which have attained finality.
VII
Failing to make out his case through his designated pilot provinces-
Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental-protestant cannot now insist on
the annulment of the election results in Lanao de! Sur, Maguindanao, and
Basilan. The Rules explicitly direct the forthwith dismissal of his Protest
"without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the
protest." 401 A resort to his third cause of action can no longer be had.
400
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41335--41433, COMELEC Compliance with September 29, 2020 Resolution.
401
PET RULES (2010), Rule 17 (C)(d).
In any case, for a full disposition of this Protest, this Tribunal

extensively scrutinized protestant's allegations and assessed the evidence he
presented. Even then, we find that he failed to show prima facie evidence of
his claims that "terrorism, intimidation and harassment of voters, pre-
shading of ballots, and substitution of voters" attended the elections in
Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan. 402
As discussed in this Tribunal's August 29, 2017 Resolution, 403 the

parties were directed during the preliminary conference to limit their number
of witnesses to three per clustered precinct for the second and third causes of
action and to submit a new list ofwitnesses. 404
This Tribunal likewise informed the parties that it would base its
review of the sufficiency of the allegations of fraud on the evidence on
record, and that failure to comply with the directive would be deemed "a
waiver of his right to name and identify his witnesses, and to present them
during the reception of evidence":
In view of protestant' s clear and unequivocal declaration that he

will no longer present any testimonial evidence on his Second Cause of
Action, the Tribunal reiterates its directive to protestant to submit a new
list of witnesses for the Third Cause of Action by limiting that number
of witnesses to three (3) per clustered precinct, and already identifying the
concerned clustered precinct, within a non-extendible period of five ( 5)
days from receipt hereof. Protestant's failure to do so will be deemed a
waiver of his right to name and identify his witnesses, and to present
them during the reception of evidence. 405 (Emphasis in the original,
citation omitted)
Protestant submitted a Manifestation and Compliance (Re: List of

Witnesses for the Third Cause of Action) dated September 8, 2017. 406 This
was another accommodation, considering that this Tribunal had previously
dismissed protests on insufficient allegations alone. As earlier discussed,
Corvera 407 Acruillo 408 Lloren 409 and Pena410 declared that general
' b ' '
allegations of irregularities, insufficient averments, and failure to specify
precincts warrant the dismissal of election protests. However, despite being
directed to state the specific clustered precinct per witness, which other
petitioners had not been accorded in the past, protestant still did not comply.
4
°' Rollo, Vol. L, p. 40904, Protestant's Memorandum.
403
404
Id. at 24501.
405
Id. at 24502.
406
Id. at 24795-24819.
407
G.R. No. 208610 (Notice), November I I, 2014.
408
G.R. No. 197975-76 (Notice), March 19, 2013.
409
695 Phil. 288 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
410
337 Phil. 70 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
Thus, in the September 19, 2017 Resolution, 411 this Tribunal again
ordered him to strictly comply with the August 29, 2017 Resolution
directing him to identify his witnesses, this time with the concerned
clustered precincts.
Protestant accordingly submitted another Manifestation and

Compliance dated October 9, 2017, 412 in which he-yet again-failed to
satisfy the required information.
A review of protestant's Manifestation and Compliance (Re: List of

Witnesses for the Third Cause of Action) dated October 9, 2017 yielded the
following lapses: (1) lack of clustered precinct numbers; 413 (2) erroneous use
of the established precinct number instead of the clustered precinct number
as required in the Preliminary Conference Order; 414 (3) precinct numbers
that do not exist based on the Project of Precincts for the 20 I 6 elections; 415
(4) lack of witnesses for several clustered precincts; 416 and (5) repetition of
the names of some witnesses.
Protestant has already waived his right to present witnesses. This

Tribunal's rulings must not be arbitrarily vacated.
To reiterate, Abayon explained that since annulment of elections is a

drastic and extraordinary remedy, it must "be judiciously exercised with
utmost caution and resorted only in exceptional circumstances":
The testimonies of a minute portion of the registered voters in the

said precincts should not be used as a tool to silence the voice of the
majority expressed through their votes during elections. To do so would
disenfranchise the will of the majority and reward a candidate not chosen
411
412
Rollo, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 25059-25245.
413 For example, in Lanao del Sur, there was no clustered precinct number for Brgys. Cadingilan
Occidental, Bairan, Bayang Proper, Sandab Madaya, and Lalaanpung Upper, municipality of Bayang;
Brgy. Pantaon-A, Municipality of Ganassi; Brgys. Bolao, Cambong, and Sabala Dilausan, municipality
of Maguing; and Brgy. Pialot, municipality of Malabang; Raya Madaya and Tarnpilong in Marawi
City; and Brgy. Notong, municipality of Pualas. In Maguindanao, there was no clustered precinct
number for Brgy. Poblacion 7, Cotabato City. In Basilan, there was no clustered precinct number for
Brgy. Lower Bato-Bato, municipality of Akbar.
414
For all three pilot provinces, protestant used the precinct number and not the clustered precinct
numbers in the list of witnesses. The August 29, 2017 Resolution required the use of clustered precinct
numbers. A clustered precinct is composed of several established precincts. As an example, the
Commission on Elections' Project of Precincts for the 2016 National and Local Elections shows that
Established Precinct Nos. 0001A, 0002A, 0003A, and 0004A form Clustered Precinct 1 in Barangay
Maganda, Lamitan City, Basilan. See <https:i/comelec.gov.ph/?rcc2016NLE/Projectof?recincts/POP>
(last accessed on February 5, 2021).
415
In Basilan, Brgy. Basak in Lamitan City has no Precinct No. 0042A. Similarly, Brgy. Baimbing of
Lamitan City has no Precinct Nos. 0067B, 0067C, and 0067Pl.
416
In Lanao de! Sur, there were no witnesses for Brgys. Condaraan, Cairan, Cadayona, and Rantian,
municipality of Bayang; Brgy. Pangadapun, Municipality of Ganassi; Brgy. Lilod Borocot,
municipality of Maguing. In Maguindanao, there were no witnesses for Brgys. Calaan, Cabayuan, and
Karim, municipality of Buldon. In Basilan, there were no witnesses for Brgy. Baguindan, municipality
of Tipo-Tipo; Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City; Brgy. Upper Port Holland, municipality of Maluso,
Brgy. Basak, municipality ofSumisip; and Brgy. Tong-Umus, municipality ofTabua.'1-Lasa.
by the people to be their representative. With such dire consequences, it is

but expected that annulment of elections be judiciously exercised with
utmost caution and resorted only in exceptional circumstances. 417
(Emphasis supplied)
Annulling the votes for vice president in the 2016 elections casts
serious doubts on the victory of other nationally elected officials like the
president, senators, and party-list representatives. This is why "the power to
annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves
the free and fair expression of the popular will. It is only in extreme cases of
fraud and under circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest degree a
fundamental and wanton disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and
then only when it becomes impossible to take any other step." 418
If this Tribunal were to give due course to protestant' s third cause of

action, a formulation of ad hoc rules would be necessary. As pointed out by
Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, who concurs that this Protest must be dismissed
for protestant's failure to prove reasonable recovery in the pilot provinces, 419
pushing through with protestant's third cause of action "is properly and
optimally addressable through an exercise of this tribunal's rule-making
power." 420 This would, however, raise due process concerns, because the
revision of ballots and reception of evidence have been completed, and
results have been released.
More important, these were conducted precisely to determine if this

Tribunal should proceed with the other contested provinces. 421 Changing the
rules this late in the game to grant protestant's third cause of action would
not be a good precedent as it would tailor the Protest in favor of one party.
Besides, there is also protestee's pending Counter-Protest that would

be affected by a change in the rules. This Tribunal must be prepared to hear
it ifwe decide to proceed with the annulment of elections.
In any case, we examine protestant's evidence, guided by the

framework that "[t]he testimonies of a minute portion of the registered
voters in the precincts should not be used as a tool to silence the voice of the
majority expressed through their votes during elections." 422 We are
reminded that "[s]tatistics never lie, but lovers often do[.]" 423
4· 17 Abayon v. HRET, 785 Phil. 683, 709 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
418
Pena v. HRET, 337 Phil. 70, 78-79 (I 997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc].
419
J. Gaerlan, Reflections, p. 1.
420
Id. at 4.
421
Rollo, Vol. XXXII, p. 24511.
422 Abayon v. HRET, 785 Phil. 683, 709 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
423
Antonio v. Reyes, 519 Phil. 337, 340 (2006) [Per. J. Tinga., Third Division].
This Tribunal notes that the list of witnesses in protestant's annexes

attached to the Protest and the list of witnesses in the October 9, 2017
Manifestation _and Compliance (Re: List of Witnesses for the Third Cause of
Action) bear the same names. Thus, we reviewed the affidavits of these
witnesses for the provinces ofLanao Del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.
Lanao del Sur
The affidavits of Amerah A. Maranda, 424 Aliah L. Abdulkarim, 425

Nabilah Sowaib, 426 Rohanie Amanoddin, 427 and Nouman A. Abdullah428
state similar facts: that they are all poll watchers who went to the municipal
hall of Bacolod-Kalawi at around 5:00 a.m. on election day, but were
prevented from entering. When Amerah, Aliah, Nabilah, and Rohanie went
to Kalawi Central Elementary School, they narrated that supporters of a
certain candidate intimidated them.
However, none of their allegations showed that no voting took place,

or that registered voters were not allowed to cast their votes. Moreover, they
did not attach identification cards to prove that they were official poll
watchers of the candidate they supposedly represented during the 2016
elections.
Election Assistant Gonaranao P. Corontoz (Corontoz), in his Judicial

Affidavit, 429 alleged that errors were recorded during the final testing and
sealing of the vote-counting machines. It would appear from his Affidavit
that only one machine was faulty, and he did not state to which specific
precinct it was assigned. 430 In any case, the technical problem with the vote-
counting machine happened during the final testing and sealing, and not
during election day.
Election Assistant Amer D. Abdullah executed a Judicial Affidavit431

and alleged ballot-snatching in the municipality of Pagayawan, but did not
state the specific precincts.
The Judicial Affidavit of Marawi City Election Assistant Sanapia D.

Benito432 would no longer have any bearing after the Commission on
Elections had found that there was no failure of elections in Marawi City. 433
424
Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15330-15331, Protest Annex GG-2.
425
Id. at 15332-15334, Protest Annex GG-3.
426
427
Id. at l 5337-15338, Protest Annex GG-5.
428
429
Id. at 15341--15350, Protest Annexes GG-7 and GG-8.
430
Id. at 15343-15344.
431
432
433
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41335. The Commission on Elections' Compliance (To the Resolution dated 29
September 2020). SPA 16-1 11 (FE), "In the matter of the Petition to Declare Failure of Elections in
Abdulnader M. Balt, a support staff member under the Office of the

Election Officer of Lumbaca Unayan, did not state in his Judicial
Affidavit434 the specific precincts where the alleged irregularities took place.
Maguindanao
Affiant Normina L. Taha435 (Taha) alleged that she was "a Team
Leader of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan ("KBL") in charge over the whole
of Datu Saudi Ampatuan in Maguindanao" 436 and that during election day,
she "was assigned to supervise the personnel of the KBL in the conduct of
elections in Datu Pendililang Piang Elementary School[.]" 437 She alleged
that several men of the then incumbent mayor had intimidated her, yet her
allegation does not show that voting did not take place, or that there was a
substantial number of disenfranchised voters, or that protestee had anything
to do with this. 438
Bassir D. Utto 439 (Utto ), a candidate for vice mayoralty of Datu Saudi
Ampatuan during the 2016 elections, 440 also executed an Affidavit441
alleging irregularities. A portion of his affidavit states:
2. On 9 May 2016, Election Day, around 9 a.m. at Barangay Kabinge,

while I was doing my rounds to observe the conduct of elections, I was
alarmed by the presence of armed men within fifty (50) meters from
the voting center. I noticed that it was the group of MILF 118 Base
Command Wahid Tundok with Nashro Dimaukom and Patrick
Dimaukom ("Tundok group"), brother and nephew of incumbent
Mayor Dimaukom. The Tundok group numbered a hundred men and I
immediately noticed that about six (6) of them were brandishing their
pistols in full view of the Armed Forces of the Philippines ("AFP")
soldiers and the public. 442
Utto went on to narrate that after rece1vmg Taha's report, he

proceeded to Datu Pendililang Piang Elementary School where he also saw
the incumbent mayor's armed men, whom the military and police also
present in the area seemed to have tolerated. 443
Marawi City," was dismissed on the merits on August 16, 2016. A Certificate of Finality was issued by
COMELEC on February 15, 2017.
434 Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15364-15371, Protest Annex GG-11.
435
Id. at 15383-15385, Protest Annex HH-2.
436
Id. at 15383.
437 Id.
438 Id.
439
The Affidavit at times spelled as Utto as Uto.
4.0.o Rollo, VoL XIX, pp. 15386-15390, Protest Annex HH-3.
441 Id.
442 Id. at 15386.
443
Id. at 15387.
As Utto had admitted, the armed forces' presence is more than enough
evidence to show that even if armed men were present, the military ensured
that orderly elections would be conducted.
Incidentally, Utto admitted that he was a candidate who went from

one polling place to another. 444 Under Section 192 of the Omnibus Election
Code, only authorized persons are allowed to stay within the polling place:
SECTION 192. Persons allowed in and around the polling place.

- During the voting, no person shall be allowed inside the polling place,
except the members of the board of election inspectors, the watchers, the
representatives of the Commission, the voters casting their votes, the
voters waiting for their turn to get inside the booths whose number shall
not exceed twice the number of booths and the voters waiting for their turn
to cast their votes whose number shall not exceed twenty at any one time.
The watchers shall stay only in the space reserved for them, it being illegal
for them to enter places reserved for the voters or for the board of election
inspectors or to mingle and talk with the voters within the polling place.
It shall be unlawful for any officer or member of the Armed Forces

of the Philippines including the Philippine Constabulary or the Integrated
National Police or peace officer or any armed person belonging to any
extra-legal police agency, special forces, reaction forces, strike forces,
home defense units, barangay tanod, or other similar forces or para-
military forces, including special forces, security guards, special
policemen, and all other kinds of armed or unarmed extra-legal police
officers, to enter any polling place, unless it is his polling place where he
will vote but in such case he should immediately leave the polling place,
.and within a radius of fifty meters from such polling place, no policeman
or peace officer shall be allowed to enter or stay inside the polling place
except when there is an actual disturbance of the peace and order therein.
However, the board of election inspectors upon majority vote, if it deems
necessary, may make a call in writing, duly entered in the minutes, for the
detail of a policeman or any peace officer for their protection or for the
protection of the election documents and paraphernalia, in which case, the
said policeman or peace officer shall stay outside the polling place within
a radius of thirty meters near enough to be easily called by the board of
election inspectors at any time, but never at the door, and in no case shall
the said policeman or peace officer hold any conversation with a..,y voter
or disturb or prevent or in any manner obstruct the free access of the
voters to the polling place. It shall likewise be unlawful for any barangay
official to enter and stay inside any polling place except to vote or except
when serving as a watcher or member of the board of election inspectors,
in which case, he shall leave the polling place immediately after voting.
Utto appears to have committed an election offense, having went to

two different polling places to observe the elections despite being a
candidate and not an authorized poll watcher. It could be that he just cast his
vote in one of the polling places he visited, but no such statement was made
in his Affidavit. Just the same, any registered voter has a stake in the
444
Id. at i5386-15387.
outcome of the elections, but the manner by which we ensure the clean,
orderly, and honest elections should be within the bounds of law.
Basilan
The affidavits of Nasir A. Tawani, 445 Abdulla I. Anjala, 446 Amat A.

Sarama, 447 Mariabella E. Macay, 448 Alamin 0. Ibama, 449 Sitti S. Bohong, 450
Abdulbasir D. Tawani, 451 Massir S. Tawani, 452 Kais T. Itih, 453 Muallam A.
Gadjalul, 454 Hussin A. Adjain, 455 and Salaain A. Muhtarin, 456 residents of
various barangays in Sumisip, all alleged that there was pre-shading of
ballots and that they were unable to vote on election day.
However, being unable to vote does not necessarily mean that no

voting took place. A voter may have been unable to vote on election day for
various reasons. They may have been transferred to the list of deactivated
voters for failure to vote in two consecutive regular elections. 457
Notably, Abdulla I. Anjala stated that he was a registered voter in

Precinct No. 0053-A, Barangay Cabcaban, Sumisip. 458 Yet, the Commission
on Elections' Project of Precincts for 2016 shows no Precinct No. 0053-A in
Sumisip. 459 With no such precinct in Barangay Cabcaban, this Affidavit has
no evidentiary value at all.
Likewise, in Lamitan City, Basilan, affiants also alleged irregularities

in the elections, but their narratives were woefully lacking.
Said M. Uliling, a resident of Barangay Balagtasan, alleged in his

Affidavit460 that he was instructed to pre-shade official ballots. Yet, there
was no indication whether these ballots were fed into the vote-counting
machines during the canvassing. 461
445
Id. at 15405-15406, Protest Annex 11-8.
446
Id. at 15407, Protest Annex 11-9.
447
448
449
Id.atl5410,ProtestAnnexll-12.
450
451
Id. at 15412, Protest Annex II-14.
452
Id.atl5413,ProtestAnnexll-15.
453
Id.at15414,ProtestAnnexII-16.
454
Id. at 15415-15416, Protest Annex Il-17.
455 Id. at 15417~15418, Protest Annex II-18.
456
Id. at 15419-15420, Protest Annex II-19.
457 The procedure for deactivation of voters for the 2016 elections can be found in COMELEC Resolution
No. 9863 (2014).
458
Rollo, Vol.'XIX, p. 15407.
459
2016 National and Local Elections Project of Precincts, available at
<https://comelec.gov.ph/?rc=2016NLE/Projecto£Precincts/POP> (last accessed on December 10, 2020).
460
Rollo, Vol. XIX, p. 15421, Protest Annex Jl-20.
461 Id.
For his part, Mady A. Anjalang462 (Anjalang) stated that on election

day, he was told that he could only vote after the supporters of the Liberal
Party had done so. 463 He was brought home by his companions after a
sudden altercation with a civilian security escort who had threatened to shoot
him, and was thus unable to cast his vote. 464
If Anjalang was unable to cast his vote, it appears that it was of his
own doing. He did not claim that he was prevented from casting his vote,
but was simply told to wait. Yet, he chose to go home and, it would seem,
never returned to the polling place.
Boy Sanson Akilin (Akilin) alleged in his Affidavit465 that there had
been pre-shading of ballots. He added that in the early morning, only select
voters had been initially allowed to vote. 466 He also claimed:
4. That, it was not until about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, when
a military vehicle arrived and talked to the Barangay Captain that all
voters, without distinction, were already allowed entry to the polling place
and allowed to cast votes[.] 467
Notably, Akilin himself admitted that the issue of selecting voters

who could cast their votes was resolved that same morning. As for the pre-
shaded ballots, there was likewise no statement that these ballots were fed
into the vote-counting machines.
Additionally, in Isabela City, Basilan, Gerry A. Salapuddin alleged

ballot-snatching and feeding in particular areas, yet he did not explain how
he had personal knowledge of these allegations:
Ballot Snatching and Feeding
5. Contrary to the directive of the COMELEC Central Office, the

ballots for the clustered precincts in the Municipalities of Akbar, Tuburan,
Al Barkah, Sumisip, Tabu-an Lasa, and in some barangays of the
Municipalities of Muhammad Ajul and Lantawan, all in the Province of
Basilan, were not delivered to such clustered precincts but were instead
placed in the respective Municipal Halls. As a result, local candidates
belonging to the Liberal Party, together with their armed men, took around
90% of these ballots from their respective Treasurers of said
municipalities and brought said ballots to the households of their
supporters and/or relatives to be filled-up.
462
463 Id.
464 Id.
465
466 Id.
467 Id.
6. On the next day, 9 May 2016, these already filled-up ballots

were then fed into the VCMs. As a result of these activities, 90% of the
voters in these Municipalities were disenfranchised. 468
In sum, the affidavits lacked specificity and any iota of proof of fraud
or irregularity that would entail annulment of elections, falling short of the
threshold in Abayon.
We note that protestant also advocated the application of the threshold

set forth in Abayon:
96. As to whether the threshold will apply per province to all three
(3) provinces, it can be inferred from the ruling in the case of Abayon v.
HRET and Daza that if the annulment of the election results involves an
entire province, the threshold in case of annulment of the election results
covering an entire municipality should apply, i.e., the illegality of the
ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%) of the total precincts of
the municipality or province concerned.
97. As to whether there can be failure or annulment in some but

not all three (3) provinces, the answer will depend on whether there is
compliance with the threshold of evidence that is required to prove failure
or annulment of elections and the percentage of votes/precincts that needs
to be proven as having been affected by the grounds for failure or
annulment of elections. If there is compliance for ALL the three (3)
provinces then the elections results for the position of Vice-President in
these 3 provinces shall be annulled. 469 (Emphasis in the original)
The Commission on Elections likewise recommended that per

Abayon, the threshold of evidence to prove annulment of elections consists
of a showing that:
(1) The illegality of the ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%)
of the votes cast on the specific precinct or precincts sought to be
annulled, or in case of the entire municipality, more than fifty percent
(50%) of its total precincts and the votes cast therein;
(2) It is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the

lawful and unlawful ballots; and
(3) There must be clear, convincing and strong evidence showing that the
protestee is the one responsible for the unlawful acts complained of. 470
This Tribunal applies the requisites in Abayon. Both parties have

repeatedly invoked it, and the Commission on Elections itself has insisted on
its applicability. We take this opportunity to scrutinize this case through the
lens of Abayon.
468
Id. at 15398, Annex 11-2, Affidavit of Gerry A. Salapuddin.
469
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 40931, Protestant's Memorandum.
470
Id. at 41349.
The first requisite-that the unlawful ballots must have affected more
than 50% of the votes cast on the specific precincts sought to be annulled-
was not met. The affidavits reviewed pertained to a measly few
municipalities in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.
Lanao del Sur has a total of 39 municipalities and one city, yet
protestant submitted affidavits referring to only three localities: the
municipality ofBacolod-Kalawi, 471 the municipality ofLumbaca-Unayan, 472
and Marawi City. 473
Interestingly, the Commission on Elections found that there was no

failure of elections in Marawi City and in the municipality of Marantao
during the 2016 elections.
On August 16, 2016, the Commission on Elections dismissed474 a

petition to declare a failure of elections in Marawi City, docketed as SPA
16-111 (FE). It had ruled on the merits, considering the prior
475
investigation that revealed the reported violence on election day, resulting
in voters belatedly casting their votes. 476 In dismissing this petition, the
Commission on Elections explained:
Before the COMELEC can declare a failure of election two

conditions must concur, namely (1) no voting took place in the precinct or
precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election
resulted in a failure to elect; and (2) the votes not cast would have affected
the resulted of the election[ s]. The cause of such failure of election could
only be any of the following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes. The phrase "resulted in failure to elect," in turn,
must be understood in its literal sense, which is "nobody was elected."
A careful review of the circumstances surrounding the subject

elections in Marawi City would disprove any claim of failure of elections
therein.
The mere fact that the winning candidates in Marawi City have
been proclaimed belies the argu,-nent that no voting took place in the
precincts on the date fixed by law, or that the election resulted in the
failure to elect. In fact, PES Dela Peil.a failed to appear during the
scheduled hearing to present evidence that there was indeed failure of
election in Marawi City. There is nothing in the records that will show
that (a) elections were not conducted in the designated polling places; (b)
471 Rolle, Vol. XIX, pp. 15330-15340, Protest: Annex GG-2, Affidavit of Amerah Maranda; Annex GG-
3, Affidavit of Aliah L. Abdulkarim; Annex GG-4, Affidavit of Nabilah Sowaib; Annex GG-5,
Affidavit ofRohanie Amanoddin; Annex GG-6, Affidavit ofNouman Abdullah.
472
Id. at 15364-15371, Protest Annex GG-11, Affidavit of Abdulnader M. Bait.
473 Id. at 1534!-15363, Protest Annexes GG-7 and GG-8, Affidavit of Gonaranao P. Corontoz; Annex
GG-9, Affidavit of Amer D. Abdullah; Annex GG-10, Affidavit ofSanapia D. Benito.
474
Id. at 41370-41374.
475 As reported by acting Provincial Election Supervisor of Lanao dei Sur, Atty. Roberto dela Pefia.
476
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41371.
elections were suspended in the said city or barangays; and (c) after the
voting and during the transmission of the election returns or in the custody
or canvass thereof, such results in failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud and other analogous causes. 477
(Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
The August 16, 2016 Resolution turned final on February 15, 2017. 478
The Commission on Elections' ruling that there was no failure of elections
in Marawi City is thus binding on this Protest, based on res judicata by
conclusiveness of judgment. The rule is codified in Rule 39, Sec. 47(c) of
the Rules of Civil Procedure, which states:
Rule 39
Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
SECTION 47. Effect ofjudgments or final orders. - The effect of

a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their

successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a
former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been
so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto.
This rule was explained in Webb v. Gatdula: 479
There is conclusiveness of judgment when "there is identity of

parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action[.]"
Moreover, "the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters
actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters
merely involved therein." Thus, when a court of competent jurisdiction
judicially tried and settled a right or fact, or an opportunity for a trial has
been given, the court's judgment should be conclusive upon the parties. In
Nabus v. Court ofAppeals:
The doctrine [of conclusiveness of judgment] states

that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit,
and was there judicially passed on and determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by
the judgment therein, as far as concerns the parties to that
action and persons in privity with them, and cannot be
again litigated in any future action between such parties or
their privies, in the same court or an.y other court of
concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or a different
cause of action, while ihe judgment remains unreversed or
477
Id. at 41373.
478
Id. at 41335.
479
G.R. No. 194469, September I 8, 2019,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshe!f/showdocs/1/65754> [Per j_ Leanen, Third Division].
unvacated by proper authority. The only identities thus

required for the operation of the judgment as an estoppel, in
contrast to the judgment as a bar, are identity of parties and
identity of issues.
It has been held that in order that a judgment in one

action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another
action between the same parties or their privies, it is
essential that the issues be identical. If a particular point or
question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment
will depend on the determination of that particular point or
question, a former judgment between the same parties will
be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or
question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit; but
the adjudication of an issue in the first case is not
conclusive of an entirely different and distinct issue arising
in the second. In order that this rule may be applied, it
must clearly and positively appear, either from the record
itself or by the aid of competent extrinsic evidence that the
precise point or question in issue in the second suit was
involved and decided in the first. And in determining
whether a given question was an issue in the prior action, it
is proper to look behind the judgment to ascertain whether
the evidence necessary to sustain a judgment in the second
action would have authorized a judgment for the same
party in the first action....
In essence, res judicata by bar by prior judgment prohibits the

filing of a second case when it has the same parties, subject, and cause of
action, or when the litigant prays for the same relief as in the first case.
Meanwhile, res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment precludes the re-
litigation of a fact or issue that has already been judicially settled in the
first case between the same parties. If, between the first and second case,
the causes of action are different and only the parties and issues are the
san1e, res judicata is still present by conclusiveness of judgment. 480
(Citations omitted)
While SPA No. 16-111 (FE) does not name any pet1t10ner, the
resolved matter is the same as that raised by protestant here. The grounds
for annulment of election results are similar to the grounds for declaration of
failure of elections. The Commission on Elections found no failure of
elections in Marawi City because the elections were held, a majority of the
voters cast their votes, and winning candidates were proclaimed. Thus, there
is no need to re-litigate the same matter.
For the municipality ofMarantao, two consolidated petitions had both

alleged violence, terrorism, and pre-shading of ballots. 481 In dismissing the
consolidated petitions, the Commission on Elections explained:
4so Id.
48 ; Rollo, VoLL,p.41398,May26,2017inSPANo.16-130(FE)andSPANo.16-131 (FE).
Elections did take place in the assailed clustered precincts as the evidence
on record establishes. There is no evidence on record that elections were
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting
because of the alleged terrorism and anomalies claimed in the petitions.
Moreover, the alleged terrorism and anomalies did not result in failure to
elect.
While there is evidence on record showing that there was a

shooting incident at the Municipal Gym of Marantao, which resulted in the
deaths of two of Petitioner Adiong's watchers, the same cannot be
considered as sufficient basis to declare failure of elections because
evidence shows that the violent encounter did not fully disrupt or
adversely affect the voting in the questioned polling centers 482
The ruling that there was no failure of elections in the municipality of

Marantao is also res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
Res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment also applies to the other

cases resolved by the Commission on Elections involving cities and
municipalities in Maguindanao and Basilan. Again, in determining whether
this Tribunal should proceed to the third cause of action, we must recognize
the Commission on Elections' various resolutions dismissing petitions to
declare a failure of elections.
For Maguindanao, the Commission on Elections ruled that there was

no failure of elections in the municipalities of Pagalungan, 483 Sultan
Kudarat, 484 Sultan sa Barongis, 485 Datu Unsay, 486 and Northern
Kabuntalan. 487
Incidentally, Maguindanao has a total of 36 municipalities and one

488
city, but the affiants protestant presented were both from the municipality
of Datu Saudi Ampatuan. 489
Meanwhile, Basilan has 11 municipalities and two cities, 490 but the
affidavits protestant presented refer only to the municipalities of Tuburan, 491
Sumisip, 492 Akbar, 493 and Lamitan City. 494
482
Id. at41410 and 41413.
483
Id. at 41382-41387, October 30, 2017 in SPA Case No. 16-122 (FE).
484 Id. at 41388-41395, November 17, 2016 Resolution in SPA No. 16-125 (FE).
485 Id. at 41338, November 8, 2016 and May 17, 2017 Resolutions in SPA No. 16-135 (FE).
486 Id. at 41417-41431, February I, 2018 Resolution in SPA No. 16-132 (FE).
487
Id. at 41375-41381, January 15, 2018 Resolution in SPA No. 16-114 (FE).
488 Cotabato City is treated as a special province per the Commission on Elections' Project of Precincts for
the 2016 elections, but is deemed included in Maguindanao for the third cause of action.
489 Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15383-15390, Protest Annex HH-2, Affidavit of Normina L. Taha; and Annex
HH-3, Affidavit ofBassir D. Utro.
490 Isabela City is treated as a special province as per COMELEC's Project of Precincts for the 2016
national and local elections, but is included in Basilan for the third cause of action.
The Provincial Certificates of Canvass for Lanao del Sur, 495

Maguindanao, 496 and Basilan497 indicate the total number of registered voters
for these provinces, the total number of voters who actually voted, as well as
the number of votes garnered per candidate for vice president and its
percentage based on the total number of votes cast. Protestee presented the
number of votes needed to reach the threshold laid down in Abayon:
102. Following the requirements laid down in Abayon, protestant

Marcos must be able to show that at least Five Hundred Fifty Four
Thousand Forty Two (554,042) votes were affected by the alleged
electoral [frauds], anomalies and irregularities in the Provinces ofBasilan,
Lanao de! Sur and Maguindanao:
Total Number of Voters Number of Votes That

Who Actually Voted Must Have Been
Affected
Basilan 190,704 95,353
Lanao de! Sur 421,057 210,529
Maguindanao 496,319 248,160
TOTAL 1,108,080 554,042 498
The Commission on Elections' finding that there was no failure of

elections in several cities and municipalities in these provinces serves as res
judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. Necessarily, we must subtract the
number of votes in those areas from the total number of protested votes.
After subtracting the number of votes, we can preliminarily determine
whether the remaining votes will reach the threshold in Abayon.
The· table below represents data for Lanao de! Sur where, as
discussed, petitions in Marawi City499 and the municipality of Marantao 500
had been dismissed by the Commission on Elections on the merits. 501 The
votes cast in these areas should no longer be included in the votes to be
491 Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15399-15401, Protest Annex 11-3, Affidavit ofNurudin A. Dawalin; Annex 11-4,
Affidavit ofRedzmar M. Hasim; and Annex 11-5, Affidavit ofBasir A. Saala.
492 Id. at 15405-15420, Protest Annex 11-8, Affidavit of Nasir A. Tawani; Annex 11-9, Abdulla I. Anjala;
Annex II- I 0, Affidavit of Amat A. Sarama; Annex II- I I, Affidavit of Mariabella E. Macay; Annex 11-
12, Affidavit of Alamin 0. Ibama; Annex 11-13, Affidavit ofSitti S. Bohong; Annex 11-14, Affidavit of
Abdulbasir D. Tawani; Annex 11-15, Affidavit ofMassir S. Tawani; Annex 11-16, Affidavit of Kais T.
Itih; Annex Il-17, Affidavit of Muallam A. Gadjalul; Annex 11-18, Affidavit of Hussin Adjain; and
Annex 11-19, Affidavit ofSalaain A. Muhtarin.
493
Id. at 15402-15404, Protest Annex 11-6, Affidavit of Rahman S. Kapeng; and Annex 11-7, Affidavit of
Gani A. A!ap.
494 Id. at 15421-15423, Protest Annex Il-20, Affidavit of Said M. Uliling; Annex 11-21, Affidavit of Mady
A. Anjalang; and Annex ll-22, Affidavit of Boy Sanson Akilin.
495
Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15320-15321, Annex GG.
496
Id. at 15373, Protest Annex HH.
497
Id. at 15392, Protest Annex II.
498
Rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39857, Protestee's Memorandum.
499
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41335, Docketed as SPA No. 16-1 I I (FE).
500
Id. at 41336, Docketed as SPA No. 16-130 (FE).
501
Id. at 41335-41336.
annulled lest we run afoul of the rule on conclusiveness of judgment. These

votes have been upheld and the results of the elections can no longer be
questioned.
"Voter Turnout" was computed based on the voter's turnout for the
province. This Tribunal used the data from the Statement of Votes by
City/Municipality for Lanao del Sur, 502 Maguindanao, 503 and Basilan,504
attached as annexes to the Protest. "Votes to be Deducted" were likewise
based on the same data:
LANAO DEL SUR

Marawi City
Total Number of Actual Voter Turnout Votes to be
Registered Voters based on Statement of Deducted from
Votes by total number of
City/Municipality protested ballots
Protestant 5,050
49,114 44,780
Protestee 21,782
Total 26,832
Municipality ofMarantao
Protestant 2,307
20,793 19,446
Protestee 7,405
Total 9,712
TOTAL number of
votes to be deducted
from protested
ballots in the 36,544
Province of Lanao
de! Sur
Meanwhile, data for Maguindanao is presented in the table below:
MAGUINDANAO
Municipality ofPagalungan
Total Number of Actual Voter Turnout Votes to be
Registered Voters based on Statement of Deducted from
Votes by total number of
City/Municipality protested ballots
Protestant 495
17,031 13,039
Protestee 7,030
Total 7,525
Municipality ofSultan Kudarat
Protestant II 13,494
44,719 41,320
Protestee 14,490
Total ! 27,984
502
Rollo, Vol. XIX, pp. 15322-15329, Protest Annex GG-1.
503
Id. at 15375-15381, Protest Annex HH-1.
504
Id. at 15394--15397, Protest Annex 11-1.
Municipality ofSultan sa Barongis

Protestant 653
10,267 6,783
Protestee 2,985
Total 3,638
Municipality of Datu Unsay
Protestant 56
5,827 4,287
Protestee 444
Total 500
Municipality ofNorthern Kabuntalan
Protestant 1,524
J0,538 6,694
Protestee 2,791
Total 4,315
TOTAL number of
votes to be deducted
from protested ballots 43,962
in the Province of
Maguindanao
Per the Commission on Elections, no petition to declare failure of

elections and/or annulment of election results was filed for Basilan.
"Votes subject of annulment" refers to the total number of votes

earned by protestant and protestee in the provinces. "Votes deducted due to
CO:MELEC's prior finding" refers to the projected number of votes that
protestant and protestee garnered as seen in the two previous tables. We
then compare the difference between the votes subject of annulment and the
votes deducted with the numbers in the column "50+ 1 Threshold." If the
total remaining ballots are less than the threshold, this means that the
annulment of election results for that particular province fails:
Determination of whether Abayon's Threshold will be met if Third Cause of Action is given due course
Votes Deducted TOTAL ballots
Total Number 50+1
50+1 Votes Subject due to that remain
Threshold
Province of Actual
Threshold of Annulment COMELEC's subject to
Voters Met?
prior finding annulment
Basilan 190,704 95,353

Protestan 32,326 None 32,326
Protestee 77,321 None 77,3?1
109,647 Yes
Lanao del Sur 421,057 210,529
Protestant 56,243 7,357 48,886
Proteste1 180,539 41,228 139,311

188,197 Ne
Maguindanao 496,31' 248,160
Protestan1 S0,591 16,222 64,369
Protestee; 220,125 27,740 192,385
I 256,75, Ye
From this table, it is clear that the remammg contested ballots for
Lanao del Sur will not meet the required threshold under the first requisite.
The table below represents the computation of votes for protestant and
protestee if we combine the results of the revision and appreciation for the
second cause of action, and the projected results for the third cause of action:
Combined total for all orovinces

Protestant's Protestee's
remaining votes remaining votes
RESULT
subject of subject of
annulment annulment
Basilan 32,326 77,321
Lanao Del Sur 48,886 139,311
Maguindanao 64,369 192,385
TOTAL 145,581 409,017
Total Votes
after revision
and
aooreciation 14,157,771 14,436,337
LESS (total of
three
provinces) . 145,581 409,017
Protestee
maintains her
TOTAL 14,012,190 14,027,320 lead
.
DIFFERENCE 15,130
There is prima facie showing that protestee would still maintain her
lead even if we proceed with the third cause of action.
Protestant has repeatedly raised Tan v. Hataman, the case decided by

the Commission on Elections. Tan was dismissed for mootness on
December 5, 2019, and this ruling has turned final. 505 In any case, to fully
resolve the issue, we reviewed which specific precincts were chosen as pilot
precincts in that case.
Based on the April 26, 2018 Order5° 6 of the Commission on Elections'

Second Division, the 167 pilot protested precincts507 were in the
municipalities of Akbar, Lantawan, Tuburan, Tabuan-lasa, Sumisip, and
5 5
o Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41345.
°'
5
Penned by Presiding Commissioner Luie Tito F: Guia, available at
<https://www.bongbongmarcos.com/wp-content/uploads/20 l 8/05/BBM-Notice-with-Order-dtd-
04.26. l 8~EPC-No.-2016-37.pdf> (last accessed on January 18, 2021).
507
An established• precinct is different from a clustered precinct. An established precinct is the basic
component of a clustered precinct. Several established precincts compose a clustered precinct.
Lamitan City in Basilan; Taraka in Lanao del Sur; and the municipalities of
Barira, Sultan Kudarat, Pandag, and Datu Odin Sinsuat in Maguindanao.
As discussed, the Commission on Elections ruled in SP A No. 16-125

(FE) that there was no failure of elections in Sultan Kudarat,
Maguindanao. 508 Similar to Marawi City and the municipality ofMarantao,
the votes cast in Sultan Kudarat shall be excluded because of the
Commission's prior finding.
In SP A No. 16-125 (FE), Ibrahim K. Ibrahim (Ibrahim) filed a petition

to annul election results or declare a failure of elections against Shameem B.
Mastura (Mastura). Both were mayoral candidates of Sultan Kudarat m
2016. 509 Ibrahim alleged that Mastura committed electoral fraud:
a) [Mastura]'s personnel shaded in advance the official ballots;

b) [Mastura]' s personnel threated to kill the legitimate voters who were
supporting [Ibrahim];
c) Barangay officials were tolerating elements engaged in the advance
shading of ballots;
d) Letting [Mastura]' s personnel man the polling places or precincts;
e) Excluding [Ibrahim]' s poll watchers from their assigned precincts;
f) Closing the precincts without just cause;
g) Allowing [Mastura]'s voters to vote repetitively;
h) Not inking voters;
i) Allowing persons not on COMELEC's master list of voters to vote;
and
j) Feeding the ballots and the pre-shaded ballots to the VCM (PCOS)
Machines. 510
The Commission on Elections denied the Petition, reasoning that:
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code lays down the conditions

for Failure of Election to prosper, thus:
Sec. 6. 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, rhe 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
508
Rollo, Vol. L, pp. 41388-41395.
°'
5
Id. at 41389.
510
Id. at 41389-41390.
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.
Based on the foregoing prov1s10n, three instances justify a

declaration of failure of election. These are:
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 has 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 Supreme Court elucidates that what is common in these three

instances is the resulting failure to elect. In the first instance, no elections
is held while in the second, the election is suspended. In the third
instance, circumstances attending the preparation, transmission, custody or
canvas (sic) of the election returns cause a failure to elect. The term
failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner. Absent any showing
that these conditions were not met, the Commission can deny the Petition.
A close perusal of the allegations in the Petition shows that

[IbrahimJ does not contend that elections were not held or suspended.
Neither does he allege that although there was voting, nobody was elected.
[Ibrahim] simply posits that there was failure of elections on account of
violence, intimidation and fraud committed by [Mastura]. These
allegations do not fall under any of the conditions that would justify the
declaration of failure of election.
[Ibrahim] averred that there was failure of election for the reason
that no actual election was held since no actual voting was done by the
real and legitimate voters of Sultan Kudarat on account of violence,
intimidation, and fraud of [Mastura] and his personnel.
We are not persuaded.
As earlier discussed, the conditions set forth by law were not met
in the instant case to declare failure of elections. Elections were held
followed by the declaration of the winning candidate. Consideri.,g that
there is no concurrence of the conditions seeking to declare failure of
election, there is no longer need to receive evidence on alleged election
irregularities.
Moreover, the nullification of elections or declaration of failure of

elections is an extraordinary remedy. The party who seeks the
nullification of an election has the burden of proving entitlement to this

remedy. It is not enough that a verified petition is filed. The allegations
in the petition must make out a prima facie case for the declaration of
failure of election, and convincing evidence must substantiate the
allegations. 511 (Citations omitted)
Since there was no ruling on the merits in Tan, the pilot precincts
there were included in the computation of remaining votes to be annulled, as
shown in the previous table. To reiterate, the votes that were removed from
the computation of votes to be annulled are those where the Commission on
Elections had ruled that there was no failure of elections. Thus, if we
consider the alleged failure of elections in the pilot precincts in Tan, it would
not change any of the computation in the table above, as these precincts
already form part of it.
The second requisite in Abayon was also not proven. Protestant failed
to allege that it was "impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty
between the lawful and unlawful ballots." 512 There is nothing that would
prove the use of illegal ballots or that any illegal ballots existed.
Neither was the third requisite established, as there is no piece of

evidence that would lead this Tribunal to believe that protestee "is the one
responsible for the unlawful acts complained of" 513 Protestant utterly failed
to allege that protestee instigated the electoral irregularities complained of,
let alone prove it.
All told, the third cause of action fails, and is likewise dismissed.
VIII
Protestant, c1tmg Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1793, 514 which

created this Tribunal, accused the member-in-charge of delay 515 in the
resolution of the present election case. However, it is no longer good law.
511
Id. at 41391-41394.
512 Abayon v. HRET, 785 Phil. 683, 705 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
513 Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41349. Commission on Elections' Comment citing Abayon v. HRET, 785 Phil. 683
(2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Special En Banc].
514 SECTION 3. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal shall decide the contest within twenty months after
it is filed, and within said period shall declare who among the parties has been elected, or, in the proper
case, that none has been elected, and in case of a tie between the candidates for president or for vice-
president involved in the contest, one of them shall be chosen President or Vice-President, as t.½e case
may be, by a majority vote of the members of the Congress in joint session assembled.
The party who, in the judgment, has been declared elected, shall have the right to assume the office as
soon as the judgment becomes final which shall be ten days after promulgation. The promulgation
shall be made on a date previously fixed, of which notice shall be served in advance upon the parties or
their attorneys, personally or by registered mail or by telegraph. No motion shall be entertained for the
reopening of a case but only for the reconsideration of a decision under the evidence already of record,
No party may file more than one motion for reconsideration, copy of which shall be served upon the
adverse party who shall answer it within five days after the receipt the;eof. Any petition for
reconsideration shall be resolved within ten days after it is submitted for resolution. As soon as a
The 1973 Constitution impliedly repealed Republic Act No. 1793

because it removed from the citizens the power to directly vote for the
president and gave it to the members of the National Assembly. 516
Additionally, "the position of Vice-President was constitutionally non-
existent"517 under the 1973 Constitution.
Eventually, the direct election of the president and vice president was
restored when the National Assembly passed Batas Pambansa Blg. 884, 518
which constituted an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal. From a
mere statutory creation, it then became a constitutional institution under the
1987 Constitution. Atty. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal519
explained:
A plain reading of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, readily

reveals a grant of authority to the Supreme Court sitting en bane. In the
same vein, although the method by which the Supreme Court exercises
this authority is not specified in the provision, the grant ofpower does not
contain any limitation on the Supreme Court's exercise thereof The
Supreme Court's method of deciding presidential and vice-presidential
election contests, through the PET, is actually a derivative of the exercise
of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision.
Thus, the subsequent directive in the provision for the Supreme Court to
"promulgate its rules for the purpose." 520 (Emphasis supplied)
This Tribunal has promulgated its 2010 Rules which governs its
proceedings. Under Rule 67, this Tribunal "shall follow the procedure
prescribed for the Supreme Court in Sections 13 and 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution." These constitutional provisions, in tum, state:
ARTICLE VIII
Judicial Department
SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case

submitted to it for decision en bane or in division shall be reached in
consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the
opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case
and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented,
decision becomes final, a copy thereof shall be furnished both houses of the Congress. (Emphasis
supplied).
515
Rollo, Vol. L, p. 41462-41490, Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion.
516
Atty..Macalintalv. PET, 650 Phil. 326,347 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
517
Id. at 348.
518
An Act Constituting an Independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal to Try, Hear, a,TJd Decide Election
Contests in the office of the President and Vice-President of the Philippines, Appropriating Funds
Therefor and For Other Purposes.
519
650 Phil. 326 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
520
Id. at 353.
or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor.

The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.
SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without

expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision

of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal
basis therefor.
Thus, there is no rule reqmnng an election protest to be decided

within a particular timeframe, whether 20 months 521 or 12 months 522 after its
filing.
Furthermore, an election protest is not an ordinary petition as it may

deprive a significant portion of the voting population of its right of suffrage.
Precisely due to such extraordinary nature, this Tribunal took pains to afford
both parties every opportunity to present their case in the interest of due
process. Thr.oughout the proceedings, this Tribunal directed protestant to
allege with specificity when his allegations were insufficient. 523 We
likewise directed the opposing party to comment on every motion. We
instructed the parties to present evidence when they raised new arguments or
unsubstantiated ones. 524
521
Republic Act No. 1793 (1957).
522 Batas Pambausa Big. 884 (1985) partly states:
SECTION 4. The Tribunal must decide the contest within twelve months after it is filed. In case of a
tie between the caudidates for President and/or for Vice-President involved in the contest, the Tribunal
shall notify the Batasaug Pambansa of such fact, in which case the President or Vice-President, as the
case may be, shall be chosen by a vote of a majority of all the Members of the Batasang Pambansa in
session assembled.
The promulgation of the judgment shall be made on a date previously fixed, notice of which shall be
served in advauce upon the parties or their attorneys, personally or by special registered mail or by
telegram. No motion shall be entertained for the opening of a case but only for the reconsideration of a
decision based on the evidence already of record. No party may file more than one motion for
reconsideration, copy of which shall be served upon the adverse party who shall answer it within five
days after the receipt thereof Any petition for reconsideration must be resolved within ten days after it
is submitted for resolution. As soon as a decision becomes final, a copy thereof shall be furnished the
Batasang Pamba-risa through the Speaker, and the Commission on Elections through its Chairman, in
addition to the copies for the contestants or their attorneys.
523 Protestant preliminarily anchored his causes of action into two. After asking clarificatory questions
during the preliminary conference on July I I, 2017, this Tribunal categorized them into three causes of
action instead, and dismissed his first cause of action for being "meaningless and pointless[.]" (See
rollo, Vol. XLIX, p. 39541, October 15,2019 Resolution). This Tribunal gave the parties a preliminary
conference guide prior to its conduct where it summ~rized their respective admissions, proposed
stipulations, issues, and witnesses. As the parties requested, this Tribunal also gave them the time to
comment on it, and these were adopted accordingly. Moreover, when this.Tribunal released the results
of the revision and appreciation of ballots in the October 15, 2019 Resolution, it resolved to hear the
parties again. (Marcos v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019, p. 18 [Per Curiam, En
Baucl).
524
When protestant failed to specify his witnesses' corresponding clustered precincts after having been
directed to substantiate his allegations, this Tribunal required the protest8nt to submit anew a list of his
witnesses and their corresponding clustered precinct. He was given fresh period of time to comply with
this Tribunal's order. (See rollo, Vol. XUX, pp. 39523-39578, October 15, 20 I 9 Resolution).
When the revision and appreciation of ballots from protestant's pilot

provinces failed to support his claim of electoral fraud and irregularity, this
Tribunal opted to take the prudent course and direct the parties to comment
on the results instead of dismissing the Protest outright, allowing the parties
to defend their arguments in the proper forum. We likewise solicited the
comments of the Commission on Elections and the Office of the Solicitor
General and had them weigh in on the factual and constitutional issues
raised by the parties.
This case is undoubtedly politically delicate, as it involves the second

highest position in the land. However, it is also "the first and only election
protest before the Tribunal in which the recount and revision process of the
pilot provinces were successfully concluded and the [P]rotest itself resolved
on the merits." 525 Before this, only four5 26 election protests had been lodged
before this Tribunal.
Unlike those four previous cases, which were dismissed for mootness
due to abandonment, 527 failure to substitute the deceased protestant,528 and
expiration of term, 529 this Protest was resolved on the merits after the
revision and appreciation of ballots for protestant's three pilot areas had
been concluded.
This Protest is in contrast to Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, 530 where

protestant Miriam Defensor-Santiago moved to waive the revision of the
remaining unrevised ballots from 4,017 precincts out of the 17,527 precincts
of her three pilot areas of Metro Manila, Pampanga, and Zamboanga. 531 Her
motion was granted and the revision was terminated. 532
Similarly, in Legarda v. De Castro, 533 the revision of ballots in

124,404 precincts in protestant Loren Legarda's pilot areas of Cebu,
Pampanga, and Maguindanao was not completed because she failed to make
the required additional deposit for the continuation of the revision. This led
to the dismissal of her cause of action grounded on the revision of ballots.
525
Ro/to, Vol. XLIX, pp. 39523-39578, Marcos v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019 [Per
Curiam, En Banc].
526
Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001, 323 Phil. 665 (1996) [Per Curiam, En Banc], Poe v.
Macapagal Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No. 002, 494 Phil. 137 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc], legarda
v. De Castro, P.E.T. Case No. 003, 566 Phil. 123 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc], and Roxas v.
Binay, P.E.T. Case No. 004, 793 Phil. 9 (2016) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
7
F Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001, 323 Phil. 665 (1996) [Per Curiam, En Banc] and
Legarda v. De Castro, P.E.T. Case No. 003, 566 Phi!. 123 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
528 Poe v. Macapagal-Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No. 002 (Resolution), 494 Phil.. 137 (2005) [Per J.
Quisumbing, En Banc].
529
Roxas v. Binay, P.E.T. No. 004, 793 Phil. 9 (2016) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
530
P.E.T. Case No. 001, 323 Phil. 665 (1996) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
531
Id.at693.
532
Id. at 705.
533
P.E.T. Case No. 003, 566 Phil. 123, 126 and 137-138 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
The election protest in Poe v. Macapagal-Arroyo 534 did not even reach
the revision stage as protestant Ronald Allan Poe died only a few months
after filing his election protest. His wife's motion for substitution was not
granted, as she was not a real party in interest. This Tribunal pointed out
that Mrs. Poe was "cognizant that as a mere substitute she cannot succeed,
assume or be entitled to said elective office, and her utmost concern is not
personal but one that involves the public's interest." 535
The election protest in Roxas v. Binay5 36 likewise did not gamer much
traction and no preliminary conference order was released since the parties
failed to agree on the common issues and on the procedure to expedite
proceedings. 537 The parties then filed their certificates of candidacy in the
2016 elections and failed to inform this Tribunal if they were still interested
in pursuing the protest. 538 The election protest was eventually mooted after
the contested position of vice president had expired on June 30, 2016. 539
Her~, this Tribunal conducted and completed the retrieval, revision,

and appreciation of more than two million ballots from protestant's
designated pilot areas. This Protest also involved complex issues and
presented this Tribunal with an opportunity to reconcile the Abayon ruling
with Rule 65 of this Tribunal's Rules, which provides for the outright
dismissal of the protest if the protestant fails to show reasonable recovery of
votes after the revision and appreciation of ballots from the three pilot areas.
The determination of delay is not a mechanical process. "Courts must

consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be
weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised." 540
Considering the unique issues presented before this Tribunal, the

volume of ballots that had to be recounted, revised, and appreciated, as well
as the voluminous affidavits submitted by protestant-all of which had to be
carefully reviewed to determine if they rose up to the degree of fraud
required to annul election results-it cannot be said that inordinate delay
attended the resolution of this Protest. This is the only case not mooted by
events, and the only one that reached disposition.
Suffrage is at the heart of every democracy. 541 Election results must

not be tainted with unnecessary doubt by losing candidates who cannot
accept defeat.
534 P.E.T. Case No. 002, 494 Phil. 137 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
535
Id. at 142.
536 P.E.T. Case No. 004, 793 PhiL 9 (2016) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
537
Id. at 14.
538
Id. at 15
539
Id. at 16.
54
° Cagangv. Sandiganbayan, Fifih Division, G.R. Nos. 206438, 206458, and 210141--42, July 31, 2018,
<https://e!ibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64581> [Per J. Leonen, En B,mc].
541
In re: Geronimo v. Ramos, 221 Phil. 130 (I 985) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
To reiterate, "the power to annul an election should be exercised with

the greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular
will. It is only in extreme cases of fraud and under circumstances which
demonstrate to the fullest degree a fundamental and wanton disregard of the
law that elections are annulled, and then only when it becomes impossible to
take any other step." 542
What this Tribunal faces today is not an extreme case of fraud that
deserves further consideration. Protestant failed to make out his case. There
is no substantial recovery of votes in the pilot provinces that he himself had
designated. To entertain the third cause of action is to risk frustrating the
valid exercise of the nation's democratic will and subject it to the endless
whims of a defeated candidate.
The case has immense repercussions not only for the parties, but also
for future election protests brought before this Tribunal. We have granted
the parties every opportunity to make and defend their arguments before this
Tribunal, the proper forum to hear this case. However, protestant still failed
to substantiate his allegations of massive anomalies and irregularities· in
protestee's favor. Instead, he chose to make sweeping allegations of
wrongdoing and submitted incomplete and incorrect data. His abject failure
to support his claims leaves this Tribunal with no other recourse but to
dismiss his Protest.
WHEREFORE, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal DISMISSES the

Election Protest filed by protestant Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr. for
lack of merit. The Counter-Protest filed by protestee Maria Leonor "Len i
Daang Matuwid" G. Robredo is likewise DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
\
Associate Justice
541
Pena v. HRET, 33 7 Ph :]. 70, 78 (I 997) [Per J. Torres, Sr., En Banc).
WE CONCUR:
AA{JW}/
ESTELA ~]PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AM
Associate Justice Asso iate Justice
C(J~tfl, /l &--re'.Jll~·-~ ;~/;, [}l'JYJ~ 11/r/?J
/CJMCfl~IA Yiu~
HEN~NTING RO . ZALAMEDA~'f&'
Associate Justice ssociate Justice ~J,t 7!J.._ ~
~ J_ t 't~Jf :l"~
Vok,.e-t-0k.
fa S,;ct7>N~M~,
cY ., .... • ~ f,t.).l- ( 7J
z EDGARDO L. DELOS S N OS ~f)
Associate Justice
r,. \~ re✓~~.lfS'lt
JP C..."'1u,,"
~R~~ sAMUE~~
N
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the court.

!) Resibential Qelect Ral 'Urribunal:) Republic F Tbe Llbilippine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!) Resibential Qelect Ral 'Urribunal:) Republic F Tbe Llbilippine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

!) Resibential Qelect Ral 'Urribunal:) Republic F Tbe Llbilippine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

]Republic of tbe llbilippine~

!}resibential Qelectoral 'Urribunal

FERDINAND "BONGBONG" R. P.E.T. Case No. 005

PERALTA, Chief Justice,

"New beginnings are often

"Then you will know the truth,

"But part ofsurviving is

An election protest is no ordinary petition. It alleges anomalies and

When the protestant fails to meet the strict requirement of specificity

The Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal),

On May 30, 2016, Congress issued Resolution of Both Houses No. 1,

On June 29, 2016, 4 protestant filed this Protest premised on two

The proclamation of protestee Robredo as the duly elected [Vice

Rollo, Vols. I and II, pp. 1-1047.

On July 12, 2016, this Tribunal issued a Precautionary Protection

This Tribunal then issued Summons 8 to protestee, directing her to file

In her Verified Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses and

As counter-protest, protestee contested the election results gathered

Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 927-929.

In a January 24, 2017 Resolution, 15 this Tribunal confirmed that it had

In the same Resolution, this Tribunal found the Protest to be sufficient

On February 27, 2017, protestee moved for the reconsideration 18 of

On June 6, 2017, this Tribunal deferred 19 resolving protestee's Motion

First Cause of Action - Annulment of Proclamation

The proclamation of protestee Robredo as the duly elected Vice President

Second Cause of Action - Revision and Recount

Third Cause of Action -Annulment of Elections

Annulment of election results for the position of Vice President in the

In the interim, protestant had filed another Motion for Technical

In an August 29, 2017 Resolution, 26 this Tribunal dismissed

This Tribunal likewise dismissed protestee's Motion for

In the Preliminary Conference Order, 30 this Tribunal limited the issues

This Tribunal deferred action on protestant's motion for the technical

(a) To verify the physical count of the ballots;

Additionally, the revision of ballots from the pilot provinces went

The revision of ballots for the pilot provinces commenced on April 2,

clustered precincts, as the Commission on Elections could not provide the

Protestee then moved that the Revision Committees be directed to use

Protestee moved for reconsideration. Likewise, she furnished this

In its Comment, 49 the Commission on Elections confirmed that for the

cting on protestee's Motion for Reconsideration, this Tribunal

A cordingly, this Tribunal amended Rule 62 55 of the Revisor's Guide

RULE 62. Votes of the Parties. - The segregation and

In examining the shades or marks used to register the votes, the

The revision and recount proceedings in the 5,415 clustered precincts

On January 14, 2019, this Tribunal began its appreciation of the

Acting on the objections registered by the parties, this Tribunal

This Tribunal then used the Provincial Certificates of Canvass to

The rev1s10n and appreciation of ballots in the 5,415 clustered

precincts after revision

In the interest of due process, 67 this Tribunal required the parties to

I. Their comments on the report on the revision and appreciation of votes

3) Will evidence other than those listed by the parties during

In his Memorandum, 69 protestant claims that the Preliminary

First, he claims that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee erred in

Protestant then claims that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee

Third, protestant asserts that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee

Protestant invokes Tan v. Hataman, 84 a case decided by the

This purportedly led the Voters Identification Division of the