Constitutional Law 1

Case Digest by: Yeadda Marie D. Panes JD 1-B

Submitted to: Judge Meliza Joan Berano-Robite

Poe vs Macapagal-Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No. 002, 494 Phil. 137 (2005)
FACTS:
1. On June 24, 2004, the Congress proclaimed Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo the duly
elected President of the Philippines.

2. Refusing to concede defeat, the second-placer, Mr. FPJ, filed seasonably an election
protest before this Electoral Tribunal on July 23, 2004. On December 14, 2004, he
died in the course of his medical treatment. 

3. However, neither the Protestee’s proclamation by Congress nor the death of her
main rival appears to abate the present controversy. Instead, notice may be taken of
periodic mass actions, demonstrations, and rallies raising an outcry for this Tribunal
to decide the electoral protest of Mr. FPJ against Mrs. GMA.

4. Mrs. FPJ claims that because of the untimely demise of her husband and in
representation not only of her deceased husband but more so because of the
paramount interest of the Filipino people, there is an urgent need for her to
continue and substitute for her late husband in the election protest initiated by him.

5. In her Comment, Mrs. GMA, asserts that the widow of a deceased candidate is not
the proper party to replace the deceased protestant since a public office is personal
and not a property that passes on to the heirs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the widow may substitute/intervene for the protestant who died
during the pendency of the latter’s protest case.

RULING:
1. No. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the PET Rules, only two persons, the 2nd and 3rd placers,
may contest the election. By this express enumeration, the rule makers have in
effect determined the real parties in interest concerning an on-going election
contest.

Rule 3, Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of Court. This rule allows
substitution by a legal representative. However, in an application of this rule to an
election contest, it has been every time ruled that a public office is personal to the
public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon death. Thus,
substitution by the widow or the heirs in election contests where the protestant dies
during the pendency of the protest has been consistently rejected. 

But while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer,
an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the
protestee. Hence, we have allowed substitution and intervention but only by a real
party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or
injured by the judgment, and the party who is entitled to the avails of the suit.

In this case, no real parties such as the vice-presidential aspirants in the 2004
elections, have come forward to intervene, or to be substituted for the deceased
protestant.

WHEREFORE, the motion of movant/intervenor JESUSA SONORA POE a.k.a. SUSAN

ROCES to intervene and substitute for the deceased protestant is DENIED for lack of
merit.
 Marcos Jr. vs Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, February 16, 2021
FACTS:
1. The Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, resolves the June 29, 2016
Election Protest filed by 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.

2. On July 11, 2017, the preliminary conference was held. There, with protestant's
consent, this Tribunal categorized his causes of action into three.

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 del 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

3. 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.

4. 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.
 5. Protestee then moved that the Revision Committees be directed to use a 25%
threshold in determining the validity of a marked oval. This Tribunal denied
protestee's motion and ruled that her proposed 25% threshold was baseless. It
retained the 50% threshold under the 2010 Presidential Electoral Tribunal Rules.

6. Based on the final tally after revision and appreciation, this Tribunal found that
protestee increased her lead over protestant 263,473 votes to 278,566 votes.

7. 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. On
November 17, 2020, this Tribunal denied protestant's motion for inhibition.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not protestant has sufficiently shown reasonable recovery of votes after
the revision and appreciation of ballots from the three pilot provinces.

2. Whether or not unfavorable results of revision and appreciation of votes in the

second cause of action moots protestant's third cause of action of annulment of
election.

3. 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.
RULING:
1. No. 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. Protestant made various claims for each place but he did not
specify the details such as what precincts were affected.

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. 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 del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.

2. Yes. 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.
 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."  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. Here,
protestant failed to make out his case through his designated pilot provinces. Thus,
this Protest must be dismissed.

3. No. Annulment of elections is an incident of the judicial function of electoral

tribunals while the failure of elections is in the exercise of the COMELEC's
administrative function. 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.

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," is empowered to annul election results
for the contested position before it.