CASE DIGESTS
ELECTION LAWS
UNIVERSITY OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL – RECOLETOS
SUBMITTED TO:
ATTY. MARVIN TAÑADA
SUBMITTED BY:
JARED MARK G. LAGAHIT
JD L31
Page 1 of 7
FERDINAND “BONGBONG” MARCOS, Protestant
VS
MARIA LEONOR “LENI” ROBREDO, PROTESTEE
FACTS
This case stemmed from the 29 June 2016 Election Protest filed by
protestant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos challenging the election and
proclamation of Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo during the 2016 Vice
Presidential Election.
Bongbong Marcos avers the following causes of action:
1. The proclamation of protestee Robredo is null and void because the
Certificate of Canvass generated by the Consolidation and Canvas
System (CCS) are not authentic and may not be used as basis to
determine number of votes.
2. Massive electoral fraud, anomalies, irregularities and abnormally high
unaccounted votes/undervotes for the position of Vice President
corrupted and compromised the conduct of election
3. Annulment of election for the position of Vice President in the
provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, and Basilan on the ground
of terrorism, intimidation, harassment and pre-shading of ballots.
The first cause of action was dismissed by the tribunal as determining the
authenticity of the Certificate of Canvass could is only possible to manual
recount.
The Tribunal then focused on resolving the second and third causes of
action, and directed that the revision of ballots would begin at designated
pilot provinces.
The revision and recount was then conducted on 5,415 pilot clustered
provinces. After the revision and appreciation, the Tribunal found that
protestee increased her lead over the protestant from 263,473 to 278,566.
The parties were then required to submit their respective memoranda
addressing the matters regarding their comments and positions related to the
third cause of action.
The protestant claims that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee erred
multiple times and that the causes of action are independent to each other.
Protestant also claims that if the third cause of action is given due course, he
can prove his allegations of failure of elections in the mentioned provinces.
Page 2 of 7
Protestee, in response, claimed that the Tribunal erred in its revision and
appreciation of ballots, but assails that the revision, recount and re-
appreciation of ballots affirmed her victory. She then avers in her
Consolidated Reply that 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.
Protestant filed a Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus
Motion for the Inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen.
ISSUE
Whether or not massive electoral fraud was committed;
Whether or not there is failure of election in the provinces stated by the
Protestant.
RULING
All the cases in the Commission on Elections’ Report, except for one, were
dismissed on merits. The COMELEC made findings of the fact which lead it
to conclude that there was no failure of elections or any ground to annul the
election result. The Tribunal respects the COMELEC’s rulings, which have
attained finality.
The COMELEC’s finding that there was no failure of elections in the
provinces alleged by the Protestant. The specific incidents of irregularities
were not properly and specifically presented by the Protestant.
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.
Protestant failed to allege that it was “impossible to distinguish with
reasonable certainty between the lawful and unlawful ballots”. There is
nothing that would prove the use of illegal ballots or that any illegal ballots
existed.
There is no piece of evidence that would lead the Tribunal to believe that
protestee “is the one responsible for the unlawful acts complained of”.
Protestant utterly failed to allege that protestee instigated the electoral
irregularities complained of and have also failed to prove it.
The third cause of action shall likewise be dismissed.
Page 3 of 7
G.R. No. 189078, 11 February 2010
MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS, Petitioner
VS
COMELEC and Jose “Joy” Peñano, respondents
FACTS
Varias and Peñano were candidates for the Mayor of Alfonso, Cavite. The
latter filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) citing
various election irregularities committed in 14 precincts.
The election protest proceeded in due course and both parties presented
affidavits and testimonies of their own witnesses.
After the completion of the revision and the physical count, the report
reflected that Peñano garnered more votes than Varias.
The RTC then rendered a Decision in favor of Peñano, recognizing the least
4 precincts where significant variations were evident from the election tally.
On appeal, the COMELEC affirmed the RTC’s decision, ruling that Peñano
received a total of 10,314 votes while Varias only garnered 10,172 votes.
The COMELEC relied on the results of the revision of the ballots.
On the critical issue of whether the ballots subject of revision could be relied
upon, COMELEC ruled that the burden of proving the integrity of the
ballots rest upon the protestant. Integrity is established if the mode for
preserving ballots is observed.
Varias then faults the COMELEC for grave abuse of discretion on the
grounds that it did not require the protestant to prove the integrity of the
ballot boxes were preserved, and that it did not invalidate the revised ballots
for Peñano despite showing they were marked or written by two or more
persons.
ISSUE
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion based
on the ground provided by Varias.
RULING
Page 4 of 7
The petition is impressed with merit.
The COMELEC should have required Peñano to prove that the padlocks and
self-locking metal seals attached to the ballot boxes were the same one the
Board of Electoral Investigators (BEI) used.
The COMELEC also considered as insignificant the finding that there had
been superimpositions or that sets of ballots were written by one person.
The ballots, after proof of tampering, cannot be considered reflective of the
will of the people of Alfonso.
The COURT then finds that COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
declaring Peñano as the winner based on the results of the revision of
ballots.
Page 5 of 7
G.R. No. 204828, 3 DECEMBER 2013
JAIME L. REGIO, Petitioner
VS
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RONNIE C. CO, Respondents
FACTS
Jaime Regio and Ronnie Co are among the candidates that ran for 2010
Barangay Elections for Brgy. 296 of the City of Manila.
Co filed for an election protest before the MeTC. He claimed that the Board
of Election Tellers (BET) did not follow COMELEC Resolution no. 9030,
as it:
1. Did not permit his supporters to vote
2. Allowed flying voters to cast votes
3. Ignored the rules on appreciation of ballots, resulting in misreading,
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots.
During the preliminary conference, the trial court allowed the revision of
ballots which then showed that there was substantial recovery on the number
of votes for Co.
The Trial Court dismissed Co’s protest for lack of merit and declared Regio
as winner. The trial court stated that the marked difference in the results
cannot prove misreading and miscounting. Without any evidence, the
allegation of such are mere allegations.
Co appealed to the COMELEC and his appeal was initially denied for lack
of merit. However, COMELEC reversed its Decision upon Co’s filing of
motion for reconsideration, declaring Co as the duly elected Punong
Barangay.
ISSUE
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that Co had successfully
discharged the burden of proving the integrity of the ballots.
RULING
Page 6 of 7
Co has not proved that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved
applying the Rosal Doctrine. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in ruling that private respondent that successfully discharged the
burden of proving that the ballots counted during the revision proceedings
are the same ballots cast and counted during the day of the elections. This is
the essence of Rosal Doctrine. Co did not present any testimonial evidence
to prove that the election paraphernalia inside the protested ballot boxes had
been preserved.
Petitioner need not prove actual tampering of the ballots. COMELEC ruled
that Regio failed to adduce evidence that the ballots found inside the ballot
boxes were compromised and tampered. This is baseless and a clear
departure from the teachings of Rosal Doctrine.
The duty of the protestee in an election contest to provide evidence of actual
tampering arises only when the protestant has first successfully discharge the
burden of proving that the ballots have been secured to prevent tampering.
Such need to present proof of tampering did not arise since Co himself failed
to provide evidence of the integrity of ballots.
Page 7 of 7
