Legarda v. de Castro20210502-12-Kzgfkm

EN BANC
[P.E.T. Case No. 003. March 31, 2005.]
LOREN B. LEGARDA, protestant, vs. NOLI L. DE CASTRO,

protestee.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J : p
In a Resolution 1 dated January 18, 2005, the Presidential Electoral

Tribunal (PET) confirmed the jurisdiction over the protest of Loren B. Legarda
and denied the motion of protestee Noli L. de Castro for its outright dismissal.
The Tribunal further ordered concerned officials to undertake measures for the
protection and preservation of the ballot boxes and election documents subject
of the protest.
On February 4, 2005, protestee filed a motion for reconsideration

assailing the said resolution. Protestee contends therein that:
I
THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN RULING THAT IT CAN RE-
CANVASS THE ELECTION RETURNS AND OTHER CANVASS DOCUMENTS
DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE BALLOTS.
II
THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN RULING THAT IT HAS THE
POWER TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE ELECTION RETURNS
OR CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS.
III
THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN TRANSFORMING ITSELF INTO A

CANVASSING BODY.
IV
THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INSTANT

PETITION/PROTEST ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION SUFFICIENT TO
CONTEST PROTESTEE'S VICTORY IN THE 10 MAY 2004 VICE-
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. 2
Protestee argues that where the correctness of the number of votes is the
issue, the best evidence are the ballots; 3 that the process of correcting the
manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election returns is a function of
the canvassing bodies; 4 that once the canvassing bodies had done their
functions, no alteration or correction of manifest errors can be made; 5 that
since the authority of the Tribunal involves an exercise of judicial power to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
determine the facts based on the evidence presented and to apply the law
based on the established facts, it cannot perform the ministerial function of
canvassing election returns; 6 that the averments contained in the protest are
mere conclusions of law which are inadequate to form a valid cause of action; 7
that the allegations are not supported by facts; 8 and that the allegations were
merely copied from a pleading in another election protest. 9 He further claims
that since the errors sought to be corrected are no longer clear and obvious, it
would be impossible for the Tribunal to correct the alleged errors at this stage.
10
In her Comment, protestant avers that protestee's motion was merely a

reiteration of the issues already resolved by the Tribunal. 11 However, although
protestee's contentions may be mere reiterations of his previous pleadings and
arguments, and he does not raise new substantial issues, nonetheless, in order
to write finis to the controversy on jurisdictional issues, we now revisit our
resolution of January 18, 2005. TSIDEa
Protestee contends that the Tribunal cannot correct the manifest errors
on the statements of votes (SOV) and certificates of canvass (COC). But it is not
suggested by any of the parties that questions on the validity, authenticity and
correctness of the SOVs and COCs are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The
constitutional function as well as the power and the duty to be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and qualification of the President
and Vice-President is expressly vested in the PET, in Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution. Included therein is the duty to correct manifest errors in the SOVs
and COCs. 12 There is no necessity, in our view, to amend the PET Rules to
perform this function within the ambit of its constitutional function.
We also note the apparent ambivalence of the protestee relative to the
Tribunal's jurisdiction over re-canvass of the election returns. He claims the
Tribunal's authority to re-canvass is "inexorably linked to [its] constitutional
mandate as the sole judge of all contests relating to the presidential and the
vice-presidential elections." 13 Contrarily, he states that the Tribunal cannot re-
canvass and must resolve the protest through revision of ballots. If he contends
that the Tribunal has the authority to re-canvass, there is no reason why it
cannot perform this function now. We agree that the ballots are the best and
most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the correctness of the
number of votes of each candidate is involved. 14 However, we do not find any
reason to resort to revision in the first part of the protest, considering that the
protestant concedes the correctness of the ballot results, concerning the
number of votes obtained by both protestant and protestee, and reflected in
the election returns. 15 Protestant merely seeks the correction of manifest
errors, that is, errors in the process of different levels of transposition and
addition of votes. Revision of ballots in case of manifest errors, in these
circumstances, might only cause unwarranted delay in the proceedings.
On the matter of sufficiency of the protest, protestee failed to adduce new

substantial arguments to reverse our ruling. We hold that while Peña v. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal 16 on requisites of sufficiency of election
protest is still good law, it is inapplicable in this case. We dismissed the petition
i n Peña because it failed to specify the contested precincts. In the instant
protest, protestant enumerated all the provinces, municipalities and cities
where she questions all the results in all the precincts therein. The protest here
is sufficient in form and substantively, serious enough on its face to pose a
challenge to protestee's title to his office. In our view, the instant protest
consists of alleged ultimate facts, not mere conclusions of law, that need to be
proven in due time.
Considering that we find the protest sufficient in form and substance, we
must again stress that nothing as yet has been proved as to the veracity of the
allegations. The protest is only sufficient for the Tribunal to proceed and give
the protestant the opportunity to prove her case pursuant to Rule 61 of the PET
Rules. 17 Although said rule only pertains to revision of ballots, nothing herein
prevents the Tribunal from allowing or including the correction of manifest
errors, pursuant to the Tribunal's rule-making power under Section 4, Article VII
of the Constitution. 18
On a related matter, the protestant in her reiterating motion 19 prays for

ocular inspection and inventory-taking of ballot boxes, and appointment of
watchers. However, the Tribunal has already ordered the protection and
safeguarding of the subject ballot boxes; and it has issued also the appropriate
directives to officials concerned. At this point, we find no showing of an
imperative need for the relief prayed for, since protective and safeguard
measures are already being undertaken by the custodians of the subject ballot
boxes. cEaACD
WHEREFORE, protestee's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED

WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. Protestant's reiterating motion for ocular
inspection and inventory-taking with very urgent prayer for the appointment of
watchers is also DENIED for lack of showing as to its actual necessity.
Further, the protestant LOREN B. LEGARDA is ORDERED to specify, within
ten (10) days from notice, the three (3) provinces best exemplifying the
manifest errors alleged in the first part of her protest, and three (3) provinces
best exemplifying the frauds and irregularities alleged in the second part of her
protest, for the purpose herein elucidated.
Lastly, the Tribunal hereby ORDERS the Commission on Elections to
SUBMIT, within 30 days hereof, the official project of precincts of the May 2004
Elections.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-

Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., took no part.
Footnotes
1. PET Rollo , pp. 331-347.
2. Id. at 377-378.
3. Id. at 379.
4. Id. at 381.
5. Id. at 383.
6. Id. at 385.
7. Id. at 392-394.
8. Id. at 398.
9. Id. at 400.
10. Id. at 453-454.
11. Id. at 416.
12. Id. at 336-337.
13. Id. at 455.
14. Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal , G.R. No. 97105, 15
October 1991, 202 SCRA 808, 822.
15. PET Rollo , p. 14.
16. G.R. No. 123037, 21 March 1997, 270 SCRA 340.

17. Rule 61. As public interest demands the speedy termination of the contest,
the Tribunal may, after the issues have been joined, require the 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 the
circumstances into account, the protestant will most probably fail to make
out his case, the contest may forthwith be dismissed, without further
consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the contest.
18. xxx xxx xxx

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, 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.
19. PET Rollo , pp. 371-375.

Legarda v. de Castro20210502-12-Kzgfkm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legarda v. de Castro20210502-12-Kzgfkm

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Legarda v. de Castro20210502-12-Kzgfkm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[P.E.T. Case No. 003. March 31, 2005.]

LOREN B. LEGARDA, protestant, vs. NOLI L. DE CASTRO,

In a Resolution 1 dated January 18, 2005, the Presidential Electoral

On February 4, 2005, protestee ﬁled a motion for reconsideration

THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN TRANSFORMING ITSELF INTO A

THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INSTANT

In her Comment, protestant avers that protestee's motion was merely a

On the matter of sufficiency of the protest, protestee failed to adduce new

On a related matter, the protestant in her reiterating motion 19 prays for

WHEREFORE, protestee's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-

16. G.R. No. 123037, 21 March 1997, 270 SCRA 340.

18. xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like