Pena v.

HRET
G.R. No. 123037
March 21, 1997

irregularities occurred. This is a fatal omission, as it

goes into the very 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 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,
otherwise, the assumption of an elected public
official may, and will always be held up by petitions
of this sort by the losing candidate.

FACTS:

Pena and Abueg were rivals for the Congressional

seat in Palawan during the May 8, 1995 elections.
Apparently, Abueg was proclaimed winner.

On May 22, Pena filed a petition AD CAUTELAM with

the HRET, claiming that the elections in the 2nd
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.

Because of these irregularities, Pena stated that he

lost the election by almost 7k votes. He then assailed
Abuegs proclamation.

Abueg filed an answer and a motion to dismiss on

June 23, averring that the HRET has not acquired
jurisdiction over the petition, the same being
insufficient in form and substance. In essence, the
motion to dismiss anchors its challenge on the fact
that the petition failed to allege the precincts where
the massive fraud and disenfranchisement of voters
occurred, nor did it point out how many votes would
be gained by the protestant as a result of the same.

Pena later submitted a list of specific contested

precincts on July 10, or 17 days after Abuegs
answer.

In October, the HRET ruled that while it had

jurisdiction over the petition, as the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election returns and
qualifications of the members of the House of
Representatives, the said petition, however, fails to
state a cause of action, and is therefore, insufficient
in form and substance, meriting its dismissal.

Pena filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.

ISSUE:
WON the HRET committed GAOD in dismissing Penas
petition ad cuatelam for lack of substance (which Pena
later cured)? NO.
HELD:

Penas petition lacking substance, dismissal

proper
A perusal of the petition Ad Cuatelam, reveals
that petitioner makes no specific mention of the
precincts where widespread election, fraud and

The defect in the instant case arises from the failure

to allege the contested precincts. Only a bare
allegation of massive fraud, widespread intimidation
and terrorism and other serious irregularities,
without specification and substantiation of where
and how these occurrences took place, appears in
the petition. We cannot allow an election protest
based on such flimsy averments to prosper,
otherwise, the whole election process will deteriorate
into an endless stream of crabs pulling at each
other, racing to disembark from the water.

Substantial amendments may be allowed but

must be within time period (10 days after
winners proclamation)
The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo
vs. HRET, that substantial amendments to the
protest may be allowed only within the same period
for filing the election protest, which, under Rule 16
of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days
after the proclamation of the winner.

Exception to liberal construction

While it is conceded that statutes providing for
election contests are to be liberally construed to the
end that the will of the people in the choice of public
officers may not be defeated by mere technical
questions, the rule likewise stands, that in an
election protest, the protestant must stand or
fall upon the issues he had raised in his original
or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of
the statutory period for filing the protest.
Admittedly, the rule is well-established that 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.

Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC

G.R. Nos. 111624--25
March 9, 1995

contempt, and directed the PBC to proclaim the true

winner.

The case later turned to the legality of the PBCs

granting of the petition for the correction of the
Tayug and SM SOVs. Micu claims that his petitions
for correction were valid under Section 6, Rule 27 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Eventually, Binces proclamation was affirmed, but

on Micus MFR to the en banc, was set aside and
declared null and void.

Bince appealed to the SC in a special civil action for

certiorari.

FACTS:

Bince and Macu were Sangguniang Panlalawigan

candidates in Pangasinan during the 1992 elections.

During the canvassing of the COCs for the 10

municipalities of the 6th District, Micu objected to
the inclusion of the COC of San Quintin, claiming
that it contained false statements.

Micu later secured a resolution from the COMELEC

directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers the
correct number of votes from the municipality of San
Quintin.

Meanwhile, Micu filed several petitions for correction

of the Statements of Votes (SOVs) for alleged errors
in other municipalities of the 6 th district (Tayug and
San Miguel). Note that the errors were committed by
the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBCs).
However, after canvassing the COCs for the 10
municipalities, it turns out Bince garnered 27,370
votes against Micus 27,369 or a margin of 1 vote.
Bince was not yet proclaimed at this time because of
the absence of authority from the COMELEC.

On June 29, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a

resolution directing the PBC to continue with the
provincial canvass and proclaim the winning
candidates.

On June 24, the PBC acted on Micus petitions for

correction of the SOVs for Tayug and San Miguel.
Bince appealed, claiming that the PBC had no
jurisdiction.

Subsequently the PBC filed a petition with the

COMELEC seeking a definitive ruling as to who
should be proclaimed. Apparently, if the corrections
for the SOVs of Tayug and SM were to be included,
Emiliano Micu would gain plurality by 72 votes.

The COMELEC resolved the PBC to proclaim the

winning candidate on the basis of the completed and
corrected Certificates of Canvass.

However on July 21, Bince was proclaimed winner.

Micu filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to

Annul Proclamation, and Amended Urgent Petition
for Contempt and Annul Proclamation, alleging that
the PBC defied the directive of the COMELEC. The
COMELEC held the officers who proclaimed Bince in

ISSUE:
WON the COMELEC committed GAOD in nullifying
Binces proclamation. NO
HELD:

COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction

Respondent COMELEC did not act with GAOD in
annulling the proclamation of petitioner Alfonso
Bince, Jr. and in directing the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Pangasinan to order the MBCs of
Tayug and San Miguel to make the necessary
corrections in the SOVs and COCs.
Nullification was justified as the basis was a
mathematical error committed by the MBCs in the
computation of votes. The COMELEC cannot be
faulted for subsequently annulling the proclamation
of petitioner Bince on account of a mathematical
error in addition, committed by the MBCs.

As to timeliness of Micus petitions for correction

The petitions to correct manifest errors were
filed on time, that is, before the petitioners
proclamation on July 21, 1992. The petition of the
MBC of San Miguel was filed on June 4, 1992, while
that of the MBC of Tayug was filed on June 5, 1992.
Still, private respondents petition was filed with the
MBC of Tayug and San Miguel on June 10 and 11,
1992, respectively. It is definitely well within the
period required by Section 6, Rule 27 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Sec. 6 clearly
provides that the petition for correction may be
filed at any time before proclamation of a winner.

What if the petitions for correction were filed out of

time? No effect.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the
petition was filed out of time, this incident alone will
not thwart the proper determination and resolution
of the instant case on substantial grounds.
Adherence to a technicality that would put a

stamp
of
validity
on
a
palpably
void
proclamation, with the inevitable result of
frustrating
the
peoples
will
cannot
be
countenanced.
Adjudication
of
cases
on
substantive merits and not on technicalities has
been consistently observed by the Court.
Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests
involve public interest, and technicalities and
procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if
they constitute an obstacle to the determination of
the true will of the electorate in the choice of their
elective officials. And also settled is the rule that
laws governing election contests must be liberally
construed to the end that the will of the people may
not be defeated by mere technical objections.

Was allowing the correction of mathematical

errors proper? YES
It does not involve the opening of ballot boxes;
neither does it involve the examination and/or
appreciation of ballots. The correction sought by
respondents is correction of manifest mistakes in
mathematical addition. Certainly, this only calls for a
mere clerical act of reflecting the true and correct
votes received by the candidates. In this case, the
manifest errors only sought proper and diligent
addition of the votes in Tayug and San Miguel.
Consequently, by a margin of 72 votes, Micu
indisputably won. Binces proclamation and
assumption into public office was therefore flawed
from the beginning, the same having been based in a
faulty tabulation.