Lerias V HRET

9/9/2015 G.R. No.
97105
TodayisWednesday,September09,2015
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.97105October15,1991
ROSETTEYNIGUEZLERIAS,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandROGERG.MERCADO,respondent.
LinoM.Patajoforpetitioner.
Brillantes,Nachua,Navarro&ArcillaLawOfficesforprivaterespondent.
PARAS,J.:p
Politicians who are members of electoral tribunals, must think and act like judges, accordingly, they must resolve
electioncontroversieswithjudicial,notpolitical,integrity.
TheindependenceoftheHouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal,(HRET,forbrevity)asaconstitutionalbody
hastimeandagainbeenupheldbythisCourtinmanycases.(Lazatinv.HouseElectoralTribunal,168SCRA391
Robles v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 181 SCRA 780). The power of the HRET, as the "sole
judge" of all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of its members is beyond dispute. (Art. VI,
Sec.17ofthe1987Constitution)Thus,judicialreviewofdecisionsorfinalresolutionsoftheHRETispossibleonly
in the exercise of this Court's socalled "extraordinary jurisdiction" upon a determination that the tribunal's
decisionorresolutionwasrenderedwithoutorinexcessofitsjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionorupona
clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due
process of law, or upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such a grave
abuseofdiscretionthattherehastobearemedyforsuchabuse.(Morrerov.Bocar,66Phil.429,431Lazatinv.
HouseElectoralTribunal,supraRoblesv.HRET,supra)Thenonlywheresuchgraveabuseofdiscretionisclearly
shownthattheCourtinterfereswiththeHRET'sjudgmentordecision.
Accordingly,itisinthislightthatWeshallproceedtoexaminethecontentionsofthepartiesinthiscase.
PetitionerRosetteY.LeriasfiledhercertificateofcandidacyastheofficialcandidateoftheUPPKBLfortheposition
ofRepresentativeforthelonedistrictofSouthernLeyteintheMay11,1987elections.Inhercertificateofcandidacy
shegaveherfullnameas"RosetteYniguesLerias".HermaidennameisRosetteYnigues.RespondentRogerG.
Mercadowastheadministrationcandidateforthesameposition.
During the canvass of votes for the congressional candidates by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Southern
Leyte, it appeared that, excluding the certificate of canvass from the Municipality of Libagon which had been
questioned by Mercado on the ground that allegedly it had been tampered with, the candidates who received the
two(2)highestnumberofvoteswereRogerG.Mercadowith34,442votesandRosetteY.Leriaswith34,128votes,
respectively.
In the provincial board's copy of the certificate of canvass for the municipality of Libagon, Lerias received 1,811
votes while Mercado received 1,351. Thus, if said copy would be the one to be included in the canvass, Lerias
wouldhavereceived35,939votesasagainstMercado's35,793votes,givingLeriasawinningmarginof146votes.
But, the provincial board of canvassers ruled that their copy of the certificate of canvass contained erasures,
alterations and superimpositions and therefore, cannot be used as basis of the canvass. The provincial board of
canvassers rejected the explanation of the members of the municipal board of canvassers of Libagon that said
correctionsweremadetocorrecthonestclericalmistakeswhichdidnotaffecttheintegrityofthecertificateandsaid
correctionsweremadeinthepresenceofthewatchersofallthenine(9)candidatesfortheposition,includingthose
ofMercadowhoofferednoobjection.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/oct1991/gr_97105_1991.html 1/22
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
LeriasappealedtherulingoftheprovincialboardofcanvasserstotheComelecprayingthattheCommissionorder
theprovincialboardofcanvasserstousetheircopyofthecertificateofcanvassforLibagon.
At the scheduled hearing on June 5, 1987, Atty. Valeriano Tumol, then counsel for Lerias, agreed to use the
Comelec copy of the certificate of canvass provided that it be found to be authentic and genuine. A similar
reservationwasmadebycounselforMercado.
TheComeleccopyofthecertificateofcanvasswasproducedandwhenopeneditshowedthatLeriasreceivedonly
1,411votesinLibagonbecauseinPrecincts6,10,18and19shereceivedineachofthesaidprecincts100votes
lessthanwhatshereceivedasshownintheprovincialboardofcanvasser'scopyofthecertificateofcanvass.The
allegeddiscrepancyisasfollows:
Precinct Provincial Comelec

Board of Copy
Canvassers's
Copy
"6 162votes 62 votes
"10 123" 23"
"18 132" 32"
"19 156" 56"
Nevertheless,theComelec,(SecondDivision)initsResolutiondatedJune6,1987,directedtheprovincialboardof
canvasserstocompletethecanvassbycreditingMercado1,351votesandLerias1,411votes,thevotesreceived
bythem,respectively,asshownintheComeleccopyofthecertificateofcanvas.So,onJune7,1987,theprovincial
boardofcanvassersreconvened,resumedthecanvassandproclaimedMercado,asthewinningcandidate,having
receivedthehighestnumberofvotes35,793.Lerias,hisclosestrival,received35,539votesoradifferenceof254
votes.OnJune7,1987,LeriasfiledanurgentexpartemotionforthereconsiderationoftheJune6,1987resolution.
Sheprayedthatthemembersofthemunicipalboardofcanvassersbesummonedtotestifyontheauthenticityand
veracityoftheComeleccopyofthecertificateofcanvassandstatementofvotessubmittedtotheComelecandthat
theelectionreturnsforprecincts6,10,18&19beproduced.
OnJune15,1987LeriasfiledwiththeComelecapetition(SPCNo.87488)fortheannulmentofthecanvassand
proclamationofMercado,prayingthattheballotboxesofprecints6,10,18&19ofLibagonbeorderedopenedand
the votes therein recounted. On June 21, 1987, she filed a motion to suspend the effects of the proclamation of
Mercado.
TherebeingnoactiontakenbytheComeleconthesaidmotionandsincethetermofofficeofthemembersofthe
House of Representatives would commence on June 30, 1987, Lerias filed on June 30, 1987 before this Court a
petition (G.R. No. 78833) for the annulment of the Comelec resolution of June 6, 1987 and the proclamation of
Mercado.
Meanwhile,inSPC87488,theComelecenbancrequiredMercadotofileananswer.Insteadoffilingananswer,
however,Mercadofiledamotiontodismissonthegroundsthat(a)theresolutiondatedJune6,1987hadalready
becomefinalbecausethemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyLeriaswasexparteanddidnotstoptherunningofthe
period to appeal therefrom and (b) since Lerias filed with the Supreme Court a petition for the annulment of the
Comelec'sJune6,1987resolutionandthesubsequentproclamationofMercado,shehadabandonedherprevious
petitionwiththeComelec.
AtthescheduledhearingonJune16,1987ofSPC87488,themembersofthemunicipalboardofcanvassersof
Libagon and the school teachers who served as inspectors of Precincts 6, 10, 18 and 19 were present and
manifested that they were ready to testify and affirm that the Comelec copy of the certificate of canvass was not
authentic for it did not correctly state the number of votes received by the parties since Lerias actually obtained
1,811votesinLibagon,not1,411votes.TheComelecdidnotwanttohearthecaseonthemeritsoptinginsteadto
merelyhearMercado'smotiontodismiss.Thesaidwitnesseswerenotgiventhechancetotestify.
OnJune17,1987,theComelecresolvedtodismissSPC87488becausethepetitionerhadfiledacasewiththe
SupremeCourtandhad,therefore,abandonedhercasewiththeComelec.
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
OnJuly22,1987LeriasfiledwiththisCourtasecondpetitiontosetasidenotonlytheComelec'sresolutionofJuly
6,1987butalsotheresolutionofJuly17,1987.
ThepetitionwasheardonoralargumentandonSeptember10,1987,thisCourtdismissedthepetitionbecause(a)
theComelecresolutionofJune6,1987andtheproclamationofMercadohadalreadybecomeexecutoryinasmuch
asfivedayshadelapsedfromreceiptofacopyofsaidresolutionbypetitionerandnorestrainingorderhadbeen
issuedbytheCourtcitingSec.246oftheOmnibusElectionCode,and(b)Leriasthrucounselhadagreedbefore
the Comelec (Second Division) during the hearing therein on June 5, 1987 to use the Comelec copy of the
certificateofcanvass.
Leriasfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdenied.Hence,onOctober1,1987,shefiledanelection
protestwithrespondentHRET.
Inherprotest,LeriascontestedtheresultsoftheelectioninPrecinctNos.6,10,18&19ofLibagonassertingthat
thetotalvotescreditedtoherinthesaidfourprecincts(1,411votes)werelessthanorshortby400votesfromthat
actuallyobtainedbyher(1,811votes)andiftheprovincialboardofcanvassers'copyofthecertificateofcanvassfor
LibagonweretobeusedasbasisofthecanvassinsteadoftheComeleccopy,shewouldhavegarnered35,930
votes as against Mercado's 35,793 votes or a winning margin of 146 votes. Thus, Lerias prayed that (a)
precautionarymeasuresbeundertakenforthesafekeepingandcustodyoftheballotboxesandelectiondocuments
used in the protested precincts and that they be brought to the Tribunal to prevent tampering and to protect their
integrity (b) a recount of the votes cast in said precincts be immediately ordered and (c) the proclamation of
Mercado be set aside and that she be declared the duly elected Representative for the lone district of Southern
Leyte.ShefurtherprayedthatMercadobeorderedtopaydamages,attorney'sfeesandcosts.
Mercado filed his Answer with CounterProtest, denying the material allegations of the protest and counter
protestingtheresultsoftheelectionsin377precincts.Heallegedthatthevotescastforhimwere(a)intentionally
misread in favor of Lerias (b) not counted or tallied, and/or counted or tallied in favor of Lerias (c) considered
markedorwereintentionallymarkedand(d)tamperedandchanged.Thecounterprotestalsochargedthatblank
spaces in the ballots were filled with Lerias' name that various ballots for Lerias, pasted with stickers, were
consideredvalidandcountedforLeriasthatvotesintheelectionreturnsweretamperedwithandalteredinfavorof
Lerias,andthatterrorismandmassivevotebuyingwereemployedbyher.
The initial hearing was scheduled for August 22, 1988, but on March 7, 1988 unidentified uniformed armed men
raidedthemunicipalbuildingofLibagonandstoletheballotboxesforthe20precinctsofLibagonstoredintheoffice
ofthemunicipaltreasurer.Fortunately,thesearmedmemoverlookedtheballotboxwhichwaskeptintheofficeof
theelectionregistraratthesecondfloorofsaidmunicipalbuilding.Saidballotboxcontainedallthecopiesofthe
election returns of Libagon which were used in the municipal canvass. It is in the said office that said ballot box
remaineduntilarepresentativeoftheHRETwenttoLibagononMarch23and24,1988totakepossessionofthe
contentsofthesameparticularlytheelectionreturnskeptinsaidballotbox.
OnDecember6,1990,theTribunal(byavoteof54)promulgateditsnowassailedDecision,thepertinentportionof
whichreads:
Onthebasisofalloftheforegoing,andthesupportingdetailsascontainedinANNEXESA,BandC
andinordertodeterminethefinalresultsoftheelectionsforthepositionofMemberoftheHouseof
Representatives,representingthelonedistrictofSouthernLeyte,afullandfinalRECAPITULATIONis
hereunderprovided:
FINAL
TABULATION
Mercado Lerias
Votespertallyof
the Provincial
Boardof
Canvassers,
usedto
PROCLAIM
protestee
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
Mercado 35,793 35,539
deduct: Votes
per
Election Returns

from 81
protested
precincts 2,154 6,885
UNCONTESTED 33,639 28,654

VOTES
Add:Votesper
REVISION
(physicalcount) 2,287 6,867
Totals 35,926 35,521
Revision
Results:
deduct:Rejected
Ballots 362 252

(objected)
Totals 35,564 35,269
add: Claimed
and
ADMITTED 26 273
Ballots
35,590 35,542
add: Restored 0 2
Votes
FINAL 35,590 35,544

RESULTS
(ProtesteeMercadowinsbyapluralityof46votes)
ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST of protestant Lerias is dismissed and by virtue of the results of
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
revision of the eighty one (81) counterprotested precincts, the Tribunal declares that protestee
MercadoisthedulyelectedRepresentativeoftheLoneDistrictoftheProvinceofSouthernLeyte,bya
plurality of FORTY SIX (46) votes having garnered a total of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED NINETY (35,590) votes as against the THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
FORTYFOUR(35,544)votesofprotestantLerias.Nopronouncementastocosts.
WHEREFORE,assoonasthisDecisionbecomesfinal,noticeandcopiesoftheDecisionshallbesent
to the President of the Philippines, the House of Representatives, through the Speaker, and the
Commission on Audit, through its Chairman, pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives
ElectoralTribunal,Section28.
SOORDERED.(pp.136137)
TheChairpersonoftheTribunal,theHonorableJusticeAmeurfinaM.Herreradissented,inthiswise:
It becomes only too obvious then that by sheer force of numbers by overturning, at the post
appreciationstage,therulingsearliermadebytheTribunaladmittingtheclaimedballotsforProtestant
Leriasbydepartingfromtheinterpretationoftheneighborhoodruleheretoforeconsistentlyfollowedby
the Tribunal by injecting `strange jurisprudence,' particularly on the intent rule the majority has
succeeded in altering the figures that reflect the final outcome of this election protest and, in the
process,thwartingthetruewilloftheelectorateinthelonedistrictofSouthernLeyte.
PremisesConsidered,IvotetodeclareProtestantRosetteY.Leriasthewinnerinthiselectionprotest.
Tothepluralityof20votesobtainedbyherinthecounterprotestedprecinctsaccordingtotheoutcome
oftheappreciationofballots,mustbeaddedthe400votesthatshouldhavebeencountedinherfavor
in the municipality of Libagon. All told, Protestant Lerias should, therefore, be credited with a total of
thirty six thousand eight (36,008) votes as against thirty five thousand five hundred eighty eight
(35,588) votes for Protestee Mercado, or a margin of four hundred twenty (420) votes. (pp. 169170
Rollo)
Likewise,theHonorable,JusticeIsaganiCruz,concurringwiththedissentofJusticeHerrerastated:
I cannot help noting that, as in several earlier cases, all the five members representing the majority
party are again voting together in favor of the Protestee, who also happens to belong to their party.
Whateverthiscoincidencemayimport,IrepeatmyobservationintheOngcases(HRETNos.13and
15, Nov. 6, 1989) that `although the composition of the Tribunal is predominantly legislative, the
function of this body is purely judicial, to be discharged on the basis solely of legal considerations,
withoutregardtopolitical,personalandotherirrelevantpersuasions.(pp.258259,Rollo)
TheHonorable,JusticeEmilioGancayco(nowretired)concurredwiththedissentofJusticesHerreraandCruz.
AnothermemberoftheTribunal,RepresentativeAntonioH.Cerilles,alsoinhisdissent,stated:
Goingoveralltheforegoingfactsandcircumstances,Ihonestlyfearthatthemajoritydecisionwillopen
the Tribunal to a charge of grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the protest and disallowing the
admission of the results of Precinct Nos. 6, 10, 18 and 19 of the Municipality of Libagon, Southern
Leyte, as reflected in the election returns, and the overwhelming documentary and testimonial
evidences introduced, supported by wellsettled jurisprudence. The same grave abuse of discretion
maybesaidofthereplacementoftheresultsoftheScreeningCommitteewhereprotestantLeriaswas
originally a winner by twenty (20) votes over Mercado on the counterprotest alone, but which
tabulationwasreconsideredandultimatelyreplacedwitharevisedtabulationwhichalteredtheresult,
thistimewithprotesteeMercadowinningbyfortytwo(42)votesoverLerias,withoutanyIdentification
andocularreviewoftheballotsoftheprotestantthusrejectedandnopropershowingofthegrounds
forsuchrejection.
Alltheseconsidered,Ifeelcompelledtoregistermydissenttothisshamefulandblatantdisregardof
theevidence,thelaw,andtherudimentsoffairness.Iregretthatthemajoritydecisionwilllendtruthto
the suspicion that a protestant from an opposition party cannot secure substantial justice from this
Tribunal.Itistheperceptionofmanythattheoddsarestackedagainstsuchpartymainlybecauseof
the composition of the Tribunal, and no evidence, no law, no jurisprudence, not even elementary
principles of fair play, equity or morality can outweigh a determined demonstration of party stand,
partialityandbias.Iwillnotbepartytosuchtravestyofjustice.
ThisisnotthefirsttimeanditcertainlywillnotbethelastwhenIastheloneoppositionmemberofthisTribunal
joined the three Justices of the Supreme Court in dissent. But I do so guided no less by the pronouncement of
Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a member of this Tribunal, when he said: `Whatever this division may imply, it is worth
stressingthatalthoughthecompositionoftheTribunalispredominantlylegislative,thefunctionofthisbodyispurely
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
judicial,tobedischarged,onthebasissolelyoflegalconsiderationswithoutregardtopolitical,personalandother
irrelevantpersuasions.1(Emphasissupplied)
InowindicatethatIfavortheadmissionoftheresultsoftheelectionreturnsofPrecinctNos.6,10,18,
and19oftheMunicipalityofLibagon,SouthernLeyte,andtoreturntoprotestantLeriasthe400votes
whichwasfraudulentlytakenawayfromher.Likewise,theoriginalrevisionresultsofthescreeningof
theballotsofthecounterprotestedprecincts,assubmittedtoandpreviouslyapprovedbytheTribunal,
which reflected that Lerias was ahead of Mercado by 20 votes, should be upheld. Protestant Lerias
shouldthusbecreditedwithatotalityof36,008votesasagainst35,588votesofprotesteeMercado,in
afinaluntarnishedcount.
Protestant,should,therefore,bedeclaredthewinnerintheMay11,1987electionfortheLoneDistrict
ofSouthernLeyte,havingobtainedamajorityofthevalidvotescastinthesaidelection,withaplurality
offourhundredtwenty(420)votesovertheprotestee,andthus,furtherdeclareprotestantRosetteY.
LeriasasthedulyelectedRepresentativeoftheLoneDistrictofSouthernLeyte.(Rollo,pp.287189)
Leriasfiledamotionforreconsideration.Mercadoalsofiledapartialmotionforreconsideration.
Actingonthesaidmotions,theTribunal,onJanuary31,1991promulgateditsassailedResolution,thedispositive
portionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,theTribunalResolvedtoDENYprotestant'sMotionforReconsiderationforlackofmerit.Protestee's
PartialMotionforReconsideration,isherebyGRANTED.TheTribunalalsoDIRECTSmotupropiothe appropriate
correctionofthe`VotesperRevision'oftheProtestant,pursuanttotheverifiederrorscommitted,soastoreflectthe
trueandcorrectvotesactuallygarneredbytheprotestantandtheprotestee.
ACCORDINGLY,theDecisionoftheTribunalpromulgatedonDecember6,1990isherebyamended
and modified, by declaring protestee Mercado as the duly elected Representative of the Lone
Legislative District of the Province of Southern Leyte, by a plurality of SIXTY SEVEN (67) VOTES,
having garnered a total of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE (35,595)
VOTES, as against the THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT (35,528)
VOTESofprotestantLerias.(pp.344,Rollo)
In her revised Dissenting Opinion, (pp. 346353 Rollo) the Honorable Justice Herrera made the following
clarifications:
Interpolatingthenecessarycorrections,therefore,thefinaltabulationofvotesobtainedbythepartiesin
thecounterprotestedprecinctsshouldberevisedasfollows:
MERCADO LERIAS
Votesper
proclamation 35,793 35,539
Deduct:
Votesin81
counter
protested
Votes
Uncontested
precincts 33,639 28,654
Add:
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
Votesper
revision
(physicalcount,
ascorrected 2,292 (formerly 6,851 (formerly

2,287) 6,867)
TOTAL 35,931 35,256 (formerly

(formerly 35,521)
35,926)
Deduct:
Rejectedballots 363 269
TOTAL 35,568 35,256 (formerly

(formerly 35,272)
35,563)
Add:
Claimedballots
admitted
(ascorrected) 25 347 (formerly

334)
Add: votes 0 2
restored
TOTALVOTES 35,593 35,605 (formerly

(formerly 35,608)
35,588)
PluralityofProtestantLerias12votes(insteadof20intheoriginaldissent)
To this plurality of twelve (12) votes obtained by Protestant Lerias in the counterprotested precincts
must be added the 400 votes obtained by her in the four contested precincts in Libagon. Protestant
Lerias should, therefore, be credited with a total of thirty six thousand five (36,005) votes as against
thirtyfivethousandfivehundredninetythree(35,593)votesforProtesteeMercado,oramarginoffour
hundredtwelve(412)votes,insteadofthe420votesintheoriginaldissent.
PREMISESCONSIDERED,insofarastheundersigned'sdissentisconcerned,ProtesteeMercado's
PartialMotionforRreconsiderationisdenied,andIreiteratemyvotetoproclaimProtestantRosetteY.
LeriasasthefullyelectedRepresentativeforSouthernLeyte.(pp.351353,Rollo)
JusticeCruzmaintainedhisoriginaldissent.
RepresentativeCerillesfileda"DissentingOpiniononDenialofProtestant'sMotionforReconsideration"(pp.355
357Rollo)statingthat:
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
In sum, Protestant should therefore be declared winner in the May 11, 1987 election for the Lone
District of Southern Leyte having obtained a plurality of four hundred four (404) votes over the
Protestee,andthusfurtherdeclareProtestantRosetteY.LeriasasthedulyelectedRepresentativeof
theLoneDistrictofSouthernLeyte.(pp.356357,Rollo)
Wehavereadandexamined,withutmostinterestandcare,thecontentionsoftheparties,themajorityopinionof
thefivemembersoftheTribunalaswellastheseparatedissentingopinionsofthechairpersonandsomemembers
oftheelectoraltribunal,andtheCourtarrivedattheconclusion,withoutanyhesitation,reservation,ordoubt,that
the Tribunal(the majority opinion)inrenderingits questionedDecisionandResolution had acted whimsically and
arbitrarilyandwithverygraveabuseofdiscretion.ItisforthisreasonthatWecannotbringourselvestoagreewith
theirdecision.
TheProtest
Leriascontendedthatinthefour(4)protestedprecinctsofLibagonwherehervotesweredeterminedtobe1,411
only, the same were allegedly reduced by 100 votes in each precinct, thus totalling 400, the details of which
reductionareasfollows:
Precinct Lerias' Lerias'
Protested Credited Claimed

Votes Votes
No.6 62 162
No.10 23 123
No.18 32 132
No.19 56 156
ShouldherclaimedvotesasaforestatedbesustainedLerias'totalvotesfromthemunicipalityofLibagonshallbe
1,811 votes. In such an eventuality, Lerias shall have been able to recover 400 votes, more than sufficient to
overcomethewinningmarginofMercado,therebyprevailingbyapluralityof146votes.
To prove her contention, Lerias submitted original copies of the certificate of canvass of the municipal board of
canvassersandtheprovincialboardofcanvassers.Shealsoinvokedtheoriginalcopyoftheelectionreturnsforthe
municipal board of canvassers of Libagon. These documents, particularly the election returns showed that Lerias
received162votesinPrec.No.6,123votesinPrec.No.10,132votesinPrec.No.18and156votesinPrec.No.
19togiveheratotalof1,811votesintheentiremunicipalityofLibagon.
Upontheotherhand,MercadoreliedmainlyonthexeroxcopyofthecertificateofcanvassfortheComelec.This
certificateshowedthatLeriasreceived62votesinPrec.No.6,23votesinPrec.No.10,32votesinPrec.No.18
and56votesinPrec.No.19.
The HRET majority opinion rejected the election returns and sustained the certificate of canvass because (1) the
ComelecfoundthattheComeleccopyofthecertificateofcanvassis"regular,genuineandauthenticonitsface"
andsaidfindingoftheComelechadbeensustainedbytheSupremeCourt(2)theprotestant(meaningLerias)had
agreedduringthepreproclamationproceedingstotheuseoftheComeleccopyofthecertificateofcanvassand
(3)theauthenticityoftheelectionreturnsfromthefour(4)disputedprecinctshadnotbeenestablished.
Thereasonsgivenbythemajorityfordoubtingtheauthenticityoftheelectionreturnsare:(a)thenonproductionof
the election returns during the entire preproclamation proceedings definitely creates much doubt as to their
authenticityespeciallysowhentheysurfacedonlyalmostayearlateraftertheballotshadbeenstolen(b)during
that time, the election returns may have been tampered with and "doctored" to Lerias' advantage (c) no proof
whatsoeverwasofferedtoshowthattheintegrityoftheballotboxinwhichtheywerekeptwasnotviolatedand(d)
thewitnesses presented by Lerias had shown their partisanship in her favor by executing affidavits to support her
protest.
TheforegoingfindingsandpronouncementsoftheHRET(majorirtyopinion)aretotallybereftofanysupportinlaw
andsettledjurisprudence.
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
Inanelectioncontestwherewhatisinvolvedisthecorrectnessofthenumberofvotesofeachcandidate,thebest
and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves. But where the ballots cannot be produced or are not
available,theelectionreturnswouldbethebestevidence.Whereithasbeendulydeterminedthatactualvotingand
electionbytheregisteredvoterhadtakenplaceinthequestionedprecinctsorvotingcenters,theelectionreturns
cannot be disregarded and excluded with the resulting disenfranchisement of the voters, but must be accorded
primafaciestatusasbonafidereportsoftheresultsofthevoting.Canvassingboards,theComelecandtheHRET
must exercise extreme caution in rejecting returns and may do so only upon the most convincing proof that the
returnsareobviouslymanufacturedorfake.And,conformablytoestablishedrules,itisthepartyallegingthatthe
electionreturnshadbeentamperedwith,whoshouldsubmitproofofthisallegation.
Atthisjuncture,itiswelltostressthattheevidencebeforetheHRETistheoriginalcopyoftheelectionreturnswhile
theComelec'scopyofthecertificateofcanvass,ismerelyaxeroxcopy,theoriginalthereofhadnotbeenproduced.
Under the best evidence rule, "there can be no evidence of a writing, the contents of which are the subject of
inquiry,otherthantheoriginalwritingitself"exceptonlyinthecasesenumeratedinRule130,Sec.2oftheRulesof
Court.Theexceptionsarenotpresenthere.Moreover,thexeroxcopyofthecertificateofcanvassisinadmissibleas
secondaryevidencebecausetherequirementsofSec.4ofthesameRulehavenotbeenmet.(DissentofJ.Cruz,
p.254)Besidesthiscertificateofcanvasshadbeendisownedbythechairmanandmembersofthemunicipalboard
ofcanvassers,claimingthatthesamewasfalsifiedsincetheirsignaturesandthumbmarksappearingthereonare
nottheirsandthenumberofvotescreditedtoLeriasinthemunicipalityofLibagonhadbeenreducedfrom1,811to
1,411. (TSN, Sept. 13, 1988 AM, pp. 7478 TSN, Sept. 13, 1988 PM, pp. 4146 Dissenting Opinion, Rep. A.H.
Cerilles,p.2)
ThefindingoftheComelecinthepreproclamationproceedingsthatitscopyofthecertificateofcanvassis"genuine
and authentic" and which finding was sustained by this Court (G.R. No. 78833 7988283) is not binding and
conclusive.TheHRETmustbereferringtothefollowingportionofthedecisionofthisCourt
Public interest demands that preproclamation contests should be terminated with dispatch so as not to unduly
deprivethepeopleofrepresentation,asinthiscase,inthehallsofCongress.Asthe
Court has stressed in Enrile v. Comelec, and other cases, the policy of the election law is that preproclamation
controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass and proclamation
shouldbedelayedaslittleaspossible.ThepowersoftheCOMELECareessentiallyexecutiveandadministrativein
natureandthequestionoffraud,terrorismandotherirregularitiesintheconductoftheelectionshouldbeventilated
in a regular election protest and the Commission on Elections is not the proper forum for deciding such matters
neither the Constitution nor statute has granted the COMELEC or the board of canvassers the power, in the
canvassofelectionsreturnstolookbeyondthefacethereof`oncesatisfiedoftheirauthenticity'.Webelievethatthe
mattersbroughtupbypetitionershouldbeventilatedbeforetheHouseElectoralTribunal.Unlikeinthepast,itisno
longer the COMELEC but the House Electoral Tribunal which is `the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election,returns,andqualifications'ofthemembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.
InoptingtogobytheCOMELECcopywhichonitsfacedidnotshowanyalteration,theCOMELECdid
notcommitanygraveabuseofdiscretion,speciallysincebothpartiesagreedtotheCOMELECusing
itsowncopy(CopyNo.3).
Accordingly, the Court resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack ofmerit. The temporary restraining
orderissuedonJuly23,1987isherebyLIFTEDeffectiveimmediately.(Rollo,pp.264265)
It would appear, therefore, that this Court sustained the use of the Comelec's copy of the certificate of canvass
insteadofthecopyoftheprovincialboardofcanvassersonlytoestablishprimafacie(butnotactually)thewinner
(ascalledforbythesummarynatureofpreproclamationproceedings),withoutprejudicetoamorejudiciousand
unhurrieddeterminationinanelectionprotest,andbecauseLerias'thrucounselhadpreviouslyagreedconditionally
and qualifiedly to its tentative use for preproclamation proceedings. The decision of this court was merely an
affirmanceoftheactionoftheComelecanditcannotberelieduponasafinaladjudicationonthemerits,onthe
issueofthegenuinessandauthenticityofthesaidcertificateofcanvass.Besides,theuseofsaidComeleccopyof
the certificate of canvass by the board of canvassers did not foreclose the right of Lerias to prove that the votes
attributed to have been received by her as stated, in said certificate of canvass is not correct. Acceptance of a
certificate of canvass as genuine and authentic for purposes of canvass simply means that said certificate of
canvassisgenuineandauthenticforthepurposeofdeterminingtheprimafaciewinnerintheelection.Butthevery
purposeofanelectioncontestistoestablishwhoistheactualwinnerintheelection.
AnentthepronouncementoftheHRET(majorityopinion)thathavingagreedtotheuseoftheComelec'scopyofthe
certificateofcanvass,Leriasisnowestoppedfromassailingit,sufficeittostatethatLeriasagreedtotheuseofsaid
copy because she was not aware then that the figures therein had been altered. It is a matter of record that she
immediatelyobjectedaftershediscoveredthediscrepancy.Atanyrate,shecannotbeestoppedfromprotestinga
falsification of the voters' will because such estoppel would contravene public policy. (Dissent of J. Cruz, p. 5)
Moreover, as indicated in the discussion hereinabove, under the circumstances relating to preproclamation,
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
estoppelcertainlycannotapply.
As to the delay in presenting the election returns because these were not presented during the whole pre
proclamation proceedings, it must be noted that at that time, the four ballot boxes of Libagon with their
correspondidngballotswerestillintactandasthesewouldhaveprovidedthebestevidence,resortingtotheelection
returnswasuncalledfor.ItisforthisreasonthatLeriashadaskedforarecountoftheballotsandthiswouldhave
obviatedtheneedfortheelectionreturns.UnderthesecircumstancesthefailureofLeriastoaskfortheproduction
of the election returns during those times that the ballots were still available cannot be considered as ground for
consideringsaidelectionreturnsasofdubiouscharacter.
The"suspicion"oftheHRET(majorityopinion)regardingthepossibletamperingoftheelectionreturnsareatbest
merely speculative and dispelled by the incontrovertible evidence in the case. On its face, these election returns
havenotracesoftampering.Eventhemajoritydecisionadmitsthatsaidelectionreturns"appeartobeoriginalsand
ontheirfaces,authentic."(Decision,p.21)
Theauthenticityofsaidreturns,particularlythoseofPrecincts6,10,18,and19,thefourdisputedprecincts,had
been further established by the testimonies of the members of the Board of Election Inspectors of said precincts
duringthehearingbeforetheTribunalandbeforethehearingofficerdesignatedtohearthecase.Moreimportantly,
examinationofsaidreturnsconclusivelyestablishedtheIdentityofsaidreturnsastheverysameonespreparedby
therespectiveBoardofElectionInspectorsduringthecountingofthevotes.TheelectionreturnsforPrecinct6was
markedasExhibit"F"thatofPrecinct10,Exhibit"AA"Precinct18,Exhibit"U",andPrecincts19,Exhibit"P".
TheelectionreturnsforPrecinct6bearsSerialNo.0138forPrecincts10,No.0142forPrecinct18,No.0150and
forPrecinct19,No.0151.TheminutesofvotingforeachofsaidprecinctswhichweresubmittedtotheComelecand
later on presented in evidence before the Tribunal, indicated the serial numbers of the election returns for said
precinctsandtheycorrespondedtotheserialnumbersofelectionreturnsforthefourprecincts.
The NAMFREL reposts, (copy from the National Headquarters) which were presented during the initial hearing
beforetheHRETbyarepresentaiveofthenationalheadquartersofNAMFREL,aswellasthecopiesofsaidreports
of Bencouer Gado, the municipal coordinator of NAMFREL in Libagon, also indicated that the election returns for
Precinct6bearsSerialNo.0138Precinct10,SerialNo.0142Precinct18,SerialNo.0150andPrecinct19,Serial
No.0151.2TheenvelopeswhereinsaidelectionreturnswereoriginallyplacedbytheBoardofElectionInspectorsfromsaidprecincts,whentheyturnedover
saidelectionreturnstotheelectionregistrar,weretheverysameenvelopeswhichcontainedtheelectionreturnsfromsaidprecinctsatthetimethattheywere
turnedovertoLuspo(theTribunal'srepresentative)onMarch24,1988.TheIdentityofsaidenvelopeshadbeenconclusivelyprovenbythefactthattheserial
numbersthattheybearandtheComelecpapersealsealingsaidenvelopesarethesame.Theserialnumbersofsaidenvelopeshadbeennotedintheminutesof
eachofsaidproceedings.
The envelope containing the election returns for Precinct 6 bears Serial No. 042366 and the Comelec paper seal
thereofbearsSerialNo.017318.
TheenvelopecontainingtheelectionreturnsforPrecincts10bearsSereialNo.042370andtheComelecpaperseal
TheenvelopecontainingtheelectionreturnsforPrecinct18bearsSerialNo.04373whiletheComelecpaperseal
TheenvelopecontainingtheelectionreturnsforPrecinct19bearsSerialNo.042379whiletheComelecpaperseal
WhenthechairmenofeachofsaidprecinctstestifiedbeforetheHearingOfficerdesignatedbytheTribunal,theyall
Identified their respective signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the envelopes for said four precincts. Ruego,
thechairmanoftheMunicipalBoardofCanvassersandactingelectionregistrarduringtheelection,alsoIdentified
hissignatureontheenvelopesacknowledgingthereceiptofsaidenvelopescontainingtheelectionreturnsforsaid
precincts.
The four chairmen of said precincts also positively Identified that the election returns shown to them for their
respectiveprecinctstakenfromthecustodianoftheTribunalandplacedinsideEnvelopesAandBwerethevery
same election returns prepared by them. They Identified their own signatures and thumbmarks and those of the
othermembersoftheboardofelectioninspectorsintheirrespectiveprecincts.
On the basis of the election returns from the four disputed precincts, the votes of Lerias and Mercado in said
precinctswereasfollows:
Precincts Lerias Mercado

No.
6 162 45
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
10 123 79
18 132 46
19 156 24
ItwouldappearthenthatthevotesofLeriasasindicatedintheComeleccopyoftheCertificateofCanvass(Exh.
22)hadbeensystematicallyreducedby100votesineachofthefourprecincts.Withthecorrectionofthevotesof
Lerias in said four precincts as reflected in the election returns it would result that in the entire Municipality of
Libagonprotestantreceived1,811voteswhileMercadoreceivedonly1,351votes.Consequently,thetotalnumber
ofvotesLeriasreceivedintheentirecongressionaldistrictwouldbe35,939votes(400votesmorethanwhatwas
credited to her in the Comelec copy of the Certificate of Canvass which was the basis of the proclamation of
Mercado)whileMercadoreceived35,793votesgivingamargininfavorofLeriasof146votesbeforetherevisionof
theballotsintheprecinctsinvolvedinthecounterprotestofprotestee.
ThenumberofvotesreceivedbyprotestantandprotesteeinthefourdisputedprecinctsofLibagonasshowninthe
electionreturnsforsaidprecinctsissubstantiatedbythefollowingdocumentaryevidences:
1.TheNAMFRELOperationQuickCount(OQC)reports,nationalheadquarters'copiesandcopiesof
themunicipalcoordinatorofNAMFRELinLibagon(Exhs.EE,FF,GG,HH,H,CC,X)
2.Thecertificateofvotesofthecandidates(CEform13)issuedtotherepresentativesofthepolitical
parties(Exhs.DandEforPrecinct6Exhs.VandUUforPrecinct18Exhs.LandMforPrecinct19)
3.ThecertifiedresultofthecanvassingpreparedbywatchersofUPPKBL(Exhs.GforPrecinct56
Exh.DDforPrecinct10Exh.YforPrecinct18andExh.OforPrecinct19)
4.TheMunicipalBoardofCanvassers'copyofthecertificateofvotesanditssupportingstatementof
votes(Exh.LL)
5.TheProvincialBoardofCanvassers'copyoftheCertificateofCanvassanditssupportingstatement
ofvotes(Exh.LL)
6.TheletterreporttoComelec,Manila,datedMay18,1987,ofManuelPaler,OICMayorofMaasinas
municipalchairmanofLakasngBansa(Exh.J)
7.TheletterreporttoComelec,Manila,datedMay18,1987,ofRitoB.Go,PDPLabanChairmanfor
SouthernLeyte(Exh.I)and
8.Thetallyboard(photographtakenbyphotographerRodriguez(Exh.NN).
AccordingtoNAMFRELOperationQuickCountReportNo.075576forPrecinct6,boththenationalheadquarters'
copyandthecopyoftheNAMFRELmunicipalcoordinator,BencouerGado(Exhs.HandCC),protestantgot162
voteswhileprotesteegotonly45votes.
NAMFREL Operation Quick Count Report No. 075580 prepared by NAMFREL representative Edna Pajo, duly
certifiedbythemembersoftheBoardofElectionInspectorsofPrecinct10afterverifyingitsaccuracy,checkingthe
same against the election returns and the tally sheet, both national headquarters' copy and the copy of the
municipal coordinator, showed that in said Precinct 10 protestant received 123 votes while protestee received 79
votes(Exh.CCandExh.FF).
NAMFRELOperationQuickCountReportNo.075590forPrecinct18preparedbyNAMFRELwatcherRitoLopina,
certified by the members of the Board of Election Inspectors of said precinct after verifying if they tally with the
results as shown in their tally board showed, that in said precinct protestant received 142 votes as against
protestee's46votes(Exh.X).
NAMFRELOperationQuickCountReportNo.075589,preparedbyNAMFRELwatchersassignedtoPrecinct19,
duly certified to by the members of the Board of Election Inspectors of said precinct, after checking whether the
votesofthecandidatescontainedinsaidOQCreporttallywiththeelectionreturnsinthetallysheetshowed,that
protestantobtainedinsaidprecinct156voteswhileprotesteereceived24votes(Exh.N).
Thecertificateofvotes(CEFormNo.13)issuedtothewatchersofthepoliticalparties(ExhibitsE,D,V,WW,Land
M),aswellasthereportspreparedbythewatchersofUPPKBL(ExhibitsG,DD,YandO)alsoshowedthesame
votesreceivedbyprotestantandprotesteeinthefourdisputedprecinctsasreflectedintheelectionreturnsforsaid
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
precincts.
ThetallyboardusedinthecanvassremaineddisplayedinthesessionhallofthemunicipalbuildingofLibagonfor
several months after the elections. Pictures of said tally board were taken by Rudy Rodriguez, a professional
photographer (Exh. NN, TSN Sept. 12, 1988, p. 48). According to said tally board the votes of protestant and
protesteewerethesameasthoseshownintheelectionreturns.Iftheywereerroneous,MayorPaitanofLibagon
whohashisofficeonthesamefloorwhosawsaidtallyboardeveryday,wouldhavecomplainedabouttheentries
particularlyforPrecincts6,10,18and19,whichwerethesubjectoftheragingelectioncontestbetweenprotestant
andprotestee.
The reports of Manuel Paler, OIC Mayor of Maasin and chairman of Lakas ng Bansa to the chairman of the
CommissiononElectionsdatedMay18,1987,receivedbytheLawDepartmentofComeleconMay20,1987,and
thereportofRitoGo,chairmanofPDPLabanforSouthernLeyte,tothechairmanoftheCommissiononElections
datedalsoMay18,1987andreceivedbytheLawDepartmentonMay20,1987(ExhibitsJandI),similarlyreflected
thatLeriasreceived1,811votesinLibagonwhileMercadoobtained1,351votes.
Inthe entirecongressionaldistrictLeriasobtained 35,937votes whileMercadoobtained 35,795 votes.These are

reportscomingfromLakasngBansaandPDPLaban,politicalpartieswhohadtheirowncandidates.Theywould
not have filed said reports admitting that Lerias obtained more votes than their own candidates unless the same
wereactuallythevotesobtainedbyherasverifiedbytheirownrepresentatives.
TheMunicipalBoardofCanvassers'copyoftheCertificateofCanvassandsupportingstatementofvotesaswellas
theProvincialBoardofCanvassers'copyofsaidreportsshowedthatLeriasobtained1,811votesinLibagon.True,
that the Provincial Board of Canvassers rejected their copy of said Certificate of Canvass because of certain
erasuresandalterationstherein.ButthemembersoftheMunicipalBoardofCanvassersexplainedtotheProvincial
BoardofCanvassersthatthecorrectionsmadebythemweremerelytocorrectcertainclericalerrors.Itshouldbe
pointedoutherethatthecorrectionsanderasuresmadedidnotrefertothevotesofthecongressionalcandidates.
ThevotesofLeriasandMercadoinPrecincts6,10,18and19ofLibagonbearnocorrectionsorerasures.Andin
thecanvassforthesenatorialcandidates,theProvincialBoardofCanvassers'copywhichtheboardrejectedinthe
congressional canvass, was used as basis of the canvass. The board would have rejected the same were it not
authentic.ThefactthatsaidcopyoftheCertificateofCanvasswasusedinthesenatorialcanvassconductedafter
thecongressionalcanvasswouldindicatethattheboardconsideredthesameauthentic.
(DissentingOpinionofRep.Cerilles,pp.1319)
Thefactthatthemembersoftheboardofelectioninspectorsinthedisputedprecinctshadexecutedaffidavitsin
supportoftheclaimofLeriascannotbeconsideredaspartisanshipsinceitisthedutyofsaidmembersoftheboard
toinformtheComelec,oftheactualresultsofvotingintheirrespectiveprecincts.
Inanyevent,thetestofwhetherornotthetestimoniesofsaidelectionofficialsshouldnotbebelievedbecausethey
are biased or prejudiced would be the tenor of their respective terstimonies or affidavits, whether the same are
credibleandcorroboratedbyotherevidence.Thetestimoniesoftheseelectioninspectorsthattheelectionreturns
weretheverysameelectionreturnspreparedbythemwerecorroboratedbythedocumentaryevidencewhichhad
notatallbeendisputedsuchastheNAMFRELreports,thestatementofvotesgiventotherepresentativesofthe
other parties, the tally sheets, the certificates of canvass, both the municipal board and provincial board of
canvassers'copies(nottheComeleccopywhichreflectedadifferentresult).
Inthisregard,thedissentingopinionofJusticeHugoGutierrez,Jr.inG.R.Nos.78833,7988283entitled"Leriasv.
Comelecetal",isverypertinent:
Another inexplicable act of the COMELEC is the refusal to even hear the members of the Libagon
municipalboardofcanvassersandtheelectionboardofinspectorsofthefourdisputedprecinctswho
expressed willingness to testify as to which certificates are genuine. When the very persons whose
signaturesappearonthequestionedcertificatesattestthatthosearenottheirsignaturesbecausethe
correctcopiesarethetwocopiescarryingtheircorrections,itistheheightofincongruitytoevenrefuse
tohearthem.Theyarethepersonsinthebestpositiontostatewhattheydid,whattheyenteredonthe
variouselectionforms,etc.,buttheywereunceremoniouslyignored.Tosaythatthesepersonswere
eitherpurchasedorcoercedisnotonlyunkind,tosaytheleast,butirrationalandwithoutbasis.First,
theirtestimoniescouldberejectedifperceivedasnottruthful.Buttheyshouldbeheard.Second,these
personnel manning the election precincts and canvass boards are all government employees. The
headofthemunicipalcanvassboardisaCOMELECemployee.Therestofthecanvassersareother
government officials. The precincts are manned totally by school teachers. Why should they be
summarilyrejectedasthemostcompetentofallpossiblewitnesses?(Emphasissupplied)
xxxxxxxxx
The tactic of `win the proclamation and delay the protest' is even more rampant than when it first
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
surfaced.TherulinginEspinov.Zaldivar(21SCRA1204,1213)thatweshouldnotwinkatabrazen
formofwrongdoingtosubvertthepeople'swillandinmockerycrowntheloserwithvictorythegenuine
returnsmustbeascertainedandtheobviousforgerydisregardedremainsastruenowasitwasthen.
(Emphasissupplied)(pp.279280,Rollo)
Butmoreimportantly,anotherxeroxcopyoftheComeleccopyofthecertificateofcanvassexactlythesameasthe
xerox copy of the Comelec copy submitted to the HRET is attached to the joint affidavit of the Chairman and
membersofthemunicipalboardofcanvassersofLibagon,toshowthattheirsignaturesandthumbmarksappearing
intheComeleccopybeforetheHRETarenottheirownsignaturesandthumbmarks.Forpurposesofcomparison,
theyaffixedtheirrespectivesignaturesandthumbmarksonthemarginofsaidxeroxcopyofthesupposedComelec
copyofthecertificateofcanvass.Therefore,theComelec'scopyofthecertificateofcanvassusedbytheComelec
andsustainedbytheTribunal`smajorityopinionisnotonlyaxeroxcopybutisaxeroxcopyofafalsifiedandforged
document.Thisbeingthecase,itshouldnotbegivenanyevidentiaryvalue.Itisincrediblethatthemajorityopinion
intheHRETdecisionwoulddeliberatelyuseforgedsignaturesandthumbmarkssimplyintheirdesiretoproducean
infamouspoliticaldecision.Surelythisispureanathematoallrulesoffairplay.
Alltold,theCourtisoftheconsideredopinionthattheHRET(majorityopinion)hadnobasisatallinconsideringthe
electionreturnsfromPrecincts6,10,18&19asnotauthentic.Andconsideringtheoverwhelmingandindubitable
evidencepresentedbyLeriasinsupportofherprotest,moreparticularlytheelectionreturnswhichintheabsenceof
theballotswouldconstitutethebestevidence,theactualnumberofvotesreceivedbyLeriasandMercadointhe
four(4)contestedprecinctsareasfollows:
Precinct Lerias Mercado

No.
6 162 45
10 123 79
18 132 46
19 156 24
and that in the entire municipality of Libagon, Lerias obtained 1,811 votes while Mercado obtained 1,351 votes.
Basedsolelyontheprotest,inthewholecongressionaldistrict,Leriasobtained35,939votesasagainstMercado's
35,793votes,givingherawinningmarginof146votes.
TheCounterProtest
AftertheTribunalhadscreenedandappreciatedboththe"objectedto"and"claimed"ballotsfromthe81precincts
subject of the counterprotest of Mercado, the result was 363 ballots of Mercado and 249 ballots of Lerias were
rejectedand25ballotsclaimedbyMercadoand334ballotsclaimedbyLeriaswereadmitted.Twoballotswerealso
restored to Lerias after it was found out that her name written thereon was tampered with or erased by another
personandthenameofMercadowritteninitsplace.ThisgaveLeriasawinningmarginof20votesoverMercado
asshowninthefollowingtabulations:
LERIAS MERCADO
Votes Per 35,539 35,793

Proclamation
Votes
Counter
protested
Votes
Uncontested
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
precincts 28,654 33,639
VotesPer
Revision
ofballots 6,867 2,287
35,521 35,926
Rejected 249 363

Ballots
Claimed
Ballots
Admitted 334 25
35,606 35,588
Votes
Restoredto
Lerias 2
35,608
Plurality of 20
Lerias
This was disregarded by the majority and in the revised tabulation reflected in the majority decision, Mercado no
longerlostby20votes.Insteadhealreadywonbyapluralityof42votesoverLerias.Thiscameaboutthroughthe
simple expedient of reducing the already admitted claimed ballots of Lerias by 57 votes (from the original 334 to
277)invalidating3moreballotsofLerias(from249to252)andadding1moretotheclaimedballotsofMercado
(from25to26)atthesametimerejecting1moreballotofMercado(from363to364).
Themodificationconsistedin:
1.Whereonlythefirstnameofthecandidateiswrittenonline1forsenator,theneighborhoodrulewillnotapply.
Accordingtothemajoritytheneighborhoodruleitselfisbutanexceptiontothatacceptedruleonappreciationthat
thecandidate'snameplacedinanotherlinenottheproperspaceforthepositionheisaspiringisastrayvote,and
beingalreadyanexceptionthesamemustbeappliedmostrigidlyandverystrictly.(Decision,p.35)
Thus,accordingtothemajority,ballotswith"Rosette"or"roset"or"rosit"writtenonline1forsenators,evenifthe
space for congressman is blank and no other candidate for congress is written on the ballot, were rejected and
deniedadmissionbythemajority.
2.Thesameprincipleofstrictapplicationoftheintentorneighborhoodrulewasappliedtovotesplacedonline1for
senator,whichmerelyreflectstheinitialsofthefirstnameofacandidatebutwhosesurnameormaidensurname
happenstobethesamesurnameofalegitimatecandidateforsenator.Underthisapplicationoftheneighborhood
rule,votesforprotestantcastas"R.Iniguez"or"YniguezR."orL.Yniguez"orYniguezL"werealsorejected.
3.AballotwherethenameLeriasiswrittenonline1forsenatorisrejectedwhereitappearsthatitiswrittenbyan
assistor.
4.WheretheonlyentryinthespaceforRepresentativewasYniguez,saidballotisconsideredasamisplacedvote
forsenatorialcandidateYniguezsincetherewasanYniguezwhowasacandidateforsenatorwhoisatthesame
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
timeanofficial.
Theaforementioneddeparturesfromtheapplicationofthe"neighborhoodrule"laiddownin"Nogralesv.Dureza"
(HRETCaseNo.34,June16,1990)areunwarrantedandclearlydesignedbythemajoritytoreducetheclaimed
votestobeadmittedforLeriasandmakeMercadoeventuallythewinner.
UnderSubsec.1ofSec.211oftheOmnibusElectionCode,aballotwhereonlythefirstnameofacandidateorhis
surnameiswrittenisconsideredavoteforsuchcandidateasthereisnoothercandidatewiththesamefirstname
orsurnameforthesameoffice.Themajorityopinion,therefore,whichdidnotcounttheballotscastwhereonlythe
firstnameofLeriaswaswritten"Rosette","rosit"or"roset"iscontrarytosaidsubsec.1ofSec.211oftheOmnibus
ElectionCode.
Inhercertificateofcandidacy,Leriasgaveherfullnameas"RosetteYniguezLerias."Itisforthisreasonthatthe
Tribunal during the appreciation of the ballots in its executive sessions admitted as votes for Lerias ballots
containing, "Yniguez R", "Yniguez L", Yniguez Roset", "R. Yniguez" or "L. Yniguez" written on the first line of
senatorsforitisveryclearthatsaidballotswereintendedtobecastforLerias.UnderSubsec.3ofSection211of
the OmnibusElection Code, said ballots should be counted as votes for Lerias inasmuch as there is no other
candidateforthesamepositionofRepresentativewhoisanincumbent.Subsec.3,Sec.211reads:
3.In case the candidate is a woman who uses her maiden or married surname or both and there is
another candidate with the same surname, a ballot bearing only such surname shall be counted in
favorofthecandidatewhoisanincumbent.(p.315,Rollo)
InsaidparticularballotstheycannotbeconsideredasvotescastforsenatorialcandidateYniguezinasmuchasin
thesameballotYniguezhadalsobeenvotedforassenatorintheproperspaceforsenators.
Someoftheballotsrejectedbythemajorityalsocontainthename"Lerias"online1forSenator.Theseballotswere
writtenbyassistors,andtherefore,wereadmittedasvalid.(Timbolv.Lazatin,HRETCaseNo.46,22March1990).
Themajorityrejectedtheseballotsbydiscountingtheapplicabilityofthe"neighborhoodrule".
Onthispoint,theHonorableChairperson,J.Herrerainherdissentaptlyruled:
Strangelyenough,accordingtothemajority,the'neighborhoodrule'liberalizesthe`properspace'rule
because the voter may not be literate, `but should find no applicability where the ballots are filled by
assistors who themselves appear illiterate' (p. 37, Majority Opinion). This pronouncement has been
pluckedfromthinairandappearsnowhereinelectoraljurisprudence.
WhatissettledistheguidelineadoptedinthecaseofNogralesv.Dureza(HRETCaseNo.34,June
16,1990),andonthebasisofwhichtheTribunaladmittedtheballotsinquestion.Thus:
2. Ballots where the name of a candidate was written on line 1 for Senators or in the shaded box
immediatelyabovethelineforRepresentative,werecountedinfavorofthatcandidate,provided,that
(1) the line for Representative had been left blank, and (2) no other name of a candidate for
RepresentativewaswrittenonotherlinesforSenators,inthesameballot(Mandacv.Samaoante,54
Phil.706[1903].(Decision,p.17)
Thisruledoesnotdistinguishbetweenballotswrittenbythevoterhimselforassistedbyanother.(p.
168,Rollo)
Finally,thereare170ballotsofLeriaswithstickerswhichhadbeenrejected.Again,themajorityhadcommittedan
errorinrejectingsaidballots,JusticeCruz,inhisdissentstated:
In addition to the above observations, I will also express my objections to the rejection of the 170
ballotscastfortheProtestantwhichwereconsideredmarkedwithstickersbythemajority.
Aslongasthestickerswerepastedonablankspaceontheballot,Iagreethattheballotshouldbe
invalidatedunderSection211,Rule20,oftheOmnibusElectionCode.ButImaintainthatwherethe
stickers appeared to have been hastily and surreptitiously stuck on other parts of the ballots (mostly
diagonally and without any uniform location), this was done by persons other than the voters
themselves,preciselytoinvalidatetheballots.Itisillogicalforavotertotakethetroubleofwritingdown
the names of his candidates, sometimes laboriously, only to nullify the ballot (and all his votes) by
pastingastickeronit.(pp.257258,Rollo)
But,whatismorerevealingarethefollowingobservationsofRep.Cerillesinhisdissent,asfollows:
Basedontheevidencepresented,IamthoroughlyconvincedthatLeriaswassystematicallycheatedof
onehundred(100)votesineachofthefourprecinctsofLibagon.ThemajorityoftheTribunalrefuseto
reinstatethese400votesofLeriasinspiteoftheoverwhelmingweightofevidenceandthelawsand
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
jurisprudence in point. And now that she won by twenty (20) votes in the original tabulation on the
counterprotestsubmittedbeforetheTribunal,inspiteofthedismissalofherprotest,themajoritysimply
decidedtochangetheresultswithMercadocomingoutwithapluralityoffortytwo(42)votes.Alltold,
theresultsofthiselectionhavebeenmagicallychangedtwiceand,inbothinstances,alwaysagainst
the protestant Lerias. This is definitely bad precedent. It may be that in the future candidates will no
longer believe in the counting of votes for, after all, the results can easily be changed, or otherwise
replaced,substituted,modifiedoralteredasinthiscase,bythesheerforceofthemajority,nomatter
howerroneous,arbitraryandlegallyunjustifiedthatjudgmentmaybe.AlthoughIrecognizethereality
ofthecompositionofthisTribunal,stilIIamtemptedtoaskwhateverhappenedtoourconceptionand
applicationoftheRuleofLaw?
Havingaskedthatquestion,Ientertainseriousdoubtaboutthelegalityoftheactionundertakenbythe
majorityespeciallysosincethewinnerintheoriginaltabulationsuddenlybecametheloser.Clearly,it
wasanafterthoughtonthepartofthemajority.This,tosaytheleast,isanomalousbecausetheresult
of the screening of ballots had already been approved previously by the Tribunal after a random
checkingwasmadeinaccordancewithestablishedprocedures.
Ineffect,therefore,themajorityreopenedwhatwasalreadyapprovedandsimplyreconsideredtheir
previous ruling thus rejecting fiftyseven (57) ballots claimed by the protestant which were already
admitted in her favor, and invalidating three (3) more from her valid ballots. This action is arbitrary
becausethesealreadyadmittedballotswerereconsideredandrejectedwithoutthebenefitofanocular
review by the members of the Tribunal. And it becomes all the more irregular because these ballots
were just deducted from the total ballots claimed by the protestant and already admitted without
Identifyingwhichballotstheseare.
AbsentsuchIdentification,itisdownrightunfairtohavetheseballotsrejectedonthemeresaysoof
themajoritywithoutthebenefitoftheexamination.Mightisnotnecessarilyright.(pp.283284,Rollo)
ThiswasthesameobservationmadebytheHonorableJusticeHerrera,whenshestatedinherdissent,thus:
Intheexecutivesessionof15November1990,thereappreciationofsomeoftheballotswassought.
SomemembersoftheTribunalfirmlyopposedanyreopeningofthecaseonthegroundthatitwould
entaildelayinitsresolution,besidesthefactthatallobservations/objectionsshouldhavebeenraised
andruleduponduringtheappreciationstate.Attentionwasalsocalledtothefactthatrulingsonthe
ballotsappreciatedweremadebyatleastamajorityvoteofthememberspresentinmeetingswhere
there was a required quorum, hence, the resolutions arrived at were valid and official acts of the
Tribunal.Whentheissuewassubsequentlyputtoavote,amajorityofthemembersvotedtooverturn
the previous rulings of the Tribunal, even as the other members urged that the rulings made by the
Tribunalduringtheappreciationofballotsshouldnolongerbedisturbedasthecasehadalreadybeen
submittedfordecision.
It becomes only too obvious then that by sheer force of numbers by overturning at the post
appreciationstage,therulingsearliermadebytheTribunaladmittingtheclaimedballotsforProtestant
Leriasbydepartingfromtheinterpretationoftheneighborhoodruleheretoforeconsistentlyfollowedby
the tribunal by injecting `strange jurisprudence', particularly on the intent rule the majority has
succeeded in altering the figures that reflect the final outcome of this election protest and, in the
process, thwarting the true will of the electorate in the lone district of Southern Leyte. (pp. 168169,
Rollo)
Conclusion
Considering the indubitable evidence on record the 400 votes fraudulently taken away from Lerias should be
returned to her. So that in the entire municipality of Libagon, she received 1,811 votes. From the original 35,539
votes,Leriasshouldbecreditedwith35,939votesasagainstthe35,793votesofMercadogivingheramarginof
146votes.Whatevertheresultsofthereviewoftheballotsinthecounterprotestedprecinctswouldbe,(wherein
Mercadowonby67votesaccordingtothemajority,orasfoundbythedissentingmembers,Leriaswonby12votes
(dissentofJ.Herrera)orby20votes(dissentofRep.Cerilles)Leriaswouldstillbethewinner.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Honorable Electoral Tribunal in HRET Case No. 16 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Court declares that petitioner Rosette Yniguez Lerias is the duly elected representative of the Lone
DistrictoftheProvinceofSouthernLeyte.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,Giutierrez,Jr.,Bidin,GrioAquino,Medialdea,RegaladoandDavide,Jr.,concur.
Fernan,C.J.,MelencioHererra,Cruz,Feliciano,Sarmiento,**JJ.,tooknopart.
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105

SeparateOpinions
PADILLA,J.,dissenting:
InmydissentingopinioninG.R.Nos.9219192entitled"AntonioY.Co.vs.HouseElectoralTribunal"andG.R.Nos.
9220203 entitled "Sixto T. Balinguit vs. House Electoral Tribunal", which involved the question whether or not
thereinrespondentJoseOngwasnaturalbornFilipinocitizenand,thereforequalifiedornottobeamemberofthe
HouseofRepresentatives,Istatedfollowing,amomgothers:
Thepresentcontroversy,itwillbeobserved,involvesmorethanpreceivedirregularitiesintheconduct
ofacongressionalelectionoradisputedappreciationofballots,inwhichcases,itmaybecontended
with great legal force and persuasion that the decision of the electoral tribunal should be final and
conclusive,foritis,byconstitutionaldirective,madethesolejudgeconteststorelatingtosuchmatters.
Thepresentcontroversy,howeverinvolvesnolessthandeterminationofwhetherthequalificationsfor
membershipofhouseofRepresentatives,asprescribebytheConstitution,havebeenmet.Indeed,this
Courtwouldbeunforgivablyremissintheperformanceofitsduties,asmandatedbyConstitution,were
it allow a person, not a naturalborn Filipino citizen, to continue to sit as a Member of the House of
Representatives,solelybecausetheElectoralTribunalhasdeclaredhimtobeso.Insuchacase,the
tribunal have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as to
requiretheexercisebythisCourtofitspowerofjudicialreview.
Inthepresentcase,however,thequestioneddecisionoftheHouseElectoralTribunalrevolvesaroundquestionsof
factintheconnectionwithallegedirregularitiesintheconductofacongressionalelection.Regardlessofhowfarwe
maydifferfromthefactualfindingsoftheHouseElectoralTribunal,undertheConstitution,isthesolejudgethereof.
Thefarmersofthe1987Constitution,innocertainterms,providedthat:
SEC.17.TheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentativesshalleachhaveanElectoralTribunalwhich
shallbethesolejudgeofallcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returnsandqualificationsoftheirrespecti
ve member. 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
MembersoftheSenateoftheHouseofRepresentatives,asthecasemybe,whoshallbechosenon
thebasisofproportionalrepresentationfromthepoliticalpartiesororganizationsregisteredunderthe
partylistsystemrepresentedtherein.TheSeniorJusticeintheElectoralTribunalshallbeitschairman.
1(Emphasissupplied)
It is clear that the intent of the 1987 Constitution is to make the Electoral Tribunals of both the Senate and the
House of Representatives the sole of all election contests concerning their respective Members. This is vividly
highlightedbythefollowingdiscussiononthematter:
MR.MAAMBONG.Thankyou.MadamPresident.
Onemorequestiononthispoint.Couldwemakeageneralstatementthatthejurisdiction
of this electoral tribunal, either of the Senate or of the House, is exclusive and unlimite
and,herefore,therewillbenoappealtotheSupremeCourt?
MR.AZCUNA.Itisthesolejudge,Ithinkthatfurtherimpliesthatthereisnoappealelsewhere.
MR.MAAMBONG.Intheotherwords,itsjudgmentisfinalandnotappealable.
MR.AZCUNA.Insofarasthequalifications,returnsandelectionsareconcerned.2
The use the words "sole" emphasizes the eclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred on the House Electoral
TribunalsuchthatjudicialreviewoffinaldecisionsorresolutionsoftheHouseElectoralTribunalispossibleonlyin
theexerciseoftheSupremeCourt's'extraordinaryjurisdiction',i.e.,uponadeterminationthatheelectoraltribunal's
decisionorresolutionwasrendered,withoutorinexcessofitsjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseofdiscretionor,upon
aclearshowingofsucharbitraryandimprovidentusebytheTribunalofitspowerasconstitutesaclearunmitigated
error,manifestlyconsitutingsuchagraveabuseofdiscretionthattherehastobearemedyforsuchabuse.3
The House Electoral Tribunal is not an ordinary agency established by statute or executive fiat to better handle
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
administrative concerns assumed by line departments of the executive branch. It is a constitutional body created
preciselytobethesolejudge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
HouseofRepresentative.4
TheHouseElectoralTribunal,beingthesolejudgeofallcontestrelatingtotheelection,returnsandqualificationsof
members of the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court may not review its decisions except when the
Tribunal is lcearly shown to have issued them with grave abuse of discretion as to amount to alck or excess of
jurisdiction.5Itisfundamentalthatforgraveabuseofdiscretiontoexist,theremustbea"capriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalentto
lackofjurisdictionorthatthepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassion,prejudiceorpersonalhostility,amountingtoanevasion
ofpositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoinedortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.6
The House Electoral Tribunal is a tribunal in the true in the true and strict sense of the term, with the limited but
exclusivejurisdictiongrantedtoitbythefundamentallawanditsfunctionsareproperlyjudicial.Thispowergranted
bytheConstitutionisnotasabstractoremptyasacarcass,butrealandpositive,withalltheattributesforeffective
manifestationintheexternalworldand,likeallhumanpowers,needsthetoolsandinstrumentslinkingthecause
andeffect.7
I submit that the Supreme Court canno excercise the power of judicial review over decisions and orders of the
House Electoral Tribunal, except only upon the strongest showing that a constitutional normlike the mandate of
naturalborn citizenship for members of the House of Representativehas been violated, or a patently manifest
graveabuseofauthoritycommittedfor"courtsaremerecreaturesofthestateandofitspower,andwhiletheirlife
ascourtscontinues,theymustobeythelawoftheircreator.8
Therecordsofthiscase,disclosethatthepetitionersanchorsherargumentsonallegedelectionabormalities.And
yet,allherallegationsarebasedonquestionsoffacttheappreciationofwhichvestssolely within the jurisdiction
andcompetenceoftheHouseElectoralTribunal.NowhereintherecordsofthiscaseisitdisclosedthattheHouse
ElectoralTribunalresortedtoarbitraryorimprovidentuseofitspowerastoconstituteadenialofdueprocessnoris
thereanyevidenceofaclearunmitigatederrormanifestlyconstitutingsuchagraveabuseofdiscretionforwhichthe
Court should afford a remedy. The absence of grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of the facts, is
demonstratedbythefactthattheTribunalwassocloselydivided,whichmeansthatthefactsweresusceptibleof
appreciationonewayortheother.ItispreciselybecauseofsuchsituationsthattheConstitutionhasconstitutedthe
HouseElectoralTribunalnotthisCourtasthesolejudgeofallelectioncontestsinvolvingmembersoftheHouseof
Representatives. The proper role for the Court to perform is to apply the law based on the findings of fact of the
electoraltribunal.Thisinevitablyleadstoadismissalofthepetitioninthiscase.
ThisCourtcannotremedy,asthemajoritywouldhaveit,asituationwheretheHouseElectoralTribunalhasarrived
ataconclusionwhich,intheperceptionofthemajorityinthisCourt,isgravelyerroneous.TheSupremeCourtis,in
myopinion,powerlesstoreview,muchmore,revisethedecisionoftheHouseElectoralTribunalinthiscasefor
otherwise it can be charged with usurping power not granted to it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court,
moreover,isnotatrieroffactsandcandonomorethantoabidebytheHouseElectoralTribunal'sappreciationof
the facts in cases within its unquestioned exclusive jurisdiction. True, the circumstance that the decisions of the
HouseElectoralTribunalarefinalandwithoutappealmayseemunreasonable,orbetterstill,inequitable,butthen
thedecisionsofthisCourtinmatterswithinitsjurisdictionarelikewisefinalandwithoutappeal."Theremustbea
final tribunal somewhere for deciding every question in the world. Injustice may take place in all tribunals for all
humaninstitutionsareimperfectcourtsaswellascommissionsandlegislatures...Itmaybethatourlegislatures,
(or, in this case, our electoral tribunals), are invested with too much power, open as they are, to influences so
dangerous to the interests of individuals, corporations and society. But such is the Constitution of our republican
formofgovernmentandweareboundtoabidebyituntilitcanbecorrectedinalegitimateway. 9Afterall,"thecourtsare
withoutauthoritytorepressevilsaveasthelawhasproscribeditandthenonlyaccordingtolaw.10
Believing, therefore, that what the Court seeks to do today in this case carries unwarranted and even dangerous
consequences four our state, government and people, in that it blurs (if not demolishes) the constitutional
boundariesbetweentheCourtandtheElectoralTribunalsinmatterswherethelatterare,byexpressconstitutional
design,andmandate,madesolejudges,IvotetoDISMISSthepetition.
SeparateOpinions
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
9220203 entitled "Sixto T. Balinguit vs. House Electoral Tribunal", which involved the question whether or not
with great legal force and persuasion that the decision of the electoral tribunal should be final and
it allow a person, not a naturalborn Filipino citizen, to continue to sit as a Member of the House of
tribunal have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as to
ve member. 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
1(Emphasissupplied)
It is clear that the intent of the 1987 Constitution is to make the Electoral Tribunals of both the Senate and the
House of Representatives the sole of all election contests concerning their respective Members. This is vividly
of this electoral tribunal, either of the Senate or of the House, is exclusive and unlimite
The use the words "sole" emphasizes the eclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred on the House Electoral
The House Electoral Tribunal is not an ordinary agency established by statute or executive fiat to better handle
administrative concerns assumed by line departments of the executive branch. It is a constitutional body created
preciselytobethesolejudge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
members of the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court may not review its decisions except when the
Tribunal is lcearly shown to have issued them with grave abuse of discretion as to amount to alck or excess of
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
The House Electoral Tribunal is a tribunal in the true in the true and strict sense of the term, with the limited but
andeffect.7
I submit that the Supreme Court canno excercise the power of judicial review over decisions and orders of the
House Electoral Tribunal, except only upon the strongest showing that a constitutional normlike the mandate of
naturalborn citizenship for members of the House of Representativehas been violated, or a patently manifest
yet,allherallegationsarebasedonquestionsoffacttheappreciationofwhichvestssolely within the jurisdiction
Court should afford a remedy. The absence of grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of the facts, is
Representatives. The proper role for the Court to perform is to apply the law based on the findings of fact of the
otherwise it can be charged with usurping power not granted to it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court,
the facts in cases within its unquestioned exclusive jurisdiction. True, the circumstance that the decisions of the
final tribunal somewhere for deciding every question in the world. Injustice may take place in all tribunals for all
(or, in this case, our electoral tribunals), are invested with too much power, open as they are, to influences so
dangerous to the interests of individuals, corporations and society. But such is the Constitution of our republican
formofgovernmentandweareboundtoabidebyituntilitcanbecorrectedinalegitimateway. 9Afterall,"thecourtsare
Believing, therefore, that what the Court seeks to do today in this case carries unwarranted and even dangerous
consequences four our state, government and people, in that it blurs (if not demolishes) the constitutional
#SeparateOpinions
9220203entitled"SixtoT.Balinguitvs.HouseElectoralTribunal",whichinvolvedthequestionwhetherornot
withgreatlegalforceandpersuasionthatthedecisionoftheelectoraltribunalshouldbefinaland
itallowaperson,notanaturalbornFilipinocitizen,tocontinuetositasaMemberoftheHouseof
tribunalhaveactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionasto
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
vemember.EachElectoralTribunalshallbecomposedofnineMembers,threeofwhomshallbe
justicesoftheSupremeCourttobedesignatedbytheChiefJustice,andtheremainingsixshallbe
1(Emphasissupplied)
Itisclearthattheintentofthe1987ConstitutionistomaketheElectoralTribunalsofboththeSenateandthe
HouseofRepresentativesthesoleofallelectioncontestsconcerningtheirrespectiveMembers.Thisisvividly
ofthiselectoraltribunal,eitheroftheSenateoroftheHouse,isexclusiveandunlimite
Theusethewords"sole"emphasizestheeclusivecharacterofthejurisdictionconferredontheHouseElectoral
TheHouseElectoralTribunalisnotanordinaryagencyestablishedbystatuteorexecutivefiattobetterhandle
administrativeconcernsassumedbylinedepartmentsoftheexecutivebranch.Itisaconstitutionalbodycreated
preciselytobethesolejudgeofallcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returnsandqualificationsofmembersofthe
membersoftheHouseofRepresentatives,theSupremeCourtmaynotreviewitsdecisionsexceptwhenthe
Tribunalislcearlyshowntohaveissuedthemwithgraveabuseofdiscretionastoamounttoalckorexcessof
TheHouseElectoralTribunalisatribunalinthetrueinthetrueandstrictsenseoftheterm,withthelimitedbut
andeffect.7
IsubmitthattheSupremeCourtcannoexcercisethepowerofjudicialreviewoverdecisionsandordersofthe
HouseElectoralTribunal,exceptonlyuponthestrongestshowingthataconstitutionalnormlikethemandateof
naturalborncitizenshipformembersoftheHouseofRepresentativehasbeenviolated,orapatentlymanifest
yet,allherallegationsarebasedonquestionsoffacttheappreciationofwhichvestssolelywithinthejurisdiction
9/9/2015 G.R. No. 97105
Courtshouldaffordaremedy.Theabsenceofgraveabuseofdiscretionintheappreciationofthefacts,is
Representatives.TheproperrolefortheCourttoperformistoapplythelawbasedonthefindingsoffactofthe
otherwiseitcanbechargedwithusurpingpowernotgrantedtoitbytheConstitution.TheSupremeCourt,
thefactsincaseswithinitsunquestionedexclusivejurisdiction.True,thecircumstancethatthedecisionsofthe
finaltribunalsomewherefordecidingeveryquestionintheworld.Injusticemaytakeplaceinalltribunalsforall
(or,inthiscase,ourelectoraltribunals),areinvestedwithtoomuchpower,openastheyare,toinfluencesso
dangeroustotheinterestsofindividuals,corporationsandsociety.ButsuchistheConstitutionofourrepublican
formofgovernmentandweareboundtoabidebyituntilitcanbecorrectedinalegitimateway.9Afterall,"thecourtsare
Believing,therefore,thatwhattheCourtseekstodotodayinthiscasecarriesunwarrantedandevendangerous
consequencesfourourstate,governmentandpeople,inthatitblurs(ifnotdemolishes)theconstitutional
#Footnotes
1Mr.JusticeIsaganiA.Cruz,dissentingtogetherwithTribunalChairmanJusticeAmeurfinaM.
Herrera,JusticeFlorentinoP.Feliciano,andCongressmanAntonioH.Cerilles,inBalanquqit,Jr.v.
OngChuan,Jr.(HRETCaseNo.15),86D.G.No.4,January22,1990,720721.
2Exh.H,NAMFRELreport,NationalHeadquarters'copyforPrecinct6Exh.CC,NAMFRELreport,
NationalHeadquarters'copyforPrecinct10Exh.X,NAMFRELreport,NationalHeadquarters'copyfor
Precinct18andExh.N,NAMFRELreport,NationalHeadquarters'copyforPrecinct19,andExhs.EE,
FF,GG,HH,Gaao'scopiesoftheNAMFRELreportsforPrecincts6,10,18&19.
PADILLA,J.
*RetiredonOctober8,1991.
1Section17,ArticleVIofthe1987Constitution.
2Recordofthe1986ConstitutionalCommission,Tuesday,July22,1986foundinvolumetwo,page
113.
3Roblesvs.HouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal,G.R.No.86647,February5,1990,181scra
780.
4Velosovs.HouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal,G.R.No.88372,July18,1989.
5Aznarvs.HouseofRepresentatives,G.R.No.65000,January9,1990.
6Peoplevs.Marave,G.R.No.L19023,July31,1964,11SCRA618.
7Suanesvs.ChiefAccountantoftheSenate,81Phil.818(1948)
8Cardozo,GrowthoftheLaw,p.49.
9JusticeHarlanF.Stone'sdissentinUnitedStatesvs.Butler,245.
10Viereckvs.UnitedStates,318US236,245.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

Lerias V HRET

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

Lerias V HRET

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/9/2015 G.R. No.

Precinct Provincial Comelec

"6 162votes 62 votes

"10 123" 23"

"18 132" 32"

"19 156" 56"

precincts 2,154 6,885

UNCONTESTED 33,639 28,654

(physicalcount) 2,287 6,867

Totals 35,926 35,521

Ballots 362 252

Totals 35,564 35,269

FINAL 35,590 35,544

proclamation 35,793 35,539

precincts 2,154 6,885

precincts 33,639 28,654

ascorrected 2,292 (formerly 6,851 (formerly

TOTAL 35,931 35,256 (formerly

Rejectedballots 363 269

TOTAL 35,568 35,256 (formerly

(ascorrected) 25 347 (formerly

TOTALVOTES 35,593 35,605 (formerly

Precinct Lerias' Lerias'

Protested Credited Claimed

Precincts Lerias Mercado

Inthe entirecongressionaldistrictLeriasobtained 35,937votes whileMercadoobtained 35,795 votes.These are

Precinct Lerias Mercado

Votes Per 35,539 35,793

precincts 6,885 2,154

precincts 28,654 33,639

ofballots 6,867 2,287

Rejected 249 363

You might also like