48. Abayon vs HRET, G.R. No.

222236, 3 May 2016

These are consolidated cases against the disqualification of elect representative of the first
legislative district of Northern Samar, Harlin C. Abayon.

Harlin C. Abayon and Raul A. Daza are contenders for the position of Representative in the First
Legislative District of Northern Samar, during the May 13, 2013 Elections. Out of the votes cast in the
322 clustered precincts in the First District of Northern Samar, Abayon emerged as the winner after
obtaining the majority vote of 72,857. Daza placed second with a total of 72,805 votes. The difference
was 52 votes. On May 17, 2013, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Northern Samar proclaimed
Abayon as the duly elected member of the House of Representatives for the said legislative district.

In its February 3, 2016 Decision, the HRET annulled the election results in five (5) clustered
precincts in the municipalities of Lavezares and Victoria because of the commission of massive
terrorism. As a result of nullifying the election results in the said clustered precincts, the HRET deducted
the votes received by the parties in the concerned clustered precincts and concluded that Daza obtained
72,436 votes and Abayon had 72,002 votes.

The HRET ratiocinated that there was clear and convincing evidence to warrant the annulment
of the elections in the concerned precincts because the terrorism affected more than 50% of the votes
cast in the said precincts and it was impossible to distinguish the good votes from the bad.

Issue:

Whether or not the HRET had jurisdiction to annul the elections in the contested precincts in the
municipalities of Lavezares and Victoria; considering that Abayon asserts that the nullification of the
election results in the concerned clustered precincts was not within the jurisdiction of the HRET because
the annulment of election results on the ground of terrorism is akin to a declaration of failure of
elections, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). He avers
that there was no clear and convincing evidence to establish that terrorism affected more than 50% of
the votes cast and that it was impossible to distinguish the good votes from the bad.

Ruling:

Yes. The power of the HRET to annul elections. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution,
“The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members." In this case, the HRET had jurisdiction to determine whether there was terrorism in the
contested precincts. In the event that the HRET would conclude that terrorism indeed existed in the said
precincts, then it could annul the election results in the said precincts to the extent of deducting the
votes received by Daza and Abayon in order to remain faithful to its constitutional mandate to
determine who among the candidates received the majority of the valid votes cast.
49. Lazatin vs Comelec, 157 SCRA 337 (1988)

Carmelo Lazatin questioned the jurisdiction of the (Commission on Elections) COMELEC to annul
his proclamation after he had taken his oath of office, assumed office, and discharged the duties of
Congressman of the 1st District of Pampanga. Lazatin claims that the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) and not the COMELEC is the sole judge of all election contests.

Francisco Buan, Jr., and Lorenzo Timbol (Lazatin’s opposition), alleged that Lazatin’s petition had
become moot and academic because the assailed COMELEC Resolution had already become final and
executory when the SC issued a TRO on October 6, 1987. In the COMMENT of the Sol-Gen, he alleges
that the petition should be given due course because the proclamation was valid. The order issued by
the COMELEC directing the canvassing board to proclaim the winner if warranted under Section 245 of
the Omnibus Election Code,” was in effect a grant of authority by the COMELEC to the canvassing board,
to proclaim the winner. A Separate Comment was filed by the COMELEC, alleging that the proclamation
of Lazatin was illegal and void because the board simply corrected the returns contested by Lazatin
without waiting for the final resolutions of the petitions of candidates Timbol, Buan, Jr., and Lazatin
himself, against certain election returns.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issue should be placed under the HRET’s jurisdiction.

Ruling:

Yes. The jurisdiction belongs to HRET. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, “The
Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members."
In this case, the alleged invalidity of the proclamation (which had been previously ordered by the
COMELEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection therewith, and despite the pendency of the
protests of the rival candidates, is a matter that is also addressed, concerning the premises, to the sound
judgment of the Electoral Tribunal.
50. SANCHEZ, vs. COMELEC 114 SCRA 454, 1987

Augusto Sanchez, a candidate therein, petitioned the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to

conduct a recount of the votes. Allegedly, votes intended for him, which were merely written as
“Sanchez”, were considered as stray votes because of the sameness of his last name to that of Gil
Sanchez – another candidate who was later disqualified. Sanchez was then running as the 25th in
ranking among the candidates. He filed an urgent petition to re-count or re-appreciate those votes in
favor of him.

COMELEC, by a vote of 5 to 2 reversed its earlier decision in denying Sanchez’ petition and it
granted Sanchez’ request for recount and re-appreciation. Enrile then filed a petition against COMELEC
and Sanchez on the ground that Sanchez’ petition for recount is not a pre-proclamation controversy
which involves issues affecting extrinsic validity, and not intrinsic validity, of the said election returns
and that his lead over Sanchez was 73,034 votes, with only 31,000 votes remaining to be canvassed in 3
towns, could not offset his lead over Sanchez.

Issue:

Whether Sanchez’ petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of ballots filed with the Comelec
may be considered a summary pre-proclamation controversy falling within the Comelec’s exclusive
jurisdiction or properly pertains to the realm of election protest falling within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal as “the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualification of the [Senate’s] members.” (Art. VI, Sec. 17, Constitution).

Ruling:

The Court rules that Sanchez’ petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of the ballots cast in
the senatorial elections does not present a proper issue for a summary pre-proclamation controversy.

The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under sec. 243
of the Omnibus Election Code. The enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in pre-
proclamation controversy, is restrictive and exclusive. In the absence of any clear showing or proof that
the election returns canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (sec. 234), appear to have
been tampered with, falsified or prepared under duress (sec. 235) and/or contain discrepancies in the
votes credited to any candidate, the difference of which affects the result of the election (sec. 236),
which are the only instances where a pre-proclamation recount maybe resorted to, granted the
preservation of the integrity of the ballot box and its contents, Sanchez’ petition must fail. The complete
election returns whose authenticity is not in question, must be prima facie considered valid for the
purpose of canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning candidates.

(mahirap i-digest sorry :’( )