DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V.

RAMOS
253 SCRA 559
(CONCEPCION)

FACTS:
This is an original action filed before the SC acting as a Presidential Electoral
Tribunal.

SC (P.E.T) discussed the purpose of an election protest 1. The purpose of an election

protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed elected by the board of
canvassers is really the lawful choice of the electorate. What is sought in an election
protest is the correction of the canvass of the votes, which is the basis of the
proclamation of the winning candidate. An election contest involves a public office
in which the public has an interest. Certainly, the act of a losing candidate of
recognizing the one who is proclaimed the winner should not bar the losing
candidate from questioning the validity of the election of the winner in the manner
provided by law.

Miriam Defensor-Santiago (DS) ran for presidency in the 1992 National Elections.
She lost, but filed this protest against the winner, Pres. FV Ramos.

Subsequently however, she ran for Senator in the 1995 Senatorial elections. She
won and assumed office as Senator in 1995. Considering this factual milieu, the
issues revolve on whether this present electoral protest would still be valid, even
after the protestant has already assumed office as Senator, noting that should she
win this protest, her term as president would coincide with her term as senator,
which she is now in. Now, in 1996, the SC as PET decides the case.

HELD:
There was abandonment of protest.

Yes. DS filed her certificate of candidacy to run for senator without qualification or
reservation. In doing so, she entered into a political contract with the electorate,
that, if elected, she would assume the office as senator. This is in accord with the
constitutional doctrine that a public office is a public trust. In assuming the office of
Senator, she has effectively abandoned her determination to pursue this present
protest. Such abandonment operates to render this protest moot. SC cannot
subscribe to the view of the Protestee that by filing her certificate of candidacy for
Senator Protestant Santiago ipso facto forfeited her claim to the office of President
pursuant to Section 67 of B.P. Blg. 881. Plainly, the said section applies exclusively
to an incumbent elective official who files a certificate of candidacy for any office
"other than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity." Even more plain is that
the Protestant was not the incumbent President at the time she filed her certificate
of candidacy for Senator nor at any time before that.

Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform the PET within 10
days if after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she
still wishes to present evidence. Since DS has not informed the Tribunal of any such
intention, such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so.
1
De Castro v. Ginete