ARROYO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (246 SCRA 384) FACTS:

Petition for review of a decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

Congressional Candidate private respondent Augusto Syjuco filed an election protest before public respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) 5 days after the Makati Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner Joker Arroyo the duly elected Congressman for Makati in May 11 19992 elections. Essentially premised on alleged irregularities/anomalies in the tabulation and entries of votes and massive fraud, private respondent Syjuco sought the revision and recounting of ballots cast in 1292 out of total 1714 precincts of Makati from which result he aimed to be declared as the duly elected congressman of Makati. Petitioner filed a counter-protest, questioning the residence qualification of

private respondent but the case was dismissed by public respondent HRET.

Revisions of the ballots was undertaken but not without serious irregularities having been unearthed in the course thereof. Tasked by public respondent HRET to investigate on the matter, former SC Justice Emilio Ganvcayo confirmed the irregularities and that Arroyo was the classic victim of the unlawful

exercise. At or about time the revision was completed and the three precincts left unaccounted for, private respondent Syjuco moved for the withdrawal of these remaining unrevised protested precincts on the ground that he has presumably overtaken Arroyo’s lead of 13559 votes. Reception of evidence followed:

Private respondent’s evidence were all documentary and voluminous at that consisting of over 200,000 pages which are mere photocopies of the original. On the other hand, petitioner’s evidence consisted of certified true copies of the Revision Reports and election turns. Despite the petitioner’s objection about the probative value of the respondent’s exhibit, HRET admitted the evidence for whatever worth they may have.

Petitioner and private respondent filed their respective memoranda simultaneously. Private respondent now called upon public respondent HRET to decide the case on the basis of what private respondent admits as a “truly innovative and NON-TRADITIONAL process”- their precinct-level document-based evidences. By reason of the private respondent’s allegations, public respondent HRET ordered him to cause why his protest should not be dismissed. By a 6-3 vote, public respondent HRET resolved not to dismiss the protest, to continue with the examination and evaluation of the evidence on record, and thereafter to decide and case on the merits. The Resolution was issued on Feb 15 1994. In their

dissenting opinion, the 3 justices had to say that the protestant’s radical shift has no legal precedent; the instant protest shall be decided in accordance with the tradition process of recounting and revision of ballots as provided by the Rules of the Tribunal and by any innovative and non-traditional process denominated as precinct-level document-based evidence alleged in protestant’s memorandum.

Nonetheless, protestant was candid enough to admit in his memorandum that to overcome a substantial margin of well over 12, 000 votes the revision of ballots alone would not suffice and to keep his protest alive has to devise the broader non-traditional determination of the existence of precinct-level-document-based anomalies even is the same is unauthorized by law.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the protest but to no avail. No hearings were conducted thereafter. The judgements were declared annulling the proclamation of Arroyo, declaring Syjuco as the duly elected representative in view of the massive fraud, irregularities and violation of election laws in conformity with the mandate of COMELEC. “to prosecute cases of violation of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices. (par (6) Sec 2 Article9-c 1987 Constitution) Without filing a motion for reconsideration of pubic respondent HRET’s decision, petitioner Arroyo filed the instant petition setting the ff issues:

ISSUES:

Whether or not:

Public respondent acted with grave abuse discretion and without jurisdiction when it refused to dismiss HRET Case after Syjuco belatedly changed the theory of his cases and introduced new issues

The HRET”s decision dated Jan25 1995 was rendered in violation of the petitioner’s right

Public respondent acted capriciously and with grave abuse of discretion when it rejected long-standing legal doctrines on elections and annulment; disregard the people’s right to suffrage; ignored the basic rules of evidence; gravely or deliberately misapprehended the facts.

DECISION:

The petition was GRANTED and public respondent HRET’s majority decision was set aside. Syjuco guilty of indirect contempt is fined the amount P1000 to be paid within 5 days from the receipt of the decision.

RATIO:

However guised or justified by private respondent , this innovative theory introduced for the first time broadened the scope of the election protest beyond what he originally sought-the mere revision of ballots.

Private respondent intended to completely abandon the process and results of the revision and sought to rely on “precinct-level document-based evidence”. This is clearly substantial amendment of the election protest expressly proscribed by Rule 28 of the HRET internal rules” After the expiration of the period for filing of the protest; counter-protest or petition for quo warranto, substantial amendments which broaden the scope of the action or introduce an additional cause of action shall not be allowed.

The least that HRET could have done thereafter was to conduct further hearing so that Arroyo may have examined, objected to and adduced evidence controverting private respondent Syjuco’s ‘precinct-level document-based evidence: despite the time within which the parties are allowed to present their evidence as already lapsed. Petitioner’s right to due process was clearly violated.

In an election protest, the protestant, or counter-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 the filing of protest or counter protest. Syjuco is bound by Arroyo’s victory over him by 13092 votes. He cannot be permitted after having lost thereon to repudiate his theory and cause action and adopt another and seek to re-litigate the matter anew either in the same forum or on-appeal.

Mere photocopied documents as evidence violate the best evidence rule. Certain vital election documents were procured at the sole instance of the ponente of the majority decision which as the Tribunal readily admitted, were never offered in evidence by either of the parties. The majority congressmen-members of the Tribunal w/o the participation of the 3 Justices declared that 10484 of the contested signatures are fake. This violates Rule 68 of Tribunal’s own rules which requires that all questions be submitted to the Tribunal as a body but also in Rule 5 which further requires the presence of at least (1) justice member to constitute a valid quorum.

Annulment of election results is done only in extreme cases of fraud. As a guide, Election Tribunal itself has laid down 2 mandatory requisites for the annulment of election returns. 1) more than 50% of the total number of votes in the precinct or precincts were involves2) the votes must be shown to be affected by fraud, irregularities and anomalies. HRET annulled 50,000 votes w/o a dint of compliance with these requisites. It also disregarded election results on several precincts on the basis of omissions committed either through mere oversight ot plain negligence on the part of election officials or employees. The bulk of omissions consisted of lack or absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors and SC found that these omissions, administrative in nature, cannot be used a ground to nullify results. This maked private respondent argument that the petition should be dismissed for failure to first fielm a motion for reconsideration untenable. The concerted action of the Tribunal to disregard the rules of evidence makes the recourse for reconsideration nugatory . it is well-settled that a prior motion for reconsideration can be dispensed with is as in the case petitioner’s fundamental right to due process was violated.

Rules and uniformity of procedure are as essential to procure truth and exactness in elections as in anything else. Thus with the patent nullity of the entire proceedings before the public respondent HRET and its majority decision in the election protest field by private respondent, petitioner’s proclamation as the winning congressman deemed not to have been challenges at all. And finally, in a Resolution dated March 14, 1995, the Court required Syjuco to explain why he should not be held for indirect contempt since his Addendum which he prepared appear to undermine treh integrity of some Court members:”there may also be linkages between protestee Arroyo and Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, about whom unkind

rumors are rife that Her Honor is ‘gumagapang’ in the Supreme Court, for Arroyo.” in his explanation, private respondent averred that he merely expressed a simple citizen’s grievance in accordance to his observations and based on his firm convictions and that his statements were not aimed to undermined the integrity of some Members of the Court.

Want of intention is no excuse for language use for it s taken in the ordinary meaning attached to them by impartial observers. Finding respondent statement’s guilty of indirect contempt.

GUERRERO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (336 SCRA 458)