EN BANC
G.R. No. 158359 March 23, 2004
ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO, petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ABDULLAH S. MANGOTARA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition brought by Congressman Abdullah D. Dimaporo (Dimaporo), as petitioner, seeking to nullify the twin Resolutions1 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which denied his Motion for Technical Evaluation of the Thumbmarks and Signatures Affixed in the Voters Registration Records and Voting Records 2 and Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 03-408 Denying the Motion for Technical Examination of Voting Records .3
A brief factual background is in order.
On July 20, 2001, Dimaporo was proclaimed a Member of the House of Representatives, representing the 2nd Legislative District of Lanao del Norte.
Pursuant to the 1998 Rules of the HRET (HRET Rules),4 congressional candidate Abdullah S. Mangotara (Mangotara) filed on July 30, 2001 a Petition of Protest (Ad Cautelam),5 seeking, among others, the technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the Voters Registration Records (VRRs)/Book of Voters and the List of Voters with Voting Records in all the protested precincts of the municipality of Sultan Naga Dimaporo (SND). Mangotara alleged that the massive substitution of voters and other electoral irregularities perpetrated by Dimaporo’s supporters will be uncovered and proven by the revision of ballots and the comparison between the signatures and thumbmarks appearing in the VRRs/Book of Voters and those appearing in the List of Voters with Voting Records used on election day or those affixed at the back of the VRRs. From this and other premises, he concluded that he is the duly-elected representative of the 2nd District of Lanao del Norte.
On October 10, 2001, Dimaporo filed an Answer with Counter-Protest6 impugning all the ballots and votes counted in favor of Mangotara in all precincts of all the 15 municipalities of Lanao del Norte, except SND. He alleged that irregularities and electoral frauds, consisting of massive substitute voting, i.e., persons other than the registered voters voted in favor of Mangotara, were committed in the counter-protested precincts. Moreover, pairs or groups of ballots written by only one person were counted in favor of Mangotara. Accordingly, Dimaporo prayed for, among others, the technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the voters who allegedly voted in the questioned precincts.
Before revision proceedings were conducted, Mangotara filed an Urgent Motion for Technical Examination7 dated May 3, 2002, praying for the technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the Registration Records/Book of Voters and List of Voters with Voting Records in all the precincts of SND. According to him, the fire that gutted all the ballot boxes used in SND made the revision of ballots in the said municipality physically impossible. Hence, technical examination was the only means by which the HRET can determine Mangotara’s claim of massive substitute voting. Mangotara also argued that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) had started retrieving the election records needed for the forthcoming Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections. There was no assurance that the integrity of these records will be preserved. Thus, there was an urgent need for technical examination of the election records. Moreover, Mangotara averred that the results of the technical examination are determinative of the final resolution of the election protest in view of the fact that Dimaporo’s presumptive lead over him was only 5,487 votes.
Dimaporo filed an Opposition to the Motion for Technical Examination on May 24, 2002.
Noting that "the Tribunal cannot evaluate the questioned ballots because there are no ballots but only election documents to consider," the HRET granted Mangotara’s motion and permitted the latter "to engage an expert to assist him in the prosecution of his case." 8 Accordingly, the National Bureau of Investigation conducted the technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the voters of SND affixed in their VRRs and other voting records.
After the completion of the revision of ballots, Dimaporo filed on November 11, 2002 a Motion for Technical Examination of the Thumbmarks and Signatures Affixed in the Voters Registration Records and Voting Records9 of: (a) 198 revised pilot counter-protested precincts; (b) 47 pilot counter-protested precincts; and (c) 36 precincts of the municipality of Tangcal (Tangcal). The motion was filed allegedly in order to substantiate Dimaporo’s claims that pairs or groups of ballots were written by only one person and that there was massive substitute voting in the counter-protested precincts. Dimaporo further alleged that, upon opening 47 ballot boxes of the 47 counter-protested precincts, it was discovered that the boxes did not contain any ballot. Hence, no revision could be made. Likewise, the ballots for 36 precincts of Tangcal could no longer be revised because the ballot boxes had been burned. Citing these circumstances as akin to those mentioned by Mangotara in his motion, Dimaporo moved that his request for technical examination be granted.
The HRET denied Dimaporo’s motion in its assailed Resolution No. 03-408.10 The Tribunal declared that Dimaporo’s allegations that pairs or groups of ballots were written by only one person and that substitute voting took place in the first and second groups of precincts are matters which are "well within the judicial determination of the Tribunal and which may be determined without resort to technical examination."11 As regards the 36 precincts of Tangcal, the HRET found it physically impossible to conduct a technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of voters as found in the VRRs and Book of Voters due to the destruction of the pertinent election documents. In its questioned Resolution No. 03-166,12 the Tribunal denied Dimaporo’s Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 03-408 Denying the Motion for Technical Examination of Voting Records.13
Hence, Dimaporo filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and/or Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on June 8, 2003.14
Dimaporo claims that the HRET deprived him of equal protection when the latter denied his motion for technical examination even as it had previously granted Mangotara’s similar motion. According to him, his motion should have been granted because there is no valid distinction between the counter-protested precincts and the precincts in SND subject of Mangotara’s motion since, in both instances, the ballots were no longer available for revision. He also asserts that the denial of his motion deprived him of procedural due process or the right to present scientific evidence to show the massive substitute voting committed in the counter-protested precincts.
On July 21, 2003, Mangotara filed his Comment15 averring that the petition is an obvious dilatory tactic to render the election protest moot and academic by the expiration of the term involved. He points out that there are substantial differences between his own motion for technical examination and that of petitioner. For instance, in SND, all the ballot boxes were destroyed by fire, whereas those of the 47 counter-protested precincts were not. In fact, except for the ballots themselves, the election documents and other paraphernalia remained intact. Another difference is that Mangotara specifically contested16 the election results in SND on the ground of substitution of voters, whereas massive substitute voting was allegedly a mere general averment in Dimaporo’s counter-protest. Moreover, Mangotara moved for technical examination even before the revision proceedings, whereas Dimaporo’s motion was anchored on Rule 4217 of the HRET Rules and was filed only after the revision of ballots. As regards the counter-protested precincts of Tangcal, Mangotara avers that destruction of the ballot boxes is not among the grounds for technical examination under Rule 42 of the HRET Rules, the provision cited by Dimaporo. Mangotara further claims that the former cannot ask for technical examination under Rule 42 of the HRET Rules in order to substantiate allegations of substitute voting because this was not cited as a ground for objection in the course of the revision of ballots. Rule 42 of the HRET Rules provides that the party moving for technical examination must specify the objections made in the course of the revision of ballots which the movant intends to substantiate with the results of the technical examination. Furthermore, Dimaporo was not deprived of his right to present evidence because the questioned Resolution No. 03-408 itself states that all election documents "are still subject to the scrutiny of the Tribunal during the appreciation of evidence." Hence, at the appropriate time and in accordance with HRET Rules, Dimaporo will be given an opportunity to present his evidence.
The Solicitor General filed a Comment18 on July 29, 2003 arguing that there is a distinction between the motions filed by Mangotara and Dimaporo. Whereas Mangotara’s motion was filed before the completion of the reviefore the completion of the reviro was filed after the revision of ballots. The HRET acted within the confines of its discretion. Hence, there is no need for this Court to exercise its extraordinary power of certiorari.
Dimaporo filed a Consolidated Reply to the Comments of the Public and Private Respondent19 on August 12, 2003. Thereafter, the parties filed their respective Memoranda20 as required by the Court.
We are not prepared to conclude that the assailed Resolutions of the HRET offend the equal protection clause. Equal protection simply means that all persons and things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed.21 It follows that the existence of a valid and substantial distinction justifies divergent treatment.
It should be mentioned that Dimaporo does not question the HRET Rules but only the Tribunal’s exercise or implementation thereof as manifested in the questioned Resolutions. According to him, since the ballot boxes subject of his petition and that of Mangotara were both unavailable for revision, his motion, like Mangotara’s, should be granted.
This argument is rather simplistic. Purposely or not, it fails to take into account the distinctions extant in Mangotara’s protest vis-à-vis Dimaporo’s counter-protest which validate the grant of Mangotara’s motion and the denial of Dimaporo’s.
First. The election results in SND were the sole subjects of Mangotara’s protest. The opposite is true with regard to Dimaporo’s counter-protest as he contested the election results in all municipalities but SND.
Significantly, the results of the technical examination of the election records of SND are determinative of the final outcome of the election protest against Dimaporo. The same cannot be said of the precincts subject of Dimaporo’s motion.
The election results show that Mangotara won over Dimaporo in 10 out of 15 municipalities of Lanao del Norte. Dimaporo prevailed only in five (5) municipalities, including SND. His winning margin in four (4) of these municipalities was small, but in SND, Dimaporo obtained 22,358 votes as opposed to Mangotara’s 477 votes. This means that Dimaporo won by a margin of 21,881 votes over Mangotara in SND. Further, the election results show that Mangotara was credited with zero (0) vote in 73 out of 130 precincts of the said municipality. That Dimaporo won the elections by a margin of 5,487 votes establishes the fact that the results of the election in SND handed the victory to him.22
The technical examination of the election records of SND and the consequent determination of the true will of the electorate therein, therefore, serves the interest not only of the parties but also of the constituency of the 2nd District of Lanao del Norte.
Second. Mangotara filed a motion for technical examination before the start of the revision proceedings on the ground that the destruction of the ballot boxes of all precincts of SND rendered revision physically impossible. The urgency of technical examination was due to the impending SK elections and the resultant need for the Comelec to retrieve the election records of the municipality.
On the other hand, Dimaporo filed a motion for technical examination after the revision of ballots. No circumstance of necessity or urgency was averred in the motion.
Third. The HRET was informed — and it is not disputed — that the ballot boxes and other election documents pertaining to Tangcal were totally gutted by fire making technical examination an impossibility.23
On the other hand, although the ballot boxes of the precincts of SND were also destroyed by fire, the other election records, e.g., Lists of Voters with Voting Records and Voters’ Affidavits contained in the Book of Voters, were not. Thus, technical examination of the available election records could still be had.
Fourth. With regard to the other counter-protested precincts, the HRET correctly pointed out that Dimaporo’s claims that pairs or groups of ballots were written by only one person and that massive substitute voting took place may be resolved by the Tribunal without need for technical examination. Although no ballots were found inside the ballot boxes of 47 counter-protested precincts, the election returns and tally boards were still intact. These documents may yet be considered by the Tribunal in its resolution of the election protest. Thus, technical examination was uncalled for as it was not absolutely necessary.
It should be emphasized that the grant of a motion for technical examination is subject to the sound discretion of the HRET.24 In this case, the Tribunal deemed it useful in the conduct of the revision proceedings to grant Mangotara’s motion for technical examination. Conversely, it found Dimaporo’s motion unpersuasive and accordingly denied the same. In so doing, the HRET merely acted within the bounds of its Constitutionally-granted jurisdiction.25 After all, the Constitution confers full authority on the electoral tribunals of the House of Representatives and the Senate as the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. Such jurisdiction is original and exclusive.26
Anent Dimaporo’s contention that the assailed Resolutions denied him the right to procedural due process and to present evidence to substantiate his claim of massive substitute voting committed in the counter-protested precincts, suffice it to state that the HRET itself may ascertain the validity of Dimaporo’s allegations without resort to technical examination. To this end, the Tribunal declared that the ballots, election documents and other election paraphernalia are still subject to its scrutiny in the appreciation of evidence.27
Moreover, it should be noted that the records are replete with evidence, documentary and testimonial, presented by Dimaporo. He has, in fact, already filed a Formal Offer of Evidence on January 29, 200428 to which Mangotara filed a Comment29 on February 4, 2004. Hence, Dimaporo’s allegation of denial of due process is an indefensible pretense.
For the reasons above-mentioned, we are not convinced that the Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion, much less exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the questioned Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., no part.
Vitug, J., no part. On official leave.
Panganiban, J., on leave.
Quisumbing, J., no part.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., no part.
Footnotes
1 Resolution No. 03-408 dated March 20, 2003, Rollo, pp. 26-30; and Resolution No. 03-166 dated May 29, 2003, Id. at 31-32.
2 Id. at pp. 33-38, excluding annexes.
3 Id. at 67-72.
4 Rule 16, HRET Rules.
5 Supra, note 2 at 73-87.
6 Id. at 89-96.
7 Id. at 101-106.
8 Id. at 116-122, Resolution No. 02-173, June 6, 2002.
9 Supra, note 2.
10 Supra, note 1.
11 Id. at 28.
12 Ibid.
13 Supra, note 3.
14 Supra, note 2 at 3-24.
15 Id. at 128-147.
16 In his election protest, Mangotara alleged that in at least 35 precincts of SND, the voter turn out was 100%. In some instances, the votes recorded even exceeded the voters who actually voted. Moreover, in 73 out of 130 precincts of SND, Dimaporo obtained 100% of the votes cast, while the rest of the congressional candidates, including Mangotara, got zero (0) vote; Id. at 138.
17 "Rule 42. Motion for Technical Examination; Contents. — Within five (5) days after completion of revision, either party may move for a technical examination, specifying:
(1) The nature of the technical examination requested (fingerprint examination, etc.),
(2) The documents to be subjected to technical examination;
(3) The objections made in the course of the revision of ballots which the movant intends to substantiate with the results of the technical examination; and
(4) The ballots covered by such objections."
18 Supra, note 2 at 158-163.
19 Id. at 166-176.
20 Memorandum of the Petitioner dated October 16, 2003, Rollo, pp. 194-207; Memorandum for Private Respondent Mangotara dated November 6, 2003; Manifestation Adopting the Comment of House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) as its Memorandum dated October 27, 2003 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.
21 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 375 (1989), citing Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155. See also Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 330 Phil. 678 (1996); Basco v. PAGCOR, 274 Phil. 323 (1991).
22 Preliminary Conference Resolution No. 01-361, HRET Records, vol. 1, p. 181.
23 Supra, note 2 at 29, re: Letter from Atty. Rey Sumalipao, PES of Lanao del Norte and 14 other election officers of the 2nd District of Lanao del Norte received by the HRET on March 5, 2003.
24 "Rule 43. Technical Examination; Time Limits. — The motion for technical examination may be granted by the Tribunal in its discretion and under such conditions as it may impose. If granted, the movant shall schedule the technical examination, to start within ten (10) calendar days from the time he was notified of the resolution or order granting his motion, notifying the other party and the Secretary of the Tribunal at least five (5) days in advance thereof. The technical examination shall be completed within the period allowed by the Tribunal, but in no case to exceed twenty (20) working days, unless an extension is granted pursuant to Rule 46. The other party may attend the technical examination, either personally or through a representative, but the technical examination shall proceed with or without his attendance, provided due notice has been given him.
Where more than one party would request for technical examinations, the examinations shall, as far as practicable, be conducted simultaneously.
The technical examination shall be conducted at the expense of the movant, in the offices of the Tribunal or such other place as the Tribunal may designate and under the supervision of the Secretary of the Tribunal or his duly authorized representative."
25 Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.
26 Santiago v. Guingona, 359 Phil. 276 (1998), citing Co v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 and 92202-03, July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 692 (1991) citing Lazatin v. HRET, 168 SCRA 391, G.R. No. L-84297, December 8, 1988.
27 Supra, note 2 at 28, citing Resolution No. 02-128 dated May 14, 2002, HRET Case No. 01-015, Carino v. Lanot.
28 HRET Records, vol. 4, p. 1772.
29 Id. at 1775-1794.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
