Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos

7/17/2019 Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/defensor-santiago-v-ramos 1/21

Republic of the PhilippinesPRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Manila

EN BANC

P.E.T. Case No. 001 February 13, 1996

IRIA DEFENSOR!SANTIA"O, protestant,vs.FIDEL #ALDE$ RAOS, protestee.

R E S O L U T I O N

In her motion of 16 August 1995, reiterated in her omment of !9 August 1995, Protestant Miriam"efensor#$antiago pra%ed that the revision of ballots in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas bedispensed &ith and the revision process in the pilot areas be deemed completed.

'e deferred action on that motion and re(uired the Protestant and the Protestee to submit theirrespective memoranda on the issue of &hether this case had been rendered moot b% the election ofthe Protestant as a $enator in the Ma% 1995 election and her assumption of office as such on )*+une 1995.

he Protestant ans&ers this issue in the negative. Rel%ing on Sibulo vda. de De Mesavs. Mencias,1 Lomugdang vs. Javier ,! and De Castro vs. Ginete,) she asserts that an election contestinvolves not onl% an ad-udication and settlement of the private interests of the rival candidates, butmore importantl%, the paramount need to dispel, once and for all, the uncertaint% that beclouds thetrue choice of the electorate. ence, it is imbued &ith public interest and should be pursued to itsfinal conclusion to determine the bona fide &inner. $he further asserts that an election case ma% be

rendered moot onl% if the term of the contested office has e/pired,0

thus her election as $enator andassumption of office as such cannot, under the rule laid do&n in Moraleja vs. Relova,5 be construedas an abandonment of the instant protest. inall%, she alleges that this ourt has departed from theorthodo/ vie& that a case should be dismissed if it has been mooted. 6

or his part, the Protestee submits that there is strong legal basis for this ribunal to rule that theProtestant is deemed to have abandoned the instant protest, in light of the ruling in Dimaporovs. Mitra2 &hich construed $ection 62, Article I3 of 4.P. 4lg. 1 7mnibus 8lection ode. esubmits, ho&ever, that public interest re(uires that this protest be resolved on the merits consideringthat: a it involves a matter of paramount and grave public interest; and b it &as filed merel% to<eep Protestant $antiago in the limelight in preparation for her $enatorial campaign. e li<e&iseclaims that a resolution on the merits &ould confirm his victor% in the 11 Ma% 199! presidentialelection and prove that the instant protest is unfounded. urther more, it &ould establish guiding andcontrolling principles or doctrines &ith respect to presidential election protest cases, thereb%educating the bench and the bar and preventing the indiscriminate filing of baseless protest cases.

'e cannot subscribe to the vie& of the Protestee that b% filing her certificate of candidac% for$enator Protestant $antiago ipso facto forfeited her claim to the office of President pursuant to$ection 62 of 4.P. 4lg. 1. Plainl%, the said section applies e/clusivel% to an incumbent electiveofficial &ho files a certificate of candidac% for an% office =other than the one he is holding in apermanent capacit%.= 8ven more plain is that the Protestant &as not the incumbent President at the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/pet_001_1996.html#fnt1






















time she filed her certificate of candidac% for $enator nor at an% time before that. hus, the holdingin Dimaporo does not appl% to the Protestant.

>either do &e find an% convincing logic to the Protestee?s proposition that this case shouldnevertheless be resolved on the merits because its filing &as done in bad faith, i .e., merel% to <eepthe Protestant in the limelight in preparation for her $enatorial campaign. If that &ere so, then public

interest &ould be served if this case &ere put to an abrupt end after the Protestant &on a seat in the$enate. inall%, neither do &e find an% cogent nor compelling reason to proceed &ith this case, inthe event that &e find it to be moot, simpl% to establish guiding and controlling principles or doctrines&ith respect to election protests involving the office of the President or the @ice#President.

I.

he <e% then to the resolution of the aforestated issue is the consideration of public interest andpublic polic% and their encompassing effects on election cases &hich have been une(uivocall%e/pressed in the cases cited b% the Protestant.

In Sibulo vda. de De Mesa vs. Mencias,9 this ourt stated:

It is a/iomatic that an election contest, involving as it does not onl% the ad-udication andsettlement of the private interests of the rival candidates but also the paramount need ofdispelling once and for all the uncertaint% that beclouds the real choice of the electorate &ithrespect to &ho shall discharge the prerogatives of the offices &ithin their gift, is a proceedingimbued &ith public interest &hich raises it onto a plane over and above ordinar% civil actions.or this reason, broad perspectives of public polic% impose upon courts the imperative dut%to ascertain b% all means &ithin their command &ho is the real candidate elected in ase/peditious a manner as possible, &ithout being fettered b% technicalities and proceduralbarriers to the end that the &ill of the people ma% not be frustrated Ibasco vs. Ilao, et al.,.R. B#1251!, "ecember !9, 196*; Reforma vs. "e Buna, .R. B#1)!0!, +ul% )1, 195. $oine/tricabl% intert&ined are the interests of the contestants and those of the public that therecan be no gainsa%ing the logic of the proposition that even the voluntar% cessation in office of the protestee not onl% does not ipso facto divest him or the character of an adversar% in thecontest inasmuch as he retains a part% interest to <eep his political opponent out of the officeand maintain therein his successor, but also does not in an% manner impair or detract fromthe -urisdiction of the court to pursue the proceeding to its final conclusion "e Bos Angelesvs. RodrigueC, 06 Phil. 595, 592; $alcedo vs. ernandeC, 6! Phil. 50, 52; alves vs.Maramba, .R. B#1)!*6.

Dpon the same principle, the death of the protestee "e Mesa did not abate the proceedingsin the election protest filed against him, and it ma% be stated as a rule that an electioncontest survives and must be prosecuted to final -udgment despite the death of theprotestee. In $ilverio vs. astro, 19 $RA 5!* E1962F, &here the trial court proceeded &iththe trial of an election protest and decided it even if the protestee had alread% died and his

@ice#Ma%or had assumed office b% succession, this ourt, instead of dismissing the appealbrought on behalf of the deceased protestee, re(uired the @ice#Ma%or to intervene on theside of the appellant

In Lomugdang vs. Javier ,1* this ourt declared:

"etermination of &hat candidate has been in fact elected is a matter clothed &ith publicinterest, &herefore, public polic% demands that an election contest, dul% commenced, be notabated b% the death of the contestant. 'e have s(uarel% so ruled in Sibulo vda. de Mesa









vs. Judge Mencias, .R. >o. B#!05), 7ctober !6, 1966, in the same spirit that led thisourt to hold that the ineligibilit% of the protestant is not a defense aesar vs. arrido, 5)Phil. 52, and that the protestee?s cessation in office is not a ground for the dismissal of thecontest nor detract the ourt?s -urisdiction to decide the case Angeles vs. RodrigueC, 06Phil. 595; $alcedo vs. ernandeC, 6! Phil. 50.

In the same Sibulo case, alread% cited, this ourt li<e&ise ruled that b% virtue of $ection 2,Republic Act !!60, the vice#ma%or elect has the status of a real part% in interest in thecontinuation of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene therein. or if the protestsucceeds and the protestee is unseated, the vice ma%or succeeds to the office of ma%or thatbecomes vacant if the dul% elected cannot assume the post.

In Moraleja vs. Relova,11 this ourt ruled:

As to the contention that b% accepting such appointment as echnical Assistant, protestanthas abandoned his protest, all that need be said is that once the court has ac(uired

-urisdiction over an election contest, the public interest involved demands that the true&inner be <no&n &ithout regard to the &ishes or acts of the parties, so much so that there

can be no default, compromise nor stipulation of facts in this <ind of cases. rancisco, o&o r% 8lection ases, p. 16), citing ivilio v. omacruC, 6! Phil. 69. In the same mannerthat the acceptance b% the protestee of an appointment to another position is not a groundfor dismissal of the protest Philippine Ba& on 8lections b% Martin, 192* ed., pp. !5#!59, citing alvo v. Maramba, .R. >o. B#1)!*6, +anuar% 2, 191 li<e the resignation of theprotestee from the contested office Angeles v. RodrigueC, 06 Phil. 595, simpl% because it isof public interest that the real &inner be <no&n, neither can the acceptance of a more or lesstemporar% emplo%ment, such as that of a technical assistant of the @ice#overnor, &hich is aprimaril% confidential position, be considered as inconsistent &ith protestant?s determinationto protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of &ho is the real choice ofthe electorate. In such instances, the plight of protestant ma% be vie&ed in the same light asthat of an emplo%ee &ho has been illegall% dismissed and &ho, to find means to supporthimself and famil% &hile he prosecutes his case for reinstatement, accepts a temporar%

emplo%ment else&here. $uch emplo%ee is not deemed to have abandoned the position hesee<s to recover. an v. imeneC, et al. .R. >o. B#1!5!5, ebruar% 19, 196*, 1*2 Phil. 12;Potot v. 4agano, .R. >o. B#!056, +anuar% !5, 1909, ! Phil. 629. 7f course, the case ofprotestant &ho accepts a permanent appointment to a regular office could be different, but'e are not ruling on it here.

In De Castro vs. Ginete,1! this ourt stated:

he purpose of an election protest is to ascertain &hether the candidate proclaimed electedb% the board of canvassers is reall% the la&ful choice of the electorate. 'hat is sought in anelection protest is the correction of the canvass of the votes, &hich is the basis of theproclamation of the &inning candidate. An election contest involves a public office in &hich

the public has an interest. ertainl%, the act of a losing candidate of recogniCing the one &hois proclaimed the &inner should not bar the losing candidate from (uestioning the validit% ofthe election of the &inner in the manner provided b% la&.

he factual milieu in these cases is not on all fours &ith the instant protest.

In Sibulo vda. de De Mesa, as in the later case of Silverio vs. Castro,1) the protestee had beenproclaimed the &inning ma%oralt% candidate and had assumed office, and then died during the










pendenc% of the election protest. 'hile in Lomugdang , it &as the protestant &ho died during thependenc% of the protest.

In Moraleja, the election protest survived the protestant?s acceptance of temporar% emplo%mentduring the pendenc% of his election protest. Bi<e&ise, in De los Angeles vs. Rodriguez ,10 citedin Sibulo vda. de De Mesa, an election protest &as continued despite the resignation from office of

the protestee.

inall%, in De Castro, the onl% issue presented &as &hether the protest should be dismissed on theground of estoppel . In this proceeding, the protestant congratulated the protestee after the latter &asproclaimed the &inner b% the board of canvassers and even e/horted those present during theinauguration and installation into office of the protestee to support the latter?s administration.

Ma% the above dicta appl% to the case of Protestant $antiago &ho assumed the office of $enatorafter her election as such in the Ma% 1995 electionG his (uestion &as impliedl% raised but notresolved in Moraleja. or after holding that the acceptance b% the protestant therein of a temporar%appointment during the pendenc% of his protest did not amount to an abandonment thereof, norcould it be considered inconsistent &ith his determination to protect and pursue the public interest

involved in the election protest, this ourt noted: =Of course t!e case of a protestant "!o accepts a permanent appointment to a regular office could be different but #e are not ruling on it !ere.=15

Indeed, it &ould be entirel% different &here the protestant pursued the ne& position through apopular election, as in the case of Protestant $antiago &ho filed a certificate of candidac% for$enator in the Ma% 1995 election, campaigned for such office, and submitted herself to be votedupon. $he <ne& that the term of office of the $enators &ho &ould then be elected &ould be si/%ears, to commence at noon on the thirtieth da% of +une ne/t follo&ing their election16 and to end atnoon of )* +une !**1. Hno&ing her high sense of integrit% and candor, it is most unli<el% that duringher campaign, she promised to serve the electorate as $enator, sub-ect to the outcome of thisprotest. In short, she filed her certificate of candidac% for the $enate &ithout an% (ualification,condition, or reservation.

In so doing, she entered into a political contract &ith the electorate that if elected, she &ould assumethe office of $enator, discharge its functions and serve her constituenc% as such for the term for&hich she &as elected. hese are givens &hich are in full accord &ith the principle enshrined in theonstitution that, public office is a public trust, and public officers and emplo%ees must at all times beaccountable to the people and serve them &ith utmost responsibilit%, integrit%, lo%alt% and efficienc%.12

Indeed, it has been aptl% said:

It is impossible that government shall be carried on, and the functions of civil societ%e/ercised, &ithout the aid and intervention of public servants or officers, and ever% person,therefore, &ho enters into civil societ% and avails himself of the benefits and protection of thegovernment, must o&e to this societ%, or, in other &ords, to the public, at least a social dut%

to bear his share of the public burdens, b% accepting and performing, under reasonablecircumstances, the duties of those public offices to &hich he ma% be la&full% chosen.1

In this -urisdiction, an elected public official ma% even be held criminall% liable should he refuse todischarge an elective office.19

he term of office of the $enators elected in the Ma% 1995 election is si/ %ears, the first three of&hich coincides &ith the last three %ears of the term of the President elected in the 11 Ma% 199!s%nchroniCed elections. he latter &ould be Protestant $antiago?s term if she &ould succeed in

















proving in the instant protest. that she &as the true &inner in the 199! elections. In assuming theoffice of $enator then, the Protestant has effectivel% abandoned or &ithdra&n this protest, or at thever% least, in the language of Moraleja, abandoned her =determination to protect and pursue thepublic interest involved in the matter of &ho is the real choice of the electorate.= $uch abandonmentor &ithdra&al operates to render moot the instant protest. Moreover, the dismissal of this protest&ould serve public interest as it &ould dissipate the aura of uncertaint% as to the results of the 199!

presidential election, thereb% enhancing the all too crucial political stabilit% of the nation during thisperiod of national recover%.

It must also be stressed that under the Rules of the Presidential 8lectoral ribunal, an electionprotest ma% be summaril% dismissed, regardless of the public polic% and public interest implicationsthereof, on the follo&ing grounds:

1 he petition is insufficient in form and substance;

! he petition is filed be%ond the periods provided in Rules 10 and 15 hereof;

) he filing fee is not paid &ithin the periods provided for in these Rules;

0 he cash deposit, or the first P1**,***.** thereof, is not paid &ithin 1* da%s after thefiling of the protest; and

5 he petition or copies thereof and the anne/es thereto filed &ith the ribunal are notclearl% legible.!*

7ther grounds for a motion to dismiss, e.g ., those provided in the Rules of ourt &hich appl% in asuppletor% character, !1 ma% li<e&ise be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the ans&er. After &hich,the ribunal ma%, in its discretion, hold a preliminar% hearing on such grounds.!! In sum, if an electionprotest ma% be dismissed on technical grounds, then it must be, for a decidedl% stronger reason, if ithas become moot due to its abandonment b% the Protestant.

II.

here is %et another reason &h% this case should no& be dismissed.

his ribunal cannot close its e%es to the fact that the Protestant has decided to &aive the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots from 0,*12 precincts out of the 12,5!2 precincts of the designatedthree pilot areas. his is an unabashed reversal from her original stand in her Motion andManifestation dated 1 7ctober 199). a<ing this into account, this ribunal declared in its resolutionof !1 7ctober 199):

After deliberating on the foregoing pleadings and the arguments of the parties, the ribunal

rules for the Protestant insofar as the revision of the remaining ballot bo/es from her pilotareas are concerned, and against the immediate application of Rule 61 of the Rules of theribunal to the Protestee in respect of the ounter#Protest.

At this stage of the proceedings in this case it cannot be reasonabl% determined &hether therevised ballots are =considerable= enough to establish a trend either in favor of or against theProtestant as &ould -ustif% an appropriate action contemplated in Rule 61 of the Rules of theribunal, or &hether the unrevised ballots from said areas &ould not, in the language of theProtestant, =materiall% affect the result of the representative sample of the ballot bo/es so far













revised.= As to the 1,)** ballot bo/es from Ma<ati, the proper time to raise the ob-ections tothe ballot bo/es and its contents &ould be during the revision stage.

onse(uentl%, &e resolved therein to:

A. 7R"8R the revision of the remaining unrevised ballot bo/es enumerated in the

afore(uoted paragraph A of the 5 7ctober 199) Resolution and for that purpose to "IR8the Acting ler< of ourt of the ribunal to collect said ballot bo/es and other electiondocuments and paraphernalia from their respective custodians in the event that theirrevisions in connection &ith ot!er election protests in &hich the% are involved have beenterminated, and if such revisions are not %et completed, to coordinate &ith the appropriatetribunal or court in &hich such other election protests are pending and &hich have alread%obtained custod% of the ballot bo/es and started revision &ith the end in vie& of eithersee<ing e/peditious revisions in such other election protests or obtaining the custod% of theballot bo/es and related election documents and paraphernalia for their immediate deliver%to the ribunal; and

4. R8DIR8 the Protestant to inform the ribunal, &ithin ten 1* da%s from receipt hereof, if

after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas she &ould presentevidence in connection there&ith.

Dntil the present, ho&ever, the Protestant has not informed the ribunal &hether after the completionof the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she still intends to present evidence in connectionthere&ith. his failure then, is nothing short of a manifest indication that she no longer intends to doso.

It is entirel% irrelevant at this stage of the proceedings that the Protestant?s revisors discovered in thecourse of the revisions alleged irregularities in 1),51* out of the 12,5!5 contested precincts in thepilot areas and have ob-ected to thousands of ballots cast in favor of the Protestee. Revision ismerel% the first stage, and not the alpha and omega, of an election contest. In no uncertain termsthen, this ribunal declared in its resolution of 1 March 199) that:

Protestant <no&s onl% too &ell, being a la&%er and a former -udge herself, that the revisionphase of her protest is but the first stage in the resolution of her electoral protest and that thefunction of the revisors is ver% limited. In her 1! ebruar% 199) omment on Protestee?s 5ebruar% 199) Drgent Motion for the issuance of a resolution &hich, inter alia, &ould clarif%that revisors ma% observe the ob-ections andJor claims made b% the revisors of the otherpart% as &ell as the ballots sub-ect thereof, and record such observations in a form to beprovided for that purpose, Protestant une(uivocall% stated:

. urther, the principle and plan of the RP8 ERules of the Presidential 8lectoralribunalF is to subdivide the entire election contest into various stages. hus, the firststage is the Revision Proper. $econd is the technical e/amination if so desired b%

either part%. hird is the reception of evidence. And ourth, is the filing of parties?memoranda.

and described the function of the revisors as =solel% to e/amine and segregate the ballotsaccording to &hich ballots the% &ould li<e to contest or ob-ect contested ballots and those&hich the% admit or have no ob-ections uncontested ballots.= Indeed, revisors do not havean% -udicial discretion; their duties are merel% clerical in nature ontiveros vs. Altavas, !0Phil. 6)! E191)F. In fact, their opinion or decision on the more crucial or critical matter of&hat ballots are to be contested or not does not even bind the ribunal Kalung vs. AtienCa,



5! Phil. 21 E19!9F; 7lano vs. iba%an, 5) Phil. 16 E19!9F. hus, no undue importance ma%be given to the revision phase of an election contest. It can never serve as a logical or anacceptable basis for the conclusion that massive fraud or irregularities &ere committedduring an election or that a Protestant had &on in said election. If that &ere so, a Protestantma% contest all ballot bo/es and, in the course of the revision thereof, ob-ect for an%imagined ground &hatsoever, even if the same be totall% unfounded and ridiculous to all

ballots credited to the Protestee; and then, at the end of the da%, said Protestant ma% evenannounce to the &hole &orld that contrar% to &hat is reflected in the election returns,Protestee had actuall% lost the elections.

All told, a dismissal of this election protest is inevitable.

III.

o&ever, three Members of the ribunal outrightl% disagree &ith the foregoing dis(uisitions. ence,a repl% to the important points the% raise is in order.

Mr. +ustice Puno?s perception that the ma-orit% &ould dismiss this =election protest as moot and

academic on t&o ! grounds: first, that the findings of irregularities made b% the revisors of theprotestant in the course of the revision of ballots in 1),51* contested precincts are entirel% irrelevant;and second, she abandoned her protest &hen she filed her certificate of candidac% in the Ma%1995 senatorial elections,= is inaccurate. he dispositive portion of this resolution leaves no room foran% doubt or miscomprehension that the dismissal is based on the ground that the protest =!as beenrendered moot and academic b$ its abandonment or "it!dra"al b$ t!e %rotestant as a conse&uenceof !er election and assumption of office as Senator and !er disc!arge of t!e duties and functionst!ereof'= here is, therefore, 7>BK 7>8 reason or ground &h% the protest has been rendered mootand academic, i .e., it has been abandoned or &ithdra&n. his &as the ver% issue upon &hich theparties &ere re(uired, in the resolution of !6 $eptember 1995, to submit their respectivememoranda.

he ma-orit% neither conve%ed, asserted nor even suggested, as Mr. +ustice Puno has apparentl%understood, that this protest has become moot and academic because the finding of irregularities b%the Protestant?s revisors in the course of the revision of the ballots in 1),51* contested precincts inthe pilot areas are =entirel% irrelevant,= and that the Protestant has abandoned this protest b% filing acertificate of candidac% for the office of $enator in the Ma% 1995 elections. he ma-orit%?s vie&s on=irrelevanc%= and =on the filing of the certificate of candidac%= are not the grounds themselves, butparts onl% of the arguments to strengthen the conclusion reached, i .e.,abandonment . 7ther&isestated, in order to ma<e the point cr%stal clear, the ma-orit% never held that the irrelevanc% of thefinding of irregularities is a ground &h% this protest has become moot and academic. It onl% declaredthat the Protestant?s: a &aiver of revision of the unrevised ballots from the remaining 0,*12contested precincts in the pilot areas; and b failure to compl% &ith the resolution of !1 7ctober1995 re(uiring her to inform the ribunal &ithin ten da%s from notice if she &ould still presentevidence after completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas rendered such =findings=

of irregularities entirel% irrelevant considering the ribunal?s dis(uisitions on &hat revision is in its 1March 199) resolution.

In his dissent, Mr. +ustice Puno lifted the &ords =entirel% irrelevant=; from the fourth paragraph underthe heading =II= of this Resolution. It must, ho&ever, be stressed that the said paragraph isine/orabl% lin<ed to the preceding t&o paragraphs relating to the above#mentioned &aiver and non#compliance, &hich provide the ma-or premises for the fourth paragraph; more concretel%, the latter isnothing more than the logical conclusion &hich the ma-or premises support.



he reasons adduced b% Mr. +ustice Puno for the Protestant?s turn#around are mere speculations. Inan% event, the protestant?s possible =belief . . . that the contested ballots in 1),5** precincts &henproperl% appreciated &ill sufficientl% establish her electoral victor%,= cannot stand against herprevious insistence to proceed &ith the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots and theaforementioned finding of the ribunal in its resolution of !1 7ctober 199). he ribunal is not toblame for =the slo& pace of the protest,= if at all she so believes in such a state of things. >either can

the thought of cutting costs be a valid reason. he Protestant <ne& from the outset that the revisionof the ballots in the pilot areas &as a crucial phase of this protest because, under Rule 61 of theRules of the ribunal, the protest could forth&ith be dismissed if the ribunal &ere convinced thatshe &ould probabl% fail to ma<e out a case but onl% after e/amination of the ballots from the pilotareas and the evaluation of the evidence offered in connection there&ith. It goes &ithout sa%ing thatever% ballot then in the pilot areas counts.

hen too, it &as never the vie& of the ma-orit% that the Protestant?s filing of the certificate ofcandidac% for a seat in the $enate in the Ma% 1995 election &as the sole and e/clusive operativeact for &hat Mr. +ustice Puno perceives to be the ma-orit%?s second ground &h% this protest hasbecome moot and academic. o the ma-orit%, such filing &as onl% the initial step in a series of actsperformed b% the Protestant to convincingl% evince her abandonment of this protest, viz .,campaigning for the office of $enator, assumption of such office after her election and her dischargeof the duties and functions of the said office. Precisel%, in the resolution of !6 $eptember 1995, thisourt directed the Protestant and the Protestee to submit their respective memoranda on the issue

EoFf &hether or not the protest !as not been rendered moot and academic b$ t!e election oft!e %rotestant as Senator and !er subse&uent assumption of office as suc! on () June*++, . emphasis supplied

As to the concept of abandonment, Mr. +ustice Puno and Mr. +ustice Hapunan cite 4lac<?s Ba&"ictionar% and the cases of Roebuc< vs. Mecosta ountr% Road ommission,!) "ober vs. D<ase Inv.o., !0 and Mcall vs. ull,!5cited therein. 'e have turned to the primar% sources of these cases,meticulousl% perused them, and found none materiall% significant to this protest.

he first t&o cases above refer to abandonment of propert$ . Roebuc- involved the issue of &hethera road&a% had been abandoned b% the Mecosta Road ommission. he ourt therein held that inorder for there to be an abandonment of land dedicated to public use, t&o elements mustconcur, viz ., a intention to relin(uish the right or propert%, but &ithout intending to transfer title toan% particular person; and b the e/ternal act &hich such intention is carried into effect.'hile Dober , on the issue of &hether the plaintiff therein abandoned a certain propert%,(uoted Corpus Juris that the intention to abandon must be determined from the facts andcircumstances of the case. here must be a clear, une(uivocal and decisive act of the part% toconstitute abandonment in respect of a right secured an act done &hich sho&s a determination inthe individual not to have a benefit &hich is designed for him.

It is, of course, settled that a public office is not deemed propert%.!6

7nl% McCall involved the issue of abandonment of office. It is stated therein as follo&s:

Abandonment is a matter of intention and, &hen thought of in connection &ith an office,implies that the occupant has (uit the office and ceased to perform its duties. As long as hecontinues to discharge the duties of the office, even though his source of title is t&oappointments, one valid and the other invalid, it cannot be said he has abandoned it. It &assaid in $teingruber v. it% of $an Antonio, e/. om. App., !!* $.'. 22, 2: =A public officema% be abandoned. Abandonment is a species of resignation. Resignation and












abandonment are voluntar% acts. he former is a formal relin(uishment; the latter arelin(uishment through non#user. Abandonment implies non#user, but non#user does not, ofitself, constitute abandonment. he failure to perform the duties pertaining to the office mustbe &ith actual or imputed intention on the part of the officer to abandon and relin(uish theoffice. he intention ma% be inferred from the acts and conduct of the part%, and is a (uestionof fact. Abandonment ma% result from an ac(uiescence b% the officer in his &rongful removal

or discharge, but, as in other cases of abandonment, the (uestion of intention is involved.

$trictl% spea<ing, McCall is inapplicable to this protest for, as correctl% stated in the dissent of Mr.+ustice Hapunan, the Protestant could not abandon the office of President &hich she &as not!olding at the time she filed the certificate of candidac% for $enator. 4ut the ma-orit% of the ribunalnever declared, nor even implied, that she abandoned the office of President because it <ne& thatshe had %et nothing to abandon. Precisel%, she filed this protest to be declared the &inner for thatoffice, to thereafter assume and perform the duties thereof, and e/ercise the po&ers appertainingthereto. 'hat the ribunal e/plicitl% states is that the Protestant abandoned t!is %rotest , thereb%rendering this protest moot.

Mr. +ustice Puno also insists that abandonment raises a (uestion of fact and that the ribunal cannot

resolve it =for lac< of competent evidence=; moreover, he notes that the Protestee =has not adducedevidence &hich can be the basis for a finding that she intentionall% abandoned her protest; on thecontrar%, the Protestee does not &ant the protest to be dismissed on a technicalit% but pra%s that itbe decided on the merits.= $uffice it to sa% that the Protestant herself has not denied nor (uestionedthe follo&ing facts, &hich b% themselves, constitute over&helming proof of the intention to abandonthe protest:

a iling of a certificate of candidac% for $enator for the Ma% 1995 elections;

b ampaigning for the office of $enator in such election;

c a<ing her oath of office as $enator upon the commencement of the term therefor;

d Assumption of office as $enator; and

e "ischarge and performance of the duties appertaining to the office of $enator.

hese acts spea< for themselves res ipsa lo&uitur to negate an% proposition that the Protestant hasnot abandoned this protest.

hus, &hat initiall% appears to be the correct vie& in the dissent is, in the final anal%sis, misplaced.his must also be the verdict upon the follo&ing pronouncements of Mr. +ustice Puno:

A more fundamental reason prevents me from -oining the ma-orit%. 'ith due respect, I submit

that the ma-orit% ruling on abandonment is inconsistent &ith the doctrine that an electioncontest is concerned less &ith the private interest of the candidates but more &ith publicinterest. Dnder a republican regime of government, the overarching ob-ect of an electioncontest is to see< and enforce the -udgment of the people on &ho should govern them. It isnot a happenstance that the first declaration of polic% of our onstitution underlines in brightthat =sovereignt% resides in the people and all government authorit% emanates from them.=he first dut% of a citiCen as a particle of sovereignt% in a democrac% is to e/ercise hissovereignt% -ust as the first dut% of an% reigning government is to uphold the sovereignt% ofthe people at all cost. hus, in Moraleja vs. Relova, &e emphaticall% held that =. . . once the



court has ac(uired -urisdiction over an election contest, the public interest involved demandsthat the true &inner be <no&n &ithout regard to the &ishes or acts of the parties so much sothat there can be no default, compromise nor stipulation of facts in this <ind of cases.='isel%, this ribunal has consistentl% demurred from dismissing election contests even onthe ground of death of the protestee or the protestant.

he ma-orit% appears to stra% a&a% from this lodestar of our onstitution. It &ill dismiss thecase at bar even &hile the protestee and the protestant are %et alive, even &hile the term ofthe 199! president#elect has %et to e/pire, and even &hile the protestee and the protestanttogether plead, that the ribunal should determine the true &ill of the people b% deciding their dispute on the meritEsF and not on technicalities that trifle &ith the truth. I submit that it is thebetter stance for the ribunal to decide this election contest on the meritEsF and vindicate thepolitical -udgment of the people &hich far surpasses in significance all other considerations.7ur dut% to tell the people &ho have the right to govern them cannot depend on theuncertain oscillations of politics of the litigants as often times the% are directed b% the &ind ofconvenience, and not b% the &eal of the public.

or one, the ma-orit% has, in no uncertain terms, demonstrated the dissimilarities in the factual

settings of the instant protest vis.a.vis the earlier cases that enunciated the doctrine relied on b% Mr.+ustice Puno. hen, too, it must be reiterated, to avoid further miscomprehension, thatthe Moraleja ruling even conceded that the matter of abandonment =could be different = if thepetitioner therein had accepted =a permanent appointment to a regular office= during the pendenc%of his protest. In short, Moraleja in fact intimates abandonment of an election protest if, in themeantime, the Protestant accepts a permanent appointment to a regular office. If that be so, then&ould it be, and for &eightier reasons, against a protestant &ho voluntaril% sought election to anoffice &hose term &ould e/tend be%ond the e/pir% date of the term of the contested office, and after&inning the said election, too< her oath and assumed office and thereafter continuousl% serves it.

In Moraleja, the $upreme ourt &as meticulous in e/cluding abandonment from the enumeration ofspecific =acts or &ishes= of the parties &hich must be disregarded because of the public interestcomponent of an election protest. As reflected in the above (uotation from Mr. +ustice Puno?s

dissent, onl% default , compromise, or stipulation of facts are included.

inall%, &ith all due respect, the above pronouncement of Mr. +ustice Puno forgets that, as distinctl%pointed out in the earl% part of this Resolution, the Rules of the ribunal allo& summar% dismissal ofelection protests even for less important grounds, to repeat, such as the petition filed &ith theribunal or the anne/es attached thereto are not clearl% legible, or the filing fees and cash deposits&ere not filed &ithin the periods fi/ed in the Rules,!2 and the additional provision for dismissal underRule 61. All these provisions of the Rules &ould then be put to naught or, at the ver% least, modifiedor amended in a &a% not authoriCed b% the Rules, if the theor% of Mr. +ustice Puno be accepted.$uch theor% &ould unreasonabl% bind the ribunal to the technical minutiae of trial on the merits tobring to their ultimate end all protests or contests filed before it including those filed b% candidates&ho even forgot to vote for themselves and obtained no votes in the final count, but, unable to

accept defeat, filed a protest claiming massive fraud and irregularities, vote#bu%ing, and terrorism.onse(uentl%, all the time and energ% of the +ustices of the $upreme ourt &ould be spentappreciating millions of revised ballots to the pre-udice of their regular -udicial functions in the ourt,as the electoral protest of ever% +uan, Pedro, and +ose &ho lost in the presidential elections &ouldhave to be heard on the merits. Public polic% abhors such a scenario and no public good stands tobe thereb% served.

'8R87R8, the ribunal hereb% resolved to






1 RA> the Protestant?s Motion of 16 August 1995 to dispense &ith the revision of ballotsand other election documents in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas;

! "I$MI$$ the instant election protest, since it has been rendered moot and academic b%its abandonment or &ithdra&al b% the Protestant as a conse(uence of her election andassumption of office as $enator and her discharge of the duties and functions thereof; and

) "I$MI$$, as a conse(uence, the Protestee?s ounter#Protest.

>o pronouncements as to costs.

$7 7R"8R8".

/arvasa C'J' Regalado Davide Jr' Romero and 0ermosisima Jr' JJ' concur.Melo J' concurs in the result.%anganiban J' too< no part.

Se%ara&e O%'('o(s

PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the ribunal?s Resolution dismissing the present protest and, as a conse(uence, thecounter#protest. M% concurrence is anchored not on the merits of the protest and counter#protestsince the% have not reached the period of appreciation or evaluation of the ballots nor on the failureof protestant to compl% &ith procedural re(uirements, but simpl% upon t!e protestant1s assumptionand disc!arge of office as a Senator of t!e Republic after t!e 2 Ma$ *++, elections.

Protestant?s candidac% for $enator in the Ma% 1995 elections, her election to said office and heractual assumption and discharge of the office, combined to constitute, in m% vie&, a superveningfact that rendered moot and academic her present protest because, if she &ere to pursue herpresent protest &ithout such supervening fact and, if she &ere to &in the protest, her term of officeas President of the Philippines &ould in an$ case e3pire on () June *++2 . 'hen she, ho&ever,chose to run for $enator in the Ma% 1995 elections, &hich &as after her filing of the presentprotest, she <ne& that, if elected, her term of office as $enator "ould e3pire onl$ on () June 4))*.herefore, as a successful protestant in this case, she could be President onl% up to )* +une 199.'hat happens then to the last three ) %ears of her term as $enator, i .e., )* +une 199 to )* +une!**1G here &ould be a void, a hiatus or vacuum because after serving as President up to )* +une199, she can no longer assume the office of $enator from )* +une 199 to )* +une !**1. here

&ould li<e&ise be a void, a hiatus or vacuum in her term of office as $enator from the time sheassumes the presidenc% to )* +une 199 assuming she &ere to &in the present protest. hus, b%continuing this protest, there could result an ensuing vacuum in the office of $enator, to &hichposition protestant has been dul% elected subse&uent to t!e filing of !er present protest . And%et, natura vacuum ab!orret . >ature abhors a vacuum.

Public polic%#&ise, it is also not fair to the people to elect a $enator for si/ 6 %ears and %et, he orshe &ill serve for less than that period. In other &ords; b% voluntaril% opting to become a $enator ofthe land &ith a term of office e/piring on )* +une !**1, protestant must be deemed to have



abandoned this protest &hich, if successfull% pursued, &ould at most bring her onl% up to )* +une199 in the office of the President, "it! t!e last t!ree 5(6 $ears of !er term as Senator going to"aste in terms of loss of people1s representation in t!e Senate.

I repeat that in this protest, protestant see<s to be declared as the trul% elected %resident up to )*+une 199. In the Ma% 1995 elections, ho&ever, she &as elected Senator for a term ending on )*

+une !**1. As $enator, she has become a member of the legislative department of governmentimpressed &ith the dut%, among others, to fiscalize t!e e3ecutive. $he cannot, in m% vie&, opt tofiscaliCe the e/ecutive until she herself becomes the e/ecutive, at &hich point, she &ill abandon thefiscaliCing dut% entrusted to her b% the people. $he must choose onl% one of the t&o ! positionsinvolved; she cannot have both &ithin overlapping periods of time. And she, in fact, made the choicebecoming and (ualif%ing as a $enator of the Republic from )* +une 1995 to )* +une !**1.

It appears clear that the people electorate e/pect her to perform dutifull%, creditabl% andsuccessfull% in the position of her last and most recent choice.

$he should, in m% considered vie&, be deemed to have abandoned or &aived her claim to thePresidenc% of the Republic, at least until )* +une 199, &hen she can run for the said office &ithout

relin(uishing or forfeiting her seat as $enator See $ec. 62, Art. I3, 4P 1.

7ellosillo J' concurs.

D'sse(&'() O%'('o(s

PUNO, J., dissenting:

he presidential election of Ma% 11, 199! &as a &atershed in our political histor%. he first

presidential election after the 8"$A revolution, it &as a test to determine &hether our people &ereread% to ree/ercise their sovereignt% vitiated during the authoritarian %ears. It &as also a test toascertain the capabilit% of government to hold clean, honest, and credible elections. It attracted the<een interest of man% and no less than seven 2 candidates vied for the presidenc%.1 After thesmo<e of election battle cleared, candidate idel @. Ramos &as proclaimed &inner. e garnered5,)0!,521 votes &hile candidate M. "efensor#$antiago too< the second place as she obtained0,065,12) votes.! $oon, murmurs and &hispers of fraud filled the air &ith all the candidates,including the &inner, alleging that the% &ere victims of election irregularities. he losers &ere urgedto see< -udicial relief but onl% M. "efensor#$antiago dared to file an election protest; a remed%derisivel% dismissed b% some as a chase of a chimera. he others left their grievance to the tribunalof the people?s conscience.

Mrs. $antiago formall% filed her election protest on +ul% !*, 199!. Paragraph ) of her ProtestcapsuliCes her cause of action, viz .:

/// /// ///

). In violation of the onstitution and specific statutor% provisions, the protestee inconspirac% &ith top officials of the then reigning administration used government funds li<ethe rebel returnee funds, the 4ABD A>" >ABD funds, among others, and governmentfacilities li<e radio and television net&or<s as &ell as transportation facilities to campaign for

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/pet_001_1996.html#fnt1rp







the protestee and bu% out &hole slates of candidates, voters, &atchers and members of theboard of election inspectorsJtellers, election registrars and other omelec officials, otherstrategic officials in government as &ell as other individuals to manipulate, tamper, change,replace, alter, s&itch ballots and election returns and other election documents includingcertificates of canvass and statement of votes b% precinct and municipalit%, print ballots andstuff them in ballot bo/es, the results of the election in favor of the protestee.

7n $eptember !!, 199!, after the filing of the Ans&er of the protestee containing a counter protest,this ribunal ordered the protestant to pinpoint the three ) areas that =best e/emplif% the frauds andirregularities committed in the 199! presidential election.= he protestant specified the pilot areas asMetro Manila, Pampanga, and Lamboanga involving a total of seventeen thousand five hundredt&ent%#seven 12,5!2 precincts. Revision of ballots in these pilot areas proceeded though it sufferedsome dela% primaril% because the same ballots &ere also used as evidence in the election protestfiled b% ielo Macapagal#$algado against 4ren iuao involving the governorship of Pampanga andthe election protest filed b% Augusto $%-uco against +o<er Arro%o involving the then lonecongressional seat in Ma<ati.

7n August 16, 1995, protestant filed a Motion alleging that the ballots and other election documents

in thirteen thousand five hundred ten 1),51* precincts out of the seventeen thousand five hundredt&ent%#seven 12,5!2 precincts in the pilot areas had alread% been revised. $he pra%ed =. . . thatthe revision of ballots and other election documents in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas bedispensed &ith and the revision process of the pilot areas be deemed completed.= 'e deferred ourruling on the pra%er of the protestant.

It is of public notice that the protestant filed her certificate of candidac% in the election of Ma% , 1995for senator. $he &on and &as proclaimed and no& discharges the duties of the office.

he ma-orit% &ould dismiss protestant?s election protest as moot and academic on t&o ! grounds:first, that the findings of irregularities made b% the revisors of the protestant in the course of therevision of ballots in 1),51* contested precincts are entirel% irrelevant; and second, she abandonedher protest &hen she filed her certificate of candidac% in the Ma% , 1995 senatorial elections.

'ith due respect, I dissent.

he ma-orit% holds that =it is entirel% irrelevant at this stage of the proceedings that the protestant?srevisors discovered in the course of the revisions alleged irregularities in 1),51* out of the 12,5!5contested precincts in the pilot areas.= he ma-orit% noted the protestant?s decision to &aive therevision of the remaining unrevised ballots from 0,*12 precincts. It also noted the failure of theprotestant to inform the ribunal &hether she still intends to present additional evidence after thecompletion of the revision of the ballots from the pilot areas.

I &ill not count against the protestant her decision to &aive revision of the ballots from 0,*12precincts. 'ithout engaging in speculation, it seems to me obvious that the protestant made the

&aiver because of her belief, rightl% or &rongl%, that the contested ballots in 1),5** precincts &henproperl% appreciated &ill sufficientl% establish her electoral victor%. It is also apparent that theprotestant is &ar% of the slo& pace of the protest and she felt that the &aiver &ill at least shorten thelengthening odds of time against her. Indubitabl% too, the &aiver &ill enable her to cut the cost of herprotest.

>or &ill I ma<e an% adverse inference from the alleged failure of the protestant to inform this ribunal&hether she &ould still be presenting evidence to support the allegations of fraud and irregularitiesmade b% her revisors. he records sho& that in a motion dated August 16, 1995, she pra%ed that the



revision of ballots in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be deemed completed. he ribunalhas not acted on this motion, hence, the process of revision of ballots is not formall% finished. $incethe ribunal has not formall% declared the termination of the process of revision, it is not timel% forprotestant to manifest &hether or not she &ould adduce further evidence to prove her claim of fraudand irregularities. In an% event, if the ribunal entertains an% doubt on the matter it should issue an7rder re(uiring the protestant to ma<e clear &hether or not she intends to e/ercise her right to

present further evidence. @aluable rights need not be lost on the basis of e(uivocal acts andomissions.

Prescinding from these premises, I &ill not dismiss as entirel% irrelevant the allegations of therevisors of the protestant that the% discovered in the course of the revision irregularities in 1),51*precincts in the pilot areas. he protestant still has the opportunit% to adduce further evidence toprove her case. $he can still underta<e to ma<e a technical e/amination of the ballots throughhand&riting e/perts. $he can still present the testimonies of &itnesses li<e voters, &atchers,inspectors and others &ho have <no&ledge of the alleged fraud and irregularities. $he can stillsubmit a memorandum of facts and la& to clinch her case. It is onl% after the protestant has beenafforded the opportunit% to e/ercise these rights that the ribunal can proceed to e/amine thecontested ballots. hen and onl% then can the ribunal rule &hether or not the protestant failed toma<e a case.

It can be assumed arguendo that the protestant has lost her right to present additional evidence b%her failure to invo<e it &ithin a reasonable time. 8ven then, I submit that the non#presentation offurther evidence is not necessaril% fatal. ertain t%pes of fraud and irregularities can be proved&ithout the testimonies of hand&riting e/perts or the testimonies of voters, &atchers, inspectors andothers &ho &itnessed the same. here are fraud and irregularities &hich are patent on the face ofthe ballots and other election documents and paraphernalia. 4allots that are mar<ed, ballots that arespurious, ballots &ritten b% the same hand, a ballot &ritten b% different hands, tampered tall% sheets,false list of voters, falsified election returns, and other election documents can be appreciated&ithout need of evidence aliunde. or this reason, the ribunal cannot evade the dut% to e/amine theprotested ballots for the ballots are the best evidence to enable the court to determine the votesobtained b% the protestant and the protestee.) >eedless to state, until the ribunal e/amines and

appreciates the protested ballots it cannot dismiss the protest.

I do not also subscribe to the ruling of the ma-orit% that the protestant abandoned her protest &henshe ran for $enator and discharged her duties. Abandonment in la& means =voluntar%relin(uishment of all right, title, claim . . . &ith the intention of not reclaiming it,=0 In ascertainingabandonment, &hether in election, propert%, or criminal litigations, =. . . intention is the first andparamount ob-ect of in(uir% for there can be no abandonment &ithout the intent toabandon.=5 Intention is sub-ective and can be inferred from the acts and conduct of a person. It is a(uestion of fact.6

In the case at bar, the ribunal cannot resolve this (uestion of fact for lac< of competent evidence.he protestee has not adduced evidence to prove acts and omissions of the protestant &hich can be

the basis for a finding that she intentionall% abandoned her protest. Indeed, the protestee does not&ant the protest to be dismissed on a technicalit% but pra%s that it be decided on the merits. he lac<of competent evidence on record not&ithstanding, the ma-orit% ruled, to &it:

. . . $he <ne& that the term of office of the $enators &ho &ould then be elected &ould be si/6 %ears, to commence at noon on the thirtieth da% of +une ne/t follo&ing their election andto end at noon of )* +une !**1. 8no"ing her high sense of integrit% and candor, it is mostunli-el$ that during her campaign she promised to serve the electorate as $enator, sub-ect to












the outcome of this protest. In short, she filed her certificate of candidac% for the $enate&ithout an% (ualification, condition or reservation. 8mphasis supplied.

learl%, the ma-orit% merel% relied on a deduction to support its conclusion that the protestant did notma<e an% promise to serve the electorate as a $enator sub-ect to the outcome of this protest. Itdeduced this conclusion from its <no&ledge of protestant?s =high sense of integrit% and candor.= he

argument is a non se&uitur . If the protestant has candor, the conclusion ought to be that she shouldhave bared to the electorate the pendenc% of her protest.

A more fundamental reason prevents me from -oining the ma-orit%. 'ith due respect, I submit thatthe ma-orit% ruling on abandonment is inconsistent &ith the doctrine that an election contest isconcerned less &ith the private interest of the candidates but more &ith public interest. Dnder arepublican regime of government, the overarching ob-ect of an election contest is to see< andenforce the -udgment of the people on &ho should govern them. It is not a happenstance that thefirst declaration of polic% of our onstitution underlines in bright that =sovereignt% resides in thepeople and all government authorit% emanates from them.=2 he first dut% of a citiCen as a particle ofsovereignt% in a democrac% is to e/ercise his sovereignt% -ust as the first dut% of an% reigninggovernment is to uphold the sovereignt% of the people at all cost. hus, in Moraleja vs. Relova, &e

emphaticall% held that =. . . once the court has ac(uired -urisdiction over an election contest, thepublic interest involved demands that the true &inner be <no&n &ithout regard to the &ishes or actsof the parties so much so that there can be no default, compromise nor stipulation of facts in this<ind of cases.= 'isel%, this ribunal has consistentl% demurred from dismissing election contestseven on the ground of death of the protestee or the protestant.9

he ma-orit% appears to stra% a&a% from this lodestar of our onstitution. It &ill dismiss the case atbar even &hile the protestee and the protestant are %et alive, even &hile the term of the 199!president#elect has %et to e/pire, and even &hile the protestee and the protestant together plead thatthe ribunal should determine the true &ill of the people b% deciding their dispute on the merit andnot on technicalities that trifle &ith the truth. I submit that it is the better stance for the ribunal todecide this election contest on the merit and vindicate the political -udment of the people &hich farsurpasses in significance all other considerations. 7ur dut% to tell the people &ho have the right to

govern them cannot depend on the uncertain oscillations of politics of the litigants as often timesthe% are directed b% the &ind of convenience, and not b% the &eal of the public.

I proffer this postulate onl% because of the dominant public interest involved in the case at bar. hiscase does not involve an obscure office but the presidenc%. It concerns the first presidential electionafter the 8"$A revolution. 7nl% 22,)9 votes separate the protestee and the protestant. 4allots in1),5** precincts are contested b% the revisors of the protestant &hich if found correct can materiall%affect the results of the election. he protestant has charged that nation&ide irregularities &erecommitted in the elections. he protestee, on the other hand, dismisses the protest as merel%intended to <eep the protestant in the limelight in preparation for her senatorial campaign. 8ven theprotestee has pleaded that the protest be tried on its merit as it involves a matter of paramount andgrave public interest. onsidering these distinct facts, the ribunal should not dismiss the protest on

the ground of mootness.

o be sure, the ma-orit% cultures the thesis that the dismissal of the case at bar &ill =. . . serve publicinterest, as it &ould dissipate the aura of uncertaint% on the results of the 199! presidential election.="ismissing the case on the tenuous technicalit% that it has become moot and academic &ill not tellthe people &ho reall% &on the last presidential election. 7nl% the light of truth can pierce theuncertaint% that has enveloped its results. It is &ith reason that the protestant has been -oined b% theprotestee in the plea that this ribunal decide their case on its merit so that once and for all, its result&ill be free from the badgerings of doubt. I -oin their plea for the people deserve the &hole truth and










in an election conte/t a half#truth is a lie. I vote to continue hearing the election protest at bar anddecide it on the merit &ithout unnecessar% dela%.

9rancisco J' concurs.

#ITU", J., dissenting:

'ith all due respect, I find it rather difficult to agree &ith m% peers on the dismissal b% thePresidential 8lectoral ribunal of P.8.. ase >o. **1 simpl% for its being moot and academic.

It seems clear to me that neither the protestant nor the protestee &ould &ant the case dismissedoutrightl% on a technicalit%. he parties have e/pressed, both to their honor and credit, the vie& thatit &ould instead be best to have the protest resolved on its merits in order to dispel an% cloud ofuncertaint% on the choice of the electorate. he people themselves, I should thin<, are no less than<een in &anting to see the outcome of the protest. I am hardput, in fact, in tr%ing to reconcile the

resolution of the ribunal &ith the pronouncement repeatedl% made b% the $upreme ourt inprevious cases, i .e., that an election contest not onl% concerns an ad-udication of private interestsbut also calls for an imperative response to a paramount public need. Bet it be here stressed that theoffice in (uestion pertains to the highest position of the land.

he submission that the protestant is deemed to have abandoned her protest because she ran in theMa% 1995 elections for the position of, and &as proclaimed and so eventuall% too< office as, $enator of the Republic is a conclusion, I fear, I am unable to share. Abandonment is personal, and it mustbe manifested in une(uivocal terms b% the person charged &ith it. If, as it so appears, the protestanthas not to date =informed the tribunal &hether or not after the completion of the revision of theballots from her pilot areas she &ould present evidence in connection there&ith,= then the tribunalmust act on this basis and decide on &hatever it ma% have on hand &ith e(ual opportunit% to the

protestee to ma<e his o&n submission of evidence if still desired.

onsidering that there appears to be no constitutional proscriptions involved, I vote to allo& thetribunal to proceed &ith a final determination on the merits of the protest rather than a dismissal onthe mere ground of abandonment.

*APUNAN, J., dissenting:

I beg to disagree &ith the thesis that P.8.. ase >o. **1 has been rendered moot and academic as

a conse(uence of the protestant?s election and assumption of office as $enator. he ma-orit% insupport of its proposition asserts that =In assuming the office of $enator, the herein Protestant haseffectivel% abandoned or &ithdra&n this protest . . .= rom this premise, the ma-orit% concludes thatsuch abandonment or &ithdra&al operates to render moot and academic the instant election protest.

'hen the protestant ran for the $enate last %ear, she &as not the President of the countr% and there&as nothing to relin(uish. Abandonment is the giving up of a thing absolutel%, indicating =intention toforsa<e or relin(uish= the same.1 In relation to public office, abandonment =must be total and undersuch circumstance as clearl% to indicate an absolute relin(uishment.=! hat is not the situation here,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/pet_001_1996.html#fnt1sk







because &hen the protestant ran for presidenc%, she &as not even an elective official and there &asno position to abandon.

>either do I subscribe to the ma-orit%?s theor% that b% filing her certificate of candidac% for the$enate, campaigning for said office and submitting herself to be voted upon in the elections, theprotestant =had entered into a political contract &ith the electorate that if elected, she &ould assume

the office of $enator, discharge its functions, and serve her constituenc% as such for the term for&hich she &as elected.= irst, there is no evidence that she made such promise. 7n the contrar%, Ibelieve, she had made herself clear during the 1995 $enatorial campaign that she &as notabandoning her protest, meaning that in the event she &ould be declared the &inner in the 199!Presidential elections, she ma% opt to assume the Presidenc%, thus shortening her term of office as$enator. 'hen the voters made their choice for the $enate, the% &ere full% a&are that the protestantma% not serve the full term of her office if she &ins her protest. "espite this, the voters elected her as$enator. $econd, if b% filing her certificate of candidac% as $enator and campaigning for said office,she entered into a contract &ith the electorate that she &ill serve the full term of her office as$enator, in the same to<en, b% filing her certificate of candidac% for the Presidenc% and campaigningfor that office, she must necessaril% have entered into a contract &ith the electorate that she &illserve the full term of the Presidenc% if elected. hird, there has been several cases &here membersof ongress gave up their positions before their terms of office e/pired to accept appointments in thecabinet or other high#profile positions. o mention a fe&, the present $ecretar% of +ustice eofistouingona gave up his $enate seat a fe& %ears ago to become 8/ecutive $ecretar%. ongressman$alvador 8scudero has -ust been named the ne& $ecretar% of Agriculture. Ket, there has not beenan% murmur that said officials have violated an% political contract &ith the electorate that electedthem to ongress.

Moreover, e/pecting candidates to sit out and &ait during the entire period in &hich a protest isresolved is unrealistic, and consigns our most promising men and &omen in this countr% to limbo. Inman% cases, election protests have not been decided promptl% for reasons not necessaril%attributable to the electoral bodies. In some instances, the protest had remained undecided beforethe term of the disputed office had run out. iven these circumstances, it &ould be utterl% un-ust forprotestants to do nothing, not accept or run for public office, and simpl% &ait for the protests to be

decided, lest the% be deemed to have abandoned them. his &ould be tantamount to a denial of theright to run for public office.

he ma-orit% &ould seem to impl% that the protestant also abandoned her protest &hen she a&aived the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots from 0,*12 precincts and, b failed to informthe ribunal &hether she still intends to present additional evidence after the completion of therevision of the ballots from the pilot areas.

I &ould not so s&eepingl% conclude that the protestant abandoned her election protest b% her actalone of &aiving the revision of the remaining ballots. er &aiver could have been due to reasonsother than that the ma-orit% speculativel% imputes to her. It could have been based on her belief thatthe contested ballots in the 1),5** precincts, if and &hen properl% appreciated, &ould sufficientl%

substantiate the allegations in her petition. 7r she could have been impelled b% the desire toe/pedite the electoral proceedings and minimiCe her e/penses.

'ith regard to the protestant?s failure to inform the ribunal &hether she still intends to presentadditional evidence after the completion of the revision of the ballots from the pilot areas asembodied in the resolution dated !1 7ctober 199), her =omission,= li<e&ise, does not amount to a&aiver or abandonment of her election protest. Resolution of election cases, it must be stressed, is acontinuous process albeit divided into various stages. hese stages revision, technical e/amination,presentation of evidence and submission of memoranda are but parts of one &hole procedure.



8/cept for the technical e/amination of the ballots, &herein the parties are e/pressl% given discretion&hether or not to move for one) after completion of each stage, the proceedings necessaril% move tothe ne/t step. he procedure &ill run its natural course pursuant to the rules of the Presidential8lectoral ribunal P8. $ince the phases or stages in the electoral protest are laid do&n in therules, the parties are supposed to act in accordance &ith the se(uential order of the proceedings&ithout being re(uired to manifest formall% at each stage if the% are &illing to proceed to the ne/t

one. ence, &aiver of one stage or the remaining stages cannot be impliedl% imputed to a part%unless there is a manifest intentional and une(uivocal statement or action to this effect. he least theribunal should have done &as to direct the protestant to sho& cause &h% her protest should not bedismissed for failure to file the re(uired information, &hich liberal process the ribunal customaril%accords the parties to find out the reasons for the omission.

he protest cannot, therefore, be la&full% dismissed under $ection 61 of the P8 rules. 4ear in mindthat not onl% revision of the ballots but also reception of evidence0 is re(uired before the ribunal candismiss an election protest on the grounds that =the protestant &ill most probabl% fail to ma<e out hiscase.= In the instant protest, the revision of the ballots has hardl% been completed and presentationof evidence, undoubtedl% the most crucial aspect of the proceedings, has %et to commence. outiliCe $ection 61 of the P8 rules to -ustif% dismissal of the instant case at this earl% stage of theproceedings is to -ump the gun on both the protestant and the protestee.

It should be stressed that no less than the protestee himself has strongl% and une(uivocabl%e/pressed the sentiment in his memorandum that the protest be resolved on its merits because itinvolves a matter of paramount and grave public interest and its resolution &ould confirm his victor%in the presidential election and that it &ould establish guiding and controlling principles or doctrines&ith respect to presidential election protest cases, thereb% educating the bench and the bar andpreventing indiscriminate filing of baseless protest cases a commendable gesture in adherence todemocratic processes.

7urs is a democrac% &here sovereignt% resides in the people &hose sovereign &ill is e/pressedthrough the ballot. It is, therefore, of paramount public interest that the electoral dispute be settled.Resolving the protest b% the mere &ave of the -udicial &and &ithout touching on the merits is not fair

to the protestant. It is not fair to the ribunal &hose disposition of the case &ithout solid facts tosupport it &ould raise more (uestions that it could ans&er and create needless speculations aboutits motives ho&ever &ell#intentioned the% ma% be. It is not fair to the people &ho deserve to <no&,&ithout the slightest doubt, &ho the% reall% elected as President in the 199! elections. It is, certainl%,not fair to the protestee &ho should not be deprived the opportunit% to remove once and for all&hatever cloud that ma% have been cast on his election as President.

aving granted the protestant?s motion of August 16, 1995 to dispense &ith the revision of ballotsand other election documents in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas &here fraud &as allegedl%rampant, &e ought to proceed to the ne/t step, b% giving both parties a chance to present theirevidence. Dnder Rule 61 of the Rules of the Presidential 8lectoral ribunal, if, after e/amination andproof of such evidence &e &ould be convinced that the protestant &ould most probabl% fail to ma<e

out her case, then the case could be dismissed at once. his process &ould ta<e a little more time,but it is solution &hich is fair and -ust to ever%one and is the best &a% to finall% resolve the doubtsurrounding the 199! presidential elections, thus help pave the &a% to true political stabilit% andnational recover%.

I, therefore, vote to continue &ith the hearing of the election protest and decide it e/peditiousl%.

Mendoza J' concurs.








Foo&(o&es

1 1 $RA 5)) E1966F.

! !1 $RA 0*! E1962F.

) !2 $RA 6!) E1969F.

0 Citing uanda vs. "ionaldo, 12 $RA 606 E1966F.

5 0! $RA 1* E1921F.

6 Citing 8astern 4roadcasting orp. "KR8 vs. "ans, 1)2 $RA 6! E195F; $alonga vs.Pao, 1)0 $RA 0) E195F.

2 !*! $RA 229 E1991F.

he section reads:

An% elective official, &hether national or local, running for an% office other than theone &hich he is holding in a permanent capacit%, e/cept for president and @ice#President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing ofhis certificate of candidac%.

9 Supra note 1 at 5).

1*

Supra note ! at 0*2.

11 Supra note 5 at 10#15.

1! Supra note ).

1) 19 $RA 5!* E1962F.

10 06 Phil. 595 E19!0F.

15 Supra note 5 at 15.

16

$ection 0, Article @I, 192 onstitution.

12 $ection 1, Article 3I, 192 onstitution.

1 B7K" R. M88M, :reatise on t!e La" of %ublic Officers and ;mplo$ees, NN?a2 !0*,155#156.

19 Article !)0, Revised Penal ode, provides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/pet_001_1996.html#rnt1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/oct1966/gr_l-24583_1966.html


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/sep1967/gr_l-27535_1967.html


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l-30058_1969.html


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/jul1966/gr_l-20117_1966.html




http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1971/oct1971/gr_30828_1971.html


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jul1985/gr_l59329_1985.html



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/feb1985/gr_l59524_1985.html












http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/feb1967/gr_l-23827_1967.html













http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l-30058_1969.html


























Art. !)0. Refusal to discharge elective office. he penalt% of arresto ma$or or a finenot e/ceeding 1,*** pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon an% person &ho, havingbeen elected b% popular election to a public office, shall refuse &ithout legal motiveto be s&orn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

!* Rule 19, Rules of the Presidential 8lectoral ribunal.

!1 Rule 69, <d .

!! Rule !), <d .

!) 09 Mich. App. 1!, !!9 >.'. !d )0), )09.

!0 1)9 7r. 6!6, 1* P !d )56, )52.

!5 51 AriC. !)2, 25 P !d 696, 69.

!6 I$AA>I A. RDL, Constitutional La" , 199) ed., 1*1, citing Rubi vs. Provincial 4oard ofMindoro, ) Phil. 66* E1919F.

!2 Rule 19, Rules of the Presidential 8lectoral ribunal.

PUNO, +., dissenting:

1 Aside from the protestee and protestant, the other candidates &ere 8duardo M. o-uangco,+r., $alvador . Baurel, Imelda R. Marcos, Ramon @. Mitra, and +ovito R. $alonga.

! he other candidates garnered the follo&ing votes: o-uangco, +r. 0,116,)26; Baurel22*,*06; Marcos !,)),!90; Mitra ),)16,661; and $alonga !,)*!,1!0. See Resolution>o. ! of both ouses of the ongress of the Philippines adopted +une !!, 199!.

) rancisco, @icente, o& to r% 8lection ases, 192) ed., p. !5).

0 4lac<?s Ba& "ictionar%, 6th ed., p. !.

5 <bid ., citing Roebuc< v. Mecosta ountr% Road ommission 09 Mich. App. 1!, !!9 >'!d)0), )05; See also Moreno, Phil. Ba& "ictionar%, )rd ed., pp. !#0.

6 <bid ., p. ).

2 $ection 1, Article II of the onstitution.

0! $RA 1* E1921F.

9 $ibulo vda. de Mesa vs. Mencias, 1 $RA 5)) E1966F; $ilverio vs. astro, 19 $RA 5!*E1962F; andBomugdang vs. +avier !1 $RA 0*! E1962F.

*APUNAN, +., dissenting:









http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/pet_001_1996.html#rnt1rp







































1 4BAH?s BA' "II7>ARK, ! citing "ober v. D<ase Inv. o., 1)9 7r. 6!6, 1* P. !d )56,)52.

! <d ., citing Mcall vs. ull, 51 AriC. !)2, 25; P. !d 696, 69.

) Rule 01, Rules of the Presidential 8lectoral ribunal.

0 Rule !. As public interest demands the speed% termination of the contest, the ribunalma%, after the issues have been -oined, re(uire the protestant to indicate, &ithin a fi/edperiod, the province or provinces numbering not more than three best e/emplif%ing defraudsor irregularities alleged in his petitioner; and therevision of ballots and reception ofevidence &ill begin &ith such province. <f upon e3amination of suc! ballots and proofs, andafter ma<ing reasonable allo&ances, the ribunal is convinced that, ta<ing all thecircumstances into account, the protestant &ill most probabl% fail to ma<e out his case, thecontest ma% forth&ith be dismissed, &ithout further consideration of the other provincesmentioned in the contest. emphasis supplied

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/pet_001_1996.html#rnt1sk








Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos

Documents

Transcript of Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos