LOREN B. LEGARDA, PROTESTANT, VS. NOLI L. DE CASTRO, PROTESTEE.

Legarda versus De Castro

The Case

This is an election protest brought by Loren B. Legarda against Noli L. de Castro, the proclaimed winner of the 2004 vice-presidential race, and it comes before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the body that sits as the sole judge of contests touching the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and the Vice-President. The protest asks the Tribunal to correct manifest errors in the statements of votes and certificates of canvass and to look into alleged frauds and irregularities. The case matters because it fixes the outer boundaries of the Tribunal's constitutional power: it may re-canvass returns and correct manifest errors without first revising the ballots, and it may do so under its own rule-making authority.

Procedural History

The protest was filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. On January 18, 2005, the Tribunal issued a Resolution confirming its jurisdiction over the protest, denying the protestee's motion for its outright dismissal, and ordering the protection and preservation of the ballot boxes and election documents. The protestee, de Castro, moved for reconsideration, insisting that the Tribunal cannot re-canvass returns where the ballots are available, cannot correct manifest errors, cannot turn itself into a canvassing body, and that the protest states no cause of action. The protestant, Legarda, filed a Comment, and she also filed a reiterating motion praying for ocular inspection, inventory-taking of ballot boxes, and the appointment of watchers. The Tribunal treated the motion for reconsideration as a chance to write finis to the jurisdictional questions and resolved the matter itself.

Facts

After the May 2004 elections, Noli de Castro was proclaimed Vice-President. Loren Legarda, his rival, filed a protest in two parts. The first part alleged manifest errors, meaning mistakes in the transposition and addition of votes at the different levels of canvassing, as reflected in the statements of votes and certificates of canvass. The second part alleged frauds and irregularities.

De Castro sought dismissal, arguing that the ballots are the best evidence of the number of votes, that correcting manifest errors is a function of the canvassing bodies and cannot be done once they have finished, that the Tribunal cannot perform a ministerial canvassing function, and that the protest's averments were mere conclusions of law copied from another protest.

Legarda countered that the motion merely rehashed issues already resolved. She also asked for ocular inspection and inventory-taking of the ballot boxes and for the appointment of watchers.

Issues

• Whether or not the Tribunal may re-canvass the election returns and canvass documents even where the ballots are available.
• Whether or not the Tribunal has the power to correct manifest errors in the election returns and certificates of canvass.
• Whether or not the Tribunal, in doing so, transforms itself into a canvassing body.
• Whether or not the protest alleges a cause of action sufficient to contest the protestee's victory.
• Whether or not the protestant is entitled to ocular inspection, inventory-taking, and the appointment of watchers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Article Seven of the Constitution provides:

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

This is the source of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and of its power to correct manifest errors and to make its own rules.

Rule 61 of the PET Rules provides:

As public interest demands the speedy termination of the contest, the Tribunal may, after the issues have been joined, require the protestant to indicate, within a fixed period, the province or provinces numbering not more than three best exemplifying the frauds or irregularities alleged in his petition; and the revision of ballots and reception of evidence will begin with such provinces. If upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all the circumstances into account, the protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the contest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the contest.

This rule governs the revision of ballots and supports the order requiring the protestant to name the three best provinces.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Tribunal held that it may re-canvass. It noted the protestee's own admission that the authority to re-canvass is linked to the constitutional mandate, and observed that if the power exists, there is no reason it cannot be exercised now. The ballots are indeed the best and most conclusive evidence where the correctness of the number of votes is involved, but the protestant concedes the correctness of the ballot results as reflected in the election returns; she seeks only correction of manifest errors in transposition and addition, so revision of ballots would cause unwarranted delay.

On the second and third issues, the Tribunal held that the power to correct manifest errors is included in its constitutional function as sole judge, and that it need not amend its Rules to perform it. It is not a transformation into a canvassing body; the correction is done within the ambit of its constitutional function.

On the fourth issue, the Tribunal held the protest sufficient in form and substance. It distinguished the Peña case, which was dismissed for failure to specify the contested precincts, because here the protestant enumerated all the provinces, municipalities, and cities and questioned all results in all precincts therein. The protest consists of ultimate facts, not mere conclusions of law, and is serious enough on its face to challenge the protestee's title. The Tribunal stressed that nothing has yet been proved; the protest is sufficient only to let the protestant prove her case.

On the fifth issue, the Tribunal denied the motion for ocular inspection and watchers, finding no imperative need since protective and safeguard measures are already being undertaken by the custodians of the ballot boxes.

Doctrine

The Presidential Electoral Tribunal, as the sole judge of contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice-President under Section 4, Article Seven of the Constitution, has the power to re-canvass election returns and to correct manifest errors in statements of votes and certificates of canvass. That power is included in its constitutional function and may be exercised under its rule-making authority without amending its Rules. Where the protestant concedes the correctness of the ballot results and seeks only correction of manifest errors in transposition and addition, revision of ballots is unnecessary and may cause unwarranted delay. An election protest is sufficient in form and substance when it alleges ultimate facts and specifies the contested areas; it need not prove the allegations at the outset.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied with finality for lack of merit, the motion for ocular inspection and watchers was denied, and the protestant was ordered to specify within ten days the three provinces best exemplifying the manifest errors and the three best exemplifying the frauds, with the Commission on Elections ordered to submit the official project of precincts within thirty days.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Tribunal's power to correct manifest errors in the statements of votes and certificates of canvass is included in its constitutional function as sole judge, and it may re-canvass without first revising the ballots. Examiners use this case to test the scope of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction and the sufficiency of an election protest.