Poe vs Arroyo

Facts: On July 23, 2004, FPJ filed an election protest before the PET. While the
case was on going, petitioner died of natural causes on December 14, 2004.
Because of this on January 15, 2005, Mrs. Poe filed a motion to intervene as a
substitute for deceased protestant. She claims that because of the untimely
demise of her husband and in representation not only of her husband but more
so because of the paramount interest of the Filipino people. She further cites
cases of De Castro vs. COMELEC and Lomugdang vs. Javier to the effect that the
death of the protestant does not constitute a ground for the dismissal of the
contest and that since protest is imbued with public interest it may not be
dismissed.

In her comment, Protestee GMA asserts that the widow of a deceased candidate
is not the proper party to replace the deceased protestant since a public office is
personal and not a property that passes on to the heirs. She points out that the
widow has no legal right to substitute protestant.

Issue: May the widow substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during
the pendency of the latters protest case?

Ruling: Pursuant to Rule 14 of the PET, there are only 2 persons qualified to
contest the election, namely the 2nd and 3rd placers of the election. However, in
the absence of any rule on neither substitution nor intervention the Court
implored the analogous and suppletory application of the Rules of Court and
other decisions of Courts.

Rule 3, Section 16 provides that substitution by the legal representatives.

In the application of the rule, the Court has continuously held that public office is
personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon
death. Thus, we consistently rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs in
election contest where the protestant dies during the pendency of the protest.

Although, an election protest does not merely involve the conflicting

private aspiration but is imbued with public interest, we have ruled that persons
who shall intervene must be in the matter where he/she directly benefits from
the outcome should it be determined that the declared president did not truly get
the highest number of votes. Thus, no real parties such as the vice-presidential
aspirants in the 2004 elections, have come forward to intervene, or to be
substituted for the deceased protestant. In our view, if persons not real parties in
the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will be unnecessarily
complicated, expensive and interminable and this is not the policy of the law.
 Petition is dismissed
Defensor-Santiago vs Ramos

Facts: In her motion of August 16, 1995 protestant prayed that the revision of the
remaining precincts of the pilot areas be dispensed with and the revision process
in the pilot areas be deemed completed.

At the same time the Supreme Court deferred the motion and opted the
parties to submit their memorandas on the issue whether the present action is
moot.

Protestant asserts that an election contest involves not only an

adjudication and settlement of the private interest of the rival candidate, but
more importantly, the paramount need to dispel, once and for all, the uncertainty
that beclouds the true choice of the electorate. Furthmore, she alleges that an
electio case may be rendered moot only if the term of the contested office has
expired, thus her election as Senator and assumption of office should not be
constituted as abandonment of the protest.

Protestee argues that there is strong basis for this Tribunal to rule that the
Protestant is deemed to have abandonmed the instant protest, in line with
Dimaporo vs Mitra which construed Section 67 of BP 881. Furthermore, the same
likewise argued that the present petition should be resolved by the Tribunal for
the guidance of the bench and bar.

Issue: Whether the protestants election and assumption to office is a ground for
abandonment.

Ruling: We cannot subscribe to the view of the Protestee that by filling her
certificate of candidacy for Senator ipso facto forfeited her claim to the office of
the President. Plainly, the said section applies exclusively to an incumbent
official who files a certificate of candidacy for any office.

While jurispurdence would tell us that the acceptance of a candidate to a

temporary did not amount to abandonment, such legal doctrine shall not be
applicable to the present petition, noting that it involves the protestant who
accepts a permanent appointment to a regular office.

When she pursued the new position through popular election, she
campaigned for office, submitted herself to be voted up to the said office. She is
expected to know the consequences of such stint and that by doing so she has
entered into a political contract with the electorate that if elected she would
assume the office of Senator and discharge its functions. By winning, she was
expected to carry out this promise, as further mandated in the Constitution.
Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would
dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential election,
thereby enhancing the all-too crucial political stability of the nation during this
period of national recovery.

Ruling: Protestee deemed to have abandoned the protest by virtue of the fact that
she ran and won the election.

Pimentel vs Comelec, Zubiri

Facts: Petitioner filed a petition to assail the proceedings before the NBC and its
constituted Special Board of Canvassers for Maguindanao. Moreover, the
petitioner through his council also manifested the following errors:

a) proceedings were illegal

b) MCOC are palpably manufactured
c) the results reflected the MCOC were statistically improbable
d) and other irregularities

Respondents sought the denial of Pimentels application for TRO and/or

Status Quo
Ante Order and the dismissal of the presnt petition.

While the petitioners TRO and/or Statuts Quo Ante Order were
dismissed, the canvass proceedings before the NBC continued and by July 14,
2007, petitioner was deemed to be placed 13th in the senatorial election. Since the
NBC found that the remaining uncanvassed certificates would no longer
materially affect Zubiris lead, it issued a resolution proclaiming private
respondent as the 12th duly elected Senator.

Because of the suprevening event, Zubiri sought the dismissal of the

petition at bar arguing that because of his election and assumption as Senator,
the current petition falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the SET and further
manifest that petitioner has already filed an election protest before the SET,
which essentially has the same issues and controveries raised as in the case at
bar.

Petitioner alleged that since the action was instituted prior to the
proclamation of Zubiri, herein petition should not be dismissed on the ground of
Zubiris assumption to office.
Issue: Whether herein petition would be dimissed on the account of respondents
assumption into office.

Ruling: While R.A. 7166 effectively defines pre-proclamation controversies, it

must be understood that pre-proclamation controversies only applies to the
offices of Municipal,City and Provincial Government. Furthermore, pre-
proclamation controversies may not be raised against the election of Presidents,
Vice Presidents, Senators and Congressmen. This was so because it sought to
prevent the delay in the proclamation of winners in this election, as it would
result in a vacuum in these sensitive posts.

However, it must be noted that the present law provides for an exception
and allow the canvassing body motu proprio or an interest person to file a written
complaint for the correction of manifest errors in the election returns or cert. of
canvass, for the simple reason that the correction of manifest error will not
porlong the process of canvassing nor delay the proclamation of the winner in
the election. Under the said amendments introduced by RA 9369, there are the
exception to the prohibition, namely: correction of manifest errors; questions
affecting the composition or proceedings of the BOC; the determination of the
authenticity and due execution of certificate of canvass as provided in Section
30 of RA 7166.

This Court can only conclude that the canvass proceedings before local
boards of canvassers in elections for Senators are unaffected by the amendment
of Republic Act No. 7166 by Republic Act No. 9369. They still remain
administrative and summary in nature, so as to guard against the paralyzation of
canvassing and proclamation proceedings that would lead to a vacuum in so
important and sensitive office as that of Senator of the Republic.

When SPBOC-Maguindanao refused to allow the contest of Pimentel was

properly as the proper venue would have been the NBC, as it acts as the
canvassers for the election of the President, VP and Senate.

Thus petition is dimissed

Maliksi vs COMELEC

Facts: During the 2010 Elections, the MPC proclaimed Saquilayan the winner for
the position of Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Maliksi, the 2nd placer brought an election
protest in the RTC of Imus alleging that there were irregularities in the counting
of votes. Subsequently, the RTC held a revision of the votes, and, based on the
results of the revision, declared Maliksi as the duly elected Mayor of Imus
commanding Saquilayan to cease and desist from performing the functions of
said office. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. In the meanwhile, the RTC
granted Maliksis motion for execution pending appeal, and Maliksi was then
installed as Mayor.

the COMELEC First Division, without giving notice to the parties, decided to
recount the ballots through the use of the printouts of the ballot images from the
CF cards. Thus, it issued an order dated March 28, 2012 requiring Saquilayan to
deposit the amount necessary to defray the expenses for the decryption and
printing of the ballot images. Later, it issued another order dated April 17, 2012
for Saquilayan to augment his cash deposit.

On August 15, 2012, the First Division issued a resolution nullifying the RTCs
decision and declaring Saquilayan as the duly elected Mayor

Maliksi filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he had been denied his
right to due process because he had not been notified of the decryption
proceedings. He argued that the resort to the printouts of the ballot images,
which were secondary evidence, had been unwarranted because there was no
proof that the integrity of the paper ballots had not been preserved.

On September 14, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc resolved to deny Maliksis

motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether Maliksis MR be given due course

Ruling: Picure images of the ballots are electronic documents that are regarded as
the equivalents of the original ballots themselves. As such the printouts therof
are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters.
However, despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and
their printouts, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective
proceedings still considers the official ballot to be the primary of best evidence of
the voters will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are used only
when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been
compromised.

COMELEC Reso. 9164 provides that when the Recount Committee determines
that the integrity of the ballots has been violated or has not been preserved, or
are wet and otherwise in such a condition that the ballots cannot be recounted
before the printing of the image of the ballots should be made.

All the foregoing rules on revision of ballots stipulate that the printing of the
picture images of the ballots may be resorted to only after the proper
Revision/Recount Committee has first determined that the integrity of the
ballots and the ballot boxes was not preserved.
The foregoing rules further require that the decryption of the images stored in
the CF cards and the printing of the decrypted images take place during the
revision or recount proceedings, so as to allow parties to be represented with
their representative witnessing the proceedings and timely raising their
objections in the course of the proceedings.

The disregard of Maliksis right to be informed of the decision to print the

picture images of the ballots and to conduct the recount proceedings during the
appellate stage cannot be brushed aside by the invocation of the fact that Maliksi
was able to file, after all, a motion for reconsideration.