A. Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

8/18/2019 A. Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

1/19

Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal G.R. No. 129783. December 22, 1997. *

MARCELINO C. LIBANAN, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and JOSE T. RAMIREZ, respondents.

Election Law; Presidential Electoral TrinaELEC; So long grants the HRET the power to be t

and qualications of members of the H ouse of Representatives, any nal action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisd —

The Court has st ressed t hat “ . . . so long a s t he Constitution grants t he H RET the p ower t obe the sole judge of al l contests relating to the election, returns and qualications ofmembers of the House of Representatives, any nal action taken by t he HRET on a matterwithin its j urisdiction shall, as a rule, not be rev iewed by this C ourt . . . . the p ower g rantedto the Electoral T ribunal x x x excludes t he exercise of an y authority on the part of this

Court that would in any w ise rest rict it or curtai l it or even affect the sa me.”Same; Same; Same; While the judgments of the Tribunal are beyond judicial

interference, the C ourt may do so, however, but only “in the exerc ise of this C ourt’s so- called extraordinary jurisdict — The C ourt did recogn ize, of course, its p ower of judicial review

in exceptional cases. In Robles vs. HRET, the Court has expl ained t hat w hile t he judgmentsof the T ribunal are b eyond judicial interference, the C ourt may do so, however, but onl y “inthe exercise o f this C ourt’s so- called extrao rdinary jurisdiction, . . . upon a determinationthat the Tribunal’s decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its

jurisdiction, or with gr

showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the T ribunal of its p ower as con stitutes adenial of due p rocess of law, or u pon a demonstration of a very cl ear u nmitigated error,manifestly constituting such grave abuse of di scretion that t here has to be a remedy forsuch abuse.”

Same; Same; Same; The power of the Electoral Commission “is beyond judicialinterference e xcept, in any even t, upon a clear sh ow-_______________

* EN BANC.

521

VOL. 283, DECEMBER 22, 1997 521 Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal ing of such arbitrary a nd improvident u se of power as w ill constitute a denial of due

process.” —In the o ld, but still relevant, case of Morrero vs. Bocar , the C ourt has ru led thatthe p ower of the E lectoral Commission “is bey ond judicial interference except , in any event,upon a clear sh owing of such arbitrary and improvident use of power as w ill constitute a

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960520001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960520001


2/19

denial of due p rocess.” The C ourt does n ot, to p araphrase i t in Co vs. HRET, venture i nto t heperilous area of correcting perceived errors of independent branches of the G overnment; itcomes in only when it h as to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse ofdiscretion so grave or g laring that no less tha n the Constitution itself calls for rem edialaction.

Same; Same; Same; For a ballot to be rejected for b eing spurious, the b allot must nothave any of the following authenticating marks: a) the COMELEC watermark; b) the

signatures or initial bers. —In the instant controversy, it would appear t hat t he H RET “reviewed and passed

upon the validity of al l t he ballots in the protested and counter-protested precincts,including those n ot contested and claimed by the parties.” T he T ribunal, added, that “ (t)hiscourse of action was a dopted not only to g ive eff ect to t he i ntent o f each and every voter , butalso to rectify any mistake in appreciation, deliberate or otherwise, committed at theprecinct l evel and overlooked during the revision stage of t his case.” In holding that theabsence of the signature of the Chairman of the BEI at t he back of the ballot does n otinvalidate i t, the H RET has rati ocinated in this w ise: “No sp urious ba llot was f ound in thiscase. For a ballot t o be rejected for b eing spurious, the ballot m ust not h ave any of t hefollowing au thenticating m arks: a) the COMELEC watermark; b) the si gnatures or initial ofthe B EI Chairman at t he ba ck of the ba llot; and c) red an d blue bers. In the p resent case,all the ballots examined by t he Tribunal had COMELEC watermarks.

Same; Same; Same; Where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure andambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature shou ld be determined from thelanguage employed, and where there is no a mbiguity in the words, there should be n o room

for construction. —There i s r eally n othing in the ab ove l aw to t he effect that a ba llot which i snot so au thenticated shall thereby be deemed spurious. The law merely renders t he BEIChairman accountable for su ch failure. The courts m ay not, in the guise of interpretation,enlarge the scope o f a st atute an d embrace s ituations n either pro-

522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal vided nor intended by the lawmakers. Where the words a nd phrases of a statute are

not obscure and ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature should bedetermined from the language employed, and where there is n o ambiguity in the words,there s hould b e n o room for construction.

Same; Same; Same; During the deliberation of the Committee on S uffrage an d Electoral Reforms, held on 08 August 1991, tmber

is n ot so a uthenticated shall be d eemed spurious.” —As so ap tly observed by the Solicitor-General, House B ill (“HB”) No. 34811 (which later bec ome R.A. No. 7166), approved by the


3/19

House of Representat ives on third rea ding, was a consolidation of different bi lls. Two of t hebills consolidated and considered i n drafting H.B. No. 34811 were H .B. No. 34639 and H.B.No. 34660. Section 22 of the tw o latter b ills p rovided that: “In every case before d eliveringan official ba llot to th e v oter, the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors sh all, in thepresence of t he voter, affix his si gnature a t t he back thereof. Any ballot w hich is n ot s oauthenticated shall be deemed spurious. Failure to so authenticate shall constitute anelection offense.” During the deliberation of the Committee on Suffrage and ElectoralReforms, held on 08 August 1991, the members agree d to delete the phrase “Any ballotwhich is n ot so au thenticated shall be deemed spurious.”

Same; Same; Same; A ballot is considered va lid and genuine for as l ong a s i t bears anyone of these au thenticating marks, to w it: (a) the COMELEC watermark, or ( b) the s ignatureor i nitials, or t humbprint of the Chairman of the BEI; and, (c) in those cases w here theCOMELEC watermarks are blurred or not readily ap parent to the na ked eye, the pr esence ofred and blue bers i n the ba llots. — Reliance by petitioner on this a lleged “ruling,” obv iouslydeserves sc ant c onsideration. What sh ould, instead, be given weight i s t he con sistent r ulelaid down by the H RET that a ba llot is considered valid and genuine for as l ong a s i t bearsany one of these au thenticating marks, to wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark, or (b) thesignature or i nitials, or t humbprint of the Chairman of the BEI; and, (c) in those caseswhere the COMELEC watermarks ar e blurred or not readily apparent to the nak ed eye, thepresence of red and blue bers i n the ballots. It is on ly when none of these m arks a ppearsextan t that the b allot can be con sidered spurious an d subject to rej ection.

523

VOL. 283, DECEMBER 22, 1997 523 Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are st ated in the op inion of the C ourt. Cesar A . Sevilla & Associates for petitioner. Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, MartOffices for

private res pondent.

VITUG, J .:

The 28th May 1997 decision of the House of Representatives E lectoral T ribunal(“HRET”), which affirmed the p roclamation of herein private re spondent Jo se TanRamirez d eclaring him to be t he duly elected Representative of Eastern Samar f orhaving obtained the p lurality of votes over p etitioner M arcelino Libanan, and the20th June 1997 resolution of the HRET, which denied with nality petitioner’s


4/19

motion for recon sideration, are sou ght t o be annulled in this special civil actionfor certi orari.

Petitioner M arcelino Libanan and private re spondent Jose R amirez were a mongthe can didates for t he lone cong ressional seat of Eastern Samar i n the May 1995

elections. After t he canva ss of the re turns w as m ade on 13 May 1 995, the P rovincialBoard of Canvassers of Eastern Samar proclaimed r espondent Ramirez to have beenduly elected Representative of the District with a total of forty-one thousand vehundred twenty-three ( 41,523) vot es, compared to petitioner’s f orty thousand eighthundred sixty-nine (40,869) votes, or a margin of six hundred fty-four ( 654) vot esover t hose of petitioner.

Petitioner Libanan seasonably led an election protest before the HRETclaiming, among other t hings, that t he 08 th May 1995 elections in Eastern Samarwere marred by massive electoral irregularities perpetrated or instigated byrespondent R amirez, as w ell as his l eaders an d followers, in the tw enty-three ( 23)municipalities of t he lone district of E astern Samar with the aid, i n variousinstances, of peace officers su pposedly charged with maintaining an orderly andhonest election. Petitioner con tested seventy-nine ( 79) precincts i n

524

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

ve ( 5) municipalities. He a lso m aintained that the el ection returns an d/or ba llots i ncertain precincts were tampered with, substituted, or syst ematically marked in

favor o f respondent Ramirez. Libanan prayed that, after due p roceedings, the H RETshould issue an order t o annul the election and proclamation of Ramirez an d tothereafter so proclaim petitioner a s t he duly elected Representative of the LoneDistrict of Eastern S amar.

In his a nswer an d counter-protest, with a petition for p reliminary h earing on thespecial and affirmative defenses, respondent Ramirez denied the charges. Hecounter-protested the resu lts of the el ections i n certain precincts w here, he cl aimed,Libanan engaged in massive vote buying, lansadera, terrorism and tearing of thelist of vot ers to disenfranchise voters th erein listed. Accordingly, he prayed , interalia, for t he d ismissal of the p rotest and the con rmation of his el ection as t he d ulyelected represen tative of the L one D istrict of Eastern Samar. After some peripheral issues were s

the protested precincts commenced on 20 February 1996. The HRET noted thatLibanan contested a total of seventy-nine (79) precincts. It w as n oted during therevision, however, that six (6) of the con tested precincts, namely, Precincts N os. 14,


5/19

15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Arteche, were found t o ha ve been m erged d uring the 08 M ay1995 elections i nto three (3) precincts, i.e ., Precincts N os. 14 and 19, Precincts N os.15 and 16 and Precincts N os. 18 and 20. Thus, only seventy-six (76) ballot boxeswere a ctually opened for re vision, one of w hich, Precinct No. 4-1 of Guiuan, did not

contain any ballot.On 22 February 1996, while the revision of the counter-protested precincts w as

being held, Ramirez l ed an “Urgent M otion to W ithdraw/Abandon Counter-Protestin Specic M unicipalities/Precincts” praying that h e be granted leave to withdrawand abandon partially his cou nter-protest in certain

525


precincts. 1Libanan led an opposition thereto but the motion was eventually

granted by the Chairman of the H RET and subsequently conrmed in a resolutionby the t ribunal.

On 21 March 1996, the HRET designated a Hearing Commissioner and a DeputyHearing Commissioner f or t he recept ion of evidence. Following that rec eption, therespective memoranda of Libanan and Ramirez were led.

The evi dence and the issues su bmitted by the parties for consideration by theHRET related mainly to the proper appreciation of the ballots objected to, orclaimed by, the parties d uring the revision. No evidence were presented in supportof the oth er a llegations of t he p rotest ( like the a lleged tampering of election returns)

and of the counter-protest (such as the a lleged tearing of some of t he pages of thecomputerized list of voters t o d isenfranchise l egitimate v oters an d the u se of goonsto t error ize a nd compel voters t o vote f or L ibanan), nor w ere t hese i ssues d iscussedin the memoranda of the parties. The HRET thus concentrated, such as can berightly expected , its a ttention to th e b asic a ppreciation of ballots. 2

The particular m atter f ocused in this p etition deals w ith what p etitioner cl aimsto b e spu rious ba llots; on this sc ore, the H RET has exp lained:“No sp urious b allot was f ound in this case. For a ballot to b e rej ected for b eing spurious, theballot must not have any of the following authenticating marks: a) the COMELECwatermark; b)_______________

1 “1) A ll the forty- ve (45) p recincts o f Dolores; 2) A ll the thirty (30) precincts o f T aft; 3) A ll the protested

precincts f rom the m unicipalities of Maydolong, Llorente, Salcedo and Giporlos ( Rollo, p. 38).2 “R e: Multiple B allots W ritten By O ne P erson (Ibid., p. 51).

Re: Ballots A ccomplished b y T wo (2) Person s ( Ibid., p. 52).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960525001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960525002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960525001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960525002


6/19

Re: Marked Ballots ( Ibid., 57).

Re: Spurious B allots ( Ibid., 60).

Re: Ballots O bjected to on Miscellaneous G rounds ( Ibid., p. 63).

Re: Ballots O bjected to on Combination of Grounds x x x ” (Ibid.).

526526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal the si gnatures or initial of the B EI Chairman at t he b ack of the b allot; and c) red a nd bluebers. In the present case, all the ballots examined by the Tribunal had COMELECwatermarks.

“The Tribunal did not adopt pro testant’s submission in his Memorandum that t heabsence of thumbmark or B EI Chairman’s s ignature at the ba ck of the ba llot rendered t heballot spurious. The a pplicable l aw on this i ssue i s S ec. 24, R.A. 7166. It reads:‘ “In every case b efore d elivering an official ballot t o the voter, the C hairman of the B oard o f Election

Inspectors sh all, in the presen ce of the voter, affix his si gnature a t t he b ack thereof. Failure t o soauthenticate sh all be noted in the m inutes of the b oard of election inspectors an d shall constitute a nelection offense pu nishable u nder S ection 263 a nd 264 of the O mnibus E lection Code.’

“As m ay be gleaned above, unlike the p rovision of Section 210 of the O mnibus E lectionCode where the BEI Chairman was r equired to affix his r ight thumbmark at the back of theballot immediately a fter i t was cou nted, the p resent law no longer r equires the sam e.

“Anent t he BEI Chairman’s signature, while Section 24 of R.A. 7166 provides thatfailure t o a uthenticate t he b allot shall constitute a n election offense, there i s n othing i n thesaid law which provides tha t ba llots n ot s o authenticated shall be considered invalid. In

fact, the m embers of the Committee on S uffrage an d E lectoral Reforms agre ed d uring theirdeliberation on the su bject t hat t he a bsence of the B EI C hairman’s si gnature at t he b ack ofthe b allot w ill not per se m ake a b allot spurious.

“Moreover, while Rep. Palacol, then Chairman of the Committee on Suffrage andElectoral Reforms, mentioned during h is spon sorship speech that on e of the sal ient featuresof the bill led was ‘to require the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors toauthenticate a ballot given to a voter by affixing h is si gnature on (sic) the b ack thereof andto con sider an y b allot as spu rious,’ R.A. 7166, as ap proved, does n ot contain any p rovision tothat effect. Clearly, therefore, the Congress as a whole (House of Representatives andSenate f ailed to ad opt t he p roposal of Rep. Palacol that ba llots w ithout the BEI Chairman’ssignature at t he b ack will be declared spurious. What i s cl early p rovided under t he sai d lawis th e sanction

527



7/19

imposable upon an erring Chairman of the BEI, and not t he disenfranchisement of thevoter.” 3

In its assailed decision, t he HRET ruled in favor of respondent R amirez; itconcluded:“WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Tribunal Resolved to DISMISS the instantelection protest, including the parties’ mutual cl aims for damages and attorney’s fee;

AFFIRM the proclamation of Protestee Jose Tan Ramirez; ECLARE him to be theduly elected Representat ive of the Lone District of Eastern Samar, for h aving obtained aplurality of 143 votes over sec ond placer P rotestant M arcelino L ibanan.” 4

Petitioner L ibanan moved f or a rec onsideration of the d ecision of the H RET arguing,among other grounds, 5 that the ab sence of the B EI Chairman’s s ignature at the ba ckof t he ballots could not bu t i ndicate that t he ballots were n ot t hose issued to thevoters du ring t he el ections. He averr ed that t he law would require t he C hairman ofthe BEI t o authenticate or si gn the ballot bef ore i ssuing it t o the voter. Acting onpetitioner’s m otion for rec onsideration, the HRET credited petitioner L ibanan withthirty (30) votes b ecause of t he error i n the computation of the base gure andrejected twelve (12) ballots for respondent Ramirez. Respondent Ramirez,nevertheless, remained to b e t he w inner w ith a lead of ninety-nine ( 99) votes i n hisfavor. As r egards t he a bsence of BEI Chairman’s s ignature at the b ack of the b allots,the HRET stressed:_______________

3 Ibi d., pp. 60-62.4 Ib id., p. 74.5 “a) Error i n computing “ba se gure” for protest ant (Ibid., p. 235); b) Recourse t o t he el ection returns i s

not warranted when tampering of the b allots w as d esigned to p reclude challenge of vo tes reect ed in the

election returns ( Ibid., 236); c) absence of BEI C hairman’s si gnature on ballots i ndicates t hat t hey were

substituted of, stuffed into the ballot b oxes a fter the election (Ibid., 238); and, d) ba llots f or the protestee

which a re cl early m ultiple b allots w ritten by one h and but which w ere n ot rejected as su ch.” (Ibid., p. 241).

528


Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal “Fraud is n ot pr esumed. It m ust be sufficiently established. Moreover, Section 211 of theOmnibus E lection Code provides in part that ‘ in the reading and appreciation of ballots,every ballot shall be p resumed to b e va lid unless t here i s cl ear an d good reason to justify i tsrejection.’ In the instant case, there is n o evidence to support p rotestant’s allegation thatthe ballots h e enumerated in his M otion for R econsideration are substitute ballots. Theabsence of the B EI C hairman’s si gnature at the b ack of the b allot cannot be an indication of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960527001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960527002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960527003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960527001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960527002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960527003


8/19

ballot s witching or su bstitution. At best , such absence of BEI C hairman’s signature i sa prima facie evidence that t he BEI C hairmen concerned were derelict in their d uty ofauthenticating the ballots. Such omission, as stated in the Decision, is not f atal t o thevalidity o f the b allots. ” 6

Thus, the p resent recourse. A perusal of the grounds raised by pe

resolution boils down to the issue of whether or n ot the HRET committed graveabuse of discretion in ruling that t he a bsence of the si gnature of the Chairman ofthe B EI in the b allots d id not render t he b allots spu rious.

Petitioner L ibanan contends t hat t he t hree h undred el even (311) ballots (265 ofwhich have been for p rivate respondent R amirez) without the signature of theChairman of the BEI, but which had the COMELEC water-marks and/or coloredbers, should be i nvalidated. It is t he p osition of petitioner th at t he p urpose of thelaw in requiring the BEI Chairman to affix his s ignature at t he back of the ba llotwhen he issues it t o the voter is “to authenticate” the ballot an d, absent t hatsignature, the ba llot must be considered sp urious.

Prefatorily, the Court t ouches base on its j urisdiction to review and pass u pondecisions or res olutions of t he e lectoral tribunals.

The C onstitution mandates t hat the H ouse of Representatives E lectoral Tribunaland the Senate Electoral Tribunal sh all each, respectively, be the sole judge of a llcontests rel ating to the election, returns a nd qualications of t heir re-

_______________

6 Ib id., p. 267.

529


spective m embers. 7 In Lazatin vs. HRET , 8 the Court has ob ser ved t hat—“The u se of the w ord ‘sole’ emphasizes t he excl usive character of the jurisdiction conferred.The exercise of the power by the Electoral Commission under t he 1935 Constitution hasbeen described as ‘intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it has remained

originally in the l egislature.’ Earlier th is g rant of power to t he l egislature w as ch aracteri zedby J ustice M alcolm as ‘ full, clear and complete.’ Under t he am ended 1935 Constitution, thepower w as u nqualiedly reposed upon the E lectoral Tribunal and it remained as f ull, clearand complete as t hat pre viously g ranted the L egislature an d the E lectoral Commission. Thesame m ay b e sai d with regard to t he jurisdiction of the E lectoral Tribunals u nder t he 1 987Constitution.” 9

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960528001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960529001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960529002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960529003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960528001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960529001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960529002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960529003


9/19

The Court has st ressed that “ . . . so long a s t he Constitution grants t he H RET thepower to be the sole judge of al l contests relating to the election, returns andqualications of members of the H ouse of Representatives, any nal action taken bythe H RET on a matter w ithin its j urisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this

Court. . . . the p ower gra nted to t he E lectoral Tribunal x x x excludes t he exerci se ofany authority on the p art of this C ourt that would in any wise rest rict it or cu rtail itor even affect the sam e.”

The Court di d recognize, of course, its power of j udicial r eview in exceptionalcases. In Robles vs. HRET , 10 the C ourt has exp lained t hat while t he judgments of theTribunal are beyon d judicial interference, the C ourt may do so, however, but only “i nthe exercise of t his Courts so-called extraordinary jurisdiction, . . . up on adetermination that the T ribunal’s d ecision or r esolution was rendered without or i nexcess of its j urisdiction, or w ith grave abuse of di scretion or p araphrasing Morrer o,upon a cl ear show ing of such arbitrary a nd improvi-_______________

7 S ection 17, Article V I, 1987 Constitution.8 168 SCRA 391.9 At p. 401.10 181 SCRA 780.

530


Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal dent use by the T ribunal of its p ower as con stitutes a denial of due p rocess of law, orupon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constitutingsuch grave a buse of discretion that t here ha s t o be a rem edy for s uch abuse.”

In the old, but st ill relevant, case of Morrero vs. Bocar , 11 the Court has r uled thatthe p ower of the E lectoral Commission “is bey ond judicial interference except , in anyevent, upon a clear show ing of such arbitrary a nd improvident use of power as w illconstitute a denial of due p rocess.” The C ourt does n ot, to paraphrase i t i n Co vs.

HRET , 12 ven ture i nto th e p erilous a rea o f correcting perceived errors of independent

branches of the G overnment; it comes i n only when it ha s t o vindicate a denial ofdue process or cor rect an abuse of discretion so g rave or g laring that n o less t hanthe Constitution itself calls f or rem edial action.

In the instant controversy, it would appear that the H RET “reviewed a nd passedupon the v alidity of all the b allots i n the p rotested and counter-protested precincts,including t hose n ot contested and claimed by the p arties.” 13 The T ribunal, added, that



10/19

“(t)his cou rse of action was a dopted not only to give e ffect to t he i ntent of each andevery v oter, but also to rec tify any mistake i n appreciation, deliberate o r ot herwise,committed at the precinct l evel and overlooked during the revision stage of t hiscase.” 14 In holding that t he a bsence of the si gnature of the C hairman of the B EI at

the b ack o f the b allot does n ot invalidate i t, the H RET has r atiocinated in this w ise:“No sp urious b allot was f ound in this case. For a ballot to b e rej ected for b eing spurious, theballot must not have any of the following authenticating marks: a) the COMELECwatermark; b) the si gnatures or i nitial of the B EI Chairman at t he ba ck of the ba llot; and c)red and blue bers. In the present case, all the ballots exam ined by the Tribunal hadCOMELEC watermarks.

_______________

11 66 Phil. 429.12 199 SCRA 692.13 Rollo, p. 42.14 Ibi d.

531


“x x x x x x x x x“Anent t he BEI Chairman’s signature, while Section 24 of R.A. 7166 provides that

failure t o a uthenticate t he b allot shall constitute a n election offense, there i s n othing i n thesaid law which provides tha t ba llots n ot s o authenticated shall be considered invalid. Infact, the m embers of the Committee on S uffrage an d E lectoral Reforms agre ed d uring theirdeliberation on the su bject t hat t he a bsence of the B EI C hairman’s si gnature at t he b ack ofthe b allot w ill not per se m ake a b allot spurious.

“Moreover, while Rep. Palacol, then Chairman of the Committee on Suffrage andElectoral Reforms, mentioned during h is spon sorship speech that on e of the sal ient featuresof the bill led was ‘to require the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors toauthenticate a ballot given to a voter by affixing h is si gnature on (sic) the b ack thereof andto con sider an y b allot as spu rious,’ R.A. 7166, as ap proved, does n ot contain any p rovision tothat effect. Clearly, therefore, the Congress as a whole (House of Representatives and

Senate) failed to ad opt t he p roposal of Rep. Palacol that ba llots w ithout the B EI Chairman’ssignature at t he b ack will be declared spurious. What i s cl early p rovided under t he sai d lawis the sanction imposable upon an erring Chairman of the BEI, and not thedisenfranchisement of the voter .” 15

The p ertinent provision of the l aw, Section 24 o f R.A. No. 7166, provides:



11/19

“SEC. 24. Signature of C hairman at the back of Every Ballot .—In every case beforedelivering an official ballot to the voter , the C hairman of the Board of Election Inspectorsshall, in the presence of the voter, affix his signature at the back thereof. Failure toauthenticate sh all be noted in the m inutes of the Board of Election Inspectors an d shallconstitute an election offense punishable under Section 263 and 264 of the OmnibusElection Code.”

There is real ly nothing in the above l aw to the effect t hat a ballot which is n ot s oauthenticated shall thereby be deemed spurious. The law merely renders t he BEIChairman accountable for s uch failure. The cou rts m ay not, in the gu ise of in-_______________

15 Ibi d., pp. 60-62.

532


terpretation, enlarge t he scop e of a statute a nd embrace si tuations n either p rovidednor intended by the lawmakers. Where t he words an d phrases of a statute are notobscure and ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature sh ould bedetermined from the language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in thewords, there s hould be n o room for c onstruction. 16

As so aptly observed by the Sollater bec ome R.A. No. 7166), approved by the House of Representatives on third

reading, w as a consolidation of di fferent b ills. Two of t he bills consolidated andconsidered in drafting H.B. No. 34811 were H .B. No. 34639 and H.B. No. 34660.Section 22 of the tw o l atter b ills p rovided that:“In every case before d elivering an official ballot to t he voter , the ch airman of the B oard ofElection Inspectors sh all, in the presence of the voter, affix his signature at the backthereof. Any ballot w hich is n ot s o authenticated shall be deemed spurious. Failure t o soauthenticate sh all constitute an election offense.” 17

During the d eliberation of the C ommittee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, heldon 08 August 1991, the m embers agre ed to delete t he p hrase “Any ballot which isnot so au thenticated shall be d eemed spurious.” Pertinent portions of the t ranscriptof stenographic notes (“TSN”) taken during the Meeting of the Committee onSuffrage an d E lectoral Reforms read:“THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, Congressman Mercado.“HON. MERCADO. I t hink, Section 22, we go to the intent of the p rovision. I t hink

the i ntent here i s t o san ction the inspector s o I would propose a com promise. The



12/19

ballot should not be deemed as spurious. However, it w ould rather be failure ofthe inspector to, or the chairman to affix his signature would rather be acircumstance which

_______________

16 Allarde vs. Commission on Audit, 218 S CRA 227.17 Comment of the S olicitor G eneral, p. 4.

533

VOL. 283, DECEMBER 22, 1997 533 Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal would aggravate the crime, which would aggravate the election offense, on the

part of the i nspector, but n ot to d isenfranchise the voter. Because t he i ntention hereis t o punish the election inspector for n ot affixing the signature. Why should wepunish the vot er? So I think the compromise he re. . .“THE CHAIRMAN. A serious election offense.“HON. MERCADO. Yes, it s hould be a serious election offense on the part of the

chairman for n ot affixing t he si gnature, but not to m ake t he b allot spurious.“HON. RONO. Mr. Chairman.“THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, Congressman Rono.“HON. RONO. One thing that we have t o guard against is when we deal with the

ballot and the ri ght to su ffrage, we sh ould not really m ake l aw that w ould preventthe exibility of the Commission of Elections, and the Supreme Court f rom

getting other ext raneous eff orts t o con rm authenticity or t he sp uriousness of theballot, by making a provision that by that si ngle m istake or i nadvertence of thechairman we m ake t he ba llot automatically spu rious i s da ngerous. It should b e . .. what I ’m saying is t hat t he Commission or t he proper bodi es by which thismatter w ill be taken up may consider i t as on e of the evi dences of spuriousnessbut n ot per se or i pso facto it becom es; it sh ould look for ot her ext raneousevidence. So what I a m suggesting is l et us give them this k ind of exibilitybefore we determine or b efore we say that t his b allot i s sp urious, we give theCOMELEC some exibility in the det ermination of other extraneous evi dence.

“HON. GARCIA. May I offer a suggestion?“THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, Congressman Garcia.“HON. GARCIA. That t he fact that a b allot does not contain the si gnature, I think,

initial will not be su fficient, the si gnature of the C hairman should be noted in theminutes. Noted in the m inutes. So t hat in case of protest, there i s ba sis.

“HON. RONO. Oo, may basi s na. Iyon lang, I think that would solve our pr oblem.


13/19

534


“THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.“MR. MONSOD. Your hon or, we’re willing to accept that amendment. Take ou t that

sentence s purious, with the i ntroduction of the p roposed measure x x x .” 18

The TSN of the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee on ElectionLaw, held on 29 October 1991, in turn, would show these exchanges:“CHAIRMAN GONZALEZ: Are there anything more?“HON. ROCO. There is a sec tion in the S enate ver sion about the ba llot signed a t the

back.“CHAIRMAN GONZALEZ. Counter side.“HON. ROCO. If it is n ot signed t hen it is bei ng spu rious w hich is a very d angerous,

I (think) (it) is a very dangerous p rovision and so . . .“MR. MONSOD. We agree with the House version that anyway when chairman of

BEI doesn ’t s ign subject to an election offense. But i t s hould not be a basis fordisenfranchisement of the v oter. So, we b elieve w e set this i n the h earings i n theHouse that we should strike out t hat sen tence that says that this ballot i sautomatically spurious.” 19

Thus, the nal draft, which was l ater t o become R .A. No. 7166, no longer i ncludedthe provision “Any ballot n ot s o authenticated shall be deemed spurious.” The

intention of the l egislature even then was qu ite ev ident.The reliance on Bautista vs. Castro 20 by petitioner, i s misdirected. I t must b e

stressed that B.P. B lg. 222 , 21 otherwise known as the “Barangay Election Act of1982,” ap proved on 25 March 1982, itself categorically expresses t hat it shall only be_______________

18 R ollo, p. 61.19 C omment of the S olicitor-General, pp. 5-6.20 206 SCRA 305.21 E ntitled, “An Act Providing F or T he E lection of Barangay Officials, And For O ther P urposes.”

535


“applicable to t he e lection of barangay officials.” Section 14 of B.P. Blg. 222 and itsimplementing rule in Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539 have bothprovided:



14/19

Section 14 of B.P. 222:

“Sec. 14 . Official barangay ballots .—The official barangay ballots sha ll be provided by thecity or m unicipality concerned of a size a nd color t o be p rescribed by the Commission onElections.

“Such official ba llot sha ll, before it i s handed to the voter at the voting center, beauthenticated in the p resence of the voter, the ot her T ellers, and the w atchers presen t bythe Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers w ho shall affix his signature at t he backthereof.”

Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539:

“Sec. 36. Procedure in the casting of votes .—x x x“b. Delivery of ballot .—Before d elivering the ballot t o the voter, the chairman shall, in

the presence of the vot er, the ot her m embers of the boa rd an d the w atchers pres ent, affix h issignature at the b ack thereof and write t he seri al number of the b allot in the spa ce provi dedin the b allot, beginning with No. ‘1’ for t he rst ballot issued, and so on consecutively for t hesucceeding ballots, which serial number sha ll be entered i n the corr esponding sp ace of thevoting record. H e shall t hen fold the ballot once, and without rem oving the detachablecoupon, deliver i t to th e v oter, together w ith a ball pen.

“x x x x x x x x x.“e. Returning the ballot . (1) I n the p resence of all the m embers of the B oard, the vot er

shall affix his r ight hand thumbmark on the corresponding space i n the d etachable coupon,and shall give t he folded ballot to the cha irman. (2) The cha irman shall without unfolding

the b allot or l ooking a t its con tents, and in the p resence of the voter and all the m embers ofthe B oard, verify i f it bears h is si gnature an d the sam e seri al number rec orded in the vot ingrecord. (3) If the b allot i s f ound to be a uthentic, the v oter sh all then be req uired to i mprinthis r ight hand thumbmark on the proper s pace in the vot ing rec ord. (4) The chairman shallthen detach the cou pon and shall deposit the folded ballot in the com partment for val id

536


ballot and the cou pon in the com partment for spoi led ballots. (5) The voter s hall then leave

the v oting center.“f. When b allot may b e considered spoi led .—Any ballot returned to t he chai rman with its

coupon already detached, or which does n ot bear t he signature of t he cha irman, or an yballot with a serial number t hat does n ot tally w ith the seri al number of the b allot deliveredto th e voter a s rec orded in the voting record, shall be considered as spoiled and shall bemarked and signed by the m embers of the boar d and shall not be counted.” 22

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960536001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001540abc15b514ddf8e9003600fb002c009e/p/AQR271/?username=Guest#p283scra8960536001


15/19

The difference in the rules may not be too difficult t o discern. The stringentrequirements in B.P. B lg. 222 should be justiable considering that the officialbarangay ballots w ould be provided by the ci ty or m unicipality concerned with theCOMELEC merely prescribing t heir s ize an d color. Thus, the official ballots in B.P.

Blg. 222, being supplied and furnished by the local gov ernment t hemselves, thepossibility of the ballots b eing easily counterfeited might n ot h ave been discounted.The absence of authenticating marks p rescribed by law, i.e ., the signature of t hechairman of the B oard of Election Tellers at t he b ack of the b allot, could have wellbeen really th ought of to b e f atal to th e v alidity of the b allot.

Section 24 of R.A. No. 7166, upon the ot her h and, contains n o si milar st ringentprovisions s uch as t hat seen in Section 36(f) of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539. Thepertinent part i n Resolution No. 2676 on the requ irement of the si gnature of thechairman is found in Section 73 thereof which merely p rovides:“Sec. 73. Signature of chairman at the ba ck of every ballot .—In every case, the chairman ofthe board shall, in the presence of the voter, authenticate every ballot by affixing hissignature at the back thereof before delivering it to the voter. FAILURE TO SO

AUTHENTICATE SHALL BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AND SHALLCONSTITUTE AN ELECTION OFFENSE.”

_______________

22 Bautista vs. Castro, 206 SCRA 305, 313-314.

537


Again, in Resolution No. 2738, 23promulgated by the COMELEC on 03 January1995, 24 which implemented, among ot her e lection laws, R.A. No. 7166 (that gov ernedthe el ection for Members of the H ouse of Representatives hel d on 08 May 1 995), therelevant provision is i n Section 13 which itself has on ly stated :“Sec. 13. Authentication of the ballot .—Before d elivering a ballot t o the v oter, the chairmanof the b oard sh all, in the p resen ce of the voter , affix his si gnature a t the b ack thereof.”

It would appear evi dent that t he ru ling i n Bautista vs. Castro was prompted becauseof the express declaration in Section 36(f) of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539,implementing S ection 14 of B.P. Blg. 222, that: “Any ballot returned to t he ch airman. . . which does n ot bear t he si gnature of the chairman . . . shall be considered asspoiled . . . and shall not be cou nted.” This C ourt thus st ated in Bautista :“The law (Sec. 14 of B.P. Blg. 222) and the ru les i mplementing it (Sec. 36 of Comelec Res.No. 1539) leave n o room for i nterpretation. The ab sence of the si gnature of the C hairman of



16/19

the B oard of Election Tellers i n the b allot given to a voter as requ ired b y law and the ru lesas proof of t he authenticity of said ballot i s f atal. This requ irement i s mandatory for thevalidity o f the said ballot.”

It should be noteworthy that i n an unsigned 03rd April 1990 resolution, in “ Jolly

Fernandez vs. COMELEC ,” 25 the Court en banc had the opportunity to debunk theargument that al l ballots n ot signed at t he back thereof by the C hairman and thePoll Clerk w ere t o be con sidered spurious for_______________

23 Entitled, “General Instructions F or T he B oard of Election Inspectors O n The C asting And Counting

Of Votes I n The M ay 8 , 1995 Elections.”24 P ublished on 07 Ja nuary 1995 i n Manila S tandard.25 G.R. No. 91351, 03 April 1990.


Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal non-compliance w ith Section 15 of R.A. No. 6646, 26 i.e ., “The E lectoral Reforms L awof 1987,” r eading as f ollows:“Sec. 15. Signature of Chairman and Poll Clerk a t the Back of Every B allot .—In addition tothe preliminary a cts before the voting as en umerated in Section 191 of Batas P ambansaBlg. 881, the ch airman and the p oll clerk of the b oard of election inspectors sha ll affix theirsignatures a t t he back of each and every official bal lot t o be used during the voting. Acertication to tha t eff ect must be entered in the m inutes of the voti ng.”

The Court declared:

“The ca rdinal objective in the a ppreciation of the b allots i s to d iscover a nd give effect to th eintention of the v oter. That i ntention would be n ullied by the st rict interpretation of thesaid section as suggested by the petitioner f or it w ould result i n the invalidation of t heballot even if duly accomplished by the voter, and simply because of an omission notimputable to him but t o the election officials. The citizen cannot be deprived of hisconstitutional right of suffrage on the sp ecious grou nd that ot her pe rsons w ere n egligent inperforming t heir ow n duty, which in the case at bar w as p urely m inisterial and technical, byno means m andatory bu t a m ere an tecedent measure i ntended to au thenticate the bal lot. Acontrary ru ling w ould place a p remium on official ineptness an d make i t possible for a sm allgroup of functionaries, by their negligence—or, worse, their deliberate inaction—tofrustrate the will of t he electora te.” 27

Petitioner L ibanan suggests t hat t he C ourt might app ly the “r uling” of respondentHRET in the case of Yap vs. Calalay (HRET Case N o. 95-026). He st ates t hat “it is



17/19

the HRET itself, ironically, that de als t he coup de grace to its r uling in HRET CaseNo. 95-020.” The “ruling” cited by petitioner is actually a “CondentialMemorandum,” 28 dated 28 April 1997, from a_______________

26 E ntitled, “An Act Introducing Additional Reforms I n The E lectoral System And For O ther P urposes.”27 Jolly Fernandez vs. COMELEC, supra .28 Annex “F, ” Petition, Rollo, pp. 303-304.

539


certain Atty. Emmanuel Mapili addressed to “PA Committees in HRET Case No. 95-026 (Yap vs. Calalay)” which has for i ts su bject “(n)ew rulings to b e followed in theappreciation of ballots in HRET Case No. 95-026 (Yap vs. Calalay) and otherconcerns.” Petitioner Libanan quotes the pertinent portion of the saidMemorandum, viz .:“WHEREFORE, the Tribunal Resolved that the following rules and guidelines on theappreciation of ballots sh all be g iven effect in the resol ution of this case a nd shall be a ppliedprospectively to ot her pe nding ca ses:

“1. The a bsence of the signature of the BEI Chairman at t he back of the ballot shallnullify th e sam e a nd all the votes t herein shall not be cou nted in favor of any ca ndidate.” 29

Reliance by petitioner on this alleged “ruling,” obviously deserves scant

consideration. What sh ould, instead, be given weight i s the consistent ru le laiddown by the H RET that a b allot is considered va lid and genuine for as l ong as i tbears any on e of these au thenticating m arks, to wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark,or ( b) the si gnature or i nitials, or t humbprint of the C hairman of the B EI; and, (c) inthose cases where the COMELEC watermarks ar e blurred or not readily apparentto t he n aked eye, the p resence of red a nd blue bers i n the b allots. 30 It is on ly whennone of these m arks a ppears ext ant that t he b allot can be considered spurious an dsubject t o re jecti on.

It is qu ite cl ear, in the op inion of the C ourt, that no g rave abuse of discretion has

been committed by r espondent House_______________

29 R ollo, p. 303.30 Neri vs. Romualdo, HRET Case No. 92-001, 14 April 1994, 4 HRET Reports 42; Simando vs.

Fuentebella, HRET Case No. 92-011, 14 April 1994, 4 H RET Reports 429; San Buenaventura vs. Baguio,

HRET Case No. 92-016, 14 April 1994, 4 HRET Reports 603. Tanchanco vs. Oreta, HRET Case No. 92-017,



18/19

28 April 1994, 5 HRET Reports 25-26; Aterado vs. Garcia, HRET Case No. 92-008, 12 May 1994, 5 HRET

Reports 359;Hisuler vs. Lanto, HRET Case No. 92-014, 22 Ju ly 1994, 6 HRET Reports 36.

540


Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal of Represen tatives Electoral Tribunal in its i ssuance of the assailed decision andresol ution.

One ot her i mportant point. Regarding the m embership of certain Justices of thisCourt in the H RET and their pa rticipation in the resol ution of the i nstant pet ition,the Court s ees no conict at al l, and it, therefore, rejects th e offer o f inhibition byeach of the con cerned justices. As ea rly as Vera vs. Avelino ,31 t his Court, confrontedwith a like si tuation, has sai d unequivocally:“x x x Mulling over t his, we experience n o qualmish feelings a bout t he coincidence. Their

designation to the electoral tribunals d educted not a whit f rom their f unctions as membersof this Supreme Court, an d did not di squalify them in this litigation. N or will t heirdeliverances hereat on a g iven question operate t o p revent them from voting in the el ectoralforum on identical qu estions; because the Constitution, establishing no incompatibilitybetween the tw o roles, natural ly did not contemplate, nor w ant, justices op ining one w ayhere, an d thereafter holding otherwise, pari materia, in the electoral tr ibunal, or vice-versa.” 32

Such has t hus b een, and so i t i s t o be in this p etition, as w ell as in the cases t hatmay yet come before t he C ourt.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J.), Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Panganiban and Martinez, JJ., con cur.

Bellosillo, J., W ithout prejudice t o ling separate op inion to q ualify doctrine.

Petition dismissed._______________

31 7 7 Phil. 192, 213.32 At pp. 213-214.

541




19/19

Notes. —The p revailing doctrine i n this j urisdiction is t hat as l ong as t he ret urnsappear t o b e a uthentic an d duly a ccomplished on their f ace, the B oard of Canvasserscannot l ook beyond or b ehind them to verify allegations of irregularities in thecasting or the counting of the votes—corollary, technical examination of vot ing

paraphernalia involving analysis and comparison of voter’s signatures andthumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre-proclamation cases. ( Loong vs.Commission on Elections, 257 SC RA 1[1996])

The term “regular election,” m ust be conned to the regular election of electiveofficials, as d istinguished from the regular el ection of national officials. ( Paras vs.Commission on Elections, 264 SC RA 49 [1996])

——o0o——

542

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

A. Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal