Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 184942 : March 23, 2010] NILO FLORENTINO Z. SY V. BERT S. MACIAS, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SINDAGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, NAMELY ELECTION OFFICER ALFREDO E. BALISADO, MS. YOLANDA B. SAILE, AND GILBERTO TABASA :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 23, 2010

"G.R. No. 184942: NILO FLORENTINO Z. SY v. BERT S. MACIAS, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SINDAGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, namely ELECTION OFFICER ALFREDO E. BALISADO, MS. YOLANDA B. SAILE, and GILBERTO TABASA

RESOLUTION

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari^[1] assailing the Resolution dated 25 September 2008 issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) En Banc in EAC No. A-08-2007, for allegedly having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioner Nilo Florentino Z. Sy (Sy) and respondent Bert S. Macias (Macias) were candidates for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte in the 14 May 2007 Elections. Sy garnered 13,964 votes while Macias received 13,975 votes, with a margin of 11 votes. Based on the canvassing of 270 precincts, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Macias as the winning candidate.

On 23 May 2007, Sy filed a Protest/Petition before the Regional Trial Court"^[2] (RTC) of Zamboanga City alleging that there were thousands of votes legally cast in his favor which were not read, appreciated, counted, and tallied by the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) in all the 270 precincts and that there were illegal and invalid votes which were read, appreciated, counted, and tallied in favor of Macias. Sy further alleged that Macias employed massive fraud and vote-buying. The RTC issued a Resolution dated 19 June 2007 dismissing the protest/petition for failure "to allege a detailed specification of the acts or omission complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts contemplated in sub-paragraph (f), Section 11, Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials x x x."

Not satisfied, Sy elevated the matter to the Comelec. The Comelec's First Division^[3] found the appeal of Sy to be impressed with merit and issued a Resolution dated 1 February 2008 remanding the case to the RTC and ordering the immediate revision of the ballots to determine the rightful winner of the electorate. The First Division ruled that there was substantial compliance with the rules when Sy stated in his protest/petition that he was contesting all the 270 precincts of the Municipality of Sindangan and the alleged acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities embodied all the protested precincts. It further ruled that there was actually no need to specify the acts or omission in each and every precinct.

Macias moved for a reconsideration of the 1 February 2008 Resolution. The Comelec En Banc^[4] issued the assailed Resolution dated 25 September 2008 setting aside the resolution of the First Division and affirming the order of the RTC. The Comelec En Banc ruled that Sy had not succinctly alleged a detailed specification of the acts complained of showing the alleged electoral fraud, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts. When the protest lacked compliance with the essential requirements of the pertinent laws, the Comelec or the trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, order the dismissal of the election protest. Sy merely alleged in the protest/petition that during the said elections, there were thousands of votes legally cast in his favor which were not read, appreciated, counted and tallied by the BEL These allegations, according to the Comelec En Banc, were in the nature of a general averment of causes but there was no established nexus between the alleged acts of electoral fraud and any of the particular precincts involved. Moreover, a protest attacking all the precincts is reminiscent of a petition for failure of elections and not an election protest. The Comelec En Banc further ruled that since the rules clearly proscribe the filing of a protest that does not allege with sufficient specification the acts being complained of, the filing of one which alleges irregularities in all of the precincts with simple bare allegations also will not be allowed.

Claiming that the Comelec En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolution, Sy filed the present petition.

Sy contends that the Comelec En Banc disregarded the principle of liberal construction of the provisions of the rules of procedure in election contests. Sy argues that to require a more detailed specification of the electoral frauds and irregularities in the 270 protested precincts would be preposterous.

In his Comment to the petition, Macias avers that Sy failed to state in what specific precincts the alleged irregularity happened. It could not be made by a mere sweeping general statement that it happened in "all" the protested precincts. Macias further alleges that not a single protest or objection was raised by Sy and his watchers against any voter in any of the precincts during the voting and casting of ballots or during the appreciation of the ballots or when the election returns in these precincts were prepared and canvassed.

In his Reply, Sy claims he ably identified 14 barangays where specific irregularities were committed. This, to his mind, is substantial compliance with the rules. Sy insists that a literal interpretation of the rules would result to absurdity and impossible application.

The only issue for resolution is whether the Protest/Petition filed by Sy complied with the Rules.

We dismiss the petition.

Under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC or the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, an election protest refers to an election contest relating to the election and returns of elective officials, grounded on frauds or irregularities in the conduct of the elections, the casting and counting of the ballots and the preparation and canvassing of returns, the issue is who obtained the plurality of valid votes cast.^[5]

And in the filing of an election protest, Section 11(f),^[6] Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials is clear. An election protest shall state a "detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts." Such requirement is mandatory as the provision itself uses the word "shall." Basic therefore is the rule that the petition or protest must specify the precincts where fraud, vote-buying  or  irregularities were committed and how these occurrences took place. If the  petition  is insufficient in form and content as required in Section 11, it is a ground for summary dismissal pursuant to Section 13^[7] of Rule 2.

Sy's Protest/Petition, particularly paragraphs 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5, alleges:

9.	Protestant hereby contests and impugns the result of the said voting for the position of the Municipal Mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del None in all the above-listed precincts as not the true will of the electorate for the following reasons:
	9.1	There were thousands of votes legally cast in favor of the protestant which were not read, appreciated, counted, and tallied by the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) in the TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY (270) precincts in favor of the protestant. Had those valid and legal votes read, appreciated, counted, and tallied in favor of the herein protestant, the number of votes for the protestant shall greatly exceed than that of protestee Macias.
	9.2	In the Barangays of Lawis, Don Ricardo G. Macias, Don Joaquin G. Macias, Dumalogdog, Nato, Datu Tangkilan, Inuman, La Concepcion, Binuangan, Tigbao, Goleo, Bantayan, and other barangays where protestee Macias, his relatives and minions had sizeable landholdings, tenants-voters were coerced and threatened to vote for protestee Macias on pains of ejectment from the land the tenants-voters are tilling and occupying. To ensure that the said tenants-voters shall vote for protestee Macias, the tenants-voters were made to write down on their ballots distinctive marks to identify the tenants-voters who indeed had cast their votes in favor of the protestee Macias. Hundreds of these illegal and invalid votes were read, appreciated, counted, and tallied in favor of the protestee Macias.
		Had these illegal and invalid votes not read, appreciated, counted, and tallied in favor of the protestee Macias, the votes of the protestant will be more than that of protestee Macias and the protestant should have been proclaimed the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte in the aforesaid May 14, 2007 elections.
	9.3	Protestee Macias had employed massive fraud and vote- buying in order to secure his election.
		9.3.1	In the morning of May 13, 2007, Sunday, during the distribution of election materials by the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte to the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), protestee Marcias herded many BEI members into the nearby Office of the Municipal Mayor and handed to each BEI member(s) the amount of FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS to ensure that the BEI members will cooperate in the scheme to identify the vote of the voter.
		9.3.2	The scheme to identify the votes of the voters was the illegal use of synchronized or paraffin paper or other means for making a copy of the contents of the ballots. A number of such paraffin papers were seized from voters whose votes were bought by protestee Macias.
	9.4	In most barangays of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, voters who had been given money in exchange for their votes in favor of protestee Macias were instructed to write down on their ballots distinctive markings such as, but not limited to, the word "PASTERA" written on the space for members, Sangguniang Bay an in order to identify the voters who had prepared such ballots. No candidate for Member, Sangguniang Bayan of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte in the May 14, 2007 elections by the name PASTERA had filed a certificate of candidacy before the COMELEC, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte as can be seen in the herein attached certified true copy, Annex "R" of the certified List of Candidates issued by the COMELEC, Sindangan ZN.;
	9.5	Had such illegal and invalid votes not read, appreciated, counted, and tallied in favor of the protestee Macias, protestant shall have obtained more votes than protestee Macias;[8]

Paragraph 9.1, for instance, is a general statement where Sy stated that thousands of votes were cast in his favor that were "not read, appreciated, counted, and tallied" in the 270 precincts. In paragraph 9.2, while Sy mentioned certain barangays where the voters were allegedly coerced and threatened, he failed to state in detail which precinct or precincts were involved. Sy further alleged massive fraud and vote-buying in most barangays. But, as aptly ruled by the Comelec En Banc, to be entitled to an equitable liberal interpretation of the rules, the protestant must, from the evidence presented, show that the protest he filed was proper, that the grounds relied upon are correct and that sufficient evidence would show that the grounds actually exist. Sy failed to state and identify with particularity where such electoral fraud was committed, except for a general allegation that there was fraud committed in all the 270 precincts. He failed to specify the particular precinct where fraud, vote-buying and other irregularities were committed. Indeed, a bare allegation of massive fraud or irregularities without specification and substantiation of where and how these occurrences took place would not suffice. Further, as correctly pointed out by the Comelec En Banc, a protest attacking all the precincts is reminiscent of a petition for failure of elections and not an election protest.

Mere substantial compliance would not suffice to cure the obvious omissions because the rules demand strict compliance. As we have ruled in Cabrera v. Comelec,^[9] the Court has painstakingly crafted A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC precisely to curb the pernicious practice of prolonging election protests, a sizable number of which, in the past, were finally resolved only when the term of office was about to expire, or worse, had already expired. These Rules were purposely adopted to provide an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for the just determination of election cases before the courts.

WHEREFORE, we  DISMISS the  petition. We AFFIRM the

Resolution dated 25 September 2008 of the Comelec En Banc in EAC No. A-08-2007."

Puno, C.J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

^[2] Presided by Judge Arturo M. Paculanang.

^[3] Composed of Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra, Romeo A, Brawner and Moslemen T. Macarambon.

^[4] Composed of Chairman Jose A.R. Melo and Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento, Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Moslemen T. Macarambon, Leonardo L. Leonida and Lucenito N. Tagle.

^[5] A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, effective 15 May 2007.

^[16] Sec. 11. Contest of the protest or petition. - An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall specifically state the following facts: x x x

(f) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts. (Emphasis supplied)

^[7] SEC. 13. Summary dismissal of election contest. - The court shall summarily dismiss, motu proprio an election protest, counter-protest or petition for quo warranto on any of the following grounds: x x x

(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as required in Section 11 hereof; x x x

^[8] Rollo, pp. 60-62.

^[9] G.R. No. 182084, 6 October 2008, 567 SCRA 686, 694-695.