Elec Digests

7/28/2019 Elec Digests

1/5

MOYA VS DEL FIERRO 69 PHIL 199 (1939)

In this petition for review by certiorari of the judgment of the CA declaring del Fierro as the

candidate-elect mayor of Paracale, Camarines Norte with a majority vote over Moya. He

contended that the CA committed errors in admitting and counting in favor of del Fierro several

ballots.

The SC dismissed the petition because in result even if the ballots contested are counted in

favor of Moya, del Fierro still wins by one vote.

The SC avers that in republicanism, the citizens have the voice in the government and whenever

called upon to act in justifiable cases to give it efficacy and not to stifle. This is the fundamental

reason for the rule that ballots should be read and appreciated if not with utmost, with

reasonable liberality.

BADELLES VS CABILI 27 SCRA 113 (February 27, 1969)

This is an appeal of the order of the lower court dismissing the election protest filed against the

duly proclaimed mayor of Iligan City, Camilo P. Cabili. The appellant seeks the reversal of the

order dated March 23, 1968 dismissing his election protest for his failure to allege a cause of

action to justify and to try the same.

The lower court concluded that mere irregularities or misconduct on the part of election officers

which do not tend to affect the result of the elections are not grounds for contest or for proper

matters of inquiry. According to the lower court, there was no allegation in the petition that

those who failed to vote are for herein petitioner Badelles and those illegal voters are for the

responded Cabili.

SC reversed the said order and remanded the two cases to the lower court for proceeding and

trial in accordance with the opinion and the law. Its dismissal according to them would amount

to judicial abnegations of a sworn duty to inquire into and pass upon in a appropriate

proceeding, allegations of misconduct and of such characters.

If there be a failure to observe the mandates of the Election Code, the aggrieved parties should

no be left remediless. Under the law as it stands, it is precisely an election protest that fitly

serves that purpose.

Purisima v. Salonga

L-22335

December 31, 1965


2/5

FACTS:

Petitioner Purisima is a candidate for any of the three offices of Provincial Board Member of Ilocos

Sur. During the canvass, he notes that the returns from precints (41) showed on their face that the

words and figures for Gregorio Cordero had been obviously and manifestly erased andsuperimposed with other words and figures. For comparison, the Nacionalista Party copies of

returns were submitted to the board of canvassers and discrepancy was found.Purisima requested

for suspension of the canvass, which the board denied upon the ground that it was not yet

ascertainable whether the discrepancies would materially affect the result. After the canvass,

Cordero got the last spot with 1, 857 votes more than Purisima. The petitioner again called the

attention to the erasures which the board again denied and proceeded with the proclamation of

Cordero. Purisima went to the COMELEC to annul the canvass and proclamation to which the

Commission respinded by passing a resolution annulling the canvass and proclamation. He filed a

petition for recount with the CFI which was dismissed. It was argued that the Nacionalista copies

cannot be made basis of a petition for recount accdg to Sec. 163 of the Revised Election Code.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court is correct in dismissing the petition for recount and its interpretation of Sec. 163

of the Revised Election Code.

HELD:

The dismissal of petition for recount set aside. There is no more question now that the number of

votes involved in said discrepancy is more than enough to alter the result. The record shows that

the reason why Purisima was not able to submit to the board the COMELEC copies of returns was

because the board declined to suspend the canvass and proclamation. He should not be prejudiced

by such. It is the duty of canvassers to suspend in case of patent irregularity in the returns as in the

present case.

Interpretation of election laws should give effect to the expressed will of the electorate.

ROQUE VS COMELEC

Facts:

This case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners of the September 10, 2009

ruling of the Supreme Court, which denied the petition of H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. for certiorari,

prohibition, and mandamus to nullify the contract-award of the 2010 Election Automation Projectto the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic

International Corporation (Smartmatic).

In this MR, petitioners Roque, et al. are again before the Supreme Court asking that the contract

award be declared null and void on the stated ground that it was made in violation of the

Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence. Intervening petitioner also interposed a similar motion,

but only to pray that the Board of Election Inspectors be ordered to manually count the ballots after

the printing and electronic transmission of the election returns.


3/5

Petitioners Roque, et al., as movants herein, seek a reconsideration of the September 10, 2009

Decision on the following issues or grounds:

1. The Comelecs public pronouncements show that there is a "high probability" that there will be

failure of automated elections;

2. Comelec abdicated its constitutional functions in favor of Smartmatic;

3. There is no legal framework to guide the Comelec in appreciating automated ballots in case the

PCOS machines fail;

4. Respondents cannot comply with the requirements of RA 8436 for a source code review;

5. Certifications submitted by private respondents as to the successful use of the machines in

elections abroad do not fulfill the requirement of Sec. 12 of RA 8436;

6. Private respondents will not be able to provide telecommunications facilities that will assure

100% communications coverage at all times during the conduct of the 2010 elections; and

7. Subcontracting the manufacture of PCOS machines to Quisdi violates the Comelecs bidding rules.

Note: (This digest would only deal with the procedural aspect of the MR. Only those issues or

grounds wherein the Court made a ruling re: procedure would be discussed here.)

Issue: Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious?

Ruling:

No.

Upon taking a second hard look into the issues in the case at bar and the arguments earnestly

pressed in the instant motions, the Court cannot grant the desired reconsideration.

Petitioners threshold argument delves on possibilities, on matters that may or may not occur. The

conjectural and speculative nature of the first issue raised is reflected in the very manner of its

formulation and by statements, such as "the public pronouncements of public respondentCOMELEC x x x clearly show that there is a high probability that there will be automated failure of

elections"; "there is a high probability that the use of PCOS machines in the May 2010 elections willresult in failure of elections"; "the unaddressed logistical nightmaresand the lack of contingency

plans that should have been crafted as a result of a pilot testmake an automated failure of

elections very probable"; and "COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it signed x x xthe contract for full automation x x x despite the likelihood of a failure of elections."

Speculations and conjectures are not equivalent to proof; they have little, if any, probative value

and, surely, cannot be the basis of a sound judgment.

Petitioners, to support their speculative venture vis--vis the possibility of Comelec going manual,

have attributed certain statements to respondent Comelec Chairman Melo, citing for the purpose a

news item on Inquirer.net, posted September 16, 2009.


4/5

Reacting to the attribution, however, respondents TIM and Smartmatic, in their comment,

described the Melo pronouncements as made in the context of Comelecs contingency plan.

Petitioners, however, the same respondents added, put a misleading spin to the Melo

pronouncements by reproducing part of the news item, but omitting to make reference to his

succeeding statements to arrive at a clearer and true picture.

Private respondents observation is well-taken. Indeed, it is easy to selectively cite portions of what

has been said, sometimes out of their proper context, in order to assert a misleading conclusion.

The effect can be dangerous. Improper meaning may be deliberately attached to innocent views or

even occasional crude comments by the simple expediency of lifting them out of context from anypublication.

Petitioners posture anent the third issue, i.e, there no is legal framework to guide Comelec in the

appreciation of automated ballots or to govern manual count should PCOS machines fail, cannot be

accorded cogency. First, it glosses over the continuity and back-up plans that would beimplemented in case the PCOS machines falter during the 2010 elections. The overall fallback

strategy and options to address even the worst-case scenariothe wholesale breakdown of the80,000 needed machines nationwide and of the 2,000 reserved unitshave been discussed in some

detail in the Decision subject of this recourse. The Court need not belabor them again.

While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision

sought to be reconsideredand this should not be an obstacle for a reconsiderationthe hard

reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly

persuasive to warrant the desired course of action.

Significantly, petitioners, in support of their position on the lack-of-legal-framework issue, invoke

the opinion of Associate, later Chief, Justice Artemio Panganiban in Loong v. Comelec, where hemade the following observations: "Resort to manual appreciation of the ballots is precluded by the

basic features of the automated election system," and "the rules laid down in the Omnibus ElectionCode (OEC) for the appreciation and counting of ballots cast in a manual election x x x are

inappropriate, if not downright useless, to the proper appreciation and reading of the ballots used

in the automated system." Without delving on its wisdom and validity, the view of Justice

Panganiban thus cited came by way of a dissenting opinion. As such, it is without binding effect, a

dissenting opinion being a mere expression of the individual view of a member of the Court or othercollegial adjudicating body, while disagreeing with the conclusion held by the majority.

And going to another but recycled issue, petitioners would have the Court invalidate the

automation contract on the ground that the certifications submitted by Smartmatic during thebidding, showing that the PCOS technology has been used in elections abroad, do not comply with

Sec. 1222 of RA 8436. Presently, petitioners assert that the system certified as having been used in

New York was the Dominion Image Cast, a ballot marking device.

Petitioners have obviously inserted, at this stage of the case, an entirely new factual dimension to

their cause. This we cannot allow for compelling reasons. For starters, the Court cannot plausibly

validate this factual assertion of petitioners. As it is, private respondents have even questioned the

reliability of the website24 whence petitioners base their assertion, albeit the former, citing the

same website, state that the Image Cast Precinct tabulation device refers to the Dominions PCOS

machines.


5/5

Moreover, as a matter of sound established practice, points of law, theories, issues, and arguments

not raised in the original proceedings cannot be brought out on review. Basic considerations of fair

play impel this rule. The imperatives of orderly, if not speedy, justice frown on a piecemeal

presentation of evidence and on the practice of parties of going to trial haphazardly.

Moving still to another issue, petitioners claim that "there are very strong indications that Private

Respondents will not be able to provide for telecommunication facilities for areas without thesefacilities." This argument, being again highly speculative, is without evidentiary value and hardly

provides a ground for the Court to nullify the automation contract. Surely, a possible breach of a

contractual stipulation is not a legal reason to prematurely rescind, much less annul, the contract.

Finally, petitioners argue that, based on news reports,28 the TIM-Smartmatic joint venture hasentered into a new contract with Quisdi, a Shanghai-based company, to manufacture on its behalf

the needed PCOS machines to fully automate the 2010 elections.29 This arrangement, petitionersaver, violates the bid rules proscribing sub-contracting of significant components of the automation

project.

The argument is untenable, based as it is again on news reports. Surely, petitioners cannot expectthe Court to act on unverified reports foisted on it.

Documents

Elec Digests