6. Election Protest

Is jurisdiction lost upon withdrawal or protest?

No. Jurisdiction once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties, but continues until the case is terminated. Mere filing of a motion to withdraw protest, without any action on the part of the tribunal, does not divest it of jurisdiction. An election protest is impressed with public interest in the sense that the public is interested in knowing what happened in the elections. Thus, private interest must yield to the common good. (Robles v HRET, G.R. No. 86647, Feb. 5, 1990)

Election Contest – an election protest contests the election or returns and may be brought by a qualified losing candidate; election quo warranto challenges the proclaimed winner’s eligibility or qualifications.

• In the absence of an election contest, the Electoral Tribunal is without jurisdiction. However, each House can expel its own members or even defer their oath taking until their qualifications are determined. This may be exercised even without an election contest.

The power of the HRET to determine the citizenship of a winning candidate does not include looking at the grant of citizenship to the candidate’s ascendant. That would be a prohibited collateral attack (Vilando v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, Aug. 23, 2011).

An Electoral Tribunal may annul election results if in its determination, fraud, terrorism or other electoral irregularities existed to warrant the annulment. Because in doing so, it is merely exercising its constitutional duty to ascertain who among the candidates received the majority of the valid votes cast. (Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No. 222236, March 6, 2017)

Since the Electoral Tribunals are independent constitutional bodies:

• Neither House of Congress may control an Electoral Tribunal’s adjudicative functions. (Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936) The Supreme Court may review tribunal action for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Its members may not be arbitrarily removed from their positions in the tribunal by the parties that they represent. Neither may they be removed for not voting according to party lines, since they are acting independently of Congress. (Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, Sept. 26, 1991)
• The mere fact that the members of either the Senate or the House sitting on the Electoral Tribunal are themselves the ones sought to be disqualified (due to the filing of an election contest against them) does not warrant the disqualification of all the members of the Electoral Tribunal. (Abbas v. SET, G.R. No. 83767, Oct. 27, 1988) - but surely they will inhibit from voting
• Judicial review of decisions of the Electoral Tribunals may be had with the Supreme Court only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, the decision or resolution having been rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction. (Pimentel v. HRET, G.R. No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002)

E.g. A final vote tally made by an Electoral Tribunal without supporting evidence has been struck down by the Court. (Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 97105, Oct. 15, 1991)

Updated: A prior final COMELEC finding of no failure of elections may preclude relitigation of that issue in an electoral tribunal’s annulment assessment (Marcos v. Robredo, G.R. No. 208610, 16 February 2021).

Grounds for Recount:

• Material defects in the ERs
• ERs are tampered or falsified
• Discrepancies in the ERs

When Recount is Possible:

• COMELEC order BEI to conduct recount
• Integrity and identity of ballot box is not violated
• BEI ascertains that integrity of ballots in box preserved
• BEI recounts and complete/correct returns

In a regular elections contests, the general averment of fraud or irregularities in the counting of votes justifies the examination of the ballots and recounting of votes. This process of examination is the revision of the ballots pursuant to Section 6, Rule 20 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The protests involved herein assailed the authenticity of the election returns and the veracity of the counting of the ballots. In that regard, the ballots themselves are the best evidence. The only means to overcome the presumption of legitimacy of the election returns is to examine and determine first whether the ballot boxes have been substantially preserved in the manner mandated by law. Hence, the necessity to issue the order of revision. (Tolentino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187958, 20101).

Election Contests

An election contest is any adversary proceeding by which matters involving title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or after the proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the contestant is claiming office in dispute. (Javier v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-68379-81, September 22, 1986).

NOTE:

• Only real parties in interest can file and pursue election protests.
• Even if it was the 2nd placer who filed the election protest, the 3rd placer may still possibly win.

Requisites for an Election Protest

• Filed by a candidate who has filed a COC and has been voted upon for the same office.
• Filed within the period prescribed by the rules governing the particular office and tribunal.
• Period to file EP is suspended during pendency of PPC
• A counter-protest must also comply with the reglementary period.
• On grounds of:
• Election fraud/terrorism, and
• Irregularities or illegal acts before, during or after casting and counting of votes.

Grounds for Election Protest:

• Misappreciation
• Violence
• Intimidation
• No padlock
• Padding of votes

Quo Warranto

Election quo warranto is a distinct remedy challenging the proclaimed winner’s eligibility or qualifications, not a ground for an election protest.