1.Chavez v comelec 211 scra 315,19912. Abbas v set 166scra 651,1988FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS vs. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Facts:

This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set aside the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denying, respectively, the petitioners' Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition and their Motion for Reconsideration thereafter filed.

Senator Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal were being asked to inhibit themselves in hearing SET Case No. 002-87 as they are considered interested parties, therefore leaving the Senate Electoral Tribunal senateless, and all remaining members coming from the judiciary.

Issue:

WON the SET can function without the Senator members.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Tribunal to not let Senator-Members to inhibit or disqualify himself, rather, just let them refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment.3. Pimentel v hret gr 1414894. Bondoc v pineda 201 scra 792FACTS:

In the elections held on May 11, 1987, Marciano Pineda of the LDP and Emigdio Bondoc of the NP were candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga. Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), which is composed of 9 members, 3 of whom are Justices of the SC and the remaining 6 are members of the House of Representatives (5 members belong to the LDP and 1 member is from the NP). Thereafter, a decision had been reached in which Bondoc won over Pineda. Congressman Camasura of the LDP voted with the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles of the NP to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the contest.

On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Congressman Camasura received a letter informing him that he was already expelled from the LDP for allegedly helping to organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting LDP members in Davao Del Sur to join said political party. On the day of the promulgation of the decision, the Chairman of HRET received a letter informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the LDP, the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura to the HRET.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the House of Representatives, at the request of the dominant political party therein, may change that partys representation in the HRET to thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein.

RULING:

The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration.

As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality and independence even independence from the political party to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an injustice and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

5.Robles v hret 181 scra 780FACTS:Rep. Virgilio Robles elected to 1st Dist. of Caloocan, Romeo Santos filed elec. contest w/ HRET for electoral fraud & irregularities & called for re-counting / re-appreciation of votes. Filed Motion to Withdraw Contest but later filed Urgent MMotion to Recall/Disregard his Previous Motion. 1st Motion not acted upon, 2nd Motion granted. Robles claimed that the 1st motion divested HRET of jurisdiction. ISSUE: Whether or not SC can interfere on this controversy.HELD:SC cannot interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be lost at the mere instance of the parties, but continues until case is terminated. HRET must be allowed to function w/o being impaired by mere technicalities of procedure. Elec. protest is vested w/ public interest. Certiorari DENIED.

6. Arroyo v hret 246 scra 384

After the May 11, 1992 elections, Arroyo wasdeclaredas the duly elected Congressman of the lone district of Makati. Arroyo won by 13,559 votes over his opponent. His opponent Syjuco protested the declaration before the HRET. Syjuco alleged that Arroyo won due to massive fraud hence he moved forrevisionand recounting. HRET gave way but during the process some HRET employees and personnel conducted some irregularities to ensure Syjucos win. After some paper battles between the two, Syjuco, realizing that mererevisionand recounting would not suffice to overthrow the more than 12,000 votes lead of Arroyo over him, revised his complaint by including and introducing in his memorandum cum addendum that his complaint is actually based on a broader and more equitable non-traditional determination of the existence of the precinct-level document-based anomalies and that therevisionhe initially sought is just incidental to such determination. The 3 justices members of the HRET ruled that such amendment is already beyond the tribunals jurisdiction and the 6 representative members ruled otherwise. Consequently, by a vote of 6-3, the HRET did not dismiss the protest filed by Syjuco and the HRET laterdeclaredSyjuco as the winner.ISSUE:Whether or not HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.HELD:However guised or justified by Syjuco, this innovative theory he introduced for the first time in his memorandum cum addendum indeed broadened the scope of the election protest beyond what he originally sought-the mererevisionof ballots. From his initial prayer forrevisionwhich lays primary, if not exclusive emphasis on the physical recount and appreciation of ballots alone, private respondents belated attempt to inject this theory at the memorandum stage calls for presentation of evidence (consisting of thousands of documents) aside from, or other than, the ballots themselves. By having done so, Syjuco in fact intended to completely abandon the process and results of therevisionand thereafter sought to rely on his brainchild process he fondly coined as precinct-level document-based evidence. This is clearly substantial amendment of the election protest expressly proscribed by Rule 28 of the HRET internal rules.

7. Lerias v hret 202 scra 808FACTS:Rosette Lerias files elec. Protest against proclaimed winner Rep. Roger Mercado for Lone Dist. of So. Leyte. Returns from town of Libangon questioned but presumed to produce more votes for Lerias. Board of Canvassers copy of COCs inconsistent w/ COMELEC copy indicated dagdag-bawas. Lerias votes reduced by 100 votes per precinct (#6, 10, 18, 19). School teachers testified. Majority rules in favor of Mercado (party-mate) who only presented photocopies for evidence.ISSUE: whether or Not the findings and pronouncements of the HRET (majorirty opinion) are totally bereft of any support in law and settled jurisprudence

H: In an election contest where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves. But where the ballots cannot be produced or are not available, the election returns would be the best evidence. Where it has been duly determined that actual voting and election by the registered voter had taken place in the questioned precincts or voting centers, the election returns cannot be disregarded and excluded with the resulting disenfranchisement of the voters, but must be accordedprima faciestatus asbona fidereports of the results of the voting.. In the absence of actual ballots, election returns from Mun. Board of Canvassers presented by Lerias constitutes best evidence. Prima facie evidence. Best evidence rule must apply. HRET decision is SET ASIDE.

8. Sandoval v hretPetitioner Sandoval and respondent Oreta were candidates for the lonecongressional district of Malabon-Navotas during the 14 May 2001 national elections. The canvassof the election returns yielded 92,062 votes for petitioner whilerespondent obtained 72,862 votes, ora 19,200 votes. On22 May 2001 petitioner was proclaimed duly elected representative by the District Board of Canvassers ofMalabon-Navotas. After taking his oath of office, he assumedthepost at noon of 30 June2001.

On 1 June 2001 respondent Oreta filed withHRET an election protest against petitioner, docketed as HRET CaseNo. 01-027. The protest assailed the alleged electoral frauds andanomalies in one thousand three hundred eight (1,308) precincts of the Malabon-Navotas District.ISSUE: WON the SC hasjurisdiction over the election protest case.HELD:Yes, the SC hasjurisdiction..While the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the solejudge of all contests relating to theelections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress, this regime however does not bar this Courtfrom entertaining petitions where the threshold of legitimate review is breached. Indeed,it is well-settled that judicial guidance is appropriate wherejurisdictional issues are involved or charges of grave abuse ofdiscretion are presented in order that wemay vindicate established claims of denial of due process orcorrect veritable abuses of discretion so grave orglaring that no less than the Constitution itself calls for remedial action.

9.Sema v hret gr190734,2010The Province of Maguindanao is part of ARMM. Cotabato City is part of the province of Maguindanao but it is not part of ARMM because Cotabato City voted against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in 1989. Maguindanao has two legislativedistricts. The 1stlegislative district comprises of Cotabato City and 8 other municipalities.A law (RA 9054) was passed amending ARMMs Organic Act and vesting it withpower to createprovinces, municipalities, cities and barangays. Pursuant to this law, the ARMM Regional Assembly created Shariff Kabunsuan (Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act 201) which comprised of the municipalities of the 1stdistrict of Maguindanao with the exception of Cotabato City.Bai Sandra Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S. Kabunsuan with Cotabato (1stdistrict). Later, Sema was contending that Cotabato City should be a separate legislative district and that votes therefrom should be excluded in the voting.She contended that under theConstitution, upon creation of a province (S. Kabunsuan), that province automatically gains legislative representation and since S. Kabunsuan excludes Cotabato City so in effect Cotabato is being deprived of a representative in the HOR.ISSUE:Whether or not RA 9054 is unconstitutional. Whether or not ARMM can create validly LGUs.HELD:RA 9054 is unconstitutional. The creation of local government units is governed by Section 10, Article X of theConstitution, which provides:Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units province, city, municipality or barangay must comply with three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision of theConstitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected.

10. Dueas v hret 593 scra 316, 2010FACTS:Petitioner Henry Jun Dueas, Jr. and private respondent Angelito Jett P. Reyes were rival candidates for the position of congressman in the 2ndlegislative district of Taguig City in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections. After the canvass of the votes, petitioner was proclaimed the winner. Not conceding defeat, private respondent filed an election protest, praying for a revision/recount,alleging that he was cheated in the protested 170 of 732 precinctsthrough insidious and well-orchestrated electoral frauds and anomalies which resulted in the systematic reduction of his votes and the corresponding increase in petitioners votes.HRET issued a resolution ruling that it had the discretion either to dismiss the protest or counter-protest, or to continue with the revision if necessitated by reasonable and sufficient grounds affecting the validity of the election. This was with the end in view of ascertaining the true choice of the electorate. It was the HRETs position that the mere filing of a motion to withdraw/abandon the unrevised precincts did not automatically divest the HRET of its jurisdiction over the same. Moreover, it ruled that its task of determining the true will of the electorate was not confined to the examination of contested ballots. Under its plenary power, it couldmotu propioreview the validity of every ballot involved in a protest or counter-protest and the same could not be frustrated by the mere expedient of filing a motion to withdraw/abandon the remaining counter-protested precincts. ISSUE:Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the Resolution, to continue the revision and appreciation of all the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.

HELD:The petition has no merit.So long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this Court .the power granted to the Electoral Tribunal x x x excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the same. Guided by this basic principle, the Court will neither assume a power that belongs exclusively to the HRET nor substitute its own judgment for that of the Tribunal.