Facts:

The case revolves around two petitions, G.R. No. 173310 and G.R. No. 173609, filed by Anuar J. Abubakar against the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and Nur G. Jaafar, concerning the May 10, 2004 congressional elections for the Lone District of Tawi-Tawi Province. Abubakar was originally declared the winner of the elections, with 37,720 votes against Jaafar's 35,680, representing a margin of 2,040 votes. Following this proclamation, on June 1, 2004, Jaafar filed an election protest with the HRET alleging numerous electoral irregularities, including coercion of voters, deceit, and tampering with ballots. Abubakar countered this protest with a reply denying the allegations and asserting that irregularities also occurred that favored Jaafar.

The HRET conducted a preliminary conference to resolve the issues raised, and it held a series of hearings and revisions of contested ballots. On May 31, 2006, Abubakar requested a technical examination of ballots and to p

...

Facts:

Background of the 2004 Elections

• In the May 10, 2004 elections for the Lone District of Tawi-Tawi Province, Anuar J. Abubakar and Nur G. Jaafar contested as candidates for Representative.
• On May 22, 2004, Abubakar was proclaimed the winner with 37,720 votes against Jaafar’s 35,680 votes, winning by a margin of 2,040 votes.

Filing of Election Protest and Counter Protest

• On June 1, 2004, Jaafar filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) challenging the election results in ten municipalities of Tawi-Tawi.
• Jaafar alleged that fraudulent and illegal acts were committed by Abubakar, his supporters, election officials, and certain military personnel—such as:
• Preventing Jaafar’s supporters from voting through force, violence, intimidation, deceit, and fraud;
• The use of substitute voting and substitution of ballots; and
• Other irregularities including inadequate ballot procedures (e.g., merely affixing thumbprints on paper instead of proper ballots).
• Abubakar responded by filing his Answer with Counter Protest, alleging irregularities in the election returns such as:
• Illegal reading and counting of ballots;
• Preparation and counting of multiple ballots by one or two persons;
• Inclusion of unauthorized or unofficial ballots; and
• Erroneous counting favoring his opponent.

Pre-Trial Conferences and Preliminary Proceedings

• During the preliminary conference held on February 3, 2006, the following issues were agreed for resolution:
• Mutual allegations of election irregularities, fraud, and illegal acts committed by both parties;
• Recount and re-appreciation of the contested ballots; and
• Questions on dismissing the protest for lack of merit and insufficiency in form and substance.
• A preliminary hearing on March 17, 2005, addressed the affirmative defenses raised by protestee, including:
• The assertion that the petition failed to state a cause of action; and
• The claim that the petition was insufficient in form and substance.
• HRET issued Resolution No. 05-120 (April 14, 2005) dismissing the prayer for dismissal based on the affirmative defenses, and later Resolution No. 05-131 (April 28, 2005) denied protestee’s motion for reconsideration and motion to defer revision proceedings.

Ballot Collection, Revision, and Technical Motions

• Between November 15, 2004, and December 8, 2004, HRET representatives collected all ballot boxes and some election documents from the relevant municipalities.
• It was discovered that the concerned election officers failed to turn over critical items such as the Election Day Computerized Voters Lists and the Book of Voters, surrendering only the Book of Application Forms for Registration of Voters.
• From April 26, 2005, to May 9, 2005, HRET conducted a revision of ballots in 409 precincts (including 251 precincts solely protested by Jaafar, 148 precincts counter protested by Abubakar, and 10 common precincts).
• On May 31, 2006, Abubakar filed a motion requesting:
• A technical examination of the ballots to determine whether 7,966 ballots were prepared solely by one person or with the aid of assistors; and
• Permission to photocopy the contested ballots.
• HRET issued Resolution No. 06-047 (June 8, 2006) denying the motion based on its discretion and precedent (Tanchangco v. Oreta), noting that a technical examination was unnecessary given the thorough scrutiny already afforded to the ballots.
• Abubakar’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied via Resolution No. 06-053 (June 29, 2006).

Decision on the Election Protest

• On June 30, 2006, HRET rendered its decision on the election protest:
• The revised count showed that Jaafar obtained 27,257 votes against Abubakar’s 25,705 votes.
• Consequently, HRET declared Jaafar the duly elected Representative of the Lone District of Tawi-Tawi and annulled Abubakar’s proclamation.
• Following this, Abubakar filed a motion for reconsideration on July 10, 2006 and later petitions for certiorari with requests for preliminary injunctions challenging both the HRET decisions and resolutions.
• The petitions were docketed as G.R. No. 173310 (challenging the interlocutory orders denying technical examination and photocopying of ballots) and G.R. No. 173609 (challenging the election protest decision itself).
• On August 3, 2006, HRET denied Abubakar’s motion for reconsideration of the decision; subsequently, on August 7, 2006, Abubakar filed for certiorari against the election protest decision.
• The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases on September 12, 2006.

Contentions Raised by Petitioner (Abubakar)

• That the denial of the motion for technical examination and photocopying violated his due process rights.
• The claim that the discretion to allow technical examination should be exercised in his favor and that HRET abused its discretion.
• Allegations that the promulgation of the decision outside its regular session (promulgating on June 30, 2006, when the meeting was held on June 29, 2006) rendered the decision void.
• Assertions that testimony by the nineteen BEI chairpersons was wrongfully disregarded concerning the validity of ballots written by one person.
• The argument that invalidating 7,966 ballots in his favor violated the presumption of validity, effectively disenfranchising voters.
• The contention that election returns should prevail over ballots in establishing vote counts, particularly when discrepancies existed.

Issue:

• Whether HRET properly exercised its discretionary power under its rules in denying Abubakar’s motion for a technical examination of and photocopying of the contested ballots.
• Whether the denial of these motions amounted to a violation of due process.
• Whether the decision invalidating 7,966 ballots written by one person was in accordance with established electoral rules and the presumption of validity of ballots.
• Whether the procedure in promulgating the decision (being issued on the day following the regular session) constitutes an administrative irregularity sufficient to void the decision.
• Whether HRET’s apparent disregard of BEI chairpersons’ testimonies regarding assisted voting undermined its findings on the contested ballots.
• Whether the reliance on the ballots—the “best evidence”—over the election returns in determining vote counts was proper.
• Whether the alleged grave abuse of discretion by HRET, amounting to an arbitrary exercise of power, was present in both the initial protest resolution and the subsequent decisions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)