Case Digest (P.E.T. Case No. 002) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Presidential Electoral Tribunal Case No. 002, Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr. (“Protestant”) lost to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (“Protestee”) in the May 10, 2004 Presidential Elections. On June 24, 2004, Congress, acting as National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed Arroyo the winner with 12,905,808 votes against Poe’s 11,782,232 votes. Poe filed a protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) on July 23, 2004; Arroyo filed an Answer with Counter-Protest on August 5, 2004. Before the protest proceedings concluded, Poe died of cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary to cerebral infarction on December 14, 2004. On January 10, 2005, Poe’s widow, Susan Roces (Jesusa Sonora Poe), filed a manifestation with urgent petition to intervene and substitute for her late husband, citing jurisprudence that an election contest survives the death of the protestant. Arroyo opposed, arguing that the right to a public office is personal, non-transmissible, and that the widow is not a “re Case Digest (P.E.T. Case No. 002) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Election and Proclamation
- May 10, 2004: Presidential election held; FPJ placed second with 11,782,232 votes, GMA first with 12,905,808.
- June 24, 2004: Congress, as National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed GMA duly elected; June 30, 2004: GMA took oath.
- Election Protest and Counter-Protest
- July 23, 2004: FPJ filed protest before PET; August 5, 2004: GMA filed Answer with Counter-Protest.
- Parties exchanged motions to expedite proceedings.
- Death of Protestant and Motion to Substitute
- December 14, 2004: FPJ died; counsel filed Notice of Death (cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary to cerebral infarction).
- January 10, 2005: Widow Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces) filed urgent petition to intervene and substitute, citing De Castro v. COMELEC and Lomugdang v. Javier.
- Protestee’s Opposition
- GMA argued right to public office is personal and non-transmissible; widow lacks legal right to substitute.
- Relied on Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias, HRET precedents, PET Rules (Rule 14) and Rules of Court to deny jurisdiction and substitution.
Issues:
- Substitution and Intervention
- May the widow intervene or substitute for the deceased protestant under PET Rules and Rules of Court by analogy?
- Survival and Continuance of Protest
- Does the protest survive the protestant’s death absent a proper substitute?
- Who qualifies as a real party in interest in a presidential election protest?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)