Case Summary (G.R. No. 264661)
Facts of the Case
On May 27, 2022, a document named "APELA PARA SA MANO-MANONG PAGBILANG MULI NG MGA BOTO SA PROBINSYA NG PANGASINAN" was submitted to COMELEC, advocating for a manual recount due to perceived election fraud. The document, initially signed by various voters, argues that the election outcomes contradicted the will of the electorate. Legal correspondence ensued wherein COMELEC's Law Department informed the petitioners that their request did not comply with the proper procedure for election protests.
Arguments Presented
In their petition, Legaspi et al. contend that their request is not an electoral protest but a rightful assertion of their sovereign powers as citizens to seek transparency and integrity in the electoral process. They argue that COMELEC's actions amount to grave abuse of discretion and a violation of their constitutional rights, including suffrage and access to information.
Legal Framework
The petition is anchored on the constitutional rights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically concerning the rights to suffrage, to petition for redress of grievances, and to information on matters of public concern.
Ruling on Verification
The Court scrutinizes the verifications attached to the petition and finds that the petitioners lack personal knowledge of the facts alleged, as their assertions are based predominantly on hearsay and speculative conclusions drawn from social media and other non-verified sources. The absence of critical signature pages also undermines their claims of collective authority given by the signatories of the APELA.
Locus Standi and Class Suit Considerations
The petitioners face challenges regarding their locus standi, as they have not demonstrated a direct and material injury stemming from COMELEC's lack of action. The argument that they represent a large group of voters fails to substantiate their representation as a class suit, mainly due to the lack of verifiable data concerning the signatories of the APELA.
Presence of Actual Case or Controversy
The Court highlights the lack of an actual case or controversy, stating that the petitioners do not seek to unseat any candidates or nullify election results, but rather ask for an investigation based on unfounded fears regarding the conduct of the electoral process. Without concrete evidence of disenfranchisement or failure to count votes, the Court finds insufficient grounds for the requested manual recount.
Denial of Administrative Remedies
The Court emphasizes that the petitioners did not exhaust av
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 264661)
Background of the Case
- A Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus was filed by Clarylyn A. Legaspi et al. representing voters of Pangasinan alleging denial of suffrage rights, right to petition government for redress, and right to information.
- Petitioners requested a manual recount of the provincial results for all positions contested in the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections, which COMELEC did not act upon.
- The petition stemmed from a document entitled "APELA PARA SA MANO-MANONG PAGBILANG MULI NG MGA BOTO SA PROBINSYA NG PANGASINAN" (APELA), a signature campaign alleging widespread cheating and requesting a manual recount.
- COMELEC's Law Department informed the petitioner that the APELA did not meet the requirements of an election protest and explained applicable election protest procedures.
- Petitioners insisted the APELA was a people's initiative exercising constitutional rights and not an election protest.
Facts and Procedural History
- APELA was received by COMELEC's Executive Director on May 27, 2022 from Pangasinan's Provincial Election Supervisor, originating from Albert O. Quintinita.
- The signature pages of APELA were not included in the record.
- COMELEC cited election law procedures requiring protests to be filed by losing candidates in the same position, dismissing APELA as non-cognizable.
- Petitioners submitted letters requesting reconsideration, clarifying that the APELA was a people's initiative to ensure vote transparency and manual recount at their expense.
- Additional supplements, manifestations, and requests were made, including proposal for independent IT audits and random manual audit.
- COMELEC reiterated lack of jurisdiction over the petition and referred petitioners to relevant COMELEC resolutions and procedures.
- Petitioners filed the current petition directly with the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion and denial of rights.
Arguments of Petitioners
- Petitioners argue the petition is not an electoral protest but seeks to vindicate rights of suffrage, to petition the government, and access to information.
- COMELEC confused their request with electoral protest or recall petitions, wrongly denying their rights.
- Petitioners deny losing candidates' rights are exclusive remedies for vote recount.
- They claim COMELEC has no compelling interest to deny the recount; denial violated constitutional rights.
- The petition represents a class suit for thousands of voters in Pangasinan.
- Petitioners question the rapid transmission of results, unusually high voter turnout, and discrepancies with pre-election surveys.
- They rely on experts' opinions suggesting statistical improbability of election results, justifying the need for manual recount.
- Random manual audit conducted by COMELEC was inconclusive and did not include Pangasinan precincts.
- The request for recount is based on the sovereign right of suffrage including knowing how votes were counted.
- The automated election system's declaration of policy supports COMELEC's authority to conduct manual recounts.
- Referencing jurisprudence, petitioners argue COMELEC has power to order manual counts under certain circumstances.
- They assert no other adequate remedies ar