VOL.

542, JANUARY 18, 2008 125

Legarda vs. De Castro

*
P.E.T. Case No. 003. January 18, 2008.

LOREN B. LEGARDA, protestant, vs. NOLI L. DE

CASTRO, protestee.

Election Law; Election Contests; Presidential Electoral

Tribunal; The Presidential Electoral Tribunal adopts the Hearing
Commissioner’s recommendations that the protestant’s Motion to
Resolve the First Aspect of the Protest under consideration should
be denied, and consequently, the protest itself, be dismissed for
lack of legal and factual basis, as the pilot-tested revision of
ballots or re-tabulation of the certificates of canvass would not
affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final canvass of
the returns, in addition to the ground of abandonment or
withdrawal by reason of her candidacy for, election and
assumption of office as Senator of the Philippines.—The Hearing
Commissioner recommended that the protestant’s Motion to
Resolve the First Aspect of the Protest under consideration should
be denied, and consequently, the protest itself, be dismissed for
lack of legal and factual basis, as the pilot-tested revision of
ballots or retabulation of the certificates of canvass would not
affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final canvass of
the returns, in addition to the ground of abandonment or
withdrawal by reason of her candidacy for, election and
assumption of office as Senator of the Philippines. After thorough
deliberation and consideration of the issues in this case, this
Tribunal finds the abovestated recommendations of its Hearing
Commissioner well-taken, and adopts them for its own.

_______________

* PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL.

126

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

Same; Same; Same; Abandonment; The protestant, in

assuming the office of Senator and discharging her duties as such,
has effectively abandoned or withdrawn her protest, or abandoned
her determination to protect and pursue the public interest
involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate.—
We are also in agreement that the protestant, in assuming the
office of Senator and discharging her duties as such, which fact we
can take judicial notice of, has effectively abandoned or
withdrawn her protest, or abandoned her determination to protect
and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the
real choice of the electorate. The most relevant precedent on this
issue is Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, 253 SCRA 559 (1996), a
decision rendered by this Tribunal.

Same; Same; Same; Public Documents; Presumptions;

Election Returns (ERS); As public documents, the Congress-
retrieved election returns (ER) copies, used for the proclamation of
the protestee by the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), are
presumed authentic and duly executed in the regular course of
official business, which presumption of regularity could only be
overcome by evidence that is clear, convincing and more than
merely preponderant.—On the matter of the alleged spurious ER
copies, we agree with the protestee that the protestant had not
adequately and convincingly rebutted the presumption that as
public documents, the Congress-retrieved ER copies, used for the
proclamation of the protestee by the NBC, are authentic and duly
executed in the regular course of official business. The evidence
adduced by protestee to show that the supposed security features
and markings in the Congress-retrieved ERs and the
COMELEC/NAMFREL’s copies are different, did not categorically
establish that the Congress-retrieved ERs are fake and spurious.
To overcome the presumption of regularity, there must be
evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant. Absent such convincing evidence, the presumption
must be upheld. In fact, the records show that even the witnesses
presented by the protestant testified that they were able to
discern security features and markings in the Congress-retrieved
ERs. The records also show that witnesses were not made to
examine all Congressretrieved ERs in making observations
relative to security features and markings, but only a sample set
thereof was utilized, resulting in grave insufficiency in the
evidence presented by protestant.

127

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 127

Legarda vs. De Castro

Same; Same; Same; One cannot say that half a million votes
were illegally obtained based on unclear evidence of cheating in
less than ten thousand.—As pointed out by protestee, even
assuming arguendo that all the votes in the 497 precincts
included in the pilot areas for the First Aspect with approximately
99,400 votes are considered in favor of protestant, still the
protestant would not be able to overcome the lead of the protestee.
The margin in favor of protestee adds up to a total of 881,722
votes, and it would take much more than a hundred thousand
votes to overcome this lead. This is what the protestant had set
out to do in her protest before the Tribunal, but unfortunately she
failed to make out her case. In fact, Taraka and Balindong, the
only two municipalities on which protestant anchors her
arguments for the First Aspect, would only yield an additional
9,931 votes (4,912 votes for Taraka and 5,019 votes for
Balindong), a mere fraction of the lead of protestee over
protestant. To say that she could have shown that such
fraudulent machination was replicated in several other
municipalities of Lanao del Sur and other provinces, such as
Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and
Lanao del Sur if she had enough time, is mere conjecture and can
not be considered convincing by this Tribunal. It is the protestant
herself who admits that she was able to adduce evidence only in
Taraka and Balindong, for lack of time. But this Tribunal has
been liberal in granting her plea for time extension. To say that
the protestant had shown enough evidence to prove that the
whole or even half (440,862) of the lead of the protestee over the
protestant is spurious, would go against the grain of the evidence
on hand. One cannot say that half a million votes were illegally
obtained based on unclear evidence of cheating in less than ten
thousand. The protestant has been afforded ample opportunity to
adduce evidence in her behalf for the First Aspect of the protest
but the evidence presented is simply insufficient to convince the
Tribunal to render invalid all or even half of the 881,722 votes
that protestee had over her in the last elections for Vice-
President.

PETITION for annulment of proclamation.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Rufus B. Rodriguez and Avelino Cruz for protestant.
     Armando M. Marcelo for protestee.
128

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING, J.:

On June 23, 2004, Congress sitting1 as the National Board

of Canvassers (NBC) proclaimed protestee Noli L. de
Castro the duly elected Vice-President of the Republic of
the Philippines. The official count of the votes cast for Vice-
President in the May 10, 2004 elections showed that the
protestee obtained the highest number of votes, garnering
15,100,431 votes as against the 14,218,709 votes garnered
by the protestant Loren B. Legarda, who placed second, in
a field consisting of four candidates for Vice-President.
On July 23, 2004, the protestant filed this protest with
this Tribunal praying for the annulment of the protestee’s
proclamation as the duly 2 elected Vice-President of the
Republic of the Philippines.
The protest has two main parts. The First Aspect
originally covered “all the erroneous, if not manipulated,
and falsified results as reflected in the final canvass
documents” for 9,007 precincts
3
in six provinces, one city
and five municipalities. Protestant avers that the correct
results appearing in the election returns were not properly
transferred and reflected in the subsequent election
documents and ultimately, in the final canvass of
documents used as basis for protestee’s proclamation.
Protestant seeks the recomputation, recanvass and
retabulation of the election returns to determine the true
result.
The Second Aspect required revision 4
of ballots in
124,404 precincts specified in the protest.

_______________

1 PET Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 39-41.

2 Id., at pp. 3-36.
3 Id., at pp. 9-11.
 4 Id., at pp. 11-13.

129

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 129

Legarda vs. De Castro

The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction over the protest and

denied the motion of protestee for its outright dismissal.
Protestee filed a motion for reconsideration arguing in the
main that the Tribunal erred in ruling that the protest
alleged a cause of action sufficient
5
to contest protestee’s
victory in the May 2004 elections.
On March 31, 2005, the Tribunal ruled that:

“On the matter of sufficiency of the protest, protestee failed to

adduce new substantial arguments to reverse our ruling. We hold
that while Peña v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal on
requisites of sufficiency of election protest is still good law, it is
inapplicable in this case. We dismissed the petition in Peña
because it failed to specify the contested precincts. In the
instant protest, protestant enumerated all the provinces,
municipalities and cities where she questions all the results in
all the precincts therein. The protest here is sufficient in form
and substantively, serious enough on its face to pose a challenge
to protestee’s title to his office. In our view, the instant protest
consists of alleged ultimate facts, not mere conclusions of law,
that need to be proven in due time.
Considering that we find the protest sufficient in form and
substance, we must again stress that nothing as yet has been
proved as to the veracity of the allegations. The protest is
only sufficient for the Tribunal to proceed and give the protestant
the opportunity to prove her case pursuant to Rule 61 of the PET
Rules. Although said rule only pertains to revision of ballots,
nothing herein prevents the Tribunal from allowing or including
the correction of manifest errors, pursuant to the Tribunal’s rule-
making power under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.
On a related matter, the protestant in her reiterating motion
prays for ocular inspection and inventory-taking of ballot boxes,
and appointment of watchers. However, the Tribunal has already
ordered the protection and safeguarding of the subject ballot
boxes; and it has issued also the appropriate directives to officials
concerned. At this point, we find no showing of an imperative
need for the relief prayed for, since protective and safeguard
measures are

_______________

5 Id., at p. 511.

130

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

already being undertaken by the custodians of the subject ballot

boxes.
WHEREFORE, protestee’s motion for reconsideration is
hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. Protestant’s
reiterating motion for ocular inspection and inventory-taking with
very urgent prayer for the appointment of watchers is also
DENIED for lack of showing as to its actual necessity.
 Further, the protestant LOREN B. LEGARDA is ORDERED
to specify, within ten (10) days from notice, the three (3) provinces
best exemplifying the manifest errors alleged in the first part of
her protest, and three (3) provinces best exemplifying the frauds
and irregularities alleged in the second part of her protest, for the
purpose herein elucidated.
Lastly, the Tribunal hereby ORDERS the Commission on
Elections to SUBMIT, within 30 days hereof, the official project of
precincts of the May62004 Elections.
SO ORDERED.”

On April 11, 2005, protestant identified three (3) provinces

as pilot areas best exemplifying her grounds for the First
Aspect of the protest. She chose the provinces of Lanao del
Sur, Lanao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur with the
following number of protested precincts: 1,607, 2,346 and
350, respectively,7 or a total of 4,303 out of the original
9,007 precincts.
8
On June 21, 2005, the Tribunal
ascertained the number of ballot boxes subject of the
protest, to wit:

“The Tribunal Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated 30 May 2005

filed by Executive Director Pio Jose S. Joson, COMELEC, in
compliance with the Letter dated 14 April 2005 of Atty.
Luzviminda D. Puno, Acting Clerk of the Tribunal, informing the
Tribunal that one thousand four hundred fifty-four (1,454) ballot
boxes are involved in the precincts of the province of Surigao del
Sur which the protestant has identified to the Tribunal as best
exemplifying the

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 514-516.

7 Id., at p. 10; p. 527.
8 Id., at p. 660.

131

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 131

Legarda vs. De Castro

irregularities in connection with the 10 May 2004 National and

Local Elections.
Accordingly, without prejudice to its recomputation, the
number of ballot boxes involved in the precincts of the provinces
which the protestant has identified to the Tribunal as best
exemplifying the irregularities in connection with the said
elections are as follows:

     Lanao del Sur - 1,568  

     Lanao del Norte - 2,317  
     Surigao del Sur - 1,454  
     Cebu City - 10,127  
     Pampanga - 5,458  
     Maguindanao - 1,755  
     Total - 22,679 ballot boxes
involved in
the precincts
    x P500.00  
    P11,339,500.00  
On November 2, 2005 protestant moved to withdraw and
abandon almost all pilot precincts in the9First Aspect except
those in the province of Lanao del Sur. On November 22,
2005, the Tribunal granted the said motion withdrawing
and abandoning the protest involving the manifest errors
in the
10
municipalities of Lanao del Norte and Surigao del
Sur.
Thereafter, proceedings duly ensued concerning both the
First and Second Aspects. Former Associate 11
Justice
Bernardo P. Pardo as Hearing Commissioner heard the
presentation of

_______________

9 PET Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1007-1010.

10 Id., at pp. 1059-1061.
11 Id., at p. 1753, August 1, 2006 PET Resolution.

xxxx

A. Hearing Commissioner—

1. Designation.—The Tribunal may delegate the reception of evidence to a

Hearing Commissioner who may be a

132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

evidence of both parties for the First Aspect. Subpoenas

were issued to the witnesses of the protestant, e.g. the
President/General
12
Manager of Ernest Printing
Corporation and

_______________

Member of the Tribunal or an official of the Tribunal who is a member of the

Philippine Bar or a retired Justice of the Supreme Court who is willing to accept
the designation.
xxxx

12 PET Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2135-2140.

SUBPOENAE AD TESTIFICANDUM ET DUCES TECUM TO: The

President/General Manager
     Ernest Printing Corporation
     29 M.H. Del Pilar Street
     Between 3rd and 4th Avenues, Grace Park
     Caloocan City

GREETINGS:

You are hereby commanded:

(1) to appear in person before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and
its duly designated Hearing Commissioner Ret. Justice Bernardo P.
Pardo, during the scheduled hearing/proceedings of the above-entitled
case on November 3, 2006, Friday, at ten o’clock in the morning at the
Division Session Hall, Ground Floor, New SC Building and then and there
to testify under oath on the following matters and/or subjects—
“The DETAILS on the aspect and on the matter of the PRINTING of
the Comelec-contracted and ordered copies of the ELECTION RETURNS
and other election documents, if any, as prepared and printed by the
Ernest Printing Corporation, which printed documents were used in the
May 10, 2004 elections, and in particular, on matters respecting the
placing and/or incorporating in the said election documents, of some or
several secret marks or any other security feature/s, if any including some
other details material and relevant to and/or related to or connected with
the AUTHORITY of Ernest Printing Corporation to undertake such actual
printing of the said election returns and other election documents.”
(2) to bring with you the following—

133

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 133

Legarda vs. De Castro

then Commission
13
on Elections Chairman Benjamin
Abalos. On August 28, 2006, a preliminary conference was
called by

_______________

“Any and all documents such as CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS and/or AWARDS

between Ernest Printing Corp. and COMELEC that would show and prove the
scope of the AUTHORITY of Ernest Printing Corporation to undertake the
PRINTING of the election returns and other election documents, as extended or
granted unto it by the Commission on Elections; as well as any and all other
documents on any pertinent matter/s and subject/s relative to and/or connected
with, the contracted or awarded PRINTING of election returns and other election
documents to the said Ernest Printing Corporation.”

FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

WITNESS the Honorable Bernardo P. Pardo, Ret. Associate Justice,
this 25th day of October 2006.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of the Tribunal                    
13 PET Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1842-1847.

SUBPOENAE AD TESTIFICANDUM ET DUCES TECUM TO: Chairman

Benjamin Abalos
     Commission on Elections
     Main Office, Aduana
     Intramuros, Manila

GREETINGS:

You are hereby commanded:

(1) to appear in person before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and its
designated Honorable Hearing Commissioner Ret. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo,
during the scheduled hearing/proceedings of the above-entitled case at 2:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of Monday, September 18, 2006, Division Session Hall, Ground
Floor, New SC Building and then and there to testify on the originals of the
COMELEC copies of the various election documents herein below enumerated,
described and specified, and also to further testify on other matters related to the
said various election documents in the possession and custody of the Commission
on Elections, coming from and/or per

134

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

Hearing Commissioner Bernardo P. Pardo to schedule the

presentation of evidence. The latter then ordered as
follows:
“Pursuant to the Resolution of the Tribunal dated 22 August
2006, setting the preliminary conference of the parties with the

_______________

taining to, the Municipalities of Balindong and Taraka, Lanao del Sur as well as
the Province of Lanao del Sur;
(2) bring with you to the Tribunal the following documents, therein below
specified:

[a] The ORIGINALS of the ELECTION RETURNScopies for the

COMELEC, for the Municipalities of Balindong and Taraka, Lanao del
Sur used in the May 10, 2004 elections;
[b] The Originals of the COMELEC COPIES of the Municipal
Certificate of Canvass for the Municipalities of Balindong and Taraka,
Lanao del Sur, and their accompanying Originals-Comelec copies of
the STATEMENT OF VOTES BY PRECINCT for the same
Municipalities of Balindong and Taraka, Lanao del Sur, used in the May
10, 2004 election; and
[c] The Originals of the COMELEC COPIES of the Provincial
CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS for the Province of Lanao Del Sur used by
COMELEC in senatorial canvass for the May 10, 2004 elections, including
their accompanying Originals of the COMELEC COPIES of the
STATEMENT OF VOTES BY MUNICIPALITY for the Province of
Lanao del Sur.

You shall also testify on the various election documents above enumerated in
respect to their printing, their genuineness and authenticity, and on the presence
of SECURITY FEATURES contained, placed and/or embedded therein, should
there be any.
FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.
WITNESS the Honorable Bernardo P. Pardo, Ret. Associate Justice, this 13th
day of September 2006.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA          
Clerk of the Tribunal                         

135

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 135

Legarda vs. De Castro

Hearing Commissioner today, the designated Hearing

Commissioner called the preliminary conference in order to
consider the order of hearing and presentation of evidence of the
parties according to the procedure prescribed in the Resolution of
the Tribunal of 1 August 2006, under paragraph B (1 and 2).
The following are the appearances:

1) Protestant Loren B. Legarda, in person;

2) Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and Atty. Jesus P. Casila, for
the protestant;
3) Protestee Noli L. de Castro did not appear;
4) Atty. Armando M. Marcelo and Atty. Carlo Vistan, for the
protestee.

Atty. Brillantes manifested that the protestant is ready to

adduce testimonial and documentary evidence on a date to be
scheduled and agreed upon by the parties; they have about seven
witnesses to testify on the first aspect as indicated in the
Tribunal’s Resolution of 1 August 2006. He suggested 6
September 2006 as the initial date of the hearing. Atty. Marcelo
stated that he was leaving for abroad on 6 September 2006 for one
month and suggested a hearing after his return in October 2006.
At any rate, protestee has a pending motion for reconsideration of
the Tribunal’s Resolution of 22 August 2006 designating a retired
Justice of the Supreme Court as Hearing Commissioner. They
wanted an incumbent Justice of the Supreme Court or an official
of the Tribunal who is a member of the Bar to be the designated
Hearing Commissioner.
The undersigned Hearing Commissioner suggested that the
initial hearing be held on 4 September 2006, at 10:00 a.m., when
protestee’s counsel will still be in town, without prejudice to the
resolution of the Tribunal on his motion for reconsideration.
The undersigned Hearing Commissioner suggested to
protestant’s counsel to submit by this afternoon the list of the
names of the proposed witnesses and documents to be produced so
that the proper process may be issued to them.
The undersigned Hearing Commissioner set the initial hearing
tentatively on Monday, 4 September 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at the
same venue, subject to the Tribunal’s ruling on protestee’s motion
for reconsideration of the person of the Hearing Commissioner,
and protestant to submit by this afternoon the list of witnesses
and documents to be produced at the hearing.

136

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Several hearings on the First Aspect were held wherein the

protestant adduced evidence and the protestee interposed
his continuing objection to such in the form of motions and
comments. Months of continuous trial took place until the
Hearing Commissioner made his final report of the
proceedings for detailed consideration by the Tribunal.
On January 31, 2006, while the case was sub judice, the
Tribunal ordered both parties to refrain from
sensationalizing the case in the media. Its extended
resolution on the matter reads as follows:

“On December 12, 2005, the re-tabulation of election returns

(ERs) from the ten (10) protested municipalities of Lanao del Sur
commenced. According to the report submitted by the Acting
Clerk of the Tribunal, Atty. Maria Luisa D. Villarama, the
correction team was able to re-tabulate only the ERs from four (4)
of the ten (10) protested municipalities of Lanao del Sur, namely,
Balindong, Masiu, Mulondo and Taraka. The ERs of the other six
(6) protested municipalities were not found inside the ballot boxes
collected from the House of Representatives, but found were the
ERs from municipalities not subject of the protest.
Therefore, acting on the aforementioned report of the Acting
Clerk, the Tribunal resolves to REQUIRE Hon. Roberto
Nazareno, Secretary General of the House of Representatives and
Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr., Deputy Secretary General for
Operation, of the House of Representatives, within a non-
extendible period of five (5) days from notice, to

(a) DELIVER to the Tribunal the election returns and other

election documents/paraphernalia used in the May 2004
National/Local elections for the remaining six (6)
protested municipalities of Lanao del Sur, namely (1)
Bacolod-Kalawi; (2) Ganassi; (3) Kapai; (4) Sultan
Gumander; (5) Tamparan; and (6) Wao;
_______________

14 PET Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1777-1778.

137

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 137

Legarda vs. De Castro

(b) EXPLAIN why the election returns and other election

documents and paraphernalia which were turned over to
the PET Retrieval Team are incomplete when compared to
the COMELEC’s total number of clustered precincts for
Lanao del Sur; and
(c) SUBMIT to the Tribunal the complete list of all the
election returns, Provincial/District Certificates of
Canvass and Statements of Votes and other election
documents and paraphernalia used in the May 2004
National and Local Elections for the province of Lanao del
Sur which were in its official custody.

In the resolution dated December 6, 2005, the Tribunal granted

protestant’s motion to suspend the remittance of additional cash
deposit amounting to P3,882,000 as required in the resolution of
November 22, 2005. Protestant also manifested in said motion
that she will make the required cash deposit sometime in the year
2006. Thus, the Tribunal resolves to REQUIRE protestant to
comply with the resolution of November 22, 2005 requiring her to
make additional cash deposit of P3,882,000 within ten (10) days.
On another matter, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal notes
the following news reports:

(1) In an article entitled “Recount shows fraud, says Legarda”

appearing in the December 13, 2005 issue of The Manila
Times, protestant Legarda said that the election returns
from Congress had been tampered after initial
retabulation of votes by the Tribunal showed that the lead
of protestee De Castro over her has widened. She added
that this discovery confirmed her claim of massive poll
fraud in favor of protestee in the 2004 election.
(2) In an article entitled “Intel feelers offer proof of poll fraud
to Loren” published in the December 13, 2005 issue of The
Daily Tribune, sources from protestant’s legal team said
that feelers from the military’s intelligence service arm
have reached their camp offering videotapes of cheating in
the 2004 elections for a price they cannot afford.
(3) In another article entitled “Election returns altered inside
Congress—Loren” published in the December 15, 2005
issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer, protestant claimed that
the altering of election returns from Lanao del Sur
occurred right

138

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

inside Congress as borne out by the “spurious” returns

being retabulated by the Tribunal. She said the crime
could have been perpetrated by the operatives of
protestee.
 In a news article entitled “Cebu recount shows Noli, Loren
(4) votes tally with NBC” appearing in the January 6, 2006
issue of The Manila Times, Atty. Romulo Macalintal,
counsel of protestee, stated that “the initial recount in
Lapu-Lapu showed that there was no tampering of the
ballot boxes in the city,” and further noted that the four
(4) out of the 40 ballot boxes “contained tampered or
spurious ballots, but these are not connected to the protest
of Senator Legarda but on local protests.”
(5) In an article entitled “Noli condemns tampering of ballots”
appearing in the January 6, 2006 issue of Manila
Standard Today, Atty. Armando Marcelo said that their
revisors at the PET discovered that several ballots of
Legarda had been substituted with fake and spurious
ballots. Atty. Macalintal added that “the substitution of
ballots was so clear, that the security markings of the
substitute ballots were not reflected or visible or that the
ultraviolet markings of the COMELEC seal do not appear
or are not present,” and that “these ultraviolet markings
are readily visible in a genuine ballot once lighted with an
ultraviolet light.”
(6) In an article entitled “No cheating in Cebu, Noli’s lawyer
insists,” published in the January 19, 2006 issue of
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Atty. Macalintal said that “the
results of the actual count of the ballots for Legarda and
De Castro from the cities of Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu
tallied with the results as reflected in the election returns
and tally boards. There was no sign of any tampering of
the results of the ballot count as well as the votes reflected
on the returns and tally boards.” He also said that
protestant Legarda is already estopped from questioning
the results of the election in these cities since she failed to
object to the returns.
(7) In an article entitled “GMA-Noli poll win in Cebu
affirmed,” published in the January 19, 2006 issue of The
Philippine Star, it was reported that Atty. Macalintal, in
his speech before the Rotary Club of Pasay City, denied
protestant’s claim that 90 percent of the ballots from two
major cities of the province were found to be spurious by
the Tribunal. He added that

139

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 139

Legarda vs. De Castro

“if a candidate would allow himself to be cheated by 90

percent, then he or she has no business to be in politics.”
(8) In an article entitled “Why Noli is unacceptable”
appearing in the January 20, 2006 issue of The Daily
Tribune, protestant “told the media that the real ballots
from Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City were ‘clearly
substituted with fakes so that they would correspond with
the similarly spurious results reflected in the election
returns (ERs).’ ”

Surely, the parties do not harbor the idea that the retabulation of
election returns and revision of ballots is the end of the election
protest. They are merely the first phase of the process and must
still pass closer scrutiny by the Tribunal.
 The great public interest at stake behooves the Tribunal to
exercise its power and render judgment free from public pressure
and uninterrupted by the parties’ penchant for media mileage.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing reports where press statements
of both parties appeared as an attempt to influence the
proceedings, convince the public of their version of facts, and
create bias, prejudice and sympathies, the Tribunal resolves to
WARN both parties and counsels from making public comments
on all matters that are sub judice.
Finally, acting on the pleadings filed in this electoral protest
case, the Tribunal further Resolves to

(a) NOTE the Comment on Protestee’s Motion to Allow

Revisors to Examine All Ballots dated January 24, 2006,
filed by counsel for protestant Legarda, in compliance with
the resolution of January 17, 2006, informing the Tribunal
that she interposes no objection and opposition to the
motion and GRANT the aforesaid motion of the protestee;
(b) DIRECT all Head Revisors to ALLOW the parties to
examine the ballots within a reasonable time;
(c) NOTE the Manifestation dated January 24, 2006, filed by
counsel for protestant relative to the Motion to Intervene
filed by Intervenor/Movant Amytis D. Batao, informing
the Tribunal that she is not waiving the revision of the
thirtyfive (35) ballot boxes subject of the electoral protest
for the mayoralty post of Carmen, Cebu, and proposing
that priority be given and extended to the same so that
upon completion of

140

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

the revision by the Tribunal, said ballot boxes can be

returned to the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, at
the earliest time possible; and
(d) DENY the above Motion to Intervene of
Intervenor/Movant Amytis D. Batao, with regard to the
return of the ballot boxes considering that the Tribunal
has priority in their 15possession and examination.” Ynares
Santiago, J., no part.

Revision of ballots was also conducted for the Second

Aspect in the Tribunal’s premises by the duly designated
officials and trained personnel with both parties duly
represented. After ten months of continuous work by
twenty-four revision teams, under the supervision of Atty.
Orlando Cariño as the designated Consultant, the revision
of the ballots from the pilot province of Cebu was
completed. Revision also started for the second pilot
province of Pampanga, but was suspended after the
Tribunal granted the protestee’s Motion for Partial
Determination of Election Protest Based on the Results of
the Revision of Ballots of the Province of Cebu and the
Recanvass of Election Returns from Lanao Del Sur and 16
to
Hold in Abeyance Revision of Ballots from Pampanga.
On May 3, 2007, the protestant was required to deposit
P3,914,500 for expenses 17
necessary for the continuation of
the revision of ballots. But protestant failed to pay on the
due date. Thus, protestee moved to dismiss the protest. The
Tribunal extended the period for protestant to make the
necessary deposit. Even with this extension, she still failed
to pay. Thus, in a Resolution dated June 5, 2007, the
Tribunal partially granted18 the protestee’s motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 33 of PET rules, and ordered the
dismissal of the Second Aspect of the protest as follows:

_______________

15 PET Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1330-1335.

16 Id., at pp. 1592-1600.
17 PET Rollo, Vol. III, p. 2500.
18 RULES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (2005),
Rule 33.

141

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 141

Legarda vs. De Castro

“PET Case No. 003 (Loren B. Legarda vs. Noli L. de Castro).—

Acting on the protestee’s Motion to Dismiss dated May 9, 2007,
the Tribunal Resolved to

(a) PARTIALLY GRANT the aforesaid motion pursuant to

Rule 33 of the 2005 PET Rules; and
(b) DISMISS the second aspect of the protest (revision of
ballots), for protestant’s failure to make the required
deposit.

The Tribunal further Resolved to DENY the request of Atty.

Eric C. Reginaldo in his letter dated May 29, 2007 that he be
furnished with a copy of the petition in this case for case study,19as
he is neither a party nor a counsel of any party in this protest.”

On June 13, 2007, Hearing Commissioner Bernardo P.

Pardo submitted to the Tribunal 20
a Report of the
Proceedings of the First Aspect.
On June 18 2007, protestant filed an Urgent Motion to
Resolve First Aspect of the Protest, stating that she
formally moved for the immediate resolution of the 21
submitted portion of the First Aspect of the protest.
Protestee did not interpose any objection to this motion.
On July 10, 2007, the Tribunal resolved to note the
report of the Hearing Commissioner. In response to the
motion filed by the protestant, the Tribunal required the
parties to submit their respective memoranda within
twenty days from notice,

_______________

RULE 33. Effect of failure to make cash deposit.—If a party fails to make the cash
deposits or additional deposits herein required within the prescribed time limit,
the Tribunal may dismiss the protest or counter-protest, or take such action as it
may deem equitable under the circumstances.

19 PET Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2554-2555.

20 Id., at pp. 2564-2576.
21 Id., at pp. 2615-2618.

142

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Legarda vs. De Castro

22 23
pursuant to Rule 61 of the PET Rules.
On August 2, 24
2007, by counsel protestant submitted her
memorandum. On August 16,25 2007, also by counsel
protestee filed his memorandum.
On October 1, 2007, Hearing Commissioner Bernardo P.
Pardo submitted his Final Report of the Proceedings on the
First Aspect. After a thorough analysis of the parties’
memoranda and the results of the proceedings on the 26
protest, he recommended the dismissal of the First Aspect.

_______________

22 RULES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (2005),

Rule 61.

RULE 61. When submitted; contents.—Within twenty days from receipt of the
Tribunal’s ruling on the last offer of evidence by the protestee, the parties shall
simultaneously submit their respective memoranda setting forth briefly:

(a) The facts of the case;

(b) A complete statement of all the arguments submitted in support of their
respective views of the case;
(c) Objections to the ballots adjudicated to or claimed by the other party in the
revision of ballots;
(d) Refutation of the objections of the other party to the ballots adjudicated to
or claimed in the revision of ballots;
(e) Objections to the tallying of election returns and certificates of canvass
raised by the other party in the correction of manifest error; and
(f) Refutation of the objections raised by the other party to the tallying of
election returns and certificates of canvass in the correction of manifest
error.

All evidence, as well as objections to evidence presented by the other party,

shall be either referred to or contained in the memorandum or in an appendix
thereto.

23 PET Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2619-2620.

24 Id., at pp. 2661-2684.
25 Id., at pp. 2712-2733.
26 Id., at pp. 2834-2844.

143

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 143

Legarda vs. De Castro

For her part, protestant filed a memorandum stating that

based on the pieces of evidence she presented, both
documentary and testimonial, she has shown that electoral
fraud or cheating was committed through the so-called
dagdag-bawas strategy in the elections for President and
Vice-President held last May 14, 2004. Protestant in
particular submitted that electoral fraud was perpetuated
as follows:

1. That the correct votes of the parties were properly

recorded and tabulated in the election returns
(ERs), wherein she garnered 27a higher number of
votes over protestee De Castro;
2. That when the ERs were canvassed at the
municipal level, the ER results were “wrongly and
 erroneously” transposed and transferred to the
Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOV-P), such that28
the protestee was given a higher number of votes;
3. That the inaccurate results shown in the SOV-P
were totaled and transferred to the Municipal
Certificate of Canvass (MCOC),
29
with protestee
prevailing over protestant;
4. That the MCOC, with incorrect totals, was
transmitted to the Provincial Board of Canvassers,
wherein the inaccurate MCOC totals were
transposed to the Statement
30
of Votes by
Municipalities (SOV-M);
5. That the numbers reflected in the individual
SOVMs were totaled, and the sum for the whole
province was indicated
31
in the Provincial Certificate
of Canvass (PCOC);
6. That the PCOCs, with the erroneously transposed
totals stemming from the incorrect SOV-Ps, were
the

_______________

27 Id., at pp. 2671-2673.

28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.

144

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

ones canvassed by Congress, acting as the National

Board of Canvassers for 32
the presidential and
vicepresidential positions; and
7. That Congress, sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers, merely “noted” and denied protestant’s
request to view the precinct-source ERs, and
proceeded to canvass the “already-
manipulated/dagdag-bawas” PCOCs, resulting in
the flawed
33
and farcical victory of protestee De
Castro.

Protestant avers that fraud, by means of the anomalous

election practices, was sufficiently proven by using her
sample-pilot precincts in two municipalities in Lanao del
Sur, particularly Balindong and Taraka. She likewise
alleges that the “dagdag-bawas” scheme, which was
perpetrated through the deliberate and erroneous
transposition of results from the authentic ERs to the SOV-
Ps, was further aggravated by an alleged cover-up
operation to hide the same. According to protestant, the
Congress-retrieved copies of the ERs which tally with the
SOV-Ps, were fake and spurious; they were intended to
cover-up the electoral fraud committed. Protestant submits
that the correct voting results are those reflected in the
COMELEC and NAMFREL’s copies of the ERs, not those
in the copies retrieved from Congress.
Protestant further claims that while she presented
pieces of evidence, both testimonial and documentary, in
only two municipalities of Lanao del Sur, i.e., Balindong
and Taraka, to prove the electoral fraud perpetrated
through the dagdagbawas strategy, she could have shown
that such fraudulent machination was replicated in several
other municipalities of Lanao del Sur and other provinces,
such as Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Maguindanao, Sultan
Kudarat, and Lanao del Sur if she had enough time.

_______________

32 Id.
33 Id.

145

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 145

Legarda vs. De Castro

Protestee, for his part, argues that the Congress-retrieved34

ERs are public documents as defined under Section 19 (a),
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, and thus, they enjoy the
presumption of regularity accorded thereto, and they are
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. He avers
that there is prima facie presumption that the Congress-
retrieved copies of the ERs are genuine, authentic and duly
executed. Protestee submits that protestant has failed to
rebut such presumption with clear and convincing
evidence.
Protestee adds that a blank or unused ER form duly
authenticated by the COMELEC, with the correct and
complete set of security features and markings, should
have been marked and offered as evidence, to serve as basis
for comparison with the various sets of ERs presented to
prove the genuiness of the security features and markings
in the ER forms. On this score, according to protestee, the
protestant’s counsel has failed in his task. At any rate,
protestee points out that the witnesses presented by
protestant, i.e., COMELEC Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos
and Mr. Robert Payongayong of the Ernest Printing
Corporation, testified that they were able to discern
security features and markings in the Congress-retrieved
copies of the ERs. Protestee also claims that when Mr.
Payongayong testified about the security features on the
Congress’ copies, he was shown only a sample set thereof,
and was not able to examine all Congress’ copies being
contested. Protestee thus concludes that the Tribunal
cannot rely on the testimonies of the protestant’s witnesses

_______________

34 SEC. 19. Classes of documents.—For the purpose of their

presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
xxxx

146

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Legarda vs. De Castro

debunking the authenticity of the Congress-retrieved

copies vis-à-vis the other sets of ER copies.
Protestee further contends that, assuming arguendo
that the results
35
reflected in the COMELEC, NAMFREL
and MBOC’s copies of the ERs are re-tabulated, in lieu of
the results in the Congress-retrieved copies, or even if all
the votes in the 497 precincts included in the pilot areas, as
well as in the remaining protested precincts in the First
Aspect, are counted in favor of protestant, said votes would
be insufficient to overcome the lead of the protestee
totaling 881,722 votes. Hence, in view of the failure of the
protestant to make out her case for the First Aspect of the
protest, the same and ultimately the protest in its entirety,
must be dismissed without consideration of the other
provinces mentioned.
The Hearing Commissioner further recommended,
following
36
the precedent set in Defensor-Santiago v.
Ramos, that the protest be dismissed for being moot and
academic due to abandonment and withdrawal resulting
from protestant’s election and assumption of office as
senator. He also emphasized that assuming that dagdag-
bawas had indeed occurred and that the results in the
COMELEC’s ER copies indicated in Annex “A” were to be
used for re-tabulation, protestant would be entitled to an
additional 4,912 votes for the municipality of Taraka and
5,019 votes for Balindong, or a total of 9,931 votes, which is
not adequate to surpass protestee’s lead of 881,722 votes
over protestant.
On protestant’s charges of electoral fraud allegedly
aggravated by a cover-up operation that switched or
exchanged the Congress’ ER copies with spurious ones, the
Hearing Commissioner stressed that the Congress-
retrieved ERs are public documents which enjoy the
presumption of regularity and are prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. He concluded that the protestant
failed to adequately and convincingly

_______________

35 Municipal Board of Canvassers’.

36 P.E.T. Case No. 001, February 13, 1996, 253 SCRA 559.

147

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 147

Legarda vs. De Castro

rebut the presumption. The Hearing Commissioner also

emphasized that protestant failed to substantiate
sufficiently her claim that the Congress-retrieved ERs are
spurious and were switched with the authentic copies
during an alleged break-in at the storage area of the House
of Representatives as no evidence was presented to prove
such break-in. Hence, the alleged discrepancies found in
NAMFREL, MBOC and COMELEC’s copies of the ERs are
insufficient to exclude the Congress-retrieved ER copies
from the re-tabulation. The Hearing Commissioner also
observed that in 11 out of the 51 precincts in Balindong,
Lanao del Sur, there are similar entries in the Congress-
retrieved ERs and in the COMELEC’s copies of the ERs,
where protestant garnered a higher number of votes over
protestee, while the entries in the respective SOV-Ms are
different in that the protestee received more votes, belying
protestant’s assertion that the Congressretrieved ERs
should all be disregarded since the results therein differ
from those in the COMELEC’s copies of ERs and that they
have been manipulated to favor protestee. Consequently,
according to the Hearing Commissioner’s report, protestant
failed to make out her case.
Thus, the Hearing Commissioner recommended that the
protestant’s Motion to Resolve the First Aspect of the
Protest under consideration should be denied, and
consequently, the protest itself, be dismissed for lack of
legal and factual basis, as the pilot-tested revision of
ballots or re-tabulation of the certificates of canvass would
not affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final
canvass of the returns, in addition to the ground of
abandonment or withdrawal by reason of her candidacy for,
election and 37
assumption of office as Senator of the
Philippines.
After thorough deliberation and consideration of the
issues in this case, this Tribunal finds the abovestated
recommendations of its Hearing Commissioner well-taken,
and adopts them for its own.

_______________

37 PET Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2840-2844.

148

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

Further, we are also in agreement that the protestant, in

assuming the office of Senator and discharging her duties
38
as such, which fact we can take judicial notice of, has
effectively abandoned or withdrawn her protest, or
abandoned her determination to protect and pursue the
public interest involved in the matter of who is the real
choice of the electorate. The most relevant 39precedent on
this issue is Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, a decision
rendered by this Tribunal, which held that:

“The term of office of the Senators elected in the 8 May 1995

election is six years, the first three of which coincides with the
last three years of the term of the President elected in the 11 May
1992 synchronized elections. The latter would be Protestant
Santiago’s term if she would succeed in proving in the instant
protest that she was the true winner in the 1992 elections. In
assuming the office of Senator then, the Protestant has effectively
abandoned or withdrawn this protest, or at the very least, in the
language of Moraleja, abandoned her “determination to protect
and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the
real choice of the electorate.” Such abandonment or withdrawal
operates to render moot the instant protest. Moreover, the
dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would
dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992
presidential election, thereby enhancing the all-[too] crucial
political stability of the nation during this period of national
recovery.
 It must also be stressed that under the Rules of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, an election protest may be
summarily dismissed, regardless of the public policy and public
interest implications thereof, on the following grounds:

(1) The petition is insufficient in form and substance;

(2) The petition is filed beyond the periods provided in Rules
14 and 15 hereof;

_______________

38 Saludo, Jr. v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 159507,

April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 462, 483, held that courts are allowed to take
judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
39 Supra note 36.

149

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 149

Legarda vs. De Castro

(3) The filing fee is not paid within the periods provided for in
these Rules;
(4) The cash deposit, or the first P100,000.00 thereof, is not
paid within 10 days after the filing of the protest; and
(5) The petition or copies thereof and the annexes thereto
filed with the Tribunal are not clearly legible.

Other grounds for a motion to dismiss, e.g., those provided in the

Rules of Court which apply in a suppletory character, may
likewise be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the answer. After
which, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, hold a preliminary
hearing on such grounds. In sum, if an election protest may be
dismissed on technical grounds, then it must be, for a decidedly
stronger reason,40if it has become moot due to its abandonment by
the Protestant.”

In the case at bar, protestant’s tenure in the Senate

coincides with the term of the Vice-Presidency 2004-2010,
that is the subject of her protest. In Defensor-Santiago v.
Ramos, the protestant’s tenure in the Senate also coincided
with the term of the Presidency she was vying for. Like the
protestant in the aforementioned case, the protestant in
the case at bar filed her certificate of candidacy for the
Senate, campaigned for the office, assumed office after
election, and discharged the duties and functions of said
office. Thus, we agree concerning the applicability of the
Defensor-Santiago case as a precedent in the resolution of
the present protest, though they differ in that Defensor-
Santiago’s case involves the Presidency while Legarda’s
protest concerns only the Vice-Presidency.
On the matter of the alleged spurious ER copies, we
agree with the protestee that the protestant had not
adequately and convincingly rebutted the presumption that
as public documents, the Congress-retrieved ER copies,
used for the proclamation of the protestee by the NBC, are
authentic and duly executed in the regular course of official
business. The evidence adduced by protestee to show that
the supposed security features and markings in the
Congress-retrieved ERs and
_______________

40 Id., at pp. 574-575.

150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

the COMELEC/NAMFREL’s copies are different, did not

categorically establish that the Congress-retrieved ERs are
fake and spurious. To overcome the presumption of
regularity, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing
and more than merely preponderant. Absent such 41
convincing evidence, the presumption must be upheld. In
fact, the records show that even the witnesses presented by
the protestant testified that they were able to discern
security features and markings in the Congress-retrieved
ERs. The records also show that witnesses were not made
to examine all Congress-retrieved ERs in making
observations relative to security features and markings,
but only a sample set thereof was utilized, resulting in
grave insufficiency in the evidence presented by protestant.
As to the alleged break-in in Congress, which allegedly
facilitated the switching of ERs, no conclusive evidence has
been given. One of the protestant’s own witnesses, Atty.
Artemio Adasa, Deputy General for Legislative Operations
of the House of Representatives, categorically denied that a42
break-in and a switching of ERs had occurred in Congress.
At any rate, as pointed out by protestee, even assuming
arguendo that all the votes in the 497 precincts included in
the pilot areas for the First Aspect with approximately
99,400 votes are considered in favor of protestant, still the
protestant would not be able to overcome the lead of the
protestee. The margin in favor of protestee adds up to a
total of 881,722 votes, and it would take much more than a
hundred thousand votes to overcome this lead. This is what
the protestant had set out to do in her protest before the
Tribunal,
43
but unfortunately she failed to make out her
case. In fact, Taraka and

_______________

41 Melchor v. Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA
476.
42 TSN, November 6, 2006, pp. 89-96.
43 RULES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (2005),
Rule 63. Dismissal; when proper.—The Tribunal may require the
protestant or counter-protestant to indicate, within a fixed period,

151

VOL. 542, JANUARY 18, 2008 151

Legarda vs. De Castro

Balindong, the only two municipalities on which protestant

anchors her arguments for the First Aspect, would only
yield an additional 9,931 votes (4,912 votes for Taraka and
5,019 votes for Balindong), a mere fraction of the lead of
protestee over protestant. To say that she could have
shown that such fraudulent machination was replicated in
several other municipalities of Lanao del Sur and other
provinces, such as Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi,
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Lanao del Sur if she
had enough time, is mere conjecture and can not be
considered convincing by this Tribunal. It is the protestant
herself who admits that she was able to adduce evidence
only in Taraka and Balindong, for lack of time. But this
Tribunal has been liberal in granting her plea for time
extension. To say that the protestant had shown enough 44
evidence to prove that the whole or even half (440,862) of
the lead of the protestee over the protestant is spurious,
would go against the grain of the evidence on hand. One
cannot say that half a million votes were illegally obtained
based on unclear evidence of cheating in less than ten
thousand. The protestant has been afforded ample
opportunity to adduce evidence in her behalf for the First
Aspect of the protest but the evidence presented is simply
insufficient to convince the Tribunal to render invalid all or
even half of the 881,722 votes

_______________

the province or provinces numbering not more than three, best

exemplifying the frauds or irregularities alleged in his petition; and the
revision of ballots and reception of evidence will begin with such
provinces. If upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making
reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all
circumstances into account, the protestant or counterprotestant will most
probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed,
without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the
protest.
The preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest
involves correction of manifest errors.
44 Computed as follows: 881,722 + 1 = 440,862.
                                                  2

152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Legarda vs. De Castro

that protestee had over her in the last elections for

VicePresident.
WHEREFORE, the First Aspect of the protest is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of legal and factual basis, as the
pilottested revision of ballots or re-tabulation of the
certificates of canvass would not affect the winning margin
of the protestee in the final canvass of the returns, in
addition to the ground of abandonment or withdrawal by
reason of protestant’s candidacy for, election to and
assumption of the office of Senator of the Philippines. The
Second Aspect, having been already DISMISSED on June
5, 2007, pursuant to Rule 33 of this Tribunal, the entire
Protest is now deemed DISMISSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.

     Puno (C.J.), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez,

Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Nachura, Reyes
and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.
          Ynares-Santiago, J., No Part. Close relation to
party.
     Carpio, J., I concur but on ground of abandonment
alone.
      Chico-Nazario, J., On Official Leave.
     Velasco, Jr., J., On Leave.

Entire protest deemed dismissed and terminated.

Notes.—The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court defined

by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would
not include cases directly brought before it questioning the
qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-
presidency before the elections are held. (Tecson vs.
Commission on Elections, 424 SCRA 277 [2004])
The legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may
come to a close upon the final adjournment of its regular
sessions, but this does not affect its non-legislative
functions, such as that of being the National Board of
Canvassers. In
153

VOL. 542, JANUARY 22, 2008 153

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bagundang

fact, the joint public session of both Houses of Congress

convened by express directive of Section 4, Article VII of
the Constitution to canvass the votes for and to proclaim
the newly elected President and Vice-President has not,
and cannot, adjourn sine die until it has accomplished its
constitutionally mandated tasks. For only when a board of
canvassers has completed its functions is it rendered
functus officio. Its membership may change, but it retains
its authority as a board until it has accomplished its
purposes. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Joint Committee of Congress to
Canvass the Votes Cast for President and Vice-President in
the May 10, 2004 Elections, G.R. No. 163783, 22 June 2004
[Resolution])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.