results, but when the ballot boxes of 247 out of
248 precincts were opened during revision,
they yielded no ballots and other election
documents,
protestant
asserts
that
determination of votes of the parties should be
based on sources other than the missing
ballots.
27. SEMA VS. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
This is a case for petition to declare the HRET
Resolution null and void ab initio.
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
On 12 June 2007, protestant Bai Sandra S.A.
Sema, a congressional candidate of the LakasCMD who obtained 87,237 votes or 18,345vote difference from protestee Dilangalen, who
obtained 105,582 votes, filed an election
protest against Dilangalen for allege that a total
of 195 precincts of the Municipality of Datu
Odin Sinsuat of the Lone District of Shariff
Kabunsuan with Cotabato City, based on
different grounds such as anomalies on how
the votes were read and controversies on the
ballots and election returns.
On July 19, 2007 – Dilangalen filed an Answer
with Counter-Protest, counter-protesting 198
clustered/merged precincts in Sultan Kudarat
and 50 precincts in Sultan Mastura on the
grounds such as how the supporters of Sema
have made fraud in the counting of votes, how
votes were written, vote buying, and
connivance of Sema with BEI, to name a few.
Tribunal discovered that only one (1) out of the
248 ballot boxes of the counter-protested
precincts contained ballots. The other 247
counter-protested ballots were totally empty or
did not contain ballots and election documents.
Sema and Dilangalen filed their formal offer of
evidence and comments, one after the other.
•
Protestant – seeks a resolution to reject votes
of protestee and consider that votes were
thwarted by election fraud.
•
Protestee – countered protestant’s allegation
of fraud invoking that the official ballots,
election returns and other election documents
were distributed to the BEIs of municipality of
Datu Odin Sinsuat.
•
In contrast to her position in respect to the
votes in Datu Odin Sinsuat, as regards the
counter-protested precincts in Sultan Kudarat
and Sultan Mastura, where protestant was
shown to have attained higher number of votes
than protestee based on available official
•
HRET issued the Assailed decision. HRET
found that majority of the ballots in the 195
protested precincts of Datu Odin Sinsuat were
rejected as fake or spurious ballots since they
did not contain security features described by
COMELEC Commissioner
•
It was also pointed out that “Reports on
Revision Results, duly signed by both parties’
revisors, showed that during the revision, all
the ballot boxes in the 195 protested precincts
of Datu Odin Sinsuat had no self-locking metal
seals x x x, [t]hus, it cannot be conclusively
stated, that the ballot boxes at the time that
they were opened for revision purposes were
in the same condition as they were when
closed by the Chairman and Members of the
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) after the
completion of the canvassing proceedings.”
•
On the other hand, only one (1) out of the 248
ballot boxes of the counter-protested precincts
contained ballots.
•
HRET ruled that petitioner failed to prove by
convincing evidence that the election itself,
conducted on May 14, 2007, was tainted by
fraud and irregularities that frustrated the will of
the electorate.
•
HRET concluded that the ballots and/or ballot
boxes must have been tampered with after the
elections and the counting and canvassing of
votes. Thus, the HRET relied on the election
returns and other election documents to arrive
at the number of votes validly cast for petitioner
and respondent Dilangalen. Hence, the
Tribunal Dismissed the Election protest.
•
MR of Petitioner was denied hence this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether the HRET committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by relying on election returns and other
election documents, instead of the ballots
themselves, in determining who actually won in the
May 14, 2007 congressional elections for the Lone
District of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City.
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court held that the petition
was unmeritorious.
First. Court emphasized that this Court is not a trier
of facts and its jurisdiction to review decisions and
orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon
a showing of grave abuse of discretion committed
by the tribunal. emphasized that this Court is not a
trier of facts and its jurisdiction to review decisions
and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only
upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion
committed by the tribunal. Absent such grave
abuse of discretion, this Court shall not interfere
with the electoral tribunal’s exercise of its
discretion or jurisdiction.5 Grave abuse of
discretion has been described is a jurisprudence
as:
Grave abuse of discretion means such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as would amount to lack of jurisdiction which
contemplates a situation where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by law.
There is no cavil of doubt as to the factual
findings regarding the fake ballots in the 195
precincts in Datu Odin Sinsuat, or the lost
ballots for the 247 ballots boxes from the
counter-protested precincts. What petitioner
questions is the Tribunal’s reliance on election
returns and/or tally sheets and other election
documents to arrive at the number of votes for
each of the parties. However, jurisprudence has
established that such action of the HRET was
well within its discretion and jurisdiction.
Since it is undisputed that there are hardly any
valid or authentic ballots upon which the HRET
could base its determination of the number of
votes cast for each of the parties, the HRET
merely acted in accordance with settled
jurisprudence when it resorted to untampered
and/or unaltered election returns and other
election documents as evidence of such votes.
In sum, there is no showing whatsoever that the
HRET committed grave abuse of discretion.