Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6


Chavez v comelec 211 scra 315,1991

2. Abbas v set 166scra 651,1988
This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set aside the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denying, respectively, the petitioners' Motion for
Disqualification or Inhibition and their Motion for Reconsideration thereafter filed.
Senator Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal were being asked to inhibit themselves in hearing
SET Case No. 002-87 as they are considered interested parties, therefore leaving the Senate Electoral
Tribunal senateless, and all remaining members coming from the judiciary.
WON the SET can function without the Senator members.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of
the Tribunal to not let Senator-Members to inhibit or disqualify himself, rather, just let them refrain
from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or
biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment.
3. Pimentel v hret gr 141489
4. Bondoc v pineda 201 scra 792

In the elections held on May 11, 1987, Marciano Pineda of the LDP and Emigdio Bondoc of the NP were
candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga. Pineda was
proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET),
which is composed of 9 members, 3 of whom are Justices of the SC and the remaining 6 are members
of the House of Representatives (5 members belong to the LDP and 1 member is from the NP).
Thereafter, a decision had been reached in which Bondoc won over Pineda. Congressman Camasura of
the LDP voted with the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles of the NP to proclaim Bondoc the winner
of the contest.

On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Congressman Camasura received a letter
informing him that he was already expelled from the LDP for allegedly helping to organize the Partido
Pilipino of Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting LDP members in Davao Del Sur to join said
political party. On the day of the promulgation of the decision, the Chairman of HRET received a letter
informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the LDP, the House of Representatives
decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura to the HRET.


Whether or not the House of Representatives, at the request of the dominant political party
therein, may change that partys representation in the HRET to thwart the promulgation of a decision
freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein.

The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral Commission was to provide an
independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office, devoid of
partisan consideration.

As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their functions with
complete detachment, impartiality and independence even independence from the political party to
which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for
the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for
having cast a conscience vote in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and
appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives
committed a grave abuse of discretion, an injustice and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of
expulsion against Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

5.Robles v hret 181 scra 780

Rep. Virgilio Robles elected to 1st Dist. of Caloocan, Romeo Santos filed elec. contest w/ HRET for
electoral fraud & irregularities & called for re-counting / re-appreciation of votes. Filed Motion to
Withdraw Contest but later filed Urgent MMotion to Recall/Disregard his Previous Motion. 1 st Motion not
acted upon, 2nd Motion granted. Robles claimed that the 1st motion divested HRET of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether or not SC can interfere on this controversy.
SC cannot interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot
be lost at the mere instance of the parties, but continues until case is terminated. HRET
must be allowed to function w/o being impaired by mere technicalities of procedure. Elec. protest is
vested w/ public interest. Certiorari DENIED.

6. Arroyo v hret 246 scra 384

After the May 11, 1992 elections, Arroyo was declared as the duly elected Congressman of the lone
district of Makati. Arroyo won by 13,559 votes over his opponent. His opponent Syjuco protested the

declaration before the HRET. Syjuco alleged that Arroyo won due to massive fraud hence he moved
for revision and recounting. HRET gave way but during the process some HRET employees and
personnel conducted some irregularities to ensure Syjucos win. After some paper battles between the
two, Syjuco, realizing that mere revision and recounting would not suffice to overthrow the more than
12,000 votes lead of Arroyo over him, revised his complaint by including and introducing in his
memorandum cum addendum that his complaint is actually based on a broader and more equitable
non-traditional determination of the existence of the precinct-level document-based anomalies and
that the revision he initially sought is just incidental to such determination. The 3 justices members of
the HRET ruled that such amendment is already beyond the tribunals jurisdiction and the 6
representative members ruled otherwise. Consequently, by a vote of 6-3, the HRET did not dismiss the
protest filed by Syjuco and the HRET later declared Syjuco as the winner.
ISSUE: Whether or not HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
HELD: However guised or justified by Syjuco, this innovative theory he introduced for the first time in
his memorandum cum addendum indeed broadened the scope of the election protest beyond what he
originally sought-the mere revision of ballots. From his initial prayer for revision which lays primary, if
not exclusive emphasis on the physical recount and appreciation of ballots alone, private respondents
belated attempt to inject this theory at the memorandum stage calls for presentation of evidence
(consisting of thousands of documents) aside from, or other than, the ballots themselves. By having
done so, Syjuco in fact intended to completely abandon the process and results of the revision and
thereafter sought to rely on his brainchild process he fondly coined as precinct-level document-based
evidence. This is clearly substantial amendment of the election protest expressly proscribed by Rule
28 of the HRET internal rules.

7. Lerias v hret 202 scra 808

Rosette Lerias files elec. Protest against proclaimed winner Rep. Roger Mercado for Lone Dist. of So.
Leyte. Returns from town of Libangon questioned but presumed to produce more votes for Lerias.
Board of Canvassers copy of COCs inconsistent w/ COMELEC copy indicated dagdag-bawas. Lerias
votes reduced by 100 votes per precinct (#6, 10, 18, 19). School teachers testified. Majority rules in
favor of Mercado (party-mate) who only presented photocopies for evidence.
ISSUE: whether or Not the findings and pronouncements of the HRET (majorirty opinion) are totally
bereft of any support in law and settled jurisprudence
H: In an election contest where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each
candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves. But where the ballots
cannot be produced or are not available, the election returns would be the best evidence. Where it has
been duly determined that actual voting and election by the registered voter had taken place in the
questioned precincts or voting centers, the election returns cannot be disregarded and excluded with

the resulting disenfranchisement of the voters, but must be accorded prima facie status as bona
fide reports of the results of the voting.. In the absence of actual ballots, election returns from
Mun. Board of Canvassers presented by Lerias constitutes best evidence. Prima facie
evidence. Best evidence rule must apply. HRET decision is SET ASIDE.

8. Sandoval v hret
Petitioner Sandoval and respondent Oreta were candidates for the lone congressional district of
Malabon-Navotas during the 14 May 2001 national elections. The canvass of the election returns
yielded 92,062 votes for petitioner while respondent obtained 72,862 votes, or a 19,200 votes. On 22
May 2001 petitioner was proclaimed duly elected representative by the District Board of Canvassers
of Malabon-Navotas. After taking his oath of office, he assumed the post at noon of 30 June 2001.
On 1 June 2001 respondent Oreta filed with HRET an election protest against petitioner, docketed as
HRET Case No. 01-027. The protest assailed the alleged electoral frauds and anomalies in one
thousand three hundred eight (1,308) precincts of the Malabon-Navotas District.
ISSUE: WON the SC has jurisdiction over the election protest case.
Yes, the SC has jurisdiction.
While the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress, this regime however does not bar
this Court from entertaining petitions where the threshold of legitimate review is breached. Indeed, it is
well-settled that judicial guidance is appropriate where jurisdictional issues are involved or charges of
grave abuse of discretion are presented in order that we may vindicate established claims of denial of
due process or correct veritable abuses of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the
Constitution itself calls for remedial action.

9.Sema v hret gr190734,2010

The Province of Maguindanao is part of ARMM. Cotabato City is part of the province of Maguindanao
but it is not part of ARMM because Cotabato City voted against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in
1989. Maguindanao has two legislative districts. The 1st legislative district comprises of Cotabato City
and 8 other municipalities.
A law (RA 9054) was passed amending ARMMs Organic Act and vesting it with power to
create provinces, municipalities, cities and barangays. Pursuant to this law, the ARMM Regional
Assembly created Shariff Kabunsuan (Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act 201) which comprised of the
municipalities of the 1st district of Maguindanao with the exception of Cotabato City.
Bai Sandra Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S. Kabunsuan with
Cotabato (1st district). Later, Sema was contending that Cotabato City should be a separate legislative
district and that votes therefrom should be excluded in the voting.She contended that under
the Constitution, upon creation of a province (S. Kabunsuan), that province automatically gains
legislative representation and since S. Kabunsuan excludes Cotabato City so in effect Cotabato is
being deprived of a representative in the HOR.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9054 is unconstitutional.

Whether or not ARMM can create validly LGUs.
HELD: RA 9054 is unconstitutional. The creation of local government units is governed by Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its
boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local
government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political
units directly affected.
Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units province, city, municipality or barangay
must comply with three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit must follow the
criteria fixed in the Local Government Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision
of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected.

10. Dueas v hret 593 scra 316, 2010

Petitioner Henry Jun Dueas, Jr. and private respondent Angelito Jett P. Reyes were rival candidates
for the position of congressman in the 2 nd legislative district of Taguig City in the May 14, 2007
synchronized national and local elections. After the canvass of the votes, petitioner was proclaimed the
winner. Not conceding defeat, private respondent filed an election protest, praying for a
revision/recount, alleging that he was cheated in the protested 170 of 732 precincts through insidious
and well-orchestrated electoral frauds and anomalies which resulted in the systematic reduction of his
votes and the corresponding increase in petitioners votes.
HRET issued a resolution ruling that it had the discretion either to dismiss the protest or counterprotest, or to continue with the revision if necessitated by reasonable and sufficient grounds affecting
the validity of the election. This was with the end in view of ascertaining the true choice of the
electorate. It was the HRETs position that the mere filing of a motion to withdraw/abandon the
unrevised precincts did not automatically divest the HRET of its jurisdiction over the same. Moreover, it
ruled that its task of determining the true will of the electorate was not confined to the examination of
contested ballots. Under its plenary power, it could motu propio review the validity of every ballot
involved in a protest or counter-protest and the same could not be frustrated by the mere expedient of
filing a motion to withdraw/abandon the remaining counter-protested precincts.
Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in
issuing the Resolution, to continue the revision and appreciation of all the remaining 75% counterprotested precincts.

The petition has no merit.
So long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, any final action
taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this Court
. the power granted to the Electoral Tribunal x x x excludes the exercise of any authority

on the part of this Court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the
same. Guided by this basic principle, the Court will neither assume a power that belongs exclusively
to the HRET nor substitute its own judgment for that of the Tribunal.