Legarda vs De Castro

Legarda vs De Castro

P.E.T. Case 0003

March 31, 2005

Loren B. Legarda, protestant, vs Noli L.De Castro, protestee.

Facts:

         In a Resolution dated January 18, 2005, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) confirmed the jurisdiction over the protest of Loren B. Legarda and denied the motion of protestee, Noli L. de Castro for its outright dismissal.  The Tribunal further ordered concerned officials to undertake measures for the protection and preservation of the ballot boxes and election documents subject of the protest.

    On February 4, 2005, De Castro filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the said resolution.   

      De Castro argues that where the correctness of the number of votes is the issue, the best evidence are the ballots; that the process of correcting the manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election returns is a function of the canvassing bodies; that once the canvassing bodies had done their functions, no alteration or correction of manifest errors can be made; that since the authority of the Tribunal involves an exercise of judicial power to determine the facts based on the evidence presented and to apply the law based on the established facts, it cannot perform the ministerial function of canvassing election returns. He also contends that the Tribunal cannot correct the manifest errors on the statements of votes (SOV) and certificates of canvass (COC).  But it is not suggested by any of the parties that questions on the validity, authenticity and correctness of the SOVs and COCs are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

       Whether or not the Tribunal can re-canvass the ballots and can correct the manifest errors in the SOVs and COCs.

  

RULING:

      Yes.  The SC finds no reason why the Tribunal cannot perform this function.  SC agrees that the ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is involved. Legarda merely seeks the correction of manifest errors, that is, errors in the process of different levels of transposition and addition of votes.

           

The constitutional function as well as the power and the duty to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualification of the President and Vice-President is expressly vested in the PET, in Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.  Included therein is the duty to correct manifest errors in the SOVs and COCs. There is no necessity, in the SC’s view, to amend the PET Rules to perform this function within the ambit of its constitutional function.

 In the instant protest, Legarda 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 De Castro’s title to his office.

Considering that the protest is sufficient in form and substance, the SC 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 Legarda 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.