G.R. No. 129783 December 22, 1997
MARCELINO C. LIBANAN, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and JOSE T. RAMIREZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcelino C. Libanan and private respondent Jose T. Ramirez were candidates for the lone congressional seat of Eastern Samar in the May 1995 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed respondent Ramirez the winner with 41,523 votes against petitioner’s 40,869 votes, a margin of 654 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), contesting 79 precincts in five municipalities, alleging massive electoral irregularities, tampering of election returns and ballots, and systematic marking of ballots in favor of respondent. Respondent Ramirez filed an answer with counter-protest. After revision of ballots and reception of evidence, the HRET focused on the appreciation of ballots, as no evidence was presented on the other allegations like tampering or terrorism. The HRET found no spurious ballots, as all examined ballots had COMELEC watermarks. The HRET ruled that the absence of the BEI Chairman’s signature at the back of the ballot, while an election offense under Section 24 of R.A. 7166, did not render the ballot invalid or spurious. The HRET dismissed the protest, affirmed Ramirez’s proclamation, and declared him the duly elected Representative with a plurality of 143 votes. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, with the HRET adjusting the vote lead to 99 for Ramirez but maintaining its ruling on the validity of ballots lacking the BEI Chairman’s signature.

ISSUE

Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) on the ballots did not render said ballots spurious.

RULING

No, the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that under Section 24 of R.A. 7166, while the BEI Chairman is required to affix his signature at the back of the ballot before issuance to the voter, and failure to do so is an election offense, the law does not provide that ballots not so authenticated shall be considered invalid or spurious. The absence of the signature is a prima facie evidence of dereliction of duty by the BEI Chairman, but it is not fatal to the validity of the ballots. The Court emphasized that the HRET is, under the Constitution, the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Its decisions are beyond judicial interference unless rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. No such abuse was found, as the HRET’s interpretation of the law was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor whimsical. The presumption of validity of ballots under Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code applies, and fraud is not presumed but must be proved.