GR 158359; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158359 ; March 23, 2004
ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ABDULLAH S. MANGOTARA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Abdullah D. Dimaporo and private respondent Abdullah S. Mangotara were rival candidates for the House of Representatives in Lanao del Norte’s 2nd District in the 2001 elections. Dimaporo was proclaimed winner. Mangotara filed an election protest, alleging massive substitute voting. The HRET granted Mangotara’s motion for a technical examination of signatures and thumbmarks in the municipality of Sultan Naga Dimaporo (SND) after a fire destroyed the ballots there, making revision impossible. Subsequently, after revision proceedings, Dimaporo filed his own motion for technical examination concerning counter-protested precincts in other municipalities. He argued that for some precincts, ballot boxes were empty, and for others in Tangcal, the ballots had been burned, creating a situation analogous to SND.
ISSUE
Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion, violating Dimaporo’s right to equal protection and due process, in denying his motion for technical examination after granting Mangotara’s similar motion.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the HRET. The Court held that the situations of Mangotara and Dimaporo were not identical, justifying the HRET’s disparate treatment. For Mangotara’s protest in SND, the technical examination was the sole available means to substantiate his claim of substitute voting due to the complete destruction of ballots. In contrast, for Dimaporo’s counter-protest, the HRET validly distinguished between the groups of precincts. For the first two groups, the alleged irregularities—that ballots were written by one person and that substitute voting occurred—were matters the Tribunal could determine judicially through the revised ballots themselves without needing technical examination. For the Tangcal precincts, the HRET found that not only the ballots but also the vital Voters Registration Records needed for comparison had been destroyed, making a technical examination impossible and futile. The HRET’s actions were a valid exercise of its constitutional mandate and procedural discretion under its rules. The denial was based on substantive differences in circumstance and practicality, not arbitrariness, and thus did not violate equal protection or due process.