G.R. No. PET Case No. 005, October 15, 2019
FERDINAND “BONGBONG” R. MARCOS, JR., PROTESTANT, VS. MARIA LEONOR “LENI DAANG MATUWID” G. ROBREDO, PROTESTEE.

FACTS

This is a dissenting opinion in an election protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Protestant Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr. designated, and the Tribunal approved, Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental as his three pilot provinces pursuant to Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules. After the revision and appreciation of ballots in these pilot provinces, the final tally resulted in a net increase of 15,093 votes in favor of protestee Maria Leonor “Leni” G. Robredo. Protestant subsequently sought to have ballots from three provinces in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) revised and recounted, which would exceed the three-province limit for pilot provinces.

ISSUE

Whether the protest should be dismissed for protestant’s failure to make out his case after the revision of the three designated pilot provinces, and whether protestant can be allowed to designate additional pilot provinces beyond the maximum of three mandated by the 2010 PET Rules.

RULING

The dissenting opinion votes to DISMISS the protest and counter-protest. Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules provides that the Tribunal may require the protestant to indicate provinces numbering “not more than three” as pilot provinces best exemplifying the alleged frauds or irregularities. The word “may” confers discretion on the Tribunal to dismiss the protest summarily if it suffers from defects under the Rules. However, if the Tribunal does not dismiss the protest and allows it to proceed, the designation of pilot provinces not exceeding three becomes mandatory. The maximum of three pilot provinces refers to the entire protest, not to individual causes of action. Allowing protestant to designate additional pilot provinces for other causes of action, such as acts of terrorism, would contravene the clear and mandatory language of the Rules, lead to absurdity by potentially allowing up to 15 pilot provinces for five causes of action, cause unreasonable delay, and constitute an improper midstream change of rules to accommodate a party who failed to show substantial recovery in the three pilot provinces he himself chose. Since the revision results in the three pilot provinces showed no substantial recovery for the protestant but instead a net increase for the protestee, the protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, warranting the dismissal of the election protest pursuant to Rule 65.