G.R. No. P.E.T. Case No. 005, February 16, 2021.
FERDINAND “BONGBONG” R. MARCOS, JR., PROTESTANT, VS. MARIA LEONOR “LENI DAANG MATUWID” G. ROBREDO, PROTESTEE.

FACTS

This is a Separate Opinion by Justice Gaerlan in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) case filed by protestant Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr. against protestee Maria Leonor “Leni Daang Matuwid” G. Robredo. The main electoral protest was dismissed by the PET for the protestant’s failure to prove substantial recovery in the pilot precincts he selected, as required under Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules. Justice Gaerlan concurs with this result but writes separately to discuss the tribunal’s plenary power to adjudicate causes of action for the annulment of elections and to guide future adjudications on this distinct remedy.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the Separate Opinion is whether the PET, as the sole judge of presidential and vice-presidential contests under the Constitution, possesses the plenary power and authority to rule on causes of action for the annulment of elections, and how such a remedy should be treated procedurally given its absence from the 2010 PET Rules.

RULING

Justice Gaerlan rules that the PET possesses the plenary power to adjudicate petitions for annulment of elections. This power is derived directly from Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution , which designates the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice-President. This grant is plenary in scope and is complemented by the Court’s rule-making authority under Article VIII, Section 5(5). The remedy of annulment of elections has been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence since the 1918 case of Garchitorena v. Crescini. It is a distinct remedy separate from an election protest, a pre-proclamation controversy, or a declaration of failure of election. An election protest involves the revision and appreciation of ballots to determine the true winner, whereas an annulment of election involves an investigation into whether fraud, terrorism, violence, or analogous causes were so pervasive as to prevent the true expression of the electorate’s will, warranting the nullification of results. Citing Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, the opinion outlines that the power to annul must be exercised with utmost care and only when the disregard of the law is so fundamental that it prevents a genuine expression of popular will. The grounds must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Justice Gaerlan notes that while the 2010 PET Rules do not specifically provide for the remedy of annulment of elections, this omission does not bar its availment. Pending a rules amendment, adjudication of such causes should be governed by the Rules of Court, Supreme Court decisions, and PET decisions, pursuant to Rule 73 of the 2010 PET Rules. He concludes that Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules, which governs the dismissal of election protests or quo warranto petitions for lack of substantial recovery in pilot precincts, does not apply to a distinct cause of action for annulment of elections.