Abayon vs. HRET and Daza

An election tribunal may annul election results on the ground of terrorism only upon clear and convincing proof that (1) the illegality affected more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast in the contested precincts, and (2) it is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between lawful and unlawful ballots. The HRET’s annulment of elections, unsupported by such evidence, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

In the May 13, 2013 elections for Representative of the First Legislative District of Northern Samar, petitioner Harlin C. Abayon obtained 72,857 votes while private respondent Raul A. Daza received 72,805 votes—a difference of 52 votes. Abayon was proclaimed the winner on May 17, 2013.

• The Election Results: In the May 13, 2013 elections for the First Legislative District of Northern Samar, Abayon received 72,857 votes and Daza received 72,805 votes. Abayon was proclaimed winner on May 17, 2013, by the Provincial Board of Canvassers.

• Daza’s Election Protest: Daza filed an election protest before the HRET on May 31, 2013, imputing massive fraud, vote-buying, intimidation, and terrorism to Abayon and his supporters. The protest initially covered 25 clustered precincts across six municipalities.

• Abayon’s Counter-Protest and Revision: Abayon answered with a counter-protest contesting all 332 precincts. The HRET found both protest and counter-protest sufficient. Revision of ballots in the 25 protested precincts resulted in Abayon’s votes increasing by 28 and Daza’s by 14.

• Withdrawal of Recount Cause and Dismissal of Counter-Protest: Daza later moved to withdraw his cause of action for recount, revision, and re-appreciation in the municipalities of Biri, Capul, and San Isidro, while pursuing annulment of election results in Lavezares and Victoria on the ground of terrorism. The HRET granted the motion, ordered the counter-protest held in abeyance, and upon Daza’s further motion, dismissed Abayon’s counter-protest entirely by Resolution No. 15-058, dated December 14, 2015. Abayon’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

• HRET Proceedings on Terrorism and the Annulment Decision: Daza presented testimonial and documentary evidence alleging that the NDF-EV conducted “pulong-pulongs” threatening voters, distributed vilifying materials, deployed armed partisans at polling places, and that Abayon had met with NDF-EV officials and provided money and guns. Three residents testified they voted for Abayon out of fear; other witnesses described threats but did not state they voted under coercion. P/SSupt. Isaias B. Tonog and Col. Roberto S. Capulong testified generally about NDF-EV hostility toward Daza. The HRET disregarded certifications from the COMELEC Provincial Election Supervisor and PNP Provincial Director stating that the elections were generally peaceful and no failure of election occurred. On February 3, 2016, the HRET annulled the election results in five clustered precincts (Lavezares and Victoria), deducted the votes, and declared Daza the winner by a margin of 434 votes.

• Jurisdiction: Abayon maintained that the annulment of election results on the ground of terrorism is akin to a declaration of failure of elections, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC En Banc under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166, not the HRET.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Abayon argued that even assuming jurisdiction, the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion because Daza failed to present clear and convincing evidence that terrorism affected more than 50% of the votes and made it impossible to distinguish valid ballots. He relied on official certifications from the COMELEC and PNP that the elections were orderly and peaceful.

• Violation of Due Process: Abayon asserted that the dismissal of his counter-protest without a clear statement of facts and law violated his right to due process and that the HRET failed to display impartiality by granting Daza’s motion to present additional witnesses without affording him an opportunity to be heard.

• Procedural Defects (G.R. No. 222236): Daza contended that the petition assailing the dismissal of the counter-protest suffered from fatal procedural infirmities: forum shopping, failure to move for reconsideration rendering the dismissal final, and omission of the HRET case number in the caption.

• Jurisdiction: Daza and the HRET countered that the HRET’s constitutional mandate as sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications encompasses the power to annul election results tainted by terrorism, fraud, or irregularities. They distinguished the annulment from a COMELEC declaration of failure of elections, which is administrative and calls for special elections.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Daza argued that testimonies of resident-voters and corroborative accounts of P/SSupt. Tonog and Col. Capulong supplied clear and convincing proof of terrorism; the HRET’s factual findings were beyond the scope of certiorari review absent grave abuse.

• Mootness and Propriety of Dismissal: Daza posited that the issue of the counter-protest had been mooted by the HRET’s final decision. The HRET maintained it possessed the prerogative to discontinue revision and dismiss the counter-protest, and that Abayon was not denied due process because he was heard.

• Jurisdiction to Annul Elections: Whether the HRET had jurisdiction to annul election results in the contested precincts on the ground of terrorism.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Annulment for Terrorism: Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the election results despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence to meet the requisites for nullification.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Dismissal of Counter-Protest: Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Abayon’s counter-protest.

• Jurisdiction to Annul Elections: The HRET possesses the incidental power to annul election results as part of its constitutional mandate under Article VI, Section 17 to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members. Annulment by the HRET is a judicial function aimed at determining who obtained the majority of valid votes, distinguishable from the COMELEC’s administrative power to declare a failure of elections and call special elections under R.A. No. 7166. A statute cannot diminish the HRET’s constitutionally conferred authority.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Annulment for Terrorism: The HRET gravely abused its discretion because the evidence did not satisfy the clear and convincing standard required to annul elections. The two indispensable requisites—that the illegality affected more than 50% of the votes cast and that it was impossible to distinguish lawful from unlawful ballots—were not met. Only three voters testified they cast their ballots for Abayon out of fear; the remaining witnesses described threats but did not establish that the coercion actually swayed the majority of voters. The testimonies were neither linked to Abayon nor sufficient to rebut the official certifications of peaceful and orderly elections issued by the COMELEC and PNP. A decision unsupported by substantial evidence amounts to grave abuse of discretion, warranting reversal.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Dismissal of Counter-Protest: The issue has become moot and academic in light of the ruling that Abayon was the lawfully elected Representative. Continuing the counter-protest would serve no practical purpose.

• Power of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to Annul Elections — The HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members, possesses the complete and unimpaired power to annul election results where fraud, terrorism, or other irregularities exist. This power is an incident of its judicial function to ascertain who received the majority of valid votes and must not be confused with the COMELEC’s administrative power to declare a failure of elections and call special elections under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 of R.A. No. 7166.

• Requisites for Annulment of Election Results on Ground of Terrorism — Before an election may be annulled, the protestant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the illegality affected more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast in the contested precincts; and (2) it is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between lawful and unlawful ballots. The power to annul must be exercised with utmost care and only under exceptional circumstances demonstrating that the disregard of law was so fundamental, persistent, and continuous that the will of the majority cannot be ascertained.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion from Insufficient Evidence — A decision rendered without substantial evidence is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and may be corrected through a petition for certiorari. In reviewing electoral tribunals, the Supreme Court retains certiorari jurisdiction to ensure that factual findings are not arbitrarily made in disregard of the evidence on record.

• “The phrase ‘election, returns and qualifications’ should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. Consequently, the annulment of election results is but a power concomitant to the HRET’s constitutional mandate to determine the validity of the contestee’s title.”

• “The power to declare a failure of elections should be exercised with utmost care and only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond doubt that the disregard of the law had been so fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful, or that the great body of the voters have been prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from exercising their franchise.”

• “The testimonies of a minute portion of the registered voters in the said precincts should not be used as a tool to silence the voice of the majority expressed through their votes during elections. To do so would disenfranchise the will of the majority and reward a candidate not chosen by the people to be their representative.”

• Tagolino v. HRET, 706 Phil. 534 (2013) — Affirmed that the HRET’s independence is not absolute; the Supreme Court retains certiorari jurisdiction to check grave abuse of discretion.

• Vilando v. HRET, 671 Phil. 524 (2011) — Recognized that the HRET’s constitutional power is full, clear, and complete.

• Batabor v. COMELEC, 478 Phil. 795 (2004) — Stated the stringent standard for declaring a failure of elections.

• Tan v. COMELEC, 537 Phil. 510 (2006) — Held that affidavits of poll watchers are insufficient to prove widespread disenfranchisement and that official certifications of peaceful elections carry weight under the presumption of regularity.

• Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015, 748 SCRA 378 — Established that a decision not supported by substantial evidence is a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

• Sambarani v. COMELEC, 481 Phil. 661 (2004) and Bedol v. COMELEC, 621 Phil. 498 (2009) — Distinguished the COMELEC’s administrative function in declaring failure of elections from its quasi-judicial functions.

• Article VI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Vests in the HRET the sole and exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives; interpreted to include the power to annul election results as part of its judicial function.

• Section 4, Republic Act No. 7166 — Provides that the declaration of failure of elections and the calling of special elections shall be decided by the COMELEC En Banc; distinguished from the HRET’s annulment power.

• Section 6, Omnibus Election Code — Governs the administrative duty of the COMELEC to call for the holding or continuation of elections when a failure to elect occurs.

• Rule 21, 2011 HRET Rules of Procedure — Enumerates grounds for summary dismissal of an election protest or counter-protest; not applied because the counter-protest was dismissed on other grounds.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ. (Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Peralta, and Bersamin, JJ., no part.)

N/A (No dissenting opinion was registered among the participating justices; the decision was unanimous.)