Dueñas, Jr. vs. HRET

The HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election of members of the House of Representatives, has the plenary power and discretion to deny a protestee’s motion to withdraw a counter-protest and to order the continuation of ballot revision motu proprio to ascertain the true will of the electorate, notwithstanding the protestee’s desire to abandon the remaining precincts.

Henry "Jun" Dueñas, Jr. and Angelito "Jett" P. Reyes vied for the congressional seat in the 2nd District of Taguig City in the 2007 elections. Dueñas was proclaimed the winner with a margin of 1,457 votes. Reyes contested the results in 170 precincts, while Dueñas counter-protested 560 precincts.

• Election and Protest: Dueñas won over Reyes by 1,457 votes. Reyes filed an election protest ad cautelam in 170 precincts. Dueñas filed an answer with a counter-protest covering 560 precincts.
• Initial Revision: The HRET ordered the revision of 100% of the protested precincts and 25% of the counter-protested precincts. Fake or spurious ballots were discovered during this phase.
• HRET Order for Continuation: Finding that it could not determine the true will of the electorate from the initial revision, the HRET ordered the continuation of the revision for the remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts.
• Motion to Withdraw: Dueñas moved to withdraw/abandon the remaining 75% of his counter-protest, arguing that the protest should be dismissed due to Reyes's failure to prove his case. He also refused to augment his cash deposit for the continuation.
• Assailed Resolution: The HRET denied the motion to withdraw, reiterated the order for continuation, recalled the order for Dueñas to augment his cash deposit, and ordered the use of HRET funds for the revision expenses.

• Burden of Proof: Reyes failed to prove his case, and the HRET's continuation of the revision unjustly assisted the protestant in searching for evidence.
• Right to Withdraw: A counter-protest is designed to protect the protestee; withdrawal should be permitted, rendering further revision irrelevant.
• Unconstitutional Disbursement: Using HRET funds for a private party's benefit violates Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution.
• Rule 88 Parameters: HRET's discretion under Rule 88 to continue revision is conditioned on initial results reasonably affecting the proclaimed results; the discovery of 75 to 87 fake/spurious ballots is inconsequential compared to the 1,457-vote margin.

• HRET Discretion: The discovery of fake/spurious ballots justified the continuation of the revision to ferret out the truth. A motion to withdraw does not divest the HRET of jurisdiction.
• Plenary Power: The HRET can motu proprio review ballot validity; public interest in ascertaining the electorate's true will overrides a party's desire to withdraw.
• Use of Funds: The HRET has an allotted budget under Republic Act No. 9498 for the adjudication of electoral contests, and using its funds is an incident of its discretion and plenary powers.

• HRET Discretion to Deny Withdrawal: Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw/abandon the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts and ordering the continuation of the revision.
• Use of Public Funds: Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the use of its own funds for the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.

• HRET Discretion to Deny Withdrawal: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The HRET is the "sole judge" of election contests, possessing exclusive control over its proceedings. Under Rule 88, revision may be continued motu proprio if initial results affect the proclaimed results. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by a mere motion to withdraw. The discovery of fake or spurious ballots prevented the HRET from determining the true will of the electorate, justifying the continuation.
• Use of Public Funds: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The power to continue revision implies the wherewithal to carry it out. Republic Act No. 9498 appropriates funds for the "Adjudication of Electoral Contests," which covers revision expenses. The benefit redounds to the public interest in determining the true choice of the people, not merely to a private party. The HRET also has the inherent power to suspend its rules and disburse funds for a lawful purpose.

• Sole Judge Doctrine — The Constitution grants the HRET exclusive and exhaustive jurisdiction as the "sole judge" of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members. The Supreme Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the HRET on discretionary and technical matters within its domain.
• Jurisdiction Once Acquired — Jurisdiction over an election contest, once acquired by the HRET, is not lost at the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. The mere filing of a motion to withdraw does not divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — A capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.

• "The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts, without any action on the part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated."
• "Where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of one or the performance of the other is also conferred."
• "[O]ver and above the desire of the candidates to win, is the deep public interest to determine the true choice of the people."

• Libanan v. HRET — Followed. The power granted to the Electoral Tribunal excludes the exercise of any authority by the Supreme Court that would restrict, curtail, or affect it.
• Co v. HRET — Followed. The Court does not correct perceived errors of independent branches unless there is a denial of due process or grave abuse of discretion so grave and glaring that the Constitution calls for remedial action.
• Robles v. HRET — Followed. Held that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties, and a motion to withdraw does not automatically divest the tribunal of jurisdiction.
• Abubakar v. HRET — Followed. The Court declined to review a ruling of the HRET on a matter that was discretionary and technical.
• Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Declared that the deep public interest to determine the true choice of the people overrides the desire of candidates to win.

• Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Applied to affirm the HRET's exclusive and exhaustive jurisdiction over the election protest.
• Rule 7, HRET Rules — Grants the HRET exclusive control, direction, and supervision of all matters pertaining to its own functions and operation. Applied to support the HRET's authority to continue the revision despite the protestee's motion to withdraw.
• Rule 88, HRET Rules — Governs pilot precincts and initial revision, allowing the HRET to motu proprio direct the continuation of revision or dismiss the protest/counter-protest based on what reasonably appears from the initial revision as affecting the officially-proclaimed results. Applied as the procedural basis for the HRET's discretion to continue the revision.
• Rule 33, HRET Rules — Allows the HRET to dismiss a protest or take such action as it may deem equitable if a party fails to make the required cash deposit. Applied to justify the HRET's recall of the order for the protestee to augment his cash deposit.
• Section 29(1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the payment of public funds from the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Cited by the petitioner but found inapplicable because the HRET's disbursement was covered by a valid appropriation.
• Republic Act No. 9498 — The General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which appropriated funds for the HRET's adjudication of electoral contests. Applied to authorize the use of HRET funds for the revision of ballots.

Reynato S. Puno (CJ), Antonio T. Carpio, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin. (Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Conchita Carpio Morales took no part.)

• Leonardo A. Quisumbing, J. — Contended that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion. Rule 88 limits the HRET's discretion; the initial revision of 100% of the protested precincts did not show substantial recoveries for the protestant. The discovery of 75 to 87 fake/spurious ballots was inconsequential compared to the 1,457-vote margin, making the continuation based on pure conjecture. Allowing the protestant to rely on precincts not included in his protest is tantamount to a prohibited substantial amendment broadening the scope of the protest under Rule 28. Furthermore, the HRET had no authority to use its own funds as RA 9498 did not intend the appropriation for revision expenses.
• Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, J. — Joined Justice Quisumbing's dissent. Added that deducting the spurious ballots from the petitioner's votes would still not dent the winning margin. Argued that using public funds for the revision violates Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) by causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefit to a private party.