Marcos, Jr. vs. Robredo

An election protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal must be dismissed when the protestant fails to show substantial recovery of votes in the pilot provinces designated under Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules, as the pilot provinces serve as a litmus test to determine whether the protest has merit. The mandatory ceiling of "not more than three" pilot provinces under Rule 65 applies to all causes of action in the protest, and a protestant cannot designate different sets of pilot provinces for each cause of action. The annulment of election results requires proof that (1) the illegality of the ballots affected more than 50% of the votes cast in the precincts sought to be annulled, and (2) it is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between lawful and unlawful ballots, as established in Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr. and Maria Leonor "Leni Daang Matuwid" G. Robredo were two of six candidates for Vice President during the May 9, 2016 national and local elections. Robredo garnered 14,418,817 votes while Marcos received 14,155,344 votes, giving Robredo a slim margin of only 263,473 votes over Marcos. On May 30, 2016, Congress issued Resolution of Both Houses No. 1, which recognized the results of the canvass and proclaimed Robredo as the duly elected Vice President of the Philippines. Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the Supreme Court, sitting en banc as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President."

Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr. and Maria Leonor "Leni Daang Matuwid" G. Robredo were two of six candidates for Vice President during the May 9, 2016 national and local elections. Robredo garnered 14,418,817 votes while Marcos received 14,155,344 votes, giving Robredo a slim margin of only 263,473 votes over Marcos. On May 30, 2016, Congress issued Resolution of Both Houses No. 1, proclaiming Robredo as the duly elected Vice President of the Philippines.

On June 29, 2016, Marcos filed his Election Protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, premised on two causes of action: first, that Robredo's proclamation was null and void because the Certificates of Canvass generated by the Consolidation and Canvass System were not authentic; and second, that massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities—including terrorism, violence, force, threats, intimidation, pre-shading of ballots, vote-buying, substitution of voters, flying voters, pre-loaded SD cards, misreading of ballots, improper rejection of ballots, malfunctioning Vote Counting Machines, and abnormally high unaccounted votes—compromised the conduct of the elections in the protested precincts. The Protest covered 39,221 clustered precincts in around 27 provinces and cities, with Marcos praying for annulment of elections in 2,756 clustered precincts in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan, and judicial revision of votes in the remaining 36,465 clustered precincts.

Robredo filed her Verified Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses and Counter-Protest, alleging that the Protest failed to provide specific acts or omissions that supposedly led to electoral frauds, and that the Protest was a pre-proclamation controversy that should have been lodged before the National Board of Canvassers. As counter-protest, Robredo contested election results in 7,547 clustered precincts in 13 provinces, alleging vote-buying, intimidation, substitution, and other irregularities.

During the preliminary conference on July 11, 2017, the Tribunal, with Marcos's consent, categorized his causes of action into three: first, annulment of Robredo's proclamation; second, revision and recount of ballots in Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental; and third, annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan. The Tribunal directed that revision of ballots would begin with Marcos's designated pilot provinces of Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental, which would serve as test cases to determine whether the Tribunal would proceed with the remaining contested clustered precincts.

The revision of ballots for the pilot provinces commenced on April 2, 2018, and ended on February 4, 2019. The Tribunal revised paper ballots and decrypted ballot images from 5,415 clustered precincts, as the Commission on Elections could not provide decrypted ballot images for three clustered precincts with damaged and unreadable paper ballots. The revision and appreciation process resulted in Robredo receiving 1,510,178 votes and Marcos receiving 204,512 votes in the pilot provinces. Based on the final tally, the Tribunal found that Robredo increased her lead over Marcos from 263,473 to 278,566 votes.

In his Memorandum, Marcos claimed that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee erred in overruling his objections to Robredo's ballots for "lack of evidence aliunde," in counting unshaded and ambiguously shaded ballots in Robredo's favor, and in admitting claims for Robredo without specifying reasons. He maintained that his three causes of action were distinct from each other, and that his third cause of action for annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan could not be mooted by the results of the revision in the pilot provinces. He invoked Tan vs. Hataman and Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to support his position.

Robredo, in her Memorandum, argued that the revision, recount, and re-appreciation of ballots affirmed her victory, and that under Rule 65 of the PET Rules, the Protest must be dismissed for Marcos's failure to establish any substantial recovery. She contended that Marcos's third cause of action was essentially a petition for failure of elections, which falls under the Commission on Elections' jurisdiction, and that Marcos failed to prove that the alleged fraud affected more than 50% of the votes cast in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.

The Commission on Elections reported that eight petitions seeking to declare a failure of elections were filed in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan during the 2016 elections, but all were dismissed and these rulings had reached finality. The Commission confirmed that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to annul election results as an "indispensable consequence" of its constitutional mandate, but emphasized that the strictest standards must be set in place, including the requirement that the illegality of ballots must affect more than 50% of the votes cast and that there must be strong evidence that the protestee is responsible for the alleged unlawful acts.

On November 9, 2020, Marcos sought the inhibition of Justice Leonen, re-raffle of the case, and resolution of all pending incidents, alleging that the Protest had "remained in limbo." The Office of the Solicitor General filed a similar motion, arguing that the delay manifested Justice Leonen's bias against Marcos. The Tribunal denied both motions on November 17, 2020, cautioning the parties to refrain from using language that undermines the credibility of the Tribunal.

• Errors in Revision and Appreciation: Protestant argued that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee erred in overruling his objections to protestee's ballots for "lack of evidence aliunde" without giving him the opportunity to present evidence supporting his Protest, and in overruling his objections to questionable ballots containing signatures of Board of Election Inspectors that were "glaringly different" from signatures in other election documents.

• Counting of Unshaded and Ambiguous Ballots: Protestant asserted that the Preliminary Appreciation Committee erred when it counted unshaded and ambiguously shaded ballots in protestee's favor, and asked the Tribunal to look into ballots admitted as claims for protestee without specifying why, as well as previously rejected ballots admitted by the Committee.

• Distinctness of Causes of Action: Protestant maintained that his three causes of action are distinct from each other, and that the dismissal of one will not impact the other. He stressed that his third cause of action for annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan was not covered by Rules 46 and 65 of the PET Rules because the relief sought does not require revision and recount of votes.

• Applicability of Abayon: Protestant invoked Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to insist that a cause of action on annulment of election results is independent of a cause of action on recount and revision of ballots, and that a dismissal under Rule 65 is limited to the judicial recount and revision of ballots.

• Technical Examination: Protestant invoked Tan vs. Hataman to support his motion for technical examination of voters' signatures, alleging that the technical examination report showed discrepancies in 40,528 signatures and 3,295 thumbprints, leading the Voters Identification Division to conclude that the 2016 elections had been marred by "different forms of election fraud such as massive substituted voting."

• Effect of Annulment: Protestant advanced that if his third cause of action is given due course, only the tainted votes for the vice presidency should be annulled and deducted from the votes received by both parties, and that there is no need to conduct special elections.

• Dismissal Under Rule 65: Protestee argued that under Rule 65 of the PET Rules, the Protest must be dismissed for protestant's failure to establish any substantial recovery, as the revision, recount, and re-appreciation of ballots affirmed her victory and increased her lead from 263,473 to 278,566 votes.

• Mootness of Third Cause of Action: Protestee maintained that allowing protestant's third cause of action would give him six pilot provinces, a clear violation of Rule 65, and that protestant's failure to prove his case after the revision of ballots from his three pilot provinces rendered moot his third cause of action for annulment of elections.

• Jurisdiction Over Annulment of Elections: Protestee contended, invoking Mutilan vs. Commission on Elections, that an annulment of elections is akin to a failure of elections, the jurisdiction of which falls on the Commission on Elections, and that a resort to annulment of elections must be made only in exceptional circumstances.

• Failure to Meet Abayon Threshold: Protestee argued that protestant must prove that the fraud, anomalies, and irregularities affected more than 50% of the votes cast in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan, which he failed to do, and that the technical examination report does not even account for 10% of the clustered precincts in those provinces.

• Lack of Evidence Against Protestee: Protestee asserted that there is neither allegation nor proof showing that she was responsible for the supposed fraud, anomalies, and irregularities that protestant claims, and that protestant failed to allege that she directly caused the electoral anomalies being complained of.

• Waiver of Right to Present Witnesses: Protestee argued that protestant had already been given the opportunity to substantiate his allegations, and as he failed to do so, the Tribunal should not accommodate his whim at the expense of violating its own rules.

• Counter-Protest as Independent Cause of Action: Protestee advanced that her Counter-Protest is an "independent cause of action" which may only be dismissed upon the Protest's dismissal and continues to survive should the Tribunal proceed with protestant's third cause of action.

• Specificity of Allegations: Whether the Protest contained the detailed specification of acts or omissions complained of showing electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the protested precincts as required by Rule 17 of the 2010 PET Rules.

• Reasonable Recovery in Pilot Provinces: Whether protestant sufficiently shown reasonable recovery of votes after the revision and appreciation of ballots from the three pilot provinces of Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental.

• Mootness of Third Cause of Action: Whether unfavorable results of revision and appreciation of votes in the second cause of action moots protestant's third cause of action for annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.

• Pilot Provinces Per Cause of Action: Whether the 2010 Presidential Electoral Tribunal Rules allow for different pilot provinces per cause of action.

• Effect on Counter-Protest: Whether the ruling on protestant's third cause of action affects protestee's Counter-Protest.

• Special Elections: Whether the grant of the third cause of action will result in the calling of special elections for the position of Vice President and all other local and national candidates.

• Specificity of Allegations: No. The Protest was insufficient in form and substance for failing to provide a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of, as required by Rule 17 of the 2010 PET Rules. The allegations were bare, laden with generic and repetitious statements, and lacked critical information as to the time, place, and manner of the alleged irregularities.

• Reasonable Recovery in Pilot Provinces: No. Protestant failed to show reasonable recovery of votes in his designated pilot provinces. After revision and appreciation, protestee's lead increased from 263,473 to 278,566 votes, and protestant failed to convince the Tribunal that he could overcome protestee's lead.

• Mootness of Third Cause of Action: Yes. The unfavorable results of the revision and appreciation of votes in the second cause of action mooted protestant's third cause of action for annulment of elections, as Rule 65 directs the forthwith dismissal of the protest "without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest."

• Pilot Provinces Per Cause of Action: No. The 2010 PET Rules impose a mandatory ceiling of "not more than three" pilot provinces, and allowing different sets of pilot provinces for every cause of action would contravene this ceiling and amount to a fishing expedition.

• Effect on Counter-Protest: The Counter-Protest was dismissed, as the dismissal of the Protest necessarily resulted in the dismissal of the Counter-Protest.

• Special Elections: No. The grant of the third cause of action would not result in the calling of special elections, as the power to declare failure of elections and conduct special elections is lodged exclusively with the Commission on Elections, while electoral tribunals only annul election results to determine who among the candidates garnered a majority of the legal votes cast.

• Specificity of Allegations: The Tribunal emphasized that specificity in allegations, grounds, and bases cuts across all mechanisms for challenging election outcomes, including failure of election cases, pre-proclamation controversies, and election contests. Rule 17 of the 2010 PET Rules requires an election protest to state "a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the protested precincts." The Tribunal found that protestant's allegations were glaringly similar to those in Peña vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Aguillo vs. Commission on Elections, which were dismissed for lack of specificity. The Protest contained blanks, mislabeled annexes, and lacked critical information as to the time, place, and manner of the alleged irregularities. The Tribunal noted that protestant's claims of "massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities" were bare and unsupported, and that the affidavits submitted failed to specify which precincts were affected by the alleged irregularities. The Tribunal stressed that "the power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will," and that a losing candidate cannot use an election protest as an expedient means to unseat the winner when they are unsure of their factual bases.

• Reasonable Recovery in Pilot Provinces: The Tribunal applied Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules, which provides that if upon examination of ballots and proof in the pilot provinces, the Tribunal is convinced that the protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed "without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest." The Tribunal found that after revision and appreciation of ballots in the 5,415 clustered precincts in the pilot provinces, protestee received 1,510,178 votes while protestant received 204,512 votes, resulting in protestee increasing her lead from 263,473 to 278,566 votes. The Tribunal ruled that protestant failed to show reasonable recovery of votes in his designated pilot provinces, which supposedly best exemplified his allegations of fraud and irregularities. The Tribunal noted that protestant had stated he would no longer present any testimonial evidence to prove the material allegations in the 36,465 protested clustered precincts and would rely only on the results of the revision of ballots. Since the results failed to demonstrate that protestant could overcome protestee's lead, the Protest was dismissed.

• Mootness of Third Cause of Action: The Tribunal rejected protestant's invocation of Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to argue that his third cause of action for annulment of elections survives despite the unfavorable resolution of his second cause of action. The Tribunal distinguished Abayon, noting that in that case, the prayer for revision and reappreciation of votes was withdrawn, and the case was decided on the extent of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction on election protests. The Tribunal ruled that Abayon set no binding precedent on whether a separate cause of action may be entertained after revision and appreciation of ballots in pilot provinces. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 65 directs the forthwith dismissal of an election protest if the protestant fails to make out his case, "without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest." The Tribunal also found that even if the third cause of action were considered, protestant failed to meet the stringent requirements in Abayon for annulment of elections: (1) the illegality of the ballots must affect more than 50% of the votes cast in the precincts sought to be annulled, and (2) it must be impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between lawful and unlawful ballots. The Tribunal found that the affidavits submitted by protestant pertained to only a few municipalities in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan, falling far short of the 50% threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the Commission on Elections had dismissed all eight petitions seeking to declare a failure of elections in those provinces, and these rulings had reached finality, which served as res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.

• Pilot Provinces Per Cause of Action: The Tribunal ruled that Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules imposes a mandatory ceiling of "not more than three" pilot provinces, and that a protestant or counter-protestant freely chooses their pilot provinces and makes the representation that these provinces best exemplified the fraud or irregularities alleged in the Protest. The Tribunal held that to allow a different set of pilot provinces for every cause of action would contravene the mandatory ceiling and amount to a fishing expedition, where parties would be emboldened to designate as many provinces as they can in the hope that one will prove their allegation of fraud or irregularity. The Tribunal noted that protestant chose Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental as his pilot provinces, and if he was convinced of his claims in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan, he should have indicated those three as his pilot provinces.

• Effect on Counter-Protest: The Tribunal dismissed protestee's Counter-Protest, as the dismissal of the Protest necessarily resulted in the dismissal of the Counter-Protest.

• Special Elections: The Tribunal clarified the difference between annulment of elections by electoral tribunals and declaration of failure of elections by the Commission on Elections. The former is an incident of the judicial function of electoral tribunals, while the latter is in the exercise of the Commission's administrative function. Electoral tribunals only annul the election results connected with the election contest before them, whereas the declaration of failure of elections by the Commission relates to the entire election in the concerned precinct or political unit. The Tribunal ruled that the power to declare failure of elections and conduct special elections is lodged exclusively with the Commission on Elections, and that electoral tribunals, after determining who among the candidates garnered a majority of the legal votes cast, are empowered to annul election results for the contested position before them.

• Specificity Requirement in Election Protests — An election protest must clearly and specifically allege, and then prove, the irregularities that led to a breakdown in mechanisms for suffrage. Rule 17 of the 2010 PET Rules requires "a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the protested precincts." The Tribunal applied this doctrine in finding that protestant's allegations were bare, generic, and lacked critical information as to the time, place, and manner of the alleged irregularities, warranting dismissal of the Protest.

• Pilot Province Rule Under Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules — Rule 65 provides that the Tribunal may require the protestant to indicate, within a fixed period, the province or provinces numbering not more than three, best exemplifying the frauds or irregularities alleged in the petition. The pilot provinces serve as a litmus test to determine whether the Tribunal should proceed with the retrieval and revision of ballots in the remaining protested precincts or dismiss the protest for failure of the protestant to make out his case. The word "may" in Rule 65 refers to the discretion of the Tribunal to dismiss or not the protest, but the "not more than three" language is a clear mandatory command that the number of pilot provinces shall not exceed three.

• Abayon Standard for Annulment of Elections — The annulment of election results by electoral tribunals requires two indispensable requisites: (1) the illegality of the ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast on the specific precinct or precincts sought to be annulled, or in case of the entire municipality, more than fifty percent (50%) of its total precincts and the votes cast therein; and (2) it is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the lawful and unlawful ballots. Additionally, there must be clear, convincing, and strong evidence showing that the protestee is responsible for the unlawful acts complained of. The Tribunal applied this standard in finding that protestant failed to meet the threshold for annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.

• Distinction Between Annulment of Elections and Failure of Elections — Annulment of elections by electoral tribunals is an incident of the judicial function of electoral tribunals, while declaration of failure of elections by the Commission on Elections is in the exercise of the Commission's administrative function. Electoral tribunals only annul the election results connected with the election contest before them, whereas the declaration of failure of elections relates to the entire election in the concerned precinct or political unit. When the Commission declares a failure of elections, special elections will have to be conducted.

• Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of Judgment — A fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed on and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusively settled by the judgment therein, as far as concerns the parties to that action and persons in privity with them, and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies. The Tribunal applied this doctrine in recognizing the Commission on Elections' final rulings dismissing petitions to declare failure of elections in Marawi City, Marantao, and other municipalities in Maguindanao, which precluded the re-litigation of the same matters in the Protest.

• "An election protest is no ordinary petition. It alleges anomalies and irregularities which, if proven true, would perniciously deprive a significant portion of the voting population of its constitutionally protected right of suffrage. Given this extraordinary nature, an election protestant takes on the heavy burden of clearly and specifically alleging, and then proving, the irregularities that led to a breakdown in our mechanisms for suffrage." — This passage articulates the fundamental nature of election protests and the heavy burden placed on the protestant, serving as the foundation for the Tribunal's strict application of the specificity requirement.

• "The power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will. It is only in extreme cases of fraud and under circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest degree a fundamental and wanton disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and then only when it becomes impossible to take any other step." — This passage, quoted from Peña v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, states the standard of care required before annulling elections and is frequently cited in election law jurisprudence.

• "If upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter-protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest." — This passage quotes Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules, which is the controlling provision for the dismissal of election protests based on the results of the revision and appreciation of ballots in the pilot provinces.

• "The illegality of the ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast on the specific precinct or precincts sought to be annulled, or in case of the entire municipality, more than fifty percent (50%) of its total precincts and the votes cast therein; and it is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the lawful and unlawful ballots." — This passage states the two indispensable requisites for annulment of elections established in Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, which the Tribunal applied in dismissing protestant's third cause of action.

• Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 785 Phil. 683 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the jurisdiction of electoral tribunals to annul election results and the standard for annulment. The Tribunal distinguished this case, ruling that it set no binding precedent on whether a separate cause of action for annulment of elections may be entertained after revision and appreciation of ballots in pilot provinces.

• Peña vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 337 Phil. 70 (1997) — Followed as precedent on the specificity requirement in election protests. The Tribunal found that protestant's allegations were glaringly similar to those in Peña, which was dismissed for failure to point to where and how the alleged violations occurred.

• Aguillo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 197975-76 (Notice), March 19, 2013 — Followed as precedent on the specificity requirement. The Tribunal noted that protestant's claims of "massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities" were similar to the allegations in Aguillo, which were dismissed as "mere doubts, fears and apprehensions."

• Lloren vs. Commission on Elections, 695 Phil. 288 (2012) — Followed as precedent on the mandatory nature of dismissal for insufficiency in form and substance. The Tribunal cited Lloren for the proposition that the summary dismissal of an election protest upon any of the grounds mentioned in the rules is mandatory.

• Corvera vs. Savillo, G.R. No. 208610 (Notice), November 11, 2014 — Followed as precedent on the specificity requirement. The Tribunal cited Corvera for the proposition that a protest lacking in detail as to the acts or omissions complained of should be struck down for being insufficient in form and substance.

• Tan vs. Hataman, EPC No. 2016-37 — Distinguished. The Tribunal noted that the case was dismissed for mootness on December 5, 2019, and was not resolved on the merits, so there was no opportunity to rule on the findings of the Voters Identification Division or to pass upon its validity, merit, and probative value.

• Mutilan vs. Commission on Elections, 548 Phil. 699 (2007) — Cited by protestee for the proposition that an annulment of elections is akin to a failure of elections, the jurisdiction of which falls on the Commission on Elections. The Tribunal did not adopt this argument, instead ruling that electoral tribunals have jurisdiction to annul election results as an incident of their judicial function.

• Pasandalan vs. Commission on Elections, 434 Phil. 161 (2002) — Followed as precedent on the specificity requirement in failure of election cases. The Tribunal cited this case for the proposition that a petition for declaration of failure of election must specifically allege the essential grounds that would justify the exercise of this extraordinary remedy.

• Webb vs. Gatdula, G.R. No. 194469, September 18, 2019 — Followed as precedent on the doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. The Tribunal cited this case in applying the doctrine to the Commission on Elections' final rulings dismissing petitions to declare failure of elections.

• Article VII, Section 4, 1987 Constitution — The constitutional provision that mandates the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President." The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction over the Protest based on this provision.

• Rule 17, 2010 Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (A.M. No. 10-4-29-SC) — The procedural rule requiring an election protest to state "a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the protested precincts." The Tribunal applied this rule in finding the Protest insufficient in form and substance.

• Rule 65, 2010 Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (A.M. No. 10-4-29-SC) — The procedural rule providing for the dismissal of an election protest when the protestant fails to make out his case in the pilot provinces. The Tribunal applied this rule in dismissing the Protest for protestant's failure to show reasonable recovery of votes in his designated pilot provinces.

• Section 6, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — The statutory provision defining failure of elections and granting the Commission on Elections the power to declare a failure of elections and call for special elections. The Tribunal cited this provision in distinguishing failure of elections from annulment of elections.

• Section 192, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — The statutory provision enumerating the persons allowed in and around the polling place during voting. The Tribunal cited this provision in noting that affiant Bassir D. Utto, a candidate for vice mayoralty, appeared to have committed an election offense by going to two different polling places to observe the elections despite being a candidate and not an authorized poll watcher.

• Rule 39, Section 47(c), Rules of Civil Procedure — The procedural rule on the effect of judgments or final orders, specifically the doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. The Tribunal applied this rule in recognizing the Commission on Elections' final rulings dismissing petitions to declare failure of elections in Marawi City, Marantao, and other municipalities.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 1793 — The statutory provision creating the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and requiring it to decide election contests within twenty months after filing. The Tribunal ruled that this provision is no longer good law, as the 1973 Constitution impliedly repealed it, and the 1987 Constitution made the Tribunal a constitutional institution.

Chief Justice Peralta (in the result), Associate Justices Perlas-Bernabe, Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, and Lazaro-Javier (concurring), Associate Justice Caguioa (separate concurring opinion), Associate Justice Inting (concurring in the result, joining Justice Lopez), Associate Justice Zalameda (concurring in the result, joining Justice Gaerlan), Associate Justice Lopez (concurring in the result, separate opinion), Associate Justice Delos Santos (concurring in the result, separate opinion), Associate Justice Gaerlan (concurring in the result, separate opinion), and Associate Justice Rosario (concurring in the result, joining Justice Lopez).

• Chief Justice Peralta (Separate Opinion) — Concurred in the result but believed that Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules should not apply to the dismissal of election contests based on annulment of election results. He argued that Abayon effectively recognized annulment of election results as an election remedy totally separable from ordinary election protests, and that the PET Rules are not equipped to address the extraordinary demands of election contests seeking annulment of election results. He recommended that the Tribunal formulate new rules specific to the remedy of annulment of election results and, in the interim, make use of the Rules of Court and decisions of the Supreme Court.

• Associate Justice Caguioa (Separate Concurring Opinion) — Fully concurred with the ponencia in dismissing the entire Protest, but wrote separately to stress that: (1) following Rule 65, the Protest should be dismissed for protestant's failure to make out a case using his pilot provinces; (2) a dismissal under Rule 65 applies to the whole Protest, including the third cause of action; (3) the PET Rules, specifically Rule 65, still apply in cases of annulment of elections contemplated in Abayon; and (4) Abayon's strict requirements, as applied to protestant's allegations, show that his third cause of action cannot be considered an annulment of elections but is essentially a petition for declaration of a failure of elections, over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

• Associate Justice Lopez (Separate Opinion) — Concurred in the result but proposed a formula to determine reasonable recovery based on the proportion of the protested clustered precincts in the pilot provinces and the total number of protested clustered precincts. Using his proposed formula, he concluded that protestant failed to show reasonable recovery, as protestee's lead increased by 15,093 votes after the revision of the pilot provinces. He also expressed the view that the specificity requirement in Rule 17 of the PET Rules should be read in conjunction with Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code, which merely requires sufficient allegations to authorize the opening of ballot boxes.

• Associate Justice Gaerlan (Separate Opinion) — Concurred in the result but wrote separately to guide future adjudications on the matter of annulment of elections. He argued that annulment of elections is a distinct electoral remedy that merits differentiated treatment from electoral protests and quo warranto petitions, and that Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules does not apply to annulment of elections. He submitted that the plenary power of the Tribunal as the sole judge of presidential and vice-presidential contests includes the power to rule on causes of action for annulment of elections and to promulgate rules to govern such adjudications.