Dimaporo v.

HRET
G.R. No. 158359
March 23, 2004
Equal Protection Clause
FACTS:
This is a petition filed by Congressman Abdullah D. Dimaporo, seeking to nullify the
Resolutions of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which denied his Motion for
Technical Evaluation of the Thumbmarks and Signatures Affixed in the Voters Registration
Records and Voting Records, and denying the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
Dimaporo was proclaimed the winning representative of the 2nd legislative district of
Lanao del Norte on July 20, 2001. Dimaporo winning only by 5,487 votes over Congressional
candidate Abdulla S. Mangotara, the latter filed a petition for protest, requesting for a technical
examination of the signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the Voters Registration Records
and the List of Voters with Voting Records in the protested precincts of the municipality of
Sultan Naga Dimaporo (SND). Mangatoro purported that there was a massive substitution of
voters, and electoral irregularities that led to Dimaporo winning, and so he is the rightful
representative of the 2nd District of Lanao del Norte. Dimaporo countered this, by impugning the
votes for Mangotara in all the precints in Lanao del Norte, except SND. He also filed for a
technical examination claiming that there was also massive substitute voting in these precincts,
and that there were groups of ballots written by only one person. Before the revision
proceedings, Mangotara filed for an Urgent Motion for Technical Examination, for the precincts
in SND. He claimed that the fire that occurred in the municipality made it impossible to proceed
with the revision in SND, so a technical examination is the only way to determine if there really
was a massive substitutive voting. In addition to that, the Sangguniang Kabataan elections are
forthcoming so there is an urgent need for the examination. Dimporo opposed this but the HRET
continued with the motion of Mangotara. Unsatisfied, Dimaporo filed for a Motion for Technical
Examination for: 198 revised pilot counter-protested precincts, 47 pilot counter-protested
precincts, and 36 precincts of the municipality of Tangcal. To grant the motion, he mentioned
that the 47 ballot boxes when opened were empty, and for the 36 precincts the ballots were
burned. This was denied by the tribunal reasoning that it is impossible to examine the destroyed
ballots, and for the other precincts a technical examination would be unnecessary. Hence this
petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the HRET deprived Dimaporo of equal protection in denying his Motion
for Technical Examination.
2. Whether or not Dimaporo was deprived of procedural due process or the right to present
evidence to show the massive substitute voting committed in the counter-protested
precincts.
Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio

HELD:
1. No.
Dimaporo claims that he was denied equal protection when the HRET denied his motion for
technical examination, when it previously granted a similar motion of Mangotara. He argued that
there is no valid distinction between the precincts subject of Mangotaras motion and his own for
in both instances, the ballots are no longer available for revision. The court finds this argument
untenable. Equal protection simply means that all persons and things similarly situated must be
treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. A substantial distinction
justifies a different treatment, as applies in the case at bar. The election results in SND were the
sole subjects of the protest with Mangotara, as different from the motion of Dimaporo which put
into issue all municipalities except SND. In all other municipalities, the winning margin of
Dimaporo over Mangotara is simall, except for SND in which Dimaporo won by 21,881 votes so
the results in SND were what made him win. In addition to that, Mangotara filed his motion
before the start of the revision proceedings that the revision for SND is impossible due to the fire
that occurred; while for Dimaporo he filed already after the revision. It is impossible to examine
the ballots in Tangcal for these were already destroyed by a fire, while in SND although the
ballots were also destroyed there are other election records which can still be used. Lastly, the
Court Agrees with HRET that the claims of Dimaporo can be resolved without a technical
examination.
2. No.
The Court rules that the HRET may ascertain the validity of the allegations of Dimaporo with
no need for a technical examination. The ballots, election documents and other paraphernalia can
still be admitted as evidence. To add, Dimaporo offered evidence in the form of documents and
testimonies, which denies the allegation that the petitioner was denied his right to present his
evidence. He actually has already filed a formal offer of evidence to which Mangotara
commented.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio