Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

10 th Judicial Region
Branch 32
Hall of Justice, Surigao City
*****

SANGKIL PARK, EPC CASE

No. 495
Protestant,
FOR:
- versus -
Election Protest
FLORO F. BALTAR,
Protestee.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
ARMANDO MARMITO, ET. AL, EPC CASE No.
496
Protestant,
FOR:
- versus -
Election Protest
ROMULO S. DALAGUIT, ET. AL.,
Protestees.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

REPLY TO
PROTESTEES’ OPPOSITION

PROTESTANTS, by the undersigned Law Office, most

respectfully file this Reply by way of their Comment to
protestees’ Opposition to Motion for Technical Examination of
Spurious Ballots, thus –
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 2 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

I
PROTESTEES’ OPPOSITION

1.1. FIRST : That the proceedings in the instant cases

are summary in nature which abhors the conduct of another
technical examination of the ballots alleged to be spurious.
1.2. SECOND : That the previous technical examination,
made at the instance of protestants, had consumed more
than twenty (20) days which is allegedly the maximum
number of days allowable under the rules. They likewise
capitalized on the five (5)-day period reckoned from the
completion of the revision in the protest.

1.3. THIRD : The conduct of another technical

examination would only delay the resolution of the instant
cases.

II
PETITIONERS’ REPLY

2.1. FIRST : There is no provision under A.M. No. 07-4-

15-SC which abhors the conduct of technical examination of
ballots. On the contrary, technical barriers should never be
made as hindrance in the determination of the truth which is
the primordial objective in all litigations.
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 3 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

2.1a. The settled jurisprudence in the

interpretation of election rules and procedures is
always geared towards the determination, rather
than defeating, the true will of the electorate. Thus
–

“If the courts can deign to be indulgent and

lenient in the interpretation of the rules
respecting ordinary civil actions involving
private parties representing private interests,
with more reason should the rules involving
election cases, which are undoubtedly
impressed with public interest, be construed
with the same or even greater forbearance and
liberality.

It has been frequently decided, it may be

stated as a general rule recognized by all
courts, that statutes providing for election
contests are to be liberally construed to the
end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officers may not be defeated by mere
technical objections. An election contest, unlike
an ordinary action, is imbued with public
interest since it involves not only the
adjudication of the private interests of rival
candidates but also the paramount need of
dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the
real choice of the electorate with respect to
who shall discharge the prerogatives of the
office within their gift. Moreover, it is neither
fair nor just to keep in office for an
uncertain period one whose right to it is under
suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be
immediately cleared not only for the benefit of
the winner but for the sake of public interest,
which can only be achieved by brushing aside
technicalities of procedure with protract and
delay the trial of an ordinary action.

For this reason, broad perspectives of public

policy impose upon courts the imperative duty
to ascertain by all means within their command
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 4 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

who is the real candidate elected in as

expeditious a manner as possible, without
being fettered by technicalities and procedural
barriers to the end that the will of the people
may not be frustrated…”1 [Emphasis Ours].

- o0o -

“At balance, the question really boils down to a

choice of philosophy and perception of how to
interpret and apply laws relating to elections;
literal or liberal; the letter or the spirit; the
naked provision or its ultimate purpose; legal
syllogism or substantial justice; in isolation or
in the context of social conditions; harshly
against or gently in favor of the voter’s obvious
choice. In applying election laws, it would be
far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty
than to be right in complex but little
understood legalisms…”2 [Emphasis Ours].

2.1b. Guided by the foregoing

pronouncements, it is thus puerile to argue that
the new rules of procedure governing election
contests abhors the conduct of another technical
examination simply because the same would
result to inevitable delay.

2.1c. Protestants need not emphasize that

they are more after the speedy disposition of their

protest than the protestees. The delay, if there is
any, has to be absorbed in their quest for truth
and they are more than willing to make this
additional sacrifice even if the same affords more
benefit and advantage to the protestees.

1
See Pahilan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 110170, 21 February 1994.
2
See Pangandaman vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134340, 25 November
1999.
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 5 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

2.1d. It is highly inconceivable, to say the

least, for protestees to object to the technical

examination of the spurious ballots on the ground
of delay when they do not object to the resetting
of the case which even entails more than what is
needed for the technical examination. If the
protestees have nothing to hide, they should not
be afraid to have the spurious ballots examined by
experts to resolve and lay into rest, once and for
all, all the doubts on the validity and genuineness
of the results of the election.

2.2. SECOND : Protestants motion for the conduct of

technical examination of spurious ballots is in fealty with the
provisions of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. It does not violate the
twenty (20)-day and five (5)-day rules.
2.2a. For purposes of ready reference,
protestants belabor to reproduce the pertinent
provisions under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, thus –

“Section 1. Motion for technical

examination; contents.— A party may move for
the technical examination within five days after
completion of revision in the protest or counter-
protest, except when it involves allegation of
massive substitute voting in the protest or
counter-protest, specifying:

a. The nature of the technical examination

requested (e.g., fingerprint examination,
etc.);
b. The documents to be subjected to
technical examination;
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 6 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

c. The objections made in the course of the

revision of ballots which the movant
intends to substantiate with the results of
the technical examination; and
d. The ballots covered by such objections.

Section 2. Technical examination; time

limits. –The court may grant the motion for
technical examination at its discretion and
under such conditions it may impose. If the
motion is granted, the technical examination
shall start within five days from notice to both
parties and shall be completed within the
period specified by the court, in no case to
exceed twenty successive working days, unless
the court grants an extension based on
exceptionally meritorious ground. A party may
attend the technical examination, either
personally or through a representative.
However, the technical examination shall
proceed with or without the attendance of the
party, provided due notice has been given to
the party.

The expenses for technical examination shall

be for the account of the party requesting the
examination and under the supervision of the
clerk of court…”3 [Under-scoring Ours].

2.2b. From the foregoing recitals, it is obvious

that the conduct of an additional technical

examination, even if after the lapse of five days
from completion, is nonetheless permissible.

2.2c. The conditions are well-nigh set forth in

protestants’ motion wherein they sought the

technical examination of spurious ballots of
considerable number, Three Thousand Four
Hundred Forty-One (3,441) all in all. Needless to

3
See A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, Rule 11.
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 7 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

say, this number serves as the best evidence of

the massive substitution of ballots which were
determined during the revision proper and sought
to be substantiated thru technical examination.

2.2d. Protestants likewise submit that the

twenty (20)-day period on the other hand, is not to

be reckoned on the mere lapse of time. Rather, the
same shall be based on the period allotted by the
court for the technical examination of the ballots.

2.2e. Be that as it may, the twenty (20)-day

period is not without exceptions. In the instant

case where what is involved is a considerable
number of ballots alleged to be spurious, initially
determined during the revision of the ballots,
protestees cannot simply close their eyes and hide
under the cloak of technicality to brush aside the
objective of determining the truth.
III
PRAYER

3.1. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, protestants

most respectfully reiterate their prayer for leave of court for

the technical examination of spurious ballots, which were
reflected and specified on the Final Consolidated Revision
Report.
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 8 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

3.2. Protestants likewise pray for such other reliefs

deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Butuan City (for Surigao City), Philippines,
17 October 2008.

HENRY C. FILOTEO
Roll No. 44949
Counsel for the Protestants-Movants
PTR No. 1938772, 1/07/08, B.C.
IBP Lifetime No. 659241
RESERVA  FILOTEO LAW OFFICE
Rm. 205, 2nd Floor, OngHoc Bldg.
Montilla Blvd., Butuan City

IV
VERIFICATION

WE, SANGKIL PARK, ARMANDO MARMITO, CONCORDIA

DOGMOC, RUBEN DAWISAN and MARIANITO CATRAL, all
Filipinos, of legal ages, and residents of Basilisa, province of
Dinagat Islands, after having been sworn to in accordance
with law, depose and say THAT:

1. We are the protestants in the instant cases and we

caused the preparation of the foregoing Reply;
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 9 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

2. I have read and understood the contents of the

same; and that

3. All the allegations therein are true and correct to

the best of my personal knowledge and based on authentic
documents.

WITNESS my hand this ______ day of October 2008 in

Surigao City, Philippines.

SANGKIL PARK
Affiant

ARMANDO MARMITO CONCORDIA

DOGMOC
Affiant Affiant

RUBEN DAWISAN MARIANITO CATRAL

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this ____ day

of October 2008 in Surigao City, Philippines, after I have
explained to the affiants the contents of this Consolidated
Motions and ascertained that they have read and understood
the same.

V
COPY FURNISHED

1. ATTY. MARIO P. MENIL

Counsel for the Protestees
Purok 8, Navalca, San Juan, Surigao City
Received by : _______________________
Date : _______________________
ELECTION PROTESTS NOS. 495/496
Reply to Opposition
Page 10 of 10
x-------------------------------------/

2. ATTY. JOSE V. BEGIL

Collaborating Counsel for the Protestees
2nd Floor, Del Castillo Bldg.
Rizal St., Surigao City
Received by : _______________________
Date : _______________________

VI
EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Reply are furnished to the counsel

and collaborating counsel for the protestees and filed with
this Honorable Court thru personal service in compliance
with Section 4, Rule 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.

HENRY C.
FILOTEO