Republic of the Philippines House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Electoral Tribunal Building Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City BENJAMIN ASILO, Protestant, HRET Case No. 19-006 (EP) ~ versus - First District, Manila MANUEL LUIS T. LOPEZ, Promulgated on: Protestee. eee ee ee x RESOLUTION Aap, R: At the preliminary conference before the Hearing Commissioner held on October 30, 2019, the parties were required to submit their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days therefrom or until November 14, 2019 on the special and affirmative defenses raised by protestee in his Verified Answer (with Counter Protest) dated August 31, 2019, filed on September 2, 2019, and proposed as an issue for resolution in this case in the Pre-Trial Brief (for the Protestee) dated October 7, 2019, filed on October 10, 2019. In his Memorandurr dated November 14, 2019, filed on even date, protestee asserts that the Election Protest dated July 4, 2019, filed on July 8, 2019, should be dismissed outright for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of an election protest provided in Rule 17 of the 2015 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (2015 HRET Rules), as amended. Citing Rule 23 of the 2015 HRET Rules, he prays for the dismissal of the instant case for being, insufficient in form, content, and substance and for failure to state a cause of action. He avers that: 1. The Ekction Protest failed to specify with clarity the total number of contested precincts, the precinct numbers and location of the contested precincts in violation of Rule 17, paragraph 3, items (2) and (3) thereof. 2. ‘The Election Protest failed to allege the specific acts or omissions complained of constituting the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the contested precinets in violation of Rule 17, paragraph 3, item (4) thereof. 3. The allegations contained in the Eection Protest are not allegations of ultimate facts but of conclusions of fact that have “no standing in court.”Resolution HRET Case No. 19-006 (EP) Absilo ws, Lopes, 4. The Election Protest failed to state a cause of action and should be dismissed. In protestant’s Memorandum (on the Protestee's Special and Affirmative Defenses) dated November 13, 2019, filed on November 14, 2019, he counters protestee’s assertion stating that the Election Protest is sufficient in form and substance for he made a detailed specification of the acts or omissions constituting the electoral frauds, anomalies and irregularities in all the Three Hundred Nine (309) clustered precinets which functioned during the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections (2019 Elections) in the First District of Manila, as enumerated in paragraphs 22 to 40 of the Election Protest, under the caption ‘Canse/s of Action and Grounds for the Protest? He further contends that the various errors, technical glitches, electoral frauds, anomalies and irregularities that transpired during the 2019 Elections were duly substantiated and supported by the testimonies of various witnesses whose affidavits were attached to the Ekection Protest On the first special and affirmative defense alleged by protestee, it is very clear from paragraph 19 of the Eketion Protes* that protestant assails all the Three Hundred Nine (309) clustered precincts that functioned in the First Legislative District of Manila. Considering that the latter attached to the Election Protest certified true copies of the Project of Precincts pertaining to the First District of Manila that reflects the individual and clustered precinct numbers and the location of said 309 protested precincts, the Blction Protest has complied with Rule 17, paragraph 3, items (2) and (3) of the 2015 HRET Rules. On the other special and affirmative defenses raised by protestee, the Tribunal was circumspect to give due course to the instant protest because of the following notable allegations of protestant in his Election Protest, to wit: 1. Under the caption ‘Initial Remarks? specifically, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 thereof,’ protestant averted that despite having emerged as the most likely to be voted for and win as Congressman for the First Legislative District of Manila in the 2019 Elections based on the three (3) local surveys conducted by the ‘numerous survey firms of good reputation’ on April 21, 2019, April 27 to 28, 2019 and May 4 to 5, 2019, he lost the elections ‘not by hundreds but by thousands of vot 2. In paragraph 6 thereof," he asserted that he was on the verge of accepting his defeat in the congressional race if not for the ‘question hanging on the minds’ of his community leaders, allies, supporters and family as to whether ‘she result of the election for Congressman in the First District of Manila really reflect the will of the people?, thax made them decide to have a recount of the ballots; 3. In paragraphs 7, 8, and 10 thereof,’ he manifested that several incidents, such as (a) the early transmittal of election results during the canvassing * Rolla pp. 1-23 ar 5 2 Annex “F” of the Elion Przc, rll, pp. 54-113. » Roll, pp. 1-2 + Rol, p. 2. 5 Rolb, pp. 253.Resolution HRET Case No. 19-006 (EP) Asilo vs. Lapes, proceedings, (b) the failure of the Office of the Election Officer, Comelec Manila to provide him a printed copy of the Statement of Votes by Precinct of nine (9) out of the total Three Hundred Nine (309) clustered precincts that functioned in the First District of Manila, and (¢) the alleged inconsistency in the tallies of their manual counting as against both the printed election results and the results tansmitted to the District Board of Canvassers, triggered his curiosity on the correctness of the transmitted elections results; 4. Moreover, in paragraph 9 thereof, after finding out that there were more or less 10,000 missing and/or unaccounted votes for the position of Congressman, he claimed that said incident was ‘highty irregular and ‘contrary to Juman experience. stating that Filipinos are more interested in the local election race than in the national level; and Ending his ‘Initial Remarks} he urged for the manual recounting of votes or the verification or te-tabulation of the election returns visas the list of voters From the foregoing, itis clear that protestant filed the instant protest on a mere gut feel or suspicion that the election results do not reflect the will of the electorate of the First District of Manila In its earlier ruling, the Tribunal found the Election Protest sufficient in form and substance, and summons was issued thereafter. It will be recalled that in his election protest, under the caption ‘Canse/s of Action and Grounds for the Protest’ in particular, the enumeration of election fraud, anomalies and irregularities stated under the caption “Traditional Election Irregularities, Manipulations and Anomalies xxx thereof,’ taken together with the Simmpaang Salaysay of a total of One Hundred Twelve (112) poll watchers and registered voters in the First District of Manila, protestant was able to cite specific acts ot omissions complained of constituting, the electoral fraucl anomalies of irregularities in specified protested precincts. During the preliminary conference held before the Hearing Commissioner on October 30, 2019, protestant informed the Tribunal that he will no longer present his aforementioned 112 witnesses and their respective Simmpaang Salaysa), and instead, manifested that he will present only a technical examination expert who will testify on the results of the technical examination of the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the voters found in the Election Day Computerized Voters’ Lists (EDCVIs) in the protested clustered precincts and the members of the Board of Canvassers for the First District of Manila who will testify on the nine (9) unaccounted Statement of 5 Votes by Precinets. In light of protestant’s manifestation during the preliminary conference held on October 30, 2019, the Tribunal now reconsiders. The Tribunal agrees with protestec’s contention that the allegations contained in the Election Protest are not allegations of 6 Rolo p.3. Roll, pp. 89. TMimaee of the Preliminary Conference Held on October 30, 2019 at 10:00 A.M. and November 14, 2019 at 2:00 P.M. Rolle, pp. 600-614, at 602. TTResolution 4 HRET Case No. 19.006 (EP) Aailo vs. Lapex ultimate facts but of conclusions of fact and thus, it failed to show a valid cause of action, Protestant’s act of doing away with the testimonies of his 112 intended witnesses supposedly as proof of the ‘traditional election irregularities, manipulations and anomalies’ alleged in his protest only shows that his causes of action ate not lodged in the election frauds, irregularities and anomalies given by said witnesses but on the alleged “shocking discrepancy between the number of voters ‘who actually ted as against the Yatal nunober of combined votes obtained’ by both protestant and protestee equivalent to 10,368 missing/unaccounted votes,’ which is material in order that he may recover from the 13,687 margin of votes of protestee. However, the Tribunal does not accept a mere allegation of the existence of a questionable mathematical disparity of votes for it fails to establish a cause of action necessary to initiate an action before the Tribunal Allegations based solely on mathematical assumptions and conjectures are devoid of substance and would not qualify as specific acts or omissions constituting electoral fraud, anomalies or irregularities."” It is apparent from the actions of protestant that, as correctly contended by protestee, the main thrust of the former in filing the instant protest is primarily to conduct manual recount of the ballots, if only to confirm his suspicion that he was cheated ‘not by hundreds but by thousands of votes.” For what would be the purpose of presenting a technical examination expert who will testify on the results of the technical examination of the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the voters found in the EDCVLs but to verify those voters who actually voted during the 2019 Elections Considering that the instant protest was filed essentially on protestant’s ‘strong belief ax well as the voters of the First District of Manila’ that the election results do not reflect the true will and valid votes cast by the electorate therein, his bare allegations on the technical glitches and errors in the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) and the Consolidated Canvassing System (CCS), including the purported missing nine (9) Statement of Votes by Precincts of the First District of Manila, would now only pass as mere general charges of election frauds, irregularities and anomalies that are given to support a plain and simple hunch that he should have won the congressional lections in the First District of Manila. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the ‘Tribunal GRANTS protestee’s special and affirmative defenses that the Election Protest failed to specify the acts or omissions complained of constituting the electoral frauds, anomalies and irregularities in the protested clustered precincts in violation of Rule 17 of the 2015 HRET Rules as amended. The instant Election Protest dated July 4, 2019, filed on July 8, 2019, is DISMISSED for being insufficient in form and substance, in accordance with Rule 23, paragraph 1 of the 2015 HRET Rules. Protestee’s Counter-Protest dated August 31, 2 There are 170,667 voters who actually voted in the First District of Manila during the 2019 Elections as against 160,299 ‘combined votes of protestant and protestee, Este Protest dated july 4, 2019, lb, pp. 1-23 at 6. "Jude Thaddeus A. Says vs. Greg G. Gasatgya, HRET Case No. 16-009, November 25, 2017 and Iomae! “Raval” Amolat Niausel “Chigutng” Sagarbaria, HRET Case No. 16-020, September 29, 2016Resolution HRET Case No. 19-006 (EP) Asilo ws. Lopes, 2019, filed on September 2, 2019, is likewise DISMISSED as a consequence of the dismissal of the Edection Protest. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. MARVIC G. GESMUNDO (Justice, Supreme Court Member RON P. SALO Representative KABAYAN Party-Lis| Member , Agusan del Norte ember ee IN M. ACOP Representative Second District, Antipolo City Member 10 VICTOR F. LE Associate Justice, Supreme Court Chairperson iuciate Justice, Supreme Court Member fh New Ge VINCENT J. GARCIA Representative Second District, Davao City ee }) a - ALFREDO A\ GARBIN, JR. presdnsdative) AKO BICOL Party-List Member ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO Representative Second District, Lanao del Noxte MemberResolution HRET Case No. 19-006 (EP) Alo 2s. Lope CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Rule 70 of the 2015 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution of the Tribunal were arrived at in consultation before the case was assigned to a Member for writing the same. MARVI@MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN, r Chairperson Copy furnished! G.E. GARCIA Law Office Counsel jor Protestant Ground Floor, Laiko Building 372 Cabildo Street, Intramuros 1002 Manila LARRAZABAL Law Office Counsel for Protester 703 BF Condominium Soriano Avenue corner Solana Street Intramuros, 1002 Manila