Republic of the Philippines

COMELEC EN BANC
Intramuros, Manila

JUAN TAMAD Election Case No. _______

Petitioner,

-versus- For: Declaration of Failure of Election

MARIA CLARA
Respondent.

x-------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Respondent, by undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Commission, do hereby depose and aver that:

1. Respondent affirms her identity as the same person in this petition

for declaration of failure of election filed by the petitioner;

2. Respondent affirms paragraphs 1 to 3 in so far as personal

circumstances are concerned;

3. Respondent, after careful perusal of the received petition, has learned

that such petition was not verified. Thus, it is respectfully submitted
that the petition for the Declaration of Failure of Election be
dismissed, due to it being an unverified petition. As enshrined in
Paragraph B and C of Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedures (Rules for brevity):

Sec. 3. Form of Pleadings, etc.  -

b. Protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special cases,
special reliefs, provisional remedies, and special proceedings, as well as
counter-protests, counter-petitions, interventions, motions for
reconsideration, and appeals from rulings of board of canvassers shall be
verified. All answers shall be verified.
c. A pleading shall be verified only by an affidavit stating that the person
verifying the same has read the pleading and that the allegations therein
are true of his own knowledge. Verifications based on "information or
belief" or upon "knowledge", "information" or "belief" shall be deemed
insufficient.
 Petitioner’s unverified petition should be treated as unsigned.
The effect of failure to comply with the formal requirements set forth
in the Rules is explicitly stated in Sec. 5, Rule 7:

Sec. 5.  Non-acceptance of Pleading. - No pleading shall be accepted by the

Commission unless it conforms to the formal requirement provided herein.

However, assuming arguendo that the Petition was verified,

only that the verification was not attached to the copy that the
Respondent has received; the Respondent humbly denies the
allegations in the succeeding paragraphs.

4. Respondent denies paragraph 5. She has no factual knowledge to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the alleged
antecedents concerning and involving the acts particularly that her
win was a result of a pre-meditated, massive concerted fraudulent
efforts, and harassment which defeated the will of the people of
Iligan City, and that such acts were in collaboration with the Electoral
Board. Hence, it cannot be deduced that respondent violated
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC
Resolutions;

5. Respondent denies paragraph 6. Petitioner never incited his party nor

his watchers to do the acts mentioned that caused few of the poll
watchers injured or almost killed. There is no evidence that such acts
can be imputed to the respondent. There is no “Annex B” attached to
the petition received by the respondent as what petitioner claims as
evidence;

6. Respondent denies paragraph 7. Respondent has no personal

knowledge regarding the veracity of the allegation since the polling
precincts are not specified in the petition. In the precinct where she
entered to vote, no such anomalies were heard of. Furthermore, it is
not the respondent’s duty to check the identity of the voters in each
precinct, such duty is placed on the hands of the Board of Election
Inspectors (BEI for brevity).

7. Respondent affirms paragraph 8 as to the statement that she was

escorted but only by her two unarmed body guards wearing white t-
shirts who stayed outside her designated polling precinct, 37-A, once
she entered to cast her vote. Respondent, therefore, vehemently
denies that she was escorted by men wearing masks and jackets
when she entered the polling precinct. It is true that she saw these
men roaming around the precincts, but the truth of the matter was,
she also reported these to the BEI members in polling precinct 37-A.
In fact, right after the respondent casted her vote, she wrote a letter
 addressed to the Election Officer regarding this matter, attached as
Annex 1 in this Answer. As to the toleration of the BEI, respondent
cannot speak on behalf of them.

7.1 Moreover, a thorough examination of the affidavit

reveals that it suffers from infirmity. “Annex C” in paragraph
8, which the respondent believed as the affidavit of Jose
Santos, (because annexes of the petition are not labeled) was
not signed by the affiant nor was it dated. The respondent
cannot give credence to petitioner’s evidence in support of
his allegations of harassment, intimidation, threat and
violence since the evidence consisted only of one unsigned
and undated affidavit executed by petitioner’s own poll
watcher. This affidavit is clearly self-serving and insufficient
to annul the results of the election.

8. Respondent would also like to deny the rest of the paragraphs for
being fabricated and for lack of evidence that the situations therein
actually happened, and that if it really happened, that all or any of it
cannot be deduced as the acts of the respondent. These accusations,
lacking of evidence, are mere hearsays. Clearly, the will of the
majority has not been suppressed by the respondent.

9. Thus, for a declaration of failure of election to prosper, Section 6 of

the Omnibus Election Code prescribes the conditions for the exercise
of this power, thus:

SEC. 6. Failure of Election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence,

terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the
hour fixed by law for closing of the voting, or after the voting and during
the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and
in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the
result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for
the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the
cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election
or failure to elect.

Petitioner’s allegations do not fall under any of the instances

that would justify the declaration of failure of election. The election
was held in all precincts as scheduled. At no point was the election in
any of the precincts suspended. Nor was there a failure to elect
because of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes during the preparation, transmission, custody and
canvass of the election returns.
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for declaration of
failure of election in the case of Mitmug v. COMELEC which states:

Since actual voting and election by the registered voters in the

questioned precincts have taken place, the results thereof cannot
be disregarded and excluded. x x x Considering that there is no
concurrence of the conditions in the petitions seeking to declare
failure of election in forty-three (43) more, precincts, there is no
more need to receive evidence on alleged election irregularities.

Moreover, in Pasanadalan v. COMELEC, the Court ruled:

Pasandalan’s allegations of terrorism and fraud are not sufficient to

warrant a nullification of the election in the absence of any of the
three instances justifying a declaration of failure of election. x x x
The party who seeks the nullification of an election has the burden
of proving entitlement to this remedy. It is not enough that a
verified petition is filed. The allegations in the petition must make
out a prima facie case for the declaration of failure of election, and
convincing evidence must substantiate the allegations.

Petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations if it of

terrorism and other irregularities. His evidence consisted only
of an affidavit. Mere affidavits are insufficient, in this case, only
one affidavit more so unsigned and undated, was executed by
his own poll watcher.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully prays that this Honorable

Commission DISMISS this petition for declaration of failure of election
because the herein petition is unverified, none of the grounds relied upon
justifies its grant, and for lack of substantial evidence.

Likewise, respondent prays for such other relief and remedy as may
be deemed legal, just and equitable in the premises.

Respectfully submitted, 22 November 2019 at Iligan City for

Intramuros, Manila, Philippines.

GROUP TWO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondent
Door 2, Teehankee Building
Tibanga, Iligan City
Tel. No. 223-1234
 ATTY. EMMYLOU A. VIRTUDAZO
PTR No. 3574957 January 10, 2018
IBP Lifetime Member No. 012789
Attorney’s Roll No. 34896
MCLE Compliance No. V-0001237, August 29, 2017

ATTY. GIMELLE D. MANGINSAY

PTR No. 5478963 January 10, 2018
IBP Lifetime Member No. 012602
Attorney’s Roll No. 369754
MCLE Compliance No. V-0001238, August 29, 2017

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Honey Crisril Calimot; or

Atty. Tricia P. Superable
Teehankee Law Office
1st flr Sabado Bldg.
Magsaysay Avenue, Iligan City