MARCOS VS ROBREDO

Protestee Robredo alleged that the Protest failed to provide the specific acts or omissions that
supposedly led to electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the protested 92,509 clustered
precincts. She further pointed out that the Protest was a pre-proclamation controversy, which should
have been lodged before the National Board of Canvassers, and not before this Tribunal.

With protestant's consent, this Tribunal categorized his causes of action into: first, the annulment of
protestee's proclamation; second, a revision and recount of ballots in Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and
Negros Oriental; and third, the annulment of elections in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Basilan.
The causes of action were elaborated as follows:

First Cause of Action - Annulment of Proclamation

The proclamation of protestee Robredo as the duly elected Vice President is null and void because
the [certificates of canvass] generated by the [consolidated canvassing system] are not authentic,
and may not be used as basis to determine the number of votes that the candidates for VICE
PRESIDENT received.

Second Cause of Action - Revision and Recount

Revision and recount of the paper ballots and/or the ballot images as well as an examination,
verification, and analysis of the voter's receipts, election returns, audit logs, transmission logs, the
list of voters, particularly the [election day computerized voter's list], and [voters registration record],
the books of voters and other pertinent election documents and/or paraphernalia used in the
elections, as well as the automated election equipment and records such as the [vote counting
machines], [consolidated canvassing system] units, SD cards (main and backup), and the other data
storage devices containing electronic data and ballot images in ALL of the 36,465 protested
clustered precincts pursuant to Rules 38 to 45 of the 2010 PET Rules; and

Third Cause of Action - Annulment of Elections

Annulment of election results for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Maguindanao,
Lanao del Sur[,] and Basilan, on the ground of terrorism, intimidation[,] and harassment of voters as
well as pre-shading of ballots in all of the 2,756 protested clustered precincts that functioned in the
aforesaid areas.
Allegations in election protests must be specific.

The results of an election may be challenged through different legal vehicles: first, failure of
election cases; second, pre-proclamation petitions; and third, election contests. These have
substantive and procedural differences, with varying remedies, but what remains consistent across
all modalities is the requirement of specificity. Particularity on one's allegations, grounds, and bases
cuts across all mechanisms for challenging election outcomes and must be present in all actions,
regardless of the mode.

Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, or the Omnibus Election Code, a failure of election may be
declared 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 the closing of the voting, or ... such election results in a failure to elect, [or] in
any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the
election[.]"186 For its declaration, the alleged illegality must have affected more than 50% of the
votes cast.187

A pre-proclamation controversy concerns questions affecting the proceedings of the board of

canvassers or "any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 [of the Omnibus Election
Code] in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election
returns."188 Further, only the issues provided in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code may be
raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. The restrictive and exclusive189 list includes:

(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;

(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be
tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in the authentic
copies thereof as mentioned in Section 233, 234, 235, and 236 of this Code;

(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or
they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and

(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the
results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or
candidates.190

Under the Automated Election System,191 pre-proclamation controversies cover only two issues,
both concerning the Board of Canvassers: (a) its illegal composition; and (b) its illegal
proceedings.192

Finally, election contests, which only contemplate post-election scenarios,193 take the form of either
an election protest or a petition for quo warranto.194 Although distinct, both actions aim to unseat a
winning candidate after proclamation and assumption of office.195

An election protest involves "a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the grounds
of fraud or irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots, or in the preparation of the
returns."196 It is centered on the issue of who actually and validly obtained the plurality of votes.197

A petition for quo warranto is defined as "an action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or exercises a public office."198 It is appropriate only "for the purpose of
questioning the election of a candidate on the ground of disloyalty or ineligibility."199
As regards failure of elections, the Court emphasized in Pasandalan v. Commission on
Elections:201

A petition for a declaration of failure of election must specifically allege the essential grounds that
would justify the exercise of this extraordinary remedy. Otherwise, the Comelec can dismiss outright
the petition for lack of merit. No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Comelec in such a
case because the Comelec must exercise with utmost circumspection the power to declare a failure
of election to prevent disenfranchising voters and frustrating the electorate's will.202 (Emphasis
supplied)

The same is true of pre-proclamation controversies. Any challenge that relates to election returns
must likewise be anchored on specificity. For instance, in Macabago v. Commission on
Elections:203

Pre-proclamation controversies are properly limited to challenges directed against the Board of
Canvassers and proceedings before said Board relating to particular election returns to which private
respondent should have made specific verbal objections subsequently reduced to writing

Rule 65 of this Tribunal's Rules mandates an election protest to be dismissed when the results of the
revision and appreciation of the ballots in the pilot provinces do not support the allegation of fraud or
irregularities. 

This Tribunal was explicit in imposing the mandatory ceiling in pilot provinces to serve as a litmus
test of the allegations in this protest.

As early as the preliminary conference in this case, this Tribunal has explicitly stated that the pilot
provinces shall serve as a litmus test "by which the Tribunal will make a determination as to
whether it would proceed with the Protest-that is, retrieve and revise the ballots for the
remaining protested clustered precinct-or simply dismiss the Protest for failure of the protestant
to make out his case. When no substantial recovery of votes in the pilot provinces is shown, the
election protest must be dismissed. This principle is consistent across all three tribunals.

The results upon examination of ballots in the pilot provinces determine whether this Tribunal should
proceed with the retrieval and revision of the remaining ballots in the other precincts. Thus, in this
case, if the results in the pilot provinces supported protestant's allegation of massive fraud and
irregularities in protestee's favor, this Tribunal must proceed with the Protest. Otherwise, it must be
dismissed.

Accordingly, in the Preliminary Conference Order, this Tribunal directed protestant to designate
three provinces that best exemplified the frauds or irregularities he claims.323 Protestant, in turn,
chose Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental.324

A protestant or counter-protestant freely chooses their pilot provinces and makes the
representation before this Tribunal that these provinces best exemplified the fraud or
irregularities alleged in the Protest. Hence, the chosen pilot provinces are expected to
cover all the causes of actions on these grounds. To allow a different set of pilot provinces
for every cause of action would be to contravene the mandatory ceiling of "not more than
three" pilot provinces.