8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

G.R. No. 185401. July 21, 2009.*

HENRY “JUN” DUEÑAS, JR., petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ANGELITO “JETT” P. REYES, respondents.

Courts; Supreme Court; Judicial Review; Judicial Restraint; Whenever the Supreme Court
exercises its function of checking the excesses of any branch of government, it is also duty-bound to
check itself.—Under our constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of the
Constitution, particularly of the allocation of powers, the guarantee of individual liberties and the
assurance of the people’s sovereignty. The Court has the distinguished but delicate duty of
determining and defining constitutional meaning, divining constitutional intent and deciding
constitutional disputes. Nonetheless, its judicial supremacy is never judicial superiority (for it is co-
equal with the other branches) or judicial tyranny (for it is supposed to be the least dangerous branch).
Instead, judicial supremacy is the conscious and cautious awareness and acceptance of its proper
place in the overall scheme of government with the objective of asserting and promoting the
supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, whenever the Court exercises its function of checking the
excesses of any branch of government, it is also duty-bound to check itself. Otherwise, who will
guard the guardian?
Same; Same; Same; Election Law; Election Contests; House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET); So long as the Constitution grants the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representa-

_______________

* EN BANC.

317

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 317

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

tives, any final action taken by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) on a
matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this Court—the power granted to the
Electoral Tribunal excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of the Supreme Court that would
in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the same; The Supreme Court will neither assume a
power that belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) nor
substitute its own judgment for that of the Tribunal.—The petition has no merit. We base our decision
not only on the constitutional authority of the HRET as the “sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications” of its members but also on the limitation of the Court’s power of
judicial review. The Court itself has delineated the parameters of its power of review in cases
involving the HRET—... so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule,
not be reviewed by this Court …. the power granted to the Electoral Tribunal x x x excludes the
exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it
or even affect the same. (emphasis supplied) Guided by this basic principle, the Court will neither
assume a power that belongs exclusively to the HRET nor substitute its own judgment for that of the
Tribunal.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Due regard and respect for the authority of the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) as an independent constitutional body require that any
finding of grave abuse of discretion against that body should be based on firm and convincing proof,
not on shaky assumptions.—Due regard and respect for the authority of the HRET as an independent
constitutional body require that any finding of grave abuse of discretion against that body should be
based on firm and convincing proof, not on shaky assumptions. Any accusation of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the HRET must be established by a clear showing of arbitrariness and
improvidence. But the Court finds no evidence of such grave abuse of discretion by the HRET.
Election Law; Election Contests; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); By
employing the word “sole,” the Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the House of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in the adjudication of election contests

318

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive, its exercise of power is intended to be its own
—full, complete and unimpaired.—The Constitution mandates that the HRET “shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications” of its members. By employing the
word “sole,” the Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the HRET in the adjudication of
election contests involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive. Its exercise of power is intended
to be its own—full, complete and unimpaired. Protective of its jurisdiction and assertive of its
constitutional mandate, the Tribunal adopted Rule 7 of the HRET Rules: RULE 7. Control of Own
Functions.—The Tribunal shall have exclusive control, direction and supervision of all matters
pertaining to its own functions and operation.
Same; Same; Same; The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) could continue or
discontinue the revision proceedings ex propio motu, that is, of its own accord.—The meaning of Rule
88 is plain. The HRET could continue or discontinue the revision proceedings ex propio motu, that is,
of its own accord. Thus, even if we were to adopt petitioner’s view that he ought to have been allowed
by HRET to withdraw his counter-protest, there was nothing to prevent the HRET from continuing
the revision of its own accord by authority of Rule 88. The only prerequisite to the exercise by the
HRET of its prerogative under Rule 88 was its own determination that the evidence thus far presented
could affect the officially proclaimed results. Much like the appreciation of contested ballots and
election documents, the determination of whether the evidence could influence the officially
proclaimed results was a highly technical undertaking, a function best left to the specialized expertise
of the HRET. In Abubakar v. HRET, 517 SCRA 762 (2007), this Court declined to review the ruling
of the HRET on a matter that was discretionary and technical. The same sense of respect for and
deference to the constitutional mandate of the HRET should now animate the Court in resolving this
case.
Same; Same; Same; In the exercise of its checking function, the Supreme Court should merely
test whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its
jurisdiction, not that it erred or had a different view.—At the risk of unduly encroaching on the
exclusive prerogative of the HRET as the sole judge of election contests involving its members, the
Court

319

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 319

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

cannot substitute its own sense or judgment for that of the HRET on the issues of whether
the evidence presented during the initial revision could affect the officially proclaimed results
and whether the continuation of the revision proceedings could lead to a determination of the
true will of the electorate. Regrettably, that is what petitioner actually wants the Court to do. But in
the exercise of its checking function, the Court should merely test whether or not the governmental
branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or
had a different view.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; It is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not
lost at the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.—It is hornbook doctrine
that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of the parties but continues until the case is
terminated. Thus, in Robles v. HRET, 181 SCRA 780 (1990), the Court ruled: The mere filing of the
motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts, without any action on the
part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the
case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the
case is terminated.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Since the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
possessed the authority to motu proprio continue a revision of ballots, it also had the wherewithal to
carry it out—where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary
for the exercise of one or the performance of the other is also conferred.—When jurisdiction is
conferred by law on a court or tribunal, that court or tribunal, unless otherwise provided by law, is
deemed to have the authority to employ all writs, processes and other means to make its power
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

effective. Where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for
the exercise of one or the performance of the other is also conferred. Since the HRET possessed the
authority to motu proprio continue a revision of ballots, it also had the wherewithal to carry it out. It
thus ordered the disbursement of its own funds for the revision of the ballots in the remaining counter-
protested precincts. We hark back to Rule 7 of the HRET Rules which provides that the

320

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

HRET has exclusive control, direction and supervision of its functions. The HRET’s order was
but one aspect of its power.
Same; Same; Same; The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s (HRET’s) order that its
own funds be used for the revision of the ballots from the 75% counter-protested precincts was an
exercise of a power necessary or incidental to the accomplishment of its primary function as sole
judge of election protest cases involving its members.—Rule 8 of the HRET Rules provides: RULE
8. Express and Implied Powers.—The Tribunal shall have and exercise all such powers as are vested
in it by the Constitution or by law, and such other powers as are necessary or incidental to the
accomplishment of its purposes and functions as set forth in the Constitution or as may be provided
by law. (emphasis supplied) Certainly, the HRET’s order that its own funds be used for the revision of
the ballots from the 75% counter-protested precincts was an exercise of a power necessary or
incidental to the accomplishment of its primary function as sole judge of election protest cases
involving its members.
Same; Same; Same; General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Republic Act No. 9498);
Section 1, Chapter 1 of RA 9498 provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) has an allotted budget for the “Adjudication of Electoral Contests Involving Members of the
House of Representatives” is general and encompassing enough to authorize the use of the HRET’s
funds for the revision of ballots, whether in a protest or counter-protest.—Petitioner has a very
restrictive view of RA 9498. He conveniently fails to mention that Section 1, Chapter 1 of RA 9498
provides that the HRET has an allotted budget for the “Adjudication of Electoral Contests Involving
Members of the House of Representatives.” The provision is general and encompassing enough to
authorize the use of the HRET’s funds for the revision of ballots, whether in a protest or counter-
protest. Being allowed by law, the use of HRET funds for the revision of the remaining 75% counter-
protested precincts was not illegal, much less violative of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. To
reiterate, the law (particularly RA 9498) itself has appropriated funds for adjudicating election
contests in the HRET. As an independent constitutional body, and having received the proper
appropriation for that purpose, the HRET had wide discretion in the disbursement and allocation of
such funds.
321

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 321

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

Same; Same; Same; Same; Even assuming that Republic Act No. 9498 did not expressly
authorize the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to use its own funds for the
adjudication of a protest or counter-protest, it had the inherent power to suspend its own rules and
disburse its funds for any lawful purpose it deemed best.—Even assuming that RA 9498 did not
expressly authorize the HRET to use its own funds for the adjudication of a protest or counter-
protest, it had the inherent power to suspend its own rules and disburse its funds for any lawful
purpose it deemed best. This is specially significant in election contests such as this where what is at
stake is the vital public interest in determining the true will of the electorate. In any event, nothing
prevented the HRET from ordering any of the parties to make the additional required deposit(s) to
cover costs, as respondent in fact manifested in the HRET.
Same; Election Protests; Suffrage is a matter of public, not private interest—in an election
protest, any benefit to a party would simply be incidental.—Such disbursement could not be deemed a
giving of unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to a party since the benefit would actually
redound to the electorate whose true will must be determined. Suffrage is a matter of public, not
private, interest. The Court declared in Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 311 (1993), that
“[o]ver and above the desire of the candidates to win, is the deep public interest to determine the true
choice of the people.” Thus, in an election protest, any benefit to a party would simply be incidental.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Certiorari; Grave Abuse of Discretion; Words and Phrases; “Grave abuse of discretion” is such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction—ordinary
abuse of discretion is insufficient; There is also grave abuse of discretion when there is a
contravention of the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.—It should be borne in mind that
the present petition is a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It alleges that the
HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
promulgated Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008. But what is “grave abuse of
discretion?” It is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction. Ordinary abuse of discretion is insufficient. The abuse of discretion must be

322

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

grave, that is, the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of the law. In other
words, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and
arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. There is also grave abuse of discretion when there is a
contravention of the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. Using the foregoing as yardstick,
the Court finds that petitioner miserably failed to discharge the onus probandi imposed on him.
Constitutional Law; The supremacy of the Constitution serves as the safety mechanism that will
ensure the faithful performance by this Court of its role as guardian of the fundamental law.—The
supremacy of the Constitution serves as the safety mechanism that will ensure the faithful
performance by this Court of its role as guardian of the fundamental law. Awareness of the proper
scope of its power of judicial review in cases involving the HRET, an independent body with a
specific constitutional mandate, behooves the Court to stay its hands in matters involving the exercise
of discretion by that body, except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion.
QUISUMBING, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Election Law; Election Contests; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); It was
grave abuse of discretion for the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to order the
continuation of the revision of ballots based on pure conjecture.—In the case at bar, respondents
invoked the discretion granted to the Tribunal under Rule 88 to direct the continuation of the revision
of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts. As I have stated, the Rules had set
guidelines for the exercise of this discretion. At the risk of being redundant, I emphasize that the
ballots in the entire protested precincts had been revised. Thus, there had been not only an initial
revision of ballots therein, but a total revision. Hence, with more reason that the results thereof must
show that Reyes garnered significantly higher votes. However, there was no categorical
pronouncement as to this. Instead, the Tribunal issued a vague Order wherein it directed the
continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts, because it
could not

323

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 323

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

determine the true will of the electorate from the initial revision and appreciation of the 100%
protested precincts and 25% counter-protested precincts and in view of the discovery of fake/spurious
ballots. The justification given for the continuation of the revision is premised on the discovery of
fake/spurious ballots, which according to the respondents created serious doubts as to who really won
in the election. The records show, however, that the fake/spurious ballots that surfaced were
inconsequential. Reyes claimed that 87 fake/spurious ballots were uncovered after the revision of
100% of the protested precincts and 25% of the counter-protested precincts, while Dueñas said there
were only 75. No matter what the number, we do not see how such can affect the result of the
contested election. As admitted by the parties in the preliminary conference, Dueñas enjoys a lead of
1,457 votes. Eighty-seven votes are but a fraction of Dueñas’ lead margin. What can be gleaned from
the foregoing is that respondents are only speculating that a sufficient number of fake/spurious ballots
will be discovered in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts and that these fake/spurious
ballots will overturn the result of the election. Thus, it was a grave abuse of discretion for the Tribunal
to order the continuation of the said revision based on pure conjecture.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Same; Same; Same; Allowing a protestant to rely on the results of the precincts not included in
his protest to establish his case is tantamount to allowing him to substantially amend his protest by
broadening its scope at this very late date which is not allowed under Rule 28 of the 2004 House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) Rules; The rule in an election protest is that the protestant
or counter-protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended
pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for the filing of the protest or counter-protest.
—At the outset, Reyes seemed confident that the revision of ballots in the 170 precincts he protested
will guarantee his win. Seeing that the revision thereof did not give him the results he was expecting,
he veered away from his original theory, and this time impugned the elections in the precincts not
involved in his protest by claiming that revision of ballots must be brought to completion in order that
the people’s choice may be ascertained. Allowing Reyes to rely on the results of the precincts not
included in his protest to establish his case is tantamount to allowing him to substantially amend his
protest by broadening its scope at this very late date which is not allowed under Rule 28 of the

324

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

2004 HRET Rules. As the clear import of what Reyes intended to do was violative of the Rules,
the Tribunal should not have acquiesced to the same by ordering the continuation of the revision. The
rule in an election protest is that the protestant or counter-protestant must stand or fall upon the issues
he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for the
filing of the protest or counter-protest. Thus, Reyes is bound by the issue that he essentially raised in
his election protest; that is, the revision of ballots in the 170 precincts involved in his protest will
reveal the massive fraud that transpired during the election and will confirm his victory. Besides, it is
difficult to comprehend why Reyes did not include in his protest the precincts he now questions,
albeit impliedly, if from the very start he was convinced that the election therein was marred by
electoral fraud. What can be inferred from his act is that he did not attribute any irregularity or fraud
therein and accepts the results of the counting as is, but had to change his stance later on as a last-
ditch effort to prove his case.
Same; Same; Same; Republic Act No. 9498; The allotted budget of the Tribunal for the
adjudication of electoral contests involving members of the House of Representatives was never
intended by Rep. Act No. 9498 to cover expenses for the revision of ballots involved in any electoral
contest but it will be a different situation, however, if the protestant was able to reasonably
demonstrate, based on the results of the revision of ballots in the precincts he protested, that he stood
a good chance of winning, and then the counter-protestant refused to pay for the costs of the
continuation of the revision of the counter-protested precincts yet to be revised for the sole purpose of
preventing the protestant from confirming his victory.—Having said that the Tribunal gravely abused
its discretion in ordering the continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-
protested precincts, it follows that the Tribunal had no authority to use its own funds to cover the
expenses of the said revision. Even assuming that under the circumstances it could lawfully order the
continuation of the revision, still nowhere in Rep. Act No. 9498 does it state that the Tribunal may use
its own funds for the revision. The P49,727,000 allotted budget of the Tribunal for the adjudication of
electoral contests involving members of the House of Representatives was never intended by Rep. Act
No. 9498 to cover expenses for the revision of ballots involved in any electoral contest. The said
amount is intended to be used for personal services and maintenance and other

325

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 325

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial

Tribunal

operating expenses. As succinctly stated in Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 9498, the funds are
appropriated for the operation of the government and, therefore, not for any other purpose. It will be a
different situation, however, if the protestant was able to reasonably demonstrate, based on the results
of the revision of ballots in the precincts he protested, that he stood a good chance of winning, and
then the counter-protestant refused to pay for the costs of the continuation of the revision of the
counter-protested precincts yet to be revised for the sole purpose of preventing the protestant from
confirming his victory. In this scenario, I submit that nothing prevents the HRET from relaxing or
suspending its Rules. Sadly, such is not the situation in this case. To repeat, the protestant has not
shown that he has any chance of winning.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

NACHURA, J., Separate Opinion:

House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); I cannot agree that the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) may utilize its own funds—public funds—to cover the
expenses in the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.—Albeit I concur with the
majority that the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is vested by the Constitution
with ample discretionary power in the resolution of contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the Members of the House. I cannot agree that the HRET may utilize its own funds
—public funds—to cover the expenses in the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested
precincts. If such were done, then the HRET would violate Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code,
and even risk likely prosecution under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, or the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, by causing undue injury to the Government and giving a party
an unwarranted benefit, advantage of preference in the dishhargc of their judicial functions through
manifest partiality.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin, Martinez Law Offices for petitioner.

326

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

CORONA, J.:

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies? (But who is to guard the guardians themselves?)1

Under our constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of the
Constitution, particularly of the allocation of powers, the guarantee of individual liberties
and the assurance of the people’s sovereignty.2 The Court has the distinguished but delicate
duty of determining and defining constitutional meaning, divining constitutional intent and
deciding constitutional disputes. Nonetheless, its judicial supremacy is never judicial
superiority (for it is co-equal with the other branches) or judicial tyranny (for it is supposed
to be the least dangerous branch).3 Instead, judicial supremacy is the conscious and cautious
awareness and acceptance of its proper place in the overall scheme of government with the
objective of asserting and promoting the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, whenever the
Court exercises its function of checking the excesses of any branch of government, it is also
duty-bound to check itself. Otherwise, who will guard the guardian?
The Court should exercise judicial restraint as it resolves the two interesting issues that
confront it in this petition: first, whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner Henry “Jun”
Dueñas, Jr.’s motion to withdraw or abandon his remaining 75% counter-protested precincts
and second, whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered that its
own funds be used for the

_______________

1 Juvenal (Roman poet and author [AD. 60-138]), Satires.

2 These correspond to the basic parts of a constitution, namely, the constitution of government, the constitution
of liberties or rights and the constitution of sovereignty.
3 This is how the American constitutional scholar Alexander Bickel describes the Supreme Court, “the least
dangerous branch.”

327

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 327

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

revision of the ballots from said 75% counter-protested precincts.

Factual Backdrop
Petitioner Henry “Jun” Dueñas, Jr. and private respondent Angelito “Jett” P. Reyes were
rival candidates for the position of congressman in the 2nd legislative district of Taguig
City in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections. After the canvass of the
votes, petitioner was proclaimed the winner, having garnered 28,564 votes4 as opposed to
private respondent’s 27,107 votes.5
Not conceding defeat, private respondent filed an election protest ad
cautelam,6 docketed as HRET Case No. 07-27, in the HRET on June 4, 2007. He prayed for
a revision/recount in 1707 of the 732 precincts in the 2nd legislative district of Taguig City
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

so that the true and real mandate of the electorate may be ascertained.8 In support of his
protest, he alleged that he was cheated in the protested precincts through insidious and well-
orchestrated electoral frauds and anomalies which resulted in the systematic reduction of
his votes and the corresponding increase in petitioner’s votes.9
Petitioner filed his answer10 on June 25, 2007. Not to be outdone, he also counter-
protested 560 precincts claiming that massive fraud through deliberate misreading,
miscounting and misappreciation of ballots were also committed against him in said
precincts resulting in the reduction of his votes in order to favor private respondent.11

_______________

4  Rollo, p. 68.
5  Id., p. 131.
6  Id., pp. 57-66.
7  Id., pp. 108-111.
8  Id., pp. 61-63.
9  Id., pp. 57-66.
10 Id., pp. 113-128.
11 Id., p. 118.

328

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

After the issues were joined, the HRET ordered that all ballot boxes and other election
materials involved in the protest and counter-protest be collected and retrieved, and brought
to its offices for custody.
In the preliminary conference held on July 26, 2007, petitioner and private respondent
agreed that, since the total number of the protested precincts was less than 50% of the total
number of the precincts in the 2nd legislative district of Taguig City, all of the protested
precincts would be revised without need of designation of pilot precints by private
respondent pursuant to Rule 88 of the HRET Rules.12
The HRET thereafter directed the revision of ballots starting September 18,
2007.13 Reception of evidence of the contending parties followed after the revision of
ballots in 100% of the protested precincts and 25% pilot of the counter-protested precincts.
The case was then submitted for resolution upon submission by the parties of their
memoranda.
In an order dated September 25, 2008, the HRET directed the continuation of the
revision and appreciation of the remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts pursuant
to Rule 88 of the HRET Rules, “[i]t appearing that the [HRET] cannot determine the true
will of the electorate from the initial revision and appreciation of the 100% protested
precincts and 25% counter-protested precincts and in view of the discovery of fake/spurious
ballots in some of the protested and counter-protested precincts.”14
Petitioner moved for reconsideration15 but the HRET denied his motion in an order
dated October 21, 2008.16 On the same day, the HRET issued another order directing
petitioner to augment his cash deposit in the amount of P320,000 to

_______________

12 Id., p. 131.
13 Id., pp. 136-137.
14 Id., p. 167.
15 Id., pp. 168-177.
16 Id., p. 183.

329

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 329

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

cover the expenses of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested
precincts within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice.17
Instead of complying with the order, petitioner filed an urgent motion to
withdraw/abandon the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts on October 27,
2008.18 This was denied by the HRET in Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008,
reiterating its order directing the continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining
75% counter-protested precincts and recalling its order requiring petitioner to augment his

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

cash deposit. The Tribunal instead ordered the use of its own funds for the revision of the
remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.19
In issuing Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008, the HRET invoked Rule 88
of the HRET Rules and settled jurisprudence, ruling that it had the discretion either to
dismiss the protest or counter-protest, or to continue with the revision if necessitated by
reasonable and sufficient grounds affecting the validity of the election. This was with the
end in view of ascertaining the true choice of the electorate. It was the HRET’s position that
the mere filing of a motion to withdraw/abandon the unrevised precincts did not
automatically divest the HRET of its jurisdiction over the same. Moreover, it ruled that its
task of determining the true will of the electorate was not confined to the examination of
contested ballots. Under its plenary power, it could motu proprio review the validity of
every ballot involved in a protest or counter-protest and the same could not be frustrated by
the mere expedient of filing a motion to withdraw/abandon the remaining counter-protested
precincts. Convinced that it could not determine the true will of the electorate of the 2nd
legislative district of Taguig City on the basis alone of the initial revision of the 100%
protested precincts and the 25% counter-protested precincts,

_______________

17 Id., p. 184.
18 Id., pp. 185-199.
19 Id., pp. 53-55.

330

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

it had no other recourse but to continue the revision and appreciation of all the remaining
75% counter-protested precincts.20
Aggrieved by the HRET’s Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008, petitioner
elevated the matter to this Court.
Central Issue to be Resolved
The core issue for our determination is whether the HRET committed grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing Resolution No. 08-353
dated November 27, 2008.
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner argues mainly that private respondent as protestant in the election protest at
the HRET had the burden of proving his cause. Failing to do so, the protest should have
been dismissed promptly and not unduly prolonged. For petitioner, the HRET’s declaration
of its failure to ascertain the true will of the electorate after the complete revision of all
protested precincts demonstrated private respondent’s failure to discharge his burden. Thus,
the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the continuation of the revision
of ballots in the remaining unrevised precincts as its acts amounted to giving private
respondent the undeserved chance to prevail by assisting him in his search for evidence to
support his case. The HRET in effect took the cudgels for him and thereby compromised its
impartiality and independence.
Petitioner also avers that private respondent’s failure to prove his contentions and his
(petitioner’s) concomitant exercise of his right to withdraw his counter-protest made the
continued revision irrelevant. He claims that, since a counter-protest is designed to protect
and advance the interest of the protestee, private respondent should not expect to derive any

_______________

20 Id.

331

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 331

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

benefit therefrom. This justified the allowance of the withdrawal of the counter-protest.21
Petitioner also labels as grave abuse of discretion the HRET’s assumption of the burden
of the costs of the continued revision. For him, the funds of the HRET should not be used
for the benefit of a private party, specially when its only objective was to speculate whether
“the failed protestant can win.”22 Also, the HRET’s act amounted to an illegal and
unconstitutional disbursement of public funds which is proscribed under Section 29
(1),23 Article VI of the Constitution.24
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Petitioner adds that the discretion extended to the HRET pursuant to Rule 88 of the
HRET Rules (whether or not to continue with the revision) may be exercised only when the
results of the initial revision show that the same reasonably affected the officially-
proclaimed results of the contested election. However, the HRET never made any
determination that the results of the revision showed private respondent to have made
substantial recoveries in support of his cause but simply directed the continuation of the
revision on the premise of its failure to determine the true will of the electorate as well as in
its discovery of fake/spurious ballots. Yet, the total number of alleged fake/spurious ballots
was only 75, or a little over 5% of his 1,457 lead votes; hence, it could not reasonably be
inferred to have affected the officially proclaimed results. Thus, for petitioner, the
fake/spurious ballots could not be made the basis for the continuation of revision of
ballots.25
In his comment,26 private respondent counters that no grave abuse of discretion could be
attributed to the HRET in

_______________

21 Id., pp. 18-21, 32-36.

22 Id., pp. 14-18.
23 SEC. 29 (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law.
xxxx
24 Rollo, pp. 14-18.
25 Id., pp. 21-29.
26 Id., pp. 255-278.

332

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

issuing the assailed resolution. The HRET had every right to order the continuation of the
revision of ballots after its discovery of fake/spurious ballots in favor of petitioner. Its
pronouncement that it could not determine the true will of the electorate centered on this
discovery. Thus, its constitutional mandate dictated that it ferret out the truth by completing
the said revision.27
Private respondent further argues that, under Rule 88 of its Rules, the HRET had the
discretion to either dismiss the counter-protest or continue with the revision based on the
outcome of the initial revision and appreciation proceedings and initial evidence presented
by the parties. The mere filing of a motion to withdraw the protest on the remaining
unrevised precincts did not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction over the electoral protest.28
Furthermore, the HRET could use its available funds to shoulder the cost of revision as
this was merely an incident to its discretion under Rule 88 and of its plenary powers under
the Constitution. To hold otherwise would render its mandated functions meaningless and
nugatory.29
For its part, the HRET insists in its comment30 that it did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion. It contends that there was a sufficient and legitimate reason to proceed with the
revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts. The discovery of fake/spurious
ballots created serious doubts about the sanctity of the ballots subject matter of the protest
and counter-protest. Thus, the HRET had no other choice but to open the ballot boxes in the
counter-protested precincts and continue with its revision in order to ascertain and
determine the true will of the electorate. Moreover, its discretion under the HRET Rules
gave it the imprimatur to

_______________

27 Id., pp. 256-258, 270.

28 Id., pp. 263-267.
29 Id., p. 272.
30 Id., pp. 288-318.

333

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 333

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

order the continuation of the revision if, based on its independent evaluation of the results
of the initial revision, the same affected the officially proclaimed results of the contested

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

election. Since the discovery of fake/spurious ballots, to its mind, had a bearing on the true
results of the election, the HRET submits that it was justified in issuing said order.31
The HRET also points out that the withdrawal of the revision of ballots was not a vested
right of any party but must give way to the higher dictates of public interest, that of
determining the true choice of the people. This determination did not depend on the desire
of any party but was vested solely on the discretion of the HRET as the “sole judge” of all
contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives. Moreover, under the HRET’s plenary powers, it could motu proprioreview
the validity of every ballot involved in a protest or counter-protest.32
The HRET further claims that petitioner had no reason to worry or to object to its
disbursement of its funds for the continuation of the revision since it had the allotted budget
for the same under paragraph I, (C.1) of RA33 No. 9498,34 or the General Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2008.35

Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

We base our decision not only on the constitutional authority of the HRET as the “sole
judge of all contests relating to

_______________

31 Id., pp. 301-306.

32 Id., pp. 306-307.
33 Republic Act.
34 A A A F O G R
P J O D T -O , T T E , O
P .
35 Rollo, p. 312.

334

334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

the election, returns and qualifications”36 of its members but also on the limitation of the
Court’s power of judicial review.
The Court itself has delineated the parameters of its power of review in cases involving
the HRET—
“... so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, any final
action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this
Court …. the power granted to the Electoral Tribunal x x x excludes the exercise of any
authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect
the same.”37 (emphasis supplied)

Guided by this basic principle, the Court will neither assume a power that belongs
exclusively to the HRET nor substitute its own judgment for that of the Tribunal.
The acts complained of in this case pertain to the HRET’s exercise of its discretion, an
exercise which was well within the bounds of its authority.
Power of HRET to Deny the Motion
to Withdraw/Abandon Counter-Protest
Petitioner submits that there was no point in continuing with the revision of the
remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts because, notwithstanding the revision of
100% of the protested precincts and 25% of the counter-protested precincts, petitioner’s
margin over private respondent was still more than a thousand votes.
Petitioner is wrong.
First, there are 732 precincts in the 2nd Legislative District of Taguig City, where
respondent protested the election re-

_______________

36 Section 17, Article VI, C .

37 Libanan v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 347 Phil. 797, 804; 283 SCRA 520, 529 (1997).

335

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 335

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

sults in 170 precincts and petitioner counter-protested 560 precincts.38 All in all, therefore,
730 precincts were the subject of the revision proceedings. While 100% of the protested
precincts were already revised, only 25% or 140 of the counter-protested precincts (or a
total of 310 precincts) were actually done. Yet, with 420 more precincts to go had the
HRET only been allowed to continue its proceedings, petitioner claims that respondents
were only speculating that a sufficient number of fake/spurious ballots would be discovered
in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts and that these fake/spurious ballots would
overturn the result of the election.
This is ironic because, while petitioner faults the HRET for allegedly engaging in
speculation, his position is itself based on conjectures. He assumes that revising the 420
remaining precincts will not substantially or significantly affect the original result of the
election which will remain the same. As such, he speculates that, if revised, the 420
remaining precincts will only yield the same or similar finding as that generated in the 310
precincts already subjected to revision. He presupposes that the HRET can determine the
true will of the electorate even without the 420 or 75% of counter-protested precincts. (This
in fact constitutes 57% of all 730 precincts in the legislative district.)
Petitioner may have assumed too much.
Indeed, due regard and respect for the authority of the HRET as an independent
constitutional body require that any finding of grave abuse of discretion against that body
should be based on firm and convincing proof, not on shaky assumptions. Any accusation
of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET must be established by a clear
showing of

_______________

38 170 protested precincts plus 560 counter-protested precincts equals 730 precincts. This leaves 2 unprotested
precincts.

336

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

arbitrariness and improvidence.39 But the Court finds no evidence of such grave abuse of
discretion by the HRET.
In Co v. HRET,40 we held that:
“The Court does not venture into the perilous area of trying to correct perceived errors of
independent branches of the Government. It comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due
process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution calls for
remedial action.”41 (emphasis supplied)

Second, the Constitution mandates that the HRET “shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications”42 of its members. By employing the
word “sole,” the Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the HRET in the
adjudication of election contests involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive.43 Its
exercise of power is intended to be its own—full, complete and unimpaired.44
Protective of its jurisdiction and assertive of its constitutional mandate, the Tribunal
adopted Rule 7 of the HRET Rules:
“RULE 7. Control of Own Functions.—The Tribunal shall have exclusive control, direction
and supervision of all matters pertaining to its own functions and operation.” (emphasis
supplied)

_______________

39 Robles v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 86647, 05 February 1990, 181 SCRA 780.
40 G.R. Nos. 92191-92 and 92202-03, 30 July 1991, 199 SCRA 692.
41 Id.
42 Supra note 36.
43 Dimaporo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 158359, 23 March 2004, 426 SCRA
226; Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).
44 Angara v. Electoral Commission, id., p. 175.

337

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 337

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

In this connection and in the matter of the revision of ballots, the HRET reserved for
itself the discretion to continue or discontinue the process. Rule 88 of the HRET Rules
provides:
“RULE 88. Pilot Precincts; Initial Revision.—Any provision of these Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, as soon as the issues in any contest before the Tribunal have been joined, it may
direct and require the protestant and counter-protestant, in case the protest or counter-protest involves
more than 50% of the total number of precincts in the district, to state and designate in writing within
a fixed period at most twenty-five (25%) percent of the total number of precincts involved in the
protest or counter-protest, as the case may be, which said party deems as best exemplifying or
demonstrating the electoral irregularities or frauds pleaded by him; and the revision of the ballots
and/or reception of evidence shall begin with such pilot precincts designated. Upon the termination of
such initial revision and/or reception of evidence, which presentation of evidence should not exceed
ten (10) days, and based upon what reasonably appears therefrom as affecting or not the officially-
proclaimed results of the contested election, the Tribunal may direct motu propio the continuation
of the revision of ballots in the remaining contested precincts, or dismiss the protest, or the
counter-protest, without further proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)

The meaning of Rule 88 is plain. The HRET could continue or discontinue the revision
proceedings ex propio motu, that is, of its own accord.45 Thus, even if we were to adopt
petitioner’s view that he ought to have been allowed by HRET to withdraw his counter-
protest, there was nothing to prevent the HRET from continuing the revision of its own
accord by authority of Rule 88.
The only prerequisite to the exercise by the HRET of its prerogative under Rule 88 was
its own determination that the evidence thus far presented could affect the officially
proclaimed results. Much like the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents,
the determination of whether

_______________

45 B ’ L D .

338

338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

the evidence could influence the officially proclaimed results was a highly technical
undertaking, a function best left to the specialized expertise of the HRET. In Abubakar v.
HRET,46 this Court declined to review the ruling of the HRET on a matter that was
discretionary and technical. The same sense of respect for and deference to the
constitutional mandate of the HRET should now animate the Court in resolving this case.
On this specific point, the HRET held that it “[could] not determine the true will of the
electorate from the [result of the] initial revision and appreciation.”47 It was also
“convinced that the revision of the 75% remaining precincts … [was] necessary under the
circumstances in order to attain the objective of ascertaining the true intent of the electorate
and to remove any doubt as to who between [private respondent] and [petitioner] obtained
the highest number of votes in an election conducted in a fair, regular and honest
manner.”48
At the risk of unduly encroaching on the exclusive prerogative of the HRET as the sole
judge of election contests involving its members, the Court cannot substitute its own
sense or judgment for that of the HRET on the issues of whether the evidence
presented during the initial revision could affect the officially proclaimed results and
whether the continuation of the revision proceedings could lead to a determination of
the true will of the electorate. Regrettably, that is what petitioner actually wants the Court
to do. But in the exercise of its checking function, the Court should merely test whether or
not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its
jurisdiction, not that it erred or had a different view.49

_______________

46 G.R. No. 173310, 07 March 2007, 517 SCRA 762.

47 HRET order dated September 25, 2008. Rollo, p. 167.
48 HRET order dated October 21, 2008. Id., pp. 180-183.
49 Co v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, supra note 40.

339

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 339

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Petitioner’s position disregards, or at least waters down, Rules 7 and 88 of the HRET
Rules. If the Court will dictate to the HRET on how to proceed with these election protest
proceedings, the Tribunal will no longer have “exclusive control, direction and supervision
of all matters pertaining to its own functions and operation.” It will constitute an intrusion
into the HRET’s domain and a curtailment of the HRET’s power to act of its own
accord on its own evaluationof the evidentiary weight and effect of the result of the initial
revision.
Libanan v. HRET50 expressed the Court’s recognition of the limitation of its own
power vis-à-vis the extent of the authority vested by the Constitution on the HRET as sole
judge of election contests involving its members. The Court acknowledged that it could not
restrict, diminish or affect the HRET’s authority with respect to the latter’s exercise of its
constitutional mandate. Overturning the HRET’s exercise of its power under Rule 88 will
not only emasculate its authority but will also arrogate unto this Court that body’s purely
discretionary function.
Finally, it is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance
of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.51 Thus, in Robles v. HRET,52 the
Court ruled:
“The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts,
without any action on the part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its
jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but
continues until the case is terminated. We agree with respondent House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal when it held:

_______________

50 Supra note 37.

51 Jimenez v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37933, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 1.
52 Supra note 39.

340

340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

We cannot agree with Protestee’s contention that Protestant’s ‘Motion to Withdraw Protest
on Unrevised Precincts’ effectively with drew the precincts referred to therein from the protest
even before the Tribunal has acted thereon. Certainly, the Tribunal retains the authority to
grant or deny the Motion, and the withdrawal becomes effective only when the Motion is
granted. To hold otherwise would permit a party to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction
already acquired.
We hold therefore that this Tribunal retains the power and the authority to grant or deny
Protestant’s Motion to Withdraw, if only to insure that the Tribunal retains sufficient authority
to see to it that the will of the electorate is ascertained.
x x x   x x x   x x x
Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, its orders upon all questions pertaining to
the cause are orders within its jurisdiction, and however erroneous they may be, they cannot be
corrected by certiorari. This rule more appropriately applies to respondent HRET whose
independence as a constitutional body has time and again been upheld by Us in many cases. As
explained in the case of Lazatin v. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Timbol, G.R.
No. 84297, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 391, thus:
The use of the word ‘sole’ emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred
[Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra, at 162]. The exercise of the Power by the Electoral
Commission under the 1935 Constitution has been described as ‘intended to be complete and
unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature’ [Id. at 175]. Earlier, this grant of
power to the legislature was characterized by Justice Malcolm as ‘full, clear and complete’
[Veloso v. Board of Canvassers of Leyte and Samar, 39 Phil. 886 (1919)]. Under the amended
1935 Constitution, the power was unqualifiedly reposed upon the Electoral Tribunal [Suanes v.
Chief Accountant of the Senate, 81 Phil. 818 (1948)] and it remained as full, clear and
complete as that previously granted the legislature and the Electoral Commission [Lachica v.
Yap, G.R. No. L-25379, September 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 140]. The same may be said with
regard to the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals under the 1987 Constitution. Thus, ‘judicial
review of decisions or fi-
341

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 341

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

nal resolutions of the House Electoral Tribunal is (thus) possible only in the exercise of this
Court’s so-called extraordinary jurisdiction, . . . upon a determination that the tribunal’s
decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion or, paraphrasing Morrera, upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident
use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a
demonstration of a very clear unmitigated ERROR, manifestly constituting such a GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION that there has to be a remedy for such abuse.”53 (emphasis
supplied)

Petitioner’s argument will in effect deprive the HRET of the jurisdiction it has already
acquired. It will also hold the HRET hostage to the whim or caprice of the parties before it.
If the HRET is the independent body that it truly is and if it is to effectively carry out its
constitutional mandate, the situation urged by petitioner should not be allowed.
Discretion of HRET to Use Its
Own Funds In Revision Proceedings
When jurisdiction is conferred by law on a court or tribunal, that court or tribunal, unless
otherwise provided by law, is deemed to have the authority to employ all writs, processes
and other means to make its power effective.54 Where a general power is conferred or duty
enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of one or the performance of the
other is also conferred.55 Since the HRET possessed the authority to motu proprio continue
a revision of ballots, it also had the wherewithal to carry it out. It thus ordered the
disbursement of its own funds for the revision of the ballots in the remaining counter-
protested precincts. We hark back to Rule 7 of the HRET Rules which provides that the
HRET has

_______________

53 Id. (citations omitted), pp. 784-786.

54 Suanes v. Chief Accountant, 81 Phil. 818 (1948).
55 Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra note 43.

342

342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

exclusive control, direction and supervision of its functions. The HRET’s order was but one
aspect of its power.
Moreover, Rule 8 of the HRET Rules provides:

“RULE 8. Express and Implied Powers.—The Tribunal shall have and exercise all such powers
as are vested in it by the Constitution or by law, and such other powers as are necessary or
incidental to the accomplishment of its purposes and functions as set forth in the Constitution or
as may be provided by law.” (emphasis supplied)

Certainly, the HRET’s order that its own funds be used for the revision of the ballots
from the 75% counter-protested precincts was an exercise of a power necessary or
incidental to the accomplishment of its primary function as sole judge of election protest
cases involving its members.
Petitioner contends that, even if the HRET could lawfully order the continuation of the
revision, RA 9498 did not authorize the Tribunal to use its own funds for the purpose. This
belief is questionable on three grounds.
First, if petitioner hypothetically admits that the HRET has the power to order the
continuation of the revision of the 75% remaining counter-protested precincts, then he
should also necessarily concede that there is nothing to prevent the HRET from using its
own funds to carry out such objective. Otherwise, the existence of such power on the part
of the HRET becomes useless and meaningless.
Second, petitioner has a very restrictive view of RA 9498. He conveniently fails to
mention that Section 1, Chapter 1 of RA 9498 provides that the HRET has an allotted
budget for the “Adjudication of Electoral Contests Involving Members of the House of
Representatives.”56 The provision is general and encompassing enough to authorize the use
of the HRET’s funds for the revision of ballots, whether in a protest or

_______________

56 In particular, the amount of P49,727,000 was appropriated for this purpose.

343

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 343

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

counter-protest. Being allowed by law, the use of HRET funds for the revision of the
remaining 75% counter-protested precincts was not illegal, much less violative of Article
220 of the Revised Penal Code.
To reiterate, the law (particularly RA 9498) itself has appropriated funds for
adjudicating election contests in the HRET. As an independent constitutional body, and
having received the proper appropriation for that purpose, the HRET had wide discretion in
the disbursement and allocation of such funds.
Third, even assuming that RA 9498 did not expressly authorize the HRET to use its own
funds for the adjudication of a protest or counter-protest, it had the inherent power to
suspend its own rules57 and disburse its funds for any lawful purpose it deemed best. This
is specially significant in election contests such as this where what is at stake is the vital
public interest in determining the true will of the electorate. In any event, nothing prevented
the HRET from ordering any of the parties to make the additional required deposit(s) to
cover costs, as respondent in fact manifested in the HRET.58 Petitioner himself admits in his
pleadings that private respondent filed a

“Formal Manifestation with the respondent HRET informing respondent HRET that he [was] willing
to make the added cash deposit to shoulder the costs and expenses for the revision of [the] counter-
protested precincts.”59

_______________

57 This power is a necessary incident of the power of the electoral tribunals to create their own rules. (See II
Records of the Constitutional Commission 87-88.)
58 In the memorandum (p. 22), filed by private respondent in this Court, he mentioned his manifestation in the
HRET that “he is willing to shoulder the expenses of the revision of the remaining unrevised precincts.”
59Petition, p. 13. Rollo, p. 15. Petitioner made a similar statement in his memorandum (p. 18):

344

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Such disbursement could not be deemed a giving of unwarranted benefit, advantage or

preference to a party since the benefit would actually redound to the electorate whose true
will must be determined. Suffrage is a matter of public, not private, interest. The Court
declared in Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals60 that “[o]ver and above the desire of the
candidates to win, is the deep public interest to determine the true choice of the
people.”61 Thus, in an election protest, any benefit to a party would simply be incidental.
Moreover, the action of the HRET was permitted by the HRET Rules. Rule 33 of the
HRET Rules provides:

“RULE 33. Effect of Failure to Make Cash Deposit.—If a party fails to make the cash deposits
or additional cash deposits herein provided within the prescribed time limit, the Tribunal may dismiss
the protest, counter-protest, or petition for quo warranto, or take such action as it may deem
equitable under the premises.” (emphasis supplied)

All told, it should be borne in mind that the present petition is a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It alleges that the HRET committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated
Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008. But what is “grave abuse of discretion?”
It is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction. Ordinary abuse of discretion is insufficient. The abuse of discretion must be
grave, that is, the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility. It must be so patent and

_______________

…[REYES] filed his…Formal Manifestation with the Respondent HRET declaring that, even as
PROTESTANT, he was more than willing [to] shoulder the costs and remit the added cash deposits for the revision
of [petitioner’s] protested precincts…
60 G.R. No. 107852, 20 October 1993, 227 SCRA 311.
61 Id.

345

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 345

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of the law. In other words, for a petition
for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the
exercise of discretion. There is also grave abuse of discretion when there is a contravention
of the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.62 Using the foregoing as yardstick,
the Court finds that petitioner miserably failed to discharge the onus probandiimposed on
him.
In sum, the supremacy of the Constitution serves as the safety mechanism that will
ensure the faithful performance by this Court of its role as guardian of the fundamental law.
Awareness of the proper scope of its power of judicial review in cases involving the HRET,
an independent body with a specific constitutional mandate, behooves the Court to stay its
hands in matters involving the exercise of discretion by that body, except in clear cases of
grave abuse of discretion.
A Final Word
We are not declaring any winner here. We do not have the authority to do so. We are
merely remanding the case to the HRET so that revision proceedings may promptly
continue, precisely to determine the true will of the electorate in the 2nd legislative district
of Taguig City for the 2007-2010 congressional term.
Indeed, considering the paramount need to dispel the uncertainty now beclouding the
choice of the electorate and the lifting of the status quo ante order on June 16, 2009, the
revision proceedings shall resume immediately and the electoral case resolved without
delay.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and Resolution No. 08-353 dated
November 27, 2008 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal AFFIRMED.

_______________

62 Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162580, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 411, 416.

346

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J.), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion and Peralta, JJ.,
concur.
Quisumbing, J., Please see my Dissent.
Ynares-Santiago, J., No part, Chair of HRET.
Carpio, J., I join the Dissent of J. Quisumbing.
Carpio-Morales, J., No part, member of the HRET at the time the assailed Resolution
was issued.
Nachura, J., Please see Separate Opinion.
Bersamin, J., I join the Dissent of J. Quisumbing.

DISSENTING OPINION

QUISUMBING, J.:
I regret I have to register my dissent in this case. The decision gives the HRET unbridled
discretion to proceed with the revision of ballots even if the protestant failed to show that
the results of the initial revision reasonably affected the officially proclaimed results, in
direct contravention of the parameters and guidelines that the HRET itself has set. I
elucidate, thus:
Assailed via Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO)1 is Resolution No. 08-3532 of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) dated November 27, 2008 in HRET Case No. 07-027. The
HRET denied petitioner Henry “Jun” Dueñas, Jr.’s Urgent Motion to Withdraw/Abandon
the Re-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 3-46.

2 Id., at pp. 50-56.

347

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 347

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

maining Seventy-Five Percent Counter-Protested Precincts and reiterated its Order3 dated
October 21, 2008 directing the Secretary of the Tribunal to conduct revision of ballots in
the 75% counter-protested precincts beginning December 2008. The HRET additionally
recalled its other Order,4 likewise dated October 21, 2008, directing protestee Dueñas to
augment his cash deposit in the amount of three hundred twenty thousand pesos
(P320,000.00) to cover the expenses for the said revision, and instead ordered that the said
expenses be taken from the available funds of the Tribunal.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner Henry “Jun” Dueñas, Jr. and private respondent Angelito “Jett” P. Reyes were
candidates for the position of Congressman in the 2nd Legislative District of Taguig City
during the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections. After the canvass of the
votes on May 23, 2007, Dueñas, who garnered a total of 28,564 votes,5 was proclaimed
winner by the District Board of Canvassers over Reyes who only garnered a total of 27,107
votes.6
On June 4, 2007, Reyes filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam7before the HRET,
alleging that insidious and well-orchestrated electoral frauds and anomalies were committed
in various forms in 170 of the 732 precincts in the 2nd Legislative District of Taguig City
on the day of the elections, during the counting, and during the canvass of the election
returns which resulted in the systematic reduction of the actual votes obtained by him and
in the corresponding increase in the votes obtained by Dueñas. Reyes asked for the
revision/recount of the ballots and other election documents in 170 precincts8 so that

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 180-183.

4 Id., at p. 184.
5 Id., at p. 68.
6 Id., at p. 131.
7 Id., at pp. 57-66.
8 Id., at pp. 108-111.

348

348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

the true and real mandate of the electorate may be ascertained.9

On June 25, 2007, Dueñas filed his Answer with Counter-Protest.10 Dueñas denied the
charges in the protest and countered that if there indeed had been electoral frauds and
anomalies during the conduct of the elections, the same were perpetrated to favor
Reyes11Dueñas counter-protested the results of the elections in 56012precincts where he
claimed that several ballots were deliberately misread, miscounted and misappreciated
resulting in the illegal reduction of votes in his favor.13
After the issues were joined, the HRET ordered the collection and retrieval of all ballot
boxes and other election paraphernalia involved in the protest and counter-protest to be
brought to the HRET for custody.
On July 12, 2007, the HRET issued an Order setting the date of the Preliminary
Conference on July 26, 2007,14 during which Dueñas and Reyes agreed, among others, that
all of the protested precincts would be revised without need of designation of pilot precincts
by Reyes pursuant to Rule 88 of the 2004 HRET Rules, since the total number of the
protested precincts was less than 50% of the total number of the precincts in the legislative
district.15
On August 30, 2007, the HRET issued an Order16which directed the revision of ballots
starting September 18, 2007.

_______________

9  Id., at pp. 61-63.

10 Id., at pp. 113-128.
11 Id., at p. 118.
12 Id., at p. 131. The Preliminary Conference Order shows, however, that the counter-protested precincts
number 562.
13 Id., at pp. 120-125.
14 Id., at p. 11.
15 Id., at p. 131.
16 Id., at pp. 136-137.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

349

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 349

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Reception of evidence for the parties followed upon the completion of the revision of
ballots in 100% of the protested precincts and 25% of the counter-protested precincts. After
the filing of the parties’ respective memoranda, the case was submitted for resolution.
On September 25, 2008, the HRET issued an Order directing the continuation of the
revision and appreciation of the remaining counter-protested precincts. The Order reads:
“It appearing that the Tribunal cannot determine the true will of the electorate from the initial
revision and appreciation of the 100% protested precincts and 25% counter-protested precincts and in
view of the discovery of fake/spurious ballots in some of the protested and counter-protested
precincts, the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 88 of the 2004 Rules of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal and Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, DIRECTS the continuation of the
revision and appreciation of the remaining counter-protested precincts.
SO ORDERED.”17

Not agreeing with the HRET’s Order of September 25, 2008, Dueñas moved for the
reconsideration of the same.18 However, the HRET denied his motion in its Order dated
October 21, 2008 where the Tribunal decreed:
“Wherefore, protestee’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Tribunal dated September
25, 2008 is DENIED. The Secretary of the Tribunal is AUTHORIZED to CONDUCT the revision
of ballots in the remaining seventy-five percent (75%) counter-protested precincts involved in the
instant case.”19

On even date, the Tribunal issued another Order which directed Dueñas to augment his
cash deposit, which would be used to cover the expenses of the revision of ballots in the
remaining 75% counter-protested precincts. The order reads:

_______________

17 Id., at p. 167.
18 Id., at pp. 168-177.
19 Id., at p. 183.

350

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

“WHEREFORE, protestee is DIRECTED to AUGMENT his cash deposit in the amount of three
hundred twenty thousand pesos (P320,000.00) within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from
notice hereof.
SO ORDERED.”20

On October 27, 2008, Dueñas filed his Urgent Motion to Withdraw/Abandon the
Remaining Seventy-Five Percent Counter-Protested Precincts.21 Essentially, Dueñas
contended that Reyes failed to prove his case through his own evidence in the designated
protested precincts. Thus, as a matter of course, the protest must be dismissed, for it is
axiomatic that the protestant must rely on and stand by his own protested precincts and
should not be allowed to depend on the results of the precincts that he has not
protested.22Dueñas also maintained that being himself a protestant in his own designated
counter-protested precincts, he had the prerogative of withdrawing and/or abandoning the
remaining 75% counter-protested precincts, as what he was doing in this case.23Dueñas
averred that the results of the physical count were practically the same as the officially
proclaimed results, thereby showing that the revision of ballots did not alter the results of
the elections in the 2nd Legislative District of Taguig City.24 As such, he manifested that
there was no need to continue with the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested
precincts.25
In his Comment/Opposition26 filed on November 3, 2008, Reyes contended that Dueñas’
allegations in his urgent motion were bereft of merit and merely dilatory. He averred that
Dueñas’ failure to prove his allegations of election irregulari-

_______________

20 Id., at p. 184.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
21 Id., at pp. 185-199.
22 Id., at p. 186.
23 Id., at p. 187.
24 Id., at pp. 190-193.
25 Id., at p. 193.
26 Id., at pp. 200-205.

351

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 351

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

ties and anomalies coupled with his failure to make a reservation during the Preliminary
Conference that he would withdraw/abandon his counter-protest if the protestant failed to
prove his cause of action were enough reasons not to allow him to withdraw/abandon his
counter-protest, especially so when the Tribunal had found compelling reasons for its
continuance. Reyes further contended that the withdrawal of the remaining unrevised
precincts was highly suspect, a mere afterthought, since Dueñas decided on the same only
after his motion for reconsideration of the September 25, 2008 HRET Order was denied.
Contrary to the view of Dueñas, the withdrawal/abandonment and suspension of the
revision of ballots lay within the exclusive prerogative and wise discretion of the Tribunal;
hence, neither of the parties to an election protest may claim any vested right therefor,
Reyes added.27
On November 27, 2008, the HRET issued its assailed Resolution No. 08-353, which (1)
denied Dueñas’ urgent motion, (2) reiterated its October 21, 2008 Order directing the
continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts,
and (3) recalled its other Order, also dated October 21, 2008, which required Dueñas to
augment his cash deposit. The HRET instead ordered that the needed funds for the revision
be shouldered by the Tribunal.
The HRET held that pursuant to Rule 88 of the 2004 HRET Rules and settled
jurisprudence, the Tribunal has the discretion to either dismiss the protest or counter-
protest, or to continue with the revision if necessitated by reasonable and sufficient grounds
affecting the validity of the election, with the end in view of ascertaining the true choice of
the electorate. The mere filing of a motion to withdraw/abandon the unrevised precincts,
therefore, does not automatically divest it of its jurisdiction over the same. Moreover, the
Tribunal ruled that its task of determining the true will of the electorate is not confined to
the examination of the contested

_______________

27 Id., at pp. 200-202.

352

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

ballots. Under its plenary power, it can motu proprio review the validity of every ballot
involved in a protest or counter-protest, and the same cannot be frustrated by the mere
expedient of filing a motion to withdraw/abandon the remaining counter-protested
precincts. Having ruled with finality that the Tribunal could not determine the true will of
the electorate of Taguig City from the initial revision of the 100% protested precincts and
the 25% counter-protested precincts, it had no other recourse but to continue the revision
and appreciation of all the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.28
Hence, the present petition where Dueñas raised the following issues for our resolution:

I.
WHETHER RESPONDENT HRET CAN FORCE/COMPEL THE REVISION OF A
PROTESTEE’S COUNTER-PROTESTED PRECINCTS, EVEN AS THE PROTESTANT
HAS FAILED TO PROVE HIS CAUSE IN THE MAIN PROTEST AND AFTER
REVISION OF ALL [100%] OF HIS PROTESTED PRECINCTS; AND DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE PROTESTEE/PETITIONER DUEÑAS HAS MANIFESTED HIS
DESIRE, AND FORMALLY MOVED, TO WITHDRAW AND ABANDON HIS VERY
OWN REMAINING COUNTER-PROTESTED PRECINCTS.
II.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HRET, IN FORCING THE REVISION OF
THE UNDESIRED COUNTER-PROTEST, CAN LEGITIMATELY BURDEN ITSELF
WITH THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF SHOULDERING THE COSTS AND
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

EXPENSES OF THE SAID UNWANTED REVISION, IN THE PROCESS, BY

DISBURSING PUBLIC FUNDS TO PURSUE AN EXERCISE THAT IS CLEARLY
INTENDED TO SOLELY BENEFIT PROTESTANT/PRIVATE RESPONDENT REYES,
A PRIVATE PARTY.29

_______________

28 Id., at pp. 53-55.

29 Id., at pp. 13-14.

353

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 353

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

The core issue for our determination is whether the HRET gravely abused its discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the assailed resolution.
Dueñas argued in the main that the protestant in an election protest, Reyes in this case,
was the party burdened and obligated to prove his cause. Failing to do so, his protest must
not be unduly prolonged but must be immediately dismissed. HRET’s declaration of its
failure to ascertain the true will of the electorate after the revision of 100% of the protested
precincts had been completed clearly demonstrated that Reyes failed in his bid. Thus, the
Tribunal gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the continuation of the revision of
ballots in the remaining unrevised precincts, as its acts amounted to giving Reyes the
underserved chance to prevail by assisting him in speculatively searching for a basis and
evidence to prove his case, effectively taking the cudgels for him, and thereby
compromising its impartiality and independence. He also averred that Reyes’ failure to
prove his contentions and the concomitant withdrawal of the counter-protest made the
continued revision irrelevant and unnecessary, insisting that he has the right to withdraw his
protest. Additionally, Dueñas argued that a counter-protest was designed to protect and
advance the interest of the protestee; hence, Reyes could not expect to derive any benefit
therefrom. This reason, he urged, further justified the allowance of the withdrawal of the
counter-protest.30
Dueñas also labeled as grave abuse of discretion, the Tribunal’s act of assuming the
burden of the costs of the revision. He argued that the funds of the Tribunal should not be
used for the benefit of a private party, especially so when its only objective was to speculate
whether “the failed protestant can win,” and also because such amounted to illegal and
unconstitutional disbursement of public funds, proscribed under Article VI, Section 29
(1)31of the Constitution.32

_______________

30 Id., at pp. 18-21, 32-36.

31 Sec. 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.

354

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Dueñas added that the discretion extended to the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 88 of the
2004 HRET Rules on whether to continue with the revision may be exercised only when
the results of the initial revision showed that the same reasonably affected the officially-
proclaimed results of the contested election. According to him, the Tribunal never made any
determination that the results of the revision showed Reyes to have made substantial
recoveries in support of his cause. Rather, its first order which directed the continuation of
the revision was premised on its failure to determine the true will of the electorate and its
discovery of fake/spurious ballots. He further contended that in any event, the alleged
fake/spurious ballots were discovered in only 2 out of the total 170 protested precincts and
in only 2 out of the 140 pilot counter-protested precincts. The total number of alleged
fake/spurious ballots was only 75, or a little over five percent (5%) of his 1,457 lead votes;
hence, it could not reasonably be inferred to have affected the officially proclaimed results.
The fake/spurious ballots could not be made the basis for the continuation of the revision of
ballots.33
Furthermore, Dueñas maintained that the difference in the results of the physical count
of ballots and the results reflected in the election returns was inconsequential. As the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
34
table herein below will show, he argued that no substantial change in the votes of the
parties occurred after the revision. In fact, he stated, it even worked against Reyes, since the
results of the physical count yielded lower votes for the latter. Thus:

_______________

xxxx
32 Rollo, pp. 14-18.
33 Id., at pp. 21-29.
34 Id., at pp. 24-25.

355

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 355

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

PROTEST PROPER (100%; 170 Precincts):

BARANGAY Election Returns Physical Count

Reyes Dueñas Reyes Dueñas
Bagong Tanyag 1,399 2,484 1,394 2,459
Maharlika Village 170 315 154 350
Signal Village 711 1,139 703 1,129
Upper Bicutan 1,605 2,691 1,590 2,668
Western Bicutan 1,245 1,963 1,234 1,951
TOTAL 5,130 8,592 5,075 8,557

COUNTER-PROTEST (25%; 140 Precincts):

BARANGAY Election Returns Physical Count
Reyes Dueñas Reyes Dueñas
Maharlika Village 363 149 334 185
Signal Village 3,595 2,260 3,578 2,240
Western Bicutan 3,900 2,058 3,868 2,033
TOTAL 7,858 4,467 7,780 4,458

On December 16, 2008, the Court issued a status quo ante order35 requiring the parties
to observe the status quo prevailing before the filing of the petition. The Court also required
the respondents to comment on the petition.36
In his Comment,37 Reyes countered that no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed
to the Tribunal in issuing its assailed resolution. He contended that the HRET had every
right to order the continuation of the revision of ballots after its discovery of fake/spurious
ballots in favor of Dueñas. Its pronouncement that it could not determine the true will of the
electorate, in fact, centers on this discovery. Thus, its constitutional mandate dictated that it
ferret out the truth by completing the said revision. The Tribunal did not intend to favor
him.38

_______________

35 Id., at pp. 215-216.

36 Id., at pp. 213-214.
37 Id., at pp. 255-278.
38 Id., at pp. 256-258, 270.

356

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Reyes also argued that Rule 88 of the 2004 HRET Rules gave the Tribunal the discretion to
either dismiss the counter-protest or continue with the revision based on the outcome of the
initial revision and appreciation proceedings and initial evidence presented by the parties.
The mere filing of a motion to withdraw the protest on the remaining unrevised precincts
did not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction over the electoral protest.39
Furthermore, the Tribunal may use its available funds to shoulder the cost of revision, as
this was merely an incident to its discretion under the said Rule and its plenary powers
under the Constitution. To hold otherwise would render its mandated functions meaningless
and nugatory.40
The Tribunal, for its part, insisted in its Comment41that it did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion. It belied the claim of Dueñas that there existed no legitimate reason to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

proceed with the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts. Like Reyes, it
argued that the discovery of fake/spurious ballots created serious doubts on the sanctity of
the ballots subject matter of the protest and counter-protest. Thus, it had no other choice but
to open the ballot boxes in the counter-protested precincts and continue with its revision in
order to ascertain and determine the true will of the electorate. Moreover, it posited that the
discretion accorded to it by the Rules gave it the imprimatur to order the continuation of the
revision if based on its independent evaluation of the results of the initial revision, the same
affected the officially proclaimed results of the contested election. Since the discovery of
fake/spurious ballots, to its mind, had a bearing on the true results of the election, the
Tribunal submitted that it was justified in issuing said order.42

_______________

39 Id., at pp. 263-267.

40 Id., at p. 272.
41 Id., at pp. 288-318.
42 Id., at pp. 301-306.

357

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 357

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

The Tribunal also pointed out that contrary to the belief of Dueñas, the withdrawal of the
revision of ballots was not a vested right of any party, as it must succumb to the higher
dictates of public interest—that of determining the true choice of the people. And this
determination cannot be made to depend upon the desire of any party, but is vested solely
upon the discretion of the HRET as the “sole judge” of all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Moreover, it
averred that under its plenary powers, it could motu proprio review the validity of every
ballot involved in a protest or counter-protest.43
The Tribunal further claimed that Dueñas also had no reason to worry or to object to its
disbursement of its funds for the continuation of revision, since the Tribunal had the allotted
budget for the same under paragraph I, (C.1) of Republic Act No. 9498,44 or the General
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008.45
For a petition for certiorari to prosper, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that
caprice and arbitrariness characterized the act of the court or agency whose exercise of
discretion is being assailed. This is because grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment that amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It
contemplates a situation where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility—so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in
contemplation of law. Grave abuse of discretion

_______________

43 Id., at pp. 306-307.

44 A A A F O G R
P J O D T -O , T T E , O
P , begun on July 23, 2007.
45 Id., at p. 312.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing
jurisprudence.46
Crucial to our determination of whether grave abuse of discretion tainted the issuance of
the assailed resolution of the Tribunal is Rule 88 of the 2004 HRET Rules. Said rule
provides:
“RULE 88. Pilot Precincts; Initial Revision.—Any provision of these Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, as soon as the issues in any contest before the Tribunal have been joined, it may
direct and require the protestant and counter-protestant, in case the protest or counter-protest
involves more than 50% of the total number of precincts in the district, to state and designate in
writing within a fixed period at most twenty-five (25%) percent of the total number of precincts
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

involved in the protest or counter-protest, as the case may be, which said party deems as best
exemplifying or demonstrating the electoral irregularities or frauds pleaded by him; and the revision
of the ballots and/or reception of evidence shall begin with such pilot precincts designated. Upon the
termination of such initial revision and/or reception of evidence, which presentation of evidence
should not exceed ten (10) days, and based upon what reasonably appears therefrom as affecting or
not the officially proclaimed results of the contested election, the Tribunal may direct motu proprio
the continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining contested precincts, or dismiss the
protest, or the counter-protest, without further proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Rule 88 clearly vested the Tribunal the discretion to either direct the continuation of the
revision of ballots in the remaining contested precincts or dismiss the protest or counter-
protest. However, it is also explicit in the Rules that the exercise of this discretion is not
unbridled, but one that must be exercised within the parameters set by the Rules.

_______________

46 Cabrera v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182084, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 686. Fernandez v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 171821, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 116, 119; Perez v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 162580, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 411, 416.

359

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 359

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Under the said Rule, if the protest or counter-protest involves more than 50% of the total
number of precincts in the district, the Tribunal may direct the protestant or counter-
protestant to choose the precincts questioned by him in his protest or counter-protest that
best exemplify or demonstrate the electoral irregularities or frauds pleaded by him, but in
no case shall the selected precincts be more than 25% of the total number of precincts
involved in the protest or counter-protest. The revision of ballots shall begin initially with
said pilot precincts. If the protest or counter-protest involves less than 50% of the total
number of precincts in the district, then the entire ballots involved in the protest or counter-
protest shall be revised. The Rules provides further that the Tribunal may motu
propriodirect the continuation of the revision or dismiss the protest or counter-protest if the
results of the initial revision reasonably show that the same affected the officially-
proclaimed results of the contested election. In other words, the Tribunal can motu
propriodismiss the protest or counter-protest if the results of the initialrevision show that
such revision cannot possibly change the results of the contested election; otherwise, the
revision of the ballots in the remaining contested precincts will continue.
All things carefully considered and viewed in their proper perspective, it is my
considered view that the Tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
assailed Resolution.
In the case at bar, respondents invoked the discretion granted to the Tribunal under Rule
88 to direct the continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-
protested precincts. As I have stated, the Rules had set guidelines for the exercise of this
discretion. At the risk of being redundant, I emphasize that the ballots in the entire protested
precincts had been revised. Thus, there had been not only an initial revision of ballots
therein, but a total revision. Hence, with more reason that the results thereof must show that
Reyes garnered significantly higher votes. However, there was no categorical
pronouncement as to this. Instead, the Tribunal issued a vague Order wherein it directed the
360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts,

because it could not determine the true will of the electorate from the initial revision and
appreciation of the 100% protested precincts and 25% counter-protested precincts and in
view of the discovery of fake/spurious ballots. The justification given for the continuation
of the revision is premised on the discovery of fake/spurious ballots, which according to the
respondents created serious doubts as to who really won in the election.47 The records
show, however, that the fake/spurious ballots that surfaced were inconsequential. Reyes
claimed that 8748 fake/spurious ballots were uncovered after the revision of 100% of the
protested precincts and 25% of the counter-protested precincts, while Dueñas said there
were only 75. No matter what the number, we do not see how such can affect the result of
the contested election. As admitted by the parties in the preliminary conference, Dueñas
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
49
enjoys a lead of 1,457 votes. Eighty-seven votes are but a fraction of Dueñas’ lead
margin. What can be gleaned from the foregoing is that respondents are only speculating
that a sufficient number of fake/spurious ballots will be discovered in the remaining 75%
counter-protested precincts and that these fake/spurious ballots will overturn the result of
the election. Thus, it was a grave abuse of discretion for the Tribunal to order the
continuation of the said revision based on pure conjecture.
It is conceded that the mere act of filing a motion to withdraw or abandon a counter-
protest does not automatically divest the Tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. To have it
any other way will frustrate the intent of the Rules to accord the Tribunal the right to
proceed with the case or dismiss the same if the evidence obtaining in the case warrants.
However, to repeat, such discretion may not be exercised wantonly and in reckless
disregard of the limitations set by the Rules.

_______________

47 Id., at pp. 268-270, 303-306.

48 Id., at p. 165.
49 Id., at p. 131.

361

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 361

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

What is apparent is the desire of Reyes for the revision to continue in the hope that the
results therefrom would redound to his benefit, under the pretense that the paramount
interest of the electorate to know the true winner prevails over technicalities.50Ultimately,
what Reyes is trying to do is underhandedly change the theory of his case by banking on the
results of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts. This
cannot be allowed.
At the outset, Reyes seemed confident that the revision of ballots in the 170 precincts he
protested will guarantee his win. Seeing that the revision thereof did not give him the
results he was expecting, he veered away from his original theory, and this time impugned
the elections in the precincts not involved in his protest by claiming that revision of ballots
must be brought to completion in order that the people’s choice may be ascertained.
Allowing Reyes to rely on the results of the precincts not included in his protest to establish
his case is tantamount to allowing him to substantially amend his protest by broadening its
scope at this very late date which is not allowed under Rule 2851 of the 2004 HRET Rules.
As the clear import of what Reyes intended to do was violative of the Rules, the Tribunal
should not have acquiesced to the same by ordering the continuation of the revision.
The rule in an election protest is that the protestant or counter-protestant must stand or
fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse
of the statutory period for the filing of the protest or

_______________

50 Id., at p. 261.
51 Rule 28. Amendments; Limitations.—After the expiration of the period for the filing of the protest,
counter-protest or petition for quo warranto, substantial amendments which broaden the scope of the action or
introduce an additional cause or causes of action shall not be allowed. Any amendment in matters of form may be
allowed at any stage of the proceedings.
xxxx

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

counter-protest.52 Thus, Reyes is bound by the issue that he essentially raised in his election
protest; that is, the revision of ballots in the 170 precincts involved in his protest will reveal
the massive fraud that transpired during the election and will confirm his victory. Besides, it
is difficult to comprehend why Reyes did not include in his protest the precincts he now
questions, albeit impliedly, if from the very start he was convinced that the election therein
was marred by electoral fraud. What can be inferred from his act is that he did not attribute
any irregularity or fraud therein and accepts the results of the counting as is, but had to
change his stance later on as a last-ditch effort to prove his case.
While it is true that an election contest is impressed with public interest, such that the
correct expression of the will of the electorate must be ascertained without regard to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

technicalities, this noble principle, however, must not be used as a subterfuge to hide the
real intent of a party to prove his case through unacceptable means. For it is also the policy
of the law that election contests should be decided promptly, such that title to public
elective office be not left long under cloud53for the obvious reason that the term of the
contested office grows shorter with the passing of each day.54
Having said that the Tribunal gravely abused its discretion in ordering the continuation
of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts, it follows that
the

_______________

52 Batul v. Bayron, G.R. Nos. 157687 and 158959, February 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 26, 33; Trinidad v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134657, December 15, 1999, 320 SCRA 836, 841; Arroyo v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 118597, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 384, 402; Ticao v. Nañawa, No.
L-17890, August 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 946, 950.
53 Gementiza v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 140884, March 6, 2001, 353 SCRA 724, 731,
citing Estrada v. Sto. Domingo, No. L-30570, July 29, 1969, 28 SCRA 890, 904.
54 Velez v. Varela, etc and Florido, 93 Phil. 282, 284 (1953); Almeda v. Silvosa and Ramolete, etc., 100 Phil.
844, 849 (1957).

363

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 363

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

Tribunal had no authority to use its own funds to cover the expenses of the said revision.
Even assuming that under the circumstances it could lawfully order the continuation of the
revision, still nowhere in Rep. Act No. 9498 does it state that the Tribunal may use its own
funds for the revision. The P49,727,000 allotted budget of the Tribunal for the adjudication
of electoral contests involving members of the House of Representatives was never
intended by Rep. Act No. 9498 to cover expenses for the revision of ballots involved in any
electoral contest. The said amount is intended to be used for personal services and
maintenance and other operating expenses.55 As succinctly stated in Section 1 of Rep. Act
No. 9498, the funds are appropriated for the operation of the government and, therefore, not
for any other purpose.56

_______________

55 C.1 of Rep. Act No. 9498

C.1 HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
For general administration and support, and operations, as indicated hereunder………….P 80,841,000
New Appropriations, by Program/Project
==============================
Current Operating Expenditures
Maintenance
and other
Personal Operating Capital
Services Expenses Outlays Total
A. PROGRAMS
xxxx
II. Operations
a. Adjudication of Electoral Contests
involving Members of the House of
Representatives30,182,000 19,545,000     49,727,000
xxxx
56 Section 1. Appropriation of Funds.—The following sums, or so much thereof as may be necessary, are
hereby appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury of the Philippines not otherwise appropriated, for
the operation of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines from January one to December thirty-one, two
thousand and eight, except where otherwise specifically provided herein.

364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

It will be a different situation, however, if the protestant was able to reasonably

demonstrate, based on the results of the revision of ballots in the precincts he protested, that
he stood a good chance of winning, and then the counter-protestant refused to pay for the
costs of the continuation of the revision of the counter-protested precincts yet to be revised
for the sole purpose of preventing the protestant from confirming his victory. In this
scenario, I submit that nothing prevents the HRET from relaxing or suspending its Rules.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Sadly, such is not the situation in this case. To repeat, the protestant has not shown that he
has any chance of winning.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition.

SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION

NACHURA, J.:
Albeit I concur with the majority that the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) is vested by the Constitution with ample discretionary power in the resolution of
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House.1 I
cannot agree that the HRET may utilize its own funds—public funds—to cover the
expenses in the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.

_______________

1 Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution provides:

Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein.
The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. [Emphasis supplied.]

365

VOL. 593, JULY 21, 2009 365

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

If such were done, then the HRET would violate Article 2202 of the Revised Penal
Code, and even risk likely prosecution under Section 3(e)3 of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, by causing undue injury to the
Government and giving a party an unwarranted benefit, advantage of preference in the
dishhargc of their judicial functions through manifest partiality.
If on the other hand the HRET eventually were to order respondent Reyes (the
protestant) to shoulder the expenses of revision, then the same would constitute a violation
of the 2004 Rules of the HRET,4 astablished law and jurisprudence.

_______________

2 Article 220 of the R P C provides:

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property.—Any public officer who shall apply any public funds or
property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such funds or property were
appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penally of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from one-half to the total value of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or
embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall suffer the penalty of
temporary special disqualification.
3 The provision reads:
SEC. 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers.—In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(e)Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Goverment, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers
and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
xxxx
4 Adopted on April 1, 2004.

366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dueñas, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electorial Tribunal

It would be equivalent to allowing the protestant to amend his protest by broadening its
scope, or permitting him to file a separate protest on the remaining 75% counter-protested
precincts, after the expiry of the jurisdictional period of filing election protests.
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to GRANT the petition.

Petition dismissed, Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008 affirmed.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/27
8/18/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Notes.—The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral

tribunals operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
tribunal. (Torres vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 351 SCRA 312 [2001])
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Supreme Court may not interfere with
the exercise of the House of the constitutionally mandated duty to choose its members to
the HRET and the CA, absent a clear violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 393 SCRA 227 [2002])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017401aac894945560c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/27