Contents of trial court's election decision
For comparison, in the Rules of Court, Section 1 of Rule 36 merely states: "A
judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing
personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the
clerk of court." In the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests, however,
Section 2 of Rule 14 states:
Section 2. Form of decision in election protests.-After termination of the revision of ballots and before rendering its decision in an election protest that involved such revision, the court shall examine and appreciate the original ballots. The court, in its appreciation of the ballots and in rendering rulings on objections and claims to ballots of the parties, shall observe the following rules:
(a) On Marked Ballots- The court must specify the entries in the ballots that clearly indicate that the intention of the voter is to identify the ballot. The specific markings in the ballots must be illustrated or indicated;
(b) On Fake or Spurious Ballots- The court must specify the COMELEC security markings that are not found in the ballots that are considered fake or spurious;
(c) On Stray Ballots- The court must specify and state in detail why the ballots are considered stray;
(d) On Pair or Group of Ballots Written by One or Individual Ballots Written by Two- When ballots are invalidated on the ground of written by one person, the court must clearly and distinctly specify why the pair or group of ballots has been written by only one person. The specific strokes, figures or letters indicating that the ballots have been written by one person must be specified. A simple ruling that a pair or group of ballots has been written by one person would not suffice. The same is true when ballots are excluded on the ground of having been written by two persons. The court must likewise take into consideration the entries of the Minutes of Voting and Counting relative to illiterate or disabled voters, if any, who cast their votes through assistors, in determining the validity of the ballots found to be written by one person, whether the ballots are in pairs or in groups; and
(e) On Claimed Ballots- The court must specify the exact basis for admitting or crediting claimed votes to either party. (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, the word "must" is used in the above-quoted rule, thus, clearly
indicating the mandatory -- not merely directory -- nature of the requirement
of what the decision should contain. The specific rules on the contents of
decisions in election contests were formulated so that the decision could, by
itself, be taken as a valuable aid in expeditiously deciding on appeal
incidents peripheral to the main case. The contents of the decision become
particularly relevant and useful in light of the need to decide the case with
utmost dispatch, based only on the documents submitted, considering that the
records and election materials are with another tribunal, as a matter of
course.[2]
In the case of Dangan-Corral v. COMELEC (G.R. No.
190156, February 12, 2010), for the limited purpose of determining whether the
essential requisite of a clear showing in the decision of the protestant's
victory and the protestee's defeat is present, the Supreme Court examined the
RTC Decision. It was found glaring and unmistakable that the said Decision
does not conform to the requirements set forth in Section 2 of the Rules. It
does not give the specifics of its findings. The general statement
invalidating 67% of the total votes cast on the ground that the ballots were
written by one person or written by two persons is grossly infirm. The
Decision
does not specify why the court considered particular groups of ballots to
have been written by one person, and other invalidated ballots to have been written by two persons. Worse,
the
Decision does not state which and how many ballots were written by one
person; and which and how many ballots were written by two persons. The entire
Decision, even the lengthy part enumerating the exhibits offered by each
party, fails to yield the exact number of and which ballots were written by
one person, and the exact number of and which ballots were written by two
persons. There is also
no mention in the decision of whether or not the RTC took into
consideration the entries of the Minutes of Voting and Counting relative to
illiterate or disabled voters, if any, who cast their votes through
assistors. The Decision merely states that "[a] careful and cursory examination of
these ballots indubitably shows that these ballots are written either by one
(1) or two (2) persons, given the palpable similarity in the handwritings
indicated in these ballots earlier declared by Protestant's revisors as
written by one (1) and two (2) persons."[3] It utterly violates the
mandatory requirement that "the court must clearly and distinctly specify why
the pair or group of ballots has been written by only one person. The specific
figures or letters indicating that the ballots have been written by one person
must be specified."
[1] Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
[2] G.R. No. 190156, February 12, 2010.
[3] RTC Decision, p. 37; rollo, p. 124.
