4

TH

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
MAPUN-TURTLE ISLANDS
Ninth Judicial Region
Bongao, Tawi-Tawi

MICHAEL N. AHMAD,
Protestant,

ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 001-2013

-versusAKMAD SADDARAMIL,
Protestee.
x------------------x

FOR: JUDICIAL REVISION AND/OR

RECOUNTING OF VOTES

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROTESTANT

COMES NOW, PROTESTANT, through the undersigned
counsel and unto the Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits this Memorandum with Formal Offer of Exhibits
as follows:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1.An election contest, unlike an ordinary action is
imbued with public interest since it involves not
only the adjudication of the private interests of
rival candidates but also the paramount need of
dispelling with the least delay the uncertainty
which beclouds the real choice of the electorate
with
respect
to
who
shall
discharge
the
prerogatives of the office within their gift. Over
and above the desire of the candidates to win, is
the deep public interest to determine the true
choice of the people (Loyola v. Court of Appeals,
62 SCAD 219, 245 SCRA 477). Time is of the essence
in the disposition of an election protest within
the period fixed by law. It is neither fair nor
just that one whose right to the office is in doubt
should remain on that office for an uncertain
period (Bolalin v. Occiano, 77 SCAD 757, 266 SCRA
203).
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL
DATES
2.Protestant and protestee were both candidates and
were both voted for the position of Punong Barangay

of Barangay Poblacion, Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi,

during the October 28, 2013 Barangay Elections.
3.After the canvass of the election returns, the
Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed protestee
on October 29, 2013, as the presumptive winner for
the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay
Poblacion,
Turtle
Islands,
Tawi-Tawi,
having
allegedly garnered a total of NINE HUNDRED THIRTY
(930) votes as against the FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE
(463) votes obtained by the protestant or a
presumptive
winning
difference/margin
of
FOUR
HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN (467) votes.
4.There were EIGHT (8) duly constituted clustered
precincts in Barangay Poblacion, Turtle Islands,
Tawi-Tawi during the recently concluded October 28,
2013 Barangay Elections.
5.By reason of the various election anomalies,
irregularities,
intimidations,
coercions,
and
consequently
filling
up
of
ballots
with
protestees name, intentional misreading of votes
for the position of Punong Barangay and other
deliberate fraudulent acts, as well as the rampant
violations of election laws, rules and regulations
perpetrated by Protestee and his cohorts during the
Elections, deliberately designed to frustrate the
will of the voters in the said barangay, the
protestant hereby protests and questions the
results of the elections in the three (3) duly
constituted
clustered
precincts
of
Barangay
Poblacion, Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi.
6.Pursuant to Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code,
in relation to the Supreme Court Administrative
Matter No. 07-4-15-SC, which took effect on May 15,
2007,
protestant
assailed
the
election
and
proclamation of Protestee as the Punong Barangay of
Barangay
Poblacion,
Turtle
Islands,
Tawi-Tawi
during the October 28, 2013 Barangay Elections and
filed the corresponding election protest.
7.The Revision of ballots was conducted on February
11, 12 and 13, 2014.
ISSUES
8.Whether or not the proclamation of the protestee
reflected the true will of the electorate of
Barangay Poblacion, Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi?

9.Whether or not protestee has committed the alleged

electoral irregularities and fraud during the
recently concluded Barangay Elections?
10.
Whether or not the protestant will surpass the
votes obtained by the protestee upon the conclusion
of the revision of the ballots in the protested
precincts in case the protest will be given due
course?
DISCUSSION
10.
Foremost, ours is a democracy were sovereignty
resides in the people whose sovereignty will is
expressed through the ballot. It is therefore of
paramount public interest that the electoral
dispute be settled. Resolving the protest by a
mere wave of the judicial wand without touching on
the merits is not fair to the protestant. It is
not fair to the tribunal whose disposition of the
case without solid facts to support it would raise
more questions than it could answer and create
needless speculations about its motives however
well-intentioned they may be. It is not fair to
the people who deserve to know, without the
slightest doubt, who they really elected as the
Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Turtle
Islands, Tawi-Tawi Province. It is, certainly, not
fair to the protestee who should be deprived the
opportunity to remove once and for all whatever
cloud that may have been cast on his election as
Punong Barangay.
11.
Clearly, the grounds invoked by the protestant
in the filing of the instant election protest
require the opening of the ballot boxes to effect
the careful perusal, examination and/or recounting
of ballots in order to resolve the election
contest. Such recourse is explicitly provided in
Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code and Rule
10, En Banc, A.M. No. 07-4-1-SC, pertinent
provision of Sec. 255 is hereunder quoted, thus:
SEC. Judicial counting of votes in
election contest.- Where allegations in a
protest or counter-protest so warrant, or
whenever in the opinion of the court the
interests of justice so require, it shall
immediately order the book of voters,

ballot boxes and their keys, ballots and

other documents used in the election be
brought before it and that the ballots be
examined and the votes recounted.
12.
The above provision does not require that there
be further proof than the allegations of the
protest before the court may allow the examination
of the ballots and the recounting of votes. The
rationale for the doctrine was elucidated in
Astorga v. Fernandez, to wit:
xxx. Obviously the simplest, the most
expeditious
and
the
best
means
to
determine the truth or falsity of this
allegation is to open the ballot box and
examine its contests. To require parol or
other
evidence
on
said
alleged
irregularity before opening said box,
would have merely given the protestee
ample opportunity to delay the settlement
of the controversy, through lengthy crossexamination of the witnesses for the
protestee to the contrary. As held in
Cecilio v. Belmonte, this would be to
sanction an easy way to defeat a protest.
13.
In Crispino v. Panganiban, penned by Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., citing People v. Narvasa,
this Court categorically declared that:
Time and again, this Supreme Court
has declared in numerous cases that, when
there is an allegation in an election
protest that would require the perusal,
examination, or counting of ballots as
evidence, it is the ministerial duty of
the trial court to order the opening of
the ballot boxes and the examination and
counting
of
the
ballots
deposited
therein.
14.
The grounds for election protest include
frauds, vote buying, terrorism and other election
irregularities (Ligot vs. Comelec, 31 SCRA 46),
failure of voters to vote due to fraud and
terrorism (Pasion vs. Comelec, 109 SCRA 238). The
jurisdictional
facts
necessary
to
confer
jurisdiction to try an election protest are: 1)
that the protestant was a candidate who had duly

filed a certificate of candidacy and had been

voted for the same office; 2) that the protestee
has been proclaimed; 3) that the petition was
filed within ten (10) days after proclamation
(Miro vs. Comelec, 121 SCRA 466); and 4) that
fraud and election irregularities vitiated the
conduct of elections and affected the legality
thereof (Badelles vs. Cabili, 27 SCRA 133). Proper
pleading also requires that there be allegation
that the true result of the election is in favor
of protestant and a prayer that protestees
proclamation be set aside (De Castro vs. Ginete,
27 SCRA 623). The Honorable Supreme Court has
maintained in a long line of cases that mere
allegations of fraud and irregularities will
suffice to warrant the opening of the contested
ballot boxes and the recount of the ballots
contained therein, hence in G.R.No. 136966, July
5, 2000, James Miguel vs. COMELEC and Eladio M.
Lapuz, The rule in this jurisdiction is clear and
jurisprudence is even clearer. In a string of
categorical pronouncements, we have consistently
ruled that when there is an allegation in an
election protest that would require the perusal,
examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it
is the ministerial duty of the trial court to
order the opening of the ballot boxes and the
examination and counting of the ballots deposited
therein. In Astorga vs. Fernandez, 19 SCRA 331,
Obviously, the simplest, the most expeditious and
the best means to determine the truth or falsity
of this allegation is to open the ballot box and
examine its contents. To require parol or other
evidence on said alleged irregularity before
opening said box, would have merely given the
protestee
ample
opportunity
to
delay
the
settlement of the controversy, through lengthy
cross-examination
of
the
witnesses
for
the
protestant and the presentation of testimonial
evidence for the protestee to the contrary.
Protestant firmly believes that the protest has
duly complied with the above requirements.
JUDICIAL REVISION REVEALS THE COMMISSION OF ELECTORAL
FRAUD BY THE PROTESTEE
15.
After the judicial revision and/or recounting
of the protested precincts in barangay Poblacion,
Turtle Islands, it turned out that so much of the

ballots cast for the protestee no longer possess

the integrity for them to be considered valid and
thereafter to be credited to his votes. Many of
the ballots cast for the protestee were prepared
by only one person or similar group of persons.
The shading in one ballot varies in that it
contained the use of different colors of inks of
pen. Worst, there were ballots that only ordinary
pens were used instead of the required Comelec
pen. There were ballots that were not signed by
the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers
(BET). Pattern voting is very obvious in several
numbers of the ballots in that it can be inferred
that only one person has written the entries
thereon. Unnecessary markings for the sole purpose
of identification of ballots during the counting
of votes were likewise visible and glaring.
16.
These irregularities that attended the casting
of votes bolster the fact that to ensure his
success in the election and to intensify the
commission of election related anomalies in the
election
protestee
employed
the
mentioned
irregularities. Thorough examination need not
require us to believe that the ballots cast for
the protestee did not reflect the true will of the
electorate. By mere glance at the manner by which
the ballots were prepared, the same unequivocally
reveals that it no longer possess of the integrity
for it to be counted in favor of any candidate.
Prevalent are these kinds of ballots and the
Honorable Court cannot just afford to ignore.
17.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
the
foregoing
irregularities in the conduct of the election in
Barangay Poblacion did not reflect the true will
of the voters therein, such that it is deemed
proper that protestee be ousted in the contested
office where he has not shown that there is no
doubt to his title thereto while the protestant
has laid down all the irregularities that would
divest him of the right to remain in the said
office
and
consequently
would
reveal
that
protestant is more deserving of the authentic and
genuine choice of the people of the concerned
local government.
18.
Essentially, if the ballots cast for the
protestee are declared invalid, in so far, as they

are no longer reflective of the true will of the

voters, their integrity having been violated not
not
having
been
established
from
the
very
beginning, his votes will be greatly lessened and
the protestant will eventually surmount his votes
and proved that he garnered the most number of
valid votes and is the one lawfully entitled to
the office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay
Poblacion, Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi Province.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is
most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to
please consider and note the foregoing Memorandum and
consequently declare the election of the protestee as
not expressive of the true will of the electorate of
Barangay Poblacion, Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi Province
and thereby proclaim protestant MICHAEL N. AHMAD as the
duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion,
Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi Province.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 8th day of April 2014
at Zamboanga City for Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, Philippines.
FAUNDO ESGUERRA
& ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM
Counsel for Protestant
ESQUIRE CENTRE BUILDING
Tomas Claudio Extension, Zamboanga City
Telefax / Telephone No. (062) 990-1722/991-6421
Email Address: jhun_esguerra@yahoo.com
By.
ATTY. QUIRINO G. ESGUERRA, JR.
IBP Lifetime Membership No. 2182
Roll No. 38761; 3-14-94
MCLE Compliance No. I-0006637;12-4-2004;
MCLE Compliance No. II-0010128; 07-13-2009
MCLE Compliance No. III-0004162; 07-13-2009
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0000171; 08-02-2010
PTR. NO. 0791298; 01-03-14
Zamboanga City

Copy furnished:
ATTY. NARVARO BELAR S. NAVARRO
Counsel for the Protestee
Room 8, 2nd Floor, Safaya Building
Veterans Avenue
Zamboanga City
EXPLANATION
In compliance with Section 4, Rule 2 of EN BANC
A.M.
No.
07-4-15-SC,
counsel
explains
that
the
foregoing Memorandum will be filed with the Honorable
Court via registered mail with return card due to
distance and lack of manpower.
QUIRINO G. ESGUERRA, JR.