DIMAPORO V. HRET FACTS:This FACTS:This is a petition brought by Congressman Dimaporo seeking to nullify nullify the twin twin Resolu Resolution tions s of the HRET which which denied denied his Motion for Technical echnical Evaluation Evaluation of the Thumbmarks and Signatures Affixed in the Voters Registration Records and Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution Denying the Motion for Technical Examination of Voting Records. Pursu Pursuan antt to the the 1998 1998 HRET HRET Rules Rules Cong Congre ress ssion ional al candida candidate te Mangota Mangotara ra Petitio Petition n of Protest Protest (Ad Cautela Cautelam) m) seekin seeking g the technical technical examination examination of the signatures and thumb the protested protested precincts of the municipality of Sultan Naga Dimaporo (SND). Mangotara alleged that the massive massive substit substitutio ution n of voters voters and other other electo electoral ral irregula irregulariti rities es perpetrated by Dimaporo’s supporters will be uncovered and proven. From this this and and other other prem premis ises es,, he conc conclu lude ded d that that he is the dulyduly-ele elect cted ed nd representative of the 2 District of Lanao del Norte. Noting that “the Tribunal cannot evaluate the questioned ballots ballots because because there there are no ballots ballots but only election election documents documents to consider” HRET granted Mangotara's motion and permitted the latter to engage an expert to assist him in prosecution of the case, NBI conducted the technical examination. ISSUE: 1. W/N Dimaporo was deprived by HRET of Equal Protection when the latter denied his motion for technical examination. 2. W/N Dimaporo was deprived of procedural due process or the right to present scientific evidence to show the massive substitute voting committed in counter protested precincts.
RULING: 1. Resolution of HRET did not offend equal protection clause. Equal protection simply means that all persons and things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. It follows that the existence of a valid and substantial distinction justifies divergent treatment. According According to Dimaporo Dimaporo since since the ballot ballot boxes boxes subject subject of his petition petition and that of Mangota Mangotara ra were were both both unavai unavailabl lable e for revisio revision, n, his motion, like Mangotara’s, should be granted. The argument fails to take into account the distinctions distinctions extant in Mangotara’s protest vis-à-vis Dimaporo’s Dimaporo’s counter-protest counter-protest which validate the grant of Mangotara’s motion and the denial of Dimaporo’s. First. The election results in SND were the sole subjects of Mangota Mangotara’ ra’s s protest protest.. The opposit opposite e is true with regard regard to Dimapo Dimaporo’ ro’s s
counter-protest as he contested the election results in all municipalities but SND. Significantly, the results of the technical examination of the election records of SND are determ determina inative tive of the final outcom outcome e of the election election protest protest against Dimaporo. The same cannot be said of the precincts subject of Dimaporo’s motion. It should should be empha emphasi size zed d that that the the grant grant of a motio motion n for technical examination is subject to the sound discretion of the HRET. In this case, case, the Tribun Tribunal al deemed deemed it useful in the conduct conduct of the revisio revision n proceed proceedings ings to grant grant Mangot Mangotara’ ara’s s motion motion for technic technical al examination. Conversely, it found Dimaporo’s motion unpersuasive and accordingly denied the same. In so doing, the HRET merely acted within the bounds of its Constitutionally-granted jurisdiction. After all, the Constitution confers full authority on the electoral tribunals of the House of Representatives and the Senate as the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. Such jurisdiction is original and exclusive. 2. Anent Dimaporo’ Dimaporo’s s contention contention that the assailed assailed Resolutions denied him the right to procedural due process and to present present evidence evidence to substa substantia ntiate te his claim claim of massiv massive e substi substitute tute voting voting commit committed ted in the counter-protested precincts, suffice it to state that the HRET itself may ascertain the validity of Dimaporo’s allegations without resort to technical examination. To this end, the Tribunal declared that the ballots, election documents documents and other election paraphernalia paraphernalia are still subject to its scrutiny in the appreciation of evidence. It should should be noted noted that the record records s are replete with eviden evidence, ce, docume documentar ntary y and testimonia testimonial, l, present presented ed by Dimapo Dimaporo. ro. Dimapo Dimaporo’s ro’s allegation of denial of due process is an indefensible pretense. The instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
