poe vs. arroyo respondent

7/25/2019 POE vs. ARROYO Respondent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/poe-vs-arroyo-respondent 1/14

University of San CarlosSchool of Law and Governance

Department of Political Science

MEMORIL !OR "#E RESPO$DE$"

RO$LD LL$ POE a%&%a% !ER$$DO POE' (R%'

)S%

GLORI MCPGL*RRO+O

",O",O' "RIS# RE

"MPUS' MR+ GRCE

"UMUL-' RIS# DI)I$ IG$CI

MRC# ./01

1



",LE O! CO$"E$"S

CO$"E$" PGE

Cover Pa2e 0

"a3le of Contents .

Inde4 of 5thorities 6

Statement of (5risdiction 7

85estions Presented 1

Statement of !acts 9

S5mmary of r25ments :

r25ments; Pleadin2s 0/

Concl5sion 07

Prayer 01

2



I$DE< O! U"#ORI"IES

Le2al ,asis

Rule 14 of Presidential Electoral Tribunal Rules

Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court

R.A. 1793

Section 4, Article !! of the 19"7 Phili##ine Constitution

Cases

$e Castro %. Co&&ission on Elections, '.R. (o. 1)*)49, 7 +ebruar 1997, )67 SCRA

"-6, "-9.

o&u/dan/ %. 0a%ier. (o. )7*3*, 3- Se#te&ber 1967, )1 SCRA 4-).

da. de 2esa % 2encias. (o. )4*"3, )9 ctober 1966, 1" SCRA *33.

$efensorSantia/o %. Ra&os. P.E.T. Case (o. --1, 13 +ebruar 1996, )*3 SCRA **9.

S""EME$" O! (URISDIC"IO$

3



The Petitioner Ronald Allan Poe and the Res#ondent 'loria 2aca#a/alArrooacce#t the urisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to handle this election

#rotest case in #ursuant to Section 4, Article !! of the 19"7 Phili##ine Constitution andR.A. 1793 and Re#ublic Act (o. 1793 5here an !nde#endent Electoral Tribunal has the urisdiction to tr, hear and decide #rotests contestin/ the election of the Presidentelectof the Phili##ines and #ro%idin/ for the &anner of hearin/ the sa&e.

ereb, both sides sub&it this case at hand to the onorable Court.

8UES"IO$S PRESE$"ED

4



!. hether or not the late +P0 is the true 5inner in the )--4 Presidential Elections8

!!. hether or not the 5ido5, 2rs. Susan Roces can substitute for the #etitioner

5ho died at the #endenc of the election #rotest8

5



S""EME$" O! !C"S

The #etitioner and &o%ie actor Ronald Allan Poe a..a. +ernando Poe, 0r. :+P0;

ran in the #residential elections in 2a 1-, )--4 and /arnered 11,7"),)3) %otes for the

second#lacer. The res#ondent 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo :'2A; 5as the #roclai&ed the

5inner in a nearunani&ous rollcall %ote as the dul elected President of the Phili##ines

5ith 1),9-*,"-" %otes. She too her ath of ffice before the Chief 0ustice of the

Su#re&e Court on 0une 3-, )--4.

Refusin/ to concede defeat and belie%in/ that there 5as an ano&al in the 2a

)--4, 2r. Ronald Allan Poe :aa +P0; filed and election #rotest before this Electoral

Tribunal on 0ul )3, )--4. 2rs, '2A, throu/h counsel, filed her Ans5er 5ith Counter

Protest on Au/ust *, )--4.

A fortuitous e%ent ha##ened on $ece&ber 14, )--4 5here 2r. +P0 died in the

course of his &edical treat&ent at St. ue<s os#ital. The counsel of the #rotestant

filed a &edical certificate as (otice of $eath of the Protestant sho5in/ that he died of

cardio#ul&onar arrest, secondar to cerebral infarction. Also, the said counsel

sub&itted to the Tribunal, dated 0anuar 1-, )--*, a =2A(!+ESTAT!( 5ith >R'E(T

PET!T!(?2T!( to !(TERE(E as a S>@ST!T>TE for $ECEASE$ PRTESTA(T

+P0, b the 5ido5 and cine&a star, 2rs. 0esusa Sonora Poe a..a. Susan Roces, 5ho

si/ned the %erification and certification therein.

2rs. +P0 also no5n as Susan Roces as &o%ant?inter%enor clai&ed that there is

an ur/ent need for her to continue and substitute for her late husband in the election

#rotest initiated b hi& in order to ascertain the true and /enuine 5ill of the electorate in

the )--4 elections. !n su##ort of her assertion, she cites De Castro v. COMELEC and

Lomugdang v. Javier , that death of the #rotestant does not constitute a /round for the

dis&issal of the contest nor oust the trial court of the urisdiction to decide the election

contest.

!&#ortantl, she stresses that she is co/niBant that as a &ere substitute she

cannot succeed, assu&e or be entitled to said electi%e office, and her ut&ost concern is

not #ersonal but one that in%ol%es the #ublic<s interest. She #ras that if 2rs. 'loria

2aca#a/alArroo be deter&ined that she did not actuall 5in in the elections, then she

should be disallo5ed fro& re&ainin/ in office.

6



2rs. 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo ho5e%er, asserts in her Co&&ent relin/ on Vda.

de Mesa v Mencias and Abadilla v. Ablan cases that 2rs. +P0 is not the #ro#er #art

and does not ha%e the le/al ri/ht to substitute her husband since a #ublic office is

#ersonal and not a #ro#ert that #asses on to the heirs. This is clearl sti#ulated under the Rule 14 of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal :PET; Rules that onl )nd and 3rd

hi/hest %otes for #residenc &a contest the election of the #resident. She stresses that

this Tribunal has no urisdiction o%er actions of sur%i%in/ s#ouses to ascertain the %ote

of the electorate as the Tribunal has urisdiction onl o%er election #rotests and quo

warranto cases.

She contends that 2rs. +P0 cannot use =the #ublic interest to ustif her reuest

to be substituted for her husband because it is a##licable onl in election contests, not

in an action to &erel =ascertain the true and /enuine 5ill of the #eo#le. She asserts

that this Tribunal should reco/niBe an election #rotest in%ol%in/ a #rotestant and a#rotestee, not bet5een the electorate and the #rotestee. +urther citin/ Defensor-

antiago v. !amos, she adds that if the Tribunal can dis&iss an electoral case based on

technicalit, all the &ore it could for a stron/er reason, that of #rotestant<s death.

2rs. +P0 in her Re#l #osits that the #rotest ha%in/ been co&&enced cannot be

abated b the death of the #rotestant and the onl real issue is the deter&ination of the

#ro#er substitute ee#in/ in &ind that #ublic interest re&ains. Additionall, she

contradicts #rotestee and insists that allo5in/ =an %oter to substitute ust lie in a quo

warranto 5ill not o#en the flood/ate to 5hi&sical #rotests, and the i&a/ined #olitical

instabilit feared b #rotestee 5ill e%en &ore be #ronounced if the #rotest is dis&issed.

The &o%ant?inter%enor also contends that the issue at hand in%ol%es ust the

continuation of #roceedin/s b allo5in/ substitution and the tain/ o%er b the

substitute of the #rosecution of the #rotest alread =dul co&&enced.

The oracular function of this Presidential Electoral Tribunal needs to be full

eDercised to &ae &anifest the +ili#ino %oters here and abroad as to 5ho is the dul

elected leader of the +ili#ino nation.

7



SUMMR+ O! RGUME$"S

ne of the /rounds in%oed b the #etitioner is that election #rotest is to be #ursued

a/ainst the side of 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo 5ith the belief that Ronald Allan Poe :aa

+ernando Poe; is the true 5inner in the )--4 Presidential Elections. !t is to be

re&e&bered ho5e%er, as to the enli/hten&ent of the facts of the case, that #ast

&idni/ht of 0une )4, )--4, the Con/ress, actin/ as the (ational @oard of Can%assers

/i%en the authorit to do so under Sec. 3, Article 7 of the 19"7 Constitution, Section 3-,

RA 9369, #roclai&ed 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo as the candidate elected as President of

the Phili##ines. The #ublic unrest the #etitioner side clai&s does not hold 5ater due to

the noticeable and blunt fact that 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo has /arnered 1), 9-*, "-"

%otes a/ainst Ronald Allan Poe :aa +ernando Poe;<s 11,7"),)3) %otes. The #eo#le

ha%e s#oen and the Con/ress ha%e acno5led/ed it therefore it cannot be said that

Ronald Allan Poe is the 5inner of the )--4 Presidential Elections.

2oreo%er, Susan Roces, the 5ido5er of the deceased candidate Ronald Allan Poe :aa

+ernando Poe 0r.; cannot substitute #etitioner for the continuin/ of the election #rotest

filed before the Court. Rule 14, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal states that

nl the re/istered candidate for President or for icePresident of the

Phili##ines 5ho recei%ed the second or the third hi/hest nu&ber of %otes &a

contest the election of the President or the icePresident b filin/ a %erified

#etition 5ith the Cler of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal 5ithin 3- das after

#rocla&ation of 5inner.

Pursuant to the rule, the restriction as to 5ho &a contest the election reflects as to thereal #arties in interest are concernin/ an election contest.

Also, Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of the Court a##lies in the #resent case 5herein

the interest 5hich allo5s a #erson to inter%ene in a suit &ust be in the &atter of liti/ation

and of such direct and i&&ediate character that the inter%enor 5ill either /ain or lose b

8



the effect of ud/&ent. Therefore, Susan Roces, 5ho did not recei%e the )nd or the 3rd

hi/hest %otes for she 5as not a candidate in the #residential election race, cannot

substitute Ronald Allan Poe :aa +ernando Poe;.

9



RGUME$"S

0% Ronald llan Poe =a&a !ernando Poe (r%> is not the tr5e winner in the .//7Presidential Elections%

As the facts bluntl state, in the earl hours of 0une )4, )--4, Con/ress actin/ as

the (ational @oard of Can%assers /i%en the authorit to do so under Sec. 3, Article 7 of

the 19"7 Constitution, Section 3-, RA 9369, #roclai&ed 2rs. 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo

/arnerin/ a total of 1), 9-*, "-" %otes a/ainst the 11, 7"), )3) %otes of the #etitioner

Ronald Allan Poe :aa +ernando Poe, 0r;. $es#ite the #ublic unrest the res#ondent side

clai&s, it is e%ident that the +ili#ino #eo#le ha%e reall s#oen throu/h their %otes on5ho the 5ant to re#resent the& in the /o%ern&ent and in the #resent case, it is no

doubt 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo is the one chosen a&on/ the #residential candidates.

She has been dul #roclai&ed b the authoriBed can%assers as 5ell as baced 5ith the

count of %otes that indeed she has 5on the electoral race.

The res#ondent side<s #rotest could ha%e hold 5ater and #rotest 5ould ha%e been

#ossible if the fi/ures as to the %ote count re%ealed that the ha%e /arnered &ore %otes

than 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo ho5e%er, it is as clear as the da that 'loria 2aca#a/al

Arroo obtained &ore nu&ber of %otes ha%in/ 1, 1)3, *76 %ote lead than Ronald Allan

Poe :aa +ernando Poe, 0r.;. !t all the &ore sealed the deal 5ith 'loria 2aca#a/al Arroo 5hen the Con/ress actin/ as the (ational @oard of Can%assers reco/niBed and

dul #roclai&ed her as the 5inner in the #residential electoral race.

As 5hat 0ean 0acues Rousseau refers to as the /eneral 5ill, it &a be said that

'loria 2aca#a/alArroo achie%ed the /eneral 5ill or the true interest of the electorates

coordinatin/ e%erone in the societ.1

1 Rousseau’s General Will and the Ordered Society. Read ore at!

htt"!##$$$.%ue&ecoisli&re.or'#(5#(5(715)16.ht

1(

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050715-16.htm

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050715-16.htm



2. Mrs% !P( cannot s53stit5te the petitioner who died at the pendency of the

Election Protest

There are t5o t#es of election contestF the election #rotest and uo 5arranto.Election #rotest can be filed on the /rounds of fraud, terroris&, irre/ularities, or ille/al

acts, co&&itted before, durin/ or after the castin/ and countin/ of %otes. nl the

candidate 5ho has filed a certificate of candidac and has been %oted u#on for the

sa&e office can file for an election #rotest. hile in uo 5arranto, an re/istered %oter

in the constituenc can file on the /rounds of ineli/ibilit, or disloalt to the Re#ublic of

the Phili##ines. Therefore, in differentiatin/ election #rotest fro& uo 5arranto, it is clear

that 5ith Susan Roces filin/ an election #rotest, her #etition 5ill not #ros#er since it is

clearl stated in Rule 14, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal that

nl the re/istered candidate for President or for icePresident of the

Phili##ines 5ho recei%ed the second or the third hi/hest nu&ber of %otes

&a contest the election of the President or the icePresident b filin/ a

%erified #etition 5ith the Cler of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal 5ithin

3- das after #rocla&ation of 5inner.

Pursuant to the rule, the restriction as to 5ho &a contest the election reflects as to the

real #arties in interest are concernin/ an election contest.

!n the #resent case, the #etitioner, 2rs. +P0 cannot substitute her late husband on the

/rounds that she 5ill re#resent not onl her husband but also the #ara&ount interest of

the +ili#ino #eo#le because she is not the #ro#er #art to re#lace the deceased

#rotestant since a #ublic office is #ersonal and not a #ro#ert that #asses on to the heirs

as stated the case of Vda De Mesa vs. Mencias. Stated also in Vda. De Mesa vs.

Mencias and Lomugdang vs. Javier that the substitution done 5as onl #er&itted since

a %ice&aor is a real #art in interest.

>nlie the #etitioner 2rs. +P0, she cannot substitute her late husband because

under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, onl the re/istered candidates

5ho obtained the )nd and 3rd hi/hest %otes for the #residenc &a contest the election

of the #resident. 2rs. +P0 is not a candidate for such #osition neither she obtained ) nd

or 3rd hi/hest %otes for the #residential office, thus she is not the #ro#er #art to file for

an election #rotest because as accordin/ to Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of the Court

a##lies in the #resent case 5herein the interest 5hich allo5s a #erson to inter%ene in a

11



suit &ust be in the &atter of liti/ation and of such direct and i&&ediate character that

the inter%enor 5ill either /ain or lose b the effect of ud/&ent.

Ronald Allan Poe :aa +ernando Poe, 0r.;<s 5ido5er<s intention &i/ht be laudable as

to her noble intention of ascertainin/ the true 5ill of the electorate ho5e%er, such

intention is not the #oint of reference as to the deter&ination of 5hether a #erson &asubstitute or inter%ene a candidate in an electoral #rotest.

!f #eo#le not real #arties ha%in/ interest or not ha%in/ a substantial /ain fro& the

election contest 5ill be allo5ed to inter%ene in such election #rotest, #roceedin/s &i/ht

beco&e unnecessaril co&#licated, eD#ensi%e and inter&inableG thin/s that are not in

the intent of the la5. !t is therefore &ore #rudent to abide into the eDistin/ strict

li&itations i&#osed on the inter%ention and substitution under the reco/niBed rules and

la5.)

CO$CLUSIO$

2 *n O+er+ie$ o, the -hili""ine lectoral Syste &y *tty. Ryan Rey /uilala0 ha"ter )

lection ontest ".349)35(

12



ith the e%idence #resented b the RET, that 2rs. '2A /arnered a total of 1),

9-*, "-" %otes a/ainst the 11, 7"), )3) of the late #etitioner +P0 and to 2rs. +P0 5ho

#ras to substitute her late husband on the /rounds of re#resentin/ the #ara&ount

interest of the +ili#ino is not #er&itted under the Rules of the Presidential ElectoralTribunal that onl the candidates 5ho /arnered the )nd and 3rd hi/hest %otes can file

for an election #rotest but 2rs. +P0 is not a candidate nor did she /arner the )nd or 3rd

hi/hest %otes for the ffice of the President. Also, she is not the #ro#er #art to to

re#lace her late husband since a #ublic office is #ersonal and not a #ro#ert that #asses

on to the heirs.

Thus, the #etition of 2rs. +P0 shall be dis&issed.

PR+ER

13



!n li/ht of the uestions #resented, ar/u&ents ad%anced, and authorities cited, le/al

counsels of 'loria 2aca#a/alArroo res#ectfull reuest this court to adud/e and

declare that

1. Ronald Allan Poe :aa +ernando Poe, 0r; is not the true 5inner of the )--4

Presidential Elections.

). 2rs. Susan Roces cannot substitute for the #etitioner Ronald Allan Poe :aa

+ernando Poe, 0r; 5ho died durin/ the #endenc of the filed election #rotest.

14

poe vs. arroyo respondent

Documents