Abayon v HRET
the votes cast in the precincts and it was impossible to distinguish
Facts:
PARTIES INVOLVED
 Petitioner Harlin Abayon – running for the position of
Representative of the First Legislative District of Northern Samar.
 Respondent HRET
 Respondent Raul Daza – also running for the position of
Representative of the First Legislative District of Northern Samar.
HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED:
 In the May 13, 2013 elections, out of the 332 clustered precincts in
the First District of N.S, Abayon garnered the majority vote. On May
17, 2013, Abayon was duly proclaimed as a member of the HoR.
 On May 31, 2013, Daza filed his Election Protest challenging the
election results in 25 precincts in the Municipalities of Biri, Capul,
Catarman, Lavezares, San Isidro and Victoria. He alleged that there
was massive fraud, vote-buying and that terrorism was committed
by Abayon and his supporters.
 On Aug 1, 2013, Abayon filed his verified answer with a counter-
protest, where he challenged the results in ALL precincts.
 On Feb 27, HRET conducted revision proceedings in the 25
precincts protested by Daza. Abayon was still the winner here.
Thereafter, Daza moved for the withdrawal of his cause of action for
the recount and revision but maintained his prayer for the
annulment of election results on the ground of terrorism.
HRET granted Daza’s motion. HRET annulled the election results in 5
precincts because of the commission of massive terrorism. When
HRET deducted the votes from the precincts, Daza was the winner.
 This decision was supported by testimonial and documentary
evidence (in good to know concepts) presented by Daza, which the
HRET found as convincing.
 HRET disregarded the certifications issued by the Provinsial
Election Supervisor Atty. Gulay Jr. and P/Ssupt. Lenaming ,
indicating that there was no failure of elections and that the conduct
was generally peaceful despite the occurrence of two incidents,
because they were not presented to testify.
 HRET concluded that since the terrorism affected more than 50% of
from the good votes from the bad, the annulment was warranted.
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER:
 The HRET had no jurisdiction to nullify the election results since it
was akin to a declaration of failure of elections, it was under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC pursuant to Sec. 4 of RA
7166.
 Even if HRET had jurisdiction, there was no clear and convincing
evidence to establish that terrorism affected more than 50% of the
votes, and that it was impossible to distinguish the good votes from
the bad. He relies on the certifications of COMELEC and PNP.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT:
 HRET had jurisdiction.
 There was clear and convincing evidence to justify the annulment.
Hence this petition for Certiorari
ISSUE:
 WON HRET had jurisdiction over the annulment of elections
(YES)
 If HRET had jurisdiction, WON HRET had grounds to annul the
elections. (NO)
Ruling:
YES. The power to annul elections is Constitutionally granted to the
HRET by virtue of Sec 17, Article VI.
 An Election Protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from
office. It is a contest between the winning candidate and the
defeated candidate, based on frauds or irregularities.
 The power of HRET to annul elections differ from the power granted
to the COMELEC to declare failure of elections. The power granted
by the Constitution necessarily includes those which raise the issue
 of fraud and terrorism to warrant the annulment.
 First, the power granted to COMELEC is under its administrative
function. While the power of the HRET is an incident of its judicial
function. Second, HRET only annuls election results connected with
the election contest brought to it, while the COMELEC declares the
failure of the ENTIRE election.
 Therefore, there was no overlap of jurisdiction, and HRET has
jurisdiction.
- Comics vilifying them were distributed
- “pulong-pulongs” were hold where NDF-EV exhorted the
attendees to vote against Daza
- His supporters from Liberal Party were prevented from
campaigning
- Abayon had meetings with NDF-EV officials
- NDF-EV armed partisans were deployed around the school
premises on election day

NO. Annulment of elections is only warranted in exceptional  Requisites

circumstances. This case does not warrant the annulment. - Illegality of the ballots must affect MORE THAN 50% of the
votes cast on the specific precinct/s sought to be annulled, or
 There are two indispensable requisites that must concur in order to
in case of the entire municipality, more than 50% of its total
justify the nullification (good to know concepts).
precincts and the votes cast therein
 None of the ballots of the witnesses of the respondent were - It is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty
subjected to terroristic acts. between the lawful and unlawful ballots.
 No evidence was presented which directly points to the petitioner
as the one perpetrated the commission of the terroristic acts.
 There was also no report from the PNP to the COMELEC of the
commission of massive terrorism, as provided for in Comelec
resolution 9583.
 The other witnesses only testified that there was violence
committed by the NDF-EV but not the fact that they voted for
Abayon because of fear.

The certification of the COMELEC and PNP should be given weight

against the unsubstantiated claims of Daza since the presumption is
that it was issued in the regular performance of their duties.

 Therefore, the decision of the HRET to annul the election was

clearly unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the decision of the HRET is reversed and set aside.
Abayon is declared as the lawfully elected Representative.

GOOD TO KNOW CONCEPTS:

 Evidence presented by Daza:

- National Democratic Front -Easter Visayas had already shown
its animosity and hostility towards Daza through posting of
statements declaring them as enemies of the people of Samar.