6-month deadline eyed to resolve poll protests

The Supreme Court is eyeing a review of the rules governing the courts’ handling of electoral protests to include the mandatory resolution of cases within six months and automatic rejection of poll protests from candidates who ranked third or lower in the counting of votes.

The new guidelines, if approved, are expected to facilitate the courts’ handling of electoral protests after the May 14 elections, according to Leila de Lima, a member of the sub-committee under the committee on Revision of the Rules of Courts.

The SC formed the committee recently to prepare the proposed rules, which are intended to cover election cases under the jurisdiction of first and second level courts.

The SC is expected to meet en banc before the May elections to discuss the proposed rules, which were submitted by the De Lima group to the SC last Friday.

De Lima said that under the proposed rules, "the regular trial court should be able to decide the protest case within 30 days from the date that the case is submitted for resolution and in no case beyond six months from the date of the filing of the protest unless extension is granted by the Supreme Court."

"If the case cannot be finished in six months, the judge will have to get an authority from the Supreme Court to extend his decision making. Otherwise, he will be relieved of all his duties except to decide the case," she said.

Earlier in a memorandum order, the SC designated retired justice and former Commission on Elections chair Bernardo Pardo as sub- committee chair.

Aside from De Lima, the other members of the sub-committee are retired Court of Appeals justice Oscar Herrera Sr., who authored a six-volume treatise on remedial law; CA Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, herself a former Comelec commissioner; and, election lawyers Romulo Macalintal, Sixto Brillantes Jr. and Pete Quadra.

The sub-committee was created after Macalintal, Brillantes, Quadra, and De Lima called Puno’s attention to alleged anomalies in the trial courts regarding their handling of poll cases.

De Lima said that under the new rules only "meritorious cases" would be entertained by the courts.

"Fourth and fifth placers cannot file (election protests) anymore," De Lima said.

She said the rules ensure that election cases will not drag on. "Some periods have been shortened while many were made inextendible," she noted.

"In the filing of the answer (to protests), we have recommended prohibiting pleadings such as motion to dismiss, memoranda, motion for extension, postponement, even motion for inhibition except on clearly valid grounds," she said.

She also said that under the new rules, "a protestant should prove that his protest is meritorious after a revised or recount of ballot."

She added the proposed rules limit to 20 working days the period within which evidence may be presented.

"The longer the case stays in court, the more the opportunity for shenanigans among judges," she explained.

"We have noticed judges delivering questionable, dubious decisions," De Lima pointed out.

"They declare ballots allegedly invalid for various reasons such as being marked or allegedly having been done by one or two persons yet when we examined copies of the ballots, we found no basis for the findings," she said.

The proposed rules would also require the judge hearing a poll case to "personally examine the ballots before he renders judgment."

"Hopefully the Supreme Court will adopt all our proposals. We understand from Chief Justice Puno that he is going to call a special en banc session just to consider and examine and hopefully approve and adopt the proposals in time for the elections," she said.

"After the May 14 elections, there will be many electoral protests so the new rules will apply," she noted.