Dimaporo V Hret Essay

August 6, 2017 Law

This is a request brought by Congressman Dimaporo seeking to invalidate the duplicate Resolutions of the HRET which denied his Gesture for Technical Evaluation of the Thumbmarks and Signatures Affixed in the Voters Registration Records and Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution Denying the Gesture for Technical Examination of Voting Records.

Pursuant to the 1998 HRET Rules Congressional campaigner Mangotara Petition of Protest ( Ad Cautelam ) seeking the proficient scrutiny of the signatures and hitchhike the protested precincts of the municipality of Sultan Naga Dimaporo ( SND ) . Mangotara alleged that the monolithic permutation of electors and other electoral abnormalities perpetrated by Dimaporo’s protagonists will be uncovered and proven. From this and other premises. he concluded that he is the duly-elected representative of the 2nd District of Lanao del Norte.

Noting that “the Tribunal can non measure the questioned ballots because there are no ballots but lone election paperss to consider” HRET granted Mangotara’s gesture and permitted the latter to prosecute an expert to help him in prosecution of the instance. NBI conducted the proficient scrutiny.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

ISSUE:1. W/N Dimaporo was deprived by HRET of Equal Protection when the latter denied his gesture for proficient scrutiny.

2. W/N Dimaporo was deprived of procedural due procedure or the right to show scientific grounds to demo the monolithic replacement vote committed in counter protested precincts.

RULING:1. Resolution of HRET did non pique equal protection clause. Equal protection merely means that all individuals and things likewise situated must be treated likewise both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. It follows that the being of a valid and significant differentiation justifies divergent intervention.

Harmonizing to Dimaporo since the ballot boxes topic of his request and that of Mangotara were both unavailable for alteration. his gesture. like
Mangotara’s. should be granted.

The statement fails to take into history the differentiations extant in Mangotara’s protest vis-a-vis Dimaporo’s counter-protest which validate the grant of Mangotara’s gesture and the denial of Dimaporo’s.

First. The election consequences in SND were the exclusive topics of Mangotara’s protest. The opposite is true with respect to Dimaporo’s counter-protest as he contested the election consequences in all municipalities but SND. Significantly. the consequences of the proficient scrutiny of the election records of SND are deciding of the concluding result of the election protest against Dimaporo. The same can non be said of the precincts topic of Dimaporo’s gesture.

It should be emphasized that the grant of a gesture for proficient scrutiny is capable to the sound discretion of the HRET. In this instance. the Tribunal deemed it utile in the behavior of the alteration proceedings to allow Mangotara’s gesture for proficient scrutiny. Conversely. it found Dimaporo’s gesture unpersuasive and consequently denied the same. In so making. the HRET simply acted within the bounds of its Constitutionally-granted legal power. After all. the Fundamental law confers full authorization on the electoral courts of the House of Representatives and the Senate as the exclusive Judgess of all competitions associating to the election. returns. and makings of their several members. Such legal power is original and sole.

2. Anent Dimaporo’s contention that the assailed Resolutions denied him the right to procedural due procedure and to show grounds to confirm his claim of monolithic replacement vote committed in the counter-protested precincts. suffice it to province that the HRET itself may determine the cogency of Dimaporo’s allegations without resort to proficient scrutiny. To this terminal. the Tribunal declared that the ballots. election paperss and other election gears are still capable to its examination in the grasp of grounds.

It should be noted that the records are full with grounds. documental and testimonial. presented by Dimaporo. Dimaporo’s allegation of denial of due procedure is an untenable pretence.


I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out