University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

Department of Political Science

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

RONALD ALLAN POE a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.,

VS.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

TABOTABO, TRISHA RAE

TAMPUS, MARY GRACE
TUMULAK, RAISAH DIVINA IGNACIA

MARCH 2015
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT

PAGE

Cover Page

Table of Contents

Index of Authorities

Statement of Jurisdiction

Questions Presented

Statement of Facts

Summary of Arguments

Arguments/ Pleadings

10

Conclusion

14

Prayer

15

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Legal Basis
Rule 14 of Presidential Electoral Tribunal Rules
Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court
R.A. 1793
Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

Cases
De Castro v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 125249, 7 February 1997, 267 SCRA
806, 809.
Lomugdang v. Javier. No. L-27535, 30 September 1967, 21 SCRA 402.
Vda. de Mesa v Mencias. No. L-24583, 29 October 1966, 18 SCRA 533.
Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos. P.E.T. Case No. 001, 13 February 1996, 253 SCRA 559.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
3

The Petitioner Ronald Allan Poe and the Respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
accept the jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to handle this election
protest case in pursuant to Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and
R.A. 1793 and Republic Act No. 1793 where an Independent Electoral Tribunal has the
jurisdiction to try, hear and decide protests contesting the election of the President-elect
of the Philippines and providing for the manner of hearing the same.
Hereby, both sides submit this case at hand to the Honorable Court.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

Whether or not the late FPJ is the true winner in the 2004 Presidential Elections?

II.

Whether or not the widow, Mrs. Susan Roces can substitute for the petitioner
who died at the pendency of the election protest?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The petitioner and movie actor Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ)
ran in the presidential elections in May 10, 2004 and garnered 11,782,232 votes for the
second-placer. The respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was the proclaimed the
winner in a near-unanimous roll-call vote as the duly elected President of the Philippines
with 12,905,808 votes. She took her Oath of Office before the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court on June 30, 2004.
Refusing to concede defeat and believing that there was an anomaly in the May
2004, Mr. Ronald Allan Poe (aka FPJ) filed and election protest before this Electoral
Tribunal on July 23, 2004. Mrs, GMA, through counsel, filed her Answer with Counter
Protest on August 5, 2004.
A fortuitous event happened on December 14, 2004 where Mr. FPJ died in the
course of his medical treatment at St. Lukes Hospital. The counsel of the protestant
filed a medical certificate as Notice of Death of the Protestant showing that he died of
cardio-pulmonary arrest, secondary to cerebral infarction. Also, the said counsel
submitted to the Tribunal, dated January 10, 2005, a MANIFESTATION with URGENT
PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE as a SUBSTITUTE for DECEASED PROTESTANT
FPJ, by the widow and cinema star, Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe a.k.a. Susan Roces, who
signed the verification and certification therein.
Mrs. FPJ also known as Susan Roces as movant/intervenor claimed that there is
an urgent need for her to continue and substitute for her late husband in the election
protest initiated by him in order to ascertain the true and genuine will of the electorate in
the 2004 elections. In support of her assertion, she cites De Castro v. COMELEC and
Lomugdang v. Javier, that death of the protestant does not constitute a ground for the
dismissal of the contest nor oust the trial court of the jurisdiction to decide the election
contest.
Importantly, she stresses that she is cognizant that as a mere substitute she
cannot succeed, assume or be entitled to said elective office, and her utmost concern is
not personal but one that involves the publics interest. She prays that if Mrs. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo be determined that she did not actually win in the elections, then she
should be disallowed from remaining in office.

Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo however, asserts in her Comment relying on Vda.

de Mesa v Mencias and Abadilla v. Ablan cases that Mrs. FPJ is not the proper party
and does not have the legal right to substitute her husband since a public office is
personal and not a property that passes on to the heirs. This is clearly stipulated under
the Rule 14 of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) Rules that only 2 nd and 3rd
highest votes for presidency may contest the election of the president. She stresses that
this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over actions of surviving spouses to ascertain the vote
of the electorate as the Tribunal has jurisdiction only over election protests and quo
warranto cases.
She contends that Mrs. FPJ cannot use the public interest to justify her request
to be substituted for her husband because it is applicable only in election contests, not
in an action to merely ascertain the true and genuine will of the people. She asserts
that this Tribunal should recognize an election protest involving a protestant and a
protestee, not between the electorate and the protestee. Further citing DefensorSantiago v. Ramos, she adds that if the Tribunal can dismiss an electoral case based on
technicality, all the more it could for a stronger reason, that of protestants death.
Mrs. FPJ in her Reply posits that the protest having been commenced cannot be
abated by the death of the protestant and the only real issue is the determination of the
proper substitute keeping in mind that public interest remains. Additionally, she
contradicts protestee and insists that allowing any voter to substitute just like in a quo
warranto will not open the floodgate to whimsical protests, and the imagined political
instability feared by protestee will even more be pronounced if the protest is dismissed.
The movant/intervenor also contends that the issue at hand involves just the
continuation of proceedings by allowing substitution and the taking over by the
substitute of the prosecution of the protest already duly commenced.
The oracular function of this Presidential Electoral Tribunal needs to be fully
exercised to make manifest the Filipino voters here and abroad as to who is the duly
elected leader of the Filipino nation.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

One of the grounds invoked by the petitioner is that election protest is to be pursued
against the side of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with the belief that Ronald Allan Poe (aka
Fernando Poe) is the true winner in the 2004 Presidential Elections. It is to be
remembered however, as to the enlightenment of the facts of the case, that past
midnight of June 24, 2004, the Congress, acting as the National Board of Canvassers
given the authority to do so under Sec. 3, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution, Section 30,
RA 9369, proclaimed Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the candidate elected as President of
the Philippines. The public unrest the petitioner side claims does not hold water due to
the noticeable and blunt fact that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has garnered 12, 905, 808
votes against Ronald Allan Poe (aka Fernando Poe)s 11,782,232 votes. The people
have spoken and the Congress have acknowledged it therefore it cannot be said that
Ronald Allan Poe is the winner of the 2004 Presidential Elections.

Moreover, Susan Roces, the widower of the deceased candidate Ronald Allan Poe (aka
Fernando Poe Jr.) cannot substitute petitioner for the continuing of the election protest
filed before the Court. Rule 14, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal states that:

Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of the

Philippines who received the second or the third highest number of votes may
contest the election of the President or the Vice-President by filing a verified
petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within 30 days after
proclamation of winner.

Pursuant to the rule, the restriction as to who may contest the election reflects as to the
real parties in interest are concerning an election contest.

Also, Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of the Court applies in the present case wherein
the interest which allows a person to intervene in a suit must be in the matter of litigation
and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by
8

the effect of judgment. Therefore, Susan Roces, who did not receive the 2 nd or the 3rd
highest votes for she was not a candidate in the presidential election race, cannot
substitute Ronald Allan Poe (aka Fernando Poe).

ARGUMENTS

1. Ronald Allan Poe (aka Fernando Poe Jr.) is not the true winner in the 2004
Presidential Elections.

As the facts bluntly state, in the early hours of June 24, 2004, Congress acting as
the National Board of Canvassers given the authority to do so under Sec. 3, Article 7 of
the 1987 Constitution, Section 30, RA 9369, proclaimed Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
garnering a total of 12, 905, 808 votes against the 11, 782, 232 votes of the petitioner
Ronald Allan Poe (aka Fernando Poe, Jr). Despite the public unrest the respondent side
claims, it is evident that the Filipino people have really spoken through their votes on
who they want to represent them in the government and in the present case, it is no
doubt Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the one chosen among the presidential candidates.
She has been duly proclaimed by the authorized canvassers as well as backed with the
count of votes that indeed she has won the electoral race.
The respondent sides protest could have hold water and protest would have been
possible if the figures as to the vote count revealed that they have garnered more votes
than Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo however, it is as clear as the day that Gloria MacapagalArroyo obtained more number of votes having 1, 123, 576 vote lead than Ronald Allan
Poe (aka Fernando Poe, Jr.). It all the more sealed the deal with Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo when the Congress acting as the National Board of Canvassers recognized and
duly proclaimed her as the winner in the presidential electoral race.
As what Jean Jacques Rousseau refers to as the general will, it may be said that
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo achieved the general will or the true interest of the electorates
coordinating everyone in the society.1

Rousseaus General Will and the Ordered Society. Read more at:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050715-16.htm

10

2. Mrs. FPJ cannot substitute the petitioner who died at the pendency of the

Election Protest

There are two types of election contest; the election protest and quo warranto.
Election protest can be filed on the grounds of fraud, terrorism, irregularities, or illegal
acts, committed before, during or after the casting and counting of votes. Only the
candidate who has filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted upon for the
same office can file for an election protest. While in quo warranto, any registered voter
in the constituency can file on the grounds of ineligibility, or disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines. Therefore, in differentiating election protest from quo warranto, it is clear
that with Susan Roces filing an election protest, her petition will not prosper since it is
clearly stated in Rule 14, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal that:

Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of the

Philippines who received the second or the third highest number of votes
may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President by filing a
verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within
30 days after proclamation of winner.

Pursuant to the rule, the restriction as to who may contest the election reflects as to the
real parties in interest are concerning an election contest.
In the present case, the petitioner, Mrs. FPJ cannot substitute her late husband on the
grounds that she will represent not only her husband but also the paramount interest of
the Filipino people because she is not the proper party to replace the deceased
protestant since a public office is personal and not a property that passes 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 was only permitted since
a vice-mayor is a real party in interest.
Unlike the petitioner Mrs. FPJ, she cannot substitute her late husband because
under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, only the registered candidates
who obtained the 2nd and 3rd highest votes for the presidency may contest the election
of the president. Mrs. FPJ is not a candidate for such position neither she obtained 2 nd
or 3rd highest votes for the presidential office, thus she is not the proper party to file for
an election protest because as according to Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of the Court
applies in the present case wherein the interest which allows a person to intervene in a
11

suit must be in the matter of litigation and of such direct and immediate character that
the intervenor will either gain or lose by the effect of judgment.
Ronald Allan Poe (aka Fernando Poe, Jr.)s widowers intention might be laudable as
to her noble intention of ascertaining the true will of the electorate however, such
intention is not the point of reference as to the determination of whether a person may
substitute or intervene a candidate in an electoral protest.
If people not real parties having interest or not having a substantial gain from the
election contest will be allowed to intervene in such election protest, proceedings might
become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable things that are not in
the intent of the law. It is therefore more prudent to abide into the existing strict
limitations imposed on the intervention and substitution under the recognized rules and
law.2

CONCLUSION

An Overview of the Philippine Electoral System by Atty. Ryan Rey Quilala, Chapter XIVElection Contest p.349-350

12

With the evidence presented by the HRET, that Mrs. GMA garnered a total of 12,
905, 808 votes against the 11, 782, 232 of the late petitioner FPJ and to Mrs. FPJ who
prays to substitute her late husband on the grounds of representing the paramount
interest of the Filipino is not permitted under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal that only the candidates who garnered the 2nd and 3rd highest votes can file
for an election protest but Mrs. FPJ is not a candidate nor did she garner the 2nd or 3rd
highest votes for the Office of the President. Also, she is not the proper party to to
replace her late husband since a public office is personal and not a property that passes
on to the heirs.
Thus, the petition of Mrs. FPJ shall be dismissed.

PRAYER

13

In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, legal
counsels of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo respectfully request this court to adjudge and
declare that:

1. Ronald Allan Poe (aka Fernando Poe, Jr) is not the true winner of the 2004
Presidential Elections.

2. Mrs. Susan Roces cannot substitute for the petitioner Ronald Allan Poe (aka
Fernando Poe, Jr) who died during the pendency of the filed election protest.

14