Poe v.

Arroyo
P.E.T. Case No. 002
March 29, 2005
Quisumbing, J.
RONALD
ALLAN
POE
a.k.a.
Fernando
Poe
Jr.
(FPJ)
protestant
protestee Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA)

summary GMA was proclaimed winner during the 2004 presidential elections. FPJ filed an
election protest but died during its pendency. His widow sought to be
substituted, claiming paramount interest. The court denied substitution
because public office is not a property right that is transmissible to the heirs of
the deceased and Mrs. FPJ was not a real party in interest as required under
Rule 19 sec 1 of the Rules of Court.

facts of the case

On June 24, 2004, Congress, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed GMA the
duly elected president of the Philippines against FPJ (12.9M vs 11.8M ).
FPJ filed an election protest on July 23, 2004. On December 14, 2004, FPJ died. Despite his
death, periodic mass actions, demonstrations and rallies raised outcries for HRET to decide the
electoral protest.
Together with the formal Notice of the Death of Protestant, his counsel has submitted to the
Tribunal, a MANIFESTATION with URGENT PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
DECEASED PROTESTANT FPJ, by his widow, who signed the verification and certification therein.
Mrs. FPJ: it is of paramount interest that substitution be allowed to ascertain the genuine will
of the people. Citing De Castro v. COMELEC and Lomugdang v. Javier to the effect that death of
protestant is not a ground for dismissal of the contest nor does it oust the trial court of
jurisdiction to decide the election contest.
GMA: cited Vda. De Mesa v. Mencias as well as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) rules
wherein it was held that a widow is not a proper party to replace the deceased protestant since a
public office is personal and not property that can pass on to the heirs.

issue

May the widow substitute for the protestant who died during the pendency of the latters protest
case? NO.

ratio
Rule 14 of PET:
Election Protest. Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of
the Philippines who received the second or third highest number of votes may
contest the election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, by
filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within 30
days after the proclamation of the winner.
Only 2nd and 3rd placers may contest the election:
By this express enumeration, the rule makers have in effect determined the real parties in
interest concerning an on-going election contest. It envisioned a scenario where, if the
declared winner had not been truly voted upon by the electorate, the candidate who
received that 2nd or the 3rd highest number of votes would be the legitimate beneficiary in
a successful election contest.

There is not rule on substitution for PET but it allows for analogous and suppletory
application of the Rules of Court, decisions of the Supreme Court and of electoral tribunals.
As Applied: Public Office is personal and not property that is transmissible to the heirs.
Thus, the court has consistently rejected substitution by widow or heirs in election
contests where protestant dies during pendency of the case.
Vda. De Mesa v. Mencias: recognized substitution upon the death of the protestee but
denied substitution by the widow or heirs since they are not the real parties in interest.
BUT an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or
to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all
authority to continue the protest proceedings. Hence, we have allowed
substitution and intervention but only by a real party in interest. A real party in
interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the
party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Substitution by the vice-mayor
(VM) is permitted since the VM is a real party in interest considering that if the
protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the VM succeeds to the office
of the mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office.
2 aspects of contests before electoral tribunal:
1. In pursuit of ones right to office
2. Imbued with public interest
Though Public Interest is involved, rules still have to be followed.
Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is the applicable rule on intervention in the
absence of such a rule in the PET Rules. In such intervention, 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 the effect of the
judgment.
As Applied: movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, herself denies any claim to the august office of
President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, we can conclude that protestants
widow is not a real party in interest to this election protest. No real parties such as the
vice-presidential aspirants in the 2004 elections, have come forward to intervene, or to be
substituted for the deceased protestant. In our view, if persons not real parties in the
action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will be unnecessarily complicated,
expensive and interminable and this is not the policy of the law. It is far more prudent to
abide by the existing strict limitations on intervention and substitution under the law and
the rules.