SET Case No. 002-87 (FIRDAUSI ISMAIL ABBAS, HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, ALEJANDRO D. ALMENDRAS, ABUL KAHYR D. ALONTO, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, RENE G. ESPINA, JOSEPH MARCELO E. ESTRADA, WILSON P. GAMBOA, ROILO S. GOLEZ, ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, EVA R. ESTRADA-KALAW, WENCESLAO R. LAGUMBAY, VICENTE P. MAGSAYSAY, JEREMIAS U. MONTEMAYOR, BLAS F. OPLE, RAFAEL P. PALMARES, ZOSIMO JESUS M. PAREDES, JR., VICENTE G. PUYAT, EDITH N. RABAT, ISIDRO S. RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, LORENZO G. TEVES, ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, and FERNANDO S. VELOSO, Petitioners, versus HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AGAPITO A. AQUINO, NEPTALI A. GONZALES, TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ERNESTO F. HERRERA, SOTERO H. LAUREL, JOSE D. LINA, JR., ERNESTO M. MACEDA, RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, ORLANDO S. MERCADO, JOHN H. OSMEŇA, VICENTE PATERNO, AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., SANTANINA T. RASUL, ALBERTO C. ROMULO, RENE AUGUSTO V. SAGUISAG, JOVITO R. SALONGA, LETICIA R. SHAHANI, MAMINTAL J. TAMANO, WIGBERTO E. TAŇADA, and VICTOR SAN ANDRES ZIGA, Respondents)
Election Protest: The election protest was filed on 09 October 1987 to contest the results of the 11 May 1987 Senatorial elections. Petitioners were the official candidates of the Opposition Coalition known as Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD), while the Respondents were the official candidates of the Administration Coalition known as Lakas ng Bayan (LABAN). Except for Petitioner Estrada (Ranked #14) and Petitioner Enrile (Ranked #24), the rest of the Petitioners lost in the election. Although Estrada and Enrile were proclaimed winners, they joined the protest because they believed that were it not for the alleged massive electoral frauds and irregularities that attended the election, they would have garnered substantially more votes that were actually credited to them by the COMELEC.
As required by the Rules of the Tribunal, the Petitioners submitted a partial list of their pilot precincts on 19 January 1990. This was, however, followed by five (5) successive motions from Petitioners, requesting extensions of time to revise and bring up to date their partial list of pilot precincts for purposes of the initial revision of ballots.
Acting on the fifth motion, the Tribunal observed: “to grant the last extension applied for (180 days from July 13, 1991) would mean putting off initial revision until January 13, 1992 – and very probably, much later, if the time would take to have the ballot boxes and election materials from the pilot precincts identified in the revised list collected and transported to the Tribunal is taken into account. Given the fact that this contest on its merits faces problems of time constraints of the same insuperable character as those that had contemporaneously set in, albeit from a different cause, in SET Case No. 001-87 (Sanchez vs. Enrile/Rasul) and had seriously jeopardized the possibility of completing initial revision proceedings therein before said date, even if these could have been immediately started.” The Tribunal concluded: “Submission of such list, even if done immediately or well before the expiry of the extension sought, would no longer serve any useful purpose.”
Status: The fifth motion for extension of time to submit a revised list of pilot precincts was denied and the case was dismissed in the Tribunal Resolution promulgated on 16 August 1991, it no longer being possible to proceed and resolve the case on the merits before the lapse of the prescribed terms of the contested offices, thereby rendering any such resolution merely moot and academic.