PROTESTANT’S MEMORANDUM (for the Pilot Areas) by Koko Pimentel

Republic of the Philippines Senate Electoral Tribunal Quezon City

Aquilino L. Pimentel III, Protestant, - versus -

SET Case No. 001 – 07

Juan Miguel F. Zubiri, Protestee. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PROTESTANT’S MEMORANDUM (for the Pilot Areas) COMES NOW the Protestant, by himself, unto this Honorable Tribunal most respectfully submits his Memorandum on the Pilot Areas, to wit:

INTRODUCTION 1.

In SET Resolution No. 07-06 the parties herein were required to

designate the so-called “Pilot Areas”.1 2.

In compliance therewith, the Protestant designated his “Pilot Areas” as

enumerated in Table 1, together with the number of precincts involved: Table 1. Protestant‟s Pilot Areas with Number of Precincts Involved Number of Precincts Pilot Areas Involved Ampatuan, Maguindanao 54* Buluan, Maguindanao 53* Guindulungan, Maguindanao 24* Paglat, Maguindanao 28* Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 198* Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 147* 1

Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal provides “Pilot Precincts; Initial Revision. – Any provision of these Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, as soon as the issues in any contest before it have been joined, the Tribunal may direct and require each of the protestants, counterprotestants and cross-protestants, if any, to state and designate in writing, within a fixed period, the provinces, with their municipalities and cities, which correspond to at most twenty-five (25%) percent of the total number involved in the protests, counter-protests and cross protests, as the case may be, which said parties deem as best exemplifying or demonstrating the electoral frauds pleaded by each of them; and the revision of the ballots and reception of evidence shall begin with such pilot provinces or cities thus designated. xxx" * Representing or covering the entire municipality.

Salvador, Lanao del Norte Matungao, Lanao del Norte Tapul, Sulu TOTAL PRECINCTS INVOLVED 3.

89* 40* 31* 664

In November 2007, the SET commenced the collection of the ballot

boxes involved in this Protest. All the 664 ballot boxes involved in the “Pilot Areas” were collected. 4.

In January 8 to 22, 2008, revision proceedings in the Protestant‟s “Pilot

Areas” were conducted and completed. 5.

In February and March 2008, the Protestant presented his witnesses.

II. THE PARTIES’ STARTING VOTE TOTALS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROTEST 6.

For purposes of this Protest, there is a need to determine the correct

“starting vote totals” for both the Protestant and the Protestee. 7.

According to the Comelec en banc sitting as the National Board of

Canvassers for the May 14, 2007 National Elections (henceforth referred to as “NBC”), in NBC Resolution No. 07-67 dated July 14, 2007, the parties herein had the following total number of votes upon Protestee Zubiri‟s contested proclamation: Table 2. The Parties‟ Proclamation Vote Totals pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-67 dated July 14, 2007 Zubiri, Juan Miguel F. 11,004,099 Pimentel, Aquilino III L. 10,984,807 II-A. WRONG ARMM VOTE TOTALS LEAD TO WRONG NATIONAL VOTE TOTALS 8.

The herein parties‟ total number of votes mentioned in NBC Resolution

No. 07-67 dated July 14, 2007 were taken from Senatorial Canvass Report No. 30 where the herein parties were credited with the following vote totals in the ARMM region, to wit:

Table 3. The Parties‟ ARMM Regional Vote Totals under Senatorial Canvass Report No. 302 Zubiri, Juan Miguel F. 519,225 Pimentel, Aquilino III L. 332,100 9.

However, the ARMM vote totals mentioned above are wrong. In

Senatorial Canvass Report No. 30, in the column for the Supplemental Provincial Certificate of Canvass (“PCOC”) of the Province of Basilan, Protestant Pimentel was credited with only 1,449 votes while Protestee Zubiri was credited with only 2,274 votes.3 This Supplemental PCOC of Basilan covered the election results in the whole municipality of Sumisip (regular election) and three precincts in Akbar (where special elections were held). But Protestant Pimentel got 5,709 votes and Protestee Zubiri got 5,266 in these areas as reflected in the Supplemental PCOC of Basilan.4 Hence, there was under-crediting of 4,260 votes5 for Protestant Pimentel in his ARMM vote total and likewise an under-crediting of 2,992 votes for Protestee Zubiri. (The undercrediting prejudiced Protestant Pimentel more than Protestee Zubiri.) 10.

Hence, the herein parties‟ correct vote totals in the ARMM region are

as follows: Table 4. The Parties‟ ARMM Regional Vote Totals After Correction Zubiri, Juan Miguel F. 522,217 Pimentel, Aquilino III L. 336,360 11.

The correction of the ARMM vote totals will necessarily lead to the

correction of the National vote totals of the parties‟ herein, to wit: Table 5. The Parties‟ Proclamation Vote Totals After Correction of the ARMM Region Vote Totals Zubiri, Juan Miguel F. 11,007,091 Pimentel, Aquilino III L. 10,989,067 Presumptive Lead of Protestee Zubiri Over Protestant Pimentel at 18,024 votes the Time of Zubiri’s Proclamation

Exhs. “A” and “A-1”. See Exh. “C”, the column with heading “BASILAN Akbar/Sumisip”. 4 See Exh. “E-6”, the column for “Grand Total Votes Received”. 5 5,709 minus 1,449. 3

II-B.

ELECTION RESULTS AFTER PROTESTEE ZUBIRI‟S PROCLAMATION 12.

To establish the correct baseline figures in this Protest, we have to also

consider the votes garnered by the herein parties in special elections held after the contested proclamation of Protestee Zubiri. 13.

Special elections were held after the proclamation of Protestee Zubiri in

the following areas with the following results: Table 6. Results of Special Elections After Protestee Zubiri‟s Proclamation on July 14, 2007 Area (all in Lanao Number of Zubiri Votes Pimentel Votes del Norte) Precincts Bacolod 3 255 5 Kauswagan 2 518 2 Maigo 3 58 98 Pantar 46 936 2,435* TOTAL 54 1,767 2,540 14.

Thus, the parties herein should start this Protest with the following vote

totals, indicated below: Table 7. The Parties‟ Starting Vote Totals for Purposes of this Protest Corrected Plus: Results of Starting Vote Proclamation Special Total for this Vote Total Elections Protest Zubiri, Juan 11,007,091 1,767 11,008,858 Miguel F. Pimentel, 10,989,067 2,540 10,991,607 Aquilino III L. Presumptive Lead of Protestee Zubiri Over 17,251 votes Protestant Pimentel at the Start of this Protest 15.

Therefore, the presumptive lead of Protestee Zubiri over Protestant

Pimentel at the start of this Protest is only 17,251 votes.

III. RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL COUNTING OF VOTES IN THE “PILOT AREAS” 16.

Before the SET, all the 664 ballot boxes representing the “Pilot Areas”

were revised. Revision proceedings included the physical counting of votes from the ballots found inside these boxes, if any.

Representing or covering the entire municipality.

17.

In order to keep track of the running total number of votes of the parties

herein pursuant to the physical counting of votes in the “Pilot Areas”, their total number of votes in the “Pilot Areas” which have been officially carried over to their National vote totals must be subtracted from their starting vote totals. 18.

The Table below shows the total number of votes of the parties herein

in the “Pilot Areas” which have been carried over to their National vote totals during the NBC canvassing, to wit: Table 8. The Parties‟ Vote Totals in the Pilot Areas per NBC Figures Pilot Areas Zubiri Pimentel Ampatuan, Maguindanao 10,205 1,240 Buluan, Maguindanao 9,635 321 Guindulungan, Maguindanao 4,579 1,071 Paglat, Maguindanao 4,401 768 Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 33,888 2,791 Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 24,560 114 Salvador, Lanao del Norte 15,797 402 Matungao, Lanao del Norte 3,862 884 Tapul, Sulu 4,001 76 TOTAL 110,928 7,667 19.

Before the physical counting of votes therefore in the “Pilot Areas”, the

parties herein had the following total number of votes un-involved in or un-affected by the “Pilot Areas”, to wit: Table 9. The Parties‟ Total Number of Votes Before the Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the “Pilot Areas” Zubiri Pimentel Starting Vote Total for this Protest 11,008,858 10,991,607 LESS: Number of Votes Obtained in the -110,928 -7,667 “Pilot Areas” per NBC Results Total Number of Votes Before the Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 10,897,930 10,983,940 “Pilot Areas” (1)

Ampatuan, Maguindanao 20.

In the pilot area of Ampatuan, Maguindanao, all the ballot boxes of the

54 pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised.

21.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 54 precincts of

Ampatuan, Maguindanao are as follows: Table 10. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 54 Precincts of Ampatuan, Maguindanao Precinct No.

Zubiri

Pimentel

Precinct No.

Zubiri

Pimentel

1A & 1B

230

25A

192

188

26A

187

195

27A & 27B

253

192

28A

190

29A

120

193

30A & 30B

175

183

31A

187

193

31B

188

32A

190

189

33A

170

10A & 10B

189

33B

195

11A

197

34A & 34B

118

12A

179

35A

193

13A

186

36A

185

14A & 14B

277

37A

170

15A & 15B

194

38A

166

16A

190

39A

186

17A

185

39B

182

18A

189

40A

178

18B

171

41A

189

19A

182

41B & 42B

272

19B

132

42A

195

20A

192

43A

158

21A

190

43B

198

22A

179

44A

181

23A

191

44B

127

24A

192

45A

125

TOTAL

9,880

1,174

22.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Ampatuan, Maguindanao: Table 11. Comparison of Vote Figures in Ampatuan, Maguindanao NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total) SET Physical Count Difference

Zubiri

Pimentel

10,205

1,240

9,880

1,174

-325

-66

23.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.6

(2)

Buluan, Maguindanao 24.

In the pilot area of Buluan, Maguindanao, all the ballot boxes of the 53

pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. 25.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 53 precincts of

Buluan, Maguindanao are as follows: Table 12. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 53 Precincts of Buluan, Maguindanao Precinct No.

Zubiri

Pimentel

Precinct No.

Zubiri

Pimentel

1A & 3A

199

40A & 43A

132

145

41A

159

4A & 4B

200

44A

178

5A & 5B

238

45A

187

167

46A & 46B

258

7A & 8A

184

47A

182

183

48A

183

10A & 13A

181

49A & 49B

184

11A & 14A

196

50A

130

12A & 12B

208

51A

170

15A & 15B

233

51B & 51C

234

16A

162

52A & 53A

178

16B

168

54A & 55A

195

17A & 18A

56A & 57A

208

19A & 20A

150

58A & 59A

280

21A

145

60A & 60B

237

22A & 23A

166

61A & 61B

222

24A & 26A

62A

25A & 28A

63A & 64A

130

27A & 27B

199

65A

173

29A & 30A

200

66A & 67A

159

31A & 31B

195

68A & 69A

170

32A & 33A

130

70A & 71A

201

34A & 35A

245

82A & 74A

181

36A & 36B

198

73A & 73B

188

37A & 38A

234

75A & 76A

192

See Exhs. “Y4” to “Z6”.

Table 12. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 53 Precincts of Buluan, Maguindanao Precinct No. 27

Zubiri

39A & 42A

26.

Pimentel

133

Precinct No.

Zubiri

TOTAL

9,507

Pimentel 288

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Buluan, Maguindanao: Table 13. Comparison of Vote Figures in Buluan, Maguindanao

Zubiri

Pimentel

NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total)

9,635

321

SET Physical Count

9,507

288

-128

-33

Difference

27.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.7

(3)

Guindulungan, Maguindanao 28.

In the pilot area of Guindulungan, Maguindanao, all the ballot boxes of

the 24 pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. 29.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 24 precincts of

Guindulungan, Maguindanao are as follows: Table 14. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 24 Precincts of Guindulungan, Maguindanao Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 1A & 1B 249 87 15A & 15B 202 19 1 13 2A* 305 67 16A 145 25 2 14 3A 97 29 17A & 17B 213 60 3 15 4A & 4B 231 57 18A 147 25 4 16 5A 132 49 19A 155 37 5 17 6A & 6B 267 72 20A 173 43 6 18 7A 169 41 21A & 21B 171 42 7 19 8A 197 48 22A & 23A 257 66 8 20 9A & 10A 256 67 24A 170 36 9 21 11A & 11B 212 40 25A 189 22 10 22 12A & 13A 196 74 26A 126 16 11 23 14A & 14B 148 35 27A & 27B 182 99 12 24 TOTAL 4,589 1,156

7 *

See Exhs. “X2” to “X4”. There were 2 sets of ballots for Precinct No. 2A. The vote totals include both sets.

30.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Guindulungan, Maguindanao: Table 15. Comparison of Vote Figures in Guindulungan, Maguindanao

Zubiri

Pimentel

NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total)

4,579

1,071

SET Physical Count

4,589

1,156

Difference

31.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.8

(4)

Paglat, Maguindanao 32.

In the pilot area of Paglat, Maguindanao, all the ballot boxes of the 28

pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. 33.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 28 precincts of

Paglat, Maguindanao are as follows: Table 16. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 28 Precincts of Paglat, Maguindanao Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 1A 140 5 16A & 17A 133 16 1 15 1B 137 0 18A & 19A 195 7 2 16 2A 191 3 20A & 21A 91 5 3 17 2B 115 3 22A 183 24 4 18 3A 186 15 23A & 24A 148 26 5 19 3B & 3C 191 6 25A & 26A 51 16 6 20 4A 157 0 27A & 28A 203 17 7 21 5A & 5B 207 83 29A 99 18 8 22 6A & 6B 290 58 30A 185 23 9 23 7A 132 9 30B & 31A 80 6 10 24 8A & 9A 178 45 32A & 33A 272 22 11 25 10A & 11A 192 39 34A 118 45 12 26 12A & 13A 97 17 35A 173 19 13 27 14A & 15A 35 8 36A & 37A 195 83 14 28 TOTAL 4,374 618

34.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Paglat, Maguindanao:

See Exhs. “C8” to “Z8”.

Table 17. Comparison of Vote Figures in Paglat, Maguindanao

Zubiri

Pimentel

NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total)

4,401

768

SET Physical Count

4,374

618

-27

-150

Difference

35.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.9

(5)

Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 36.

In the pilot area of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, all the ballot

boxes of the 198 pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. 37.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 198 precincts of

Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan are as follows: Table 18. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 198 Precincts of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 1A 0 0 78A 0 0 1 100 2A 0 0 79A 0 0 2 101 3A 0 0 79B 0 0 3 102 4A 0 0 79C 0 0 4 103 5A 0 0 79D & 79E 0 0 5 104 6A 0 0 80A 0 0 6 105 7A 0 0 81A 0 0 7 106 8A 0 0 82A & 82B 0 0 8 107 9A 0 0 83A 0 0 9 108 9B 0 0 84A 0 0 10 109 9C 0 0 85A 0 0 11 110 9D 0 0 86A 0 0 12 111 10A 0 0 87A 0 0 13 112 11A 0 0 88A 0 0 14 113 12A 0 0 88B 0 0 15 114 13A & 13B 0 0 88C 0 0 16 115 14A 0 0 88D 0 0 17 116 15A 0 0 88E 0 0 18 117 16A 0 0 88F 0 0 19 118 17A 0 0 88G 0 0 20 119 17B 0 0 89A 0 0 21 120 18A 0 0 90A 0 0 22 121 19A 0 0 91A 0 0 23 122 20A 0 0 92A 0 0 24 123

See Exhs. “A7” to “B8”.

Table 18. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 198 Precincts of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 20B & 20C 0 0 92B 0 0 25 124 21A 0 0 93A 0 0 26 125 22A 0 0 94A 0 0 27 126 23A 0 0 94B 0 0 28 127 24A 0 0 94C 0 0 29 128 25A 0 0 95A 0 0 30 129 26A 0 0 96A & 96B 0 0 31 130 27A 0 0 97A 0 0 32 131 28A 0 0 98A 0 0 33 132 29A 0 0 98B 0 0 34 133 30A 0 0 99A 0 0 35 134 31A 0 0 100A 0 0 36 135 32A 0 0 100B 0 0 37 136 32B 0 0 100C & 100D 0 0 38 137 32C & 32D 0 0 101A 0 0 39 138 33A 0 0 102A 0 0 40 139 34A 0 0 103A 0 0 41 140 34B 0 0 104 & 104B 0 0 42 141 35A 0 0 105A 0 0 43 142 36A 0 0 105B 0 0 44 143 37A 0 0 106A & 106B 0 0 45 144 38A 0 0 107A 0 0 46 145 39A 0 0 108A 0 0 47 146 40A 0 0 109A 0 0 48 147 40B 0 0 110A 0 0 49 148 40C 0 0 110B & 110C 0 0 50 149 40D 0 0 111A 0 0 51 150 41A 0 0 112A 0 0 52 151 42A 0 0 113A 0 0 53 152 43A 0 0 114A 0 0 54 153 43B 0 0 114B 0 0 55 154 44A 0 0 114C 0 0 56 155 45A 0 0 115A 0 0 57 156 45B & 45C 0 0 116A 0 0 58 157 46A 0 0 117A 0 0 59 158 47A 0 0 118A 0 0 60 159 48A 0 0 118B 0 0 61 160 49A 0 0 118C 0 0 62 161 50A 0 0 0 0 63 162 119A & 120A 51A 0 0 121A 0 0 64 163 51B 0 0 122A & 122B 0 0 65 164 51C 0 0 123A 0 0 66 165 52A 0 0 124A 0 0 67 166 53A 0 0 125A 0 0 68 167 54A 0 0 125B 0 0 69 168 55A 0 0 125C 0 0 70 169 56A 0 0 126A 0 0 71 170 57A 0 0 127A 0 0 72 171 58A 0 0 128A 0 0 73 172 58B & 58C 0 0 129A 0 0 74 173 59A 0 0 130A 0 0 75 174 60A 0 0 131A 0 0 76 175 61A 0 0 132A 0 0 77 176 62 A 0 0 132B 0 0 78 177 63A 0 0 132C 0 0 79 178 64A 0 0 132D & 132E 0 0 80 179

Table 18. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 198 Precincts of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 64B 0 0 133A & 133B 0 0 81 180 64C 0 0 134A 0 0 82 181 64D & 64E 11 1 135A & 135B 0 0 83 182 65A 0 0 136A 0 0 84 183 66A 0 0 137A 0 0 85 184 67A & 67B 0 0 138A 0 0 86 185 68A 0 0 139A 0 0 87 186 69A 0 0 140A 0 0 88 187 69B 0 0 141A 0 0 89 188 70A 0 0 142A 0 0 90 189 71A 0 0 142B 0 0 91 190 72A 0 0 142C 0 0 92 191 73A 0 0 142D 0 0 93 192 73B 0 0 143A 0 0 94 193 73C 0 0 144A 0 0 95 194 74A 0 0 145A 0 0 96 195 75A 0 0 145B 0 0 97 196 76A 0 0 145C 0 0 98 197 77A 0 0 145D 0 0 99 198 TOTAL 11 1

38.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan: Table 19. Comparison of Vote Figures in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total) SET Physical Count Difference

39.

Zubiri

Pimentel

33,888

2,791

-33,877

-2,790

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.10

(6)

Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 40.

In the pilot area of Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte, all the

ballot boxes of the 147 pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised.

See Exhs. “A9” to “P16”.

41.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 147 precincts of

Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte are as follows: Table 20. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 147 Precincts of Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 1A 109 0 78A 189 0 1 75 2A 196 0 79A 193 0 2 76 3A 196 0 80A 0 0 3 77 4A 199 0 81A & 82A 55 0 4 78 5A 184 0 83A 139 0 5 79 6A 197 0 84A 92 0 6 80 7A 192 0 85A & 86A 108 0 7 81 8A 148 0 87A 152 0 8 82 9A 193 0 88A & 89A 157 0 9 83 10A 190 0 90A 83 0 10 84 11A 108 0 91A & 92A 194 0 11 85 12A 148 0 93A 197 0 12 86 13A 149 0 94A 198 0 13 87 14A 145 0 95A & 96A 201 0 14 88 15A & 16A 102 0 97A 74 0 15 89 17A & 18A 167 0 98A 178 0 16 90 19A 195 0 99A 142 0 17 91 20A 196 0 108 2 18 92 100A & 101A 21A 199 0 102A 191 0 19 93 22A & 23A 238 0 285 0 20 94 103A & 104A 24A 188 0 105A 196 0 21 95 25A & 26A 240 0 106A 184 10 22 96 27A 196 0 175 0 23 97 107A & 108A 28A 182 0 113 0 24 98 109A & 110A 29A 195 0 131 0 25 99 111A & 112A 30A 128 0 113A 138 0 26 100 31A & 32A 160 0 114A 160 0 27 101 33A 188 0 115A 140 0 28 102 34A 179 0 116A 130 0 29 103 35A 195 0 117A 175 0 30 104 36A 195 0 118A 164 0 31 105 37A 179 0 119A 166 4 32 106 38A 111 22 120A 162 0 33 107 39A 200 0 121A 163 0 34 108 40A 196 0 122A 160 0 35 109 41A 180 0 123A 164 0 36 110 42A 198 0 124A 158 0 37 111 43A 189 0 125A 121 0 38 112 44A 190 0 126A 188 0 39 113 44B 199 0 244 0 40 114 127A & 128A 44C 107 0 129A 202 0 41 115 45A 150 0 130A 99 3 42 116 46A 188 0 131A 159 3 43 117 47A 169 0 132A 98 1 44 118 48A 200 0 133A 116 0 45 119 49A 173 0 72 6 46 120 134A & 135A 50A 174 0 136A 171 0 47 121 51A 124 0 300 0 48 122 137A & 138A 52A 244 2 100 0 49 123 139A & 140A 53A & 54A 109 0 141A 190 0 50 124 55A & 55B 201 3 142A 192 0 51 125 56A 112 14 0 0 52 126 143A & 144A

Table 20. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 147 Precincts of Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 57A 160 0 90 0 53 127 145A & 146A 58A 164 0 147A 194 0 54 128 59A 189 0 148A 147 0 55 129 60A 169 0 149A 197 0 56 130 61A 170 0 150A 175 0 57 131 62A 164 0 151A 175 0 58 132 63A 186 0 152A 176 0 59 133 64A 199 0 153A 193 0 60 134 65A 184 0 153 0 61 135 154A & 155A 66A* 281 2 156A 122 5 62 136 67A 182 1 157A 129 2 63 137 68A 180 0 158A 98 1 64 138 69A 99 0 94 0 65 139 159A & 160A 70A 185 0 161A 200 0 66 140 71A 186 0 162A 199 0 67 141 72A & 72B 252 0 163A 200 0 68 142 73A 168 0 164A 200 0 69 143 74A 175 0 109 0 70 144 165A & 166A 74B 111 0 167A 193 0 71 145 75A 173 0 168A 179 0 72 146 76A 197 0 169A & 170A 150 0 73 147 77A 93 0 74 TOTAL 24,197 81

42.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte: Table 21. Comparison of Vote Figures in Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total) SET Physical Count Difference

43.

Zubiri

Pimentel

24,560

114

24,197

-363

-33

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.11

(7)

Salvador, Lanao del Norte 44.

In the pilot area of Salvador, Lanao del Norte, all the ballot boxes of

the 89 pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. *

There were 2 sets of ballots for Precinct No. 66A. The vote totals include both sets. See Exhs. “Q16” to “G22”.

45.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 89 precincts of

Salvador, Lanao del Norte are as follows: Table 22. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 89 Precincts of Salvador, Lanao del Norte Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 1A 151 7 46A 169 0 1 46 2A 185 8 47A 173 0 2 47 3A & 3B 222 4 48A & 48B 183 2 3 48 4A 167 4 49A 180 17 4 49 5A & 5B 209 16 50A 207 2 5 50 6A 163 0 51A 181 0 6 51 7A & 7B 229 8 51B 127 0 7 52 8A 161 14 52A 185 0 8 53 9A & 9B 221 0 53A 183 0 9 54 10A 126 4 54A 142 0 10 55 11A & 11B 204 14 55A 157 0 11 56 12A 154 32 56A & 56B 231 4 12 57 13A 157 10 58A 176 0 13 58 14A 130 11 59A 160 0 14 59 15A 122 23 60A 145 0 15 60 15B 134 6 61A 172 0 16 61 16A 178 0 62A 190 0 17 62 17A 95 0 63A 384 0 18 63 18A 178 3 64A 174 0 19 64 19A 186 0 65A 167 3 20 65 20A 100 0 66A 171 10 21 66 21A & 21B 151 0 67A 185 0 22 67 22A & 22B 268 0 68A 175 0 23 68 23A 177 0 69A 181 6 24 69 24A 233 0 70A & 70B* 249 0 25 70 25A 181 0 71A 157 8 26 71 26A 130 0 72A 158 5 27 72 27A 158 12 73A 204 0 28 73 28A 188 0 74A 151 0 29 74 29A 149 5 75A 180 0 30 75 30A 162 4 76A 134 3 31 76 31A 118 1 77A 176 29 32 77 32A 170 0 78A 128 17 33 78 33A 186 0 79A 175 0 34 79 34A 101 11 80A 177 0 35 80 35A & 36A 239 0 81A 156 3 36 81 37A 179 0 82A 229 4 37 82 38A 148 0 83A 159 14 38 83 39A 140 0 84A 187 0 39 84 40A 158 1 85A 163 0 40 85 41A & 41B 256 0 86A & 87A 196 0 41 86 42A & 42B 280 0 88A 113 0 42 87 43A 229 0 89A & 90A 168 2 43 88 44A 170 0 91A 173 4 44 89 45A & 45B 247 0 45 TOTAL 15,721 331

46.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Salvador, Lanao del Norte:

There were 2 sets of ballots for Precinct No. 70A/B. The vote totals include both sets.

Table 23. Comparison of Vote Figures in Salvador, Lanao del Norte

Zubiri

Pimentel

NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total)

15,797

402

SET Physical Count

15,721

331

-76

-71

Difference

47.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.12

(8)

Matungao, Lanao del Norte 48.

In the pilot area of Matungao, Lanao del Norte, all the ballot boxes of

the 40 pilot precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. 49.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 40 precincts of

Matungao, Lanao del Norte are as follows: Table 24. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 40 Precincts of Matungao, Lanao del Norte Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel 1A 40 39 19A 25 3 1 21 2A 43 36 20A 20 9 2 22 3A 30 26 20B 17 3 3 23 4A 34 16 21A & 21B 31 23 4 24 5A & 5B 57 38 22A 42 10 5 25 6A 43 30 23A 96 67 6 26 6B 53 46 24A & 24B 112 86 7 27 7A 15 12 25A & 26A 24 20 8 28 8A 15 9 27A 43 4 9 29 9A & 9B 46 6 28A 56 16 10 30 10A 15 11 29A 36 16 11 31 11A 33 13 30A 51 17 12 32 12A & 12B 27 22 31A 30 16 13 33 13A & 13B 30 23 31B 43 19 14 34 14A 20 11 32A 45 25 15 35 15A 33 15 33A & 33B 67 40 16 36 16A 34 15 34A & 34B 58 30 17 37 17A 35 20 35A 32 29 18 38 18A 19 27 36A 23 21 19 39 18B 37 13 37A & 37B 25 11 20 40 TOTAL 1,535 893

See Exhs. “H22” to “R25”.

50.

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Matungao, Lanao del Norte: Table 25. Comparison of Vote Figures in Matungao, Lanao del Norte

Zubiri

Pimentel

NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total)

3,862

884

SET Physical Count

1,535

893

-2,327

Difference

51.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.13

(9)

Tapul, Sulu 52.

In the pilot area of Tapul, Sulu all the ballot boxes of the 31 pilot

precincts were collected, brought before this Honorable Tribunal, opened in the presence of the revision teams, and had their contents (if any) examined, counted, and revised. 53.

The results of the physical counting of votes in the 31 precincts of

Tapul, Sulu are as follows: Table 26. Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 31 Precincts of Tapul, Sulu Precinct No. Zubiri Pimentel Precinct No. Zubiri 1A 115 0 17 24A 84 1 2A 126 0 18 25A 122 2 3A 178 0 19 26A & 27A 106 3 4A & 5A 187 0 20 28A & 29A 58 4 6A & 7A 247 0 30A & 31A 12 5 21 8A 116 1 22 32A & 33A 27 6 9A 23 17 23 34A 183 7 10A & 11A 96 0 24 35A & 36A 141 8 12A & 13A 10 0 25 37A 198 9 14A & 15A 215 2 26 38A 125 10 16A & 17A 205 0 27 39A & 40A 277 11 18A & 19A 154 0 28 41A & 42A 0 12 20A & 21A 234 0 29 43A & 44A 62 13 22A 88 10 30 45A 99 14 23A 45 1 31 46A & 47A 90 15 23B 119 4 TOTAL 16 3,742

54.

Pimentel 6 0 2 10 47 15 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 121

Below is a comparison of the vote figures of the parties herein involved

in Tapul, Sulu: 13

See Exhs. “S25” to “F27”.

Table 27. Comparison of Vote Figures in Tapul, Sulu

Zubiri

Pimentel

NBC Figures (number of votes carried over to the national vote total)

4,001

SET Physical Count

3,742

121

-259

Difference

55.

However, during the revision proceedings, invalid and void votes for

Protestee Zubiri were physically counted in his favor which were objected to by herein Protestant Pimentel based on grounds cited and discussed in the Revision Reports.14

III-A. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL COUNTING OF VOTES UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL 56.

Table 28 below summarizes the results of the physical counting of

votes in the “Pilot Areas”: Table 28. The Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the “Pilot Areas” Zubiri Pimentel Pilot Areas Votes Votes Ampatuan, Maguindanao 9,880 1,174 Buluan, Maguindanao 9,507 288 Guindulungan, Maguindanao 4,589 1,156 Paglat, Maguindanao 4,374 618 Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 11 1 Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 24,197 81 Salvador, Lanao del Norte 15,721 331 Matungao, Lanao del Norte 1,535 893 Tapul, Sulu 3,742 121 TOTAL 73,556 4,663 57.

If we add the results in Table 28 above to the herein parties‟ “total

number of votes before the results of the physical counting of votes in the „Pilot Areas‟” (see Table 9), we have the following result: Table 29. The Parties‟ Running Total Number of Votes After the Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the “Pilot Areas” Zubiri Pimentel Total Number of Votes Before the Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 10,897,930 10,983,940 “Pilot Areas” PLUS: Number of Votes Obtained in the +73,556 +4,663 Physical Count in the “Pilot Areas” Total Number of Votes After the Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the 10,971,486 10,988,603 “Pilot Areas” 14

See Exhs. “G27” to “K28”.

Protestant Pimentel’s Lead Over Protestee Zubiri After the Physical Counting of Votes in the “Pilot Areas” 58.

17,117 votes

Therefore, from the physical counting of votes alone in the “Pilot

Areas”, Protestant Pimentel has already proven the allegations of fraud he made in his Protest Petition and has in fact overtaken Protestee Zubiri in the “Running Total Number of Votes After the Results of the Physical Counting of Votes in the „Pilot Areas‟”! 59.

Thus from the physical counting of votes alone in the “Pilot Areas”,

Protestant Pimentel has already shown the fraudulent nature and the invalidity of the proclamation of Protestee Zubiri as the 12th winning Senator in the May 14, 2007 elections. In fact, Protestant Pimentel now leads Protestee Zubiri, after the physical counting of votes in the “Pilot Areas”, by 17,117 votes! (And, we repeat, included in Protestee Zubiri‟s physically counted votes are tens of thousands of infirm and void ballots!) 60.

Although the results of the physical counting of votes in the “Pilot

Areas” already substantiate the allegations of the Protestant in his Protest Petition, still the figures of the physical counting do not and cannot show the MASSIVENESS and the SHAMELESSNESS OF THE FRAUD AND THE UTTER DISREGARD FOR THE LAW AS WELL AS FOR THE SOVERIEGN WILL OF THE PEOPLE, PERPETRATED BY THE PROTESTEE OR, ON HIS BEHALF AND IN HIS FAVOR, BY THE ELECTION SYNDICATES WHICH OPERATED IN THE MAY 2007 SENATORIAL ELECTIONS. IV.

SULTAN KUDARAT, SHARIFF KABUNSUAN 61.

Protestee Zubiri tries to salvage the bogus 33,888 votes in Sultan

Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, credited to his National vote total by the NBC, by submitting alleged certified true copies of Election Returns (“ERs”) allegedly in the custody of the Comelec, and hoping for the blind application of a paragraph in the

case of Lerias vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (“Lerias”), G. R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 808 at 822-823, which states: “In an election contest where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves. But where the ballots cannot be produced or are not available, the election returns would be the best evidence. Where it has been duly determined that actual voting and election by the registered voter had taken place in the questioned precincts or voting centers, the election returns cannot be disregarded and excluded with the resulting disenfranchisement of the voters, but must be accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the voting. Canvassing boards, the Comelec and the HRET must exercise extreme caution in rejecting returns and may do so only upon the most convincing proof that the returns are obviously manufactured or fake. And, conformably to established rules, it is the party alleging that the election returns had been tampered with, who should submit proof of this allegation.”

62.

In the first place, the photocopied ERs are “inadmissible” because of

the following reasons: (1)

The signature on each certification was not identified by the person who made it;

(2)

The photocopied ERs were not properly identified by the legal custodian of the originals from which these copies were made;

(3)

The photocopied ERs were not compared in the presence of the SET Hearing Officer to the originals allegedly in the custody of the Comelec;

(4)

The photocopies of the ERs already show glaring alterations and discrepancies, which have remained unexplained, to wit: 

There are superimposition of figures and words, and erasures (obviously made with correction fluid) in the votes obtained in words and figures and in the actual number of tallies (“taras”) of the parties herein;



There are additional tallies (“taras”) given to Protestee Zubiri even after his tallies had been “closed” with initials (although this way of closing tallies is not in full compliance with the instructions on how to fill up the ERs which requires the imprints of the right thumb marks too);15

INSTRUCTIONS FOUND ON THE ELECTION RETURNS: 1. The election returns is in seven (7) copies. The paper used is of special material and no carbon paper is necessary. Accomplish this inside the polling place. In accomplishing this form, sufficient pressure should be applied on your writing instrument so that the entries on the first copy are clearly impressed on all the other copies. 2. Record in the proper box the vote for each candidate/ party list by a vertical line, except every fifth vote for the same candidate/ party list which shall be recorded by a diagonal line crossing the four previous vertical lines. 3. All the members of the BEI shall initial every correction of entries made in the returns if any.



There are discrepancies between the total votes obtained in words and figures for Protestee Zubiri and the actual number of his tallies (“taras”);



The photocopied ERs already obviously show that these have been accomplished by more than one person given the discrepancies in the signatures / initials, the style of tallying and the alignment of the tallies, as well as in the pen used or pen pressure employed;



There are discrepancies in the Data on Voters and Ballots where the “Number of Voters who Actually Voted” exceeded the “Number of Voters Registered in the Precinct” and the “Ballots Found in the Compartment for Valid Ballots” exceeded the “Number of Voters who Actually Voted” or the “Number of Voters Registered in the Precinct”;



Some photocopied ERs do not bear the names or signatures or thumb marks of the Members of the Board of Election Inspectors who were required by law to identify themselves therein and sign and thumb mark the same;



In some photocopied ERs the total votes of candidates in words and figures exceeded the “Number of Voters who Actually Voted” or the “Number of Voters Registered in the Precinct”;



The data in some of the photocopied ERs, including the alleged number of votes obtained by Protestee Zubiri, are statistically improbable, even mathematically impossible in others;

4. After each file of one hundred (100) ballots have been read, add the votes obtained by each candidate/ party list and record the sum on the space immediately after the last vote recorded. 5. After the valid ballots have been read and tallied, sum up the votes recorded for each candidate/ party list and record the total votes, in words and in figures, in the proper column. See to it that the number of votes in words tallies with that in figures for the same candidate/ party list. Both votes in words and figures should likewise be the same as that of the tallies made. 6. Close the entry of votes for each candidates/ party list by affixing your signature and the imprint of your right thumbmarks on the blank boxes following the total of the last batch of ballots tallied or from the first box if the candidate/ party list did not receive any vote. 7. Supply the data required in the Data on Voters and Ballots. 8. Accomplish the certification below by signing your names and affixing your thumbmarks thereon. 9. Request all watchers present to sign above their printed names and affix their thumbmarks as witnesses at the hand portion hereof.



Since these alterations and discrepancies have not been explained or accounted for by the Protestee (who did not call witnesses, not even a single one, to testify on these documents) the ERs of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan are INADMISSIBLE under Section 31 of Rule 132;16

63.

Although the photocopied ERs of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan,

are “inadmissible” as evidence, the Protestant took the time to examine them, and attached as Annex “A” hereto are the results of the said examination of Protestee‟s Exhibits Nos. “500” to “698”. 64.

In the second place, the quoted paragraph from the case of Lerias is not

applicable to this instant Protest because of the very different factual milieu between the two cases, to wit: (1)

In Lerias, armed men stole the 20 official ballot boxes of Libagon, Southern Leyte, before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (“HRET”) could collect them. No official ballot box of a precinct in Libagon was therefore brought before the HRET. In this instant Protest, all the 198 official ballot boxes (of Sultan Kudarat‟s 198 precincts) have been collected and brought before this Honorable Tribunal and were found to be totally empty17. Furthermore, there is no report of any kind, be it a police report or a report to the Comelec, that the ballots inside Sultan Kudarat‟s 198 official ballot boxes have been taken, snatched, or stolen by anybody;

Sec. 31, Rule 132: Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. 17 Except one box, that of Prec. No. 64D/E, which contained 11 ballots, which were, however, objected to by herein Protestant as “fake/spurious ballots”.

(2)

In Lerias, there were other copies of the ERs. In this instant Protest, the alleged ERs in the custody of the Comelec are the sole, solitary, and lonesome copies of the said document, just like the situation in Maguindanao, in spite of the law‟s requirement that the ER should be accomplished in 7 copies18! 

Fr. Eduardo G. Tanud-Tanud, OMI, President of Notre Dame University of Cotabato City and Chairperson of NAMFREL Maguindanao and Shariff Kabunsuan during the May 14, 2007 elections, testified as follows: “ATTY. DE LIMA: xxx Q: xxx Because my question to you now is to this very day has NAMFREL ever gotten or secured any copy of the Election Returns from any precinct in the province of Maguindanao? A: No. Q: Ok. You‟re also with NAMFREL Shariff Kabunsuan, may I just ask a question. Was NAMFREL able to secure any copy of the Election Returns from the municipality of Sultan Kudarat, province of Shariff Kabunsuan? A: No. Q: Also? Just like Maguindanao? A: Yes.”19 [emphasis supplied]

(3)

In Lerias, the original copies of the ERs as used by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Libagon were produced before the HRET. In this instant Protest, Protestee Zubiri has formally offered only alleged certified true copies of the ERs of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, allegedly in the custody of the Comelec. These are therefore photocopies of the so-called “third copy” ERs (the copy for the Comelec). The copy for the use of the Municipal Board of Canvassers is the “first copy” not the “third copy”.20 The “first copy” ERs of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan have not been produced. In fact, these have not even been mentioned by the Protestee at all!

See Sec. 46, Art. VI, of Comelec Resolution No. 7815, dated 26 January 2007, “The General Instructions for the Board of Election Inspectors on the Casting and Counting of Votes for the May 14, 2007 Elections”. 19 TSN of Feb. 27, 2008, pages 12 to 13. 20 See Footnote 18.

(4)

In Lerias, the Supreme Court stated that “On its face, these election returns have no traces of tampering.” In contrast, the photocopies of the “third copy” ERs of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, formally offered as evidence by the Protestee ALL show signs of unabashed and blatant tampering. (The obviousness of the tampering will all the more be inescapable to everyone concerned if the originals from which these photocopies were made were to be produced before this Honorable Tribunal.)

(5)

In Lerias, according to the Supreme Court, the authenticity of the contested ERs had been further established by the testimonies of the members of the Board of Election Inspectors of the involved precincts during hearings before the HRET. The Court added, “More importantly, examination of said returns conclusively established the identity of said returns as the very same ones prepared by the respective Board of Election Inspectors during the counting of the votes.” In contrast, not a single member of any of the 198 Boards of Election Inspectors of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, was presented as a witness by Protestee Zubiri. It is as if, just like the NBC when it concerned Maguindanao, Protestee Zubiri is afraid that questions might be asked of Sultan Kudarat‟s BEI members!

65.

In the third place, even if, for the sake of argument, the quoted

paragraph from the case of Lerias is deemed applicable to this Protest, (1) the Protestee has not proven the condition precedent required by the said Lerias Decision, and (2) just by looking at the ERs, it is obvious that they are manufactured, fake, and have been altered. Res Ipsa Loquitur!

(1)

Lerias requires that it must be duly determined that actual voting and election by the registered voter had taken place in the questioned precincts or voting centers. The burden of proving this has not been discharged by the Protestee;

(2)

Lerias requires that the “ballots cannot be produced or are not available”. But when the official ballot boxes are opened before this Honorable Tribunal and turn out to be totally empty, it cannot be said that the “ballots cannot be produced or are not available”. What the empty official ballot boxes prove is that “there are no ballots at all”, signifying that no actual casting of ballots occurred, and that the municipal election results for Senators of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, as reported to the Comelec and the NBC have been entirely manufactured!

(3)

Under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, it is obvious that the photocopied ERs shamelessly submitted by Protestee Zubiri to this Honorable Tribunal are manufactured, fake, and altered, and must therefore be entirely rejected and stripped of any and all probative value. Obvious forgeries must be disregarded!

(4)

The early case of Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. L-25444, January 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 175, already categorically held that “where the fraud is so palpable from the return itself (res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself), there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value”.

66.

At this point, the Protestant reiterates the points he made in his

“Comment (On Protestee‟s Manifestation with Motion to Investigate) with CounterMotion”, dated January 23, 2008, to wit:

“6. Such a shameless proposal from the protestee Zubiri actually encourages the acts of election cheats and promotes the manufacturing of election results in entire municipalities or even provinces. Common sense tells us that „it is easier to prepare the election returns and indicate therein the desired results, than to reconstruct the whole voting process, like ballots, minutes of voting, and others.‟ 7. The typewritten SOVP of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan (attached to the MCOC) already proves that the SOVP was accomplished not in an actual open-tothe-public canvassing of election returns as required by law, but in a „closed-door office setting‟ with a large typewriter on top of a table surrounded by a select group of election operators. Therefore, there was no canvassing of election returns in accordance with law, and the election results reported in the typewritten SOVP are manufactured and sham! 8. Indeed, how could there be a canvassing of election returns in accordance with law when there was no actual counting of votes in the precincts of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan? The absence of election returns, and tally boards and Minutes of Voting and Counting in all the 198 ballot boxes proves that there was no actual counting of votes at the precinct-level in accordance with law. 9. Indeed, how could there be actual counting of votes at the precinct-level when there was no actual voting in the precincts of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan? The absence of ballots as well as the Minutes of Voting and Counting in all the 198 ballot boxes proves that there was no actual voting by the registered voters in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan in accordance with law. 10. The only way to prevent the election cheats and their patrons from benefiting from their illegal and fraudulent acts is to NOT HONOR the sham election results manufactured by them. Since actual voting, actual counting, and actual canvassing of election returns never happened in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan as far as the May 14, 2007 election for Senators is concerned, it is most respectfully submitted that both protestant Pimentel and protestee Zubiri must be credited by this Honorable Tribunal with ZERO VOTES in this municipality. 11. The old case of Garchitorena v. Crescini and Imperial, No. 14514, Dec. 18, 1918, 39 Phil. 258, has already taught us that: “The rule is so well established that authorities need no longer be cited in its support that whenever the irregularities and frauds are sufficient to defeat the will of the people of the particular municipality or precinct, the entire vote should be rejected and those who are guilty of such frauds and irregularities should be punished to the very limit of the law.” [emphasis supplied] 12. As a consequence, the thirty three thousand eight hundred eighty eight (33,888) votes credited to protestee Zubiri as his votes coming from Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan which have been carried over to his national vote total at the time of his proclamation as the 12th winning senator in the May 14, 2007 elections must be NULLIFIED and DEDUCTED. The same must be done to the Protestant‟s two thousand seven hundred ninety one (2,791) votes coming from the same municipality. xxx”

IV-A. EXAMINATION OF THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE MINUTES OF VOTING (“MOVs”) OF SULTAN KUDARAT, SHARIFF KABUNSUAN 67.

The Protestee submitted alleged certified true copies of the MOVs of

Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, marked as Exhibits “699” to “888”. 68.

As a general observation, the MOV is not an accountable election

document. It also does not have a serial number assigned to it. Without this basic security feature and other more sophisticated ones, the MOV is a document which can very easily be printed or produced.

69.

The photocopied MOVs are also “inadmissible” because of the

following reasons: (1)

The signature on each certification was not identified by the person who made it;

(2)

The photocopied MOVs were not properly identified by the legal custodian of the originals from which these copies were made;

(3)

The photocopied MOVs were not compared in the presence of the SET Hearing Officer to the originals allegedly in the custody of the Comelec;

70.

Not a single one of Protestee‟s MOVs has an entry in the section

entitled “C. INCIDENTS / IRREGULARITIES” which states that the three members of the BEI or any one of them voted in the precinct to justify the excess ballots (sometimes three, sometimes more) found in the compartment for valid ballots. 71.

Not a single one of the submitted photocopied MOVs has an entry in

the section entitled “C. INCIDENTS / IRREGULARITIES” that could explain the missing ballots and other documents required by law to be placed inside the ballot box. The entries range from no entry at all to a report of a commotion or an “explosion”, which allegedly caused the ER to become “dirty”. 72.

The “dirt” we have encountered in the counterpart photocopied ERs are

not signs of mud, spilt ink, or smudges of the ink used for thumb marking, but alterations consisting of superimpositions, prefixing and suffixing of digits, erasure with use of correction fluid, and thousands of additional tallies! Protestant cannot imagine how an actual explosion could lead to an “explosion of additional tallies” in favor of Protestee Zubiri! 73.

Regarding those MOVs which reported the “explosion”, the following

are our observations: 



Barangay Dalumangcob has 12 precincts. But only 7 report the alleged “explosion” and they differ greatly as to the time of the occurrence. Precs. 3-A and 6-A fix it at 11:00 PM. Prec. 2-A, 9-A, and 9-B, at 10:00 PM. Prec. 5-A, at 8:00 PM. Prec. 7-A, at 9:00-10:00 PM. In Barangay Alamada, only 1 precinct (12-A) out of 4 reported the alleged “explosion” (at 10:00 PM).

  

In Barangay Banubo, only 1 precinct (18-A) out of 4 reported the alleged “explosion” (at 10:45 PM). In Barangay Gang, 1 precinct (48-A) reported the alleged “explosion” at 12:05 AM and its two other precincts (49-A and 51-A), at 10:30 PM. In Barangay Nekitan, precinct 105-B reported the alleged “explosion” at 10:00 PM while precinct 106-A/B placed it at 10:30 PM.

Still regarding the alleged “explosion”, some precincts belonging to the

74.

same barangay report the alleged “explosion”, while some do not. 21 A few examples are indicated below:         

In Barangay Bulibod, all its 3 precincts reported no explosion. In Barangay Damaniog, all its 4 precincts reported no explosion. In Barangay Katuli, only 6 of its 9 precincts reported the alleged explosion. In Barangay Limbo, only 4 of its 11 precincts reported the alleged explosion, 7 did not. In Barangay Macaguiling, only 3 of its 5 precincts reported the alleged explosion. In Barangay Maidapa, only 1 of its 4 precincts reported the alleged explosion, 3 did not. In Barangay Nalinan, only 1 of its 4 precincts reported the alleged explosion, 3 did not.. In Barangay Nara, only 1 of its 4 precincts reported the alleged explosion, 3 did not.. In Barangay Panatan, only 4 of its 6 precincts reported the alleged explosion, 2 did not..

75.

In almost all the MOVs, the entries in the section entitled “C.

INCIDENTS / IRREGULARITIES” were made by a person other than the one who made the entries in the other sections and boxes as can be seen from the difference in the pen used, handwriting style, pen pressure, etc. Under the Instructions written on the front page of the MOV (Instruction no. 2), the MOV “shall be accomplished by the poll clerk”. 76.

All the MOVs have many blank spaces and sections, contrary to

Instruction no. 4 “not [to] leave any blank unfilled. If the answer to an item is none or zero, write „NONE‟.” 77.

Many MOVs do not contain the Poll Clerk‟s signature on Section E and

do not have all the signatures of the three members of the BEI and/or watchers allegedly present, contrary to the Instruction no. 2 that the MOV “shall be certified as true and correct in the last page by all the members of the Board of Election Inspectors.”

From the entries in the MOVs, it looks like the counting of votes in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, was centralized in the municipal gymnasium which is at the back of the municipal hall and near the police station.

IV-B. COMPARISON OF ZUBIRI‟S VOTE CONVERSION RATES IN SULTAN KUDARAT, SHARIFF KABUNSUAN AND BUKIDNON 78.

As an additional observation regarding the pilot Municipality of Sultan

Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, herein Protestant compares the “vote conversion rates” of Protestee Zubiri in this Municipality of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, with those in his home province of Bukidnon, to wit: Table 30. Comparison of Zubiri‟s Vote Conversion Rates in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan & Bukidnon Number of Registered Voters Number of Voters Who Actually Voted Voter Turn Out (Percentage) Zubiri‟s Officially Credited Vote Total (carried to NBC‟s National Tally) Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rate” based on Number of Registered Voters Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rate” based on Number of Voters Who Actually Voted

79.

Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 39,327 37,904 96.38%

Bukidnon 601,629 456,407 75.86%

33,888

328,970

86.17%

54.68%

89.40%

72.08%

It is probably only in the Philippines that the government agency tasked

to administer elections would honor such incredible vote conversion rates such as the ones achieved by Protestee Zubiri in Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, and yet not have the ballots to support such incredible results! 80.

It is the humble submission of the herein Protestant that the

totality of circumstances surrounding the reported “official” results of the May 14, 2007 Senatorial elections in the Municipality of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, to wit: typewritten SOV, totally empty ballot boxes, total absence of ballots and tally boards, obviously altered and tampered Comelec-copy of the ERs, the unbelievably high, almost perfect, turn out of voters, absence of other copies of the ERs, and MOVs which have been written in batches by one person or group, cannot inspire belief as to the reliability, truthfulness, or accuracy of the said reported “official” results. Neither do these circumstances justify reliance on the “presumption of regularity” as everything about the results of the May 14, 2007 Senatorial elections in the Municipality of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan are seriously irregular, against election laws and Comelec regulations, and obviously fraudulent.

81.

Respecting the reported “official” results of the May 14, 2007

Senatorial elections from the Municipality of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, will not amount to respecting the will of the people of the said municipality but instead to respecting the will of the syndicates which have operated therein.

IV-C. DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON PROTESTEE AND/OR HIS COUNSEL 82.

For knowingly submitting as evidence before this Honorable Tribunal

manufactured, fake, and substantially altered documents, specifically the photocopied ERs and MOVs allegedly of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, the Protestee and/or his counsel made a mockery of this official proceeding which is one for the determination of the sovereign will of the people, and made possible the substitution of the people‟s will with that of the “syndicate‟s will”. The herein Protestant believes that this attempt to subvert the “people‟s will” and replace it with the “syndicate‟s will” is tantamount to contempt of court. 83.

The undersigned counsel is therefore of the belief that appropriate

disciplinary action must be imposed on the Protestee and/or his counsel by this Honorable Tribunal.

REVISION RESULTS IN THE “PILOT AREAS” 84.

The most note-worthy (and alarming!) finding during the revision

proceedings is the PROLIFERATION OF SPURIOUS BALLOTS (“SB”). Thousands upon thousands of fake or spurious ballots were found in all the pilot municipalities. (For those who are concerned about the future of Philippine democracy, the question that should be asked is, how did these spurious ballots find their way inside the official ballot boxes?) 85.

Also, in all the pilot municipalities, thousands of ballots were found to

be written by one person in pairs or in groups (“WBO”) or written by two or more persons in pairs or in groups (“WBT”). There were also thousands of marked ballots

(“MB”). Thousands of ballots were also infirm or void for a combination of reasons (“COMB” or combination of the above abbreviations).22 86.

Also worthy of special mention are the 197 (out of 198) totally empty

ballot boxes of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan.

V-A. SECURITY FEATURES OF THE OFFICIAL BALLOTS 87.

The following witnesses testified on the security features of the ballots

used in the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, to wit:

88.

(1)

Estrella P. de Mesa, Comelec Deputy Executive Director for Administration and Vice-Chairman, Committee on Printing of Accountable Forms (testified on Feb. 19 and 20, 2008);

(2)

Henry Young, sales representative for special accounts (like security paper) of LAMCO Paper Products, Inc. (testified on Feb. 19 and 20, 2008);

(3)

Teofilo Ferrer, former consultant of the Printing Committee of the Comelec (testified on Feb. 19 and 20, 2008);

(4)

Miguel Arcadio, Division Chief of the Press Division of the National Printing Office (testified on Feb. 21, 2008);

As gathered from the testimonies of the above-named witnesses, the

ballots used in the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections had two kinds of security features: “paper-based”, those placed during the production of the ballot paper and “printing-based”, those placed during the printing of the texts found on the ballots. 89.

Placed on the official ballot paper itself during the production process

are the following security features: (1)

Watermark - consisting of the scale of justice and quill (taken from the Comelec logo) with the word “COMELEC” under them;

(2)

Chemicals, which make the paper a.

“bleach reactant” and

“acetone reactive”;

Compounding the woes of Protestee Zubiri in this Protest is the fact that even spurious ballots were filled up by one person in pairs or in groups or by two or more persons in pairs or in groups.

(3)

Dark violet spots and/or “after glow spots” that appear when exposed to ultra-violet (UV) light;

90.

Placed on the ballots during the printing are the following security

features: (1)

Micro-printing on the party list line - consisting of the words “NATIONALANDLOCALELECTIONSMAY14,2007” continuously printed to comprise the said line;

(2)

The Name of the Municipality and its Province as well as its assigned Code or Serial Number are embossed (slightly raised lettering);23

91.

For the guidance of this Honorable Tribunal, the Protestant formally

offered Exh. “N28”, a portion of a genuine ballot paper, and Exh. “O28”, a sample genuine ballot of Barira, Shariff Kabunsuan, submitted by the Comelec upon request. 92.

Witnesses H. Young, T. Ferrer, and M. Arcadio conducted technical

examination of ballots right inside the SET premises and identified the genuine ballots as well as the spurious ones from the batches of ballots referred to them. 93.

For the additional guidance of this Honorable Tribunal, the following

were the findings of the above witnesses24: (1)

Witness T. Ferrer found as genuine ballots the following: a.

P155 to P160 of Ampatuan, Precinct No. 7A

P1 to P45 (untorn ballots) of Guindulungan, Precinct No. 2A

(2)

Witness T. Ferrer found as spurious or fake ballots the following: a.

P52 to P100 of Buluan, Precinct No. 1A/3A

P145 to P154 of Ampatuan, Precinct No. 7A

The embossed Name of Municipality, the Province, and its code or serial number are printed after the printing of the “text” of the ballot - the Republic Seal (Coat of Arms), the words “Official Ballot”, the positions being voted for, the lines, etc. 24 The witnesses examined different sets of ballots or just a sub-set of the set examined by the others.

P1 to P73 (torn ballots) of Guindulungan, Precinct No. 2A

(3)

(4)

Witness H. Young found as genuine ballots the following: a.

P155 to P160 of Ampatuan, Precinct No. 7A

The “untorn ballots” of Guindulungan, Precinct No. 2A

Witness H. Young found as spurious or fake ballots the following: a.

P102 to P110 and P151 to P199 of Buluan, Precinct No. 1A/3A

(5)

P92 to P154 of Ampatuan, Precinct No. 7A

The “torn ballots” of Guindulungan, Precinct No. 2A

Witness M. Arcadio found as genuine ballots the following: a.

P1 to P45 (untorn ballots) of Guindulungan, Precinct No. 2A

(6)

Witness M. Arcadio found as spurious or fake ballots the following: a.

P1 to P73 (torn ballots) of Guindulungan, Precinct No. 2A

V-B.

P111 to P150 of Buluan, Precinct No. 1A/3A

PROLIFERATION OF SPURIOUS BALLOTS 94.

The spurious ballots found in the nine pilot Municipalities have the

following characteristics: (1)

The marks on the spurious ballot, which are poor imitations of the scales of justice with quill in the middle, are not watermarks. They are print marks, most likely made through “penetrating ink”. They are technically called “phantom marks”

not “watermarks”.25 (A watermark is made during the production of the paper. The “phantom marks” on the spurious ballot were placed there during printing, that is, after the paper had already been produced.) (2)

The “phantom marks” on the spurious ballot are yellowish in color. In contrast, the watermarks on the genuine ballots are white or close to “colorless” as these are translucent. The yellowish form of the “phantom marks” on the spurious ballot are easily seen even when the ballot is placed on top of a table. In contrast, the genuine Comelec watermarks are seen only when the paper is held up to the light.

(3)

The “phantom marks” on the spurious ballot appear exactly on the same portions on the ballot, that is, on the lower left (the open space above the Party List line) and the upper right (the open space to the right of the printed words, “OFFICIAL BALLOT”, “MAY 14, 2007” and name of municipality concerned).26 In contrast, the genuine Comelec watermarks appear randomly on the genuine ballot since these are impressed on the paper during its production (as a roll) and no one can predict what part of the paper will be cut during the sheeting process.

(4)

The size (“width”) of the sword (the “blade”) in the “phantom marks” on the spurious ballot is smaller than the one appearing on the genuine watermark.

(5)

The “phantom marks” on the spurious ballot do not bear the other Comelec watermark, the word “COMELEC”, or bear only

See testimomy of Engr. Ferrer, TSN of Feb. 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM, page 46. Except in a few precincts where these “phantom marks” are seen in reverse fashion, i. e., on the lower right and upper left portions of the ballot. 26

what appears to be only traces thereof, which are also yellowish in color and also always found on the same spot of the ballot. (6)

The spurious ballots do not contain the micro-printed phrase “NATIONALANDLOCALELECTIONSMAY14,2007”, which in the genuine ballot comprise the line under “Party List”.

(7)

In the spurious ballots, the Name of the Municipality and its Province as well as its assigned Code or Serial Number are not embossed. Same with the serration lines. All these are embossed in the genuine ballots.

(8)

In the spurious ballots, the printing of the Republic Seal or the Coat of Arms is blurred, smudged, and not slightly embossed. In the genuine ballots, this is clearly and cleanly printed and slightly embossed.

(9)

The spurious ballots are shorter in size by a few centimeters than the genuine ballots.

V-C.

THE PILOT MUNICIPALITIES 95.

The pilot areas of Ampatuan, Buluan, Guindulungan, and Paglat, form

parts of a bigger picture, that of Maguindanao! As stated in paragraphs 5.13 to 5.24 found on pages 12 to 24 of the Protest Petition, the fraud perpetrated in favor of Protestee Zubiri in the Province of Maguindanao was very massive, unprecedented, and entailed the cooperation of the NBC itself! 96.

It is the contention of the herein Protestant that the entire provincial

results of Maguindanao for the Senatorial elections of May 14, 2007 had been manufactured to favor Protestee Zubiri and ensure his fraudulent proclamation as the 12th and last winning senatorial candidate in the said elections. 97.

The final picture of the massive fraud perpetrated in the Province of

Maguindanao will be composed after the discussion of the 18 non-pilot municipalities

from said province. Suffice it to state for the moment that everything about Maguindanao during the May 2007 elections was irregular, against the law, and unprecedented. Just consider the following: (1) (2) (3) (4)

(5)

(6) (7)

(8)

(9) (10)

(11) (12)

(13) (14) (15)

Closed door (alleged) centralized precinct counting of votes at the Provincial Capitol, which is against the law; Closed door (alleged) centralized municipal canvassing of votes at the Provincial Capitol, which is again against the law; NAMFREL not allowed to witness proceedings and not given its copy of the ER, again against the law; Election proceedings were under the control of the Provincial Government (whose officials were candidates themselves!) not the Comelec, which is not only against the law but against the Constitution itself; Statistically improbable results in the first PCOC (“Bedol PCOC”, with 19 candidates getting “zero” votes in the entire province with 1,078 precincts, including eventual winners Lacson, Alan Cayetano, Aquino, and Trillanes; “Lost, then Stolen” MCOCs (two versions of Bedol‟s story) which are supposed to support “Bedol‟s PCOC”; Chairpersons of the Municipal Boards of Canvassers (“MBOCs”) of the 22 Municipalities of Maguindanao were in Manila pursuant to a subpoena but were immediately told to go back to Maguindanao; Solitary copies of the 22 MCOCs surfacing one month after the May 14, 2007 elections; (MCOCs are required by law to be accomplished in seven copies!)27 Collection of these late-surfacing MCOCs by the Comelec/NBC at General Santos City with no questions asked or allowed; The Chairpersons of the MBOCs could produce only copy 2 (which is the “wall copy”) but could not produce the copy meant for them (“copy 4”); No other MCOC copy in existence, with no explanation why this is the case; Although the MCOCs collected at General Santos City were already brought to Manila, still the “canvassing” of the SPBOC of Maguindanao (the “Santos Board”) was ordered by the Comelec/NBC to be held in Shariff Aguak in Maguindanao; The “canvassing” of the Santos Board at Shariff Aguak also did not allow questions to be asked; The canvassing of the “Santos PCOC” before the NBC also did not allow questions to be asked; The acceptance of the “Santos PCOC” by the NBC into the National Tally even though its figures were substantially similar to the “Bedol PCOC” which was declared statistically improbable; (The “Santos PCOC” had 18 candidates getting “zero” votes in the entire province with 1,078 precincts, including eventual winners Lacson, Alan Cayetano, and Aquino. Candidate Trillanes was gifted with 2,147 votes in one municipality, Gen. SK Pendatun.)

See Sec. 43, Art. IV, of Comelec Resolution No. 7859, dated 17 April 2007, “The General Instructions for the Municipal/City/Provincial and District Boards of Canvassers on the Casting and Counting of Votes for the May 14, 2007 Elections”.

(16)

(17)

(1)

Unbelievable vote conversion rates for Protestee Zubiri in the “Bedol and Santos PCOCs”. In the “Santos PCOC”, Protesee Zubiri is alleged to have obtained 195,823 votes from 198,912 voters who actually voted out of a total number of 205,782 registered voters (in the precincts covered by the Santos PCOC28). Last but not the least, there is not a single Election Return in existence coming from any of the precincts covered by the Bedol and Santos PCOCs of Maguindanao on file with the Comelec. The NAMFREL too has no copy of a single Maguindanao ER. And no one knows why this is the case, since the Comelec/NBC has forbidden the asking of questions with regard to Maguindanao.

Ampatuan, Maguindanao 98.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Ampatuan, Maguindanao, are the following:

99.

(1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

Except for the ballots, no other documents (such as election returns, tally boards29 and minutes of voting and counting) were found inside all the revised ballot boxes of this municipality.30

(3)

Almost all, if not all, of the ballots purportedly cast for Protestee Zubiri were, in pairs or in groups, written by one hand, or accomplished in groups, by the same group of persons, with the same or similar styles and strokes of handwriting.

(4)

The fill up rate of the ballots31 is unbelievably high at 12.02, meaning, all the voters who voted filled up all of the 12 senatorial slots, which runs counter to ordinary human experience especially in a place not known for the high literacy level of its residents. The excess of the fill up rate over 12 means that some of the voters voted for 13 or more names, which is simply against the law!

(5)

Discrepancies in the number of detachable coupons vis-à-vis the number of physically counted ballots.

All the above confirm the Protestant‟s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality. 28

212,795 minus 7,013 voters covered by the 36 Pagalungan Precincts. Only two precincts have Tally Boards, 13A and 24A. 30 Comelec Resolution No. 7815 dated 26 January 2007 (“General Instructions for the Board of Election Inspectors on the Casting and Counting of Votes for the May 14, 2007 Elections”) requires the BEI to place inside the ballot boxes, after the counting of votes, aside from the ballots themselves, the Election Return (“ER”), the Minutes of Voting (“MOV”), and the Tally Board (“TB”). 31 The “fill up rate” for an area is computed by adding all the votes of all the senatorial candidates and dividing this total by the number of voters who actually voted in that area. 29

(2)

Buluan, Maguindanao 100.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Buluan, Maguindanao, are the following:

101.

(1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

Except for the ballots, no other documents (such as election returns, tally boards and minutes of voting and counting) were found inside all the revised ballot boxes of this municipality.

(3)

(4)

The fill up rate of the ballots is abnormally high at 10.86, meaning, most of the 12 senatorial slots were filled up by almost all the voters, which runs counter to ordinary human experience especially in a place not known for the high literacy level of its residents.

(5)

Presence of detachable coupons which are mostly cut using sharp object like scissors.

(6)

Discrepancies in the number of detachable coupons vis-Ă -vis the number of physically counted ballots.

All the above confirm the Protestantâ&#x20AC;&#x;s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality.

(3)

Guindulungan, Maguindanao 102.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Guindulungan, Maguindanao, are the following: (1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

Except for the ballots and election returns found in only two precincts (2A and 6A/B), no other documents (such as tally boards and minutes of voting and counting) were found inside all the revised ballot boxes of this municipality.

103.

(3)

The presence of two (2) sets of ballots in Prec. 2A totalling 305 ballots (113 of which are genuine and untorn, while 192 are fake and torn ballots). Protestee Zubiri‟s physically counted vote total of “305” in this precinct is scandalously way over the reported number of voters who actually voted.

(4)

(5)

The fill up rate of the ballots is unbelievably high at 11.01, meaning, most if not all of the 12 senatorial slots were filled up, which runs counter to ordinary human experience especially in a place not known for the high literacy level of its residents.

(6)

Discrepancies in the number of detachable coupons vis-à-vis the number of physically counted ballots.

All the above confirm the Protestant‟s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality.

(4)

Paglat, Maguindanao 104.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Guindulungan, Maguindanao, are the following: (1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

Except for the ballots, no other documents (such as election returns, tally boards and minutes of voting and counting) were found inside all the revised ballot boxes of this municipality.

(3)

(4)

The fill up rate of the ballots is fantastically high at 12.01, meaning, the total votes of all the senatorial candidates exceeded the total votes which all the voters who actually voted could possibly cast! This runs counter to ordinary human experience especially in a place not known for the high literacy level of its residents.

(5)

Discrepancies in the number of detachable coupons vis-à-vis the number of physically counted ballots.

105.

All the above confirm the Protestant‟s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality. 106.

In the pilot areas of Ampatuan, Buluan, Guindulungan, and Paglat, all

in Maguindanao, the ballot boxes did not contain the Minutes of Voting, Election Return, and Tally Board. The uniformity of this fact of absence of the necessary documents already proves the serious irregularity which occurred and the massiveness of the fraud perpetrated in these municipalities. Apparently, the syndicate which operated therein ran out of time for manufacturing these documents or did not have access to these documents. 107.

Another indication of massive fraud perpetrated in the 4 pilot

Municipalities of Maguindanao are the unbelievably high conversion rates of Protestee Zubiri in these areas compared to those generated in this home province of Bukidnon, to wit: Table 31. Comparison of Zubiri‟s Vote Conversion Rates in Ampatuan, Buluan, Guindulungan, Paglat, all in Maguindanao & Bukidnon Number of Registered Voters Number of Voters Who Actually Voted Voter Turn Out (Percentage) Zubiri‟s Officially Credited Vote Total (carried to NBC‟s National Tally) Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rate” based on Number of Registered Voters Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rate” based on Number of Voters Who Actually Voted

108.

Ampatuan

Buluan

Guindulungan

Paglat

Bukidnon

10,613

10,118

4,830

4,682

601,629

10,308

9,849

4,774

4,528

456,407

97.13%

97.34%

98.84%

96.71%

75.86%

10,205

9,635

4,579

4,401

328,970

96.15%

95.22%

94.80%

94.00%

54.68%

99.00%

97.83%

95.92%

97.20%

72.08%

For comparison purposes, we also give Protestee Zubiri‟s “vote

conversion rates” in the 36 precincts in Pagalungan, the only count in Maguindanao with ERs present (although not covered by the Santos PCOC and not included in this

Protest), and ask, why is it that when ERs from this certain place in Maguindanao are present, Protestee Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rates” drop to realistic levels? Table 32. Comparison of Zubiri‟s Vote Conversion Rates in Pagalungan, Maguindanao (36 precincts) & Bukidnon Number of Registered Voters Number of Voters Who Actually Voted Voter Turn Out (Percentage) Zubiri‟s Officially Credited Vote Total (carried to NBC‟s National Tally) Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rate” based on Number of Registered Voters Zubiri‟s “vote conversion rate” based on Number of Voters Who Actually Voted

(5)

Pagalungan (36 precincts) 7,013 5,988 85.38%

Bukidnon 601,629 456,407 75.86%

1,216

328,970

17.34%

54.68%

20.31%

72.08%

Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 109.

In the pilot area of Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, there was total

absence of ballots and election documents (such as election returns, tally boards and minutes of voting and counting) in the ballot boxes of the whole municipality, except in one (1) precinct, Prec. 64D/E. Protestee Zubiri has not advanced any explanation nor theory as to why this is the case. 110.

It is worth repeating herein the Protestant‟s allegations in the Protest

Petition with regard to Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan: “5.32. In Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan, the SOVP was typewritten! This is a clear indication of its manufactured nature. Ninety (90) precincts have 100% voter turn-out. Eighty (80) precincts have 98-99.99% voter turn-out. Nineteen (19) precincts have excess vote totals for Protestee Zubiri compared to the total number of voters who voted. This matter was brought to the attention of the ComelecNBC in a verified Petition docketed as NBC 07-157 (S) which, however, was summarily dismissed by the Comelec-NBC.” 111.

All the above confirm the Protestant‟s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality, as already palpably suggested in the typewritten SOVP from this municipality (please see Exh. “F2” and sub-markings). 112.

The total absence of ballots and election documents in the ballot boxes

of the whole municipality is certainly a ground for the annulment or nullification of the municipal-wide canvassed senatorial “results” from this municipality.

(6)

Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 113.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte are the following:

114.

(1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

Fifty five (55) precincts are without Tally Boards.

(3)

Election returns, particularly page 1 for the national positions, are all fake, either because it did not contain the official watermark “COMELEC 07” which can be seen only by using ultra violet light or when viewed against the light, or in case there is such “COMELEC 07”, the same is not clearly printed, blurred or in smaller, smudged or scattered letters, and with different texture of the paper vis-à-vis the genuine one used in the other pages, especially page 1 for the local position.

(4)

One (1) precinct, Prec. 66A, is with two (2) sets of ballots, one genuine (89 ballots) and the other fake (174 ballots).

(5)

The presence of half torn, unused ballots, which are genuine, in many revised precincts of this municipality, and used by Pimentel‟s revisors as basis for comparison with the fake, used (or filled up) ballots therein.

(6)

(7)

Many ballots are also individually (but in groups) written by two persons, meaning, with insertions done by one and the same hand or hands.

(8)

The fill up rate of the ballots is abnormally high at 10.55, meaning, most if not all of the 12 senatorial slots were filled up, which runs counter to ordinary human experience especially in a place not known for the high literacy level of its residents.

All the above confirm the Protestant‟s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality.

(7)

Salvador, Lanao del Norte 115.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Salvador, Lanao del Norte are the following:

116.

(1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

Sixty (60) precincts are without Tally Boards.

(3)

Six (6) precincts are without Election Returns or with ERs with unreadable entries.

(4)

Election Returns, particularly page 1 for the national positions, are all fake, either because it did not contain the official watermark “COMELEC 07” which can be seen only by using ultra violet light or when viewed against the light, or in case there is such “COMELEC 07”, the same is not clearly printed, blurred or in smaller, smudged or scattered letters, and with different texture of the paper vis-à-vis the genuine one used in the other pages, especially page 1 for the local positions.

(5)

There are two (2) precincts, Prec. Nos. 63A and 70A/B, with two (2) sets of ballots, one genuine and the other fake.

(6)

The presence of half-torn, unused ballots, all genuine, in many revised precincts, used by Protestant Pimentel‟s revisors as basis for comparison with the fake, used (or filled up) ballots therein.

(7)

(8)

Many ballots are also individually (but in groups), written by two persons, i. e., with insertions by one and the same hand or hands.

(9)

The fill up rate of the ballots is abnormally high at 11.16, meaning, most if not all of the 12 senatorial slots were filled up, which runs counter to ordinary human experience especially in a place not known for the high literacy level of its residents.

All the above confirm the Protestant‟s core claim of bogus,

manufactured results in this municipality.

(8)

Matungao, Lanao del Norte 117.

The Protest Petition alleges the following for Matungao, Lanao del

Norte: “5.34. In Matungao, Lanao del Norte, the systematic pre-fixing and suffixing of numerals is obvious on the face of the SOVP, which fraudulent acts clearly favored Protestee Zubiri by increasing his votes, for example: In Precinct 1-A, his vote total of “2” became “421”; In Precinct 3A, from “30” to “130”; In Precinct 9A&B, from “47” to “147”; In Precinct 8A, from “18” to “118”; In Precinct 15A, from “33” to “133”; This manner of „dagdag-bawas‟ was repeated in numerous other precincts. This matter was brought to the attention of the ComelecNBC in a verified Petition docketed as NBC 07-161 (S) which however was summarily dismissed by the Comelec-NBC.” 118.

In the pilot area of Matungao, Lanao del Norte, the padding in the

Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) was confirmed. Hence, Protestee Zubiri‟s physically counted votes is 2,327 short of his vote total for this municipality as tallied by the NBC. (3,863 minus 1,535; see Table 25) 119.

Of Protestee Zubiri‟s 1,535 physically counted votes in this

municipality, Protestant Pimentel objected to 1,085 votes based on the massive presence of ballots written by one, in pairs or in groups, or individually written by two persons, mostly with Zubiri‟s name inserted by one and the same hand or hands in groups of ballots.

(9)

Tapul, Sulu 120.

The highly significant and very revealing findings and observations

during revision for the pilot Municipality of Tapul, Sulu are the following: (1)

The PROLIFERATION OF FAKE OR SPURIOUS BALLOTS with the characteristics mentioned above.

(2)

The absence of Tally Boards in 18 precincts of this municipality.

121.

(3)

The massive presence of written-by-one ballots, in pairs or in groups, and written-by-two ballots, individually written by two persons.

(4)

Genuine unused ballots were found inside the ballot boxes. In some instances, lower detachable coupons were still attached to the filled-out ballots.

Of Protestee Zubiri‟s 3,742 physically counted votes in this

municipality, Protestant Pimentel objected to 3,728 votes based on the grounds mentioned above.

V-D. SUMMARY OF PIMENTEL OBJECTIONS 122.

Of Protestee Zubiri‟s 73,556 physically counted votes in the “Pilot

Areas”, Protestant Pimentel objected to 69,868 Zubiri votes for being infirm and void, based on the grounds mentioned above, broken down by area as follows: Table 33. Protestant‟s Objections to the Physically Counted Votes of Protestee Zubiri Number of Physically Pilot Areas Counted Zubiri Votes Objected To Ampatuan, Maguindanao 8,800 Buluan, Maguindanao 9,245 Guindulungan, Maguindanao 3,540 Paglat, Maguindanao 3,804 Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabunsuan 10 Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 24,161 Salvador, Lanao del Norte 15,530 Matungao, Lanao del Norte 1,085 Tapul, Sulu 3,693 TOTAL 69,868 123.

The difference between the two figures mentioned above would

represent the “common ballots”, those containing the names of both the herein parties, to which the herein Protestant could not object under the SET Revision Rules. 124.

In addition to “common ballots” and “stray ballots” (those without the

names of both parties), the Protestant, under said SET Revision Rules, could also not object to “Pimentel only ballots”. But the Protestant shall be consistent. Those votes for him which are infirm, especially those written on spurious ballots, must be rejected and not be counted in his favor. 45

CONCLUSION 125.

Given the electoral frauds proven from the Pilot Areas, we should all be

worried about the future of Philippine Democracy. 126.

Syndicates cooperating with the Comelec/NBC now simply award any

number of votes to any candidate(s) of their choosing (and these are treated as “official results” by the Comelec!). In these pilot areas, we have seen the manufacturing of entire municipal results. When the Maguindanao scenario is fully discussed, we will see that even entire provincial results can now be manufactured. 127.

It is time to open our eyes to reality. We cannot forever allow the

syndicates to hide under the “presumption of regularity of public functions and authenticity of public documents”. The herein Protestant humbly proposes that henceforth, the interpretation of election laws and regulations must pursue two purposes: to determine the true will of the people and to prevent the perpetration and the perpetuation of electoral fraud.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Tribunal consider the results of the revision proceedings and the testimonial and documentary evidence offered, covering the Protestant‟s Pilot Areas consisting of Nine Municipalities, not only to have sufficiently demonstrated and proven the electoral frauds pleaded and alleged by the Protestant in his Protest Petition, but also to have proven that the proclamation by the NBC of Protestee Zubiri as the 12th and last winner in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections was wrong, illegal, fraudulent, and not pursuant to the “sovereign will of the people” because, from the Pilot Areas alone, Protestant Pimentel has already overhauled the presumptive lead of Protestee Zubiri as given by the NBC, and that Protestant Pimentel has in fact overtaken Protestee Zubiri in their running total of valid votes obtained in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections.

Thus, the remainder of the Protestantâ&#x20AC;&#x;s Protest should be allowed by this Honorable Tribunal to proceed to its logical conclusion. Other proper and just reliefs are also prayed for. San Juan for Quezon City, 23 May 2008.

ATTY. AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III Unit 2106, The Atlanta Center No. 31 Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila PTR No. 2237631; 01/11/08; Marikina IBP Lifetime Roll No. 05048 Roll of Attorneys No. 37248

COPY FURNISHED BY PERSONAL SERVICE: ATTY. GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA Counsel for Protestee Juan Miguel F. Zubiri Ground Floor, Laiko Bldg., Cabildo St. Intramuros, Manila