The Supreme Court Clarifies Election Protest Costs: No Refund for Retention Fees

Francis N. Tolentino v. Senate Electoral Tribunal and Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 248005, May 11, 2021

Imagine contesting an election result, only to find that the costs involved in safeguarding the voting machines could be a financial burden. This scenario played out in the case of Francis N. Tolentino, who challenged the Senate Electoral Tribunal’s (SET) decision not to refund his payment for retaining election equipment during his election protest against Senator Leila M. De Lima. The core issue revolved around whether the SET could order the return of payments made for the retention of voting machines and related equipment, as mandated by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) under their contract with Smartmatic-TIM.

In this high-stakes election dispute, Tolentino sought the return of over three million pesos he paid as a retention fee for the voting machines used in the 2016 elections. The Supreme Court’s decision sheds light on the legal boundaries of election tribunals and the financial responsibilities of election protesters.

The Legal Framework Surrounding Election Protests

Election protests in the Philippines are governed by the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code. Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution grants the SET the exclusive authority to adjudicate all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators. This power is further detailed in the SET’s 2020 Rules of Procedure, which outline its express, implied, and inherent powers.

The term “election, returns, and qualifications” encompasses all matters affecting the validity of a candidate’s title. This includes the conduct of the polls, the canvassing of returns, and any issues related to the candidate’s eligibility. The SET’s jurisdiction is limited to these matters, and it does not extend to interpreting or invalidating contracts between third parties, such as those between COMELEC and election equipment providers.

The relevant statute here is Republic Act No. 8436, the Election Modernization Act of 1997, as amended by RA No. 9369, which authorizes COMELEC to procure election equipment through various means, including lease with an option to purchase. This is the legal basis for the contract between COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM, which included a provision (Section 6.9) that any election equipment retained beyond a certain date due to an election contest would be considered sold to COMELEC, with the protestant potentially shouldering the costs.

The Journey of Tolentino’s Election Protest

Following the 2016 elections, Tolentino filed an election protest against Senator De Lima, requesting the retention of 151 vote counting machines (VCMs) and six laptops for forensic audit. The SET directed COMELEC to safeguard these machines, subject to Tolentino’s payment of the retention costs, which amounted to over three million pesos.

Despite paying the retention fees, Tolentino later argued that he should be refunded because the machines were not used for the intended forensic audit due to technical issues with the Election Management System (EMS). He claimed that the retention costs were too high and violated his right to free access to the electoral tribunal.

The SET, however, denied his motion for the return of payments, emphasizing that the retention fees were necessary to cover the costs COMELEC had to pay Smartmatic-TIM under their contract. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the SET did not have the jurisdiction to declare the contract’s provision unconstitutional or to order the refund of the retention fees.

Here are key excerpts from the Supreme Court’s reasoning:

• “The SET has no express, inherent or implied power to declare void or unconstitutional Section 6.9 of the AES Contracts, which requires the protestant to shoulder the retention costs.”
• “The SET acted well within the parameters of its jurisdiction when it desisted to rule upon the issue pertaining to the alleged unconstitutionality and invalidity of the disputed provision.”
• “The SET properly relied and enforced the same when it turned over the deposits made by petitioner to the COMELEC as retention cost of the election machines and equipment.”

Implications for Future Election Protests

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tolentino’s case has significant implications for future election protesters. It clarifies that the SET’s jurisdiction is limited to matters directly affecting the validity of a candidate’s title and does not extend to financial disputes arising from election equipment contracts.

For individuals considering an election protest, it is crucial to understand that they may be required to shoulder the costs of retaining election equipment. This decision underscores the importance of thoroughly reviewing the terms of any election equipment contracts and being prepared for potential financial obligations.

Key Lessons:

• Understand the financial implications of an election protest, including potential costs for retaining election equipment.
• Be aware of the SET’s jurisdictional limits and the need to address contractual disputes through the appropriate legal channels.
• Consider the broader public interest in election disputes, as government funds cannot be used to cover private election protest costs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the role of the Senate Electoral Tribunal in election protests?
The SET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution.

Can the SET order the return of payments made for election equipment retention?
No, the SET does not have the jurisdiction to order the return of such payments, as seen in the Tolentino case.

What are the financial responsibilities of an election protester?
An election protester may be required to pay for the retention of election equipment, as stipulated in contracts between COMELEC and equipment providers.

How can an election protester challenge the terms of an election equipment contract?
Such challenges must be brought before the regular courts, not the SET, as the SET’s jurisdiction is limited to election contests.

What should be considered before filing an election protest?
Consider the potential financial costs, the likelihood of success, and the procedural requirements of the SET.

ASG Law specializes in election law and electoral disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.