Memorandum On The Counter Protest Pilot Precincts (FINAL)

Republic of the Philippines
SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Quezon City
AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III,

Protestant/Counter-Protestee,
- versus - SET CASE NO. 001 – 07
JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI,

Protestee/Counter-Protestant.
x-------------------------x
PROTESTANT / COUNTER-PROTESTEE PIMENTEL’S

MEMORANDUM
[ON THE PILOT PRECINCTS OF THE COUNTER-PROTEST]
COMES NOW the Protestant/Counter-Protestee Pimentel, by himself, unto
this Honorable Tribunal most respectfully submits his Memorandum on the Pilot
Areas of Protestee/Counter-Protestant Zubiri’s Counter-Protest, pursuant to SET
Resolution No. 07-100, a copy of which was received on April 26, 2010, to wit:
I. PUTTING THE ZUBIRI COUNTER-PROTEST IN PROPER

PERSPECTIVE
This Counter-Protest is Protestee Zubiri’s Protest, not Protestant Pimentel’s.
(Henceforth Protestant/Counter-Protestee Pimentel will be referred to herein as simply
“Pimentel” and Protestee/Counter-Protestant Zubiri as simply “Zubiri”.)
It is therefore Zubiri’s obligation to prove his allegations.
Because of the sheer absurd size of Protestee Zubiri’s Counter-Protest,
bordering on the criminal, imagine spending P70 Million just to stay in office
(computed at P1,000 to be spent per protested precinct), there is a need to put things in
proper perspective.
PIMENTEL’S MEMORANDUM
ON THE PILOT PRECINCTS OF THE COUNTER-PROTEST
Page 1 of 76
In July 2007, Protestant Pimentel filed the election protest subject of these
proceedings (the “main protest”). Pimentel protested a total of 2,658 precincts. Of
these, 664 were designated as “pilot precincts” as required under Rule 79 of the
Revised Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (henceforth to be referred to herein as
simply “SET”).
Zubiri filed his Answer dated 11 August 2007 to the Pimentel Protest, which
Answer included a Counter-Protest. Zubiri counter-protested a total of 70,607 new
precincts. (We have to qualify the number of counter-protested precincts with the
word “new” because Zubiri also counter-protested the 2,658 precincts covered by the
main protest.) Of these 73,265 total counter-protested precincts (70,607 plus 2,658),
18,316 were designated as “pilot precincts” as stated in Zubiri’s Preliminary
Conference Brief.
In short, the pilot precincts alone of the Counter-Protest is almost 7 times as
large as the entire main protest, and 27.5 times larger than the main protest’s pilot
precincts!
It should be emphasized that from Pimentel’s 664 pilot precincts in the main
protest, per Pimentel’s computation he had already posted a “net gain” of 103,812
votes, for an average Pimentel recovery or “net gain” of 156.34 votes per pilot
precinct.
From Pimentel’s total protested precincts of 2,658 precincts, per Pimentel’s
computation he had already posted a “net gain” of 264,858 votes, for an average
Pimentel recovery or “net gain” of 99.64 votes per protested precinct.
Page 2 of 76
The Coverage of Zubiri’s Counter-Protest
The following are the areas covered by the Zubiri Counter-Protest, together
with their total number of counter-protested precincts and the number of designated
pilot precincts per Zubiri’s Preliminary Conference Brief (“PCB”):
PROVINCE/ Total No. of

CITY/ Counter Protested Total No. of
MUNICIPALITY Precincts Pilot Precincts
1 Makati City 1,837 885
2 Muntinlupa City 1,096 274
3 Las Piñas City 1,644 411
4 Parañaque City 1,219 305
5 Quezon City 5,049 1,263
6 Caloocan City 2,986 747
7 Pasay City 1,313 328
8 Pasig City 1,709 427
9 San Juan City 316 316
10 Pateros 179 45
11 Marikina City 1,016 254
12 Mandaluyong City 944 236
13 Manila City 4,903 1,225
14 Malabon City 824 206
15 Navotas City 613 153
16 Laguna 6,187 1,547
17 Nueva Ecija 5,387 1,347
18 Zamboanga City 1,848 462
19 Quezon Province 4,296 1,074
20 Cavite 6,691 1,673
21 Cagayan 2,556 639
22 Ilocos Norte 1,571 393
23 Camarines Norte 1,091 273
24 Bogo City, Cebu 196 49
25 Palawan 2,223 556
26 Bulacan 7,089 1,772
27 Batangas 5,824 1,456
Total 70,607 18,316
Page 3 of 76
II. “HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE!”
So how did Zubiri justify such a gargantuan counter-protest?
According to Zubiri:
(1) In MAKATI CITY, NAVOTAS CITY, PARAÑAQUE CITY, PASIG
CITY, MANILA CITY, MARIKINA CITY, MALABON CITY, LAS PIÑAS
CITY AND PASAY CITY, -
“The results in these cities are statistically improbable as shown by
the fact that only one administration candidate made it to the magic 12.
The voters of these progressive cities are noted for being independent
and for political choices which transcends party affiliations. It is
therefore anomalous that no other TU candidates, specifically protestee
Zubiri received votes sufficient to land them to the 12 voters’
preference. Moreover, the certificates of canvass contain erasures and
alterations rendering the results unreliable. Given the summary nature
of canvass proceedings, the true and actual number of votes credited to
protestee was not absolutely determined.”
(2) In QUEZON CITY, -
“The votes credited for protestee in all the precincts of Quezon City
were erroneously computed and tallied. Quezon City is the seat of the
House of Representatives of which protestee is a member. It is
therefore beyond belief that the votes reflected in the election returns
prepared by the Board of Election Inspectors were far below than what
had been projected as votes garnered by protestee. The election returns
prepared by the Board of Election Inspectors contained erasures, thus,
Page 4 of 76
the correct and true results reflected therein can not truly be determined
in the canvass proceedings.”
Page 5 of 76
(3) In CALOOCAN CITY, -
“The results in this City can not be considered as truly reflective of
the will of the electorate. The election returns and the Statement of
Votes were with erasures and alterations that the truthfulness of the
entries specifically with respect to the votes obtained by Zubiri therein
can not be fully and truly ascertained in the canvass proceedings.”
(4) In SAN JUAN CITY, -
“The entries reflected in the certificate of canvass pertaining to this
city cannot be considered as truly reflective of the senatorial results.
The certificates of canvass contain erasures and alterations specifically
in the senatorial results, not initialed by the Board of Canvassers. The
truthfulness of the votes recorded as results of the canvass, specifically
with respect to protestee Zubiri can not be fully determined through the
canvassing proceeding which is summary in nature.”
(5) In the PROVINCE OF BATANGAS (all municipalities), -
“The Province of Batangas is a well-known administration
bailiwick. The results as reflected in the certificate of canvass
pertaining to said province are definitely statistically improbable
considering that only two candidates of the administration made it to
the magic 12. The certificates of canvass contain erasures and
alterations specifically in the votes indicated for Zubiri. As a rule,
allegations of fraudulent preparation can be summarily dismissed by
the boards of canvassers if the alleged irregularity is not manifest on
the face of the certificates. Considering that there were erasures and
alterations in the results contained in the certificate of canvass, the
truthfulness of the votes credited for Zubiri reflected therein cannot be
fully ascertained by a mere superficial consideration of its appearance.”

Page 6 of 76
(6) In the PROVINCE OF BULACAN (all municipalities), -
“The Province of Bulacan is counted as a province of independent
minded electorate. Their choices transcends political affiliations. The
result therefore showing that there was only one administration
candidate voted to the magic 12 rendered the senatorial results highly
improbable. The fact that the certificate of canvass pertaining to the
province contained erasures and alterations specifically with respect to
the senatorial results, which were not validated by the signature of the
Chairman of the Board of Canvassers, the veracity of the senatorial
results cannot be conclusively determined by a mere look and
consideration of its appearance during the canvass proceedings. The
erasures infected the vote results credited to protestee. The error must
be rectified through a judicial recount.”
(7) In the PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE (all municipalities), -
“The results reflected in the Certificate of Canvass of this province
is (sic) highly suspicious. The political machinery of Team Unity was
admittedly strong and smooth running in Ilocos Norte. The fact that
only two administration candidates made it to the magic 12 rendered
the result statistically improbable. The erasures and alterations manifest
in the certificate of canvass could have been made to conceal the
shaving of the votes TU candidates, Zubiri included. Considering that
the truthfulness of the results contained in the certificate of canvass
cannot be truly and conclusively determined by a mere consideration of
its appearance and condition, judicial recount of the results must be
resorted to.”
Page 7 of 76
(8) In the PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE (all municipalities), -
“The results as reflected in the certificate of canvass pertaining to
said province are definitely statistically improbable considering that
only two candidates of the administration made it to the magic 12. The
certificates of canvass contain erasures and alterations specially in the
votes indicated for Zubiri. As a rule, allegations of fraudulent
preparation can be summarily dismissed by the boards of canvassers if
the alleged irregularity is not manifest on the face of the certificates.
Considering that there were erasures and alterations in the results
contained in the certificate of canvass, the truthfulness of the votes
credited for Zubiri reflected therein cannot be fully ascertained by a
mere superficial consideration of its appearance.”
(9) In the PROVINCE OF CAVITE (all municipalities), -
“In Cavite province administration candidates specifically in the
provincial level had only token opponents. The result therefore
showing only one administration candidate making it to the magic 12
rendered the senatorial canvass highly anomalous. The erasures and
alterations manifest in the certificate of canvass could have been made
to conceal the shaving of the votes for TU candidates, Zubiri included.
Considering that the truthfulness of the results contained in the
certificate of canvass cannot be truly and conclusively determined by a
mere consideration of its appearance and condition, judicial recount of
the results must be resorted to.”
(10) In ZAMBOANGA CITY, -
“In Zamboanga City administration candidates specifically in the
City and provincial levels had only token opponents. The result
therefore showing only one administration candidate making it to the

Page 8 of 76
magic 12 rendered the senatorial canvass highly anomalous. The
erasures and alterations manifest in the certificate of canvass could
have been made to conceal the shaving of the votes for TU candidates,
Zubiri included. Considering that the truthfulness of the results
contained in the certificate of canvass cannot be truly and conclusively
determined by a mere consideration of its appearance and condition,
judicial recount of the results must be resorted to.”
(11) In the PROVINCES OF LAGUNA, PALAWAN, NUEVA ECIJA and
QUEZON (all of their respective municipalities), -
“The results as reflected in the certificate of canvass pertaining to
said provinces are definitely statistically improbable considering that
only two candidates of the administration made it to the magic 12. The
certificate of canvass contain erasures and alterations specially in the
votes indicated for Zubiri. As a rule, allegations of fraudulent
preparation can be summarily dismissed by the boards of canvassers if
the alleged irregularity is not manifest on the face of the certificates.
Considering that there were erasures and alterations in the results
contained in the certificate of canvass, the truthfulness of the votes
credited foe Zubiri reflected therein cannot be fully ascertained by a
mere superficial consideration of its appearance.”
(12) In the MUNICIPALITY OF PATEROS and MUNTINLUPA CITY, -
“The results in these constituencies are impugned on the following
grounds:
Substitute voting or voting by persons other than the registered
voters which partly account for the presence of ballots which were
prepared in pairs or in groups, in favor of protestant.
Page 9 of 76
Illiterate/disabled voters assisted by unqualified assistors, or
assistors who filled up ballots contrary to or not in accord with the
illiterate/disabled voters’ instructions Assistors who are not BEI
members, but who are well-known supporters of the opposition
candidates assisted more than three times, in violation of the Omnibus
Election Code, thereby unduly increasing the votes of opposition
candidates, protestant included.”
It is easy to make the above-quoted claims, especially if the claimant is the one
enjoying the privileges and resources of the contested office! The allegations made by
Zubiri are laughable indeed, just take a second look at the outrageous arguments
advanced by Zubiri for MAKATI CITY, NAVOTAS CITY, PARAÑAQUE CITY,
PASIG CITY, MANILA CITY, MARIKINA CITY, MALABON CITY, LAS
PIÑAS CITY, PASAY CITY, and QUEZON CITY, which are representative of the
rest of the counter-protested areas, to wit:
“The results in these cities are statistically

improbable as shown by the fact that only one
administration candidate made it to the magic 12. The
voters of these progressive cities are noted for being
independent and for political choices which transcends
party affiliations. It is therefore anomalous that no other
TU candidates, specifically protestee Zubiri received
votes sufficient to land them to the 12 voters’
preference.”
and
“Quezon City is the seat of the House of

Representatives of which protestee is a member. It is
therefore beyond belief that the votes reflected in the
election returns prepared by the Board of Election
Inspectors were far below than what had been projected
as votes garnered by protestee.”
Page 10 of 76
For the PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN, MANDALUYONG CITY, and
BOGO CITY in CEBU, Zubiri did not even attempt to give any justification for their
inclusion in his counter-protest!
Just to be sure, Zubiri added GENERAL GROUNDS to justify his massive
counter-protest, as follows:
“In addition to the specifically mentioned election anomalies and

irregularities committed in these Ten (10) provinces and Seventeen (17)
cities that redounded to the benefit of the protestant, protestee/counter-
protestant is raising the following grounds in support of the allegations
of fraud in the above-enumerated precincts:
a. Votes in the ballots lawfully and validly cast in favor of protestee were
deliberately misread and/or mis-appreciated by the various chairmen of the
different boards of election inspectors;
b. Valid votes of protestee were intentionally or erroneously counted or

tallied in the election returns as votes for the other senatorial candidates;
c. Thousands of valid ballots containing valid votes for protestee were

intentionally and erroneously mis-appreciated or considered as marked and
declared as null and void;
d. Votes that are void because the ballots containing them were pasted
with stickers or because of other fraud and election anomalies, were unlawfully
read and counted in favor of the protestee [emphasis supplied]; and,
Votes reported in numerous election returns were unlawfully increased

in favor of the protestant and his political allies, while votes in said
election returns for the protestee were unlawfully decreased (“dagdag-
bawas”), such that protestant and his groups appeared to have obtained
more votes than those actually cast in his favor, while the protestee
appeared to have obtained less votes than the actually cast in his
(protestee’s) favor.”
But the above-quoted general grounds have been proven to have been copied
(through “cut and paste technology”) from the grounds alleged in the protest involved
in the case of Homer T. Saquilayan v. Commission on Elections and Oscar Jaro, G.
R. No. 157249, November 28, 2003, which involved the contested position of Mayor
of Imus, Cavite, during the 2001 elections! (That explains the use of the word
“protestee” in paragraph (d) above. Zubiri is in effect protesting against himself!)
WHAT KIND OF A SHAM COUNTER-PROTEST IS THIS?
Page 11 of 76
Pimentel, from the start, has NEVER RECOGNIZED the validity of Zubiri’s
absurd Counter-Protest covering one-third of the entire Philippines! Pimentel does not
want to cheat, did not and will never cheat, and does not even have the capability and
the facilities to cheat even in one small municipality, how much more in one-third of
the entire Philippines.
Pimentel answered Zubiri’s Counter-Protest as follows:
“b. By Way of Answer to Counter-Protest

12. Protestant Pimentel specifically denies the enumerated “[A]cts and
omissions unfairly favoring Pimentel to the prejudice of Zubiri”
alleged to have been committed in a total of 73,265 precincts cutting
across 10 provinces and 17 cities and the precincts covered by
Pimentel’s protest itself, as presented in the paragraphs found in pages
22 to 45, inclusive. The purported allegations of fraud therein are
self-serving, speculative and completely unfounded, as they are
without factual anchor.
13. Easily a cause for wonderment, if not amusement, is the fact that
Zubiri dared counter-protest the official results in the various cities and
municipalities of Metro Manila! His common complaint relative to the
Metro Manila results is that administration candidates, including
Zubiri, barely made it to the magic 12 in most of the Metro Manila
areas. But, of course! Metro Manila is, traditionally and habitually, an
opposition bailiwick. With ready access to information and events of
political import, or significance, the Metro Manila electorate was at a
most distinct position to pass judgment on the acceptability, worthiness
and achievements of the senatorial candidates. The verdict was a
resounding rejection of the administration candidates. No fair or
reasonable mind would accept Zubiri’s suppositions of ‘statistically
improbable’ or ‘fraudulent’ senatorial results in Metro Manila and other
counter-protested areas.
14. Zubiri’s underlying but unstated theory is that if he did not fall
within the top 12 winning senatorial candidates, then he must have
been cheated! Such is a ridiculous theory. And reveals the conceit of
a person spoiled with generous servings of so-called ‘command votes’.
In areas which Zubiri himself labels as ‘independent-minded’ and
‘intelligent’, he loses. Doesn’t he get the point?
15. The sheer number of the precincts subject of Zubiri’s counter-
protest – a total of 73,265 precincts (70,607 new precincts as well as
the originally protested 2,658 precincts) – is mind-boggling, bordering
on the absurd or preposterous. Given such high number of counter-
protested precincts, then Zubiri ought to be the ‘actual protestant’.
15.1. Zubiri questions the election results in 73,265 precincts which
is about one-third (1/3) of the entire country (total of 224,682 clustered
precincts). If the election, under which he has been proclaimed elected,
was marred by fraud to such a massive extent, then why did Zubiri
accept his alleged ‘mandate’ from such fraudulent elections?
15.2. By counter-protesting 1/3 of the country, it is OBVIOUS that
Zubiri, the one enjoying the contested office, is involved in a DELAY-
Page 12 of 76
THE-PROTEST strategy! Which strategy speaks volumes on the lack
of substance, integrity and credibility of his counter-protest. The
massive scope of the counter-protest even smacks of bad faith.
16. Zubiri’s confusion or DELAY-THE-PROTEST strategy also

reveals itself in his adoption of the originally the protested 2,658
precincts. According to Zubiri: ‘xxx Protestee therefore intends to
show, that the votes credited to protestant and to protestee in the
canvass proceedings by the National Board of Canvassers truthfully
pertains to each of them. In the event therefore that protestant
withdraws protested precincts from judicial recount, protestee shall, by
way of this counter-protest pursue said course of action based on the
irregularities and fraud cited in pages 43 to 44 hereof.’ (emphasis
supplied; p. 45, Answer)
16.1. Pages 43 to 44 mention deliberate misreading, mis-tallying,
misappreciation, unlawful counting of marked ballots, intentional
dagdag-bawas, which are all fraudulent acts. So, which is which? Are
the results in the originally protested 2,658 precincts truthful or the
results of intentional fraudulent acts?” [emphasis supplied]
It is a basic doctrine in law that “HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE!”
In an election protest (and counter-protest), it is not enough for the protestant
(and the counter-protestant in a counter-protest) to prove that the election was not
perfect, for no election will ever be perfect, most especially a manual one. It is also not
enough for the protestant (and the counter-protestant in a counter-protest) to prove that
there were irregularities, as not all irregularities amount to fraud which frustrate the
will of the electorate. It is also not enough for the protestant (and the counter-
protestant in a counter-protest) to simply prove that there was fraud, any kind of fraud.
The fraud which must be proven by the protestant (and the counter-protestant in a
counter-protest) is one of such nature and magnitude as to affect and change the
outcome of the election being contested.
In the case of Zubiri, he must prove from his pilot precincts, which are
supposed to be his BEST EVIDENCE of the fraud he has complained about or “best
exemplifying or demonstrating the electoral frauds pleaded by him” (per Rule 79 of
the SET Rules), that fraud was committed against him in such magnitude as to
overcome the tremendous lead established over him by Pimentel from Pimentel’s main
protest.
Page 13 of 76
So, what has Zubiri proven in his counter-protest? Absolutely Nothing!
III. WHAT KIND OF A SHAM COUNTER-PROTEST IS THIS?
Although the above-quoted ludicrous allegations of Zubiri already betray the
baselessness of his Counter-Protest, this Honorable Tribunal gave him the chance to
prove his allegations, even giving him an extension of time of fifty two (52) days to do
so, after he intentionally wasted the first eighty four (84) days for the presentation of
his evidence.
Zubiri’s Documentary Evidence
For his DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, Zubiri presented merely the
following documents, aside from the Revision Reports:
(1) For Makati City, -
• Letter-Request addressed to Comelec re: Project of Precincts (POP),

Statement of Votes (SOV), etc. (Exh. “A”)
• Notice from the Comelec granting the above-stated request (Exh. “A-
1”)
• Project of Precincts (Exh. “A-2”)
• Statement of Votes (Exh. “B”)
• Comelec’s Statistical Data of Number of Registered Voters and the
Number of Voters Who Actually Voted during May 14, 2007 National
and Local Elections (Exh. “C”)
• Zubiri’s Own Statistical Data Per Revision (Exh. “E”)
• Zubiri’s Own Preliminary Appreciation Result (Exh. “F”)
(2) For Muntinlupa City, -
• Project of Precincts (Exh. “A2”)

• Statement of Votes (Exh. “B2”)
• Zubiri’s Own Statistical Data Per Revision (Exh. “E2”)
• Zubiri’s Own Preliminary Appreciation Result (Exh. “F2”)
(3) For Las Piñas City, -

and Local Elections (Exh. “C3”)
Page 14 of 76
(4) For Parañaque City, -

(5) For Quezon City, -
• Letter-Request addressed to the Comelec re: Certified True Copies of

the Project of Precincts (POP), Statement of Votes (SOV) etc. (Exh.
“A5”)
• Notice from the Comelec granting the above-stated request (Exh. “A5-
1.5”)
(6) For Caloocan City, -

(7) For Pasay City, -

Page 15 of 76
(8) For Pasig City, -

(9) For San Juan City, -

(10) For the Municipality of Pateros, -

(11) For Marikina City, -

(12) For Mandaluyong City, -

Page 16 of 76
(13) For the City of Manila, -

(14) For Malabon City, -

(15) For Navotas City, -

(16) For Laguna Province, -

(17) For Nueva Ecija Province, -

Page 17 of 76
(18) For Zamboanga City, -

(19) For Quezon Province, -

(20) For Cavite Province, -

(21) For Cagayan Province, -

(22) For Ilocos Norte Province, -

Page 18 of 76
(23) For Camarines Norte Province, -

(24) For Bogo City, in Cebu -

(25) For Palawan Province, -

(26) For Bulacan Province, -

(27) For Batangas Province, -

What kind of fraud did Zubiri try to prove from the Project of Precincts,
Statement of Votes, and the Comelec’s Statistical Data of Number of Registered

Page 19 of 76
Voters and the Number of Voters Who Actually Voted during May 14, 2007 National
and Local Elections prove? Absolutely Nothing!
It is noteworthy to highlight that in spite of the above-quoted allegations used
by Zubiri to justify his colossal counter-protest, Zubiri did not formally offer any
election return as documentary evidence (even for those precincts which did not yield
an ER). There was not even an effort on Zubiri’s part to fill in the blanks, so to speak.
It was Pimentel, the counter-protestee, who formally offered the ERs in the best
interest of justice, in order to complete the picture. At any rate, this Honorable
Tribunal has broad powers to secure documents and retrieve other data in order to
fully determine the real choice of the people in the contested election.
Zubiri’s own Statistical Data Reports and Preliminary Appreciation Results
have been objected to by Pimentel as follows:
(1) Re: Zubiri’s own Statistical Data Reports
“1. Baseless and self-serving.
2. The Zubiri Statistical Data Report (ZSDR) has not been identified by
the persons who executed or prepared the same. These persons have not
been identified and presented before this Tribunal, thus denying
Counter-Protestee Pimentel the right and opportunity to cross-examine
them;
3. The methodology used in coming up with the ZSDR has not even
been explained. Counter-Protestee Pimentel has noticed precincts with
entries under the Election Return (“ER”) column but with no
corresponding entries in the Physical Count (“PC”) column. Also
noticed were very inaccurate (“wrong”) figures in many of the ER and
PC entries;
4. Furthermore, precincts not listed as “pilot precincts” have been

included in the ZSDR. Also, precincts which were not revised at all
were even included in the ZSDR;”
Page 20 of 76
(2) Re: Zubiri’s own Preliminary Appreciation Results
“1. Baseless and self-serving.
2. The Zubiri Preliminary Appreciation (ZPA) has not been identified

by the persons who executed or prepared the same. These persons have
not been identified and presented before this Tribunal, thus denying
Counter-Protestee Pimentel the right and opportunity to cross-examine
them;
3. The methodology used in coming up with the ZPA has not even been
explained;
4. Precincts not listed as “pilot precincts” have been included in the

ZPA;
5. The appreciation of ballots is the exclusive domain of this Honorable

Tribunal. This Honorable Tribunal does not need help from the parties
through self-serving studies and reports allegedly made by self-
proclaimed ‘seasoned and experienced supervisors and revisors’ to
determine the validity of objected and claimed ballots;
6. In addition, the more or less 129,823 allegedly invalid ballots for

Pimentel allegedly found during revision is a figment of Zubiri’s and
his party revisors’ imagination.”
Furthermore, both sets of documents totally disregarded the requirements of
the Rules of Court on “proof of private documents”.
It is obvious that the above-mentioned documentary exhibits of Zubiri cannot
prove and cannot be used to prove any kind of fraud at all, most especially the ones
alleged by Zubiri in order to justify his gargantuan Counter-Protest, which have
already been quoted earlier.
Zubiri’s Witnesses
For his testimonial evidence, Zubiri merely presented 42 witnesses, 40 of
whom are in his payroll as either revision supervisor or revisor (after convincing the
SET that he had 70 witnesses who would prove fraud, and securing an extension of
time which further delayed the disposition of this case by a couple of months). The
other two (2) witnesses (one a private supplier of paper to the Comelec and the other a
government employee) were not even “eye-witnesses” to any kind of fraud.

Page 21 of 76
If we look at the witnesses presented by Zubiri, it is obvious that he never
intended to prove anything from these people but merely wanted to waste time by
repeating the objections and observations already made and noted during the revision
proceedings, and consequently delay the proper and prompt disposition of this case.
The following were the witnesses presented by Zubiri:
Name Position
MARIA ELIZABETH D. Zubiri’s Own Revision Supervisor
MACARUBBO
RHODORA M. MAYONO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
MA. CRISTINA LEIDO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
CECILLE BERCASIO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
CAROLINA ALUARTE Zubiri’s Own Revisor
MARILYN POBLETE Zubiri’s Own Revisor
RONALD OCAMPO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
JOSE WONG Zubiri’s Own Revisor
LEONIDA VILLA-REAL Zubiri’s Own Revisor
DONNA DE JESUS Zubiri’s Own Revisor
EDMOND ALUARTE Zubiri’s Own Revisor
GILBERTO MIRANDA Zubiri’s Own Revisor
ALFIE SORIANO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
RICHARD OCAMPO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
PEPITO LLAMAS Zubiri’s Own Revisor
GERALD PAUL PARAS Zubiri’s Own Revisor
JOY ROQUITA DELA MERCED Zubiri’s Own Revisor
CARMELO FERRER Zubiri’s Own Revisor
ADELA DELIA ARZAGA Zubiri’s Own Revisor
JOVITO FELIPE Zubiri’s Own Revisor
DARIUS E. MAURERA Zubiri’s Own Revisor
ROSELLE GUINO-O Zubiri’s Own Revisor
SEGUNDINO SANDALO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
DIOSDADO LAGANDAON Zubiri’s Own Revisor
KENNETH JESPER A. APACIBLE Zubiri’s Own Revisor
MERIAM VINANWA Zubiri’s Own Revisor
ARVIN ASUNCION Zubiri’s Own Revisor
TEODORO ASUNCION Zubiri’s Own Revisor
REAGAN GABRIEL Zubiri’s Own Revisor
ROBERT MACARUBBO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
BRYAN GALLARDO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
LUCILA TAGAYON Zubiri’s Own Revisor
ARTURO ROSALES Zubiri’s Own Revisor
JONATHAN Y. JENSEN Zubiri’s Own Revisor
KATE ERES Zubiri’s Own Revisor
VIOLETA ROCERO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
MARY DORIE DELA CRUZ Zubiri’s Own Revisor
OLIVER RAÑESES Zubiri’s Own Revisor
REYMAR DONATO Zubiri’s Own Revisor
HENRY YOUNG Paper Supplier to the Comelec for the
2007 Elections
Page 22 of 76
MA. GRACIA ENRIQUEZ Asst. Div. Chief of the Photolithographic
Division, National Printing Office
The revision supervisor (Macarubbo) did not sit in any revision team so she
had actually nothing at all to say.
The 39 other partisan Zubiri revisors merely wanted to re-state what they had
already written in their revision reports, in an obvious attempt to waste time and for
Zubiri’s lawyers to justify their motion for extension of time which was based on a
claim of having witnesses who could prove fraud1, which in turn unnecessarily
delayed this case for a couple of months.
Given the nature of the documentary exhibits formally offered by Zubiri,
coupled with his intentional avoidance of presenting Election Returns as evidence, as
well as the type of the witnesses he presented for examination and their self-serving
testimonies which contributed nothing of significance to this case, it is obvious that
Zubiri has abandoned the allegations he had made to justify his Counter-Protest.
For example, please take a second look at one of his allegations for his
counter-protest:
“(12) In the MUNICIPALITY OF PATEROS and

MUNTINLUPA CITY, -
‘The results in these constituencies are impugned on
the following grounds:
Substitute voting or voting by persons other than the
registered voters which partly account for the presence
of ballots which were prepared in pairs or in groups, in
favor of protestant.
Illiterate/disabled voters assisted by unqualified
assistors, or assistors who filled up ballots contrary to or
not in accord with the illiterate/disabled voters’
1
In the Motion for Reconsideration [Re: SET Resolution No. 07-91] dated Dec. 9, 2009, Pimentel
stated that
“2. When Zubiri was arguing to be given a whopping 620 days for the presentation of his evidence
through various Motions and Manifestations, he never mentioned that he needed this vast amount of
time also for the presentation of “witnesses to testify on some very important matters specifically the
authenticity of the ballots found inside the ballot boxes in certain areas included in the counter-protest.”
All he ever mentioned was the “magnitude of the data involved in the instant case.”
3. It was only in Zubiri’s Reply to Pimentel’s Opposition to his Motion for Extension that Zubiri
revealed in paragraph 15 thereof that he has “70 witnesses”.
4. The claim of “70 witnesses” is clearly an afterthought meant to provide the “grave reason” for the
motion for extension with the ultimate purpose of delaying the prompt and proper disposition of this
Protest.”
Page 23 of 76
instructions Assistors who are not BEI members, but
who are well-known supporters of the opposition
candidates assisted more than three times, in violation of
the Omnibus Election Code, thereby unduly increasing
the votes of opposition candidates, protestant included.”
Zubiri did not even lift a finger in an effort to prove the above-quoted
allegation!
In Zubiri’s Formal Offer of Evidence (at page 6,390), he claims that Pimentel
has 129,823 invalid votes. (Actually, the Revision Reports will show that Zubiri’s
strategy was to object to ALL of Pimentel’s votes, pursuing the implied theory that
Pimentel never got any valid votes in the counter-protested areas, which is another
absurd stance!)
Praying for the invalidation of such a large number of votes on the imagined
grounds of Marked Ballot (“MB”), Written by One Ballots (“WBO”), Written by Two
Ballot (“WBT”), Spurious Ballots (“SB”)2, and other imaginary grounds, actually
violates another fundamental principle of law that votes are not to be invalidated for
flimsy reasons. In fact, the law says it should be the other way around, that is, every
argument must be considered in order to UPHOLD a vote.
Just take a look at the Omnibus Election Code, which provides:
“Sec. 211. Rules for the appreciation of ballots. - In the reading and
appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to be valid
unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. xxx”
Jurisprudence further provides that “The will of the voters is embodied in the
ballots. To ascertain and carry out such will, their ballots must be read and
appreciated according to the rule that every ballot is presumed valid unless there is
clear and good reason to justify its rejection.” (CORNELIO DELOS REYES vs.
COMELEC, G. R. No. 170070, February 28, 2007, citing Bautista vs. Castro, G.R.
No. 61260, February 17, 1992.)
2
And spurious ballots introduced through post-election fraud.
Page 24 of 76
Furthermore, the case of ROSAL vs. COMELEC and IMPERIAL, G. R. Nos.
168253 and 172741, March 16, 2007, provides the following other requirements in
an election protest (or counter-protest) which relies so much on the results of the
appreciation of ballots:
“xxx the single most vital threshold question in an election protest,

namely, whether the ballots found in the ballot boxes during the
revision proceedings were the same ballots that were cast and counted
in the elections.
The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the

candidate proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is the true and
lawful choice of the electorate. Such a proceeding is usually instituted
on the theory that the election returns, which are deemed prima facie to
be true reports of how the electorate voted on election day and which
serve as the basis for proclaiming the winning candidate, do not
accurately reflect the true will of the voters due to alleged irregularities
that attended the counting of ballots. In a protest prosecuted on such a
theory, the protestant ordinarily prays that the official count as reflected
in the election returns be set aside in favor of a revision and recount of
the ballots, the results of which should be made to prevail over those
reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that ‘in an election
contest where what is involved is the number of votes of each
candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots
themselves.’
It should never be forgotten, though, that the superior status of the

ballots as evidence of how the electorate voted presupposes that these
were the very same ballots actually cast and counted in the elections.
Thus, it has been held that before the ballots found in a box can be used
to set aside the returns, the court (or the Comelec as the case may be)
must be sure that it has before it the same ballots deposited by the
voters.
xxx
We summarize the foregoing doctrines: (1) the ballots cannot be

used to overturn the official count as reflected in the election
returns unless it is first shown affirmatively that the ballots have
been preserved with a care which precludes the opportunity of
tampering and all suspicion of change, abstraction or substitution;
(2) the burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been
preserved in such a manner is on the protestant; (3) where a mode
of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made of
such substantial compliance with the requirements of that mode as
would provide assurance that the ballots have been kept inviolate
notwithstanding slight deviations from the precise mode of
achieving that end; (4) it is only when the protestant has shown
substantial compliance with the provisions of law on the
preservation of ballots that the burden of proving actual tampering
or the likelihood thereof shifts to the protestee and (5) only if it
appears to the satisfaction of the court or Comelec that the
Page 25 of 76
integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it adopt the result
as shown by the recount and not as reflected in the election returns.
xxx
As made abundantly clear by the foregoing provisions, the mode of

preserving the ballots in this jurisdiction is for these to be stored safely
in sealed and padlocked ballot boxes which, once closed, shall remain
unopened unless otherwise ordered by the Comelec in cases allowed by
law. The integrity of the ballots and therefore their probative value, as
evidence of the voters’ will, are contingent on the integrity of the ballot
boxes in which they were stored. Thus, it is incumbent on the protestant
to prove, at the very least, that the safety features meant to preserve the
integrity of the ballot boxes and their contents were installed and that
these remained in place up to the time of their delivery to the Comelec
for the revision proceedings. If such substantial compliance with these
safety measures is shown as would preclude a reasonable opportunity
of tampering with the ballot boxes’ contents, the burden shifts to the
protestee to prove that actual tampering took place. If the protestee fails
to discharge this burden, the court or the Comelec, as the case may be,
may proceed on the assumption that the ballots have retained their
integrity and still constitute the best evidence of the election results.
However, where a ballot box is found in such a condition as would
raise a reasonable suspicion that unauthorized persons could have
gained unlawful access to its contents, no evidentiary value can be
given to the ballots in it and the official count reflected in the election
return must be upheld as the better and more reliable account of how
and for whom the electorate voted.
xxx
In keeping with the precepts laid down in this decision, the Comelec
must first ascertain, after due hearing, whether it has before it the same
ballots cast and counted in the elections. For this purpose, it must
determine: (1) which ballot boxes sufficiently retained their integrity as
to justify the conclusion that the ballots contained therein could be
relied on as better evidence than the election returns and (2) which
ballot boxes were in such a condition as would afford a reasonable
opportunity for unauthorized persons to gain unlawful access to their
contents. In the latter case, the ballots must be held to have lost all
probative value and cannot be used to set aside the official count
reflected in the election returns.”
In the proceedings of this Counter-Protest (where ZUBIRI IS THE
PROTESTANT), Zubiri did not even attempt to comply with the doctrine stated in the
Rosal Case and discharge his burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has
been preserved with a care which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all
suspicion of change, abstraction or substitution. To reiterate, the burden is on the
protestant and Zubiri is the protestant in this stage of the proceedings.
Page 26 of 76
So, what have been the results of the revision of the pilot precincts in Zubiri’s
Counter-Protest?
IV. RESULTS OF THE REVISION IN ZUBIRI’S PILOT PRECINCTS IN

THE COUNTER-PROTEST
As mentioned earlier, Zubiri designated a total of 18,316 precincts as his
“pilot precincts”. It should be emphasized that “pilot precincts” under Rule 79 of the
SET Rules are what the party “deems as best exemplifying or demonstrating the
electoral frauds pleaded by each of them”. Zubiri must prove his allegations from
his pilot precincts and when he fails, he cannot “promise” that sufficient evidence
shall be provided by or be found in the 75% remainder of his Counter-Protest. That
would go against the spirit and terms of Rule 79 of the SET Rules as the “ordinary
75%” cannot possibly provide better proof than the “best 25%”. Zubiri has only one
chance to prove his allegations and he has to do it through his pilot precincts, the so-
called “best 25%”.
IV-A. PIMENTEL’S CLAIMS
Pimentel made a total of 12,915 CLAIMS.
The SET Revision Committee adopted the following Rules on what votes to
count during the physical counting of votes, to wit:
“VALID VOTES:
1. Surname only
2. First name only
3. Nickname only
4. Erroneous initial of first name but correct surname
5. Erroneous initial of surname but correct first name
6. Erroneous middle initial
7. Erased name and another clearly written, the latter is valid
8. Name incorrectly written but when read has a similar sound
Page 27 of 76
NOT VALID:
1. 2 Surnames in one line

2. Correct first name but incorrect surname
3. Correct surname but incorrect first name
4. Names in excess of the 12th slot”
In a conference called by SET Secretary Atty. Irene Guevarra held on Nov. 12,
2008, Pimentel pointed out and objected to the literal and strict application of the
above Rules by the SET Revision Committee which has caused the exclusion from the
physical counting of votes of some Pimentel votes, which Pimentel believed should be
counted pursuant to Sec. 211 of the Omnibus Election Code (subject of course to
objection by Zubiri’s revisors if they so desire).
Following a lengthy and heated discussion on the matter, Pimentel no longer
insisted on debating with Zubiri’s counsel on what is the proper interpretation of the
various scenarios under Sec. 211 of the Omnibus Election Code and on what should
constitute a “reasonable” application of these Rules, as it was pointed out by SET
Secretary Guevarra during the meeting that the “remedy” of the aggrieved party is to
make or register CLAIMS to those votes not included in the physical counting of
votes.
Pimentel’s point is that “perfection in the writing of their votes must not be
demanded from our voters”.
The Different Categories / Codes for Pimentel’s Claims
CODE 1: votes written as Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Aquilino Pimentel [with
other suffixes], and other similar cases were not counted for Pimentel, in clear
violation of the following provision of the Omnibus Election Code (“OEC”):
“Sec. 211. Rules for the appreciation of ballots. - In the reading and
appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to be valid
unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. The
board of election inspectors shall observe the following rules,
bearing in mind that the object of the election is to obtain the
expression of the voter's will:
Page 28 of 76
11. The fact that there exists another person who is not a candidate
with the first name or surname of a candidate shall not prevent the
adjudication of the vote of the latter.
12. Ballots which contain prefixes such as ‘Sr.’, ‘Mr.’, ‘Datu’,

‘Don’, ‘Ginoo’, ‘Hon.’, ‘Gob.’ or suffixes like ‘Hijo’, ‘Jr.’,
‘Segundo’, are valid.” [emphasis supplied]
A total of 2,544 votes falling under CODE 1 CLAIMS were not physically
counted for Pimentel during the revision. These are claimed under the INTENT RULE
(“IR”) and Pars. 11 and 12 of Sec. 211 of the OEC, and will be discussed in the annex
for claims per counter-protested area.
CODE 2: votes written as Aquino Pimentel, Pimentel Aquino, or Aquino L.
Pimentel were not counted for Pimentel even though (1) the voter already voted for
senatorial candidate Benigno Aquino on some other slot and (2) the word Aquino is a
clear misspelling of Pimentel’s first name, which is Aquilino, in clear violation of the
following provision of the Omnibus Election Code:
“Sec. 211, OEC: 7. A name or surname incorrectly written which,

when read, has a sound similar to the name or surname of a
candidate when correctly written shall be counted in his favor;”
which provides for the so-called IDEM SONANS Rule (“IS”).
Furthermore, “L.” is the correct middle initial of Pimentel.
(“IR”) and the IDEM SONANS Rule (“IS”) and will be discussed in the annex for
claims per counter-protested area.
CODE 3: votes written as Aquino Pimentel, Pimentel Aquino, or Aquino L.
Pimentel were not counted for Pimentel even though the word Aquino is a clear
misspelling of Pimentel’s first name, which is Aquilino, in clear violation of the

Furthermore, “L.” is the correct middle initial of Pimentel.
Page 29 of 76
counted for Pimentel during the revision. These are claimed under the IDEM
SONANS Rule (“IS”) and the INTENT Rule (“IR”) and will be discussed in the annex
for claims per counter-protested area.
CODE 4: votes written as Kiko Pimentel were not counted for Pimentel even
though (1) the voter already voted for senatorial candidate Francis Pangilinan (whose
nickname is known to be Kiko) on some other slot and (2) the word Kiko is a clear
misspelling of Pimentel’s registered nickname, which is Koko, in clear violation of the

A total of 585 votes falling under CODE 4 CLAIMS were not physically
CODE 5: votes written as Kiko Pimentel were not counted for Pimentel even
though the word Kiko is a clear misspelling of Pimentel’s registered nickname, which
is Koko, in clear violation of the following provision of the Omnibus Election Code:

CODE 6: votes written as Roco Pimentel were not counted for Pimentel even
though (1) the voter already voted for senatorial candidate Sonia Roco on some other
slot and (2) the word Roco is a clear misspelling of Pimentel’s registered nickname,
Page 30 of 76
which is Koko, in clear violation of the following provision of the Omnibus Election
Code:

CODE 7: votes written as Roco Pimentel were not counted for Pimentel even
though the word Roco is a clear misspelling of Pimentel’s registered nickname, which
is Koko, in clear violation of the following provision of the Omnibus Election Code:

CODE 8: votes written as Coco Pimentel, Cocoy Pimentel, Keko Pimentel, and
other similar cases were not counted for Pimentel even though the word
accompanying the surname Pimentel is a clear misspelling of Pimentel’s registered
nickname, which is Koko, in clear violation of the following provision of the Omnibus
Election Code:

candidate when correctly written shall be counted in his favor;
xxx
13. The use of the nicknames and appellations of affection and

friendship, if accompanied by the first name or surname of the
candidate, does not annul such vote, except when they were used as
a means to identify the voter, in which case the whole ballot is
invalid: Provided, That if the nickname used is unaccompanied by
Page 31 of 76
the name or surname of a candidate and it is the one by which he is
generally or popularly known in the locality, the name shall be
counted in favor of said candidate, if there is no other candidate for
the same office with the same nickname.”
(“IR”) and the IDEM SONANS Rule (“IS”) and Par. 13 of Sec. 211 of the OEC and
will be discussed in the annex for claims per counter-protested area.
CODE 9: various cases of misspelling by our electorate, where the name
Aquilino Pimentel or Pimentel or Koko Pimentel was not perfectly written by the
voter, were also not physically counted for Pimentel during the revision, in clear
violation of the following provision of the Omnibus Election Code:

(“IR”) and the IDEM SONANS Rule (“IS”), and will be discussed in the annex for
CODE 10: cases falling under Par. 11, Sec. 211 of the OEC which provides:
“Sec. 211, OEC: 11. The fact that there exists another person who
is not a candidate with the first name or surname of a candidate
shall not prevent the adjudication of the vote of the latter.”
(“IR”) and Par. 11, Sec. 211 of the OEC, and will be discussed in the annex for claims
per counter-protested area.
CODE 11: votes of Pimentel which were “misplaced” (written on the wrong
space in the ballot).
Page 32 of 76
(“IR”) and will be discussed in the annex for claims per counter-protested area.
CODE 12: votes of Pimentel appearing on ballots which were declared as
“excess”, “marked”, or “spoiled”, which fact was however not recorded in the Minutes
of Voting (“MOV”).
(“IR”) and will be discussed in the annex for claims per counter-protested area.
CODE 13: votes for Pimentel with wrong initials were also not physically
counted for Pimentel during the revision, in clear violation of the following provision
of the Omnibus Election Code:
“Sec. 211, OEC: 10. The erroneous initial of the first name which
accompanies the correct surname of a candidate, the erroneous
initial of the surname accompanying the correct first name of a
candidate, or the erroneous middle initial of the candidate shall not
annul the vote in favor of the latter.”
(“IR”) and Par. 10 of Sec. 211 of the OEC, and will be discussed in the annex for
CODE 14: votes for Pimentel claimed on various OTHER GROUNDS.
(“IR”), the IDEM SONANS RULE (“IS”), and the OEC, and will be discussed in the
annex for claims per counter-protested area.
Page 33 of 76
IV-B. RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL COUNTING OF VOTES IN THE PILOT
PRECINCTS
The following are the results of the physical counting of votes in the pilot
precincts per Counter-Protested City/Municipality and Province.
(1) In Makati City:
• In his Preliminary Conference Brief, Zubiri attempted to designate 885
pilot precincts. (Actually listed were 903 precinct numbers with 25
precincts double-listed.)
• A total of 876 precincts were actually revised, 9 of which were non-
pilot precincts. Hence, only 867 pilot precincts were revised;
• 6 ballot boxes out of 867 or 0.69% had no ballots;
• For the 861 precincts with physical counting of votes and
corresponding ER votes (taken from either the ballot box copy or the
certified true copy secured from the Comelec), the following are the
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 59,097 58,438 -659
ZUBIRI 34,663 34,569 -94
(please see Makati City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “A”)
• The difference in Pimentel’s votes can be explained partly by his 428
CLAIMED VOTES in Makati City (see ANNEX “B”);
• Pimentel also objected to 177 MARKED BALLOTS of Zubiri in
Makati City (the grounds for these selected marked ballots are in
ANNEX “C”);
Page 34 of 76
• One thing is clear from the above figures, THERE WAS NO FRAUD
IN THE CONDUCT OF THE 2007 SENATORIAL ELECTIONS IN
MAKATI CITY!
Page 35 of 76
(2) In Muntinlupa City:
pilot precincts. (1 precinct was double-listed.)
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 19,598 19,395 -203
ZUBIRI 11,959 11,938 -21
(please see Muntinlupa City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “D”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Muntinlupa City (see ANNEX “E”);
• Pimentel also objected to 68 selected MARKED BALLOTS of Zubiri
(see ANNEX “F”);
MUNTINLUPA CITY!
(3) In Las Piñas City, -
pilot precincts;
Page 36 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 20,079 19,694 -385
ZUBIRI 14,574 14,565 -9
(please see Las Pinas City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “G”)
NOTE: So as not to distort the final figures, the above figures already exclude both
the PC and ER entries for both parties from Precinct Nos. 217A and 707B because
the ER entries were unreadable for one or both of the parties. Hence, total precincts
included in the table is 403 (405 minus 2).
CLAIMED VOTES in Las Piñas City (see ANNEX “H”);
(see ANNEX “I”);
LAS PIÑAS CITY!
(4) In Parañaque City, -
pilot precincts. (1 precinct was double-listed and 1 precinct listed as
clustered turned out to be 2 individual precincts.)
• A total of 305 precincts were actually revised, 1 of which was a non-
pilot precinct. Hence, only 304 pilot precincts were revised;
• 1 ballot box out of 304 or 0.32% had no ballots;
Page 37 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 20,509 20,201 -308
ZUBIRI 14,914 14,865 -49
(please see Parañaque City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “J”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Parañaque City (see ANNEX “K”);
(see ANNEX “L”);
PARAÑAQUE!
(5) In Quezon City, -
• In his Preliminary Conference Brief, Zubiri attempted to designate
1,263 pilot precincts. (9 precincts were double-listed, 15 precincts were
listed as “clustered precincts” which turned out to be 30 individual
precincts, 2 were listed as individual precincts which turned out to be 1
clustered precinct.)
• A total of 1,272 precincts were actually revised, 9 of which were non-
pilot precincts. Hence, only 1,263 pilot precincts were revised;
• 9 ballot boxes out of 1,263 or 0.71% had no ballots;
Post-Election Fraud in Quezon City
• There were 45 precincts (out of 1,263 pilot precincts or 3.56% of the
total) with FAKE / SPURIOUS COMMON BALLOTS (“common

Page 38 of 76
ballots” are ballots with both Pimentel and Zubiri votes) involved in an
obvious post-election operation (done after the counting of votes but
before the revision proceedings).
Page 39 of 76
• The affected precincts are:
1560A/1561A, 3094A, 3548A/3549A, 3559A, 3559B, 3566A/3567A,

3587A, 3588A/3589A, 3591A, 3593A, 3607A, 3617A, 3620A/3620B,
3621A/3622A, 3638A/3640A, 3676A/3677A, 3693A/3694A,
3716A/3717A, 3731A, 3752A, 3756A/3757A, 3785A, 3786A/3787B,
3790A/3791A, 3796A, 3799B/3800A, 3803A/3804A, 3807A, 3809A,
3817A/ 3818A, 3856A/B, 3857A/3859A, 3862A, 3878A,
3894A/3895A, 3899A/3900A, 3918A/3919A, 3960A/3962A, 3979A,
3992A/3993A, 3996A, 4000A, 4006A, 605A, 638A/ 640A
• The general feature of this post-election fraud was the replacement of
ballots with Pimentel’s name on them (not accompanied by Zubiri’s
name) with fake ballots that now contained both the names of Pimentel
and Zubiri. This explains why, as shown in the table below, the
difference between the Physical Count and Election Return Votes of
Pimentel in these 45 QC Precincts hardly moved (only 58 votes
difference), while the Physical Count for Zubiri jumped up by a
whopping 2,102 votes for an average gain of 46.71 votes per precinct,
but in an illegal and fraudulent way!
• Note that although Zubiri wanted to open some ballot boxes during the
direct testimonies of his revisor-witnesses, he avoided these Quezon
City precincts with fake ballots;
• The effect of the post-election fraud in Quezon City is shown by the
table below:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 2,659 2,601 -58
ZUBIRI 2,084 4,186 +2,102
(component figures for the 45 QC Precincts with Fake/Spurious
Common Ballots are found in ANNEX “M”)
• The Revision Reports for these 45 Quezon City Precincts show the
improper, irregular, suspicious, and compromised condition of the
ballot boxes retrieved. Attached as ANNEX “M-1” is the summary of
Page 40 of 76
the observations of the Head Revisors and Pimentel Revisors
concerning the involved precincts.
“However, where a ballot box is found in such a condition as

would raise a reasonable suspicion that unauthorized persons
could have gained unlawful access to its contents, no
evidentiary value can be given to the ballots in it and the official
count reflected in the election return must be upheld as the
better and more reliable account of how and for whom the
electorate voted.” (see afore-mentioned Rosal Case)
• In the Rosal Case, the Supreme Court summarized the foregoing
doctrines:
(1) the ballots cannot be used to overturn the official count as

reflected in the election returns unless it is first shown
affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved with a care
which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all suspicion
of change, abstraction or substitution; (2) the burden of proving
that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved in such a
manner is on the protestant; (3) where a mode of preserving the
ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made of such
substantial compliance with the requirements of that mode as
would provide assurance that the ballots have been kept
inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations from the precise
mode of achieving that end; (4) it is only when the protestant
has shown substantial compliance with the provisions of law on
the preservation of ballots that the burden of proving actual
tampering or the likelihood thereof shifts to the protestee and
(5) only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court or Comelec
that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it
adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as reflected in
the election returns.
• Zubiri clearly failed to discharge and, in fact, totally ignored his
burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots in these 45 Quezon
City precincts has been preserved in accordance with law;
• Pimentel, although the burden of proof has not shifted to him, adopted
a pro-active stance in the best interest of justice and presented
witnesses (members of the Board of Election Inspectors) who testified
that those fake common ballots which were revised were not the same
ballots that had been read and counted by the Board of Election
Inspectors (BEI) during the election.
Page 41 of 76
• The following excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes of the
testimonies of Pimentel’s optional witnesses are representative of the
testimonies of rest:
o Mrs. Emelina S. Precia, Chairperson of the BEI of Precinct No.
3566A/3567A during the May 2007 national and local elections,
testified on March 22, 2010, confirming the regularity of the
processes and procedures followed by the BEI during the said
election; the peaceful, orderly, and honest actual casting,
counting, and recording of votes; the regularity and authenticity
of the ER found inside the ballot box during revision; and the
ultimate turn-over of the securely-locked precinct ballot box
with the ballots and other election paraphernalia to the proper
custodian thereof. When asked to examine the ballots which
were revised in this case, this is how she testified:
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Ms. Witness, we are showing to you Pimentel
only ballots we found during revision. Will you please
go over these ballots?
WITNESS MS. PRECIA:
This is my signature at the back.
xxx
ATTY. CAMITAN:
We are showing to you the Common Ballots
found during revision, meaning votes for both Pimentel
and Zubiri are contained in those ballots and the same
Ms. Witness could you please…
MS. WITNESS:
No signature. [repeatedly saying this after
looking at the back of the ballots.]
xxx
WITNESS MS. PRECIA:
No signature at all in the back.
HEARING COMMISSIONER:
What are the exhibit numbers?
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Nakalagay lang Sir, SET 1 to 51.
Ms. Witness, per your observation of the ballots
please.
WITNESS MS. PRECIA:
I did not miss any ballot to sign my signature,
that is why I am wondering…
Page 42 of 76
[TSN of March 22, 2010, 9:00 a. m., pages 4 to 9; emphasis
supplied]
o Ms. Raquel Sande, Chairperson of the BEI of Precinct No.
3587A during the May 2007 national and local elections,
testified on March 22, 2010, also confirming the regularity of
the processes and procedures followed by the BEI during the
said election. When asked to examine the ballots which were
revised in this case, this is how she testified:
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Your Honor, may we please ask that the
envelope for Pimentel only ballots be shown the
Witness. [Handed to the witness by Mr. Denoga]
The Witness is examining four ballots, Your
Honor, marked as exhibits Z1 to Z4.
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Ms. Witness, there appears a signature at the
back of the ballots could you please confirm whose
initial or signature that is.
WITNESS MS. SANDE:
Sa akin po ito, RES.
xxx
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Your Honor, may we please request that the
Common ballots this time be shown to the Witness for
her to examine the same.
Ms. Witness, Common ballots marked as
exhibits SET 1 to SET 16, please state your observation?
WITNESS MS. SANDE:
Ano po, parang iba na po iyong pirma.
xxx
WITNESS MS. SANDE:
Hindi na po. Iba na po ito.
supplied]
o Mrs. Daisy Santos, Chairperson of the BEI of Precinct No.

Page 43 of 76
ATTY. CAMITAN:
For the record, there are no more Pimentel only
ballots. There are about 40 Common ballots that we
found during revision and that is what we intend to show
the witness.
xxx
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Part 1 yan. Ms. Witness, these are Common
ballots, meaning they contain votes for Pimentel and for
Zubiri. I want you to go over these ballots and please
identify your signatures if it appears there or not, or if
that is your signature or not.
WITNESS MS. DAISY SANTOS:
xxx Parang hindi Ma’am. Kasi never na
nagpatong iyong ano eh, kasi iyong stroke ko ng “G”
that is my middle initial, Guinto, na nakahiwalay siya ng
knoti. Ito parang magkapatong na magkapatong.
Pinagpatong niya iyong G at S.
xxx
Itong signatures na kasi never na nagpatong ang G ko at
saka iyong S. xxx Pero ito magkapatong. Eto naman 8
na 8. Iyong S ko hindi naman mukhang 8.
xxx
xxx Nagtataka ako dito kasi never na pumirma ako
na iyong S ko naging 8. Straight iyong ano, talagang
hindi ko pirma.
supplied]
o Ms. Emerenciana Vargas, Chairperson of the BEI of Precinct
No. 3593A during the May 2007 national and local elections,
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Q: Ms. Witness I am showing you SET 1 to 31 of
Common Ballots part 1. Could you please tell
us Ms. Witness if there is a signature on those
ballots? Also, could you please tell us if that is
your signature or not.
A: There is none.
xxx
Page 44 of 76
ATTY. CAMITAN:
(Part 2 of the common ballots was given to the witness)
Q: Is there a possibility for you to forget to sign any
ballot?
A: No. It is impossible.
Q: Okay, part 2 this time of the common ballot
(sic).
A: [Witness is examining the ballots] it is not my
signature. Some are too short [meaning the
strokes]. Some of them are not my signature.
Q: Ms. Witness, again, which ballots do not contain
your signature?
[Witness re-examines the signature on each
ballot].
A: Not even this one because my signature is too
small.
[TSN of March 22, 2010, 1:00 p.m., pages 4 to 8; emphasis
supplied]
o Ms. Rhodita R. Rivera, Chairperson of the BEI of Precinct No.
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Your Honor, it appears that during revision there
were no Pimentel only votes or Pimentel only ballots,
and there were about forty five (45) common ballots.
Can we have it please?
xxx
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Q: I am showing you Ms. Witness common ballots
with Exhibit Nos. SET 8 to 45 (part 1). As
common ballots meaning there are votes or
names of both Pimentel and Zubiri. I want you to
go over each ballot and kindly tell us if there
appears a signature at the back. You can also tell
us if that is your signature.
A: [witness examines the ballots]
Q: Yes Ms. Witness could you tell us for the record
what is (sic) your observations on those ballots?
A: I observe that the signatures in all the ballots
are not my real signature.
Page 45 of 76
ATTY. CAMITAN:
Your Honor please, part 2 of the common
ballots.
xxx
Q: Ms. Witness ganoon po ulit, please examine the
ballots and state for the record your observations.
A: I also observe that the signatures on the
ballots are not my real signatures also.
[TSN of March 22, 2010, 1:00 p.m., pages 16 to 17; emphasis
supplied]
• In short, these fake common ballots found in the 45 Quezon City
precincts were planted inside the ballot boxes after the counting of
votes (in place of the genuine ones) pursuant to a fraudulent scheme to
manufacture grounds which could support a successful election protest
or counter-protest.
• Clearly, this was not a fraud committed against Zubiri but one meant to
benefit him. When will they ever stop?
• Hence, the results of the physical counting of votes in these 45 Quezon
City precincts with fake common ballots must be disregarded and
ignored, and the ER figures in these precincts must be upheld as the
true results of the elections in these precincts.
“When authentic ballots have been replaced by fake ones, the

physical count of votes in the precincts as determined during the
revision of the ballots cannot be considered the correct number
of votes cast. The election returns shall be basis of the votes.”
(Torres v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 351
SCRA 312)
• For the 1,209 precincts with physical counting of votes and
certified true copy secured from the Comelec), which were not subject
to the discovered post-election fraud, the following are the relevant
figures:
Page 46 of 76
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 79,595 78,372 -1,223
ZUBIRI 58,374 58,256 -118
(please see Quezon City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “M”)
• The difference in Pimentel’s votes can be explained partly by his 1,056
CLAIMED VOTES in Quezon City (see ANNEX “N”);
(see ANNEX “O”);
• Except for that post-election operation which affected 3.56% of the
pilot precincts, one thing is clear from the above figures, THERE WAS
NO FRAUD IN THE CONDUCT OF THE 2007 SENATORIAL
ELECTIONS IN QUEZON CITY!
(6) In Caloocan City, -
pilot precincts;
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 43,097 42,547 -550
ZUBIRI 27,436 27,323 -113
(please see Caloocan City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “P”)
the PC and ER entries for Precinct No. 142A/B for both parties because the ER entry
for Zubiri is unreadable. Hence, total precincts included in the table is 732 (733
Page 47 of 76
minus 1).
CLAIMED VOTES in Caloocan City (see ANNEX “Q”);
(see ANNEX “R”);
CALOOCAN CITY!
(7) In Pasay City, -
pilot precincts. (4 precincts were listed as individual precincts which
turned out to be 2 clustered precincts.)
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 16,769 16,504 -265
ZUBIRI 10,452 10,431 -21
(please see Pasay City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “S”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Pasay City (see ANNEX “T”);
Page 48 of 76
(see ANNEX “U”);
PASAY CITY!
(8) In Pasig City, -
pilot precincts. (2 precincts were double-listed, 7 were listed as
clustered which turned out to be 14 individual precincts, and 6 were
listed as individual precincts which turned out to be 3 clustered
precincts.)
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 27,743 27,174 -569
ZUBIRI 18,571 18,482 -89
(please see Pasig City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “V”)
the PC and ER entries for Precinct No. 1342C for both parties because the ER entry
for Zubiri is unreadable. Hence, the table above covers on 393 precincts (394 minus
1).
CLAIMED VOTES in Pasig City (see ANNEX “W”);
Page 49 of 76
(see ANNEX “X”);
PASIG CITY!
(9) In San Juan City, -
pilot precincts. (1 precinct was double-listed.)
• A total of 316 precincts were actually revised, 1 of which was non-pilot
precinct. Hence, only 315 pilot precincts were revised;
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 26,304 25,938 -366
ZUBIRI 13,804 13,770 -34
(please see San Juan City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “Y”)
CLAIMED VOTES in San Juan City (see ANNEX “Z”);
(see ANNEX “AA”);
SAN JUAN CITY!
Page 50 of 76
(10) In the Municipality of Pateros, -
pilot precincts;
• A total of 44 precincts were actually revised, all pilot precincts. Hence,
44 pilot precincts were revised;
• For the 43 precincts with physical counting of votes and corresponding
ER votes (taken from either the ballot box copy or the certified true
copy secured from the Comelec), the following are the relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 2,797 2,817 +20
ZUBIRI 1,849 1,857 +8
(please see Municipality of Pateros Summary of Votes;
ANNEX “BB”
• Pimentel has 32 CLAIMED VOTES in the Municipality of Pateros (see
ANNEX “CC”);
(see ANNEX “DD”);
THE MUNICIPALITY OF PATEROS!
(11) In Marikina City, -
pilot precincts;
• A total of 255 precincts were actually revised, 1 of which was non-pilot
precinct. Hence, only 254 pilot precincts were revised;

Page 51 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 17,831 17,612 -219
ZUBIRI 13,433 13,410 -23
(please see Marikina City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “EE”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Marikina City (see ANNEX “FF”);
(see ANNEX “GG”);
MARIKINA CITY!
(12) In Mandaluyong City, -
pilot precincts. (4 precincts were double-listed and 2 were listed as
clustered which turned out to be 4 individual precincts.)
relevant figures:
ER VOTES PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE

Page 52 of 76
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 12,388 12,193 -195
ZUBIRI 8,734 8,744 +10
(please see Mandaluyong City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “HH”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Mandaluyong City (see ANNEX “II”);
(see ANNEX “JJ”);
MANDALUYONG CITY!
(13) In the City of Manila, -
1,225 pilot precincts. (6 precincts were double-listed, 6 were listed as
clustered which turned out to be 12 individual precincts, and 42 were
listed as individual precincts which turned out to the 21 clustered
precincts.)
• 16 ballot boxes out of 1,174 or 1.36% had no ballots;
Post-Election Fraud in the City of Manila
• There were 51 precincts (out of 1,174 pilot precincts or 4.34% of the
total) which yielded “incomplete ballots” and, worse, fake ballots but
only for candidate Pimentel! (“Incomplete ballots” in this particular
situation means that the total number of ballots with Pimentel’s name
on them counted during the revision was just a small fraction of the
Page 53 of 76
number of Pimentel votes as reflected in the ER. In effect, Pimentel’s
votes/ballots simply disappeared.)
• This was obviously a post-election operation (done after the counting
of votes but before the revision proceedings).
Page 54 of 76
• The affected precincts are:
1A/1B, 22C, 43B/D, 73A/B, 89A, 93B/C, 103A, 115A, 116B, 118B/C,
127A/B, 130A/B, 135A, 135D, 139B, 141A/142B, 143A, 146A,
174B/C, 209A, 220A, 222A/B, 223A/B, 235B/C, 260A/B, 272B/273A,
274A, 278A/279C, 279A, 292A, 293B/C, 311A/B, 331A, 331B/332B,
347A/B, 348B, 374A/B, 379A, 381H, 382L, 384A, 386A/B, 388A/B,
423A/C, 429A/B, 430A/B, 431A/B, 475A/B, 514A/B, 522A/B, 531A
• The general feature of this post-election fraud was that only ballots
with Pimentel’s name on it were fake (that is, the ballots with Zubiri
votes and the other ballots without Pimentel’s name were left
untouched). And the physical count of ballots with Pimentel’s name on
them is woefully low, just a fraction of Pimentel’s votes as reflected in
the ER! In other words, the substituted fake ballots did not match the
original number of Pimentel ballots;
• The effect of the post-election fraud in Manila is shown by the table
below:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 3,915 3,131 -784
ZUBIRI 2,318 2,240 -78
(component figures for the 51 Manila Precincts with Fake and
Incomplete Ballots are found in ANNEX “KK”)
• The Revision Reports for these 51 Manila Precincts show the improper,
irregular, suspicious, and compromised condition of the ballot boxes
retrieved. Attached as ANNEX “KK-1” is the summary of the
observations of the Head Revisors and Pimentel Revisors concerning
the involved precincts.
“However, where a ballot box is found in such a condition as

would raise a reasonable suspicion that unauthorized persons
could have gained unlawful access to its contents, no
evidentiary value can be given to the ballots in it and the official
count reflected in the election return must be upheld as the
better and more reliable account of how and for whom the
electorate voted.” (see afore-mentioned Rosal Case)
Page 55 of 76
• In the Rosal Case, the Supreme Court summarized the foregoing
doctrines:
(1) the ballots cannot be used to overturn the official count as

reflected in the election returns unless it is first shown
affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved with a care
which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all suspicion
of change, abstraction or substitution; (2) the burden of proving
that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved in such a
manner is on the protestant; (3) where a mode of preserving the
ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made of such
substantial compliance with the requirements of that mode as
would provide assurance that the ballots have been kept
inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations from the precise
mode of achieving that end; (4) it is only when the protestant
has shown substantial compliance with the provisions of law on
the preservation of ballots that the burden of proving actual
tampering or the likelihood thereof shifts to the protestee and
(5) only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court or Comelec
that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it
adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as reflected in
the election returns.
• Zubiri clearly failed to discharge and, in fact, totally ignored his
burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots in these 51 Manila
precincts has been preserved in accordance with law;
• Pimentel, although the burden of proof has not shifted to him, adopted
a pro-active stance in the best interest of justice and presented
witnesses (members of the Board of Election Inspectors) who testified
that those fake Pimentel ballots which were revised were not the same
ballots that had been read and counted by the Board of Election
Inspectors (BEI) during the election. (The transcripts of stenographic
notes of the testimonies of Pimentel’s optional witnesses for Manila are
not yet ready as of this writing.)
• In short, these fake ballots found in the 51 Manila precincts were
planted inside the ballot boxes after the counting of votes (in place of
the genuine ones) pursuant to a fraudulent scheme to manufacture
grounds which could support a successful election protest or counter-
protest.
Page 56 of 76
• Clearly, this was not a fraud committed against Zubiri but one meant to
benefit him by being another fraud committed against Pimentel. Again,
when will they ever stop?
• Hence, the results of the physical counting of votes in these 51 Manila
precincts with fake common ballots must be disregarded and ignored,
and the ER figures in these precincts must be upheld as the true results
of the elections in these precincts.
“When authentic ballots have been replaced by fake ones, the

physical count of votes in the precincts as determined during the
revision of the ballots cannot be considered the correct number
of votes cast. The election returns shall be basis of the votes.”
(Torres v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 351
SCRA 312)
certified true copy secured from the Comelec), which were not
involved in the post-election fraud mentioned above, the following are
the relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 72,904 71,720 -1,184
ZUBIRI 46,819 46,662 -157
(please see City of Manila Summary of Votes; ANNEX “KK”)
CLAIMED VOTES in City of Manila (see ANNEX “LL”);
(see ANNEX “MM”);
• Except for that post-election operation which affected 4.34% of the
pilot precincts, one thing is clear from the above figures, THERE WAS
NO FRAUD IN THE CONDUCT OF THE 2007 SENATORIAL
ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF MANILA!

Page 57 of 76
(14) In Malabon City, -
pilot precincts;
• 9 ballot boxes out of 204 or 4.41% had wet ballots;
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 11,817 11,637 -180
ZUBIRI 7,045 6,951 -94
(please see Malabon City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “NN”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Malabon City (see ANNEX “OO”);
(see ANNEX “PP”);
MALABON CITY!
(15) In Navotas City, -
pilot precincts;
• A total of precincts 153 were actually revised, 1 of which was a non-
pilot precinct. Hence, only 152 pilot precincts were revised;
Page 58 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 11,924 11,746 -178
ZUBIRI 5,013 4,954 -59
(please see Navotas City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “QQ”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Navotas City (see ANNEX “RR”);
(see ANNEX “SS”);
NAVOTAS CITY!
(16) In Laguna Province, -
1,547 pilot precincts. (13 precincts were double-listed, 15 were listed as
clustered but turned out to be 30 individual precincts, and 2 were listed
individually which turned out to be 1 clustered precinct.)
• 1 ballot box out of 1,521 or 0.06% had incomplete ballots;
• 41 ballot boxes out of 1,521 or 2.69% had wet or no ballots;
Page 59 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 97,259 95,859 -1,400
ZUBIRI 55,945 55,868 -77
(please see Laguna Province Summary of Votes; ANNEX “TT”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Laguna Province (see ANNEX “UU”);
(see ANNEX “VV”);
LAGUNA PROVINCE!
(17) In Nueva Ecija Province, -
1,347 pilot precincts. (5 precincts were double-listed and 7 were listed
as clustered precincts which turned out to be 14 individual precincts.)
• 1 ballot box out of 1,341 or 0.07% had incomplete ballots;
• 3 ballot boxes out of 1,341 or 0.22% yielded October 2007 barangay
election documents because the SET Collection Team retrieved the
boxes of the correct precincts but for the wrong election;
• 46 ballot boxes out of 1,341 or 3.43% had wet, torn, or no ballots;
Page 60 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 76,154 75,222 -932
ZUBIRI 48,450 48,371 -79
(please see Nueva Ecija Province Summary of Votes;
ANNEX “WW”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Nueva Ecija Province (see ANNEX “XX”);
(see ANNEX “YY”);
THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA!
(18) In Zamboanga City, -
pilot precincts. (1 was double-listed and 9 were listed as clustered
which turned out to be 18 individual precincts.)
• 7 ballot boxes out of 458 or 1.52% had wet or no ballots;
Page 61 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 24,211 23,720 -491
ZUBIRI 14,908 14,892 -16
(please see Zamboanga City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “ZZ”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Zamboanga City (see ANNEX “AAA”);
(see ANNEX “BBB”);
ZAMBOANGA CITY!
(19) In Quezon Province, -
1,074 pilot precincts. (3 precincts were designated as clustered but
turned out to be 6 individual precincts.)
• 5 ballot boxes out of 1,058 or 0.47% had incomplete ballots;
• 7 ballot boxes out of 1,058 or 0.66% contained election documents
pertaining to the October 2007 barangay elections (because the SET
Page 62 of 76
Collection Team collected the ballot boxes for the correct precincts but
for the wrong election);
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 51,640 50,863 -777
ZUBIRI 37,103 36,992 -111
(please see Quezon Province Summary of Votes; ANNEX “CCC”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Quezon Province (see ANNEX “DDD”);
(see ANNEX “EEE”);
QUEZON PROVINCE!
(20) In Cavite Province, -
1,673 pilot precincts. (10 precincts were listed as clustered but turned
out to be 20 individual precincts and 2 were listed as individual
precincts which turned out to be 1 clustered precinct.)
Page 63 of 76
• 10 ballot boxes out of 1,651 or 0.60% contained election documents
pertaining to the October 2007 barangay elections (because the SET
Collection Team collected the ballot boxes for the correct precincts but
for the wrong election);
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 84,742 83,313 -1,429
ZUBIRI 60,202 60,109 -93
(please see Cavite Province Summary of Votes; ANNEX “FFF”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Cavite Province (see ANNEX “GGG”);
(see ANNEX “HHH”);
CAVITE PROVINCE!
(21) In Cagayan Province, -
pilot precincts. (2 precincts were double-listed, 8 were listed as
individual precincts which turned out to be 4 clustered ones, and 19
were listed as clustered which turned out to be 38 individual precincts.)
• 2 ballot boxes out of 634 or 0.31% had incomplete ballots;

Page 64 of 76
• 28 ballot boxes out of 634 or 4.41% had wet or no ballots;
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 25,129 24,612 -517
ZUBIRI 22,027 22,035 +8
(please see Cagayan Province Summary of Votes; ANNEX “III”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Cagayan Province (see ANNEX “JJJ”);
(see ANNEX “KKK”);
CAGAYAN PROVINCE!
(22) In Ilocos Norte Province, -
clustered which turned out to be 10 individual precincts.)
• 1 ballot box out of 387 or 0.25% had wet ballots;
Page 65 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 22,692 22,308 -384
ZUBIRI 13,594 13,555 -39
(please see Ilocos Norte Summary of Votes; ANNEX “LLL”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Ilocos Norte (see ANNEX “MMM”);
(see ANNEX “NNN”);
THE PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE!
(23) In Camarines Norte Province, -
clustered but turned out to be 24 individual precincts.)
• Furthermore, Zubiri designated 14 pilot precincts in the Municipality of
Vinzon which do not exist in the Municipality’s Project of Precincts;
• 1 ballot box out of 266 or 0.37% contained October 2007 barangay
election documents due to the wrong retrieval of the SET Collection
Page 66 of 76
Team of the box with the correct precinct number but for the wrong
election;
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 15,206 14,999 -207
ZUBIRI 9,647 9,619 -28
(please see Camarines Norte Province Summary of Votes;
ANNEX “OOO”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Camarines Norte (see ANNEX “PPP”);
(see ANNEX “QQQ”);
THE PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE!
(24) In Bogo City, in Cebu -
• In his Preliminary Conference Brief, Zubiri attempted to 49 designate
pilot precincts;
• All the 49 pilot precincts were revised;
Page 67 of 76
• For the 48 precincts with physical counting of votes and corresponding
ER votes (taken from either the ballot box copy or the certified true
copy secured from the Comelec), the following are the relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 1,227 1,140 -87
ZUBIRI 3,593 3,543 -50
(please see Bogo City Summary of Votes; ANNEX “RRR”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Bogo City (see ANNEX “SSS”);
(see ANNEX “TTT”);
BOGO CITY!
(25) In Palawan Province, -
pilot precincts. (8 precincts were listed as clustered but turned out to be
16 individual precincts.)
• 3 ballot boxes out of 562 or 0.53% contained October 2007 barangay
election documents because the SET Collection Team retrieved the box
for the correct precinct but for the wrong election;
Page 68 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 20,831 20,495 -336
ZUBIRI 14,253 14,180 -73
(please see Palawan Province Summary of Votes; ANNEX “UUU”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Palawan Province (see ANNEX “VVV”);
(see ANNEX “WWW”);
THE PROVINCE OF PALAWAN!
(26) In Bulacan Province, -
1,772 pilot precincts. (27 precincts were listed as clustered but turned
out to be 54 individual precincts.)
Page 69 of 76
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 101,348 99,996 -1,352
ZUBIRI 68,604 68,467 -137
(please see Bulacan Province Summary of Votes; ANNEX “XXX”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Bulacan Province (see ANNEX “YYY”);
(see ANNEX “ZZZ”);
• There were some ballots of doubtful authenticity observed in Bulacan
but since these came from the Comelec, where the Pagdanganan v.
Mendoza case was pending, Pimentel’s revisors had no chance to
examine the condition of the original precinct ballot boxes from which
these ballots came. This circumstance was most likely the result of
post-election operations by one or both of the parties involved in the
gubernatorial election protest. And it was Zubiri who had indirect
access to the ballots involved in the said local election protest because
his lead counsel in this instant case, Atty. George Garcia, was
Pagdanganan’s counsel too. At any rate, Zubiri failed to discharge the
“burden of proof” imposed upon him by the doctrines of the Rosal case.
BULACAN PROVINCE!
(27) In Batangas Province, -
Page 70 of 76
1,456 pilot precincts. (4 precincts were double-listed twice and 2
precincts were listed as clustered but turned out to be 4 individual
precincts.)
pilot precincts. Hence, only 1,440 pilot precincts were revised3;
• 10 ballot boxes out of 1,440 or 0.69% wet or no ballots;
relevant figures:
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE
ER VOTES
COUNT (PC minus ER)
PIMENTEL 63,783 62,917 -866
ZUBIRI 50,324 50,197 -127
(please see Batangas Province Summary of Votes;
ANNEX “AAAA”)
CLAIMED VOTES in Batangas Province (see ANNEX “BBBB”);
(see ANNEX “CCCC”);
• There were ballots of doubtful authenticity observed in Batangas but
since these came from the Comelec, where the Ermita v. Leviste case
was pending, Pimentel’s revisors had no chance to examine the
condition of the original ballot boxes from which these ballots came.
This circumstance was most likely the result of post-election operations
by one or both of the parties involved in the vice-gubernatorial election

3
The ER for Prec. No. 30A/B, San Nicolas, Batangas, was marked as Exh. No. 95-120, but it turned out
that this pilot precinct was not revised.
Page 71 of 76
protest. And it was Zubiri who had indirect access to the ballots
involved in the said local election protest because his lead counsel in
this instant case, Atty. George Garcia, was Ermita’s counsel. The
concentration of these fake ballots in the two municipalities of Balete
and Sto. Tomas was also raised as an issue in the local election protest 4.
At any rate, Zubiri failed to discharge his “burden of proof” under
Rosal.
THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS!
V. CONCLUSION
In whatever way we look at the facts and figures generated by the hearings and
the revision proceedings in this Counter-Protest, there simply is no proof at all that
Pimentel cheated in any manner or that Pimentel cheated Zubiri, or that anybody else
cheated Zubiri in the May 2007 senatorial elections.
As we have always maintained from the very start, all the allegations made by
Zubiri in his Counter-Protest were figments of his imagination made pursuant to a
“grab the proclamation and delay the protest strategy”.
There were ballot boxes which yielded “incomplete ballots” to wit:
LAGUNA Calamba City 1

NUEVA ECIJA Guimba 1
QUEZON
PROVINCE Candelaria 5
CAVITE Alfonso 1
4
In an affidavit by Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., shown to undersigned counsel, it is stated therein that
“the obvious reason for such tampering, in addition to the illicit fake-ballot substitution is to
MAXIMIZE the ERMITA recoveries, considering that ERMITA lost by a very substantial margin –
over 18,000 votes. The intention is very clear. The BULK of the supposed recoveries shall come
from Sto. Tomas and Balete, where illicit access was made and the ballots manipulated to its
maximum not only by the substitution of the authentic Leviste ballots with fake ones, but by inserting
the ERMITA name in BLANK ballots for vice-governor.”
Page 72 of 76
Cavite City 13
CAGAYAN Sta. Ana 2
BULACAN Balagtas 1
Baliuag 5
Bocaue 9
Bulacan 3
Bustos 2
Calumpit 4
Dona R. Trinidad 1
Malolos 2
Norzagaray 21
Obando 1
Paombong 4
Plaridel 2
San Ildefonso 2
San Jose Del Monte City 11
San Rafael 16
BATANGAS Agoncillo 3
Balayan 2
Balete 9
Batangas City 9
Laurel 2
Lemery 7
Lian 1
Lipa City 2
Nasugbu 4
Rosario 3
San Juan 3
San Luis 2
San Nicolas 21
Sta. Teresita 1
Sto. Tomas 10
Taal 17
Talisay 5
Tanauan 1
But this circumstance is not indicative of fraud, for the precincts from Bulacan,
Batangas, Cavite City in Cavite, and Candelaria in Quezon were involved in local
election protests pending before the Commission on Elections and the Regional Trial
Courts, where Zubiri’s counsel, Atty. George Garcia, as far as the undersigned counsel
has been made aware, is or was counsel to one of the parties therein: for Pagdanganan
(position contested: Governor) in that epic electoral battle in Bulacan (which reached
the Supreme Court), for Ermita (position contested: Vice-Governor) in Batangas, for
Page 73 of 76
Chua (position contested: Vice-Mayor) in Cavite City, Cavite, and for Emralino
(position contested: Mayor) in Candelaria, Quezon. (It was therefore Zubiri who had
indirect access to the ballots involved in the above-mentioned election cases through
his lead counsel in this instant protest.)
Some ballots were apparently retained by the COMELEC and the RTCs
hearing the said local election protests. Zubiri never attempted to retrieve these ballots.
There were ballot boxes which yielded “October 2007 barangay election
documents” to wit:
NUEVA ECIJA Rizal 3

QUEZON PROVINCE Panukulan 6
Plaridel 1
CAVITE Rosario 1
Silang 9
CAMARINES NORTE Daet 1
PALAWAN Linapacan 3
But this circumstance was not due to fraud but was due to the error of the SET
Collection Team in their retrieval of the ballot boxes.
Even the wet ballots were explained by the City/Municipal Treasurers who
complied with the SET’s order for them to explain the ballots’ condition. Moreover,
the SET, through Resolution No. 07-81 dated Aug. 27, 2009, declared as irretrievably
lost the ballots of 126 ballot boxes which contained no ballots.
The insignificant difference between the ER Votes of Pimentel and his
Physical Count of Votes during revision, in those pilot precincts which contained the
regular or normal number of ballots and for which ER figures are available, is partly
explained by the number of Pimentel votes, valid under Sec. 211 of the Omnibus
Election Code, which were not counted by the Head Revisors during the revision
pursuant to the “Rules” already quoted earlier.
At any rate, even without first considering the “claims”, the differences in the
ER Votes of Pimentel and his Physical Count of Votes during revision, amounting to
Page 74 of 76
an average of less than 1 vote per pilot precinct revised (around 0.88) is not
indicative of fraud but is attributable to human error in the manual counting of votes.
(Contrast the above average to the average recovery or “net gain” of Pimentel
of 156.34 votes per precinct in his 664 pilot precincts and 99.64 votes per precinct for
the entire 2,658 precincts covered by the Main Protest.)
Since these 18,000 plus pilot precincts were Zubiri’s “best precincts” to prove
the allegations of fraud he has made to justify his gargantuan Counter-Protest, and
they proved nothing, he should not be allowed to “promise” to prove his allegations in
the remaining 75% of his Counter-Protest, for if the “best 25% precincts” proved to be
an utter waste of time, then the remaining “ordinary 75%” of the counter-protested
precincts would definitely prove to be a criminal waste of time, money, and
resources.
IN SHORT, ZUBIRI UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR,
CREDIBLE, SUBSTANTIAL, AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE
CONDUCT OF THE MAY 14, 2007 SENATORIAL ELECTIONS IN THE
AREAS COVERED BY HIS COUNTER-PROTEST WAS TAINTED BY
FRAUD AND IRREGULARITIES THAT FRUSTRATED THE WILL OF THE
ELECTORATE.
The truth is as simple as that.
And since for close to three long years, Zubiri has wrongfully and illegally
occupied a public office, which is a public trust, it is about time for this Honorable
Tribunal to immediately correct the situation and give effect to the true will of the
Filipino People as expressed during the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Tribunal issue an ORDER DISMISSING THE ENTIRE COUNTER-

Page 75 of 76
PROTEST OF PROTESTEE/COUNTER-PROTESTANT ZUBIRI, for failure to
prove by convincing evidence, through his designated pilot precincts, that the conduct
of the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the areas covered by Protestee/Counter-
Protestant Zubiri’s Counter-Protest was tainted by fraud and irregularities that
frustrated the will of the electorate, and RESOLVING this case immediately on the
basis of the Main Protest, and, as a consequence thereof, that JUDGMENT BE
RENDERED DECLARING PROTESTANT/COUNTER-PROTESTEE PIMENTEL
AS THE RIGHTFUL AND PROPER TWELFTH (12TH) WINNING SENATORIAL
CANDIDATE IN THE 14 MAY 2007 ELECTIONS in lieu of Protestee/Counter-
Protestant Zubiri.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
San Juan City for Quezon City; May 16, 2010.
ATTY. AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III

Unit 2106, Atlanta Center Bldg.
Annapolis St., Greenhills
San Juan City, Metro Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 37248
IBP Lifetime Member No. 05048
PTR No. 3273440; Jan. 12, 2010; Marikina
MCLE Compliance No. III-0011434
Copy furnished by personal service:
Atty. George Erwin M. Garcia

Counsel for Protestee/Counter-Protestant Zubiri
Ground Floor, LAIKO Bldg.
Cabildo St., Intramuros, Manila
Page 76 of 76

Memorandum On The Counter Protest Pilot Precincts (FINAL)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum On The Counter Protest Pilot Precincts (FINAL)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III,

- versus - SET CASE NO. 001 – 07

JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI,

PROTESTANT / COUNTER-PROTESTEE PIMENTEL’S

COMES NOW the Protestant/Counter-Protestee Pimentel, by himself, unto

Areas of Protestee/Counter-Protestant Zubiri’s Counter-Protest, pursuant to SET

I. PUTTING THE ZUBIRI COUNTER-PROTEST IN PROPER

This Counter-Protest is Protestee Zubiri’s Protest, not Protestant Pimentel’s.

(Henceforth Protestant/Counter-Protestee Pimentel will be referred to herein as simply

“Pimentel” and Protestee/Counter-Protestant Zubiri as simply “Zubiri”.)

It is therefore Zubiri’s obligation to prove his allegations.

Because of the sheer absurd size of Protestee Zubiri’s Counter-Protest,

proceedings (the “main protest”). Pimentel protested a total of 2,658 precincts. Of

Revised Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (henceforth to be referred to herein as

Answer included a Counter-Protest. Zubiri counter-protested a total of 70,607 new

18,316 were designated as “pilot precincts” as stated in Zubiri’s Preliminary

In short, the pilot precincts alone of the Counter-Protest is almost 7 times as

From Pimentel’s total protested precincts of 2,658 precincts, per Pimentel’s

Pimentel recovery or “net gain” of 99.64 votes per protested precinct.

pilot precincts per Zubiri’s Preliminary Conference Brief (“PCB”):

PROVINCE/ Total No. of

So how did Zubiri justify such a gargantuan counter-protest?

(1) In MAKATI CITY, NAVOTAS CITY, PARAÑAQUE CITY, PASIG

CITY, MANILA CITY, MARIKINA CITY, MALABON CITY, LAS PIÑAS

CITY AND PASAY CITY, -

“The results in these cities are statistically improbable as shown by

and for political choices which transcends party affiliations. It is

therefore anomalous that no other TU candidates, specifically protestee

Zubiri received votes sufficient to land them to the 12 voters’

preference. Moreover, the certificates of canvass contain erasures and

alterations rendering the results unreliable. Given the summary nature

of canvass proceedings, the true and actual number of votes credited to

protestee was not absolutely determined.”

(2) In QUEZON CITY, -

House of Representatives of which protestee is a member. It is

had been projected as votes garnered by protestee. The election returns

prepared by the Board of Election Inspectors contained erasures, thus,

in the canvass proceedings.”

“The results in this City can not be considered as truly reflective of

entries specifically with respect to the votes obtained by Zubiri therein

can not be fully and truly ascertained in the canvass proceedings.”

(4) In SAN JUAN CITY, -

“The entries reflected in the certificate of canvass pertaining to this

city cannot be considered as truly reflective of the senatorial results.

The certificates of canvass contain erasures and alterations specifically

in the senatorial results, not initialed by the Board of Canvassers. The

truthfulness of the votes recorded as results of the canvass, specifically

canvassing proceeding which is summary in nature.”

(5) In the PROVINCE OF BATANGAS (all municipalities), -

“The Province of Batangas is a well-known administration

bailiwick. The results as reflected in the certificate of canvass

pertaining to said province are definitely statistically improbable

considering that only two candidates of the administration made it to

the magic 12. The certificates of canvass contain erasures and

alterations specifically in the votes indicated for Zubiri. As a rule,

allegations of fraudulent preparation can be summarily dismissed by

the boards of canvassers if the alleged irregularity is not manifest on

alterations in the results contained in the certificate of canvass, the

truthfulness of the votes credited for Zubiri reflected therein cannot be

fully ascertained by a mere superficial consideration of its appearance.”

“The Province of Bulacan is counted as a province of independent