Data from the Court Management Office (CMO) of the Supreme Court revealed that at least one in every five protest cases filed in the regional trial courts in connection with the first nationwide automated elections on 10 May 2010 were summarily dismissed. The CMO data showed that 30 protest cases were summarily dismissed while 105 cases were given due course.
As per Rule 2, section 12 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, the court may summarily dismiss an election protest, on any of the following grounds:
(a) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as required under Section 10;
(c) The petition is filed beyond the period prescribed in these Rules;
(d) The filling fee is not paid within the period for filling the election protest or petition for quo warranto; and
(e) In a protest case where cash deposit is required, the deposit is not paid within five (5) days from the filling of the protest.
The court may likewise dismiss the case for the failure of the protestant to appear in the preliminary conference (A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, Rule 9, sec. 6).
Of the 30 cases summarily dismissed, 16 were due to insufficiency of the petitions in form and content, 7 due to failure to pay docket fees and cash deposits, while 3 for failure of the protestant to appear the preliminary conference. The other cases were dismissed for being filed beyond the prescribed period of 10 days from the date of the proclamation (Rule2. sec. 7, A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC).
