IT Law Journal

administrator May 16th, 2004

Amendments to the 1998 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
by Carlyn Marie Bernadette C. Ocampo-Guerrero

On 1 April 2003, the Amendments at the 1998 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) were adopted. Specifically, Rules 1 (Title), 4 (Organization), 11 (Administrative staff), 16 (Election protest), 21 (Summary dismissal of election contest), 31 (Filing fees), 32 (Cash deposit), 34 (Legal fees), 35 (When ballot boxes, election returns and other election documents brought before the tribunal), 36 (Revision teams), 37 (Revisors; Compensation), 39 (Procedure during revision), 40 (Where revision done; Who may be present), 48 (Photographing or photocopying, and 59 (Time limit for presentation of evidence) were amended. The former Rules 66 to 83 of the 1998 Rules were renumbered as Rules 86 to 103 in the current rules to admit 20 new rules on Electronic Evidence, applying therefore provisions of the Rules of Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-701-SC) promulgated in July, 2001 to electoral matters involving the HRET. Moreover, the renumbered Rules 88 (Pilot precints; Initial revision), 94 (Finality and execution of decisions; Motion for reconsideration), 95 (Entry of Judgment), 96 (Procedure after finality of decision; Execution of decision; Publication of decisions), and 103 (Effectivity) were also modified.

Rules 66 to 85 of the amended HRET Rules state the rules on how electronic documents or electronic data message may be used, offered and admitted in evidence.

Rule 67, as stated in Rule 3, Sec. 2 on Electronic Documents (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC), declares that an electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the said Rules. The definition of Electronic document is a reiteration of the definition given in the Rule 2 (Definition of Terms and Construction) of Electronic Evidence of the SC (REE of the SC).

Rule 68 states that an electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule. Rule 69, expounds on how a copy of a document shall or shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original. Both Rules 68 and 69 are lifted from Rule 4, Secs. 1 and 2, Best Evidence Rule.

In Rule 70, various means are presented on how a person seeking to introduce an electronic document may prove its authenticity. Rule 71, Proof of Electronically Notarized Document, points that a document electronically notarized shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court (lifted from Rule 5, Secs. 1, 2 and 3, Authentication of Electronic Documents.)

Rule 72 details the various manner on how an electronic signature may be authenticated. Rule 73 are the disputable presumptions relating to Electronic Signature. Rule 74, on the other hand, are the disputable presumptions relating to Digital Signatures. (Rules 72, 73 and 74 are reiteration of Rule 6, Sec. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Electronic Signatures.)

Rule 75 are the factors in assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document. Rule 76 are the factors to be considered when it comes to the integrity of an Information and Rule 77 are the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. On the other hand, how the presumptions provided for in Rule 77 may be overcome is provided for in Rule 78. Both rules are reiteration of Rule 8, Secs. 1 and 2, Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule.

Rule 79, Affidavit of Evidence, and Rule 80, the process required from the affiant with regard to the affirmance of the contents of the affidavit in open court, as well as the procedure of cross-examination by the adverse party are reiterations of Rule 9, Sec. 1 and 2, Method of Proof.

Rule 81 lays down the procedure to be followed after summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rules 79 and 80 of the above Rules; Rule 82 affirms the necessity of transcription by the stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder of the entire proceeding of the examination of a witness done electronically; Rule 83 declares that the electronic evidence and recording of it as well as stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case. Rules 81 to 83 are all reiteration of Rule 10, Sec. 1,2,3 on Examination of Witnesses.

Rule 84 sets forth the condition when audio, video and similar evidence shall be admissible in Court; and Rule 85 states how ephemeral (lasting only a very short time) electronic communication which includes telephone conversation, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video and other electronic form of communication shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. Both rules are taken from Rule 11, Secs. 1 and 2 on Audio, Photographic, Video and Ephemeral Evidence.

Therefore, Rules 66 to 85 is just a repetition or reiteration of the Rules on Electronic Evidence as promulgated by the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC).

• ITLJ 1-2
• Comments(1)