109 To this answer of the witness, counsel for the 2 nd appellants posed the following question: Q. To the serial numbers which you place, according to you, and on your advice, you placed on the stubs of the ballots, and not on the ballots themselves, what was the purpose for the serial number, Sir? A. The ballot papers consist of two portions. You have the portion bearing the stubs and the serial numbers, and the portion that detachable. The serial number is placed on the portion bearing the stub for administrative purposes. Once the ballot paper is being issued to a voter, it is detached from that stack that bears its serial number, in that way, it protects the secrecy of that voter's choice. Q. Mr. Witness, people who own current account know, that the serial number on the stub is also on the check itself, the intention being, to check that that check that is issued, is the same number that is on the st ub. Do you know about that as a fact? The Hearing Officer sustained an objection to this question on grounds that it was irrelevant as no check was before the investigation. We disagree with the hearing officer and we believe he should have allowed the witness to answer this question as it would h ave given the investigation the actual purpose of the serial number. This is especially so since the witness had stated that the serial number was placed on the stump in order to protect the voter’s privacy. Another reason for the serial number, as alluded to by the appellants, could also be to determine whether the ballots stumps recorded at a polling place corresponds with the ballot papers in the box at the close of polling. The above narratives constitute the evidence and testimonies in support of the appellants’ allegations of irregularities as well as the NEC’s response to those allegations. But the question we continue to ask is whether the irregularities were demonstrated to be substantial enough to warrant a re-run of the entire October 10, pruden tial and representatives elections. Ancillary to the above third issue is whether or not the appellants prove that fraud was committed during the elections. The allegations assigned as fraudulent acts by the 1st appellants were that (1) in District #6, Bong County, polling place #1