1. Moya v. del Fierro
 It was likewise asserted that not less than 8,000 qualified voters
Facts:
 This is a petition for review by certiorari of the judgment of the
Court of Appeals in the declaring Agripino Ga. del Fierro, the
candidate-elect for the office of mayor of the municipality of
Paracale, Province of Camarines Norte with a majority of three
votes over Irineo Moya.
 He contented that the CA committed errors in admitting and
counting in favor of del Fierro several ballots. Some are marked
R. del Fierro, Rufino del Firro, P. del Fierro
Issue:
W/N there is an error in admitting and counting the ballots in favor of
Agripino Ga. del Fierro.
Ruling: No
 No. The SC avers that in republicanism, the citizens have the
voice in his Government and whenever possible it is the duty of
the judiciary, when called upon to act in justiciable cases, to
give it efficacy and not to stifle or frustrate it. This,
fundamentally, is the reason for the rule that ballots should be
read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with reasonable,
liberality
 No technical rule or rules should be permitted to defeat the
intention of the voter, if that intention is discoverable from the
ballot itself, not from evidence aliunde
 The SC dismissed the petition because in result even if the
ballots contested are counted in favor of Moya, delFierro still
wins by one vote.
2. Cabili v. Badelles
Facts:
 Two election protests against the duly proclaimed Mayor and
Councilors of Iligan City based on the allegations of flagrant
violations of certain mandatory provisions of the Election Code
that around 8,300 individuals were allowed to vote illegally.
were unable to exercise their right of suffrage in view of their
failure, without any fault on their part, to have the proper
identification cards or the non-listing of their names in the list of
voters.
 It was stated further that even in the case of those individuals
provided with identification cards with their names included in
the list of voters, they could not avail themselves of their right of
suffrage as their applications for registration could not be
found
 It was alleged, was caused by the excessive number of voters
being listed and many having been assigned to precincts
other than the correct ones.
 The proclamation then could not have reflected the true will of
the electorate as to who was the mayor elected,
Issue:
W/N the COMELEC could annul the election
Ruling: No
 There is no allegation in the protest that the alleged
irregularities committed by the election officers would tend to
change the result of the election in favor of the protestants
and against the protestees.
 There is no allegation in the petition that the 8,000 voters who
failed to vote were all voters of protestants and the 8,300 illegal
voters who voted were for the protestees.
 There is, therefore, no legal and practical justification for the
court to inquire into the irregularities committed by the election
officials, as alleged in the petition, for it would not give any
benefit in favor of the protestants to the end that they will be
declared the duly elected mayor and councilors, respectively,
of this City."
 Failure to allege therein the details of election irregularities and
that they would affect the result of the elections; such failure is
not a ground to dismiss an election protest based on
irregularities
 Nonetheless the seriousness and gravity of the imputed failure
to have the elections conducted freely and honestly, with such
irregularities alleged, give rise to doubts, rational and honest,
 as to who were the duly elected officials. Such allegations, it is
to be stressed, would have to be accepted at their face value
for the purpose of determining whether there is a cause of
action, a motion to dismiss amounting to a hypothetical
admission of facts thus pleaded.
 Two cases remanded to the lower court for proceeding and
trial in accordance with this opinion and the law.
3. Dissenting opinion - Tolentino v. Comelec
Facts:
 A Senate seat for a term expiring on June 30, 2004 was
vacated with the appointment of then Senator Teofisto
Guingona, Jr. as Vice-President of the Philippines.
 The Senate adopted Resolution No. 84 o fill up such vacancy
through election to be held simultaneously with the regular
election
 The senatorial candidate garnering the thirteenth (13th)
highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term
of former Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.
 Nobody filed a certificate of candidacy to fill the position of
senator to serve the unexpired three-year term in the special
election. All the senatorial candidates filed the certificates of
candidacy for the twelve regular Senate seats with a six-year
term
 The List of Candidates did not indicate a separate list of
candidates for the special election
 Based on the Certificates of Canvass finally tabulated, the first
twelve (12) Senators shall serve for a term of six (6) years and
the thirteenth (13th) Senator shall serve the unexpired term of
three (3) years of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., who was
appointed Vice-President of the
 Philippines
 Petitioners filed with the Court their petition for prohibition to
stop respondent COMELEC from proclaiming any senatorial
candidate in the May 14, 2001 election as having been
elected for the lone senate seat for a three-year term.
Issue:
W/N a special election for the single Senate seat with a three-year
term was validly held simultaneous with the general elections
Ruling:
 He vote to grant the petition.
Laws on the Calling of Special Elections
 Section 9, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
o Sec. 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House
of Representatives, a special election may be called to
fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but
the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
 R.A. No. 6645, An Act Prescribing the Manner of Filling a
Vacancy in the Congress of the Philippines,
Democracy and Republicanism
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In this case
of first impression, however, the distance between existing
jurisprudence and the resolution of the issue presented to the Court
cannot be negotiated through a straight and direct line of reasoning.
Rather, it is necessary to journey through a meandering path and
unearth the root principles of democracy, republicanism, elections,
suffrage, and freedom of information and discourse in an open
society. As a first step in this indispensable journey, we should traverse
the democratic and republican landscape to appreciate the
importance of informed judgment in elections.
 The Senates observation that the procedure for the special
election that it adopted would be less costly for the
government as the ballots need not be printed again to
separately indicate the candidate voted for the special
election does not also lend justification for the manner of
conduct of the special election.
 Since under R.A. No. 7166, it is the power and duty of the
COMELEC, and not the Senate, to call and hold the election,
the Senate cannot, by mere resolution, impose upon the
COMELEC the procedure for the special election that it
intended such that Comelec will not have the flexibility to
 deviate therefrom. As a constitutional body created to
ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections,
it was the duty of the COMELEC to give to the electorate
notice of the time, place and manner of conduct of the
special elections and to adopt only those mechanisms and
procedures that would ascertain the true will of the people.
 Free elections does not only mean that the voter is not
physically restrained from going to the polling booth, but also
that the voter is unrestrained by the bondage of ignorance.
We should be resolute in affirming the right of the electorate
to proper information. The Court should not forfeit its role as
gatekeeper of our democratic government run by an
informed majority. Let us not open the door to ignorance.
13. People v Corral
Facts:
 Appellant was charged with having voted illegally at the
general elections in connection with section 432, of the
Revised Administrative Code.
 Said section 432 reads as follows:
o "The following persons shall be disqualified from voting:
o Any person who, since August 13, 1898, has been
sentenced by final judgment to suffer not less than 18
months of imprisonment, such having been removed
by plenary pardon.
o Any person who has violated an oath of allegiance
taken by him to the United States.
o Insane or feeble-minded persons.
o Deaf-mutes who cannot read and write
 Whoever at any election votes knowing that he is not
entitled so to do incurs in criminal responsibility.
 It is undisputed that appellant was sentenced by final
judgment to suffer eight years and one day of presidio mayor.
No evidence that he had been granted a plenary pardon.
 It is likewise undisputed that he voted in of the municipality of
Davao, Province of Davao.
 Counsel for the appellant contend that inasmuch as the latter
voted in 1928 his offense had already prescribed, and he
could no longer be prosecuted for illegal voting
Issue:
W/N the appellant voted illegally at the general elections in
connection with section 432, of the Revised Administrative Code.
Ruling:
 The right to vote is not a natural right but it is a right created by
law.
 Suffrage is a privilege granted by the State to such persons or
classes as are most likely to exercise it for the public good.
 For reasons of public policy, certain classes of persons are
excluded from the franchise. Among the generally excluded
classes are minors, idiots, paupers, and convicts.
 The right of State to deprive persons of the right of suffrage by
reason of their having been convicted of crime, is beyond
question. The manifest purpose of such restriction is to preserve
the purity of elections.
 The exclusion must for this reason be adjudged a mere
disqualification, imposed for protection and in not for
punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not the denial
of a personal right."
 RESCRIPTION. — The disqualification for crime imposed by law,
having once attached and not having been subsequently
removed by a plenary pardon, is not wiped out only because
the ex-convict had once been allowed to vote.
4. Purisima v. Salanga
Facts:
 Amante Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were among the
candidates for any of the three offices of Provincial Board
Member of Ilocos Sur.
 Purisima noted words and figures for Cordero's votes had been
obviously altered
 For purposes of comparison, the Nacionalista Party copies of
the returns for the aforesaid precincts were submitted to the
board
 A discrepancy of votes in favor of Cordero was found
 A request for suspension of the canvass was made by Purisima
was denied on the ground that it was not yet ascertainable if
 the discrepancies would materially affect the results
 Purisima filed a petition in the COMELEC to annul the canvass
and proclamation and for recount
 Cordero admitted the erasures and discrepancies on the face
of the returns from but denied that said erasures were due to
tampering or falsification.
Issue:
W/N petition for recount could be granted
Ruling: YES
 There were patent erasures and superimpositions in words and
figures on the face of the election returns submitted to the
board of canvassers, it was imperative for said board to stop
the canvass so as to allow time for verification of authentic
copies and recourse to the courts. A canvass or proclamation
made notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting
proper remedies, is null and void.
 Interpretation of election laws should give effect to the
expressed will of the electorate. Patent erasures and
superimpositions in words and figures of the votes stated in the
election returns strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for
canvass and proclamation.
 A comparison with the other copies, and, in case of
discrepancy, a recount, is the only way to remove grave
doubts as to the correctness of said returns as well as of
ascertaining that they reflect the will of the people.
5. Cauton v. COMELEC
Facts:
 Cauton and Sanidad, along Reyes, were candidates for the
office of Representative in the second congressional district of
Ilocos Sur.
 Commission on Elections found "that it had been clearly
established that the copies of the election returns have
alterations in the entries of the votes cast for representative
showing different number of votes compared with the Liberal
Party copies
 Pursuant to the instructions of respondent Commission the
ballot boxes from all the precincts in the municipalities of
Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago were opened
 Cauton petition that the COMELEC be restrained from
opening, the envelopes containing the election returns found
in the afore-mentioned ballot boxes and be ordered to return
the said envelopes to the corresponding ballot boxes.
 He alleges that the respondent Commission on Elections acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction revolves on the of the
resolution of the COMELEC which orders the opening of the
ballot boxes for the purpose of retrieving election returns to
enable the aggrieved party to establish discrepancy between
copies of the election returns in the precincts for the purpose
of obtaining judicial remedy
Issue:
W/N COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in isuuing
the resolution for opening the ballotbox
Ruling: No
 The Commission has the power to decide all administrative
questions affecting Elections, except the question involving the
right to vote
 Under Section 157 of the Revised Election Code, the ballot
boxes may be opened in case there is an election contest.
 They may also be opened even if there is no election contest
when their contents have to be used as evidence in the
prosecution of election frauds.
 Moreover, they may be opened when they are the subject of
any official investigation which may be ordered by a
competent court or other competent authority.
 The competent authority must include the Commission on
Elections which is charged with the administration and
enforcement of the laws relative to the conduct of elections.
 PURPOSE OF OPENING THE BALLOT BOX: 1) secured a basis for
the prosecution for the violation of the laws relative to
elections, and (2) afforded the party aggrieved by the
alteration of the election returns outside the ballot box a basis
for a judicial recount of the votes
6. Roque v. COMELEC - A
Facts
On 23 January 2007, Congress passed RA 9369 amending the first
automated election law, RA 8436.[2] Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended
by RA 9369, which amendment took effect on 10 February 2007,
authorized the COMELEC to:
Use an automated election system or systems in the same election in
different provinces, whether paper-based or a direct recording
automated election system as it may deem appropriate and practical
for the process of voting, counting of votes and
canvassing/consolidation and transmittal of results of electoral
exercises: Provided, that for the regular national and local election,
which shall be held immediately after effectivity of this Act, the AES
shall be used in at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces
each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, to be chosen by the
Commission x x x x In succeeding regular national or local elections,
the AES shall be implemented nationwide. (Emphasis supplied)
The COMELEC did not use any automated election system in the 14
May 2007 elections, the national and local elections held after RA
9369 took effect.
On 10 July 2009, the COMELEC, on the one hand, and TIM and
Smartmatic (Provider), on the other, signed the Contract for the
automated tallying and recording of votes cast nationwide in the 10
May 2010 elections. For P7,191,484,739.48, the COMELEC leased for
use in the 10 May 2010 elections 82,200 optical scanners (and related
equipment) and hired ancillary services of the Provider.
On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as taxpayers and citizens, filed this
petition[4] to enjoin the signing of the Contract or its implementation
and to compel disclosure of the terms of the Contract and other
agreements between the Provider and its subcontractors.[5] Petitioners
sought the Contract's invalidation for non-compliance with the
requirement in Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended, mandating the
partial use of an automated election system before deploying it
nationwide. To further support their claim on the Contract's invalidity,
petitioners alleged that (1) the optical scanners leased by the
COMELEC do not satisfy the minimum systems capabilities" under RA
8436, as amended and (2) the Provider not only failed to submit
relevant documents during the bidding but also failed to show
"community of interest" among its constituent corporations as required
in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC
(Infotech).
Issue
Whether or not, the COMELECgravely abuse its discretion when it
entered to contract with Smartmatic TIM Corporation and assailing to
an automated election.
Ruling
Assayed against the provisions of the Constitution, the enabling
automation law, RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, the RFP and even
the Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners invoked as an afterthought,
the Court finds the project award to have complied with legal
prescriptions, and the terms and conditions of the corresponding
automation contract in question to be valid. No grave abuse of
discretion, therefore, can be laid on the doorsteps of respondent
COMELEC. And surely, the winning joint venture should not be faulted
for having a foreign company as partner.
The COMELEC is an independent constitutional body with a distinct
and pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its
awesome functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and
lead implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, it should
not be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the
case of an organization of lesser responsibility.[103] It should be
afforded ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in devising
means and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the great
objective for which it was created--to promote free, orderly, honest
and peaceful elections. This is as it should be for, too often, COMELEC
has to make decisions under difficult conditions to address unforeseen
events to preserve the integrity of the election and in the process the
voice of the people. Thus, in the past, the Court has steered away
from interfering with the COMELEC’s exercise of its power which, by
law and by the nature of its office properly pertain to it. Absent,
therefore, a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on comelec’s
part, as here, the Court should refrain from utilizing the corrective hand
of certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the acts of that body.
There are no ready-made formulas for solving public problems. Time
and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the
ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of the
laws relative to the conduct of elections, x x x we must not by any
excessive zeal take away from the comelec the initiative which by
constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it. Due regard
to the independent character of the Commission x x x requires that
the power of this court to review the acts of that body should, as a
general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in appropriate cases.
.This independent constitutional commission, it is true, possesses
extraordinary powers and enjoys a considerable latitude in the
discharge of its functions. The road, however, towards successful 2010
automation elections would certainly be rough and bumpy. The
comelec is laboring under very tight timelines. It would accordingly
need the help of all advocates of orderly and honest elections, of all
men and women of goodwill, to smoothen the way and assist
comelec personnel address the fears expressed about the integrity of
the system. Like anyone else, the Court would like and wish
automated elections to succeed, credibly.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
8. a. Reyes v COMELEC - June 25, 2103
Facts:
 Respondent Tan filed before the COMELEC an Amended
Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) of petitioner on the ground that it
contained material misrepresentations of her status, residency,
birth date, and citizenship
 Respondent filed a "Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly
Discovered Evidence and Amended List of Exhibits" a copy of
an article published on the internet entitled "Seeking and
Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes" indicating that
petitioner is an American citizen and a holder of a U.S.
passport
 Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Certificate of Candidacy
REYES is CANCELLED.
 COMELEC averred that he failed to comply with the
requirements of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that she
is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she has not lost such
status by and her simply obtaining and using an American
passport and her marriage to an American citizen only resulted
into dual citizenship, thus there is no need for her to fulfill the
twin requirements under R.A. No. 9225
 As to her alleged lack of the one-year residency requirement
prescribed by the Constitution, she averred that, as she never
became a naturalized citizen, she never lost her domicile of
origin, which is Boac, Marinduque.
 To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance as
required by R.A. No. 9225, petitioner contends that, since she
took her oath of allegiance in connection with her
appointment as Provincial Administrator of Marinduque, she is
deemed to have reacquired her status as a natural-born
Filipino citizen.
Issue:
1. W/N COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took
cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having
been testified on and offered and admitted in evidence.
2. W/N petitioner failed to comply the citizenship and residency
Requirement
Rulinng:
1.No
 It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to
strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the
presentation of evidence.
 Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
"shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of
every action and proceeding brought before the Commission."
 In view of the fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny
due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary
in nature, then the "newly discovered evidence" was properly
admitted by respondent COMELEC.
2. YES
 There is no proof that petitioner had already re-acquired her
Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that
she has regained her domicile in the Philippines. There being
 no proof that petitioner had renounced her American
citizenship, it follows that she has not abandoned her domicile
of choice in the USA.
 Respondent to reacquire her Filipino citizenship and become
eligible for public office, the law requires that she must have
accomplished the following acts: (1) take the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Consul-
General of the Philippine Consulate in the USA; and (2) make a
personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
 petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be
considered as the oath of allegiance in compliance with R.A.
No. 9225.
8. b. Reyes v COMELEC - October 22, 2103
Facts:
 Petitioner is not asking the Honorable Court to make a
determination as regards her qualifications, she is merely
asking the Honorable Court to affirm the jurisdiction of the HRET
to solely and exclusively pass upon such qualifications and to
set aside the COMELEC Resolutions for having denied
Petitioner her right to due process and for unconstitutionally
adding a qualification not otherwise required by the
constitution.
 Petitioner is a duly proclaimed winner and having taken her
oath of office as member of the House of Representatives, all
questions regarding her qualifications are outside the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC and are within the HRET exclusive
jurisdiction.
Issue:
W/N the HRET has the jurisdiction over the petitioner.
Ruling: No
 The HRET jurisdiction over the qualification of the Member of
the House of Representatives is original and exclusive.
 The HRET proceedings is a regular, not summary, proceeding. It
will determine who should be the Member of the House. It must
be made clear though, at the risk of repetitiveness, that no
hiatus occurs in the representation of Marinduque in the House
because there is such a representative who shall sit as the HRET
proceedings are had till termination.
 Such representative is the duly proclaimed winner resulting
from the terminated case of cancellation of certificate of
candidacy of petitioner. The petitioner is not, cannot, be that
representative. And this, all in all, is the crux of the dispute
between the parties: who shall sit in the House in
representation of Marinduque, while there is yet no HRET
decision on the qualifications of the Member.
 It may well be in order to remind petitioner that jurisdiction,
once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties, but
continues until the case is terminated. When petitioner filed her
Petition for Certiorari jurisdiction vested in the Court and, in
fact, the Court exercised such jurisdiction when it acted on the
petition. Such jurisdiction cannot be lost by the unilateral
withdrawal of the petition by petitioner.
 Facts:
 The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari with
prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction resolution of the Commission on Election ordering
the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner
for the position of the Representative of the lone district of
Marinduque.
 On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the
Comelec an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to
Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako
Reyes, the petitioner, on the ground that it contained material
representations.On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC cancelled
the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. She filed an MR
on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013, COMELEC en banc denied
her MR.
 However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the
May 13, 2013 Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared
the May 14, 2013 Resolution final and Executory. On the same
day, petitioner took her oath of office before Feliciano
Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She
has yet to assume office at that time, as her term officially
starts at noon of June 30, 2013.According to petitioner, the
COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly
proclaimed20 because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be
 the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications” of the Members of the House of
Representatives.

 Issue:
 Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner
who is proclaimed as winner and who has already taken her
oath of office for the position of member of the House of
Representative of Marinduque.
 Held:
 Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of
the HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a
Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in Section
17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered
a Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a
concurrence of these requisites: (1) valid proclamation; (2)
proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
 Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR
yet as she has not assumed office yet. Also, the 2 nd
requirement was not validly complied with as a valid oath must
be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and (2) in open session. Here, although she
made the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no
indication that it was made during plenary or in open session
and, thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of
office was indeed complied.
 Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave
abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. For an act to
be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of
discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and
substantially show that grave abuse of discretion exists.