Political Party; Party-List Organization 3.

Nominees should have given their ​consent ​in

writing
4. The list shall not include any candidate for any
“Political party” ​- an organized group of persons pursuing
elective office or a person who has lost his bid for
the same ideology, political ideas or platforms of
an elective office in the immediately preceding
government
election
5. No ​change ​of names or alteration after
“Sectoral party” ​- an organized group of citizens
submission except: WID
belonging to any of the sectors enumerated whose
a. When the nominee ​withdraws ​in writing
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
b. When the nominee becomes
concerns of their sector:
incapacitated
1. Marginalized and underrepresented​: FLOP-HU-VI
c. When the nominee ​dies
a. Fisherfolk
6. Incumbent sectoral representatives shall not be
b. Labor
considered ​resigned
c. Overseas workers
d. Peasants
Qualifications of party-list representatives​​: CAR-BAR
e. Handicapped
1. Natural-born ​citizen ​of the Philippines
f. Urban poor
2. Able​​ to read and write
g. Veterans
3. Registered ​voter
h. Indigenous cultural communities
4. Bona fide member of the party or organization at
2. Lacks well-defined political constituencies​: PEWY
least 90 days preceding the day of election
a. Professionals
5. At least 25 years of ​age
b. The elderly
6. Resident​​ of the Philippines of not less than 1 year
c. Women
d. Youth
Four Parameters in Philippine Party-List Election​​:
1. 20% allocation
Registration of Parties
2. A guaranteed seat for a party-list organization
- Filed with Comelec ​not later than 90 days before
garnering 2% of the total votes cast
the election
3. Proportional representation
4. The three-seat cap ​(Veterans Federation Party v.
Manifestation to participate in the party-list system
COMELEC)
- Submitted by parties already registered with
Comelec, ​not later than 90 days before election
Formula in the Allocation of Party-list Seat ​(BANAT v.
COMELEC)
Grounds for refusal or cancellation of registration​​:
RV​2​F-SUE-P202
80-20 Rule in apportioning the seats in the lower
1. Religious ​denomination or sect
house:
2. Advocates ​violence ​or unlawful means to seek its
(Current Number of Legislative District Representatives ​÷
goal
0.80) x (0.20) = ​Number of Seats Available to Party-List
3. Violates ​or fails to comply with election laws
Representatives
4. Foreign ​party or organization
5. Receiving ​support ​from any foreign government
How to compute for guaranteed seat (GS):
or organizations
6. Declares ​untruthful ​statements in its petition
7. Ceased to ​exist ​for at least 1 year Total number of votes of a PLC
8. Fails to ​participate ​in the last ​2 preceding x 100 = ​GS
elections or fails to ​obtain ​at least ​2 per centum Total number of votes cast
during the last 2 preceding elections
How to compute for additional seats​​:
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC
The party-list system is not for sectoral parties only, but Percentage x remaining available seats = ​additional seat
also for non-sectoral parties

Rules on nomination of party-list representatives​​:

45/5-1-CE-CR
1. Each party shall submit to the COMELEC ​not later
than 45 days before the election a list of not less
than​ 5 representative nominees
2. A person may be nominated in ​1 list only
Automated Election System
“Automated Election System” ​- a system using
appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in
the voting, counting, consolidating, and transmission of
election result, and other electoral processes
“Paper-based Election System” - a type of automated
election system that uses paper ballots, records, and
counts votes, tabulates, consolidates/canvasses and
transmits electronically the results of the vote count
Minimum System Capabilities​​:​ ​(RA 8436)
1. Adequate​ security ​against unauthorized access
2. Accuracy
3. Error recovery ​in case of non-catastrophic failure
of device
4. System ​integrity ​which ensures physical stability
and functioning of the vote recording and
counting process
5. Provision for voter verified ​paper audit trail
6. System ​auditability which provides supporting
documentation for verifying the correctness of
reported election results
7. An election ​management system ​for preparing
ballots and programs for use in the casting and
counting of votes and to consolidate, report and
display election result in the shortest time
possible
8. Accessibility ​to illiterates and disabled voters;
9. Vote tabulating program ​for election,
referendum or plebiscite
10. Accurate ​ballot counters
11. Data retention​​ provision
12. Provide for the ​safekeeping, storing and
archiving ​of physical or paper resource used in
the election process
13. Utilize or generate official ballots
14. Provide the voter a system of ​verification ​to find
out whether or not the machine has registered his
choiCE
15. Configure ​access control ​for sensitive system
data and function.
“Continuity Plan” - a list of contingency measures, and the
policies for activation of such, that are put in place to
ensure continuous operation of the AES.
The AES shall be so designed to include a
continuity plan in case of a system breakdown or any such
eventuality which shall result in the delay, obstruction or
nonperformance of electoral process
Advisory Council
- Composed of ​technical experts from the ​DOST​​,
the Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines (​ITFP​​), ​UP​​, and ​two (2)
representatives from the private sector
recommended by the Philippine Computer Society
(​PCS​​)
- Aims to ensure an ​equitable system of
deductions ​or ​demerits for deviations or
deficiencies ​in meeting all the above stated
features and standards
Joint congressional Oversight Committee
- Composed of ​three (3) representatives each
from the ​Senate ​and the ​House of
Representatives ​and ​three (3) from the
Commission on Elections
- Duty to ​monitor and evaluate the implementation
of Automated Election Systems Act.
- Shall submit report to the Congress ​within ninety
(90) days from the date of election
- May hire ​competent consultants for ​project
monitoring and ​information technology concerns
related to the implementation and improvement
of the modern election system
Recall
“Recall” ​- termination of official relationship of a local
elective official for loss of confidence prior to the
expiration of his term through the will of the electorate
Grounds for recall
- Only for loss of confidence
Procedure​​: ​PCP-VA
1. A written ​petition ​for recall signed by the
representatives of the petitioners shall be filed
with the Comelec
The petition shall contain: (NLOR)
1. Name ​and addresses of petitioners and
their signatures
2. LGU​​ to which petitioners belong
3. Name of ​official ​sought to be recalled
4. Brief narration of the ​reasons ​and
justifications therefor
2. The Comelec shall, within 15 days from the filing
of the petition, ​certify ​to the sufficiency of the
required number of signatures
3. If the petition is sufficient in form, Comelec shall,
within 3 days from issuance of certification,
provide the official sought to be recalled a copy of
the petition, cause of its ​publication ​in a national
newspaper of general circulation and a newspaper
of general circulation in the ​locality​, once a week
for 3 consecutive weeks and ​post copies thereof in
public and conspicuous places for a period not less
than 10 days nor more than 20 days
4. The Comelec shall, upon issuance of certification,
proceed independently with the ​verification and
authentication of the signatures of the petitioners
and registered voters contained therein
5. Upon lapse of the aforesaid period, Comelec shall
announce the ​acceptance of candidates to the
position and prepare list of candidates
Limitations on Recall​​:
1. Any local official may be the subject of a recall
election ​only once during his term of office for
loss of confidence
2. No recall shall take place ​within one (1) year
from the date of the official’s ​assumption ​to
office or ​one (1) year immediately preceding a
regular local election
Claudio v. COMELEC
The term “recall” in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of LGC
pertains only to the recall election, excluding the
convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly and the
filing of the petition for recall with the COMELEC, or the
gathering of signatures.
Failure of Elections, Postponement of Elections,
Special Elections
Instances where Failure of Election may be declared​​:
SHE
1. The ​election in any polling place ​has not been
held ​on the date fixed ​on account of ​force majeure,​
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes;
2. The ​election in any polling place had been
suspended ​before the hour fixed by law for the
closing of the voting on account of ​force majeure,​
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes; and
3. After the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof such election ​results
in a failure to elect on account of ​force majeure,​
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes ​(Sison v. COMELEC)
Grounds for Postponement of Election​​:
An election may be postponed by the COMELEC either
motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any interested
party and after due notice and hearing, whereby the
interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be
heard, when there is: (VT-FLO)
1. Violence
2. Terrorism
3. Force Majeure
4. Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records
5. Other analogous causes
Call on Special Election
1. Should ​not be later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause of the postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect
2. Should be ​reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in
the failure to elect ​(Pangandaman v. COMELEC)
*The COMELEC has ​no power ​to call ​for the holding of
special elections ​unless pursuant to a ​specific statutory
grant​​ ​(Kida v. Senate)
Election Offenses
Prohibited Acts under the Omnibus Election Code​​:
1. Vote-buying ​and ​Vote-selling
2. Conspiracy to ​bribe ​voters
3. Wagering ​upon the result of the election
4. Coercion
5. Appointment ​of ​new employees
6. Promoting or giving (by any government official)
any ​increase of salary ​or remuneration or
privilege to any government official or employee
7. Transfer ​or detail of government
official/employee without COMELEC approval
8. Intervention ​of public officers and employees
9. Undue ​influence
10. Unlawful ​electioneering
11. Harassment ​and dismissal of employees, laborers
and tenants
12. Appointment ​or use of ​special policemen, special
agents or confidential agents
13. Illegal release of prisoners before and after
election
14. Use of public funds​​, equipment and facilities for
election campaign
15. Carrying of ​deadly weapon within a radius of 100
meters from a precinct
16. Carrying of ​firearms ​outside residence or place of
business
17. Use of ​armored land, water or air craft
18. Wearing of ​uniforms and bearing arms
19. Release​​, disbursement or expenditure of ​public
funds
20. Construction of public works, delivery of
materials for public works and issuance of
treasury warrants and similar devices
21. Suspension ​of ​elective ​provincial, city, municipal
or barangay officer
22. On ​registration of voters
23. On ​voting
24. On ​canvassing
25. Prohibitions relating to ​candidacy and campaign
26. Other ​prohibitions
27. Other election offenses ​under OEC
Persons Criminally Liable​​:
1. Principals, accomplices and accessories
2. If the one responsible be a political party or an
entity, its ​president or head, the officials and
employees of the same, performing duties
connected with the offense committed and its
members who may be principals, accomplices or
accessories shall be liable, in addition to the
liability of such party or entity
3. Director of Prisons, Provincial Warden or Keeper
of the jail in case of prisoner or prisoners illegally
 released from any penitentiary or jail during the 3. Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court exercises
prohibited period jurisdiction only over offenses relating to ​failure
to register or to vote
Penalties​​:
1. Imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not
more than six (6) years and shall not be subject to Election Adjudication System
probation
2. Disqualification to hold public office and
​Kinds of Contest
deprivation of the right of suffrage
1. Election Protest
3. If the person criminally liable is a foreigner, he
a. Filed only by ​another candidate
shall be sentenced to ​deportation which shall be
b. Grounds​​: FTI​2
enforced after the prison term has been served
i. Fraud
4. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced
ii. Terrorism
to pay a ​fine​ of not less than P10,000.00
iii. Irregularities
iv. Illegal acts committed before,
Prosecution of Election Offenses
during, or after the casting and
The ​Commission ​shall, through its duly authorized legal
counting of votes
officer, have the power, concurrent with the other
c. Time to file: ​within 10 days from
prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct
proclamation of results of election
preliminary investigation of all election offenses
2. Quo Warranto
punishable under this Code, and prosecute the same
a. Filed by any ​registered voter in the
constituency
Preferential Disposition of Election Offenses
b. Grounds​​: ID
1. Investigation and prosecution of election offenses
i. Ineligibility
shall be given priority by the COMELEC. The
ii. Disloyalty to the Republic
investigating officer shall resolve the case within 5
c. Time to file: ​within 10 days after
days from submission
proclamation of results of election
2. The courts shall likewise give preference to
election offense over all other cases, ​except
Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Court
petitions for writ of habeas corpus​. Cases shall be
- Barangay/SK election contests
decided ​within 30 days from submission
Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court
Prescriptive Period for Election Offenses
- Municipal election contests
- 5 years ​from the ​date of commission
- If the discovery of the offense is made in an
Jurisdiction of COMELEC
election contest proceedings​: the period of
1. Regional election contests
prescription shall commence on the ​date on
2. Provincial election contests
which the judgment in such proceedings
3. City election contests
becomes final and executory
4. Appellate jurisdiction for decisions of RTC and
- When is prescription interrupted​: by the ​filing of
MTC
complaint ​even if it be merely for purposes of
preliminary examination or investigation ​(Baytan,
Procedure in election contests: COMELEC
et al. v. COMELEC)
1. An election protest or petition for ​quo warranto
shall be ​filed directly with the Commission
Jurisdiction over Election Offenses
within a non-extendible period of ​10 days
1. COMELEC ​has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate
following the date of proclamation
and prosecute cases involving violations of
2. Director of the Election Contest and Adjudication
election laws ​(CONT. Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, Par. (6)
Department (ECAD) shall immediately ​docket the
a. COMELEC may ​delegate the power to the
Protest​​ and ​raffle ​the case
Provincial Prosecutor ​(People v. Judge
3. Within 3 days from the filing corresponding
Basilia)
summons ​shall be issued to the protestee or
b. COMELEC has ​no duty to gather proof in
respondent
support of a complaint filed before it
4. Preliminary conference - within 3 days after the
(Kilosbayan v. COMELEC)
filing of the last responsive pleading, or expiration
c. The ​Ombudsman or Prosecutor may
of the same period without any responsive
prosecute election offenses if deputized
pleading having been filed
by the COMELEC
a. Commission may order the production
2. Regional Trial Court has exclusive original
and custody of ballot boxes, election
jurisdiction to try and decide any ​criminal actions
or proceedings for violation of election
 documents, data storage devices, and
machines used in the elections
b. Filing of answer within 5 days from notice
5. Recount ​of ballots/ re-tabulation of election
documents
6. Technical examination
7. Hearing
8. Presentation and reception of ​evidence
9. The Commission shall ​decide ​the election contest
within 30 days from the date it is submitted for
decision

Appeal and Other Election Issues

“Quo warranto” - refers to questions of disloyalty or

ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to
unseat the ineligible person from office, but not to install
the protestant in his place

Substitution of Candidates
Only a person belonging to, and certified by, the ​same
political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace
the candidate ​not later than mid-day of the ​day of the
election

Grounds for Substitution​​:

When the candidate: WDD
1. Withdrew ​his candidacy
2. Died
3. Is ​disqualified

Withdrawal of COC
Any person who has filed a COC may, ​at any time before
Election Day​, file personally a ​Statement of Withdrawal
under oath​​, in ​5 legible copies, with the office where the
COC was filed

Execution Pending Appeal

The trial court may grant a motion for execution pending
appeal, because the mere filing of an appeal does not
divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and to
resolve pending incidents ​(Santos v. COMELEC)

Valid and Special Reasons to Grant the same​​:

1. The ​public interest ​is involved or the will of the
electorate;
2. The ​shortness ​of the remaining portion of the
term​​; or
3. The ​length ​of time that the election contest has
been ​pending
 2018 BAR Questions related to Election Laws and
Sample Answers
IV. The Province of Amaya is one of the smallest
provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative
district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos,
Tres, and Cuatro.
Andres, a resident and registered voter of
Cuatro municipality, ran and was elected as member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the
2010 and 2013 local elections.
While Andress was serving his second term as
SP member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the
four towns of Amaya into two legislative districts: Uno
and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and
Cuatro comprising the Second District.
In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was
elected as member of the SP of Amaya representing
the Second District.
Andres seeks your legal advice regarding his
intention to run as a member of the SP of Amaya for
the Second District in the next local elections in 2019.
What will you advice Andres?
Andres cannot run for the Second District in 2019
elections. ​Abundo v. COMELEC provides the Three-Term
Limit Rule which states that the local elective official who
has been elected to the same position for three consecutive
terms and has fully served such, is disqualified from
reelection. The re-apportioning of the four towns of Amaya
into two legislative districts is immaterial because as
provided in ​Latasa v. COMELEC,​ an elective official who
have already served three consecutive terms as mayor in a
town which was subsequently converted into a city cannot
immediately run for the mayorial race because the
territorial jurisdiction as well as the constituents of the
local government unit is the same.
V. State whether or not the following acts are
constitutional:
(b) A law requiring all candidates for national or local
elective offices to be college degree holders
Unconstitutional because the 1987 Constitution does not
provide any qualification as to educational attainment of
candidates for national or local elective offices, it only
requires ability to read and write.
(e) The nomination by a national party-list of a person
who is not one of its bona fide members
Unconstitutional because Section 9 of RA 7941 which
provides for the qualifications of Party-list Nominees
specifically requires that the nominee must be a bona fide
member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of
the election.
VI. Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization
duly registered as such with the Commission on
Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the
winning party-list groups in the last national elections.
Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the
party-list representative.
About one year after Alejandro assumed office,
the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled
Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced
him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro
questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and
replacement by Andoy.
The Comelec considered Alejandro's petition
as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an
incident of its power to register political parties; it
proceeded to uphold the expulsion.
Is the Comelec's ruling correct?
No, the Comelec’s ruling is incorrect because it has no
jurisdiction over issues of party membership and
discipline of political parties. As ruled in ​Atienza v.
COMELEC,​ while a question of party leadership has
implications on Comelec’s performance of its
constitutional powers and functions, the expulsion of a
member of a party is an issue it cannot intervene given the
limited scope of its power over political parties.
Furthermore, as Alejandro is already a member of
the House of Representatives (HR), the HR Electoral
Tribunal now has jurisdiction over his election and
qualification as provided in the case of ​Palparan v. HRET.​
VII. The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ardania
included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders.
Arnaldo filed a petition with the Comelec to
cancel Anacleto's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for
misrepresenting himself as a Filipino citizen. Arnaldo
presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto's Spanish
passport and a certification from the Bureau of
Immigration (Bl) showing that Anacleto used the same
passport several times to travel to and from Manila
and Madrid or Barcelona.
In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year
prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the
requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention
and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his
Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance
and executing a sworn renunciation of his Spanish
citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish
passport subsequent to taking his oath of allegiance to
the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had
yet to obtain his Philippine passport despite
reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he
secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to wait
for the issuance of a Schengen visa to allow him to
travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.
(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there
sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto's CoC?
Yes, there is sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto’s CoC. As
ruled in the case of ​Arnado v. COMELEC​, a person who has
reacquired his Filipino citizenship but subsequently used
his foreign passport cannot be a candidate for election
because using such passport is a positive act of
representation of his foreign citizenship. The use of foreign
passport does not result in the renunciation of Filipino
citizenship, however, it reverted him back to his status as a
dual citizen, which according to our election laws, is a
ground for disqualification to run for elective office.
(b) In case Anacleto's CoC is properly cancelled, who
should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who
obtained the second highest number votes, or Andrea,
the duly-elected Vice Mayor of the City?
Arnaldo, who obtained the second highest number of votes
should serve as mayor of Ardania City. As ruled in ​Aratea v.
COMELEC,​ and ​Maquiling v. COMELEC,​ if the proclaimed
winner turns out to have a void ​ab initio CoC, as in the case
at bar, he will be considered as if he had never been a
candidate at all. All votes pertaining to such candidate are
stray votes. Hence, the second placer, who was really the
only valid candidate, actually garnered the highest number
of votes.
VIII. Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of
Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with
the Comelec against two candidates running as
municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Anselmo. Years
ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime
of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer
the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which
carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the
President commuted his sentence and he was
discharged from prison.
The second petition was against Ambrosio.
Ambrosio's residency was questioned because he was
allegedly a "green card holder," i.e., a permanent
resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to
this effect from the US Embassy.
Acting on the recommendations of its Law
Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued
two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo
and Ambrosio.
Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate
petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the
resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both
claimed that the Comelec en bane acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction because the petitions should have first
been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec's
Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct?
Yes, both Anselmo and Ambrosio are correct. As ruled in
Garvida v. Sales,​ jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC in division.
Hence, COMELEC ​en banc a​ cted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
IX. In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired
Canadian citizenship.
In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the
Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of
Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the
Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and
executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian
citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.
In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of
candidacy for Congress for the 2010 elections.
Agripina's political rivals lost no time in causing the
filing of various actions to question her candidacy.
They questioned her eligibility to run as member of
Congress. Since Agripina had to take an oath under
R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an
act to perfect her Philippine citizenship.
Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be
considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the
defense that, having complied with the requirements
of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed
never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship.
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for
failing to meet the citizenship requirement?
No, Agripina is not disqualified to run for Congress. Under
RA 9225, one is reverted to a natural-born Filipino citizen
upon approval of the petition to reacquire and retain
Philippine citizenship. Therefore, Agripina, having met all
the requirements under RA 9225, is now considered a
natural-born Filipino and is qualified to run for Congress.