SR TSN - Elections PDF

ELECTION LAWS based from the lectures of Atty.
Valencia
Ateneo de Davao College of Law – Dos Sanchez Roman 2014
Based on the outline you have gone through, you can observe that there are atleast 3 sources of election laws:
1. Constitution
2. Omnibus Election code (BP 881) [OEC]
3. Local Government Code (RA 7610)
But we have also read that the OEC has undergone several amendments under the 1987 Constitution so that’s RA 6646, etc.
So what will serve as your basis, confidently saying, that the OEC is still the basic law on elections?
RA 6466. Sec. 2. Law Governing Elections. - The first local elections under the new Constitution and all subsequent elections and
plebiscites shall be governed by this Act and by the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election
Code of the Philippines, and other election laws not inconsistent with this Act.
So what would be the significance of the amendments?

Still, by basic provisions of RA 6466, the OEC is still the main basis to which all these amendments shall conform to.
What is the significance of the case of Sunga vs. COMELEC interms of elections. As we’ve said, the essence of elections is plurality of
votes, what do you understand about the plurality of votes?
These are the votes garnered on a particular candidate based on the actual number of voters who actually casted their votes.
Taking into consideration the essence of elections, what is the particular factual circumstance in the case of Sunga which is relevant?
“The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later disqualified for the office to which he was elected does
not entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. “
Why? What is the basis for that?
“Election is the process of complete ascertainment of the expression of the popular will. Its ultimate purpose is to
give effect to the will of the electorate by giving them direct participation in choosing the men and women who will
run their government. Thus, it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to
suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed winner and imposed as the representative
of a constituency, the majority of whom have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. While Sunga may
have garnered the second highest number of votes, the fact remains that he was not the choice of the people of Iguig, Cagayan.”
Why? Who were the parties here? What was the nature of the action brought before the SC? What about it, special civil action for
what? What is the special civil action about? What was being raised before the SC? Decision of the COMELEC against what? What was
the decision of the COMELEC?
“This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to annul and set aside, for having been rendered
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the 17 May 1996 Resolution of the COMELEC 2nd Division in
Sunga v. Trinidad, SPA No. 95-213, dismissing the petition for disqualification against private respondent Ferdinand B. Trinidad
pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 promulgated 3 November 1988, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 2050-A
promulgated 8 August 1990, and 30 July 1996 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc affirming the 17 May 1996 Resolution of the
COMELEC 2nd Division”
Why was that issue upon the SC as against the second winner which cannot be proclaimed as the winning candidate and is disqualified
even if the candidate the 2nd highest number of votes? What brought about that ruling of the SC that the second winner/ candidate
that garnered the 2nd highest number of votes cannot be declared as the winner? What was that factual circumstance in that case that
brought about this issue that was ruled upon by the SC? [BIA: important facts here]
Petitioner Manuel C. Sunga was one of the candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Iguig, Province of Cagayan, in the
8 May 1995 elections. Private respondent Ferdinand B. Trinidad, then incumbent mayor, was a candidate for re-election in the same
municipality.
There was an Amended Petition[4] for disqualification consolidating the charges in the two (2) letters-complaint, including vote buying,
and providing more specific details of the violations committed by Trinidad which was filed by Sunga to the COMELEC.
Meanwhile, the election results showed that Trinidad garnered the highest number of votes, while Sunga trailed second.
The COMELEC Law Department submitted its Report[6] to the COMELEC En Banc recommending that Trinidad be charged in court for
violation of the following penal provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
The COMELEC En Banc approved the findings of the Law Department and directed the filing of the corresponding informations in the
Regional Trial Court against Trinidad. The disqualification case, on the other hand, was referred to the COMELEC 2nd Division for
hearing.
The COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the petition for disqualification. Resolution No. 2050 mandates the dismissal of the
disqualification case. COMELEC en banc affirmed. Therefore, Trinidad was not disqualified.
Who brought the decision of the COMELEC to the SC? What was he saying? What was his basis in raising the petition of certiorari to
the SC?
“Sunga filed the instant petition contending that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 1

ELECTION LAWS based from the lectures of Atty. Valencia
disqualification in that:
first, Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646 requires the COMELEC to resolve the disqualification case even after the election and
proclamation, and the proclamation and assumption of office by Trinidad did not deprive the COMELEC of its jurisdiction;
second, COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 is null and void as it contravenes Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646;
third, the fact that COMELEC authorized the filing of four (4) informations against private respondent for violation of the penal
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code shows more than sufficient and substantial evidence to disqualify Trinidad, and he
should have been so disqualified; and
fourth, since Trinidad was a disqualified candidate, it is as if petitioner was the only candidate entitled to be proclaimed as the
duly elected mayor. “
[note: I clarified and clustered maam’s points to make it cohesive. Ito yung part na iniikot-ikot niya ang tanong regarding qualification
and disqualification ni Trinidad]
Additional:
The COMELEC 2nd division dismissed the case for disqualification against Trinidad holding that the complaint for disqualification was
not timely filed. The petition for disqualification was not timely filed by? Sunga. Sunga filed the disqualification, and Trinidad was the
subject of the disqualification case. So the COMELEC 2nd Div dismissed the petition for disqualification because the petition was filed
out of time. But you said that it was filed out of time, which means that Trinidad should be declared the winner. What about this issue?
The COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification holding that the complaint was filed after the election but not resolved before
the election proclamation causing its dismissal.
What brought about the issue, the holding of the SC in saying that 2nd winner cannot be declared taking into consideration our topic
on the essence of elections which is plurality of votes or majority of votes cast? Why did the SC mention this holding, or held in this
manner?
Sunga alleges that Trinidad being disqualified of the position which proclamation should be suspended because of the case, he (Sunga)
said that he should be declared the winner.
Maam: There was no proclamation yet, it was held in abeyance pending the resolution of the case. Since Sunga alleges that since
Trinidad will be disqualified, he should be proclaimed as the winning candidate. What was the ruling of the COMELEC that was raised to
the SC through a petition for certiorari.
COMELEC resolved to dismiss the disqualification case on the ground that it was filed out of time.
Maam: Can you relay the factual circumstance? Because we said that under the COMELEC Rules on Procedure, election laws must be
liberally construed. For what purpose? In order to determine as early as possible the true winner in an election for the expeditious
resolution of the case. So liberally construed; what was the factual circumstance in the Bince vs. COMELEC case which gave rise to
the ruling on construction in application to the statutory construction in election contests. [important facts here]
Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. and private respondent Emiliano S. Micu were among the candidates in the synchronized elections of
May 11, 1992 for a seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Pangasinan.
During the canvassing of the Certificates of Canvass (COCs) for these ten (10) municipalities be respondent Provincial Board of
Canvassers (PBC), private respondent Micu objected to the inclusion of the COC for San Quintin on the ground that it contained false
statements. Accordingly, the COCs for the remaining nine (9) municipalities were included in the canvass. On May 21, 1992, the PBC
ruled against the objection of private respondent
Micu appealed to the Commission on Elections, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution which reads:
Acting on the appeal filed by petitioner/appellant Atty. Emiliano S. Micu to the ruling of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of
Pangasinan, dated May 21, 1992, the Commission en banc tabulated the votes obtained by candidates Atty. Emiliano S. Micu and Atty.
Alfonso C. Bince for the Position of Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of the province of Pangasinan, using as basis thereof the
statement of votes by precinct submitted by the municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan, as (sic) a result of said examination, the
Commission rules:
the actual number of votes obtained by candidate Alfonso C. Bince in the municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan is 1,055 votes
whereas petitioner/appellant Atty. Emiliano S. Micu obtained 1,535 votes
the PBC credited in favor of the petitioner and private respondent the votes for each as indicated in the said resolution and on the basis
of the COCs for San Quintin and the other nine (9) municipalities, petitioner had a total of 27,370 votes while the private respondent
had 27,369 votes
the COMELEC en banc ordered the PBC "to reconvene, continue with the provincial canvass and proclaim the winning candidates for
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the Province of Pangasinan…”
On June 25, 1992, petitioner Bince appealed from the above ruling allowing the correction alleging that the PBC had no jurisdiction.
Also, private respondent Micu filed before the COMELEC an urgent motion for the issuance of an order directing the PBC to reconvene
and proceed with the canvass. He alleged that the promulgation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2489 on June 29, 1992 affirmed the ruling
of the PBC.
As directed therein, the PBC on July 21, 1992, by a vote of 2-1 with its Chairman Atty. Felimon Asperin dissenting, proclaimed
candidate Bince as the duly elected member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan.
Acting on Micu’s petition to annul the PBC’s proclamation, the Commission RESOLVED: “…to ANNUL the proclamation dated 21 July
1992, by the said Provincial Board of Canvassers (dissented by Chairman Felimon Asperin), of candidate Alfonso Bince…”
petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before this Court seeking to set aside the foregoing resolution of the COMELEC,
contending that the same was promulgated without prior notice and hearing (and according to maam, Bince was saying that I was
already proclaimed!)
Issue: WON COMELEC wrongfully annulled the proclamation of Bince?
We do not find merit in this petition and accordingly rule against petitioner…The COMELEC [cannot] be faulted for subsequently
annulling the proclamation of petitioner Bince on account of a mathematical error in addition committed by respondent MBCs in the
computation of the votes received by both petitioner and private respondent. The petitions to correct manifest errors were filed on
time, that is, before the petitioner's proclamation on July 21, 1992. [Note, this is the technicality] The petition of the MBC of San
Manuel was filed on June 4, 1992 while that of the MBC of Tayug was filed on June 5, 1992. Still, private respondent's petition was filed
with the MBCs of Tayug and San Manuel on June 10, 1992 and June 11, 1992, respectively, definitely well within the period required by
Section 6 (now Section 7), Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Section 6 clearly provides that the petition for correction may
be filed at any time before proclamation of a winner.
Maam: When there is an error, it is incumbent upon the COMELEC to let the board of canvassers reconvene so that there will be a
correction in the statement of votes which will serve as the basis for the declaration of Bince as the winning candidate. The SC said:
Assuming for the sake of argument that the petition was filed out of time, this incident alone will not thwart the proper determination
and resolution of the instant case on substantial grounds. Adherence to a technicality that would put a stamp of validity on a palpably
void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will cannot be countenanced. In Benito v. COMELEC we
categorically declared that:”…Adjudication of cases on substantive merits and not on technicalities has been consistently observed by
this Court. In the case of Juliano vs. Court of Appeals (20 SCRA 808) cited in Duremdes vs. Commission on Elections (178 SCRA
746), this Court had the occasion to declare that: “Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve public interest, and
technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will
of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. And also settled is the rule that laws governing election contests must be
liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical
objections.””
What is the in an election protest? It is to determine the true will of the electorate, to determine who the winner of the election
actually is. The SC said that just because there was an error in the proclamation, it does not deprive COMELEC to order the necessary
corrections in the statement of votes because base on the COMELEC rules of procedure, election contest should be liberally construed.
For what purpose? In order to determine actual winner of the contest is.
In applying the rules of statutory construction, we have to divide election laws into 3:
1. Rules and regulations directed to the Board of Election Inspectors, the Election Registration Board, and all other authorities
of the COMELEC- so with respect to the conduct of elections which the election officials should comply with; it should be given
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION [read Fernandez v. Bautista, and Punzalan v. COMELEC] In the event the officials ___, it is
through the commission of misfeasance of these election officials that causes the error, they should patronize the voter.
a. In the case of Punzalan: the Board of Election Inspectors is mandated under the pertinent rules and regulations of
elections to affix their signature at the back of the official ballot. So it is required under 7166 that before the
chairman of the BOEI will give the ballot to the voter, they have to sign at the back of the ballot. In this case, the
chairman forgot to sign one of the ballot. So would this act of the election official in not signing the ballot consider
this ballot as invalid? NO. The SC applied the rules of liberal construction, they should be liberally construed. It is not
the fault of the electorate or the voter, it is the fault of the chairman. The issue is: WON to include that ballot for
counting or not? Include, so that it will not disenfranchise the voter. BUT IF THE ISSUE IS: with respect to the
genuineness or authenticity of the ballot during an election contest, of course will the signature of the chairman
matter. In so far as determining the authenticity or genuineness of a ballot.
b. In the case of Libanan v HRET: The SC said without the signature of the BOEI chairman at the back, the ballot is
still valid and not spurious provided that it bears ANYOF THESE authenticating marks: a) the COMELEC watermark;
b) the signatures or initial of the BEI Chairman at the back of the ballot; and c) red and blue fibers. In the present
case, all the ballots examined by the Tribunal had COMELEC watermarks. Chairman can held administratively or
criminally liable.
2. Those that the candidates are required to comply with- the qualifications as a candidate, the reglementary period with
which to file a Certificate of candidacy or the period with which to file an election protest. These are STRICTLY CONSTRUED
because those are rules and regulations that are mandatory with respect to compliance.
3. With respect to the election contest- procedural rules designed to ascertain, in case of disputes, the actual winner of an
election. Ito na yung election contest na pinaguusapan natin, which should be LIBERALLY CONSTRUED because the objective
is always to determine who the actual winner of the election is and according to Section 3, Rule 1 of the COMELEC rules of
procedure: “Rule 1. Sec. 3. Construction. - These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the effective and
efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and
to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the
Commission.” Guaranteed under art. 3 Section 4 on speedy trial, because election contest involve conflicts and cases of
disqualifications, so that needs to be expedited.
So what are the EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION POLICY?

1. When the amendment to the pleadings in an election contest substantially changes the cause of action, defense or theory
of the case.- so protestant has to rise and fall on the issues he has filed within the 10-day period.
2. When the amendment will alter the final judgment on a substantial matter.
3. When the amendment will confer jurisdiction upon the court when none existed before
4. When it seeks to cure a premature or non-existent cause of action.
5. When the amendment is intended to delay the proceedings of the case.
So the SC said that the liberal construction policy will be set aside and these should be STRICTLY CONSTRUED.
 INITIATIVE & REFERENDUM

WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SEC. 2 ART. 17 AND SEC. 32 ART. 6 OF THE CONSTITUION?
The former provides that amendment to this constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the through initiative upon a petition of
atleast 12% of total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by atleast 3% of registered
voters therein.
The latter provides that congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum and the exceptions
therefrom, where the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve, or reject any law or part thereof passed by congress or
local legislative body after the registration of a petition thereof signed by atleast 10 % of total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by atleast 3% of voters.
In short, sec. 2 art 17 provides for the amendments to the Constitution while sec. 32 provides for a system of initiative for direct
proposal and enactment or approval or rejection of national laws passed by congress or local laws passed by local legislative bodies.
WHO MAY EXERCISE THESE POWERS?
The registered voters. These are powers and rights vested by the constitution to the people.
WHICH REQUIRES WHAT PERCENTAGE OF VOTES?
Former requires 12 percent of total registered voters, latter requires pny 10 percent of total registered voters, but both requires that
each legislative district must be represented by atleast 3 percent of votes.
HOW CAN INITIATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION BE VALIDLY INITIATED?
Upon the petition.
WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF PEOPLE TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTION? THE NUMBER OF
TIMES THIS POWER CAN BE EXERCISED… BY WHOM?
No amendment under sec. 2, art 17 shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this constitution nor oftener than
once every five years thereafter.
This power may be exercised by the people by directly proposing through initiative upon a petition.
That is the limitation set forth by constition on the power of the people to exercise that power to ammend the constition
PETITION FOR INITIATIVE, GIVE ME IDEA WHAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE PETITION, WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION?
RA 6735 provides… (hindi marinig ang answer, mahina, matagal nakasagot, mali mali)
Those are the requirements required by law. COMELEC is vested the power to supervise the drafting of the law because the electorate
is not so much conversant as to the making of the law.
Initiative as discussed in the case of SBMA vs COMELEC, is the power of the people to propose bills and law and to enact and reject
them at the poll independent of the legislative assembly. Referendum on the other hand is the right reserved to people to adopt or
reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would, without action on the part of
the elections, become a law.
Initiative is resorted to by the people directly either because the law making body fails to or refuses to enact law,
ordinance and resolution or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. Under
section 13 of RA 6735, the local legislative body is given the opportunity to enact the propsoal . If its refuses,p or neglects to do so
within 30 days fro its presentation, the proponents through their duly authorized and registered representative may invoke their power
of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should the proponents be able to collect the number of
subject conformities with the period granted by said statute, the comelec shall set a date for the initiative at which the proposition shall
be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned. In local referendum on the other hand, the law making
body submits to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution which is duly
enacted or approved by such lawmaking body. Said referendum shall be conducted also under the control and direction of COMELEC.
In short, initiative is entirely the work of electorate, referendum on the other hand is consented to by the legislative body. Initiative is a
process of law making by the people themselves while referendum consists merely of the electorate or approving what have been
drawn up already or enacted by the law making body.
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN CASE
NATURE OF THE CASE: Action for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify the ruling of the Comelec and Resolution No. 2848
denying SBMA’s plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on the proposition to recall Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg.
10, Serye 1993 of the SB of Morong Bataan.
April 1993 - Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan on, passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein
its absolute concurrence to join the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) as required by Sec. 12 of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and
Development Act of 1992).
[Why is there a need for the concurrence? The metes and bounds have to be delineated because it has to be embodied in the
presidential proclamation.]
[What if they do not concur? The metes and bounds of those who are not in favor, those who do not concur will not be included in the
September 5, 1993 - SB submitted the Kapasyahan to the Office of the President
May 24, 1993 - Respondent Garcia, et. al. filed a petition with the SB of Morong to annul PK Blg. 10, Serye 1993 and therein
proposed for amendments to the said law.
The SB acted upon the petition and promulgated PK Blg. 18, requesting Congress to amend certain provisions of RA 7227 and
informed respondents that the other matters in the proposed amendments were already submitted to the Office of the President.
Not satisfied and within 30 days from submission of their petition, respondent resorted to their power of initiative under Sec 122 the
LGC of 1991.
July 6, 1993 - COMELEC denied in Resolution 93-1623 the petition for local initiative on the ground that the subject thereof was
merely a resolution and not an ordinance.
August 15, 1993 – Garcia et al instituted an action for certiorari and mandamus against COMELEC and SB of Bataan to set aside
Resolution 93-1623.
February 1, 1995 - President issued Proclamation No. 532 defining the metes and bounds of the SSEZ including therein the portion of
the former naval base within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Morong.
June 18, 1996 – As a result of Proclamation No. 532, Comelec issued Resolution No. 2845 adopting a calendar of activities for local
referendum (action instituted was based on power of initiative) to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Bldg. 10 and Resolution No. 2848
providing for the rules and guidelines to govern the referendum.
July 10, 1996 - Petitioner SBMA instituted a petition for certiorari and prohibition contesting the validity of Resolution 2848
July 23, 1996 - Court decided in Garcia et al v COMELEC that the Constitution (Section 32 of Article VI) clearly includes not only ordinance but
resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative.
"The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress, or local
legislative body . . .". An act includes a resolution.
ISSUES:
(1) WON this petition seeks to overturn the decision in Garcia et al v COMELEC
(2) Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing its Resolution No. 2847 which
govern the conduct of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal PK Blg. 10
HELD:
(1) NO. The only issue resolved in the earlier Garcia case is whether a municipal resolution as contra-distinguished from an
ordinance may be the proper subject of an initiative and/or referendum.
In the present case, petitioner is not contesting the propriety of a municipal resolution as the form by which these two new
constitutional prerogatives of the people may be validly exercised. What is at issue here is whether Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
Serye 1993, as worded, is sufficient in form and substance for submission to the people for their approval; in fine, whether the Comelec
acted properly and juridically in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848.
(2) YES. COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
The process started by private respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent COMELEC made preparations for a REFERENDUM only.
In fact, in the body of the Resolution, the word "referendum" is repeated at least 27 times, but "initiative" is not mentioned at all. The
COMELEC labeled the exercise as a "Referendum.” To repeat, not once was the word "initiative" used in said body of Resolution No.
2848. And yet, this exercise is unquestionably an INITIATIVE.
In this case, the SC was compelled to distinguish Initiative from Referendum.
INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
Initiative is the power of the people to propose Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and legislation through an election called for the purpose. It may be
enact legislations through an election called for the of two classes, namely:
purpose.
c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to

There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by
Congress; and
a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a

petition proposing amendments to the Constitution; c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by
regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.
a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a national legislation; and
(RA 6735)

a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a
petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the

people through a proposition sent to Congress or the
local legislative body for action.
(RA 6735)
Sec. 120. Local Initiative Defined. — Local initiative is Sec. 126. Local Referendum Defined. — Local referendum is the
the legal process whereby the registered voters of local legal process whereby the registered voters of the local
government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend government units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance
any ordinance. enacted by the sanggunian.
(Local Government Code)

[See the facts; This is what happened on May 24, 1993] Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given the
opportunity to enact the proposal. If it refuses/neglects to do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the proponents
through their duly-authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local
legislative body concerned.
Should the proponents be able to collect the number of signed conformities within the period granted by said statute, the
Commission on Elections "shall then set a date for the initiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall be submitted to
the registered voters in the local government unit concerned . . ."
What is the participation of the COMELEC in Initiative and Referendum?
While initiative is entirely the work of the electorate, referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making body. Initiative is a
process of law-making by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives, while
referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body.
From the above differentiation, it follows that there is need for the Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely, its authority thereon
extending not only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people is in
the proper form and language so it may be easily understood and voted upon by the electorate. This is especially true where the
proposed legislation is lengthy and complicated, and should thus be broken down into several autonomous parts, each such part to be
voted upon separately. Care must also be exercised that "(n)o petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the
electorate," although "two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative".
DECISION: Petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. 2848 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The initiative on Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
Serye 1993 is REMANDED to the Commission on Elections for further proceeding consistent with the foregoing discussion.
LAMBINO VS. COMELEC

The issue on initiative to propose amendment to the 1987 Constitution was again an issue.
Turning from the factual circumstances of Atty. Delfin, the Lambino group already garnered the signatures for an initiative to propose
amendments to the 1987 Constitution. So, in August, 2006, the Lambino group filed a petition asking the COMELEC to conduct a
plebiscite for the ratification of the amendments proposing their initiative petition under Sec 5 (b) & (c) of RA 6735. The Lambino group
claimed that their initiative petition was supported by the signatures of more than 6 million individuals constituting at least 12% of all
the registered voters and they further claimed that the provincial and city election officials have already verified the signatures of the
6M. However, the COMELEC still denied the petition on the ground that there is still no valid enabling law governing initiative petitions
to amend the constitution giving reliance in the case of Santiago vs. COMELEC wherein it was declared that (RA) 6735 is inadequate
and insufficient to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Of course, the advocates of the proposed amendments, the Lambino group, went to the SC via certiorari and mandamus enjoining the
SC to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC dismissing their petition and to order the COMELEC to give due course to this petition.
So what was brought before the SC is the resolution of the COMELEC denying the petition on the ground that the COMELEC gravely
abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
There are two issues here:
1.) Whether the initiative petition of the Lambino group comply with the provisions of Sec 2, Art 17 of the Constitution; and
2.) Whether the court should revisit the Santiago doctrine.
FIRST ISSUE
The initiative petition failed to comply with the requirements of this Constitution.
In this case the SC gave two reasons which were not present with the Santiago doctrine in order for the petition to be valid. In the
Santiago doctrine the SC held that the COMELEC did not acquire jurisdiction because the initiatory pleading did not possess the
signatures of the 12%, 3%, etc. The SC here further clarified that to give validity to the petition, the SC said that 2 essential requisites

must be present or complied with:
1. The people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
:: As we have discussed earlier, in the case of SBMA, wherein it made a consensual demarcation between initiative and referendum,
the SC said that the COMELEC, in so far as the petition for initiative on the Constitution is concerned, should closely monitor (because it
is the people who proposes the law independent of the legislative body) to determine whether the title is correct, raises only one law,
that the language is clear. That is the responsibility reposed upon the COMELEC which is not present in a referendum. In referendum, it
emanates from the legislative body and submitted to the people for the plebiscite.
2. In an initiative upon a petition, the proposed amendments must be embodied in the petition itself. The proposed amendments must
already be in the petition.
:: Rationale – The signature requirement would be rendered meaningless if the person affixing his signature in the petition has not
even read the contents of the petition. What happened in this case is that only the signature sheets were passed around and for all we
know, the SC said, those who were signing it never read the main body of the petition. Further, a lose interpretation of the requirement
can post a significant potential for fraud. For all we know papalitan nila yung main body.
Non-compliance with the above requirements is fatal to the initiative petition.
Here, for sure, majority of the 6.3M signatories did not even see the full text of the proposed changes before signing as the proposed
amendments were not stated in the signature sheets. They (signatories) were not apprised of the nature of and effect of the proposed
amendments among which are substantial changes which are as follows:
1. the current limits to all members of the legislature will be lifted and thus, member of the parliament may be reelected indefinitely;
2. the interim parliament whose membership comprise of present members of Congress can decide when to call the parliamentary
elections, thus, giving them the absolute power or discretion to determine their term limits; and
3. that within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim parliament may further propose revision on
amendments to the Constitution.
Furthermore, the SC said that the people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies only to amendments to the Constitution and
NOT revisions. Art 17 of the Constitution provides 3 methods or modes of proposing amending the Constitution and as stated, one is
through direct Congressional action, second is through Constitution Convention and third is through people’s initiative. The first and
second mode applies to both amendment and revision BUT the third mode applies only to amendments. So the distinction between the
first 2 modes and the third mode was intentional as may be shown by the SC via deliberation in the Constitutional Commission.
ConCom said that we cannot directly remove it from the operation of Section 1 of the proposed article of the amendment for revision.
The SC further held that there can be no dispute that the people’s initiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution by virtue
of the express provision of the law since the Constitution itself limits initiative by the people to amendments. There can be no deviation
from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the Constitution. Even with the clamor of more than 6.3M signatures cannot
justify the deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution itself, and the proposal of the Lambino group constituted not
only amendments but revision because of their proposed change in the form of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and
the shift from the bicameral to unilateral legislature.
The SC here took the opportunity of distinguishing between revision and amendment. So what is revision? SC said that revision broadly
implies change that alters the basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of separation of power, or the system of
checks and balances, or in the change that alters the substantial body of the Constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly
refers to changes that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle in the Constitution involved. So revision generally
affects several provisions in the Constitution while amendment generally affects only the specific provision/s being amended.
SECOND ISSUE
An affirmation or reversal of the Santiago ruling will not change the outcome of the Lambino case.
ASSIGNMENT: I would like you to read the motion for reconsideration by the Lambino group. The SC, ruling on Lambino’s motion for
reconsideration, held that the majority of the justices voted to declare RA 6735 sufficient for people’s inititiative on the Constitution
which effectively abandons the Santiago ruling.
SBMA Case
I just want to emphasize, with respect to the second issue of SBMA insisting that the creation of the Economic Zone is now a fait
accompli for the benefit of the entire nation and that the Sangguniang Bayan forum cannot unilaterally withdraw its concurrence or
impose new conditions for its concurrence as this would render nugatory the creation of the SSEZ. As per SBMA, this is beyond the
jurisdiction of the local government unit because the power of the LGU is only within its territorial jurisdiction but since this is a national
law, the LGU does not have that authority or power.
The SC agreed with the contention of Garcia that the petition of SBMA is premature and conjectural. Why? Because at this point, under
the present circumstances, the resolution was just a proposal which is still to be subjected to the people whether it will be submitted to
a plebiscite. So in case the people reject it then there is nothing to be declared as illegal.
 RECALL
Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end of the term. It shall be exercised by the
registered voters of the LGU to which the local elective official, subject to such recall, belongs. Take note that it pertains to a local
elective official because the low specifically provides that registered voters of a local government unit. So this does not apply to
members of congress or senators, this will apply only to local government officials, i.e. mayor, governor, etc.
The rule of initiating recall prior to the effectivity of RA 9244 is an act inhibiting preparatory recall assembly. Prior to the said
enactments, there are two modes of initiating recall:
1. preparatory recall assembly

2. by a petition of the 25% of the registered voters of the lgu concerned
Pursuant to the effectivity of RA 9244, this effectively amended the provision of Section 70 and 71 of the Local Government Code
(RA 7160).
Section 70 – It now provides for the different percentage requirement taking into consideration the population of the LGU. Prior to RA
9244, if it is through the registered voters, the percentage requirement is only 25%. However, by virtue of this amendment , there are
already several percentage requirement depending on the population of the LGU. It (Sec.70) now provides that the recall of provincial,
city, municipal or barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a registered voter of the LGU concerned AND supported by the
registered voters (signatures, etc,) in that LGU concerned during the elections in which the local official sought to be recalled was
elected subject to the following percentage requirements:
25% - if the voting population is not more than 20,000
20% - if the voting population is more than 20,000 but not more than 75,000; but in case shall the required # of petitioners
be less than 5,000
15% - if the voting population is more than 75,000 but not more than 300,000; but in no case shall the required # of
petitioners be less than 15,000
10% - if the voting population is over 300,000; but in no case shall the required # of petitioners be less than 45,000
Section 71 – The date of requirement is provided wherein it provides that upon the filing of a valid petition for recall before the local
office of the COMELEC, the COMELEC or its duly authorized representative shall send the date of the election or recall which shall not
be later than 30 days upon the completion of the procedure applied in the preceding article, one of which is the signature verification,
publication, etc. This is for city, municipal and barangay officials BUT in the case of provincial officials, it shall be 45 days.
Since there is now a petition for recall, recall elections shall thereafter commence. What will happen to these officials subject of recall?
They will automatically become duly registered candidates to that pertinent position and like other candidates, they shall be entitled to
be voted upon.
Section 72 – When is recall effective? Recall shall become effective only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the
person of the candidate who received the highest number of votes during the election in recall.
What will happen if the official sought to be recalled garners the highest number of votes? The law says that the confidence in that
official is affirmed and he shall continue the office.
Limitations on Recall:
There is only one ground for recall and that is lack of confidence.
No recall shall be initiated within 1 year from the date of assumption of office of the official sought to be recalled or within 1 year
immediately preceding a regular election.
For example, if the subject official assumes office on July 1, 2000, no action for recall shall be initiated between July 1, 2000 until June
30, 2001. In other words, recall elections can only be initiated on the second year (July 1,2001 until June 30,2002). Recall cannot be
initiated on the third year because it is immediately preceding the next regular elections.
Section 74 – What election would bar the holding of recall elections? This was answered in the case of…
Paras vs. COMELEC
Paras here was the incumbent Punong Barangay. He was the subject of recall but he opposed the recall proceedings on the ground that
there was an upcoming Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
ISSUES:
1. What is being contemplated by the term regular elections that would bar the holding of the recall elections?
2. WON the SK elections would be considered a regular election.
RULING: The SK cannot be considered a regular election.
REASONING: The SK election is participated in by voters between the ages of 15-21 and some of them are not qualified to vote in the
regular elections.
The elections being referred to that would bar the recall elections is the election that would fill-up the position of the official sought to
be recalled. For example, if the position sought to be recalled is for the position of mayor and the upcoming elections is a barangay
election, can it bar the holding of the recall proceedings? It will not. It would be different if the upcoming election is a local election
where a mayor is elected.
Claudio vs. COMELEC
This case was prior to the effectivity of RA 9244 because this is a preparatory recall assembly case. What is a preparatory recall
assembly? A preparatory recall assembly is composed of old chairmen of the barangays including the legislative bodies of the LGUs.
They gather to come up with a resolution to recall a particular official.
FACTS:
Mayor Claudio here sought to bar the recall alleging that it was initiated within 1 year from the date that he assumed office. Actually
no recall was initiated within the prohibited period only that, at that time the preparatory recall assembly (PRA) gathered and came up
with a resolution to recall Claudio.
Claudio contends that recall is a process which starts with the gathering of the PRA to come up with a resolution until the conduct of
the recall elections. The COMELEC agreed with Claudio.
ISSUE: WON the contention of Claudio is tenable.

RULING: NO
REASONING: SC held that recall is NOT A PROCESS BUT AN ELECTION.
Remember that, in a recall, it is the duly registered voters who will intervene and determine whether or not they have lost confidence
on the local official. Recall as used in Section 74 (b), RA 7160 refers to the elections itself by means of which voters decide whether
they should retain the local official or elect his replacement. In support of this conclusion, SC ruled that Sec. 74, RA 7160 deals with
restrictions on the power of recall. In fact, it is captioned ‘limitations on recall’.
On the other hand, Sec. 69, RA 7160 provides that the power of recall shall be exercised by the registered voters of the LGU to which
the elective official belongs. It is not the PRA who will vote but the registered voters.
Manuel Afiago (?) vs COMELEC (340 SCRA)
There was an election and Amelita Navarro won as the Vice-Mayor (VM). Pending that, the mayor who won in that election was Joel
Miranda. Joel substituted his father Jose Miranda, but a petition for the disqualification of Jose was filed on the ground that his
certificate of candidacy was invalid. If the certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda is declared invalid then there is no basis for the
substitution, the substitution will be invalid, it’s as if there is no candidate.
While Navarro was seating as the VM, there was a PRA resolution specifically for her recall as the VM. Pending the recall proceedings,
the COMELEC disqualified and rendered null and void the candidacy of Jose Miranda and therefore, Joel Miranda has to step down. So
by legal succession, Amelita Navarro became the City Mayor.
ISSUE: WON an elective official who became City Mayor by legal succession can be the subject of a recall election by virtue of a PRA
resolution which was passed and adopted when the said official was declared as mayor.
RULING: NO
REASONING: In this case, the recall elections can no longer be validly initiated against Navarro because resolution merely referred to
her as the Vice-Mayor and she is now, by virtue of the legal succession, the Mayor. Moreso, it is also barred by the upcoming regular
elections.
So next time, ilagay ninyo generic na lang.
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY V. COMELEC (1996)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Action for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify the ruling of the Comelec and Resolution No. 2848
denying SBMA’s plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on the proposition to recall Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg.
10, Serye 1993 of the SB of Morong Bataan.
FACTS:
April 1993 - Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan on, passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its
absolute concurrence to join the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) as required by Sec. 12 of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and
Development Act of 1992).
[Why is there a need for the concurrence? The metes and bounds have to be delineated because it has to be embodied in the
[What if they do not concur? The metes and bounds of those who are not in favor, those who do not concur will not be included in the
September 5, 1993 - SB submitted the Kapasyahan to the Office of the President
May 24, 1993 - Respondent Garcia, et. al. filed a petition with the SB of Morong to annul PK Blg. 10, Serye 1993 and therein proposed
for amendments to the said law.
The SB acted upon the petition and promulgated PK Blg. 18, requesting Congress to amend certain provisions of RA 7227 and informed
respondents that the other matters in the proposed amendments were already submitted to the Office of the President.
Not satisfied and within 30 days from submission of their petition, respondent resorted to their power of initiative under Sec 122 the
LGC of 1991.
July 6, 1993 - COMELEC denied in Resolution 93-1623 the petition for local initiative on the ground that the subject thereof was merely
a resolution and not an ordinance.
August 15, 1993 – Garcia et al instituted an action for certiorari and mandamus against COMELEC and SB of Bataan to set aside
Resolution 93-1623.
February 1, 1995 - President issued Proclamation No. 532 defining the metes and bounds of the SSEZ including therein the portion of
the former naval base within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Morong.
June 18, 1996 – As a result of Proclamation No. 532, Comelec issued Resolution No. 2845 adopting a calendar of activities for local
referendum (action instituted was based on power of initiative) to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Bldg. 10 and Resolution No. 2848
providing for the rules and guidelines to govern the referendum.
July 10, 1996 - Petitioner SBMA instituted a petition for certiorari and prohibition contesting the validity of Resolution 2848
July 23, 1996 - Court decided in Garcia et al v COMELEC that the Constitution (Section 32 of Article VI) clearly includes not only
ordinance but resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative.
"The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress, or local
legislative body . . .". An act includes a resolution.
ISSUES:
4. WON this petition seeks to overturn the decision in Garcia et al v COMELEC
5. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing its Resolution No. 2847 which govern the
conduct of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal PK Blg. 10
HELD:
NO. The only issue resolved in the earlier Garcia case is whether a municipal resolution as contra-distinguished from an ordinance may
be the proper subject of an initiative and/or referendum.
In the present case, petitioner is not contesting the propriety of a municipal resolution as the form by which these two new
constitutional prerogatives of the people may be validly exercised. What is at issue here is whether Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
Serye 1993, as worded, is sufficient in form and substance for submission to the people for their approval; in fine, whether the Comelec
acted properly and juridically in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848.
YES. COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
The process started by private respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent COMELEC made preparations for a REFERENDUM only.
In fact, in the body of the Resolution, the word "referendum" is repeated at least 27 times, but "initiative" is not mentioned at all. The
COMELEC labeled the exercise as a "Referendum.” To repeat, not once was the word "initiative" used in said body of Resolution No.
2848. And yet, this exercise is unquestionably an INITIATIVE.
In this case, the SC was compelled to distinguish Initiative from Referendum.
 INITIATIVE & REFERENDUM

Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an
election called for the purpose.
(a) There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution;
a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and
a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance.
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for
action.
(RA 6735)
Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. It may be of
two classes, namely:
c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and
c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional
assemblies and local legislative bodies.
(RA 6735)
Sec. 120. Local Initiative Defined. — Local initiative is the legal process whereby the registered voters of local government unit may
directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance.
Sec. 126. Local Referendum Defined. — Local referendum is the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local government
units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the sanggunian.
[See the facts; This is what happened on May 24, 1993] Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given the opportunity
to enact the proposal. If it refuses/neglects to do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the proponents through their duly-
authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local legislative body
concerned.
Should the proponents be able to collect the number of signed conformities within the period granted by said statute, the Commission
on Elections "shall then set a date for the initiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered
voters in the local government unit concerned . . ."
What is the participation of the COMELEC in Initiative and Referendum?
While initiative is entirely the work of the electorate, referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making body. Initiative is a
process of law-making by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives, while
referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body.
From the above differentiation, it follows that there is need for the Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely, its authority thereon
extending not only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people is in
the proper form and language so it may be easily understood and voted upon by the electorate. This is especially true where the
proposed legislation is lengthy and complicated, and should thus be broken down into several autonomous parts, each such part to be
voted upon separately. Care must also be exercised that "(n)o petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the
electorate," although "two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative".
DECISION: Petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. 2848 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The initiative on Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
Serye 1993 is REMANDED to the Commission on Elections for further proceeding consistent with the foregoing discussion.
COMELEC is a constitutional and administrative body. It is independent of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. It is tasked
with the bounden duty of safeguarding the purity of the ballots and the COMELEC is vested with that power to protect the integrity of
the electoral exercise and to achieve the purpose of honest, order, peaceful, free and credible election (HOPE-FRECRE).That is always
the objective of the electoral process of the election. Section 1 and 2 of Article IX-C provides for the composition of the COMELEC and
their qualification. It is composed of six commissioners and one chairman. It provides for the qualification that they must be natural born
Filipino citizen, that majority of them including the Chairman shall be members of the Philippine Bar and who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.
In the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, the SC interpreted the term what is construed as practice of law taking into consideration the
objection on the appointment of Monsod was raised as an issue and in the case the SC said that any activity, in or out of court, but
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience constitutes as practice of law. So in this case,
the SC is trying to explain that any activity where individual applies the law, takes into consideration on the legal procedure, his
knowledge is basically in legal profession constitutes as practice of law.
The Constitution likewise provided that the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointment for a term of seven years. So we have clarified that only those appointment following the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution we staggered, some are appointed for seven but some for three. But subsequently following the expiration of the
terms of those first appointed then the appointment would be for a term of seven years. We also discussed that this is important
because the new commissioners will learn from the old kasi may maiiwang luma may bago in the appointment.What specific is also
provided is that in no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary acting capacity and this was the case of
Brillantes vs. Yorac wherein President Aquino appointed Heide Yorac as Acting Chairman after she appointed Chairman Davide to the
Fact Finding Commission after the Coup’. So the issue raised was whether the act of the President violated the Constitutional provision
that in no case shall any member of the Commission in acting or temporary capacity and the reasons given by the Solicitor General in
defending the President to appoint Yorac as Acting Chairman was based on administrative expediency why?-considering that there is a
forthcoming election in order not to hamper the obligation of the Commission, the President has to appoint someone because there is no
statutory law provided for succession in the COMELEC unlike in a judiciary by virtue of the provision of the Batas Pambansa 129.
Because there is no statutory law providing for succession in the COMELEC, the President has to come in to appoint a temporary acting
chairman pending the appointment of a new chairman but the SC said that this is a clear violation of the Constitution considering the
independent nature of the function or power vested in the COMELEC which is an independent constitutional body, the SC said that the
choice of the temporary chairman falls under the discretion of the Commission and cannot be exercised even by the President.
So in the conduct of the electoral process, we have three phases. The first phase is the Pre- Election phase. The 2nd phase is the
Election Proper. And the third phase is the Post Election. Literally, Pre-Election means before the actual take of the Election. So what are
those considered as Pre-Election activities?..Campaign and Propaganda, Registation of Voters, Filing of COC, Printing of ER, OB,EP,
Establishment of Polling Precinct, Appointment of Election Officers, Accreditation of Political Parties, etc. So when we say Election Proper,
it is the Election day itsef which should start from seven in the morning until three in the afternoon. Any activity after the close of voting
, so what are the activities after the close of the voting?..Counting of ballots, canvassing, Proclamation, Filing of Election Protest, Quo
Warranto, Pre-Poclamation,etc. So those are the election phases. The election period is 120 days; 90 days before the election and 30
days after. Bakit kailangan ang Election Period kasi it starts with the implementation of certain bans, the construction ban which starts
with campaign period of the national election.
So going to the general powers of the COMELEC, Section 1 to 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provide that the powers of the
COMELEC are express, so it means it is written, it is specifically provided under the Constitution or under the Omnibus Election Code or
under the Local Government Code because we all know that the three sources of Election Law is the Constitution which provides for the
repository of all election, the basis for which the Omnibus Election Code was enacted and of course the subsequent legislation that
affected it which this legislation I mean the amendment of the 1987 Constitution was promulgated in order to in order to improve the
Electoral process, in order to achieve HOPE-FRECRE. Another is implied under Section 2. Implied meaning to say it is mandated but by
the nature of the function of the COMELEC, it is inherent also not only implied like for example the law provides under the automated
election system that the counting and canvassing must be done thru electronically so what if the PCOS machines bagged down,hindi na
transmit so the COMELEC has to remedy this problem by conducting manual count this is an implied part of the COMELEC even if it is
not expressed under the specific law providing for the automated election system, the COMELEC has to do something impliedly within its
power in order to achieve manual counting of votes in order to determine who the winner of the election is.
There are particular provisions or proceedings that are done before the COMELEC so before we are studying cases so what are the basis
of these cases? It is provided under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
So what is ordinary action? So Rule 20 and 21 provides for what ordinary action mean so Rule 20 pertains to election protest and Rule
21_law. These cases are considered as ordinary actions. Second, what are considered special actions? These are provided under Rule
23, 24, 25 and 26. So Rule 23 refers to a petition to deny due course to or functions of each case of candidacy so the remedy available
to a person who desires to cancel the certificate of candidacy( COC) of a person because this COC consists of material
misrepresentation, rules to follow Rule 23 what is provided under Rule 23. Rule 24- Proceedings against Nuisance Candidate so if it is a
nuisance candidate, a person who has no qualified intention to be a run for election, nag samuk2X lang sya. Like for example, the same
ang apelyido nila he just wants to make samok duon sa ka apelyido nya because the name is the same which is written in the ballot but
of course before the Automated Election wherein the voters write the name kasi noon if you write the name may dalawang kandidato
whose surnames for example Santos, isa Pedro Santos, isa Jose Santos and only the surname Santos is written in the ballot, it will not
be counted for either of them, it will be considered a stray vote unless under the old rule the one Jose Santos is an incumbent wherein
he enjoys the equity of the incumbent rule so which means that if Santos lang ang nakasulat ikicredit dun sa incumbent. But ngayon
under sa Automated Election wala naman yan kasi printed na yung names. So Rule 25 pertains to disqualification of candidates which is
based _ under the Omnibus Election Code Section 68 and Rule 26 provides for postponement or suspension of election. Those are
considered special action. Third are special cases. Special cases specifically pertain to Rule 27 referring to Pre- Proclamation
controversies. Next is Special Reliefs provided under Rule 28 specifically. When we say Special Relief, it pertains to certiorari, prohibition

and mandamus wherein the COMELEC exercises it by virtue of its appellate jurisdiction and Rule 29 with respect to Contempt.So next
Provisional Remedies, what are these? One only under Rule 30 referring to injunction. Next are special proceedings. What are
considered special proceedings before the COMELEC? Rule 31 provides for Annulment of Permanent List of Voters, Rule 32 provides for
Registration of Political Parties or Organization, Rule 33- Accreditation of Citizens’ Arm of the Commission. And lastly, Election Offenses
which is covered by Rule 34 providing on how election offenses are prosecuted. So those are the actions and proceedings brought
before the COMELEC.
That is also in the cases that you have red, you may see that this is a EPC case, SPC case, SPA case. So ano ito? That is provided under
Rule 7 Section 4. EPC is the docket for ordinary action so if it is an election protest go to a Quo Warranto and that it means an EPC No.,
that is a docket assignment. For appealed cases, they docket it at EAC- Election Appealed Cases. For Special Actions, SPA. For Special
Cases, SPC. For Special Reliefs, SPR. For Special Proceedings, SPP. And for Election Offenses, EO. So those are the Docket and
Assignment of Numbers so that you will know ano ito? Anung klaseng case ito? Is this an ordinary action? Is this a special case? Is this a
special proceeding? Is the case brought before the Supreme Court an appealed case? At least you know the historical background of this
case based on its docket.
So we said that the general power of the COMELEC is express. And under the category of express is its administrative, quasi judicial,
quasi legislative and by way of exception, judicial. So when we say executive and administrative, it refers to generally administer and
enforce all laws and regulation related to the conduct of the election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. So because we have
three branches of the government then, the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. So what is the main function of the Executive is the
implementation of all laws. Pag sinabing quasi legislative because the basis for enacting rules and regulation is by virtue of the power
vested in it, the promulgation of the laws, rules and regulation is quasi legislative. Quasi Judicial means the COMELEC acts as set of a
judge because they resolve cases or disputes that is brought before it.
So the SC in Roque Jr. vs. COMELEC on the issue of Automated Election System under RA 9369, the SC here declared that the
COMELEC, in the discharge of its function as overseer of Fair Election, administrator and lead implementor of laws relative to the
conduct of the elections should not be prevented or stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of an
organization of lesser responsibility. So it should be accorded ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in revising 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. And also the SC declared that the power to enforce all laws, rules, and regulation governing all election is exclusive to the
COMELEC.
And as declared in the earlier case of Zaldivar vs. Estenzo, the SC declared that the RTC cannot assume jurisdiction on cases involving
the enforcement of the Election Code which pertained to taking cognizance of the special civil action filed before it to restrain the Mayor
from pursuing certain infrastructure projects during the election period which was alleged to constitute a violation of Section 261 of the
OEC. Section 261 of the OEC enumerates the kinds of election offenses. So this is an action in the case of Zaldivar vs. Estenzo, the
mayor was restrained to implement the award of a bid which is already within the election period, that’s why we were saying earlier that
it is important to determine the election period because there are certain bans that are in placed. One is the infrastructure ban. So in
this particular case, the petitioner would like to restrain the mayor from proceeding with a budget during the election period as it would
be violating of Section 261 of the OEC constituting as an election offense. But the case was filed with the RTC. So sabi nang SC that RTC
cannot assume jurisdiction over special civil action involving the enforcement and implementation of laws, rules, and regulation
governing election.
So what falls under the administrative power of the COMELEC? You could read that in Section 2 Article IX-C which provides for the other
powers of the COMELEC and specifically the executive and administrative function of the COMELEC cover decision, except those
involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including the determination of the number and location of polling places,
appointment of election officials and inspectors, registration of voters, the award of contract for the purchase of election paraphernalia,
ballot boxes, regulation of the use of firearms, postponement and call of special election, investigation and prosecution of election
offenses, the conduct of the plebiscite as noted in the case of Salvacion vs. Buac, the conduct in determining a plebiscite dispute is
basically an administrative function of the COMELEC, the regulation of the use of franchise or permit to operate media communication
and information…
So why is it important to determine what activities fall under executive and administrative power of the COMELEC?- because the
procedure vis-à-vis the exercise of its quasi-judicial function is different. The rules provide that for example an issue pertaining to a
COMELEC Resolution which was issued in the exercise of its administrative function in order to prevent that is filed with the ordinary
court it is not filed with the COMELEC. There are certain exceptions only when the Resolution of the COMELEC issued in the exercise of
its administrative function can be taken cognizance of pursuit to file a petition for certiorari in the SC. So we have to know the
difference, the distinction.
So going to the declaration of the SC with respect to the exercise of its administrative function is one is the case of Roque Jr. vs.
COMELEC.In the exercise of its executive power the COMELEC here pursuant to the mandate of RA 9369 which authorizes again the
COMELEC to use an Automated Election System (AES) which amended RA 8436. RA 8436 is the first law on AES which was used in the
ARMM. So ngayon itong 9369 will be used in the national election. So the COMELEC pursuant to 9369 awarded the 2010 Election
Automation project to the Joint Venture of TIM Corporation. So what is TIM?- It is a corporation incorporated under the Corporation
Code of the Philippines. And the Joint Venture is with t TIM and SMARTMATIC International Corporation. SMARTMATIC here is a
corporation organized under the laws of Barbados which is subsidiary of the SMARTMATIC International Coding British Virgin Islands of
Netherlands. So Atty. Roque here filed with the SC this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction to permanently prohibit the COMELEC, TIM and SMARTMATIC for signing and/or implementing the contract
award. Based on this, what was brought before the SC is the Resolution of the COMELEC awarding the AES to the Joint Venture of the
TIM and SMARTMATIC. So what is 9369? What is mandated upon the COMELEC under 9369? So the RA 9369 calls for the creation of
the COMELEC Advisory Council ( CAC). So what is the role of CAC?- to recommend among other function the most appropriate,
applicable and effective technology to be applied in the AES. Also to be created under 9369 is the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).
What is the role of the TEC? It is tasked to certify, through an established international certification committee, not later than three
months before the the elections, by categorically stating that the AES, inclusive os its hardware and software components, is operating
properly and accurately based on defined and documented standards. If you recall sometime in August 2008, the COMELEC managed to
automate the regional polls in the ARMM, using the direct recording electronics (DRE) technology and the optical mark reader/ recording
(OMR) system particularly the Central Count Optical Scan (CCOS). Sa atin PCOS, sa kanila CCOS. In view of the success of the
automation in the ARMM, the COMELEC proceeded with the computerization of the 2010 National/Local Polls based on its ARMM
experience. In early March 2009, the COMELEC released the Request for Proposal (RFP), also known as Terms of Reference (TOR) for
the nationwide automation of the voting, counting, transmission, consolidation and canvassing of votes for the May 10, 2010 Election.
What is referred to also in the RFP and other contract documents as the 2010 Elections Automation Project consists of three elaborate
components:
Component 1 is the Paper- Based AES which is defined under Section 2 of 9369 as a type of AES that uses paper ballots, reads the
ballots and counts the ballots, consolidates, transmits and canvass by electronically the result of the counts. So Component 1-A is the
Election Management System. Component 1-B is the Precinct –Count Optic Scan System ( referring to a technology wherein an optical
ballot scanner into which optical scan paper ballots manned by men by the voter are inserted to be counted is located in every precinct)
And the 1-C is the Consolidation/ Canvassing System (CCS).
Component 2 provides for the Provision for Electronic Transmission of Election Results using Public Telecommunications Network
Component 3 is the Overall Project Management
So those are the three elaborate components of the AES.
And to address the possibility of systems failure, the RFD required the interested bidders to submit back up and continuity or contingent
plan defined in Section 2 par. 10 of the RA 8436 as list of contingency measures and policies for application of such that are putting
place to ensure continuous operation of the automated election system.
So Section 9 of the RA 8436 provides that in the event of a systems breakdown of all assigned machines in the counting center, the
Commission shall use any available machine or any component thereof from another city/municipality upon the approval of the
Commission en banc or any of its divisions.
The transfer of such machines or any component thereof shall be undertaken in the presence of representatives of political parties and
citizens' arm of the Commission who shall be notified by the election officer of such transfer.
There is a systems breakdown in the counting center when the machine fails to read the ballots or fails to store/save results or fails to
print the results after it has read the ballots; or when the computer fails to consolidate election results/reports or fails to print election
results/reports after consolidation.
So on the conduct of the bids and the recommendation of Special Board Awarding Committee (SBAC), the COMELEC issued Resolution
8608 declaring the Joint venture of TIM and SMARTMATIC as the best complying bidder in whose favor the notice of award and notice
of proceed was issued. So subsequently TIM and SMARTMATIC , pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement, caused the incorporation of
the Joint Venture corporation that would enter into a contract with the COMELEC. Kasi nga diba si TIM is locally incorporated whereas si
SMARTMATIC is incorporated outside the Philippines. So what they did to show their good faith TIM and SMARTMATIC entered into a
Joint Venture Corporation that would enter into contract with the COMELEC. So nagregister sila with the SEC. The SEC issued a
certificate of incorporation in favor of the SMARTMATIC TIM Corporation. So local corporation na sila. On July 10, 2009, COMELEC and
SMARTMATIC TIM Corporation executed a contract for lease of goods and services under the contract for the contract amount of PhP
7,191,484,739.48, payable as the Goods and Services are delivered and/or progress is made in accordance (with pre-set) Schedule of
Payments.”
So here, Atty. Roque, et al. seeks to impugn the validity of the July 10, 2009 Comelec-SMARTMATIC-TIM Corporation automation
contract contending that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in awarding such project to
the private respondent for the following reasons:
a.) COMELEC DID NOT CONDUCT ANY PILOT TESTING OF THE PCOS MACHINES OFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
SMARTMATIC AND TIM, IN VIOLATION OF [RA] 8436 (AS AMENDED BY [RA] 9369
b.) THE [PCOS] MACHINES DO NOT SATISFY THE MINIMUM SYSTEM CAPABILITIES SET BY [RA] NO. 8436 (AS
AMENDED BY [RA] 9369).
c.) PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS THAT
SHOULD ESTABLISH THE DUE EXISTENCE, COMPOSITION, AND SCOPE OF THEIR JOINT VENTURE, IN VIOLATION OF THE
SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. COMELEC
(Jan. 13, 2004).
In this case of Information Technology, the first ever automated election system was awarded to Mega Pacific Consortium but
Mega was found not to have any track record in providing for this kind of electronic system…so the Mega was only
incorporated specifically to be able to join the bidding, so wala silang track record so the SC held this as grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the COMELEC kasi wala silang experience specifically what? They were not able to show any Joint
Venture Agreement, etc. So Roque made reference to this case that what the COMELEC is doing is similar to what it did to the
Information Technology case.
d.) THERE WAS NO VALID JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT [JVA] BETWEEN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SMARTMATIC AND
TIM DURING THE BIDDING, IN VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COMELEC WHICH REQUIRES A JOINT VENTURE TO INCLUDE A COPY OF ITS [JVA]
DURING THE BIDDING
e.) THE ALLEGED JOINT VENTURE COMPOSED OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SMARTMATIC AND TIM, DOES NOT SATISFY
THE SUPREME COURT’S DEFINITION OF A “JOINT VENTURE” IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. COMELEC WHICH “REQUIRES A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER.”
COMELEC urged to dismiss the petition on the ground that Petitioners have no locus standi and prematurity as petitioners having failed
to avail themselves of the otherwise mandatory built-in grievance mechanism under Sec. 55 in relation to Sec. 58 of RA 9184, also
known as the Procurement Reform Act.
Roque, et. al’s contention: Our objection to the system is anchored on the Constitution itself a violation of secrecy of voting and the
sanctity of the ballot. The automation contract constituted an abdication by the COMELEC of its election-related mandate under the
Constitution, which is to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election.The abdication , with its anti-dummy
dimension(kasi si SMARTMATIC ang magtatransmit, supervision and management lang si COMELEC), is in favor of a foreign corporation
that will be providing the hardware and software requirements. Owing in part to the sheer length of the ballot, the PCOS would not
comply with Art. V, Sec. 2 of the Constitution prescribing secrecy of voting and sanctity of the ballot.
SC took cognizance of the case and did not dismiss the petition.
On the issue of locus standi and petitioner, mahaba yung ruling. Kayo na ang magbasa nyan.
With respect to the contention that Petitioners did not comply with the mandatory built-in grievance mechanism- The SC held that
Petitioners are not bidders so they may not go thru that process.
And also the SC made reference to what was the similarity of this case to that of the Infotech. The only parallelism between Infotech
and this case are both about modernizing the election process and bidding joint ventures. Unlike in Infotech, the winning bid pertained
to the consortium of Mega Pacific, a purported joint venture since there is no sign whatsoever of any JVA, consortium agreement or
memorandum agreement executed among the members of the purported consortium so the existence of the bidding joint venture of
SMARTMATIC and TIM was properly documented in fact they formed Joint Venture Corporation specifically for this purpose.
So Pilot testing is not necessary kasi sabi nga ang COMELEC my benchmark na with respect to the bid. Just read na lang the ruling.
Another is the Quasi Legislative function of the COMELEC pertains to prescribing rules to govern procedure such as the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure and promulgation of rules and regulation relative to the conduct of elections to ensure HOPE-FRECRE.
So in the case of Brillante vs. Yorac pertains to the issuance of the COMELEC Resolution for the general instruction for the electronic
transmission and consolidation of advanced “unofficial” results of the 2004 election was the subject of the petition for certiorari and
prohibition. Ito naman pursuant to 8436. So 8436 governing also counting, voting , transmission. This was the first Automated Election
System which was conducted in the ARMM. The COMELEC here adopted a modernization program for the 2004 elections consisting of
three phases to wit:
1.) PHASE 1- Computerized system of registration and voters validation or the so- called biometrics system of registration;
2.) PHASE 2- Computerized voting and counting of votes; and
3.) PHASE 3- Electronic transmission of results
In connection with the PHASE 2, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6074 awarding the contract for PHASE 2 of the AES to Mega Pacific
Consortium which was nullified by the SC which also voided the contract entered into by Mega for the purchase of the computerized
counting machines for the purpose of implementing the second phase of the modernization program. Consequently, the COMELEC had
to maintain the old manual voting and counting system for the May 10, 2004 election. So similarly the PHASE 1 did not proceed because
the COMELEC encountered problems in its implementation. So what happen here is that COMELEC wanted to proceed with the PHASE 3.
IN questioning its rules and regulation to proceed with Phase 3, the COMELEC asserts that Section 52(i) of the OEC grants the statutory
basis for it to issue the assailed resolution which id to cover the use of the latest technological and electronic devices for unofficial
tabulations of votes. So Brillantes raised the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution 6074 and also others filed to admit petition for
intervention. So by resolution, the Petitioners raised the Resolution as void because it pre-empted the sole and exclusive authority of
Congress to canvass votes for the election of of President and Vice President. The COMELEC disregarded RA 8173, 8436 and 7166 which
only authorized citizen’s arm to use a copy of election returns in the conduct of an “unofficial” counting of the votes whether for the
national and local votes. At that time the NAMFREL as citizens arm that can only conduct unofficial count. SC ruled that the assailed
resolution, under the guise of an “unofficial” tabulation of election results based on a copy of the election returns, the sole and exclusive
authority of Congress to canvass votes for the election of the President and Vice-President. So therefore, it is unconstitutional.
But Anyway the SC said that because of the________ phase 1 and 2, the Supreme Court said that the automated election system
under 8436 provided for the entire process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing for the consolidation of results of the national,
local elections corresponding to phase 1, 2 and 3. Since phase 1 and 2 cannot be prevented and therefore phase 3 cannot be
considered independent of phase 1 and 2. So in this case, dapat yong phase 3 they should be nullified, the phase 3 was nullified by the
SC. Because considering to effectively - for phase 2 of the system effectively to put on hold at least for the May 10, 2004 elections and
the implementation of phase 3 of the automated election system. So, while the comelec is vested with quasi-legislative powers, the
powers vested in it should only be limited with what is provided by law to it.
Another power is quasi-judicial power. What is it? Comelec by the nature of its functions is also vested with what? – adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial powers. What power is this? The power to resolve controversies that may arise in the implementation of election laws and
resolution of cases, involving what, regional, provincial and city officials or the election disputes in general. So, as provided class under
Section 7 of Article IX-A and rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. How is the commission on elections in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial functions transact business? So we said that the Comelec may sit en banc or in two divisions, each division composed of 3
members each, and shall promulgate rules and procedures for what purpose? In order to expedite the disposition of election cases
including pre-proclamation controversies and also the power to summon parties to a controversy pending before it. The authority to
hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies is vested with whom? First, with a division. The authority to
hear first should be in a division and the Comelec sitting en banc does not have authority over it in the first instance. So the comelec
en banc can only exercise jurisdiction on motions for reconsideration of the resolution or the decision of the Comelec in division, as a
requirement for the filing of petition for certiorari by the aggrieved party in the SC within 30 days from receipt of the copy of the
decision under section 3 of Article IX-C. So the Comelec en banc can exercise jurisdiction only on motions for reconsideration of the
reolution/decision of the Comelec in division as a requirement. Pursuant to section 2, Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, a
motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a division shall be filed within 5 days from promulgation thereof. Take
note of the word promulgation. So such motion if not pro-forma suspense the execution for implementation of the decision, resolution,
order or ruling and would in effect suspends the running of the period to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, under section 4.
In the case of Coquilla vs. Comelec, the SC here resolved the issue on whether the 30 day period for appealing the resolution of the
Comelec was suspended by the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner. Why? Petitioner-respondent in this case
Contends that the petition should be dismissed because it was already filed late considering that the Comelec en-banc denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being pro-forma and section 4 of Rule 19, the said motion did not suspend the running of the
30 day period for the filing of the petition for certiorari under section 7 of Art IX-A. So what happened here, the Comelec, there was a
motion for reconsideration and the Comelec made a decision beyond the 30 day period. So upon receipt of the decision, aggrieved by
the decision, a petition for certiorari was filed and the opposition of the petition saying out of file na ito. Because the motion for
reconsideration was declared pro-forma by the Comelec en banc. Therefore it did not suspend the running of the period within which to
go to SC via certiorari within30 days from receipt. So the Comelec en banc ruled here that the MR was proforma. Why? On the
grounds, anong reason ng Comelec? On the ground that the MR was a mere rehash. Inulit lang. Mere rehash of petitioner’s averments
contained in his verified answer and memorandum and there were new matters raised that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the
assailed resolution of the second division. The SC ruled however that a mere reiteration in the MR of the issues raised by the parties
and passed upon by the court, by the division here, does not make the motion pro-forma. Otherwise, the movant’s remedy would not
be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other remedy. The SC here made reference in the case of Guerra
Enterprises company vs. CFI of Lanao del Sur, as regards the purpose or the objective of a motion for reconsideration. The Sc
said in this case, that the ends sought to be achieved in the filing of the MR is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is
erroneous, and improper, contrary to law or evidence. How do you do that? And in doing so, of course the movants must dwell of
necessity kung ano yong ni-raise niya during the filing of his petition. Dwell necessity upon the issues raised and passed upon by the
courts. Kaya nga sinasabi na ipakita niyo that the SC, CA erred in its decision because based on the facts, ito. Of course, you have to
necessarily reiterate your position. So in a motion, sabi ng SC if the MR may not discuss these issues, the consequence would be that
after the decision is rendered the losing party cannot be, would be confined only to filing only motions for reopening in trial. So in this
case, the Supreme Court enumerated what motions for reconsideration are considered pro-forma. If it is a second motion for
reconsideration, pag hindi nag comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to
law and not supported by evidence or the MR failed to substantiate the alleged errors made by the division. It must clearly alleged that
the decision in question is contrary to law, without stating why is it contrary to law based on the facts, laws and evidence of the case,
or that the adverse party was not given due notice thereof. So, under Rule 13 paragraph 1 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, a motion
for reconsideration of an en banc resolution is a prohibited pleading. If the comelec en banc would on a motion for reconsideration, the
movant cannot file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Comelec en banc in his motion for reconsideration. That’s why
section 7 of Article IX-A provides for a remedy. What is the remedy of the aggrieved party in his motion for reconsideration if the
movant is aggrieved by the decision of the en banc of his motion for reconsideration? Yon nga, aakyat siya sa SC via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 within 30 days from receipt of that decision. Of course, the exception is if it is an election offense case.
Because sabi nga natin, we have to distinguish. Kasi nga itong procedure for a petition to the SC pertains to the exercise of the
COmelec of its quasi judicial powers. Itong election offense is an administrative power. So it is governed by a different set of rules of
procedure. That’s why specifically Rule 13 paragraph 1 provides that the exception for a motion for a reconsideration is if it is an
election offense case. We will go to that when we go to election offense. SO in this case, sabi natin wla man siyang ibang remedy, so
sa SC talaga. In the case of Angelia v Comelec, Angelia here filed before the SC a motion for reconsideration. Angelia was aggrieved by
the decision of the division, so he filed a MR with the en banc. But pending resolution with the en banc, nagpunta na si Angelia sa SC
without waiting for the resolution of the en banc to his MR. The issue here is whether the party can go to SC via a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court during the pendency of the MR filed in the COmelec en banc. So Angelia here, as stated without
waiting for the decision of the Comelec en banc went to the SC nga. And she was saying that Comelec violated his constitutional right
to due process. What did the Comelec say? The Comelec said that the petition should be dismissed for being premature. The Comelec
was saying that considering the MR of Angelia was still pending with the Comelec en banc and he should have first withdrawn the
motion for reconsideration before raising the said resolution with the SC. The SC said that Angelia acted correctly in filing the petition
because the resolution of the Comelec en banc is . . .
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Atty V: What is the authority of the Comelec to prosecute election offenses?
The constitution in Art IX-C section 2 par. 6 and the Rules 34 Which provides in Sec 1:
“Section 1. Authority of the Commission to Prosecute Election Offenses. The Commission shall have the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same, except as may
otherwise be provided by law.”
Atty V: That is the description of the power, but what is the basis or authority from where is it indicated/stated which serve as basis of
the comelec to prosecute election offenses?
The power of the comelec to prosecute election offenses As provided by the Constitution in Article IX-C, Sec 2 paragraph 6:
“Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
Paragraph 6: File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate
and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses,
and malpractices.”
Atty V.: So How are complaints for election offenses initiated?
There are two ways of initiating complaints for election offenses
6. Through a Verified petition filed by a private party
7. Or Motu proprio by the comelec.
If it is filed by the private party it must be verified and must contained attached affidavits of evidence. If it is filed by the Comelec motu
proprio it is the legal dept of the Comelec who will conduct further investigation to ffind probable cause in the complaint, for the
investigation.
Q: What is basically the distinction between a motu proprio complaint and a petition?
In a petition filed by a private party, there must be a verified complaint in the attached application and evidence, however in a motu
proprio complaint it does not require a verified petition, it may be directed by the chairman of the comelec to provide for the
investigation through the legal department or deputize the office of the prosecutor to conduct further investigation. So basically the
difference between the Comelec and the private party is the filing of a verified petition or complaint.
Atty V: So if it is motu proprio initiated by the comelec you’re saying it has to go through the prosecutor?
No maam, the chairman may direct the legal department of the commission or it may delegate the Office of the prosecutor to conduct
preliminary investigation. It is not required that the investigation be conducted by the prosecutor’s office. It may be the department or
other deputized comelec lawyers or election officers.

Atty V: So, basically the distinction is there is no verification. There is no verification with respect to motu proprio complaint, unlike in,
because it is the Comelec itself that is filing the complaint for election offense.
Atty V; What Agency is referred to as the prosecuting arm? What is the role of the prosecution Arm of the government in prosecuting
election offense cases?
Atty V: Who are referred to as the prosecution arm? When we say the prosecution arm who are we referring to?
Atty V: On what grounds can the Commission revoke or withdraw this authority granted to the prosecution arm?
Under section 2 rule 34 of Comelec Rules of Procedure which provides that:
Sec. 2. Continuing Delegation of Authority to Other Prosecution Arms of the Government. - The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial
and City Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants are hereby given continuing authority,...
Atty V: What are you referring to? Is that the answer to the question? What was the question? The question is, on what grounds can
the Commission withdraw or revoke the authority given to this prosecution arm.
It is provided that such authority may be revoked or withdrawn any time by the Commission whenever in its judgment such revocation
or withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the Commission, promote the common good, or when it believes that successful
prosecution of the case can be done by the Commission.
Atty V: So what is this authority that we are referring to that can be revoked?
The authority that we are referring to is the continuing delegated authority.
Atty V: What do you understand by the Continuing delegated Authority?
This pertains to the continuing delegated authority given to the prosecutor...
Atty V: So what is this authority that is delegated to the prosecution arm? To prosecutor, provincial and city prosecutor. What is this?
It is prosecutorial powers maam,
Atty V: Yes, specifically. Authority to what?
Authority to conduct preliminary investigation
Atty V: That is their role. So specifically for what. What is the delegating authorities specifically to conduct preliminary investigation
regarding what?
Atty V: To conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses under election rule/law.
Atty V: So, when can the prosecuting arm take cognizance of an election offense case?
It may be filed by the comelec motu proprio
Atty V: No with respect to the prosecutors. You’re saying that they are vested with continuing authority. Comelec has dedicated the
prosecutor/prosecuting arm of the government, specifically the state prosecutor, provincial and city prosecutors to conduct preliminary
investigation on any cases involving election offenses cases. Under what circumstance? When can this prosecuting Arm, of the
government take cognizance of cases in connection with complaints regarding election offenses?
Atty V: They can take cognizance of the case:
If it is filed directly with it (With the city prosecutor’s office). For example when a case governing complaints in violation of election
laws is filed directly with the city prosecutor. Does the city prosecutor had to ask permission from the Comelec to conduct preliminary
investigation? Probably, because of the continuing delegated authority granted to it by virtue of that power vested in it by comelec.
If it is (complaint) endorsed/ referred to it by the commission on elections for the conduct of preliminary investigation.
Atty V: So what is the remedy? You said that there are two forms of the complaint for an election offense, as earlier made mention. So,
what is the procedure if the complaints are motu proprio initiated by the Commission? How is this done? What is the procedure?
Atty V: Sino ang mag complain?
The aggrieved party maam.
Atty V: Who is the aggrieved party. Who files the complaint motu proprio
The comelec maam.
Atty V: O comelec nga. Are we referring to another party here? Motu proprio complaints initiated by the comelec. What is that
procedure?
Motu proprio complaints are filed with the law department.
Atty V: It is not filed, it is referred to. A motu proprio complaint is first, referred to whom? what department?
Law department of the Commission for the conduct of preliminary investigation
Atty V: Then? After that? What is next?
Atty V: It is referred to the law department and the law department after directive of the chairman. What?
Conducts preliminary investigation
Atty V: Who conducts preliminary investigation?
The law department of the commission
Atty V: By what means? So, the law department may conduct on its own the preliminary investigation. So is that absolute? So if the
law dept conducts the preliminary investigation what’s the next step?
Atty V: So the preliminary investigation is conducted by the law department. So what happens now after the conduct of preliminary
investigation has been completed?
The law department furnish Comelec the result of their investigation
Atty V: Furnish the result? Is it the result? What should be referred to? You conduct preliminary investigation. You determine what? If
there is probable cause? Should the law dept in the conduct of preliminary investigation recommend probable cause, that there is
probable cause in the filling of the complaint? Who determines probable cause in this case, in this instance?
The law dept maam.
Atty V: Are you sure? So if the law dept determines probable cause. And what. What happened? Diba when you determine probable
cause you already filed the information? So what is the role of the Comelec en banc here? Is it the law department who determines
probable cause?
No maam, The comelec en banc.
Atty V: What would be the basis of the Comelec en Banc. In what form? Ano yong sinusubmit ng law department after investigation?
Atty V: You just can’t submit the investigation. It’s the recommendation. The recommendation upon conduct of the investigation the
law department submits its recommendation to the Comelec en banc. And the comelec en banc determines probable cause. What will
be the remedy of the aggrieved party? Against whom the criminal complaint for election offense has been conducted.
Atty V: So if it is through the law department what other means can the conduct of preliminary investigation be undertaken?
To the Delegated authority . . .
Atty V: No, If it is the Comelec first, other than the law department.
Atty V: What is that authority? Because if the comelec conducts the preliminary investigation that is their power vested upon them by
the Constitution. It is not a continuing delegated authority, that is only specific for the prosecution arm of the government.
Atty V: What is the remedy of the aggrieved party finding probable cause against him by the prosecutor.
The remedy of the aggrieved party - to file a motion for a reconsideration of such resolution.
Atty V: Prosecutor?
File appeal to the Comelec.
Atty V: When? Within what period?
Within 10 days from receipt of said resolution
Atty V: So what happens in the decisions if the Commission on election en banc upholds the resolution of the prosecutor? What
happens in the decision of the Comelec?
Final maam and executory
Atty V: What do you mean executory? Is it not subject to certiorari? What happens if probable cause is found? What is the next step?
After the conduct of preliminary investigation finding probable cause what is the next step?
Question the resolution
Atty V: Question where? Where do you question the resolution
The comelec mam.
Atty V: Yon nga the Comelec upholds the resolution of the prosecutor. So what’s happens next? After preliminary investigation and
probable cause is found? Basic yan sa criminal law. Anong next step niyan? What would the prosecutor do?
File an information.
Atty V: On the procedural issue what is the significance of the Faelnar v. Pp case?
In Faelnar v Pp, The SC is able to say that the period for appeal to be made is within 10 days from the receipt of the resolution and
that decision becomes ____ and executory. After that appeal because probable cause has been found by the prosecutorial level. That’s
already executory. But the remedy of the person who’s attached to the violation complaint should be with the commission on election
en banc as that would be the second look for the case.
Atty V: The remedy of the party against whom probable cause is found? The remedy is?
Is Appeal to the Commission on election, that is if the probable cause is – the procedure must be from the prosecuting arm in the
continuing delegation authority. But if it was from the Comelec motu proprio, it was the commission on election en banc to find
probable cause, the remedy would be motion for reconsideration of that decision as that would be the second look to check with
regards to the accusation.
Atty V: With respect to the case of Herman Tiu Laurel?
In Herman Tiu Laurel, the SC in this case upheld the power of the Comelec to prosecute cases in violation of election laws and further
explained that there are two ways that complaint may be initiated. The Sc said that the prosecutor did not refer the – the comelec
investigating officer if he finds probable cause and file the information to the RTC .That filing of the complaint need not be checked by
the prosecuting arm, as the prosecuting arm is just a designation in the investigation and prosecution of election cases as stated in the
OEC is exclusive to the Comelec.
Atty V: Are you referring to Herman Tiu Laurel? Versus RTC judge of Manila Branch 10? Other than the power vested to the Comelec
to prosecute election offenses cases, wherein the SC also stated that significantly what was the – what was further explained there by
the SC?
In this case, Herman Tiu questioned the procedure of the preliminary investigation against him. But SC said that when Pardo filed (the
Chairman of the Comelec), in this case however, he was the one who filed for a complaint against Herman tiu. So there was a question
of whether or not he filed it as a Comelec Chairman, so that is motu proprio or whether he filed it on his own personal capacity. So the
Sc in this case said that it’s the latter, he filed it on his own personal capacity and it’s very much evident on the starting sentence that
says “I hereby charged...” and then it was also verified so probably he knew that in the filing of, as an individual citizen, not comelec
motu proprio, the complaint should be verified – the affidavit and supporting evidence. So that was what Pardo did in this case.
Atty V; So the court further says that there are two methods to file a complaint for election offenses. It could be:
Through the Comelec Motu proprio or
Through a Verified complaint by any interested individual which should be verified and of course supported by affidavits and other
evidences.
Atty V: So what is the Case of Comelec v. Noynay about?
In the case of Comelec v Noynay, An order issued on August 25, 19 Respondent judge Noynay motu proprio ordered the records of the
case to be withdrawn and directed to the Comelec Law department by provision of Sec 261 against private respondents.
Atty V; On what grounds? The judge ordered the withdrawal of the case? Why? Where was it initially filed?
It was initially filed in the RTC, the judge ordered that it should be forwarded to the MTC.
Atty V: Why?
Based on Section 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691.
Atty V: So what is that?
In the said provision maam, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the maximum imposable penalty of each case does not
exceed six years of imprisonment.
Sec 32 of BP 129 specifically provides:
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. – Except
in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount
of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties . . .
Atty V: So what is the judge basically saying here?
So the judge basically postulated that the RTC has no jurisdiction because the criminal cases filed before the RTC is below six years.
Atty V: So? Why did the case reach the SC?
The court ruled in the case of Alberto vs. Judge Davides Involving the same issue of jurisdiction, - that with respect to other
charges in lieu of the provisions of law executed pursuant to Sec 261 and 267 of the OEC. The comelec has the exclusive power to
conduct preliminary investigation on all election offenses punishable under the ____ of RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to
try and decide any criminal action of proceedings or violation of the same. So the court ruled that the MTC has no power to conduct
the prosecution of the cases
Atty V: To conduct?
To resolve the cases mam.
Atty V: Base on what?
Based on violation of section 261 and 267 of the OEC
Atty V: What is sec 261 of the OEC?
Prohibited acts mam.
Atty V: Prohibited Acts what? So it enumerates the grounds for election offense cases. So sec 261 is an enumeration of what are
prohibited acts that can be a ground/basis for the filing of a criminal complaint. So this a criminal complaint for violation of par. i of Sec
261. What is that? So it is against certain school officials for having engaged in partisan political activities, which is a prohibited act
WHAT ARE THE TWO WAYS THROUGH WHICH A COMPLAINT FOR ELECTION OFFENSES MAY BE INITIATED?
First, it may be filed by the COMELEC motu propio
Second, it may be filed via written complaint of any citizen if the phlippines, candidates, registered political parties, coalitions or
organizations under party-list system or any accredited citizens arms of the commission.
COMELEC is vested by the consitution to conduct criminal investigations for election offenses for complains of violations during election.
It may deputized the city prosecutors to conduct thsi criminal investigation, and if there is finding of probable cause, prosecutor shal
issue a resolution to the comelec for such finding. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to appeal the resolution of the prosecutor of
finding probable cause to comelec. COMELEC shall then make its decision if there is really a probable cause. Decision is final and
executory. The next thing to do is lodge the case to RTC.
Also, the Law department of COMELEC may deputize lawyers or its field officers who will conduct a preliminary investigation, then a
recommendation will be submitted to law department of COMELEC, who will submit recommendation to comelec en banc and its
comelec en bacn to determine probable cause, and remedy of aggrived party is to fil MR to the resolution of comelec.
If it is filed to prosecutor, findings of prosecutor is still subject to appeal. Iba lang ang mode. But in the smae way, its still the same,
they have remedy.
In KILOS BAYAN vs ELECTION, certain canididates violated OMNIBUS.
SC said it is not the task to gather evidences, complainant has burden of proof to prove his case, it is not the comelec to gather
evidences. The evidence, the news articles, cannot be considered as the sole truth for it could only be hearsays or mere conjectures.
The task of COMELEC as investigator and prosecutor, acting upon any election offenses, is not the ohysical searching and gathering of
proof in support of the complaint. Again, it is not for the COMLEC to gather evidence in support of complaint. It is the complainant
who must gather evidences in support of his claim.
COMELEC VS SILVA
Considering that prosecutor is clearly dputized to prosecute, under supervision of comelec, then if prosecutor disagrees with comelec
he must write to comelec, but he cannot on his own make decisions because he only was deputized. And its COMELEC en bacn who
will determine the probable cause.
TAN VS COMELEC
Constitution has vested COMELC the power to supervise over those employees that were deputized to administer electoral process, that
means all agency that was assigned or deputized to handle election, like armed forces, the police, the teahcers and the deartment of
justice, deped. Dept of finance, city treasurer who is vested to distribute accountable forms, election returns, official ballots. They are
bound and tasked to distribute these accountable forms, those are deputies, they are employees form different agencies who are
tasked by law to conduct elections, free, honest, orderly etc.
WHAT IS NATURE OF JURISDICTION? Only recommendatory, pursuant to Sec. 2 Art. 9, which grant and authorizes comelec to
deputize officers of the executive.. It gives them the power to recommend to the corresponding proper authority for further
investigation whether there has been a violation in the performance of his duties relative to conduct of elections. The proper authority,
DOJ in this case shall take appropriate action, either to suspend or remove the erring deputized officer after being found guilty of
violating election laws or COMELEC rules and decisions.
What is the basis of comelec to conduct investigatory proceeding againts tan.. What is the reason: what was tan's actions? Tan here is
doing the canvassing, electoral functions, the basis of comelec to file investigatory proceedings is that he is not being investigated as
prosecutor but becuase of his performace as a deputized officer to cnduct electoral function. Then comelec will recommend to his
agency, and if it is for the DOJ to conduct further proceedings. Its only recommdatory.
POSTPONEMENT of ELECTIONS, no voting yet.

What is the basis of the comelec to motu poprio declare failure of election?
Sec. 5, 6, 7 of OMNIBUS ELECTION Code in relations to sec. 4 of RA 7166 provide that the COMELEC EN BAN by a mjority vite of its
memebers has a sole authority to postpone, declare failure of, and call special election. No other body has the power to postpone or
reset an election date except the commission en banc itself.
WHO CAN?
COMELEC en banc.
HOW WILL THE COMELEC KNOW THERE IS LOSS OF ELECTION PARAPHERNALIA. THE REPORTS FROM WHOM?
The deputized parties.
IF ITS VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM? WHO WILL REPORT?
IF PEACE AND ORDER? The PNP or military.
WHEN MAY ELECTION BE POSTPONED BY THE COMELEC EN BAC?
First, either motu proprio
Second, upon verified petition by an interested party.
When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majuere and
other analogous causes of such nature that the holding of free, orderly, and honest election should becoem impossible in any political
subdivision.
If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been
held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during
the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the
basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election
not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of
the election or failure to elect.
WHEN IS A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OR DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF ELECTION BE FILED?
It may be filed anytime before procalmaation.
The COMELEC in an action for annulment of election returns or for declaration of failure of elctions has the authority, and is duty bound
to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other analogous cases, and in the discharge of such duty, it may conduct
technical examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters signatures and fingerprints in order to determine wheter
or not the elctions had indeed been honest free and clean.
REQUISITES:
No voting has been held in any precincts oncerned on the date fixed by law or even if the has been voting, the elction nonetheless
resulted to fialure to elect because of force majuere, violence, terrorism and other analogous cases, and that the votes not cast therein
are sufficient to affect the results of the lection. It is the concurrence of these circumstances that would justifu the calling of special
elections.
The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after casting of votes on the day of election.
The three instances where a failure to elect may be declared are:
First, election in any polling place has not been held because of the grounds provided for.
Second, there has been election but before an hour fixed by law for closing, election or voting has been suspended because the
grounds.
Third, after voting and during preparation and transmission of election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election
results in failure to elect on account of the grounds.
What is common in these three instances us the resulting of failure to elect..
WHAT IF THERE IS DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF ELECTIONS, WHEN WILL SPECIAL ELECTIONS BE HELD?
In fixing the date if special elections;
First, it should not be later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of postponement or declaration of failure to elect.
Second, it should be reasonably close to the date of the lection not held, suspended or which resulted to failure to elect.
LUCERO VS COMELEC
The calling of special election after almost 2 years by the COMELEC was VALID.
The calling of a special election is directory upon the comelec pending upon the exigencies and peculiar circumstances attendant as
deotermined by COMELEC, and its determination, in the absence of any showing of abuse of discretion, is binding.
The holding of special election more than 1 years from the date if elections is still valid stating that the same is still considered
reasonably closed to the date of elections notwithstanding the fact that the term of the elective official is inky 3 years, and that the
delay was not attributable to the fault of voters of the precinct concerned.
Declaration of COMELEC of failure of election is Not a Quasijudicial functions, it is an administrative power and in its exercise of
administartive power, comelec has the jurisdiction to take cognizance to declare failure of election at first instance
We have discussed declaration of postponement of elections based on the grounds provided under Section 5 of the OEC, and said the
COMELEC is vested with motu proprio power to postpone elections as vested in it by the Constitution or through a verified petition by
an interested party to declare a postponement of election.
Sec. 5. Postponement of election. - When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest
election should become impossible in any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any
interested party, and after due notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
postpone the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause for such postponement or suspension of the
election or failure to elect.
When COMELEC declares postponement of elections, the special elections shall be conducted within 30 days from the cessation of the
cause for the postponement or on a date reasonably close of the date of the election just held, but that is with respect to both
postponement and failure of elections.
Section 6 refers to the power of the COMELEC to declare failure of elections:
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any
polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or
after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
As you may note, the grounds are common (BIA: with postponement of elections):
force majeure
violence
terrorism,
fraud, or
other analogous causes

As we have discussed last time, there are only 3 instances where a failure of elections may be declared:
- election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or
- had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting [usually, 7:00 – 3:00 under the old system,
7:00 – 7:00 under the new system or under the automated election system]; , or
- after the voting and (A) during the preparation and (B) the transmission of the election returns or (C) in the custody or
canvass thereof
What is common to these 3 situations:
- there was failure to vote and
- there was no body declared as winner.
One of the condition required, the result is that the failure of the conduct of election in a particular place would affect the special
elections (special elections will not be conducted) because on the part of the COMELEC, it cannot be mandated or subject to a
mandamus to conduct a special elections because the power is exclusively held by the COMELEC.
So one of the factors we have to consider in declaring a failure of elections is WON the votes cast in that particular municipality or
precinct would affect the results of that election.
What do we mean by “affect the result of the election”? As we have discussed last time, the votes garnered by the candidates between
1 candidate against the other, the difference is only 10 and the votes not cast is 100, so a special elections should be conducted
because the result of that election would affect votes garnered by the standing parties.
So it is the COMELEC En Banc, as stated in the rules, that takes cognizance in the first instance on any petition to declare failure or
postponement of elections, or suspension or annulment of elections.
Rule 26 - Postponement or Suspension of Elections
Sec. 1. Postponement of Election. - When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible election should become impossible in any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio, or upon a verified petition
by any interested party, and after due notice and hearing whereby all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard,
may postpone the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended, or which
resulted in a failure of election, but not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension
of the election or failure to elect.
Sec. 2. Failure of Election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the election in any
precinct has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after
the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody of canvass thereof, such election
results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the
Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of
such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Sec. 3. Motu Proprio Postponement. - When the Commission acts motu proprio, notices of hearing must be sent to all interested parties
by the fastest means available.
Sec. 4. When Based Upon a Verified Petition. - Unless a shorter period is deemed necessary by circumstances, within twenty-four (24)
hours from the filing of the petition, the Clerk of Court concerned shall forthwith serve notices to all interested parties, indicating
therein the date of hearing, through the fastest means available.
Sec. 5. Time to File Opposition. - Unless a shorter period is deemed necessary by the circumstances, within two (2) days from receipt
of the notice of hearing, any interested party may file an opposition with the Law Department of the Commission.
Sec. 6. Summary Proceeding. - The hearing of the case shall be summary in nature.
Sec. 7. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. - The Commission may designate any of its officials who are members of the Philippine Bar
to hear the case and to receive evidence.
Sec. 8. Determination of Cessation of Cause. - The determination of the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension of
election or failure of election falls within the exclusive prerogative of the Commission.
We also discussed the case of Canicosa v. Comelec (282 S 512):
Canicosa filed a case for failure of elections which was dismissed by the COMELEC because on the ground that the grounds [ Cute!
haha] alleged by Canicosa were not among those provided under Section 6 of OEC. As we have discussed the grounds provided for
section 6 are exclusive, and the grounds cited by Canicosa are proper FOR AN ELECTION PROTEST- massive fraud and election
irregularities, padlocks were self-locking, names of registered voters did not appear on the list, etc. Those are not grounds provided for
under section 6.
In the case of Pasandalan v. Comelec (7/18/2002), with regard to the nature in the filing of a petition for declaration of failure of
elections:
Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration of failure of elections on the ground wthat while voting was going on, CAFGUs
indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters to panic and leave the polling places without casting their votes and taking
advantage of the situation, the supporters of his opponents took the official ballots and filled them up with his name, the BEIs failed to
affix their initials at the back of several official ballots.
Pasandalan, on the basis of the affidavits of his own poll watchers, insists that a technical examination of the official ballots in the
contested precincts be made which would show that only a few persons wrote the entries.
Held: What is the nature of the petition?
The nullification of elections or declaration of failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy. The party who seeks the nullification of an
election has the burden of proving entitlement to this remedy. It is not enough that a verified petition is filed.
What is the effect of filing of a petition for failure of elections? [jnsddkjbsdakjfbfn mode ]
The votes cast will be nullified.
What is the cause of the declaration of the failure of elections?
Disenfranchisement of voters and frustrating the electorate’s will.
What should be in a petition for the declaration of failure of elections?
The allegations in the petition must make out a prima facie case for the declaration of failure of election, and convincing evidence must
substantiate the allegations.
What were the supporting documents of Pasandalan?
In the instant case, it is apparent that the allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds for the nullification of the election.
Pasandalan even failed to substantiate his allegations of terrorism and irregularities. His evidence consisted only of affidavits. Mere
affidavits are insufficient, more so in this case since the affidavits were all executed by Pasandalan’s own poll watchers.
If a petition for declaration of failure of election is considered as an extraordinary remedy and therefore, the petition must allege the
essential grounds in order to justify the declaration of the failure of elections. What is that? What is that essential grounds?
election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or
had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting; , or
after the voting and (A) during the preparation and (B) the transmission of the election returns or (C) in the custody or canvass thereof
What do you understand of the meaning of a technical examination? [jsddhkjfaksn mode] What would be the basis of the tech exam?
Technical examination of several official ballots from the contested precincts would show that only a few persons wrote the entries with
name of his opponent.
Why was this case referred to the case of Typoco vs. Comelec?
Pasandalan bewails the Comelec’s dismissal of his petition without first conducting a technical examination of the questioned precincts.
Pasandalan claims that had the Comelec made a technical examination of the questioned precincts, the Comelec would have discovered
massive substitution of voters, terrorism, violence, threats, coercion, intimidation and other electoral frauds, resulting in a failure of
election. Pasandalan insists that a technical examination in this case would have been proper as in Typoco, Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, which is also a case of failure of election.
Why was it granted in Typoco and NOT in Pasandalan?
In Typoco case:
In Pasandalan case:
TYPOCO and OCO filed with the COMELEC En Banc a separate petition for Annulment of Election or Election Results and/or Declaration
of Failure of Elections in several precincts. The petition alleged that massive fraud and irregularities attended the preparation of the
election returns considering that upon technical examination, 305 election returns were found to have been prepared in group by one
person.
TYPOCO also filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to Prove That a Substantial Number of Election Returns Were Manufactured as They
Were Prepared by One Person based on the report of one Francisco S. Cruz, a Licensed Examiner of Questioned Document, who
examined copies of election returns of the LAKAS-NUCD [independent and objective evidence]
The COMELEC report (from the tech exam conducted) disclosed, among others, that the “handwritten entries on 278 COMELEC copies
of election returns particularly under the columns Congressman/Governor/Vice-Governor Nickname or Stage Name, were written by
one and the same person in groups.”
The Comelec is not mandated to conduct a technical examination before it dismisses a petition for nullification of election when the
petition is, on its face, without merit.
In Typoco, petitioner Typoco buttressed his petition with independent evidence that compelled the Comelec to conduct a technical
examination of the questioned returns. Typoco filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a substantial number of election returns
were manufactured. Typoco claimed that the returns were prepared by only one person based on the report of Francisco S. Cruz, a
licensed examiner of questioned documents, who examined copies of the election returns of Lakas-NUCD.
In the present case, Pasandalan failed to attach independent and objective evidence other than the self-serving affidavits of his own
poll watchers. [so because of this evidence, no technical examination was conducted]
4. What was the relevance of the Basher vs. COMELEC?
Petitioner Hadji Rasul Batador Basher and Private Respondent Abulkair Ampatua were both candidates for the position of Punong
Barangay in Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur during the May 12, 1997 barangay election. The election was declared a failure
and a special one was set for June 12, 1997. Again, the election failed and was reset to August 30, 1997.
According to the Comelec, the voting started only around 9:00 p.m. on August 30, 1997 because of the prevailing tension in the said
locality. Election Officer Diana Datu–Imam reported that she was allegedly advised by some religious leaders not to proceed with the
election because "it might trigger bloodshed." She also claimed that the town mayor, "being too hysterical, yelled and threatened me to

declare [a] failure of election in Maidan." Subsequently, the armed followers of the mayor pointed their guns at her and her military
escorts, who responded in like manner towards the former. The parties were then pacified at the PNP headquarters. With the arrival of
additional troops, the election officer proceeded to Maidan to conduct the election starting at 9:00 p.m. until the early morning of the
following day. The holding of the election at that particular time was allegedly announced "over the mosque."
The tally sheet for the said "election" showed the following results: private respondent – 250 votes; petitioner – 15 votes; and Baulo
Abdul Razul, a third candidate – 10 votes. Private respondent was proclaimed winner.
Petitioner then filed a Petition before the Comelec praying that the election be declared a failure. Alleging that no election was
conducted in the place and at the time prescribed by law. COMELEC dismissed the petition. Hence this course to this Court.
Issue: whether the "election" held on the date, at the time and in the place other than those officially designated by the law and by the
Comelec was valid.
Held:
The place where the voting was conducted was illegal. Section 42 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that "[t]he chairman of the
board of election tellers shall designate the public school or any other public building within the barangay to be used as polling place in
case the barangay has one election precinct x x x."
Petitioner, citing an Affidavit [13] supposedly executed by the members of the Board of Election Tellers (BET) for Barangay Maidan,
alleges that the election of officials for said barangay was held at the residence of former Mayor Alang Sagusara Pukunun, which is
located at Barangay Pandarianao, instead of the officially designated polling precinct at Cagayan Elementary School. If this allegation
were true, such "election" cannot be valid, as it was not held within the barangay of the officials who were being elected.
While the BET members later repudiated their Affidavit, they could only claim that the election was held "in Barangay Maidan." [14]
They, however, failed to specify the exact venue.
As to the time for voting, the law provides that "[t]he casting of votes shall start at seven o'clock in the morning and shall end at three
o'clock in the afternoon, except when there are voters present within thirty meters in front of the polling place who have not yet cast
their votes, in which case the voting shall continue but only to allow said voters to cast their votes without interruption." [15] Section
22, Article IV of Comelec Resolution No. 2971 also specifies that the voting hours shall start promptly at 7:00 a.m. and end at 3:00
p.m. of the same day. Msesm
However, the "election" for Barangay Maidan officials was supposed to have been held after 9:00 p.m. of August 30, 1997 until the wee
hours of the following day. Certainly, such schedule was not in accordance with law or the Comelec Rules. The Comelec erred in relying
on the second sentence of Section 22, Article IV of Comelec Resolution 2971, which states that "[i]f at three o'clock [in the afternoon],
there are still voters within thirty meters in front of the polling place who have not cast their votes, the voting shall continue to allow
said voters to cast their votes without interruption." This sentence presupposes that the election commenced during the official time
and is simply continued beyond 3:00 p.m. in order to accommodate voters who are within thirty meters of the polling place, already
waiting for their turn to cast their votes. This is clearly the meaning and intent of the word continue -- "to go on in a specified course of
action or condition." The action or condition already subsists and is allowed to go on. Otherwise, the law should have stated instead
that "the voting may also start even beyond 3:00 p.m. if there are voters within thirty meters in front of the polling place."
The Comelec scheduled the special election on August 30, 1997. Any suspension or postponement of an election is governed by Section
2 of RA 6679, which states that "[w]hen for any serious cause such as rebellion, insurrection, violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of
election paraphernalia, and any analogous causes of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become
impossible in any barangay, the Commission on Election motu proprio or upon sworn petition of ten (10) registered voters of a
barangay, after summary proceedings of the existence of such grounds, shall suspend or postpone the election therein to a date
reasonably close to the date of the election that is not held or is suspended or postponed, or which resulted in a failure to elect, but
not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause for such suspension or postponement of the election or failure to elect,
and in all cases not later than ninety (90) days from the date of the original election."
Datu-Imam as election officer has no authority to declare a failure of election. Indeed, only the COMELEC itself has legal authority to
exercise such awesome power. An election officer alone, or even with the agreement of the candidates, cannot validly postpone or
suspend the elections.
As can be gleaned easily from the above report, the electorate of Barangay Maidan was not given due notice that the election would
push through after 9:00 p.m. that same day. Apparently, the election officer's decision to hold the election on the night of August 30,
1997 was precipitate. Only after additional military troops had arrived at their site in a nearby barangay about 8:30 p.m. did the
election officers proceed to Barangay Maidan. Arriving at Maidan, they allegedly proceeded to conduct the election "after announcing it
over the mosque."
Such abbreviated announcement "over the mosque" at such late hour did NOT constitute sufficient notice to the electorate. the Court in
Hassan v. Comelec held that the notice given on the afternoon of the election day resetting the election to the following day and
transferring its venue was "too short." We said that "[t]o require the voters to come to the polls on such short notice was highly
impracticable. x x x It is essential to the validity of the election that the voters have notice in some form, either actual or constructive,
of the time, place and purpose thereof. The time for holding it must be authoritatively designated in advance."In the case at bar, the
announcement was made only minutes before the supposed voting. It should be equated to no notice.
5. How can there be a petition for the declaration of elections when Ampatuan was already declared as a winner? For Comelec to
declare a failure of election, based on the instances mentioned, there should be no winner declared.
a. The COMELEC denied the petition for declaration of failure of elections exactly because of that circumstance, but the SC said in this
case, the election that took place on Aug 30 1997 was not in accordance in law and the rules of procedures promulgated by the
Comelec. Elections are held in accordance with law, and the law mandated that the elections should have been conducted on Aug. 30
at 7:00 and should have ended at 3:00pm. However, what happened was that the election started at 9:00pm and finished in the early
hours of the ff day, so this according to the SC, is highly irregular and that caused the election to be null and void initially.
b. The reason why the election was held later in the evening is because there still people outside of the precinct who still wanted to
vote, but that situation only applies if the election took place in the morning and was not able to finish on time because there were still
people waiting in line. However, this case, the election did not start at 7am but 9pm so this precisely is against the time and date which
is mandated by law for the conduct of elections. So the elections were void for that reason.
So in the case of Basher is more of an exception of the general rule. Remember:
General rule: a declaration of failure of elections will not made if there is a winner shich is declared.
Exception: in this case, the SC said that it is the BEI themselves who violated these rules and regulations with respect to elections, and
the resetting of the elections to another time was invalid because there was no authority from COMELEC and there was no sufficient
law which was given to the votes as to inform them of the date and the time and place where the voting should continue. So this
serves as an EXCEPTION, if it s barred with irregularities and illegalities.
Also if you have read the case of Mitmug v. COMELEC (230 S 54):
It was ruled here that the COMELEC is granted the power to dismiss outright a petition for the nullification of elections if it is plainly
groundless.
In Pasandalan, since a petition to declare failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy, if the allegations are plainly groundless, the
COMELEC cannot be considered as gravely abusing its discretion in dismissing the petition. The fact that a verified petition to declare
failure of elections is filed, does not mean that COMELEC should take cognizance of the case if on its face it does not provide the
grounds that would justify the declaration of the failure of elections.
In the case of Ampatuan vs. COMELEC:

The case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order[1] to nullify and set aside two (2) orders dated July 26, 2001[2] and August 28, 2001[3] of
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), ordering a random technical examination of pertinent election paraphernalia and other
documents in several municipalities in the province of Maguindanao to determine a failure of elections.
Petitioners[4] and respondents[5] were candidates for the provincial elective positions in the province of Maguindanao in the May 14,
2001 election. Petitioner Ampatuan and respondent Candao contended for the position of governor. The slate of Ampatuan emerged as
winners as per election returns.
On May 23, 2001, respondents filed a petition with the Comelec for the annulment of election results and/or declaration of failure of
elections[6] in several municipalities[7] in the province of Maguindanao. They claimed that the elections “were completely sham and
farcical.” The ballots were filled-up en masse by a few persons the night before election day, and in some precincts, the ballot boxes,
official ballots and other election paraphernalia were not delivered at all.[8]
On May 25, 2001, the Comelec issued an order suspending the proclamation of the winning candidates for congressman of the second
district, governor, vice-governor and board members of Maguindanao.[9]
On May 30, 2001, petitioners filed with the Comelec a motion to lift the suspension of proclamation.[10] On June 14, 2001, the
Comelec issued an order lifting the suspension of proclamation of the winning candidates for governor, vice-governor and board
members of the first and second districts.[11] Consequently, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioners winners.[12]
On June 16, 2001, respondents filed with the Supreme Court a petition to set aside the Comelec order dated June 14, 2001, and
preliminary injunction to suspend the effects of the proclamation of the petitioners.[13] Meantime, petitioners assumed their respective
offices on June 30, 2001. On July 17, 2001, the Court resolved to deny respondents’ petition.[14]
Petitioners’ assumption into office notwithstanding, on July 26, 2001, the Comelec ordered the consolidation of respondents’ petition for
declaration of failure of elections with SPA Nos. 01-244, 01-332, 01-360, 01-388 and 01-390.[15] The COMELEC further ordered a
random technical examination on four to seven precincts per municipality on the thumb-marks and signatures of the voters who voted
and affixed in their voter’s registration records, and forthwith directed the production of relevant election documents in these
municipalities.[16]
On August 28, 2001, the Comelec issued another order[17] directing the continuation of the hearing and disposition of the consolidated
SPAs on the failure of elections and other incidents related thereto. It likewise ordered the continuation of the technical examination of
election documents as authorized in the July 26, 2001 order. On September 27, 2001, the Comelec issued an order outlining the
procedure to be followed in the technical examination.[18]
On September 26, 2001, petitioners filed the present petition.[19] They claimed that by virtue of their proclamation pursuant to the
June 14, 2001 order issued by the Comelec, the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of failure of
elections but an election protest. The former is heard summarily while the latter involves a full-blown trial. Petitioners argued that the
manner by which the technical examination is to be conducted[20] would defeat the summary nature of a petition for declaration of
failure of elections.
On October 5, 2001, petitioners filed a motion[21] reiterating their request for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the
implementation of the July 26, 2001 and August 28, 2001 Comelec orders.
On October 22, 2001, the Comelec issued an order suspending the implementation of the two (2) assailed orders, the pertinent portion
of which reads as follows:
“The Commission, in view of the pendency of G. R. No. 149803 xxx, requiring it to comment within ten (10) days from notice, hereby
suspends implementation of its orders of July 26, 2001 and August 28, 2001 in deference to the resolution of said court.”[22]
However, on November 13, 2001, the Comelec issued another order lifting the suspension.[23]
On November 20, 2001, we issued a temporary restraining order, to wit:
“xxx the Court Resolved to (a) ISSUE the TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER prayed for, effective immediately and continuing until
further orders from this Court, ordering the respondent Commission on Elections to CEASE and DESIST from ordering the lifting of the
suspended implementation orders dated 26 July 2001 and 28 August 2001 in SPA No. 01-323 xxx.”
Issue: whether the Commission on Elections was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide respondents’ petition for declaration of
failure of elections after petitioners had been proclaimed.
Held: No.
The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the Comelec of its authority to annul any canvass and illegal
proclamation. In the case at bar, we cannot assume that petitioners’ proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was
legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was put in issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of
election results and/or declaration of failure of elections.
Petitioners submit that by virtue of their proclamation as winners, the only remedy left for private respondents is to file an election
protest, in which case, original jurisdiction lies with the regular courts. Petitioners cited several rulings that an election protest is the
proper remedy for a losing candidate after the proclamation of the winning candidate.
However, the authorities petitioners relied upon involved pre-proclamation controversies. In Loong v. Commission on Elections, we
ruled that “a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results, or failure of elections.” These
two remedies were more specifically distinguished in this wise:
“While, however, the Comelec is restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of the election returns on their face and is
without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities, the Comelec is duty bound to investigate
allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence, and other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of
failure of elections, as the Omnibus Election Code denominates the same. Thus, the Comelec, in the case of actions for annulment of
election results or declaration of failure of elections, may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare and
analyze voters’ signatures and thumbprints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free, honest and clean.”
The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul election results and/or declare a failure of elections as stated in Section 6 of OEC.
Elucidating on the concept of failure of election, we held that:
“xxx before Comelec can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must concur: first, no
voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
resulted in a failure to elect; and second, the votes cast would affect the result of the election. In Loong vs. Commission on
Elections, this Court added that the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the following: force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous cases.”
In another case, we ruled that “while it may be true that election did take place, the irregularities that marred the counting of votes
and the canvassing of the election returns resulted in a failure to elect.”
In the case at bar, the Comelec is duty-bound to conduct an investigation as to the veracity of respondents’ allegations of massive fraud
and terrorism that attended the conduct of the May 14, 2001 election. It is well to stress that the Comelec has started conducting the
technical examination on November 16, 2001. However, by an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order filed by petitioners, in
virtue of which we issued a temporary restraining order on November 20, 2001, the technical examination was held in abeyance until
the present. In order not to frustrate the ends of justice, we lift the temporary restraining order and allow the technical examination to
proceed with deliberate dispatch.
Maam: In cases of petition for declaration of failure of elections, the COMELEC is not divested of jurisdiction to continue with the
hearing of the case even if there is a proclamation of the candidate as a winner on the ground of it is precisely the manner in which
these officials were proclaimed is the fact put on issue, WON valid. So the SC gave reference to a pre-proclamation controversy. This is
not a pre-proclamation controversy wherein the remedy available to the party after proclamation is an election protest. This is a
petition for declaration of failure of election and COMELEC is mandated to look into the alleged irregularities that resulted to the failure
or determination of whether the grounds favor the allegations for a failure of elections is warranted. [this is verbatim, IDK what she
means… ]
Amores vs. HRET

Milagros E. Amores filed Petition for Quo Warranto against Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva as representative of the party-list
organization Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives, alleging that:
 Villanueva assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by the COMELEC
 He was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his certificates of
nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA No. 7941
 His change of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not effected at
least six months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.
May 14, 2009 - HRET dismissed Petition for Quo Warranto
Reasons for dismissal:
CIBAC was among the party-list organizations which the COMELEC had partially proclaimed as entitled to at least one seat in
the House of Representatives (NBC Resolution No. 07-60).
Respecting the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section 9 of RA No. 7941, HRET held that it applied only to
those nominated as such during the first three congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a
sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which CIBAC, a multi-sectoral organization, is not.
In the matter of Villanueva’s shift of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their
families sector, HRET held that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as there was no resultant change in party-list affiliation.
August 6, 2009 – After her Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Resolution No. 09-130, Amores petitioner filed Petition for
Certiorari.
Contentions of Amores in the Petition for Certiorari:
HRET created distinctions in the application of Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 that are not found in the subject provisions

NBC Resolution No. 07-60, which was a partial proclamation of winning party-list organizations, was not enough basis for private
respondent to assume office
Villanueva’s Defense: Amores has not substantiated her claims of grave abuse of discretion against public respondent and that he
became a member of the overseas Filipinos and their families sector years before the 2007 elections.
While the petition has, thus, become moot and academic, SC still rendered a decision on the merits in this case, as it would still
be of practical value.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. X X X
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years
of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term
shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.
As the law states in unequivocal terms that a nominee of the youth sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty
(30) years of age on the day of the election, so it must be that a candidate who is more than 30 on election day is not
qualified to be a youth sector nominee.
Regarding HRET’s ruling that Sec 9 is to apply only during the first three congressional terms after the ratification of
the Constitution
There is likewise no rhyme or reason in public respondent’s ratiocination that after the third congressional term from the ratification of
the Constitution, which expired in 1998, Section 9 of RA No. 7941 would apply only to sectoral parties registered exclusively as
representing the youth sector. This distinction is nowhere found in the law. When the law does not distinguish, we must not
distinguish.
Regarding HRET’s ruling that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as there was no resultant change in party-list
affiliation
Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or
sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he changes his political party or
sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list
representative under his new party or organization.
What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter
may occur within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations are qualified to participate in the
Philippine party-list system.
Hence, a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for nomination under
the new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least six months before the elections.
Atty Valencia: What is the Relevance of Change of Affiliation and Age of Villanueva?
Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private Villanueva.
Villanueva was not qualified to be a nominee of either the youth sector or the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector in the
May, 2007 elections.
Reasons for disqualification:
 Villanueva was already more than 30 years of age in May, 2007, it being stipulated that he was born in August, 1975.
 He did not change his sectoral affiliation at least six months before May, 2007, HRET itself having found that he shifted to
CIBAC’s overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on March 17, 2007.
What about the fact that Villanueva is the first nominee of CIBAC?
That Villanueva is the first nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is of no moment. A party-list organization’s ranking of its
nominees is a mere indication of preference, their qualifications according to law are a different matter.
DECISION: Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 dated August 6, 2009 of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal are SET ASIDE. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva is declared ineligible to hold office as a member of the
House of Representatives representing the party-list organization CIBAC.
VETERANS FEDERATIONS PARTY vs. COMELEC

The SC provided for the four unique parameters of the Filipino Party-list System which are as follows –
 The 20% allocation – the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the
HR, including those under the party-list;
 The 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are
“qualified” to have a seat in the HR;
 The 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum three
seats, that is, one qualifying and two additional seats;
 The proportional representation – the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to
their total number of votes.

VETERANS v COMELEC
(October 6, 2000) BANAT v COMELEC
Determination of Total No. of district representatives

Number of Party-list
------------------------------------- x .20 = No. of party-list
Lawmakers
.80 representatives
Is the 20% allocation Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is
for party-list mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for party-list provides a ceiling for party-list seats in
representatives seats in Congress. Congress. All available seats are to be
mandatory or is it filled up.
merely a ceiling?
Regarding On the contention that a strict application of the two In computing the allocation of additional seats,
Mathematical percent threshold may result in a “mathematical the continued operation of the two percent
Impossibility of filling impossibility,” suffice it to say that the prerogative to threshold for the distribution of the additional
up the party-list seats determine whether to adjust or change this seats as found in the second clause of Section
in Congress percentage requirement rests in Congress. Our task 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional.
now, as should have been the Comelec’s, is not to find
fault in the wisdom of the law through highly unlikely
scenarios of clinical extremes, but to craft an
innovative mathematical formula that can, as far as
practicable, implement it within the context of the
actual election process.
Is the 2% threshold YES. Rationale: The continued operation of the

requirement two percent threshold in the distribution of the
The two percent threshold is consistent not only with
constitutional? additional seats frustrates the attainment of
the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the
the permissive ceiling that 20% of the
law, but with the very essence of "representation." But
members of the House of Representatives
to have meaningful representation, the elected
shall consist of party-list representatives.
persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number
of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the
party-list system, the result might be the proliferation
of small groups which are incapable of contributing
significant legislation, and which might even pose a
threat to the stability of Congress.
Is the three-seat limit YES.

provided in Section
Congress set the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition. "Qualified"
11(b) of RA 7941
means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such three-seat limit ensures the entry of
constitutional?
various interest-representations into the legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its
membership, would dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House.
Method of allocating (1) Rank all the participating parties, (1) The parties, organizations, and
seats organizations and coalitions from the highest to the coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
lowest based on the number of votes they each to the lowest based on the number of votes
received. they garnered during the elections.
The ratio for each party is computed by dividing its (2) The parties, organizations, and
votes by the total votes cast for all the parties coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%)
participating in the system. of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall be entitled to one guaranteed
All parties with at least two percent of the total
seat each.
votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these
parties shall be considered in the computation
of additional seats.
Example: BUHAY with 7.33% = One
(2) Determine the number of seats the first party Guaranteed Seat
is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for
(3) Those garnering sufficient number of
the other parties.
votes, according to the ranking in paragraph
Since the distribution is based on proportional 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in
representation, the number of seats to be allotted proportion to their total number of votes

to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that until all the additional seats are allocated.
to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its
(4) Each party, organization, or coalition
obtaining the most number of votes.
shall be entitled to not more than three (3)
Rationale: (1) The ratio between said parties and the seats.
first party will always be less than 1:1, and (2) the
formula does not admit of mathematical rounding off,
because there is no such thing as a fraction of a seat.
How to determine Number of votes No longer applicable. The party with the
additional seats for the highest number of votes may have the same
of first party Proportion of votes of
First Party? number of seats as that of the other parties.
-------------------- = first party relative to
Total votes for total votes for party-list system
party-list system
6% or above = Two additional seats

4%-5.99% = One additional seat
2% 0 3.99% = No additional seat
How to determine Votes cast for In computing the additional seats, the
additional seats for the guaranteed seats shall no longer be
Qualified party
other qualified parties? included because they have already been
_________________ x Alloted Seats allocated, at one seat each, to every two-
percenter.
For First Party
Example: 55 party-list seats – 17 guaranteed
Votes cast for seats = 38 additional seats
First Party
Two steps in the second round of seat

If the first party is not entitled to any additional allocation.
seat, then the ratio of the number of votes for (1) The percentage is multiplied by the
the other party to that for the first one is remaining available seats, which is the
multiplied by zero. The end result would be zero difference between the maximum seats
additional seat for each of the other qualified parties reserved under the Party-List System and the
as well. guaranteed seats of the two-percenters.
The whole integer of the product of the
percentage and of the remaining available
seats corresponds to a party’s share in the
remaining available seats.
Note: Apply this only to those with
guaranteed seats!
Example:
BUHAY (1st) with 7.33% x 38 = 2.78%
Hence, it is entitled to 2 additional seats
(2) Assign one party-list seat to each of
the parties next in rank until all available seats
are completely distributed. (Even those
which did not reach 2% threshold are
included)
Example:
YACAP (18TH) with only 1.95%, after having
distributed the guaranteed (17) and additional
(19) seats to those which reached the 2%
threshold, is entitled to one seat.
55 – 36 (seats of PL which reached 2%) = 19
seats to be allocated to 18th – 36th party lists.
YACAP up to COCOFED
(3) Apply the three-seat cap to

determine the number of seats each qualified
party-list candidate is entitled.
See Table 3 in the case for the better
understanding 
August 19, 2013 how illiterates or disabled person may vote. (Section 3 of RA
8189)
Registration of Voters as provided under RA 8189 (Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996). Section 3(e) Illiterate or Disabled person refers to one who
cannot by himself prepare an application for registration because
What are prior articles/laws that were enacted prior to the
of his physical disability and/or inability to read and write;
effectivity of RA 8189? Of course, the Omnibus Election Code
(OEC) and Article V Section 1 of the Constitution provides for the
qualifications of voters. And Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, more
REPUBLIC ACT 8189
specifically section 117 provides for the manner by which the
registrations of voters are conducted. So if you refer to Article V, What have we understand by registration of voters?
section 1, it provides for how suffrage may be exercised and
Constitution provides that Suffrage may be exercised by whom? Section 3. Definition of Terms.
By all citizens of the Philippines. What is the restriction? Of a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a
course while citizens of the Philippines are qualified, they must sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the
not be disqualified. They must not suffer any disqualification election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and
under the law. including the same in the book of registered voters upon
ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE approval by the Election Registration Board;
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the b) Registration Record refers to an application for registration
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least duly approved by the Election Registration Board;
eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Section 3 of 8189 provides for the definition of what registration
Philippines for at least one year, and in the place wherein they refers to, what is a registration record, book of voters, list of
propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding voters. So we must be able to distinguish when you say
the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive registration record refers to the application for registration duly
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. approved by the registration board. We call it the voters
For example, unlike in the past the law made those with registration record (VRR) so, it is the form that you fill up when
properties, can vote prior to Batas Pambansa. Only those with you apply for registration.
properties can vote, or only those learned can vote. So even if So what is the book of voters?
you are an illiterate, the law provides for a provision on how
illiterate or disabled citizens may vote. (c) Book of Voters refers to the compilation of all registration
records in a precinct;
The Comelec once upon a time required the submission of ID
pictures when they[voters] register. And that was questioned Each precinct consists of at least 200 voters. So each precinct
because the law provides that no substantive requirement shall has a book of voters. And the book of voters consists of the
be imposed on the exercise of right of Suffrage; to have your Voter’s Registration Record (VRR). The VRR of those registered
picture taken and submit to Comelec for purposes of issuance of in a particular precinct, precinct 1 has this book of voters where
Comelec ID. So that’s why Comelec came up with its own system the VRR are compiled.
of taking your picture. You go to the office of the Commission on List of voters
Election and they will take your picture for purposes of the voters
ID. d) List of Voters refers to an enumeration of names of registered
voters in a precinct duly certified by the Election Registration
Board for use in the election;
Section 2 of Article V provides: So ang book of voters para siyang book, ang list of voters is
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the parang mas mahaba siya where the names of the voters in that
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for particular precinct are written in alphabetical order. It is indicated
absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. if you voted in that area there is a something that you sign
wherein you get the ballot. That may be the basis of the BEI
This is the overseas absentee voter’s act which is RA 9189. So for (Board of Election Inspector) prior to the date of election to
domestic purposes, the domestic law is RA 8189 and overseas determine whether your name should be cancelled in the list of
law is RA 9189. voters for failure to vote in the last two preceding elections.
Paragraph 2 of Section 2 of Article V provides: What is the difference between a voting center and a polling
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and place? A precinct from a precinct map?
the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. j) Precinct refers to the basic unit of territory established by the
Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and Commission for the purpose of voting;
such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to
protect the secrecy of the ballot. k) Precinct Maps refers to a sketch or drawing of a geographical
area stated in terms of streets or street blocks or sitios the
So 8189 even under the OEC provides for a system for illiterate residents of which would belong to a particular precinct;
and disabled people may vote. How do we distinguish an illiterate
from a disabled? Illiterate are those persons who cannot read or A Precinct refers to the basic unit of territory established by the
write. Who cannot on their own write. Disabled, we refer to Commission for purposes of voting and this is indicated in the
persons with certain disability like hearing impaired or deaf, blind precinct map. For example precinct 1, consists of residence of
or cannot write because walang kamay. Those are disabled. How Jacinto Street from the corner of Magsaysay, corner of Jacinto
can they fill up the voter’s registration if they do not have hands, until the corner of Juan De la Cruz and Jacinto St. May Map yan.
if they cannot hear or they cannot see? So the law provides for If you notice when voting familiar yong mga tao, magkapitbahay.
Because you are in one precinct, you are in one basic unit of
territory prepared by the Comelec for purposes of voting. That is only the age, residency requirement. But it did not provide when
precinct, indicated in the precinct map. the age should be attained for purposes of voting. Prior to 8189,
the law provides that at least 18 years of age, a qualified voter
By precinct map, nakalagay doon kung Ano itong covered ng
can only register when the person is of 18 years of age. If he or
precinct 1. It is usually posted outside the polling place. It
she is not yet 18 years of age he/she cannot apply for
defines the technical or territorial jurisdiction of precinct 1. So
registration. However section 9 of 8189 already clarifies the
that is which is found in the precinct map.
provision of the OEC as to the age and residency requirement.
Polling place and Voting Center 8189 provides:
l) Polling place refers to the place where the Board of Election Section 9. Who may Register.All citizens of the Philippines not
Inspectors conducts its proceeding and where the voters cast otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18)
their votes; years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote,
m) Voting center refers to the building or place where the polling for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the election,
place is located; may register as a voter.
For example, Ateneo Voting center. Itong room na ito assigned Any person who temporarily resides in another city,
to precinct 1 is the polling place. Each voting center may have as municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation,
many polling place. San kayo nagboto? If you will recall, sa isang profession, employment in private or public service, educational
precinct, since this is a clustered precinct for purposes of the activities, work in the military or naval reservations within the
Automated Election System. So clustered yong precinct. For Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
example precinct 1 to 5 is assigned in one polling place. Each National Police Forces, or confinement or detention in
voting center consists of several polling places. government institutions in accordance with law, shall not be
The election registration board is distinguished from the board of deemed to have lost his original residence.
election inspector. Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have
g) Election Registration Board refers to the body constituted reached the required age or period of residence but, who, on the
herein to act on all applications for registration; day of the election shall possess such qualifications, may register
as a voter.
o) Board of Election Inspectors refers to the body which conducts
the election in the polling place of the precinct usually composed Because base on Section 8 as we have said in lieu of the
of three (3) public school teachers appointed by the Commission. Continuing System of Registration, the voter who does not yet
posses the age and residency requirement may already register
By the term itself election registration board is the board who now. For example, you can register now provided that person will
accepts application for registration. Whereas the BEI are those be 18 years of age on the day of election or would have attained
who man the polling places on election day. Prior to the the residency requirement on the day of election. Unlike before
effectivity of 8189 the registration of voters are scheduled on under the OEC and RA 6646 prior to the effectivity of 8189,
particular weekends. Base on calendar of activities of the kailangan 18 years old ka muna before you can apply for
Commission on Elections for the forthcoming election. The registration or at least naka-six months ka na in the place where
Comelec designates, usually two successive weekends for you intend to vote before you can be qualified to register as a
purposes of registration of voters. So sino ang magreregister? voter. 8189 now provides, this is one of the salient features.
Prior to 8189 only those who have reached the age of 18 years
old and the residency requirement of 6 months in the place If you have read the case of Meynard Sabili vs. Comelec G.R.
where they wish to register on those two scheduled registration No. 193261
days to the BEI who conducts the registration. However one of The court in this case held, in connection with the provision of
the salient features now of RA 8189 under Section 8: Section 9 of RA 8189:
Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The . . . that "absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a
personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be profession or registration as a voter other than in the place
conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular where one is elected, does not constitute loss of residence."62 In
office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during fact, Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that
the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one's
regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election. "occupation; profession; employment in private and public
Wherein the applicant can go to the Comelec during office hours, service; educational activities; work in military or naval
from Monday to Friday to be able to vote. reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the
constabulary or national police force; or confinement or
When you say registration of voters, it is a means of determining detention in government institutions in accordance with law" is
who possess the qualification and the purpose of which is to not deemed as loss of residence.
regulate the exercise of the right of suffrage. And why is it
essential, why do we have to register? As a voter: It is essential More importantly, we have gone so far as to rule that there is
to enable a qualified voter to vote in the election or in any form nothing "wrong in an individual changing residences so he could
of popular intervention. So even if you possess all the run for an elective post, for as long as he is able to prove with
qualifications and none of the disqualification but you did not reasonable certainty that he has effected a change of residence
register while Section 1 of Article V entitles or gives right to all for election law purposes for the period required by law."
citizens of the Philippines to vote but as long as you are not a Comments: Because Section 9 merely states that you are 18
registered voter you cannot exercise your right of suffrage. It is years of age, you are a resident of the Philippines for one year, at
essential to enable a qualified voter to vote to exercise his right least six months in the place where you intend to vote. Walang
to vote. How is registration done? It is an act of accomplishing ibang qualifications. Regardless kung papalit-palit ka ng
and the filing of a sworn application for registration or you fill up residence as long as you comply with the qualifications under the
the voter’s registration record or VRR by a qualified voter before law.
the election officer of the city or municipality where he resides
and including in the VRR is the book of voters upon approval of Section 7. General Registration of Voters. Immediately after the
the Election Registration Board (ERB). That is provided under barangay elections in 1997, the existing certified list of voters
section 3(a). So registration is extended to both domestic and shall cease to be effective and operative. For purposed of the
overseas qualified voters. May 1998 elections and all elections, plebiscites, referenda,
initiatives, and recalls subsequent thereto, the Commission shall
Under section 9, if you will recall under Section 1 of RA 8189, undertake a general registration of voters before the Board of
Section 1 of Article V and the provision of the OEC provides for
Election Inspectors on June 14, 15, 21, and 22 and, subject to competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime
the discretion of the Commission, on June 28 and 29, 1997 in involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as
accordance with this Act. rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any crime
against national security, unless restored to his full civil and
Everyone was required to register upon effectivity of RA 8189.
political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall
Under the Omnibus election Code, prior to the effectivity of 8189,
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five
once you registered your name will appear in the permanent list
(5) years after service of sentence; and
of voters for a period of 12 years. After 12 years, as long as you
are not disqualified or you do not possess disqualification, you c) Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent
failed to vote wherein natanggal ang pangalan mo. Assuming authority unless subsequently declared by proper authority that
that there is no disqualification and you voted religiously, your such person is no longer insane or incompetent.
name will appear in the permanent list of voters for a period of
Take note class, there has to be a final judgement. Meaning to
12 years. For example, there was a disqualification, nade-list ka,
say, there is already a conviction. Hindi puwedeng pending yong
nacancell ang pangalan mo. Prior to 8189 you have to register
case. That cannot be a ground for disqualification. If there is a
again. Kasi nga may schedule na registration dates before.
pending case for that person, he cannot use that as a basis for
However under 8189, even if one has been disqualified he does
disqualification because the law requires a final judgement.
not have to register again. All the voter has to do is to file a
petition for reactivation of his registration. How is this disability remove?
Section 10. Registration of Voters. A qualified voter shall be 1. Those sentenced by final judgement, disability may be
registered in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city removed by a.)plenary pardon.) amnesty c.) expiration of 5 years
or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any after service of sentence
election. To register as a voter, he shall personally accomplish an
application form for registration as prescribed by the Commission Take note that for those violations of election laws, or for crimes
in three (3) copies before the Election Officer on any date during involving election offense, there is a provision on the part of the
office hours after having acquired the qualifications of a voter. president to grant pardon or amnesty:
The application shall contain the following data: Article IX-C Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or
suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
a) Name, surname, middle name, and/or maternal surname; regulations shall be granted by the President without the
favorable recommendation of the Commission.
b) Sex;
A person was convicted by final judgment and has to suffer
c) Date, and place of birth;
imprisonment for two years. After serving sentence for 2 years,
d) Citizenship; he comes out of jail. When can he vote? He can apply for
reactivation of his VRR 5 years after service of sentence.
e) Civil status, if married, name of spouse;
MAghihintay pa sya ng limang taon. But pending that, once a
f) Profession, occupation or work; voter has been convicted of final judgement the name of that
voter subject of the conviction will be removed from the active
g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of file. It will be deactivated by the Comelec. It can only be
registration; reactivated after 5 years after service sentence by filing a sworn
h) Exact address with the name of the street and house number application for reactivation. Hindi na sya magreregister ulit.
for location in the precinct maps maintained by the local office of 2. For insane and incompetent, by an official declaration by
the Commission, or in case there is none, a brief description of a proper authority that the insanity or incompetency no longer
his residence, sitio, and barangay; exist.
i) A statement that the applicant possesses all the qualifications Who will declare? – a competent authority. For example,
of a voter; Department of Health (DOH)
j) A statement that the applicant is not a registered voter of any Section 12. Change of Residence to Another City or
precinct; and Municipality. Any registered voter who has transferred residence
k) Such information or data as may be required by the to another city or municipality may apply with the Election Officer
Commission. of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records.
The application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the
signatures of the applicant, clear and legible rolled prints of his requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the
left and right thumbprints, with four (4) identification size copies Election Registration Board, in accordance with this Act. Upon
of his latest photograph, attached thereto, to be taken at the approval of the application for transfer, and after notice of such
expense of the Commission. approval to the Election Officer of the former residence of the
voter, said Election Officer shall transmit by registered mail the
Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration, voter’s registration record to the Election Officer of the voter’s
the Election Officer shall inform him of the qualifications and new residence.
disqualifications prescribed by law for a voter, and thereafter, see
to it that the accomplished application contains all the data So, you want to change residence. Prior to Section 12 of 8189.
therein required and that the applicant’s specimen signatures, For example the voter is registered in Davao City and he wants to
fingerprints, and photographs are properly affixed in all copies of transfer in Manila. Under the old law the voter has to go to the
the voter’s application. office of the Comelec to apply for the cancellation of his voting
registration record. The voter will be given a notice that his
Section 11. Disqualification. The following shall be disqualified application for cancellation or transfer has been approved. The
from registering: voter, when he goes to Manila (because of the change of
a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to residence), when the registration dates for the forthcoming
suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, such disability election, he will have to bring the approved application for
not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: cancellation of his voting record in Davao City. Yon ang ibibigay
Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under niya sa BEI in order to apply for a new registration. So, it is the
this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote voter who does it.
upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Under Section 12, all that the voter will do is just go to the
b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a election officer of his new residence in Manila. So he will have to
go through the process as required. Once the application for
registration is approved the election officer of the new residence Soon thereafter, the respondents filed a petition to deny due
will communicate with the election officer of Davao City for the course or to cancel Mitra’s COC. The respondents’ petition before
transfer of his Voter’s Registration Record to the election officer the COMELEC claimed that Mitra’s COC should be cancelled under
of the new residence. Hindi na siya magfi-fill up ng bagong the following factual premises: (a) Mitra bought, in June 2009, a
voters registration record, kasi permanent na yong VRR. The parcel of land in Aborlan where he began to construct a house,
election officer of Davao City will just transmit the VRR to the but up to the time of the filing of the petition to deny due course
new residence. The burden is not on the voter anymore, it’s the or to cancel Mitra’s COC, the house had yet to be completed; (b)
election officer na. in the document of sale, Puerto Princesa City was stated as
Mitra’s residence (c) Mitra’s Puerto Princesa City residence was
Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or Municipality.
similarly stated in his application for a building permit (and (d)
Any voter who has changed his address in the same city or
Mitra’s community tax certificate states that his residence was
municipality shall immediately notify the Election Officer in
Puerto Princesa City The respondents presented several affidavits
writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct,
attesting to the non-completion of the construction of the
the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct
house,15 and asserted that without a fully constructed house,
book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new
Mitra could not claim residence in Aborlan.
precinct All changes of address shall be reported to the office of
the provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila. Mitra denied the respondents’ allegations in his Answer
Change of address in the same city or municipality is the same Held: the COMELEC thereby determined the fitness of a dwelling
way. You’re in the first district lumipat ka sa third district. You will as a person’s residence based solely on very personal and
just inform the election officer that you will be transferring to the subjective assessment standards when the law is replete with
third district. Ililipat lang ang VRR from the precinct where he is standards that can be used. Where a dwelling qualifies as a
registered in the first district to a precinct on the third district. residence – i.e., the dwelling where a person permanently
intends to return to and to remain76 – his or her capacity or
When we say residence, which is one of the requirements for
inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, is immaterial.
purposes of registration. We have the case of
We cannot but conclude that the COMELEC’s approach – i.e., the
Jalosjos vs. Comelec and Erasmo 670 scra 572
application of subjective non-legal standards and the gross
Facts: Petition for disqualification of Jalosjos was filed. The party misappreciation of the evidence – is tainted with grave abuse of
seeking for the disqualification of Jalosjos used as a ground that discretion, as the COMELEC used wrong considerations and
he is not a resident of the place where he intends to vote. grossly misread the evidence in arriving at its conclusion. In
Because he has no residence and he is just staying in a house of using subjective standards, the COMELEC committed an act not
a friend. otherwise within the contemplation of law on an evidentiary point
that served as a major basis for its conclusion in the case.
HELD: The SC made reference under the LGC. The Local
Government Code requires a candidate seeking the position of
provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least
Asistio vs. Aguirre 619 scra 518
one year before the election.9 For purposes of the election laws,
the requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile,10 HELD: "Residence," as used in the law prescribing the
meaning that a person must not only intend to reside in a qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, is doctrinally
particular place but must also have personal presence in such settled to mean "domicile," importing not only an intention to
place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.11 reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention32 inferable from
There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s
a person’s acts, activities, and utterances.33 "Domicile" denotes a
compliance with residency requirement since the question of
fixed permanent residence where, when absent for business or
residence is a question of intention.12 Still, jurisprudence has laid
pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. In the
down the following guidelines: (a) every person has a domicile or
consideration of circumstances obtaining in each particular case,
residence somewhere; (b) where once established, that domicile
three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a person
remains until he acquires a new one; and (c) a person can have
must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) once
but one domicile at a time.
established, it remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) that a
The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle his person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.
domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother’s
Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer
house. But this circumstance alone cannot support such
thereof, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual removal or change
conclusion. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a
of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
candidate is not required to have a house in a community to
place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) acts
establish his residence or domicile in a particular place. It is
which correspond with that purpose. There must be animus
sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented house
manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to
or in the house of a friend or relative.15 To insist that the
remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite
candidate own the house where he lives would make property a
period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and
qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has
the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be
proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an
actual.
intention of making it his domicile.
Same ruling in Romuladez-Marcos vs. Comelec 248 scra 300
Mitra vs. Comelec (622 scra 744)

MAKE-UP CLASS
Facts: Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a "highly (FROM BRUNX: copied ni from the pre-bar, see justin’s message
urbanized city" and thus ceased to be a component city of the below)
Province of Palawan. The direct legal consequence of this new
ILLITIERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS – Illiterates or disabled
status was the ineligibility of Puerto Princesa City residents from
are referred to as a persons who cannot by themselves prepare
voting for candidates for elective provincial officials.
an application for registration because of their physical disability
With the intention of running for the position of Governor, Mitra and/or inability to read and write. (Section 3 (e))
applied for the transfer of his Voter’s Registration Record from
Section 14. Procedure for illiterate applicants (those who
Puerto Princesa City, to Sitio Maligaya, Brgy. Isaub, Municipality
cannot read and write) – assisted by the election officer or
of Aborlan, Province of Palawan. He subsequently filed his COC
any member of an accredited citizens arm. The election
for the position of Governor of Palawan as a resident of Aborlan.
officer shall place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the
questions and record the answers given in order to accomplish Municipality – Any registered voter who has transferred
the application form in the presence of the majority of the residence to another city or municipality may apply with the EO
members of the Board. The accomplished form shall be of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records.
subscribed by the applicant in the presence of the Board by The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the
means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shall requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the ERB
be subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of the application for
the Board. transfer, and after notice of such approval to the EO of the
former residence of the voter, said EO shall transmit by
Procedure for disabled voters – the application for
registered mail the voter’s registration record to the EO of the
registration of a physically disabled person (ex. blind, no
voter’s new residence.
hands, senior citizen, mute) may be prepared by any
relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or
affinity or by the election officer or any member of an Municipality –Any voter who has changed his address in the
accredited citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the applicant. same city or municipality shall immediately notify the EO in
writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct,
NOTE: Common to both procedures, the fact of illiteracy and
the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct
disability shall be so indicated in the application.
book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new
precinct. All changes of address shall be reported to the office of
the provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila.
HOW TO REGISTER
Sec. 27 – DEACTIVATION – is a process wherein the
Section 8– System of Continuing Registration of registration record of a voter is removed by the ERB from the
Voters/Creation of Election Registration Boards corresponding precinct book of voters and places the
 A qualified voter personally files an application for same in an inactive file properly marked and dated in indelible
registration DAILY with the office of the election officer during ink and after entering the cause for deactivation which are as
regular office hours. The ERB are authorized to act on all follows:
applications for registration .  Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final
LIMITATION: No registration shall be conducted during the judgment, insane and incompetent persons as officially declared.
period starting 120 days before a regular elections and 90 days  Any person who failed to vote in the two (2) successive
before a special elections. preceding regular elections as shown by his voting records.
Sec. 15 – Election Registration Board – There shall be in  Any person whose registration has been ordered
each city and municipality as many as ERB’s as there are excluded by the court.
election officers therein.
 Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.
Composition – Election Officer (EO) as chairman and as
members, the public school official most senior in rank and the For purposes of the above – the Clerks of Court of the MTC,
local civil registrar (LCR), or in his absence, the city or municipal MTCC, RTC and SB shall furnish the EO of the city or municipality
treasurer (MT). concerned at the end of each month a certified list of persons
who are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment, with their
In case of disqualification of the EO, the Commission shall addresses.
designate as acting EO who shall serve as chairman of the ERB.
In cases of the non-availability of the LCR or the MT, Comelec For those who lost their citizenship, insanity and incompetency,
shall designate any other appointive civil service official from the the Comelec may request a certified list of such persons from the
same locality as substitute. government agencies concerned.
Restrictions to appointment – No member of the board shall Sec. 28 – REACTIVATION – is a process whereby a voter
be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal whose registration records has been deactivated files with the
elective official within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or election officer a sworn application for reactivation of his
affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of the newly elected city registration in the form of an affidavit by stating therein that the
or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within grounds for the deactivation no longer exist.
the same degree, such member is automatically disqualified to
PERIOD TO FILE – Any time but not later than 120 days before
preserve the integrity of the ERB.
a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Upon
Every registered party and such organizations as may be approval, the Board, shall retrieve the registration records from
authorized by the Comelec shall be entitled to a watcher in every the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding
registration board. precinct book of voters.
Sec. 17 – Procedure for hearing of applications. REQUIREMENT: Local heads or representatives of political parties
shall be properly notified of the approved applications.
 Date of hearing posted in the city or municipal bulletin
board and EO office at least 1 week before date of hearing Sec. 29 – CANCELLATION – is a process wherein the Board
cancels the registration records of those who have died as
 If objected to, EO shall receive evidence. certified by the local civil registrar who shall submit each month a
Physical presence of applicant in this case is mandatory certified list of persons who died during the previous month to
to rebut evidence presented in opposition thereto the election officer of the place where the deceased is registered.
 If no objection to application, physical appearance not PETITION FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION. Remedies of
required and will be duly informed in writing persons whose application for reactivation, inclusion or correction
 Applications for registration shall be heard and has been disapproved or those who intend to exclude a voter
processed on a quarterly basis. Board shall convene on the 3 rd from the list of voters.
day of Monday of April, July, October and January of every Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 – Voters’
calendar year except in an election year to conform with the 120 inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of
days prohibitive period before election day. whether a voter shall be included in or excluded from the list of
Section. 21 – Publication of Action on Application for voters based on the qualifications required by law and the facts
Registration presented to show possession of these qualifications. As
distinguished from the procedure in certificate of candidacies
SECTION 12. Change of Residence to another City or (petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy)
on the other hand, the denial/cancellation proceedings involve registration record from the corresponding BV, enter the order of
the issue of whether there is a false representation of a material exclusion therein.
fact (Sec. 78).
Sec. 33 JURISDICTION – The Municipal and Metropolitan
Akbayan v. Comelec March 26, 2001 – The petition for
Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases of
exclusion is a necessary component to registration since it is a
inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or
safety mechanism that gives a measure of protection against
municipalities. (By express provision of Article IX-C, Section
flying voters, non-qualified registrants, and the like. The
2 (3) of the Constitution, the Comelec shall decide all
prohibitive period, on the other hand, serves as the purpose of
questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. This
securing the voters substantive right to be included in the list of
question is a justiciable issue which finds redress in the judiciary.
voters.
(Pungutan v. Comelec 43 SCRA 1 (1972).
The bone of contention of petitioners in this case in praying for a
Again – in Panlaqui vs. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 - It is not
2-day special registration of new voters for the May 14, 2001
within the province of the RTC in a voter’s
elections which was denied by the Comelec on account of
inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance of
operational impossibility, undermined their constitutional right to
and determine the presence of a false representation of a
vote and caused the disenfranchisement of around 4M Filipinos
material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of whether
of voting age who failed to register before the registration
the misrepresentation relates to material fact and whether there
deadline set by the Comelec.
was an intension to deceive the electorate in terms of one’s
qualifications for public office. The finding that Velasco was As ruled, the right of suffrage is not absolute, as in the
not qualified to vote due to lack of residency requirement enjoyment of all other rights, it is subject to existing substantive
does not translate into a finding of a deliberate attempt and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution,
to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would statute and other repositories of law.
otherwise render him ineligible.
Procedural limitation – must undergo the process of
WHERE TO APPEAL – Decisions of the Municipal or registration, in addition to the maximum requirements set by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party Constitution under Section 1, Article V, the act of registration
to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) from receipt of notice being an indispensable precondition and essential to the right of
thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and suffrage and election process. Referring to Section 8 of RA
executory. Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within ten 8189, the law is explicit that “no registration shall
(10) days from the time it is received and the Regional Trial Court however be conducted during the period starting 120
decision shall immediately become final and executory. No days before a regular election and 90 days before a
motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. special election.”
Domino v. Comelec 310 546 (1999). Except for the right to Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the hand speaks of the prohibitive
remain in the list of voters or for being excluded thereform for period within which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of
the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had voters from the permanent list of voters. Thus if the special
been held, a decision in an exclusion proceeding, even if final registration of voters will be conducted, then the prohibitive
and unappealable does not acquire the nature of res period for filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted
judicata. Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding to a later date, if not, then no one can challenge the voters list
would neither be conclusive on the voters political status, which is violative of the principles of due process and would open
nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be the registration process to abuse and seriously compromise the
registered as a voter in any other election. integrity of the voter’s list and that of the entire election.
Sec. 34 – Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the list – WHO (FROM JUSTIN: Sorry. I think there were some things mentioned
MAY FILE: any person whose application for registration – prior to the discussion of RA 8189 which I was not able to
record)
 Has been disapproved by the Board; or
 Whose name has been stricken out from the list;
Republic Act No. 9189
 Whose name was not included in the precinct list of
voters When we say Absentee Overseas Voter as defined under RA
9189 refers to the (1) citizens of the Philippines who is (2)
 Who has been included therein with a wrong or
qualified to register and vote under RA 9189, of course not
misspelled name (after the Board disapproves its application for
otherwise disqualified by law and is (3) residing abroad on the
reinstatement or correction of name) may file with the court.
day of election.
PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 105 days prior to a regular
So when we say, Absentee Voting, it refers to the process by
election or 75 days prior to a special election. The petition
which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their
should be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his
right to vote.
application and proof of service of notice upon the Board. MTC
shall decide within fifteen (15) days after its filing. We also have a Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters
(similar to the domestic voting which has a permanent list of
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list
voters who are in the Philippines) which refers to the list of
of voters, the Board shall place the application for registration
registered overseas absentee voters whose applications to vote
previously disapproved in the corresponding BV and indicate in
in absentia (Why in absentia? Because they are not voting in
the application for registration the date of the order of inclusion
their country, they are voting abroad) have been approved by the
and the court which issued the same.
Commission, said list to be prepared by the Committee on
Section 35 – Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the list Absentee Voting of the Commission, (Where?) on a country-by-
– WHO MAY FILE: any registered voter, representative of a country basis. This list shall be approved by the Commission in
political party or the Election Officer. an en banc resolution
PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 100 days prior to a regular When say Day of Election, it refers to the actual date of
election or 65 days prior to a special election. Supporting elections in the Philippines;
documents shall be proof of notice to the Board and to the
Other than the certified list of overseas absentee voters, RA 9189
challenged voter. MTC shall decide within ten (10) days.
also provides for National Registry of Absentee Voters which
If the decision is for exclusion, the Board, shall remove the voters refers to the consolidated list prepared, approved and maintained
by the Commission, of overseas absentee voters whose the same right of suffrage as granted to an absentee voter under
applications for registration as absentee voters, including those RA 9189 (What is the objective?) which aims to enfranchise as
registered voters who have applied to be certified as absentee much as possible all overseas Filipinos, who, save for the
voters, have been approved by the Election Registration Board residency requirement exacted of an ordinary conditions, are
qualified to vote as ruled in Makalintal vs. Comelec (405 SCRA
Section 5 provides for the Disqualifications. I will just hold you
614).
responsible for that. Just take note of Sec 5(d)
Take note of the case of Cordora v. Commission on Elections
(d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is
580 SCRA 12 (2009). The issue here is with respect to the
recognized as such in the host country because the
qualification or Tambunting. Cordora filed a disqualification case
recognition of permanent residence in another country implies
against Tambunting alleging that he failed to meet the residency
renunciation of one’s residence in his country of origin. However,
requirement because of Tambunting’s naturalization as an
the same law allows an immigrant or permanent resident to
American. (What was the posture of Cordora?) Cordora’s
register as a voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit
reasoning fails because Tambunting is not a naturalized
that he/she has not abandoned his/her domicile in pursuance to
American. Again the SC reiterated that Residency, for the
the constitutional intent expressed in Section 2, Article 5 that the
purpose of elections laws, includes the twin elements of the
Congress shall provide a system x x x for absentee voting by
fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to
qualified Filipinos abroad. Otherwise, if actual or physical
return there permanently, and is not dependent upon
residence in the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the
citizenship.
framers of the constitution to mandate the Congress to establish
a system for absentee voting. While they may be disqualified I will hold you responsible to read RA 9189. What I have given
under 9189, they may be qualified and this is the reason why the you are only the overview and the salient points. Now, let’s go to
affidavit is required. eligibility of candidates.
As held in Macalintal v COMELEC, ordinarily an absentee is not Under the phase of election, we have the pre-election phase and
a resident and vice versa. So one cannot be at the same time be this is another activity under the pre-election phase which is the
both a resident and an absentee. However, under our election filing of COC which involves eligibility of candidates, election
laws and the countless pronouncements of the court pertaining propaganda etc. This is part of the pre-election.
to election, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the
What are the basic qualifications for all elective offices
Philippines as residence is considered synonymous with domicile.
under the constitution as well as the LGC? Age, citizenship,
Section 6 provides How Overseas Absentee register. Just residence, registered voters and able to read and write.
read that.
What are common among all these offices? Voluntary
Under Section 7, as provided therein, the Commission shall renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
ensure that the benefits of the system of continuing considered an interruption to the continuity of the service for the
registration are extended to qualified overseas absentee full term for which they were elected. So that is a common
voters. (How is it done?) Towards this end, the Commission shall provision.
optimize the use of existing facilities, personnel and mechanisms
In addition is the provision of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive
of the various government agencies for purposes of data
Dangerous Drugs Act 2002 wherein Section 36 (g) provides
gathering, data validation, information dissemination and
that All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected
facilitation of the registration process.
both in the national or local government shall undergo a
The case of Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et. al. vs. Comelec (G.R. mandatory drug test. In conformity with this, Comelec issued
No. 162759, August 6, 2006) pertains to the Right of Suffrage of Resolution No. 6486 on 23 December 2003 implementing 9165.
“Duals” (Overseas Absentee Voters) under RA 9225. Petitioners Publication of the results will be published. But the resolution
are dual citizens having retained or reacquired Philippine does not indicate whether or not candidates who test positive for
Citizenship under RA 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and drugs will be allowed to assume office if they win.
Reacquisition Act of 2003. As such, they sought registration and
In the case of Bengzon III v HRET (367 SCRA 545), the SC
certification as overseas absentee voters under RA 9189 or the
also said that repatriation results to the recovery of
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, in order to vote in the
original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who
May 2004 elections. However, the Philippine embassy in the US
lost his Filipino Citizenship will be restored to his status as a
advised them that per Comelec letter dated September 23, 2003,
naturalized Filipino citizen. If he was a national born who lost his
they have yet no residence requirement as prescribed by the
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a
Constitution. Petitioners sought a clarification from the Comelec
national born Filipino.
which thereafter, expressed the opinion that dual citizens under
RA 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage under the
Overseas Absentee Voting Law because said law was not enacted
for them, hence, they are considered regular voters who have to Certificate of Candidacy
meet requirements of residency, among others. Under Sec 73 of OEC, it provides under what circumstance one
So, this case was brought before the SC and the issue is WON may be eligible to run for public office. Section 73, provides
Lewis et al who meanwhile retained or reacquired Philippine that a person may file a COC provided that “No person shall be
citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 may vote as absentee voter eligible for any elective office unless he files a sworn
under 9189. certificate of candidacy within the period fixed therein.”
So even if the candidate possesses all the qualifications for the
Let’s go back to Section 1 of Article V of the Philippine elective office concerned but as long as he did not filed his COC,
Constitution. It provides a prescribed residency requirement as he will not be eligible for any elective office.
a general eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other
hand, Section 2 thereof, authorizes congress to devise a system What is a COC? What is the essence of a COC? In the case
wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident of Sinaca v. Mula (315 SCRA 266), it is the nature of a formal
may, as an exception to the residency prescription in the manifestation to the whole world of the candidate’s political
preceding section, be allowed to vote. creed or lack of political creed.
There is no provision in the dual citizenship law (RA 9225), Section 73 (3) also provides for the Effect of filing multiple
requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically certificates of candidacy. “No person shall be eligible for
stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to more than one office to be filed in the same election, and
vote. On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement that if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one
“duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under Section 5(1) office, he shall not be eligible for any of them.” Is there

any remedy? The person may withdraw the COC before the running for the different position continue to serve until the
expiration of the period for the filing of COC and the person who expiration of their term, June 30 and the newly elected will
has filed more than one COC may declare under oath the office assume office on July 1.
for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of
In Sinaca v. Mula (315 SCRA 266), the SC said that the
candidacy for the other office or offices.
provision of the election law regarding certificates of
What is the effect? In the case of Pilar v. Comelec (245 candidacy, such as signing and swearing on the same, as well
SCRA 759), the SC said that the withdrawal of a certificate of as the information required to be stated therein, are
candidacy does not extinguish one’s liability for the considered mandatory prior to the elections. Thereafter,
administrative fine imposed by Section 14 of R.A. No. they are regarded as merely directory.
7166, which requires every candidate to file a true statement of
all contributions and expenditures in connection with the
elections. For example, a candidate files a COC and subsequently SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
withdraws but it is not multiple, the SC said that the
withdrawal per se does not extinguish one’s liability for Section 77 of BP 881 provides for the grounds when a
administrative fine. Assuming he did not comply with the candidate may be substituted. Section 77 provides that After
requirement that the candidate must file a statement of all the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official
contribution within 30 days from the date of the elections. All candidate of a registered or accredited political party (1) dies,
candidates are mandated, win or lose. The law still requires the (2) withdraws or is (3) disqualified for any cause, only a
candidate who withdrew to still comply with Sec 14 of RA 7166 person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party
and failure to comply can hold a candidate amenable for an may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who
administrative fine. First time, P50,000. Second time, an increase died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate
of fine and third, penalty is perpetual disqualification to run for nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate
public office. of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the
preceding sections not later than mid-day of the date of the
Before, failure to file statement carries a penal sanction. Failure election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification
to file a statement is criminal in nature. (Atty. Valencia sharing should occur between the day before the election and
her experience as former Election Officer. Chikaha na lang ninyo mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with the
siya about this!  ) board of election inspectors in the political subdivisions where he
is a candidate or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the
In Villanueva v. Comelec (122 SCRA 636), the SC said that the
entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy not made under
oath produces no legal effect; for all intents and purposes, In order for the substitute to be valid, it is required that the
the withdrawing candidate remains a candidate. COC must be valid. A valid certificate of candidacy is an
indispensable requisite in case of substitution of a
Where shall the affidavit be filed? In Go v. Comelec (357
disqualified candidate under Sec. 77. It is possible. For
SCRA 739), the SC said There is nothing that mandates that the
example, a COC was filed by A and petition for disqualification
affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where
was filed against for misrepresentation his COC. Subsequently, A
the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it
withdrew pending the disqualification case. So, he was
can be filed directly with the (1) main office of the
substituted by another. Subsequently, the COMELEC declared
COMELEC, (2) the office of the regional election
that A is disqualified because his COC was invalid. Automatically,
supervisor concerned, (3) the office of the provincial
the substitution is also invalid because there is no basis for the
election supervisor of the province to which the
substitution. The spring cannot rise above the board. Under said
municipality involved belongs, or (4) the office of the
provision, the candidate who dies, withdraws or is
municipal election officer of the said municipality.
disqualified must be an official candidate of a registered
or accredited political party and the substitute candidate
must be of the same political party as the original
EFFECTS OF FILING A COC
candidate and must be duly nominated as such by the
What is the effect of the filing of COC? It is provided under political party.
Section 66 & Section 67 of OEC. Sec. 66 pertains to an
In the case of Rulloda vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 154198), the
appointive official. An appointive official is considered
SC said the absence of a specific provision governing
resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of
substitution of candidates in barangay elections cannot
candidacy and the forfeiture is automatic because the
be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution.
operative act is the moment of filing which shall render
Such a restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where
the appointive official resigned. This has in reference to
the same is not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow
Nicolasora v. CSC and PNOC v. NLRC (May 31, 1993). Sec. 66
substitution of candidates where no political parties are involved
is also applicable also to GOCC and can constitute as a just cause
than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a
for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in
fact that must have been subsumed by law.
the Labor Code.
Sec. 67 refers to an elective official. Prior to amendment,
Section 67 provides running for a position other than the RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
In the case of Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea
President and Vice-President, is deemed resigned upon
(670 SCRA 664) where a petition for disqualification was filed
the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Example is when a
because there was no bona fide intention for the candidate to
mayor files COC for the position of Congressman. Upon the filing
stay because he was just renting a house because of residency
of COC, under Section 67 he is deemed resigned because he is
require animus manendi or intention to stay without the intention
running for a position other than the office he is currently
of going back to the former place of residence. The SC said that
holding. But if the mayor will file a COC for president or vice
it is not required that a candidate should his own house
president, he is not deemed resigned.
in order to establish his residence or domicile in a place.
However, Section 67 has been repealed by Section 14 of It is enough that he should live in the locality even in a rented
RA 9006 (The Fair Elections Law) where it provides that a house or that of a friend or relative. What is of central concern
candidate holding an elective position whether national or local then is that the person identified and established a place in the
running for office other than the one he is holding in a said City where he intended to live in and return to for an
permanent capacity is considered resigned only upon the indefinite period of time. Otherwise, if the candidate is required
expiration of his term. If you will note, councilors or senators
to purchase a house, property will now be a requirement for ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE CANDIDACY OF A CANDIDATE
candidacy which the law does not provide. OR DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE
In the case of Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio What are to actions to challenge the candidacy of a
Gonzales and Orlando Balbon, Jr. wherein the SC said that in candidate or disqualify a candidate? We have Section 12
considering the residency issue, the dwelling where a person and 68 under OEC and 69 under Local Government Code.
permanently intends to return to and to remain – his or her
Section 12 of the 0EC provides (1) any person who has been
capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack
declared by competent authority insane or incompetent (when
of it, IS IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion
we say incompetence, the same may refer not only to mental
when it determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s
illness, disease or physical disability but also to other causes
residence based solely on very personal and subjective
which may include minority or lack of residence requirement);
assessment standards when the law is replete with standards
(2) any person who has been sentenced by final judgment
that can be used. Comelec used wrong considerations in arriving
for subversion, insurrection, rebellion ; (3) for any offense
at the conclusion that Mitra’s residence is not the residence
for which carries a penalty of more than 18 months; (4) for a
contemplated by law.
crime involving moral turpitude.
Again, in Cordora v. Commission on Elections, the fact that a
candidate has dual citizenship prior to his filing of COC does not
disqualify him from running for public office. How can this be removed? The disqualification is removed by
plenary pardon or granted amnesty; (2) upon declaration
In the case of Coquilla vs. Comelec (385 SCRA 607),
by a competent authority that said insanity or incompetence
Coquilla was a former Filipino citizen. The SC said that A
had been removed; (3) expiration of a period of 5 years
former Filipino citizen (not having the status of an alien resident)
from his service of sentence unless of course within the same
cannot be considered a resident of the Philippines and in the
period he again becomes disqualified.
locality he intends to be elected prior to his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship. The “term residence” is to be Sec. 68 enumerates several grounds. I will hold you responsible
understood NOT in its common acceptation as referring to read the other grounds but basically, it provides (1) those
to “dwelling” or “habitation”, but rather to “domicile” or guilty of giving money or material consideration to
legal residence, that is, “the place where the party influence, induce or corrupt voters or public official performing
actually or constructively has his permanent home, electoral functions. There is this disqualification case against
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given Binay before because he dispensed money to BEI but this was
time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus dismissed because of lack of evidence ; (2) those who have
manendi)”. A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at committed terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (3) those who
birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside and have spent in the election campaign more than that
continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new required by law. Only Php10/RV for national offices and
domicile (by choice.) Php5.00/RV for local officials but this is breached than more
complied with.
Also in the case of Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec (248 SCRA
30), the SC said that “it is the fact of residence, not a Section 68 deals with a petition to disqualify a candidate for
statement in the certificate of candidacy which ought to be other violations of the election code as specified in said section,
decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied and against a candidate who is a permanent resident or
the constitutions residency qualification requirement. The said immigrant of a foreign country. That section does not specify a
statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be period within which to file the petition.
a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which
would otherwise render the candidate ineligible. In Codilla vs. De Venecia (393 SCRA 634), it was held that the
power of Comelec to disqualify candidates is limited to the
In Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 640, this refers to the enumerations mentioned in Section 68 of the OEC. What are
qualifications of Rodolfo Aguinaldo who was the former governor the elements to be proved? (1) The candidate, personally or
of Cagayan whose residency was at issue when he filed his through his instructions, must have given money or other
certificate of candidacy as member of the HR for the 3rd district material consideration and; (2) the act of giving material
of Cagayan in the 11 May 1998 elections. The Court reiterated consideration or money should be for the purpose of influencing,
the meaning of residence as “the place where the party actually inducing or corrupting the voters or public officials performing
or constructively has his permanent home” where he, no matter electoral functions.
where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to
return and remain, while domicile, is that to which the So when the candidate is not yet disqualified by final judgment
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purpose of on the Election Day and was voted for, the votes cast in his
election law. And, the fact that a person is a RV in one favour cannot be considered stray because there is no yet a
district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another decision. In this case, there was already a petition filed before
district, because one can be a registered voter in Davao which HRET. The SC said the HRET has no jurisdiction to review
is your residence but you are domiciled somewhere else. decision or resolution of COMELEC whether issued by the division
or en banc. So there was a decision of COMELEC which was
In Torayno Sr., vs. Comelec (337 SCRA 574), this pertains to reviewed by HRET. So HRET was rendered to have exceeded
the residence qualification of Vicente Emano who filed his jurisdiction. The remedy of the party is to file a petition for
certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro. The court certiorari before the Supreme Court. It is not the HRET which will
explained that the purpose of the residence as required by review the decision of the COMELEC.
Constitution and the law as a qualification for seeking and
holding public office, is to give candidates the opportunity Section 69 is a Petition to Abate a Nuisance Candidate.
to be familiar with the needs, difficulties and aspiration, The Comelec, may motu propio or upon verified petition of an
potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a
of their constituencies. On the part of the electorate, to certificate of candidacy if it is shown that it is filed in
evaluate the candidate’s qualification s and fitness for contemplation of a nuisance candidate or cancel the same if
the job they aspire for. In this case Emano, cannot be already filed. This is an exception to the ministerial duty of the
deemed to be a stranger or newcomer when he ran for and was Comelec and its officers to receive a certificate of candidacy
overwhelmingly voted as city mayor having garnered a margin of under Section 67 of the OEC. When you say ministerial, it does
30K votes. not involve an exercise of discretion. The COMELEC is not
mandated to exercise discretion; it is a ministerial duty for them
to receive it as long as it is in accordance with OEC.

Who is a nuisance candidate? (1) One who files his the said certificate that is false. The petitions also have different
certificate to put the election process in mockery or disrepute; effects. While a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is
(2) contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the similarity merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person whose
of surnames of two (2) candidates may generate. (Why? In the certificate is cancelled or denied due course under Section 78 is
appreciation of ballots, when two candidates with the same not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC.
name or surname and only the name or surname is written, will Kaya invalid anf candidacy nya and substitution is never allowed.
be considered stray vote and will not be counted for either of the For example, a candidate was under Section 78
candidate unless one of the candidate with the same name or disqualified. Can the candidate be substituted in
surname is an incumbent – he enjoys the equity of the lieu of the disqualification? The SC said that he cannot be
incumbent rule) (But under AES, there is no longer any substituted because the COC itself based on the disqualification
appreciation of ballots because the names of the candidates are under Section 78 (the candidate) cannot be considered a
already printed); (3) by other circumstances or acts which candidate. Thus in Miranda v. Abaya, this Court made the
clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bonafide intention distinction that a candidate who is disqualified under Section 68
to run for office, thus would prevent the faithful determination of can validly be substituted under Section 77, but a person whose
the true will of the people. CoC has been denied due course or cancelled under Section 78
cannot be substituted because he/she is never considered a
In the case of Martinez III v HRET (610 SCRA 56), the SC said
candidate. Why? Because he/she is never considered a
proceedings in the case of nuisance candidates require prompt
candidate. This was the same ruling in Fermin v. Comelec (574
disposition. The declaration of the duly registered candidate as
SCRA 782)
nuisance candidate results to the cancellation of COC. So, it is
invalid and therefore cannot be subject to substitution.
That is section 69. Section 68 is another action which you can In the case of Munder vs. Comelec (659 SCRA 254), the SC
use to challenge the candidacy of another candidate or a ground said that the Jurisprudence has clearly established the doctrine
to file a petition to disqualify a candidate. If you say section 69, it that a petition for disqualification and a petition to deny
is a petition to disqualify but to abate a nuisance candidate. due course to or to cancel a certificate of candidacy, are
two distinct remedies to prevent a candidate from
Section 78 is Petition to Deny due Course or to Cancel a
entering an electoral race. Both remedies prescribe distinct
Certificate of Candidacy. It is a verified petition seeking to
period to file the corresponding petition, on which the jurisdiction
deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be
of the Commission on Elections over the case is dependent. This
filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material
is the latest ruling now because in a petition for DQ nagkakagulo
representation contained therein as required under Section 74
as to the interpretation based on this ground and in Section 78
(contents of the COC) of the OEC is false.
because of course, as declared by the SC, the intent would be
When should it be filed? The petition may be filed at any time different and the periods are also different. So in the Munder
not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the certificate case, what happened here was that Munder filed a COC as mayor
of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, of Bubong(?), Lanao Del Sur on November 2009. On the last day
not later than 15 days before election. So take note in Section for filing of COC which , under COMELEC Resolution 8698, a
68, the law does not provide for a period within which to file a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC must be filed
petition for disqualification under Section 68 with the grounds within 5 days from last day of filing but not later than 25 days
therein enumerated because sometimes you cannot gather after filing. Atty. Samit here filed a COC for the same position and
evidences within the 25 day period. If you give money to on April 2010 filed a petition for DQ with COMELEC on the
influence or to induce the public officials or voters to enhance ground that Munder is not a RV of Bubong. X X X Atty. Samit
your candidacy under Section, usually you cannot gather that alleged that the Munder on record is not Munder who was
evidence within that period. However, Section 78 petition running for mayor so he filed this petition for DQ saying that he
requires that the petition to deny due course or to cancel a COC made misrepresentation. I want you to read this case because
should be filed at any time but not later not later than 25 days there are certain implications here with respect to Section 78.
from the filing of the COC.
In the case naman of Fernando V. Gonzalez vs. Comelec, et.
So, who may file? Any person via a verified petition al. (644 SCRA 761), the SC said that In order to justify the
cancellation of CoC, it is essential that the false representation
On what ground? On the ground that the candidate made mentioned therein pertain to a material matter for the sanction
material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. Section imposed by Section 78 would affect the substantive rights of the
78 deals “exclusively” with a petition to deny due course to a candidate (which is what?) the right to run for the elective post
COC on the ground that a material representation in the contents for which he filed the CoC. How is this material
of the certificate under Sec. 74, is false. interpretation interpreted? Material representation refers to
What does it refer to? It refers to a candidate’s eligibility or qualifications for elective office which was interpreted to refer to
qualification such as citizenship, residence or status as a statements regarding (what?) age, residence and citizenship or
registered voter. Take not also of Maruhom vs. Comelec (594 non-possession of natural-born Filipino status; So aside from the
SCRA 108). requirement of materiality, the false representation must consist
of a (what?) deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a
Who has jurisdiction over a petition to deny due course fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible; So it
to a COC? The Comelec sitting in a division because this is a must be made with the intention to deceive the electorate as to
regular process wherein the case is taken cognizance by a one’s qualification for public office. The SC reiterated its ruling in
division and because a petition for disqualification is not Salcedo II v. Comelec (312 SCRA 447) because the marriage
enumerated in what may be filed directly, taken cognizance of of Salcedo was annulled but she was still using her married
COMELEC en banc. Only those failure of election and name. She did not revert to her maiden name and a petition for
interlocutory order of a division which the division unanimously DQ was filed, but there was no intent to mislead or misinform. So
referred to COMELEC en banc etc. So, petition to deny due the SC upheld since there was no misinformation because you
course is first taken cognizance by a division and motion for can always use the name of your husband. In fact, you don’t
reconsideration is filed with the COMELEC en banc. really have to use the name of your husband diba girls under
In the case of Sergio G. Amora, Jr. vs. Comelec and Arnielo Civil Code? Naging tradition lang natin yon na gamitin ang family
S. Olandria (640 SCRA 473), the SC here emphasized that a name ng husband natin but there is no, we need not use if we
petition for disqualification on the one hand, can be premised on like because there is some that don’t use. Nakalagay lang ng
Section 12 and 68 of the OEC, or Section 40 of the LGC. On the married to. But since you love your husband and lalo na if your
other hand, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC can husband is popular and your husband’s name is known sa
only be grounded on a statement of a material representation in community, syempre. Probably, this is what happened with
Salcedo because she is known as the wife of her husband even if What is the Procedure in filing Motion to Suspend
their marriage has been annulled. So the SC said that the DQ Proclamation? The suspension of proclamation of a winning
was dismissed because there was no false representation and no candidate is not a matter which the Comelec Second Division can
attempt shown that she intends to mislead the public. This is dispose of motu propio. Section 6 of RA No. 6646 requires that
where the SC added, other than the material misrepresentation, the suspension must be upon motion by the complainant or any
it must be coupled with a deliberate attempt to mislead, intervenor.
misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render a
Second Placer Rule: Can the person who garnered the 2nd
candidate ineligible.
highest number of votes be proclaimed? It is well-settled
In the same case, the SC said that there are two remedies that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does
available for questioning the qualifications of the not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest
candidate: Distinction between the two proceedings under number of votes to be declared elected.
Section 78 and Section 253 under B.P. 881, thereof. (1) Before
In the case of Ashary M. Alauya (Clerk of Court, Shari’a
elections under Section 78 which is petition to deny due course
District Court, Marawi City vs. Judge Casan Ali L. Limbona
to or cancel a COC (2) After elections under Section 253, a
(646 SCRA 1), the SC defined what a Partisan political activity.
petition for quo warranto. The only difference between the two
The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a partisan political
proceedings is that, under Section 78, the qualifications for
activity as the candidate thereby offers himself to the electorate
elective office are misrepresented in the certificate of candidacy
for an elective post. “No officer or employee in the civil service
and the proceedings must be initiated before the elections,
shall engage directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or
whereas a petition for QW under Section 253 may be brought on
partisan political campaign.” The act of the Judge in filing a
the basis of two grounds – (1) ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to the
certificate of candidacy as a party-list representative in the May
Republic of the Philippines, and must be initiated within 10 days
1998 elections without giving up his judicial post violated not
after proclamation of the election results. Under Section 253, a
only the law, but also the constitutional mandate. So you read
candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to office,
this case because the judge said nominee lang man sya. He did
and he is disqualified if he lacks any of the qualification for
not file a COC, it was the party list. This was the ruling of the
election office.
court there.
Clearly class, the ONLY INSTANCE where a petition questioning
the qualifications of a candidate for elective office can be filed
before election is when the petition is filed under Section 78 of In the case of Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis
the OEC. It cannot be based on Section 68 or 12. Bautista/Robelito Picar/Wilma Pagaduan (678 SCRA 267),
this reiterated the ruling where the party fails to file petition
The Period for filing a petition under Section 78 as held In
under Section 78, what is its remedy after the prescribed period?
Loong v. Comelec (216 SCRA 760), the Court categorically
Remedy of a person who fails to file the petition to disqualify a
declared that the period for filing a petition for cancellation of
certain candidate within the twenty-five (25)-day period
candidacy based on false representation is covered by Rule 23
prescribed by Section 78 of the OEC is to file a petition for QW
and NOT Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition at any time after
within 10 days from proclamation of the results of the election as
the last day for filing of CoC’s but not later than the date of
provided under Section 253 of the OEC.
proclamation, is merely a procedural rule that cannot supersede
Section 78 of the OEC. X X X Renunciation of foreign citizenship to be valid under Section 5(2)
of RA 9225 – What is required of duals to run for public
A petition filed under Section 78 must not be interchanged or
office? The SC said that the language of Section 5(2) of RA
confused with one filed under Section 68 – In Fermin v. Comelec
9225 is free from any ambiguity. In Lopez v. Comelec (559
(574 SCRA 782), the Court stressed that a petition which is
SCRA 696), the Court declared it ‘s categorical and single
properly a “Section 78 petition” must therefore be filed within the
meaning: a Filipino American or any dual citizen cannot run fo
period prescribed therein, and a procedural rules subsequently
any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she
issued by Comelec cannot supplant this statutory period under
personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at
Section 78.
the time of filing the CoC. The Court also expounded on the form
What happens once a candidate is proclaimed, taken of the renunciation and held that to be valid, the renunciation
oath and assumed office? Who has jurisdiction? Once a must be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer
winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath and of the law who is authorized to administer an oath stating in
assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is renouncing foreign
the jurisdiction of the Comelec over election contests relating to citizenship.
his election, returns and qualifications ENDS and the HRET own
X X X Atty. Valencia enumerating case assignments for for next
jurisdiction BEGINS.
meeting X X X
In Perez v. Comelec (317 SCRA 641), the Court does not have
jurisdiction to pass upon the eligibility of the private respondent
who was already a Member of the HR at the time of the filing of Sept. 2, 2013
the petition for certiorari – considering that by statutory provision
(Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and Imelda Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy with the
qualifications of the members of the HR. Provincial Election Supervisor on March 8, 1995. On March 23,
What is the effect of a DQ case? If for example, there is now 1995, Cirilio Motejo, the incumbent Representative of the 1st
a decision before the date of election but a candidate is DQ, what District of Leyte and a candidate for the same position, filed a
is now the effect of the order of DQ which has become final and Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the COMELEC
executory? The votes in favour of DQ will be considered a stray alleging that Marcos did not meet the constitutional requirement
vote. If however, the DQ case has not been decided after for residency.
election and the candidate subject of DQ case garnered the On March 29, 1996, petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected COC,
highest number of votes, can he be proclaimed? Yes because changing the entry “7 months” to “since childhood,” which was
there is no decision yet in the DQ case. But what is the remedy denied by the COMELEC for failing to title on time.
of the person seeking the DQ of the candidate? Can he move to
suspend the proclamation? The party who filed for DQ can now On April 24, 1995, the 2nd Division of the COMELEC, by a vote of
move for the suspension of the proclamation of the candidate 2-1, came up with a Resolution finding Marcos’s Petition for
subject of DQ case only on the ground if the evidence of guilt is Disqualification meritorious. For one to acquire a new domicile,
strong. the 3 requisites must concur:

a. a residence or bodily presence in the new locality; Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be
disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him
b. intention to abandon the old domicile; and
shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate
c. intention to remain in the new domicile. is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number
When Marcos chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, of votes in such election, his violation of the provisions of the
coupled with her intention to stay there by registering as a voter preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and
there and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that place, assumption to office.
she is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she
spent her childhood and school days, as her place of domicile.
A MFR was filed by Marcos but was denied by the COMELEC. On Different Scenarios
May11, 1995, the COMELEC issued a Resolution allowing
1. A candidate has been declared disqualified by final judgment
Marcos’s proclamation should the results of the canvass show
not later than 7 days before the election –
that she obtained the highest number of votes in the
congressional elections in the 1st District of Leyte. On the same  Said candidate shall not be voted for;
day, however, the COMELEC reversed the resolution and issued a  If votes were casted for the said candidate, the said
2nd resolution directing that the proclamation of the petitioner be votes shall not be counted.
suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of
votes.
2. A candidate is not declared disqualified by final judgment
The canvass of the election showed that Marcos obtained the before an election –
highest number of votes. On account of the Resolutions
 Votes received by the said candidate shall be considered
disqualifying Marcos from running for the congressional seat of
and in case he/she wins, he/she shall not be prevented from
the First District of Leyte and Montejo’s Resolution suspending
assuming office.
her proclamation, Marcos comes to this court for relief.
NOTE: The reckoning point of the decision is the Election Day.
Issue: WON Marcos was a resident of the 1st District of Leyte,
for election purposes, for a period of one year at the time of the :: If a decision to disqualify a candidate becomes final and
May 9, 1995 elections. executory BEFORE the day of the election, then the votes cast for
the said candidate shall not be counted. It shall be considered a
Held: While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the
stray vote but it will not invalidate the ballot.
general proposition that for the purposes of election law,
residence is synonymous with domicile, the Resolution reveals a :: If there no decision or resolution has been reached before the
tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for elections. The votes received by the candidate with a pending
actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of disqualification case will be counted in his/her favor. If the
determining a candidate’s qualifications for election to the House candidate garners the highest number of votes, he shall then be
of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. proclaimed as the winner.
Domicile includes the twin elements of:
1. The fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed What then is the remedy of the aggrieved party if the
place; candidate with a pending disqualification case wins the
2. Animus manendi or the intention of returning there election?
permanently.
Sec. 6, RA 6646 amending Sec. 72, OEC provides:
We have stated, many times in the past, that an individual does
not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained Sec 6, RA 6646 – Any candidate who has been declared by final
residences in different places. What is inescapable is that Marcos judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes
held various residences for different purposes during the past cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate
four decades. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an not declared by final judgment before an election to be
intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number
of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall
The SC likewise ruled that it is the fact of residence not a continue with the trial and hearing of the of the action
statement in the COC, which ought to be decisive in inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant
determining whether an individual has satisfied the or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof
constitution’s residency qualification requirement. The order the suspension of the proclamation of such
said statement (in the COC) becomes material only when candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render Atty. Valencia: Prior to the proclamation, the complainant may
the candidate ineligible. file a Petition for Suspension with the Commission but the
complainant or intervenor must show proof that the evidence of
NOTE: Most probably, in this case, it is more of a petition to guilt against the candidate sought to be disqualified is strong. So
cancel the COC because of lack of qualification not because of it is with the Commission, because if you look at the rules, the
false representation under Section 78. Commission has jurisdiction (administrative supervision) over the
manner the canvassing is undertaken. If there is already a
Fernando Gonzales Case: Section 78 can be used as basis to
proclamation, this (Sec 6, RA 6646) shall no longer serve.
disqualify before election, but after election the proper action
would be a petition for quo warranto on the ground of ineligibility
as the candidate lacks the basic requirement as to age, residence
and citizenship. EFFECTS OF THE FILING OF A CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY
Sec. 66, OEC. Candidates holding appointive office or
EFFECT OF A DISQULIFICATION CASES positions – Any person holding a public appointive office or
position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the
Sec. 72, OEC – The Commission and the Courts shall give
Philippines, and officers and employees in the GOCCs, shall be
priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of
Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later
his certificate of candidacy
than 7 days before the election in which disqualification is
sought. :: Who are considered appointive officials? Cabinet Secretaries or
those appointed by the President or even by the appointed If disqualification case is based on the grounds that the
authority who is with the Government. candidate is Not a natural born, have not met residency
requirement, or his age, even if that candidate won, the vox
Sec. 67, OEC. Candidates holding elective office – Any
populi principle cannot cure that irregularity. His election is
elective official, whether national, local, running for any office
invalid.
other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity,
except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso In Miranda vs Navara, a candidate who is DQed under 68 can
facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of be validly substituted. But if denied due course under 78 cannot
candidacy. be substituted.
NOTE: Sec. 67, OEC has already been repealed by Sec. 11, RA Sec. 72 of the OEC and Section 6 of 6646 states: “any candidate
8436. who been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voter for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If
Sec. 11, RA 8436 – Any elective official, whether national or
for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
local, running for any office other than the one which he/she is
before an election to be disqualified and is voted for and received
holding in a permanent capacity, except for President or Vice-
the winning number of votes in such election, the Comelec shall
President, shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the
continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or
campaign period corresponding to the position for which he/she
protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor,
is running.
may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
NOTE: Sec. 11, RA 8436 is further amended by RA 9006 proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is
strong.”
Sec. 14, RA 9006. Repealing Clause – Sections 67 and 85 of
the OEC and Sections 10 and 11 or RA 8436, are hereby Jurisprudence shows that the fling of disqualification, kung
repealed. As a consequence, the 1st provision of the 3rd nagkakagulo, if reglementary period is not followed, like after
paragraph of Sec 11 of RA 8436 is rendered ineffective. deadline after COC but not after proclamation falls under sec. 40
of LGU.
:: Elective officials are considered resigned only upon the
expiration of their terms (based on a COMELEC decision). Pertaining to 78, it is essential, that the misrepresentation must
be material. Again it is important that it is material, refers to
substantive qualification. Like age, residence, citizenship or non
Sept. 9, 2013 possession of natural born citizenship. It must consist a
deliberate attempt to misinform the public of which would
In the Disqualification cases, the votes in favor of a candidate otherwise mislead the public. There must be proof of the
subject to a disqualification, maybe counted and will be counted. intention to deceive. In morales vs comelec, there are two
The complainant, upon his motion, or any information, may remedies to challenge the qualification of candidate, one is 78. If
suspend the proclamation provided the evidence of guilt of not filed within the reglementary period, complainant can still file
candidate is strong. In the case of Perez vs Comelec, the petition for quo warranto within 10 days from proclamation. In
suspension of proclamation is not a matter that can be disposed labo vs comelec, citizenship is contintuing requirement, if during
motu proprio. The law requires that the complaint be filed, and his term he loses this qualification, thus the qualification can still
does not vest the comelec the power to motu proprio suspend be challenged even thught not filed within 10 days from
the proclamation. procalamtion. The only instance that a disqualification case be
filed during election is under sec. 78 of omnbus election code.
In Cella vs Amora, the Supreme court made a distinction The reglementary period in 78 and 68 must not be interchanged.
between a disqualication case of sec 12 and sec 68 vis a vis a
petition to deny due course. In the case of Alayua vs Judge****. This case pertains to
partisan political activity. The supreme court held that being a
In the case of Fernando, under section 78, a petition to deny member of judiciary, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy is
due course of the ground, base only the ground that the considered a partisan political activity.
candidate made a false representation in Certificate of
candidiacy. In case of Hernandez vs comlec, SC said that there Any volunteer for Lopez vs comelec?
are two available remedies to question the qualification of a DATU: This case assails the (1) Resolution and (2) Omnibus
candidate, section 68 and section 78. Before and prior to date of Order of theCommission on Elections(COMELEC), Second
election, in order to challenge, on ground of qualification under Division, disqualifying petitioner from running as Barangay
68, it is required that it must be filed within 25 days. For Chairman. Petitioner Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez was a candidate
nuisance candidate, within 5 days from the last day of filing COC. for the position of Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, SanDionisio,
Under sec. 12, it should be five days from the filing of COC. Sec. IloiloCity in the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang
78 requires that the reglemantary period of filing disqualification Kabataan Elections held on October 29,2007.On October 25,
based on sec. 78 petition must be filed within 25 days from filing 2007, respondent Tessie P. Villanueva filed a petition before the
of COC. You can use sec. 12 or section 68 for disqualification. Provincial ElectionSupervisor of the Province of Iloilo, praying for
Sec. 12 deals with incompetency of candidate, rebellion and the disqualification of petitioner on the ground that he is
others. Sec. 68, on grounds of giving money to influence his anAmerican citizen, hence, ineligible from running for any public
candidacy like giving monetary considerations to win in the office. In his Answer, petitioner argued thathe is a dual citizen, a
election and spending more than which is allowable by law for Filipino and at the same time an American, by virtue of Republic
electoral expenditures. It could be under sec. 40 of Local Act (R.A.) No. 9225,otherwise known as theCitizenship Retention
Government Code like violations of 3 term limit rule. In sec. 78, and Re- acquisition Act of 2003.
the petition to deny due course can only be grounded on
statement of material misrepresentation in certificate of He returned to the Philippinesand resided in Barangay Bagacay.
candidacy. Thus, he said, he possessed all the qualifications to run for
BarangayChairman.After the votes for Barangay Chairman were
The EFFECTS are different also. canvassed, petitioner emerged as the winner.On February 6,
In section 68, it provides that the candidate is merely prohibited 2008, COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution granting the
to continue as candidate. He is disqualified because he is found petition for disqualification.
of giving money. He can be substituted, but does not render his The issue in this case is Whether or not petitioner’s filing of a
COC invalid. certificate of candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of
Under section 78, his candidacy is cancelled, he is not treated at foreign citizenship. The supreme court held that R.A. No. 9225
all as candidate, as if he never filed COC. His ceritificate is expressly provides for the conditions before those who re-
invalid. acquired Filipino citizenshipmay run for a public office in
the Philippines. Section 5 of the said law states: Section 5. There was no clear ruling on the instance of Rodriguez because
COMELEC never made a determination as to his status as a
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this
fugitive from justice
Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all
attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:
Sept. 16, 2013
Those seeking elective public office in thePhilippines shall meet
So we have already discussed the issues based on Section 12 of
the qualification for holding suchpublic office as required by the
the OEC, Section 68 (disqualification) with respect to enhancing
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
the candidacy of the candidate and those enumerated therein,
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation
section 69 with respect to nuisance candidate. Section 78
of any and all foreign citizenship before anypublic officer
(petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
authorized to administer an oath. Petitioner re-acquired his
candidacy) and the period within which the petition for
Filipino citizenship under the cited law. This new law explicitly
disqualification should be filed. We also discussed the effect of a
provides that should one seek elective public office, he should
disqualification case decided before election. There are two
first "make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
scenarios under Sec 72 (Effects of disqualification cases and
allforeign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
priority) wherein petition for disqualification was filed but there is
administer an oath. "Petitioner failed to comply with this
no resolution yet before the date of the election. The decision of
requirement. We quote with approval the COMELEC observation
the Comelec is after the election. And what are the effects? The
on this point: While respondent was able to regain his Filipino
matter with respect to who may file a suspension for the
Citizenship by virtue of the DualCitizenship Law when he took his
proclamation of candidate subject of a disqualification case. We
oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul of the
also discussed Section 77 (Candidates in case of death,
PhilippineConsulate General's Office in Los Angeles,California,
disqualification or withdrawal of another) under what
thesame is not enough to allow him to run for a public office.
circumstances substitution may be made wherein the candidate
The above-quoted provision of law mandates that acandidate
dies, withdraws or has been disqualified? And the remedy
with dual citizenship must make a personal and sworn
available to a Political party in his favour substitution is granted.
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
Within what period the substitute candidate file a CoC? We also
You take note class under 9225 for purpose of exercise votes, it discussed the twin requirements for dual citizen under section 2
requires that citizen has to execute an affidavit of returning to and 3 of RA 9225 (Retention Citizen Act). One has to execute an
Philippines. If candidate is required to fil a sworn statement oath of allegiance, with respect with those who intends to vote,
renunciatiing his other citizenship, but for purpose ox exercising to exercise the right to vote as a dual citizen. At the same time if
just the right to vote, only affidavit is needed. But if that person a citizen intends to run for public office, the requirement of the
also intends to run, he must make a sworn statement also in law is a sworn statement that he is renouncing all foreign
order for him to be eligible to run for public office, pus the citizenship. Based on the wording of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 9225
affidavit whsich is executed before an authorized public officer. the twin requirement of oath of allegiance and renunciation of
office pertains to those who had been naturalized as a citizen of
Another ground to challenge a candidate is under 40 of LGU for
another country. But if a natural born has not been naturalized in
offenses convicted by final judgement, offenses involving moral
another country, there is no need for that person to execute a
utpitude and offense unishable for one year and more. This
sworn statement renouncing (this is the case of Cordova vs.
provision is now superceded by RA 8189.
Comelec).
JUSTIN: In Marquez vs Comelec
Now, Another ground that can serve as the basis is the provision
Marquez and Rodriguez were candidates contending the postition under the LGC, Sec 39 of the LGC provides for the qualification of
for Governor of the province of Quezon. Rodriguez won, and this local elective office and section 40 provides for the grounds
prompted Marquez to file quo warranto proceedings against within which to challenge the candidacy of a candidate.
Rodriguez for being disqualified as a candidate because he is a
Section 39. Qualifications. -
“fugitive from justice”, which is against Sec. 40(e) of the Local
Government Code. Rodriguez was charged in Los Angeles, (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a
California for 10 counts of insurance fraud and grand theft of registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province
personal property. Because of this, he was issued a warrant, or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
which remained unserved because he already went to the sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district
Philippines then. COMELEC denied the petition for quo warranto, where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least
hence, an action for certiorari was brought to the Supreme Court. one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and
able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or
Issue: Whether or not Rodriquez is fugitive of Justice and the
dialect.
question of What is the definition of “fugitive from justice” that
should be followed? (b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor, or
member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, or mayor, vice-mayor
or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized
Ruling: Marquez and the OSG argues that a fugitive from justice cities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election
includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid day.
punishment but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to
(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of
avoid prosecution. Since this definition is supported by foreign
independent component cities, component cities, or
jurisprudence (and the Philippine Law Dictionary), it was
municipalities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on
conceded by the Court as to expressing the general and ordinary
election day.
connotation of the term.
(d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang
Rodriguez, on the other hand, cites the Congressional Oversight
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan must be at least eighteen (18)
Committee who drafted the IRR for the Local Government Code.
years of age on election day.
In the deliberations, it could be seen that there was confusion as
to the implications of defining what a fugitive from justice really (e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member
is. There was a pronouncement from the Chairman that fugitive of the sangguniang barangay must be at least eighteen (18)
means somebody who is convicted by final judgment, and this years of age on election day.
was adapted verbatim in Art. 73 of the IRR.
(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least
The Court believed that the IRR was an undue circumscription of fifteen (15) years of age but not more than twenty-one (21)
the law, and that the clear definition should apply. years of age on election day.
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are if it involves a criminal offense that is separately treated. What
disqualified from running for any elective local position: we are discussing here is an administrative case.
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving In the case of Reyes, he was a member of the Sangguniang
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or Panlalawigan. But he was removed by virtue of an administrative
more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving charge prior to the expiration of his term. However he was
sentence; saying that he did not receive the resolution removing him
pursuant to the administrative complaint against him. The reason
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative
why is ayaw niya tanggapin, he does not want to receive the
case;
resolution. So the Sanggunian mail the resolution because he
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of does not want to receive it personally even through his secretary.
allegiance to the Republic; The resolution dismissing him was sent through mail. The court
made basis on the period within which (under the Rules of Court)
(d) Those with dual citizenship; when is a pleading deemed to have been received. He is deemed
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or to have received the resolution 5 days following the date of the
abroad; mailing of the letter. The ground for disqualification for having
been removed by virtue of an administrative charge can be filed
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have against Reyes because that is an administrative function.
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the
same right after the effectivity of this Code; and (d) Those with dual citizenship;
(g) The insane or feeble-minded. In the cases of Mercado vs. Manzano, Aznar vs. Comelec,
Valles vs. Comelec. The rulings of the SC in the cases are the
So we already discussed the “fugitive from justice.” Who are same.
considered fugitives from justice? Which was the case of Marquez
Jr. v. Comelec and Rodriguez wherein the SC said, a candidate In the case of Mercado, a petition for disqualification is filed
cannot be considered as a fugitive from justice if he was not against him because he had dual citizenship. When he filed his
aware of the case filed against him when he was still in another certificate of candidacy, this act of signing of certificate of
country and learned only of the case filed when he was already candidacy was considered as a renunciation of his American
within the bounds of his homeland. Because he did not evade. Of Citizenship because in the CoC there is a provision which requires
course if he did not file, he was not aware. How could he be to sign and swear in the COC that the candidate adheres to the
considered as fugitive from justice if he was not running away laws of the Republic of the Philippines; adhere and comply. That
from any prosecution? provision under the CoC was considered by the SC as substantial
compliance of renouncing his American citizenship. And also
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative there was an INVOLUNTARY action on his part (Manzano), when
case; he was still young. He was born in the US of Filipino parents, so
As discussed earlier that our laws apply prospectively, unless the the issue on Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli. Meron siyang American
law provides for a retroactive effect. RA 7160 which provides for and Filipino (citizenship).
this disqualification took effect in 1992. Took effectivity in 1992 Similar dito kay Valles. However, what was the intention of the
and therefore the ground for disqualification that a candidate Constitution is not dual citizenship but dual allegiance before the
must be removed by virtue of an administrative charge which effectivity of RA 9225. So as emphasized in the case of Lopez v.
happened 10 years prior to the effectivity of the LGC cannot be Valles, yong two requirement of oath of allegiance and sworn
used as basis for the disqualification of a candidate. renunciation.
Grego vs. Comelec You recall the case of Frivaldo, there are three cases involving
A sheriff was removed from office in 1991 because of an the case of Frivaldo.
administrative charge. In an administrative charge the highest In the first case of Frivaldo, he was proclaimed Governor-elect of
penalty is dismissal from service. He was dismissed from service. the province of Sorsogon and he assumed office. Subsequently a
And he run for public office in 1992 and this was used against disqualification case was filed against him because he was not a
him. A disqualification case was filed against him under this Filipino citizen having been naturalized in the US. Of which he
ground. He should be disqualified because he was removed from admitted, which he undertook only to protect himself. But of
office because of an administrative charge. SC said, The Law at course he was disqualified because Citizenship is a continuing
that time when Grego was removed was not yet in effect. RA requirement. It was after he assumed office that a petition for his
7160 is not yet in effect, it does not have a retroactive effect. disqualification was filed. As discussed earlier, with respect to a
Also in the case of Rodolfo Aguinaldo. Can a public official be disqualification of a candidate the person who intends to
removed from an administrative conduct committed during a disqualify a candidate based on qualification on Section 78 before
prior term? And he was subsequently reelected. So, we have to the date of election which is a Petition to deny due course to or
make a distinction. In the case of Aguinaldo he was charged for cancel a certificate of candidacy.
having been involved in a Coup. Then DILG Secretary, - an Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate
administrative case was filed against Aguinaldo. The decision of of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or
the DILG was to remove him from office. But Aguinaldo appealed to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person
the decision of the Secretary. And pending resolution of the exclusively on the ground that any material representation
appeal, natapos na yong term niya. 3 year term. And there is this contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false.
election where he runs again for Election. And Aguinaldo won in The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five
that election. So, can he still be removed from office by virtue of days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy
an administrative charge? and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than
No, he cannot be removed because: fifteen days before the election.
1. Because the case has not attained finality after the But if a disqualification case was not filed before election and
expiration of his term. After the expiration of his term, what that candidate won. Ano yong remedy? Under Sec 253 of OEC
would be the basis? You can no longer remove a public elective which is a petition for quo warranto. With respect to ineligibility.
official for administrative conduct AFTER the expiration of his But with respect to quo warranto it has to be filed 10 days
term. following the day of proclamation, but since citizenship is a
2. However, what is the effect of his reelection? This continuing requirement, a petition for quo warranto can still be
reelection to office constitute as a CONDONATION of his previous seasonably filed even after the 10 day period from date of his
misconduct. That with respect to his administrative function. But proclamation. Anytime. But once citizenship is lost during the
term of office, the elective official can still be disqualified in a Latasa vs. Comelec where the SC said that where a person has
petition for quo warranto. been elected for 3 consecutive terms as municipal mayor and
prior to the end or termination of such 3-term the municipality
So Frivaldo was disqualified in the first instance.
has been converted by law into a city, without the city charter
In the second case, xxx vs. Dela Rosa. The disqualification of interrupting his term until the end of the 3-year term, the
Frivaldo again was an issue. What happened here, he filed a prohibition applied to prevent him from running for the 4th time
petition for naturalization in the court. However, he failed to as city mayor thereof, there being no break in the continuity of
comply with the jurisdictional requirement. The court never the terms. Comelec did not err nor commit any abuse of
acquired jurisdiction over his petition for naturalization because if discretion when it declared Laceda disqualified and cancelled his
you file a petition for naturalization you have to have it published Coc.
in the Official Gazette. Usually 6 months pa yan after the court
In subsequent cases, in the case of Adormeo vs. Comelec,
will hear your petition for naturalization. Again, he was
Borja vs. Comelec and Lonzanida vs. Comelec, what is
disqualified because he failed to comply with the jurisdictional
common? What do we understand by the term limit? The term,
requirement.
limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the “right
In the third instance, Frivaldo again filed for a certicate of to be elected’ as well as the “right to serve in the same elective
candidacy. He went through the process of repatriation. position.” Thus, two conditions for the application of the
Dinaanan niya yong tatlo, first the Commonwealth Act through disqualification must occur:
the legislative, then to the court. Now dito na siya sa President
1. That the official concerned has been elected for 3
through a petition for repatriation which he filed 1 year prior to
consecutive terms in the same local government post, and;
the date of the election. It was only in the afternoon magswear
2. That he has fully served the 3 consecutive terms.
na siya to office that his repatriation was approved.. Still a
disqualification case was filed against him because at the time he So what happened in the case of Talaga Jr? He was elected
filed his CoC he was not yet a Filipno Citizen. Hindi pa naaprove mayor of Lucena City in May 1992. He served the full term, was
yong kanyang repatriation. However the court became lenient reelected in 1995 to 1998 (his 2nd term) but was lost in the 1998
with him and held that to foreclose any doubt as to the election to Tagarao. There was a recall election in 2000. After the
citizenship of Frivaldo, his citizenship retroacts to the day of the recall reelection, Talaga won the recall election and served the
filing of his application, August 1994. Under the LGC the unexpired term of Tagarao until June 30 2001. Talaga Jr. Filed his
citizenship of a candidate must be attained at least on the day of CoC for the same position in the 2001 elections which candidacy
his proclamation. Anyway, to foreclose any doubt, yon na was challenged by petitioner Adormeo on the ground that Talaga
magretroact to the date of his application. Jr. is already barred by the 3 term limit rule.
Section 253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting Adormeo contended that Talaga’s candidacy violated Section 8,
the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, Article X of the Constitution, citing the case of Lonzanida v.
provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of Comelec to further support his case. He averts to the comment
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn of Fr. Joaquin Bernas who stated in interpreting said provision
petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days that “if one is elected representative to serve the unexpired term
after the proclamation of the results of the election. of another, that unexpired term, no matter how short, will be
considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of
Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay
successive terms allowed.”
officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo The Comelec en banc ruled in favour of Talaga, which reversed
warranto with the regional trial court or metropolitan or the ruling of the first division and held that:
municipal trial court, respectively, within ten days after the
1. Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms because he
proclamation of the results of the election.
did not win the May 11, 1998 election;
2. He was installed only as mayor by reason of his victory in
the recall elections;
The three term limit rule for having served for 3 3. That his victory in the recall elections was not considered a
consecutive terms term of office and is not included in the 3-term
This is based on Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. disqualification rule and finally
4. That he did not fully serve the 3 consecutive terms.
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be His loss in the May 11, 1998 elections s considered an
three years and no such official shall serve for more than three interruption in the continuity of his service as mayor of Lucena
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any City.
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the ISSUE: Was Talaga disqualified to run for Mayor of Lucena City in
continuity of his service for the full term for which he was the May 14, 2001 elections?
elected.
HELD: SC reiterated the ruling in Borja that the term limit for
And Section 43b of RA 7160 elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be
b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position
consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of considering that the continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an the defeat in the 1998 elections which is considered a s an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which interruption in the continuity of service. The SC further held that
the elective official concerned was elected. the comment of Fr. Bernas is pertinent only to members to the
House of Representatives there being no recall elections provided
In the case of Laceda Sr. V Limena and Comelec 571 scra for members of the Congress.
6103
Sa local elective official lang yong recall elections
The Court held the rationale behind Sec 2 of RA 9164. Like
Section 43 of RA 7160 from which the 3-term rule was taken, Lonzanida v. Comelec, He was elected and served 2
is primarily intended to broaden the choices of the electorate of consecutive terms as municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.
the candidates who will run for office, and to infuse new blood in In May 1995 elections, he ran for the same elective post and was
the political arena by disqualifying officials from running for the again proclaimed winner. He assumed office and discharge his
same office after a term of 9 years. duties. His proclamation in 1995 was however contested and
there was an election protest wherein he lost. He was ordered by
The case of Laceda Sr. Involves similar question in the case of the court to step down. Lonzanida did not fully serve his term
because he was ordered to vacate his position by virtue of an considered a partisan political activity.
election protest case. When he filed again, a petition for
disqualification was filed against him because yon nga he served
for 3 consecutive term. Sabi ng SC he did not fully served his last RA 9006 FAIR ELECTIONS LAW
term because of the election protest test.
Lifted the political ad ban. Prior to the effectivity of 9006 the
Another issue in this case is that the Comelec lost jurisdiction of candidates are prohibited from advertising even on radios. Only
the disqualification case when he was proclaimed as winner and the Comelec can, only they can come out on TV or radio during
that jurisdiction is already with the RTC for quo warranto. Comelec time. Exclusive sa Comelec yon. However because of
amendment under 9006 which lifted the political ad ban,
In the case of Borja v. Comelec: A vice mayor who succeeds
candidates now can advertise. On radio, in magazines, tabloid,
the office of Mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder
newspapers of general circulation subject to certain limitations
of term is considered to have served a term in that office for the
provided under 9006. Time limitations and Space limitations
purpose of the 3-term limit. So nagsucceed lang siya, similar to
Lonzanida. It is considered an interruption. Section 4. Requirements for Published or Printed and Broadcast
Election Propaganda. – 4.1. Any newspaper, newsletter,
So what is common in these cases? – There is involuntariness.
newsweekly, gazette or magazine advertising, posters,
The following situations are not considered service of term for
pamphlets, comic books, circulars, handbills, bumper stickers,
the purpose of applying the 3-term limit:
streamers, sample list of candidates or any published or printed
1. Officer fills up a higher office by succession/operation of political matter and any broadcast of election propaganda by
law television or radio for or against a candidate or group of
2. Officer is suspended from office (failed to serve full candidates to any public office shall bear and be identified by the
term/involuntary) reasonably legible or audible words "political advertisement paid
3. Officer unseated, ordered to vacate by reason of an for," followed by the true and correct name and address of the
election protest case candidate or party for whose benefit the election propaganda
4. Officer serving unexpired term after winning in the was printed or aired.
recall elections.
4.2. If the broadcast is given free of charge by the radio or
You will note there is involuntariness. television station, it shall be identified by the words "airtime for
this broadcast was provided free of charge by" followed by the
However in Ong v. Alegre which is a similar ruling to Rivera III, a
true and correct name and address of the broadcast entity.
petition for disqualification was filed against Ong for having
violated the three term limit rule because he served as mayor of 4.3. Print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the
San Vicente, Camarines Nortein 1995, 1998 and 2001. The candidate or political party shall not be printed, published,
controversy revolves around his tenure in 1998 to 2001 term broadcast, or exhibited without the written acceptance by the
wherein the election protest filed by alegre was promulgated said candidate or political party. Such written acceptance shall be
after the term of contested office has expired. So natapos niya attached to the advertising contract and shall be submitted to the
yong 3 consecutive terms. COMELEC as provided in Subsection 6.3. hereof.
ISSUE: Whether or not the assumption of Francis Ong as mayor While it is allowed now it should always bear the phrase, for
from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001 may be considered as one full example, itong TV ads, if you will notice parating sinasabi na
term service in the context of the consecutive term limit rule? “this political advertisement was paid for by Juan dela Cruz”, and
the address of Juan dela Cruz or whoever party whose benefit
HELD: The court declared here that his assumption of office
the election propaganda was printed or aired. So both in print
constitutes, insofar as Francs Ong is concerned, service for the
and air this phrase is a requirement to be stated on air and to
full term and should be counted as a full term served in
appear in printed propaganda. Even if the broadcast is free of
contemplation of the 3 term limit prescribed by the constitutional
charge and even if the advertisement is free of charge it should
and statutory provision which bars an elective official being
still being stated that this broadcast in favour of Juan dela Cruz is
elected and serving for more than 3 consecutive terms. The SC
free of charge and is being paid for by whom? It should state the
said, because he has fully served his term. The petition to
name and address of the donor.
remove him was filed after his term. He’s already barred from
filing the CoC and he cannot use the case that he was There are also guidelines as to the administration of print
disqualified. That he lost the election protest during the period media
from 1998 to 2001.
6.1. Print advertisements shall not exceed one-fourth (1/4) page,
CAMPAIGN and ELECTION PROPAGANDA in broad sheet and one-half (1/2) page in tabloids thrice a week
per newspaper, magazine or other publications, during the
Following the eligibility of candidates, candidates will now campaign period.
campaign after filing the CoC. For purposes of election we have
the:
ELECTION PERIOD: 90 days before the date of the election and Television and Radio Advertisement for National
30 days thereafter - a total of 120 days. The campaign period is Candidates and Political Parties.
within the election period. What is the limitation?
What is the significance of the election period? Why do we have 6.2. (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political party for
to determine the start of the election period? a nationally elective office shall be entitled to not more than one
A: The start of the 90 day period, the campaign period already hundred twenty (120) minutes of television advertisement and
starts for National official. The campaign period for National one hundred eighty (180) minutes of radio advertisement
Officials is 90 days before the date of the election. For local whether by purchase or donation.
officials: 45 days before the date of the election. And of course, (b) Each bona fide candidate or registered political party for a
certain bans are in place. Infrastructure ban, firearms ban, etc., locally elective office shall be entitled to not more than sixty (60)
wherein the law provides for restrictions at the start of the minutes of television advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of
campaign. Also, prohibited acts are in place during the election radio advertisement whether by purchase or
period. And what we call that election campaign and partisan
political activity outside campaign period. It provides for what is Comelec Time and Space wherein the COmelec is still not
unlawful under Section 80 of BP Blg. 881. We discussed the case, deprived of printing or advertising on air.
yong judge with respect to what is considered a partisan political
However in the case of PPI wherein the comelec resolution
activity, wherein the SC said that the filing of the CoC is
requiring print advertisement to be given to COmelec free of Election Survey
charge. The SC held that this is taking of property without just
Section 5. Election Surveys. – 5.1. Election surveys refer to the
compensation. Walang problema sa air. With respect to air,
measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters as
considering that air time is given through franchise, the law
regards a candidate's popularity, qualifications, platforms or a
requiring the Comelec to use the airtime constitutes an
matter of public discussion in relation to the election, including
amendment of the franchise granted to any entity. To entity
voters' preference for candidates or publicly discussed issues
granted by law. In print media because this is private business
during the campaign period (hereafter referred to as "Survey").
the comelec should pay the space unless the broadsheet and the
print media would like to give the comelec free (of charge). But 5.2. During the election period, any person, natural as well as
the COmelec cannot demand to give the broadsheet free space juridical, candidate or organization who publishes a survey must
for comelec advertisement pursuant to the case of PPI. likewise publish the following information:
Section 8. COMELEC Space and Time. – The COMELEC shall (a) The name of the person, candidate, party or organization
procure shall in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation who commissioned or paid for the survey;
and air time in at least one (1) major broadcasting station or
entity in every province or city: Provided, however, That in the (b) The name of the person, polling firm or survey organization
absence of said newspaper, publication shall be done in any other who conducted the survey;
magazine or periodical in said province or city, which shall be (c) The period during which the survey was conducted, the
known as "COMELEC Space": Provided, further, That in the methodology used, including the number of individual
absence of said broadcasting station or entity, broadcasting shall respondents and the areas from which they were selected, and
be done in any radio or television station in said province or city, the specific questions asked;
which shall be known as "COMELEC Time". Said time shall be
allocated to the COMELEC free of charge, while said space shall (d) The margin o error of the survey;
be allocated to the COMELEC upon payment of just (e) For each question for which the margin of error is greater
compensation. The COMELEC time and space shall be utilized than that reported under paragraph (d), the margin of error for
exclusively by the COMELEC for public information dissemination that question; and
on election-related concerns.
(f) A mailing address and telephone number, indicating it as an
address or telephone number at which the sponsor can be
Limitation in Broadcasting of Election Accounts contacted to obtain a written report regarding the survey in
accordance with Subsection 5.3.
6.4. No franchise or permit to operate a radio or television
stations shall be granted or issued, suspended or cancelled 5.3. The survey together with raw data gathered to support its
during the election period. conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying and
verification by the COMELEC or by a registered political party or a
In all instances, the COMELEC shall supervise the use and bona fide candidate or by any COMELEC-accredited citizen's arm.
employment of press, radio and television facilities insofar or the A reasonable fee sufficient to cover the costs of inspection,
placement of political advertisements is concerned to ensure that copying and verification may be charged.
candidates are given equal opportunities under equal
circumstances to make known their qualifications and their stand 5.4. Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published
on public issues within the limits set forth in the Omnibus fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local
Election Code and Republic Act No. 7166 on election spending. candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an
election.
The COMELEC shall ensure that radio or television or cable
television broadcasting entities shall not allow the scheduling of 5.5. Exit polls may only be taken subject to the following
any program or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose requirements:
any candidate or political party by unduly or repeatedly referring (a) Pollsters shall not conduct their surveys within fifty (50)
to or including said candidate and/or political party in such meters from the polling place, whether said survey is taken in a
program respecting, however, in all instances the right of said home, dwelling place and other places;
broadcast entities to air accounts of significant news or news
worthy events and views on matters of public interest. (b) Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing;
(c) Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to
answer; and
Restrictions on Media Practitioners
(d) The result of the exit polls may be announced after the
Section 6.6. Any mass media columnist, commentator, closing of the polls on election day, and must clearly identify the
announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or personality who is a total number of respondents, and the places where they were
candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign volunteer taken. Said announcement shall state that the same is unofficial
for or employed or retained in any capacity by any candidate or and does not represent a trend.
political party shall be deemed resigned, if so required by their
employer, or shall take a leave of absence from his/her work
as such during the campaign period: Provided, That any media
Posting of Campaign Materials.
practitioner who is an official of a political party or a member of
the campaign staff of a candidate or political party shall not use Section 9. Posting of Campaign Materials. – The COMELEC may
his/her time or space to favor any candidate or political party. authorize political parties and party-list groups to erect common
poster areas for their candidates in not more than ten (1) public
6.7. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life
places such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like,
or biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a
wherein candidates can post, display or exhibit election
theater, television station or any public forum during the
propaganda: Provided, That the size of the poster areas shall not
campaign period.
exceed twelve (12) by sixteen (16) feet or its equivalent.
6.8. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by an Independent candidates with no political parties may likewise be
actor or media personality who is himself a candidate shall be authorized to erect common poster areas in not more than ten
publicly exhibited in a theater, television station or any public (10) public places, the size of which shall not exceed four (4) by
forum during the campaign period. six (6) feet or its equivalent.
It is more breached than complied with. Candidates may post any lawful propaganda material in private
places with the consent of the owner thereof, and in public
places or property which shall be allocated equitably and  Invalid due to overbreadth
impartially among the candidates.
Before it is the Comelec who designates the common poster Is Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520 an invalid
area. But now under 9006 it is now the candidate and the exercise of police power? Petitioner argues: the billboards
political parties who submit to the comelec 10 areas where (even if it bears his name) do not at all announce his candidacy
candidates may post their campaign materials. for any public office nor solicit for such candidacy from the
electorate; they are mere product endorsements and not election
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 propaganda. Prohibition is not within the scope of power of the
PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING COMELEC.
Under campaigning and election propaganda, OEC. Sec. 79 HELD: Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the
provides that “The term "candidate" refers to any person aspiring power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morale,
for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate peace, education, good order or safety of the general welfare of
of candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party, the people.
aggroupment, or coalition of parties.” To qualify for premature
campaigning, such a candidate must have filed his certificate of The primary objective of the provision is to prohibit
candidacy and campaigned before the allowed campaign period. premature campaigning and to level the playing field for
So in… candidates of public office, to equalize the situation
between popular or rich candidates, on one hand and
Francisco Chavez v. COMELEC et. al. G.R. No. 162777 31 lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by
August 2004 preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in
Chavez brought before the SC a Petition for Prohibition with exposure and publicity on account of their resources and
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as popularity. This is a valid reason for the exercise of
taxpayer and citizen asking the Court to enjoin the COMELEC police power as held in the Philippines Press Institute v.
from enforcing Section 21 of its Resolution No. 6520 dated 06 COMELEC case.
January 2004. The resolution was promulgated to administer the
proper observance of rules and regulations in the conduct of It is true that when petitioner entered into the contract or
elections. agreements to endorse certain products, he acted as a private
individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to
Sec. 32 provides: All propaganda materials such as posters, these products. However, when he filed his COC for senator, the
streamers, stickers or paintings on walls and other materials billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan
showing the picture or name of a person and all advertisements political character because the same directly promoted his
on print, in radio or on television showing the image or candidacy. If subject billboards were to be allowed, candidates
mentioning the name of a person, who subsequent to the for public office whose name and image are used to advertise
placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public commercial products would have more opportunity to make
office shall be immediately removed by said candidate and radio themselves known to the electorate, to the disadvantage of other
station, print media or television station within 3 days after the candidates who do not have the same chance of lending their
effectivity of these implementing rules; otherwise, he and the faces and names to endorse popular commercial products as
said radio station, print media or television station shall be image models. Similarly, an individual intending to run for public
presumed to have conducted premature campaigning in violation office within the next few months, could pay private corporations
of Sec. 80 of the OEC to use him as their image model with the intention of
familiarizing the public with his name and image even before the
CF: Sec. 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity start of the campaign period. This, without doubt, would be a
outside campaign period. - It shall be unlawful for any person, circumvention of the rule against premature campaigning.
whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or
association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or Section 32 neither violated the non-impairment clause as this
partisan political activity except during the campaign period: must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government.
Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or Equal opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without
meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days regard to the level of financial resources one may have at his
before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five disposal, is a vital interest to the public. The SC has stressed that
days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election. contracts affecting public interest contain an implied reservation
of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal order.
Chavez on various dates entered in formal agreement with This power can be activated at anytime to change the provisions
certain establishment to endorse their products and pursuant of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or
thereto, 3 bill boards were set up on some strategic areas in protection of the genera; welfare. Such an act will not militate
Metro Manila. Subsequently on 30 December 2003, Chavez filed against the impairment clause. Which is subject to and limited by
his certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator. On 06 the paramount police power.
January 2004, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6520 which
contained Section 32. COMELEC directed Chavez to comply with On the issue that Sec. 32 of the COMELEC Resolution is in
the said provision and replied how he may have violated the the nature of an ex post facto law. Not ex post facto – the
assailed provision. Another letter was sent seeking exemption offense as expressly prescribed in Section 32, is the non-removal
from the application of Section 32, considering that the billboard of the described propaganda materials three (3) days after the
adverted to are mere product endorsements and cannot be effectivity of the said Resolution. If the candidate for public
construed as paraphernalia for premature campaigning under the office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the given
rules. <Likas Papaya joke> period, he shall be liable under Section 80 of the OEC for
premature campaigning. Nowhere is it indicated in the said
COMELEC replied by informing him to remove or cover the said provision that it shall operate retroactively.
billboards pending the resolution of the COMELEC on his request
for exemption. Aggrieved, Chavez sent to the SC via a petition On the issue that the provision was a violation of the Fair
for prohibition seeking the said provision as unconstitutional Elections Act as billboards are already permitted as
based on the following grounds: lawful election propaganda. It was ruled that the provision
 It was a gross violation of the non-impairment clause does not prohibit billboards as lawful election propaganda. It
 An invalid exercise of police power only regulates their use to prevent premature campaigning and
 In the nature of an ex post facto law to equalize, as much as practicable, the situation of all
 Contrary to the Fair Elections Act candidates by preventing popular and rich candidates from
gaining undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of (2) Accordingly, a candidate is liable for an election
their resources and popularity. COMELEC was only doing its duty offense only for acts done during the campaign period,
under the law (Sec. 3 and 13 of the Fair Elections Act on not before. In other words, election offenses can be committed
lawful propaganda) by a candidate only upon the start of the campaign period.
Before the start of the campaign period, such election offenses
Section 80 of the OEC provides “it shall be unlawful for any cannot be committed.
person, whether or not a voter or candidate or for any
party, or association of persons, to engage in an election Since the law is clear, the Court has no recourse but to apply it.
campaign or partisan political activity, except during the The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and enacting
campaign period.” remedial measures, is not the Court but the Legislature.
Penera v. COMELEC 599 SCRA 609. (b) Contrary to the assailed Decision, Section 15, of RA
8436, as amended, does not provide that partisan political acts
Facts show that Penera and Andanar were mayoralty candidates done by a candidate before the campaign period are unlawful,
in Sta. Monica in the last May 14, 2007 elections. Andanar filed but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign
before the Office of the Regional Election Director, Caraga period. Neither does the law state that partisan political acts
Region, Region XIII, a petition for disqualification against Penera done by a candidate before the campaign period are temporarily
for unlawfully engaging in election campaigning and partisan lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of the campaign
political activity prior to the commencement of the campaign period. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the Decision, which
period. defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of expression and
speech, would be void for vagueness.
The Petition alleged that on 29 March 2007, a day before the
start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007, (c) That Section 15 of RA 8436 does not expressly state
Penera and her partymates went around the different barangays that campaigning before the start of the campaign period is
in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies and requesting the lawful, as the assailed decision asserted, is no moment. It is a
people to vote for them on the day of the elections. Penera basic principle of law that any act is lawful unless expressly
alleged that the charge was not true although having admitted declared unlawful by law. The mere fact that the law does not
that a motorcade did take place which was simply in accordance declare an act unlawful ipso facto means that the act is lawful.
with the usual practice in nearby cities and provinces, where the Thus, there is no need for Congress to declare in Section 15 of
filing of COC was preceded by a motorcade, which dispersed RA 8436 that partisan political activities before the start of the
soon after the completion of such filing. Penera in her defense campaign period is lawful. It is sufficient for Congress to state
cited Barroso v. Ampig (385 Phil 2237; 328 SCRA 530) wherein that “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall
the Court ruled that a motorcade held by candidates during the take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.” The
filing of their COC’s was not a form of political campaigning. only inescapable and logical result is that the same acts, if done
Pending the disqualification case, Penera was proclaimed as before the start of the campaign period, are lawful.
winner and assumed office.
(d) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision also reversed
COMELEC ruled that Penera engaged in premature campaigning Lanot v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 164858, 16 November 2006). Lanot
in violation of Section 80 and disqualified Penera from continuing was decided on the ground that one who files a certificate of
as a mayoralty candidate. The SC ruled no abuse of discretion on candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign
the part of the COMELEC and held that the conduct of a period. This ground was based on the deliberations of the
motorcade is a form of election campaign or partisan political legislators who explained that the early deadline for filing COC
activity which fall squarely under of Section 79 of the OEC. under RA 8436 was set only to afford time to prepare the
machine readable ballots, and they intended to preserve the
Penera moved for reconsideration arguing that she was not existing election period, such that one who files his COC to meet
yet a candidate at the time of the supposed premature the early deadline will still not be considered as a candidate.
campaigning, since under Section 15 of RA 8436 (the law
authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress decided to
for the process of voting, counting of votes, and expressly incorporate the Lanot doctrine into law, thus, the
canvasing/consolidating the results of the national and local provision in Section 15, of RA 8436 that a person who files his
elections), as amended by RA 9369, is not officially a candidate certificate of candidacy shall be considered a candidate only
until the start of the campaign period. at the start of the campaign period. Congress wanted to
insure that no person filing a certificate of candidacy under the
HELD: In granting Penera’s MR, the SC En Banc held that early deadline required by the automated election system would
Penera did not engage in premature campaigning and should be disqualified or penalized for any partisan political act done
thus, not be disqualified as a mayoralty candidate. The Court before the start of the campaign period. This provision cannot
said- be annulled by the Court except on the sole ground of its
unconstitutionality. The assailed Decision, however, did not
(a) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision (or the claim that this provision is unconstitutional. In fact, the assailed
assailed Decision) considered a person who files a certificate of Decision considered the entire Section 15 good law. Thus, the
candidacy already a “candidate” even before the start of the Decision was self-contradictory – reversing Lanot but
campaign period. This is contrary to the clear intent and letter of maintaining the constitutionality of the said provision.
Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended, which stated that a person
who files his certificate of candidacy will only be Maam: So anong effect nito? Nobody can be prosecuted for
considered a candidate at the start of the campaign premature campaigning. Why? Diba Section 15 says that you are
period, and unlawful acts or omission applicable to a considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period, and
candidate shall take effect only upon the start of such a candidate is one who files CoC, so even if the person filed a
campaign period. In applying the said law – CoC under the early deadline set forth under 9369, he can only
be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period.
(1) The effective date when partisan political acts become So, any campaigning done before the campaign period cannot be
unlawful as to a candidate is when the campaign period starts. considered as premature campaigning BECAUSE HE IS NOT YET
Before the start of the campaign period, the same CONSIDERED AS A CANDIDATE. <maam repeats>
partisan political acts are lawful.
Lanot vs. COMELEC 507 SCRA 114

On 19 March 2004, Henry P. Lanot (“Lanot”), Vener Obispo the COMELEC En Banc conducted hearings on Eusebio’s motion
(“Obispo”), Roberto Peralta (“Peralta”), Reynaldo dela Paz (“dela for reconsideration of the 5 May 2004 COMELEC First Division
Paz”), Edilberto Yamat (“Yamat”), and Ram Alan Cruz (“Cruz”) resolution. On 6 August 2004, Lanot filed a motion to annul
(collectively, “petitioners”), filed a petition for disqualification Eusebio’s proclamation and to order his proclamation instead.
under Sections 68 and 80 of the Omnibus Election Code against
Eusebio before the COMELEC. On 20 August 2004, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated the
third questioned issuance. The COMELEC En Banc invoked
Lanot, Obispo, and Eusebio were candidates for Pasig City Section 1 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 (“Resolution 2050”)
Mayor, while Peralta, dela Paz, Yamat, and Cruz were candidates and this Court’s rulings in Albaña v. COMELEC, Lonzanida v.
for Pasig City Councilor in the 10 May 2004 elections. COMELEC, and Sunga v. COMELEC in justifying the annulment of
the order to disqualify Eusebio and the referral of the case to the
Petitioners alleged that Eusebio engaged in an election campaign Law Department for preliminary investigation.
in various forms on various occasions outside of the designated
campaign period, such as: Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who
(1) addressing a large group of people during a medical has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
mission sponsored by the Pasig City government; be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If
(2) uttering defamatory statements against Lanot; for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
(3) causing the publication of a press release predicting his before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
victory; receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court
(4) installing billboards, streamers, posters, and stickers or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
printed with his surname across Pasig City; and action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or
(5) distributing shoes to schoolchildren in Pasig public any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
schools to induce their parents to vote for him. suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong. (of the Electoral Reform Law of
Eusebio denied petitioners’ allegations and branded the petition 1987
as a harassment case. Eusebio further stated that petitioners’
evidence are merely fabricated. HELD: The Court ruled that there are two aspects of a
disqualification case:
Regional Director: VICENTE P. EUSEBIO shall be DISQUALIFIED
to run for the position of Mayor, Pasig City for violation of Section 1) Electoral aspect determines whether the offender
80 of the Omnibus Election Code. should be disqualified from being a candidate or from holding
office. Proceedings are summary in character and require only
COMELEC First Division ordered for the ff: disqualification of clear preponderance of evidence. An erring candidate may be
respondent VICENTE P. EUSEBIO from being a candidate for disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause
mayor of Pasig City in the May 10, 2004, ordering the Election in a PI. The electoral aspect may proceed independently
Officers of District I and District II of Pasig City to DELETE and of the criminal aspect and vice-versa.
CANCEL the name of respondent VICENTE P. EUSEBIO from the
certified list of candidates for the City Offices of Pasig City for the Maam: Nature of the proceedings here are only summary, filed
May 10, 2004 elections, the Board of Election Inspectors of all with the COMELEC, which requires mere preponderance of
the precincts comprising the City of Pasig are not to count the evidence Note: so a candidate may be DQ-ed even without prior
votes cast for respondent VICENTE EUSEBIO, the same being determination of probable cause.
cast for a disqualified candidate and therefore must be
considered stray, and, the City Board of Canvassers of Pasig 2) Criminal aspect determines whether there is probable
City are not to canvass the votes erroneously cast for the cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. (cf. 261 of
disqualified candidate respondent VICENTE P. EUSEBIO, in the OEC) If there is probable cause, the COMELEC through its Law
event that such votes were recorded in the election returns Department, files the criminal information before the proper
court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown
On the day of the election itself, In a memorandum, Chairman hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict.
Abalos enjoined Director Ladra from implementing the COMELEC A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of
First Division’s 5 May 2004 resolution due to Eusebio’s motion the offender, which may even include disqualification
for reconsideration. from holding a future public office. (
The day after the elections, petitioners Lanot, Peralta, dela Paz, The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on
Yamat, and Cruz filed before the COMELEC En Banc a motion to disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or
suspend the counting and canvassing of votes and the after an election. When the disqualification case is filed before
proclamation of the winning mayoral candidate for Pasig City. the elections, the question of disqualification is raised before the
voting public. If the candidate is disqualified after the election,
COMELEC En Banc partially denied the said motion by the those who voted for him assume the risk that their votes may be
petitioners. declared stray or invalid. There is no such risk if the petition is
filed after the elections. The COMELEC En Banc erred when it
On 21 May 2004, the COMELEC En Banc issued the second ignored the electoral aspect of the disqualification case by setting
questioned issuance. The order quoted from the motion for aside the COMELEC First Division’s resolution and referring the
advisory opinion of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers which entire case to the COMELEC Law Department for the criminal
reported that 98% of the total returns of Pasig City had been aspect.
canvassed and that there were only 32 uncanvassed returns
involving 6,225 registered voters. Eusebio had 119,693 votes We agree with Lanot that the COMELEC committed grave abuse
while Lanot had 108,941 votes. Thus, the remaining returns of discretion when it ordered the dismissal of the disqualification
would not affect Eusebio’s lead over Lanot. The COMELEC En case pending preliminary investigation of the COMELEC Law
Banc stated its “established policy” to “expedite the canvass of Department.
votes and proclamation of winning candidates to ease the post
election tension and without prejudice to [its] action in [the] x x What Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits is “an
x case” and resolved to declare Eusebio as Pasig City Mayor. election campaign or partisan political activity” by a “candidate”
“outside” of the campaign period. Section 79 of the same Code
Eusebio was proclaimed as Pasig City Mayor on 23 May 2004 defines “candidate,” (see above)
based on the 21 May 2004 Order. On 25 June and 6 July 2004,
Thus, the essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the candidacy, under the law prior to RA 8436, on 23 March 2004.
Omnibus Election Code are: Eusebio is deemed to have filed his certificate of candidacy on
(1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan this date for purposes other than the printing of ballots because
political activity; this is the interpretation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election
(2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of Code most favorable to one charged of its violation. Since
a particular candidate or candidates; Section 80 defines a criminal offense, its provisions must be
(3) the act is done outside the campaign period. construed liberally in favor of one charged of its violation. Thus,
Eusebio became a “candidate” only on 23 March 2004 for
The second element requires the existence of a “candidate.” purposes other than the printing of ballots.
Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who “has filed a
certificate of candidacy” to an elective public office. Unless one Acts committed by Eusebio prior to his being a “candidate” on 23
has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a “candidate.” The March 2004, even if constituting election campaigning or partisan
third element requires that the campaign period has not started political activities, are not punishable under Section 80 of the
when the election campaign or partisan political activity is Omnibus Election Code. Such acts are protected as part of
committed. freedom of expression of a citizen before he becomes a
candidate for elective public office. Acts committed by Eusebio on
Assuming that all candidates to a public office file their or after 24 March 2004, or during the campaign period, are not
certificates of candidacy on the last day, which under Section 75 covered by Section 80 which punishes only acts outside the
of the Omnibus Election Code is the day before the start of the campaign period.
campaign period, then no one can be prosecuted for violation of
Section 80 for acts done prior to such last day. Before such last
day, there is no “particular candidate or candidates” to campaign Electoral Contributions and Expenditures
for or against. On the day immediately after the last day of
filing, the campaign period starts and Section 80 ceases to apply OEC. Sec. 94. Definitions. - As used in this Article:
since Section 80 covers only acts done “outside” the campaign (a) The term "contribution" includes a gift, donation,
period. subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of
value, or a contract, promise or agreement to contribute,
Thus, if all candidates file their certificates of candidacy on the whether or not legally enforceable, made for the purpose of
last day, Section 80 may only apply to acts done on such last influencing the results of the elections but shall not include
day, which is before the start of the campaign period and after at services rendered without compensation by individuals
least one candidate has filed his certificate of candidacy. This is volunteering a portion or all of their time in behalf of a candidate
perhaps the reason why those running for elective public office or political party. It shall also include the use of facilities
usually file their certificates of candidacy on the last day or close voluntarily donated by other persons, the money value of which
to the last day. can be assessed based on the rates prevailing in the area.
(b) The term "expenditure" includes the payment or
There is no dispute that Eusebio’s acts of election delivery of money of anything of value, or a contract, promise or
campaigning or partisan political activities were committed agreement to make an expenditure, for the purpose of
outside of the campaign period. The only question is whether influencing the results of the election. It shall also include the
Eusebio, who filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December use of facilities personally owned by the candidate, the money
2003, was a “candidate” when he committed those acts before value of the use of which can be assessed based on the rates
the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004. prevailing in the area.
(c) The term "person" includes an individual, partnership,
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 (“RA 8436”) moved the committee, association, corporation, and any other organization
deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy to 120 days or group of persons.
before election day. Thus, the original deadline was moved from
23 March 2004 to 2 January 2004, or 81 days earlier. The crucial OEC. Sec. 95. Prohibited contributions. - No contribution for
question is: did this change in the deadline for filing the purposes of partisan political activity shall be made directly or
certificate of candidacy make one who filed his certificate of indirectly by any of the following:
candidacy before 2 January 2004 immediately liable for violation (a) Public or private financial institutions: Provided,
of Section 80 if he engaged in election campaign or partisan however, That nothing herein shall prevent the making of any
political activities prior to the start of the campaign period on 24 loan to a candidate or political party by any such public or private
March 2004? financial institutions legally in the business of lending money, and
that the loan is made in accordance with laws and regulations
Under Section 11 of RA 8436, the only purpose for the early filing and in the ordinary course of business;
of certificates of candidacy is to give ample time for the printing (b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public utility or
of official ballots. in possession of or exploiting any natural resources of the nation;
(c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contracts or sub-
Thus, because of the early deadline of 2 January 2004 for contracts to supply the government or any of its divisions,
purposes of printing of official ballots, Eusebio filed his certificate subdivisions or instrumentalities, with goods or services or to
of candidacy on 29 December 2003. Congress, however, never perform construction or other works;
intended the filing of a certificate of candidacy before 2 January (d) Natural and juridical persons who have been granted
2004 to make the person filing to become immediately a franchises, incentives, exemptions, allocations or similar
“candidate” for purposes other than the printing of ballots. This privileges or concessions by the government or any of its
legislative intent prevents the immediate application of Section divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities, including government-
80 of the Omnibus Election Code to those filing to meet the early owned or controlled corporations;
deadline. The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the (e) Natural and juridical persons who, within one year prior
“election periods as x x x fixed by existing law” prior to RA to the date of the election, have been granted loans or other
8436 and that one who files to meet the early deadline “will still accommodations in excess of P100,000 by the government or
not be considered as a candidate.” any of its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities including
government-owned or controlled corporations;
Under Section 3(b) of the Omnibus Election Code, the applicable (f) Educational institutions which have received grants of
law prior to RA 8436, the campaign period for local officials public funds amounting to no less than P100,000.00;
commences 45 days before election day. For the 2004 local (g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or members
elections, this puts the start of the campaign period on 24 March of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; and
2004. This also puts the last day for the filing of certificate of (h) Foreigners and foreign corporations.
all contributions and expenditures in connection with the
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any election.
contribution from any of the persons or entities enumerated
herein. No person elected to any public offices shall enter upon the
duties of his office until he has filed the statement of
OEC. Sec. 102. Lawful expenditures. - To carry out the contributions and expenditures herein required.
objectives of the preceding sections, no candidate or treasurer of
a political party shall, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which
except for the following purposes: nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statement
(a) For travelling expenses of the candidates and campaign required herein within the period prescribed by this Act. (Same
personnel in the course of the campaign and for personal prohibition applies to political parties!)
expenses incident thereto;
(b) For compensation of campaigners, clerks, Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file the
stenographers, messengers, and other persons actually statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions
employed in the campaign; and expenditures are required herein shall constitute an
(c) For telegraph and telephone tolls, postage, freight and administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to
express delivery charges; pay an administrative fine ranging from One thousand pesos
(d) For stationery, printing and distribution of printed (P1,000.00) to Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00), in the
matters relative to candidacy; discretion of the Commission.
(e) For employment of watchers at the polls;
(f) For rent, maintenance and furnishing of campaign The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of
headquarters, office or place of meetings; notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ
(g) For political meetings and rallies and the use of sound of execution issued by the Commission against the properties of
systems, lights and decorations during said meetings and rallies; the offender.
(h) For newspaper, radio, television and other public
advertisements; It shall be the duty of every city or municipal election registrar to
(i) For employment of counsel, the cost of which shall not advise in writing, by personal delivery or registered mail, within
be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses five (5) days from the date of election all candidates residing in
which a candidate or political party may have incurred under his jurisdiction to comply with their obligation to file their
Section 100 and 101 hereof; statements of contributions and expenditures.
(j) For copying and classifying list of voters, investigating
and challenging the right to vote of persons registered in the lists For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this
the costs of which shall not be taken into account in determining section, the administrative fine shall be from Two thousand
the amount of expenses which a candidate or political party may pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00), in the
have incurred under Sections 100 and 101 hereof; or discretion of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be
(k) For printing sample ballots in such color, size and subject to perpetual disqualification to hold public office. (So
maximum number as may be authorized by the Commission and hindi na sila pwede makatakbo on the 2nd or 3rd offense)
the cost of such printing shall not be taken into account in
determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or NOTE: Prior to 7166, under the OEC, candidate has to file an
political party may have incurred under Sections 100 and 101 initial statement of contributions and expenditures 7 days before
hereof. the day of the election. Before, under the OEC, the failure to
file the statement, aside that the candidate cannot enter into
RA 7166. Sec. 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and office without filing, they will also be held criminally liable for
Political Parties. - The agreement amount that a candidate or failure to file. Under 7166, administrative sanction nalang.
registered political party may spend for election campaign shall
be as follows: This also applies candidates who withdrew.
For candidates. - Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice- You file your applications, where?
President; and for other candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for
every voter currently registered in the constituency where he OEC. Sec. 108. Place for filing statements. - The statements
filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That a candidate of contributions and expenditures shall be filed as follows:
without any political party and without support from any political (a) Those of candidates for President and Vice-President,
party may be allowed to spend Five Pesos (P5.00) for every such with the Commission.
voter; and (b) Those of candidates for Members of the Batasang
Pambansa, with the provincial election supervisor concerned,
For political parties. - Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently except those of candidates in the National Capital Region which
registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has shall be filed with the regional election director of said region.
official candidates. (c) Those of candidates for provincial offices, with the
provincial election supervisor concerned.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding any (d) Those of candidates for city, municipal and barangay
contribution in cash or in kind to any candidate or political party offices, with the election registrar concerned.
or coalition of parties for campaign purposes, duly reported to
the Commission shall not be subject to the payment of any gift If the statement is sent by mail, it shall be by registered mail,
tax. and the date on which it was registered with the post office may
be considered as the filing date thereof if confirmed on the same
Maam: What is the relevance of these contributions? Because date by telegram or radiogram addressed to the office or official
candidates are required to file a statement under Section 14 of with whom the statement should be filed.
RA 7166.
The provincial election supervisors and election registrars
RA 7166. Sec. 14. Statement of Contributions and concerned shall, within fifteen days after the last day for the
Expenditures; Effect of Failure to File Statement. - Every filing of the statements, send to the Commission duplicate copies
candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, within thirty of all statements filed with them.
(30) days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the
offices of the Commission the full, true and itemized statement of Assignment:

 Official Ballots return and the tally board being simultaneously accomplished by
 Election Returns the, poll clerk and the third member respectively, without
 Article XVI touching any of these election documents. The table shall be
 Article XVII- cf. with 9369 cleared of all unnecessary writing paraphernalia. Any violation of
 Casting of votes until counting of votes this requirement shall constitute an election offense punishable
 Canvassing of votes under Section 263 and 264 the Omnibus Election Code.

"The chairman shall first read the votes for national positions.
COUNTING OF VOTES
A. Preliminaries to counting of votes
"Any violation of this Section, or its pertinent portion, shall
The board of election inspectors (BEI) shall read the ballots
constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in
publicly and shall not postpone the counting until it is completed.
accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
(Sec. 206, OEC, as amended)
Sec. 32. Section 212 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 as amended,

Sec. 35. Section. 206 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is
is hereby to read as follows:
hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 212. Election Returns. - The board of election

"SEC. 206 Counting to be Public and without Interruption. - As
inspectors shall prepare the election returns simultaneously with
soon as the voting is finished, the board of election inspectors
the counting of votes in the polling places as prescribe in Section
shall publicly count in the polling place the votes cast and
210 hereof. The recording of vote shall be made as prescribed in
ascertain the results. The board may rearrange the physical set
said section. The entry of votes in words and figures for each
up of the polling place for the counting or perform any other
candidate shall be closed with the signature and the clear imprint
activity with respect to the transition from voting counting.
of the thumbmark of the right hand of all the members, likewise
However, it may do so only in the presence of the watchers and
to be affixed in full view of the public, immediately after the last
within close view of the public. At all times, the ballot boxes and
vote recorded or immediately after the name of the candidate
all election documents and paraphernalia shall be within close
who did not receive any vote."
view of the watchers and the public.
"The returns shall also show the date of the election, the polling
"The board of election inspectors shall not adjourn or postpone
place, the barangay and the city or municipality in which it was
or delay the count until it has been fully completed, unless
held, the total number of ballots found in the compartment for
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
valid ballots, the total number of valid ballots withdrawn from the
compartment for spoiled ballots because they were erroneously
"The Commission, in the interest of free, orderly, and honest placed therein, the total number of excess ballots, the total
election, may authorize the board of election inspectors to count number of marked or void ballots, and the total numbers of votes
the votes and to accomplish the election return and other forms obtained by each candidate, writing out the said number in
prescribed under the code in any other place within a public words and figures and, at the end thereof, the board of election
building in the same municipality or city on account of imminent inspectors shall certify that the contents are correct. The returns
danger of widespread violence or similar causes of comparable shall be accomplished in a single sheet of paper, but if this is not
magnitude: Provided, That the transfer shall been recommended possible, additional sheets may be used which shall be prepared
in writing by the board of election inspectors by unanimous vote in the same manner as the first sheet and likewise certified by
and endorsed in writing by the majority of watchers the board of election inspectors."
present: Provided, further, that the said public building shall not
located within the perimeter of or inside a military or police
"The commission shall take steps so that the entries on the first
camp, reservation, headquarters, detachment or field office nor
copy of the election returns are clearly reproduced on the
within the premises of a prison or detention bureau or any law
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth copies thereof, and for the
enforcement or investigation agency.
purpose this Commission shall use a special kind of paper."
"Any violation of this section, or its pertinent portion, shall

"Immediately upon the accomplishment of the election return for
constitute and election offense and shall be penalized in
national position, the poll clerk shall announce the posting of the
accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881." (RA 9369)
second copy of the election return on a wall with sufficient
lighting within the premises of the polling place or counting
The BEI shall assume such positions as to provide the watchers center. He shall then proceed to do the same in the presence of
and the public unimpeded view of the ballot being read. (Sec. 25, the other members of the Board, the watchers and those present
RA 7166) in the polling place or counting center. Without delay and, when
feasible, he shall secure an image of the election return using a
If on account of imminent danger of violence, terrorism, disorder secured data capturing device and immediately thereafter, while
or similar causes, it becomes necessary to transfer the counting in the premises of the polling place or counting center, directly
of votes to a safer place, the board of inspectors may effect such print thirty (30) copies of the election return. Once the prints
transfer by unanimous approval by the board and concurrence by have been produced, the poll clerk shall call the other members
the majority of the watchers present.(Sec. 18, RA 6646) of the board to authenticate each print copy by closely
comparing the same with the election return posted on the wall
SEC. 31. Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended in the presence of the watchers and within view of the public. If
to read as follows: the Board finds each print a faithful reproduction of the election
return, all members thereof shall annotate and sign a certification
to that effect on the bottom front of the print.
"Sec 25. Manner of Counting Votes. - In addition to the
requirement in the fourth paragraph of Section 12 of the Republic
Act No. 6646 and Section 210 of the Omnibus Election Code, in "Each certified printed copy shall be placed in an envelope and
reading the official ballots during the counting, the chairman, the distributed as herein provided. Designated recipients of the
poll clerk and the third member shall assume such positions as to certified print copies may receive their copies at the polling place
provide the watchers and the members of the public as may be or counting center.
conveniently accommodated in the polling place, an unimpeded
view of the ballot being ready by the chairman, of the election "Immediately upon the accomplishment of the election returns

for local position, the second copy of the same shall be posted on a. Ballots in the compartment for spoiled ballots are
a wall with sufficient lighting within the premises of the polling presumed to be spoiled ballots.
place. b. If the board of election inspectors finds that a valid
ballot was erroneously deposited in the compartment for spoiled
"The other copies of election returns for both national and local ballots, it shall be counted. (Sec. 209, OEC)
position shall be sealed in the presence of the watchers and the
public, and placed in the proper envelope, which shall likewise be
sealed and distributed as herein provided." 3. Marked ballots
a. Marked ballots shall not be counted. (Sec. 208, OEC)
"Any election return with a separately printed serial number or b. A ballot is considered marked in any of the following
which bears a different serial number from that assigned to the cases:
particular polling place concerned shall not be canvassed. This is i. The voter signed the ballot.
to be determined by the board canvassers prior to its canvassing ii. The name of a candidate was written more than twice.
on the basis of the certification of the provincial, city or municipal iii. The voter wrote the names of well-known public figures
treasurer as to the serial number of the election return assigned who are not candidates such as actors, actresses, and national
to said voting precinct, unless the Commission shall order in political figures.
writing for its canvassing, stating the reason for the variance in iv. The ballot contains irrelevant expressions. Respondent
serial numbers." court ruled that the presence of an arrow with the words “and
party” was meant for no other purpose than to identify the voter
(Bautista vs. Castro). However, the use of nickname and
"If the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the members of the
appellations of affection and friendship, if accompanied by the
board of election inspectors or some of them as required in this
name of candidate, does not annul the ballot except when it is
provision are missing in the election returns, the board of
used to identify the voter( Ong vs. Comelec)
canvassers may summon the members of the board of election
c. A ballot with “X” marks, lines and similar marks should
inspectors concerned to complete the returns.
not be considered marked in the absence of any showing of an
intention to mark in the ballot. (De Guzman vs. Sison)
"The citizen's arm is mandated to present for perusal its copy of d. A ballot in which a sticker was stuck by another person
the election return to the board of election canvassers upon the to invalidate it should not be rejected. (Lerias vs. HRET)
request of any interested candidate.
Disposition of unused ballots,
"Any violation of this election or its pertinent portion, shall
constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in
SEC. 39. Disposition of unused ballots. After the voting, the
accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
chairman in the presence of the BEI shall: (Renumbered)
a) Record in the Minutes the quantity of unused
"In addition, the following shall likewise be guilty of an election ballots; (Renumbered)
offense: b) Tear the unused ballots in half lengthwise; (Renumbered)
c) Place one half in the envelope (A15), and submit to the EO for
"(a) Any Person who removes the election return posted on the safekeeping; and (Renumbered)
wall, whether within or after the prescribed forty-eight (48) hours d) Place the other half in another envelope (A15), and then
of posting, or defaces the same in any manner; deposit inside the compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots.
Such facts shall be entered in the
Minutes. (Renumbered)[COMELEC Reso. No. 8786]
"(b) Any person who simulates an actual election return, or a
print or digital copy thereof;
C. Rules of appreciation of ballots
"(c) Any person who simulates the certification in a print of an
Section 211. Rules for the appreciation of ballots. - In the
election return;
reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be
presumed to be valid unless there is clear and good reason to
"(d) The chairman or any member of the board of election justify its rejection. The board of election inspectors shall observe
inspectors who, during the prescribe period of posting, removes the following rules, bearing in mind that the object of the
the election return from the wall on which it had been posted election is to obtain the expression of the voter's will:
other than for the purpose of immediately transferring it to a
more suitable place;
1. Where only the first name of a candidate or only his surname
is written, the vote for such candidate is valid, if there is no other
"(e) The chairman or any member of the board of election candidate with the same first name or surname for the same
inspectors who signs or authenticates a print of the election office.
return outside of the polling place; and
2. Where only the first name of a candidate is written on the
"(f) The chairman or any member of the board of election ballot, which when read, has a sound similar to the surname of
inspectors who signs or authenticates a print which bears an another candidate, the vote shall be counted in favor of the
image different from the election return produced after counting candidate with such surname. If there are two or more
and posted on the wall." candidates with the same full name, first name or surname and
one of them is the incumbent, and on the ballot is written only
B. Special Problems in Manual Elections such full name, first name or surname, the vote shall be counted
1. Excess ballots in favor of the incumbent.
3. In case the candidate is a woman who uses her maiden or

If there are excess ballots, the poll clerk shall draw out as any married surname or both and there is another candidate with the
ballots equal to the excess without seeing them, and the excess same surname, a ballot bearing only such surname shall be
ballots shall not be counted. (Sec. 207,OEC) counted in favor of the candidate who is an incumbent.
2. Spoiled ballots 4. When two or more words are written on the same line on the
ballot, all of which are the surnames of two or more candidates,
the same shall not be counted for any of them, unless one is a invalidate the whole ballot.
surname of an incumbent who has served for at least one year in
which case it shall be counted in favor of the latter. 15. If on the ballot is correctly written the first name of a
candidate but with a different surname, or the surname of the
When two or more words are written on different lines on the candidate is correctly written but with different first name, the
ballot all of which are the surnames of two or more candidates vote shall not be counted in favor of any candidate having such
bearing the same surname for an office for which the law first name and/or surname but the ballot shall be considered
authorizes the election of more than one and there are the same valid for other candidates.
number of such surnames written as there are candidates with
that surname, the vote shall be counted in favor of all the 16. Any ballot written with crayon, lead pencil, or in ink, wholly
candidates bearing the surname. or in part, shall be valid.
5. When on the ballot is written a single word which is the first 17. Where there are two or more candidates voted for in an
name of a candidate and which is at the same time the surname office for which the law authorizes the election of only one, the
of his opponent, the vote shall be counted in favor of the latter. vote shall not be counted in favor of any of them, but this shall
not affect the validity of the other votes therein.
6. When two words are written on the ballot, one of which is the
first name of the candidate and the other is the surname of his 18. If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be
opponent, the vote shall not be counted for either. elected, the ballot is valid, but the votes shall be counted only in
favor of the candidates whose names were firstly written by the
7. A name or surname incorrectly written which, when read, has voter within the spaces provided for said office in the ballot until
a sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate when the authorized number is covered.
correctly written shall be counted in his favor;
19. Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate
8. When a name of a candidate appears in a space of the ballot of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he
for an office for which he is a candidate and in another space for did not present himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it
which he is not a candidate, it shall be counted in his favor for shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
the office for which he is a candidate and the vote for the office
for which he is not a candidate shall be considered as stray, 20. Ballots containing the name of a candidate printed and
except when it is used as a means to identify the voter, in which pasted on a blank space of the ballot or affixed thereto through
case, the whole ballot shall be void. any mechanical process are totally null and void.
If the word or words written on the appropriate blank on the 21. Circles, crosses or lines put on the spaces on which the voter
ballot is the identical name or surname or full name, as the case has not voted shall be considered as signs to indicate his
may be, of two or more candidates for the same office none of desistance from voting and shall not invalidate the ballot.
whom is an incumbent, the vote shall be counted in favor of that
candidate to whose ticket belong all the other candidates voted
22. Unless it should clearly appear that they have been
for in the same ballot for the same constituency.
deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks,
commas, dots, lines, or hyphens between the first name and
9. When in a space in the ballot there appears a name of a surname of a candidate, or in other parts of the ballot, traces of
candidate that is erased and another clearly written, the vote is the letter "T", "J", and other similar ones, the first letters or
valid for the latter. syllables of names which the voter does not continue, the use of
two or more kinds of writing and unintentional or accidental
10. The erroneous initial of the first name which accompanies the flourishes, strokes, or strains, shall not invalidate the ballot.
correct surname of a candidate, the erroneous initial of the
surname accompanying the correct first name of a candidate, or 23. Any ballot which clearly appears to have been filled by two
the erroneous middle initial of the candidate shall not annul the distinct persons before it was deposited in the ballot box during
vote in favor of the latter. the voting is totally null and void.
11. The fact that there exists another person who is not a 24. Any vote cast in favor of a candidate who has been
candidate with the first name or surname of a candidate shall not disqualified by final judgment shall be considered as stray and
prevent the adjudication of the vote of the latter. shall not be counted but it shall not invalidate the ballot.
12. Ballots which contain prefixes such as "Sr.", "Mr.", "Datu", 25. Ballots wholly written in Arabic in localities where it is of
"Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.", "Gob." or suffixes like "Hijo", "Jr.", general use are valid. To read them, the board of election
"Segundo", are valid. inspectors may employ an interpreter who shall take an oath that
he shall read the votes correctly.
13. The use of the nicknames and appellations of affection and
friendship, if accompanied by the first name or surname of the 26. The accidental tearing or perforation of a ballot does not
candidate, does not annul such vote, except when they were annul it.
used as a means to identify the voter, in which case the whole
ballot is invalid: Provided, That if the nickname used is
27. Failure to remove the detachable coupon from a ballot does
unaccompanied by the name or surname of a candidate and it is
not annul such ballot.
the one by which he is generally or popularly known in the
locality, the name shall be counted in favor of said candidate, if
there is no other candidate for the same office with the same 28. A vote for the President shall also be a vote for the Vice-
nickname. President running under the same ticket of a political party,
unless the voter votes for a Vice-President who does not belong
to such party.
14. Any vote containing initials only or which is illegible or which
does not sufficiently identify the candidate for whom it is
intended shall be considered as a stray vote but shall not 1. A ballot should be counted even if it was not signed at
the back by the chairperson of the Board of Election Inspectors.
Sec. 24. Signature of Chairman at the Back of b. If a candidate affected by the petition objects and the
Every Ballot. - In every case before delivering an official ballot correction will affect the results of the election, the COMELEC
to the voter, the chairman of the board of election inspectors shall order a recount of the votes if it finds the petition is
shall, in the presence of the voter, affix his signature at the back meritorious and the integrity of the ballot box has not been
thereof. Failure to so authenticate shall be noted in the minutes violated.(Sec. 216,OEC)
of the board of election inspectors and shall constitute an
election offense punishable under 263 and 264 of the Omnibus Certificate of Votes
Election Code [RA 7166] 1. The BEI shall issue a certificate number of votes
received by a candidate upon request of a watcher ( Sec. 16,
2. Under Sec. 211 (1) Where only the first name of a RA 6646)
candidate or only his surname is written, the vote for such
candidate is valid, if there is no other candidate with the same 2. The COV is admissible in evidence to prove any anomaly
first name or surname for the same office. The majority opinion, in the election return when authenticated by testimony or
therefore, which did not count the ballots cast where only the documentary evidence of at least two (2) members of the BEI.
first name of Lerias was written “Rosette”, “rosit” or “roset” is (Section 17, RA 6646)
contrary to subsection 1 of Sec. 211 os the OEC. (Lerias vs.
HRET) A certificate of votes can only be “evidence to prove tampering,
alteration, falsification or any other anomaly committed in the
election returns concerned, when duly authenticated…” A COV
3. Idem Sonans – A name or surname incorrectly written
does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine
which, when read, has a sound similar to the name or surname
results of the election.
of a candidate when correctly written shall be counted in his
favor.
OCTOBER 3, 2013
4. There is no question that the votes in favor of Pedro
Alfonso shall be declared as stray votes and only those votes cast Atty. V: Last time we were discussing the composition of the
with the name “Alfonso” or “Irma” shall be counted in favor of Board of Canvassers (BOC). Who composes the BOC? The
petitioner. There is no merit with the assertion that the votes cast canvassing bodies as provided in Sec. 221 of the OEC in
in favor of Pedro Alfonso must be counted in favor of petitioner. connection with Sec. 28 of RA 7166.
(Alfonso vs. Comelec)
Sec. 221, OEC. Board of Canvassers – There shall be a BOC
5. Ballots that bear the incorrect nickname, “JTV,” of a for each province, city, municipality, and district of Metropolitan
candidate, Amelia C. Villarosa, even if such nickname is indicated Manila as follows:
in the COC are stray votes. (a) Provincial BOC – the provincial BOC shall be composed of the
provincial election supervisor or a senior lawyer in the regional
6. The Neighborhood Rule office of the Commission, as Chairman, the provincial fiscal, as
The Neighborhood Rule is a settled rule stating that where the Vice-Chairman, and the provincial superintendent of schools, and
name of a candidate is not written in the proper space in the one representative from each of the ruling party and the
ballot, but is preceded by the name of the office for which he is a dominant opposition political party in the constituency concerned
candidate, the vote should be counted as valid for said entitled to be represented, as members.
candidate.
(b) City BOC – the city BOC shall be composed of the city
7. A ballot with undetached coupon should be counted. election registrar or a lawyer of the Commission as chairman, the
8. The use of two or more writings in one ballot does not city fiscal and the city superintendent of schools, and one
invalidate the ballot unless it should clearly appear that they representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant
were deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification opposition political party in the constituency concerned, as
mark(Ong vs. Comelec). Appellations of affection and members.
friendship (e.g. “Pare Ko’) do not invalidate a ballot.
(c) District BOC or Metropolitan Manila – the district BOC shall be
composed of a lawyer of the Commission, as chairman, and a
9. A certificate of votes can serve only as evidence
ranking fiscal in the district and the most senior district school
to prove tampering or falsification of election returns. It
supervisor in the district to be appointed upon consultation with
does not constitute sufficient evidence of the results of
the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Education, Culture and
the election. Only election returns are . Neither is the
Sports, respectively, and one representative from each of the
certified list of winning candidates sufficient evidence of
ruling party and the dominant opposition political party in the
the results of the elections.
constituency concerned, as members.
10. Upon termination of the counting, the ballot boxes must (d) Municipal BOC – the municipal BOC shall be composed of the
be forwarded directly to the local treasurer. A chairperson of BEIs election registrar or a representative of the Commission, as
is liable for an election offense when he/she brought home the chairman, the municipal treasurer, and the district supervisor or
election paraphernalia. in his absence any public school principal in the municipality and
one representative from each of the ruling party and the
Correction of returns dominant opposition political party entitled to be represented, as
1. Before the announcement of the results of the election members.
in a precinct, any correction or alteration in the election returns
(e) BOC for newly created political subdivisions – the Commission
must be initialed by all members of the BEI.
shall constitute a BOC and appoint member thereof for the first
election in a newly created province, city or municipality in case
2. After the announcement of the results of the election in
the officials who shall act as members thereof have not yet
a precinct, the authorization of the COMELEC is needed to make
assumed their duties and functions.
any correction or alteration.
Sec. 28, RA 7166. Canvassing by Provincial City, District and
a. If the petition is by all members of the BEIs, the results Municipal Board of Canvassers -
of the election will not be affected, and none of the candidates
affected objects, the COMELEC, upon being satisfied of the (a) The city or municipal board of canvassers shall canvass the
veracity of the petition, shall order the correction. election returns of President, Vice-President, Senator and
Members of the House of Representatives and for elective

provincial and city or municipal officials. Upon completion of the canvassers of cities comprising one or more legislative districts,
canvass, it shall prepare the certificate of canvass for President, by provincial boards of canvassers and by district boards of
Vice-President, Senators and Members of the House of canvassers in the Metro Manila Area, and distributed as follows:
Representatives and elective provincial officials and thereafter,
 The first copy shall be sent to the Congress, directed
proclaim the elected city or municipal officials, as the case may
to the President of the Senate for use in the canvass of election
be.
results for President and Vice-President;
(b) The city board of canvassers of cities comprising one or more  The second copy shall be sent to the Commission for
legislative districts shall canvass the election returns for use in the canvass of the election results for Senators;
President, Vice-President, Senators, Members of the House of  The third copy shall be kept by the chairman of the
Representatives and elective city officials. Upon completion of the board;
canvass, the board shall prepare the certificate of canvass for  The fourth copy shall be given to the citizens arm
President, Vice-President, and Senators and thereafter, proclaim designated by the Commission to conduct a media-based
the elected Members of the House of Representatives and city unofficial count; and
officials.  The fifth, sixth and seventh copies of the certificate
of canvass shall be given to any three (3) of the six (6)
(c) (1) In the Metro Manila Area each municipality comprising a
accredited major political parties in accordance with the
legislative district shall have a district board of canvassers which
voluntary agreement of the parties. If no such agreement is
shall canvass the election returns for President, Vice-President,
reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive
Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and elective
the copies of the certificate of canvass on the basis of the criteria
municipal officials. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall
provided in Section 26 hereof. The parties receiving the
prepare the certificate of canvass for President, Vice-President,
certificates shall have the obligation to furnish the other parties
and Senators and thereafter, proclaim the elected Member of the
with authentic copies thereof with the least possible delay.
House of Representatives and municipal officials.
:: Article 19 provides for the restrictions of the BOC.
(2) Each component municipal in a legislative district in the Metro
Manila Area shall have a municipal board of canvassers which  Accordingly, if the BOC is related, within the 4th civil
shall canvass the election returns for President, Vice-President, degree of consanguinity, to a candidate they cannot be appointed
Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and elective as a member of the BOC. But they can be reassigned to another
municipal officials. Upon completion of the canvass, each shall city or municipality.
prepare the certificate of canvass for President, Vice-President,  If a member of the BOC is ill to the extent that he can
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives and no longer serve in the election, the Commission shall appoint a
thereafter, proclaim the elected municipal officials. substitute. However, if found that he faked his illness, he can be
held liable for an election protest.
(3) The district board of canvassers of each legislative district
comprising two (2) municipalities in the Metro Manila Area shall :: The BOC is authorized to create canvassing committees called
canvass the certificate of canvass for President, Vice-President, Daughter Board of Canvassers (DBOC) to expedite the
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives canvassing of the votes.
submitted by the municipal board of canvassers of the
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
component municipalities. Upon completion of the canvass, it
shall prepare a certificate of canvass for President, Vice-President :: The proceeding before the BOC is not full-blown, it is only
and Senators and thereafter, proclaim the elected Member of the summary. A pre-proclamation controversy is done before the
House of Representatives in the legislative district. BOC.
(d) The provincial board of canvassers shall canvass the :: What is a pre-proclamation controversy (PPC)? Sec. 241, OEC
certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President, Senators and and reiterated in the case of Matalam v. COMELEC
Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial
officials as well as plebiscite results, if any plebiscite is conducted Sec. 241. Definition - A pre-proclamation controversy refers to
simultaneously with the same election, as submitted by the board any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the
of canvassers of municipalities and component cities. Upon board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by
completion of the canvass, it shall prepare the certificate of any registered political party or coalition of political parties
canvass for President, Vice-President and Senators and before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter
thereafter, proclaim the elected Member of the House of raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the
Representatives and provincial officials as well as the plebiscite preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
results, if any. the election returns.
NOTE:  Atty. V: From the literal word itself, it means before

proclamation. Syempre, after proclamation, the BOC become
:: Congress – Canvassing body for President and Vice-President functus officio, meaning tapos na ang trabaho nila, they can no
(Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 30, RA 7166) longer reconvene without the authority of the COMELEC.
:: COMELEC – Canvassing body for Senators and Party-list Matalam vs. COMELEC – a ppc is defined, as a general rule, as
Representatives any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the
BOC which may be raised by any candidate or any registered
:: What is being canvassed by the BOC? The election returns
from each precinct. political party or coalition of political party before:
o the Board or
 The election returns completed by the BEI are
o directly with the COMELEC, on any matter raised under
transmitted and delivered to the election officers.
–
 It is the duty of the election officer to transmit the copy
 Sec. 233 (when ER are delayed, lost or destroyed)
of the election returns to the BOC for canvassing.
 Sec. 234 (material defects in the ER)
 After canvassing, the BOC shall prepare the certificate
 Sec. 235 (when ER appear to be tampered with or
of canvass which shall be transmitted to the COMELEC and
falsified) and
Congress.
 Sec. 236 (discrepancies in the ER in relation to the
:: How is the Certificate of Canvass distributed? Sec. 29, RA preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
7166. the er and coc (p-t-r-c-a))
The certificate of canvass for President, Vice-President, Senators In other words, there are two scopes in a ppc:
shall be prepared in seven (7) copies by the city boards of
1. The proceedings and composition of the Board – Questions
affecting the composition or proceedings of the BOC may supervision. It serves as a basis for the preparation of the
be initiated with the Board or directly with the COMELEC. certificate of canvass.
Proceedings: Diba, the Board is required to notify the candidates Pimentel III vs. COMELEC – RA 9369 significantly amended
and the registered political party on the date, the venue and the Section 15 of RA 7166 by adding an exception phrase to the
time of canvassing. Assuming, there was no notice received by general prohibition against pre-proclamation controversies in
the candidate or the registered political party that refers to the elections for Pres, VP, Senators and members of the HR.
proceedings because the Board did not notify and it can be raise According to the amended Section 15, no pre-proclamation cases
as a ppc. In which case, this can be raise directly with the on matter relating to the p-t-r-c-a of ER or COC shall be allowed
COMELEC or to the BOC. except as provided by Section 30 of the same statute. Sections
15 and 40 of RA 7166 provide that pre-proclamation cases
Composition: The BOC must be duly appointed by the COMELEC.
involving the authenticity and due execution of the COC are now
At the start of the canvassing they must show that they are duly
allowed. The intention of Congress is to treat a case falling under
authorized by the COMELEC to conduct the canvassing.
Section 30 of RA 7166, as amended by RA 9369, as a pre-
Assuming, they were not able to show said authority, this pertain
proclamation case is apparent in the 4th paragraph of the said
to the composition of the BOC which, again, may be raise as a
provision which adopts and applies to such a case the same
ppc. Again, this can be raise directly with the COMELEC or to the
procedure provided under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of RA 7166.
BOC.
2. Any matter under to Sec. 233-236, OEC relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of What are the procedural requirements in a pre-
the er and coc (p-t-r-c-a) – matters raised under Sec. 233- proclamation controversy?
236 shall be brought in the first instance before the
We mentioned earlier that the ER is transmitted by an election
Board (BOC) only. The COMELEC will only have
officer to the BOC for purposes of canvassing. Assuming that the
jurisdiction over it on appeal.
BOC now will canvass, say, precinct #1, so the ER is sealed and
Sano, Jr. vs. COMELEC – The SC held that it is settled that a the seal is covered by a serial number, so if the seal is broken,
pre-proclamation controversy is summary in character the broken seal may be raised as a ppc. Why? Because the
(meaning to say there is no full-blown hearing, the BOC shall integrity of the said er is now questionable. The BOC will set
decide based on the records submitted to it); indeed, it is a aside the ER and will then call the BEI to explain why the seal is
policy of the law that pre-proclamation be promptly decided, so broken. If satisfied, then the ER will be submitted for canvass.
as not to delay canvass and proclamation, the BOC will not
The procedural requirements for a PPC is provided under Section
look into allegations or irregularity that are not apparent
17-20, RA 7166.
on the face of the ER’s that appear otherwise authentic
and duly accomplished. Navarro vs. COMELEC and Sebastian vs. COMELEC – it was
ruled that the enumeration of the issues in a ppc is restrictive
So if the ER appears to be authentic, on its face, the BOC cannot
and exclusive and the COMELEC is limited and restricted only to
look beyond it. Such that, if an issue is raised regarding the
an examination of the ER and is without jurisdiction to go beyond
irregularity of an authentic ER, the BOC can deny that because it
or behind the ER and investigate the alleged election
is not within its scope. The irregularities can well be ventilated in
irregularities.
an election protest. Pag may ghost voter dyan, vote buying,
fraud, etc., that is not covered by a ppc because a ppc is Sandoval vs. COMELEC – it was stressed the COMELEC
restricted and exclusive only in these two scopes. exercises exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio or upon
verified petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the
Sec. 17, RA 6646, this is the provision that states questions
partial or total suspension of the proclamation of the candidate
affecting the composition or proceedings of the BOC may be
elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has
initiated with the Board or directly with the COMELEC. However,
been made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with
matters raised under Sec. 233-236 shall be brought in the first
Sec. 242, OEC.
instance before the BOC only.
Velayo vs. COMELEC – a ppc is summary in nature,
Sec. 15, RA 6646 provides for the exception. Accordingly, for
administrative in character and which is filed before the BOC. It
purposes of the elections for President and Vice-President,
was ruled that while it is true that RA 7166 provides for summary
Senators and member of the HR, no pre-proclamation cases shall
proceedings in PP cases and does not require a trial type hearing,
be allowed on matters pertaining to the p-t-r-c-a of the ER of the
nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be stretched as to
COC, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the
mean ex-parte proceedings. In this case, it was found that all
authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or
proceedings were conducted by COMELEC without the
upon written complaint of an interested person to correct
participation of petitioner. Worse, respondent Navidad was
manifest error in the COC or ER before it.
allowed to file various motions without the knowledge of the
When do you file a petition to correct manifest error? petitioner. Plainly, these ex-parte proceedings offend fundamental
fairness and are null and void.
:: Before proclamation – before the BOC
Also, respondent Navidad objected to the inclusion of 2 ERs
:: After proclamation – this was answered in the case of Trinidad
which did not contain a vote for respondent alleging that it is
vs. COMELEC
statistically improbable. It was, however, ruled that it is possible
 Trinidad vs. COMELEC – it was held that prayer for for a candidate to get zero votes in 1 or few precincts. The bare
the correction of manifest error should be filed not later fact that a candidate receive zero votes in 1 or 2 precincts cannot
than 5 days following the date of proclamation while support a finding that the ER are statistical improbable. The
election protests should be filed within 10 days after the only case exception is the case of: Lagumbay vs.
proclamation of the results of the election. Correction of COMELEC – the Lagumbay Doctrine is the prevailing case on
manifest error pertains to errors in the ER, in the entries of the statistical improbability which states that where there exists
statement of votes by precinct per municipality or in the uniformity of tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party
Certificate of Canvass. Manifest clerical error is one visible to the and the systematic blanking out of the opposing candidates as
eye or obvious to the understanding. when all the candidates of one party received all the votes, each
of whom exactly the same number, and the opposing candidates
What is a Statement of Votes? It is tabulation per precinct of got zero votes (sarili mo hindi mo pala giboto), the election
votes garnered by candidates as reflected in the ER. Its returns are obviously manufactures, contrary to all statistical
preparation is an administrative function of the BOC, purely a improbabilities and utterly improbable and clearly incredible.
mechanical act over which the COMELEC has direct control and

Ocampo vs. COMELEC – it was reiterated that if only one the proceedings to continue or when appropriate order has been
candidate obtained all the votes in some precincts, this is not issued by the SC in a petition for certiorari.
sufficient to make the election returns statistically improbable.
October 7, 2013
RECOUNT OF VOTES
Sec. 233. When the election returns are delayed, lost or
Is recount allowed? Recount of votes is allowed upon proper destroyed. - In case its copy of the election returns is missing,
petition. The COMELEC may order the recount of votes in specific the board of canvassers shall, by messenger or otherwise, obtain
precincts when the ff. requisites are present: such missing election returns from the board of election
inspectors concerned, or if said returns have been lost or
1. The grounds for recount must be any of the following destroyed, the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of the
instances – Commission, may use any of the authentic copies of said election
a. omission of the name of the candidate and or his votes in the returns or a certified copy of said election returns issued by the
ER, which cannot be ascertained by any other means under Sec. Commission, and forthwith direct its representative to investigate
234, OEC the case and immediately report the matter to the Commission.
b. all copies of the ER are tampered with or falsified, under Sec. The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the
235, OEC election returns have been received by it, may terminate the
c. material discrepancies in all of the ER in the votes of a canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of the
candidate in words and figures under Sec. 236 available election returns if the missing election returns will not
affect the results of the election.
2. The ER involved will affect the results of the election.
3. The integrity of the ballot box has been preserved. Sec. 234. Material defects in the election returns. - If it should
clearly appear that some requisites in form or data had been
If upon opening the ballot box it should appear that there are omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call
evidence or signs of replacement, tampering or violation of the for all the members of the board of election inspectors concerned
integrity of the ballots, the Commission shall not recount the by the most expeditious means, for the same board to effect the
votes but should instead seal the ballot box and order its correction: Provided, That in case of the omission in the election
safekeeping. returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding
votes, the board of canvassers shall require the board of election
Nature of Recount Proceedings – summary in character and
inspectors concerned to complete the necessary data in the
merely consists in the mathematical counting of the votes
election returns and affix therein their initials: Provided, further,
received by each candidate. It does not involve any appreciation
That if the votes omitted in the returns cannot be ascertained by
of the ballots or determination of their validity as is required in
other means except by recounting the ballots, the Commission,
an election contest. Its only purpose is to count the number of
after satisfying itself that the identity and integrity of the ballot
votes as they appear on the face of the ballots.
box have not been violated, shall order the board of election
:: If the aggrieved party is still not satisfied with the result of the inspectors to open the ballot box, and, also after satisfying itself
recount, he can file for an election protest. that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved,
order the board of election inspectors to count the votes for the
Requisites of recount based on material discrepancies –
candidate whose votes have been omitted with notice thereof to
to justify a recount based on material discrepancies in the ER,
all candidates for the position involved and thereafter complete
the following requirements must be met:
the returns.
1. there must be an averment that a discrepancy exists between The right of a candidate to avail of this provision shall not be lost
two or more genuine returns; or affected by the fact that an election protest is subsequently
filed by any of the candidates.
2. the alleged discrepancy must be brought to the attention of
the BOC; Sec. 235. When election returns appear to be tampered with or
3. the BOC must rule that such discrepancy in the authentic falsified. - If the election returns submitted to the board of
copies of the returns exist; and canvassers appear to be tampered with, altered or falsified after
they have left the hands of the board of election inspectors, or
4. the difference in the number of votes could affect the result of otherwise not authentic, or were prepared by the board of
the election. election inspectors under duress, force, intimidation, or prepared
Who may petition for recount? Only one petition is allowed. by persons other than the member of the board of election
It may be filed by the BOC or the candidate affected. Even if the inspectors, the board of canvassers shall use the other copies of
candidate does it on his own, it does not necessarily follow that said election returns and, if necessary, the copy inside the ballot
they are not convinced that a discrepancy exists and petitioner box which upon previous authority given by the Commission may
should include recount in all polling places and not separately. be retrieved in accordance with Section 220 hereof. If the other
copies of the returns are likewise tampered with, altered,
falsified, not authentic, prepared under duress, force,
intimidation, or prepared by persons other than the members of
EFFECT OF ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE OF CANDIDATE
the board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers or any
ELECT WHEN PPC IS NOT TERMINATED
candidate affected shall bring the matter to the attention of the
GR: A pp is no longer viable after proclamation but this is so only Commission. The Commission shall then, after giving notice to all
if the proclamation is valid. Once the candidate has already been candidates concerned and after satisfying itself that nothing in
proclaimed, the BOC become functus officio and the Board can the ballot box indicate that its identity and integrity have been
no longer reconvene without the authority of the BOC. violated, order the opening of the ballot box and, likewise after
satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been
Sec. 16, RA 7166. Provides that all pre-proclamation cases
duly preserved shall order the board of election inspectors to
before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the
recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new
beginning of the term of office involved and the rulings of the
return which shall then be used by the board of canvassers as
BOC concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to
basis of the canvass.
the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party.
However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the
Sec. 236. Discrepancies in election returns. - In case it appears
evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the
to the board of canvassers that there exists discrepancies in the
petition appears meritorious and accordingly issued an order for
other authentic copies of the election returns from a polling place days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy
or discrepancies in the votes of any candidate in words and and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than
figures in the same return, and in either case the difference fifteen days before the election.
affects the results of the election, the Commission, upon motion
of the board of canvassers or any candidate affected and after So it pertains to a candidacy that may be disqualified, or there
due notice to all candidates concerned, shall proceed summarily may be false or material misrepresentation in his or her
to determine whether the integrity of the ballot box had been Certificate of candidacy (COC). If one is not able to question or
preserved, and once satisfied thereof shall order the opening of challenge the COC of a candidate based on Sec. 78, a remedy is
the ballot box to recount the votes cast in the polling place solely to file a petition for quo warranto under 253 OEC:
for the purpose of determining the true result of the count of
votes of the candidates concerned. Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting the
election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional,
This is limited to any matter under section 233-236 of OEC in provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, and disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn
appreciation of the Election returns (ERs). The Board of petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days
Canvassers (BOC) cannot go beyond the ERs as long as the ERs after the proclamation of the results of the election.
appear to be authentic and genuine. Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay
officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the
So there is no trial in a pre-proclamation controversy. If there is Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo
an objection to the ERs, it has to be via a verbal objection and warranto with the regional trial court or metropolitan or
the objecting party has to reduce in writing its objection within municipal trial court, respectively, within ten days after the
24 hours so that the BOC shall rule on it. The adverse party may proclamation of the results of the election.
be notified and the BOC will rule and the aggrieved party can
raise it before the COMELEC as a pre-proclamation controversy. An election protest is under Section 249:
And the COMELEC is mandated to rule on the appeal soonest,
within 5 weeks from receipt. Sec. 249. Jurisdiction of the Commission. - The Commission shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns,
In an election protest, it is a protest after the proclamation, and and qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa,
therefore, after the candidate is proclaimed. When all the elective regional, provincial and city officials.
candidates have been proclaimed, we said that a pre-
proclamation controversy is no longer viable because there is So what is a petition for quo warranto as distinguished from
already proclamation, unless when of course, (THIS IS THE election protest?
EXCEPTION), there is error in the computation that could affect
the standing of the parties in that election. I which case, the In Quo Warranto:
proclamation may be declared void, in which case, a pre-
proclamation controversy can still be viable. UNDER THAT Refers to questions of:
CIRCUMSTANCE ONLY. 1. Disloyalty to the constituted govt, or
2. Ineligibility of the winning candidate
Who can file? Real party-in-interest. He is a candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy AND has been voted for (so In #2- he does not possess the cit requirement, age, residence,
he has been voted 2nd only, he did not win). Usually, yan yung etc.
mga 5 or 10 votes lang ang difference. So of course if you are
the 2nd highest, you will question, if there si ground, the Objective is to prevent the elective official from assuming office
proclamation of the winning candidate, then you file an election grounded on ineligibility, but not necessarily to forestall the
protest. petitioner, in a quo warranto, to be proclaimed
Within what period to be filed? Within 10 days from the date of Who may file? It may be any registered voter may file a petition
proclamation. for quo warranto
What are the grounds? (Maam: lahat na ng grounds… IDK what
lahat, specifically, pero she mentions…) Within 10 days from proclamation:
1. Irregularities
2. Fraud Republic v. dela Rosa 232 SCRA 785. The disqualification of
3. Vote-buying Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo opted to reacquire his
4. Flying(?) voters Philippine citizenship thru naturalization but however failed to
5. Misappreciation of ballots comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication.
6. Disenfranchisement of the voters
7. The counting was transferred without the procedure Held: A QW assailing the public official’s title and seeking to
undertaken, without the notice of the parties concerned and the prevent him from holding office for alienage is not covered by the
candidates 10-days period for appeal prescribed in Section 253 of the OEC.
considering that Fil citizenship is a continuing requirement but he
So those are all grounds that can already be used in an election lost it, even if the discover is 10 months after the proclamation,
protest as distinguished from a pre-proclamation controversy the candidate may still be challenged in a petition for QW for
which is limited lang to the ERs. having lost his Fil. Cit. It may not be covered by the 10 day
period of the proclamation of a candidate.
On the other hand, after election, another action that can
challenge the proclamation of a winning candidate is a petition Election contest are covered by:
for quo warranto. So if you recall our discussion in Section 78- 1. With respect to election contest for municipal officials,
petition to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy: and officials to COMELEC, covered by Rule 22
Rule 22 - Appeals from Decisions of Courts in Election Protest
Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of Cases
candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person Section 1. Caption and Title of Appealed Cases. - In all election
exclusively on the ground that any material representation contests involving the elections, returns, and qualifications of
contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. municipal or barangay officials, the party interposing the appeal
The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five
shall be called the "Appellant" and the adverse party the (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the election.
"Appellee", but the title of the case shall remain as it was in the Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office, but contests for
court of origin. offices of the Sangguniang Pampook, Sangguniang Panlalawigan
or Sangguniang Panglungsod may be consolidated in a single
Sec. 2. Attorneys. - The attorneys of the parties in the courts case.
shall be considered as their respective attorneys in the
Commission, unless otherwise manifested. Sec. 2. Contents of Answer. - The answer must specify the nature
of the defense and may set forth special and affirmative
Sec. 3. Notice of Appeal. - Within five (5) days after promulgation defenses.
of the decision of the court, the aggrieved party may file with
said court a notice of appeal, and serve a copy thereof upon the Sec. 3. Counter-Protest or Counterclaim. - The protestee may
attorney of record of the adverse party. incorporate in his answer a counter-protest or a counterclaim.
Sec. 4. Immediate Transmittal of Records of the Case. - The Clerk Sec. 4. General Denial. - If no answer is filed to the protest or
of the court concerned shall, within fifteen (15) days from the counter-protest, a general denial shall be deemed to have been
filing of the notice of appeal, transmit to the Electoral Contests entered.
Adjudication Department the complete records of the case,
together with all the evidence, including the original and three Sec. 5. Protestant's Reply. - The protestant may file a reply.
(3) copies of the transcript of stenographic notes of the
proceedings. Sec. 6. Revision of Ballots. - When the allegations in a protest or
counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the
Sec. 5. Filing of Briefs. - The Clerk of Court concerned, upon Commission or Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall
receipt of the complete records of the case, shall notify the immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their
appellant or his counsel to file with the Electoral Contests keys, list of voters with voting records, book of voters, and other
Adjudication Department within thirty (30) days from receipt of documents used in the election to be brought before the
such notice, ten (10) legible copies of his brief with proof of Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots.
service thereof upon the appellee.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the brief of the appellant, Sec. 7. Composition and Compensation of Revision Committee. -
the appellee shall file ten (10) legible copies of his brief with For the above purpose, the Commission may constitute a
proof of service thereof upon the appellant. committee on the revision of ballots which shall be composed of
the following with the corresponding compensation per ballot box
Sec. 6. Contents of Brief. - The brief shall have the same contested:
contents as those provided under Sections 16 and 17, Rule 46 of 1. A Chairman, who shall be a lawyer of the Commission -
the Rules of Court. A copy of the decision appealed from shall be P150.00
attached as an appendix to the appellant's brief. 2. One Revisor/Alternate for the Protestant - P100.00
3. One Revisor/Alternate for the Protestee - P100.00
Sec. 7. Reply Brief. - The appellant may file a reply brief within Other Support Staff:
twenty (20) days from receipt of appellee's brief. 4. Clerk - P50.00
5. Typist - P50.00
Sec. 8. When Case May Be Set for Oral Argument. - Upon the 6. Ballot Box Custodian - P50.00
filing of appellant's reply brief, or after the expiration of the time
for its filing, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision, Sec. 8. Revision Expenses. - The compensation of the members
unless within fifteen (15) days therefrom, any party asks, and for and staff shall be deducted from the cash deposit of the
special reason, is thereafter granted permission for oral protestant or the protestee as the case may be, and other
argument, or unless the Commission motu proprio requires it. incidental expenses such as supplies and transportation in the
Oral arguments shall be confined to such points as the supplies and transportation in the gathering of the protested
Commission may specify in an order setting the date therefor. ballot boxes.
The Commission may admit memoranda in lieu of oral argument.
Sec. 9. Venue of the Revision. - The revision of ballots shall be
Sec. 9. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. - The appeal may be made in the Office of the Clerk of Court concerned or at such
dismissed upon motion of either party or at the instance of the places as the Commission or Division shall designate and shall be
Commission on any of the following grounds: completed within three (3) months from the date of the order;
(a) Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee; unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
(b) Failure of the appellant to file copies of his brief within the
time provided by these rules; Sec. 10. Custody of Election Records and Paraphernalia. - The
(c) Want of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief; ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, the list of voters
and with the voting records, book of voters, and other documents
(d) Failure to file notice of appeal within the prescribed period. used in the election, shall be kept and held secure in a place to
be designated by the Commission, in the care and custody of the
Sec. 10. Withdrawal of Appeal. - An appeal may be withdrawn as ballot box custodian of the Electoral Contests Adjudication
a matter of right at any time before the filing of appellee's brief. Department and under the authority of the Chairman.
After the filing of the appellee's brief, the withdrawal may be
allowed at the discretion of the Commission. Sec. 11. Report of Committee on Revision. - The committee on
2. With respect to rules government regional, provincial or revision of ballots shall make a statement of the condition in
city officials, it is covered by Part V, rule 20 of the Comelec Rules which the ballot boxes and their contents were found upon the
of Procedure opening of the same, and shall classify the ballots so examined
PART V and set forth clearly any objection that may have been offered to
PARTICULAR ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS each ballot in the report to be submitted by them. Disputed
A. ORDINARY ACTIONS ballots shall be numbered consecutively for purposes of
Rule 20 - Election Protests identification in the presence and under the direction of the
committee chairman. After examination, the ballots and other
Section 1. Filing of Election Protest. - A verified petition election documents shall be returned to their respective boxes
contesting the election of any regional, provincial or city official under lock but disputed ballots shall be placed in a separate
shall be filed by any candidate who duly filed a certificate of envelope duly sealed and signed by the members of the
candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten committee and then returned to the box. For purposes of making
said report, which shall be submitted in twelve (12) legible petition in intervention, which shall be substantiated within the
copies, only the prescribed form prepared by the Commission same proceeding. The protestant or protestee shall answer the
shall be used. protest-in-intervention within five (5) days after notice.
(e) If no answer shall be filed to the protest, counter-protest or
Sec. 12. Prohibited Access. - During the revision of ballots, no protest-in-intervention within the time limits respectively fixed, a
person other than the Members of the Commission, members of general denial shall be deemed to have been entered.
the committee on revision of ballots, the Clerk of Court
concerned or the latter's authorized representatives and the Sec. 8. Substantial and Formal Amendments of Pleadings. - After
parties, their attorney or their duly authorized representatives the case is set for hearing, no amendment to any pleading
shall have access to the place where said revision is taking place. affecting the merits of the controversy shall be allowed except by
leave of Court and only upon such grounds as will serve public
Sec. 13. Book of Voters as Evidence. - In election contests, the interest. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court
book of voters shall be conclusive in regard to the question as to that the motion to amend was made with intent to delay the
who has the right to vote in said election. action. Any amendment in matters of from may be permitted at
3. With respect to rules involving procedures before the any stage of the proceedings.
RTC, it is covered by Part VI rule 35 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure Sec. 9. Filing Fee. - No protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-
PART VI intervention shall be given due course without the payment of a
PROVISIONS GOVERNING ELECTION CONTESTS AND filing fee in the amount of three hundred pesos (P300.00) for
QUO WARRANTO CASES BEFORE TRIAL COURT each interest.
Each interest shall further pay the legal research fee as required
Rule 35 - Election Contests Before Courts of General Jurisdiction. by law.
If a claim for damages and attorney's fees are set forth in a
Section 1. Original Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts. - Regional protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention, an additional
trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over contests filing fee shall be paid in accordance with the schedule provided
relating to the elections, returns and qualifications involving for in the Rules of Court in the Philippines.
elective municipal officials.
Sec. 10. Cash Deposit. - (a) In any protest, counter-protest or
Sec. 2. Filing of Election Contests. - A petition contesting the protest-in-intervention not requiring ballot revision, the
election of any municipal official shall be filed with the proper protestant, the counter-protestant, or intervenor, as the case may
Regional Trial Court or mailed at the post office as registered be, shall upon the payment of the filing fee, make a cash deposit
matter addressed to said Court, together with six (6) legible in the amount of five hundred pesos (P500.00) which shall be
copies thereof, by any candidate for the same office who has applied to the payment of all expenses incidental to such protest,
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and who was voted in the counter-protest or protest-in-intervention. When circumstances
election. Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office, but so warrant, additional cash deposits may be required. Any
contests for offices of the Sangguniang Bayan may be unused balance thereof shall be returned to the party making the
consolidated in one case. deposit.
(b) In case revision of ballots is required, there shall be
Sec. 3. Period to File Petition. - The petition shall be filed within deposited, within ten days after being required by the Court, the
ten (10) days following the date of proclamation of the results of sum of three hundred pesos (P300.00) for every ballot box for
the election. the consumption of revisors at the rate of P100.00 each.
(c) Failure to make the cash deposits herein provided within the
Sec. 4. Designation of Parties. - The party bringing the action prescribed time limit shall result in the automatic dismissal of the
shall be designated as the Protestant, and the party against protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention, as the case
whom the action is brought shall be designated as the Protestee. may be.
(d) In case the party who has paid the expenses and costs wins,
Sec. 5. Duty of Clerk of Court to Issue Notice and Serve Copy of the court shall assess, levy and collect the same as costs from
Petition. - It shall be the duty of the Clerk of Court of the trial the losing party.
court to serve notice and a copy of the petition by means of
summons upon each respondent within five (5) days after the Sec. 11. Presentation and Reception of Evidence. - The
filing thereof. presentation and reception of evidence in election contests shall
be made in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 17 of these Rules,
Sec. 6. Petition to be Verified. - All petitions shall be verified by but the same shall be completed within thirty (30) days from the
the parties filing them or their attorneys. date of the commencement thereof.
Any subsequent pleading based on facts which ought to be
proved shall likewise be verified. Sec. 12. Custody of Ballot Boxes, Election Documents and
Paraphernalia. - Where allegations in a protests, or counter-
Sec. 7. Answer, Reply, Counter-Protest and Protest in protest or protest-in-intervention so warrant, or whenever in the
Intervention. - (a) Within five (5) days after receipt of notice of opinion of the Court the interest of justice so demands, it shall
the filing of the petition and a copy of the petition, the immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their
respondent shall file his answer thereto specifying the nature of keys, list of voters with voting records, books of voters, and
his defense, and serve a copy thereof upon the protestant. The other documents used in the election to be brought before it.
answer shall deal only with the election in the precincts which Said election documents and paraphernalia shall be kept and
are covered by the allegations of the protest. held secure in a place to be designated by the Court in the care
(b) Should the protestee desire to impugn the votes received by and custody of the Clerk of Court.
the protestant in other precincts, he shall file a counter-protest
within the same period fixed for the filing of the answer, serving Sec. 13. Revision of Ballots. - For the purpose of revision of
a copy thereof upon the protestant by registered mail or by ballots, the court shall appoint a committee composed of a
personal delivery. In such a case, the counter-protest shall be chairman and two members, one member and his substitute to
verified. be proposed by the protestant, and the other member and his
(c) The protestant shall answer the counter-protest within five substitute by the protestee.
(5) days after notice. The revision of the ballots by the Committee on revision shall be
(d) Within five (5) days from the filing of the protest, any other made in the office of the Clerk of Court or at such other place as
candidate for the same office may intervene in the case as other may be designated by it, but in every case under the Court's
contestants and ask for affirmative relief in his favor by a verified strict supervision.
The revision of the ballots shall be completed within twenty (20) 4. Quo warranto is covered by part VI of rule 36 of
days from the date of the order, unless otherwise directed by the Comelec Rules of procedure
Court, subject to the time limits prescribed under Sec. 11 and Rule 36 - Quo Warranto Case Before Courts of General
Sec. 17 of this Rule. Jurisdiction
Sec. 14. Book of Voters as Evidence. - The book of voters shall Section 1. Filing of Petition. - A voter contesting the election of
be conclusive evidence in regard to the question as to who has any municipal official on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to
the right to vote in said election. the Republic of the Philippines may file a petition for quo
warranto with the appropriate Regional Trial Court.
Sec. 15. Report of the Committee on Revision. - The committee
on revision shall make a statement of the condition in which the Sec. 2. Designation of Parties. - The party filing the petition shall
ballot boxes and their contents were found upon the opening of be referred to as the Petitioner and the party against whom it is
the same, classify the ballots so examined, and set forth clearly filed shall be known as the Respondent.
any objection that may have been offered to each ballot in the
report to be submitted by it. Disputed ballots shall be numbered Sec. 3. Period Within Which to File the Petition. - The petition
consecutively for purposes of identification in the presence and shall be filed within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the
under the direction of the official designated by the Court. After results of the election.
examination, the ballots and other election documents shall be Sec. 4. Petition to be Verified. - The petition shall be verified by
returned to their respective boxes, but disputed ballots shall be the party filing it or by his attorney. Any subsequent pleading
placed in a separate envelope duly sealed and signed by the based on facts which ought to be proved shall likewise be
members of the committee, after which said envelope shall then verified.
be returned to the box. Thereafter, the boxes shall be locked. For
purposes of making the report which shall be submitted in twelve Sec. 5. Filing Fee. - No petition for quo warranto shall be given
(12) legible copies, the form prescribed by the Commission shall due course without the payment of a filing fee in the amount of
be followed. Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) and the legal research fee as
required by law.
Sec. 16. Prohibited Access. - During the revision of ballots no
person other than the Judge, the Clerk of Court, members of the Sec. 6. Summons. - It shall be the duty of the Clerk of Court to
committee on revision of ballots, the parties, their duly serve notice and a copy of the petition by means of summons
authorized representatives shall have access to the place where upon each respondent within five (5) days after the filing of the
said revision is taking place. petition.
Sec. 17. Decision on the Contest. - The Court shall decide the Sec. 7. Answer. - Within five (5) days from receipt of the notice
election contest within thirty (30) days from the date it is and a copy of the petition, the respondent shall file his verified
submitted for decision, but in every case within six (6) months answer to the petition.
after its filing and shall declare who among the parties has been
elected, or in a proper case, the none of them has been legally Sec. 8. Substantial and Formal Amendments of Pleadings. - The
elected. The party who in the judgment has been declared provision of Section 8 of Rule 35 of these Rules shall apply in
elected shall have the right to assume the office as soon as the respect to amendments of pleadings.
judgment becomes final.
Sec. 9. Immediate Hearing; Presentation and Reception of
In case the Court finds that the protestant, protestee or Evidence. - Upon the joinder of issues, the Clerk of Court shall
intervenor shall have an equal or highest number of votes, it immediately set the case for hearing.
shall order the drawing of lots by those who have tied and shall The presentation and reception of evidence shall be made in the
proclaim as elected the party who may be favored by luck, and manner prescribed in Section 2 Rule 17 of these Rules.
the party so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in
the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality vote. Sec. 10. Termination of Hearing. - The hearing shall be
completed within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of
Sec. 18. Damages and Attorney's Fees in Election Contests. - In the petition.
all election contests, the court may adjudicate damages and
attorney's fee as it may deem just and as established by the Sec. 11. Decision. - The court shall decide the case within thirty
evidence if the aggrieved party has included such claims in his (30) days from the date it is submitted for decision, but in every
pleadings. case within six (6) months after its filing.
Sec. 19. Promulgation and Finality of Decision. - The decision of Sec. 12. Promulgation and Finality of the Decision. - The decision
the Court shall be promulgated on a date set by it of which due of the court shall be promulgated on a date set by it of which
notice must be given the parties. It shall become final five (5) due notice must be given the parties. It shall become final five
days after its promulgation. No motion for reconsideration shall (5) days after its promulgation.
be entertained. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Sec. 20. Notice of Final Decision. - As soon as decision declaring Sec. 13. Notice of Final Decision. - As soon as a decision
the election of the winner becomes final, notice thereof shall be becomes final, notice thereof shall be sent to the Commission on
sent to the Commission on Elections, the Department of Local Elections, and the Department of Local Government. If the
Government and the Commission on Audit. If the decision be decision is adverse to the respondent, notice shall likewise be
that none of the parties has been legally elected, the Clerk of sent to the Commission on Audit.
Court shall certify such decision to the President of the
Philippines and to the Commission on Elections. Sec. 14. Appeal. - From any decision rendered by the court, the
aggrieved party may appeal to the Commission on Elections,
Sec. 21. Appeal. - From any decision rendered by the court the without five (5) days after the promulgation of the decision.
aggrieved party may appeal to the Commission on Elections
within five (5) days after the promulgation of the decision. Sec. 15. Preferential Disposition of Quo Warranto Cases. - The
courts shall give preference to quo warranto over all other cases,
Sec. 22. Preferential Disposition of Contests. - The courts shall except those of habeas corpus.
give preference to election contests over all other cases, except
those of habeas corpus. You can read there, what period to answer, what is the procedure
governing election contest of these various election officials. the comelec en banc. So the Comelec ruled on the MFR but at
that time, the candidate was already proclaimed as a member of
So an election protest (EP) and a quo warranto (QW), for the HOR. So did COMELEC exceed its jurisdiction?
example, if an EP is filed but the allegation or the substance of
the complaint pertains to the ineligibility of the candidate, it will When raised before the SC, the COMELEC exceeded its
be treated as a QW because the court will determine the jurisdiction when it still ruled on the MFR notwithstanding the
substance or the allegations in the complaint, not the fact that the candidate has already been proclaimed as a
nomenclature or caption of the complaint. Therefore, an EP and member of the HOR and has assumed office. So comelec no
a QW cannot be treated together, they have to be separate longer has jurisdiction to rule on the MFR.
because the causes of action are different.
Basarte vs. Comelec 523 SCRA 76
What is the form, and what type of requirement is it
(jurisdictional or formal)? The form is VERIFIED. The prevailing rule that as long as the returns appear to be
authentic and duly accomplished on their face (so base on it
Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez v. Eufrocino C. Codilla/ 668 walang mali), the BOC cannot look beyond or behind them to
SCRA 600 (2012) verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of
the votes as it presupposes that the returns “appear to be
Torres was questioning the verification in the COC of Coquilla. authentic and duly accomplished on their face”. This principle
She was saying na yung lawyer expired na daw ang notarial does not apply in cases like the one at bar where there is a
stamp at the time that the COC was filed and at the same time prima facie showing that the return is not genuine,
hindi daw nagappear ang candidate before the lawyer. For a COC several entries having been omitted in the assailed
kasi, its only a jurat, subscribed and sworn. SO the question is return.
this verification valid?
So in this case, this is a General Rule: as long as the ER are
Held: Verification – (Defective verification) The verification of a authentic, the BOC cannot go beyond. But in this case, since
pleading is only a formal, not jurisdictional requirement. Rules there are several material discrepancies, or there are certain data
before election are mandatory, but after election, are only that was not included or that it was not genuine, it will have to
directory. The purpose of requiring the verification is to secure an be set aside, ER cannot be canvassed and it has to be set aside
assurance that the allegations in the petition are true and and whatever questions by the parties, it should be answered by
correct, not merely speculative. You are saying that “I am the Board of Election Inspectors, the BOC cannot just include
the affiant, preparing this COC for ekekek all the facts stated that for canvassing without first verifying from the BEI because
therein are true and correct to the best of my ability ekekek (that the BOC has not authority to make any correction in the ERs.
is the verification)” This requirements is simply a condition
affecting the form of pleadings, and non compliance Cambe vs. COMELEC 543 S 157
therewith does not necessarily render the pleading
fatally defective. This pertains to 2 candidates, Cambe and Go for member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Lasang, Cagayan, who were vying for 8
Virgnio Villamor vs. Comelec & Amytis de Dios-Batao 496 seats. When the ER for some clustered precincts were presented
SCRA 334. for canvass, candidate Go orally moved for the exclusion of these
As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of ER of these clustered precincts on the ground that the returns
the winning candidate for the position contested would be to file were allegedly manufactured, and the integrity of the ERs are
a regular election protest or a petition for QW. The filing of an questionable because the total number of votes cast for the vice
EP or a petition for QW precludes the subsequent filing of a pre- mayor candidates exceeded the registered no. of voters. So this
proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one was followed by a written petition stating that the canvass of the
earlier filed, thus, depriving the Comelec of the authority to contested return will affect the 8th position in the municipal
inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the council race (pre-proclamation pa ito, before the BOC). And he
validity of his proclamation. was saying should the alleged manufactured ERs be included,
Cambe would get the 8th position, but if excluded, it will be Go
Once there is proclamation, jurisdiction will already depend on who will advance to the 8th place. So it should have been that 6
the position of the candidate; because during a pre-proclamation pts lang ang lead ni Go over Cambe. So subsequently, the
controversy COMELEC has administrative and supervisory municipal BOC issued a notice directing the incumbent to file his
jurisdiction over the BOC. After proclamation, sabi natin na pre- comment-opposition petition within 24 hours from receipt of
proclamation is no longer viable, so an EP or QW has been filed, notice. In the morning of the next day, the municipal BOC issued
this already precludes the filing of a pre-proclamation a ruling excluding the ERs on the ground of fraud, material
controversy or rule upon a pending appeal with the COMELEC, so defect, tampering, statistical improbability; and on the same day,
all pending cases in a pre-proclamation issue pending with the the municipal BOC proclaimed Go. SO Cambe filed his written
COMELEC is deemed terminated kasi may proclamation na, but opposition to the exclusion of this (?) crisis at 1:35 pm of May
this is based on if it will not affect the result of the election. So in 22, and Cambe received a copy of the ruling at 4:35pm within
this case, sinasabi natin dito, once there is proclamation, pre- that same afternoon. So on may 28, cambe filed a notice of
proclamation controversy is no longer viable. Therefore, comelec appeal with the municipal BOC and an appeal with the comelec
has no longer jurisdiction. So who has jurisdiction for city on may 30. COmelec En Banc upheld the ruling of the municipal
officials? It is the trial court na, if member of the House of Rep, it BOC, hence Cambe went to the SC.
is the HRET already, if municipal candidate, RTC, barangay
officials yan Municipal trial court. So COMELEC no longer has Issues:
jurisdiction.
1. WON the Comelec En Banc has jurisdiction over
The reason is that once the competent tribunal has acquired pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance
jurisdiction of an EP or a petition for QW, all questions relative Although not raised as an issue, the Court is empowered to
thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in address the first issue which is both constitutional and
another proceedings. This procedure is to prevent confusion and jurisdictional.[15] The consistent ruling of the Court is that, the
conflict of authority. Commission en banc does not have jurisdiction in the first
instance, whether original or appellate, over election cases, pre-
SO if you recall we discussed earlier, a motion for reconsideration proclamation controversies, and incidents thereof. When such
so a decision was made by the 1st or 2nd division, so a motion for disputes are filed before or elevated to the Commission, they
recon of the decision of the 1st or 2nd division was raised before should be heard and adjudicated first at the division level.[16]
This doctrine is anchored on Section 3, Article IX-C of the unresolved objections of Talib to the inclusion of certain returns
Constitution which established the two-tiered organizational and in the canvass; and (3) it was predicated on a canvass that
functional structure of the COMELEC. The provision requires that included unsigned election returns involving such number of
election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, should votes as will affect the outcome of the election. In this regard, it
be heard and decided first at the division level. It reads, thus: has long been recognized that among the reliefs that the
SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two COMELEC may grant is to nullify a proclamation or suspend the
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to effects of one.
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided In this case, the proclamation of Go is void because it was based
in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions on a canvass that outrightly excluded an election return, which
shall be decided by the Commission en banc. as admitted by both petitioner[23] and Go,[24] would determine
It is important to clarify, however, that not all cases relating to who between them would advance to the 8th position as
election laws filed before the COMELEC are required to be first member of the Sangguniang Bayan. Moreover, said proclamation
heard by a division. Under the Constitution, the COMELEC was done immediately after the MBC issued its ruling on the
exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The petition for exclusion. As held in Espidol v. Commission on
COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters falling within its Elections,[25] the action of the MBC constituted a deprivation of
administrative powers. It is only when the exercise of quasi- the right to appeal the ruling to the COMELEC, violating Section
judicial powers is involved that the COMELEC is mandated to 20 (i) of R.A. No. 7166:
decide cases first in division, and then, upon motion for
reconsideration, en banc.[17] Sec. 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns. -
In the instant controversy, the case filed by petitioner involving (i) The decision of the Commission shall be executory after
Election Return No. 9601666 which the MBC found to be the lapse of seven (7) days from receipts thereof by the losing
fraudulent, tampered, and statistically improbable, is a pre- party.
proclamation case[18] requiring the COMELECs exercise of quasi-
judicial powers.[19] The same should have been decided at the The rationale for declaring void such hasty proclamation is
first instance by a division of the COMELEC, especially so that elucidated thus:
petitioner filed his appeal not with the en banc but with a division A pattern of conduct observed in past elections has been the
of the COMELEC.[20] Failing to comply with the constitutional pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest-slogan of
and jurisprudential requirements, Resolution No. 8212 must some candidates or parties. Really, were a victim of a
therefore be declared void insofar as the instant case is proclamation be precluded from challenging the validity thereof
concerned. after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder,
baneful effects may easily supervene. It may not be out of place
2. WON the proclamation of Go was valid to state that in the long history of election contests in this
In Jainal v. Commission on Elections,[22] a pre-proclamation country, as served in Lagumbay v. Climaco, successful contestant
case filed by mayoralty candidate Julhatab Talib, the Court in an election protest often wins but a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a
affirmed the order of the COMELEC annulling the proclamation of vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has
his rival, Salip Aloy Jainal, for having been made immediately expired. Protests, counter-protests, revisions of ballots, appeals,
after the board ruled on the objection of Talib. Thus: dilatory tactics, may well frustrate the will of the electorate. And
what if the protestant may not have the resources and an
[I]t was the MBC who did not comply with its duties under Sec. unwavering determination with which to sustain a long drawn-out
20 of R.A. No. 7166. When Talib made his objections to the election contest? In this context therefore all efforts should be
inclusion of the contested election returns, there was no other strained as far as is humanly possible to take election returns out
recourse for the MBC except to rule on the objections, suspend of the reach of the unscrupulous; and to prevent illegal or
the canvass of the contested election returns, and suspend the fraudulent proclamation from ripening into illegal assumption of
proclamation of petitioner, in that sequence. Instead of doing so, office.
the MBC, after ruling on the objections, included the contested
returns in the canvass and immediately proclaimed petitioner. So in this case, considering that the votes are critical because if
(Emphasis supplied) iexclude, pasok ang isa, if hindi, yung isa naman. So it would
definitely affect the results of the election, in which case, the
These actions of the MBC rendered it impossible for Talib to parties should be given the opportunity to raise it before the
comply with Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 7166 any further. It should be comelec. The municipal BOC has no jurisdiction on the basis of
noted that the forty-eight (48)-hour period for filing a verified that canvass without taking cognition of the appeal by Cambe
notice of appeal with the MBC is reckoned from suspension of the constituted deprivation on the part of Cambe.
canvass. The appeal to the COMELEC is also reckoned five (5)
days from suspension of the canvass. Understandably, Talib had 3. WON COMELEC acted properly in sustaining the
no other recourse but to go directly to the COMELEC. ruling of the municipal BOC which outrightly excluded
the ERs.
It is worthy of note that what was filed with and resolved by the The last issue relates to the proper treatment which should have
poll body is a pre-proclamation case. Pre-proclamation cases been accorded to the questioned return at the COMELEC division
refer to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of level and the appropriate course of action which should have
the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or been taken at the canvassing board level.
by any registered political party or coalition of political parties
before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter As a rule, as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly
raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of beyond or behind them to verify the allegations of irregularities in
election returns. the casting or the counting of the votes. Corollarily, technical
examination of voting paraphernalia involving analysis and
The general rule is that a pre-proclamation case before the comparison of voters signatures and thumbprints thereon is
COMELEC is, logically, no longer viable after a proclamation has prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated by law
been made. However, this rule admits of exceptions, as when the to be expeditiously resolved without involving evidence aliunde
proclamation is null and void. The proclamation of petitioner in and examination of voluminous documents which take up much
this case is void for three (3) reasons: (1) it was based on a time and cause delay, defeating the public policy underlying the
canvass that should have been suspended with respect to the summary nature of pre-proclamation controversies.
contested election returns; (2) it was done without prior
COMELEC authorization which is required in view of the However, in Lee v. Commission on Elections,[27] involving a
petition of a candidate for mayor seeking the exclusion of an exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its mandate
election return on the ground that the same bears no entries for to protect the integrity of elections, the Comelec “must not be
the position of congressman, the Court explained that the straitjacketed by procedural rules in resolving election disputes.”
aforestated restrictive doctrine on the examination of election
returns presupposes that said returns appear to be authentic and Douglas R. Cagas v. Comelec/Bautista 663 SCRA 644
duly accomplished on their face. But when there is a prima facie (2012)
showing that the return is not genuine, as where several entries
were omitted in the questioned election return, the doctrine does What is contemplated by the final order of the COMELEC that
not apply. The COMELEC is thus not powerless to determine if may be reviewable by certiorari?
there is basis for the exclusion of the controverted election
return. The Court has no power to review on certiorari an
interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a
In the instant case, Election Return No. 9601666 cannot be Division of the Comelec. The governing provision is Section
considered as regular or authentic on its face inasmuch as the 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: Section 7.
total votes cast for the vice-mayoralty position, which is 288, Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
exceeded the total number of the voters who actually voted Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days
(230)[28] and the total number of registered voters (285).[29] from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
The COMELEC therefore is clothed with ample authority to or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
ascertain under the procedure outlined in the Omnibus Election the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by
Code (OEC) the merits of the petition to exclude Election Return the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
No. 9601666. otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Salvador D. Viologo, Sr., v. Comelec 658 SCRA 516 (2011) Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30
days from receipt of a copy thereof. This provision, although it
Facts: Motion for reconsideration was denied by Comelec en banc confers on the Court the power to review any decision, order or
for lack of verification as required by Section 3, Rule 20 of the ruling of the Comelec, limits such power to a final decision or
Comelec Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated resolution of the Comelec en banc and does not extend to an
Election System and Section 3, Rule 19 of CRP. interlocutory order issued by a Division of the Comelec.
Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on certiorari
Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal an interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a
construction. In Quintos v. Comelec (440 Phil. 1045; 392 Division of the Comelec.
SCRA 489 (2002)), this Court held that “the lack of verification of
private respondent’s Manifestation and Motion for Partial This is the same as and as reiterated…
Reconsideration is merely a technicality that should not defeat
the will of the electorate. The Comelec may liberally construe or Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec/Dante Tinga 648
even suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice, SCRA 561 (2011)
including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matter pending The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review an
before the Comelec.” order, whether final or interlocutory even a final
resolution of a division of the Comelec – the Court can only
Exception to the Liberal Construction Rule: if the technicality is review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the Comelec en
allowed, it will change the cause of action, the theory of the banc in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of the
case, or it will confer jurisdiction which does not exist before. Constitution, a rule which admits of exceptions as when the
issuance of the assailed interlocutory order is a patent nullity
Nature of Election Protest: In Pacanan v. Comelec 597 because of the absence of jurisdiction to issue the same.
SCRA 189 (2009), the Court, in clarifying the mandated liberal Court made reference to the case of Repol v. Comelec 428
construction of election laws held: An election contest, unlike an SCRA 321 (2004) which was affirmed in Soriano Jr. v.
ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public interest. The Comelec 520 SCRA 88 (2007) and Blanco v. Comelec 554
purpose of an election protest is to ascertain that the candidate SCRA 755. Ruling in Soriano. . . “In the 2004 case of Repol
proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the v. Comelec, the Court cited Ambil and held that this Court has no
people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a
which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. final resolution of a division of the Comelec. However, the Court
An election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication held that an exception to this rule applies where the
of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but commission of grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its face.
paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved In Repol, what was assailed was a status quo ante Order
and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of without any time limit, and more than 20 days had lapsed since
the electorate. And the court has the corresponding duty to its issuance without the Comelec First Division issuing a writ of
ascertain, by all means within its command, who is the real preliminary injunction. The Court held that the status quo ante
candidate elected by the people. Order of the Comelec First Division was actually a temporary
restraining order because it ordered Repol to cease and desist
That’s we discussed that a 2nd winner can never be proclaimed, from assuming the position of municipal mayor of Pagsanghan,
because, assuming he is DQ-ed si winning, the 2nd candidate Samar and directed Ceracas to assume the post in the meantime.
cannot be proclaimed because the people repudiated him when Since the status quo ante Order, which was qualified by the
he did not garner the highest votes cast. phrase “until further orders from this Commission.” Had a
lifespan of more than 20 days, this Order clearly violates the rule
Moreover, the CRP are subject to a liberal construction. This that a temporary restraining Order has an effective period of only
liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and 20 days and automatically expires upon the Comelec’s denial of
efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding preliminary injunction.”
of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and for Ceriaco Bulilis v. Victorino Nuez, Presiding Judge of
achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and MCTC, Ubay Bohol, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 52,
disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Talibon, Bohol 655 SCRA 241 (2011)
Comelec.
Facts: Bulilis was proclaimed winner for the elections for punong
This principle was reiterated in the more recent consolidated barangay. Opponent Victorino Nuez filed an EP (for judicial
cases of Tolentino v. Comelec 617 SCRA 575 (2010) and De recount and annulment of proclamation) with MCTC. The
Castro vs. Comelec 617 SCRA 575, where the Court held that in counsel of Bulilis filed his brief at 1:45pm on the date of
preliminary conference and when the case was heard at 2pm, representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay for
Nuez moved in open court to be allowed to present evidence ex the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a Petition to deny due
parte since Bulilis only filed his brief on the date of the course to or cancel his CoC before the Comelec, claiming that
preliminary conference which is contrary to Section 4, Rule 9 of Jalosjos made material misrepresentations in his CoC when he
A.M. No. 08-4-15-SC which provides that the brief should be filed indicated in it that he resided in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. The
at least one (1) day before the date of the preliminary Second Division of the Comelec issued a joint reso dismissing the
conference. Judge Garces granted the motion. petition of Erasmo for insufficiency in form and substance. While
Erasmo’s MR was pending before the Comelec En Banc, the May
Bulilis filed MR which was denied by MCTC. Bulilis filed certiorari 10, 2010 elections took place resulting in Jalosjos winning the
with RTC which was dismissed on the ground that it is Comelec elections and was proclaimed on May 13, 2010.
that has exclusive jurisdiction in election cases involving
In June 2, 2010, the CA rendered judgment in the voter’s
municipal and barangay officials. Hence, the petition for
exclusion case before it holding that the lower courts erred in
certiorari with the SC.
excluding Jalosjos since he was qualified under the Constitution
and RA 8189. Erasmo filed a petition for review of the CA
(Rule 28, Sections 1 and 2 of CRP/Section 12 Amendments to
decision before the SC. On the other hand, Comelec en banc
Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court/Section 8, Rule 14
granted the MR of Erasmo and declared Jalosjos ineligible as he
of Comelec CRP ). Based on these rules, the Court recognizes
did not satisfy the residency requirement since, by continuing to
the Comelec’s appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari
hold the position of Mayor in Tampilisan, he should be deemed
against all acts or omissions of courts in election cases. Indeed,
not to have transferred his residence form that place to Ipil,
in the recent case of Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo 643 SCRA 631
Zamboanga Sibugay.
(2011), the Court had the opportunity to rule that a petition for
certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial court in an While the Constitution vests in the Comelec the power to decide
electoral protest was within the appellate jurisdiction of the all questions affecting elections, such power is not without
Comelec. limitation. It does not extend to contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of members of the HR and the Senate.
Since it is the Comelec which has jurisdiction to take cognizance The Constitution vests the resolution of these contests solely
of an appeal from the decision of the RTC in election contests upon the appropriate Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the HR.
involving elective municipal officials (Sec. 8 Rule 14 CRP), then it
is also the Comelec which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of The Court has already settled the question of when the
certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. jurisdiction of the Comelec ends and when that of the HRET
begins. The proclamation of a congressional candidates following
Although Galang involved a petition for certiorari of an the election divests Comelec of jurisdiction over disputes relating
interlocutory order of the RTC in a municipal election contest, the to the election, returns and qualifications of the proclaimed
rationale for the above ruling applied to an interlocutory order Representative in favor of HRET.
issued by a municipal trial court in a barangay election case. So who has jurisdiction over election protests and quo warranto?
Under Rule 14, Section 8 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, decisions of We said that the Supreme Court sitting as en banc as Presidential
municipal trial courts in election contests involving barangay Electoral Tribunal as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
officials are appealed to the Comelec. Following the Galang election returns and qualifications of president and vice
doctrine, it is the Comelec which has jurisdiction over president.
petitions for certiorari involving acts of the municipal
trial courts in such election contests. Within what period should the protest be filed? It should be filed
within 30 days after from the proclamation of the candidate.
October 14, 2013 Is it subject to judicial review? Who will review the decision of
the Supreme Court? Not subject to judicial review.
Last meeting, we were discussing the distinction between
election protest and quo warranto and the latest case that we Senate Electoral Tribunal – For member of the senate, the sole
discussed was the case of Bulilis vs Victorino Nuez on the judge for all contests relating to election returns and
jurisdiction on election protest involving MTC with respect to qualifications of its members and the election protests shall be
barangay officials under Section Two Paragraph Two of Article 9 filed within 15 days from the proclamation. As a general rule, it is
which says that the COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction not subject to judicial review except on the grounds of GAD
over decisions of MCTC on election protest cases. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Earlier in the registration of voters, we discussed the case of With respect to members of the HR, it is the HRET. Within what
Jalosjos v COMELEC in so far as the exclusion proceeding is period shall the election protest be filed? Within 10 days from
concerned. That is only one issue. date proclamation. Take note of the reglementary period for filing
of electoral protests.
In May 2007 Jalosjos ran for Mayor of Tampilisan, Zamboanga
del Norte and won. While serving as Tampilisan Mayor, he bought What is the composition of the electoral tribunal? It is provided in
a residential house and lot in Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil, Article 6, Section 17 which provides that each ET shall be
Zamboanga Sibugay and occupied it in September 2008. Eight composed of 9 members. 3 of whom shall be justices of the
months after, he applied with the ERB of Ipil, Zamboanga Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice and the
Sibugay for the transfer of his voters registration record which remaining 6 members from the senate or HR, as the case may
application was opposed by Erasmo in a petition for exclusion be. How shall they be chosen? They shall be chosen on the basis
before the MCTC of Ipil-Tungawan. RTC ruled to exclude Jalosjos of their proportional representation from the political parties or
on the ground that Jalosjos did not abandon his domicile im the parties and organizations registered under the party list
Tampilisan since he continue even then to serve as its Mayor. system. So who shall be the chairman? The Senior Justice shall
Jalosjos appealed his case to the RTC of Pagadian City which be the chairman.
affirmed the MCTC decision on September 11, 2009. Jalosjos
Of course, with respect to provincial, city and regional officials as
elevated the matter to the CA through a petition for certiorari
provided in Section two, Paragraph two of Article IX-C, it is the
with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
COMELEC which shall have the jurisdiction subject to judicial
injunction which was granted and enjoined the courts below from
review under Section 7, Article IX-A within 30 days from receipt
enforcing their decisions, with the result that his name was
of the decision by the aggrieved party.
reinstated in the Barangay Veterans Village’s list pending the
resolution of the petition. For regional trial court, the municipal officials. That would be
filed within 10 days from date of proclamation. Subject to judicial
On November 28, 2009, Jalosjos filed his CoC for the position of
appeal to COMELEC within 5 days from receipt of the decision
and decisions of the COMELEC en banc on contests on appeal In the case of Pacanan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections,
involving municipal and barangay officials are final and executory 597 SCRA 189 and Aguilar v. Comelec 591 SCRA 491, Petitioner
except on grounds of GAD amounting to lack or excess of Pacanan, Jr. and private respondent Langi Sr., were candidates
jurisdiction which can be raised with the SC within 30 days from for mayor in the municipality of Motiong, Samar during the May
the date of receipt by the aggrieved party. 14, 2007 elections. Petitioner was proclaimed having garnered a
total of 3,069 votes against private respondent’s 3,066 votes.
The MTC for barangay officials, it has to be filed within 10 days
from proclamation and 5 days for appeal with the COMELEC. On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed an election protest
with the RTC which rendered a Decision on January 7, 2008 RTC
In the case of Duenas Jr v HRET 593 SCRA 316, the SC here
declaring private respondent as winner with a plurality of 6 votes.
mentioned the parameters of judicial review and the SC ruled
3 days after or on January 10, 2008 petitioner filed a notice of
that so long as the constitution grants the HRET the power to be
appeal and paid 3K appeal fee before the RTC and also appealed
sole judge of all contests relating to election returns and
the RTC decision to the Comelec. Out of the 3K appeal fee
qualifications of its members, any final action taken by the HRET
required under Sec. 3, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of
on a matter within its jurisdiction shall as a rule not be reviewed
Procedure, petitioner only paid 1K plus 200 to cover the legal
by the SC and the power granted to electoral tribunal excludes
research/bailiff fees. On March 17, 2008 Comelec 1st division
the exercise of authority on the part of SC that would in any wise
issued on Order dismissing the appeal on the ground that
restrict it, curtail it or even affect the same. As long as there is
petitioner failed to pay the correct appeal fee within the 5-days
no GAD or any action amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
reglementary period which is a ground for the dismissal of the
the decisions of the electoral tribunal is not subject to judicial
appeal under Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the CRP. On March 28,
review.
2008 petitioner filed a MR with the Comelec En Banc which
What are the principles common to election protests? What denied the resolution declaring that the appeal was not perfected
should be the allegations in an election protests? on time for non-payment of the complete amount of appeal and
for late payment as well, hence, did not acquire jurisdiction over
1. The protestant should state that he is the candidate the appeal.
who has duly filed his COC and has been voted for.
Before the SC is a petition for Certiorari raising that 1) Comelec
2. The jurisidictional allegations to be stated in the committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
complaint: of jurisdiction in holding that the correct appeal fee was not paid
i. That the protestant is a candidate on time; 2) In failing to consider, that assuming that the correct
who has who has duly filed his COC appeal fee was not paid on time, the alleged non-payment is not
and has been voted for the same in anyway attributable to petitioner; 3) that assuming the correct
office. appeal fee was not paid on time, there are highly justifiable and
compelling reasons to resolve the subject case on the merit in
ii. The protestee has been proclaimed the interest of justice and public interest.
iii. The petition has been filed within the The SC noted that two (2) different tribunals earlier require the
reglementary period payment of two different appeal fees for the perfection of the
iv. Fraud and election irregularities appeals of election cases.
vitiated the conduct of elections Sec. 3, Rule 22 of the CRP (Appeals form decisions of Courts in
Again in Lorenzo v COMELEC 418 SCRA 448, in so far as how election Protest Cases), mandates that the notice of appeal must
election protests shall be construed, election protests must be be filed with 5-days after the promulgation of the decision. On
liberally construed and this pronouncement had been similar in the other hand, Section 3 & 4 Rule 40 of the CRP amended the
all other cases. Let’s go back to application of statutory amount of the appeal fees to 3.2K which should be paid with the
construction. To determine the real winner in an election contest, cash division of the Comelec.
it is subject to liberal construction. On the other hand, Section 8 & 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15
In Mendoza v Laxina 415 SCRA 156, it was ruled that the SC (Rules of procedure in Election Contests before the Court
pendency of election protest is not enough reason to enjoin him Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials effective May
from discharging his functions and from assuming his office. So 15, 2007) also provide the procedure of instituting an appeal and
even if there is a pending election contest unless there is a TRO, the required appeal fees to be paid for the appeal to be given
this cannot serve as basis for the winning candidate not to due course.
assume office and discharging his functions. This requirement in the payment of appeal fees had caused
In Miguel v COMELEC 335 SCRA 175, the SC ruled that it is the much confusion, which the Comelec addressed through the
ministerial duty of the TC to order the opening of ballot boxes, issuance of Comelec Res. No. 8486 on July 15, 2008. The salient
examination and counting of ballots deposited there under feature of the said resolution provide that “the appeal to the
whenever there is an averment in the election protest that Comelec of the trial court’s decision in election contests involving
requires the scrutiny of the ballot as evidence. municipal and barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of
the notice of appeal and payment of the 1K appeal fee to the
What is the purpose? To determine with minimum protracted court that rendered the decision within the 5-day reglementary
delay the truthfulness of allegations of fraud and anomalies in period. The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the
the conduct of electoral exercise. So when the protestant addition appeal fee of 3.2K to the Comelec Cash Division in
contests several precincts, for example 100 precincts, he is accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the CRP, as amended, does
required to pay such number of ballot boxes that is subject to not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in
election protest case. It’s quite expensive. That is one restraint. outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal.
Is the certificate of forum shopping applicable? The SC in Loyola Comelec 1st division gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995) and Lomarong v. Dubguban 269 order dismissing the appeal taking notice that the notice of
SCRA 624 (1997), it was ruled that the SC Circular requiring that appeal and the 1K appeal fee were, respectively filed and paid
any complaint, petition or other initiatory pleading must contain a with the MTC on April 21, 2008 which date the appeal was
non-forum certification applies to election cases. The perfected. Comelec Res. 8486 clarifying the rule on the payment
requirement is mandatory, not jurisdictional, non-compliance of appeal fees was issued only on July 15, 2008, or almost 3-
therewith may warrant the dismissal of the election case. months after the appeal was perfected. Yet on July 31, 2008 or
barely two weeks after the issuance of Comelec Res. 8486, the
Comelec 1st division dismissed the appeal for non-payment of
PAYMENT OF APPEAL/FILING FEES the 3.2K appeal fee.
Considering that petitioner filed his appeal months before the The filing of a bond alone does not constitute good reasons.
clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, the appeal should not be Nevertheless, the trial court may require the filing of a bond as
unjustly prejudiced by Comelec Res. No. 8486. Fairness and condition for the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution
prudence dictate the 1st division should have first directed to answer for the payment of damages which the aggrieved party
petitioner to pay the additional appeal fee in accordance with the may suffer by reason of the execution pending appeal.
clarificatory resolution. Instead it hastily dismissed the appeal on
Fernando U. Batul v. Lucilo Bayron, et. al. 424 SCRA 26,
the strength of the clarificatory resolution which had taken effect
execution pending appeal in the discretion of the courts applies
only a few days earlier. (This unseemly haste is an invitation to
suppletorily in election cases including those involving city and
outrage.) Court further stressed the liberal construction policy.
provincial officials to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected
Gomez-Castillo v. Comelec 621 SCRA 499 – The period of candidate as determined either by the Court or by Comelec. The
appeal and the perfection of appeal are not mere technicalities to Comelec resolution granting execution pending appeal (by virtue
be so lightly regarded, for they are essential to the finality of of its original exclusive jurisdiction over all contest relating to the
judgments, a notion underlying the stability of our judicial E, R and Q of provincial and city officials) was raised before the
system. The short period of 5-days as the period to appeal SC arguing that Sec. 2 Rule 39 cannot be applied and the only
recognizes the essentiality of time in election protests, in order ground that will validly sustain execution of a decision by a
that the will of the electorate is ascertained as soon as possible Comelec division pending reconsideration is when the MR is not
so that the winning candidate is not deprived of the right to pro forma.
assume office, and so that any doubt that can cloud the
Case of Ramas did not declare that such remedy is exclusive only
incumbent of the truly deserving winning candidate is quickly
to election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
removed.
officials. Sec. 1 of Rule 41 of the Comelec Rules of
Loyola v. Comelec 337 SCRA 134 (1997), the Court stressed Procedure expressly provides that pertinent provisions of the
that there is no longer any excuse for shortcoming in the Rules of Court shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory
payment of filing fees. The Court held that in the case at bar character.
“any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any
Navarosa v. Comelec 411 SCRA, the RTC in an election
failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases which
protest case granted execution pending appeal by Esto after
may be filed after the promulgation of this decision is no longer
finding that Esto won in the said election. In the same order the
acceptable (March 25, 1977). The Loyola doctrine was reiterated
judge allowed protestee Navaroza to stay the execution of the
in the subsequent cases of Miranda v. Castillo 274 SCRA 503,
decision pending appeal by filing a supersedeas bond in double
Soller v. Comelec 339 SCRA 684 hold that a court acquires
the amount posted by the protestant.. A Petition for Ceriorari was
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
filed by Esto with the Comelec where the Comelec 2nd division
prescribed docket fees and errors in the payment of the filing fee
affirmed the trial court’s order granting execution pending appeal
is no longer allowed.
and nullified the stay of the execution. The Comelec did not
gravely abuse its discretion as it is for Comelec in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs of
EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
certiorari, prohibition mandamus and injunction over all contest
Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis Bautista et. involving elective municipal officials decided by the trial court of
al. 678 SCRA 267 (2012) general jurisdiction elevate on appeal, and NOT the trial court,
that may order the stay or restrain the immediate execution of
Executions Pending Appeal - There is no reason to dispute the decision pending appeal granted by the trail court of general
the Comelec’s authority to order discretionary execution of jurisdiction in an election contest.
judgment in view of the fact that the suppletory application of
the Rules of Court is expressly sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 41 Except when the trial court reversed itself in a MR of its order
of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Under Section 2, Rule 39 of granting immediate execution, it cannot later on stay or restrain
the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal may be issued by the execution thereof in the guise of allowing the losing party to
an appellate court after the trial court has lost jurisdiction. In file a supersedeas bond. The issue before the trial court where a
Batul v. Bayron 424 SCRA 26 (2004), the Court stressed the motion for execution pending appeal is filed is to determine
import of the provision vis-à-vis election cases when we held that whether or not there are “good reasons” to justify the immediate
judgments in election cases which may be executed pending execution pending appeal. The issue is not whether there are
appeal includes those decided by trial courts and those rendered good reasons to stay the immediate execution of the decision
by the Comelec whether in the exercise of its original or appellate pending appeal.
jurisdiction.
LIM VS. COMELEC ET. AL. G.R. NO. 171952 March 08,
Malaluan v. Comelec 254 SCRA 397, this was the first case 2007; Torres vs. Abundo, Sr. 512 SCRA 556; - Before
where a judge, acting without a precedent, granted the motion granting a motion for execution pending appeal in election cases,
for execution of its decision in an election protest case, pending the SC laid down the following requisites –
appeal. It was ruled that Sec. 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
(1) there must be motion by the prevailing party with
which allowed the RTC to order execution pending appeal upon
notice to the adverse party
good reasons stated in a special order, may be made to apply by
analogy or suppletorily to election contest decided by it. The (2) there must be good reasons for the execution
posting of the supersedeas bond was considered good reasons pending appeal
by the judge.
(3) the order granting execution pending appeal must
Camlian v. Comelec 271 SCRA, executions pending appeal state the good reasons.
must be strictly construed against the movant as it is an
Good reasons (Fermo v. Comelec)
exception to the general rule on execution of judgments.
1) public interest involved or will of the electorate
Ramas v. Comelec 286 SCRA 189, what may constitute
“good reasons’ for execution pending appeal 2) shortness of the remaining term of the contested
office
 The public interest involved or the will of the electorate
3) length of time that the election contest has been
 The shortness of the remaining period of the term of
pending
the contested office
Istarul vs. Comelec 491 SCRA 300 (2006) – the length of
 The length of time that the election contest has been
time that the election protest has been pending, thus, leaving
pending.
petitioner only 21 months as the remaining portion of the term to
serve as mayor, does not constitute “good reasons” to justify omission complained of.
execution pending appeal. Referring to Fermo, the SC held that
Therefore, the monetary claim of a party in an election case must
“shortness of term”: alone and by itself cannot justify premature
necessarily be anchored in contract, QC, or a tortuous act or
execution. It must be manifest in the decision sought to be
omission of a crime in order to effectively recover actual or
executed that the defeat of the protestee and the victory of the
compensatory damages. In the absence of any or all of these,
protestant has been clearly established.”
the claimant must be able to point out a specific provision of law
Saludaga vs. Comelec 617 SCRA 601 – The discretion to authorizing a money claim for election protest expenses against
allow execution pending reconsideration belongs to the division the losing party.
that rendered the assailed decision, order or resolution, or the
The bonds or cash deposits required by the Comelec Rules of
Comelec en banc, as the case may be – not to the presiding
Procedure are in the nature of filing fees not damages.
Commissioner. A writ of execution pending resolution of the MR
of a decision of the division is not granted as a matter of right
such that its issuance becomes a ministerial duty that may be
dispensed even just by the Presiding Commission. SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN AN ELECTION PROTEST
CASE
Calo v. Comelec 610 SCRA 342 – The relevant rule provides
that a motion for execution pending appeal filed by the prevailing Fernando Poe v. Arroyo March 29, 2005, the Court resolved the
party shall contain a 3-day notice to the adverse party and issue on whether the widow may substitute/intervene for the
execution pending appeal shall not issue without prior notice and protestant who die during the pendency of the latter’s protest
hearing. The purpose of these requirements is to avoid surprises case.
that may sprung upon the adverse party who must be given time The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential election protest
to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a is Rule 14 of the PET Rules which provides “only the registered
resolution by the court. Where a party had the opportunity to be candidate for Pres. or VP of the Philippines who received the 2nd
heard, then the purpose has been served and the requirement and 3rd highest number of votes may contest the election of the
substantially complied with. In this case, even the Comelec P and VP, as the case may be, by filing a verified petition with the
admitted that respondent was heard and afforded his day in Clerk of the PET within 30 days after the proclamation of the
court; hence, it should not have annulled the RTC special order winner.
on said ground.
The Court made reference in its ruling in Vda de Mesa v.
San Miguel vs. Comelec 609 SCRA 424 – The law provides Mencias where it rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs
that the court “may” issue execution pending appeal. Evident in election contest where the protestant dies during the
from the usage of the word “may”, the language of the subject pendency of the protest on the grounds that the heirs are not
provision denotes that it is merely directory, not mandatory, for real parties in interest and that a public office is personal to the
the trial court to issue the special order before the expiration of public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon
the period to appeal. The trial court may still thereafter resolve a death. The Court pursuant to Rule 3, Section 15 of the rules of
motion for execution pending appeal, provided: (i) the motion is Court, however, allowed substitution and intervention upon the
filed within the 5-day reglementary period; and (ii) the special death of the protestee but by a real party in interest, one who
order is issued prior to the transmittal of the records of the would be benefited or injured by the judgment and entitled to
Comelec. avail of the suit. In the Mencias and Lumogdang v. Javier cases,
the Court permitted substitution by the VM since the VM is the
real party in interest considering that if the protest succeeds and
CAN DAMAGES BE AWARDED IN ELECTION PROTEST the protestee is unseated, the VM succeeds to the office of the
CASES mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot
assume office.
Malaluan vs. Comelec, the Court ruled that damages cannot
be granted in an election protest case ratiocinating that the The Court further held, that nobility of intentions is not the point
provision of law allowing damages under specific circumstances, in reference in determining whether a person may intervene in
more particularly compensatory and actual damages is provided an election protest case.
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code which is appropriate
only in breaches of obligations in contracts and QC and on the
occasion of crimes and QD where the defendant may be held BY: Alabastro, Anino, Logramonte, Morilla & Solano
liable for damages the proximate cause of which is the act or

SR TSN - Elections PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SR TSN - Elections PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ELECTION LAWS based from the lectures of Atty.

So what would be the significance of the amendments?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 1

So what are the EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION POLICY?

 INITIATIVE & REFERENDUM

c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to

a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 5

(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the

(Local Government Code)

LAMBINO VS. COMELEC

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 6

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 7

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 8

 INITIATIVE & REFERENDUM

(Local Government Code)

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 11

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 15

POSTPONEMENT of ELECTIONS, no voting yet.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 20

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 22

In the case of Ampatuan vs. COMELEC:

Amores vs. HRET

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 25

VETERANS FEDERATIONS PARTY vs. COMELEC

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 26

Determination of Total No. of district representatives

Is the 2% threshold YES. Rationale: The continued operation of the

Is the three-seat limit YES.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 27

6% or above = Two additional seats

Two steps in the second round of seat

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 28

Mitra vs. Comelec (622 scra 744)

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 35

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 37

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 39

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 48

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 51

Sec. 32. Section 212 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 as amended,

"SEC. 212. Election Returns. - The board of election

"Any violation of this section, or its pertinent portion, shall

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 52

3. In case the candidate is a woman who uses her maiden or

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 55

NOTE:  Atty. V: From the literal word itself, it means before

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 57

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam =) 69

Potrebbero piacerti anche