ROLLUDA

COMELEC

G.R. No. 154198 January 20, 2003

Facts:

Romeo Rolluda and Remegio Placido were contending for Brgy. Chairman of Sto.
Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan however, before the day of election, Romeo died.
Petitioner wrote a letter to the COMELEC seeking permission to substitute her late
husband for the election. During the election, petitioner garnered the highest votes
however, Placido was the one proclaimed as Brgy. Chairman. It was then that after
election, petitioner learned that the COMELEC denied her Certificate of Candidacy
through a resolution prohibiting her from running as a substitute of her late husband.

Petitioner filed a petition to annul said resolution and to nullify the proclamation of
Placido. Placido contended that the Brgy. election is a non – partisan thus, there can be
no substitution because there is no political party from which to designate the substitute.
Therefore, substitution is not allowed and petitioner did not file any of her Certificate of
Candidacy.

Issue:

Whether or petitioner can substitute her husband in the Brgy. election.

Ruling:

Yes.

Absence of specific provision governing substitution of candidate in a Brgy. election

cannot be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. The restrictive construction
cannot be read into the law where the same is not written. There is more reason to
allow the substitution of candidates where no political parties involved than when
political considerations are present.

In the present case, petitioner’s letter request to be allowed to run as substitute was
treated as Certificate of Candidacy. Therefore, proclamation of Placido be set aside.
PURISIMA

THE HONORABLE SALANGA

G.R. No. L – 22335 December 31, 1965

Facts:

Amante Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were among the candidates for any of the three
offices of Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur. After the election the provincial board
of canvassers met and started canvassing the returns for said office where Purisima
noted during the canvass that the returns from some precincts showed on their face that
the words and figures for Cordero's votes had been "obviously and manifestly erased"
and superimposed with other words and figures. He submitted copy of returns of the
National Party for comparison and requested for the suspension of canvass which was
denied. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed Cordero as winner. Purisima filed a
petition to annul the canvass and proclamation. The COMELEC issued a resolution
annulling the canvass and proclamation.

Purisima filed before the Court of First Instance a petition for recount which was
dismissed as requisites were not present. Purisima filed a Motion for Reconsideration
attaching certified photostatic copies of the COMELEC copies. Cordero filed to resume
the count and was opposed by Purisima through a petition.

Purisima then, filed before the Supreme Court praying to set aside the Court of First
Instance decision with resumption of canvass until after judicial recount.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of First Instance is correct in dismissing the case on the
ground that the requisites for recount is not present.

Ruling:

No.

The Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the case based on the requisites for
recount is not found.

The Board of Canvassers admitted the discrepancy however, Purisima was not able to
submit to the board the COMELEC copies because the board declined to suspend the
canvass and proclamation.

It was grave abuse of discretion for respondent court to refuse to consider the
COMELEC copies regardless of the patent, admitted irregularities and alleged
discrepancies amounting to thousands of votes sufficient to affect the results of the
canvass. Patent erasures and superimposition in words and figures of the votes in the
election returns strike the reliability of the said returns as basis of canvass and
proclamations.
A comparison with other copies in case of discrepancies of records is the only way to
remove grave doubts as to the correctness of said returns as well as ascertaining that
they reflect the will of the people.
CAUTON

COMELEC

G.R. No. L – 25467 April 27, 1967

Facts:

Petitioner Cauton and private respondent Sanidad were candidates for representative in
the 2nd District of Ilocos Sur. Private respondent filed a petition for the opening of the
ballot boxes in some of the municipalities in order to retrieve the election returns
because the copies of thee election returns in said municipalities is different from the
copies of the Liberal Party. COMELEC then, issued restraining order from proclaiming
the winning candidate.

After hearing the petition, the COMELEC issued a resolution for the immediate opening
of the ballot boxes because of the alterations and contrasting numbers in the copies of
election returns. The ballot boxes were opened and the election returns were brought to
Manila.

Petitioner then, filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction praying that the resolution ordering the opening of the ballot
boxes be annulled. Respondent, on the other hand, filed for a recount of the votes in all
the precincts of the questioned municipalities. Petitioners also filed before the Supreme
Court a petition with prayer for the issuance of order enjoining the Court of First
Instance from further proceeding which the Court denied.

Issue:

Whether or not COMELEC had the authority to order the opening of the ballot
boxes.

Ruling:

Yes.

The COMELEC simply performed a function as authorized by the Constitution. It has

the power to investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election
returns. The COMELEC exercises its administrative function as a supervisory power
intended to secure the proclamation of the winning candidates based on the true count
of the votes cast for the purpose is not for the COMELEC to help a candidate win the
election but to bring about the canvass of the true results of the elections as certified by
the board of election inspectors in every precinct.
MAQUILING

COMELEC

G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013

Facts:

Private respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen but was naturalized as an
American citizen and later applied for repatriation and took an oath of allegiance. He
then, again took an oath of allegiance and executed an affidavit of renunciation of
foreign citizenship.

Arnado then, filed his candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. Respondent
Balua filed a petition to disqualify Arnado contending that the latter is still using his US
passport in entering and departing the Philippines.

Arnado won the election however, declared disqualified and his proclamation annulled.
Arnado then, sought reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc claiming that his
continued use of his US passport was because his Philippine passport was not yet
issued.

Petitioner, the 2nd highest votes, intervened in the case claiming that he is the winner of
the said election due to the disqualification of Arnado. COMELEC En Banc reversed the
decision stating that Arnado’s continued use of US passport does not revert back or
operate to un – renounce what he renounced earlier.

Issue:

Whether or not a repatriated Filipino citizen who continue to use his foreign
passport is qualified to run for public office.

Ruling:

No.

The continued use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship is a positive
and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship. It does not
divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the oath of renunciation
required to qualify one to run for an elective position.
ARNADO

COMELEC

G.R. No. 210164 August 18, 2015

Facts:

Pending decision in Maquiling case, petitioner filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor
of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte executing an affidavit affirming his renunciation. Private
respondent filed for petitioner’s disqualification as petitioner won the election and was
proclaimed the winning candidate. Private respondent filed another petition with the 2 nd
Division for petitioner’s disqualification which was granted and disqualified the petitioner
for failure to comply with the requirements of making a personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign citizenship as his affidavit of renunciation was deemed withdrawn
by his continued use of US passport. Petitioner’s affidavit should have been executed
before his filing of Certificate of Candidacy.

COMELEC En Banc affirmed the ruling of 2 nd Division thus, petitioner filed a petition
before the Supreme Court claiming that he is a Filipino citizen who does not owe
allegiance to other country and is qualified to run for the election because he executed
an affidavit of renunciation with oath of allegiance.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is qualified to run for election.

Ruling:

No.

Petitioner has not yet satisfied the twin requirements of Sec. 5(2) of R.A 9225 at the
time he filed his Certificate of Candidacy which are: 1) Meet the qualifications for
holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; 2)
Make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath prior to or at the time of
filing of their Certificate of Candidacy.

Petitioner failed to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenships. His affidavit was deemed withdrawn at the time he filed his Certificate of
Candidacy as he had yet to comply with the 2nd requirement.
ABUNDO SR.

COMELEC

G.R. No. 201716 January 8, 2013

Facts:

For the four (4) successive regular elections petitioner vied for the position of Mayor
however, in the year 2004, his opponent Torres was declared winner but petitioner filed
his protest thus, declared the true mayor.

In 2010 elections, petitioner again filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor, while
Torres filed a disqualification on the grounds that petitioner reached the three (3) –
consecutive term limit rule however, petitioner was still proclaimed as mayor – elect.

Private respondent commenced a quo – warranto action before the Regional Trial Court
which declared petitioner ineligible to serve as mayor for the fourth (4 th) consecutive
term and held that a year and a month service constitutes a complete and dull service of
petitioner’s second (2nd) term.

Petitioner appealed to COMELEC but was dismissed. The COMELEC 2 nd Division ruled
against petitioner and held that service of the unexpired portion of a term by a
protestant is considered as service for one full term within the contemplation of three (3)
– limit rule. COMELEC En Banc affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is deemed to have serve the three (3) consecutive term
limit rule thus, ineligible to serve as mayor for the fourth time.

Ruling:

No.

To constitute a disqualification to run for an elective local office, the requisites are: 1)
that the official has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local
government post; and 2) he has fully served three consecutive terms.

The two-year period during which petitioner’s opponent was serving as mayor should be
considered as an interruption which effectively removed petitioner from the ambit of the
three (3) – term limit rule.
Atty. VIDAL

COMELEC

G.R. No. 206666 January 21, 2015

Facts:

The Sandiganbayan convicted former Pres. Joseph Estrada for the crime of plunder and
was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction during the period of
sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification.

After six (6) years, the present Pres. Gloria Arroyo granted pardon to the former
president restoring him his civil and political rights. Estrada filed his Certificate of
Candidacy in 2009 election. A petition was filed opposing the filing of candidacy
however, declared moot as Estrada lost.

Estrada then, filed for Mayor in the City of Manila in 2012. Petitioner filed for Estrada’s
disqualification alleging that the latter is disqualified to run for public office because of
his conviction for plunder having a sentence of reclusion perpetua with perpetual
absolute disqualification.

The COMELEC dismissed the petition and was later affirmed in COMELEC En Banc
stating that Estrada’s right to seek public office has been effectively restored by the
pardon vested upon him.

Issue:

Whether or not Estrada is again qualified to vote and be voted in public office
because of the pardon granted to him by the present President.

Ruling:

Yes.

The pardon or amnesty granted regained the person his full civil and political rights
including the right to seek elective office. Therefore, petition is dismissed as there can
be no other conclusion but to say that the pardon granted to the former president was
absolute in the absence of a clear, unequivocal and concrete factual basis upon which
to anchor or support the Presidential intent to grant a limited pardon. Former president
Joseph Estrada is now eligible to run for Mayor.
ARATEA

COMELEC

G.R. No. 195229 October 9, 2012

Facts:

Lonzanida and Antipolo were candidates for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. Rodolfo
filed for the disqualification of Lonzanida on the ground of the three (3) – term limit rule
thus, Certificate of Candidacy of Lonzanida was cancelled.

With the Motion for Reconsideration pending, Lonzanida and petitioner won as Mayor
and Vice – Mayor respectively. Petitioner then, seek opinion from the Department of
Interior and Local Government if he was legally required to assume as Mayor in view of
Lonzanida’s disqualification, on which the department affirmed and allowed petitioner to
take the oath.

The COMELEC En Banc issued a resolution disqualifying Lonzanida on the grounds of

serving for more than three (3) consecutive terms. Antipolo, on the other hand, filed a
Motion for leave to intervene claiming a right to be proclaimed as Mayor. Petitioner
asserted that Antipolo could not be proclaimed as the winner because she only received
second (2nd) highest however, denied by the COMELEC En Banc and declared Antipolo
the duly elected mayor and ordered petitioner to turn – over the mayor position.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is the rightful occupant to the office of the mayor.

Ruling:

No.

Antipolo should be the one declared to be mayor because Lonzanida’s Certificate of

Candidacy was void ab initio. Lonzanida was never a candidate at all and votes for him
were only stray votes making Antipolo the duly qualified candidate.
JALOSJOS JR.

COMELEC

G.R. No. 193237 October 9, 2012

Facts:

Petitioner and Cardino were candidates for Mayor of Dapitan. Cardino filed a petition
praying for the denial of Jalosjos Certificate of Candidacy claiming that the latter had
been convicted by final judgment for the crime of robbery and that he has not serve
sentence.

Jalosjos admitted his conviction but stated that he had already been granted probation
and the Regional Trial Court issued an order that he complied with the order of
probation however, it was found that the Parole Administrator who issued the
certification attesting that Jalosjos had already fulfilled the probation falsified said
certification.

The COMELEC 1st Division granted the petition and concluded that Jalosjos has
committed material misrepresentation in his Certificate of Candidacy and that he is
ineligible for the office he seeks to be elected. Petitioner filed his Motion for
Reconsideration however, denied.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner deliberately misrepresented himself thus, ineligible for

the office of the mayor.

Ruling:

Yes.

One who suffers from perpetual special disqualification is ineligible to run for public
office. If a person suffering from perpetual special disqualification files a Certificate of
Candidacy stating under oath that he is eligible, when in fact not, to run for public office,
is clearly making material misrepresentation therefore, disqualified to run.
TIMBOL

COMELEC

G.R. No. 206004 February 24, 2015

Facts:

Petitioner files his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Member of Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the 2nd District of Caloocan however, received a subpoena ordering to
appear to a COMELEC officer. During the hearing, petitioner argued that he was not a
nuisance candidate and he had sufficient resources to sustain his campaign. He also
pointed out that before the clarificatory hearing, his name already appeared in the list of
nuisance candidates posted in COMELEC website. The panel assured petitioner that
his name would be deleted from the list and that his Certificate of Candidacy would be
given due course.

After, a memorandum recommending petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy be given due

course was issued however, despite the recommendation, petitioner’s name was not
removed from the list in the website. Petitioner filed a petition to include his name in the
ballot but the COMELEC denied the same for being moot considering that the printing of
ballots had already begun.

Petitioner filed before the Supreme Court arguing that the COMELEC gravely abuse its
discretion in declaring him a nuisance candidate and depriving him of due process of
law.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s

petition for inclusion.

Ruling:

Yes.

The COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in declaring petitioner a nuisance candidate
without giving him a chance to explain his bona fide intention to run. The COMELEC
already issued a resolution before summoning the petitioner in a clarificatory hearing
thus, an ineffective opportunity to be heard.