THE Commission

on Elections:
Decisions of Election
Contests to Judicial Review

Karl Alen Gueco Yu

Section 1-D
Scope of the Discussion:

Decision of Deputization of
Decision of
Law-
Election Administrative
Enforcement
Contests Questions
Agencies

Registration of Improvement Election

Political Parties of Elections Period

Party System Funds Judicial Review

(2) Decision of Election Contests
Article IX (C) Section 2 (2):
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on

election contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not
appealable.
Decision of Election Contests

Original Appellate
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction

All contests
All contests involving
relating to elective
elections, municipal
returns, and officials decided
qualifications by trial courts of
general
jurisdiction
Of all elective
Or involving
regional, elective
provincial and barangay
city officials officials decided
by trial courts of
limited
jurisdiction
Governor Sahali v. Comelec
(GR No. 201796, Jan. 15, 2013)
Facts:
Gov. Sahali and Vice Gov. Ruby won the 2010 elections over
respondents Matba and Usman, respectively.
Respondents filed an election protest to the COMELEC alleging there
was wide-scale irregularities during the elections in Tawi-Tawi.
Upon motion of the Respondents, the COMELEC ordered the
technical examination of the elections paraphernalia used in the
contested areas.
Petitioners contend that they were not given due process for not
being allowed an opportunity to oppose the motion.
Petitioners also contend that COMELEC sitting in Division may not
conduct technical examinations of election paraphernalia for lack of
sanctioned and published rules governing such actions .

Issues:
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition
Whether or not COMELEC violated due process for not allowing
petitioners to oppose the order
Whether or not COMELEC sitting in Division may conduct technical
examinations of Election Paraphernalia
Governor Sahali v. Comelec
(GR No. 201796, Jan. 15, 2013)

Held:
The Court denied the petition and said that the petition
should have been initially decided by the COMELEC sitting in
Division and a motion for reconsideration be resolved by
COMELEC EN BANC, before a petition for certiorari be sought
in the Supreme Court based on grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Court also ruled that COMELEC did not violate due
process since petitioners did not immediately file an answer
and election contests should be expeditiously decided by
COMELEC since it is a deep public concern.
Lastly, the Court said COMELEC may order the technical
examination of election paraphernalia since it is its
constitutional duty to have Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
over all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all regional, provincial and city officials.
Kho v. COMELEC
(GR No. 124033, Sept. 25, 1997)

Facts:
The Petitioner Antonio Kho, a losing candidate in the
gubernatorial race of Masbate filed an election protest against
the proclaimed winner, private respondent Emilio Espinosa.
Espinosa received the summons of the COMELEC sitting in
division on June 6, 1995 and must file his answer within five
days but Espinosa filed his answer on June 15, 1995 beyond
the required period.
COMELEC still admitted the answer of Espinosa and continued
the proceedings, issuing interlocutory orders regarding the
case.
Petitioner Kho then filed an MR in admitting the answer of
Espinosa but was denied by COMELEC.
Petitioner Kho then filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme
Court questioning the admission by COMELEC of the late
answer of Espinosa.
Petitioner also sought to declare all the orders issued by
COMELEC pertinent to the answer as invalid.
Kho v. COMELEC
(GR No. 124033, Sept. 25, 1997)
Issues:
Whether or not COMELEC erred in admitting the belatedly filed
answer of the respondent
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
petition

Held:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and said that it has
jurisdiction over the petition since the act being questioned
neither fell on subjects that must initially be decided by the
COMELEC En Banc or among the subjects not allowed by law to
be decided by COMELEC sitting in Division.
The Court further said that, COMELEC should not have
admitted the answer of the respondent since it was filed long
after the prescribed period and that all the orders issued
arising from the invalid answer are void. The court mentioned
that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack of jursidiction in admitting the late answer
of Espinosa.
Layug v. COMELEC
(GR No. 192984, Feb. 28, 2012)
Facts:
Petitioner Rolando Layug was questioning the qualifications of Bro.
Mike Velarde to become a nominee of Buhay Party-list to the
COMELEC. He believes that Velarde belonged to a religious sect and
did not belong in the marginalized sector to qualify him as nominee.
Petitioner intently provided in his petition an erroneous mailing
address.
Upon resolution of the COMELEC of the complaint, petitioner was
mailed of a copy of the dismissal but did not receive it.
After the proclamation of the winners of the party-lists, petitioner
filed an MR to the COMELEC EN BANC for violating due process since
he was not given a copy of the previous decision and that the
COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction over the case since Buhay Party-
list has won two seats in the elections and HRET should have
jurisdiction.
COMELEC dismissed the petition and was appealed to the SC.

Issues:
Whether or not the COMELEC violated due process for not providing
the petitioner a copy of the decision
Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the case
Layug v. COMELEC
(GR No. 192984, Feb. 28, 2012)

Held:

The Court ruled that COMELEC did not violate due process
since the petitioner intently provided an erroneous mailing
address to give him an opportunity to file a motion for
reconsideration.
The Court also said that COMELEC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over the qualifications of party-lists and that
HRET will only acquire jurisdiction once the nominees have
become members of the House of Representatives.
Likewise, Bro. Mike Velarde is only the fifth nominee and did
not acquire a seat in Congress, and therefore, his
qualification as a nominee of the party-list still remains
within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Reyes v. COMELEC
(GR No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
Facts:
Petitioner Regina Reyes filed an MR to the Supreme Court En Banc
due to her disqualification by the COMELEC in becoming the
Representative of Marinduque for not being a Filipino Citizen
The Prosecution secured evidence showing that she was not a
Filipino Citizen since she used a U.S. Passport as show by the
records of the Bureau of Immigration.
Petitioner contends that COMELEC denied her due process for not
allowing her to present controverting evidence and denied her
motion for a hearing.
Petitioner also contends that the COMELEC erred in disqualifying her
and that after her proclamation, HRET should have jurisdiction over
the case.

Issues:
Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction over the case
Whether or not COMELEC violated due process for not allowing her
to present her evidence and denied her of a new trial
Whether or not her disqualification is valid for not being a Filipino
Citizen
Reyes v. COMELEC
(GR No. 207264, June 25, 2013)

Held:

The Court ruled that COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over

case since her proclamation was not valid for initially being
disqualified as a candidate for Congress.
The Court also ruled that COMELEC did not violate due
process since there was a period of five months for her to
present her evidence before COMELEC decided the case, but
she failed to do so.
The Court also ruled in favor of COMELEC in disqualifying
the petitioner since she failed to produce sufficient evidence
proving her Filipino Citizenship. Her initial admission of using
an American Passport and being a Dual Filipino-American
Citizen gave her the burden to prove her true citizenship.
Javier v. Comelec
(144 SCRA 194, Sept. 22, 1986)
Facts:
Petitioner Evelio Javier was a candidate for the Batasang Pambansa
to represent Antique. Private respondent Arturo Pacificador was his
opponent and the supposed winner in the 1984 election .
During the campaign period, violence ensued causing the death of
many of the supporters of the petitioner.
Petitioner contested the result to the COMELEC since the held
elections were marred with terrorism, violence, fraud and massive
vote buying.
Petitioner also appealed to Commissioner Opinion to inhibit for being
a former law firm partner of the respondent but he did not inhibit.
The COMELEC sitting in a division dismissed the petition.
Petitioner filed a petition to the Supreme Court for lack of
jurisdiction by the COMELEC Second Division in resolving the contest
since it is mandated by law that the COMELEC en banc had
jurisdiction over contests regarding the Batasang Pambansa.
Petitioner was gunned down in broad daylight during the pendency
of the case.
Issues:
Whether or not the COMELEC Second Division had jurisdiction over
the case
Whether or not the dispute involves a contest though no
proclamation was yet made by the COMELEC
Javier v. Comelec
(144 SCRA 194, Sept. 22, 1986)

Held:

The Court said that the COMELEC en banc should have

decided the case as stated in the 1973 Constitution.
The definition of contests must not be given a restrictive
meaning. The term should be understood as referring to any
matter involving the title or claim of title to an elective
office, made before or after proclamation of the winner,
whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in
dispute.

The Court ruled that the case is moot since petitioner had
already died but stated that, if he were alive, this petition
would have been granted in his favor in order for justice to
prevail and that the COMELECs decision is set aside and
violative of the Constitution.
 Refers to the conduct of the polls, including
the listing of voters, the holding of electoral
Election
campaign, and the casting and counting of
votes;
Should not be given a restrictive meaning;
It should receive the widest possible scope
conformably to the rule that the words used
in the Constitution should be interpreted
liberally;
Contests
referring to any matter involving the title or
claim of title to an elective office, made
before or after proclamation of the winner,
whether or not the contestant is claiming the
office in dispute; following terms:
In the case at bar, the court defined the
(144 SCRA 194, Sept. 22, 1986)
Javier v. Comelec
 Refers to matters that could be raised in a quo
warranto proceeding against the proclaimed
Qualifications
winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or
the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy;
Refers to the canvass of the returns and
proclamation of winners, including questions
concerning the composition of the board of
Returns
canvassers and authenticity of election
returns;
(144 SCRA 194, Sept. 22, 1986)
Javier v. Comelec
The COMELECs Appellate Jurisdiction
Municipal or
Metropolitan Trial
Court
(Contests of
Barangay offices)

COMELEC Supreme
(in Division and
En Banc) Court
Regional Trial
Courts
(Contests of
Municipal
offices)
Article IX (C) Sec. 3:
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its
rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such cases shall be heard and
decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
Garvida v. Sales, Jr.
(GR No. 124893, April 18, 1997)
Facts:
Petitioner Lynette Garvida sought to annul the order of the COMELEC
En Banc in suspending her proclamation as duly elected SK
Chairman of Brgy. San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
Private respondent Florencio Sales alleged that Garvida is over the
age requirement of 21 to be an SK Member.
Sales filed a petition through facsimile to the COMELEC En Banc
seeking her disqualification and the COMELEC En Banc ordered the
suspension of her proclamation.
Later on, Garvida decided to take her oath of office as SK Chairman
disregarding the suspension.
Petitioner filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking to annul the
suspension based on the grounds that the COMELEC En Banc had no
jurisdiction and that she was within the age of 21.

Issues:
Whether or not the COMELEC En Banc had jurisdiction to decide on
the case
Whether or not petitioner is within the age requirement set by law
Garvida v. Sales, Jr.
(GR No. 124893, April 18, 1997)

Held:
The Court ruled that it is the Commission sitting in Division and not
the Commission En Banc, which has jurisdiction over petitions to
cancel a certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC En Banc should have
designated its decision to the Commission in division since the
constitution provides that only motions for reconsideration are
resolved by the COMELEC En Banc.

Likewise, the court said the filing of the petition of the private
respondent to the COMELEC violated the rules of procedures since it
sent the petition through facsimile and not through mail, which was
prescribed by law.

Lastly, the Court ruled against the petitioner and affirmed her
disqualification for being over the age of 21. The court said that it
was merely 10 days from her 22nd birthday and the law clearly
states that a candidate must not be more than 21 years of age on
the day of the election.
COMELEC DECISIONS:
ONLY final orders of the Commission in division maybe raised before
the Commission En Banc;

The requirement that an aggrieved party must first file a motion for
reconsideration of a resolution of the division to the Commission En
Banc is mandatory and jurisdictional in invoking the power of
review of the Supreme Court;

Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground

for dismissal of the petition;

Pursuant to rule 18 of the Omnibus Election Code, decisions and

resolutions of any division of the Commission become final and
executory after the lapse of five days, unless a timely motion for
reconsideration is lodged with the Commission En Banc;

The only time the Supreme Court may review an interlocutory order
of a division of the Commission under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court
is when it acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as
when it rules on a matter which only the commission en banc may
properly determine in accordance with the Commissions Rule of
Procedure;
(3) Decision of Administrative Questions

Article IX (C) Section 2 (3):

(3) Decide, except those involving the right to

vote, all questions affecting elections,
including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment of
election officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters.
 Establishmen
t of precincts

Conduct of Designation
elections in of polling
general places

Administrativ
e Functions
of the
COMELEC

Purchase of
Registration
election
of voters
paraphernalia

Appointment
of election
officials
Guevara v. COMELEC (104 Phil. 269)
FACTS:
Jose Guevara published a news report in the Manila Times entitled
Ballot Boxes Contract Hit
The article was regarding irregularities alleged to have been
committed by the latter in the purchase of the Ballot Boxes.
COMELEC ordered him to show just cause why he should not be
cited for contempt.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to punish the petitioner
for contempt

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the contempt power conferred upon
the COMELEC by law was an inherently judicial prerogative and
could not be exercised by it in connection with the discharge of its
purely routinary or administrative duties, as distinguished from its
quasi-judicial duties.
Bedol v. COMELEC
(GR No. 179830, Dec. 3, 2009)
FACTS:
Petitioner Lintang Bedol was the Provincial Elections Supervisor of the
province of Maguindanao and Shariff Kabunsuan
Bedol failed to attend the official canvassing of votes of the province
for the senatorial elections in 2007. He also did not attend the
succeeding rescheduled dates and even lost important election
documents.
A suspicion of Election Fraud then prompted COMELEC to investigate.
COMELEC then moved to punish him for contempt but he likewise did
not attend the hearing.
Petitioner Bedol then appeared before the media armed with a pistol
arrogantly saying that if they want him to answer the allegations, the
proper case must be filed against him in court.
COMELEC then decided to punish him for contempt for his continues
disobedience.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court to
invalidate the decision of the COMELEC on the basis of lack of evidence
and grave abuse of discretion.
Bedol v. COMELEC
(GR No. 179830, Dec. 3, 2009)
ISSUE:
Whether or not COMELEC may punish Bedol for contempt

Held:
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the authority of
COMELEC to punish the petitioner for contempt since the orders
disobeyed by the respondent fall under the constitutional duty of the
COMELEC to investigate election fraud and such investigation is
relevant to its quasi-judicial power.
(4) Deputization of Law-Enforcement Agencies
Article IX (C) Section 2 (4):
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President,
law-enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.

Article IX (C) Section 2 (8):

(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any
officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of
any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard
of, or disobedience to, its decision, order, or directive.
(5) Registration of Political Parties
Article IX (C) Section 2 (5):
(5)Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.

Financial contributions from foreign governments and their

agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions or
candidates related to elections, constitute interference in
national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional
ground for the cancellation of their registration with the
Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be
prescribed by law.
(5) Registration of Political Parties
Registration is necessary to give political parties political
identity and juridical personality.
It is essential that they present their programs and
platforms of government for the information of the
electorate whose support they are seeking as otherwise
the voters may not properly and intelligently exercise their
suffrages.

Religious Groups Those subversive in

nature or purpose

Barred from
Registration
Those who do not foreign government
recognize the Those supported by a
Constitution
Magdalo para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC
(GR No. 190793, June 19, 2012)
FACTS:
The petitioner Magdalo para sa Pagbabago sought to register the
organization as a political party to the COMELEC
The COMELEC based from facts of common knowledge denied the
application of the organization for their involvement in the Oakwood
Mutiny in 2003.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the SC after the denial of
the appeal to the COMELEC En Banc
COMELEC contends that they have the administrative authority to
deny or cancel the registration of parties who use violence to
support their cause.
Magdalo contends that COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion for not basing their decision to the facts of their
application.
Magdalo also argued that they were granted amnesty by the
president in 2010.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of COMELEC constituted grave abuse of
discretion
Magdalo para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC
(GR No. 190793, June 19, 2012)
Held:
The Court dismissed the case because the petition has become
moot and academic since the application was filed for the 2010
elections.
The Court also mentioned that the decision of the COMELEC did not
constitute grave abuse of discretion since it was a known fact that
the group were involved in the Oakwood Mutiny.
But the Court clarified that the Amnesty granted to the petitioners in
2010 no longer prejudices the future application for registration of
the party.
Definition of Political Parties and Sectoral Parties

Political Party Sectoral Party

An organized group of An organized group of

citizens advocating an citizens belonging to
ideology or platform, any of the sectors
principles and policies enumerated in Sec. 5
for the general conduct of R.A. 7941 whose
of government. principal advocacy
pertains to the special
interest and concerns
of their sector.
Current Political Parties and Sectoral Parties

Political Party Sectoral Party

Difference of Refusing and Canceling a Registration

Refusal Cancellation

To refuse it to decline To cancel is to annul or

or turn down; remove;
Happens during the Takes place after the
inceptive stage when fact of registration
an organization seeks when an inquiry is
admission in the roster done by the COMELEC,
of COMELEC- motu propio or upon a
registered party-list verified complaint, on
organizations through whether a registered
a petition for party-list still holds the
registration. qualifications imposed
by law.
(6) Improvement of Elections
Article IX (C) Section 2 (7):
(7)Recommend to the Congress effective measures
to minimize election spending, including limitation of
places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and
to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds,
offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.

Article IX (C) Section 2 (9):

(9) Submit to the President and the Congress a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
Election Period
Article IX (C) Section 9:

Sec. 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in

special cases, the election period shall commence
ninety days before the day of election and shall
end thirty days thereafter.

The period may be changed in special cases by the

COMELEC, as where there is a special election for the
President which should be called within seven days
after the occurrence of the vacancy to be filled and
held not earlier than forty-five nor later than sixty
days from such call.
Election Period

Election period is differentiated from campaign period

in that the latter cannot extend beyond election day
and ends two days before the election.

Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code refers to

any person who files his certificate of candidacy
within the filing period shall be considered a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for
which he filed his certificate of candidacy.
Section 11of R.A. No. 8436 mentions that any
unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate
shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign
period.
Party System
Article IX (C) Section 6:
Sec. 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed
to evolve according to the free choice of the people,
subject to the provisions of this Article.

Article IX (C) Section 7:

Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,
organization , or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.

Article IX (C) Section 8:

Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions
registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters registration boards, boards of
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other
similar bodies. However, they shall be entitle to appoint
poll watchers in accordance with law.
Pacificador v. COMELEC
(GR No. 178259, March 13, 2009)
FACTS:
The

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of COMELEC constituted grave abuse of
discretion
Funds
Article IX (C) Section 11:

Sec. 11. Funds certified by the Commission as

necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular
and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda,
and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special
appropriations and once approved, shall be released
automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the
Commission.
Judicial Review
Article IX (A) Section 7:
Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all
its Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty
days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution.
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt
of a copy thereof.
The power of review of the Supreme Court under Article IX-A,
Section 7, is available not only against decisions, orders, or
rulings rendered by the Commission on Elections in an election
contest but also those relating to the exercise of its quasi-
judicial powers.
Luison v. Garcia (101 Phil. 1218)

FACTS:
The

ISSUE:
Aratuc v. COMELEC
(88 SCRA 251, 1979)
FACTS:
The

ISSUE:
Lokin v. COMELEC
(GR No. 193808, June 26, 2012)
FACTS:
The

ISSUE:
People v. Delgado
(189 SCRA 715)
FACTS:
The

ISSUE:
Thank you!