Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Preliminaries
1. General Provisions
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
SUFFRAGE, OBJECTIVE
UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
Art. III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution: The Philippines is a republican
state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
SUFFRAGE
Means by which people express their sovereign judgment and its free
exercise must be protected especially against the purchasing power of
the peso. (Nolasco v. Comelec 275 SCRA 763)
It is both a right and a privilege. Right because it is the expression of
the sovereign will of the people. A privilege because its exercise is
conferred only to such persons or class of persons as are most likely to
exercise it for the purpose of the public good.
It is the right to vote in the election of officers chosen by the people
and in the determination of questions submitted to the people. It
includes:
1.
Election
2.
Plebiscite
3.
Initiative and
4.
Referendum
Nature & Basis
Art. II, Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican
state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Article V Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines
NOT otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of age
who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and
in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six (6) months in
the immediately preceding the elections. No literacy, property or other
substantive requirements shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide for a system of securing the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system of absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and
illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then,
they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the
Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.
Nolasco v. Comelec,
27 SCRA 763
A disqualification case was filed by Alarilla against Meycauayan,
Bulacan Mayor-elect Florentino Blanco for alleged performing acts
which are grounds for disqualification under the Omnibus Election
Code. The COMELEC decided against Blanco. A reconsideration was
moved by Blanco in the COMELEC En Banc. Nolasco, the vice-mayorelect took part as intervenor, urging that should Blanco be finally
disqualified, the mayoralty position be turned over to him. The parties
were allowed to file their memoranda. IN A MAYORALTY ELECTION,
THE CANDIDATE WHO OBTAINED THE SECOND HIGHEST
NUMBER OF VOTES, IN THIS CASE ALARILLA, CANNOT BE
PROCLAIMED WINNER IN CASE THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS
DISQUALIFIED. Thus, we reiterated the rule in the fairly recent case of
Reyes v. COMELEC,[14] viz:
SUFFRAGE AS A DUTY
Abanil v. Justice of Peace of Bacolod
70 Phil 26
NATURE OF SUFFRAGE
In the scheme of our present republican government, the people
are allowed to have a voice therein through the instrumentality
of suffrage to be availed of by those possessing certain prescribe
qualifications (Article V, Constitution of the Philippines; sections
93 and 94, Election Code). The people in clothing a citizen
with the elective franchise for the purpose of securing a
consistent and perpetual administration of the
government they ordain, charge him with the
performance of a duty in the nature of a public trust, and
in that respect constitute him a representative of the
whole people.
AS A DUTY
This duty requires that the privilege thus bestowed should be
exercised, not exclusively for the benefit of the citizen or class of
citizens professing it, but in good faith and with an intelligent
zeal for the general benefit of the state. (U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 92
U. S., 588.) In the last analysis, therefore, the inclusion from the
permanent electoral list of any voter concerns not only the latter
in his individual capacity but the public in general.
ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Moya v. Del Fierro
G.R. No. L-46863 November 18, 1939
Republicanism, in so far as it implies the adoption of a representative
type of government, necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as a
particle of popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the
established authority. He has a voice in his Government and whenever
called upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to
stifle it. This, fundamentally, is the reason for the rule that ballots
should be read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with
reasonable, liberality. Counsel for both parties have called our
attention to the different and divergent rules laid down by this Court on
the appreciation of ballots. It will serve no good and useful purpose for
us to engage in the task of reconciliation or harmonization of these
rules, although this may perhaps be undertaken, as no two cases will
be found to be exactly the same in factual or legal environment.
It is sufficient to observe, however, in this connection that whatever
might have been said in cases heretofore decided, no technical rule
or rules should be permitted to defeat the intention of the
voter, if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, not
from evidence aliunde. This rule of interpretation goes to the very
root of the system. Rationally, also, this must be the justification for the
suggested liberalization of the rules on appreciation of ballots which
are now incorporated in section 144 of the Election Code
(Commonwealth Act No. 357).
Pungutan v. Abubakar/Comelec
How such a right is to be exercised is regulated by the Election Code.
Its enforcement under the Constitution is, as noted, vested in
respondent Commission. Such a power, however, is purely executive or
administrative. So it was characterized by the Chief Justice in Abcede v.
ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS
-
Laws for
conduct of
Elections
Laws for
Candidates
Procedural
Rules
Before: Mandatory
After: Directory
Mandatory & Strictly Construed
1)
2)
physical, moral and spiritual, intellectual and social wellbeing. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism and encourage their involvement in public and
civic affairs.
Section 23. The state shall encourage non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote
the welfare of the nation.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Hofer v. HRET, GR. No. 158833, May 12, 2005 - the time
limit for presentation of evidence of 20 days conformably with
Rule 59 of the HRET Rules is explicit and strictly complied with. It
is not a technicality that can be set aside as would make the
liberal construction policy operative.
Substantial amendments may be allowed but must be within time
period (10 days after winners proclamation The Court has already
ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET, that substantial amendments to
the protest may be allowed only within the same period for filing
the election protest, which, under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of
Procedure is ten (10) days after the proclamation of the
winner.
3.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE V. SUFFRAGE.
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by
1.
all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified
by law,
2.
who are at least eighteen years of age, and
3.
who shall have resided in the Philippines for
a)
at least one year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote,
b)
for at least six months immediately preceding
the election.
c)
No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for
securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled
and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other
persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under
existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections
may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
iii.
iv.
v.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
i.
ii.
iii.
Recall
Qualifications and Disqualifications of Local
Elective Officials
Local Initiative and Referendum
RECALL
(d)
(1)
(2)
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the
official's assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a
regular local election.
Section 75. Expenses Incident to Recall Elections. - All expenses
incident to recall elections shall be borne by the COMELEC. For this
purpose, there shall be included in the annual General Appropriations
Act a contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct
of recall elections.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Section 124. Limitations on Local Initiative. (a) The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than
once a year.
(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are
within the legal powers of the sanggunian to enact.
(c) If at any time before the initiative is held, the sanggunian
concerned adopts in toto the proposition presented and the local
chief executive approves the same, the initiative shall be
cancelled. However, those against such action may, if they so
desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein provided.
Section 125. Limitations upon Sanggunians. - Any proposition or
ordinance approved through the system of initiative and referendum
as herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended by the
sanggunian concerned within six (6) months from the date of the
approval thereof, and may be amended, modified or repealed by the
sanggunian within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-fourths
(3/4) of all its members: Provided, That in case of barangays, the
period shall be eighteen (18) months after the approval thereof.
Section 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.
The local referendum shall be held under the control and direction of
the COMELEC within sixty (60) days in case of provinces and cities,
forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities and thirty (30) days in
case of barangays.
The COMELEC shall certify and proclaim the results of the said
referendum.
MITMUG V. COMELEC
The majority or plurality of votes is determined by the number of
registered VOTERS WHO ACTUALLY CAST THEIR VOTES OR
THOSE WHO ACTUALLY VOTED AND NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER
OF REGISTERED VOTERS. There is no provision in our election
laws which requires that a majority of the registered voters must
cast their votes. All the law requires is that the winning
candidates must be elected by plurality of votes, regardless of
the actual number of ballots cast. Therefore, even if less than
25% of the electorate in the questioned precincts cast their
votes, the votes has to be respected.
FORMS OF POPULAR
INTERVENTION (SCOPE OF
SUFFRAGE)
SUNGA v. COMELEC
DUREMDES V. COMELEC
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
by declaring as null and void the proclamation of Duremdes and
by disregarding well-settled doctrines. NO
Over and above all else, the determination of the true will of the
electorate should be the paramount consideration. Election
contests involve public interest. 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 ... 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. In an election case the court has an
imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command
who is the real candidate elected by the electorate"
BENITO V. COMELEC
- the proclamation of Benito as mayor-elect by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers was not a valid proclamation. The fact that
the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes dies, or
is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to
which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of
votes to be declared the winner of the elective office.
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. 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.
Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws
should not frustrate the determination of the popular will.
BINCE JR V. COMELEC
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.
1)
3)
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.
Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws
should not frustrate the determination of the popular will.
MARUHOM V. COMELEC
In enacting R.A. No. 8436, Congress obviously failed to provide a
remedy where the error in counting is not machine related for
human foresight is not all-seeing. We hold, however, that the
vacuum in the law cannot prevent the COMELEC from
levitating above the problem. Section 2(1) of Article IX (C) of
the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall."
Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this provision is to give the
COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to
achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible elections. Congruent to this intent, this Court has
PENA V. HRET
A perusal of the petition Ad Cautelam, reveals that Petitioner
makes no specific mention of the precincts where widespread
election, fraud and irregularities occured. This is a fatal omission,
as it goes into the very substance of the protest. Under Section 21
of the Revised Rules of Procedure of HRET, insufficiency in form
and substance of the petition constitutes a ground for the
immediate dismissal of the Petition.
2)
4)
5)
FERNANDEZ V. COMELEC
While Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as
An Act Providing For Synchronized National and Local Elections
and For Electoral Reforms, requires the BEI chairman to affix his
PUNZALAN V. COMELEC
Section 15 of RA 6646 as amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7166,
requires, in addition to the preliminary acts for the conduct of
vote as provided under Sec. 191 of the OEC, the Chairman, to
affix their signatures at the back of each and every ballot to be
used during the voting. The failure on the part of these election
officials to do their duties will not invalidate the ballot for to rule
otherwise would disenfranchise the voters and place a premium
on the official ineptness and make it possible for a small group of
functionaries, by their negligence or their deliberate inaction to
frustrate the will of the electorate. It may however constitute as
an election offense imputable to the said BEI Chairman.
BAUTISTA V. CASTRO
The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of
Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter as required by law
and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal.
This requirement is mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.
3)
KINDS OF ELECTIONS/DISTINCTIONS
a)
b)
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
1)
1987 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE VII, Section 10.The Congress shall, at ten oclock
in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the
offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of a call and within
seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect
a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than
forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such
10
a)
b)
c)
d)
a)
RA 6735
b)
a)
INITIATIVE
2)
the power of the people to propose amendments to the constitution or
to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the
purpose.
REFERENDUM
the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an
election called for the purpose.
I I.
11
I I.
Regional Assembly or
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
12
The Commission shall certify and proclaim the results of the said
referendum.
Sec. 18. Authority of Courts. Nothing in this Act shall prevent or
preclude the proper courts from declaring null and void any proposition
approved pursuant to this Act for violation of the Constitution or want
of capacity of the local legislative body to enact the said measure.
2 ELEMENTS OF INITIATIVE
(1) First, the people must author and thus sign the entire
proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
(2) Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of
the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be either
written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached,
the petition must stated the fact of such attachment. This is an
assurance that everyone of the several millions of signatories to
the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments
before not after signing.
Moreover, an initiative signer must be informed at the time
of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed and
failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders the
initiative void.
In the case of the Lambino Groups petition, theres not a
single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes
in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that
the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. The signature
sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift
from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral- Parliamentary
system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the
people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to
sign the signature sheet. This omission is fatal.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without
first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a
gigantic fraud on the people. Thats why the Constitution requires
that an initiative must be directly proposed by the people x x x in
a petition - meaning that the people must sign on a petition that
contains the full text of the proposed amendments. On so vital an
issue as amending the nations fundamental law, the writing of
the text of the proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the
people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed,
faceless, and unelected individuals.
The initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
disallowing revision through initiatives
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of
amending the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress
upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is
through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through a
peoples initiative.
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second
modes, applies to any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution. In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the
third mode, applies only to amendments to this Constitution.
This distinction was intentional as shown by the deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission. A peoples initiative to change the
Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution
and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional
convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the
Constitution.
Does the Lambino Groups initiative constitute a revision of the
Constitution?
Yes. By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from
a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system,
involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the
abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision,
not a mere amendment.
Amendment vs. Revision
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There
is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of
the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to
a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic
principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of
the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the
specific provision being amended.
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific
provision of the Constitution without affecting any other section or
article, the change may generally be considered an amendment
and not a revision. For example, a change reducing the voting age
from 18 years to 15 years is an amendment and not a revision.
Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media
companies from 100% to 60% is an amendment and not a
revision. Also, a change requiring a college degree as an
13
Referendum
RECALL
DEFINITION/NATURE
14
PROCEDURE/EFFECTIVITY/LIMITATIONS
Section 71:
ELECTION ON RECALL
whom met and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the
recall of Mayor Malonzo.
15
Manuel Afiado et. al. vs. COMELEC 340 SCRA 600, the issue is
WoN an elective official who became Mayor by legal succession
can be the subject of a recall election by virtue of a PRA
Resolution passed or adopted when the said elective official was
still the Vice-Mayor.
Facts: Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father, for
the position of Mayor. Joel emerged as the winner over his
opponent Abaya and he was later proclaimed with Navarro as
Vice-Mayor.
Defeated Abaya filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare Null
and Void Substitution which later was amended seeking to declare
the certificate of candidacy of the father, Jose Miranda, as null and
void. The COMELEC ruled that the Certificate of candidacy was
not valid, hence, he cannot be validly substituted by his son Joel,
as a mayoralty candidate in Santiago City.
While the Petition of Joel was pending with the SC, the PRA of
Santiago City convened on July 12, 1999 and adopted a Resolution
calling for the recall of Vice-Mayor Navarro for loss of confidence.
After the Supreme court denied with finality the Petition of Joel,
Vice-Mayor Navarro assumed and took oath as new mayor of
Santiago City.
COMELEC denied due course the PRA Resolution as moot for the
reason that the assumption by legal succession of petitioner as
the new Mayor is a supervening event which rendered the recall
proceedings against her moot and academic.
The SC referred to the Resolution itself which specifically
referred to the recall of Navarro as Vice-Mayor for her
official acts as VM. Even if the PRA were to reconvene to
adopt another resolution for the recall of Navarro, this
time as Mayor, the same would still not prosper in view of
the limitation as prescribed in Sec. 74 which provides that
No recall shall take place within one year from the date
of the officials assumption of office or one year
immediately preceding a regular elections. Navarro
assumed office on October 11, 1999 and recall elections can only
be initiated between October 11, 2000 to October 11, 2001 which
is now barred by the May 14, 2001 elections.
Padilla Jr. vs. COMELEC 214 SCRA 735, the COMELEC resolved
to approve the conduct of the plebiscite in the area or units
affected for the proposed Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa and the
remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo,
Camarines Norte. Majority of the electorates in the units
affected did not favor the creation of Tulay-na-lupa.
Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a special Civil Action of
Certiorari seek to set aside the Plebiscite contending that it was a
complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid and
illegal because the Plebiscite as mandated by COMELEC Res. 2312
should have been conducted only in the political unit or units
affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not have included
the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo.
PLEBISCITE
DEFINITION/PROCESS;
Section 1 ARTICLE XVII1987 PC;
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed
by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Article XVII1987 PC;
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by
the people
through initiative upon a petition of
at least 12% of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
LIMITATION:
16
what the law is and should be, this might tempt again those who
strut about in the corridors of power to recklessly and with
ulterior motives, create, merge, divide and/or alter the
boundaries of political subdivisions, either brazenly or stealthily,
confident that this Court will abstain from entertaining future
challenges to their acts if they manage to bring about a fait
accompli.
Tobias et. al. v. Abalos Dec. 8, 1994 (En Banc), the exclusion
of the constituents of San Juan to participate in the Plebiscite for
the ratification of RA 7675 relative to the conversion of
Mandaluyong into a highy urbanized city notwithstanding that it
involved a change in their legislative district was upheld for the
reason that the matter of separate district representation is
merely ancillary to the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly
urbanized city.
City of Pasig vs. COMELEC/Municipality of Cainta Province
of Rizal, Sept. 10, 1999, the issue as to the propriety of the
suspension of the Plebiscite proceedings pending the
decision of the boundary dispute between the Municipality
of Cainta and the City of Pasig was raised.
FACTS: The City of Pasig passed on Ordinance creating barangays
Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality of Cainta moved to
suspend or cancel the respective Plebiscite due to the pending
case before the RTC of Antipolo for the settlement of the boundary
dispute and prayed for its suspension or cancellation until the
dispute is decided by the RTC. The COMELEC suspended the
holding of the Plebiscite for the creation of Brgy. Karangalan but
rendered the creation of Napico as moot as the same was already
ratified in the Plebiscite held for the purpose.
HELD: The creation of Napico cannot be considered as
moot and it is most proper that the Plebiscite be declared
null and void in view of the pending boundary dispute
between Pasig and Cainta which presents a PREJUDICIAL
QUESTION AND MUST BE DECIDED FIRST BEFORE THE
PLEBISCITE FOR THE PROPOSED BRGYS. BE CONDUCTED.
17
18
COMELEC
ARTICLE IX-C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of
a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
elective positions in the immediately preceding elections.
However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed
by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall
hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and
the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
and recall.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
19
3.
MANNER OF
APPOINTMENT/
LIMITATIONS/REMOVAL
The
-
21
LDP V. COMELEC/AQUINO
In the case at bar, the Party Chairman, purporting to
represent the LDP, contends that under the Party
Constitution only he or his representative, to the
exclusion of the Secretary General, has the authority to
endorse and sign party nominations. The Secretary
General vigorously disputes this claim and maintains his
own authority. Clearly, the question of party identity or
leadership has to be resolved if the COMELEC is to
ascertain whether the candidates are legitimate party
standard bearers or not.
HELD:
The COMELEC correctly stated that the ascertainment of
the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers
is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of
this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself,
which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election.[9] In the exercise of such
SANTOS V. ASSISTIO
The Resolution of the COMELEC First Division has attained
Finality
Had this Court been apprised at the outset of the
pendency of Santos motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC En Banc, it would have dismissed the petition
outright for premature filing. When the COMELEC En Banc
finally resolved the motion for reconsideration, Santos no
longer elevated the denial of his motion before this Court.
He could no longer do that without exposing his act of
forum shopping. Thus, by Santos inaction, the Order of
the COMELEC En Banc is now final and executory.
22
1)
2)
Pertains to:
Prescribing rules to govern procedure (COMELEC Rules of
Procedure) and
promulgation of rules and regulations relative to the conduct
of elections to insure an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and
credible elections, such as; issuance of rules to supervise and
regulate media and advertisement, rules to implement
prohibition against expenditures or those in excess of the
limits authorized by law.
23
Mendoza .v COMELEC
5 Sec. 4, Supra
24
COMELEC RULES OF
PROCEDURE
Rule 13 - Prohibited Pleadings
Section 1. What Pleadings are not Allowed. - The
following pleadings are not allowed:
(a) motion to dismiss;
(b) motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) motion for extension of time to file memorandum or
brief;
(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling,
resolution, order or decision except in election offense
cases;
(e) motion for re-opening or re-hearing of a case;
(f) reply in special actions and in special cases; and
(g) supplemental pleadings in special actions and in
special cases.chanrobles virtual law librar
25
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
26
27
Aruelo Jr. v. CA, October 20, 1993, the Court held that
should there be a conflict between a rule of procedure
promulgated by the COMELEC and a Rule of Court, the
COMELEC Rule of Procedure will prevail I f the case is
brought before the COMELEC and the Rules of Court if the
election case is filed with the Court.
SEC.
1.
2.
28
Garcia v. De Jesus
Navarro v. COMELEC
29