Sunteți pe pagina 1din 44

ELECTION LAWS REVIEW

ELECTION LAW PRE-BAR REVIEW submitted to the people. (Nachura, Outline


Atty. Jocelyn Arro-Valencia Reviewer in Political Law 2009 edition)
 Suffrage applies not only to elections, but may also
extend to initiatives, referenda, plebiscite and recall.
2014 BAR Examination Coverage for Election Laws
 Means by which people express their sovereign
A. Suffrage judgment. (Nolasco v. Comelec 275 SCRA 763).

B. Qualification and disqualification of voters  Right and obligation of qualified citizens to vote in
the election of certain national and local officers of
C. Registration of Voters the government and in the decision of public
D. Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings questions submitted to the people.
E. Political Parties  It is both a right and a privilege. Right being the
a. Jurisdiction of the COMELEC over political expression of the sovereign will of the people.
parties Privilege because its exercise is conferred only to
such persons or class of persons as are most likely
b. Registration to exercise it for the purpose of the public good.
F. Candidacy
 Suffrage as a duty is in the nature of a public trust
a. Qualification of candidates and constitutes a voter a representative of the
b. Filing of certificates of candidacy whole people. This duty requires that the privileged
bestowed should be exercised not exclusively for
i. Effect of filing
the benefit of the citizen or citizens proferring it but
ii. Substitution of candidates in good faith and with intelligent zeal for the general
iii. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to benefit and welfare of the State. (Cipriano Abanil v.
receive certificate Justice of the Peace Court of Bacolod, Negros
Occidental et. al. 70 Phil. 28 (1940)).
iv. Nuisance candidates
v. Petition to deny due course to or Sec. 1, Art. V of 1987 the Constitution provides,
cancel certificates of candidacy “Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines,
vi. Effect of disqualification not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of
age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
vii. Withdrawal of candidates
one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at
G. Campaign least 6 months immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
a. Premature campaigning property, or other substantive requirements shall be imposed
on the exercise of suffrage.
b. Prohibited contributions
c. Lawful and prohibited election propaganda Suffrage may also be exercised by qualified Filipinos
d. Limitations on expenses abroad. Article V, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution further
provides that, “The Congress shall provide a system for
e. Statement of contributions and expenses
securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
H. Board of Election Inspectors and Board of system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.”
Canvassers Congress enacted R.A. 9189 “Overseas Absenting Voting Act
a. Composition of 2003” now amended by the Overseas Absenting Voting Act
of 2013.
b. Powers
SCOPE OF SUFFRAGE: FORMS OF POPULAR
I. Remedies and jurisdiction in election law INTERVENTION
a. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy Sec. 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution, the
Comelec is vested with the power to “enforce and administer
b. Petition for disqualification
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election,
c. Petition to declare failure of elections plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall”.
d. Pre-proclamation controversy
e. Election Protest 1) Election – is the means by which the people
choose, through the use of the ballot, their
f.
Quo Warranto
officials for definite and fixed periods and to
J. Prosecution of election offenses
whom they entrust, for the time being as their
representatives, the exercise of powers of
government (Garchitorena v. Crsecini 39 Phil.
A. SUFFRAGE
258 (1918)). In ordinary dialect or
understanding, the Court in Carlos v. Angeles,
THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY - Section 1, Article
346 SCRA 571 (2000) held that elections refers
11 of the Constitution: “The Philippines is a democratic and
to the conduct of the poles – listing of votes,
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
holding of electoral campaign, act of casting and
government authority emanates from them.” A democratic and
receiving the ballots from the voters, counting
republic government derives all its powers, directly or indirectly,
them, and making the election returns and
from the people – who represents the sovereign power of the
proclaiming the candidates. . .it refers to the
state.
entire and complete electoral process.
SUFFRAGE
a. Kinds of Election
 Is the right to vote in the election of officers chosen 1 Regular election – refers to an election
by the people and in the determination of questions participated in by those who possess the right of suffrage
and not disqualified by law and who are registered voters.

1 1
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
2

2. Special elections – election not regularly political units affected agree to a proposed
held but which is conducted creation, division, merger, abolition or
• to supply a vacancy in a particular office boundary change of a political unit.
before the expiration of the full term for
which the incumbent was elected. Sec. 4 of Padilla Jr. v. Comelec 214 SCRA 735, the Comelec resolved
RA 7166 provides that, “in case a to approve the conduct of the plebiscite in the area or units
permanent vacancy shall occur in the affected for the proposed Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa and the
Senate or House of Representative at least remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines
one (1) year before the expiration of the Norte, Majority of the electorates in the units affected rejected
term, the Comelec shall call and hold a the creation of Tulay-na-Lupa.
special elections to fill the vacancy not
earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a Special Civil Action for
after the occurrence of the vacancy. Certiorari, seek to set aside the Plebiscite asserting that it was
a complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid
• Article VI, Section 9, Constitution provides and illegal because the Plebiscite as mandated by Comelec
that case such vacancy in the Senate, the Res. No. 2312 should have been conducted only in the political
special elections shall be held unit or units affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not
simultaneously with the next succeeding have included the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo.)
regular elections.
• Article VII, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, in HELD: With the approval and ratification of the 1987
case a vacancy occurs in the offices of the Constitution, more specifically, Art. X, Section 10, the creation,
President and Vice-President, a special division, merger, abolition or alteration of the boundaries of any
election cannot be called if the vacancy political unit shall be subject to the approval by a majority of the
occurs within 18 months before the date of votes cast in a Plebiscite in the ‘POLITICAL UNITS
the next presidential elections. AFFECTED” was held to mean that residents of the political
entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation
• In cases were a postponement and failure of of a portion thereof have a right to vote in the said Plebiscite or
elections are declared by the Comelec in the plurality of political units which would participate in the
accordance with Sections 5,6,7 of BP 881). Plebiscite. The Court reiterated its ruling in Tan v. Comelec
Lucero v. Comelec 234 SCRA 280 (1994); 142 SCRA 727 (1986), that “in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is
Borja v. Comelec 260 SCRA 604 (1996). imperative that all the constituents of the mother and daughter
units affected shall be included.
In fixing the date for special elections the Comelec
should to see to it that: Sanidad v. Comelec 181 SCRA 529, the Supreme Court
1) it should not be later than thirty (30) days after the declared as unconstitutional the restriction imposed by
cessation of the cause of the postponement or Comelec on media relative to discussing on air and print the
suspension of the election or the failure to elect; features of the plebiscite issues in the creation of the
2) it should be reasonably close to the date of the autonomous region for the Cordilleras and held that plebiscite
election not held, suspended or which resulted in the are matters of public concern and importance and the peoples
failure to elect. (Lucero v. Comelec 234 SCRA 280). right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently
make a decision would be best served by access to an
3. Manual Elections – Manual/mechanical unabridged discussion of the issues.
casting/voting, counting, and canvassing stages which involves
the following – City of Pasig v. Comelec/Municipality of Cainta Province of
a. Use of paper “write-in” ballots during the casting Rizal, Sept. 10, 1999, the issue raised was the propriety of the
stage; suspension of the plebiscite proceedings pending the decision
b. The “direct reading and manual tallying of votes” in of the boundary dispute between the Municipality of Cainta
multiple copies of election returns (ER); and and the City of Pasig. The City of Pasig passed an Ordinance
c. The manual addition of results in Statement of creating barangays Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality
Votes (SOVs) and the Certificates of Canvass of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscite
(COCCs) due to the pending case before the RTC of Antipolo for the
settlement of the boundary dispute and that the said activities
4. Automated Election System (AES) – a system using await the decision of the RTC on the matter.
appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in the
voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission That Comelec suspended the holding of the plebiscite
of election result, and other electoral process. (Sec. 2, RA for the creation of Brgy. Karangalan but rendered the creation
9369, The Automated Election System Law, As Amended) of Napico as moot as the same has already been ratified in the
plebiscite held for the purpose. The SC held that the creation
2) Plebiscite – an electoral process by which an of Napico cannot be considered as moot and it is most proper
initiative on the Constitution is approved or that the plebiscite be declared null and void in view of the
rejected by the people (Sec. 3 R.A. 6735 “The pending boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta which
Initiative and Referendum Act). Generally presents a prejudicial question and must be decided first
associated with the ratification process. before the plebiscite for the proposed barangays be conducted.
Plebiscite is required –
Jurisdiction over controversies involving Plebiscite Issues
a. Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, - Ma. Salvacion Buac/Antonio Bautista v. Comelec/Alan
with reference to the voting to determine Peter Cayetano and some Intervenors, G.R. No. 155855,
whether the voters in the country are in favor January 26, 2004, a petition for certiorari and mandamus was
of or against the ratification of the filed by petitioners Buac and Bautista assailing the October 28,
Constitution or an amendment thereto and 2002 en banc resolution of the Comelec which held that it has
no jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of
b. Sec. 10, Art. X, in connection with the voting plebiscite and the annulment of its results.
to determine whether the voters in the

2 2
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
3

The facts show that in April 1988, a plebiscite was In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the SC said that the
held in Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law said provision is explicit that Comelec has power to “enforce
(RA No. 8487) proposing the conversion of Taguig from a and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct
municipality into a city. Without completing the canvass of 64 of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. To
other election returns, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers enforce means to cause to take effect or to cause the
(PBOC) declared that the “NO” votes won and that the people performance of such act or acts necessary to bring into actual
rejected the conversion of Taguig to a city. The PBOC was effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails all the
however ordered by the Comelec en banc to reconvene and necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the holding of
complete the canvass which the board did and in due time honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections (HOPE
issued an Order proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed. FRECRE). The SC was surprised that for the first time,
Comelec yielded its historic jurisdiction over a motion for
Petitioners filed with the Comelec a petition to annul the results reconsideration which was even filed out of time, thus
of the plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount of the rendering it without jurisdiction to entertain the same.
ballots. Cayetano intervened and moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Comelec. INITIATIVE – are lawmaking powers that belong to the people
He claimed that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an and have been described as the “people power” features of our
election protest and that the jurisdiction to hear a complaint Constitution (Asked in the 2000 BAR). Initiative under RA 6735
involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged with the RTC. is defined as the power of the people to propose amendments
to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through
Comelec 2nd division initially gave due course to the petition an election called for the purpose.
ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case. It treated the
petition as akin to an election protest considering that the same REFERENDUM – power of the electorate to approve or reject
allegations of fraud and irregularities in the casting and a piece of legislation through an election called for the purpose.
counting of ballots and preparation of returns are the same (Sec. 2©, R.A. 6735).
grounds for assailing the results of an election. It then ordered
the Taguig ballot boxes to be brought to its Manila Office and Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides that
created revision committees to revise and recount the “Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
plebiscite ballots. proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which
Intervenor Cayetano, in an unverified motion, moved for every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of
reconsideration of the Comelec Order insisting that it has no the registered voters therein”.
jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition contesting the results
of a plebiscite. Section 32, Article VI of the Constitution provides that
“Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of
In a complete turnaround, the Comelec 2nd division issued an initiative and referendum and the exceptions therefrom, where
Order granting the Motion for Reconsideration. It dismissed the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or
the petition to annul the results of the plebiscite and ruled that reject any act or law or part thereof passed by Congress or
Comelec has no jurisdiction over said case as it involves an local legislative body after the registration of a petition thereof
exercise of QJ powers not contemplated under Section 2(2), signed by at least 10% of the total number of registered voters,
Article IX-C of the Constitution. of which every legislative district must be represented by at
least 3% of the registered voters thereof.”
On appeal, the Comelec en banc affirmed the ruling of its 2 nd
division. It held that the Comelec cannot use its power to RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 also
enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscites as this provides for a “local initiative” defined as the “legal process
power is purely administrative or executive and not QJ in whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may
nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition to directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. Sec. 126
annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC thereof provides for a “local referendum” defined as the “legal
under Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC process whereby the RV of the local government units may
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within the approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial or sanggunian.”
QJ functions. Hence, the petition before the SC.

The SC held that the key to the case is its nature, which Classes of Initiative – 1) On the Constitution; 2) On Statutes;
involves the determination of whether the electorate of 3) On Local Legislation. Indirect Initiative is exercised by the
Taguig voted in favor of or against the conversion of the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local
municipality of Taguig. The invocation of judicial power to legislative body for action.
settle disputes involving the conduct of a plebiscite is
misplaced. Judicial power as defined under Section 1, Article Classes of Referendum – 1) On Statutes; 2) On Local Laws.
VIII of the Constitution as the duty of the court of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally Santiago, et. al. v. Comelec, et. al., 270 SCRA 106 (336
demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not SCRA 843), the controversy brought to the Supreme Court by
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or way of a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or Court is “the right of the people to directly propose
instrumentality of the government. amendments to the Constitution through the system of Initiative
under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution”.
This case assailing the regularity of the conduct of the Taguig
plebiscite does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise Atty. Jesus Delfin filed a petition with the Comelec to amend
of judicial power. There is no plaintiff or defendant in the case the constitution, specifically to lift the term limits of elective
for it merely involves the ascertainment of the vote of the officials, by people’s initiative. Atty. Delfin asked the Comelec
electorate on whether they approve or disapprove the for an order: (1) to fix the time and dates for signature
conversion of their municipality into a highly urbanized city. gathering all over the country (2) to cause the necessary
publications of said Order and the said petition in newspapers

3 3
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
4

of general and local circulation and (3) instruct the municipal (1) Whether the initiative petition of the Lambino group
election registrars in all regions in the Philippines to assist complied with the provisions of Section 2, Article XVII of the
petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing station at the Constitution.
time and on the dates designated for the purpose.
(2)Whether the Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago vs.
The Comelec issued an Order granting the petition. Santiago Comelec declaring RA 6735 “incomplete and inadequate or
filed this special civil action for prohibition raising among other wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the
grounds that RA 6735 does not provide for people’s initiative to initiative clause to amend the Constitution.
amend the constitution considering that the same is still
pending with the Senate of which she is the author. The The Supreme Court upheld the Comelec’s ruling on the petition
petition of Atty. Delfin was not validly initiated as it failed to for people’s initiative on October 25, 2006 with a close 8-7
comply with the signature requirement for initiating an initiative. vote. As ruled:
The Comelec never acquired jurisdiction over the petition
as jurisdiction is acquired only after its filing – the petition  The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with
being the initiatory pleading. the basic requirement of the Constitution for the
conduct of people’s initiative. The Constitution
The SC gave due course to the Petition on the legal require that the amendment must be “directly
premise that the Constitution recognizes only two (2) methods proposed by the people through initiative upon a
of proposing amendments to the Constitution, viz (1) by petition.”
Congress upon a vote of ¾ of all its members and (2) by

constitutional convention.
Lambino’s group failed to include the full text of the
proposed changes in the signature sheets –a fatal
The SC interpreted Sec. 2 of RA 6735 which
omission, according to the Supreme Court ruling,
provides that “the power of the people under a system of
because it means a majority of the 6.3M people who
initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approved
signed the signature sheets could not have known the
or reject, in whole or in part the Constitution, laws, ordinance
nature and effect of the proposed changes. For the
or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance
petition to be valid, two essential requisites must be
with the requirements of this Act, is hereby affirmed,
complied with, namely: (a) the people must author,
recognized and guaranteed.” It held that the inclusion of the
and thus sign, the entire proposal; no agent or
word “constitution” here is neither germane nor relevant to said
representative can sign on their behalf; and (b) as an
action which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on
initiative upon a petition, the proposed amendments
national and local laws, ordinances and resolution. Therefore,
must be embodied in the petition itself.
the people are not accorded the power to “directly propose,
enact, approved or reject, in whole or in part the Constitution,  A people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies
through the system of initiative. only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to
its revision. Only Congress or a constitutional
The SC further declared that Comelec cannot validly convention may propose revisions to the Constitution.
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of A people’s initiative may propose only amendments to
the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the the Constitution.
Constitution through the system of initiative. The power of  The SC declared that “A popular clamor, even one
Comelec to issue rules and regulations (QJ power) is limited backed by 6.3M signatures, cannot justify a deviation
only to what is provided under – from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution
itself.”
(a) Section 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution and
(b) by a law where subordinate legislation is The rationale for the second requisite is that the signature
authorized and which satisfied the “completeness” requirement would be rendered meaningless if the person
and the “sufficient standard” tests. affixing his signature has not first seen and understood what it
is that he is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose
Raul Lambino, et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. No. 174153, interpretation of the subscription requirement can pose a
October 25, 2006 the issue on initiative to propose significant potential for fraud. On-compliance with the above
amendments to the 1987 Constitution was again at issue. mentioned requirement is fatal to the initiative petition. For
FACTS: Raul Lambino of Sigaw ng Bayan and Erico sure, the great majority of the 6.3M people who signed the
Aumentado of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed
(ULAP) filed a petition for people’s initiative before the changes before signing, as the proposed amendments were
Commission on Elections on August 26, 2006, after months of not stated in the signature sheets. They were not apprised of
gathering signatures all over the country. Lambino claimed the nature and effect of the proposed amendments, among
that the petition is backed by 6.3M registered voters. which are substantial changes as follows:
constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered
voters. They further claimed that the provincial and city 1) the term limits on members of the legislature will
Comelec officials had already verified the 6.3M signatures be lifted and thus member of the Parliament may
be re-elected indefinitely;
The Comelec denied the petition, reasoning that a lack of 2) The Interim Parliament whose membership
enabling law keeps them from entertaining such petitions. It comprised of present members of Congress can
invoked the 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Santiago vs. decide when to call the parliamentary elections.
Comelec (336 SCRA 843), where it declared RA 6735 Thus, leaving them the absolute discretion to
inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to determine their term limits.
amend the Constitution. The Comelec ruling prompted 3) That within 45 days from the ratification of
Lambino and Aumentado to bring their case before the proposed changes, the interim Parliament may
Supreme Court on the following issues - further propose revision or amendments to the
Constitution.

4 4
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
5

Furthermore, a people’s initiative to change the the other matters in the proposed amendments were already
Constitution applies only to an amendment to the Constitution submitted to the Office of the President.
and not revision. Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of
three modes of proposing amendments to the Constitution: a) Not satisfied and within 30 days from submission of their
by direct congressional action (3/4 votes of all its members), b) petition, respondent resorted to their power of initiative under
through a constitutional convention, and c) through a people’s the LGC of 1991. On June 18, 1996 Comelec issued
initiative. Resolution No. 2845 adopting a calendar of activities for local
referendum to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Bldg. 10.
The first and second modes, as provided in Section 1 of Article
XVII, apply to both amendment and revision, but the 3 rd mode Petitioner SBMA seeks to nullify the Order of Comelec denying
applies only to amendments. The distinction between the first petitioner’s plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and
two modes and the third was intentional as shown by the referendum on the proposition to recall the Kapasyahan as it
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. was proceeding with a local initiative that proposes an
amendment of a national law. ISSUE:
There can be no dispute that a people’s initiative can only
propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution
itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no • whether Comelec committed grave abuse
deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising of discretion in promulgating and
the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3M implementing its Res. No. 2842 which
signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes govern the conduct of the referendum
prescribed in the Constitution itself. The Lambino’s group proposing to annul or repeal PK Blg. 10 and
proposed changes constituted not just an amendment but a • whether the questioned local initiative
revision, because of the change in the form of government covers a subject within the powers of the
from Presidential to Parliamentary, and the shift from a people of Morong to enact (whether such
bicameral to a unicameral legislature. initiative seeks the amendment of a
national law.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVISION AND AMENDMENT.
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle
In this case, the SC was compelled to distinguish Initiative from
in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of
Referendum. To begin with, the process started by Garcia et.
power or the system of checks and balances. There is also
al., was an Initiative but respondent Comelec made
revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the
preparations for a referendum. In the body of the Comelec
Constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to
Resolution No. 2842, the word “referendum” is repeated at
a change that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic
least 27 times, but initiative is not mentioned at all. The
principle involved. Revision generally affects several
Comelec labeled the exercise as a referendum, the counting of
provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally
votes was entrusted to a referendum committee, the
affects only the specific provision being amended.
documents were called referendum returns and so forth. As
distinguished, initiative is a process of law making by the
On the second pivotal issue of revisiting the ruling of the Court
people themselves without the participation and against the
in Santiago vs. Comelec, the Court held that an affirmation or
wishes of their elected representatives while referendum
reversal of the same will not change the outcome of the case.
consists merely with the electorate approving or rejecting what
The Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the
has been drawn up or enacted by the legislative body by
constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be
simply indicating yes or no in the ballot.
resolved on some grounds.
In initiative, there is a need for the Comelec to supervise
In the resolution on the motion for reconsideration, the Court
the process closely, it’s authority therein extending not
maintaining its 8-7 vote, denied with finality the motions for
only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to
reconsideration of its October 25, 2006 decision dismissing the
seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people
said petition to amend the 1987 Constitution through a people’s
is in the proper form and language so it may be easily
initiative. . Ten justices however reiterated their earlier
understood and voted upon by the electorate. Care in this
opinions that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate as an
activity must be exercise that “no petition embracing more
enabling law to amend the Constitution through a people’s
than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate,
initiative, effectively abandoning Santiago v. Comelec.
although two or more propositions may be submitted in
an initiative. “
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Comelec 252 SCRA
492 (1996), an action for certiorari and prohibition was brought
As to the second issue, SBMA insists that the creation of the
to the SC seeking to nullify the ruling of the Comelec and
SSEZ is now a fait accompli for the benefit of the entire nation
Resolution No. 2848 denying petitioner’s plea to stop the
and Morong cannot unilaterally withdraw its concurrence or
holding of a local initiative and referendum on the proposition
impose new conditions for such concurrence as this would
to recall Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the
effectively render nugatory the creation of the SSEZ. The SC
SB of Morong Bataan.
agreed with the contention of Garcia that the position of SBMA
In this case, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong,
is premature and conjectural because at this point the
Bataan on April 1993, passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg.
resolution is just a proposal. If the people should reject it during
10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its absolute concurrence to
the referendum, then there is nothing to declare as illegal. A
join the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) as required by
writ of prohibition cannot issue upon a mere conjecture or
Sec. 12 of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act
possibility as courts may decide only actual controversies and
of 1992). On September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the
not hypothetical questions or cases.
Kapasyahan to the Office of the President. On 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 3) RECALL – is the termination of official relationship of
amendments to the said law. The SB acted upon the petition a local elective public official for loss of confidence by the
and promulgated PK Blg. 18, requesting Congress to amend people prior to the end of his term of office (Sec. 69, R.A. 7160
certain provisions of RA 7227 and informed respondents that LGC). In Angobung v. Comelec 269 SCRA 246 (1997), the
Supreme Court ruled that recall is the mode of removal of a

5 5
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
6

public officer by the people before the end of his term of office office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will
which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local be contested and be filled up by the electorate. It is confined to
government unit to which the local elective official subject of the regular elections of elective national and local officials.
such recall belongs.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
The mode of initiating recall against a public elective official is
now limited to a petition commenced only by the registered Article V Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens
voters in the local unit concerned. Section 70 and 71 of RA of the Philippines NOT otherwise disqualified by law, who are
7160 is now amended by RA 9244, otherwise known as An at least 18 years of age who shall have resided in the
Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Philippines for at least one (1) year and in the place wherein
Mode of Instituting Recall of Elective Local Government they propose to vote for at least six (6) months in the
Officials. immediately preceding the elections. No literacy, property or
other substantive requirements shall be imposed on the
Section 70 of RA 7160 now reads as follows: “The recall of exercise of suffrage.
any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall
be commenced by a petition of a registered voter in the LGU Section 2. The Congress shall provide for a system of
concerned and supported by the registered voters in the LGU securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
concerned during the election in which the local official sought system of absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
to be recalled was elected subject to the following percentage
requirements: The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
• At least 25% in the case of an LGU with a voting disabled and illiterates to vote without the assistance of other
population of not more than 20,000 persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under
existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections
• At least 20% in the case of LGUs with a voting may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
population of at least 20,000 but not more than
75,000: Provided, that in no case shall the required WHO MAY REGISTER (RA 8189, (An Act Providing for the
petitioners be less than 5,000. General Registration of Voters providing for a System of
• At least 15% in the case of local government units Continuing Registration which took effect on June 11,
with a voting population of at least 75,000 but not 1996)
more than 300,000: Provided however, that in no
case shall the required number of petitioners be less
than 15,000; and Registration of voters is a means of determining who
possess the qualifications as a voter and regulating the
• At least 10% in the case of local government units exercise of the right of suffrage.
with a voting population of over 300,000 thousand: Registration does not confer the right to vote; it is but a
Provided however, that in no case shall the required condition precedent to the exercise of the right.
petitioners be less than 45,000. How is Registration done – Registration refers to the ACT of
accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration
DATE OF RECALL – Upon the filing of a valid petition for (Voters Registration Record VRR) by a qualified voter before
recall with the appropriate local office of the Comelec, the the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides
Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall set the date and including the VRR in the book of RV upon approval by the
of the election or recall, which shall not be later than 30 days Election Registration Board (Sec. 3(a)).
upon the completion of the procedure outlined in the preceding
article, in the case of the barangay, city or municipal officials, REGISTRATION IS EXTENDED TO: DOMESTIC AND
and 45 days in the case of provincial officials. OVERSEAS VOTERS
FOR DOMESTIC VOTERS – GOVERNED BY RA 8189 The
The official sought to be recalled shall automatically be Voters Registration Act
considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to (Sec. 9 (repealed Sections 116 and 117 of the OEC). Sec. 9
the pertinent positions and like other candidates, shall be clarified when the residency and age requirements should be
entitled to be voted upon.” (Sec. 71) attained) – Salient amendments:
EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL – recall shall become effective Section 9 – Who may Register – All citizens of the
only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the Philippines NOT otherwise disqualified by law who are at
person of the candidate who received the highest number of least 18 years of age, who shall have resided in the
votes cast during the election in recall. Should the official Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place
sought to be recalled receive the highest number of votes, wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months
confidence in him is thereby affirmed and he shall continue in immediately preceding the elections.
office. (Sec. 72).
Any person who temporarily resides in another city,
LIMITATIONS ON RECALL – an elective official may be municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation,
subject of recall elections only ONCE during his term of office profession, employment in private or public service,
exclusively on the ground of LACK OF CONFIDENCE. The educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations,
recall cannot be undertaken within one (1) year from the date within the Philippines, service in the AFP, or confinement or
of the official’s assumption of office or within one (1) detention in government institution in accordance with law,
immediately preceding a regular election. (Sec. 74) shall NOT be deemed to have lost his original residence.
In Paras v. Comelec 264 SCRA 49, Paras, incumbent punong Any person who, on the day of registration may not have
brgy sought to bar the recall proceedings against him citing reached the required age or period of residence but, who
Sec. 74 (B) of RA 7160 that it was barred by the scheduled SK on the day of election shall possess such qualifications,
elections. The SC settled the issue and held that the SK may register as a voter.”
elections is not considered a “regular local elections” for
purposes of recall under Sec. 74. The term regular local
elections is construed as one referring to an election where the

6 6
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
7

Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea 670 SCRA 670 is synonymous with domicile, meaning that a person must not
(2012) – The Court have held that “absence from residence to only intend to reside in a particular place but must also have
pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a personal presence in such place coupled with conduct
voter other than the place where one is elected, does not indicative of such intention. There is no hard and fast rule to
constitute loss of residence”. Section 117 of the OEC provides determine a candidate’s compliance with residency
that “transfer of residence to any other place by reason of requirement since the question of residence is a question of
one’s occupation, profession employment in private and public intention. Still, jurisprudence had laid down the following
service, educational activities work force, the constabulary or guidelines:
national police force, or confinement or detention in (a) every person has a domicile or residence
government institutions in accordance with law” is not deemed somewhere;
as loss of residence.
(b) where once established, that domicile remains until
The Court ruled that there is nothing wrong in an individual he acquires a new one; and
changing residences so he could run for an elective post, for as (c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.
long as he is able to prove with reasonable certainty that he The Comelec concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle
has effected a change of residence for election law purposes his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his
for the period required by law. brother’s house. But this circumstance alone cannot support
such conclusion. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a
Sec. 11– Disqualifications: (Section 11 of R.A. 8189 repealed candidate is not required to have a house in a community to
Sec. 118 of the OEC) establish his residence or domicile in a particular place. It is
 Any person who has been sentenced by final sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented
judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one house or in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the
(1) year. candidate own the house where he lives would make property
a qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos
• Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and
by competent court or tribunal of having committed an intention of making it his domicile.
any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio Gonzales and
the anti-subversion and firearms law, or any crime Orlando Balbon, Jr. 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In this case,
against national security in accordance with law. following the conversion of Puerto Princesa (Mitra’s domicile of
• Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent origin) from a component city to a highly urbanized city whose
authority. residents can no longer vote for provincial officials, Mitra
abandoned his domicile in Puerto Princesa and acquired a new
WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED – one in Aborlan which is within the LGU where he intended to
run. Mitra bought the old Maligaya Feedmill and used the
second floor as his residence.
• Plenary pardon or amnesty – those sentenced by final In considering the residency issue, the dwelling where
judgment. Article IX-C, Section 5 provides that the a person permanently intends to return to and to remain – his
President cannot, without the favorable or her capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack
recommendation of the Comelec grant pardon, of it, IS IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion
amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence in cases when it determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s
involving violation of election laws and violation of residence based solely on very personal and subjective
election rules and regulations. assessment standards when the law is replete with
• Expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence standards that can be used. Comelec used wrong
considerations in arriving at the conclusion that Mitra’s
• Official declaration by the proper authority that the
residence is not the residence contemplated by law.
insanity or incompetency no longer exist.
Assitio vs. Aguirre 619 SCRA 518 – Residence as used in
Double Registrants – In all cases where registrants are found
the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for
to be registered in two (2) or more
elective office, is DOCTRINALLY SETTLED to mean ‘domicile”,
districts/cities/municipalities, the latest registration shall
importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but
prevail which is deemed to be more in consonance with the
also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
intent of the concerned registered votes. Accordingly, they
indicative of such intention inferable from a person’s acts,
shall be allowed to vote only in the district/city/municipality of
utterances and activities. Domicile is not easily lost. To
their latest registration.
successfully effect a transfer, one must demonstrate: (1) an
This is distinguished from the policy on
actual removal or change of domicile; (2) bonafide intention of
double/multiple registrants found within the same
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
district/city/municipality where original registration shall
new one; and (3) acts which correspond to said purpose. Same
prevail over subsequent registrations. (Comelec Res. 7893, 07
ruling in earlier case of Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248
May 2007. See also Sec. 261 (y(5)) of the OEC (Prohibited
SCRA 300. Requisites when new domicile is acquired by
Acts) which provides “Any person who, being a registered
choice.
voter, registers anew without filing an application for
cancellation of his previous registration” shall be guilty of an
election offense).

Residency Requirement: ILLITIERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS – Illiterates or


disabled are referred to as a persons who cannot by
Romeo A. Jalosjos v. Comelec Dan Erasmo, Sr. 670 SCRA themselves prepare an application for registration because of
572 (2012) their physical disability and/or inability to read and write.
Residence – The Local Government Code requires a (Section 3 (e))
candidate seeking the position of provincial governor to be a
resident of the province for at least (1) year before the election. Section 14. Procedure for illiterate applicants (those who
For purposes of the election laws, the requirement of residence cannot read and write) – assisted by the election officer or

7 7
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
8

any member of an accredited citizens arm. The election affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of the newly elected city
officer shall place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within
questions and record the answers given in order to accomplish the same degree, such member is automatically disqualified to
the application form in the presence of the majority of the preserve the integrity of the ERB.
members of the Board. The accomplished form shall be Every registered party and such organizations as may
subscribed by the applicant in the presence of the Board by be authorized by the Comelec shall be entitled to a watcher in
means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it every registration board.
shall be subscribed and attested by the majority of the
members of the Board. Sec. 17 – Procedure for hearing of applications.
• Date of hearing posted in the city or municipal bulletin
Procedure for disabled voters – the application for board and EO office at least 1 week before date of
registration of a physically disabled person (ex. blind, no hearing
hands, senior citizen, mute) may be prepared by any
relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or • If objected to, EO shall receive evidence. Physical
affinity or by the election officer or any member of an presence of applicant in this case is mandatory to
accredited citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the rebut evidence presented in opposition thereto
applicant. • If no objection to application, physical appearance not
required and will be duly informed in writing
NOTE: Common to both procedures, the fact of illiteracy and
disability shall be so indicated in the application. • Applications for registration shall be heard and
processed on a quarterly basis. Board shall convene
on the 3rd day of Monday of April, July, October and
RA 10366 now provides accessible Polling Places for Persons January of every calendar year except in an election
with Disabilities (PWDS and Senior Citizens and also provides year to conform with the 120 days prohibitive period
for, among others, assistance in the accomplishment of before election day.
registration forms. The law was in line with the objective of Section. 21 – Publication of Action on Application for
Sec. 29 of the “Magna Carta for Persons with Disability” (RA Registration
No. 7277) which provides that “polling places should be made SECTION 12. Change of Residence to another City or
accessible to disabled persons during national and local Municipality – Any registered voter who has transferred
elections.” residence to another city or municipality may apply with the EO
The Comelec shall likewise keep an updated record of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records.
of PWDs and SC registered voters, indicating the types of The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to
disability and the assistance they need. (Sec. 6, RA 10366). In the requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the
designing the ballot, Comelec shall ensure reasonable ERB in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of the
accommodation to PWDs and SC to enable them to application for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the
accomplish the ballots by themselves (Sec. 10) EO of the former residence of the voter, said EO shall transmit
Comelec, in coordination with the National Council on by registered mail the voter’s registration record to the EO of
Disability Affairs (NCDA), the Commission on Human Rights the voter’s new residence.
(CHR), and PWD and Senior Citizens organization shall
organize, design, and implement sensitivity training programs Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or
for person performing electoral duties to familiarize them the Municipality –Any voter who has changed his address in the
needs of the PWDs and SC. (Sec. 12) same city or municipality shall immediately notify the EO in
writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct,
HOW TO REGISTER the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct
book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his
Section 8– System of Continuing Registration of new precinct. All changes of address shall be reported to the
Voters/Creation of Election Registration Boards office of the provincial election supervisor and the Commission
 A qualified voter personally files an application for in Manila.
registration DAILY with the office of the election officer
during regular office hours. The ERB are authorized Sec. 27 – DEACTIVATION – is a process wherein the
to act on all applications for registration . registration record of a voter is removed by the ERB from the
corresponding precinct book of voters and places the
LIMITATION: No registration shall be conducted during the same in an inactive file properly marked and dated in
period starting 120 days before a regular elections and 90 days indelible ink and after entering the cause for deactivation which
before a special elections. are as follows:
• Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final
Sec. 15 – Election Registration Board – There shall be in judgment, insane and incompetent persons as
each city and municipality as many as ERB’s as there are officially declared.
election officers therein.
• Any person who failed to vote in the two (2)
Composition – Election Officer (EO) as chairman and as successive preceding regular elections as shown by
members, the public school official most senior in rank and the his voting records.
local civil registrar (LCR), or in his absence, the city or • Any person whose registration has been ordered
municipal treasurer (MT). excluded by the court.
In case of disqualification of the EO, the Commission
shall designate as acting EO who shall serve as chairman of • Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.
the ERB. In cases of the non-availability of the LCR or the MT, For purposes of the above – the Clerks of Court of the
Comelec shall designate any other appointive civil service MTC, MTCC, RTC and SB shall furnish the EO of the city or
official from the same locality as substitute. municipality concerned at the end of each month a certified list
of persons who are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment,
Restrictions to appointment – No member of the board shall with their addresses.
be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal
elective official within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or

8 8
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
9

For those who lost their citizenship, insanity and party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) from receipt of
incompetency, the Comelec may request a certified list of such notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and
persons from the government agencies concerned. executory. Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within
ten (10) days from the time it is received and the Regional Trial
Sec. 28 – REACTIVATION – is a process whereby a voter Court decision shall immediately become final and executory.
whose registration records has been deactivated files with the No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
election officer a sworn application for reactivation of his
registration in the form of an affidavit by stating therein that the Domino v. Comelec 310 546 (1999). Except for the right to
grounds for the deactivation no longer exist. remain in the list of voters or for being excluded thereform for
the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had
PERIOD TO FILE – Any time but not later than 120 days been held, a decision in an exclusion proceeding, even if final
before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. and unappealable does not acquire the nature of res
Upon approval, the Board, shall retrieve the registration judicata. Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding
records from the inactive file and include the same in the would neither be conclusive on the voters political status,
corresponding precinct book of voters. nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be
REQUIREMENT: Local heads or representatives of political registered as a voter in any other election.
parties shall be properly notified of the approved applications.
Sec. 34 – Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the list – WHO
Sec. 29 – CANCELLATION – is a process wherein the Board MAY FILE: any person whose application for registration –
cancels the registration records of those who have died as
certified by the local civil registrar who shall submit each month
a certified list of persons who died during the previous month to • Has been disapproved by the Board; or
the election officer of the place where the deceased is • Whose name has been stricken out from the list;
registered.
• Whose name was not included in the precinct list of
PETITION FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION. Remedies of voters
persons whose application for reactivation, inclusion or • Who has been included therein with a wrong or
correction has been disapproved or those who intend to misspelled name (after the Board disapproves its
exclude a voter from the list of voters. application for reinstatement or correction of name)
may file with the court.
Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 – Voters’
inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 105 days prior to a regular
whether a voter shall be included in or excluded from the list of election or 75 days prior to a special election. The petition
voters based on the qualifications required by law and the facts should be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his
presented to show possession of these qualifications. As application and proof of service of notice upon the Board. MTC
distinguished from the procedure in certificate of candidacies shall decide within fifteen (15) days after it’s filing.
(petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of
candidacy) on the other hand, the denial/cancellation If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list
proceedings involve the issue of whether there is a false of voters, the Board shall place the application for registration
representation of a material fact (Sec. 78). previously disapproved in the corresponding BV and indicate in
the application for registration the date of the order of inclusion
Sec. 33 JURISDICTION – The Municipal and Metropolitan and the court which issued the same.
Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases of
inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or Section 35 – Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the list –
municipalities. (By express provision of Article IX-C, Section WHO MAY FILE: any registered voter, representative of a
2 (3) of the Constitution, the Comelec shall decide all political party or the Election Officer.
questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. This
question is a justiciable issue which finds redress in the PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 100 days prior to a regular
judiciary. (Pungutan v. Comelec 43 SCRA 1 (1972). election or 65 days prior to a special election. Supporting
documents shall be proof of notice to the Board and to the
Again – in Panlaqui vs. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 - It is not challenged voter. MTC shall decide within ten (10) days.
within the province of the RTC in a voter’s
inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance of and If the decision is for exclusion, the Board, shall
determine the presence of a false representation of a remove the voters registration record from the corresponding
material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of whether BV, enter the order of exclusion therein.
the misrepresentation relates to material fact and whether
there was an intension to deceive the electorate in terms of Akbayan v. Comelec March 26, 2001 – The petition for
one’s qualifications for public office. The finding that Velasco exclusion is a necessary component to registration since it is
was not qualified to vote due to lack of residency a safety mechanism that gives a measure of protection against
requirement does not translate into a finding of a flying voters, non-qualified registrants, and the like. The
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact prohibitive period, on the other hand, serves as the purpose of
which would otherwise render him ineligible. securing the voters substantive right to be included in the list of
voters.
Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512 (1997). The question of
inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to The bone of contention of petitioners in this case in praying for
vote which is not within the power and authority of the Comelec a 2-day special registration of new voters for the May 14, 2001
to rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to elections which was denied by the Comelec on account of
vote is a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular operational impossibility, undermined their constitutional right
courts. to vote and caused the disenfranchisement of around 4M
Filipinos of voting age who failed to register before the
WHERE TO APPEAL – Decisions of the Municipal or registration deadline set by the Comelec.
Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved

9 9
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
10

As ruled, the right of suffrage is not absolute, as in the


enjoyment of all other rights, it is subject to existing substantive
A. Scope of OAV – Definition: Absentee voting refers
to the process by which qualified citizens of the
and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution,
Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote. (Sec.
statute and other repositories of law.
3(a))
Procedural limitation – must undergo the process of B. Coverage – All citizens of the Philippines abroad
registration, in addition to the maximum requirements set by who are not disqualified by law, at least 18 years of
the Constitution under Section 1, Article V, the act of age on election day, may vote for President, VP,
registration being an indispensable precondition and essential Senators and Party List Representatives (Sec. 4)
to the right of suffrage and election process. Referring to Section 5 – Disqualification:
Section 8 of RA 8189, the law is explicit that “no
registration shall however be conducted during the period (a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in
starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days accordance with Philippine laws;
before a special election.” (b) Those who have expressly renounced their
Philippine citizenship and who have pledged
Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the hand speaks of the prohibitive allegiance to a foreign country;
period within which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of
voters from the permanent list of voters. Thus if the special (c) Those who have committed and are convicted
registration of voters will be conducted, then the prohibitive by a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an
period for filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be offense punishable by imprisonment of not less
adjusted to a later date, if not, then no one can challenge the than one (1) year, including those who have
voters list which is violative of the principles of due process and committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as
would open the registration process to abuse and seriously defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal
compromise the integrity of the voter’s list and that of the entire Code, such as disability not having removed by
election. plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided, however,
That any person disqualified to vote upon the
ABSENTEE VOTING expiration of five (5) years after service of
sentence; Provided further, That the Commission
Local Absentee Voting – In local absentee voting, public may take cognizance of final judgments issued
officials and employees, in the performance of their election by foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of
duties, stationed in places other than the place where they are reciprocity and subject to the formalities and
registered voters of (e.g. members of the PNP, AFP, offices of processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on
the Comelec, school teachers, among others) are allowed to execution of judgments;
vote in their respective place of work (Sec. 12, RA 7166). (d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country, unless
RA No.10380, otherwise known as the “Local Absentee Voting he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit
for Media Act”, now allow media practitioners to vote on prepared for the purpose by the Commission
specified days earlier than Election Day so that that even if on declaring that he/she shall resume actual
Election Day, they are assigned to cover election events away physical permanent residence in the Philippines
from their place of registration as voters, they would not later than three (3) years from approval of
nonetheless have the opportunity to cast their votes. his/her registration under this Act.
Limitation: Those entitled to avail of local absentee voting a. Such affidavit shall also state that
shall only be allowed to vote for President, VP, Senators, and he/she has not applied for citizenship in
Party-List Representative another country.
b. Failure to return shall be cause for the
Grounds for disapproval of the Application for Local removal of the name of the immigrant or
Absentee Voting permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her
1) The applicant is not a RV or his registration records permanent disqualification to vote in
have been deactivated. absentia;
2) It was filed out of time;
3) It was not sworn to or otherwise not under oath by (e) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously
any person authorized to administer oath; declared insane or incompetent by competent
authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified
4) It was only photocopied/faxed; by the Philippine embassies, consulates or
5) The Certification portion of the application form is not foreign service establishments concerned,
duly accomplished. unless such competent authority subsequently
certifies that such person is no longer insane or
OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING (OAV) – RA 9189 incompetent.
Absentee Voters Act of 2003
Macalintal v. Comelec 405 SCRA 614 (2003) – The execution
Under RA 9189, Filipino citizens who are overseas workers, of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act.
immigrants or permanent residents in other countries may vote The affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of the
in Philippine national elections when they are away from the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back
country on the day of the elections; Provided, That in the case and resume residency in the Philippines, but more significantly,
of immigrants or permanent residents, they file a sworn it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact
statement that they will resume actual physical permanent abandoned his domicile of origin. The affidavit is required of
residence within three (3) years from approval of their immigrants and permanent residents abroad because by
registration. (Sec. 5(d)) their status in the host countries, they are presumed to
have relinquished their intent to return to this country;

10 10
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
11
Amended-affidavit no longer required
except mag run sa office
thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of The amended law also mandates the creation of the Resident
abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain. Election Registration Boards (RERB). The specific provision is
a new insertion institutionalizing the overseas voting system by
3. Casting of Ballots in OAV – The overseas voter creating an office within the Comelec exclusively for overseas
shall cast his ballot within 30 days before election day or 60 voting.
days before election day in the case of seafarers. (Sec. 16.3)
4. Counting of Ballots of OAV – a) Only ballots The amendments also empowers the Comelec to attain the
cast and mailed ballots received by embassies, consulates and most effective and innovative way of using advance technology
other foreign establishments before the closing of voting on in enfranchising Filipinos overseas without compromising the
election day shall be counted (Sec. 16.7 and Sec. 18.3). secrecy and sanctity of the electoral process.
b) The counting shall be conducted on site and shall
be synchronized with the start of counting in the Philippines Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. No. 162759,
(Sec. 18.1). August 6, 2006. - Petitioners are dual citizens having retained
c. The Special Board of Election Inspectors (SBEI) or reacquired Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 or the
shall composed of a chairman and two (2) members Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. As
• The ambassador, consul general or
such, they sought registration and certification as overseas
absentee voters under RA 9189 or the Overseas Absentee
career public officer designated by Voting Act of 2003, in order to vote in the May 2004 elections.
the Comelec shall be the chairman. However, the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that
• In the absence of government per Comelec letter dated September 23, 2003, they have yet
officers, two Filipino citizens no residence requirement as prescribed by the Constitution.
qualified to vote under this Act shall Petitioners sought a clarification from the Comelec which
be deputized as members (Sec. thereafter, expressed the opinion that dual citizens under
18.3) RA 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage under the
Overseas Absentee Voting Law because said law was not
• Immediately after the counting, the enacted for them, hence, they are considered regular
SBEI shall transmit by facsimile or voters who have to meet requirements of residency,
electronic mail the result to the among others.
Comelec and the accredited major
political parties. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners and others who might have
meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship
5. Canvassing of OAV – A Special Board of pursuant to RA 9225 may vote as absentee voter under RA
Canvassers (SBOC) composed of a lawyer preferably 9189.
of the Comelec as chairman, a senior career officers
from any government agency maintaining a post HELD: Section 1 of Article V of the Philippine Constitution
abroad and, in the absence of another government prescribed residency requirement as a general eligibility
officer, a citizen of the Philippines qualified to vote factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2
under this Act, shall be constituted to canvass the thereof, authorizes congress to devise a system wherein an
election returns. absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may, as an
The SBOC shall transmit by facsimile, exception to the residency prescription in the preceding
electronic mail or any other safe and reliable means section, be allowed to vote.
of transmission, the certificate of canvass and the
statements of votes to the Comelec and the major There is no provision in the dual citizenship law (RA 9225),
accredited parties. requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically
The certificates of canvass and the stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right
statements of votes shall be the primary basis for the to vote. On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit
national canvass. (Sec. 18.4) acknowledgement that “duals” are most likely non-residents,
grants under Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as
Overseas Voting Act of 2013 – The President on May 27, granted to an absentee voter under RA 9189 which aims to
2013 signed into law RA 10590, OAV 2013, amending the enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos, who,
Overseas Voting Act of 2003. With the passage of the law, save for the residency requirement exacted of an ordinary
Filipino immigrants abroad will no longer need to execute an conditions, are qualified to vote as ruled in Makalintal vs.
affidavit stating that they will return to the Philippines within 3 Comelec 405 SCRA 614.
years before they are allowed in absentia.

In the landmark case of Nicolas-Lewis vs. Comelec, dual POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY LIST AND CITIZENS ARM
citizens were refused by Comelec to register and vote in the
2004 Philippine elections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5), authorizes the Comelec
that “there is no provision in the dual citizenship law, RA 9225 under the Constitution to “Register, after sufficient
(Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 – publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions
requiring duals to actually establish residence and physically which, in addition to other requirements, must present
stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right their platform or program of government; and accredit
to vote.” citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections.

The ruling established a precedent that dual citizens can Section 60 of the OEC/Section 1, Rule 32 of the Comelec
register and vote without establishing residence in the Rules of Procedure provides that any group pursuing the
Philippines. A provision in the amended law is inserted to same political ideals may register with the Comelec. HOW? by
emphasize that dual citizens who reacquired or retained their filing a verified petition with its Law Department duly verified
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 can exercise their right of by its President and Secretary-General, or any official duly
suffrage. authorized to do so under its Constitutions and by-laws.

11 11
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
12

Before Comelec takes action, the Comelec shall first verify, Comelec’s jurisdiction on this point is well-settled and is not
through its field offices, the status and capacity of the petitioner here disputed.
and the veracity of the allegations in the petition. (Sec. 4, Rule
32). After the verification process, the Petition will be published
with the Notice of Hearing. Luis LokinJr./Teresita Planas v. Comelec/CIBAC 674 SCRA
538 (2012)
Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of In Atienza v. Comelec (612 SCRA 961 (2010), it was
Registration (Sec. 7) (1) acquires juridical personality (2) public expressly settled that the Comelec possessed the authority to
is informed of the party’s existence and ideals (3) it identifies resolve intra-party disputes as a necessary tributary of its
the party and its officers for purposes of regulation by the constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and
Comelec. For purposes of the electoral process that an register political parties. The Court, therein cited Kalaw v.
organization need not be a political party. Comelec and Palmares v. Comelec which uniformly upheld the
Comelec’s jurisdiction over intra-party disputes: As ruled in
Kalaw v. Comelec, the Comelec’s powers and functions under
Limitations on Registration – Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, “include the
ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its
• It is a religious sect or denomination or association, legitimate officers responsible for the acts.” The Court also
organized for religious purposes. Registration of declared in another case that the Comelec’s power to register
religious sects are prohibited for the purpose of the political parties necessarily involved the determination of the
electoral process which is made in the spirit of persons who must act on its behalf. Thus, the Comelec may
separation of church and state and intended to resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case
prevent churches from wielding political power. brought before it, as an incident of its power to register political
Does not extend to organizations with religious parties.
affiliations or to political parties which derive their
principles from religious beliefs. Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections 620 SCRA 393
• Those who seek to achieve their goals through (May 6, 2010), the SC distinguished REGISTRATION and
unlawful means ACCREDITATION of a political party. The root of this petition
before the SC is the Nationalista Party-Nationalista Party
• Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
Coalition (NP-NPC) petition before the COMELEC for
• Those which are supported by any foreign registration as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant
government (Sec. 2(5) Article IX-C) minority party. While the Comelec En Banc claimed jurisdiction
over the registration of coalitions and has in fact decreed NP-
Cancellation of Registration (Sec. 8) –Upon verified NPC’s registration, the Comelec however did NOT rule on
complaint of any interested party, or motu propio by the the accreditation aspect. The registration of a coalition
Commission, the registration of any political party, coalition of and the accreditation of a dominant minority party are two
political parties or organizations under the party-list system separate matters that are substantively distinct from each
may be cancelled after due notice and hearing on the following other.
grounds: • Section 2(5), Article IX-C and Rule 32 of the CRP
 (a) Acceptance by the political party, coalition of regulate the registration of political parties,
political parties, or organizations or any of its organizations or coalition of political parties.
candidates, of financial contributions from foreign Accreditation as a dominant party is governed by
governments and/or their agencies for activities Comelec Resolution No. 8752, Section 1 of which
related to elections. states that the petition for accreditation shall be filed
 (b) Violation of laws, rules or regulations relating to with the Clerk of the Commission who shall docket it
as an SPP (means Special Proceedings (DM) case.
elections, plebiscites, referenda or initiative.
This was the manner the NP-NPC was docketed.
 © Untruthful statements in its petition for registration
• Registration of political parties is a special
 (d) The said political party, coalition of political parties proceeding assigned to a Division for handling
or organization has become a religious sect or under the CRP. No similar clear cut rules is available
denomination, is pursuing its goals thru violence or to a petition for accreditation as a dominant party.
other unlawful means, is refusing to adhere to or
uphold the Constitution of the Philippines, or is
• Registration must first take place before a request for
accreditation can be made. Accreditation is the next
receiving support from any foreign government;
natural step to follow after registration.
 (e) Failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or When the Comelec En Banc, resolved the registration of the
regulations of the Commission NP- NPC the case is terminated and ripe for review by the SC
 (f) Failure to field official candidates in the last two via a Petition for Certiorari. The issue with respect to
preceding elections or failure of their candidates to accreditation is a separate issue which is treated in a separate
obtain at least five (5) per centum of the votes cast in proceedings. As ruled, a Motion for Reconsideration of a
the last two preceding elections. Resolution of the Comelec En Banc is a prohibited pleading
(Sec. 1(d) Rule 13). The remedy available to a party is a
Jurisdiction of Comelec over Inter-Party Disputes/Power to petition for certiorari with the SC pursuant to Article IX-A, Sec.
Register Political Parties 7 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Samson Alcantara, et. al. vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 547


(2013) – Under the Constitution, the Comelec is empowered to Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, represented by its
register political parties. In the exercise of its power to register Chairman Edgardo J. Angara v. Comelec, et. al. 423 SCRA
political parties, the Comelec necessarily possesses the power 665, (the Comelec misapplied equity in this case). LDP
to pass upon the question of who, among the legitimate officers informed the Comelec by way of Manifestation that only the
of the part-list group, are entitled to exercise the right and Party Chairman or his authorized representative may endorse
privileges granted to a party-list group under the law. The the COC of the party’s official candidates; that Rep. Butch
Aquino was on “indefinite force leave” and in the meantime

12 12
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
13

Ambassador Enrique Zaldivar was designated Acting Secretary Party-list representation shall constitute 20% of the total
General. number of representatives by selection or election from the
Aquino in a comment alleged that the Party Chairman labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural minorities,
does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on women, youth and such other sectors as may be provided by
the Secretary General and that the Manifestation filed has no law, except the religious sector (Sec. 11 and Art. V, Sec. 5(2)
basis praying that Comelec disregards the same. Comelec 1987 Constitution)
issued an order requiring the parties to file verified petition.
Pending resolution, a Certificate of Nomination of Sen. Panfilo NOTE: The party-list system is composed of three (3) different
Lacson as LDP candidate for President was filed with the groups: (1) national parties or organizations; (2) regional
Comelec which was signed by Rep. Aquino as LDP Secretary parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or
General organization. National and regional parties or organization are
Comelec issued a Resolution granting the petition different from sectoral parties or organizations. The former
with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor (Angara need not be organized along sectoral lines and not represent
Wind and Aquino Wing). ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec any particular sectoral nor should they be marginalized and
gravely abused its discretion in issuing the subject Resolution. underrepresented.
RULING – the only issue is simply “Who as between the
Party Chairman and the Secretary General has the Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. Comelec G.R. Nos. _______, 02
authority to sign certificates of candidacy of the official April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled – “Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the
candidates of the party. Yes Comelec acted with grave Constitution is crystal clear that there shall be “a party-list
abuse of discretion. While it has jurisdiction to rule upon system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
questions of party identity and leadership as an incident to its organization. “The commas after the words national, and
enforcement powers. It well within its competence to inquire regional, separate national and regional parties from sectoral
into which party officer has authority to sign and endorse parties. Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended
certificate of candidacy of party’s nominees. And to resolve the national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral,
issue raised, the Comelec need only to turn to the Party they would have stated “national and regional sectoral parties.”
Constitution and election laws. The Comelec Resolution is They did not, precisely because it was never their intention to
INDECISION in the guise of equity. It chose not to because of make the party-list system exclusively sectoral.
its irrational fear of treading, as Aquino contends, on What the framers intended, and what they expressly
“unchartered” territories but which have long been chartered by wrote in Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list
jurisprudence. system is composed of 3-different groups, and the sectoral
Comelec divided the LDP into wings both having parties belong to only one of the 3 groups.”
authority to nominate candidates for every elective position.
Consequently, Comelec planted seeds of confusion among the COCOFED v. Commission on Elections 703 SCRA 165 –
electorate who are apt to be confounded by two candidates Section 4 and 5 of RA 7941 distinguished. Section 4 of RA
from a single political party. This was not only a disservice to 7941, a party-list group already registered “need not register
the opposition but to the voting public as well as its Resolution anew” for purposes of every subsequent election, but only
facilitated, rather than forestalled, the division of the minority needs to file a manifestation of intent to participate with the
party. Comelec. Section 5 on the other hand provides, that an
applicant for registration has to file with the Comelec, not later
Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance (A-IPRA) v. than 90 days before the election, a verified petition stating its
Comelec 696 SCRA 563 – the Supreme Court reiterated its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national,
ruling in Laban that “the ascertainment of the identity of a regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such
political party and its legitimate officers is a matter that is well parties or organization. The applicant is required to submit its
within its authority. The source of this authority is not other constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers,
than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the Comelec coalition agreement and other relevant information as the
the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and Comelec may required. Aside from these, the law requires the
regulations relative to the conduct of election.” publication of the applicant’s petition in at least 2 national
newspapers of general circulation. The Comelec then resolves
Damasen vs. Tumamao 613 SCRA 49 (2010) – the discretion the petition, determining whether the applicant has complied
of accepting members to a political party is a right and a with all the necessary requirements.
privilege, a purely internal matter, which the Court cannot
meddle in. The reason behind the right given to a political party Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on elections 621 SCRA 385
to nominate a replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs (June 22, 2010), the SC ruled that Comelec cannot issue rules
in the Sanggunian is to maintain the party representation as and regulations that provide a ground for the substitution of a
willed by the people in the election (Sec. 45 (b) of RA 7160 party-list nominee NOT written in R.A.7941.
Rule on Succession and as held in Navarro v. CA 672 SCRA Sec. 8 provides – “Nomination of Party-List
355 (2010). Damasen was not a bonafide member. Tumamao Representatives. Each registered party, organization or
was husband of the VM who died). coalition shall submit to the Comelec not later than 45
days before the election a list of names, not less than five
PARTY LIST (5), from which party-list representatives shall be chosen
in case it obtains the required number of votes.
R.A. 7941, otherwise known as An Act Providing for the A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
Election of Party-List Representatives through the Part-List Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be
System. The party-list system is a mechanism of the named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for
proportional representation in the election of representatives to any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an
the HR from national, regional and sectoral parties or elective office in the immediately preceding election. NO
organizations or coalitions thereof, registered with the change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
Comelec, to enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted
underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would to the Comelec except in cases (1) where the nominee
benefit them. (Sec. 2) dies, or (2) withdraws in writing his nomination, (3)
becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the
substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list.

13 13
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
14

Incumbent sectoral representatives in the HR who are implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, which
nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or
resigned.” resolution of the Comelec and the Commission on Audit. As
CIBAC (Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption) thru its Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari
President Emmanuel Villanueva manifested their intent to in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC within the
participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local limited period of 30 days. The Court has original and exclusive
elections and submitted their list of 5 nominees (Villanueva, jurisdiction over Lokins certiorari and for mandamus.
Lokin (herein petitioner), Cruz-Gonzales, Tugna and Galang). (b) Both actions, certiorari and mandamus did not
The list was later published in the newspapers of general violate the rule against forum shopping even if the actions
circulation. Before the elections, Villanueva filed a certificate of involved the same parties, because they were based on
nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of nominees different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were
whereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and different.
Galang and substituted Borje. The amended list included © Comelec gravely abused its discretion in
Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales and Borje. Subsequently, promulgating Section 13 of Res. No. 7804 as it expanded
Villanueva transmitted to Comelec the signed petitions of more the exceptions under Sec. 8 of RA 7941 Section 8
than 81% if the CIBAC members in order to confirm the enumerates only 3 instances in which the party-list
withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. organization can substitute another person in place of the
Based on the Party-List Canvas Report, it showed nominee. The enumeration is exclusive.
that CIBAC was entitled to a second seat, hence, the counsel
of CIBAC filed with the Comelec sitting as National Board of Cocofed Case – As early as February 8, 2012, Comelec had
Canvassers, a request to proclaim Lokin as the 2nd nominee informed, through its Resolution No. 9359, all registered parties
which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. Since who wished to participate in the May 2013 party-list elections
Comelec failed to act on the filing of the certificate of that they shall file with the Comelec a Manifestation of Intent to
nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of nominees Participate in the party list election together with its list of at
and the petitions of the more than 81% of CIBAC members, least 5 nominees, no later than May 31, 2012. Under Sec. 6(5)
Villanueva filed a petition to confirm the said certificate with the of RA 7941, violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules and
Comelec which was docketed as E.M. No. 07-054. In the regulations relating to elections is a ground for the cancellation
meantime, Comelec as NBC partially proclaimed several party of registration. Cocofed failed to submit a list of 5 nominees
lists as having won which included Cibac. (submitted only 2 nominees) despite ample opportunity to do
The Secretary General of CIBAC informed the so before the elections, which is a violation imputable to the
Secretary General of the HR to formally swear Lokin into office party under said provision.
but which was denied in view of the pendency of E.M. No. 07- Pursuant to Section 8 of RA 7941, the Court cannot
054 which approved the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin leave to the party the discretion to determine the number of
et. al. and the substitution of Borje. Cruz-Gonzales was nominees it would submit. The submission of the list is a
proclaimed as the official second nominee. statutory requirement for the registration of party-list groups
Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamus to compel and the submission of this list is part of a registered party’s
respondent Comelec to proclaim him as the official second continuing compliance with the law to maintain its registration.
nominee of CIBAC. Also, in another petition, Lokin assailed A party-list group’s previous registration with the
Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804 (Rules and Regulations Comelec confers no vested right to the maintenance of its
Governing the filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate and registration. In order to maintain a party in a continuing
submission of Names of Nominees under the Party-List) and its compliance status, the party must prove not only its continued
resolution in E.M. No. 07-054. possession of the requisite qualifications but, equally, must
The Comelec asserts that a petition for certiorari is an show its compliance with the basic requirements of the law.
inappropriate recourse in law due to the proclamation of Cruz-
Gonzales as representative and her assumption of that office; Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) v.
that Lokin’s proper recourse was an electoral protest filed in Comelec 705 SCRA 340 (2013) – the Supreme Court
the HRET, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the reiterated. . compliance with Section 8 of RA 7941 is essential
matter being raised by Lokin. CIBAC posits that Lokin is guilty as the said provision is a safeguard against arbitrariness.
of forum shopping for filing a petition for mandamus and a Section 8 rids a party-list organization of the prerogative to
petition for certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately substitute and replace its nominees, or even to swotch the
seek to have him proclaimed as the second nominee of order of the nominees, after submission of the list to Comelec.
CIBAC.
ISSUES: a) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction Abayhon vs. HRET et. al 612 SCRA 375/Palparan Jr. vs.
over the controversy. The Court has jurisdiction. The HRET et. al. – These two cases were consolidated and jointly
controversy involving Lokin is neither an EP nor an action for resolved as it both concerns the authority of the HRET to pass
QW, for it concerns a very peculiar situation in which Lokin is upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups
seeking to be seated as second nominee of CIBAC. Although that won seats in the lower house of Congress.
an EP may properly be available to one part-list organization Abayhon is the 1st nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-
seeking to unseat another party-list organization to determine list that won a seat in the HR during the 2007 elections.
which between the defeated and the winning party-list Palparan on the other hand was the 1st nominee of Bantay
organizations actually obtained the majority of the legal votes, party-list. A petition for QW was filed with HRET against the
Lokin’s case is not one in which a nominee of a particular party-list groups and its nominee claiming that it was not
party-list organization thereby wants to unseat another eligible for a party-list since it did not represent the
nominee of the same party list. Neither does an action for QW marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Abayhon is the
lie, considering that the case does not involve the ineligibility spouse of an incumbent congressional district representative
and disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the RP, or some other case and likewise does not belong to the UR and marginalized.
of disqualification. Petitioners also claim that Abayhon lost her bid as party-list rep
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for called An Waray in the immediately preceding elections of May
certiorari against the Comelec to seek the review of its 10, 2004. Palparan also was alleged to have committed
resolution in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the various human rights violations against the marginalized
1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of sectors (Bantay represents the victims of communist rebels,
office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now CAFGU, security guards and former rebels.)

14 14
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
15

Abayhon and Palparan postures that the Comelec 7941). The word “OR” is a disjunctive term signifying
already confirmed the status of the party list as a national multi- disassociation and independence of one thing from the other
sectoral party-list organization, that HRET had no jurisdiction things enumerated. A party list group or organization that failed
over the petitioner for QW since the petitioners collaterally to garner 2% in a prior election and immediately thereafter did
attacked the registration of the party-list organization, a matter not participate in the preceding election – is something that is
that fell within the jurisdiction of the Comelec. That it was the not covered by Section 6(8) of RA 7941. From this
party-list that was taking a seat in the HR and not them, being perspective, it may be an unintended gap in the law and as
only its nominees. All questions involving their eligibility as such is a matter for Congress to address. This case
nominee, were internal concerns of the organization. The abandoned the Minero vs. Comelec G.R. No. 177548 May 10,
HRET dismissed the petition against party-list but upheld its 2007.
jurisdiction over nominees who both filed an MR which was
denied. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari alleging Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Comelec 646
that the HRET gravely abused its discretion. SCRA 63 (2011)
The Court made reference to Sec. 5(1) of Article VI Comelec removed PGBT in the list of qualified parties
(which identifies who the “members” of that House are. vying for a seat under the party-list system of
The HR shall be composed of not more than 250 members, representation in violation of the status quo order of the
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from Supreme Court. An equally important aspect of a democratic
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, electoral exercise is the right of free choice of the electorates
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the on who shall govern them – the party-list system affords them
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a this choice, as it gives the marginalized and underrepresented
uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided sectors the opportunity to participate in governance. Comelec
by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of was cited for contempt by the Court.
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations. Effect of removal by Comelec of PGBI in the list: As it was
Clearly the “members” of the HR are two kinds. . .1) the Comelec itself which prevented PGBI from participating in
those who shall be elected from legislative districts and 2) the 10 May 2010 party-list elections when it deleted PGBI, with
“those who shall be elected through a party-list system”. From grave abuse of discretion, from the list of accredited party-list
the point of view of the Constitution, it is the party-list rep who groups or organizations and, thereafter, refused to return it to
are “elected” into office, NOT their parties or organizations. the list despite the Court’s directive, PGBI should, at the very
These representatives are elected, however, through that least, be deemed to have participated in the 10 May 2010
peculiar party-list system that the Constitution authorized and
that Congress by law established where the voters cast their Amores vs. HRET et. al 622 SCRA 593 (2010) – Amores via
votes for the organizations or parties to which such party-list a petition for QW with the HRET questioned the legality of the
reps belong. assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel Villanueva as rep of
Once elected, both the district reps and the party-list CIBAC. It was alleged among other things, that Villanueva
reps are treated in like manners. They have the same assumed office without a formal proclamation by the Comelec,
deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since
participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their at the time of the filing of his certificates of nomination and
legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age
same term limitations of 3 years for a max of 3 consecutive limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA 7941 and that his
terms. The party list system act itself recognizes party list change of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas
nominees as members of the HR (Sec. 2, RA 7941 Filipino workers and their families sector was not effected at
Declaration of Policy – The State shall promote proportional least 6 months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so as to be
representation in the election of reps in the HR through a party- qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA
list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties 7941.
or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino The HRET dismissed the petition as it found the
citizens belonging to the marginalized and UR sectors x x petition to be filed beyond the 10 days reglementary period,
x x to become members of the HR “. that the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under
The Court held that initially, the authority to determine Section 9 of RA 7941 applied only to those nominated as such
the qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs to the during the first 3 congressional terms after the ratification of the
organization and to choose five from among the aspiring Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter
nominees to comply with the law. But where an allegation is registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which
made that the party or organization had chosen and allowed a CIBAC, a multi sectoral organization, is not. As regards the
disqualified nominee to become its party-list rep in the lower shift of affiliation, it was held that Section 15 did not apply as
house and enjoy the secured tenure that goes with the there was no resultant change in party list affiliation.
position, the resolution of the dispute is taken out of its hand.
Hence, pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI, the HRET being ISSUES: (1) whether the petition for QW was dismissible for
the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, having been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether Section 9 and
the qualifications of the members of the HR, the HRET has 15 of RA 7941 apply to Villanueva. As to the first issue, the
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. The SC found grave abuse of discretion on the part of HRET. The
HRET was correct in dismissing the QW and retaining authority Court overlooked the technicality of timeliness and rules on the
to rule on the qualifications. merits since the challenge goes into Villanueva’s qualifications,
it may be filed at anytime during his term. Also date of
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec proclamation was not clear. As to the second and more
619 SCRA 585 (DELISTING)– The Comelec may motu propio substantial issue, the Court made reference to Section 9 of
OR upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove, or RA 7941 which provides that in case of a nominee of the
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any youth sector, he must at least be 25 but not more than 30
national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition IF years of age on the day of the election. The youth sectoral
It: (a) fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections; rep who attains the age of 30 during his term shall be
OR (b) fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes casts under allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his
the party-list system in the 2 preceding elections for the term.
constituency in which it was registered (Section 6 RA

15 15
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
16

The Court did not find any textual support on the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the
interpretation of HRET that Section 9 applied only to those HR;
nominated during the first 3 congressional terms after the • The 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of
ratification of the Constitution or until 1998. A cardinal rule in the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to
statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free a maximum three seats, that is, one qualifying and
from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction two additional seats;
or interpretation. Only room for application. The distinction is
nowhere found in the law. When the law does not distinguish, • The proportional representation – the additional seats
we must not distinguish. which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed
Respecting Section 15 of RA 7941, the Court “in proportion to their total number of votes..
likewise found no textual support for HRET’s ratiocination that In this case, following the May11, 1998 national elections
the provision did not apply to Villanueva’s shift of affiliation from which is the first election for party-list representation, the
CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their Comelec en banc proclaimed 14 parties and organizations
families sector as there was no resultant change in party list which had obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes
affiliation. Section 15 reads “ Change of Affiliation: Effect – cast for the party-list system which constitute a total of 25
Any elected party list rep who changes his political party nominees short of the 52 party-list representatives who should
or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit actually sit in the house. The PAG-ASA files with the Comelec
his seat; Provided, That if he changes his political party or a Petition to proclaim the full number of party-list representative
sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election, he provided by the Constitution. They alleged that the filling up of
shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list rep under the 20% membership of party list representative in the House,
his new party or organization. as provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Nine other
The wordings of Section 15 is clear as it covers party list organizations filed their respective motions to
changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation and which intervene seeking the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA
may occur within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list on substantially the same grounds.
org are qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list The Comelec, contrary to its rules and regulations
system. A nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within governing the said elections, instead proclaimed the other 38
the same party will only be eligible for nomination under the party-list organization notwithstanding its not having garnered
new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least the required 2% votes. RULING: Sec. 5(2) of Article VI which
6 months before the elections. Sec. 9 and 15 apply to states that the sectoral representation shall constitute the 20%
Villanueva. is not “mandatory” as it merely provides a ceiling for party-list in
As regards the contention that Villanueva is the 1st congress. And, obtaining absolute proportional representation
nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is NO is restricted by the 3-seat per party limit to a maximum of two
moment. A party-list org’s ranking of its nominees is a mere additional slots. Comelec was held to have abused its
indication of preference , their qualifications according to law discretion in disregarding an act of Congress.
are a different matter.
The 8-point guidelines for screening party-list participants
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec 618 SCRA 32 – Ladlad
is an organization composed of men and women who identify In Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. Comelec 359
themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered SCRA 698 (2001) (also reiterated the ruling in Veterans), at
individuals. They applied for registration with Comelec in 2006 issue is the Omnibus Resolution of the Comelec which
and its accreditation was denied on the ground that the approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties and
organization had no substantial membership. Ladlad in 2009 which the SC remanded to the Comelec for the latter to
again filed a petition for registration which was dismissed by determine evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
Comelec on moral grounds (Bible and Koran). organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections
complied with the requirements of the law. The SC ruled that
The SC ruled that moral disapproval is not a sufficient the party-list organizations or parties must factually and truly
governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from represent the marginalized and underrepresented
participation to the party list system. The Constitution provides constituencies mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the
in Sec. 5, Art. III that “No law shall be made respecting an persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise must be “Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”
is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, In remanding the case to Comelec the SC laid down
“governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent the following guidelines –
with this policy of neutrality.” Hence, the Court finds that it was  First, the PP, sector or organization must represent
grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the the marginalized and underrepresented groups
Comelec to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words,
exclusion of ang Ladlad. it must show – through the Constitution, articles of
In sum, the crucial element is not whether a sector is incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization government and track record – that it represents
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA and seeks to uplift marginalized and
7941. The SC found that Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated underrepresented sectors.
its compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation.

Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec 342 SCRA 244, the  Second, while major political parties are expressly
SC provided for the four unique parameters of the Filipino allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
Party-list System which are as follows – participate, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens
• The 20% allocation – the combined number of all belonging to the M and U to be elected to the
party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the HR.
total membership of the HR, including those under the
party-list;
 Third, religious sector may not be represented in
• The 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a the party-list system. In view of the objections
minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the

16 16
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
17

directed against the registration of Ang Buhay organization undertaken by Aklat is plain window-dressing as it
Hayaang Humabong, which is allegedly a religious has not really changed its character as a business interest of
group, the Court notes the express constitutional persons in the book publishing industry.
provision that the religious sector may not be The Court observed that Aklat’s articles of
represented in the party-list system. incorporation and document entitled The Facts About Aklat
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that which were attached to its petition for re-qualification contain
“religious denominations and sects shall not be general averments that it supposedly represents marginalized
registered.” The prohibition was explained by a groups such as the youth, indigenous communities, urban poor
member of the Constitutional Commission in this and farmers/fisherfolks. These general statements do not
wise “The prohibition is on any religious measure up to the first guideline set by the Bagon Bayani case
organization registering as a political party. I do not for screening party-list participants. Sec. 5 of RA 7941
see any prohibition here against a priest running as provides that “it must show – through its constitution, articles of
a candidate. This is not prohibited here; it is the incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and
registration of a religious sect as a political party.” track record – that it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of
 Fourth, it must not be disqualified under the its membership should belong to the marginalized and
ground enumerated under Section 6 of RA 7941 underrepresented.
(not a religious sect or denomination or association
organized for religious purposes, advocates Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. G.R. No. 177271,
violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; a May 4, 2007, 523 SCRA 1 - Petitioners reacting on an
foreign party or organization; receives support from emerging public perception that the individuals behind the
any foreign government, fails to comply with laws party-list groups do not, as they should, actually represent the
rules or regulations relating to elections, declared poor and marginalized sectors. Petitioners, wrote a letter to
untruthful statement in its petition, it has ceased to the Comelec requesting that the complete list of the nominees
exist for at least one (1) year, it fails to participate in of all parties who have been accredited pursuant to Comelec
the last 2 preceding elections or failed to obtain at Resolution No. 7804 prescribing rules and regulations to
least 2% of the votes cast under the party list govern the filing of manifestation of intent to participate and
system in the 2 preceding elections for the submission of names of nominees under the party-list system
constituency in which it was registered) of representation in connection with the May 14, 2007 elections
be published. The Comelec vehemently did not accede to the
request of the petitioners, it based its refusal to disclose the
 Fifth, the party or organization must not be an names of the nominees of subject party-list groups on Section
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity 7 of RA 7941 (more specifically the last sentence which states:
funded or assisted by the government (referring “the names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on
to MAD of Richard Gomez). It must be independent the certified list.”.
of the government. The participants of the
government or it officials in the affairs of a party-list The Comelec believe that the party list elections must not be
candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other personality oriented. Abalos said under RA 7941, the people
parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the are to vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions not
law; to enable citizens belonging to marginalized for their nominees.
and underrepresented sectors and organizations to
be elected to the House of Representatives. ISSUE: whether or not the disclosure of the names of the
nominees are covered by the Right of Public to information.
 Sixth, the party must not only comply with the HELD: The Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and
requirements of the law, its nominees must release the names of the nominees of the party list groups. No
likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads – national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure
“qualifications of Party-List Nominees – No person of the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in
shall be nominated as party-list representative question. The last sentence of Section 7 is limited in scope
unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, and duration, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list
a RV, a resident of the Philippines for a period of which the same provision requires to be posted in the polling
not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day places on election day. To stretch the coverage of the
of the election, able to read and write, a bona-fide prohibition to the absolute nothing in RA 7941 that prohibits the
member of the party or organization which he seeks Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums
to represent for at least 90 days preceding the day other than the “Certified list” the names of the party-list
of the elections and is at least 25 years of age on nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-
the day of the election. disclosure aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to public
disclosure before the May 2007 elections. The need for voters
to be informed about matters that have a bearing on their
 Seventh and Eight not only the candidate party choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a system of blind
must represent the M and U sectors, so also voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the
must its nominees must likewise be able to Comelec.
contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as New Formula in the Allocation of Seats for Party-List
a whole. Representatives
AKLAT (Assosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran Ng Lipunan at Banat et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. 178271/12972 21 April 2009 –
Adhikain Para sa Tao, Inc.) vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 162203, After the VFP v. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781, 136786 and
14 April 2004, came up with a ruling on the “Window-Dressing” 136795, 06 October 2000, ruling of the Supreme Court and the
of party-list participant. In this case, Comelec found that controversial application of the “Panganiban Formula” by the
significantly, Aklat and A.K.L.A.T. have substantially the same Abalos Commission, Party-list participants in Banat et al., filed
incorporators. In fact 4 of Aklat’s 6 incorporators are also separate complaints against the Comelec on the proper
incorporators of A.K.L.A.T.. This substantial similarity is hard to allocation of seats in the party-list system. On 23 April 2009,
ignore and bolsters the conclusion that the supposed re-

17 17
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
18

the Supreme Court declared the 2% threshold clause in registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less
relation to the distribution of the additional seats of RA 7941 than 2 years immediately preceding the elections. (Article VI,
unconstitutional. Section 3, Constitution)
Following Section 5, Article VI, par. 2 of the 1987
Constitution, 20% of all seats in the HR is reserved for sectoral For Members of the House of Representatives – No person
representatives elected in the party list system. This formula is shall be a Member of the HR unless he is natural-born citizen
now called the “Carpio formula.” of the Philippines, and, on the day of election, is at least 25
Under the Banat and Bayan Muna cases (G.R. No. years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list
179271 and G.R. No. 179295, 21 April 2009), the SC laid down representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he
the latest formula in the allocation of seats for party-list shall elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less
participants: than on year immediately preceding the election. (Article VI,
1) The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked Section 6, Constitution)
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes
they garnered during the elections. For Party-List Nominees – No person shall be nominated as
2) The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least party-list representative unless he is a natural born-citizen of
2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines
entitled to one guaranteed seat each. for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately
3) Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to preceding the day of the election, able to read to read and
the ranking above-mentioned in paragraph no. 1 hereof, shall write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he
be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total seeks to represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. election and is at least 25 years of age on the day of the
4) Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not election.
more than 3 seats. In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at
Banat abandoned the matter of computation held in the least be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the
Veterans Party case considering that the intention was to fill election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age
the 20% seats in the HR. of 30 during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until
the expiration of his term. (RA 7941).
ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES
Bengzon III v. HRET 357 SCRA 545 (2001) – Repatriation
Candidate defined: The term “candidate” refers to any person results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means
aspiring or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.. On
political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties. (Sec. 79, the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before
OEC) he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his
former status as a natural-born Filipino.
The terms “candidate” under the Automated Election System
(AES) in 2010, refers to “any person aspiring for or seeking an Local Government Officials – An elective local official must
elective public office who has filed his COC and who has not be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the
dies or withdrawn or otherwise disqualified before the start of barangay, municipality, city or province or, in the case of a
the campaign period for which he filed his COC. Provided, member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
that, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, the district where he
take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1)
period.” (Comelec Reso. No. 8678). year immediately preceding the day of the election; able to
read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
As regards a Party-List system, a “candidate” also refers to
“any registered national, regional, or sectoral party, Common to All Offices - Voluntary renunciation of the office
organization or coalition thereof that has filed a manifestation for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
to participate under the part-list system which has not in the continuity of the service for the full term for which they
withdrawn or which has not be disqualified before the start of were elected.
the campaign period.” (RA 7941).
RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
Comelec Reso. No. 9615 adopted a broader definition of the 2002) Section 36(g) provides that “all candidates for public
term “candidate” for the 13 May 2013 Elections to include office whether appointed or elected both in the national and
party-list in include all the above-definitions. local government shall undergo mandatory drug tests.
Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486 on 23 December 2003
Qualifications implementing 9165. Publication of the results will be
published. But the resolution does not indicate whether or not
For President and Vice-President – No person may be candidates who test positive for drugs will be allowed to
elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the assume office if they win.)
Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least
40 years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No.
the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding 157870, 03 November 2008 – Sec. 36(g) of RA 965 and
such election. Comelec Resolution No. 6486 was challenged as the same
There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the illegally impose an additional qualification on candidates for
same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and senator. Senator Pimentel point out that, subject to the
in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed provision on nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator
from office in the same manner as the President (Article VII, needs only to meet the qualification laid down in Section 3, Art.
Section 2 and 3, Constitution) VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship; (2) voter
registration; (3) literacy; (4) age and (5) residency. Beyond
these stated qualification requirements, candidates for senator
For Senator – No person shall be a Senator unless he is a
need not possess any other qualification to run for senator and
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of
be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate.
election, is at least 35 years of age, able to read and write, a

18 18
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
19

As ruled, Sec. 36(h) of RA 9165, as sought to be office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the
implemented by Comelec assailed Resolution, effectively certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.
enlarges the qualification requirements enumerated in Sec. 3,
Art. VI of the Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 36(g) Pilar v. Comelec 245 SCRA 759 (1995) – The withdrawal of a
unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to be certified certificate of candidacy does not extinguish one’s liability for
illegal drug-clean, obviously a pre-condition to the validity of a the administrative fine imposed by Section 14 of R.A. No.
certificate of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a 7166, which requires every candidate to file a true statement of
condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be all contributions and expenditures in connection with the
proclaimed as senator-elect. Viewed in its proper context, the elections.
implementing Comelec Resolution add another qualification
layer to what the 1987 Constitution, as the minimum, required Villanueva v. Comelec 122 SCRA 636 (1983) – the
for membership in the Senate. Sec. 36(h) infringed the withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy not made under oath
constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility produces no legal effect; for all intents and purposes, the
requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator. withdrawing candidate remains a candidate.
Getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume
office for non-compliance with the drug-testing requirement. Go v. Comelec 357 SCRA 739 (2001) – Where affidavit of
withdrawal filed. There is nothing that mandates that the
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where
the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it
1. Under the Manual Elections – The COC of candidacy can be filed directly with the main office of the Comelec, the
shall be filed on any day from the commencement of the office of the regional election supervisor concerned, the office
election period but not later than the day before the beginning of the provincial election supervisor of the province to which
of the campaign period; Provided, that in cases of the municipality involved belongs, or the office of the municipal
postponement or failure of election under Section 5 and 6 of election officer of the said municipality.
the OEC, no additional COC shall be accepted except in cases
of substitution of candidates as provided un Section 77. EFFECTS: FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
(Section 75, OEC)
COC must be filed not later than the day before the In Talaga v. Comelec/Alcala 683 SCRA 197 (2012) The High
date for the beginning of the campaign period. (Sec. 7, RA Court provided for the rationale for the filing of CoC within a
7166) prescribed period – The evident purposes of the requirement
for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them
2. Under the AES – Section 11 of RA 8436 provides “for this are, namely; (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60 days
purpose, the deadline for filing of COC/petition for prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom
registration/manifestation to participate in the election shall not they are to make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and
be later than 120 days before the elections. inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. If the law
The period has already been amended by RA 9369 does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice
which now reads – “For this purpose, the Commission shall of the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there
set the deadline for the filing of COC/petition of are voters, and votes may be cast even for unknown or
registration/manifestation to participate in the election. factitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a
Any person who files his COC within this period shall only be candidate for another office in the same election.
considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period
for which he filed his COC; Provided that, unlawful acts or Sec. 66 BP 881/OEC. An appointive official is considered
omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon the resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The
start of the aforesaid campaign period. Xxxx “. forfeiture is automatic and the operative act is the moment of
filing which shall render the appointive official resigned
Section 73, BP 881/Omnibus Elections Code (OEC) , par. (Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC, May 31,
(1) – Certificate of Candidacy – No person shall be eligible 1993), where the provision of Sec. 66 is applicable also to
for any elective office unless he files a sworn certificate of GOCC and can constitute as a just cause for termination of
candidacy within the period fixed therein. Sinaca v. Mula 315 employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor Code.
Filing SCRA 266, it is the nature of a formal manifestation to the Section 66 has already been repealed by RA 9369 to
of coc whole world of the candidate’s political creed or lack of political wit – “Section 13. Section 11 of RA 8436 is hereby amended to
creed. read as follows: “Any person holding a public office or position,
including active members of the AFP, and officers and
Coquilla v. Comelec G.R. No. 139801, 31 May 2000 – A employees in GOCC, shall be considered ipso facto
certificate which did not indicate the position for which the resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at
candidate is running may be corrected. The SC ruling on the the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of
effectiveness of the amended COC filed to correct the defect candidacy.
declared that the filing of an amended COC even after the
deadline but before the election was substantial compliance
with the law which cured the defect. Sec. 67 OEC – An elective official running for a position other
than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
Section 73 (3) BP 881 (Effect of filing multiple certificates President and Vice-President, is deemed resigned upon the
of candidacy)– No person shall be eligible for more than one filing of his certificate of candidacy. Section 67 has been
office to be filed in the same election (requirement to run for repealed by Section 14 of RA 9006 (The Fair Elections Law),
elective office), and if he files his certificate of candidacy for a candidate holding an elective position whether national or
more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. local running for office other than the one he is holding in a
permanent capaci is considered resigned only upon the
Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy - However, before expiration of his term..
the expiration of the period for the filing of the certificates of
candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 (1999) – The provision of the
of candidacy may submit a written declaration under oath the election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as
signing and swearing on the same, as well as the information

19 19
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
20

required to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior CoC before the elections in accordance with Section 73 and
to the elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely that she was not an additional candidate for the position of
directory. Mayor because her filing of her CoC was beyong the period
fixed by law. Comelec declared the substitution of Barbara
Quinto v. Comelec G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010 – the Ruby as invalid on May 20, 2011
Court ruled that substantial distinctions exists between elective Barbary Ruby garnered the highest number of votes
official and appointive officials. The former occupy their office while Castillo garnered second. Castillo contends that since the
by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to disqualification of Ramon was final prior to the election he
an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom should be declared winner. Castillo made reference to case of
only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive Cayat. In this case, Rev. Fr. Nardo B. Cayat, the petitioner in
officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by Cayat, was disqualified and his disqualification became final
an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their before the May 10, 20014 elections. Considering that no
tenure while other serve at the pleasure of the appointing substitution of Cayat was made, Thomas R. Pelileng, Sr. his
authority. rival remained the only candidate for the mayoralty post in
Buguias, Benguet. (Cayat v. Comelec 522 SCRA 23 (2007)).
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY In contrast, after Barbara Ruby substituted Ramon,
the May 10, 2010 elections proceeded with her being regarded
Section 77 BP 881. Candidates in case of death, by the electorate of Lucena City as a bona fide candidate. To
disqualification or withdrawal of another. After the last day for the electorate, she became a contender for the same position
the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a vied for by Castillo, such that she stood on the same footing as
registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is Castillo. Such standing as a candidate negated Castillo’s claim
disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and of being the candidate who obtained the highest number of
certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of votes, and being consequently entitled to assume the office of
candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or Mayor. The Court stressed that the existence of a valid
was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the CoC is a condition sine qua non for a valid substitution.
political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy
for the office affected in accordance with the preceding
sections not later than mid-day of the date of the election.
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur Effect of Substitution of Candidates after Official Ballots
between the day before the election and mid-day of election Have Been Printed in AES- in case of valid substitution after
day, said certificate may be filed with the board of election the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the
inspectors in the political subdivisions where he is a candidate substituted candidates shall be considered votes for the
or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire substitutes.” (Sec. 12 RA 8436, 22 December 1997)
electorate of the country, with the Commission.
Under Section 12 of RA 9006, 12 February 2001 it
A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable provides – in case of valid substitutions after the official ballot
requisite in case of substitution of a disqualified candidate have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted
under Sec. 77. Under said provision, the candidate who dies, candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not
withdraws or is disqualified must be an official candidate of a invalidate the whole ballot. For this purpose, the official ballot
registered or accredited political party and the substitute shall provide spaces where the voters may write the name of
candidate must be of the same political party as the original the substitute candidates if they are voting for the latter;
candidate and must be duly nominated as such by the political Provided, however, that if the substitute candidate has the
party. same family name, this provision shall not apply.
Since Section 12 of RA 8436 has not been amended
nor repealed by RA 9369, it can be assumed that the votes
Rulloda vs. Comelec G.R. No. 154198 January 20, 2003 – cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered votes
The absence of a specific provision governing substitution of for the substitutes in an AES for the reason that the counting
candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a machine will not read any unwarranted marks on the official
prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive ballot such as writing the name of the substitute candidate.
construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not
written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow substitution of RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
candidates where no political parties are involved than when
political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that Svetlana P. Jalosjos vs. Comelec/Tupag/Estrellada 699
must have been subsumed by law. SCRA 507 (2013) – The SC stressed that to be an actual and
physical resident of a locality, one must have a dwelling place
Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999 – where one resides no matter how modest and regardless of
Substitution is not allowed if certificate of the candidate to be ownership. The fact that the residential structure where
substituted was cancelled, because he was running for the 4 th petitioner intends to reside was still under construction on the
consecutive term. A person without a valid COC cannot be lot she purchased means that she has not yet established
considered a candidate in much the same way as any person actual and physical residence in the barangay, contrary to the
who has not filed any COC at all cannot, by any stretch of the declaration of her witnesses that she has been an actual and
imagination, be a candidate at all. physical resident of Brgy. Tugas since 2008.

Talaga v. Comelec & Castillo and Castillo v. Comelec & Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea 670 SCRA 664
Talaga, 683 SCRA 197 (2012) – In this case, Ramon was (2012). It is not required that a candidate should have his own
disqualified having been found to be ineligible for the position house in order to establish his residence or domicile in a place.
of Mayor of Lucena City which disqualification became final It is enough that he should live in the locality even in a rented
prior to the May 10, 2010 elections. Barbara Ruby filed her house or that of a friend or relative. What is of central concern
CoC in substitution of Ramon. Castillo was the opponent who then is that the person identified and established a place in the
filed a disqualification case against Barbara Ruby on the said City where he intended to live in and return to for an
ground that the substitution was not valid in view of the indefinite period of time.
ineligibility of Ramon, Ramon did not voluntarily withdraw his

20 20
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
21

Jalosjos v. Comelec 683 SCRA 1 24 April 2012 – Jalosjos where the party actually or constructively has his permanent
came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his home” where he, no matter where he may be found at any
brother in Zamboanga Sibugay. It is evident that Jalosjos did given time, eventually intends to return and remain, while
so with intent to change his domicile for good. He left domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks
Australia, give up his Australian citizenship, and renounced his of residence for the purpose of election law. And, the fact that
allegiance to that country. In addition, he reacquired his old a person is a RV in one district is not proof that he is not
itizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the domiciled in another district.
Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the BID. By his acts, Torayno Sr., vs. Comelec 337 SCRA 574, the issue in this
Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly case is the residence qualification of Vicente Emano who filed
proving that he gave up his domicile there. And he has since his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro.
lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Court explained that the purpose of the residence as
required by Constitution and the law as a qualification for
Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio Gonzales and seeking and holding public office, is to give candidates the
Orlando Balbon, Jr. 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties and
considering the residency issue, the dwelling where a person aspiration, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the
permanently intends to return to and to remain – his or her welfare of their constituencies. On the part of the electorate, to
capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, IS evaluate the candidate’s qualification s and fitness for the job
IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it they aspire for. In this case Emano, cannot be deemed to be a
determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s stranger or newcomer when he ran for and was
residence based solely on very personal and subjective overwhelmingly voted as city mayor having garnered a margin
assessment standards when the law is replete with of 30K votes.
standards that can be used. Comelec used wrong
considerations in arriving at the conclusion that Mitra’s Papandayan, Jr. vs. Comelec 381 SCRA 133. Domicile
residence is not the residence contemplated by law. connotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent
for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to
Asistio v. Trindad Pe-Aguirre, G.R. No. 191124, 27 April return. The requirements in order to acquire a new domicile by
2010 – the High Court said – “Domicile is not easily lost. To choice are: (a) an intention to remain there; (b) residence or
successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate: bodily presence in the new locality; and (c) an intention to
(1) an actual removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona fide abandon the old domicile.
intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one; and (3) acts which corresponding with ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE CANDIDACY OF A CANDIDATE
that purpose. There must be animus manendi coupled with OR DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE
animus non revetendi. This purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must for for an indefinite period of time; the 1) Sec. 12 of the 0EC –
change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at • any person who has been declared by competent
the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. authority insane or incompetent (when we say
incompetence, the same may refer not only to
Limbona v. Comelec, G.r. No. 181970, June 25, 2008 – mental illness, disease or physical disability but
There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s also to other causes which may include minority
compliance with residency requirement since the question of or lack of residence requirement)
residence is a question of intention.
• any person who has been sentenced by final
Coquilla vs. Comelec 385 SCRA 607 – A former Filipino judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion
citizen cannot be considered a resident of the Philippines and • for any offense for which carries a penalty of
in the locality he intends to be elected prior to his reacquisition more than 18 months
of Philippine citizenship.
The “term residence” is to be understood NOT in its • for a crime involving moral turpitude
common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation”,
but rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place The disqualification is removed by
where the party actually or constructively has his permanent • plenary pardon or granted amnesty
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any
given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus
• upon declaration by a competent authority
that said insanity or incompetence had been
manendi)”. A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at
removed
birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside
and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a • expiration of a period of 5 years from his
new domicile (by choice.) service of sentence unless of course within
the same period he again becomes
Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec 248 SCRA 30 (1995). “it is disqualified.
the fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of
candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether 2) Sec. 68 of the OEC
or not an individual has satisfied the constitutions residency • those guilty of giving money or material consideration
qualification requirement. The said statement becomes to influence, induce or corrupt voters or public official
material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate performing electoral functions;
attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would
otherwise render the candidate ineligible.
• those who have committed terrorism to enhance his
candidacy
Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 640, the qualifications of • those who have spend in the election campaign more
Rodolfo Aguinaldo former governor of Cagayan was at issue than that required by law (Php10/RV/Php5.00)
when he filed his certificate of candidacy as member of the HR
for the 3rd district of Cagayan in the 11 May 1998 elections. NOTE: Section 68 deals with a petition to disqualify a
The Court reiterated the meaning of residence as “the place candidate for other violations of the election code as specified

21 21
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
22

in said section, and against a candidate who is a permanent Martinez III vs. HRET 610 SCRA 53 (January 2010) –
resident or immigrant of a foreign country. That section does Proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt
not specify a period within which to file the petition. disposition. The declaration of a duly registered candidate as
nuisance candidate results in the cancellation of his COC.
In Codilla vs. De Venecia 393 SCRA 634, it was held that the
power of Comelec to disqualify candidates is limited to the Dela Cruz v. Comelec G.R. No. 192221, 13 November 2012 -
enumerations mentioned in Section 68 of the OEC. Elements (Should the votes cast for such nuisance candidate be
to be proved are as follows: considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide
candidate?) – In an automated election, the Supreme Court,
• the candidate, personally or through his instructions, likewise ruled not to consider the votes cast for a nuisance
must have given money or other material candidate as stray but to count them in favor of the bona fide
consideration and candidate.
“As far as Comelec is concerned, the confusion
• the act of giving material consideration or money caused by similarity of surnames of candidates for the same
should be for the purpose of influencing, inducing or position and putting the electoral process in mockery or
corrupting the voters or public officials performing disrepute, had already been rectified by the new voting system
electoral functions. where the voter simply shades the oval corresponding to the
name of their chosen candidate. However, as shown in this
3) Sec. 69 – Petition to Abate a Nuisance Candidate – the case, Comelec issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010, 9
Comelec, may motu propio or upon verified petition of an days before the elections, with sufficient time to delete the
interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a names of disqualified candidates not just from the Certified List
certificate of candidacy if it is shown that it is filed in of Candidates, but also from the Official Ballot. Indeed, what
contemplation of a nuisance candidate or cancel the same if use will it serve if Comelec orders the names of disqualified
already filed. This is an exception to the ministerial duty of candidates to be deleted from list of official candidates if the
the Comelec and its officers to receive a certificate of official ballots still carry their name?
candidacy under Section 76 of the OEC. The Court holds that the rule in Resolution No. 4116
considering the votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared
WHO IS A NUISANCE CANDIDATE as such in a final judgment, particularly where such nuisance
candidate has the same surname as that of the legitimate
 one who files his certificate to put the election process candidate, not stray but counted in favor of the latter, remains a
in mockery or disrepute good law. As earlier discuss, a petition to cancel or deny a
CoC under Section 69 of the OEC should be distinguished
 contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the from a petition to disqualify under Section 68. Hence, the legal
similarity of surnames of two (2) candidates may effect of such cancellation of a CoC of a nuisance candidate
generate. (in the appreciation of ballots, when two cannot be equated with a candidate disqualified on grounds
candidates with the same name or surname and only provided in the OEC and the Local Government Code.
the name or surname is written, will be considered The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if
stray vote and will not be counted for either of the the names of nuisance candidates remained in the ballot on
candidate unless one of the candidate with the same election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under
name or surname is an incumbent – equity of the the automated voting system especially considering that voters
incumbent rule) who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the
 by other circumstances or acts which clearly nuisance candidate instead of the bonafide candidate they
demonstrate that the candidate has no bonafide intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots
intention to run for office, thus would prevent the to correct the same.
faithful determination of the true will of the people.
(Bautista vs. Comelec 298 SCRA 480) 4) Sec. 78 OEC – Petition to Deny due Course or to Cancel
a Certificate of Candidacy. “A verified petition seeking to
Who can file – a petition to declare a candidate a nuisance deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be
candidate shall be filed by any registered candidate for the filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any
same office within 5 days from the last day of the filing of material representation contained therein as required
the certificate of candidacy. (As amended by Section 5 of under Section 74 (contents of the COC) of the OEC is
RA 6646 false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25
days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy
Rev. Elly Chavez Pumatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872 13 and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later
April 2004 – The rationale behind the prohibition against than 15 days before election.”
nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who
have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy Who may file – by any person through a verified petition
to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its On What Grounds – the candidate made material
electoral exercises are rational;, objective and orderly. misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. Section 78
Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical deals “exclusively” with a petition to deny due course to a
considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater COC on the ground that a material representation in the
the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for contents of the certificate under Sec. 74, is false. (pertains to a
logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of candidate’s eligibility or qualification such as citizenship,
time and resources in preparation for the election. These residence or status as a registered voter Maruhom vs.
practical difficulties should, of course, never attempt the State Comelec 594 SCRA 108)
from the conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the
same time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate Period to File – Within 25 days from the last day for the filing
these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and proper. of the certificate of candidacy.
Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook Jurisdiction – Comelec sitting in a division.
example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our
democratic institutions. Sergio G. Amora, Jr. vs. Comelec and Arnielo S. Olandria
640 SCRA 473 (2011) - To emphasize, a petition for

22 22
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
23

disqualification on the one hand, can be premised on Section he is disqualified to be elected to office, and he is disqualified if
12 and 68 of the OEC, or Section 40 of the LGC. On the other he lacks any of the qualification for election office.
hand, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC can Clearly, the ONLY INSTANCE where a petition
only be grounded on a statement of a material representation questioning the qualifications of a candidate for elective office
in the said certificate that is false. The petitions also have can be filed before election is when the petition is filed under
different effects. While a person who is disqualified under Section 78 of the OEC.
Section 68 is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the Period for filing a petition under Section 78 – In Loong
person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course v. Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992), the Court categorically
under Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if declared that the period for filing a petition for cancellation of
he/she never filed a CoC. Thus in Miranda v. Abaya, this Court candidacy based on false representation is covered by Rule 23
made the distinction that a candidate who is disqualified under and NOT Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition at any time
Section 68 can validly be substituted under Section 77, but a after the last day for filing of CoC’s but not later than the date
person whose CoC has been denied due course or cancelled of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule that cannot
under Section 78 cannot be substituted because he/she is supercede Section 78 of the OEC.
never considered a candidate.” (also ruled in Fermin v. A petition filed under Section 78 must not be
Comelec 574 SCRA 782) interchanged or confused with one filed under Section 68 – In
Fermin v. Comelec 574 SCRA 782 (2008), the Court stressed
Mayor Barbara Ruby Talaga vs. Comele/Alcala 683 SCRA that a petition which is properly a “Section 78 petition” must
197 (2012) – The High Court reiterated, that a Section 78 therefore be filed within the period prescribed therein, and a
petition should not be interchanged or confused with a Section procedural rules subsequently issue by Comelec cannot
68 petition. The remedies under the two sections are different supplant this statutory period under Section 78.
eventualities. A person who is disqualified under Sectin 68 is
prohibited to continue as a candidate, but a person whose CoC Jurisdiction – Once a winning candidate has been
is cancelled or denied due course under Section 78 is not proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as a member of
considered as a candidate at all because his status is that of a the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction of the Comelec
person who has not filed a CoC. Miranda v. Abaya 311 SCRA over election contests relating to his election, returns and
617 (1999), has clarified that candidate who is disqualified qualifications ENDS and the HRET own jurisdiction BEGINS.
under Section 68 can be validly substituted pursuant to Section
77 because he remains a candidate until disqualified; but a In Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 641 (1999) the Court does not
person whose CoC has been denied due course or cancelled have jurisdiction to pass upon the eligibility of the private
under Section 78cannot be substituted because he is not respondent who was already a Member of the HR at the time
considered a candidate. of the filing of the petition for certiorari – considering that by
statutory provision (Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987
Munder vs. Comelec 659 SCRA 254 (2011) - “Jurisprudence Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating
has clearly established the doctrine that a petition for to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
disqualification and a petition to deny due course to or to HR.
cancel a certificate of candidacy, are two distinct remedies to
prevent a candidate from entering an electoral race. Both Procedure in filing Motion to Suspend Proclamation: The
remedies prescribe distinct period to file the corresponding suspension of proclamation of a winning candidate is not a
petition, on which the jurisdiction of the Commission on matter which the Comelec Second Division can dispose of
Elections over the case is dependent.” motu propio. Section 6 of RA No. 6646 requires that the
suspension must be upon motion by the complainant or any
Fernando V. Gonzalez vs. Comelec, et. al. 644 SCRA 761 intervenor.
(2011) - “In order to justify the cancellation of CoC, it is
essential that the false representation mentioned therein Second Placer Rule- It is well-settled that the ineligibility of a
pertain to a material matter for the sanction imposed by candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible
Section 78 would affect the substantive rights of the candidate candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be
– the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the declared elected.
CoC. Material representation refers to qualifications for
elective office (interpreted to refer to statements regarding age, Exceptions to the Second Placer Rule – The exception to
residence and citizenship or non-possession of natural-born the second placer rule is predicated on the concurrence of the
Filipino status); Aside from the requirement of materiality, the following (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes
false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is FULLY AWARE in fact
mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such
a candidate ineligible; it must be made with the intention to awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless
deceive the electorate as to one’s qualification for public case their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. These
office.” (also ruled in Salcedo II v. Comelec 312 SCRA 447 facts warranting the exception to the rules are not present in
(1999)) the case at bar.

Ashary M. Alauya (Clerk of Court, Shari’a District Court,


Two remedies available for questioning the Marawi City vs. Judge Casan Ali L. Limbona 646 SCRA 1
qualifications of the candidate: Distinction between the (2011) - Partisan political activity – The filing of a certificate
two proceedings under Section 78 and Section 253 under of candidacy is a partisan political activity as the candidate
B.P. 881, thereof (1) Before elections under Section 78 and thereby offers himself to the electorate for an elective post. “No
(2) After elections under Section 253. The only difference officer or employee in the civil service shall engage directly or
between the two proceedings is that, under Section 78, the indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.”
qualifications for elective office are misrepresented in the The act of the Judge in filing a certificate of candidacy as a
certificate of candidacy and the proceedings must be initiated party-list representative in the May 1998 elections without
before the elections, whereas a petition for QW under Section giving up his judicial post violated not only the law, but also the
253 may be brought on the basis of two grounds – (1) constitutional mandate.
ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines,
and must be initiated within 10 days after proclamation of the
election results. Under Section 253, a candidate is ineligible if

23 23
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
24

Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis filing Section 78 petitions is changed to 5 days counted


Bautista/Robelito Picar/Wilma Pagaduan 678 SCRA 267 from the last day for the filing of COC’s.
(2012) - Remedy of a person who fails to file the petition to The clear language of Section 78 cannot be
disqualify a certain candidate within the twenty-five (25)-day amended or modified b y a mere reference in a subsequent
period prescribed by Section 78 of the OEC is to file a petition statute to the use of a procedure specifically intended for
for QW within 10 days from proclamation of the results of the another type of action. Cardinal is the rule in statutory
election as provided under Section 253 of the OEC. construction that repeals by implication are disfavored and will
not be so declared by the Court unless the intent of the
Renunciation of foreign citizenship to be valid under Section legislators is manifest. Noteworthy in Loong v. Comelec 216
5(2) of RA 9225 – The language of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 is SCRA 760 (1992), which upheld the 25-day period for filing
free from any ambiguity. In Lopez v. Comelec 559 SCRA 696 Section 78 petitions, was decided long after the enactment of
(2008), the Court declared it ‘s categorical and single meaning: RA 6646. Hence, Section 23, Section 2 of the Comelec
a Filipino American or any dual citizen cannot run fo any Rules of Procedure is contrary to the unequivocal mandate of
elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she the law. Following the ruling in Fermin, the Court declared that
personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at “as the law stands, the petition to deny due course to or
the time of filing the CoC. The Court also expounded on the cancel a COC may be filed at anytime not later than 25-
form of the renunciation and held that to be valid, the days from the time of the filing of the COC.
renunciation must be contained in an affidavit duly executed
before an officer of the law who is authorized to administer an In Justimbaste v. Comelec 572 SCRA 736 (2008) – Material
oath stating in clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is misrepresentation as a ground to deny due course or cancel a
renouncing foreign citizenship. certificate of candidacy refers to the falsity of a statement
required to be entered therein as enumerated in Section 74 of
Casan Macode Maquiling v. Comelec et. al. 700 SCRA 367 the OEC. Concurrent with materiality is a deliberate intention
(2013) – the declared policy of RA 9225 is that “all Philippine to deceive the electorate as to one qualification making
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be reference to Salcedo II that in order to justify the cancellation of
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the the COC under Section 78, it is essential that the false
conditions of this Act”. This policy pertains to the reacquisition representation mentioned therein pertained to a material matter
of Philippine citizenship. Section 5(2) requires those who have for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the
re-acquired Philippine citizenship and who seek elective public substantive rights of a candidate – the right to run for the
office, to renounce any and all foreign citizenship. This elective post for which he filed the COC. There is also no
requirement of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, showing that there was an intent to deceive the electorate as to
when read together with Section 40(d) of the Local the identity of the private respondent, nor that by using his
Government Code which disqualifies those with dual Filipino name the voting public was thereby deceived.
citizenship from running for any elective local position,
indicates a policy that anyone who seeks to run for public office DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
must be solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a CODE R.A. 7160
former Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship to A candidate for an elective office may likewise be
continue using a foreign passport – which indicates the disqualified on the following grounds –
recognition of a foreign state of the individual as its national –
even after the Filipino has renounced his foreign citizenship, is
to allow a complete disregard of this policy. • those sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude or for an offense
punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment,
Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 – Voters’ within 2 years after serving sentence. (Sec. 40)
inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of (Qualifications of local elective candidates under
whether a petition shall be included in or excluded from the list the LGC was asked
of voters based on the qualifications required by law and the
facts presented to show possession of these qualifications. On • in the 1999 Bar)
the other hand, the COC denial/cancellation proceedings
involve the issue of whether there is a false representation of a NOTE: The 1st ground for disqualification consists of two (2)
material fact. The false representation must necessarily parts, namely: (1) those sentenced by final judgment for an
pertain not to a mere innocuous mistake but to a material fact offense involving moral turpitude, regardless of the period of
or those that refer to a candidate’s qualification for elective imprisonment; and (2) those sentenced by final judgment for an
office. offense, OTHER THAN one involving moral turpitude,
punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment, within 2
years after serving sentence.
NOTE: In Fermin v. Comelec G.R. No. 179695 and G.R. No.
182369, December 18, 2008, the SC clarified that Section 5 Sec. 40 of RA 7160 limits the disqualification to two (2) years
(Procedure in cases of Nuisance candidates) and Section 7 after service of sentence. This should now be read in relation
(Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of to Sec. 11 of RA 8189 which enumerates those who are
Candidacy under RA 6646, did not in any way amend the disqualified to register as a voter. The 2 year disqualification
period for filing “Section 78” petitions. While Section 7 of the period under Sec. 40 is now deemed amended to last 5 years
said law makes reference to Section 5 on the procedure in the from service of sentence after which period the voter will be
conduct of cases for the denial of due course to the COC’s of eligible to register as a voter and to run for an elective public
nuisance candidates (then chief Justice Davide in his office.
dissenting opinion in Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265,
September 18, 1995 248 SCRA 400, explains that “the • Those convicted by final judgment for violating
procedure hereinabove provided mentioned in Section 7 the oath of allegiance to the Republic
cannot be construed to refer to Section 6 which does not
provide for a procedure but to the effects of disqualification
cases, (but) can only refer to the procedure provided in • Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political
Section 5 of the said Act on nuisance candidates, “ the cases.
same cannot be taken to mean that the 25-day period for

24 24
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
25

In Marquez, jr. vs. Comelec and Rodriguez 259 SCRA, it countries, be also a citizen of another state (jus sanguinis for
was held that fugitives from justice refer to a person who has the Philippines where the child follows the nationality or
been convicted by final judgment. The SC ruled that when a citizenship of the parents regardless of his/her place of birth as
person leaves the territory of a state not his own, homeward opposed to jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship
bound and subsequently learns of the charges filed against him on the basis of place of birth), the Court explained that dual
while he is in his own country, does not outrightly qualify him as citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual
a fugitive from justice if he does not subject himself to the allegiance.
jurisdiction of the former state. When Rodriguez left the US,
there was yet no complaint filed and warrant of arrest, hence The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not automatically
there is no basis in saying that he is running away from any disqualify her from running for public office. For candidates
prosecution or punishment. with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Phil.
Citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to
• Those removed from office as a result of an terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship. The
administrative charge filing of the certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign
citizenship effectively removing any disqualification as a dual
In Rodolfo Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, it was held that a public citizen.
elective official cannot be removed for administrative conduct
committed during a prior term as his re-election to office In the Certificate of Candidacy, one declare that he/she is a
operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the
to the extent of cutting of the right to remove him therefore. Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under oath,
Grego v. Comelec 274 SCRA 481, the Court ruled that Sec. operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
40 of RA 7160 does not have any retroactive effect. In this
case a Deputy Sheriff was removed for serious misconduct in Lopez v. Comelec 559 SCRA 696 (2008)– The ruling in
1981. He run in 1992 & 1995. His removal in 1981 cannot Valles in 2000 has been superseded by the enactment of
serve as basis for his disqualification. Laws have prospective RA 9225 in 2003. RA 9225 expressly provides for the
effect. condition before those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may
run for a public office in the Philippines. Section 5 of the said
Those with dual citizenship. The relevant cases under this law states: “Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Those
provision are the cases of – who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under this Act
shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all
attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of
 Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec G.R. the Philippines and the following conditions xxx (2) Those
No. 135083 May 25, 1999 seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
 Aznar v. Comelec 185 SCRA 703 qualifications for holding such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of
 Cirilo Valles v. Comelec & Lopez G.R. the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
#138000 August 9, 2000 renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath.
In Aznar, it was ruled that the mere fact that respondent
Osmeña was holder of a certificate stating that he is an AASJS Member-hector G. Calilung vs. Secretary of Justice
American citizen did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino & G.R. No. 160869, may 11, 2007, the SC took the opportunity to
that an application for an ACR was not tantamount to set parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance considering
renunciation of his Philippine Citizenship. that it only made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual
citizenship in Mercado vs. Manzano.
Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec, it was held that the fact that
respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in FACTS: Following the implementation of RA 9225 “An Act
the BID & was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire
only a year before he filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice- foreign Citizenship Permanent, amending for the purpose CA
Mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his nationality before 63, as amended, petitioner filed a petition against respondent
the termination of his American citizenship. DOJ Secretary Simeon Datumanong who was tasked to
implement laws governing citizenship. He prayed for a writ of
Valles v. Lopez, the Court held that the mere fact that Lopez prohibition to stop respondent from implementing RA 9225. he
was a holder of an Australian passport and had an ACR are not avers that RA 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5,
act constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states “ Dual
not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest
renunciation to effectively result in the lost of citizenship, the and shall be dealt with by law”. He contends that the Act
same must be express (Com. Act 63, Sec. 1). Referring to the cheapens the Philippine citizenship since the Act allows all
case of Aznar, an ACR does not amount to an express Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become
renunciation or repudiation of one’s citizenship. Similarly, her foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without
holding of an Australian passport as in the Manzano case, losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual
were likewise mere acts of assertions before she effectively allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens to
renounced the same. Thus, at the most, Lopez had dual regain their Philippine by simply taking an oath of allegiance
citizenship – she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well. without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. The Constitution
however, is categorical that dual allegiance is inimical to the
In reconciling the disqualification under Sec. 40 of RA 7160. national interest.
The Court clarified and as ruled in the Manzano case “dual
citizenship” as used in the LGC and reconciled with Article IV HELD: The intent of the legislature in drafting RA 9225 is to do
Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance (Dual away with the provision in CA 63, which takes away Philippine
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized
and shall be dealt with by law.”) In recognizing situation in citizens of other countries. RA 9225 allows dual citizenship to
which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, as an natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine
involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different

25 25
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
26

citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a established that he took his oath of allegiance under the
foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual provision of PD 725 at 2pm on 30 June 1995, much later than
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the the time he filed his certificate of candidacy.
Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign
citizenship. Plainly, Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the The Court held that the “the law does not specify any
problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of particular date or time when the candidate must possess
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance citizenship unlike that of residence and age, as Sec. 39 of RA
to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other 7160 specifically speaks of “qualification of elective officials,
citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225. (Note: not candidates” thus, the citizenship requirement in the local
Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of government code to be possessed by an elective official at the
a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the
legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance.) term of office to which he has been elected. But to remove all
doubts on this important issue, the Court held that the
In De Guzman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180048 June 19, 2009, repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing
it was held that “where the Oath of allegiance and certificate of of his application on 17 August 1994 and being a former
candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2) of RA 9225 which Filipino who has served the people repeatedly and at the
further requires those seeking elective public office in the age of 81, Frivaldo deserves liberal interpretation of the
Philippines to make a personal and sworn renunciation of Philippine laws and whatever defects there were in his
foreign citizenship as where the candidate for VM of Guimba, nationality should now be deemed mooted by his
Nueva Ecija failed to renounce his American citizenship, it was repatriation.
held that he was disqualified from running for VM in the May
14, 2007 elections. • 3 term limit or having served 3 consecutive terms.

Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis Bautista et. al. Article X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution and Section
678 SCRA 267 (2012) - Renunciation of foreign citizenship to 43(b) of RA 7160 provides “No local elective official shall serve
be valid under Section 5(2) of RA 9225 – The language of for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position.
Section 5(2) of RA 9225 is free from any ambiguity. In Lopez Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not
v. Comelec 559 SCRA 696 (2008), the Court declared it ‘s be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for
categorical and single meaning: a Filipino American or any dual the full term for which the elective official concerned was
citizen cannot run fo any elective public position in the elected.
Philippines unless he or she personally swears to a
renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing the In Laceda Sr., vs. Limena & Comelec 571 SCRA 603 – the
CoC. The Court also expounded on the form of the Court held that the rationale behind Section 2 of RA 9164, like
renunciation and held that to be valid, the renunciation must be Section 43 of RA 7190 (Local Government Code) from which
contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of the the 3-term rule was taken, is primarily intended to broaden the
law who is authorized to administer an oath stating in clear and choices of the electorate of the candidates who will run for
unequivocal terms that affiant is renouncing foreign citizenship. office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena by
disqualifying officials from running for the same office after a
Maquiling vs. Comelec 700 SCRA 367 (2013) – If we allow term of 9 years.
dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce their
foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign The case of Laceda Sr. involved a similar question in Latasa
passports, we are creating a special privilege for these dual vs. Comelec 417 SCRA 601 where the Court held that where
citizens, thereby effectively junking the prohibition in Section a person has been elected for 3 consecutive terms as
40(d) of the Local Government Code. It must be stressed that municipal mayor and prior to the end or termination of such 3-
what is at stake here is the principle that only those who are year term the municipality has been converted by law into a
exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for public office. city, without the city charter interrupting his term until the end of
the 3-year term, the prohibition applied to prevent him from
Frivaldo v. Comelec 174 SCRA 245 (1989). Frivaldo was running for the 4th time as city mayor thereof, there being no
proclaimed governor elect of the Province of Sorsogon and break in the continuity of the terms. Comelec did not err nor
subsequently assumed office. A disqualification was filed commit any abuse of discretion when it declared Laceda
against him by the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon disqualified and cancelled his COC.
Chapter on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having
been naturalized in the US in 1983, which he admitted but
which he undertook only to protect himself against then Adormeo v. Comelec & Talaga, Jr. G.R. No. 147927 04
President Marcos. The SC found Frivaldo disqualified for not February 2002 and citing Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157
having possessed the requirement of citizenship which cannot and Lonzanida v. Comelec 311 SCRA 602, it was ruled that
be cured by the electorate, especially if they mistakenly the term limit for elective local officals must be taken to refer to
believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. the “right to be elected” as well as the “right to serve in the
same elective position.” Thus, two (2) conditions for the
Republic v. dela Rosa 232 SCRA 785. The disqualification of application of the disqualification must concur:
Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo opted to reacquire his • that the official concerned has been elected for three
Philippine citizenship thru naturalization but however failed to (3) consecutive terms in the same local government
comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication, thus, post; and
the Court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the naturalization
of Frivaldo. He was again disqualified. • that the has fully served the three (3) consecutive
terms.
In Frivaldo v. Comelec 257 SCRA 72 (1996), Frivaldo later
reacquired Philippines citizenship and obtained the highest In this case, respondent Talaga, Jr., was elected mayor of
number of votes in 3 consecutive elections but was twice Lucena City in May 1992. He served the full term, was re-
declared by the SC to be unqualified to hold office due to his elected in 1995-98 but lost in the 1998 election to Tagarao. In
lack of citizenship requirement. He claimed to have re- the recall elections of May 2000, Talaga, Jr. won and served
acquired his Filipino citizenship thru repatriation. It was the unexpired term of Tagarao until 30 June 2001. Talaga Jr.

26 26
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
27

filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position in the As repeatedly ruled by the SC, a “proclamation subsequently
2001 elections which candidacy was challenged by petition declared void is no proclamation at all and while a
Adormeo on the ground that Talaga, Jr. is already barred by the proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength
3-term limit rule. of the proclamation of the BOC, he is only a presumptive
winner who assumes the office subject of the final
Adormeo contends that Talaga’s candidacy violated Section 8, outcome of the election protest.”
Article X of the Constitution which states that the term of office
of local elective officials shall be three (3) years and no such Another issue raised in Lonzanida is that the Comelec
official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms already lost jurisdiction over the disqualification case
citing the case of Lonzanida v. Comelec To further support his when he was proclaimed as winner and that jurisdiction is
case, he adverts to the comment of Fr. Joaquin Bernas who already with the RTC for QW. The SC reiterated its ruling in
stated that in interpreting said provision that “if one is elected Trinidad v. Comelec 288 SCRA 76 (1998) that pursuant to Sec.
representative to serve the unexpired term of another, that 6 of RA 6646, the proclamation nor assumption of office of a
unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered one candidate against whom a petition for disqualification is
term for the purpose of computing the number of successive pending before the Comelec does not divest the Comelec of
terms allowed.” jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and resolve it on the
merits. (Also ruling in Dizon v. Comelec 577 SCRA 589).
The Comelec en banc ruled in favor of Talaga which reversed
the ruling of the 1st division and held that – 1) Talaga was not Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157 (1998), the SC ruled on the
elected for 3 consecutive terms because he did not win the 11 issue on whether a VM who succeeds to the office of mayor by
May 1998 elections; 2) that he was installed only as mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder of the term is
reason of his victory in the recall elections; 3) that his victory in considered to have served a term in that office for the purpose
the recall elections was not considered a term of office and is of the 3-term limit. The SC upheld the decision of the Comelec
not included in the 3-term disqualification rule and finally 4) that that succession for the expired term is not the service
he did not fully serve the 3 consecutive term. His loss in the 11 contemplated as would disqualify the elective official from
May 1998 elections is considered an interruption in the running for the same elective post. The purpose of this
continuity of his service as Mayor of Lucena City. ISSUE: Was provision is to prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the
Talaga disqualified to run for Mayor of Lucena City in the 14 number of terms an elective local official may serve.
May 2001 elections? Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he was elected
as he was simply continuing the service of the official he
In holding the qualifications of Talaga, the Court reiterated its succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have fully
ruling in Borja that the term limit for elective local officials must served the term notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of
be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to office prior to his expiration. (Asked in the 2001 BAR)
serve in the same elective position considering that the
continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by the defeat in the In applying said policy, the following situations (tenures in
1998 elections which is considered as an interruption in the office) are NOT considered service of term for purpose of
continuity of service. The Court further held that the applying the 3-term limit –
comment of Fr. Bernas is pertinent only to member of the
HR there being no recall elections provided for members • officer fills up a higher office by succession/operation
of Congress. of law
In Lonzanida v. Comelec and Lu 28 311 SCRA 602 (July • officer is suspended from office (failed to serve full
1998), Lonzanida was elected and served 2 consecutive terms term/involuntary)
as municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, prior to the 08 • officer unseated, ordered to vacate by reason of an
May 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections, Lonzanida ran election protest case
for the same elective post and was again proclaimed winner.
He assumed office and discharged the duties thereof. His • officer serving unexpired term after winning in the
proclamation in 1995 was contested by his then opponent Juan recall elections;
Alvez who filed an election protest before the RTC of Zambales
which rendered a decision declaring a failure of elections In Ong vs. Alegre 479 SCRA 473 – A petition for
rendering the result for the office as null and void. The office of disqualification was filed against Francis Ong for having
the mayor was then declared vacant. Both parties appealed to violated the 3-term limit rule for having served as mayor of San
the Comelec and on 13 Nov. 1997, it resolved the election Vicente Camarines Norte in the May 1995, 1998 & 2001
protest filed by Alvez in his favor after determining that Alvez elections. The controversy revolves around the 1998-2001
garnered the plurality of votes. The Comelec issued a writ of mayoral term wherein the election protest filed by Alegre was
execution ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post to which he promulgated after the term of the contested office has
obeyed and Alvez assumed for the remainder of the term. expired.

Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor in The question for consideration is whether or not the
the 11 May 1998 and his opponent timely filed a petition to assumption of Francis Ong as Mayor from July 1, 1998 to June
disqualify him for the same post. ISSUE: Whether 30, 2001, may be considered as one full term service in the
Lonzanida’s assumption of office from May 1995 to March context of the consecutive term limit rule. The Court declared
1998 may be considered as service of one full term for the that such assumption of office constitutes, for Francis, “service
purpose of applying the 3-term limit for elective local for the full term” and should be counted as a full term served in
government officials. It was held that Lonzanida is still contemplation of the 3-term limit prescribed by the
qualified to run for mayor and held that the 2-rquisites for the constitutional and statutory provisions, barring elective officials
application of the 3-term limit is wanting. First, petitioner from being elected and serving for more than 3-consecutive
cannot be considered as having been elected to the post in the terms.
May 1995 elections, and second, the petitioner did not fully
serve the 1995-1998 mayoralty term by reason of involuntary The Court debunked the claim of Francis Ong that he was only
relinquishment of office. a presumptive winner in view of the ruling of the RTC that
Alegre was the real winning candidate in the light of his being
proclaimed by the MBOC coupled by his assumption of office

27 27
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
28

and his continuous exercise of the functions thereof from start advertisements for print and broadcast media provided the said
to finish of the term, should legally be taken as service for a full advertisement shall bear and be identified by reasonably
term in contemplation of the 3-term rule. Lonzanida from which legible or audible words “ Political advertisement paid for”
Ong sought refuge is not applicable in view of the involuntary followed by the true and correct name and address of the
relinquishment of office before the expiration of his term. candidate or party for whose benefit the election
(Same ruling in Rivera III vs. Comelec 523 SCRA ) propaganda was printed or aired.

Aldovino Jr., vs. Comelec 609 SCRA 234 (2009) – Article X, Free of charge – if broadcast is given free of charge the radio
Section 8 – both by structure and substance – fixes an elective and television station, it shall be identified by the words “airtime
official’s term of office and limits his stay in office to 3 for this broadcast was provided free of charge by” followed by
consecutive terms as an inflexible rule that is stressed, no less, the true and correct name and address of the broadcast entity.
by citing voluntary renunciation as an example of a Provided that said print, broadcast donated shall not be
circumvention. The provision should be read in the context of published or printed without the written acceptance of the
interruption of term, NOT in the context of interrupting the candidate or political party which acceptance shall be attached
full continuity of the exercise of the power of the elective to the advertising contract and submitted to the Comelec.
position. The “voluntary renunciation” it speaks of refers only
to the elective official’s involuntary relinquishment of office and Guidelines whether by purchase or donation – Print
loss of title to this office. It does not speak of the temporary advertisements shall not exceed ¼ page in broadsheet and ½
“cessation of the exercise of power or authority” that may page in tabloids 3 x a week per newspaper, magazine or other
occur for various reasons, with preventive suspension publications during the campaign period. (Section 6, RA 9006).
being only one of them. Quoting Latasa – the law
contemplates a rest period during which the local elective Television/Radio Advertisements – nation
official steps down from office and ceases to exercise candidates/registered political party shall be entitled to not
power or authority over the inhabitants of the territorial more than 120 minutes of TV advertisement and 180 minutes
jurisdiction of a particular government unit.” of radio. Local candidates not more than 60 minutes of TV
advertisement and 90 minutes of radio.
DISQUALIFICATION CASES (EFFECTS)
Comelec Time and space – print space, Comelec shall pay
Sec. 72 of the OEC and Section 6 of 6646 states: “any just compensation (PPI ruling) in at least 3 newspapers of
candidate who been declared by final judgment to be general circulation which Comelec shall allocate free of charge
disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him to the national candidates. Broadcast network (radio and TV)
shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not free of charge to Comelec. (Section 8, RA 9006)
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified
and is voted for and received the winning number of votes in Limitations In Broadcasting of Election Accounts –
such election, the Comelec shall continue with the trial and Comelec shall ensure that radio and television or cable
hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the television broadcasting entities shall not allow the scheduling of
complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency any program or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or
thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such oppose any candidate or political party or unduly or repeatedly
candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong.” referring to or including said candidate and/or political party in
such program respecting, however, in all instances the right of
CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA said broadcast entities to air accounts of significant news or
news worthy events and views on matter of public interest.
Election period is 120 days - 90 days before the date of the
election and 30 days thereafter. Campaign period for Pres., Restrictions on Media Practitioners – any mass media
VP and Senators starts 90 days before the date of the columnist, commentator, reporter or non-air correspondent or
election, 45 days for members of the HR and local candidate personality who is a candidate for any elective office or is a
and 15 days for barangay official, which excludes the day campaign volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity
before and the day of the elections. by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if
so required by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence
Prohibited Activities – Section 80 BP881 – Election from his/her work as such during the campaign period. Any
campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. media practitioner who is an official of a political party or
It shall be unlawful for any person whether or not a voter or member of the campaign staff of a candidate or political party
candidate, or for any party or association of persons, to engage shall not use his/her time or space to favor any candidate or
in an election campaign or partisan political activity except political party
during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties No movie, cinematography or documentary portraying
may hold political convention or meetings to nominate their the life or biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in
official candidates within 30 days before the commencement of a theater, television stations or any public forum during the
the campaign period and 45 days for President and Vice- campaign period or those portrayed by an actor or media
President. personality who is himself a candidate.

RA 9006 (Fair Election Law), Section 3. Election propaganda RA 9006, Section 5 Election surveys – refers to the
whether on television, cable television, radio, newspapers or measurements of opinions and perceptions of the voters as
any other medium is hereby allowed for all registered political regards a candidate’s popularity, qualifications, platforms or
parties, national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations matter of public discussion in relation the election, including
participating under the party-list elections and for all bona fide voters’ preference or candidates or publicly discussed issues
candidates seeking national and local positions subject to the during the campaign period. The person or entity who
limitation on authorized expenses of candidates and political publishes a survey is required to include the following
parties, observance of truth in advertising and to the information:
supervision and regulation by the Comelec.
• Name of the person, candidate, party or organization
Requirements for Published or Printed Broadcast Election who commissioned or paid the survey;
Propaganda. RA 9006 now allows paid political

READ RA 9006
28 28
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
29

• Name and address of the person or polling firm from It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive
who conducted the survey any contribution from any of the persons or entities
enumerated herein.
• Period during which the survey was conducted,
methodology used, including the number or individual
ABS-CBN 323 SCRA 811, the SC defined exit polls as a
respondents and the areas from which they were
specie of electoral survey conducted by qualified individuals or
selected and the specific questions asked
groups of individuals for the purpose of determining the
• Margin of error of the survey. probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly
selected voters whom they have voted for, immediately after
The survey together with the raw data gathered to support they have officially cast their ballots. An absolute prohibition is
the conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying and unreasonably restrictive because it effectively prevents the use
verification by the Comelec, or by the registered political party of exit poll data not only for election days of the elections, but
or any Comelec accredited citizen arm. also for long term research. The concern of Comelec of a non-
communicative effect of the exit polls which is disorder and
Posting of Campaign Materials – political parties and party- confusion in the voting centers does not justify a total ban of
list groups may be authorized by the Comelec common poster the exist polls. Comelec should instead set safeguards in
areas for their candidates in not more than 10 public places place for those who intends to conduct exit polls.
such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like,
wherein, candidates can post, display or exhibit election Section 5.5 of RA 9006 (Fair Elections Law)
propaganda. The size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 provides for the requirements for the taking of an exit polls:
x 16 feet or it equivalent. With respect to independent
candidates, may likewise avail of this but the difference is • pollsters shall not conduct their survey within 50
merely on the size which shall not exceed 4 x 6 feet or its meters from the polling place whether said survey is
equivalent. (Section 9, RA 9006) taken in a home, dwelling place and other places;

RA 9189, Section 15 – Regulation of Campaign Abroad – The


• pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing;
use of campaign materials, as well as the limits on campaign • pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse
spending shall be governed b the laws and regulations to answer; and
applicable to the Philippines. • the result of the exit polls may be announced after the
closing of the polls on election day, and must clearly
BP881, Section 95 – Prohibited Contributions. No contribution identify the total number of respondents, and the
for purposes of partisan political activity shall be made directly places where they were taken.. Said announcement
or indirectly by any of the following: shall state that the same is unofficial and does not
(a) Public or private financial institutions: Provided, represent a trend.
however, That nothing herein shall prevent the
making of any loan to a candidate or political SOCIAL WEATHER STATION vs. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496
party by any such public or private financial – This case involved the issue on election surveys. SWS is a
institutions legally in the business of lending private non-stock, non-profit social research institution
money, and that the loan is made in accordance conducting surveys in various fields, including economics,
with laws and regulations and in the ordinary politics, demography and social development, and thereafter,
course of the business; processing, analyzing and publicly reporting the results thereof.
(b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public On the other hand, Kamahalan Publishing Corporation
utility or in possession of or exploiting any publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of general
natural resources of the nation; circulation, which features newsworthy items of information
including election surveys.
(c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contract
or sub-contract to supply the government or any
of its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities,
with goods or services or to perform construction
or other works;
(d) Natural and juridical persons who have been
granted franchises, incentives, exemptions,
allocations or similar privileges or concessions
by the government or any of its divisions,
subdivisions or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
(e) Natural and juridical persons who, within the one
year prior to the date of the election, have been
granted loans or other accommodations in
excess of 100K by the government or any of its
divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities
including government owned or controlled
corporations.
(f) Educational institutions which have received
grants of public funds to no less than 100K;
(g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or
members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines;
(h) Foreigners and foreign corporations.

29 29
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
30

Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin • In the nature of an ex post facto law
the Comelec from enforcing par. 5.4 of RA 9006 which
provides, “Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be • Contrary to the Fair Elections Act
published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys • Invalid due to overbreadth
affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days
before an election”. As to the 1st issue – is Section 32 of Comelec Resolution No.
6520 an invalid exercise of police power? Petitioner argues:
The term “election surveys” is defined in par. 5.1 of the billboards (even if it bears his name) do not at all announce
the law as follows ”Election surveys refer to the measurement his candidacy for any public office nor solicit for such
of opinions and perception of the voters as regards a candidacy from the electorate; they are mere product
candidate’s popularity, qualification, platforms or a matter of endorsements and not election propaganda. Prohibition is not
public discussion in relation to the election, including voters’ within the scope of power of the Comelec.
preference for candidates or publicly discussed issues during
the campaign period”. RULING – police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty,
is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health,
Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an morale, peace, education, good order or safety of the general
election survey throughout the period of the elections both at welfare of the people. The primary objective of the provision
the national and local levels and release to the media the is to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the
results of such survey as well as publish them directly. playing field for candidates of public office, to equalize the
Kamahalan also states that it intends to publish election survey situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand
results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001. and lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by
HELD: Par. 5.4 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in
freedom of speech, expression and the press. It is invalid exposure and publicity on account of their resources and
because it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of popularity. This is a valid reason for the exercise of police
expression and it is a direct and total suppression of a category power as held in the Philippines Press Institute v. Comelec
of expression even though such suppression is only for a case.
limited period, and the governmental interest sought to be
promoted can be achieved by means other than the It is true that when petitioner entered into the contract or
suppression of freedom of expression. agreements to endorse certain products, he acted as a private
individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to
PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING these products. However, when he filed his COC for senator,
the billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan
In Francisco Chavez v. Comelec et. al. G.R. No. 162777 31 political character because the same directly promoted his
August 2004, Chavez brought before the SC a Petition for candidacy. If subject billboards were to be allowed, candidates
Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary for public office whose name and image are used to advertise
injunction as taxpayer and citizen asking the Court to enjoin the commercial products would have more opportunity to make
Comelec from enforcing Section 21 of its Resolution No. 6520 themselves known to the electorate, to the disadvantage of
dated 06 January 2004. (Sec. 32 provides: All propaganda other candidates who do not have the same chance of lending
materials such as posters, streamers, stickers or paintings on their faces and names to endorse popular commercial products
walls and other materials showing the picture or name of a as image models. Similarly, an individual intending to run for
person and all advertisements on print, in radio or on television public office within the next few months, could pay private
showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, who corporations to use him as their image model with the intention
subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a of familiarizing the public with his name and image even before
candidate for public office shall be immediately removed by the start of the campaign period. This, without doubt, would be
said candidate and radio station, print media or television a circumvention of the rule against premature campaigning..
station within 3 days after the effectivity of these implementing
rules; otherwise, he and the said radio station, print media or Section 32 neither violated the non-impairment clause as this
television station shall be presumed to have conducted must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government.
premature campaigning in violation of Sec. 80 of the OEC) Equal opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without
regard to the level of financial resources one may have at his
Chavez on various dates entered in formal agreement disposal, is a vital interest to the public. The SC has stressed
with certain establishment to endorse their products and that contracts affecting public interest contain an implied
pursuant thereto, 3 bill boards were set up on some strategic reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing
areas in Metro Manila. Subsequently on 30 December 2003, legal order. This power can be activated at anytime to change
Chavez filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of the provisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for
Senator. On 06 January 2004, Comelec issued Resolution No. the promotion or protection of the genera; welfare. Such an act
6520 which contained Section 32. Comelec directed Chavez will not militate against the impairment clause. Which is subject
to comply with the said provision and replied how he may have to and limited by the paramount police power.
violated the assailed provision. Another letter was sent
seeking exemption from the application of Section 32, On the issue that Sec. 32 of the Comelec Resolution is in the
considering that the billboard adverted to are mere product nature of an ex post facto law. Not ex post facto – the offense
endorsements and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for as expressly prescribed in Section 32, is the non-removal of
premature campaigning under the rules. the described propaganda materials three (3) days after the
effectivity of the said Resolution. If the candidate for public
Comelec replied by informing him to remove or cover office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the
the said billboards pending the resolution of the Comelec on given period, he shall be liable under Section 80 of the OEC for
his request for exemption. Aggrieved, Chavez sent to the SC premature campaigning. Nowhere is it indicated in the said
via a petition for prohibition seeking the said provision as provision that it shall operate retroactively.
unconstitutional based on the following grounds –
• It was a gross violation of the non-impairment On the issue that the provision was a violation of the Fair
clause Elections Act as billboards are already permitted as lawful
election propaganda. It was ruled that the provision does not
• An invalid exercise of police power

30 30
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
31

prohibit billboards as lawful election propaganda. It only


regulates their use to prevent premature campaigning and to
equalize, as much as practicable, the situation of all candidates
by preventing popular and rich candidates from gaining undue
advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their
(1) The effective date when partisan
political acts become unlawful
resources and popularity. Comelec was only doing its duty
as to a candidate is when the campaign
under the law (Sec. 3 and 13 of the Fair Elections Act on
period starts. Before the start of the
lawful propaganda)
campaign period, the same partisan
political acts are lawful.
Section 80 of the OEC provides “it shall be unlawful for any
person, whether or not a voter or candidate or for any (2) Accordingly, a candidate is liable
party, or association of persons, to engage in an election for an election offense only
campaign or partisan political activity, except during the for acts done during the campaign
campaign period.” period, not before. In other words, election
offenses can be committed by a candidate
Penera v. Comelec 599 SCRA 609. The issue on premature only upon the start of the campaign period.
campaigning was raised. Facts show that Penera and Andanar Before the start of the campaign period,
were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica in the last May 14, such election offenses cannot be committed.
2007 elections. Andanar filed before the Office of the Regional Since the law is clear, the Court has no recourse but
Election Director, Caraga Region, Region XIII, a petition for to apply it. The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and
disqualification against Penera for unlawfully engaging in enacting remedial measures, is not the Court but the
election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the Legislature.
commencement of the campaign period.
(b) Contrary to the assailed Decision, Section
The Petition alleged that on 29 March 2007, a day before the 15, of RA 8436, as amended, does not provide that partisan
start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007, political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period
Penera and her partymates went around the different are unlawful, but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the
barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies and campaign period. Neither does the law state that partisan
requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period
elections. Penera alleged that the charge was not true are temporarily lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of
although having admitted that a motorcade did take place the campaign period. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the
which was simply in accordance with the usual practice in Decision, which defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of
nearby cities and provinces, where the filing of COC was expression and speech, would be void for vagueness.
preceded by a motorcade, which dispersed soon after the
completion of such filing. Penera in her defense cited Barroso © That Section 15 of RA 8436 does not
v. Ampig (385 Phil 2237; 328 SCRA 530) wherein the Court expressly state that campaigning before the start of the
ruled that a motorcade held by candidates during the filing of campaign period is lawful, as the assailed decision asserted, is
their COC’s was not a form of political campaigning. Pending no moment. It is a basic principle of law that any act is lawful
the disqualification case, Penera was proclaimed as winner unless expressly declared unlawful by law. The mere fact that
and assumed office. the law does not declare an act unlawful ipso facto means that
the act is lawful. Thus, there is no need for Congress to
Comelec ruled that Penera engaged in premature campaigning declare in Section 15 of RA 8436 that partisan political
in violation of Section 80 and disqualified Penera from activities before the start of the campaign period is lawful. It is
continuing as a mayoralty candidate. The SC ruled no abuse of sufficient for Congress to state that “any unlawful act or
discretion on the part of the Comelec and held that the conduct omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon
of a motorcade is a form of election campaign or partisan the start of the campaign period.” The only inescapable and
political activity which fall squarely under of Section 79 of the logical result is that the same acts, if done before the start of
OEC. the campaign period, are lawful.

Penera moved for reconsideration arguing that she was not (d) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision
yet a candidate at the time of the supposed premature also reversed Lanot v. Comelec (G.R. No. 164858, 16
campaigning, since under Section 15 of RA 8436 (the law November 2006). Lanot was decided on the ground that one
authorizing the Comelec to use an automated election system who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the
for the process of voting, counting of votes, and start of the campaign period. This ground was based on the
canvasing/consolidating the results of the national and local deliberations of the legislators who explained that the early
elections), as amended by RA 9369, is not officially a candidate deadline for filing COC under RA 8436 was set only to afford
until the start of the campaign period. time to prepare the machine readable ballots, and they
intended to preserve the existing election period, such that one
In granting Penera’s MR, the SC En Banc held that Penera who files his COC to meet the early deadline will still not be
did not engage in premature campaigning and should thus, not considered as a candidate.
be disqualified as a mayoralty candidate. The Court said-
When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress decided to
(a) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision (or expressly incorporate the Lanot doctrine into law, thus, the
the assailed Decision) considered a person who files a provision in Section 15, of RA 8436 that a person who files his
certificate of candidacy already a “candidate” even before the certificate of candidacy shall be considered a candidate only
start of the campaign period. This is contrary to the clear intent at the start of the campaign period. Congress wanted to
and letter of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended, which stated insure that no person filing a certificate of candidacy under the
that a person who files his certificate of candidacy will only early deadline required by the automated election system
be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign would be disqualified or penalized for any partisan political act
period, and unlawful acts or omission applicable to a done before the start of the campaign period. This provision
candidate shall take effect only upon the start of such cannot be annulled by the Court except on the sole ground of
campaign period. In applying the said law – its unconstitutionality. The assailed Decision, however, did not

31 31
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
32

claim that this provision is unconstitutional. In fact, the on election day until the proclamation of the winning
assailed Decision considered the entire Section 15 good law. candidates shall be guilty of an election offense.
Thus, the Decision was self-contradictory – reversing Lanot but
maintaining the constitutionality of the said provision. RA 8436, Section 23 – National Board of Canvassers for
Senators – The chairman and members of the Commission on
Elections sitting en banc, shall compose the national board of
In Lanot vs. Comelec 507 SCRA 114, the Court ruled that
canvassers for senators. It shall canvass the results for
there are two aspects of a disqualification case:
senators by consolidating the results contained in the data
storage devices submitted by the district, provincial and city
boards of canvassers, of those cities which comprise one or
1) Electoral aspect determines whether the offender
more legislative districts. Thereafter, the national board shall
should be disqualified from being a candidate or from proclaim the winning candidates.
holding office. Proceedings are summary in character
and require only clear preponderance of evidence. An Section 30, RA 7166 – Congress as the National Board of
erring candidate may be disqualified even without Canvassers for the election of President and Vice-President:
prior determination of probable cause in a PI. The Determination of Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates
electoral aspect may proceed independently of the of Canvass. –
criminal aspect and vice-versa.

2) Criminal aspect determines whether there is


1) Congress for Pres. & VP (Sec. 4, Article VII)

probable cause to charge a candidate for an election 2) Comelec – Senators and Regional Officials –
offense. If there is probable cause, the Comelec
through its Law Department, files the criminal
3) PBC – Members of the HR and provincial officials
(composed of the PES, Provincial Prosecutor and
information before the proper court. Proceedings
provincial official of the DepEd
before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing
and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to 4) District BOC in each legislative district in MM –
convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the members of the HR and municipal officials
disqualification of the offender, which may even
include disqualification from holding a future public
5) City and MBOC – member of the HR, city and
municipal officials composed of the city or municipal
office.
EO, City Prosecutor and DepEd Superintendent
CANVASSING BODIES
RA 9189, Section 18(4) – A Special Board of Canvassers
composed of a lawyer preferably of the Commission as
Section 221, BP 881/RA 6646, Section 20 - Boards of
chairman, a senior career office from any of the government
Canvassers (Local Boards). There shall be a board of
agencies maintaining a post abroad and, in the absence of
canvassers for each province, city and municipality as follows:
another government officer, a citizen of the Philippines qualified
(a) Provincial Board of Canvassers – The provincial to vote under this Act deputized by the Commission, as vice-
board of canvassers shall be composed of the chairman and member secretary, respectively, shall be
provincial election supervisor or a lawyer in the constituted to canvass election returns submitted to it by the
regional office of the Commission, as chairman, Special Boards of Elections Inspectors. Xxx xxx “The
the provincial fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the Certificates of Canvass and the accompanying Statements of
provincial superintendent of schools as member. Votes as transmitted via facsimile, electronic mail and any
other means of transmission equally safe, secure and reliable
(b) City Board of Canvassers – The city board of
shall be the primary basis for the national canvass.
canvassers shall be composed of the city
election registrar or a lawyer of the Commission,
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES, STATEMENT OF VOTES,
as chairman, the city fiscal, as vice-chairman,
ELECTION RETURNS AND DISTRIBUTION
and the city superintendent of schools, as
member. In cities with more than one election
Certificate of Votes – is an election document issued by the
registrar, the Commission shall designate the
BEI’s after the counting and announcement of the results and
election registrar as chairman.
before leaving the polling place upon request of the accredited
(c) Municipal Board of Canvassers. – The municipal watcher. It shall contain the number of votes obtain by each
board of canvassers shall be composed of the candidate written in words and figures, precinct #, name of the
election registrar or a representative of the city or municipality signed and thumb marked by each member
Commission, as chairman, the municipal of the board.
treasurer, as vice-chairman and the most senior
district school supervisor or in his absence a Typoco vs. Comelec 614 SCRA 391 – In Garay v. Comelec
principal of the school district or the elementary 261 SCRA 222 (1996) the Court held that “(a) certificate of
school, as member. votes does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and
genuine results of the election; only election returns are,
The proceedings of the board of canvassers shall be open pursuant to Sections 231, 233-236 and 238 of BP881.” Again
and public. in De Guzman v. Comelec 426 SCRA 698 (2004) the Court
stated that, in an election contest where the correctness of the
BP881, Section 222. Relationship with Candidates and number of votes is involved, the best and most conclusive
other members of the Board. The chairman and the evidence are the ballots themselves; where the ballots can nor
members of the boards of canvassers shall not be related be produced or are not available, the election returns would
within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of be the best evidence.”
the candidates whose votes will be canvassed by the said
board, or to any member of the same board. Doromal vs. Biron/Comelec 613 SCRA 160 (2010) – the
certificate of votes, which contains the number of votes
BP881, Section 224. Feigned Illness. Any member of the obtained by each candidate, is issued by the BEI upon the
board of canvassers feigning illness in order to be substituted request of the duly accredited watcher pursuant to Section 16

32 32
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
33

of RA 6646. Relative to its evidentiary value, Section 17 of • loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
RA 6646 provides that Sections 235 and 236 of BP 881 records,
notwithstanding, the Certificate of Votes shall be admissible in
evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any • FM and other analoguous circumstances of such a
anomaly committed in the preparation of the election returns nature that the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should
concerned, when duly authenticated by at least two members become impossible in any political subdivision.
of the BEI who issued the certificate. Failure to present the CV
shall however not bar the presentation of other evidence to Jurisdiction - the Commission en banc may “motu propio or
impugn the authenticity of the ER. It cannot be a valid basis of upon a verified petition by any interested party, and after due
canvass. notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded
equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election to a
Purpose of requiring authentication of at least 2 members of date which is reasonably close to the date of the election not
the BOC – to safeguard the integrity of the certificate from the held, suspended or which resulted to a failure to elect but not
time it is issued by the BEI to the watcher after the counting of later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such
votes at the precinct level up to the time that it is presented to postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
the board of canvassers to proved tampering.
Sec. 6 on the other hand, prescribes the conditions
for the exercise of the power to declare a Failure of Elections.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VOTES As reiterated in Dibaratun vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 367, citing
Banaga Jr. v. Comelec 336 SCRA 701 (2000) also in
Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 517 - to declare a failure
• Prevent or deter the members of the BEI or other
of elections, either of these three (3) instances should be
official from altering the statement because they know present conformably with Section 6 of the OEC –
of the existence of such certificate
• To advise the candidate definitely of the number of his • the election in any polling place has not been held on
votes so that in case the election statement submitted the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence,
to the BOC does not tally with the certificate in his terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes;
hands, he may ask that the other authentic copies of
the same be used for the canvass • the election in any polling place has been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of voting
• To serve as evidence of fraud in election protest
on account of FM, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
cases and in subsequent prosecution of the election causes
offenses against those liable therefore.
• after the voting and during the preparation and
Statement of Votes – is a tabulation per precinct of the votes transmission of the ER or in the custody of canvass
obtained by the candidates or reflected in the ER. thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on
the same grounds.
Certificate of Canvass – is based on the SV and which serves
as basis for proclamation. Based on the foregoing provisions, two (2) conditions must
concur to declare a failure of elections –
DISPOSITION OF ELECTION RETURNS
• no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned
Election Returns and Distribution – RA 8173 amending Section on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting
27 of RA 7166, provides that in the election for Pres., VP, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect
Senators and members of the HR, the ER shall be distributed and
as follows -
• the votes not cast would affect the results of the
• 1st CBO or MBOC elections (Carlos. V. Angeles)
• 2nd congress, directed to the Pres. of the Senate
In the same case of Coquilla v. Comelec, the SC stressed
• 3rd Comelec
that “what is common in these three instances is the resulting
• 4th Dominant majority party as may be determined by failure to elect. In the first instance, no election was held, while
the Comelec in accordance with law in the second, the election is suspended. In the third instance,
• 5th Dominant minority party as may be determined by circumstances attending the preparation, transmission, custody
Comelec in accordance with law or canvas of the election returns cause a failure to elect. And,
the term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner.”
• 6th Citizens Arms authorized by the Comelec to
conduct an unofficial count to be deposited inside the
Procedural Rules - On the basis of a verified petition by any
ballot box.
interested party and after due notice and hearing, the Comelec
may call for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
For Local officials – (1) CBOB or MBOC (2) Comelec (3) PBOC
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
(4) DMP (5) DMP (6) Citizen’s Arms for unofficial count (7)
reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
inside ballot box.
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
Petition to Declare a postponement, failure or annulment
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
of elections and call for a special elections in accordance
with Sections 5,6, & 7 of the OEC as amended by Sec. 4 of
Sec. 4 of RA 7166 (An Act Providing for the Synchronized
RA 7166.
National and Local Elections) provides that any declaration of
postponement, failure of election and calling for a special
Sec. 5 of the OEC provides for the grounds for
elections as provided in Section 5,6, & 7 shall be decided by
declaring a postponement of elections that is when for -
the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its
• any serious cause such as violence, members. This power is exclusively vested in the Comelec as
• terrorism, ruled in the case of Sanchez v. Comelec 193 SCRA 849.

33 33
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
34

In Basher, the fact that an election is actually held


Loong v. Comelec 257 SCRA 1, a petition to declare failure prevents as a rule, a declaration of failure of elections, the
of elections/annulment of elections on the ground of massive Court, however, can annul an election if it finds that the
fraud in some municipalities was filed before proclamation.. election is attended with patent and massive irregularities
Comelec dismissed the petition for having been filed out of and illegalities. In this case, after a series of failed elections
time since it was filed only after petitioners realized that the in Brgy. Maidan, Municipality of Tugaya, Lanao del Sur during
annulment of election will wipe out their lead. HELD: It was the 1997 Brgy. Elections, the election was reset to 30 August
ruled that the Comelec Resolution dismissing the petition was 1997. Due to the prevailing tension in the locality, the voting
arbitrary as no law provided for a reglementary period within started only at around 9 p.m. and lasted until the early morning
which to file a petition for annulment of elections if there is no of the following day. Basher filed a petition for the nullification
proclamation yet. of the election which was dismissed by the Comelec on the
ground that actual voting had taken place. The SC
Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512, Canicosa filed with the overturned the Comelec ruling because the election was
Comelec a Petition to declare failure of elections and to declare unauthorized and invalid. The electorate was not given
null and void the canvass and proclamation based on the sufficient notice that the election would push through after
following grounds (names of the RV did not appear on the list, 9pm of the same day. Moreover, the voting did not comply
padlocks were not self locking among other) which was with the procedure laid down by the Comelec in its Resolution.
dismissed by the Comelec en banc on the ground that the
allegations therein did not justify the declaration of failure of Banaga Jr. vs. Comelec 336 SCRA 701, the fact that a
elections. verified petition has been filed does not mean that a hearing on
the case should first be held before Comelec can act on it. The
Canicosa insists that itswas error on the part of petition must show on its face that the conditions necessary to
Comelec sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it should have declare a failure of elections are present.
first been heard by a division. The SC held that the matter
relating to the declaration of failure of elections or the Ampatuan et. al. v. Comelec/Candao, et. al., G.R. No.
allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise of 149803, January 31, 2002, private respondents filed a petition
QJ or adjudicatory functions. It involves an administrative for declaration of failure of elections in several municipalities in
function which pertains to the enforcement and administration Maguindanao. During the pendency of the hearing of said
of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. petition, the Comelec proclaimed petitioners as winners for the
position of governor, vice-governor and board members.
Pasandalan vs. Comelec, et. al., G.R. No. 150312 July 18,
2002, the SC held that a petition for declaration of failure of Thereafter, the Comelec issued an order directing the
elections is an “extraordinary remedy” and therefore the continuation of the hearing on the failure of elections and
petition must specifically allege the essential grounds that issued an order outlining the procedure to be followed in the
would justify the same. Otherwise, the Comelec can technical examination. Petitioners, relying on the case of
dismiss the petition outright for lack of merit and no grave Typoco, Jr. v. Comelec, contended that by virtue of their
abuse of discretion can be attributed to it. The Comelec is proclamation, the only remedy left for private respondents is to
mandated to exercise this power with utmost circumspect to file an election protest, in which case, original jurisdiction lies
prevent disenfranchising voters and frustrating the electorate’s with the regular courts and that Comelec no longer has
well.” jurisdiction to conduct a technical examination as it would
defeat the summary nature of a petition for declaration of
In this case, Pasandalan filed a petition for failure of elections citing several rulings that an election protest
declaration of failure of election on the ground that while voting is the proper remedy for a losing candidate after the
was going on Cafgu’s indiscriminately fired their firearms proclamation of the winning candidates.
causing the voters to panic and leave the polling places without
casting their votes and taking advantage of the situation, the ISSUE: whether the Comelec was divested of its
supporters of his opponent took the official ballots and filled jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition for declaration of
them up with his name, the BEI’s failed to affix their initials at failure of elections after the winners have already been
the back of several official ballots. Pasandalan , on the basis proclaimed. HELD: It was ruled that the fact that the a
of the affidavits of his own poll watchers, insists that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the
technical examination of the official ballots in the Comelec of its authority to annul any canvass and illegal
contested precincts be made which would show that only proclamation. In this case, it cannot be assumed that the
a few persons wrote the entries, citing the case of Typoco proclamation of petitioners was legal precisely because the
v. Comelec 319 SCRA 498 and Basher v. Comelec 330 conduct by which the elections were held was put in issue by
SCRA 736. respondents in their petition for annulment of election results
and/or declaration of failure of elections. The cases relied
The SC held that the Comelec is not mandated to conduct a upon by petitioners that an election protest is the proper
technical examination before it dismisses a petition for remedy for a losing candidate after proclamation of the winning
nullification of election when the petition is, on its face, without candidate involved pre-proclamation controversies.
merit. In the case of Typoco, petitioner buttressed his petition
with independent evidence that compelled the Comelec to The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v. Comelec that “
conduct a technical examination of the questioned returns. a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an
Typoco filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a action for annulment of election results, or failure of
substantial number of election returns were manufactured and elections”. In pre-proclamation cases, the Comelec is
claimed that the returns were prepared by only one person restricted to an examination of the election returns on their face
based on the report of a licensed examiner of questioned and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and
documents who examined copies of the election returns. investigate election irregularities. The Comelec is duty-bound
Pasandalan failed to attach independent and objective to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other
evidence other than the self-serving affidavits of his own poll analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results
watchers. or for declaration of failure of elections conformably with the
OEC. Accordingly, the Comelec, in the case of actions for
annulment of election results or declaration of failure of

34 34
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
35

elections, may conduct technical examination of election second type refers to ruling on questions contesting
documents and compare and analyze voters’ signatures and ER. The party adversely affected must immediately
thumbprints in order to determine whether or not the elections inform the board that he intends to appeal from the
had indeed been free, honest and clean. ruling and the board shall enter said information in the
minutes of the canvass and within 48 hours from the
Borja, Jr. v. Comelec 260 SCRA 604, a petition for ruling, the adverse party must file with the board a
declaration of failure of elections and to nullify the canvass and written and verified notice of appeal, and within an
proclamation was filed by Borja wherein he alleged that there unextendible period of 5 days thereafter, he has to
was lack of notice of the date and time of canvass, there was take the appeal to the Comelec
fraud in the conduct of the elections as several voters were
disenfranchised, presence of flying voters and unqualified • in petitions directly filed with it.
members of the BEI. The Comelec dismissed the petition
ruling that the grounds relied upon by Borja were ground Macabago v. Comelec 392 SCRA 178 – it was held that
proper only in an election contest. SC upheld the decision of issues in a PPC is properly limited to challenges aimed against
the Comelec. the BOC and proceedings before said board relative to
particular ER to which respondent should have made particular
verbal objections subsequently reduced in writing.
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
BP 881 Section 243.Comelec Rules of Procedure Rule 27
BP 881, Section 242 – The Commission shall have exclusive (4) - SCOPE/ISSUES that may be raised in a PRE-
jurisdiction of all pre=proclamation controversies. It may motu PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
propio and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or
total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or
annual partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been • Illegal composition or proceedings of the BOC
made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with the
succeeding sections.
• The canvassed ER are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with, or falsified or
contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other
Matalam v. Comelec 271 SCRA 733/BP 881 – a pre-
authentic copies as mentioned in Sec. 233-236
proclamation controversy is defined, as a general rule, any
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the BOC • The ER were prepared under duress, threats,
which may be raised by any candidate or any registered coercion or intimidation or they are obviously
political party or coalition of political before the board or directly manufactures or not authentic – in Ocampo v.
with the Comelec, on any matter raised under Sections 233 Comelec 235 SCRA 436, it was held that this fact
(when ER are delayed, lost or destroyed), 234 (material must be evident from the face of the said document.
defects in the ER), 235 (when ER appear to be tampered In the absence of a strong evidence establishing
with or falsified) and 236 (discrepancies in the ER) of the spuriousness of the returns, the basic rule is that the
OEC in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, ER shall be accorded prima facie status as bona fide
custody and appreciation of the ER and Certificate of reports of the results of the count of the votes which
Canvass. shall prevail for purposes of canvassing and
proclamation.
Section 17, RA 6646, questions affecting the composition or
proceedings of the BOC may be initiated with the board or • When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted
directly with the Comelec. However, matters raised under Sec. polling places are canvassed, the result of which
233 to 236 shall be brought in the first instance before the BOC materially affect the standing of the aggrieved
only. candidate. (Sec. 243)

EXCEPTIONS: Section 15 of RA 7166 provides that for PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN A Pre-PROCLAMATION


purposes of the elections for Pres. and VP, Senators and CONTROVERSY
members of the HR, no Ppcases shall be allowed on matters
relating the P,T,R,C, and A of the ER or the certificate of Sec. 20 of RA 7166 (repealing Sec. 245 OEC)
canvass, as the case may be. HOWEVER, this does not provides for the mandatory two-step rule or requirement of
preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu verbal objection to the inclusion of the ER and to be formalized
proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to in writing within 24 hours. Failure to observe such rule is fatal
correct manifest error in the certificate of canvass or ER before to a candidate’s cause, leaving him with no other remedy
it. except an EP. This cannot be cured by instituting a petition
directly filed with the Comelec under Sec. 241
Sano Jr. vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 475 – It is settled that a pre-
proclamation controversy is summary in character; indeed, it is Sandoval v. Comelec 323 SCRA 407, it was stressed that
a policy of the law that pre-proclamation be promptly decided, Comelec exercises exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio
so as not to delay canvass and proclamation. The board of or upon verified petition, and after due notice and hearing,
canvassers will not look into allegations of irregularity that are order the partial or total suspension of the proclamation of the
not apparent on the face of ER’s that appear otherwise candidate elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if
authentic and duly accomplished. one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in
accordance with Sec. 242 of the OEC.
Authority of the Comelec in PPC – the Commission exercises
authority to decide PPC in two instances – Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713 – a PPC is summary in
nature, administrative in character and which is filed before the
• in appeals from the ruling of the BOC which is BOC. It was ruled that while it is true that RA 7166 provides for
generally of two types first type are n questions summary proceedings in PP cases and does not require a trial
contesting its composition or proceedings and appeal type hearing, nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be
therefrom must be taken by the contestant adversely stretched as to mean ex-parte proceedings.
affected within 3 days from such ruling .and the

35 35
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
36

In Velayo case, respondent objected to the inclusion of two


(2)ER’s which did not contain a vote for respondent being ELECTION PROTEST
statistically improbable which was overruled by the BOC. It was
ruled that it is possible for a candidate to get zero votes in one An EP is a special statutory proceedings designed to
or few precincts. The bare fact that a candidate receive zero contest the right of a person, declared elected to enter upon
votes in 1 or 2 precincts can not support a finding that the ER and hold office. It is strictly a contest between the defeated
are statistically improbable. (Exception to the Lagumbay and winning candidates as to who actually obtained the
Doctrine) majority of the legal votes and therefore, is entitled to hold
office.
Lagumbay v. Comelec 16 SCRA 175 (1966) - The
Lagumbay doctrine is the prevailing case on statistical NATURE OF PROCEEDING - It is a formal judicial
improbability which states that where there exists uniformity of proceedings that goes into the correctness of the counting and
tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party and the appreciation of ballots at the precinct level were the parties are
systematic blanking out of the opposing candidates as when all allowed to present and examine evidence in detail.
the candidates of one party received all the votes, each of
whom exactly the same number, and the opposing candidates WHO CAN FILE – can only be filed by a candidate who has
got zero votes, the election returns are obviously duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for.
manufactures, contrary to al statistical improbabilities and
utterly improbable and clearly incredible. PERIOD TO FILE – within 10 days from proclamation

In Ocampo v. Comelec 325 SCRA 636, it was reiterated that if GROUNDS – fraud, vote-buying, terrorism, presence of flying
only one candidate obtained all the votes in some precincts, voters, misreading and misappreciation of the ballots,
this is not sufficient to make the election returns statistically disenfranchisement of voters, other election irregularities.
improbable.
Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez v. Eufrocino C. Codilla/ 668
Imelda Dimaporo vs. Comelec/Vicente Belmonte 544 SCRA SCRA 600 (2012)
381 - (Sec. 15 of RA 7166) provides that for the purpose of
the elections for president, VP, senator & member of the HR, Verification – (Defective verification) The verification of a
no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating pleading is only a formal, not jurisdictional requirement. The
to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and purpose of requiring the verification is to secure an assurance
appreciation of ER or the certificate of canvass, as the case that the allegations in the petition are true and correct, not
may be, except as provided for in Sec. 30 hereof. However, merely speculative. This requirements is simply a condition
this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate affecting the form of pleadings, and non compliance therewith
canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of an does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.
interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of
canvass or ER before it). Nature of Election controversy – An election controversy, by
its nature, touches upon the ascertainment of the people’s
Rommel Munoz vs. Comelec, Carlos Balido Jr. 495 SCRA choice as gleaned from the medium of the ballot. For this
407 - “Results of the Elections” Defined – the phrase “results reason, an election protest should jibe resolved with utmost
of the election” is not statutorily defined. However, as dispatch, precedence and regard of due process. Obstacles
explained in Lucero v. Comelec it means “the net result of the and technicalities that fetter the people’s will should not stand
election the rest of the precincts in a given constituency, such in the way of a prompt determination of election contests.
that if the margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest Thus, rules on the verification of protests should be liberally
rival in the latter precincts is less than the total number of votes construed.
in the precinct where there was failure of election, than such
failure would certainly affect “the results of the elections.” Court upheld the jurisdiction of HRET as the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
EFFECT OF ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE OF CANDIDATE the member of the HRET.
ELECT/WHEN PPC IS NOT DEEMED TERMINATED – A pre-
proclamation controversy is no longer viable after the Salvador D. Viologo, Sr., v. Comelec 658 SCRA 516 (2011)
proclamation of the winning candidates as the issues raised
therein may be more closely examined and better resolved in Facts: Motion for reconsideration was denied by Comelec en
an EP. (RA 7166, Section 16 (2)). banc for lack of verification as required by Section 3, Rule 20 of
the Comelec Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated
However, this is only true where the proclamation is based on a Election System and Section 3, Rule 19 of CRP.
complete canvass and on the assumption that the proclamation
is valid where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject liberal
is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s construction. In Quintos v. Comelec (440 Phil. 1045; 392
assumption of office cannot deprive the Comelec of the power SCRA 489 (2002)), this Court held that “the lack of verification
to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. of private respondent’s Manifestation and Motion for Partial
Reconsideration is merely a technicality that should not defeat
Section 16 of RA 7166 provides that all-pre- the will of the electorate. The Comelec may liberally construe
proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be or even suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice,
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of office including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matter pending
involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned before the Comelec.”
shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a
regular election protest by the aggrieved party. HOWEVER, Nature of Election Protest: In Pacanan v. Comelec 597
proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence SCRA 189 (2009), the Court, in clarifying the mandated liberal
thus far presented, the Commission determines that the construction of election laws held: An election contest, unlike
petition appears meritorious and accordingly issued an order an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public interest. The
for the proceedings to continue or when appropriate order has purpose of an election protest is to ascertain that the candidate
been issued by the SC in a petition for certiorari proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of

36 36
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
37

the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of restraining order because it ordered Repol to cease and desist
votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning from assuming the position of municipal mayor of Pagsanghan,
candidate. An election contest therefore involves not only the Samar and directed Ceracas to assume the post in the
adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival meantime. Since the status quo ante Order, which was
candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public qualified by the phrase “until further orders from this
concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty Commission.” Had a lifespan of more than 20 days, this Order
over the real choice of the electorate. And the court has the clearly violates the rule that a temporary restraining Order has
corresponding duty to ascertain, by all means within its an effective period of only 20 days and automatically expires
command, who is the real candidate elected by the people. upon the Comelec’s denial of preliminary injunction.”

Moreover, the CRP are subject to a liberal construction. This Ceriaco Bulilis v. Victorino Nuez, Presiding Judge of
liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and MCTC, Ubay Bohol, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 52,
efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the Talibon, Bohol 655 SCRA 241 (2011) - Facts: Bulilis was
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections proclaimed winner for the elections for punong barangay.
and for achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive Opponent Victorino Nuez filed an EP (for judicial recount and
determination and disposition of every action and proceeding annulment of proclamation) with MCTC. The counsel of Bulilis
brought before the Comelec. filed his brief at 1:45pm on the date of preliminary conference
and when the case was heard at 2pm, Nuez moved in open
This principle was reiterated in the more recent consolidated court to be allowed to present evidence ex parte since Bulilis
cases of Tolentino v. Comelec 617 SCRA 575 (2010) and De only filed his brief on the date of the preliminary conference
Castro vs. Comelec 617 SCRA 575, where the Court held that which is contrary to Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. No. 08-4-15-SC
in exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its which provides that the brief should be filed at least one (1) day
mandate to ptoetect the integrity of elections, the Comelec before the date of the preliminary conference. Judge Garces
“must not be straijackedted by procedural rules in resolving granted the motion.
election disputes.”
Bulilis filed MR which was denied by MCTC. Bulilis filed
Douglas R. Cagas v. Comelec/Bautista 663 SCRA 644 certiorari with RTC which was dismissed on the ground that it
(2012) - The Court has no power to review on certiorari an is Comelec that has exclusive jurisdiction in election cases
interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a involving municipal and barangay officials. Hence, the petition
Division of the Comelec. The governing provision is Section for certiorari with the SC.
7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: Section
7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its (Rule 28, Sections 1 and 2 of CRP/Section 12 Amendments to
Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court/Section 8, Rule
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A 14 of Comelec CRP ). Based on these rules, the Court
case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution recognizes the Comelec’s appellate jurisdiction over petitions
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum for certiorari against all acts or omissions of courts in election
required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission cases. Indeed, in the recent case of Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo
itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, 643 SCRA 631 (2011), the Court had the opportunity to rule
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be that a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved a trial court in an electoral protest was within the appellate
party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. This jurisdiction of the Comelec.
provision, although it confers on the Court the power to review
any decision, order or ruling of the Comelec, limits such power Since it is the Comelec which has jurisdiction to take
to a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc and cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the RTC in
does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a Division election contests involving elective municipal officials (Sec. 8
of the Comelec. Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to Rule 14 CRP), then it is also the Comelec which has
review on certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate
resolution issued by a Division of the Comelec. jurisdiction.

Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec/Dante Tinga 648 Although Galang involved a petition for certiorari of an
SCRA 561 (2011) – The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction interlocutory order of the RTC in a municipal election contest,
to review an order, whether final or interlocutory even a the rationale for the above ruling applied to an interlocutory
final resolution of a division of the Comelec – the Court can order issued by a municipal trial court in a barangay election
only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the case. Under Rule 14, Section 8 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,
Comelec en banc in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of decisions of municipal trial courts in election contests involving
the Constitution, a rule which admits of exceptions as when the barangay officials are appealed to the Comelec. Following
issuance of the assailed interlocutory order is a patent nullity the Galang doctrine, it is the Comelec which has
because of the absence of jurisdiction to issue the same. jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari involving acts of
(Court made reference to the case of Repol v. Comelec 428 the municipal trial courts in such election contests.
SCRA 321 (2004) which was affirmed in Soriano Jr. v.
Comelec 520 SCRA 88 (2007) and Blanco v. Comelec 554 ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR v. COMELEC AND DAN
SCRA 755. Ruling in Soriano. . . “In the 2004 case of Repol ERASMO, SR. 674 SCRA 530 (2012)
v. Comelec, the Court cited Ambil and held that this Court has
no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even Demarcation line between the jurisdiction of the Comelec
a final resolution of a division of the Comelec. However, the and the House of Representatives: Facts: In May 2007
Court held that an exception to this rule applies where the Jalosjos ran for Mayor of Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte
commission of grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its and won. While serving as Tampilisan Mayor, he bought a
face. In Repol, what was assailed was a status quo ante Order residential house and lot in Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil,
without any time limit, and more than 20 days had lapsed since Zamboanga Sibugay and occupied it in September 2008.
its issuance without the Comelec First Division issuing a writ of Eight months after, he applied with the ERB of Ipil, Zamboanga
preliminary injunction. The Court held that the status quo ante Sibugay for the transfer of his voters registration record which
Order of the Comelec First Division was actually a temporary application was opposed by Erasmo in a petition for exclusion

37 37
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
38

before the MCTC of Ipil-Tungawan. RTC ruled to exclude The distinction been an EP and QW as a remedy is
Jalosjos on the ground that Jalosjos did not abandon his not the label given to it but the allegations therein stated. If a
domicile im Tampilisan since he continue even then to serve as petition alleges fraud and irregularity which vitiated the conduct
its Mayor. Jalosjos appealed his case to the RTC of Pagadian of the election, although entitled QW, is an EP and vice versa.
City which affirmed the MCTC decision on September 11, In view of these fundamental differences, an EP and QW
2009. Jalosjos elevated the matter to the CA through a petition cannot be availed of jointly in the same proceeding. They may
for certiorari with an application for the issuance of a writ of be filed separately with the second and later case suspended
preliminary injunction which was granted and enjoined the until the earlier is resolved. An action for QW cannot be
courts below from enforcing their decisions, with the result that converted into an EP.
his name was reinstated in the Barangay Veterans Village’s list
pending the resolution of the petition. Penera vs. Comelec 599 SCRA 609, is the well-established
principle that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority
On November 28, 2009, Jalosjos filed his CoC for the position votes does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest
of representative of the Second District of Zamboanga number of votes to be declared elected. In this case, the rules
Sibugay for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a on succession under Section 44 of the Local Government
Petition to deny due course to or cancel his CoC before the Code shall apply which states that” if a permanent vacancy
Comelec, claiming that Jalosjos made material occurs in the office of the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor concerned
misrepresentations in his CoC when he indicated in it that he shall become the mayor. A permanent vacancy arises when
resided in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. The Second Division of an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to
the Comelec issued a joint reso dismissing the petition of assume office, fails to qualify or is removed from office,
Erasmo for insufficiency in form and substance. While voluntarily resigned, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated
Erasmo’s MR was pending before the Comelec En Banc, the to discharge the functions of his office.”
May 10, 2010 elections took place resulting in Jalosjos winning
the elections and was proclaimed on May 13, 2010. (Virgnio Villamor vs. Comelec & Amytis de Dios-Batao 496
SCRA 334) As a general rule, the proper remedy after the
In June 2, 2010, the CA rendered judgment in the voter’s proclamation of the winning candidate for the position
exclusion case before it holding that the lower courts erred in contested would be to file a regular election protest or a
excluding Jalosjos since he was qualified under the petition for QW. The filing of an EP or a petition for QW
Constitution and RA 8189. Erasmo filed a petition for review of precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation
the CA decision before the SC. On the other hand, Comelec controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier
en banc granted the MR of Erasmo and declared Jalosjos filed, thus, depriving the Comelec of the authority to inquire into
ineligible as he did not satisfy the residency requirement since, and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his
by continuing to hold the position of Mayor in Tampilisan, he proclamation. The reason is that once the competent tribunal
should be deemed not to have transferred his residence form has acquired jurisdiction of an EP or a petition for QW, all
that place to Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case
itself and not in another proceedings. This procedure is to
While the Constitution vests in the Comelec the power to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
decide all questions affecting elections, such power is not
without limitation. It does not extend to contests relating to the Basarte vs. Comelec 523 SCRA 76 – The prevailing rule that
election, returns, and qualifications of members of the HR and as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly
the Senate. The Constitution vests the resolution of these accomplished on their face, the BOC cannot look beyond or
contests solely upon the appropriate Electoral Tribunal of the behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting
Senate or the HR. or the counting of the votes as it presupposes that the returns
“appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face”.
The Court has already settled the question of when the This principle does not apply in cases like the one at bar where
jurisdiction of the Comelec ends and when that of the HRET there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine,
begins. The proclamation of a congressional candidates several entries having been omitted in the assailed return.
following the election divests Comelec of jurisdiction over
disputes relating to the election, returns and qualifications of JURSIDCITON OVER ELECTION PROTESTS AND QUO
the proclaimed Representative in favor of HRET. WARRANTO
1) SUPREME COURT – sitting en banc as Presidential
QUO WARRANTO Electoral Tribunal as sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualification of Pres. and VP. Protest to
A petition for Quo Warranto refers to questions of disloyalty or be filed 30 days from proclamation. Not subject to judicial
ineligibility of the winning candidate. It has the effect of review (1987 Constitution). Joke on Supreme Court body.
disqualifying a candidate to hold office to which he is elected.
Its primordial objective is to prevent an elective official from 2) SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL – for members of
assuming office grounded on ineligibility. (Sec. 253 OEC) senate as sole judge over all contest relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of its own members. Filed within 15
NATURE OF PROCEEDING – it is a proceeding to unseat the days from date of proclamation. Not subject to judicial review
ineligible person from office, but not to install the protestant in except on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
his place. excess of jurisdiction. (1987 Constitution)
WHO CAN FILE – any voter. 3) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
PERIOD TO FILE - within 10 days from proclamation TRIBUNAL – for members of HR to be filed within 10 days
from proclamation.
Republic v. dela Rosa 232 SCRA 785, a QW assailing the
public official’s title and seeking to prevent him from holding Composition - Each electoral tribunal shall be composed of
office for alienage is not covered by the 10-days period for nine members, three of whom shall be justices of the SC to be
appeal prescribed in Section 253 of the OEC. designated by the CJ and the remaining 6 members of the
senate or HR, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the
basis of their proportional representation from the political

38 38
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
39

parties and the parties or organizations registered under the


party list system,. Senior justice shall be chairman (Art. VI, The authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-
Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution) . proclamations controversies is vested with a division and the
Comelec sitting en banc does not have the authority over it in
4) COMELEC – for regional, provincial and city officials filed in the first instance. The Comelec en banc can exercise
10 days. Subject to judicial review within 30 days from date of jurisdiction only on Motions for Reconsideration of the
receipt of decision by aggrieved party. resolution or decision of the Comelec in division as a
requirement for the filing of a petition for certiorari by the
Article IX-C, Section 2(2) 1987 Constitution, Comelec aggrieved party with the SC within 30 days from receipt of
shall “Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all contests a copy thereof (Sec. 3 Art. IX-C).
relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all
elective, regional, provincial and city officials, and appellate Sec. 2 Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure a motion
jurisdiction over all contests involving municipal officials to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation
elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited thereof. Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution
jurisdictions. Decisions, final order, or rulings of the for implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling
Commission, on election contests involving elective municipal and would in effect, suspend the running of the period to
and barangay offices shall be final, executory and not elevate the matter to the SC (Sec.4).
appealable.”
5) REGIONAL TRIAL COURT – exclusive jurisdiction over all
Mendoza v. Comelec 616 SCRA 443 – There is a difference in contests relating to the election, qualifications and returns for
the result of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Comelec over municipal officials. Protest to be filed 10 days from date of
election contests. The difference inheres in the kind of proclamation. Subject to appeal with Comelec within five (5)
jurisdiction invoked, which in turn, is determined by the case days from receipt of decision. Decisions of the Comeledc en
brought before the Comelec. When a decision of a trial court is banc on contest on appeal involving municipal and barangay
brought before the Comelec for it to exercise appellate officials are final and executory except on grounds of grave
jurisdiction, the division decides the appeal but, if there is a abuse of discretion within 30 days.
motion for reconsideration, the appeal proceeds to the banc
where the majority is needed for a decision. If the process 6) MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT – exclusive jurisdiction over all
ends without the required majority at the banc, the appealed contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications for
decision stands affirmed. barangay officials. Protest to be filed within 10 days from
proclamation. Appeal to the Comelec within 5 days from
Upon the other hand, and this is what happened in the instant receipt of the decision.
case, if what is brought before the Comelec is an original
protest involving the original jurisdiction of the Commission, the Calo v. Comelec 610 SCRA 342/Pecson v. Comelec 575
protest, as one whole process, is first decided by the division, SCRA 634 – decisions of the courts in election protest cases,
which process is continued in the banc if there is a motion for resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and
reconsideration of the division ruling. If no majority decision is a full blown adversarial proceedings. Should at least be given
reach in the banc, the protest, which is an original, shall be similar worth and recognition as decisions of the board of
dismissed. There is no first instance decision that can be canvassers. This is especially true when attended by other
deemed affirmed. equally weighty circumstances of the case, such as the
shortness of the term of the contested elective office, of the
Hence, if no decision is reached after the case is reheard, case.
there are two different remedies available to the Comelec, to
wit (1) dismiss the action or proceeding, if the case was Mananzala vs. Comelec and Julie Monton 523 SCRA 31. -
originally commenced in the Comelec; or (2) consider as Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Election
affirmed the judgment or order appealed from, in appealed contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall
cases. This rule adheres to the constitutional provision that the be final, executory and not appealable; All such election cases
Comelec must decide by a majority of all its members. shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions
for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Relampagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690 (1995) and in Carlos Commission en banc.
v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571 (2000), Comelec is vested with the
power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus A decision of the RTC was raised on appeal which was heard
only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction consistent with Section by the 2nd division which reversed the decision of the RTC. In
50 of BP 881 and Article 2(1) of the Constitution. These ruling his MR petitioner argues that the MR filed with the former 2nd
abandoned the earlier ruling in Garcia vs. de Jesus 206 SCRA division “has thrown the whole case wide open for review
779. It was also declared that both the SC and Comelec has as in a trial de novo in a criminal case” yet Comelec en
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition banc failed to conduct a thorough review of the contested
and mandamus over decision of trial courts of general ballots. Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as
jurisdiction (RTC) in election cases involving elective municipal criminal cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the
officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise trial court, the whole case is thrown open for review and the
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. (Art. VIII 5(1) 1987 appellate court can resolve issues which are not even set forth
Constitution, Rule 65, Sec. 1) in the pleadings.

Section 7, Article IX-A and Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Coquilla vs. Comelec, et. al. G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002,
Procedure. The Comelec in the exercise of its QJ functions to the SC resolved the issue on whether the 30-day period for
transact business “may sit en banc or in two divisions, and appealing the resolution of the Comelec was suspended by the
shall promulgate rules and procedures” in order to expedite filing of a motion for reconsideration by petitioner. Private
the disposition of elections cases, including pre-proclamation respondent in this case contends that the petition should be
controversies and summon parties to a controversy pending dismissed because it was filed late considering that the
before it.” Comelec en banc denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration for being pro-forma and conformably with Sec.

39 39
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
40

4 of Rule 19 of the CRP, the said motion did not suspend the petition would in effect constitute as an abandonment of his
running of the 30-day period for the filing of the petition for MR with the Comelec.
certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
What is contemplated by the term “final orders, rulings
The Comelec en banc ruled that the motion for reconsideration and decisions of the Comelec that may be reviewable by
was pro-forma on the ground that the motion was a mere the SC on Certiorari? The SC in Garces v. Court of Appeals
rehash of petitioners averments contained in his Verified 259 SCRA 99 (1996) and Filipinas Engineering & Machine
Answer and Memorandum, neither were new matters raised Shop v. Ferrer 135 SCRA 25 (1985), the interpreted the term
that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the assailed ”final orders, rulings and decisions of the Comelec reviewable
resolution of the Second Division. by the SC on certiorari as provided by law are those rendered
in actions or proceedings before the Comelec and taken
The SC ruled however that the mere reiteration in a motion for cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its quasi-
reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed judicial powers.
upon by the court does not make a motion pro-forma;
otherwise, the movant’s remedy would not be a PRINCIPLES COMMON TO ALL ELECTION CONTESTS
reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some
other remedy.
1) WHO MAY FILE – a candidate who has duly filed a
COC and has been voted for.
In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for
reconsideration , the SC referred to its decision in Guerra
Enterprises Company Inc., v. CFI of Lanao del Sur 32 SCRA 2) Jurisdiction Allegations – (1) protestant was a
314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought to be achieved candidate who had duly filed a COC and had been
in the filing of a motion for reconsideration is “precisely to voted for the same office (2) that the protestee has
convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, been proclaimed (3) that the petition was filed within
contrary to the law or the evidence, and in doing so, the 10 days after proclamation (4) that fraud and election
movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon irregularities vitiated the conduct of the elections and
by the court. If a motion for reconsideration may not discuss affected the legality thereof.
these issues, the consequence would be that after a decision is
rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing only Miguel v. Comelec 335 SCRA 172, the SC ruled that it is the
motions for reopening and new trial. ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the
ballot boxes, examination and counting of ballots deposited
The SC further enumerated cases where a motion for thereunder whenever there is averment in an election protest
reconsideration was held to be pro forma: that requires the examination, scrutiny or counting of ballots as
evidence. The purpose of opening the BB is to determine, with
 it was a second motion for reconsideration; the minimum amount of protracted delay, the truthfulness of the
allegations of fraud and anomalies in the conduct of electoral
 it did not comply with the rule that the motion must exercise.
specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be
contrary to law or not supported by the evidence; CERTIFICATE OF FORUM SHOPPING
 it failed to substantiate the alleged errors;
The SC in Loyola v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995) and Lomarong
 it merely alleged that the decision in question was
v. Dubguban 269 SCRA 624 (1997), it was ruled that the SC
contrary to law Circular requiring that any complaint, petition or other initiatory
 or the adverse party was not given due notice thereof. pleading must contain a non-forum certification applies to
election cases. The requirement is mandatory, not
Under Rule 13, (1) of the Comelec Rules of jurisdictional, non-compliance therewith may warrant the
Procedure, a Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc dismissal of the election case.
Resolution is a prohibited pleading, except in election
offense cases (Sec. 261 of the OEC). PAYMENT OF APPEAL/FILING FEES

Angelia v. Comelec 332 SCRA 757, the SC addressed the Pacanan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 597 SCRA 189
issue on whether a party can go to the SC via a Petition on Aguilar v. Comelec 591 SCRA 491 - Petitioner Pacanan, Jr.
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court during the and private respondent Langi Sr., were candidates for mayor in
pendency of the MR filed with the Comelec en banc. Angelia the municipality of Motiong, Samar during the May 14, 2007
filed before the SC a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the elections. Petitioner was proclaimed having garnered a total of
resolution of the Comelec en banc annulling his proclamation 3,069 votes against private respondent’s 3,066 votes.
alleging that he was not given due notice and hearing.
Without waiting for the resolution on his motion, Angelia On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed an election
filed the instant petition on the sole assignment of error that protest with the RTC which rendered a Decision on January 7,
Comelec violated his constitutional right to due process. 2008 RTC declaring private respondent as winner with a
Comelec raised that the petition should be dismissed for being plurality of 6 votes. 3 days after or on January 10, 2008
premature considering that the MR of petitioner was still petitioner filed a notice of appeal and paid 3K appeal fee
pending with the Comelec en banc and that he should have before the RTC and also appealed the RTC decision to the
first withdrawn the MR before raising the said resolution with Comelec. Out of the 3K appeal fee required under Sec. 3,
the SC. Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, petitioner only
paid 1K plus 200 to cover the legal research/bailiff fees. On
SC held that petitioner acted correctly in filing the petition March 17, 2008 Comelec 1st division issued on Order
because the resolution of the Comelec en banc is not subject dismissing the appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to
to reconsideration, and therefore, any party who disagrees with pay the correct appeal fee within the 5-days reglementary
it had only one recourse, that was to file a petition for certiorari period which is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal under
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The filing of the Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the CRP. On March 28, 2008
petitioner filed a MR with the Comelec En Banc which denied

40 40
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
41

the resolution declaring that the appeal was not perfected on Villagracia v. Comelec 513 SCRA 655 (2007), while it is true
time for non-payment of the complete amount of appeal and for that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case upon complete
late payment as well, hence, did not acquire jurisdiction over payment of the prescribed filing fee, the rule admits of
the appeal. exceptions, as when a party never raised the issue of
jurisdiction in the trial court.
Before the SC is a petition for Certiorari raising that 1)
Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to Gomez-Castillo v. Comelec 621 SCRA 499 – The period of
lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the correct appeal appeal and the perfection of appeal are not mere technicalities
fee was not paid on time; 2) In failing to consider, that to be so lightly regarded, for they are essential to the finality of
assuming that the correct appeal fee was not paid on time, the judgments, a notion underlying the stability of our judicial
alleged non-payment is not in anyway attributable to petitioner; system. The short period of 5-days as the period to appeal
3) that assuming the correct appeal fee was not paid on time, recognizes the essentiality of time in election protests, in order
there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons to resolve that the will of the electorate is ascertained as soon as possible
the subject case on the merit in the interest of justice and so that the winning candidate is not deprived of the right to
public interest. assume office, and so that any doubt that can cloud the
incumbent of the truly deserving winning candidate is quickly
The SC noted that two (2) different tribunals earlier removed.
require the payment of two different appeal fees for the
perfection of the appeals of election cases. Zanoras v. Comelec G.R. No. 158610 November 12, 2004,
the mere filing of the notice of appeal was not enough. It
Sec. 3, Rule 22 of the CRP ( Appeals form should be accompanied by the payment of the correct amount
decisions of Courts in election Protest Cases), mandates of appeal fee. The payment of the full amount of the docket
that the notice of appeal must be filed with 5-days after the fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.
promulgation of the decision. On the other hand, Section 3 & (Rulloda v. Comelec 245 SCRA 702)
4 Rule 40 of the CRP amended the amount of the appeal fees
to 3.2K which should be paid with the cash division of the Loyola v. Comelec 337 SCRA 134 (1997), the Court stressed
Comelec. that there is no longer any excuse for shortcoming in the
payment of filing fees. The Court held that in the case at bar
On the other hand, Section 8 & 9, Rule 14 of A.M. “any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in
No. 07-4-15 SC (Rules of procedure in Election Contests any failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases
before the Court Involving Elective Municipal and which may be filed after the promulgation of this decision is no
Barangay Officials effective May 15, 2007) also provide the longer acceptable (March 25, 1977). The Loyola doctrine was
procedure of instituting an appeal and the required appeal fees reiterated in the subsequent cases of Miranda v. Castillo 274
to be paid for the appeal to be given due course. SCRA 503, Soller v. Comelec 339 SCRA 684 hold that a court
acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of
This requirement in the payment of appeal fees had the prescribed docket fees and errors in the payment of the
caused much confusion, which the Comelec addressed filing fee is no longer allowed.
through the issuance of Comelec Res. No. 8486 on July 15,
2008. The salient feature of the said resolution provide that EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
“the appeal to the Comelec of the trial court’s decision in
election contests involving municipal and barangay TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON V. COMELEC/LUIS
officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal BAUTISTA/ROBELITO V. PICAR/WILMA P. PAGADUAN 678
and payment of the 1K appeal fee to the court that SCRA 267 (2012)
rendered the decision within the 5-day reglementary
period. The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the Executions Pending Appeal - There is no reason to dispute
addition appeal fee of 3.2K to the Comelec Cash Division in the Comelec’s authority to order discretionary execution of
accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the CRP, as amended, judgment in view of the fact that the suppletory application of
does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not the Rules of Court is expressly sanctioned by Section 1, Rule
result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal. 41 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Under Section 2, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal may be
Comelec 1st division gravely abused its discretion in issued by an appellate court after the trial court has lost
issuing the order dismissing the appeal taking notice that the jurisdiction. In Batul v. Bayron 424 SCRA 26 (2004), the Court
notice of appeal and the 1K appeal fee were, respectively filed stressed the import of the provision vis-à-vis election cases
and paid with the MTC on April 21, 2008 which date the appeal when we held that judgments in election cases which may be
was perfected. Comelec Res. 8486 clarifying the rule on the executed pending appeal includes those decided by trial courts
payment of appeal fees was issued only on July 15, 2008, or and those rendered by the Comelec whether in the exercise of
almost 3-months after the appeal was perfected. Yet on July its original or appellate jurisdiction.
31, 2008 or barely two weeks after the issuance of Comelec
Res. 8486, the Comelec 1st division dismissed the appeal for Saludaga vs. Comelec 617 SCRA 601 – The discretion to
non-payment of the 3.2K appeal fee. allow execution pending reconsideration belongs to the division
that rendered the assailed decision, order or resolution, or the
Comelec en banc, as the case may be – not to the presiding
Considering that petitioner filed his appeal Commissioner. A writ of execution pending resolution of the MR
months before the clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, of a decision of the division is not granted as a matter of right
the appeal should not be unjustly prejudiced by Comelec such that its issuance becomes a ministerial duty that may be
Res. No. 8486. Fairness and prudence dictate the 1st division dispensed even just by the Presiding Commission.
should have first directed petitioner to pay the additional appeal
fee in accordance with the clarificatory resolution. Instead it Calo v. Comelec 610 SCRA 342 – The relevant rule provides
hastily dismissed the appeal on the strength of the clarificatory that a motion for execution pending appeal filed by the
resolution which had taken effect only a few days earlier. (This prevailing party shall contain a 3-day notice to the adverse
unseemly haste is an invitation to outrage.) Court further party and execution pending appeal shall not issue without
stressed the liberal construction policy. prior notice and hearing. The purpose of these requirements is

41 41
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
42

to avoid surprises that may sprung upon the adverse party who the Rules of Court shall be applicable by analogy or in a
must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the suppletory character.
motion before a resolution by the court. Where a party had the
opportunity to be heard, then the purpose has been served and Navarosa v. Comelec 411 SCRA, the RTC in an election
the requirement substantially complied with. In this case, even protest case granted execution pending appeal by Esto after
the Comelec admitted that respondent was heard and afforded finding that Esto won in the said election. In the same order
his day in court; hence, it should not have annulled the RTC the judge allowed protestee Navaroza to stay the execution of
special order on said ground. the decision pending appeal by filing a supersedeas bond in
double the amount posted by the protestant.. A Petition for
Ceriorari was filed by Esto with the Comelec where the
San Miguel vs. Comelec 609 SCRA 424 – The law provides
Comelec 2nd division affirmed the trial court’s order granting
that the court “may” issue execution pending appeal. Evident
execution pending appeal and nullified the stay of the
from the usage of the word “may”, the language of the subject
execution. The Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion as
provision denotes that it is merely directory, not mandatory, for
it is for Comelec in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to
the trial court to issue the special order before the expiration of
issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition
the period to appeal. The trial court may still thereafter resolve
mandamus and injunction over all contest involving elective
a motion for execution pending appeal, provided: (i) the motion
municipal officials decided by the trial court of general
is filed within the 5-day reglementary period; and (ii) the special
jurisdiction elevate on appeal, and NOT the trial court, that may
order is issued prior to the transmittal of the records of the
order the stay or restrain the immediate execution of the
Comelec.
decision pending appeal granted by the trail court of general
jurisdiction in an election contest.
Malaluan v. Comelec 254 SCRA 397, this was the first case
where a judge, acting without a precedent, granted the motion Except when the trial court reversed itself in a MR of
for execution of its decision in an election protest case, its order granting immediate execution, it cannot later on stay
pending appeal. It was ruled that Sec. 2 Rule 39 of the Rules or restrain the execution thereof in the guise of allowing the
of Court which allowed the RTC to order execution pending losing party to file a supersedeas bond. The issue before the
appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order, may be trial court where a motion for execution pending appeal is filed
made to apply by analogy or suppletorily to election contest is to determine whether or not there are “good reasons” to
decided by it. The posting of the supersedeas bond was justify the immediate execution pending appeal. The issue is
considered good reasons by the judge. not whether there are good reasons to stay the immediate
execution of the decision pending appeal.
Camlian v. Comelec 271 SCRA, executions pending appeal
must be strictly construed against the movant as it is an LIM VS. COMELEC ET. AL. G.R. NO. 171952 March 08,
exception to the general rule on execution of judgments. 2007; Torres vs. Abundo, Sr. 512 SCRA 556; - Before
granting a motion for execution pending appeal in election
Ramas v. Comelec 286 SCRA 189, what may constitute “good cases, the SC laid down the following requisites –
reasons’ for execution pending appeal (1) there must be motion by the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party
• The public interest involved or the will of the (2) there must be good reasons for the execution
electorate pending appeal
• The shortness of the remaining period of the term of (3) the order granting execution pending appeal must
state the good reasons.
the contested office
Good reasons (Fermo v. Comelec)
• The length of time that the election contest has 1) public interest involved or will of the electorate
been pending.
2) shortness of the remaining term of the contested
The filing of a bond alone does not constitute good office
reasons. Nevertheless, the trial court may require the filing of 3) length of time that the election contest has been
a bond as condition for the issuance of the corresponding writ pending
of execution to answer for the payment of damages which the
aggrieved party may suffer by reason of the execution pending Istarul vs. Comelec 491 SCRA 300 (2006) – the length of
appeal. time that the election protest has been pending, thus, leaving
petitioner only 21 months as the remaining portion of the term
Fernando U. Batul v. Lucilo Bayron, et. al. 424 SCRA 26, to serve as mayor, does not constitute “good reasons” to justify
execution pending appeal in the discretion of the courts applies execution pending appeal. Referring to Fermo, the SC held
suppletorily in election cases including those involving city and that “shortness of term”: alone and by itself cannot justify
provincial officials to obviate a hollow victory for the duly premature execution. It must be manifest in the decision
elected candidate as determined either by the Court or by sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the
Comelec. The Comelec resolution granting execution pending victory of the protestant has been clearly established.”
appeal (by virtue of its original exclusive jurisdiction over all
contest relating to the E, R and Q of provincial and city Trillanes IV. Vs. Pimentel, Sr. 556 SCRA 471 (relate to
officials) was raised before the SC arguing that Sec. 2 Rule 39 Rodolfo Aguinaldo on the condonation issue) – The case
cannot be applied and the only ground that will validly sustain against Trillanes is not administrative in nature. And there is no
execution of a decision by a Comelec division pending “prior term’ to speak of. In a plethora of cases, the Court
reconsideration is when the MR is not pro forma. categorically held that the doctrine of condonation does not
apply to criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, election to
Case of Ramas did not declare that such remedy is exclusive office, does not obliterate a criminal charge. Petitioners
only to election contests involving elective municipal and electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters
barangay officials. Sec. 1 of Rule 41 of the Comelec Rules elected him to the Senate, “they did so with full awareness of
of Procedure expressly provides that pertinent provisions of the limitations on his freedom of action and with the knowledge

42 42
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
43

that he could achieve only such legislative results which he offenses and malpractices. This prosecutorial power of the
could accomplish within the confines of prison. Comelec is reflected in Section 265 of BP 881. It is well settled
that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election
CAN DAMAGES BE AWARDED IN ELECTION PROTEST offenses rests in the Comelec’s sound discretion. (Garcia v.
CASES Comelec 611 SCRA 55 Jan. 2010)

Malaluan vs. Comelec, the Court ruled that damages cannot Comelec v. Noynay, July 9, 1998, the Comelec resolved to
be granted in an election protest case ratiocinating that the file an Information for violation of Section 261(i) of the OEC
provision of law allowing damages under specific against certain public school officials for having engaged in
circumstances, more particularly compensatory and actual partisan political activities which was filed by its Regional
damages is provided under Article 2176 of the Civil Code which Director with Branch 23 of RTC of Allen Northern Samar
is appropriate only in breaches of obligations in contracts and presided by Judge Tomas B. Noynay. The judge ordered the
QC and on the occasion of crimes and QD where the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the Comelec
defendant may be held liable for damages the proximate cause to file the cases with the MTC on the ground that pursuant to
of which is the act or omission complained of. Section 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, the RTC has
no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum imposable
Therefore, the monetary claim of a party in an election case penalty in each of the cases does not exceed 6 years
must necessarily be anchored in contract, QC, or a tortiuos act imprisonment. The SC ruled that RA 7691 did not divest the
or omission of a crime in order to effectively recover actual or RTC of jurisdiction over election offenses which are punishable
compensatory damages. In the absence of any or all of these, with imprisonment of not exceeding 6 years. The opening
the claimant must be able to point out a specific provision of sentence of Section 32, provides that the exclusive original
law authorizing a money claim for election protest expenses jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, MTC and MCTC does
against the losing party. not cover those criminal cases which by specific provisions of
law fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
The bonds or cash deposits required by the Comelec SB, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefore.
Rules of Procedure are in the nature of filing fees not damages
Comelec vs. Espanol 417 SCRA 554, it was ruled that the
Comelec, thru its duly authorized legal officers, under Section
265 of the OEC, has the exclusive power to conduct
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN AN ELECTION PROTEST preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable
CASE under the OEC and to prosecute the same. The acts of these
deputies within the lawful scope of their delegated authority are
Fernando Poe v. Arroyo March 29, 2005, the Court resolved the acts of the Comelec.
the issue on whether the widow may substitute/intervene for
the protestant who die during the pendency of the latter’s Garcia v. Commission on Elections 611 SCRA 55 –
protest case. Generally, the Court will not interfere with the finding of
probable cause by the Comelec absent a clear showing of
The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential grave abuse of discretion.
election protest is Rule 14 of the PET Rules which provides
“only the registered candidate for Pres. or VP of the Philippines
who received the 2nd and 3rd highest number of votes may Pp. v. Inting July 25, 1990, Comelec is given exclusive
contest the election of the P and VP, as the case may be, by authority to investigate and conduct preliminary investigations
filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the PET within 30 days relative to commission of election offenses and prosecute the
after the proclamation of the winner. same. A preliminary investigation conducted by the Provincial
Election Supervisor involving an election offense does not have
The Court made reference in its ruling in Vda de to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor before the
Mesa v. Mencias where it rejected substitution by the widow or RTC may take cognizance of the investigation and determine
the heirs in election contest where the protestant dies during whether or not probable cause exist to issue a warrant of
the pendency of the protest on the grounds that the heirs are arrest. If the Provincial Prosecutor performs any role at all as
not real parties in interest and that a public office is personal to regards the prosecution of an election case, it is by delegation
the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs or that he was deputized by the Comelec.
upon death. The Court pursuant to Rule 3, Section 15 of the
rules of Court, however, allowed substitution and intervention Faelnar v. People 331 SCRA 429, (a) where the State
upon the death of the protestee but by a real party in interest, Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor exercises the
one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment and power to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense
entitled to avail of the suit. In the Mencias and Lumogdnag v. cases and after the investigation submits its recommendation
Javier cases, the Court permitted substitution by the VM since to the Comelec, the issue of probable cause is already
the VM is the real party in interest considering that if the protest resolved. The proper remedy to question the said
succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the VM succeeds to resolution is to file an appeal with the COMELEC and the
the office of the mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly ruling of the Comelec on the appeal would be immediately
elected cannot assume office. final and executory.

The Court further held, that nobility of intentions is not the point (b) If the preliminary investigation of the complaint for an
in reference in determining whether a person may intervene in election offence is conducted by the Comelec, the investigation
an election protest case. officer prepares its recommendation to the Law Department
which department in turn makes its recommendation to the
PROSECUTION OF ELECTION CASES Comelec en banc on whether there is probable cause to
prosecute. It is the Comelec en banc which determines the
Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the existence of probable cause. The proper remedy of the
Comelec the power and function to investigate and where aggrieved party is to file a Motion for Reconsideration of such
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, resolution. This effectively allows for a review of the original
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, resolution, in the same manner that the Comelec on appeal, or
motu propio, may review the resolution of the State prosecutor,

43 43
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW
44

or Provincial or city fiscal. (Take note that since this is an writings in newspapers without any additional evidence to
election offense a Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc support the newspaper articles on the argument that it was the
resolution is allowed.) Comelec’s constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses
upon any information of alleged commission of election
Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and offenses. The Comelec dismissed the complaint there being on
Comelec, the SC upheld the power of Comelec to prosecute probable cause found. The SC rued that it is not the duty of
cases of violations of election laws and further explained that the Comelec to search for evidence to prove an election
there are two (2) ways through which a complaint for complaint filed before it. The task of Comelec as
election offenses may be initiated. investigator and prosecutor is not the physical searching
and gathering of proof in support of the alleged
(1) it may be filed by the Comelec motu propio or commission of an election offense. The complainant still
(2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen has the burden to prove his complaint.
of the Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition
of political parties or organizations under the party-list system
or any accredited citizen arms of the commission.

Motu propio complaints may be signed by the


Chairman of the Comelec and need not be verified. But those
complaints filed by parties other than the Comelec must be
verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence.

The complaint shall be filed with the Comelec Law


Department or with the offices of the EO, PES or RED, or the
State Prosecutors, provincial or city prosecutors. Whether
initiated motu propio or filed with the Comelec by any party, the
complaint shall be referred to the Comelec Law Department for
investigation. Upon the direction of the Chairman, the PI may
be delegated to any lawyer of the Department, any RED or
PES, or any Comelec lawyer.

Comelec v. Silva Feb. 10, 1998, the SC settled the issue as to


whether the Chief State Prosecutor, who was designated by
the Comelec to prosecute election cases, has the authority to
decide whether or not to appeal from the orders of dismissal of
the RTC. It was held that the authority belongs to the Comelec
and not the prosecutor as the latter derive its authority from the
Comelec and not from their offices. Propriety dictates, that if
the prosecutor believes, after the conduct of the PI, that no
probable cause warrants the prosecution of the accused who
have allegedly violated Sec. 27 of RA 6646 (tampering of
certificate of canvass), the matter would have been discussed
with the Comelec and if the latter disagrees, seek permission
to withdraw from the case.

Dino vs. Olivares 607 SCRA 251 (2009). The SC held that
being mere deputies or agents of the Comelec (with continuing
authority), provincial or city prosecutors deputized by it are
expected to act in accord with and NOT contrary to or in
derogation of its resolutions, directives or orders in relation to
election cases that such prosecutors are deputized to
investigate and prosecute. They must proceed within the
lawful scope of their delegated authority.

Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by the


Comelec, either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment
such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the
integrity of the process to promote the common good, or where
it believes that successful prosecution of the case can be done
by the Comelec.

When the Comelec en banc directed the City Prosecutor of


Paranaque to transmit the entire records of the election offense
case, it had the effect of SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of
the City Prosecutor. Hence, the filing of the amended
information and the amended information themselves, is
declared void and of no effect.

Kilosbayan vs. Comelec 280 SCRA 892, Kilosbayan filed a


letter-complaint with the Comelec against incumbent officials
running for public elective office for violation of Sec. 261 of the
OEC alleging illegal disbursement of public funds and
submitting as evidence to support the complaint, published

44 44

S-ar putea să vă placă și