ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
1. CARLOS VS. ANGELES
The SC has original jurisdiction over certiorari cases as
well as the COMELEC, they have both concurrent
jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus over
decisions of RTC in election cases involving municipal
officials, rule on exclusive jurisdiction applies.
Two Conditions to Declare a Failure of Elections
1. No voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on
the date fixed by law or even if there were voting, the
election nevertheless resulted to a failure to elect; and
2. The votes not cast could affect the result of the election.
Three Instances Where Failure of Elections May be
Declared
1. The election in any polling place has not been held on
the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, and other analogous causes;
2. The election in any polling place had been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, and
other analogous causes;
3. After the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of election returns or in custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, and
other analogous causes.
2. SUNGA VS. COMELEC
Essence of elections is plurality of votes.
Basis: Election is the process of complete ascertainment
of the expression of the popular will. Its ultimate purpose is
to give effect to the will of the electorate by giving them
direct participation in choosing the men and women who
will run their government.
Thus, it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept
of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a
candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of
votes is proclaimed winner and imposed as the
representative of a constituency, the majority of whom
have positively declared through their ballots that they do
not choose him.
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest
number of votes is later disqualified for the office to which
he was elected does not entitle the candidate who
obtained the second highest number of votes to be
declared the winner of the elective office.
1
3. MITMUG VS. COMELEC
The majority or plurality of votes
is determined by the number of registered VOTERS WHO
ACTUALLY CAST THEIR VOTES OR THOSE WHO
ACTUALLY VOTED AND NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER
OF REGISTERED VOTERS. There is no provision in our
election laws which requires that a majority of the registered
voters must cast their votes.
Failure of Election vis-à-vis Plurality of Votes
There can be failure of election in a political unit only if the
will of the majority has been defiled and cannot be
ascertained. But, if it can be determined, it must be
accorded respect.
All the law requires is that a winning candidate must be
elected by a plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual
number of ballots cast.
Thus, even if less than 25% of the electorate in the
questioned precincts cast their votes, the same must still be
respected.
4. RULLODA V. COMELEC
the winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or
plurality of valid votes case in the election.
5. TALAGA VS. ALCALA
the only time that a second placer is allowed to take the
place of a disqualified winning candidate is when two
requisites occur:
1. The candidate who obtained the highest number of votes
is disqualified; and
2. The electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of that
candidate’s disqualification as to bring such awareness
within the realm of notoriety but the electorate still cast the
plurality of the votes of the ineligible candidate
6. SULUGUIN VS. COMELEC (CITING BINCE)
Political laws must be so construed as to give life and spirit
to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.
Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases
should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the
electorate.
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
7. FERNANDEZ VS. COMELEC
“as a rule, the failure on the part of these election officials
to do their duties will NOT invalidate the ballot for to rule
otherwise would disenfranchise the voters and place a
premium on the official ineptness of said official and make
it possible for a small group of functionaries, by their
negligence or their deliberate inaction to frustrate the will of
the electorate. It may, however, constitute as an election
offense imputable to the said BEI Chairman.
8. BAUTISTA V. CASTRO
Strictly construed the lack of signature of the chairman on
the issue of proof in determining the authenticity and
genuineness of the ballot and held that this requirement is
mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.
If the issue of the non-affixing of the signature of the
Chairman at the back of the ballot, that would now become
material if issue is genuineness of the ballot.
9. MARCELINO C. LIBANAN V. HRET
A ballot without the signature of the BEI chairman at the
back of the ballot is valid and not spurious, provided that it
bears any one of these other authenticating marks.
(1) The COMELEC water mark; and,
(2) In those cases where the COMELEC watermarks are
blurred or not readily apparent, the presence of red and
blue fibers in the ballots. (Concerning authenticity)
10. MARUHOM V. COMELEC
“laws and statutes governing election contests especially
the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed and
in applying election laws it would be better to err in favor of
the popular sovereignty that to be right in complex but little
understood legalisms.
11. PENA VS. HRET
“while statutes providing for election contests are to be
liberally construed, the rule likewise stands, that in an
election protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon the
issue he raised in his original or amended pleading filed
prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of the
protest considering that compliance therewith are
rendered mandatory for candidates (technicalities be set
aside).
12. BARROSO V. AMPIG, JR.,
2
An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed
with a public interest. The purpose of an election protest is
to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board
of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is
sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was
the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. An
election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication
of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but
paramount to their claims is the deep public concern
involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the
real choice of the electorate. And the court has the
corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its
command who is the real candidate elected by the people.
Moreover, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to
a liberal construction. This liberality is for the purpose of
promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the
objectives of ensuring the HOPEFRECRE and for achieving
just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and
disposition of every action and proceeding brought before
the COMELEC.
13. TAGUIAM VS. COMELEC
While the petition was indeed filed beyond the 5-day
reglamentary period, the COMELEC however has the
discretion to suspend its rules of procedure or any portion
thereof. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure.
Section 3. Construction. – These rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and to
achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination
and disposition of every action and proceeding brought
before the Commission.
Section 4. Suspension of the Rules. – In the interest of
justice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all
matters pending before the Commission, these rules or any
portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
The suspension of its rules of procedure regarding the late
filing of a petition for correction of manifest error and
annulment of proclamation is in view of its paramount duty
to determine the real will of the electorate.
We have consistently employed liberal construction of
procedural rules in election cases to the end that the will of
the people in the choice of public officers may not be
defeated by mere technical objection.
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
14. BINCE JR. VS. COMELEC
Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve
public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers
should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an
obstacle to the determination of the true will of the
electorate in the choice of their elective officials.
And also settled is the rule that laws governing election
contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will
of the people in the choice of public officials may not be
defeated by mere technical objections.
15. LIBANAN VS. HRET
There is really nothing in the above law to the effect that a
ballot which is not so authenticated shall thereby be
deemed spurious. The law merely renders the BEI
Chairman accountable for such failure. The courts may not,
in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute
and embrace situations neither provided nor intended by
the lawmakers.
16. LUCERO VS .COMELEC
In this case, the election was conducted a year and half
after cessation of the cause. Whether the date is still a
date reasonably close when it should be 30 days.
Yes. Even if conducted a year and a half, it was the fault of
the lawyer not of the voters. It was due to the
postponement which was not a fault attributed to the
people. Even if it took after a year and half it is still a date
close. Which means, it depends on the circumstances in
this case.
17. PADILLA JR. V. COMELEC (MOTHER + referendum and recall.
DAUGHTER UNITS)
It stands to reason that when the law states that the
plebiscite shall be conducted "in the political units directly
affected," it means that residents of the political entity who
would be economically dislocated by the separation of a
portion thereof have a right to vote in said plebiscite.
Evidently, what is contemplated by the phase "political
units directly affected," is the plurality of political units
which would participate in the plebiscite.
18. SANIDAD V. COMELEC (NATURE OF A acts necessary to bring to effect plans or measure entails all
PLEBISCITE, PUBLIC INTEREST)
3
In a plebiscite, votes are taken in an area on some special
political matter unlike in an election where votes are cast in
favor of specific persons for some office. In other words, the
electorate is asked to vote for or against issues, not
candidates in a plebiscite.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and
importance. The people's right to be informed and to be
able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be
better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the
issues, including the forum.
The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite
should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum
where the right to expression may be exercised. COMELEC
spaces and COMELEC radio time may provide a forum for
expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of
information to the public
concerned because they are limited to either specific
portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television
times.
19. CITY OF PASIG V. COMELEC (PREJUDICIAL
QUESTION)
Propriety of the suspension of the plebiscite with a pending
boundary dispute. There was ordinance of two barangays, a
plebiscite has been made on one barangay, COMELEC
decided to suspend the plebiscite of another barangay. The
creation of Brgy. Kalangala should be declared invalid
because of the boundary dispute, there is still a prejudicial
question because one of the requirement is to determine
the metes and bounds of each political unit in the bodies.
20. BUAC VS. COMELEC (JURISDICTION OVER
PLEBISCITE ISSUES)
SC said that the said provision is explicit that Comelec has
power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
To enforce means to cause to take effect or to cause the
performance of such act or acts necessary to bring into
actual effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails
all the necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the
holding of honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible
elections (HOPE FRECRE).
This issue does not fit for the call of judicial power – it does
not have a plaintiff or defendant for it only involves the
ascertainment of the votes of the electorate, the court
further defined “what to enforce means” and the COMELEC
has the power to enforce – to cause or to take effect the
necessary and incidental power to bring out HOPEFRECRE
elections.
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
Thus, COMELEC has jurisdiction over the plebiscite only
to determine which votes, in favor or against, won. It is in
the exercise of the administrative and executive powers of
the COMELEC.
21. SBMA V. COMELEC
The Supreme Court held that:
Initiative Referendum
a process of lawmaking consists merely of the
by the people without the electorate approving or
participation of their rejecting what has been
elected representatives drawn up or enacted by
the legislative body.
22. SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC:
A. Section 2 of Article XVII Constitution provides;
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may
likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum
of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum of the registered voters
therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification
of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right.
This provision is not self-executory. In his book,
Joaquin Bernas:
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot
operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the
Constitution is a mode of amendment which
bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it
still is dependent on congressional action.
B. Reasons why:
a) Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an
initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
b) The Act does not provide for the contents of a
petition for initiative on the Constitution despite
being defined under Sec. 3 and being
enumerated in Sec. 5 (Requirements)
c) No subtitle is provided for Initiative on the
Constitution, while the Act provides subtitles for
National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II)
and for Local Initiative and Referendum
(Subtitle III).
4
C. Petition did not contain signatures. The Delfin Petition
does not contain signatures of the required number of
voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered
signatures and that the purpose of his petition is primarily to
obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures.
Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be
deemed validly initiated.
The petition itself is the initiatory pleading. The COMELEC
acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its
filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing
before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en
banc.
23. LAMBINO VS. COMELEC
What must be on the face of the petition for an initiative?
The essence is that the entire proposal on its face is a
petition by
the people which has two essential elements:
1. The people must author and must sign the entire
proposal, no agent or representative can sign on behalf.
2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of
the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by singing such complete and proposal
in a petition.
Thus, an amendment is then “directly proposed by the
people” when the people who sign on the petition that
contains the full text of their proposed amendments.
- Full text maybe written on its face or attached to it.
- Assurance that every one of several millions of signatories
had seen full text of the proposed amendments before
signing.
An initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing
of the nature and effect of that which is proposed and failure
to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders the
initiative void.
Process of Petition
Proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the
people. The proponents secure the signatures in their
private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents
are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the
advantages and disadvantages of
the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents
present favorably their proposal to the people.
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed
the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures.
Thus they bear the burden of proving that they complied
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills 5

with the constitutional requirements in gathering the The SC upheld the validity of the recall proceedings and
signatures. stated that while the Liga is an entity distinct from the PRA,
it so happens that the personalities representing the
barangays in the Liga are the very same members of the
PRA, the majority of whom met and voted in favor of the
Omission of the Attachment is Fatal
resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group
failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text of
the proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million
signatories saw the petition before they signed the
signature sheets. In any event, the Lambino Group's 26. CLAUDIO VS. COMELEC
signature sheets do not contain the full text of the
proposed changes, either on the face of the signature 1. “recall” in par. (b) of Sec. 74 refers only to the RECALL
sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the signature ELECTION, which excludes the preliminary proceedings
sheet of such attachment. initiate recall such as the convening of the PRA and the
filing of a petition for recall with the COMELEC, or the
gathering of signatures of at least 25% of the voters for a
petition for recall. (since the power given to the electorate is
Amendment from Revision not the power to initiate recall proceedings [since such
power vested with PRA or petition of at least 25% of voters]
Amendment Revision
but the power to elect)
broadly refers to a change -broadly implies a change
that adds, reduces, or that alters a basic principle in
deletes without altering the the constitution, like altering 2. Regular local elections - means only the day of the
basic principle involved the principle of separation of regular elections .does not include the process (so not
powers or the system of inclusive of campaign period, etc.)
checks-and-balances

-if the change alters the

substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the
change affects substantial
provisions of the constitution.
generally affects only the affects several provisions of
specific provision being the constitution
amended.
27. AFIADO VS. COMELEC
the issue is “WoN an elective official who became Mayor by
legal succession can be the subject of a recall election by
virtue of a PRA Resolution passed or adopted when the
said elective official was still the Vice-Mayor”.
Not here because the PRA reso sepcifically provided that it
was for the VM. So now she was a mayor so moot na.

24. SBMA VS . COMELEC

28. CAYETANO V. MONSOD 210 SCRA 210,
(petition began was initiative but rules promulgated was for
engaging in law practice is not only confined to courtroom
initiative)
practice. It includes any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience.
Three Systems of initiative

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

proposing amendments to the Constitution;
29. ZALDIVAR VS. ESTENZO

2. Initiative on Statutes - which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a national legislation; and
3. Initiative on Local Legislation - which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or
barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
Under the Constitution (herein 1935), the COMELEC has
“exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of
all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall
exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it
by law.
In the implementation of the above constitutional
prerogative, the COMELEC is vested under the Election
Code with direct and immediate supervision over the
provincial, municipal, and city officials designated by law to
perform duties relative to the conduct of elections.

Under the Constitution and the Revised Election Code, it is

25. MALONZO V. COMELEC
the duty of the Commission on to exercise supervision over
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills 6

municipal officials precisely to enforce the Election Code.
No agency is better suited to preclude abuse of authority
on the part of local officials, the sanction being that it could
recommend to the President removal if found guilty.
The Commission on Election is a constitutional body, it is
intended to play a distinct and important part in our
scheme of government in the discharge of its functions, it
should not be hampered with restriction that would be fully
warranted in the case of a less responsible organization.
A split party without a complete set of election returns
cannot successfully help preserve the sanctity of the ballot.
Political parties perform an "essential function in the
management of succession to power, as well as in the
process of obtaining popular consent to the course of public
policy. They amass sufficient support to buttress the
authority of governments; or, on the contrary, they attract or
organize discontent and dissatisfaction sufficient to oust the
government.
31. PALMARES V. COMELEC

COMELEC has jurisdiction over the issue of leadership in a

political party.
COMELEC has Exclusive Charge of the Enforcement and
Administration of All Laws Relative to Conduct of
Elections.
Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is empowered to
register political parties [Sec. 2(5), Article IX-C.] Necessarily,
the power to act on behalf of a party and the responsibility
30. LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO VS.
for the acts of such political party must be fixed in certain
COMELEC
persons acting as its officers.
COMELEC has Power to Ascertain Identity of Party and its
Legitimate Officers; Section 2(1), Article IX-C The
COMELEC correctly stated that "the ascertainment of the
identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers" is a
matter that is well within its authority. The source of this 32. FILIPINAS ENGINEERING V. FERRER
authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which
vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to Any action in connection with the enforcement or any
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to resolution by the COMELEC issued in the exercise of its
the conduct of an election. administrative functions is not a matter reviewable by the
Supreme Court on certiorari because it is an administrative

function.
In the exercise of such power and in the discharge of such
function, the Commission is endowed with ample
"wherewithal" and "considerable latitude in adopting
means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment
of the great objectives for which it was created to promote 33. LOONG VS. COMELEC
free, orderly and honest elections.
An exception is that administrative resolutions of the
COMELEC in the exercise of its administrative function may
be properly reviewed by the SC by certiorari of its
The right of a political party "to identify the people who
administrative function if the COMELEC acted capriciously.
constitute the association and to select a standard bearer
who best represents the party’s ideologies and preference"
is the right to exclude persons in its association and to not
lend its name and prestige to those which it deems
undeserving to represent its ideals.

34. COQUILLA VS. COMELEC

COMELEC Misapplied Equity; It should have
Looked at the Party Constitution
COMELEC should just turned to the Party Constitution
wherein it shows that the Secretary General’s authority to
sign documents is only a delegated power which original
pertains to the chairman.
A. If a motion for reconsideration is not pro forma, it
suspends the running of the period within which to file a
petition for certiorari with the SC (30 days after
promulgation)
B. Mere reiteration of the issues raised and passed upon by
a division does not make the issue pro forma.

So what now happens to the COC of those not legitimate

standard bearers of parties? C. Motions Considered as Pro-Forma

They become independent candidates. The exclusive
ground for the denial of due course to or the cancellation of
a certificate of candidacy for any elective office is that any
material representation contained therein as required by
law is false.
In the following cases, a MR was held to be pro-forma:
(a) It was a second motion for reconsideration;
(b) It did not comply with the rule that the motion must
specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be
contrary to law or not supported by the evidence;

(c) It failed to substantiate the alleged error;

ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills 7

(d) it merely alleged that the decision in question was

contrary to law; or

(e) The adverse party was not given due notice

thereof.

D. Filing an MR of an En Banc ruling is considered a

prohibited
pleading.
35. SALVA V. MAKALINTAL
SC held here that the issuance of COMELEC Resolution
calling for a plebiscite is an administrative matter. The SC
said here that resolution for the rules and regulations for
plebiscite is a ministerial duty and it does not entail an act
of discretion. It does not have discretionary authority as
well as exercise of QJ function so any question of this
resolution in an ordinary civil action in RTC.
39. BAZARTE V. COMELEC
No Member shall be "ponente" of an en banc
decision/resolution on a motion to reconsider a
decision/resolution written by him in a Division. So the
COMELEC En Banc the MR was also penned by
Commission Bora so SC stated that COMELEC En Banc
committed grave abuse of discretion for it was a clear
violation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
40. MACABAGO V. SALACOP
There are two exceptions to the general rule that only ruling
in the exercise of adjudicatory functions of COMELEC are
for certiorari:

1. When the COMELEC has acted capriciously and

36. AMBIL, JR. VS. COMELEC whimsically with GADALEJ

Here, the division issued an interlocutory order but the 2. No plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
aggrieved party, istaed of going to comelec EB via MFR course of law.
filed petition for certiorari before the SC

Ruling: A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for

the viability of the certiorari. Unless, the party can show the
exceptions to the rule. An MR is an available remedy.
Decisions of the Division cannot be taken directly to the
SC. It is among those exceptions:
1. where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
41. SALVA V. MAKALINTAL
SC held here that the issuance of COMELEC Resolution
calling for a plebiscite is an administrative matter. The SC
said here that resolution for the rules and regulations for
plebiscite is a ministerial duty and it does not entail an act of
discretion. It does not have discretionary authority as well
as exercise of QJ function so any question of this resolution
in an ordinary civil action in RTC.

2. where judicial intervention is urgent;

3. where the application of the doctrine may cause great
and irreparable damage;
4. where the controverted acts violate due process;
5. where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot;
42. BUAC V. COMELEC
The SC said that the COMELEC on matter of plebiscite
issue on determining on how many votes were actually
made and won on the plebiscite whether the voters were in
favor of Taguig is an admin matter under the COMELEC.
So, in its companion case of Cayetano case, stating the
COMELEC has jurisdiction to enforce all laws involving
plebiscite.

37. CAGAS V. COMELEC

SC here reiterated that the court has no power to review

an interlocutory order or even a division decision of the
COMELEC making reference of Section 7 of Article IX-A.
43. SABILI V. COMELEC: DEFINITION OF
PROMULGATION

Promulgation is the process by which a decision is

published, officially announced, made known to the public
or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with
38. MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO V. COMELEC notice to the parties or their counsel (Neria v. Commissioner
of Immigration, L-24800, May 27, 1968, 23 SCRA 812).
Wherein the SC stressed that it has no jurisdiction, if you
observe, the rules are so clear, only motions for
reconsideration decision resolved by COMELEC En Banc
which is reviewable in the SC via a petition of certiorari.
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills 8

It is the delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for

filing and publication (Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 433).

It is the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court

(Sumbing v. Davide, G.R. Nos. 86850-51, July 20, 1989,
En Banc Minute Resolution). The additional requirement
imposed by the COMELEC rules of notice in advance of
promulgation is not part of the process of promulgation.

44, MENDOZA VS. COMELEC

ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
COQUILLA V. COMELEC,
the court resolved here the issue whether the 30 day period
was suspended the filing of the 30 day for it was filed beyond
the 30 day period for the COMELEC EB denied the MR for it
was pro-forma It was deemed as pro-forma since it was beyond
30 days, the contention that the dismissed due to pro-forma.
COMELEC EB stated that it was just a mere rehash of what the
movant raised and that there was no new evidence or argument
that would sufficiently warrant the reversal.
The SC ruled here that the mere reiteration of the issues raised
and passed upon by the division does not make the issue
pro-forma. The remedy is not MR but a new trial. The MR wants
to reiterate the
error in the ruling.
The losing party would be constrained for a new trial if MR
contains issues raised in the division.
Motions Considered as Pro-Forma
In the following cases, a MR was held to be pro-forma:
(a) It was a second motion for reconsideration;
(b) It did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify
the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not
supported by the evidence;
(c) It failed to substantiate the alleged error;
(d) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary
to law; or
(e) The adverse party was not given due notice thereof.
So, if MR is considered pro-forma it will not suspend
--
ANGELIA V. COMELEC
Angelia filed here for certiorari the COMELEC En Banc ruling
alleging that he was not given notice. During the pendency of
9
MR En Banc, Angelia without waiting on the MR to the En
Banc. He filed petition to the SC on the sole issue on due
process violation for he alleges that the division decision was
done without giving him due notice.
COMELEC raised that the case should be dismissed,
considering the MR was still pending in the En Banc, thus
they moved for dismissal based on prematurity.
Angelia acted properly for petition for certiorari, for the
resolution of the COMELEC Resolution MR is not allowed
under Rule 13, Section 1 thus the correct remedy is the filing
of certiorari of the Supreme Court. Thus, the certiorari
considers as an abandonment of the motion for
reconsideration with the comelec en banc
--
LOONG V. COMELEC
Whether certiorari is a proper remedy to invalidate
COMELEC Resolution based on the exercise of its
administrative powers, despite in the general rule in Filipinas
for those orders subject to the certiorari are those under QJ
functions.
The SC said in the Loong Case, although administrative
powers is not subject, but if the COMELEC acts
capriciously or whimsically or with GADALEJ in issuing
such order, the aggrieved party may seek redress via
certiorari. It is an exception.
The main issue here is that whether COMELEC GADALEJ
when itordered a manual count of the Sulu election during
RA 8436 under the first AES Law. Some of the PCOS
machines did not work thusthe manual counting. This was
raised as an issue for there was no provision that vests
COMELEC the power conduct a manual count considering
that elections were automated.
SC held that the issue is not only legal and it is of one of first
impression following the Sulu election, the ruling of the SC
here would be significant for future consideration.
COMELEC did not commit GADALEJ due to the broad
powers of the COMELEC to determine the true will of the
electorate to order a manual count, so COMELEC should not
be prevented from rising above the circumstances although
not expressly provided under the law.
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
NOTE: The COMELEC Resolution here was in the exercise of
the administrative function which was an exception which it
ruled that COMELEC did not act in GADALEJ, here SC took
cognizance, for it was the first case under RA 8436 for it was a
decision which would be significant for the subsequent electoral
exercises.
AMBIL, JR. V. COMELEC
Whether the SC has power to review via certiorari an
interlocutory order or final decision of a COMELEC division,
meaning to say the division issued a resolution and instead
going to the COMELEC En Banc via MR, he filed directly to the
SC based on the division
decision. Can the SC review a decision or order of a division?
No. Section 7 is clear only decisions, rulings, orders and
resolution of COMELEC EB may be raised in the SC via
certiorari. The SC said that it has no jurisdiction to review on
certiorari either interlocutory order or a final decision for that it is
not what is contemplated under the constitutional provision,
only decision of COMELEC En Banc are reviewable.
However, Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies,
the SC stressed, before party seeks help of the court, he should
have availed of all the means. A motion for reconsideration is a
prerequisite for the viability of the certiorari. Unless, the party
can show the exceptions to the rule. An MR is an available
remedy.
Filing with comelec EB would constitute a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy
Decisions of the Division cannot be taken directly to the
SC.
EXCEPTIONS:
1.where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately
have to be decided by the courts of justice;
2. where judicial intervention is urgent;
3. where the application of the doctrine may cause great and
irreparable damage;
4. where the controverted acts violate due process;
5.where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
has been rendered moot;
10
Cagas v. COMELEC 633 SCRA 644
SC here reiterated that the court has no power to review an
interlocutory order or even a division decision of the
COMELEC
making reference of Section 7 of Article IX-A.
MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO V. COMELEC
Wherein the SC stressed that it has no jurisdiction, if you
observe, the rules are so clear, only motions for
reconsideration decision resolved by COMELEC En Banc
which is reviewable in the SC via a petition of certiorari.
What happened here was that they issued a TRO which only
has a lifetime of 20 days but teh resolution issued by the
division is indefinite. And SC said that is GAD
SORIANO V. COMELEC
The court cited Ambil, and held that the court has no power
via certiorari an interlocutory or final order of a division of a
COMELEC but there was exception to these rules applies -
Where COMELEC GAOD on its face.
In Repol case, there was no limit to the Status Quo Ante
Order without COMELEC 1D issuing a WPI. The status quo
ante order was actually a TRO for it ordered Repol
to cease and desist of being Mayor and directed opponent to
assume post in the meantime. Qualified of “until motion by
the Commission” this violates the TRO lifetime of 20 days
andautomatically expiration upon denial of WPI.
Note: ana si mam capricious daw ni so the court can take
cognizance.
BAZARTE V. COMELEC
Rule 4 Section 1, No Member shall be "ponente" of an en
banc decision/resolution on a motion to reconsider a
decision/resolution written by him in a
Division. So the COMELEC En Banc the MR was also
penned by Commission Bora so SC stated that COMELEC
En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion for it was a
clear violation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
MACABAGO V. SALACOP
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills
There are two exceptions to the general rule that only ruling in
the exercise of adjudicatory functions of COMELEC are for
certiorari:
1. When the COMELEC has acted capriciously and
whimsically with GADALEJ
2. No plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
SALVA V. MAKALINTAL
SC held here that the issuance of COMELEC Resolution calling
for a plebiscite is an administrative matter. The SC said here
that resolution for the rules and regulations for plebiscite is a
ministerial duty and it does not entail an act of discretion. It
does not have discretionary authority as well as exercise of QJ
function so any question of this resolution in an ordinary civil
action in RTC.
CAYETANO VS. COMELEC
Cayetano case, stating the COMELEC has jurisdiction to
enforce all laws involving plebiscite.
SC ruled directing COMELEC reinstating the petition to annul
the results of the Taguig plebiscite without delay. It was sent to
the decision in COMELEC 2D, but majority not maintained,
thus it was elevated to the En Banc.
If the majority is not reached in division it is automatically
elevated to the COMELEC En Banc, Section 5 of the
COMELEC Rules. So, COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed
resolution conferring the resolution.
Cayetano field a motion contending the revision of the
plebiscite ballots cannot be relied and that there were many
irregularities attended the revision (meaning reopen ballot
boxes recounted).
The allegations of Cayetano were factual in nature which
should have been presented during the proceedings. This
cannot be presented via certiorari he should have raised it
during revision proceedings.
Nevertheless, due to public interest, SC found that Cayetano’s
basis were erroneous. The SC says here that while it should
11
been to the division, the SC still reviewed, it was found
erroneous and SC gave great weight of COMELEC due to
evidence and was given finality.
BULAONG VS. COMELEC
Pertains to the process which starts with division and only
MFR goes to teh comelec en ban except under sec 2, rule 3.
Admittedly, the order regarding the revision of ballots is
an interlocutory order because it still requires a party to
perform certain acts leading to the final adjudication of
a case.
The order in the case at bar is for the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Camarines Sur to transfer the ballot boxes
from Camarines Sur to Manila for a
recount and revision of ballots, for the purpose of
determining who won the gubernatorial race in Camarines
Sur.
It is our opinion that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion. For said motion to be considered en banc, it
requires the unanimous vote of the members of the division
as mandated by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules.
MENDOZA VS. COMELEC
Implementation of Rule 18, Sec 6; 2 remedies available to
teh comelec:
1. Dismiss case - originally commenced with comelec
Affirm - appealed cases
COMELEC Rules of Procedure is clear on this matter.
Without any trace of ambiguity, Section 6, Rule 18 of said
Rule
Outline of the Provision
Here in it provides an instance where the shall be a
rehearing when the Commission en banc is either:
3. Equally divided in opinion; or
4. The necessary majority cannot be had
ELECTION LAWS| Important rulings from cases discussed | Regina Mills 12

Then the case shall be reheard, but if on rehearing no decision That the SC and the COMELEC in the exercise of the
is reached, the action or proceeding shall be: COMELEC Appellate Jurisdiction has concurrent jurisdiction
that the court which takes cognizance first shall exercise
4. Dismissed; if originally commenced in the Commission jurisdiction it is only pursuant to the exercise of its jurisdiction.

5. Affirmed; in appealed cases involving judgment or order

6. Denied; in all incidental matters involving petition or motion An election protest was filed, the case was brought to the RTC
of Caloocan, however during the proceeding, notwithstanding
the revision, Carlos still won.

IN THE CASE: The propriety of applying the foregoing provision

according to its literal tenor cannot be gainsaid. As one
pertaining to the election of the provincial governor of Bulacan,
respondent’s Election Protest was originally commenced in the
COMELEC, pursuant to its exclusive original jurisdiction over
the case.

Although initially raffled to the COMELEC Second Division, the

elevation of said election protest on motion for reconsideration
before the Commission En Banc cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, be considered an appeal.

Tersely put, there is no appeal within the COMELEC itself. As

aptly observed in the lone dissent penned by COMELEC
Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, respondents Election
Protest was filed with the Commission at the first instance and
should be, accordingly, considered an action or proceeding
originally commenced in the Commission.

RELAMPAGOS v. CUMBA 243 SCRA 690 (1995)

It was held that the COMELEC is vested with the power to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction consistent with Section 50 of BP 697 and
Article 2(1) of the Constitution.

CARLOS v. ANGELES

SC declared that both the SC and COMELEC has concurrent

jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
over decision of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in elction
cases involving elective municipal officials.

The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive

jurisdiction over the case. (Art. VIII 5(1) 1987 Constitution, Rule
65, Sec. 1)

Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the COMELEC

the power and function to investigate and where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices.