AKBAYAN YOUTH vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001

Facts: Petitoners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the Comelec to conduct
a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections of new voters. According
to the petitioners around 4 Million youth failed to register on or before the December 27,
2000 deadline set by the respondent Commission under R.A. 8189. On January 29, 2001
Commissioners Tantangco and Lantion submitted Memorandum No. 2001-027
requesting for a two-day additional registration of new voters, to be set on February 17
and 18, 2001 nationwide. Subsequently, Comelec issued Resolution No. 3584 denying
said request, it was the consensus.

Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which
seeks to nullify respondent Comelec’s resolution and / or to declare Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189
unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of
petitioners and others similarly situated.
 cordora v. comelec (2009)
Facts:
Tambunting ran for a public local office which was opposed by Cordora. The latter alleged that
Tambunting was not eligible to run for local public office because Tambunting lacked the required
citizenship and residency requirements. In lieu with this, Cordora seeks to prosecute Tambunting
for knowingly making untruthful statements in his certificates of candidacy. Tambunting, on the
other hand, maintained that he did not make any misrepresentation in his certificates of candidacy.
Tambunting further denied that he was naturalized as an American citizen. The certificate of
citizenship conferred by the US government after Tambunting's father petitioned him through INS
Form I-130 (Petition for Relative) merely confirmed Tambunting's citizenship which he acquired
at birth. Tambunting's possession of an American passport did not mean that Tambunting is not a
Filipino citizen. Tambunting also took an oath of allegiance on 18 November 2003 pursuant to
Republic Act No. 9225 (R.A. No. 9225), or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of
2003.Tambunting further stated that he has resided in the Philippines since birth. Tambunting has
imbibed the Filipino culture, has spoken the Filipino language, and has been educated in Filipino
schools. Tambunting maintained that proof of his loyalty and devotion to the Philippines was
shown by his service as councilor of Parañaque.
The COMELEC En Banc was convinced and affirmed the findings and the resolution of the
COMELEC Law Department that Cordora failed to support his accusation against Tambunting by
sufficient and convincing evidence.

Issues:

WON Tambunting was qualified to hold a local public office.

Held:

Tambunting possesses dual citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his birth, it was no longer
necessary for Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire American citizenship.
The process involved in INS Form I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship which
Tambunting acquired at birth. Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual citizenship prior to the filing
of his certificate of candidacy before the 2001 elections. The fact that Tambunting had dual
citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office.

Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person
whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a
state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary
act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.

Suffice it to say, that the twin requirements in R.A. No. 9225 (Oath of Allegiance and an execution
of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship) do not apply to Tambunting for the reason that he is
natural-born Filipino. The twin requirements apply only when a Filipino who becomes a
naturalized citizen of another country is allowed to retain his Filipino citizenship by swearing to
the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines. The act of taking an oath of allegiance is
an implicit renunciation of a naturalized citizen's foreign citizenship.

G.R. No. 170365 February 2, 2010

ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDUL CARIM MALA ABUBAKAR

Facts:
The Comelec en banc ruled a failure of elections in precinct No. 6a/7a, Lanao del Sur
on the second instance stated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, that is, 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 or other
analogous causes. The Election on said precinct was disrupted by a commotion, was
untimely suspended and never resumed. The Comelec decision, consequently nullified
the proclamation of herein petitioner dibaratun as winner.

Petitioner Dibaratun contended that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections for acting on
herein respondents’ petition even if such petition was filed out of time.

Issue:
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections

Ruling:
COMELEC is vested with broad power to enforce all the laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections
as well as the plenary authority to decide all questions affecting elections except the question as to the right
to vote.

There instances when a failure of elections may be declared by COMELEC: (1) the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
another 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 or another analogous causes; or (3) after the voting
and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud
or another analogous causes. Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a
failure of elections, two conditions must concur: (1) no voting took place in the precinct or precincts on
the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election resulted in a failure to elect; and (2) the
votes not cast would have affected the result of the elections. The cause of such failure of election could
only be any of the following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes. The
COMELEC’s resolution on the petition to declare failure of elections is in line with its function of ensuring
the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The provision on failure of
elections in Section 6 of the OEC and Section 2, Rule 26 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure do not
provide for a prescriptive period for the filing of a petition for declaration of failure of elections. It
appears that the COMELEC En Banc has the discretion whether or not to take cognizance of such
petition.

Carlos v. Angeles
G.R. No. 142907 (Nov. 29, 2000)

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of mayor of the
municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila (later converted into a City) during the May 11, 1998
elections. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the mayor. The private
respondent filed an election protest with the RTC. The court came up with revision reports
which also showed that the petitioner got the highest number of votes. Nevertheless, in its
decision, the trial court set aside the final tally of valid votes because of its finding of "significant
badges of fraud," which it attributed to the present petitioner. The court then declared private
respondent as the winner. The petitioner appealed to the COMELEC, and also filed a petition to
the SC questioning the decision of the RTC. The private respondent questioned the jurisdiction
of the SC.
Issue:

Whether or not the sc has jurisdiction to review, by petition for certiorari as a special civil action, the
decision of the rtc in an election protest case involving an elective municipal official considering that it
has no appellate jurisdiction over such decision

HELD: Both the SC and COMELEC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTCs) in election cases involving
elective municipal officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
the case. Relative to the appeal that petitioner filed with the COMELEC, the same would not bar the
present action as an exception to the rule because under the circumstances, appeal would not be a
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The power to nullify an election must be exercised with the greatest care with a view not to
disenfranchise the voters, and only under circumstances that clearly call for such drastic remedial
measure. More importantly, the trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. It is
the COMELEC en banc that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of election.
Assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction to declare a failure of election, the extent of that
power is limited to the annulment of the election and the calling of special elections. The result is
a failure of election for that particular office. In such case, the court cannot declare a winner.
SUHURI VS COMELEC

THE CASE

The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Patikul, Sulu had earlier ruled against petitioner
Ismunlatip H. Suhuri's plea for the exclusion of 25 election returns from the canvass of votes cast
for the 2007 mayoralty race in Patikul, Sulu and then proclaimed respondent Kabir E. Hayudini
as the duly-elected Mayor. Appealing to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Suhuri
insisted on the invalidity of the proclamation because of the existing pre-proclamation
controversy involving the exclusion of the 25 election returns. The COMELEC, Second
Division, had sustained Suhuri's appeal and nullified Hayudini's proclamation, but the
COMELEC en banc reversed the Second Division through the assailed resolution of January 29,
2008.

Suhuri thus assails on certiorari the January 29, 2008 resolution of the COMELEC en banc that
reversed the resolution of the Second Division.1 He claims that the COMELEC en banc thereby
gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

RULING:

The lack of signatures of the party’s watchers, which is a violation of the rules governing the preparation
and delivery of election returns for canvassing do not necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of
election returns as to warrant their exclusion from the canvassing, as they are defects in form. The doctrine of
statistical improbability does not apply where there is neither uniformity of tallies nor systematic blanking
of the candidates of one party. A candidate that merely receives zero votes in one precinct cannotuse the
doctrine of statistical improbability.
Suhuri ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Patikul, Sulu during the May 14, 2007
national and local elections. He was opposed by Hayudini and a third candidate, Datu Jun
Tarsum.2 During the canvassing held on May 17, 2007 within the Sulu State College in Jolo,
Sulu, Suhuri orally objected to the inclusion of the election returns from the following 25
precincts, namely: Precincts 09/10A, 11A/12A, 13A/14A, 15A/16A, 17A/18A, 19A/20A, and
21A/22A of Barangay Anuling; Precincts 47A/48A, 49A/50A, and 51A/52A of Barangay
Bongkuang; Precincts 87A/88A, 89A/90A, 91A/92A, 93A/94A, 95A/96A, 97A/98A, and
99A/100A of Barangay Langhub; Precincts 101A/102A, 103A/104A, 105A/106A, 107A/108A,
and 109A/110A of Barangay Latih; and Precincts 116A/117A, 118A/119A, and 120A of
Barangay Maligay. The affected precincts carried a total of 4,686 votes. 3 He later filed with the
MBC written petitions regarding such exclusion on May 17, 18 and 19, 2007.4 He asserted that
the 25 election returns were "(1) [o]bviously manufactured; (2) [t]ampered with or falsified; (3)
[p]repared under duress; and (4) [characterized by] [s]tatistical improbability."5

The MBC ruled against Suhuri in the evening of May 19, 2007 by rejecting his objections to the
25 election returns.6 Then and there, he manifested his intent to appeal vis - à-vis the ruling. He
filed his notice of appeal shortly thereafter.7 In the same evening, the MBC proclaimed Hayudini
as the duly elected Mayor for having obtained 7,578 votes as against Suhuri's 6,803 votes based
on a complete canvass of the election returns, for a margin of 775 votes in favor of Hayudini.8

On May 23, 2007, Suhuri filed a petition-appeal with the COMELEC,9 docketed as S.P.C. No.
07-118. The petition-appeal was assigned to the Second Division.

On May 25, 2007, Suhuri likewise filed an election protest ad cautelam dated May 21, 2007 in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Patikul, Sulu to contest the results of the elections for
Municipal Mayor of Patikul, Sulu.10 On June 28, 2007, however, the RTC held the election
protest in abeyance upon Suhuri's own motion due to his pending pre-proclamation controversy
in S.P.C. 07-118.

In a further move, Suhuri brought a so-called petition to declare a failure of election with urgent
motion to suspend and/or annul the canvass of the election returns dated May 18, 2007,11
referring to the results from the 25 precincts in Barangays Anuling, Bongkaung, Langhub, Latih,
and Maligay, all within Patikul, Sulu. However, the COMELEC en banc denied the petition for
insufficiency of evidence on October 9, 2007.12 ???ñr

VALINO v. VERGARA, G.R. No. 180492 (March 13, 2009) EN BANC Resolution No. 8212, which dismissed
several pre proclamation cases issued by the COMELEC En Banc, is an exercise of their quasi judicial
power. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit
the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights
through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. There must be compliance with the rules of
procedure and remedies available vis-à-vis Resolution No. 8212.
PANGARUNGAN v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 107435-36 (December 11, 1992) EN BANC Under the COMELEC Rules

of Procedure, notice of a motion shall be served by the movant to all parties concerned at least three
(3) days before the hearing thereof together with the copy of the motion.
PANGARUNGAN v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 107435-36 (December 11, 1992) EN BANC A resolution
which affirms the decision to exclude the certificates of canvass was promulgated by the
COMELEC without hearing. No violation of due process was committed when said resolution was
promulgated without hearing because the parties already submitted evidence and the factual
question of whether the questioned certificates of canvass are spurious must be resolved on the
basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.