ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

Administrative Law - Specialization and expertise with respect to

matters and services
- Law that tends to control the administrative
operation of the government Types of Administrative Agencies:

Two aspects of administrative law 1. Carry specific functions

2. Performs business functions
a. Internal administrative law- refers to the legal
3. Regulation of business or public interest
aspect of the government
4. Regulate business of private individuals
b. External administrative law- the relationship
between the government and the private Jurisdiction:
individual
That which is mandated by law or by the
Main Purpose: serve the interest of the individuals Constitution, expressly or impliedly
and citizens
Conferment of Power
Kinds of Administrative Law:
Directory Power or Mandatory Power- must be done
a. Constitution;
Permissive Power- merely directory
b. Rules and regulation; and
c. Administrative agencies To Determine whether it is mandatory or permissive:
It consists of the following: 1. Ascertain the legislative intent
2. If it is done, determine whether there would
a. Constitution;
be damage: if yes, then mandatory; if no,
b. Laws ;
then permissive
c. Administrative code; and
d. Other laws enacted by the Congress Government is not capable of error but the
government employee or official may commit an
Note that when a general law is called a Code, it
error
means it has a wide scope or coverage.
- The individual concerned will be sued
Kinds of Documents:
- Presumption of regularity in good faith for
a. Incorporated Agencies government employees as long as they
b. Administrative agencies created by the performed their duties in good faith. Such
Constitution presumption can be overturned.
- Congress cannot abolish agencies created - If an error/mistake was committed by the
by the constitution (water cannot rise above government official or employee in good
its source) faith and no injury, then the error is not an
c. Administrative agencies created by the law actionable wrong.
- Congress had the power to enact, create
Powers of the administrative agency
and abolish
- Reorganization is simply changing the - Lodged in the executive department
organizational structure (different from  Executive Power
abolishing) - SC held in case of Marcos v. Manglapus that
the powers granted to the president are not
Reasons for the creation of administrative agencies:
only those granted by the Constitution but he
1. More convenient also have implied powers or residual powers
- Administrative Agencies can promulgate
Powers:
rules to enforce the law created by
Congress.  Power to Control
2. To address the growing complexities of - Amend, alter or set aside the decision of a
modern society subordinate in the Executive Department

1
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
 Power to Review
- Reverse, amend or go over the decisions of a
subordinate
 Power to Investigate
- Fact-finding as those agencies whose
function is primarily to investigate and make
a recommendatory action
- When the agencies has the power to
investigate is merely incidental, it can
conduct a case
- Is notice and hearing necessary in an
investigation? Yes, it is essential for due
process to give the person under
investigation an opportunity to be heard, but
lack of notice and hearing does not deprive
a person due process as long as no right is
trampled upon. Such requirement is only
necessary when the law expressly provides
for the requirement of notice and hearing. If
the law is silent, it depends on the stage of
the investigation. If it is in the fact-finding
stage, then there is no need for notice and
hearing, but if the investigation is in the stage
of filing charges, then notice and hearing is
required.
Limitations:
1. Cannot abolish or create executive offices
2. Cannot Remove or suspend career
executive officials and employees without
just cause, except for cabinet officials
appointed by the President.
3. Setting aside, reversing or reviewing a
decision that already become final by virtue
of a court order
4. Limited to supervision outside of the
executive department, ie local government
units
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
General Rule: Legislative function is vested upon the
Congress. It may not be delegated, following the
Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Non-
delegation of Legislative Power.
Exceptions:
1. Constitution gives powers to the President
such as fixing the Tariff, declaration of Martial
Law, etc.
2
2. The power of SC- decisions of the courts may
form part of the laws of the land
3. Article X of the 1987 Constitution (Local
Government Code)
4. Local Sanggunian
Rulemaking power of the administrative agencies
pertains to quasi-legislative power
- Administrative agencies exercise rulemaking
power and not lawmaking, the former can
be delegated
- Rulemaking power is based on the existing
laws. The administrative agencies merely
supplies the details not found in the law.
The rulemaking power is for:
1. In relation to the function of the administrative
agency to implement the laws
Publication is necessary for administrative agencies
for their IRR to be effective. Publication is for the
public to be aware, and answers the date of
effectivity of the law.
Administrative Code requires that publication be
made in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of
general circulation unless provided otherwise. It is
required even if the law is silent.
2. Interpretation and construction of the law
Interpretation and construction is strictly part of the
Judiciary’s function, however it is also given to
administrative agencies if there is a request or
referral for legal opinion. The legal opinion is given
great weight and great respect. Ex. DOJ circulars
which clarifies some provision of law; the Forestry
Code did not qualify what are included as ‘other
forest products’
It is followed by other administrative agency. It is not
binding to the courts but Congress may enact a law
following such interpretation. Absent such law, the
court may invalidate such erroneous interpretation.
Ex. BFAR provided that the use of electricity as one
of the prohibited acts in fishing before Congress
enacted a law for such. SC held that it was beyond
the power of the BFAR to include such as prohibited.
What the law does not include, it excludes.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
Administrative agencies can interpret the law
because going to courts is costly, and the party must
bring a case of actual controversy.
3. Interpretation of the facts based on the law
- Determine how to implement law but not
how the law should be
Ex. DPWH – power to remove obstruction in
waterways, even fish cages or other platform as long
as it impedes the flow. SC held that executive power
is not only limited to enforcement, but the power to
determine the facts is incidental to the main function
to implement the law.
To determine if it is rulemaking:
a. Determine if there is an existing law, or at
least a provision of the Constitution
- If none, then it is a lawmaking power
b. Ascertain if the rule promulgated pursuant to
the law is valid, following the two tests:
a. Completeness test
- Law must be complete and it must not
delegate the authority to another
department. There must be nothing left but
enforce the law.
- A law is not complete if there is discretion on
the part of the enforcing body. Ex. “the
courts shall determine the penalty for
violators.”
b. Sufficient standard test
- To guide the implementor by setting
boundaries or limitations
- Ex. Ynot v. IAC- the confiscated meat may be
disposed by the Department as it may deem
necessary
Notice and hearing requirement is not required for
rulemaking
- When the law only has general application or
applies to a particular class
- Publication is needed for the rule to be
effective
Ex. Rate-fixing of minimum fares in jeepney
When there is no petition or adversarial procedure,
notice and hearing is not required. The
administrative agency can simply promulgate
based on the law.
3
Recourse when rules promulgated is in the exercise
of quasi-legislative function: Petition for Declaratory
Relief.
If there is a petition from a group or private individual
for the increase of fare, and the administrative
agency ruled on such matter- Quasi-judicial
function. Notice and hearing is required.
QUASI-JUDICIAL
There is a controversy, and gathering of evidence is
involved in the process.
Rules of Court is suppletory in character. The Rules
are applicable only when the Administrative
Procedure is lacking.
Technical rules on evidence are not applied.
Lawyers may or may not be involved in the process.
Adjudication of the cases in Administrative Agencies
have limited jurisdiction and it is based on what is
provided by law. Compared to those exercising
general jurisdiction that is vested in courts, they may
exercise functions even in matters not provided by
law.
Jurisdiction is acquired:
a. Over the subject matter
The subject matter are provided for by law.
Ex. Government Employee is under the jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission.
b. Cause of action
This is subject to the provisions of law granting such
agency power.
Ex. CSC cannot resolve issues who would handle the
salary of the husband.
c. Over the parties
The complainant or petitioner files the complaint.
The agency acquires jurisdiction over the party upon
the filing of the complaint. Jurisdiction is acquired
over the defendant or respondent through proper
service of summons or voluntary submission. The
defendant submits to the jurisdiction with a caution
that he can question the jurisdiction.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
If the administrative agency has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, the petition must be dismissed.
Due Process Requirement must always be observed.
In the event that the requirement of notice and
hearing was denied, the party may appeal.
For custodial investigation: not as strict in enforcing
the Constitutional Rights
Administrative Agencies has their own set of rules. If
they have none, then the provisions of the
Administrative Code must be followed. Rules of
Court has suppletory character.
Due Process in Administrative Agencies (Ang Tibay
v. CIR)
1. The first of these rights is the right to a
hearing, which includes the right of the
party interested or affected to present
his own case and submit evidence in
support thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
3. The decision must be based on the evidence
presented by the parties.
4. The evidence must be substantial, relevant
as a reasonable mind to accept as
adequate to support the conclusion.
5. The decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed
to the parties affected.
6. The tribunal must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views
of a subordinate in arriving at a decision
7. The tribunal should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved, and the
reasons for the decision rendered.
Principles under Civil Procedure Applicable:
 Certificate of Non-forum shopping
A reminder that a person must not resort to Forum
Shopping.
To certify under oath asserting a claim that the party:
4
a. Has not commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal, quasi-judicial agency and to the
best of his knowledge has no such other
action or claim is pending therein;
b. If there is such other action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status
thereof; and
c. If he should learn that the same or similar
action has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five days to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Forum Shopping
- Can be committed even if one is a judicial
court and the other is a quasi-judicial
agency.
 Verification
Notarized statement. A pleading is verified by
an affidavit that an affiant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are
true and correct of his personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.
This is usually included in the certificate of non-
forum shopping.
 Judicial Affidavit Rule
Witness testimony is prepared in writing and in a form
of question and answer. When the parties go to
courts, the other party would proceed to cross-
examination instead of conducting direct
examination.
Right to Counsel is not necessary in Quasi-judicial
proceedings
Luniqued Case: The procedure is composed of a
committee. The first day of hearing, Regional
Director has no counsel. He requested for a reset that
was granted by the committee. On the next
scheduled hearing, the respondent did not appear
nor his counsel. As such, the committee decided to
proceed and recommended the dismissal of the
Regional Director. The SC held that even without
counsel in an Administrative Case, there is no denial
of due process because the respondent should
know, considering his high degree of education.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction on Prior Result
- Courts will not proceed to decide on the
case for the administrative agency has
necessary expertise on such matters
- Action of courts:
o Courts shall refer the case to the
administrative agency instead of
resolving the case; or
o Dismiss the case outright (Sir Ngolob’s
opinion: dismissal is not the proper
procedure but more appropriate to
archive for revival after decision
reached by the appropriate
administrative agency)
- May be a defense by the Defendant if he
wants to bring the case to proper
administrative agency and the court may
motu proprio refer the case
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
- Once a case was lodged in administrative
agency, the parties must exhaust all
administrative remedies before the matter
be brought to the Court
- Parties went to the administrative agency first
before they went to Court
- Courts will not entertain the case filed unless
all remedies were exhausted by the party,
otherwise the filing of a case in court while
pending in a quasi-judicial agency will result
to forum shopping.
Q: there is a pending administrative case. Ten
days after the receipt of a decision, the party
filed a complaint in court.
The running for period to appeal will not be
suspended.
Administrative Remedies of the Party:
1. Appeal
2. Motion for Reconsideration
Exception:
 when the issue involved is a pure question of
law
 when the due process is clearly violated
 when the administrative action is patently
illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
5
 when there is urgent need for judicial
intervention
 when there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction
 when there is no other plain, speedy or
adequate remedy provided by law
 when there is estoppel on the part of the
agency concerned
 when there is great and irreparable
damage which can only be prevented by
court action
 when the resort to administrative remedy will
amount to the nullification of a claim
 when the law specifically provides that the
issue shall be brought up to the court
 when the subject matter is private land in
land case proceedings
Principle of Qualified Political Agency:
- due to multifarious functions there are those
that may be acting as President’s alter ego
o deemed the decision of the Office of
the President so as not for the parties
to go to the President himself
- secretary’s decision is the President’s
decision
o some administrative agency are of
the same level with the RTC
- however there are decisions that can be
appealed to the CA
Judicial Review
- exercised by all courts whether from an
agency exercising quasi-legislative or quasi-
judicial agency
- Political Question- not decided by court but
by the people
o Changed the trend that the court will
not decide on matters that is a
political question
o Every act of the government is now a
subject of judicial review but is not
abandoned for there are instances
that should be left to the sovereign
power.
- Plain administrative actions are brought
through ordinary action
o Court of general jurisdiction
- Quasi-legislative functions
o Mode of appeal under Rule 43 and
brought to CA
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

- If in excess of jurisdiction, then the mode of ELECTION LAWS

review is through Rule 65 but only when no
other remedy is available for the aggrieved Right of Suffrage
party
- Right to vote and be voted upon
Questions of law are the ones brought to the Sources:
judiciary but determine the kind of judicial review
Constitution
Review on Appeal Appeal on Certiorari
RA No. 8189
Error of judgment Special civil action
brought to Court of Qualifications of a Voter:
Appeals Deals with error on
jurisdiction 1. Philippine citizenship
2. 18 years of age
The reckoning point is on the date of
election.
Example: A applied for registration. He is now
seventeen years old. On the day of election,
he will turn 18. He would allowed to vote by
then.
3. Resident of the Philippines at least 1 year and
a resident of the municipality for at least 6
months
-Romualdez- Marcos v. COMELEC

Disqualification of Voters

1. Sentenced imprisonment for at least one

year unless pardoned
- Those that were not granted pardon can
vote after five years of service (automatic)
2. Insanity or incompetent
3. Dual citizens

Registration of Voters:

Day to day but ends

120 days before regular election; or

90 days before special election

Process:

1. Filing
2. COMELEC conducts a hearing to determine
the qualifications

COMELEC either:

Grants- any person can file for a petition for

exclusion if he knows any disqualification existing
in the voter; or

6
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
Denies- the applicant can file a petition for
Inclusion
3. Voters shall look for the precinct which
contains his name
- At least 1 precinct per barangay in the event
that it cannot accommodate enough
people, there will be supplemental precinct
Case: Book of Voters- contains the vital information
of voter where the Board will compare for the validity
of identity.
Facts: Barangay Kagawad carried the ballot box
which contained the book of voters to be
transported to the precinct that is six hours away
from his barangay. On his way to the precinct, he
bought groceries. Due to the heavy load, he left the
book of voters along the road and went to the
precinct. The teachers pushed through with the
election.
SC: Loss of the book of voters is not a valid ground to
invalidate election.
Handicaps and illiterate can be registered voters as
long as they have none of the disqualifications. They
must be assisted by a member of the household.
Principle of Res Judicata is not applicable for the
qualifications of voters
- He may possess the disqualification but he
can cure the defect
Absentee voting
- Whether registered voters or not, outside the
Philippines but possess all the qualifications,
he can register in the consulate or embassy
or any institution that deals with the rights of
the citizens.
- Limited to:
o President
o Vice-president
o Senator
Change of Residence
- Can still vote in the locality but can apply for
transfer of the voter’s ID to prevent double
registration.
7
Political Parties
- Philippines follow a multi-party system that is
based on the platform of leadership
- mean an organized group of persons
pursuing the same ideology, political ideas or
platforms of government and includes its
branches and divisions. To acquire juridical
personality, quality it for subsequent
accreditation, and to entitle it to the rights
and privileges herein granted to political
parties, a political party shall first be duly
registered with the Commission. Any
registered political party that, singly or in
coalition with others, fails to obtain at least
ten percent of the votes cast in the
constituency in which it nominated and
supported a candidate or candidates in the
election next following its registration shall,
after notice and hearing be deemed to have
forfeited such status as a registered political
party in such constituency (Section 60,
Omnibus Election Code)
- Case Doctrine: There are two kinds of party-
list contemplated under the Constitution:
sectoral and political. Although the
Constitution did not exclude nor disqualify
the political parties from participating in the
party-list system, the SC still held that it is not
still the time for such party to participate in
the party-list system.
National party
- when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of
the regions.
Regional party
- when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of
the cities and provinces comprising the
region.
Sectoral party
- refers to an organized group of citizens
belonging to any of the sectors enumerated
in Section 5 hereof whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interests
and concerns of their sector. (RA 7941 Party-
list System Act)
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

- The Sectors shall include the following: foundation, organization whether directly or
o labor, through any of its members or indirectly
o peasant, through third parties for partisan election
o fisherfolk, purposes
o urban poor,  Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules, or
o indigenous cultural communities, regulations relating to elections
o elderly,  Declares untruthful statements in its petition
o handicapped,  Ceased to exist for at least one year
o women,  Fails to participate in the last two preceding
o youth, elections or fails to obtain at least two
o veterans, percentum of the votes cast under the party-
o overseas workers, and list system in the two preceding elections
o professionals. (Rationale: have no strong following)

Registration of Political Parties: Requirements for Candidates to Run under a Political

Party:
Any organized group of persons may register as a
party, organization, or coalition for purposes of the  Present a certificate of membership
party-list system by:  Nomination of the party for the position

 filing with the COMELEC not later than 90

days before the election a petition verified
The internal rules of the political party governs the
by its president and secretary stating its desire
selection of the official candidates running under the
to participate in the party-list system as
political parties but the COMELEC can decide on the
national, regional or sectoral party or
leadership of the parties.
organization or coalition
 attaching the constitution, by-laws, platform
or program of government, list of officers,
coalition agreement and other relevant Case: Ang LADLAD v. COMELEC
information the COMELEC may require
- Ang LADLAD is a sectoral party-list
 COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least
representing the LGBT community to give
two national newspapers of general
voice in the Congress.
circulation
- COMELEC denied its registration on the
 Resolve the petition after 15 days from date
grounds that morality is contrary to Christian
it was submitted for decision but in no case
and Muslim beliefs.
shall it be later than 60 days before election
- SC: Morality is not a ground for disapproval
Removal or Cancellation of Registration on the application for it was not provided by
law. Ang LADLAD may run for the party-list
- By COMELEC motu proprio or upon verified system. (Note that Ang LADLAD lost in that
complaint of any interested party election.)
- With due notice and hearing
Midterm Election- the election held three years after
Grounds: the Presidential Election.
 Religious sect or denomination, organization, - Presidential and Vice-Presidential
or association organized for religious candidates are not included in this period.
purposes - 12 senators/ 3 years are elected
 Advocates violence or unlawful means to
seek its goal Conduct of Convention – to select the candidates
 Foreign party or organization per political party, and filing of the Certificate of
 Receiving support from any foreign Candidacy.
government, foreign political party,

8
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
- Senatorial candidates may be less than 12
Election Period- when the Election laws takes effect.
Prohibited acts as mandated by the Election Code
takes effect
Campaign Period
- National Candidates- February 12, 2019- May
11, 2019
- Local Candidates – March 29, 2019- May 11,
2019
- Maundy Thursday and Good Friday
candidates cannot campaign on said dates
Filing of Certificate of Candidacy- a condition
before a person can be elected in the public office.
Requirements for Certificate of Candidacy:
Common Contents:
a. Office aspired for
b. Name of aspirant
c. Age
d. Sex
e. Civil status
f. Place and date of birth
g. Citizenship
h. Execution of sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship
i. If married, name of spouse
j. Address for election purposes
k. Legal residence, exact address and number
l. Barangay, city, municipality and province
where aspirant is a regular vote
m. If under political party, accompanied by
certificate of nomination and acceptance
- To be treated as a candidate running under
political party
- Political party had nominated that person is
really a member of a political party
- Can be used by coalition
Premature Campaigning
Case: Penera v. COMELEC
- Mayor candidate and her slate agreed to
meet in the house of Penera. They went to
town with banners and megaphone
announcing their intention to run
- Headed to COMELEC to file their Certificate
of Candidacy.
9
- She won as Mayor and some of her co-
parties.
- A petition was filed alleging premature
campaigning
- COMELEC decided against Penera, so she
was disqualified. Case was brought to SC
- SC defined Premature Campaigning as an
act of doing a campaign for or against a
party prior campaign period committed by a
candidate. A candidate is a person who has
duly filed his CoC but is considered only a
candidate during the campaign period.
Thus, Penera was still not a candidate when
they campaigned around town.
Elective Officials v. Appointive Officials
- Not deemed resign for their term of office is
from July 1 to June 30.
- If the elective officials are deemed resigned
upon filing of CoC, then we deprive the
electorate representation.
- Appointive officials are deemed resigned for
there is a grave danger that they would use
official time for personal reasons.
Limitation for ballot: 30 characters maximum space
for candidates
Campaign Medium:
1. Audio-visual
- With limitations with respect to the minutes,
eg. TV ads
2. Print media
- Regulations and limitations which now
included social media
Note: social media is not included for election
expenses.
Expenses allowed:
1. Independent Candidates
-P5/ registered voter in the constituency where
they are running for office
2. With political parties
- P3/ individual candidate but the political
party itself can spend P5/ registered voter.
- Contributions of candidates can be part of
the expenses
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
- Example of prohibited act: feeding people in
the political rally
Limitations:
1. Streamers- 3ft x 8ft
- Only during rallies or gatherings
- 5 days before the conduct of rally or
gatherings
2. Poster- 2ft x 3 ft
- In designated posting areas
- Political parties and candidates within the
locality can agree how to share the area
- Can post in private places as long as the
owner consented
3. Leaflets- maximum size is 8.5 in x 14 in
4. For public transport
- To be displayed with limitations
- Vehicles owned by the government is strictly
prohibited
SC: freedom of expression but qualified the use of
PUVs that the owner must apply for the permit
coming from COMELEC and LTFRB and payment of
required fees.
5. Letters written to individual voters
Destruction of campaign materials is a violation of
the Election Laws
A candidate may establish headquarters
- National- 1 each region
- Governmental- 1 within the province and 1
each municipality
How to conduct a campaign
- TV ads, survey
Survey post-election- must maintain a distance from
the precinct/ voting place
1. Rally/ political rally
- Conducted by a candidate in a place
whereby he would hold speeches
- General audience, not selected by the
candidate
- Somehow display of his strength
2. Caucus
- Audience are selected or invited, from
particular sectors
10
- Can discuss more matters with respect to the
problems each sector face
- More effective than a rally for rally cannot be
controlled
3. House to House
- Knocks on each house within the area and
ask the members of the household what they
need (eg. Housewife)
Prohibition:
1. Foreigners not allowed to campaign for any
candidate
2. Government officials and Employees
- Mere utterances of one’s preference is not a
violation but if the Employee is campaigning
for a candidate then it is a violation
- EXPN: those also running
Permit
- Rally or political parties issued by the
municipality
- Ministerial duty of the municipality to grant
unless there is a conflict like a prior scheduled
political rally or there is danger
Misrepresentation and Credentials
- Depends on the voters
Case: Married woman Candidate won for Mayor.
She used her husband’s surname during the election.
When she was the incumbent mayor, her marriage
was annulled. She made a survey and found out that
her husband’s surname is more popular. When she
ran for the next election, she used her husband’s
surname in filing the CoC.
Surveys
- Conducted when candidates have already
filed a Certificate of Candidacy
- COMELEC: those who would release falsified
election survey can be held liable
- Conduct of surveys during election day must
be away from the precinct (it is still a means
to garner votes. Bandwagon mentality)
- (Note: according to COMELEC Resolution
No. 3636, pollsters shall not conduct their
surveys within 50meters from the polling
place)
Case: Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
ELECTION DAY
- Commence at 7am and ends at 3pm
Precinct- voting place where sort of 200 registered
voters are found
- After the Automated Election System (AES)-
there is a voter counting machine
Cluster- equivalent to 5 voting precincts.
- AES’ counting is by cluster.
- Less than 5 precincts for some areas, still 1
cluster due to limited number of Voter
Counting Machine
- Manned by the Board of Election Inspectors,
usually public school teachers with added
qualification that they must have basic IT
knowledge
Voting Place
- Preferably public schools. Private schools can
also be used as a precinct.
Board of Election Inspectors
Qualification: Public school teachers
But there are cases when soldiers can be the Board
of Election Inspectors due to the peace and order
situation of the area.
Is it valid?
Circumstances that can declare failure of failure or
when election does not happen. If there is a war prior
to the election day, it is already a failure of election.
Other circumstances include:
- When soldiers were members of the board
because soldiers are not qualified.
During Election Day
Opening:
Paraphernalia are already prepared. A irregularity from happening. If there are still voters
computerized list of voters are posted on the wall.
The book of voters should also be inside.
Facts: Barangay Kagawad carried the ballot box
which contained the book of voters to be
11
transported to the precinct that is six hours away
from his barangay. On his way to the precinct, he
bought groceries. Due to the heavy load, he left the
book of voters along the road and went to the
precinct. The teachers pushed through with the
election.
However, the losing candidates contested that there
should be failure of election because there were
allegedly illiterate voters that were assisted by the
barangay officials.
SC: It is not a sufficient to declare a ground of failure
of election.
Steps:
1. Voters would look for their name and the
precinct.
2. If their name is included, they should
proceed inside. Place their thumbmark and
signature and they shall be given a ballot.
3. Shade their ballot according to their votes.
4. After shading, feed the machine to be read.
5. Go to the Board of Election inspector.
Any form of campaigning not included in the IRR
must have a petition filed with the COMELEC.
A voter may be challenged based on his identity
The issue is addressed by the Board of Election
Inspectors. The Board will require the voter to furnish
any proof of identity such as government ID,
passport, or present any person testifying for the
voter.
It is not a court proceeding since it is sufficient to
have a proof of identity. In case of doubts, the Board
must decide in favor of the voter.
Ex. The board can decide just by comparing the
signature of the voter.
Cases shall be decided immediately.
Voting opens at 7am and closes at 3pm. There shall
be no disruption in the process to present any
who are still waiting beyond 3pm, as long as they are
only 30m away, the Bureau of Elections Inspectors
must get their names, ascertain identity and be
allowed to cast their votes.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
Those who has no names in the list but previously
have voted in the same precincts can still be
allowed to vote but must be indicated that it has no
name in the list.
Watchers
- Their role is to challenge the identity of voters
and tell the Board of any observance in the
irregularity of the voting process
- Machine summarizes the counting. There is
no need for tally sheets because the
machine now counts for the election return.
- Machine prints out the election return and
sends the result to the board of canvassers.
Board of canvassers
- Within the municipality: composed of the
officials in the Municipality
- In the automated election system, the
machine prints out the election returns. The
board waits for the hard copy to be
compared with the soft copy. If there are no
discrepancies, then they shall declare the
winners.
- The hard copy of the results shall be
distributed to COMELEC, Board of
Canvassers, Court, Dominant Political Parties,
etc…
Case in Itogon: the votes of one precinct was not
considered. During the counting, lightning struck
that resulted to loss of power. Some votes were
counted before the power interruption but the
board still disregarded its votes for it will not
materially alter the results.
PREPROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
Sources:
Omnibus Election Code
RA No. 9369
Jurisdiction: COMELEC
In the Omnibus Election, the Board of Election
Inspectors prepares the election returns.
Under the Automated Election System: the PCOS
machine prints the election returns. There can be
no case of tampering or substitution that was
12
generated by the machine, thus there is no more
PPC based on tampering and substitution.
Grounds:
1. Tampering or substitution of the election
returns
2. Qualification of the board of canvassers
a. Illegal composition of the board
b. Precinct level- cluster requirement for
the Board of Election Canvassers
must have basic IT knowledge
3. Illegal proceedings
a. Precipitate canvassing without
proper basis for canvassing to
determine the number of votes
b. Acts of terrorism (found in Automated
Election System)
c. Improper venue
The grounds must be based on those provided in the
Omnibus Election Code:
If a case is filed before a winner has been
proclaimed, then it is a PPC. No winner has been
proclaimed yet thus, the case must be resolved
before a winner can be proclaimed.
If a winner has already been proclaimed, the
proclaimed winner occupies the position and the
case becomes a regular election case.
Nature of the Proceeding: Summary proceeding due
to the fact that the case must be resolved
immediately prior to the assumption of office. If a
winner assumes office, then the case is converted to
a regular election case.
If there are manifest errors, then the COMELEC may
make corrections in that case, even under RA 9369.
Case: Quino v. COMELEC
ELECTION PROTESTS AND QUO WARRANTO
- Cases filed against or involving the winning
candidate
- These are election contests that must not be
mixed in the same petition. The petition filed
must indicate what kind of petition it is.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

Election Protests Quo Warranto is based on the same grounds as the PPC,
Parties: Protestant- Parties: Complainant- then the Election Protest can be filed. PPC is
Protestee Respondent suspended in effect.
the issue involved The issue involved is 2. Follow procedure of regular cases filed in
involves the question of based on the court such as Certification on non-forum
who won based on the ineligibility or disloyalty shopping, Judicial Affidavit, verification
plurality of votes or the of the respondent to 3. Appeal
irregularity of the the Republic of the
MTC appeal to COMELEC
conduct of the Philippines or the
RTC appeal to COMELEC. Note that RTC has
election qualification of the
no appellate jurisdiction in election contests.
person
The complainant must The complainant can COMELEC’s decision is final and executory
be the losing be any registered but can be subject to the power of review
candidate up to the voter, whether a by the SC.
candidate who candidate or not. If the
garnered the fourth complainant is a losing
highest vote. If the one candidate, he may be Case: Election Protest was filed against a candidate.
who filed the case is declared as the winner. Protestant failed to allege the precinct and the
shown to be the
number of vote. RTC dismissed the case. The
winner, then he can be
protestant filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC and
considered as the
appealed to the COMELEC. He paid the appellant
winning candidate.
fees after filing the Notice of Appeal. The COMELEC
dismissed so he brought the case to the SC.
Jurisdiction:
SC: The appellant fees can be paid with the
MTC- barangay elective officials COMELEC at a later time and not simultaneous with
the filing of the Notice of Appeal. However, the case
- They are covered by AM No. 07-14-15-SC for
must still be dismissed because of the failure to allege
they are not covered by Automated
the precincts and the number of votes. These are
Election.
material requirements.
RTC- municipal elective officials
COMELEC Electoral Tribunal
- They are covered by AM No. 10-4-1-SC. Jurisdiction over Must be brought to the
administrative HRET if there is already a
COMELEC- provincial officials procedure winner.
Issue: number of votes
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal- and the precinct
Congressmen

Senate Electoral Tribunal- Senators

Presidential Electoral Tribunal- President and Vice-

President

Process with respect to Barangay Officials and

Municipal Officials:

1. Petition must be filed within 10 days from the

proclamation of winners.
- The period cannot be extended and can no
longer contest after the lapse of the ten-day
period.
- If there is a pending PPC during such time,
there is already a winner and the complaint

13
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
CASES
In general, a pre-proclamation controversy is an administrative remedy to correct errors,
discrepancies, defects or fraud committed at the canvassing level.
Quinio V. Comelec
Facts:
On May 2010 elections, Quinio won as Mayor
Compostela, Cebu and was proclaimed on the
next day.
On May 21, 2010, Wagasalso filed a petition for
annulment of proclamation claiming that that
the Audit/Print Logs of the Consolidating
Machine of the MBOC did not reflect at least
fourteen (14) clustered precincts that more than
700 votes were cast but the Statement of Votes
reflected only 10 votes.
On June 28, 2010,he took oath and assumed
office. On the same day, however, the
COMELEC granted the "Extremely Urgent
Motion to Suspend the Effect of Proclamation."
On January 12, 2011 the COMELEC Granted the
Petition to Annul Proclamation.
Quinio filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65
with the SC.
ISSUE:
Does such contention reasonably warrant the
annulment of one’s proclamation?
HELD:
The scope of pre-proclamation controversy has
now been limited into only two (2) issues, to wit:
14
a) illegal composition of the Board of
Canvassers; and
b) illegal proceedings, as when there is
precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of
sufficient notice to the members of the Board of
Canvassers, and improper venue.
Also, it was expressly provided under COMELEC
Resolution No. 8809 that there shall be no pre-
proclamation cases on issues/controversies
relating to the generation, transmission, receipt
and custody and appreciation of election
returns or certificates of canvass.
Obviously, the alleged irregularity on the
audit logs does not fall within the ambit of the
new definition of a pre-proclamation
controversy.
Also, since it was already year 2012, the petition
has become moot and academic.
And where the issue has become moot and
academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so
that a declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value. There is no actual
substantial relief to which r Quinio would be
entitled.
Thus, DISMISSED on the ground of MOOTNESS.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
Fornier v. COMELEC, GR No. 161824
Facts:
In seeking the disqualification of the
candidacy of FPJ and to have the COMELEC
deny due course to or cancel FPJ’s certificate
of candidacy for alleged misrepresentation of a
material fact (i.e., that FPJ was a natural-born
citizen) before the COMELEC, petitioner Fornier
invoked Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code –
"Section 78. Petition to deny due course
to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
A verified petition seeking to deny due
course or to cancel a certificate of
candidacy may be filed by any person
exclusively on the ground that any
material representation contained
therein as required under Section 74
hereof is false.
In another special civil action, petitioners
Tecson and Desiderio challenge the jurisdiction
of the COMELEC over the issue of the citizenship
of FPJ. They assert that only this Court has
jurisdiction over the issue in light of the last
paragraph of Section 4 of Article VII of the
Constitution, which provides:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
In its Resolution of 23 January 2004, the
First Division of the COMELEC dismissed
COMELEC Case SPA No. 04-003 for lack of merit.
Issue: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction
over petitions to deny due course to or cancel
15
certificates of candidacy of Presidential
candidates
Ruling: Yes. It declared that COMELEC’s
jurisdiction is limited to all matters relating to
election, returns and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial and city officials,
but not those of national officials like the
President. It has, however, jurisdiction to pass
upon the issue of citizenship of national officials
under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code
on petitions to deny due course or cancel
certificates of candidacy on the ground that
any material representation contained therein
is false. It found that the evidence adduced by
petitioner Fornier is not substantial, and that FPJ
did not commit any falsehood in material
representation when he stated in his certificate
of candidacy that he is a natural-born Filipino
citizen.
Petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court as provided for in the last paragraph of
Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution, and
raise the issue of the ineligibility of a candidate
for President on the ground that he is not a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The
actions contemplated in the said provision of
the Constitution are post-election remedies,
namely, regular election contests and quo
warranto. The petitioner should have, instead,
resorted to pre-election remedies, such as those
prescribed in Section 68 (Disqualifications), in
relation to Section 72; Section 69 (Nuisance
candidates); and Section 78 (Petition to deny
course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy…These pre-election remedies or
actions do not, however, fall within the original
jurisdiction of this Court. (Separate Opinion)
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. vs. The COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and FPJ
FACTS:
On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly
Poe, also known as FPJ filed his COC for the
position of President of the Philippines under the
Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party.
In his COC FPJ represented himself as a natural-
born Filipino born on August 20, 1939 in Manila.
Victorino X. Fornier initiated, on 09 January 2004,
a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ
or to cancel his CoC for making a material
misrepresentation, by claiming to be a natural-
born Filipino citizen when in truth, according to
Fornier, his parents were foreigners. His mother,
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his
father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being
the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish
subject. According to Fornier, although Allan
Poe (FPJ’s father) was a natural born Filipino, he
could not have transmitted his citizenship
because the latter is an illegitimate child of his
alien mother. Fornier based this on two
assertions, first, Allan F. Poe contracted a prior
marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his
marriage to Bessie Kelley and, second, even if
no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe,
married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of
respondent. The case was dismissed by the
COMELEC.
In two other consolidated cases, docketed
as Tecson vs. Comelec and Velez vs. FPJ, they
challenged the jurisdiction of the COMELEC
asserting that, under Article VII, Section 4,
paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the
Supreme Court had original and exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on
citizenship.
ISSUES:
1. WoN FPJ is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
2. WoN the COMELEC has jurisdiction over
the case.
16
RULING:
1. YES. It is necessary to take on the matter of
whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-
born citizen, which, in turn, depended on
whether or not the father of respondent,
Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a
Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative,
whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of
respondent prevents him from taking after
the Filipino citizenship of his putative father.
Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of
Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the
presumption that having died in 1954 at 84
years old, Lorenzo would have been born
sometime in the year 1870, when the
Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that
San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of
residence upon his death in 1954, in the
absence of any other evidence, could have
well been his place of residence before
death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have
benefited from the “en masse Filipinization”
that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902.
That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired,
would thereby extend to his son, Allan F.
Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935
Constitution, during which regime
respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers
citizenship to all persons whose fathers are
Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
children are legitimate or illegitimate.
But while the totality of the evidence
may not establish conclusively that
respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines, the evidence on hand still
would preponderate in his favor enough to
hold that he cannot be held guilty of having
made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy in violation of
Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the
Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner utterly
failed to prove misrepresentation.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
2. Yes. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the
1987 Constitution, would not include cases
directly brought before it, questioning the
BAR MATTER No. 914, October 1, 1999
RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR vs. VICENTE D. CHING
FACTS: Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of
the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and
Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia
West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his
birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines. On 17
July 1998, Ching filed an application to take the
1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of this
Court, dated 1 September 1998, he was
allowed to take the Bar Examinations, subject to
the condition that he must submit to the Court
proof of his Philippine citizenship.
In compliance with the above resolution, Ching
submitted the following documents:
1. Certification, dated 9 June
1986, issued by the Board of
Accountancy of the
Professional Regulations
Commission showing that
Ching is a certified public
accountant;
2. Voter Certification, dated 14
June 1997, issued by Elizabeth
B. Cerezo, Election Officer of
the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in Tubao La Union
showing that Ching is a
registered voter of the said
place; and
3. Certification, dated 12
October 1998, also issued by
Elizabeth B. Cerezo, showing
that Ching was elected as a
member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Tubao, La Union
during the 12 May 1992
synchronized elections.
The oath-taking of the successful Bar examinees
was scheduled on 5 May 1999. However,
because of the questionable status of Ching's
17
qualifications of a candidate for the
presidency or vice-presidency before the
elections are held.
citizenship, he was not allowed to take his oath.
Pursuant to the resolution of this Court, dated 20
April 1999, he was required to submit further
proof of his citizenship.
The OSG filed its comment, pursuant to the
resolution above, stating that Ching being the
“legitimate child of a Chinese father and a
Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution
was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so,
unless upon reaching the age of majority he
elected Philippine citizenship.” The OSG adds
that “what he acquired at best was only an
inchoate Philippine citizenship which he could
perfect by election upon reaching the age of
majority.” In this regard, the OSG clarifies that
“two conditions must concur in order that the
election of Philippine citizenship may be
effective, namely: (a) the mother of the person
making the election must be a citizen of the
Philippines; and (b) said election must be made
upon reaching the age of majority.” Ching
elected Philippine citizenship on 15 July 1999.
ISSUE: Whether or not Vicente Ching has
elected Philippine citizenship within a
"reasonable time."
RULING: No, Vicente Ching did not elect
Philippine citizenship within a “reasonable
time.” The Court held that Ching failed to validly
elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen
(14) years that lapsed from the time he reached
the age of majority until he finally expressed his
intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly
way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing “upon reaching the age
of majority.” Moreover, Ching has offered no
reason why he delayed his election of Philippine
citizenship. The prescribed procedure in
electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a
tedious and painstaking process. All that is
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
required of the elector is to execute an affidavit
of election of Philippine citizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil
registry. Ching's unreasonable and unexplained
delay in making his election cannot be simply
glossed over.
Philippine citizenship can never be treated like
a commodity that can be claimed when
needed and suppressed when convenient.
One who is privileged to elect Philippine
Penera v. COMELEC GR No. 181613
Facts:
- Mayor candidate and her slate agreed
to meet in the house of Penera. They
went to town with banners and
megaphone announcing their intention
to run
- Headed to COMELEC to file their
Certificate of Candidacy.
- She won as Mayor and some of her co-
parties.
- A petition was filed alleging premature
campaigning
- COMELEC decided against Penera, so
she was disqualified. Case was brought
to SC.
Issue: W/N Penera was guilty of preelection
campaigning
Ruling: Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election
Code defines a "candidate" as "any person
aspiring for or seeking an elective public office,
who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x."
The second sentence, third paragraph, Section
15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA
9369, provides that "any person who files his
certificate of candidacy within [the period for
filing] shall only be considered as a candidate
at the start of the campaign period for which he
filed his certificate of candidacy." The
18
citizenship has only an inchoate right to such
citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right
with fervour, enthusiasm and promptitude.
Sadly, in this case, Ching slept on his opportunity
to elect Philippine citizenship and, as a result,
this golden privilege slipped away from his
grasp.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves
to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for
admission to the Philippine Bar.
immediately succeeding proviso in the same
third paragraph states that "unlawful acts or
omissions applicable to a candidate shall take
effect only upon the start of the aforesaid
campaign period." The essential elements for
violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election
Code are: (1) a person engages in an election
campaign or partisan political activity; (2) the
act is designed to promote the election or
defeat of a particular candidate or candidates;
(3) the act is done outside the campaign
period. The second element requires the
existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a),
a candidate is one who "has filed a certificate
of candidacy" to an elective public office.
Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy,
he is not a "candidate." The third element
requires that the campaign period has not
started when the election campaign or partisan
political activity is committed. The second
element requires the existence of a
"candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate
is one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy"
to an elective public office. Unless one has filed
his certificate of candidacy, he is not a
"candidate." The third element requires that the
campaign period has not started when the
election campaign or partisan political activity
is committed. Congress has laid down the law
— a candidate is liable for election offenses only
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
upon the start of the campaign period. This
Court has no power to ignore the clear and
express mandate of the law that "any person
who files his certificate of candidacy within [the
filing] period shall only be considered a
candidate at the start of the campaign period
G.R. No.
April 16,195649
2013
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, LINOG G.
BALUA, Respondents.
Facts: Arnado was a natural born Filipino citizen,
but lost his citizenship upon naturalization as
citizen of United States of America. Sometime
on 2008 and 2009, his repatriation was granted
and he subsequently executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation of foreign citizenship.
On November 2009, Arnado filed for a
certificate of candidacy for Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and won the
election. But prior from his declaration as
winner, a pending action for disqualification
was filed by Balua, one of the contenders for
the position. Balua alleged that Arnando was
not a citizen of the Philippines, with a
certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration
that Arnado’s nationality is USA-American and
a certified true copy of computer-generated
travel record that he has been using his
American passport even after renunciation of
American citizenship.
A division of the COMELEC ruled against
Arnado but this decision was reversed by the
COMELEC en Banc stating that continued use
of foreign passport is not one of the grounds
provided for under Section 1 of Commonwealth
Act No. 63 through which Philippine citizenship
may be lost. Meanwhile, Maquiling petition that
he should be declared winner as he gained the
second highest number of votes.
19
for which he filed his certificate of candidacy."
Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the
express and clear language of the law that "any
unlawful act or omission applicable to a
candidate shall take effect only upon the start
of the campaign period."
Issue: Whether or not continued use of a foreign
passport after renouncing foreign citizenship
affects one’s qualifications to run for public
office.
Ruling: Yes. The use of foreign passport after
renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive
and voluntary act of representation as to one’s
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest
Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but
it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to
qualify one to run for an elective position which
makes him dual citizen.
Citizenship is not a matter of
convenience. It is a badge of identity that
comes with attendant civil and political rights
accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise
demands the concomitant duty to maintain
allegiance to one’s flag and country. While
those who acquire dual citizenship by choice
are afforded the right of suffrage, those who
seek election or appointment to public office
are required to renounce their foreign
citizenship to be deserving of the public trust.
Holding public office demands full and
undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no
other. It is a continuing requirement that must
be possessed not only at the time of
appointment or election or assumption of office
but during the officer's entire tenure.
Once any of the required qualifications is
lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
Therefore, the Court held Arnado disqualified
for any local elective position as provided by
express disqualification under Section 40(d) of
the Local Government Code. Popular vote
does not cure this ineligibility of the candidate.
Otherwise, substantive requirements set by the
Constitution are nugatory.
Poe v. Macapagal-Arroyo PET Case No. 002 March 2005
Facts: On June 24, 2004, the Congress as the
representatives of the sovereign people and
acting as the National Board of Canvassers, in a
near-unanimous roll-call vote, proclaimed Mrs.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) as the duly
elected President of the Philippines. She
obtained the highest votes, followed by the
second-placer, Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ). She
then took her Oath of Office before the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court on June 30, 2004.
Refusing to concede defeat, Mr. FPJ, filed an
election protest before the Electoral Tribunal.
Both parties exchanged motions to rush the
presentation of their respective positions on the
controversy. Together with the formal Notice of
the Death of Protestant on December 14, 2004,
his counsel has submitted to the Tribunal, dated
January 10, 2005, a "MANIFESTATION with
URGENT PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED PROTESTANT FPJ," by
the widow, Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe. She claims
that because of the untimely demise of her
husband and in representation not only of her
deceased husband but more so because of the
paramount interest of the Filipino people, there
is an urgent need for her to continue and
substitute for her late husband in the election
protest initiated by him to ascertain the true and
20
Furthermore, there is no second-placer
to speak of because as reiterated in the case of
Jalosjos v. COMELEC, when the ineligibility was
held to be void ab initio, no legal effect is
produced. Hence among the qualified
candidates for position, Maquiling who
garnered the highest votes should be declared
as winner.
genuine will of the electorate in the 2004
elections.
Issue: Whether the widow may
substitute/intervene for the protestant who
died during the pendency of the latter’s
protest case.
Ruling: No. The court held in Vda. de De
Mesa that while the right to a public office
is personal and exclusive to the public
officer, an election protest is not purely
personal and exclusive to the protestant or
to the protestee such that the death of
either would oust the court of all authority to
continue the protest proceedings. Hence,
substitution and intervention is allowed but
only by a real party in interest. A real party
in interest is the party who would be
benefited or injured by the judgment, and
the party who is entitled to the avails of the
suit. Herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ,
herself denies any claim to the august office
of President. Thus, given the circumstances
of this case, we can conclude that
protestant’s widow is not a real party in
interest to this election protest.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
P.E.T. Case No. 001 February 13, 1996 MIRIAM DEFENSOR-
SANTIAGO, protestant, vs. FIDEL VALDEZ RAMOS, protestee.
FACTS: The protestant, Santiago ran for
presidency and lost against Fidel V Ramos in the
May 1992 election. Santiago prayed that the
revision in the remaining precincts of the pilot
areas be dispensed with and the revision
process in the pilot areas be deemed
completed. The Court deferred its action on the
motion and required, instead, the Santiago and
Ramos to submit their respective memoranda
on the issue of whether or not the case has been
rendered moot and academic by the election
of Miriam as Senator in the May 1995 election
and her assumption of office on June 30, 1995.
SANTIAGO’S CONTENTION
NO, The court should still decide on the election
contest because:
1. Election contest confirms the true choice
of the electorate
2. The case at hand is imbued with public
interest
3. It is only moot if the term of office has
expired
4. Her election as Senator and assumption
of office does not mean she abandoned
the protest
5. The Court has abandoned the view that
just because a case has been declared
moot, it should be dismissed.
CASES PRESENTED TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM
1. Sibulo vda. De Mesa vs. Mencias - the
death of the protestee did not stop the
proceedings in the protest filed against
him. A protest survives the death of the
protestee, and must be prosecuted to
final judgment.
2. Lomugdang vs. Javier- If the protest
succeeds and the protestee is unseated
21
= NOT a ground for dismissal of the
protest.
3. De Castro vs Ginete- Just because a
losing candidate concedes to the
winner, it doesn't mean that the losing
candidate is barred from questioning the
validity of the election of the winner.
4. Moraleja vs. Relova- The acceptance by
the protestee of an appointment to
another position is NOT a ground for
dismissal of the protest.
SC’s rebuttal
The cases she cited does not concur with the
case at hand.
1. Sibulo vda. De Mesa vs. Mencias – the
protestee had been proclaimed as the
winner and assumed office and then
died when the election protest was
ongoing
2. Lomugdang vs. Javier- the protestant
died during the ongoing protest
3. De Castro vs Ginete- the protestant
congratulated the protestee after the
protestee won
4. Moraleja vs. Relova- the election protest
survived the protestant’s acceptance of
temporary employment during the
ongoing election protest
RAMOS’ CONTENTION:
There is strong legal basis for the court to rule
that the Protestant is deemed to have
abandoned the instant protest and the case
should still be decided
1. Public interest requires that the protest
must be resolved because a) it involves
a matter of paramount and grave public
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
interest, and b) the protest was filed in
bad faith.
2. A resolution of the case would confirm his
victory in the 1992 Presidential elections
and prove that Miriam's protest is
unfounded.
3. Resolving the case would establish
guiding and controlling principles or
doctrines with respect to presidential
election protest cases, thereby
educating the bench and the bar and
prevent the indiscriminate filing of
baseless protest cases.
SC’s rebuttal
SC does not accept his view that just because
Miriam filed her certificate of candidacy, Miriam
forfeited her claim to the office of the President.
There is no logic to Ramos' reasoning that the
case should be resolved because of bad faith.
Also, there is no reason to proceed with the
case just to establish guidelines regarding
election protests involving the office of the
President or the Vice-President.
ISSUE: WON the case has been rendered moot
by the election of Miriam as a Senator in the
May 1995 election and her assumption of office
on June 30, 1995?
RULING:
YES! The Court held that the election protest
filed by Santiago has been abandoned or
considered withdrawn as a consequence of her
election and assumption of office as Senator
and her discharge of the duties and functions
thereof.
The protestant abandoned her “determination
to protest and pursue the public interest
involved in the matter of who is the real choice
of the electorate. Moreover, the dismissal of this
protest would serve public interest as it would
22
dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results
of the 1992 presidential elections, thereby
enhancing the all too crucial political stability of
the nation during this period of national
recovery.
The protestant effectively abandons or
withdraws her protest after filing, campaigning
and submitting herself to be voted upon. In so
doing, she entered into a political contract with
the electorate that if elected, she would
assume the office of Senator, discharge its
functions and serve her constituency as such for
the term for which she was elected. These are
givens which are in full accord with the principle
enshrined in the Constitution that, public office
is a public trust, and public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to
the people and serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the
protestant to inform the PET within 10 days if
after the completion of the revision of the
ballots from her pilot areas, she still wishes to
present evidence. Since Santiago has not
informed the Tribunal of any such intention, such
is a manifest indication that she no longer
intends to do so.
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
JUSTICE PUNO
Miriam did NOT abandon her protest when she
ran for Senator and discharged her duties. Puno
cited Black's Law Dictionary, saying that there
can be no abandonment when there is no
intent to abandon. The PET cannot resolve the
question of fact regarding Miriam's intent to
abandon her protest because it does not have
evidence that she did. Also, Ramos has not
produced evidence that Miriam intentionally
abandoned her protest. The majority of the SC
relied on a deduction to support their decision
regarding Miriam's intent.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
The overarching object of an election contest is
to seek and enforce the judgment of the
people on who should govern them. The
majority ruling is inconsistent with the doctrine
that an election contest is concerned less with
the private interest of the candidates but more
with public interest. The majority strays away
from this doctrien and dismisses the case at bar
even if Miriam and Ramos are alive, the term of
the 1992 presidential office has yet to expire,
and even when BOTH Miriam and Ramos plead
that the PET should determine the true will of the
people by deciding the case on its merits.
ANG LADLAD v. COMELEC G.R. No. 190582
FACTS: Ang Ladlad is an organization
composed of men and women who identify
themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-
gendered individuals (LGBTs). They filed a
Petition for registration with the COMELEC,
arguing that the LGBT community is a
marginalized and under-represented sector
that is particularly disadvantaged because of
their sexual orientation and gender identity;
that LGBTs are victims of exclusion,
discrimination, and violence; that because of
negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are
constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and
that Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point
guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission
on Elections. However, the COMELEC (Second
Division) dismissed the petition on moral
grounds. Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of
accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion
by using religious dogma, violated the
constitutional guarantees against the
establishment of religion. Ang Ladlad also
claimed that the Assailed Resolutions
contravened its constitutional rights to privacy,
freedom of speech and assembly, and equal
protection of laws, as well as constituted
23
JUSTICE KAPUNAN
The case is not moot and academic just
because Miriam ran and won as Senator. When
Miriam ran for the Senate in 1995, she was not
the President and therefore, had nothing to
relinquish/give up. When Miriam ran for Senate
in 1992, she was not an elective official and
there was NO position to abandon. Just
because Miriam filed her certificate of
candidacy to run for Senator, it does not mean
that she abandoned her protest. She made it
clear in her senatorial campaign that if she was
proclaimed President in the 1992 elections, she
would assume the Presidency and shorten her
term as Senator.
violations of the Philippines’ international
obligations against discrimination based on
sexual orientation. In its Comment, the
COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not
have a concrete and genuine national political
agenda to benefit the nation and that the
petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds.
The COMELEC denied Ang Ladlad’s application
for registration on the ground that the LGBT
sector is neither enumerated in the Constitution
and RA 7941, nor is it associated with or related
to any of the sectors in the enumeration.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ang Ladlad’s application
for registration must be granted.
RULING: Yes.
Respondent (COMELEC) mistakenly opines that
the ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the
proposition that only those sectors specifically
enumerated in the law or related to said sectors
(labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, and professionals) may be
registered under the party-list system. As we
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, "the
enumeration of marginalized and under-
represented sectors is not exclusive". The crucial
element is not whether a sector is specifically
enumerated, but whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of
the Constitution and RA 7941. Moreover, the
Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that
"[n]o law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." At bottom, what the non-
establishment clause calls for is "government
neutrality in religious matters." Clearly,
"governmental reliance on religious justification
is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality." Thus,
the Supreme Court finds that it was grave
violation of the non-establishment clause for the
COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to
justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. The
COMELEC’s differentiation, and its
unsubstantiated claim that Ang Ladlad cannot
contribute to the formulation of legislation that
would benefit the nation, furthers no legitimate
state interest other than disapproval of or dislike
for a disfavored group.
From the standpoint of the political process, the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have
the same interest in participating in the party-list
system on the same basis as other political
parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this
case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of
general application should apply with equal
force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate
in the party-list system on the same basis as
other marginalized and under-represented
sectors.

QUINTO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010)

Public appointive officials can continue discharging the powers, prerogatives, and functions of their
office notwithstanding their entry into the political arena.

Filing of CoC by public appointive officials is not equal to resignation

FACTS: Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A.
Tolentino, Jr contend that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion when it issued a
Resolution violating the equal protection clause
when they accord differential treatment to
elective and appointive officials. They aver that
the advance filing of CoCs for the 2010
elections is intended merely for the purpose of
early printing of the official ballots in order to
cope with time limitations. Such advance filing
does not automatically make the person who
filed the CoC a candidate at the moment of
filing. Petitioners further posit that the provision
considering them as ipso facto resigned from
office upon the filing of their CoCs is
discriminatory and violates the equal protection
clause in the Constitution.
ISSUE: Are appointed officials considered
resigned upon filing of their certificates of
candidacy? Is Section 13 of RA 9369 violative of
the equal protection clause?
RULING: No to the first question and yes to the
second. “ANY PERSON WHO FILES HIS
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY WITHIN THIS
PERIOD SHALL ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A
CANDIDATE AT THE START OF THE CAMPAIGN
PERIOD FOR WHICH HE FILED HIS COC.” The said
proviso seems to mitigate the situation of
disadvantage afflicting appointive officials by
considering persons who filed their CoCs as
candidates only at the start of the campaign
period, thereby, conveying the tacit intent that
persons holding appointive positions will only be

24
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
considered as resigned at the start of the
campaign period when they are already
treated by law as candidates.
In considering persons holding appointive
positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts
upon the filing of their CoCs, but not considering
as resigned all other civil servants, specifically
the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates
against the first class.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728 July 5, 2016
Facts: This is a motion for reconsideration filed by
the herein respondents when the court has
decided and granted in favor of the herein
petitioners in issuing TRO for the COMELEC in
pushing to remove the tarpaulins posted by the
herein petitioners and the declaring that the
letters dated February 22 and 27, 2013 are both
void and unconstitutional. The case arose from
when the Diocese of Bacolod posted 2
tarpaulins within its compound stating its
opposition on RH law, with the message
“IBASURA RH LAW” and another entitled
“CONSCIENCE VOTE WITH THE LIST OF
CANDIDATES CATEGORIZING TEAM BUHAY AND
TEAM PATAY” with a check mark and “X” mark.
The COMELEC on its letter dated February 22
and 27, 2013 was ordering the removal of the 2
tarpaulins for the reasons that it is in violation of
the election law and the constitution for it is an
election propaganda that can be regulated by
them. The respondents reiterating in this motion
for reconsideration that
1.) the notice and letters are not final orders of
the COMELEC En Banc thus it not subject to the
Court’s review, that it is in their jurisdiction
pursuant to the constitutional provision Article
IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution on its
power to decide "all questions affecting
elections." And thus petitioners have violated
25
The Court finds that the differential treatment of
persons holding appointive offices as opposed
to those holding elective ones is not germane to
the purposes of the law. There is thus no valid
justification to treat appointive officials
differently from the elective ones. The
classification simply fails to meet the test that it
should be germane to the purposes of the law.
the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies
2.) that the tarpaulin is an election
propaganda thus falls within the regulation of
the COMELEC ;
3. ) that Notwithstanding that petitioners are not
political candidates, the subject tarpaulin is
subject to the COMELEC's regulation because
petitioners' objective in posting the same is
clearly to persuade the public to vote for or
against the candidates and party-list groups
named therein, depending on their stand on
the RH Law, which essentially makes the subject
tarpaulin a form of election propaganda and
4.) that the size limitation is a valid content-
neutral regulation on election propaganda. As
such, only a substantial governmental interest is
required under the intermediate test.
Issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS
VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION WHEN IT
ELEVATED THE ISSUE TO THE SUPREME
COURT RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE
ISSUE TO THE COMELEC;
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT
TARPAULINS FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA AND THUS
CAN BE REGULATED BY THE COMELEC;
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC
VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IN ORDERING THE REMOVAL
OR REGULATION OF THE TARPAULINS
4. WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER OF THE
REMOVAL IS A CONTENT BASED OR
CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION.
HELD:
1. NO. Direct resort to this court is allowed
to avoid such proscribed conditions. Rule
65 is also the procedural platform for
raising grave abuse of discretion.32
The urgency posed by the
circumstances during respondents'
issuance of the assailed notice and
letter-the then issue on the RH Law as well
as the then upcoming elections-also
rendered compliance with the doctrine
on exhaustion of administrative remedies
as unreasonable.
2. NO. the tarpaulin consists of satire of
political parties that "primarily advocates
a stand on a social issue; only
secondarily-even almost incidentally-will
cause the election or non-election of a
candidate."34 It is not election
propaganda as its messages are
different from the usual declarative
messages of candidates. The tarpaulin is
an expression with political
consequences, and "[t]his court's
construction of the guarantee of
freedom of expression has always been
wary of censorship or subsequent
punishment that entails evaluation of the
speaker's viewpoint or the content of
one's speech."35
We recognize that there can be a type
of speech by private citizens amounting
to election paraphernalia that can be
validly regulated.36 However, this is not
the situation in this case. The twin
tarpaulins consist of a social advocacy,
26
and the regulation, if applied in this case,
fails the reasonability test.
3. Petitioners are not candidates. They are
asserting their right to freedom of
expression.31 We acknowledged the
"chilling effect" of the assailed notice and
letter on this constitutional right in our
Decision, thus:
Nothing less than the electorate's
political speech will be affected by the
restrictions imposed by COMELEC.
Political speech is motivated by the
desire to be heard and understood, to
move people to action. It is concerned
with the sovereign right to change the
contours of power whether through the
election of representatives in a
republican government or the revision of
the basic text of the Constitution. The
zeal with which we protect this kind of
speech does not depend on our
evaluation of the cogency of the
message. Neither do we assess whether
we should protect speech based on the
motives of COMELEC. We evaluate
restrictions on freedom of expression
from their effects. We protect both
speech and medium because the
quality of this freedom in practice will
define the quality of deliberation in our
democratic society.
COMELEC's notice and letter affect
preferred speech. Respondents' acts are
capable of repetition. Under the
conditions in which it was issued and in
view of the novelty of this case, it could
result in a "chilling effect" that would
affect other citizens who want their
voices heard on issues during the
elections. Other citizens who wish to
express their views regarding the election
and other related issues may choose not
to, for fear of reprisal or sanction by the
COMELEC.
4. The regulation is content-based. The
Decision discussed that "[t]he form of
expression is just as important as the
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
information conveyed that it forms part
of the expression, and size does matter.
RAMON LABO V. COMELEC AND LUIS LARDIZABAL (GR NO. 86564; August 1, 1989)
SUBJECT:SUCCESSION/ WINNER - LOSER
Facts: In 1988, Labo was elected Mayor of
Baguio City. However his opponent, Lardizabal,
filed a Petition for Quo Warranto. Lardizabal
alleged that Labo is a foreigner (Australian) and
is not a Filipino Citizen. This allegation was based
on the fact that Labo married an Australian.
Under the Australian Law, it provides that “As
the spouse of an Australian citizen, he was not
required to meet normal requirements for the
grant of citizenship and was granted
Australian citizenship.”
There were two administrative decisions on
the question of Labo’s citizenship. One was
decided by the Commission on Election
(COMELEC). COMELEC rendered a decision
claiming that Labo is a Filipino Citizen. The other
was decided by the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation (CID). CID
rendered a decision claiming that Labo is NOT
a Filipino Citizen.
The COMELEC dismissed the petition
without prejudice to the issue of Labo’s
citizenship being raised anew in a proper case.
During the proceeding before the COMELEC,
there was no direct proof that Labo was
naturalized as a citizen of Australia. While for the
CID, its decision was based on the official
statement of the Australian Government that
Labo is still an Australian Citizen.
Labo asserted that his naturalization in
Australia was annulled after it was found that his
marriage to the Australian Citizen was
bigamous. And that, when he took an oath of
27
Allegiance in Australia, he claimed that it is a
condition because he was married to an
Australian.
Issues: 1. Whether Labo is a Filipino Citizen and
is entitled to the position.
2. Whether the private respondent, who
filed the Quo Warranto, can replace the
petitioner as mayor.
Ruling: 1. No. The annulment of his naturalization
in Australia does not immediately restore his
Philippine Citizenship. His contention cannot
stand against the provisions of CA No. 63, which
enumerates the modes by which Philippine
Citizenship may be lost. This includes subscribing
an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution and by laws of another country.
Labo was not a Filipino Citizenship during and
after the elections. Even during the course of
the proceedings. The electorate had no power
to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance
to the Queen of Australia, or at least a stateless
individual owing no allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, to preside over them as
mayor of their city. Only citizens of the
Philippines have that privilege over their
countrymen.
2.No. The simple reason is that as he obtained
only the second highest number of votes in the
election, he was obviously not the choice of the
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS
people of Baguio city. As held in the case of
Topacio v. Paredes:
“ ... 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 a winner and
imposed as the representative of a
constituency, the majority of which
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
28
later declared to be disqualified or not
eligible for the office to which he was
elected does not necessarily entitle the
candidate who obtained the second
highest number of votes to be declared
the winner of the elective office. The
votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or
non-eligible person may not be valid to
vote the winner into office or maintain
him there. However, in the absence of
a statute which clearly asserts a
contrary political and legislative policy
on the matter, if the votes were cast in
the sincere belief that the candidate
was alive, qualified, or eligible, they
should not be treated as stray, void or
meaningless.”