I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES where they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding
the election. Under Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189, one of those
A. SUFFRAGE disqualified from voting is an immigrant or permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country unless he/she executes an affidavit
GMA NETWORK, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in
G.R. No. 205357 | 2014-09-02 the Philippines not later than three years from approval of his/her
PERALTA, J.: registration under said Act.
A simple, cursory reading of Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 may indeed
give the impression that it contravenes Section 1, Article V of the
FACTS: Limiting the air time of election advertisement.
Constitution. Filipino immigrants and permanent residents overseas are
RULING: Section 9 (a) of Resolution 9615 is violative of the people’s
perceived as having left and abandoned the Philippines to live
right to suffrage
permanently in their host countries and therefore, a provision in the law
Fundamental to the idea of a democratic and republican state is the right
enfranchising those who do not possess the residency requirement of the
of the people to determine their own destiny through the choice of
Constitution by the mere act of executing an affidavit expressing their
leaders they may have in government. Thus, the primordial importance of
intent to return to the Philippines within a given period, risks a
suffrage and the concomitant right of the people to be adequately
declaration of unconstitutionality. However, the risk is more apparent
informed for the intelligent exercise of such birthright.
than real.
It has also been said that “competition in ideas and governmental policies
Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident and vice versa; a person cannot
is at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment
be at the same time, both a resident and an absentee. However, under our
freedoms.” Candidates and political parties need adequate breathing
election laws and the countless pronouncements of the Court pertaining
space – including the means to disseminate their ideas. This could not be
to elections, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the
reasonably addressed by the very restrictive manner by which the
Philippines as residence is considered synonymous with domicile.
respondent implemented the time limits in regard to political
As finally approved into law, Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically
advertisements in the broadcast media.
disqualifies an immigrant or permanent resident who is “recognized as
such in the host country” because immigration or permanent residence in
B. ELECTION
another country implies renunciation of one’s residence in his country of
origin. However, same Section allows an immigrant and permanent
C. Constitutional mandate on Congress
resident abroad to register as voter for as long as he/she executes an
affidavit to show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance
Sec. 2 Art. V, Constitution
of the constitutional intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that
“all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law” must be
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy
entitled to exercise the right of suffrage and, that Congress must establish
and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by
a system for absentee voting; for otherwise, if actual, physical residence
qualified Filipinos abroad.
in the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the framers of the
Constitution to mandate Congress to establish a system for absentee
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the
voting.
illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they
To repeat, the affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents
shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the
abroad because by their status in their host countries, they are presumed
Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
to have relinquished their intent to return to this country; thus, without
ballot.
the affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of Philippine domicile
shall remain.
First mandate of the Congress
[a] Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by R.A. 9369
D. The Automated Election System R.A. NO. 8436, as amended by
[b] Republic Act No. 9189
R.A. NO. 9369
[c] Sec. 12, Rep. Act No 7166
ROQUE vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Sec. 12. Absentee Voting. - Absentee voting as provided for in Executive
G.R. No. 188456 | 2009-09-10
Order No. 157 dated March 30, 1987 shall apply to the elections for
VELASCO, JR., J.:
President, Vice-President and Senators only and shall be limited to
Pilot Testing Not Necessary
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine
National Police and other government officers and employees who are
RULING: From the practical viewpoint, the pilot testing of the
duly registered voters and who, on election day, may temporarily be
technology in question in an actual, scheduled electoral exercise under
assigned in connection with the performance of election duties to place
harsh conditions would have been the ideal norm in computerized system
where they are not registered voters.
implementation. The underscored proviso of Sec. 6 of RA 8436 is not,
however, an authority for the proposition that the pilot testing of the
MACALINTAL VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
PCOS in the 2007 national elections in the areas thus specified is an
G.R. No. 157013 | 2003-07-10
absolute must for the machines' use in the 2010 national/local elections.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The Court can concede that said proviso, with respect to the May 2007
elections, commands the Comelec to automate in at least 12 defined areas
A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 violate Section 1, Article V
of the country. But the bottom line is that the required 2007 automation,
of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines?
be it viewed in the concept of a pilot test or not, is not a mandatory
Section 5(d) provides:
requirement for the choice of system in, or a prerequisite for, the full
Sec. 5. Disqualifications. — The following shall be disqualified from
automation of the May 2010 elections.
voting under this Act:
As may be noted, Sec. 6 of RA 8436 may be broken into three essential
d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in
parts, the first partaking of the nature of a general policy declaration: that
the host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit
Comelec is authorized to automate the entire elections. The second part
prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall
states that for the regular national and local elections that shall be held in
resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later
May 2007, Comelec shall use the AES, with an option, however, to
than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under this Act.
undertake automation, regardless of the technology to be selected, in a
Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship
limited area or, to be more precise, in at least two highly urbanized cities
in another country. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal of the
and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to be chosen
name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry
by the Comelec. On the other hand, the last part, phrased sans reference
of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in
to the May 2007 elections, commands thus: "In succeeding regular
absentia.
national or local elections, the [automated election system] shall be
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution specifically provides that
implemented." Taken in its proper context, the last part is indicative of
suffrage may be exercised by (1) all citizens of the Philippines, (2) not
the legislative intent for the May 2010 electoral exercise to be fully
otherwise disqualified by law, (3) at least eighteen years of age, (4) who
are residents in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
automated, regardless of whether or not pilot testing was run in the 2007
polls.
To argue that pilot testing is a condition precedent to a full automation in
2010 would doubtless undermine the purpose of RA 9369. For, as aptly
observed during the oral arguments, if there was no political exercise in
May 2007, the country would theoretically be barred forever from having
full automation.
Sec. 6 of the amended RA 8436, as couched, therefore, unmistakably
conveys the idea of unconditional full automation in the 2010 elections.
A construal making pilot testing of the AES a prerequisite or condition
sine qua non to putting the system in operation in the 2010 elections is
tantamount to reading into said section something beyond the clear
intention of Congress, as expressed in the provision itself.
CENTER FOR PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT IN GOVERNANCE
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 189546 | 2010-09-21
ABAD, J.:
RULING: Section 2(12) of R.A. 9369 describes the source code as the
"human readable instructions that define what the computer equipment
will do."
The pertinent portion of Section 12 of R.A. 9369 is clear in that "once an
AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall
promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to
any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own
review thereof." The COMELEC has offered no reason not to comply
with this requirement of the law. Indeed, its only excuse for not
disclosing the source code was that it was not yet available when
CenPEG asked for it and, subsequently, that the review had to be done,
apparently for security reason, "under a controlled environment." The
elections had passed and that reason is already stale.
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT) vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 177508 | 2009-08-07
CARPIO, J.:
RULING: In the present case, Congress and the COMELEC en banc do
not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET. There is no
conflict of jurisdiction since the powers of Congress and the COMELEC
en banc, on one hand, and the PET and the SET, on the other, are
exercised on different occasions and for different purposes. The PET is
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the President or Vice President. The SET is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of members of the Senate. The jurisdiction of the PET
and the SET can only be invoked once the winning presidential, vice
presidential or senatorial candidates have been proclaimed. On the
other hand, under Section 37, Congress and the COMELEC en banc shall
determine only the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of
canvass. Congress and the COMELEC en banc shall exercise this power
before the proclamation of the winning presidential, vice presidential,
and senatorial candidates.
II. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
A Composition, Qualification, Appointment
SEC. 1, ARTICLE IX-C, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective positions in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five
years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
B. Decisions
Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the
date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is
deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission
or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
ESTRELLA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 160465 | 2004-05-27
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
RULING: In the case at bar, following the clear provision of the
Constitution, counting out Commissioner Lantion's vote from the
questioned COMELEC En Banc resolution would leave just three (3)
votes out of "all" seven (7) members of the COMELEC.
For the foregoing reasons then, this Court hereby abandons the doctrine
laid down in Cua and holds that the COMELEC En Banc shall decide a
case or matter brought before it by a majority vote of "all its members,"
and NOT majority of the members who deliberated and voted thereon.
DUMAYAS, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. Nos. 141952-53 | 2001-04-20
QUISUMBING, J.:
RULING: Petitioner claims that March 2, 2000 Resolution of the
COMELEC is void because Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and Japal
Guiani have already retired on the date of its promulgation, even if they
had participated earlier in the deliberations of the case and signed the
resolution dated August 24, 1999. Petitioner submits that this defect
invalidated the entire decision of the Commission and that accordingly, a
new vote should be taken to settle the matter.
In Jamil vs. Commission on Elections,8 we held that a decision becomes
binding only after its promulgation. If at the time it is promulgated, a
judge or member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or
registered his vote has vacated office, his vote on the decision must
automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. Accordingly, the votes of
Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani should merely be considered as
withdrawn for the reason that their retirement preceded the resolution’s
promulgation. The effect of the withdrawal of their votes would be as if
they had not signed the resolution at all and only the votes of the
remaining commissioners would be properly considered for the purpose
of deciding the controversy.
However, unless the withdrawal of the votes would materially affect the
result insofar as votes for or against a party is concerned, we find no
reason for declaring the decision a nullity. In the present case, with the
cancellation of the votes of retired Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani,
the remaining votes among the four incumbent commissioners at the time
of the resolution’s promulgation would still be 3 to 1 in favor of
respondent. Noteworthy, these remaining Commissioners still constituted
a quorum. In our view, the defect cited by petitioner does not affect the
substance or validity of respondent Commission’s disposition of the
controversy. The nullification of the challenged resolution, in our view,
would merely prolong the proceedings unnecessarily.
SEVILLA, JR. VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 203833 | 2013-03-19
BRlON, .J.:
RULING: In the present case, while the October 6, 2012 Resolution of
the Comelec en banc appears to have affirmed the Comelec Second
Division’s Resolution and, in effect, denied Sevilla’s motion for
reconsideration, the equally divided voting between three Commissioners
concurring and three Commissioners dissenting is not the majority vote
that the Constitution and the Comelec Rules of Procedure require for a
valid pronouncement of the assailed October 6, 2012 Resolution of the arise during elections. COMELEC’s constitutional competencies during
Comelec en banc. elections should not operate to divest this court of its own jurisdiction.

In essence, based on the 3-3 voting, the Comelec en banc did not sustain The more relevant provision for jurisdiction in this case is Article VIII,
the Comelec Second Division’s findings on the basis of the three Section 5(1) of the Constitution. This provision provides for this court’s
concurring votes by Commissioners Tagle, Velasco and Yusoph; original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition. This
conversely, it also did not overturn the Comelec Second Division on the should be read alongside the expanded jurisdiction of the court in Article
basis of the three dissenting votes by Chairman Brillantes, Commissioner VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Sarmiento and Commissioner Lim, as either side was short of one (1) Certainly, a breach of the fundamental right of expression by COMELEC
vote to obtain a majority decision. Recall that under Section 7, Article is grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the constitutionality of the notice and
IX-A of the Constitution, a majority vote of all the members of the letter coming from COMELEC is within this court’s power to review.
Commission en banc is necessary to arrive at a ruling. In other words, the During elections, we have the power and the duty to correct any grave
vote of four (4) members must always be attained in order to decide, abuse of discretion or any act tainted with unconstitutionality on the part
irrespective of the number of Commissioners in attendance. Thus, for all of any government branch or instrumentality. This includes actions by
intents and purposes, the assailed October 6, 2012 Resolution of the the COMELEC. Furthermore, it is this court’s constitutional mandate to
Comelec en banc had no legal effect whatsoever except to convey that protect the people against government’s infringement of their
the Comelec failed to reach a decision and that further action is required. fundamental rights. This constitutional mandate outweighs the
jurisdiction vested with the COMELEC.
It will, thus, be manifest injustice if the court does not take jurisdiction
ALVAREZ vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
over this case.
G.R. No. 142527 | 2001-03-01
This case concerns the right of petitioners, who are non-candidates, to
QUISUMBING, J.:
post the tarpaulin in their private property, as an exercise of their right of
RULING: Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC En Banc granted the
free expression. Respondents considered the tarpaulin as a campaign
Motion for Execution pending appeal of private respondents on April 2,
material in their issuances. The above provisions regulating the posting
2000 when the appeal was no longer pending. He claims that the motion
of campaign materials only apply to candidates and political parties, and
had become obsolete and unenforceable and the appeal should have been
petitioners are neither of the two.
allowed to take its normal course of "finality and execution" after the 30-
The tarpaulin was not paid for by any candidate or political party.125
day period. Additionally, he avers it did not give one good reason to
There was no allegation that petitioners coordinated with any of the
allow the execution pending appeal.
persons named in the tarpaulin regarding its posting. On the other hand,
petitioners posted the tarpaulin as part of their advocacy against the RH
We note that when the motion for execution pending appeal was filed,
Law.
petitioner had a motion for reconsideration before the Second Division.
This pending motion for reconsideration suspended the execution of the
GARCES vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
resolution of the Second Division. Appropriately then, the division must
G.R. No. 114795 | 1996-07-17
act on the motion for reconsideration. Thus, when the Second Division
FRANCISCO, J.:
resolved both petitioner's motion for reconsideration and private
respondent's motion for execution pending appeal, it did so in the
RULING: The "case" or "matter" referred to by the constitution must be
exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The requisites for the
something within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain
grant of execution pending appeal are: (a) there must be a motion by the
to an election dispute. The settled rule is that "decision, rulings, order" of
prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (b) there must be a good
the COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
reason for the execution pending appeal; and (c) the good reason must be
under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that relate to the COMELEC's exercise
stated in a special order.9 In our view, these three requisites were present.
of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving "elective regional,
In its motion for execution, private respondent cites that their case had
provincial, and city officials." In this case, what is being assailed is the
been pending for almost three years and the remaining portion of the
COMELEC's choice of an appointee to occupy the Gutalac Post which is
contested term was just two more years. In a number of similar cases and
an administrative duty done for the operational set-up of an agency. The
for the same good reasons, we upheld the COMELEC's decision to grant
controversy involves an appointive, not an elective, official. Hardly can
execution pending appeal in the best interest of the electorate.10
this matter call for the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To
Correspondingly, we do not find that the COMELEC abused its
rule otherwise would surely burden the Court with trivial administrative
discretion when it allowed the execution pending appeal.
questions that are best ventilated before the RTC, a court which the law
vests with the power to exercise original jurisdiction over "all cases not
C. En Banc and Division Cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction over of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions."
SEC. 3, ARTICLE IX-C, 1987 CONSTITUTION
E. Rules concerning pleading and practice before it
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
Sec. 6, Art. IX-A
disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies.
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided
concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices.
that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
Commission en banc.
rights.
D. Review of COMELEC decisions by the Supreme Court
Sec. 3, Art. IX-C
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, supra
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies.
Parameters:
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided
that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMMISSION ON
Commission en banc.
ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 205728 | 2015-01-21
F. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES
LEONEN, J.:
Sec. 2, Art. IX-C
It is clear that the subject matter of the controversy is the effect of
COMELEC’s notice and letter on free speech. This does not fall under
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following
Article IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution. The use of the word
powers and functions:
“affecting” in this provision cannot be interpreted to mean that
COMELEC has the exclusive power to decide any and all questions that
 1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal
officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of
limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final,
executory, and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment of election officials
and inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to
political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to
elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted,
shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration
with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be
prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize
election spending, including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices,
and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other
disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or
disobedience to, its directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive
report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall.
[a] Enforcement of Laws Relative to Elections
1. Examples of the exercise of this power
2. Section 5, Article IX-C
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for
violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the
President without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.
[b] Exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation cases
TANADA, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. Nos. 207199-200 | 2013-10-22
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
ISSUE: Wigberto assails the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated April
25, 2013 declaring that Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate as
defined under Section 69 of the OEC. In consequence, he seeks that the
votes cast in favor of Alvin John be credited to him and, thereafter, to be
declared the winning candidate for the congressional post.
RULING: Case law states that the proclamation of a congressional
candidate following the election divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction
over disputes relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET. The phrase “election,
returns and qualifications” refers to all matters affecting the validity of
the contestee’s title. In particular, the term “election” refers to the
conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes; “returns”
refers to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners,
including questions concerning the composition of the board of
canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and
“qualifications” refers to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto
proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or
ineligibility or the inadequacy of his CoC.
In the foregoing light, considering that Angelina had already been
proclaimed as Member of the House of Representatives for the 4th
District of Quezon Province on May 16, 2013, as she has in fact taken her
oath and assumed office past noon time of June 30, 2013,32 the Court is
now without jurisdiction to resolve the case at bar. As they stand, the
issues concerning the conduct of the canvass and the resulting
proclamation of Angelina as herein discussed are matters which fall
under the scope of the terms “election” and “returns” as above-stated and
hence, properly fall under the HRET’s sole jurisdiction.
REYES vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 207264 June 25, 2013
PEREZ, J.:
RULING: From the foregoing, it is then clear that to be considered a
Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of
the following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and
(3) assumption of office.
Here, the petitioner cannot be considered a Member of the House of
Representatives because, primarily, she has not yet assumed office. To
repeat what has earlier been said, the term of office of a Member of the
House of Representatives begins only "at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following their election." Thus, until such time, the COMELEC
retains jurisdiction.
Consequently, before there is a valid or official taking of the oath it must
be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2)
in open session. Here, although she made the oath before Speaker
Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in
open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of
office was indeed complied with.
SAHALI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 201796 | 2013-01-15
REYES, J.:
RULING: Under the Constitution, the power of this Court to review
election cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the
COMELEC only extends to final decisions or resolutions of the
COMELEC en banc, not to interlocutory orders issued by a Division
thereof.
Here, the Orders dated March 5, 2012 and May 3, 2012 issued by the
First Division of the COMELEC were merely interlocutory orders since
they only disposed of an incident in the main case i.e. the propriety of the
technical examination of the said election paraphernalia. Thus, the proper
recourse for the petitioners is to await the decision of the COMELEC
First Division in the election protests filed by Matba and Usman, and
should they be aggrieved thereby, to appeal the same to the COMELEC
en banc by filing a motion for reconsideration.
In the instant case, it does not appear that the subject controversy is one
of the cases specifically provided under the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure in which the Commission may sit en banc. Neither is it shown
that the present controversy a case where a division is not authorized to
act nor a situation wherein the members of the First Division
unanimously voted to refer the subject case to the Commission en banc.
Clearly, the Commission en banc, under the circumstances shown above,
cannot be the proper forum which the matter concerning the assailed
interlocutory orders can be referred to.
Thus, exceptionally, this Court may take cognizance of a certiorari action
directed against an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the
COMELEC when the following circumstances are present: first, the order
was issued without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
second, under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the subject of the
controversy is a matter which (1) the COMELEC en banc may not sit and
consider or (2) a Division is not authorized to act or (3) the members of
the Division unanimously vote to refer to the COMELEC en banc.
Here, the technical examination ordered by the COMELEC First
Division, by comparing the signature and the thumbmarks appearing on
the EDCVL as against those appearing on the VRRs and the Book of
Voters, is a reasonable, efficient and expeditious means of determining
the truth or falsity of the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the
canvass of the votes in the province of Tawi-Tawi. Accordingly, the
COMELEC First Division did not commit any abuse of discretion when
it allowed the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia.
[c] Decide all questions affecting elections
1. Examples of the exercise of this power
SALVA vs. MAKALINTAL
G.R. No. 132603 | 2000-09-18
BUENA, J.:
RULING: As aptly explained by the Solicitor General, in the instant case,
after the COMELEC ascertained the issuance of the ordinance and
resolution declaring the abolition of barangay San Rafael, it issued
COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 calling for a plebiscite to be held in the
affected barangays, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 7160. We agree with the Solicitor General that xxx. [t]he
issuance of [COMELEC] Resolution No. 2987 is thus a ministerial duty
of the COMELEC that is enjoined by law and is part and parcel of its
administrative functions. It involves no exercise of discretionary
authority on the part of respondent COMELEC; let alone an exercise of
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power to hear and resolve controversies
defining the rights and duties of party-litigants, relative to the conduct of
elections of public officers and the enforcement of the election laws.
Briefly, COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which provides for the rules
and regulations governing the conduct of the required plebiscite, was not
issued pursuant to the COMELECs quasi-judicial functions but merely as
an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of
plebiscites, thus, the said resolution may not be deemed as a final order
reviewable by certiorari by this Court. Any question pertaining to the
validity of said resolution may be well taken in an ordinary civil action
before the trial courts.
[d] Deputize law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government
[e] Register political parties, organizations, or coalitions and accredit
citizen’s arms of COMELEC
Sec. 2 (5), 6, 7 & 8 of Art. IX-C, supra
Sec. 61 of B.P. 881
Sec. 61. Registration. - Any organized group of persons seeking
registration as a national or regional political party may file with the
Commission a verified petition attaching thereto its constitution and by-
laws, platform or program of government and such other relevant
information as may be required by the Commission. The Commission
shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within ten days
from the date it is submitted for decision.
No religious sect shall be registered as a political party and no political
party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to
accreditation.
[f] File petitions in court for inclusion and exclusion of voters;
investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election laws [Sec. 43,
R.A. 9369 [An Act amending R.A. 8436 (Election Modernization Act)],
amending Section 265 of BP 881]*
G. STATUTORY POWERS OF THE COMELEC
Secs. 52 and 57, B.P. 881
Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the Commission on Elections. - In
addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the
Constitution, the Commission shall have exclusive charge of the
enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections,
and shall:
a. Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over
national and local officials or employees, including members
of any national or local law enforcement agency and
instrumentality of the government required by law to perform
duties relative to the conduct of elections. In addition, it may
authorize CMT cadets eighteen years of age and above to act
as its deputies for the purpose of enforcing its orders.
The Commission may relieve any officer or employee referred
to in the preceding paragraph from the performance of his
duties relating to electoral processes who violates the election
law or fails to comply with its instructions, orders, decisions
or rulings, and appoint his substitute. Upon recommendation
of the Commission, the corresponding proper authority shall
suspend or remove from office any or all of such officers or
employees who may, after due process, be found guilty of
such violation or failure.
b. During the period of the campaign and ending thirty days
thereafter, when in any area of the country there are persons
committing acts of terrorism to influence people to vote for or
against any candidate or political party, the Commission shall
have the power to authorize any member or members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Bureau of
Investigation, the Integrated National Police or any similar
agency or instrumentality of the government, except civilian
home defense forces, to act as deputies for the elections.
c. Promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions
of this Code or other laws which the Commission is required
to enforce and administer, and require the payment of legal
fees and collect the same in payment of any business done in
the Commission, at rates that it may provide and fix in its
rules and regulations.
Rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission to implement the
provisions of this Code shall take effect on the sixteenth day after
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least daily newspapers of
general circulation. Orders and directives issued by the Commission
pursuant to said rules and regulations shall be furnished by personal
delivery to accredited political parties within forty-eight hours of
issuance and shall take effect immediately upon receipt.
In case of conflict between rules, regulations, orders or directives of the
Commission in the exercise of its constitutional powers and those issued
by any other administrative office or agency of the government
concerning he same matter relative to elections, the former shall prevail.
d. Summon the parties to a controversy pending before it, issue
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony in
any investigation or hearing before it, and delegate such
power to any officer of the Commission who shall be a
member of the Philippine Bar. In case of failure of a witness
to attend, the Commission, upon proof of service of the
subpoena to said witnesses, may issue a warrant to arrest
witness and bring him before the Commission or the officer
before whom his attendance is required.
Any controversy submitted to the Commission shall, after compliance
with the requirements of due process, be immediately heard and decided
by it within sixty days from submission thereof. No decision or
resolution shall be rendered by the Commission either en banc or by
division unless taken up in a formal session properly convened for the
purpose.
The Commission may, when necessary, avail of the assistance of any
national or local law enforcement agency and/or instrumentality of the
government to execute under its direct and immediate supervision any of
its final decisions, orders, instructions or rulings.
e. Punish contempts provided for in the Rules of Court in the
same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein.
Any violation of any final and executory decision, order or
ruling of the Commission shall constitute contempt thereof.
f. Enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders and
instructions which shall have precedence over those
emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme
Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings.
g. Prescribe the forms to be used in the election, plebiscite or
referendum.
h. Procure any supplies, equipment, materials or services needed
for the holding of the election by public bidding: Provided,
That, if it finds the requirements of public bidding impractical
to observe, then by negotiations or sealed bids, and in both
cases, the accredited parties shall be duly notified.
 i. Prescribe the use or adoption of the latest technological and
electronic devices, taking into account the situation prevailing
in the area and the funds available for the purpose: Provided,
That the Commission shall notify the authorized
representatives of accredited political parties and candidates
in areas affected by the use or adoption of technological and
electronic devices not less than thirty days prior to the
effectivity of the use of such devices.
j. Carry out a continuing and systematic campaign through
newspapers of general circulation, radios and other media
forms to educate the public and fully inform the electorate
about election laws, procedures, decisions, and other matters
relative to the work and duties of the Commission and the
necessity of clean, free, orderly and honest electoral
processes.
k. Enlist non-partisan group or organizations of citizens from the
civic, youth, professional, educational, business or labor
sectors known for their probity, impartiality and integrity with
the membership and capability to undertake a coordinated
operation and activity to assist it in the implementation of the
provisions of this Code and the resolutions, orders and
instructions of the Commission for the purpose of ensuring
free, orderly and honest elections in any constituency.
Such groups or organizations shall function under the direct and
immediate control and supervision of the Commission and shall perform
the following specific functions and duties:
A. Before Election Day:
1. Undertake an information campaign on
salient features of this Code and help in
the dissemination of the orders,
decisions and resolutions of the
Commission relative to the forthcoming
election.
2. Wage a registration drive in their
respective areas so that all citizens of
voting age, not otherwise disqualified
by law may be registered.
3. Help cleanse the list of voters of illegal
registrants, conduct house-to-house
canvass if necessary, and take the
appropriate legal steps towards this
end.
4. Report to the Commission violations of
the provisions of this Code on the
conduct of the political campaign,
election propaganda and electoral
expenditures.
B. On Election Day:
1. Exhort all registered voters in their
respective areas to go to their polling
places and cast their votes.
2. Nominate one watcher for accreditation
in each polling place and each place of
canvass who shall have the same duties,
functions and rights as the other
watchers of political parties and
candidates. Members or units of any
citizen group or organization so
designated by the Commission except
its lone duly accredited watcher, shall
not be allowed to enter any polling
place except to vote, and shall, if they
so desire, stay in an area at least fifty
meters away from the polling place.
3. Report to the peace authorities and
other appropriate agencies all instances
of terrorism, intimidation of voters, and
other similar attempts to frustrate the
free and orderly casting of votes.
4. Perform such other functions as may be
entrusted to such group or organization
by the Commission.
The designation of any group or organization made in accordance
herewith may be revoked by the Commission upon notice and hearing
whenever by its actuations such group or organization has shown
partiality to any political party or candidate, or has performed acts in
excess or in contravention of the functions and duties herein provided
and such others which may be granted by the Commission.
l. Conduct hearings on controversies pending before it in the
cities or provinces upon proper motion of any party, taking
into consideration the materiality and number of witnesses to
be presented, the situation prevailing in the area and the fund
available for the purpose.
m. Fix other reasonable periods for certain pre-election
requirements in order that voters shall not be deprived of their
right of suffrage and certain groups of rights granted them in
this Code.
Unless indicated in this Code, the Commission is hereby authorized for
fix the appropriate period for the various prohibited acts enumerated
herein, consistent with the requirements of free, orderly, and honest
elections.
Sec. 57. Measures to ensure enforcement. - For the effective
enforcement of the provisions of this Code, the Commission is further
vested and charged with the following powers, duties and
responsibilities:
1. To issue search warrants after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
2. To stop any illegal election activity, or confiscate, tear down,
and stop any unlawful, libelous, misleading or false election
propaganda, after due notice and hearing.
3. To inquire into the financial records of candidates and any
organization or group of persons, motu proprio or upon
written representation for probable cause by any candidate or
group of persons or qualified voter, after due notice and
hearing.
For purposes of this section, the Commission may avail itself of the
assistance of the Commission on Audit, the Central Bank, the National
Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, the Integrated National Police of the
Philippines, barangay officials, and other agencies of the government.
[b] Power to Declare Failure of Elections
SEC. 4, R.A. No. 7166
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections. - The
postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling of special
elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus Election
Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority
vote of its members. The causes for the declaration of a failure of election
may occur before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the
election.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of
Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of the term, the
Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not
earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the
occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the
Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the
succeeding regular election.
What constitutes a failure of election?
SISON vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 134096 | 1999-03-03
ROMERO, J.:
RULING: Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election
Code, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of elections may
be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been
held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) 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; or (c) after the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof
such election result in a failure to elect on account of force majuere,
violence, terrorism , fraud, or other analogous causes. We have declared
the before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to
declare a failure of election, two conditions must concur: (1) no voting
has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law or even if there
was voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to elect: and (2) the
votes not cast would affect the result of the election. We have
painstakingly examined petitioner's petition before the COMELEC but
found nothing therein that could support an action for declaration of
failure of elections. He never alleged at all that elections were either not
held or suspended. Furthermore, petitioner's claim of failure to elect
stood as a bare conclusion bereft of any substantive support to describe
just exactly how the failure to elect came about.
SOLIVA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 141723 | 2001-04-20
KAPUNAN, J.:
RULING: We agree with the findings of the COMELEC that there was a
failure of election in the municipality of RTR, as the counting of the
votes and the canvassing of the election returns was clearly attended by
fraud, intimidation, terrorism and harassment. Findings of fact of
administrative bodies charged with a specific field of expertise are
afforded great weight and respect by the courts, and in the absence of
substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous
estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive and should not
be disturbed. The COMELEC, as the administrative agency and
specialized constitutional body charged with the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall, has more than
enough expertise in its field that its findings and conclusions are
generally respected and even given finality.
It is not controverted by the petitioners that the counting of the votes was
transferred from the polling places to the multi-purpose gymnasium
without the knowledge and permission of herein private respondents or
their representatives and that the counting of the votes and the canvassing
of the election returns were done without the latter's presence. Thus, the
COMELEC was correct in finding that:
The counting by the BEI and the canvassing by the MBC were done
without the accredited watchers or duly authorized representatives of the
petitioners thus making the election returns and the statements of votes
not worthy of faith and credit and not reliable documents to gauge the
fair and true expression of the popular will.
LOONG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 133676 | 1999-04-14
PUNO, J.:
The evidence is clear that the integrity of the local ballots was
safeguarded when they were transferred from Sulu to Manila and when
they were manually counted.
The ballot boxes were consistently under the watchful eyes of the parties'
representatives. They were placed in an open space at the PICC. The
watchers stationed themselves some five (5) meters away from the ballot
boxes. They watched 24 hours a day and slept at the PICC.
The parties' watchers again accompanied the transfer of the ballot boxes
from PICC to the public schools of Pasay City where the ballots were
counted. After the counting they once more escorted the return of the
ballot boxes to PICC.
In fine, petitioner's charge that the ballots could have been tampered with
before the manual counting is totally unfounded.
In the case at bar, the COMELEC order for a manual count was not only
reasonable. It was the only way to count the decisive local votes in the
six (6) municipalities of Pata, Talipao, Siasi, Tudanan, Tapul and Jolo.
The bottom line is that by means of the manual count, the will of the
voters of Sulu was honestly determined. We cannot kick away the will of
the people by giving a literal interpretation to R.A. 8436. R.A. 8436 did
not prohibit manual counting when machine count does not work.
Counting is part and parcel of the conduct of an election which is under
the control and supervision of the COMELEC. It ought to be self-evident
that the Constitution did not envision a COMELEC that cannot count the
result of an election.
Thus, the plea for this Court to call a special election for the
governorship of Sulu is completely off-line. The plea can only be
grounded on failure of election. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
tells us when there is a failure of election
To begin with, the plea for a special election must be addressed to the
COMELEC and not to this Court. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code should be read in relation to Section 4 of R.A. No. 7166.
The grounds for failure of election - force majeure, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes - clearly involve questions of fact. It is for this
reason that they can only be determined by the COMELEC en banc after
due notice and hearing to the parties. In the case at bar, petitioner never
asked the COMILEC en banc to call for a special election in Sulu. Even
in his original petition with this Court, petitioner did not pray for a
special election. His plea for a special election is a mere afterthought.
Too late in the day and too unprocedural. Worse, the grounds for failure
of election are inexistent. The records show that the voters of Sulu were
able to cast their votes freely and fairly. Their votes were counted
correctly, albeit manually. The people have spoken. Their sovereign will
has to be obeyed.
Effect of failure of elections
SAMBARANI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 160427 | 2004-09-15
CARPIO, J.:
RULING: Neither the candidates nor the voters of the affected barangays
caused the failure of the special elections. The COMELEC's own acting
election officer, EO Maulay, readily admitted that there were no special
elections in these barangays. The COMELEC also found that the
Provincial Election Supervisor of Lanao del Sur and the Regional
Election Director of Region XII did not contest the fact that there were
no special elections in these barangays.
COMELEC anchored its refusal to call another special election on the
last portion of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code ( "Section 6")
which reads:
SEC. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before
the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and
during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect,
and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect
the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for
the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
The Court construed Section 6 in Pangandaman v. COMELEC,[12] as
follows -
In fixing the date for special elections the COMELEC should see to it
that: 1.] it should not be later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of
the cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or the failure
to elect; and, 2.] it should be reasonably close to the date of the election
not held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. The first
involves a question of fact. The second must be determined in the light of
the peculiar circumstances of a case. Thus, the holding of elections
within the next few months from the cessation of the cause of the
postponement, suspension or failure to elect may still be considered
"reasonably close to the date of the election not held."
The prohibition on conducting special elections after thirty days from the
cessation of the cause of the failure of elections is not absolute. It is
directory, not mandatory, and the COMELEC possesses residual power
to conduct special elections even beyond the deadline prescribed by law.
The deadline in Section 6 cannot defeat the right of suffrage of the people
as guaranteed by the Constitution. The COMELEC erroneously
perceived that the deadline in Section 6 is absolute. The COMELEC has
broad power or authority to fix other dates for special elections to enable
the people to exercise their right of suffrage. The COMELEC may fix
other dates for the conduct of special elections when the same cannot be
reasonably held within the period prescribed by law.
Had the COMELEC resolved to hold special elections in its Resolution
dated 8 October 2003, it would not be as pressed for time as it is now.
The operational, logistical and financial problems which COMELEC
claims it will encounter with the holding of a second special election can
be solved with proper planning, coordination and cooperation among its
personnel and other deputized agencies of the government. A special
election will require extraordinary efforts, but it is not impossible. In
applying election laws, it would be better to err in favor of popular
sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. In
any event, this Court had already held that special elections under Section
6 would entail minimal costs because it covers only the precincts in the
affected barangays.
In this case, the cause of postponement after the second failure of
elections was COMELEC's refusal to hold a special election because of
(1) its erroneous interpretation of the law, and (2) its perceived logistical,
operational and financial problems. We rule that COMELEC's reasons
for refusing to hold another special election are void.
[c] Conduct of Special Elections
When does this occur?
Sec. 4, RA 7166, supra
Article VII, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third
day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President
occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and
within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a
President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days
nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such
special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26,
Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval
on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election
shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt
from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this
Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the
special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the
vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next
presidential election.
In cases were a postponement and failure of elections are declared by
COMELEC in accordance with Sections 5,6,7 of BP 881
Sec. 5. Postponement of election. - When for any serious cause such as
violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that
the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become
impossible in any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or
upon a verified petition by any interested party, and after due notice and
hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to
be heard, shall postpone the election therein to a date which should be
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the
cessation of the cause for such postponement or suspension of the
election or failure to elect.
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before
the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and
during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect,
and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect
the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for
the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Sec. 7. Call of special election. - In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang
Pambansa eighteen months or more before a regular election, the
Commission shall call a special election to be held within sixty days after
the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term.
In case of the dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa, the President shall
call an election which shall not be held earlier than forty-five nor later
than sixty days from the date of such dissolution.
The Commission shall send sufficient copies of its resolution for the
holding of the election to its provincial election supervisors and election
registrars for dissemination, who shall post copies thereof in at least three
conspicuous places preferably where public meetings are held in each
city or municipality affected
[d] Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over all Pre-Proclamation Contests
Sec. 241, B.P. 881
Sec. 241. Definition. - A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of
canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered
political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly
with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235
and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns.
III. VOTERS
A. Qualifications
Sec. 1, Art. V, Constitution
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines,
not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age,
and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in
the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months
immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Sec. 117, B.P. 881
Sec. 117. Qualifications of a voter. - Every citizen of the Philippines, not
otherwise disqualified by law, eighteen years of age or over, who shall
have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the city or
municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election, may be registered as a voter.
Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or
country solely by reason of his occupation; profession; employment in
private or public service; educational activities; work in military or naval
reservations; service in the army, navy or air force; the constabulary or
national police force; or confinement or detention in government
institutions in accordance with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his
original residence.
Sec. 4, R.A. 9189
Sec. 4. Coverage. – All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not
otherwise disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the
day of elections, may vote for president, vice-president, senators and
party-list representatives.
Makalintal v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 157013, July 3, 2003
RULING: Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically disqualifies
an immigrant or permanent resident who is "recognized as such in the
host country" because immigration or permanent residence in another
country implies renunciation of one’s residence in his country of origin.
However, same Section allows an immigrant and permanent resident
abroad to register as voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit to
show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance of the
constitutional intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that
"all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law" must be
entitled to exercise the right of suffrage and, that Congress must establish
a system for absentee voting; for otherwise, if actual, physical residence
in the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the framers of the
Constitution to mandate Congress to establish a system for absentee
voting.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the execution of the affidavit itself is
not the enabling or enfranchising act. The affidavit required in Section
5(d) is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent
resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, but more
significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact
abandoned his domicile of origin. Thus, it is not correct to say that the
execution of the affidavit under Section 5(d) violates the Constitution that
proscribes "provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a
condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise."
B. Disqualifications
Sec. 118, B.P. 881
Sec. 118. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified from
voting:
 a. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to
suffer imprisonment for not less than one year, such disability
not having been removed by plenary pardon or granted
amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to
vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the
right to vote upon expiration of five years after service of
sentence.
b. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by
competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime
involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such
as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and
firearms laws, or any crime against national security, unless
restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with
law: Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote
automatically upon expiration of five years after service of
sentence.
c. Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent
authority.
C. Registration of Voters
R.A. 8189 (Voters Registration Act of 1996)
System of continuing registration
Sec. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. - The personal
filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in
the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No
registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one
hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days
before a special election.
Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001
FACTS: Petitioners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a special registration
before the May 14, 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21.
Petitioners requested for an additional two days of registration to
accommodate those youth, numbering up to four million, who failed to
meet the December 27, 2000 deadline set by COMELEC under Republic
Act No. 8189.
RULING: Right of Suffrage is not absolute.
In a representative democracy such as ours, the right of suffrage,
although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy of rights embodied in
the fundamental law, ought to be exercised within the proper bounds and
framework of the Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent laws
skillfully enacted by the Legislature.
As in the enjoyment of all other rights, it is subject to existing substantive
and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute books
and other repositories of law.
D. Absentee Voting
[a] Local Absentee Voting
Sec. 12, R.A. No. 7166
Sec. 12. Absentee Voting. - Absentee voting as provided for in Executive
Order No. 157 dated March 30, 1987 shall apply to the elections for
President, Vice-President and Senators only and shall be limited to
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine
National Police and other government officers and employees who are
duly registered voters and who, on election day, may temporarily be
assigned in connection with the performance of election duties to place
where they are not registered voters.
[b] Absentee Voting for Members of the Media
Sec. 2, R.A. No. 10380
Section 2. Local Absentee Voting for Members of Media. – The
Commission on Elections shall extend the right to vote under the local
absentee voting system provided under existing laws and executive
orders to members of media, media practitioners, including the technical
and support staff, who are duly registered voters and who, on election
day, may not be able to vote due to the performance of their functions in
covering and reporting on the elections: Provided, That they shall be
allowed to vote only for the positions of President, Vice President,
Senators and Party-List Representative.
[c] Overseas Absentee Voting
Sec. 3 (j) R.A. 9189 as amended by R.A. 10590
“(j) Overseas Voter refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified
to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law,
who is abroad on the day of elections.
E. Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings
[a] Common rules governing judicial proceedings in the matter of
inclusion, exclusion and correction of names of voters
[b] Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases
Sec. 33, R.A. 8189
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The Municipal and
Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective
cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial
Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial
Court within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said
decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall
decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the
decision shall immediately become final and executory. No motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained.
[c] Petition for Inclusion
Sec. 34, R.A. 8189
Sec. 34. Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. - Any person whose
application for registration has been disapproved by the Board or whose
name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a petition
to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any
time except one hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election or
seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be supported by
a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of
notice of his petition upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within
fifteen (15) days after its filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of
voters, the Board shall place the application for registration previously
disapproved in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the
application for registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court
which issued the same.
[d] Petition for Exclusion
Sec 35, R.A. 8189
Sec. 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. - Any registered
voters, representative of a political party or the Election Officer, may file
with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from the
permanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the
challenged voter at any time except one hundred (100) days prior to a
regular election or sixty-five (65) days before a special election. The
petition shall be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the
challenged voter and shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board
shall, upon receipt of the final decision, remove the voter's registration
record from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of
exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.
Asistio v. Hon. Thelma Trinidad-Pe Aguirre
G.R. No. 191124, April 27, 2010
RULING: whether Asistio should be excluded from the permanent list of
voters of [Precinct 1811A] of Caloocan City for failure to comply with
the residency required by law.
Section 117 of The Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Bilang
881) states:
SECTION 117. Qualifications of a voter.—Every citizen of the
Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, eighteen years of age or
over, who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the
city or municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election, may be registered as a voter.
Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or
country solely by reason of his occupation; profession; employment in
private or public service; educational activities; work in military or naval
reservations; service in the army, navy or air force; the constabulary or
national police force; or confinement or detention in government
institutions in accordance with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his
original residence.
This provision is echoed in Section 9 of The Voters Registration Act of
1996 (Republic Act No. 8189), to wit:
SEC. 9. Who May Register.—All citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age
and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and
in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter.
Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or
country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in
private or public service, educational activities, work in the military or
naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, the National Police Force, or confinement or detention in
government institutions in accordance with law, shall not be deemed to
have lost his original residence.
Any person who, on the day of registration may not have reached the
required age or period of residence but who, on the day of election shall
possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.
From these provisions, the residency requirement of a voter is at least one
(1) year residence in the Philippines and at least six (6) months in the
place where the person proposes or intends to vote. "Residence," as used
in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective
office, is doctrinally settled to mean "domicile," importing not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that
place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention32 inferable from
a person’s acts, activities, and utterances.33 "Domicile" denotes a fixed
permanent residence where, when absent for business or pleasure, or for
like reasons, one intends to return.34 In the consideration of
circumstances obtaining in each particular case, three rules must be borne
in mind, namely: (1) that a person must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new one is acquired;
and (3) that a person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.35
Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer thereof, one
must demonstrate: (1) an actual removal or change of domicile; (2) a
bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one; and (3) acts which correspond with that
purpose.36 There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be
for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be
voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile
must be actual.37
Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since his birth or for
more than 72 years. His family is known to be among the prominent
political families in Caloocan City. In fact, Asistio served in public office
as Caloocan City Second District representative in the House of
Representatives, having been elected as such in the 1992, 1995, 1998,
and 2004 elections. In 2007, he also sought election as City Mayor. In all
of these occasions, Asistio cast his vote in the same city. Taking these
circumstances into consideration, gauged in the light of the doctrines
above enunciated, it cannot be denied that Asistio has qualified, and
continues to qualify, as a voter of Caloocan City. There is no showing
that he has established domicile elsewhere, or that he had consciously
and voluntarily abandoned his residence in Caloocan City. He should,
therefore, remain in the list of permanent registered voters of Precinct
No. 1811A, Barangay 15, Caloocan City.
That Asistio allegedly indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy for
Mayor, both for the 2007 and 2010 elections, a non-existent or false
address, or that he could not be physically found in the address he
indicated when he registered as a voter, should not operate to exclude
him as a voter of Caloocan City. These purported misrepresentations in
Asistio’s COC, if true, might serve as basis for an election offense under
the Omnibus Election Code (OEC),38 or an action to deny due course to
the COC.39 But to our mind, they do not serve as proof that Asistio has
abandoned his domicile in Caloocan City, or that he has established
residence outside of Caloocan City.
F. Annulment of Book of Voters
Sec. 39, R.A. 8180
Sec. 39. Annulment at Book of Voters. - The Commission shall, upon
verified petition of any voter or election officer or duly registered
political party, and after notice and hearing, annul any book of voters that
is not prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act or was
prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation,
force or any similar irregularity, or which contains data that are
statistically improbable. No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of
voters shall be executed within ninety (90) days before an election.
IV. POLITICAL PARTIES
A. Definition
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7941
Section 3. Definition of Terms. -
a. The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional
representation in the election of representatives to the House
of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties
or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties
or organizations of a coalition may participate independently
provided the coalition of which they form part does not
participate in the party-list system.
b. A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
coalition of parties.
c. A political party refers to an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for
the general conduct of government and which, as the most
immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly
nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as
candidates for public office.
d. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is
a regional party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising the region.
e. A 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.
f. A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a
coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical
attributes or characteristics, employment, interest or concerns.
g. A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered
national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for
political and/or election purposes.
B. Powers & Duties of COMELEC
Sec. 2 (5), 6, 7 & 8 of Art. IX-C, SUPRA
Sec. 60 & 61, OEC
Sec. 60. Political party. - "Political party" or "party", when used in this
Act, means 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.
Sec. 61. Registration. - Any organized group of persons seeking
registration as a national or regional political party may file with the
Commission a verified petition attaching thereto its constitution and by-
laws, platform or program of government and such other relevant
information as may be required by the Commission. The Commission
shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within ten days
from the date it is submitted for decision.
No religious sect shall be registered as a political party and no political
party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to
accreditation.
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012
RULING: Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be taken of
matters that are of "public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration." Further, Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as
the Revised Administrative Code, specifically empowers administrative
agencies to admit and give probative value to evidence commonly
acceptable by reasonably prudent men, and to take notice of judicially
cognizable facts. Thus, in Saludo v. American Express, this Court
explained as follows:
The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of judicial
notice has been explained as those facts that are "so commonly known in
the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so
certainly known x x x as to make it indisputable among reasonable men."
Under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution, parties,
organizations and coalitions that "seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means" shall be denied registration. This
disqualification is reiterated in Section 61 of B.P. 881, which provides
that "no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence
shall be entitled to accreditation."
In the present case, the Oakwood incident was one that was attended with
violence.
The COMELEC did not, therefore, commit grave abuse of discretion
when it treated the Oakwood standoff as a manifestation of the
predilection of MAGDALO for resorting to violence or threats thereof in
order to achieve its objectives.
C. Grounds for cancellation of registration under R.A. 7941 of a national,
regional or sector party, organization or coalition
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC
may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party,
refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any
national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of
the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association,
organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political
party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan
election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to
obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list
system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
has registered.
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010
RULING: As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not
a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals
from participation in the party-list system. The denial of Ang Ladlad’s
registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of
dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any
substantial public interest. Respondent’s blanket justifications give rise to
the inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC targets homosexuals
themselves as a class, not because of any particular morally reprehensible
act. It is this selective targeting that implicates our equal protection
clause.
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc (PGBI) v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
RULING: Our Minero ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8)
of RA 7941; hence, it cannot sustain PGBI’s delisting from the roster of
registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or
coalitions under the party-list system.
First, the law is clear – the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon
verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due
notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral
party, organization or coalition if it: (a) fails to participate in the last two
(2) preceding elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%)
of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered.6 The word "or"
is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one
thing from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed
in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word.7 Thus,
the plain, clear and unmistakable language of the law provides for two
(2) separate reasons for delisting.
Second, Minero is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of
Section 6(8) of RA 7941, as PGBI’s cited congressional deliberations
clearly show.
Minero therefore simply cannot stand. Its basic defect lies in its
characterization of the non-participation of a party-list organization in an
election as similar to a failure to garner the 2% threshold party-list vote.
What Minero effectively holds is that a party list organization that does
not participate in an election necessarily gets, by default, less than 2% of
the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a confused interpretation of the
law, given the law’s clear and categorical language and the legislative
intent to treat the two scenarios differently. A delisting based on a
mixture or fusion of these two different and separate grounds for
delisting is therefore a strained application of the law – in jurisdictional
terms, it is an interpretation not within the contemplation of the framers
of the law and hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the law.8
What we say here should of course take into account our ruling in
Barangay Association for Advancement and National Transparency v.
COMELEC (Banat) where we partly invalidated the 2% party-list vote
requirement provided in RA 7941 as follows:
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of
the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of
R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent
threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum
number of available party list seats when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent
threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the
attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the
House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
The disqualification for failure to get 2% party-list votes in two (2)
preceding elections should therefore be understood in light of the Banat
ruling that party-list groups or organizations garnering less than 2% of
the party-list votes may yet qualify for a seat in the allocation of
additional seats.
We need not extensively discuss Banat’s significance, except to state that
a party-list group or organization which qualified in the second round of
seat allocation cannot now validly be delisted for the reason alone that it
garnered less than 2% in the last two elections. In other words, the
application of this disqualification should henceforth be contingent on the
percentage of party-list votes garnered by the last party-list organization
that qualified for a seat in the House of Representatives, a percentage that
is less than the 2% threshold invalidated in Banat. The disqualification
should now necessarily be read to apply to party-list groups or
organizations that did not qualify for a seat in the two preceding elections
for the constituency in which it registered.
Cocofed-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v.
COMELEC
G.R. No. 207026, August 6, 2013
RULING: COCOFED’s failure to submit a list of five nominees, despite
ample opportunity to do so before the elections, is a violation imputable
to the party under Section 6(5) of RA No. 7941.
Abang Lingkod Party-List v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013
RULING: It must be stressed that the COMELEC cancelled ABANG
LINGKOD s registration solely on the ground of the lack of its track
record -that it falsely represented, by submitting digitally altered
photographs of its supposed activities, that it had a track record in
representing the marginalized and underrepresented. The existence of
ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group per se and the genuineness of
its representation of the farmers and fisherfolks were never raised in the
proceedings before the COMELEC. It would thus be the height of
injustice in the Court, in this certiorari action, would scrutinize the
legitimacy of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group and the
genuineness of its representation of the farmers and fisherfolk, and affirm
the cancellation of its registration, when the issue is limited only to the
track record of ABANG LINGKOD.
Moreover, ABANG LINGKOD had been previously registered as a
party-list group, as in fact it participated in the May 2010 party-list
elections, and it was able to obtain a sufficient number of votes in the
May 2013 party-list elections to obtain a seat in the House of
Representatives. These are circumstances, which clearly indicate that
ABANG LINGKOD is indeed a legitimate party-list group.
ABANG LINGKOD, notwithstanding the cancellation of its registration
three days prior to the May 13, 2013 elections, was able to obtain a total
of 260 215 votes out of the 26 722 131 votes that were cast for the party-
list,14 thus entitling it to a seat in the House of Representatives. This is
indicative of the fact that a considerable portion of the electorate
considers ABANG LINGKOD as truly representative of peasant farmers
and fisherfolk.
Anent the photographs submitted by ABANG LINGKOD, these only
show book-giving and medical missions, which are activities it
conducted. Suffice it to state, however, that said activities do not
specifically or directly pertain to the interest or advocacy espoused by
ABANG LINGKOD. As such, the misrepresentation committed by
ABANG LINGKOD with regard to said activities would not necessarily
militate against its representation of the farmers and fisherfolk.
D. R.A. 8173 (An Act Granting All Citizens’ Arms Equal Opportunity to
be Accredited by the Commission on Elections); Section 52 (k), B.P. 881
V. CANDIDATES
A. Qualifications
[a] Citizenship
[b] Residency
JALOSJOS vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 191970 | 2012-04-24
ABAD, J.:
RULING: But it is clear from the facts that Quezon City was Jalosjos’
domicile of origin, the place of his birth. It may be taken for granted that
he effectively changed his domicile from Quezon City to Australia when
he migrated there at the age of eight, acquired Australian citizenship, and
lived in that country for 26 years. Australia became his domicile by
operation of law and by choice.
On the other hand, when he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to
live with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did
so with intent to change his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up
his Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that country.
In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his being issued
a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of
Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in
Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there. And he has
since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new domicile in Zamboanga
Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his
domicile of choice and by operation of law (Australia) would violate the
settled maxim that a man must have a domicile or residence somewhere.
The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle his
domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother’s house.
But this circumstance alone cannot support such conclusion. Indeed, the
Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not required to have a house
in a community to establish his residence or domicile in a particular
place. It is sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented
house or in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the candidate
own the house where he lives would make property a qualification for
public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has proved two things: actual
physical presence in Ipil and an intention of making it his domicile.
Jalosjos presented the affidavits of next-door neighbors, it is not disputed
that Jalosjos bought a residential lot and a fish pond. Moreover, Jalosjos
is a registered voter of Ipil by final judgment of the Regional Trial Court
of Zamboanga Sibugay.
B. Disqualifications
[a] Under the Omnibus Election Code (Sec. 12, B.P. 881)
Section 12 Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by
competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by
final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense
for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen
months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to
be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary
pardon or granted amnesty.
These disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed
removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity
or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of
five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he
again becomes disqualified.
RISOS-VIDAL vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 206666 | 2015-01-21
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
RULING: Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that
fully restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally includes
the right to seek public elective office, the focal point of this controversy.
The wording of the pardon extended to former President Estrada is
complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. The only reasonable,
objective, and constitutional interpretation of the language of the pardon
is that the same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative
action.
The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section
5 of Article IX-C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses
the power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency,
to wit:
It is apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that the only
instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to be in:
(1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final
conviction; and (3) cases involving violations of election laws, rules and
regulations in which there was no favorable recommendation coming
from the COMELEC. Therefore, it can be argued that any act of
Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning
power of the President.
A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President
Estrada shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and
its accessory penalties are included in the pardon. The first sentence
refers to the executive clemency extended to former President Estrada
who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned
which relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence that followed, which
states that “(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights,”
expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua . Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and
41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the
pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual
absolute disqualification were expressly remitted together with the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.
[b] Under the Local Government Code
Sec. 40, R.A. 7160
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified
from running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance
to the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired
the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the
effectivity of this Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.
[c] Additional grounds for disqualification
Sec. 68, BP 881
Section 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or
protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money
or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters
or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an
amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or
made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104;
or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k,
v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person
who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall
not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided
for in the election laws.
EJERCITO VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 212398 | 2014-11-25
PERALTA, J.:
RULING: Ejercito should be disqualified for spending in his election
campaign an amount in excess of what is allowed by the OEC
The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the candidate’s
allowable limit of election expenses does not trample upon the free
exercise of the voters’ rights of speech and of expression under Section 4,
Artticle III of the Constitution. As a content-neutral regulation, the law’s
concern is not to curtail the message or content of the advertisement
promoting a particular candidate but to ensure equality between and
among aspirants with “deep pockets” and those with less financial
resources. Any restriction on speech or expression is only incidental and
is no more than necessary to achieve the substantial governmental
interest of promoting equality of opportunity in political advertising. It
bears a clear and reasonable connection with the constitutional objectives
set out in Section 26, Article II, Section 4, Article IX-C, and Section 1,
Art. XIII of the Constitution. Indeed, to rule otherwise would practically
result in an unlimited expenditure for political advertising, which skews
the political process and subverts the essence of a truly democratic form
of government.
PANGKAT LAGUNA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 148075 | 2002-02-04
BUENA, J.:
RULING: On this score, it bears stressing that the act of respondent
Lazaro - as Chief Executive of the Province of Laguna - in ordering the
purchase of various items and the consequent distribution thereof to the
constituents of Laguna, in line with the local government unit's sports
and education program, is - to our mind - not constitutive of the act of
election campaigning or partisan political activity contemplated and
explicitly proscribed under the pertinent provisions of Section 80 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Respondent Lazaro was merely performing the duties and tasks imposed
upon her by law, which duties she has sworn to perform as the Governor
of the Province of Laguna.
Notably, upon a close perusal of the entirety of circumstances attendant
in the instant case, this Court is of the firm view that herein petitioner
failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the questioned
purchase and distribution of the aforesaid items were, in any significant
way, perpetrated for the purpose of promoting the candidacy of
respondent Lazaro or were, in any manner, calculated to directly or
indirectly solicit votes on behalf or in favor of respondent. Similarly, the
records are bereft of any clear and convincing proof that the purchase and
distribution of the items were deliberately or consciously done to
influence and induce the constituents of Laguna to vote for respondent, in
direct violation of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
To us, respondent's acts do not fall within, and are not contemplated by,
the prohibition embodied in Section 80 of the Code so as to effectively
disqualify her from the elections and bar her from holding office.
C. Certificate of Candidacy
Who is a Candidate?
Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9369, a candidate is “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 certificate of candidacy.”
Thus, under the law, a person only becomes a candidate when he/ she has
filed a certificate of candidacy and when the campaign period has
commenced. One is not a candidate, despite having filed a certificate of
candidacy, before the start of the campaign period. The law added,
“unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect
only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period.”
What is a certificate of candidacy?
A certificate of candidacy is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the
whole world of the candidate's political creed or lack of political creed. It
is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that
he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is
eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs,
if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes
being as well stated. (SINACA vs. MULA, G.R. No. 135691 | 1999-09-
27)
[a] Deadline for filing of certificates of candidacy [Sec. 11, R.A. 8436,
as amended by R.A. 9369]
SECTION 13. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"SECTION 15. Official Ballot. – x x x "For this purpose, the
Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of
candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the
election. 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 certificate of candidacy: Provided, That,
unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only
upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That
any person holding a public appointive office or position, including
active members of the armed forces, and officers and employees in
government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso
facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of
the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy.
"Political parties may hold political conventions to nominate their official
candidates within thirty (30) days before the start of the period for filing
a certificate of candidacy. x x x
a.1. Certificates of candidacy must be filed not later than the day before
the date for the beginning of the campaign period (Sec. 7, Republic Act
No. 7166).
Sec. 7. Filing of Certificates of Candidacy. - The certificate of
candidacy of any person running for the office of President, Vice-
President, Senator, Member of the House of Representatives or any
elective provincial, city or municipal official shall be filed in five (5)
legible copies with the offices of the Commission specified hereunder not
later than the day before the date legally fixed for the beginning of his
campaign period.
a. The certificate of candidacy for President, Vice-President and
Senators shall be filed with the main office of the Commission
in Manila;
b. The certificate of candidacy for the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be filed with the provincial election
supervisor of the province concerned. Those for legislative
districts in the National Capital Region shall be filed with the
regional election director of said region and those for
legislative districts in cities outside the National Capital
Region which comprise one or more legislative districts shall
be filed with the city election registrar concerned;
c. The certificate of candidacy for provincial offices shall be
filed with the provincial supervisor concerned; and
d. The certificate of candidacy for city or municipal offices shall
be filed with the city or municipal election registrar
concerned. Whenever practicable, the names of registered
candidates for local positions shall be printed in the election
returns: Provided, That, if a candidate has been disqualified or
declared a nuisance candidate, it shall be the duty of the
Commission to instruct without delay the appropriate election
officials to delete the name of said candidate as printed in the
election return.
The certificate of candidacy shall be filed by the candidate personally or
by his duly authorized representative. No certificate of candidacy shall be
filed or accepted by mail, telegram or facsimile.
a.2. A certificate filed beyond the deadline is not valid.
GADOR vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. L-52365 January 22, 1980
FERNANDEZ, J.:
FACTS: The petition alleges that the petitioner is a candidate for the
Office of Mayor of the City of Ozamiz as Independent this coming
January 30, 1980 local election; that he filed his certificate of candidacy
with the Election Registrar of Ozamis City on January 7, 1980
Section 7, Batasang Pambansa Bilang 52, provides that "The sworn
certificate of candidacy shag be filed in triplicate not later than January 4,
1980." It is a fact admitted by the petitioner that the President had not
extended the period within which to file the certificate of candidacy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner
which was filed on January 7, 1980 is valid.
RULING: This Court is powerless to grant the remedy prayed for in the
petition. Having been filed beyond January 4, 1980, the certificate of
candidacy of the petitioner is void.
In as much as the election is only eight (8) days away, it is to the interest
of all concerned, specially the petitioner himself, that this matter be
resolved immediately.
a.3. A certificate which did not indicate the position for which the
candidate is running may be corrected.
CONQUILLA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 139801 | 2000-05-31
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS: On 27 March 1998 ALARILLA filed his Certificate of
Candidacy with the Municipal Election Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan,
without however indicating the elective position which he was aspiring
for.
x x x x I hereby announce my candidacy for the office of Meycauayan,
Bulacan, Republic of the Philippines, in the May 11, 1998 elections x x x
x another position without forfeiting his seat.
On 14 April 1998 CONQUILLA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for
Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy and Disqualification, praying
that private respondent ALARILLA's Certificate of Candidacy be
expunged and cancelled on the ground that it was null and void for
failing to specify the elective position he was running for.
ISSUE: Whether the COC of Alarilla is null and void.
RULING: ALARILLA timely rectified the deficiency in his original
Certificate of Candidacy by filing an Amended Certificate on 21 April
1998 specifically stating that he was running for the position of
Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, in the 11 May 1998
elections.
The purpose in requiring a certificate of candidacy (which is to enable the
voters to know before the elections the candidates among whom they are
to make a choice) was deemed satisfied not only by the Amended
Certificate of Candidacy filed before the elections but also by the
Certified List of Candidates issued by the Office of the Election Officer,
Meycauayan, Bulacan, indubitably listing therein EDUARDO A.
ALARILLA as candidate for the position of "mayor" of said
municipality.
[b] Effect of filing certificate of candidacy of appointive and elective
officials
Resolution No. 8678 - Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of
Candidacy and Nomination of Official Candidates
SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy. - a) Any person
holding a public appointive office or position including active members
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees
in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso
facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.
b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be
considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the
same or any other elective office or position.
QUINTO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 189698 (Resolution) | 2010-02-22
PUNO, C.J.:
FACTS: The assailed Decision struck down Section 4(a) of Resolution
8678, the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic
Act (RA) 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election.
ISSUE: Whether appointive officials shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
RULING: Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 Compliant with
Law
Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 is a faithful reflection of the
present state of the law and jurisprudence on the matter, viz.:
Incumbent Appointive Official. - Under Section 13 of RA 9369, which
reiterates Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, any person holding a
public appointive office or position, including active members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in
government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso
facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.
Incumbent Elected Official. - Upon the other hand, pursuant to Section
14 of RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act, which repealed Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code and rendered ineffective Section 11 of R.A. 8436
insofar as it considered an elected official as resigned only upon the start
of the campaign period corresponding to the positions for which they are
running, an elected official is not deemed to have resigned from his
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any
other elected office or position. In fine, an elected official may run for
These laws and regulations implement Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the
1987 Constitution, which prohibits civil service officers and employees
from engaging in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.
2019 BAR QUESTION:
W, the incumbent Congressman of the Province of Albay, decided to run
for Governor. He filed his certificate of candidacy for Governor without
resigning from his post and continued to exercising his duties as
Congressman, such as attending plenary sessions and committee hearings
in the House of Representatives. One of W’s fiercest critics, X, claimed
that W should not dispensing the functions of a Congressman since he is
deemed ipso facto resigned as such upon his filing of a CoC for Governor
of Albay.
(a) Is X’s argument correct?
(b) Assuming that W is instead, an incumbent Undersecretary of the
Department of National Defense, what is the effect of the filing of his
CoC for the position of Governor of Albay to said post?
Forms
1. Oath
a. The certificate must be sworn (Sec. 73, Omnibus Election Code).
Section 73. Certificate of candidacy. - No person shall be eligible for any
elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy
within the period fixed herein.
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the
election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a
written declaration under oath.
No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the
same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than
one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them.
However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates
of candidacy, the person who was filed more than one certificate of
candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be
eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or
offices.
The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy shall not affect
whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate
may have incurred.
2. Name
a. A candidate shall use his baptismal name or, if none, the name
registered with the civil registrar or any other name allowed by law.
b. He may include one nickname or stage name by which he is generally
known (Sec. 74, Omnibus Election Code).
c. When two or more candidates for the same office have the same name
and surname, each shall state his paternal and maternal surnames, except
the incumbent (Sec. 74, Omnibus Election Code).
Section 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of
candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy
for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for
Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its
component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he
seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his
date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes;
his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated
by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation imposed by his oath is
assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best
of his knowledge.
Unless a candidate has officially changed his name through a court
approved proceeding, a certificate shall use in a certificate of candidacy
the name by which he has been baptized, or if has not been baptized in
any church or religion, the name registered in the office of the local civil
registrar or any other name allowed under the provisions of existing law
or, in the case of a Muslim, his Hadji name after performing the
prescribed religious pilgrimage: Provided, That when there are two or
more candidates for an office with the same name and surname, each
candidate, upon being made aware or such fact, shall state his paternal
and maternal surname, except the incumbent who may continue to use
the name and surname stated in his certificate of candidacy when he was
elected. He may also include one nickname or stage name by which he is
generally or popularly known in the locality.
The person filing a certificate of candidacy shall also affix his latest
photograph, passport size; a statement in duplicate containing his bio-
data and program of government not exceeding one hundred words, if he
so desires.
[c] Formal defects in the certificate of candidacy
AMORA, JR vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 192280 | 2011-01-25
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS: On December 1, 2009, petitioner Sergio G. Amora, Jr. (Amora)
filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor of Candijay, Bohol.
On March 5, 2010, Olandria filed before the COMELEC a Petition for
Disqualification against Amora. Olandria alleged that Amora’s COC was
not properly sworn contrary to the requirements of the Omnibus Election
Code (OEC) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Olandria pointed
out that, in executing his COC, Amora merely presented his Community
Tax Certificate (CTC) to the notary public, Atty. Oriculo Granada (Atty.
Granada), instead of presenting competent evidence of his identity.
ISSUE: Whether it is proper to disqualify a candidate who, in executing
his Certificate of Candidacy (COC), merely presented to the Notary
Public his Community Tax Certificate.
RULING: In this case, it was grave abuse of discretion to uphold
Olandria’s claim that an improperly sworn COC is equivalent to
possession of a ground for disqualification. Not by any stretch of the
imagination can we infer this as an additional ground for disqualification
from the specific wording of the OEC in Section and of Section 40 of the
LGC.
It is quite obvious that the Olandria petition is not based on any of the
grounds for disqualification as enumerated in the foregoing statutory
provisions.
A competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the
affiant is personally known to the Notary Public, which is the case herein.
The records reveal that petitioner submitted to this Commission a sworn
affidavit executed by Notary Public Oriculo A. Granada (Granada), who
notarized petitioner’s COC, affirming in his affidavit that he personally
knows petitioner. Respondent, on the other hand, presented no evidence
to counter Granada’s declarations. Hence, Granada’s affidavit, which
narrates in detail his personal relation with petitioner, should be deemed
sufficient.
[d] Death, withdrawal or disqualification of candidate
[Sec. 77, BP 881]
Section 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of
another. - If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an
official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies,
withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to,
and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of
candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was
disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party
concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in
accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of the day
of the election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur
between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said
certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the
political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates
to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the
Commission.
FEDERICO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 199612 | 2013-01-22
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Edna Sanchez (Edna) and private respondent Osmundo M.
Maligaya (Maligaya) were candidates for the position of municipal
mayor of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, in the May 10, 2010 Automated
National and Local Elections. Armando Sanchez, husband of Edna, died.
Edna withdrew her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of
mayor. She then filed a new COC and the corresponding Certificate of
Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) for the position of governor as
substitute candidate for her deceased husband.
On May 5, 2010, petitioner Renato M. Federico (Federico) filed COC as
a substitute candidate for mayor, in view of the withdrawal of Edna
which was contested by Maligaya.
ISSUE: Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it
annulled Federico's proclamation as the winning candidate on the ground
that his substitution as mayoralty candidate was void.
RULING: Different deadlines were set to govern the specific
circumstances that would necessitate the substitution of a candidate due
to death, disqualification or withdrawal. In case of death or
disqualification, the substitute had until midday of the election day to file
the COC. In case of withdrawal, which is the situation at bench, the
substitute should have filed a COC by December 14, 2009.
Considering that the deadline for substitution in case of withdrawal had
already lapsed, no person could substitute her as mayoralty candidate.
The sudden death of then Governor Armando Sanchez and the
substitution by his widow in the gubernatorial race could not justify a
belated substitution in the mayoralty race.
[d.1] Substitution of candidates [Sec. 12, R.A. 8436]
Sec. 12. Substitution of candidates. - In case of valid substitutions after
the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted
candidates shall be considered votes for the substitutes.
Parameters
TAGOLINO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
‘TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 202202 | 2013-03-19
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS: Records clearly show that Richard was held ineligible as a
congressional candidate for the Fourth District of Leyte due to his failure
to comply with the one-year residency requirement and Juntilla’s petition
prayed for the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of his CoC;
On May 5, 2010, Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez (private respondent) filed
her COC together with a Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance from
the Liberal Party endorsing her as the party’s official substitute candidate
her husband.
ISSUE: Whether or not the HRET gravely abused its discretion in finding
that Richard was validly substituted by private respondent as candidate
for Leyte Representative (Fourth Legislative District) in view of the
former’s failure to meet the one (l) year residency requirement provided
under Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution.
RULING: Section 77 of the OEC requires that there be an “official
candidate” before candidate substitution proceeds. Considering that
Section 77 requires that there be a candidate in order for substitution to
take place, as well as the precept that a person without a valid COC is not
considered as a candidate at all, it necessarily follows that if a person’s
COC had been denied due course to and/or cancelled, he or she cannot be
validly substituted in the electoral process. The existence of a valid COC
is therefore a Condition sine qua non for a disqualified candidate to be
validly substituted.
Owing to the lack of proper substitution in its case, private respondent
was therefore not a bona fide candidate for the position of Representative
for the Fourth District of Leyte when she ran for office, which means that
she could not have been elected.
ARATEA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 195229 | 2012-10-09
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS: Rodolfo (Rodolfo) filed a petition under Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code to disqualify Lonzanida and to deny due course
or to cancel Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy on the ground that
Lonzanida was elected, and had served, as mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales for four (4) consecutive terms immediately prior to the term for
the May 2010 elections. Rodolfo asserted that Lonzanida made a false
material representation in his certificate of candidacy when Lonzanida
certified under oath that he was eligible for the office he sought election.
ISSUE: Whether Lonzanida was disqualified under Section 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code, or made a false material representation under
Section 78 of the same Code that resulted in his certificate of candidacy
being void ab initio, is determinative of whether Aratea or Antipolo is the
rightful occupant to the Office of the Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.
RULING: A petition for disqualification under Section 68 clearly refers
to "the commission of prohibited acts and possession of a permanent
resident status in a foreign country." All the offenses mentioned in
Section 68 refer to election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code,
not to violations of other penal laws. Clearly, the violation by Lonzanida
of the three-term limit rule, or his conviction by final judgment of the
crime of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, does not constitute a
ground for a petition under Section 68.
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code states that a certificate of
candidacy may be denied or cancelled when there is false material
representation of the contents of the certificate of candidacy
Lonzanida became ineligible perpetually to hold, or to run for, any
elective public office from the time the judgment of conviction against
him became final. The judgment of conviction was promulgated on 20
July 2009 and became final on 23 October 2009, before Lonzanida filed
his certificate of candidacy on 1 December 2009. A person suffering
from these ineligibilities is ineligible to run for elective public office, and
commits a false material representation if he states in his certificate of
candidacy that he is eligible to so run.
A cancelled certificate of candidacy void ab initio cannot give rise to a
valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes. Ergo, since respondent
Lonzanida was never a candidate for the position of Mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales, the votes cast for him should be considered stray
votes. Consequently, Intervenor Antipolo, who remains as the sole
qualified candidate for the mayoralty post and obtained the highest
number of votes, should now be proclaimed as the duly elected Mayor of
San Antonio, Zambales.
CERAFICA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 205136 | 2014-12-02
PEREZ, J.:
FACTS: COMELEC declared that Kimberly, being under age, could not
be considered to have filed a valid COC and, thus, could not be validly
substituted by Olivia.
ISSUE: Whether or not Olivia can substitute Kimberly.
RULING: Under the express provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not
just any person, but only “an official candidate of a registered or
accredited political party” may be substituted. In the case at bar,
Kimberly was an official nominee of the Liberal Party; thus, she can be
validly substituted.
First, there was a valid withdrawal of Kimberly’s COC after the last day
for the filing of COCs; second, Olivia belongs to and is certified to by the
same political party to which Kimberly belongs; and third, Olivia filed
her COC not later than mid-day of election day.
[e] Withdrawal of certificate of candidacy
Section 73 (2), B.P. 881
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the
election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a
written declaration under oath.
Loreto-Go v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 147741, May 10, 2001
RULING: Hence, the filing of petitioner's affidavit of withdrawal of
candidacy for mayor of Baybay with the provincial election supervisor of
Leyte sufficed to effectively withdraw such candidacy. the COMELEC
thus acted with grave abuse of discretion when it declare petitioner
ineligible for both positions for which she filed certificates of candidacy.
[f] Filing two certificates of candidacy
Sec. 73 (3), BP 881
No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the
same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than
one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the
expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the
person who was filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare
under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the
certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.
[g] Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive certificate
Sec. 76, BP 881
Sec. 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. - The
Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or officer
designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under
the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and
acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.
Romeo Jalosjos v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205033, June 18, 2013
RULING: Even without a petition under either Section 12 or Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code, or under Section 40 of the Local
Government Code, the COMELEC is under a legal duty to cancel the
certificate of candidacy of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of
perpetual special disqualification to run for public office by virtue of a
final judgment of conviction. The final judgment of conviction is notice
to the COMELEC of the disqualification of the convict from running for
public office. The law itself bars the convict from running for public
office, and the disqualification is part of the final judgment of conviction.
The final judgment of the court is addressed not only to the Executive
branch, but also to other government agencies tasked to implement the
final judgment under the law.
Whether or not the COMELEC is expressly mentioned in the judgment to
implement the disqualification, it is assumed that the portion of the final
judgment on disqualification to run for elective public office is addressed
to the COMELEC because under the Constitution the COMELEC is duty
bound to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election." The disqualification of a convict to run for public
office under the Revised Penal Code, as affirmed by final judgment of a
competent court, is part of the enforcement and administration of "all
laws" relating to the conduct of elections.
To allow the COMELEC to wait for a person to file a petition to cancel
the certificate of candidacy of one suffering from perpetual special
disqualification will result in the anomaly that these cases so grotesquely
exemplify. Despite a prior perpetual special disqualification, Jalosjos was
elected and served twice as mayor. The COMELEC will be grossly
remiss in its constitutional duty to "enforce and administer all laws"
relating to the conduct of elections if it does not motu proprio bar from
running for public office those suffering from perpetual special
disqualification by virtue of a final judgment.
[g] Instances when the COMELEC may go beyond the face of the
certificate
VI. CAMPAIGN
A. Election campaign or partisan political activity
[Sec. 79 (b), B.P. 881]
(b) The term "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" refers to
an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate
or candidates to a public office which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking
any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or
other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to
support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or
against a candidate.
The foregoing enumerated acts if performed for the purpose of enhancing
the chances of aspirants for nomination for candidacy to a public office
by a political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties shall not be
considered as election campaign or partisan election activity.
Public expressions or opinions or discussions of probable issues in a
forthcoming election or on attributes of or criticisms against probable
candidates proposed to be nominated in a forthcoming political party
convention shall not be construed as part of any election campaign or
partisan political activity contemplated under this Article.
B. Campaign period
Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7166
Sec. 5. Election and Campaign Period. - Unless otherwise fixed by the
Commission, the election period for the May 11, 1992 regular elections
shall commence ninety (90) days before the day of the election and shall
end thirty (30) days thereafter.
The campaign periods are hereby fixed as follows:
For President, Vice-President and Senators, ninety (90) days before the
day of the election; and
For Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial,
city and municipal officials, forty-five (45) days before the day of the
election.
However, in the preparation of the election calendar, the Commission
may exclude the day before the day of the election itself, Maundy
Thursday and Good Friday.
Any election campaign or partisan political activity for or against any
candidate outside of the campaign period herein provided is prohibited
and shall be considered as an election offense punishable under Section
263 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.
BARANGAY IS 15 DAYS
Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7941
Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. Any
party, organization, or coalition already registered with the Commission
need not register anew. However, such party, organization, or coalition
shall file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the
election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list
system.
- Compare with Election period
SEC. 3, B.P. 881
Sec. 3. Election and campaign periods. - Unless otherwise fixed in
special cases by the Commission on Elections, which hereinafter shall be
referred to as the Commission, the election period shall commence ninety
days before the day of the election and shall end thirty days thereafter.
The period of campaign shall be as follows:
1. Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election - 90 days;
2. Election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa and Local
Election - 45 days; and
3. Barangay Election - 15 days.
The campaign periods shall not include the day before and the day of the
election.
However, in case of special elections under Article VIII, Section 5,
Subsection (2) of the Constitution, the campaign period shall be forty-
five days.
C. Premature Campaigning
Sec. 80, B.P. 881
Section 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside
campaign period. - It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a
voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage
in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the
campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political
conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within
thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-
five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING?
LANOT VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 164858 | 2006-11-16
CARPIO, J.:
RULING: Thus, 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.
There is no dispute that Eusebio's acts of election campaigning or
partisan political activities were committed outside of the campaign
period. The only question is whether Eusebio, who filed his certificate of
candidacy on 29 December 2003, was a "candidate" when he committed
those acts before the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004.
Thus, because of the early deadline of 2 January 2004 for purposes of
printing of official ballots, Eusebio filed his certificate of candidacy on
29 December 2003. Congress, however, never intended the filing of a
certificate of candidacy before 2 January 2004 to make the person filing
to become immediately a "candidate" for purposes other than the printing
of ballots. This legislative intent prevents the immediate application of
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code to those filing to meet the early
deadline. The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the "election
periods as x x x fixed by existing law" prior to RA 8436 and that one
who files to meet the early deadline "will still not be considered as a
candidate."
Sec. 11, R.A. 8436 as amended by RA 9369
SECTION 13. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"SECTION 15. Official Ballot. - The Commission shall prescribe the
format of the electronic display and/or the size and form of the official
ballot, which shall contain the titles of the position to be filled and/or the
propositions to be voted upon in an initiative, referendum or plebiscite.
Where practicable, electronic displays must be constructed to present the
names of all candidates for the same position in the same page or screen,
otherwise, the electronic displays must be constructed to present the
entire ballot to the voter, in a series of sequential pages, and to ensure
that the voter sees all of the ballot options on all pages before completing
his or her vote and to allow the voter to review and change all ballot
choices prior to completing and casting his or her ballot. Under each
position to be filled, the names of candidates shall be arranged
alphabetically by surname and uniformly indicated using the same type
size. The maiden or married name shall be listed in the official ballot, as
preferred by the female candidate. Under each proposition to be voted
upon, the choices should be uniformly indicated using the same font and
size.
"A fixed space where the chairman of the board of election inspectors
shall affix his/her signature to authenticate the official ballot shall be
provided.
"For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of
certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to
participate in the election. 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 certificate of
candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a
candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign
period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive
office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and
officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office
and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her
certificate of candidacy.
"Political parties may hold political conventions to nominate their official
candidates within thirty (30) days before the start of the period for filing
a certificate of candidacy.
"With respect to a paper-based election system, the official ballots shall
be printed by the National Printing Office and/or the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas at the price comparable with that of private printers under
proper security measures which the Commission shall adopt. The
Commission may contract the services of private printers upon
certification by the National Printing Office/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
that it cannot meet the printing requirements. Accredited political parties
and deputized citizen's arms of the Commission shall assign watchers in
the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots.
"To prevent the use of fake ballots, the Commission through the
Committee shall ensure that the necessary safeguards, such as, but not
limited to, bar codes, holograms, color shifting ink, microprinting, are
provided on the ballot.
"The official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each
city/municipality at the rate of one ballot for every registered voter with a
provision of additional three ballots per precinct."
D. Public rally
Sec. 87, 88, BP 881
Section 87. Rallies, meetings and other political activities. - Subject to
the requirements of local ordinances on the issuance of permits, any
political party supporting official candidates or any candidate
individually or jointly with other aspirants may hold peaceful political
rallies, meetings, and other similar activities during the campaign period:
Provided, That all applications for permits to hold meetings, rallies and
other similar political activities, receipt of which must be acknowledged
in writing and which application shall be immediately posted in a
conspicuous place in the city or municipal building, shall be acted upon
in writing by local authorities concerned within three days after the filing
thereof and any application not acted upon within said period shall be
deemed approved: and Provided, further, That denial of any application
for said permit shall be appealable to the provincial election supervisor or
to the Commission whose decision shall be made within forty-eight hours
and which shall be final and executory: Provided, finally, That one only
justifiable ground for denial is a prior written application by any
candidate or political party for the same purpose has been approved.
Section 88. Public rally. - Any political party or candidate shall notify the
election registrar concerned of any public rally said political party or
candidate intends to organize and hold in the city or municipality, and
within seven working days thereafter submit to the election registrar a
statement of expenses incurred in connection therewith.
E. Lawful election propaganda
Sec. 82, BP 881
Section 82. Lawful election propaganda. - Lawful election propaganda
shall include:
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed
materials of a size not more than eight and one-half inches in width
and fourteen inches in length;
(b) Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any
particular candidate;
(c) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an
area exceeding two feet by three feet, except that, at the site and on the
occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of
said meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding three feet by eight feet in
size, shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may not be
displayed except one week before the date of the meeting or rally and
that it shall be removed within seventy-two hours after said meeting or
rally; or
(d) All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by this Code as
the Commission may authorize after due notice to all interested parties
and hearing where all the interested parties were given an equal
opportunity to be heard: Provided, That the Commission's authorization
shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation throughout
the nation for at least twice within one week after the authorization has
been granted.
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9006
Sec. 3. Lawful Election Propaganda. - Election propaganda whether on
television, cable television, radio, newspapers or any other medium is
hereby allowed for all registered political parties, national, regional,
sectoral parties or organizations participating under the party-list
elections and for all bona fide candidates seeking national and local
elective positions subject to the limitation on authorized expenses of
candidates and political parties, observance of truth in advertising and to
the supervision and regulation by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC).
For the purpose of this Act, lawful election propaganda shall include:
3.1 Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed
materials the size of which does not exceed eight and one-half inches in
width and fourteen inches in length;
3.2 Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any
particular political party or candidate for public office;
3.3 Cloth, paper or cardboard posters whether framed, or posted, with an
area not exceeding two (2) feet by three (3) feet, except that, at the site
and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the
holding of said meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding three (3) feet by
eight (8) feet in size, shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may
be displayed five (5) days before the date of the meeting or rally and
shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours after said meeting or
rally;
3.4 Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media: Provided, That the
advertisements shall follow the requirements set forth in Section 4 of this
Act; and
3.5 All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the
Omnibus Election Code or this Act.
F. Prohibited election propaganda
Sec. 14, R.A. No. 9006
IT IS CONSIDERED AS PROHIBITED IF IT IS NOT AMONG
LAWFUL PROPAGANDA
G. Electoral contributions
Secs. 94-97, BP 881
Section 94. Definitions. - As used in this Article:
(a) The term "contribution" includes a gift, donation, subscription, loan,
advance or deposit of money or anything of value, or a contract, promise
or agreement to contribute, whether or not legally enforceable, made for
the purpose of influencing the results of the elections but shall not
include services rendered without compensation by individuals
volunteering a portion or all of their time in behalf of a candidate or
political party. It shall also include the use of facilities voluntarily
donated by other persons, the money value of which can be assessed
based on the rates prevailing in the area.
(b) The term "expenditure" includes the payment or delivery of money of
anything of value, or a contract, promise or agreement to make an
expenditure, for the purpose of influencing the results of the election.
It shall also include the use of facilities personally owned by the
candidate, the money value of the use of which can be assessed based on
the rates prevailing in the area.
(c) The term "person" includes an individual, partnership, committee,
association, corporation, and any other organization or group of persons.
Section 95. Prohibited contributions. - No contribution for purposes of
partisan political activity shall be made directly or indirectly by any of
the following:
(a) Public or private financial institutions: Provided, however, That
nothing herein shall prevent the making of any loan to a candidate or
political party by any such public or private financial institutions legally
in the business of lending money, and that the loan is made in accordance
with laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business;
(b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public utility or in
possession of or exploiting any natural resources of the nation;
(c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contracts or sub-contracts to
supply the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities, with goods or services or to perform construction or
other works;
(d) Natural and juridical persons who have been granted franchises,
incentives, exemptions, allocations or similar privileges or concessions
by the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
(e) Natural and juridical persons who, within one year prior to the date of
the election, have been granted loans or other accommodations in excess
of P100,000 by the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
(f) Educational institutions which have received grants of public funds
amounting to no less than P100,000.00;
(g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines; and
(h) Foreigners and foreign corporations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution
from any of the persons or entities enumerated herein.
Section 96. Soliciting or receiving contributions from foreign sources. - It
shall be unlawful for any person, including a political party or public or
private entity to solicit or receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or
contribution of whatever form or nature from any foreign national,
government or entity for the purposes of influencing the results of the
election.
Section 97. Prohibited raising of funds. - It shall be unlawful for any
person to hold dances, lotteries, cockfights, games, boxing bouts, bingo,
beauty contests, entertainments, or cinematographic, theatrical or other
performances for the purpose of raising funds for an election campaign or
for the support of any candidate from the commencement of the election
period up to and including election day; or for any person or
organization, whether civic or religious, directly or indirectly, to solicit
and/or accept from any candidate for public office, or from his campaign
manager, agent or representative, or any person acting in their behalf, any
gift, food, transportation, contribution or donation in cash or in kind from
the commencement of the election period up to and including election
day; Provided, That normal and customary religious stipends, tithes, or
collections on Sundays and/or other designated collection days, are
excluded from this prohibition.
1. Contribution
2. Prohibited contributions
Sec. 68 (d), BP 881
Section 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or
protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money
or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters
or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an
amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or
made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104;
or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k,
v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person
who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall
not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided
for in the election laws.
Sec. 36 (9), B.P. 68
Section 36. Corporate powers and capacity. – Every corporation
incorporated under this Code has the power and capacity:
9. To make reasonable donations, including those for the public welfare
or for hospital, charitable, cultural, scientific, civic, or similar purposes:
Provided, That no corporation, domestic or foreign, shall give donations
in aid of any political party or candidate or for purposes of partisan
political activity;
3. Sec. 13, R.A. No. 7166
Sec. 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. - The
agreement amount that a candidate or registered political party may
spend for election campaign shall be as follows:
For candidates. - Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice-President;
and for other candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently
registered in the constituency where he filed his certificate of candidacy:
Provided, That a candidate without any political party and without
support from any political party may be allowed to spend Five Pesos
(P5.00) for every such voter; and
For political parties. - Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently
registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official
candidates.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding any contribution in
cash or in kind to any candidate or political party or coalition of parties
for campaign purposes, duly reported to the Commission shall not be
subject to the payment of any gift tax.
H. Prohibited donations by candidates
Sec. 104, B.P. 881
Section 104. Prohibited donations by candidates, treasurers of parties or G.R. No. 212398 | 2014-11-25
their agents. - No candidate, his or her spouse or any relative within the
second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, or his campaign RULING: In tracing the legislative history of Sections 100, 101, and 103
manager, agent or representative shall during the campaign period, on the of the OEC, it can be said, therefore, that the intent of our lawmakers has
day before and on the day of the election, directly or indirectly, make any been consistent through the years: to regulate not just the election
donation, contribution or gift in cash or in kind, or undertake or expenses of the candidate but also of his or her
contribute to the construction or repair of roads, bridges, school buses, contributor/supporter/donor as well as by including in the aggregate limit
puericulture centers, medical clinics and hospitals, churches or chapels of the former’s election expenses those incurred by the latter. The phrase
cement pavements, or any structure for public use or for the use of any “those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently
religious or civic organization: Provided, That normal and customary adequate to cover those expenses which are contributed or donated in the
religious dues or contributions, such as religious stipends, tithes or candidate’s behalf. By virtue of the legal requirement that a contribution
collections on Sundays or other designated collection days, as well as or donation should bear the written conformity of the candidate, a
periodic payments for legitimate scholarships established and school contributor/supporter/donor certainly qualifies as “any person authorized
contributions habitually made before the prohibited period, are excluded by such candidate or treasurer.” Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos
from the prohibition. distinguere debemus. (Where the law does not distinguish, neither should
We.) There should be no distinction in the application of a law where
The same prohibition applies to treasurers, agents or representatives of none is indicated.
any political party.
The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the candidate’s
I. Limitations on expenses; lawful expenditures
allowable limit of election expenses does not trample upon the free
exercise of the voters’ rights of speech and of expression under Section 4,
Sec. 97 (b) and Secs. 100 – 101, B.P. 881, as amended by Sec. 13, R.A.
Artticle III of the Constitution. As a content-neutral regulation, the law’s
7166; supra
concern is not to curtail the message or content of the advertisement
promoting a particular candidate but to ensure equality between and
Secs. 102 – 103 B.P. 881
among aspirants with “deep pockets” and those with less financial
resources. Any restriction on speech or expression is only incidental and
Section 102. Lawful expenditures. - To carry out the objectives of the
is no more than necessary to achieve the substantial governmental
preceding sections, no candidate or treasurer of a political party shall,
interest of promoting equality of opportunity in political advertising. It
directly or indirectly, make any expenditure except for the following
bears a clear and reasonable connection with the constitutional objectives
purposes:
set out in Section 26, Article II, Section 4, Article IX-C, and Section 1,
Art. XIII of the Constitution.128 Indeed, to rule otherwise would
(a) For travelling expenses of the candidates and campaign personnel in
practically result in an unlimited expenditure for political advertising,
the course of the campaign and for personal expenses incident thereto;
which skews the political process and subverts the essence of a truly
democratic form of government.
(b) For compensation of campaigners, clerks, stenographers, messengers,
and other persons actually employed in the campaign;
J. Statement of contributions and expenses (SOCE)
(c) For telegraph and telephone tolls, postage, freight and express
Secs. 14 & 39 of RA 7166
delivery charges;
Sec. 14. Statement of Contributions and Expenditures; Effect of Failure
(d) For stationery, printing and distribution of printed matters relative to
to File Statement. - Every candidate and treasurer of the political party
candidacy;
shall, within thirty (30) days after the day of the election, file in duplicate
with the offices of the Commission the full, true and itemized statement
(e) For employment of watchers at the polls;
of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.
(f) For rent, maintenance and furnishing of campaign headquarters, office
No person elected to any public offices shall enter upon the duties of his
or place of meetings;
office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures
herein required.
(g) For political meetings and rallies and the use of sound systems, lights
and decorations during said meetings and rallies;
The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which
nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statement required
(h) For newspaper, radio, television and other public advertisements;
herein within the period prescribed by this Act.
(i) For employment of counsel, the cost of which shall not be taken into
Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file the
account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or
statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions and
political party may have incurred under Section 100 and 101 hereof;
expenditures are required herein shall constitute an administrative offense
for which the offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine
(j) For copying and classifying list of voters, investigating and
ranging from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Thirty thousand pesos
challenging the right to vote of persons registered in the lists the costs of
(P30,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission.
which shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of
expenses which a candidate or political party may have incurred under
The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of
Sections 100 and 101 hereof; or
such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of execution
issued by the Commission against the properties of the offender.
(k) For printing sample ballots in such color, size and maximum number
as may be authorized by the Commission and the cost of such printing
It shall be the duty of every city or municipal election registrar to advise
shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses
in writing, by personal delivery or registered mail, within five (5) days
which a candidate or political party may have incurred under Sections
from the date of election all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to
100 and 101 hereof.
comply with their obligation to file their statements of contributions and
expenditures.
Section 103. Persons authorized to incur election expenditures. - No
person, except the candidate, the treasurer of a political party or any
For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this section,
person authorized by such candidate or treasurer, shall make any
the administrative fine shall be from Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to
expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate or political
Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission.
party. Expenditures duly authorized by the candidate or the treasurer of
In addition, the offender shall be subject to perpetual disqualification to
the party shall be considered as expenditures of such candidate or
hold public office.
political party.
Sec. 39. Amending and Repealing Clause. - Section 107, 108 and 245 of
The authority to incur expenditures shall be in writing, copy of which
the Omnibus Election Code are hereby repealed. Likewise, the inclusion
shall be furnished the Commission signed by the candidate or the
in Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code of the violations of
treasurer of the party and showing the expenditures so authorized, and
Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112 as among election
shall state the full name and exact address of the person so designated.
offenses is also hereby repealed. This repeal shall have retroactive effect.
EJERCITO VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Republic Act No. 6646, Executive Order Nos.
144 and 157 and all other laws, orders, decrees, rules and regulations or
other issuances, or any part thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act are hereby amended or repealed accordingly.
PILAR vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
G.R. No. 115245 | 1995-07-11
QUIASON, J.:
RULING: In the case at bench, as the law makes no distinction or
qualification as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or
withdrew the same, the term "every candidate" must be deemed to refer
not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign, but also to one who
withdrew his candidacy.
Section 13 of Resolution No. 2348 categorically refers to "all candidates
who filed their certificates of candidacy."
VII. BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS / WATCHERS
BEIs
A. Composition
Secs. 164 – 166, BP 881
Section 164. Composition and appointment of board of election
inspectors. - At least thirty days before the date when the voters list is to
be prepare in accordance with this Code, in the case of a regular election
or fifteen days before a special election, the Commission shall, directly or
through its duly authorized representatives, constitute a board of election
inspectors for each precinct to be composed of a chairman and a poll
clerk who must be public school teachers, priority to be given to civil
service eligibles, and two members, each representing the two accredited
political parties. The appointment shall state the precinct to which they
are assigned and the date of the appointment.
Section 165. Oath of the members of the board of election inspectors. -
The members of the board of election inspectors, whether permanent,
substitute or temporary, shall before assuming their office, take and sign
an oath upon forms prepared by the Commission, before an officer
authorized to administer oaths or, in his absence, before any other
member of the board of election inspectors present, or in case no one is
present, they shall take it before any voter. The oaths shall be sent
immediately to the city or municipal treasurer.
Section 166. Qualification of members of the board of election
inspectors. - No person shall be appointed chairman, member or
substitute member of the board of election inspectors unless he is of good
moral character and irreproachable reputation, a registered voter of the
city or municipality, has never been convicted of any election offense or
of any other crime punishable by more than six months of imprisonment,
or if he has pending against him an information for any election offense.
He must be able to speak and write English or the local dialect.
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8346, as amended by R.A. No. 9369
SEC. 3. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"SEC 3. Board of Election Inspectors. - Where AES shall be adopted, at
least one member of the Board of Election Inspectors shall be an
information technology-capable person, who is trained or certified by the
DOST to use the EAS. Such certification shall be issued by the DOST,
free of charge."
Sec. 13, R.A. No. 6646
SEC. 13. Board of Election Inspectors.—The board of election inspectors
to be constituted by the Commission under Section 164 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be composed of a chairman and two (2)
members, one of whom shall be designated as poll clerk, all of whom
shall be public schoolteachers, giving preference to those with permanent
appointments. In case there are not enough public schoolteachers,
teachers in private schools, employees in the civil service, or other
citizens of known probity and competence who are registered voters of
the city or municipality may be appointed for election duty.
B. Disqualifications
Secs. 167 & 173, B.P. 881
Section 167. Disqualification. - No person shall serve as chairman or
member of the board of election inspectors if he is related within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any member of the
board of election inspectors or to any candidate to be voted for in the
polling place or his spouse.
Section 173. Prohibition of political activity. - No member of the board
of election inspectors shall engage in any partisan political activity or
take part in the election except to discharge his duties as such and to vote.
Sec. 3, R.A. 8436, as amended by R.A. 9369, supra
C. Powers
Sec. 168, B.P. 881
Section 168. Powers of the board of election inspectors. - The board of
election inspectors shall have the following powers and functions:
a. Conduct the voting and counting of votes in their respective polling
places;
b. Act as deputies of the Commission in the supervision and control of
the election in the polling places wherein they are assigned, to assure the
holding of the same in a free, orderly and honest manner; and
c. Perform such other functions prescribed by this Code or by the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Commission.
D. Where do BEIs vote?
Sec. 169, B.P. 881
Section 169. Voting privilege of members of board of election inspectors.
- Members of the board of election inspectors and their substitutes may
vote in the polling place where they are assigned on election day:
Provided, That they are registered voters within the province, city or
municipality where they are assigned: and Provided, finally, That their
voting in the polling places where they are not registered voters be noted
in the minutes of the board of election inspectors.
E. Election Returns
Watchers
F. Qualifications
Sec. 26, R.A. 7166, as amended by R.A. 9369
SECTION 34. SECTION 26 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 26. Official Watchers. - Every registered political party or
coalition of political parties, and every candidate shall each be entitled to
one watcher in every polling place and canvassing center: Provided, That,
candidates for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlunsod,
or Sangguniang Bayan belonging to the same slate or ticket shall
collectively be entitled to only one watcher.
"The dominant majority party and dominant minority party, which the
Commission shall determine in accordance with law, shall each be
entitled to one official watcher who shall be paid a fixed per diem of Four
hundred pesos (P400.00).
"There shall also be recognized six principal watchers, representing the
six accredited major political parties excluding the dominant majority
and minority parties, who shall be designated by the Commission upon
nomination of the said parties. These political parties shall be determined
by the Commission upon notice and hearing on the basis of the following
circumstances:
"(a) The established record of the said parties, coalition of groups that
now composed them, taking into account, among other things, their
showing in past elections;
"(b) The number of incumbent elective officials belonging to them ninety
(90) days before the date of election;
"(c) Their identifiable political organizations and strengths as evidenced
by their organized/chapters;
"(d) The ability to fill a complete slate of candidates from the municipal
level to the position of President; and
"(e) Other analogous circumstances that may determine their relative
organizations and strengths."
G. Rights and duties
Sec. 179, B.P. 881
Section 179. Rights and duties of watchers. - Upon entering the polling
place, the watchers shall present and deliver to the chairman of the board
of election inspectors his appointment, and forthwith, his name shall be
recorded in the minutes with a notation under his signature that he is not
disqualified under the second paragraph of Section 178. The
appointments of the watchers shall bear the personal signature or the
facsimile signature of the candidate or the duly authorized representatives
of the political party or coalition of political parties who appointed him
or of organizations authorized by the Commission under Section 180.
The watchers shall have the right to stay in the space reserved for them
inside the polling place. They shall have the right to witness and inform
themselves of the proceedings of the board of election inspectors,
including its proceedings during the registration of voters, to take notes
of what they may see or hear, to take photographs of the proceedings and
incidents, if any, during the counting of votes, as well as of election
returns, tally boards and ballot boxes, to file a protest against any
irregularity or violation of law which they believe may have been
committed by the board of election inspectors or by any of its members
or by any persons, to obtain from the board of election inspectors a
certificate as to the filing of such protest and/or of the resolution thereon,
to read the ballots after they shall have been read by the chairman, as
well as the election returns after they shall have been completed and
signed by the members of the board of election inspectors without
touching them, but they shall not speak to any member of the board of
election inspectors, or to any voter, or among themselves, in such a
manner as would distract the proceedings, and to be furnished with a
certificate of the number of votes in words and figures cast for each
candidate, duly signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and all the
members of the board of election inspectors. Refusal of the chairman and
the members of the board of election inspectors to sign and furnish such
certificate shall constitute an election offense and shall be penalized
under this Code.
VIII. BOARD OF CANVASSERS
A. Composition (Provincial, City, Municipal)
Sec. 221, B.P. 881
Section 221. Board of canvassers. - There shall be a board of canvassers
for each province, city, municipality, and district of Metropolitan Manila
as follows:
(a) Provincial board of canvassers. - the provincial board of canvassers
shall be composed of the provincial election supervisor or a senior lawyer
in the regional office of the Commission, as chairman, the provincial
fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the provincial superintendent of schools,
and one representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant
opposition political party in the constituency concerned entitled to be
represented, as members.
(b) City board of canvassers. - the city board of canvassers shall be
composed of the city election registrar or a lawyer of the Commission, as
chairman, the city fiscal and the city superintendent of schools, and one
representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant opposition
political party entitled to be represented, as members.
(c) District board of canvassers of Metropolitan Manila - the district
board of canvassers shall be composed of a lawyer of the Commission, as
chairman, and a ranking fiscal in the district and the most senior district
school supervisor in the district to be appointed upon consultation with
the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports,
respectively, and one representative from each of the ruling party and the
dominant opposition political party in the constituency concerned, as
members.
(d) Municipal board of canvassers. - the municipal board of canvassers
shall be composed of the election registrar or a representative of the
Commission, as chairman, the municipal treasurer, and the district
supervisor or in his absence any public school principal in the
municipality and one representative from each of the ruling party and the
dominant opposition political party entitled to be represented, as
members.
(e) Board of canvassers for newly created political subdivisions - the
Commission shall constitute a board of canvassers and appoint the
members thereof for the first election in a newly created province, city or
municipality in case the officials who shall act as members thereof have
not yet assumed their duties and functions.
B. Prohibitions
Secs. 222 – 224, B.P. 881
Section 222. Relationship with candidates and other members. - The
chairman and the members of the board of canvassers shall not be related
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the
candidates whose votes will be canvassed by said board, or to any
member of the same board.
Section 223. Prohibition against leaving official station. - During the
period beginning election day until the proclamation of the winning
candidates, no member or substitute member of the different boards of
canvassers shall be transferred, assigned or detailed outside of his official
station, nor shall he leave said station without prior authority of the
Commission.
Section 224. Feigned illness. - Any member of the board of canvassers
feigning illness in order to be substituted on election day until the
proclamation of the winning candidates shall be guilty of an election
offense.
C. Supervision & Control
Sec. 227, B.P. 881
Section 227. Supervision and control over board of canvassers. - The
Commission shall have direct control and supervision over the board of
canvassers.
Any member of the board of canvassers may, at any time, be relieved for
cause and substituted motu proprio by the Commission.
D. Certificates of Canvass
E. Statement of Votes
F. Canvassing by Provincial, City, District and Municipal Boards of
Canvassers
Sec. 25, R.A. 8436, as amended by R.A. 9369
SECTION 26. Section 25 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"SECTION 31. Stakeholder education and training. - The Commission
shall, not later than six months before the actual automated election
exercise, undertake a widespread stakeholder education and training
program, through newspapers of general circulation, radio, television and
other media forms, as well as through seminars, symposia, fora and other
nontraditional means, to educate the public and fully inform the
electorate about the AES and inculcate values on honest, peaceful,
orderly and informed elections.
"Such program shall ensure the acceptance and readiness of the following
stakeholders to understand and appreciate the benefits of the AES:
General public/voters;
Commission's staff;
Department of Education, Department of Finance (municipal, city and
provincial treasurers) and all other government agencies who will play a
role in the electoral exercise;
Local government officials (provincial, municipal, barangay levels);
Incumbent elected officials in the legislative and executive departments;
Political parties and candidates;
Members of the military and police.
"The general public or voters training will focus on building the
capability to use the automated system to cast their vote, as well as
general appreciation of the AES. All other stakeholders mentioned above
will receive additional information in order to build a deeper
understanding of the voting, counting, canvassing procedures, so that
they may act as advocates of the AES.
"The Commission together with and in support of accredited citizens'
arms shall carry out a continuing and systematic campaign through
newspapers of general circulation, radio and other media forms, as well
as through seminars, symposia, fora and other nontraditional means to
educate the public and fully inform the electorate about the AES and
inculcate values on honest, peaceful and orderly elections."
G. National Board of Canvassers for Senators and Party-List
Representatives
Sec. 27, R.A. 8436, as amended by R.A. 9369
SECTION 27. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"SECTION 33. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - An
Oversight Committee is hereby created composed of seven members
each from the Senate and the House of Representatives, four of whom
shall come from the majority and three from the minority, to monitor and
evaluate the implementation of this Act. A written report to the Senate
and the House of Representatives shall be submitted by the Advisory
Council within six months from the date of election. The oversight
committee shall conduct a mandatory review of this Act every twelve
(12) months from the date of the last regular national or local elections."
"The oversight committee shall conduct a comprehensive assessment and
evaluation of the performance of the different AES technologies
implemented and shall make appropriate recommendations to Congress,
in session assembled, specifically including the following:
"1. An assessment and comparison of each of the AES technologies
utilized, including their strengths, weakness, applicability or
inapplicability in specific areas and situations;
"2. An evaluation of their accuracy through a comparison of a random
sample of the AES election results with a manual tabulation, and the
conduct of similar tests;
"3. As to the scope of AES implementation in the subsequent elections,
provide for recommendations as to whether any of the following should
be adopted:
"a. Further test application of the AES or a particular AES technology
used in the 2007 elections, whether in the same or others areas;
"b. An increase or enlargement of areas for implementation of the AES or
an AES technology and not a full implementation; or
"c. A full implementation of the AES.
"4. As to the kind of AES technology, provide for proposals as to
whether:
"a) A particular AES technology should no longer be utilized for being
obsolete, inapplicable, inaccurate or with a defect which cannot be
remedied;
"b) An enhancement or improvement is needed to an AES technology
which was used in the 2007 elections to make it more functional,
appropriate and accurate;
"c) A particular AES technology is already appropriate and should be
utilized fully for subsequent elections; or
"d) The testing or adoption of new technologies which may have
emerged after the 2007 elections is needed."
H. Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for President and Vice-
President
Sec. 28, R.A. 8436, as amended by R.A. 9369
I. Authentication of Electronically Transmitted Election Results
Sec. 30, R.A. 8436, as amended by R.A. 9369
SECTION 29. Section 30 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"SECTION 36. Applicability. - The provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg.
881, as amended, otherwise known as the 'Omnibus Election Code of the
Philippines', and other election laws not inconsistent with this Act shall
apply."
SECTION 25. A new Section 30 is hereby provided to read as follows:
"SECTION 30. Authentication of Electronically Transmitted Election
Results. - The manner of determining the authenticity and due execution
of the certificates shall conform with the provisions of Republic Act No.
7166 as may be supplemented or modified by the provisions of this Act,
where applicable, by appropriate authentication and certification
procedures for electronic data, electronic documents and electronic
signatures as provided in Republic Act No. 8792 as well as the rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant thereto."
J. Duty of The Board of Canvassers
K. Nature of Proceedings
L. Proclamation
IX. ELECTION CONTESTS
A. Jurisdiction over Election Contests
1. Original and exclusive
Pres and v pres, PET
Sen, SET
Represenatatives, HRET
Regional/provincial/City- COMELEC
Municipal – RTC
Barangay – MTC
SK - DILG
2. Appellate
RTC and MTC appeal to COMELEC
B. Election Protest
[a] Definition, Requisites
ROSAL vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 168253 | 2007-03-16
CORONA, J.:
The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate
proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is the true and lawful
choice of the electorate. Such a proceeding is usually instituted on the
theory that the election returns, which are deemed prima facie to be true
reports of how the electorate voted on election day and which serve as
the basis for proclaiming the winning candidate, do not accurately reflect
the true will of the voters due to alleged irregularities that attended the
counting of ballots. In a protest prosecuted on such a theory, the
protestant ordinarily prays that the official count as reflected in the
election returns be set aside in favor of a revision and recount of the
ballots, the results of which should be made to prevail over those
reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that "in an election
contest where what is involved is the number of votes of each candidate,
the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves."
It should never be forgotten, though, that the superior status of the ballots
as evidence of how the electorate voted presupposes that these were the
very same ballots actually cast and counted in the elections. Thus, it has
been held that before the ballots found in a box can be used to set aside
the returns, the court (or the Comelec as the case may be) must be sure
that it has before it the same ballots deposited by the voters.
We summarize the foregoing doctrines: (1) the ballots cannot be used to
overturn the official count as reflected in the election returns unless it is
first shown affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved with a care
which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all suspicion of
change, abstraction or substitution; (2) the burden of proving that the
integrity of the ballots has been preserved in such a manner is on the
protestant; (3) where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law,
proof must be made of such substantial compliance with the requirements
of that mode as would provide assurance that the ballots have been kept
inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations from the precise mode of
achieving that end; (4) it is only when the protestant has shown
substantial compliance with the provisions of law on the preservation of
ballots that the burden of proving actual tampering or the likelihood
thereof shifts to the protestee and (5) only if it appears to the satisfaction
of the court or Comelec that the integrity of the ballots has been
preserved should it adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as
reflected in the election returns.
VINZONS-CHATO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 199149 / G.R. No. 201350 | 2013-01-22
PERLAS -BERNABE, J.:
RULING: We agree, therefore, with both the HRET and Panotes that the
picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are
likewise "official ballots" that faithfully captures in electronic form the
votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369. As
such, the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper
ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of
revision of votes in an electoral protest.
It bears stressing that the digital images of the ballots captured by the
PCOS machine are stored in an encrypted format in the CF cards.
"Encryption is the process of encoding messages (or information) in such
a way that eavesdroppers or hackers cannot read it, but that authorized
parties can. In an encryption scheme, the message or information
(referred to as plaintext) is encrypted using an encryption algorithm,
turning it into an unreadable ciphertext. This is usually done with the use
of an encryption key, which specifies how the message is to be encoded.
Any adversary that can see the ciphertext, should not be able to
determine anything about the original message. An authorized party,
however, is able to decode the ciphertext using a decryption algorithm,
that usually requires a secret decryption key, that adversaries do not have
access to."
To substitute our own judgment to the findings of the HRET will
doubtless constitute an intrusion into its domain and a curtailment of its
power to act of its own accord on its evaluation of the evidentiary
weight42 of testimonies presented before it. Thus, for failure of Chato to
discharge her burden of proving that the integrity of the questioned CF
cards had not been preserved, no further protestations to the use of the
picture images of the ballots as stored in the CF cards should be
entertained.
MALIKSI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 203302 | 2013-03-12
CARPIO, J.:
We have already ruled that the ballot images in the CF cards, as well as
the printouts of such images, are the functional equivalent of the official
physical ballots filled up by the voters, and may be used in an election
protest.
Hence, the COMELEC First Division did not gravely abuse its discretion
in using the ballot images in the CF cards.
The ballot images, which are digital, are electronically generated and
written in the CF cards when the ballots are fed into the PCOS machine.
The ballot images are the counterparts produced by electronic recording
which accurately reproduce the original, and thus are the equivalent of
the original. As pointed out by the COMELEC, "the digital images of the
physical ballots are electronically and instantaneously generated by the
PCOS machines once the physical ballots are fed into and read by the
machines." Hence, the ballot images are not secondary evidence. The
official physical ballots and the ballot images in the CF cards are both
original documents. The ballot images in the CF cards have the same
evidentiary weight as the official physical ballots.
[b] Payment of fees
[c] Certification of Absence of Forum-Shopping
[d] Death of protestant
[e] Effects of Election Protest
LAODENIO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 122391 | 1997-08-07
BELLOSILLO, J.:
RULING: Conformably therewith, we have ruled in a number of cases
that a proclamation has been made a pre-proclamation case before the
COMELEC is, logically, no longer viable. The rule admits of exceptions,
however, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly
constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (c) what was
filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but
a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the filling of a quo warranto
petition or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to
the pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and, (e) the
proclamation was null and void.
Petitioner here simply alleges that the election protest was filed as a
precautionary measure to preserve his rights without bothering to
elaborate thereon. In the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or error
of law, the conclusion reached by respondent COMELEC on a matter
that falls within its competence and primary jurisdiction is entitled to
utmost respect.
DUMAYAS, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. Nos. 141952-53 | 2001-04-20
QUISUMBING, J.:
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo
warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation
controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus
depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon
the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason
for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction
of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative
thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another
proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of certain
exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly
constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (c) what was
filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a
petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of a quo warranto petition
or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the pre-
proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and (e) the
proclamation was null and void.
An examination of the petition filed primarily by Vice-Mayor Betita with
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that it is neither a quo
warranto petition under the Omnibus Election Code nor an election
protest. In Samad vs. COMELEC, we explained that a petition for quo
warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty
or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the
respondent from office but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his
place. An election protest is a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and
counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the
question of who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and
therefore is entitled to hold the office.
A closer look at the specific allegations in the petition disclose that Spl.
Civil Action No. 98-141 is actually an action for the annulment of
petitioner's proclamation on the ground of illegality and prematurity.
Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its discretion,
when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal's motion for
reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner's proclamation as
void ab initio. Note that under the allegations cited above, the
determination of Betita's right would ultimately hinge on the validity of
petitioner's proclamation in the first place. To repeat, the "quo warranto"
petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition to annul petitioner's
proclamation over which COMELEC exercises original exclusive
jurisdiction. Consequently, it could not be deemed as a proper remedy in
favor of respondent Bernal, Jr. even if his name was included in the title
of said petition.
C. Quo warranto
1. Definition, Requisites
Sec. 253, B.P. 881
Section 253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting the
election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial,
or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of the results
of the election.
Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay officer on
the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the regional
trial court or metropolitan or municipal trial court, respectively, within
ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.
2. Distinctions between Quo Warranto in elective and in appointive
offices
3. Differentiate Election Protest, Quo Warranto & Pre-proclamation cases
D. Award of Damages
Sec. 259, B.P. 881
Section 259. Actual or compensatory damages. - Actual or compensatory
damages may be granted in all election contests or in quo warranto
proceedings in accordance with law.
X. ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE THE CANDIDACY OF A
CANDIDATE OR DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE
A. Sec. 12, B.P. 881
Section 12 Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by
competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by
final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense
for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen
months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to
be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary
pardon or granted amnesty.
This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed
removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity
or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of
five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he
again becomes disqualified.
B. Sec. 68, B.P. 881
Section 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or
protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money
or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters
or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an
amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or
made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104;
or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k,
v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person
who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall
not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided
for in the election laws.
RESOLUTION NO. 3402
RULES DELEGATING TO COMELEC FIELD OFFICIALS THE
HEARING AND RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE OF
DISQUALIFICATION CASES FILED IN CONNECTION WITH
THE MAY 14, 2001 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS.
 
The Commission on Elections by virtue of the powers vested in it by the
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws,
RESOLVED to promulgate as it hereby promulgates the following rules:
SECTION 1. Delegation of reception evidence. – The Commission
hereby designates its field officials who are members of the Philippine
Bar to hear and receive evidence in the following petitions:
a. Petition to deny due course or to cancel Certificate
of Candidacy;
b. Petition to declare a nuisance candidate;
c. Petition to disqualify a candidate pursuant to Sec.
68 of the Omnibus Election Code and disqualify a
candidate for lack of qualifications on possessing
same grounds for disqualification; and
d. Petition to disqualify a candidate engaged in gun
running, using and transporting of firearms or in
organizing special strike forces.
Petitions involving Senators and Party-List Organizations shall be heard
by the Commission en banc.
SECTION 2. Suspension of the Comelec rules of procedure. – In the
interest of justice and in order to attain speedy disposition of cases, the
Comelec Rules of Procedure or any portion thereof inconsistent herewith
is hereby suspended.
SECTION 3. Where to file petitions. – The petitions shall be filed with
the following offices of the Commission:
a. For Senator and Party-List Organizations, with the Clerk of the
Commission, Commission on Elections in Manila;
b. For Member of the House of Representatives and local positions in
the National Capital Region, with the Regional Election Director of
said region;
c. For ARMM Governor and Vice-Governor, with the Regional
Election Director of said region;
d. For all other positions, with the Provincial Election Supervisor
concerned.
SECTION 4. Procedure in filing petitions. – For purpose of the
preceding section, the following procedure shall be observed:
A. PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR TO CANCEL
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
1. A verified petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of
candidacy may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five (25)
days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy but
within (5) days from the last day of filing certificates of candidacy;
2. The petition shall be filed in ten (10) legible copies with the offices
mentioned in Sec. 3 by any citizen of voting age or a duly
registered political party, organization, or coalition of political
parties on the exclusive ground that any material representation
contained therein as required by law is false;
3. Upon payment of the filing fee of P1,000.00 and legal research fee
of P20.00, the offices concerned shall docket the petition and assign
to it a docket number, which must be consecutive according to the
order of receipt and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA with
the corresponding initial of the name of the office, i.e. SPA (RED)
No. A01-001; SPA (PES) No. A01-001;
4. Within three (3) days from filing of the petition, the offices
concerned shall issue summons to the respondent candidate
together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any;
5. The respondent shall be given three(3) days from receipt of
summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to
dismiss) to the petition in ten (10) legible copies serving a copy
thereof upon the petitioner. Grounds for Motion to Dismiss may be
raised as an affirmative defense;
6. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of the
testimonies, the parties shall submit their affidavits or counter-
affidavits and other documentary evidence including their position
paper;
7. The hearing must be completed within ten (10) days from the date
of the filing of the answer. The hearing officer concerned shall
submit to the Clerk of the Commission through the fastest means of
communications, his findings, reports and recommendations within
five (5) days from the completion of the hearing and reception of
evidence together with the complete records of the case;
8. Upon receipt of the records of the case and the findings, reports and
recommendations of the hearing officer concerned, the Clerk of the
Commission shall immediately docket the case consecutively and
calendar the same for raffle to a division;
9. The division to whom the case is raffled shall, after consultation,
assign the same to a member who shall pen the decision within five
(5) days from date of consultation.
B. PETITION TO DECLARE A NUISANCE CANDIDATE
1. The verified petition to declare a nuisance candidate must be filed
within five (5) days following the last day for the filing of
certificates of candidacy.
2. The petition shall be filed in ten (10) legible copies personally or
through a duly authorized representative with the offices mentioned
in Sec. 3 by any candidate for the same office on the following
grounds:
2.a The certificate of candidacy was filed to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute;
2.b The certificate of candidacy causes confusion among the voters by
similarity of names of the registered candidates;
2.c By other acts or circumstances clearly demonstrating that the
candidates has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the
certificate of candidacy has been filed.
3. Upon payment of the filing fee of P1,000.00 and legal research fee
of P20.00, the offices concerned shall docket the petition and assign
to it a docket number which must be consecutive according to the
order of receipt, and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA the
corresponding initial of the name of the office, i.e. SPA (RED) No.
B01-001; SPA (PES) No. B01-001;
4. Within three (3) days from the filing of the petition, the offices
concerned shall issue summons to the respondent candidate
together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any;
5. The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of
summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to
dismiss) to the petition in ten (10) legible copies, serving a copy
thereof upon the petitioner. Grounds of Motion to dismiss may be
raised as affirmative defense;
6. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of the
testimonies, the parties shall submit their affidavits or counter-
affidavits and other documentary evidence including their position
paper;
7. The hearing must be completed within ten (10) days from the date
of the filing of the answer. The hearing officer concerned shall
submit to the Clerk of the Commission through the fastest means of
communications, his findings, reports and recommendations within
five (5) days from the completion of the hearing and reception of
evidence together with the records of the case;
8. Upon receipt of the records of the case and the findings, reports and
recommendations of the hearing officer concerned, the Clerk of the
Commission shall immediately docket the case consecutively and
calendar the same for raffle to a division;
9. The division to whom the case is raffled shall, after consultation
assign the same to a member who shall pen the decision within five
(5) days from date of consultation.
C. PETITION TO DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE PURSUANT TO
SEC. 68 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE AND PETITION
TO DISQUALIFY FOR LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS OR
POSSESSING SAME GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS.
1. The verified petition to disqualify a candidate pursuant to Sec. 68 of
the Omnibus Election Code and the verified petition to disqualify a
candidate for lack of qualifications of possessing same grounds for
disqualification, may be filed any day after the last day for filing of
certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.
2. The petition to disqualify a candidate pursuant to Sec. 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code shall be filed in ten (10) legible copies by
any citizen of voting age, or duly registered political party,
organization or coalition of political parties against any candidate
who in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by
final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the
Commission of:
2.a having given money or other material consideration to influence,
induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral
functions;
2.b having committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
2.c having spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that
allowed by the Omnibus Election Code;
2.d having solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under
Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104 of the Omnibus Election Code;
2.e having violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d,
e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, shall be
disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected,
from holding the office.
3. The petition to disqualify a candidate for lack of qualification or
possessing same grounds for disqualification, shall be filed in ten
(10) legible copies with the concerned office mentioned in Sec. 3
by any citizen of voting age, or duly registered political party,
organization or coalition of political parties on the grounds that any
candidate does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as
provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who
possesses some grounds for disqualification as follows:
3.a for not being a citizen of the Philippines;
3.b for being a permanent resident of or an Immigrant of a foreign
country;
3.c for lack of age;
3.d for lack of residence;
3.e for not being a registered voter;
3.f for not being able to read and write;
3.g for not being a bona fide member of the party or organization which a
nominee seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day
of the election. (for party list nominee)
4. Upon payment of the filing fee of P1,000.00 and legal research fee
of P20.00, the offices concerned shall docket the petition and assign
to it a docket number which must be consecutive, according to the
order of receipt and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA with
the corresponding initial of the name of the office, i.e. SPA (RED)
No. C01-001; SPA (PES) No. C01-001;
5. Within three (3) days from filing of the petitions, the offices
concerned shall issue summons to the respondent candidate
together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any;
6. The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of
summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to
dismiss) to the petition in ten (10) legible copies, serving a copy
thereof upon the petitioner. Grounds for Motion to dismiss may be
raised as an affirmative defense;
7. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of the
testimonies, the parties shall submit their affidavits or counter-
affidavits and other documentary evidences including their position
paper;
8. The hearing must be completed within ten (10) days from the date
of the filing of the answer. The hearing officer concerned shall
submit to the Clerk of the Commission through the fastest means of
communications, his findings, reports and recommendations within
five (5) days from the completion of the hearing and reception of
evidence together with the complete records of the case;
9. Upon receipt of the records of the case of the findings, reports and
recommendation of the hearing concerned, the Clerk of the
Commission shall immediately docket the case consecutively and
calendar the same raffle to a division;
10. The division to whom the case is raffled, shall after consultation,
assign the same to a member who shall pen the decision, within five
(5) days from the date of consultation.
D. PETITION TO DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE-ENGAGED IN
GUN RUNNING, USING AND TRANSPORTING OF FIREARMS
OR IN ORGANIZING SPECIAL STRIKE FORCES.
1. The verified petition to disqualify a candidate engaged in gun
running, using and transporting of firearms or in organizing special
strike forces may be filed at any day after the filing of the certificate
of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.
2. The petition shall be filed in ten (10) legible copies with the officer
mentioned in Sec. 3 against any candidate by any citizen of voting
age on the following grounds:
2.a By engaging directly or indirectly in gun running, using or
transporting of firearms including "paltik" or homemade guns;
2.b By organizing or using private armies or special strike forces at any
time during the election period.
3. Upon payment of the filing fee of P1,000.00 and legal research fee
of P20.00, the offices concerned shall docket the petition and assign
to it a docket number which must be consecutive, according to the
date of receipt and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA with the
corresponding initial of the name of the office, i.e. SPA (RED) No.
D01-001; SPA (PES) No. D01-001;
4. Within three (3) days from filing of the petition, the offices
concerned shall issue summons to the respondent candidate
together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any;
5. The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of
summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to
dismiss) to the petition in ten (10) legible copies, serving a copy
thereof upon the petitioner. Grounds of Motion to dismiss maybe
raised as affirmative defense;
6. The proceeding shall be summary in nature, in lieu of the
testimonies, the parties shall submit their affidavits or counter-
affidavits and other documentary evidence including their position
paper;
7. The hearing must be completed within ten (10) days from the date
of the filing of the answer. The hearing officer concerned shall
immediately submit to the Clerk of the Commission through the
fastest means of communications, his findings, reports and
recommendations within five (5) days from the completion of the
hearing and reception of evidence together with the records of the
case;
8. Upon receipt of the records of the case and the findings, reports and
recommendations of the hearing officer concerned, the Clerk of the
Commission shall. Immediately docket the case consecutively and
calendar the same for raffle to a division.
9. The division to whom the case is raffled shall, after consultation
assign the same to a member who shall pen the decision within five
(5) days from the date of consultation.
SECTION 5. Effectivity. – This resolution shall take effect on the
seventh (7th) day after its publication in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.
SECTION 6. The Education and Information Department, this
Commission, shall cause the publication of this resolution in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
SECTION 7. Dissemination. – The Deputy Executive Director for
Operations shall furnish copies of this resolution to the Regional
Election, Provincial Election Supervisors, Election Officers, of this
Commission and give it the widest dissemination possible.
CODILLA, SR. vs. DE VENECIA
G.R. No. 150605 | 2002-12-10
PUNO, J.:
RULING: In the case at bar, the petition for disqualification alleged that
(a) petitioner ordered the extraction, hauling and distribution of gravel
and sand, and (b) his purpose was to induce and influence the voters of
Kananga and Matag-ob, Leyte to vote for him.
However, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is
limited to those enumerated in section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
All other election offenses are beyond the ambit of COMELEC
jurisdiction. They are criminal and not administrative in nature. Pursuant
to sections 265 and 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, the power of the
COMELEC is confined to the conduct of preliminary investigation on the
alleged election offenses for the purpose of prosecuting the alleged
offenders before the regular courts of justice.
The COMELEC Second Division grievously erred when it decided the
disqualification case based on section 261 (a) and (o), and not on section
68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Sec. 69, B.P. 881
Section 69. Nuisance candidates. - The Commission may motu proprio or
upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course
to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate
has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to
cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the
registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for
the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus
prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
Sec. 5, R.A. No. 6646
Sec. 5. Procedure in Cases of Nuisance Candidates. -
a. A verified petition to declare a duly registered candidate as a
nuisance candidate under Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
881 shall be filed personally or through duly authorized
representative with the Commission by any registered candidate for
the same office within five (5) days from the last day for the filing
of certificates of candidacy. Filing by mail shall not be allowed.
b. Within three (3) days from the filing of the petition, the
Commission shall issue summons to the respondent candidate
together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any.
c. The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of the
summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to
dismiss) to the petition, serving copy thereof upon the petitioner.
Grounds for a motion to dismiss may be raised as affirmative
defenses.
d. The Commission may designate any of its officials who are lawyers
to hear the case and receive evidence. The proceeding shall be
summary in nature. In lieu of oral testimonies, the parties may be
required to submit position papers together with affidavits or
counter-affidavits and other documentary evidence. The hearing
officer shall immediately submit to the Commission his findings,
reports, and recommendations within five (5) days from the
completion of such submission of evidence. The Commission shall
render its decision within five (5) days from receipt thereof.
e. The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission shall, after five (5)
days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, be final and
executory unless stayed by the Supreme Court.
f. The Commission shall within twenty-four hours, through the fastest
available means, disseminate its decision or the decision of the
Supreme Court to the city or municipal election registrars, boards
of election inspectors and the general public in the political
subdivision concerned.
TIMBOL VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 206004 | 2015-02-24
LEONEN, J.:
RULING: Under Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution, "the State
shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service." This,
however, does not guarantee "a constitutional right to run for or hold
public office." To run for public office is a mere "privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law." Among these limitations is the prohibition
on nuisance candidates.
Nuisance candidates are persons who file their certificates of candidacy
"to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered
candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate
that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for
which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a
faithful determination of the true will of the electorate." In Pamatong v.
Commission on Elections, this court explained why nuisance candidates
are prohibited from running for public office:
. . . The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral
exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State
takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections.
Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the
opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased
allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These
practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the
conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial
actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships,
whenever necessary and proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not
merely a textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in
our democratic institutions. . . .
. . . The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is
onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious
intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair
the electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies which are
palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body
would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the
electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance
candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.
To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their
certificates of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled by
respondent. This denial or cancellation may be "motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party," "subject to an opportunity to be
heard."
The opportunity to be heard is a chance "to explain one's side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of." In election cases, due process requirements are satisfied "when the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side
of the controversy at hand."
Respondent declared petitioner a nuisance candidate without giving him
a chance to explain his bona fide intention to run for office. Respondent
had already issued Resolution No. 9610 on January 11, 2013 when
petitioner appeared before Election Officer Valencia in a clarificatory
hearing on January 17, 2013. This was an ineffective opportunity to be
heard.
That petitioner was able to file a Petition for inclusion in the certified list
of candidates did not cure the defect in the issuance of Resolution No.
9610. First, he would not have to file the Petition had been given an
opportunity to be heard in the first place. Second, in the Minute
Resolution dated February 5, 2013, respondent denied petitioner's
Petition on the sole ground that the printing of ballots had already begun
on February 4, 2013.
DELACRUZ VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 192221 | 2012-11-13
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
RULING: Here, Aurelio was declared a nuisance candidate long before
the May 10, 2010 elections. On the basis of Resolution No. 4116, the
votes cast for him should not have been considered stray but counted in
favor of petitioner. COMELEC's changing of the rule on votes cast for
nuisance candidates resulted in the invalidation of significant number of
votes and the loss of petitioner to private respondent by a slim margin.
We hold that the rule in Resolution No. 4116 considering the votes cast
for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a final judgment, particularly
where such nuisance candidate has the same surname as that of the
legitimate candidate, not stray but counted in favor of the latter, remains
a good law. As earlier discussed, a petition to cancel or deny a COC
under Section 69 of the OEC should be distinguished from a petition to
disqualify under Section 68. Hence, the legal effect of such cancellation
of a COC of a nuisance candidate cannot be equated with a candidate
disqualified on grounds provided in the OEC and Local Government
Code.
Moreover, private respondent admits that the voters were properly
informed of the cancellation of COC of Aurelio because COMELEC
published the same before election day. As we pronounced in Bautista,
the voters’ constructive knowledge of such cancelled candidacy made
their will more determinable, as it is then more logical to conclude that
the votes cast for Aurelio could have been intended only for the
legitimate candidate, petitioner. The possibility of confusion in names of
candidates if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots on
election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the
automated voting system especially considering that voters who
mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate
instead of the bona fide candidate they intended to vote for could no
longer ask for replacement ballots to correct the same.
Finally, upholding the former rule in Resolution No. 4116 is more
consistent with the rule well-ensconced in our jurisprudence that laws
and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots
must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the
choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities.
Indeed, as our electoral experience had demonstrated, such infirmities
and delays in the delisting of nuisance candidates from both the Certified
List of Candidates and Official Ballots only made possible the very evil
sought to be prevented by the exclusion of nuisance candidates during
elections.
Sec. 78, B.P. 881
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 the person exclusively on the
ground that any material representation contained therein as required
under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not
later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later
than fifteen days before the election.
[Jurisdiction]
GARVIDA vs. SALES, JR.
G.R. No. 124893 | 1997-04-18 TAGOLINO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
PUNO, J.: ‘TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 202202 | 2013-03-19
RULING: Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
lies with the COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a
Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the
RULING: The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides for certain
required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling
remedies to assail a candidate’s bid for public office. Among these which
is not obtained in the Division. Moreover, only motions to reconsider
obtain particular significance to this case are: (l) a. petition for
decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in Division are
disqualification under Section 68; and (2) a petition to deny due course to
resolved by the COMELEC en banc. It is therefore the COMELEC
and/or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78. The
sitting in Divisions that can hear and decide election cases.
distinctions between the two are well-perceived.
In the instant case, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case to any
Primarily, a disqualification case under Section 68 of the OEC is hinged
of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It therefore acted without
on either: (a) a candidate’s possession of a permanent resident status in a
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the
foreign country; or (b) his or her commission of certain acts of
petition and issued the order of May 2, 1996.
disqualification. Anent the latter, the prohibited acts under Section 68
refer to election offenses under the OEC, and not to Violations of other
[material matters]
penal laws. In particolar, these are: (1) giving money or other material
consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the Voters or public officials
VILLAFUERTE VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
performing electoral ñlnctions; (2) committing acts of terrorism to
G.R. No. 206698 | 2014-02-25
enhance one’s candidacy;,(3) spending in one’s election campaign an
PERALTA, J.:
amount in excess of that allowed by the OEC; (4) soliciting, receiving or
making any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104
RULING: Clearly, from the foregoing, for the petition to deny due course
of the OEC; ang2 (5)33 violating Sections 80,26 833 85 28 8629 and
or cancel the COC of one candidate to prosper, the candidate must have
261, paragraphs d,30 e,31k, 32 v,33 and cc, sub-paragraph 634 of the
made a material misrepresentation involving his eligibility or
OEC. Accordingly, the same provision (Section 68) states that any
qualification for the office to which he seeks election, such as the
candidate who, in an action or protest in Which he or she is a party, i's
requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification
declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the
necessary to run for local elective office as provided in the Local
COMELEC to have committed any of the foregoing acts shall be
Government Code. Hence, petitioner’s allegation that respondent’s
disqualified from continuing as a candidate for public ofïìce, or
nickname “LRAY JR. MIGZ” written in his COC is a material
disallowed from holding the same, if he or already been elected.
misrepresentation is devoid of merit. Respondent's nickname written in
It must be stressed that one who is disqualified under Section 68 is still
the COC cannot be considered a material fact which pertains to his
technically considered to have been a candidate, albeit proscribed to
eligibility and thus qualification to run for public office.
continue as such only because of supervening infractions which do not,
however, deny his or her statutory eligibility. In other Words, while the
Moreover, the false representation under Section 78 must consist of a
candidate’s compliance with the eligibility requirements as prescribed by
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
law, such as age, residency, and citizenship, is not in question, he or she
otherwise render a candidate ineligible. As we said, respondent's
is, however, ordered to discontinue such candidacy as a form of penal
nickname is not considered a material fact, and there is no substantial
sanction brought about by the commission of the above-mentioned
evidence showing that in writing the nickname “LRAY JR. MIGZ” in his
election offenses.
COC, respondent had the intention to deceive the voters as to his identity
On the other hand, a denial of due course to and/or cancellation of a CoC
which has an effect on his eligibility or qualification for the office he
proceeding under Section 78 of the OEC is premised on a person’s
seeks to assume.
misrepresentation of any of the material qualifications required for the
elective aspired for. It is not enough that a person lacks the relevant
Hence, the appellation LRAY JR., accompanied by the name MIGZ
qualification; he or she must have also 'made a false representation of the
written as respondent’s nickname in his COC, is not at all misleading to
same in the COC.
the voters, as in fact, such name distinguishes respondent from his father,
Corollary thereto, it must be noted that the. deliberateness of the
the then incumbent “Governor LRAY,” who was running for a
misrepresentation, much less one’s intent to defraud, is of bare
Congressional seat in the 2nd District of Camarines Sur. As we ruled in
significance in a Section 78 petition as it is enough that the person’s
Salcedo II v. COMELEC, the use of a surname, when not intended to
declaration of a material qualification in the COC be false. In this
mislead or deceive the public as to one’s identity, is not within the scope
relation, jurisprudence holds that an express finding' that the person
of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Thus, respondent's
committed any deliberate misrepresentation is of little consequence in the
nickname written in his COC, without intending to mislead the voters as
determination of whether one’s COC should be deemed cancelled or not.
to his identity, cannot be canceled. We find no grave abuse of discretion
What remains material is that the petition essentially seeks to deny due
committed by the COMELEC En Banc in finding that respondent did not
course to and/or cancel the COC on the basis of one’s ineligibility and
commit material misrepresentation in his COC.
that the same be granted without any qualification Pertinently, while a
disqualified candidate under Section 68 is still considered to have been a
HAYUDINI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
candidate for all intents and purposes, on the other hand, a person whose
G.R. No. 207900 | 2014-04-22
CoC had been denied due course to and/or cancelled under Section 78 is
PERALTA, J.:
deemed to have not been a candidate at all.
RULING: It bears stressing that one of the requirements for a mayoralty
F. Effect of a disqualification case
candidate is that he must be a resident of the city or municipality where
he intends to be elected. Thus, under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election
Sec. 6, R.A. 6646
Code, it is required that a candidate must certify under oath that he is
eligible for the public office he seeks election. In this case, when
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been
petitioner stated in his CoC that he is a resident of Barangay Bintawlan,
declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and
South Ubian, Tawi Tawi and eligible for a public office, but it turned out
the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate
that he was declared to be a non-resident thereof in a petition for his
is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and
inclusion in the list of registered voters, he therefore committed a false
he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election,
representation in his CoC which pertained to a material fact which is a
the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
ground for the cancellation of his CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any
Election Code. Petitioner's ineligibility for not being a resident of the
intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
place he sought election is not a ground for a petition for disqualification,
proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is
since the grounds enumerated under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
strong.
Code specifically refer to the commission of prohibited acts, and
possession of a permanent resident status in a foreign country.
PAPANDAYAN, JR. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 147909 | 2002-04-16
4. Period to file a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy
MENDOZA, J.:
based on false representation
RULING: Petitioner contends that the resolution, dated May 12, 2001, of
E. Distinctions between a petition for disqualification (Sec. 68, B.P. 881)
the COMELEC en banc was not yet final and executory when the
and a petition to deny due course a CoC (Sec. 78, B.P. 881)
elections were held on May 14, 2001. Consequently, the Board of
Election Inspectors of Tubaran, in the exercise of its ministerial duty, had
to count the votes cast in his favor. Respondent, on the other hand, avers
that the assailed resolution, dated May 12, 2001, of the COMELEC en
banc had attained finality five (5) days thereafter, on May 17, 2001, as its
enforcement had not been restrained by this Court within the said period.
The temporary restraining order should thus be set aside, the same having
been issued by this Court only on May 22, 2001.
At the time the elections were held in May 14, 2001, the assailed
resolution, dated May 12, 2001, had not become final and executory.
Hence, the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) was duty bound to tally
and count the votes cast in favor of petitioner.
Respondent, therefore, is in error in assuming that the issuance of a
temporary restraining order by this Court within five (5) days after the
date of the promulgation of the assailed resolution on May 12, 2001, of
the COMELEC en banc is the operative act that prevents it from attaining
finality. The purpose of temporary restraining order was to enjoin the
May 12, 2001 resolution of the COMELEC from being enforced despite
the fact that, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, par. 3, as
above quoted, the said resolution had not attained finality.
LABO, Jr. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 105111 | 1992-07-03
BIDIN, J.:
RULING: While Ortega may have garnered the second highest number
of votes for the office of city mayor, the fact remains that he was not the
choice of the sovereign will. Petitioner Labo was overwhelmingly voted
by the electorate for the office of mayor in the belief that he was then
qualified to serve the people of Baguio City and his subsequent
disqualification does not make respondent Ortega the mayor -elect. This
is the import of the recent case of Abella v. Comelec (201 SCRA 253
[1991]), wherein we held that:
"While it is true that SPC No. 88-546 was originally a petition to deny
due course to the certificate of candidacy of Larrazabal and was filed
before Larrazabal could be proclaimed, the fact remains that the local
elections of February 1, 1988 in the province of Leyte proceeded with
Larrazabal considered as a bona fide candidate. The voters of the
province voted for her in the sincere belief that she was a qualified
candidate for the position of governor. Her votes was counted and she
obtained the highest number of votes. The net effect is that petitioner lost
in the election. He was repudiated by the electorate. . . . What matters is
that in the event a candidate for an elected position who is voted for and
who obtains the highest number of votes is disqualified for not
possessing the eligibility requirements at the time of the election as
provided by law, the candidate who obtains the second highest number of
votes for the same position cannot assume the vacated position."
Our ruling in Abella applies squarely to the case at bar and we see no
compelling reason to depart therefrom. Like Abella, petitioner Ortega
lost in the election. He was repudiated by the electorate. He was
obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City.
XI. ELECTION OFFENSES
A. Election Offenses
Sec. 261 & 262, B.P. 881
Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an
election offense:
(a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. -
(1) Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of
value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant,
public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or
indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association,
corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public
in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the
election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or
choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a
political party.
(2) Any person, association, corporation, group or community who
solicits or receives, directly or indirectly, any expenditure or promise of
any office or employment, public or private, for any of the foregoing
considerations.
(b) Conspiracy to bribe voters. - Two or more persons, whether
candidates or not, who come to an agreement concerning the commission
of any violation of paragraph (a) of this section and decide to commit it.
(c) Wagering upon result of election. - Any person who bets or wagers
upon the outcome of, or any contingency connected with an election.
Any money or thing of value or deposit of money or thing of value
situated anywhere in the Philippines put as such bet or wager shall be
forfeited to the government.
(d) Coercion of subordinates. - REPEALED
(1) Any public officer, or any officer of any public or private corporation
or association, or any head, superior, or administrator of any religious
organization, or any employer or land-owner who coerces or intimidates
or compels, or in any manner influence, directly or indirectly, any of his
subordinates or members or parishioners or employees or house helpers,
tenants, overseers, farm helpers, tillers, or lease holders to aid, campaign
or vote for or against any candidate or any aspirant for the nomination or
selection of candidates.
(2) Any public officer or any officer of any commercial, industrial,
agricultural, economic or social enterprise or public or private
corporation or association, or any head, superior or administrator of any
religious organization, or any employer or landowner who dismisses or
threatens to dismiss, punishes or threatens to punish be reducing his
salary, wage or compensation, or by demotion, transfer, suspension,
separation, excommunication, ejectment, or causing him annoyance in
the performance of his job or in his membership, any subordinate
member or affiliate, parishioner, employee or house helper, tenant,
overseer, farm helper, tiller, or lease holder, for disobeying or not
complying with any of the acts ordered by the former to aid, campaign or
vote for or against any candidate, or any aspirant for the nomination or
selection of candidates.
(e) Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other
forms of coercion. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens,
intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury,
punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage upon any person or persons or
that of the immediate members of his family, his honor or property, or
uses any fraudulent device or scheme to compel or induce the registration
or refraining from registration of any voter, or the participation in a
campaign or refraining or desistance from any campaign, or the casting
of any vote or omission to vote, or any promise of such registration,
campaign, vote, or omission therefrom.
(f) Coercion of election officials and employees. - Any person who,
directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates, terrorizes or coerces any
election official or employee in the performance of his election functions
or duties.
(g) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position, promotion,
or giving salary increases. - During the period of forty-five days before a
regular election and thirty days before a special election,
(1) any head, official or appointing officer of a government office,
agency or instrumentality, whether national or local, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, who appoints or hires any
new employee, whether provisional, temporary or casual, or creates and
fills any new position, except upon prior authority of the Commission.
The Commission shall not grant the authority sought unless, it is satisfied
that the position to be filled is essential to the proper functioning of the
office or agency concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a
manner that may influence the election.
As an exception to the foregoing provisions, a new employee may be
appointed in case of urgent need: Provided, however, That notice of the
appointment shall be given to the Commission within three days from the
date of the appointment. Any appointment or hiring in violation of this
provision shall be null and void.
(2) Any government official who promotes, or gives any increase of
salary or remuneration or privilege to any government official or
employee, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations.
(h) Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service. - Any public
official who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any
officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers,
within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission.
(i) Intervention of public officers and employees. - Any officer or
employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices; any
officer, employee, or member or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or
any police force, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-
defense units and all other para-military units that now exist or which
may hereafter be organized who, directly or indirectly, intervenes in any
election campaign or engages in any partisan political activity, except to
vote or to preserve public order, if he is a peace officer.
(j) Undue influence. - It is unlawful for any person to promise any office
or employment, public or private, or to make or offer to make an
expenditure, directly or indirectly, or to cause an expenditure to be made
to any person, association, corporation or entity, which may induce
anyone or the public in general either to vote or withhold his vote, or to
vote for or against any candidate in any election or any aspirant for the
nomination or selection of an official candidate in a convention of a
political party. It is likewise unlawful for any person, association,
corporation or community, to solicit or receive, directly or indirectly, any
expenditure or promise or any office, or employment, public or private,
for any of the foregoing considerations.
(k) Unlawful electioneering. - It is unlawful to solicit votes or undertake
any propaganda on the day of registration before the board of election
inspectors and on the day of election, for or against any candidate or any
political party within the polling place and with a radius of thirty meters
thereof.
(l) Prohibition against dismissal of employees, laborers, or tenants. - No
employee or laborer shall be dismissed, nor a tenant be ejected from his
landholdings for refusing or failing to vote for any candidate of his
employer or landowner. Any employee, laborer or tenant so dismissed or
ejected shall be reinstated and the salary or wage of the employee or
laborer, or the share of the harvest of the tenant, shall be restored to the
aggrieved party upon application to the proper court.
(m) Appointment or use of special policemen, special agents, confidential
agents or the like. - During the campaign period, on the day before and
on election day, any appointing authority who appoints or any person
who utilizes the services of special policemen, special agents,
confidential agents or persons performing similar functions; persons
previously appointed as special policemen, special agents, confidential
agents or persons performing similar functions who continue acting as
such, and those who fail to turn over their firearms, uniforms, insignias
and other badges of authority to the proper officer who issued the same.
At the start of the aforementioned period, the barangay chairman,
municipal mayor, city mayor, provincial governor, or any appointing
authority shall submit to the Commission a complete list of all special
policemen, special agents, confidential agents or persons performing
similar functions in the employ of their respective political subdivisions,
with such particulars as the Commission may require.
(n) Illegal release of prisoners before and after election. - The Director of
the Bureau of Prisons, any provincial warden, the keeper of the jail or the
person or persons required by law to keep prisoners in their custody who
illegally orders or allows any prisoner detained in the national
penitentiary, or the provincial, city or municipal jail to leave the premises
thereof sixty days before and thirty days after the election. The municipal
or city warden, the provincial warden, the keeper of the jail or the person
or persons required by law to keep prisoners in their custody shall post in
three conspicuous public places a list of the prisoners or detention
prisoners under their care. Detention prisoners must be categorized as
such.
(o) Use of public funds, money deposited in trust, equipment, facilities
owned or controlled by the government for an election campaign. - Any
person who uses under any guise whatsoever, directly or indirectly, (1)
public funds or money deposited with, or held in trust by, public
financing institutions or by government offices, banks, or agencies; (2)
any printing press, radio, or television station or audio-visual equipment
operated by the Government or by its divisions, sub-divisions, agencies
or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, or by the Armed Forces of the Philippines; or (3) any
equipment, vehicle, facility, apparatus, or paraphernalia owned by the
government or by its political subdivisions, agencies including
government-owned or controlled corporations, or by the Armed Forces of
the Philippines for any election campaign or for any partisan political
activity.
(p) Deadly weapons. - Any person who carries any deadly weapon in the
polling place and within a radius of one hundred meters thereof during
the days and hours fixed by law for the registration of voters in the
polling place, voting, counting of votes, or preparation of the election
returns. However, in cases of affray, turmoil, or disorder, any peace
officer or public officer authorized by the Commission to supervise the
election is entitled to carry firearms or any other weapon for the purpose
of preserving order and enforcing the law.
(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. - Any
person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries any
firearms outside his residence or place of business during the election
period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a
motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or
place of business or extension hereof.
This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers while
in the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature of their
official duties, profession, business or occupation habitually carry large
sums of money or valuables.
(r) Use of armored land, water or air craft. - Any person who uses during
the campaign period, on the day before and on election day, any armored
land, water or air craft, provided with any temporary or permanent
equipment or any other device or contraption for the mounting or
installation of cannons, machine guns and other similar high caliber
firearms, including military type tanks, half trucks, scout trucks, armored
trucks, of any make or model, whether new, reconditioned, rebuilt or
remodelled: Provided, That banking or financial institutions and all
business firms may use not more than two armored vehicles strictly for,
and limited to, the purpose of transporting cash, gold bullion or other
valuables in connection with their business from and to their place of
business, upon previous authority of the Commission.
(s) Wearing of uniforms and bearing arms. - During the campaign period,
on the day before and on election day, any member of security or police
organization of government agencies, commissions, councils, bureaus,
offices, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or privately-
owned or operated security, investigative, protective or intelligence
agencies, who wears his uniform or uses his insignia, decorations or
regalia, or bears arms outside the immediate vicinity of his place of work:
Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply when said member is in
pursuit of a person who has committed or is committing a crime in the
premises he is guarding; or when escorting or providing security for the
transport of payrolls, deposits, or other valuables; or when guarding the
residence of private persons or when guarding private residences,
buildings or offices: Provided, further, That in the last case prior written
approval of the Commission shall be obtained. The Commission shall
decide all applications for authority under this paragraph within fifteen
days from the date of the filing of such application.
During the same period, and ending thirty days thereafter any member of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, special, forces, home defense
forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that
now exist or which may hereafter be organized who wears his uniform or
bears arms outside the camp, garrison or barracks to which he is assigned
or detailed or outside their homes, in case of members of para-military
units, unless (1) the President of the Philippines shall have given
previous authority therefor, and the Commission notified thereof in
writing, or (2) the Commission authorizes him to do so, which authority
it shall give only when necessary to assist it in maintaining free, orderly
and honest elections, and only after notice and hearing. All personnel of
the Armed Forces authorized by the President or the Commission to bear
arms or wear their uniforms outside their camps and all police and peace
officers shall bear their true name, rank and serial number, if any,
stitched in block letters on a white background on the left breast of their
uniform, in letters and numbers of a clearly legible design at least two
centimeters tall, which shall at all times remain visible and uncovered.
During the election period, whenever the Commission finds it necessary
for the promotion of free, orderly, honest and peaceful elections in a
specific area, it shall confiscate or order the confiscation of firearms of
any member or members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, police
forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units, and all other
para-military units that now exist, or which may hereafter be organized,
or any member or members of the security or police organization,
government ministries, commissions, councils, bureaus, offices,
instrumentalities, or government-owned or controlled corporations and
other subsidiaries, or of any member or members of privately owned or
operated security, investigative, protective or intelligence agencies
performing identical or similar functions.
(t) Policemen and provincial guards acting as bodyguards or security
guards. - During the campaign period, on the day before and on election
day, any member of the city or municipal police force, any provincial or
sub-provincial guard, any member of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense
units and all other para-military units that now exist or which may
hereafter be organized who acts as bodyguard or security guard of any
public official, candidate or any other person, and any of the latter who
utilizes the services of the former as bodyguard or security guard:
Provided, That, after due notice and hearing, when the life and security of
a candidate is in jeopardy, the Commission is empowered to assign at the
candidate's choice, any member of the Philippine Constabulary or the
police force of any municipality within the province to act as his
bodyguard or security guard in a number to be determined by the
Commission but not to exceed three per candidate: Provided, however,
That when the circumstances require immediate action, the Commission
may issue a temporary order allowing the assignment of any member of
the Philippine Constabulary or the local police force to act as bodyguard
or security guard of the candidate, subject to confirmation or revocation.
(u) Organization or maintenance of reaction forces, strike forces, or other
similar forces. - Any person who organizes or maintains a reaction force,
strike force or similar force during the election period.
The heads of all reaction forces, strike forces, or similar forces shall, not
later than forty-five days before the election, submit to the Commission a
complete list of all members thereof with such particulars as the
Commission may require.
(v) Prohibition against release, disbursement or expenditure of public
funds. - Any public official or employee including barangay officials and
those of government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries, who, during forty-five days before a regular election and
thirty days before a special election, releases, disburses or expends any
public funds for:
(1) Any and all kinds of public works, except the following:
(a) Maintenance of existing and/or completed public works project:
Provided, That not more than the average number of laborers or
employees already employed therein during the six-month period
immediately prior to the beginning of the forty-five day period before
election day shall be permitted to work during such time: Provided,
further, That no additional laborers shall be employed for maintenance
work within the said period of forty-five days;
(b) Work undertaken by contract through public bidding held, or by
negotiated contract awarded, before the forty-five day period before
election: Provided, That work for the purpose of this section undertaken
under the so-called "takay" or "paquiao" system shall not be considered
as work by contract;
(c) Payment for the usual cost of preparation for working drawings,
specifications, bills of materials, estimates, and other procedures
preparatory to actual construction including the purchase of materials and
equipment, and all incidental expenses for wages of watchmen and other
laborers employed for such work in the central office and field
storehouses before the beginning of such period: Provided, That the
number of such laborers shall not be increased over the number hired
when the project or projects were commenced; and
(d) Emergency work necessitated by the occurrence of a public calamity,
but such work shall be limited to the restoration of the damaged facility.
No payment shall be made within five days before the date of election to
laborers who have rendered services in projects or works except those
falling under subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), of this paragraph.
This prohibition shall not apply to ongoing public works projects
commenced before the campaign period or similar projects under foreign
agreements. For purposes of this provision, it shall be the duty of the
government officials or agencies concerned to report to the Commission
the list of all such projects being undertaken by them.
(2) The Ministry of Social Services and Development and any other
office in other ministries of the government performing functions similar
to said ministry, except for salaries of personnel, and for such other
routine and normal expenses, and for such other expenses as the
Commission may authorize after due notice and hearing. Should a
calamity or disaster occur, all releases normally or usually coursed
through the said ministries and offices of other ministries shall be turned
over to, and administered and disbursed by, the Philippine National Red
Cross, subject to the supervision of the Commission on Audit or its
representatives, and no candidate or his or her spouse or member of his
family within the second civil degree of affinity or consanguinity shall
participate, directly or indirectly, in the distribution of any relief or other
goods to the victims of the calamity or disaster; and
(3) The Ministry of Human Settlements and any other office in any other
ministry of the government performing functions similar to said ministry,
except for salaries of personnel and for such other necessary
administrative or other expenses as the Commission may authorize after
due notice and hearing.
(w) Prohibition against construction of public works, delivery of
materials for public works and issuance of treasury warrants and similar
devices. - During the period of forty-five days preceding a regular
election and thirty days before a special election, any person who (a)
undertakes the construction of any public works, except for projects or
works exempted in the preceding paragraph; or (b) issues, uses or avails
of treasury warrants or any device undertaking future delivery of money,
goods or other things of value chargeable against public funds.
(x) Suspension of elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay officer.
- The provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding during the
election period, any public official who suspends, without prior approval
of the Commission, any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay
officer, unless said suspension will be for purposes of applying the "Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" in relation to the suspension and
removal of elective officials; in which case the provisions of this section
shall be inapplicable.
(y) On Registration of Voters:
(1) Any person who, having all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications of a voter, fails without justifiable excuse to register as a
voter in an election, plebiscite or referendum in which he is qualified to
vote.
(2) Any person who knowingly makes any false or untruthful statement
relative to any of the data or information required in the application for
registration.
(3) Any person who deliberately imprints or causes the imprinting of
blurred or indistinct fingerprints on any of the copies of the application
for registration or on the voter's affidavit; or any person in charge of the
registration of voters who deliberately or through negligence, causes or
allows the imprinting of blurred or indistinct fingerprints on any of the
aforementioned registration forms, or any person who tampers with the
fingerprints in said registration records.
(4) Any member of the board of election inspectors who approves any
application which on its face shows that the applicant does not possess all
the qualifications prescribed by law for a voter; or who disapproves any
application which on its face shows that the applicant possesses all such
qualifications.
(5) Any person who, being a registered voter, registers anew without
filing an application for cancellation of his previous registration.
(6) Any person who registers in substitution for another whether with or
without the latter's knowledge or consent.
(7) Any person who tampers with or changes without authority any data
or entry in any voter's application for registration.
(8) Any person who delays, hinders or obstruct another from registering.
(9) Any person who falsely certifies or identifies another as a bona fide
resident of a particular place or locality for the purpose of securing the
latter's registration as a voter.
(10) Any person who uses the voter's affidavit of another for the purpose
of voting, whether or not he actually succeeds in voting.
(11) Any person who places, inserts or otherwise includes, as approved
application for registration in the book of voters or in the provincial or
national central files of registered voters, the application of any fictitious
voter or any application that has not been approved; or removes from, or
otherwise takes out of the book of voters or the provincial or national
central files of registered voters any duly approved voter's application,
except upon lawful order of the Commission, or of a competent court or
after proper cancellation as provided in Sections 122, 123, 124 and 125
hereof.
(12) Any person who transfers or causes the transfer of the registration
record of a voter to the book of voters of another polling place, unless
said transfer was due to a change of address of the voter and the voter
was duly notified of his new polling place.
(13) Any person who asks, demands, takes, accepts or possesses, directly
or indirectly, the voter's affidavit of another, in order to induce the latter
to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate in an election
or any issue in a plebiscite or referendum. It shall be presumed prima
facie that the asking, demanding, taking, accepting, or possessing is with
such intent if done within the period beginning ten days before election
day and ending ten days after election day, unless the voter's affidavit of
another and the latter are both members of the same family.
(14) Any person who delivers, hands over, entrusts, gives, directly or
indirectly his voter's affidavit to another in consideration of money or
other benefit or promises thereof, or takes or accepts such voter's
affidavit directly or indirectly, by giving or causing the giving of money
or other benefit or making or causing the making of a promise thereof.
(15) Any person who alters in any manner, tears, defaces, removes or
destroys any certified list of voters.
(16) Any person who takes, carries or possesses any blank or unused
registration form already issued to a city or municipality outside of said
city or municipality except as otherwise provided in this Code or when
directed by express order of the court or of the Commission.
(17) Any person who maliciously omits, tampers or transfers to another
list the name of a registered voter from the official list of voters posted
outside the polling place.
(z) On voting:
(1) Any person who fails to cast his vote without justifiable excuse.
(2) Any person who votes more than once in the same election, or who,
not being a registered voter, votes in an election.
(3) Any person who votes in substitution for another whether with or
without the latter's knowledge and/or consent.
(4) Any person who, not being illiterate or physically disabled, allows his
ballot to be prepared by another, or any person who prepares the ballot of
another who is not illiterate or physically disabled, with or without the
latter's knowledge and/or consent.
(5) Any person who avails himself of any means of scheme to discover
the contents of the ballot of a voter who is preparing or casting his vote
or who has just voted.
(6) Any voter who, in the course of voting, uses a ballot other than the
one given by the board of election inspectors or has in his possession
more than one official ballot.
(7) Any person who places under arrest or detains a voter without lawful
cause, or molests him in such a manner as to obstruct or prevent him
from going to the polling place to cast his vote or from returning home
after casting his vote, or to compel him to reveal how he voted.
(8) Any member of the board of election inspectors charged with the duty
of reading the ballot during the counting of votes who deliberately omits
to read the vote duly written on the ballot, or misreads the vote actually
written thereon or reads the name of a candidate where no name is
written on the ballot.
(9) Any member of the board of election inspectors charged with the duty
of tallying
the votes in the tally board or sheet, election returns or other prescribed
form who deliberately fails to record a vote therein or records
erroneously the votes as read, or records a vote where no such vote has
been read by the chairman.
(10) Any member of a board of election inspectors who has made
possible the casting of more votes than there are registered voters.
(11) Any person who, for the purpose of disrupting or obstructing the
election process or causing confusion among the voters, propagates false
and alarming reports or information or transmits or circulates false
orders, directives or messages regarding any matter relating to the
printing of official ballots, the postponement of the election, the transfer
of polling place or the general conduct of the election.
(12) Any person who, without legal authority, destroys, substitutes or
takes away from the possession of those having legal custody thereof, or
from the place where they are legally deposited, any election form or
document or ballot box which contains official ballots or other
documents used in the election.
(13) Any person having legal custody of the ballot box containing the
official ballots used in the election who opens or destroys said box or
removes or destroys its contents without or against the order of the
Commission or who, through his negligence, enables any person to
commit any of the aforementioned acts, or takes away said ballot box
from his custody.
(14) Any member of the board of election inspectors who knowingly uses
ballots other than the official ballots, except in those cases where the use
of emergency ballots is authorized.
(15) Any public official who neglects or fails to properly preserve or
account for any ballot box, documents and forms received by him and
kept under his custody.
(16) Any person who reveals the contents of the ballot of an illiterate or
disabled voter whom he assisted in preparing a ballot.
(17) Any person who, without authority, transfers the location of a
polling place.
(18) Any person who, without authority, prints or causes the printing of
any ballot or election returns that appears as official ballots or election
returns or who distributes or causes the same to be distributed for use in
the election, whether or not they are actually used.
(19) Any person who, without authority, keeps, uses or carries out or
causes to be kept, used or carried out, any official ballot or election
returns or printed proof thereof, type-form mould, electro-type printing
plates and any other plate, numbering machines and other printing
paraphernalia being used in connection with the printing of official
ballots or election returns.
(20) Any official or employee of any printing establishment or of the
Commission or any member of the committee in charge of the printing of
official ballots or election returns who causes official ballots or election
returns to be printed in quantities exceeding those authorized by the
Commission or who distributes, delivers, or in any manner disposes of or
causes to be distributed, delivered, or disposed of, any official ballot or
election returns to any person or persons not authorized by law or by the
Commission to receive or keep official ballots or election returns or who
sends or causes them to be sent to any place not designated by law or by
the Commission.
(21) Any person who, through any act, means or device, violates the
integrity of any official ballot or election returns before or after they are
used in the election.
(22) Any person who removes, tears, defaces or destroys any certified list
of candidates posted inside the voting booths during the hours of voting.
(23) Any person who holds or causes the holding of an election on any
other day than that fixed by law or by the Commission, or stops any
election being legally held.
(24) Any person who deliberately blurs his fingerprint in the voting
record.
(aa) On Canvassing:
(1) Any chairman of the board of canvassers who fails to give due notice
of the date, time and place of the meeting of said board to the candidates,
political parties and/or members of the board.
(2) Any member of the board of canvassers who proceeds with the
canvass of the votes and/or proclamation of any candidate which was
suspended or annulled by the Commission.
(3) Any member of the board of canvassers who proceeds with the
canvass of votes and/or proclamation of any candidate in the absence of
quorum, or without giving due notice of the date, time and place of the
meeting of the board to the candidates, political parties, and/or other
members of the board.
(4) Any member of the board of canvassers who, without authority of the
Commission, uses in the canvass of votes and/or proclamation of any
candidate any document other than the official copy of the election
returns.
(bb) Common to all boards of election inspectors and boards of
canvassers:
(1) Any member of any board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers who deliberately absents himself from the meetings of said
body for the purpose of obstructing or delaying the performance of its
duties or functions.
(2) Any member of any board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers who, without justifiable reason, refuses to sign and certify any
election form required by this Code or prescribed by the Commission
although he was present during the meeting of the said body.
(3) Any person who, being ineligible for appointment as member of any
board of election inspectors or board of canvassers, accepts an
appointment to said body, assumes office, and actually serves as a
member thereof, or any of public officer or any person acting in his
behalf who appoints such ineligible person knowing him to be ineligible.
(4) Any person who, in the presence or within the hearing of any board of
election inspectors or board of canvassers during any of its meetings,
conducts himself in such a disorderly manner as to interrupt or disrupt
the work or proceedings to the end of preventing said body from
performing its functions, either partly or totally.
(5) Any public official or person acting in his behalf who relieves any
member of any board of election inspectors or board of canvassers or
who changes or causes the change of the assignments of any member of
said board of election inspectors or board of canvassers without authority
of the Commission.
(cc) On candidacy and campaign:
(1) Any political party which holds political conventions or meetings to
nominate its official candidates earlier that the period fixed in this Code.
(2) Any person who abstracts, destroys or cancels any certificate of
candidacy duly filed and which has not been cancelled upon order of the
Commission.
(3) Any person who misleads the board of election inspectors by
submitting any false or spurious certificate of candidacy or document to
the prejudice of a candidate.
(4) Any person who, being authorized to receive certificates of
candidacy, receives any certificate of candidacy outside the period for
filing the same and makes it appear that said certificate of candidacy was
filed on time; or any person who, by means of fraud, threat, intimidation,
terrorism or coercion, causes or compels the commission of said act.
(5) Any person who, by any device or means, jams, obstructs or
interferes with a radio or television broadcast of any lawful political
program.
(6) Any person who solicits votes or undertakes any propaganda, on the
day of election, for or against any candidate or any political party within
the polling place or within a radius of thirty meters thereof.
(dd) Other prohibitions:
(1) Any person who sells, furnishes, offers, buys, serves or takes
intoxicating liquor on the days fixed by law for the registration of voters
in the polling place, or on the day before the election or on election day:
Provided, That hotels and other establishments duly certified by the
Ministry of Tourism as tourist oriented and habitually in the business of
catering to foreign tourists may be exempted for justifiable reasons upon
prior authority of the Commission: Provided, further, That foreign
tourists taking intoxicating liquor in said authorized hotels or
establishments are exempted from the provisions of this subparagraph.
(2) Any person who opens in any polling place or within a radius of thirty
meters thereof on election day and during the counting of votes, booths
or stalls of any kind for the sale, dispensing or display of wares,
merchandise or refreshments, whether solid or liquid, or for any other
purposes.
(3) Any person who holds on election day, fairs, cockfights, boxing,
horse races, jai-alai or any other similar sports.
(4) Refusal to carry election mail matter. - Any operator or employee of a
public utility or transportation company operating under a certificate of
public convenience, including government-owned or controlled postal
service or its employees or deputized agents who refuse to carry official
election mail matters free of charge during the election period. In
addition to the penalty prescribed herein, such refusal shall constitute a
ground for cancellation or revocation of certificate of public convenience
or franchise.
(5) Prohibition against discrimination in the sale of air time. - Any person
who operates a radio or television station who without justifiable cause
discriminates against any political party, coalition or aggroupment of
parties or any candidate in the sale of air time. In addition to the penalty
prescribed herein, such refusal shall constitute a ground for cancellation
or revocation of the franchise.
Section 262. Other election offenses. - Violation of the provisions, or
pertinent portions, of the following sections of this Code shall constitute
election offenses: Sections 9, 18, 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,
87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 107, 108,
109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135, 145, 148,
150, 152, 172, 173, 174, 178, 180, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191,
192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209,
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 229, 230,
231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239 and 240.
ORCEO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 190779 | 2010-03-26
PERALTA, J.:
ISSUE: The main issue is whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused
its discretion in including airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in the
term "firearm" in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 8714.
RULING: The Court finds that the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in this case.
R.A. No. 7166 (An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local
Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations
Therefor, and for Other Purposes) provides:

SEC. 32. Who May Bear Firearms. − During the election period, no
person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in
public places, including any building, street, park, private vehicle or
public conveyance, even if licensed to possess or carry the same, unless
authorized in writing by the Commission. The issuance of firearms
licenses shall be suspended during the election period.
Only regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police, the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and other law enforcement agencies of
the Government who are duly deputized in writing by the Commission
for election duty may be authorized to carry and possess firearms during
the election period: Provided, That, when in the possession of firearms,
the deputized law enforcement officer must be: (a) in full uniform
showing clearly and legibly his name, rank and serial number, which
shall remain visible at all times; and (b) in the actual performance of his
election duty in the specific area designated by the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 35 of R.A. No. 7166, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution No. 8714, which contains the implementing rules and
regulations of Sections 32 and 33 of R.A. No. 7166.
Evidently, the COMELEC had the authority to promulgate Resolution
No. 8714 pursuant to Section 35 of R.A. No. 7166. It was granted the
power to issue the implementing rules and regulations of Sections 32 and
33 of R.A. No. 7166. Under this broad power, the COMELEC was
mandated to provide the details of who may bear, carry or transport
firearms or other deadly weapons, as well as the definition of "firearms,"
among others. These details are left to the discretion of the COMELEC,
which is a constitutional body that possesses special knowledge and
expertise on election matters, with the objective of ensuring the holding
of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
A license to possess an airsoft gun, just like ordinary licenses in other
regulated fields, does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal
privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions, and such as may
thereafter be reasonably imposed.
The inclusion of airsoft guns and airguns in the term "firearm" in
Resolution No. 8714 for purposes of the gun ban during the election
period is a reasonable restriction, the objective of which is to ensure the
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
However, the Court excludes the replicas and imitations of airsoft guns
and airguns from the term "firearm" under Resolution No. 8714, because
they are not subject to any regulation, unlike airsoft guns.
The Court holds that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion
in including airsoft guns and airguns in the term "firearm" in Resolution
No. 8714 for purposes of the gun ban during the election period, with the
apparent objective of ensuring free, honest, peaceful and credible
elections this year. However, the replicas and imitations of airsoft guns
and airguns are excluded from the term "firearm" in Resolution No.
8714.
CAUSING vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 199139 September 9, 2014
BERSAMIN, J.:
RULING: The only personnel movements prohibited by COMELEC
Resolution No. 8737 were transfer and detail. Transfer is defined in the
Resolution as "any personnel movement from one government agency to
another or from one department, division, geographical unit or
subdivision of a government agency to another with or without the
issuance of an appointment;" while detail as defined in the
Administrative Code of 1987 is the movement of an employee from one
agency to another without the issuance of an appointment. Having
acquired technical and legal meanings, transfer and detail must be
construed as such. Obviously, the movement involving Causing did not
equate to either a transfer or a detail within the contemplation of the law
if Mayor Biron only thereby physically transferred her office area from
its old location to the Office of the Mayor "some little steps" away. We
cannot accept the petitioner’s argument, therefore, that the phrase "any
transfer or detail whatsoever" encompassed "any and all kinds and
manner of personnel movement, including the mere change in office
location.
Equally material is that Mayor Biron’s act of transferring the office space
of Causing was rooted in his power of supervision and control over the
officials and employees serving in his local government unit, in order to
ensure the faithful discharge of their duties and functions. His
explanation that he transferred Causing’s work station from her original
office to his office in order to closely supervise her after his office
received complaints against her could not be justly ignored. Verily, she
thereafter continued to perform her tasks, and uninterruptedly received
her salaries as the Municipal Civil Registrar even after the transfer to the
Office of the Mayor.
AQUINO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. Nos. 211789-90 | 2015-03-17
BRION, J.:
RULING: By its terms, Section 261(h) provides at once the elements of
the offense and its exceptions. The elements are: (1) the making or
causing of a government official or employee's transfer or detail
whatever, (2) the making or causing of the transfer or detail whatever
was made during the election period; and (3) these acts were made
without the required prior COMELEC approval.
Based on these clear facts, Aquino completed the act of making or
causing the reassignment of the affected PHIC officers and employees
before the start of the election period. In this sense, the evils sought to be
addressed by Section 261(h) of BP 881 is kept intact by the timely
exercise of his management prerogative in rearranging or reassigning
PHIC personnel within its various offices necessary for the PHIC's
efficient and smooth operation. As Aquino's acts of issuing the order fell
outside the coverage of the transfer prohibition, he cannot be held liable
for violation of Section 261(h).
In sum, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when, firstly, it
used wrong or irrelevant considerations when it sought to hold Aquino
liable for violation of Section 261 (h) for issuing orders that were clearly
not for reassignment, but which were simply orders for retention of
position or orders for temporary discharge of additional duties.
Secondly, the COMELEC also went beyond the clear contemplation and
intention of the law and of existing jurisprudence when it included within
the prohibition's coverage the implementation aspect of the reassignment
process - acts that were obviously no longer within his active and
immediate control and beyond the ambit of making or causing to which
the prohibition applies.
B. Electoral Sabotage
Sec. 27 (b), R.A. No. 6646, as amended by R.A. No. 9369
SECTION 42. Section 27 (b) of Republic Act No. 6646 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 27. Election Offenses; Electoral Sabotage. - In additional to
the prohibited acts and election offenses enumerated in Section 261 and
262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, the following shall be
guilty of an election offense or a special election offense to be known as
electoral sabotage:
"(b) Any person or member of the board of election inspectors or board
of canvassers who tampers, increases or decreases the votes received by a
candidate in any election or any member of the board who refuses, after
proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such
tampered votes: Provided, however, That when the tampering, increase or
decrease of votes or the refusal to credit the correct votes and/or to
deduct tampered votes to deduct tampered votes are perpetrated on a
large scale or in substantial numbers, the same shall be considered, not as
an ordinary election offense under Sections 261 and/or 262 of the
Omnibus Election Code, but a special election offense to be known as
electoral sabotage and the penalty to be imposed shall be life
imprisonment.
"The act or offense committed shall fall under the category of electoral
sabotage in any of the following instances;
"(1) When the tampering, increase and/or decrease of votes perpetrated or
the refusal to credit the correct votes or to deduct tampered votes, is/are
committed in the election of a national elective office which is voted
upon nationwide and the tampering, increase and/or decrease votes,
refusal to credit the correct votes or to deduct tampered votes, shall
adversely affect the results of the election to the said national office to
the extent that losing candidate/s is/are made to appear the winner/s;
"(2) Regardless of the elective office involved, when the tampering,
increase and/or decrease of votes committed or the refusal to credit the
correct votes or to deduct tampered votes perpetrated, is accomplished in
a single election document or in the transposition of the figures/results
from one election document to another and involved in the said
tampering increase and/or decrease or refusal to credit correct votes or
deduct tampered votes exceed five thousand (5,000) votes, and that the
same adversely affects the true results of the election;
"(3) Any and all other forms or tampering increase/s and/or decrease/s of
votes perpetuated or in cases of refusal to credit the correct votes or
deduct the tampered votes, where the total votes involved exceed ten
thousand (10,000) votes;
"Provided finally, That any and all either persons or individuals
determined to be conspiracy or in connivance with the members of the
BEIs or BOCs involved, shall be meted the same penalty of life
imprisonment."
C. Jurisdiction over election offenses
[a] Investigation and Prosecution
Sec. 2 (6), Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following
powers and functions:
File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court
for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT) PARTY-LIST VS.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 177508 | 2009-08-07
CARPIO, J.:
RULING: Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution vests in the
COMELEC the power to "investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute
cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices." This was an
important innovation introduced by the Constitution because this
provision was not in the 1935 or 1973 Constitutions. The phrase "where
appropriate" leaves to the legislature the power to determine the kind of
election offenses that the COMELEC shall prosecute exclusively or
concurrently with other prosecuting arms of the government.
We also note that while Section 265 of BP 881 vests in the COMELEC
the "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary investigations and
prosecute election offenses, it likewise authorizes the COMELEC to
avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.
It is clear that the grant of the "exclusive power" to investigate and
prosecute election offenses to the COMELEC was not by virtue of the
Constitution but by BP 881, a legislative enactment. If the intention of
the framers of the Constitution were to give the COMELEC the
"exclusive power" to investigate and prosecute election offenses, the
framers would have expressly so stated in the Constitution. They did not.
Sec. 43, R.A. No. 9369 (amending Sec. 265, B.P. 881)
SEC. 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to
read as follow:
"SEC. 265. Prosecution. - The Commission shall, through its duly
authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other
prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation
of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and prosecute the
same"
ARROYO VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
G.R. Nos. 199082, 199085 and 199118 | 2013-07-23
PERALTA, J.:
RULING: To be sure, the creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant
to the concept of “concurrent jurisdiction” authorized by the amendatory
law. As we explained in our September 18, 2012 Decision:
The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal
with the same subject matter. Contrary to the contention of the
petitioners, there is no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power
between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where
one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one office (such
as the Comelec) for preliminary investigation which was immediately
acted upon by said office and the re-filing of substantially the same
complaint with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent
assumption of jurisdiction by the second office over the cases filed will
not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency that
first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the others.
None of these problems would likely arise in the present case. The
Comelec and the DOJ themselves agreed that they would exercise their
concurrent jurisdiction jointly. Although the preliminary investigation
was conducted on the basis of two complaints – the initial report of the
Fact-Finding Team and the complaint of Senator Pimentel – both
complaints were filed with the Joint Committee. Consequently, the
complaints were filed with and the preliminary investigation was
conducted by only one investigative body. Thus, we find no reason to
disallow the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction jointly by those given
such authority. This is especially true in this case given the magnitude of
the crimes allegedly committed by petitioners. The joint preliminary
investigation also serves to maximize the resources and manpower of
both the Comelec and the DOJ for the prompt disposition of the cases.
Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the
DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the assailed Joint Order
whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause
for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in accordance
with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. With more reason, therefore, that
we cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication
of the Comelec’s independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
[b] Trial and decision
Sec. 268, B.P. 881
Section 268. Jurisdiction of courts. - The regional trial court shall have
the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or
proceedings for violation of this Code, except those relating to the
offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the
jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the
decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases.
Penalties
Sec. 264, B.P. 881
Section 264. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of any election offense
under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one
year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In
addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to
hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a
foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced
after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty
shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos,
which shall be imposed upon such party after criminal action has been
instituted in which their corresponding officials have been found guilty.
In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released from any penitentiary or
jail during the prohibited period as provided in Section 261, paragraph
(n) of this Code, the director of prisons, provincial warden, keeper of the
jail or prison, or persons who are required by law to keep said prisoner in
their custody shall, if convicted by a competent court, be sentenced to
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period if the prisoner
or prisoners so illegally released commit any act of intimidation,
terrorism of interference in the election.
Any person found guilty of the offense of failure to register or failure to
vote shall, upon conviction, be fined one hundred pesos. In addition, he
shall suffer disqualification to run for public office in the next succeeding
election following his conviction or be appointed to a public office for a
period of one year following his conviction.
D. Preferential disposition of election offenses
Sec. 269, B.P. 881
Section 269. Preferential disposition of election offenses. - The
investigation and prosecution of cases involving violations of the election
laws shall be given preference and priority by the Commission on
Elections and prosecuting officials. Their investigation shall be
commenced without delay, and shall be resolved by the investigating
officer within five days from its submission for resolution. The courts
shall likewise give preference to election offenses over all other cases,
except petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Their trial shall likewise be
commenced without delay, and shall be conducted continuously until
terminated, and the case shall be decided within thirty days from its
submission for decision.
E. Prescriptive period for election offenses

Sec. 267, B.P. 881

Section 267. Prescription. - Election offenses shall prescribe after five

years from the date of their commission. If the discovery of the offense
be made in an election contest proceeding, the period of prescription
shall commence on the date on which the judgment in such proceedings
becomes final and executory.