Lim, Jan Vince E.

Election Law Case Digest

Rivera vs. COMELEC | GR NO. 167591

Facts: In the May 2004 elections, respondent Marino "Boking" Morales ran as candidate
for mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for the term 2004-2007. Petitioner Dee filed with the
COMELEC a petition to cancel Morales’ Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that he
was elected and had served three previous consecutive terms as mayor of Mabalacat.
They alleged that his candidacy violated Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and
Section 43 (b) of RA 7160. Respondent Morales admitted that he was elected mayor of
Mabalacat for the term 1995-1998 (first term) and 2001-2004 (third term), but he served
the second term from 1998-2001 only as a "caretaker of the office" or as a "de facto
officer" since his proclamation as mayor was declared void by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC). He was also preventively suspended by the Ombudsman in an anti-graft case
from January to July 1999.

Issue: Whether or not Morales violated the three term limit rule when he ran for re-
election as mayor in the 2004 elections.

Ruling: For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply, two
conditions or requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the official concerned has been
elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and (2) that he has
fully served three consecutive terms.

Respondent Morales was elected for the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001. He assumed
the position. He served as mayor until June 30, 2001. He was mayor for the entire period
notwithstanding the Decision of the RTC in the electoral protest case filed by petitioner
Dee ousting him (respondent) as mayor. Respondent Morales is now serving his fourth
term. He has been mayor of Mabalacat continuously without any break since July 1,
1995. In just over a month, by June 30, 2007, he will have been mayor of Mabalacat for
twelve (12) continuous years. His assumption of office for the second term constituted
“service for the full term” and should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of
the three-term limit prescribed by the constitutional and statutory provisions barring
local electiveofficials from being elected and serving for more than three consecutive
terms for the same position.

The framers of the Constitution, by including this exception, wanted to establish some
safeguards against the excessive accumulation of power as a result of consecutive terms.
Therefore, having found respondent Morales ineligible, his Certificate of Candidacy
dated December 30, 2003 should be cancelled. Not being a candidate, the votes cast for
him SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED and must be considered stray votes.

Aznar vs. COMELEC | 185 SCRA 703

Facts: On November 19, 1987, private respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his
certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of Provincial Governor of
Cebu Province in the January 18, 1988 local elections. On January 22, 1988, the Cebu
PDP-Laban Provincial Council (Cebu-PDP Laban, for short), as represented by petitioner
Jose B. Aznar in his capacity as its incumbent Provincial Chairman, filed with the
COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmeña on the ground that he is
allegedly not a Filipino citizen, being a citizen of the United States of America.
On January 28, 1988, the COMELEC en banc resolved to order the Board to continue
canvassing but to suspend the proclamation. At the hearing before the COMELEC, Aznar
presented the following exhibits tending to show that Osmena is an American citizen:
Application for Alien Registration of the Bureau of Immigration dated November 21,
1979; Alien Certificate of Registration dated November 21, 1979; Permit to Re-enter the
Philippines dated November 21, 1979; Immigration Certificate of Clearance dated
January 3, 1980. Osmeña on the other hand, maintained that he is a Filipino citizen,
alleging: that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino and son of the
late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.; that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine
Passport issued on March 25, 1987; that he has been continuously residing in the
Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months; and
that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.

On March 3, 1988, COMELEC directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning
candidates. Having obtained the highest number of votes, Osmena was proclaimed the
Provincial Governor of Cebu. On June 11, 1988, COMELEC dismissed the petition for
disqualification for not having been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that
Osmena is not a Filipino citizen.

Issue: Whether or not petition for disqualification was timely filed?

Ruling: NO. The records show that Osmena filed his certificate of candidacy on
November 19, 1987 and that Aznar filed his petition for disqualification on January 22,
1988. Since the petition for disqualification was filed beyond the twenty five-day period
required in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is clear that said petition was
filed out of time.

The petition for the disqualification of Osmena cannot also be treated as a petition
for quo warranto under Section 253 of the same Code as it is unquestionably premature,
considering that Osmena was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu only on March 3,
1988.

Maquiling vs. COMELEC | GR NO. 195649

Facts: Rommel Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, as a consequence of

his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the United States of America, he lost his
Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225
before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath
of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 10 July 2008. On the same day an
Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his
favor. On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship.

On 28 April 2010, respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed
a petition to disqualify Arnado and to cancel his certificate of candidacy for municipal
mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in connection with the May 10 2010 elections.
Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is not a resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del
Norte and that he is a foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of
Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the nationality of Arnado as “USA-
American.” The COMELEC First Division ruled that the petition for disqualification be
granted because he is still using his US passport after his renunciation of his US
citizenship which negates his Affidavit of Renunciation. Arnado filed a Motion for
Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling
(Maquiling), another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan, and who garnered the second
highest number of votes in the 2010 elections, intervened in the case and filed before the
COMELEC En Banc a Motion for Reconsideration together with an Opposition to
Arnado’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration.
The COMELEC En Banc granted the Motion for Reconsideration of Arnado on the
ground that the use of a US passport……. does not operate to revert back his status as a
dual citizen prior to his renunciation as there is no law saying such. More succinctly, the
use of a US passport does not operate to “unrenounce” what he has earlier on renounced.
Maquiling files a petition before the Supreme Court to assail the decision of the
COMELEC En Banc.

Issue: 1. Whether or not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship
affects one’s qualifications to run for public office.
2. Whether or not the rule on succession in the Local Government Code is applicable to
this case.

Ruling: The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a
positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship; it does
not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of
Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position. By the time he filed
his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009, Arnado was a dual citizen enjoying
the rights and privileges of Filipino and American citizenship. He was qualified to vote,
but by the express disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code,40
he was not qualified to run for a local elective.

The rule on Succession under LGC is not applicable. Maquiling is not a second-placer as
he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates.

Pilar vs. COMELEC | GR No. 115245

Facts: On March 22, 1992, petitioner Juanito C. Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy
for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela.
On March 25, 1992, petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy. In M.R. Nos. 93-
2654 and 94-0065 dated November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994 respectively, the
COMELEC imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos for failure to file his
statement of contributions and expenditures. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
but the same was denied by the COMELEC.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is liable for failure to file a statement of contributions
and expenditures notwithstanding his having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy three
days after his filing.

Ruling: Yes. The petitioner is liable. Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 states that “every
candidate” has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures.
Well-recognized is the rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not
distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. No distinction is to be
made in the application of a law where none is indicated. 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.

Lluz vs. COMELEC | GR No. 172840

Facts: Private respondent was a candidate for the post of punong barangay of Barangay
2, Poblacion, Catubig, Samar in the 15 July 2002 Synchronized Barangay and
Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. In his certificate of candidacy, private respondent
misrepresented himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) as his profession or
occupation. Private respondent won in the elections. Thus, he was charged for an election
offense before the COMELEC. In his Answer, private respondent argued that he could
not be held liable for an election offense because his alleged misrepresentation of
profession was not material to his eligibility as a candidate.

Issue: Is an alleged misrepresentation of profession or occupation on a certificate of

candidacy punishable as an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of
B.P. 881?

Ruling: No. Elective office, not even the office of the President of the Republic of the
Philippines, requires a certain profession or occupation as a qualification. For local
elective offices including that of punong barangay, Republic Act No. 7160 (R.A. 7160)
or the Local Government Code of 1991 prescribes only qualifications pertaining to
citizenship, registration as a voter, residence, and language. Section 39 of R.A. 7160
states: Profession or occupation not being a qualification for elective office,
misrepresentation of such does not constitute a material misrepresentation. Certainly, in a
situation where a candidate misrepresents his or her profession or occupation in the
certificate of candidacy, the candidate may not be disqualified from running for office
under Section 78 as his or her certificate of candidacy cannot be denied due course or
canceled on such ground.

Defensor-Santiago vs. Ramos | 253 SCRA 559

Facts: The protestant, Miriam Defensor-Santiago ran for presidency and lost in the May
1992 election. In her Motion on the 16th day of August in the year 1995, reiterated in her
comment of the 29th of August of the same year, protestant Defensor-Santiago prayed
that the revision in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be dispensed with and the
revision process in the pilot areas be deemed computed. The Court deferred action on the
motion and required, instead, the protestant and protestee to submit their respective
memoranda. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the election protest filed by Defensor-Santiago is moot and
academic by her election as a Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption of
office as such on the 30th of June in the year 1995.

Ruling: YES. The Court held that the election protest filed by Santiago has been
abandoned or considered withdrawn as a consequence of her election and assumption of
office as Senator and her discharge of the duties and functions thereof. The protestant
abandoned her “determination to protest and pursue the public interest involved in the
matter of who is the real choice of the electorate.

Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate
the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential elections, thereby
enhancing the all too crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national
recovery.

Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform the PET within 10
days if after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she still
wishes to present evidence. Since DS has not informed the Tribunal of any such
intention, such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so.

Mercado vs. Manzano | 307 SCRA 630

Facts: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were both candidates for Vice-
Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. Based on the results of the election,
Manzano garnered the highest number of votes. However, his proclamation was
suspended due to the pending petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on
the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. From the
facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino and a US citizen. The
Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as candidate for said elective
position. However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the
disqualification of the respondent was reversed. Respondent was held to have renounced
his US citizenship when he attained the age of majority and registered himself as a voter
in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998. Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the
Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31, 1998. Thus the present petition.

Issue: Whether petitioner Mercado has personality to bring this suit?

Ruling: YES. Petitioner had a right to intervene at that stage of the proceedings for the
disqualification against private respondent is clear from §6 of Republic Act No. 6646,
otherwise known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987.

Marquez vs. COMELEC | 243 SCRA 538

Facts: Marquez, a candidate for an elective position in Quezon Province during the 1998
elections, filed a petition praying for the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of
Rodriguez on the ground of disqualification under section 40 of the Local Government
Code Section 40. Disqualification.
The following persons are disqualified from running for any local elective position… (e)
Fugitive from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad.
Rodriguez is allegedly criminally charged with insurance fraud or grand theft of personal
property in the United States and that his arrest is yet to be served because of his flight
from the country. The COMELEC dismissed Marquez’s Petition. Rodriguez was
proclaimed the Governor-elect of Quezon.

Issue: Whether or not private respondent, who at the time of the filing of his COC is said
to be facing criminal charges before a foreign court and evading a warrant of arrest
comes within the term “fugitive from justice”.

Ruling: No. Although it is provided in Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations

implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 that for a person to be considered a
fugitive from justice, he or she has to be convicted by final judgment, but such definition
is an ordinate and under circumscription of the law. For the term fugitive from justice
includes not only those who after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who,
after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. This definition truly finds support from
jurisprudence, and it may be conceded as expressing the general and ordinary connotation
of the term.

Mitra vs. COMELEC | GR NO. 191938

Facts: When his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan was declared cancelled,
Mitra was the incumbent Representative of the Second District of Palawan. This district
then included, among other territories,
the Municipality of Aborlan and Puerto Princesa City. He was elected Representative as a
domiciliary of Puerto Princesa City, and represented the legislative district for three (3)
terms immediately before the elections of 2010. On March 26, 2007 (or before the end of
Mitra’s second term as Representative), Puerto PrincesaCity was reclassified as a "highly
urbanized city" and thus ceased to be a component city of theProvince of Palawan. The
direct legal consequence of this new status was the ineligibility
of PuertoPrincesa City residents from voting for candidates for elective provincial
officials. On March 20, 2009, with the intention of running for the position of Governor,
Mitra applied for the transfer of his Voter’s Registration Record from Precinct No. 03720
of Brgy. Sta. Monica, PuertoPrincesa City, to Sitio Maligaya,Brgy.
Isaub, Municipality of Aborlan, Province of Palawan. He subsequently filed his COC for
the position of Governor of Palawan as a resident of Aborlan. Soon thereafter,
respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr. (the respondents) filed a
petition to deny due course or to cancel Mitra’s COC.

Issue: Whether or not Mitra is qualified to run for Governor of Palawan.

Ruling: YES. Mitra is qualified to rum for the position as Governor of Palawan. The
Supreme Court ruled that Mitra did not misrepresent himself and that he met the
residency requirement as mandated by the Constitution.

The election of Abraham Kahlil Mitra as governor of Palawan in the May 10, 2010
elections was upheld in a vote of 11-3. The respondents were not able to present a
convincing case sufficient to overcome Mitra’s evidence of effective transfer to and
residence in Aborlan and the validity of his representation on this point in his COC.
Likewise, the "COMELEC could not present any legally acceptable basis to conclude that
Mitra’s statement in his COC regarding his residence was a misrepresentation."

Pimentel vs. Joint Committee of Congress | GR NO. 163783

Facts: Petition for Prohibition. Pimentel, Jr. seeks a judgment declaring null and void the
continued existence of the Joint Committee. The petition corollarily prays for the
issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Joint Committee to cease and desist from
conducting any further proceedings pursuant to the Rules of the Joint Public Session of
Congress on Canvassing. Petitioner posits that with "the adjournment sine die on June 11,
2004 by the Twelfth Congress of its last regular session, its term terminated and expired
on the said day and the said Twelfth Congress serving the term 2001 to 2004 passed out
of legal existence." Henceforth, petitioner goes on, "all pending matters and proceedings
terminate upon the expiration of Congress.

Issue: Whether or not the Joint Committee performing election canvass even after the
termination of congress’ session is constitutional.

Ruling: Sec. 15. Art VI - The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth
Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall
continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days
before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.

Contrary to petitioner's argument, however, the term of the present Twelfth Congress did
not terminate and expire upon the adjournment sine die of the regular session of both
Houses on June 11, 2004.
Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution cited by petitioner does not pertain to the term
of Congress, but to its regular annual legislative sessions and the mandatory 30-day
recess before the opening of its next regular session (subject to the power of the President
to call a special session at any time).

Section 4 of Article VIII provides that "the term of office of the Senators shall be six
years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day
of June next following their election." Similarly, Section 7 provides that " the Members
of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years. Consequently,
there being no law to the contrary, until June 30, 2004, the present Twelfth Congress to
which the present legislators belong cannot be said to have "passed out of legal
existence."

The legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may have come to a close upon the
final adjournment of its regular sessions on June 11, 2004, but this does not affect its non-
legislative functions. In fact, the joint public session of both Houses of Congress
convened by express directive of Section 4, Article VII to canvass the votes for and to
proclaim the newly elected President and VP has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die until it
has accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. For only when a board of
canvassers has completed its functions is it rendered functus officio. Its membership may
change, but it retains its authority as a board until it has accomplished its purposes. Since
the Twelfth Congress has not yet completed its non-legislative duty to canvass the votes
and proclaim the duly elected President and VP, its existence as the National Board of
Canvassers, as well as that of the Joint Committee to which it referred the preliminary
tasks of authenticating and canvassing the certificates of canvass, has not become functus
officio.