Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Election Law
Election Law
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
PHILIPPINE ELECTION LAWS RA 7166 (An Act which provided for the synchronization
Based on the Lectures and Outline of Atty. Jocelyn Valencia1 of the National and Local Elections of 1992;
SOURCE OF POLITICAL POWER/ UNDERLIYING RA 7941 (Nov. 26, 1991) An act providing for the election
PHILISOPHY: of party-list representatives through the party-list system;
Article II Sec. 1 of the Constitution: “The Philippines is RA 8189 (June 11, 1996 Voters Registration Act of 1996
a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people providing for the General Registration of Voters &
and all government authority emanates from them.” Adopting a System of Continuing Registration;
Article IV on Citizenship (qualification of candidates RA 9164 (March 19, 2002), An Act Providing for
and voters); Synchronized Barangay and SK. Elections, amending RA
7160, as amended.
Article V, Suffrage.
RA 9189, An Act Providing for a System of Overseas
Article VI Legislative Department (composition of Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines
the members of the HR, qualifications, term of office, Abroad.
party list, vacancy, composition of the HRET and SET;
RA 9225 (August 29, 2003), An Act Making the
Article VII Executive Department (qualifications, Citizenship of Philippine Citizens who Acquire Foreign
term of office, limitations of term, manner of canvass and Citizenship Permanent, Amending For the Purposes C.A.
proclamation, composition of the PET, vacancy; No. 63, as amended
Article IX-A (common provisions for constitutional RA 9244 (February 19, 2004), An Act Eliminating the
offices) & Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting
Recall of elective Government Officials.
Article IX- C: COMELEC (composition, powers and
functions of the COMELEC, the body created by the The basic law on elections and these amendments are designed to
constitution to conduct any electoral exercise as well as improve the law and to protect the integrity of the elections
uphold and safeguard the integrity and sanctity of the in order to achieve the objective of holding an:
ballot in order to achieve its objective of holding an HONEST,
honest, orderly peaceful free and credible elections); ORDERLY
PEACEFUL
Article X General provision on Local Government FREE AND
(requirement for alteration of political boundaries); CREDIBLE elections (HOPE-FRECRE).
Article XVI (General provisions) prohibition against D. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (RA 7160)
partisan political activities or prohibition on the
appointment or designation of a member of the armed RA 7160 The Local Government Code of 1991 for
forces in the active service to a civilian position in the 1. Recall of local elective officials;
government; 2. Qualifications and Disqualifications of elections of local
elective officials;
Article XVII amendments or revisions to the 3. Local initiative & referendum
constitution
Applicability
B. OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE – BP 881 basic law on Shall govern all elections of public officers and, to the extent
elections. appropriate, all referenda and plebiscite. (Section 2 of the
Omnibus Election Code)
C. AMENDMENTS UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION: Further strengthened by Sec 2(1) of Art. IX-C, the Constitution
empowers the COMELEC to ―enforce and administer all laws
RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987). Sec. and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
2 thereof re-enacted the OEC when it provided that initiative, referendum and recall.‖
the ― first local elections under the new Constitution The COMELEC is mandated to apply the OEC and all other
and all subsequent elections and plebiscites shall be statutes on the subject governing election laws. (Section 36 of
governed by this Act and by the provisions of the BP RA 7166).
881, otherwise known as the OEC of the Philippines,
and other election laws not inconsistent with this
Act;
(iv) CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained
therein shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule that the failure of
Election contests are REASONABLY AND the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED as it is imbued with their mandated administrative responsibility, i.e., signing,
public interest to give way to the will of the electorate authenticating and thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the
and ascertain by all means the real candidate elected voter with disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating the will of the
people. (as cited in Punzalan vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 126669. April
27, 1998])‖
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 3
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
TYPES OF ELECTIONS
Punzalan v. COMELEC April 27, 1998 - Section 15 of
RA 6646 as amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7166, requires, in 1. REGULAR ELECTIONS – is an election held on such dates
addition to the preliminary acts for the conduct of vote as established by law at regular intervals. Whether national or
provided under Sec. 191 of the OEC, the Chairman, to affix local, it refers to an election participated in by
their signatures at the back of each and every ballot to be a. those who possess the right of suffrage,
used during the voting. The failure on the part of these b. are not otherwise disqualified by law and
election officials to do their duties will not invalidate the c. who are registered voters.
ballot for to rule otherwise would disenfranchise the
voters and place a premium on the official ineptness and Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49 (1996) – ― SK election is
make it possible for a small group of functionaries, by not considered a regular elections because the said elections are
their negligence or their deliberate inaction to frustrate participated in by youth with ages ranging from 15 to 21, some
the will of the electorate.‖ It may however constitute as an of whom are not qualified voters to elect local or national
election offense imputable to the said BEI Chairman. elective officials‖.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 4
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
WHO MAY EXERCISE: It is exercised by all registered is authorized and which satisfies the “completeness” and
voters of the country, autonomous regions, provinces, cities “sufficiency standard” tests.
and barangays.
In this case the petition to propose amendments to the
REQUIREMENTS: Constitution particularly the lifting of the term limits of public
elective officials was not validly initiated as it failed to comply
1) To exercise the power of INITIATIVE AND with the signature requirement for initiating an Initiative
REFERENDUM: (Petition signed by at least 12% of all the registered voters where
each legislative district is represented at least by 3%) . The
National Law or Law passed by the legislative COMELEC never acquired jurisdiction over the petition as
assembly of an autonomous region, province or jurisdiction is acquired only after its filing – the petition being
city: the initiatory pleading.
a. at least 10% of the total number of registered
voters, Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006
b. of which every legislative district is represented by
at least 3% of the registered voters thereof, FACTS: The Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures
c. shall sign a petition for the purpose and register for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution and
the same with the COMELEC. then filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for
d. The percentage requirement is likewise applicable ratification under Sec. 5(b) and (c) and Sec. 7 of RA 6735. The
and is deemed validly initiated to a referendum or proposed changes under the petition will shift the present
initiative affecting a law, resolution or ordinance Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
form of government. COMELEC did not give it due course for
Law passed in a municipality lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend
the Constitution, pursuant to Santiago v. COMELEC ruling.
a. petition is signed by at least 10% of the RV of the
municipality ISSUES:
b. of which every barangay is represented by at least Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment or
3% of the RV voters therein. revision
Whether the initiative petition is sufficient compliance with the
With respect to a barangay resolution or constitutional requirement on direct proposal by the people
ordinance
RULING:
a. signed by at least 10% of the registered voters of Initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2, Art. XVII on
said barangay. direct proposal by people
Sec. 2, Art. XVII...is the governing provision that allows a
2) a petition for an INITIATIVE on the 1987 Constitution, people‘s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.
a. must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of While this provision does not expressly state that the petition
registered voters, must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments, the
b. of which every legislative district must be deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show
represented by at least 3% of the voters therein. that: (a) the framers intended to adopt relevant American
c. LIMITATION: Initiative may be initiated only jurisprudence on people‘s initiative; and (b) in particular, the
after 5 years following the ratification of the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments
1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) before they sign, and that the people must sign on a petition
years thereafter. containing such full text.
The essence of amendments ―directly proposed by the
PROCEDURE IN THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE AND people through initiative upon a petition‖ is that the entire
REFERENDUM: proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two
essential elements must be present.
1. The COMELEC, shall schedule a special registration of
voters at least 3 weeks before the scheduled initiative or 2 elements of initiative
referendum. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire
2. After determining the sufficiency of the petition, the proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
COMELEC shall, within 30 days, publish the same in Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must
Filipino and English at least twice in a newspaper of be embodied in a petition.
general and local circulation and set the date of the
Initiative or Referendum not earlier than 45 days but not These essential elements are present only if the full text of
later than 90 days from the determination by the the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition. express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
3. The Election Registrar shall verify the signatures on the petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be
petition on the basis of the registry of voters, voter‘s either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so
affidavits and voter‘s identification cards used in the attached, the petition must stated the fact of such attachment.
immediately preceding elections. This is an assurance that everyone of the several millions of
signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed
EFFECTIVITY OF INITIATIVE or REFERENDUM amendments before – not after – signing.
Moreover, ―an initiative signer must be informed at the
1) The national law proposed for enactment, approval or time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is
amendment approved by a majority of the votes cast as proposed‖ and failure to do so is ―deceptive and misleading‖
certified by the COMELEC, shall become effective 15 which renders the initiative void.
days following completion of its publication in the In the case of the Lambino Group‘s petition, there‘s not a
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes
circulation in the Philippines. in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state
2) The proposition to reject a national law approved by a that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. The
majority of the votes cast, shall be deemed repealed and signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people
the repeal shall become effective 15 days following approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
the completion of publication of the proposition Unicameral- Parliamentary system of government. The
and the certification by the Commission. But if signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
the majority is not obtained, the national law proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature
sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in sheet. This omission is fatal.
full force and effect. An initiative that gathers signatures from the people
3) With regards to the proposition in an initiative on the without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
CONSTITUTION approved by a majority of the votes amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a
cast in the plebiscite, the same shall become effective gigantic fraud on the people. That‘s why the Constitution
as to the day of the plebiscite. requires that an initiative must be ―directly proposed by the
people x x x in a petition‖ - meaning that the people must sign
Santiago v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 106, COMELEC on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation‘s
implement the exercise of the right of the people to fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general
the system of initiative. The power of the COMELEC to or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and
issue rules and regulations is limited only to what is unelected individuals.
provided under (A) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, or (b) by a law where subordinate legislation
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 5
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the alteration of numerous existing provisions. The court examines
Constitution disallowing revision through initiatives only the number of provisions affected and does not consider
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three the degree of the change.
modes of amending the Constitution. The first mode is The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of
through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is
Members. The second mode is through a constitutional whether the change will accomplish such far reaching changes
convention. The third mode is through a people‘s in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a
initiative. revision. Whether there is an alteration in the structure of
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, a change in the
second modes, applies to ―any amendment to, or revision nature of [the] basic governmental plan includes change in its
of, this Constitution.‖ In contrast, Section 2 of Article fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its
XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to Branches. A change in the nature of the basic governmental
―amendments to this Constitution.‖ This distinction was plan also includes changes that jeopardize the traditional form
intentional as shown by the deliberations of the of government and the system of check and balances.
Constitutional Commission. A people‘s initiative to change Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the
the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Lambino Group‘s initiative is a revision and not merely an
Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group‘s proposed
or a constitutional convention can propose both changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on the Legislature and
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. Article VII on the Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions
in the entire Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed changes
Does the Lambino Group‘s initiative constitute a revision alter substantially the basic plan of government, from
of the Constitution? presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
Yes. By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a unicameral legislature.
shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office A change in the structure of government is a revision
of the President and the abolition of one chamber of A change in the structure of government is a revision of the
Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of
amendment. government in the present Constitution are reduced into two.
This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift
Amendment vs. Revision from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the
principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a
separation of powers or the system of checks-and- radical change in the structure of government. The abolition
balances. There is also revision if the change alters the alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive
substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the Power alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a
change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one
On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change chamber of Congress alters the system of checks-and-balances
that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the
principle involved. Revision generally affects several Constitution.
provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between
affects only the specific provision being amended. amendment and revision is only one of procedure, not of
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific substance. The Lambino Group posits that when a deliberative
provision of the Constitution without affecting any other body drafts and proposes changes to the Constitution,
section or article, the change may generally be considered substantive changes are called revisions because members of
an amendment and not a revision. For example, a change the deliberative body work full-time on the changes. The same
reducing the voting age from 18 years to 15 years is an substantive changes, when proposed through an initiative, are
amendment and not a revision. Similarly, a change called amendments because the changes are made by ordinary
reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies people who do not make an occupation, profession, or vocation
from 100% to 60% is an amendment and not a revision. out of such endeavor. The SC, however, ruled that the express
Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution
qualification for election to the Presidency is an contradict the Lambino Group‘s theory. Where the intent of the
amendment and not a revision. framers and the language of the Constitution are clear and
The changes in these examples do not entail any plainly stated, courts do not deviate from such categorical intent
modification of sections or articles of the Constitution and language.
other than the specific provision being amended. These
changes do not also affect the structure of government or SBMA v. COMELEC 252 SCRA 492 (1996).
the system of checks-and-balances among or within the
three branches. FACTS: Sangguniang bayan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan
However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its absolute
change is an amendment or a revision. A change in a concurrence as required by RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and
single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a Development Act) to join the Subic Special Economic Zone. On
revision and not an amendment. For example, the September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the Kapasyahan to the
substitution of the word ―republican‖ with ―monarchic‖ or Office of the President. Petitioner SBMA seeks to nullify the
―theocratic‖ in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution respondent COMELEC‘s Orders denying petitioner‘s plea to
radically overhauls the entire structure of government and stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on the
the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. proposition to recall the Kapasyahan.
Thus, each specific change will have to be examined case-
by-case, depending on how it affects other provisions, as To begin with, the process started by respondents was an
well as how it affects the structure of government, the Initiative but respondent COMELEC made
carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the preparations for a Referendum. In the body of the
underlying ideological basis of the existing Constitution. COMELEC Resolution No. 2842, the word ―referendum‖ is
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic repeated at least 27 times, but initiative is not mentioned at all.
principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a The COMELEC labeled the exercise as a referendum, the
deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited counting of votes was entrusted to a referendum committee, the
to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing documents were called referendum returns, the canvassers
not only several provisions, but also the altered principles referendum board of canvassers and the ballots themselves bore
with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions the description ―referendum.
normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent
assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertake SC DISTINGUISHED INITIATIVE FROM
revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people‘s REFERENDUM:
initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable
deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake Initiative Referendum
only amendments and not revisions. Initiative is a process of law- Referendum consists merely
making by the people of the electorate approving or
Tests to determine whether amendment or revision themselves without the rejecting what has been drawn
In California where the initiative clause allows participation and against the up or enacted by a legislative
amendments but not revisions to the constitution just like wishes of their elected body.
in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: representatives,
the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The
The process and the voting in Voters simply write either
quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so
an initiative are more ―yes‖ or ―no‖ in the ballot
extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
complex.
substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 6
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
LIMITATIONS ON RECALL
The Constitution clearly includes not only
ordinances but also resolutions (which pertains to an an elective official may be subject of recall elections only once
act passed by a local legislative body) as appropriate during his term exclusively on the ground of lack of
subjects of a local initiative in accordance with Section 32 confidence.
Article VI of the Constitution. The recall cannot be undertaken within 1 year from the
date of the official‟s assumption of office or one (1)
IV. RECALL year immediately preceding a regular election (Sec. 74).
RECALL is the mode of removal of a public Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49: SK elections is not
considered a “regular local elections” for purposes of
officer by the people before the end of his
term of office which shall be exercised by the recall under Sec. 74 of RA 7160. The term ―regular local
registered voters of a local government unit elections‖ is construed as one referring to an election where the
to which the local elective official subject of office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will
be contested and be filled up by the electorate. It is confined to
such recall belongs. 5
the regular elections of elective national and local officials.
Garcia vs. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100 (1993) – ―The
people‘s prerogative to remove a public officer is an Angobung v. COMELEC 269 SCRA 245, the petition to
initiate recall proceedings must be filed by at least 25%
incident of their sovereign power and in the absence of a
constitutional restraint, the power is implied in of the total number of RV and cannot be filed by one
governmental operations.‖ person only. The law merely stated that the recall be
initiated by a “petition of at least 25% of the RV” and
did not provide that the “petition must be signed”,
MODE OF INITIATING RECALL (RA 7160)
considering that process of signing is statutorily
Limited to a petition commenced only by the required to be undertaken before the ER.
registered voters in the local unit concerned.6
Malonzo v. COMELEC and the Liga ng mga barangay March
Section 70: ―The recall of any elective provincial, city, 11, 1997, Malonzo questioned the validity of recall proceedings
municipal or barangay official shall be commenced by a initiated by the said Liga composed of Punong Barangays and
petition of a registered voter in the LGU concerned with the SK Chairmen. The SC upheld the validity of the recall
proceedings and stated that while the Liga is an entity distinct
following percentage requirement:
from the PRA, it so happens that the personalities representing
At least 25% in the case of an LGU with a voting
the barangays in the Liga are the very same members of the
population of not more than 20,000
PRA, the majority of whom met and voted in favor of the
At least 20% in the case of LGU‘s with a voting resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo.
population of at least 20,000 but not more than
75,000. Provided, that in no case shall the required Jovito Claudio v. COMELEC et. al and PRA of Pasay v.
petitioners be less than 5,000 COMELEC 331 SCRA 388 (2000),
At least 15% in the case of local government units
with a voting population of at least 75,000 but not Two issues were settled in the matter of recall:
more than 300,000: Provided however, that in no
case shall the required number of petitioners be less 1. On whether the word ―Recall‖ in par. (b) of Sec. 74 of RA
than 15,000; and 7160 includes the convening of the PRA and the filing by
At least 10% in the case of local government units it of a recall resolution and
with a voting population of over 300,000: Provided, 2. On whether the phrase ―Regular Local Elections‖ in the
however, that in no case shall the required same paragraph includes the election period for that
petitioners be less than 45,000. regular election or simply the date of the election.
(1) Initiated by a written petition for recall duly signed Facts: Claudio was the mayor of Pasay who assumed
before the Election Registrar or his representative office on July 1, 1998. Subsequently in May 29, 1999, of the
and in the presence of a representative of the 1,790 members of the PRA 1079 adopted the resolution
petitioner and a representative of the official entitled ―Resolution to initiate the recall of Claudio as
sought to be recalled, and in a public place in the Mayor for Loss of Confidence.‖
province, city, municipality or brgy. as the case
may be, shall be filed with the COMELEC through Claudio and two others, filed oppositions alleging
its office in the local government unit concerned. procedural and substantive defects among which and more
(2) The COMELEC shall cause the publication of the petition importantly anent the issue at hand, that the convening
in a public and conspicuous place for a period of not less of the PRA took place within one-year prohibited
than 10 days nor more than 20 days, for the purpose of period.
verifying the authenticity and genuineness of the petition
and the required percentage of voters. Held:
(3) Upon the lapse of the said period, the COMELEC shall
announce the acceptance of candidates to the position and First Issue – the petitioner claims that when several
prepare the list of candidates including the names of the barangay chairpersons met and convened on May 19, 1999
official sought to be recalled (as he is automatically and resolved to initiate the recall, followed by the taking of
considered a registered candidate and entitled to be voted votes on May 29, 1999, the process of recall began and that
upon (Sec. 71 RA 7160) but who is prohibited to resign since May 29, 1999 was less than 1 year after he had
while the recall proceeding is in progress (Sec. 73). assumed office, the PRA was illegally convened and all
proceedings held thereafter, including the filing of the
ELECTION ON RECALL recall petition in July 2, 1999 were null and void.
Upon the filing of the resolution or petition, the shall set The COMELEC on the other hand, maintains that the
the date of the election on recall not later than 30 days for ―process‖ of recall starts with the filing of the petition for
city, brgy. or municipal officials and 45 days for provincial recall and ends with the conduct of the recall elections and
officials. that, since the petition for recall was filed on July 2, 1999,
exactly one year and 1 day after petitioner‘s assumption of
EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL office, he recall was validly initiated outside the one year
prohibited period. Both petitioner and COMELEC agreed
only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in that the term ―recall‖ as used in Sec. 74 refers to a process.
the person of the candidate who received the highest They however disagree as to when the process starts for
number of votes cast during the election in recall. the purpose of the one year limitation in par. (b) of Sec. 74.
Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest
number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed “RECALL” as used in par. (b) of Sec. 74 refers to
and he shall continue in office (Sec. 72). the election itself by means of which voters decide
whether they should retain their local officials or
elect his replacement. Sec. 74 deals with restrictions
on the power of recall. On the other hand, Sec. 69 provides
5 Sec. 69 of RA 7160 that the power of recall shall be exercised by the registered
6 Section 70 and 71 of RA 7160 is now amended by RA 9244, otherwise voters of the local government unit to which the local
known as an Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of elective official belongs. Since the power vested on
Instituting Recall of Elective Local Government Officials. the electorate is not the power to initiate recall
proceedings (such power is vested in the PRA or in
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 7
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
at least 25% of the registered voters under It is generally associated with the amending process of the
Sec. 70), but the power to elect an official into Constitution, particularly on the ratification aspects and is required
office, the limitations in Sec. 74 cannot be under the following:
deemed to apply to the entire recall
proceedings. a) Section 4 Art. XVII with reference to amendments or
revisions to the Constitution which may be proposed by
In other words, “recall” in par. (b) of Sec. 74 congress upon ¾ of the votes of all its members or by
refers only to the RECALL ELECTION, which constitutional convention 7
excludes the preliminary proceedings to initiate
recall such as the convening of the PRA and the filing
of a petition for recall with the COMELEC, or the b) Sec. 10 Art. X relating to the creation, abolition, merging,
gathering of signatures of at least 25% of the voters division or alteration of the boundaries of any political
for a petition for recall. Considering that the recall unit.
election in Pasay was set on April 15, 2000, more
than one after the petitioner assumed office as mayor Sanidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529 the Supreme Court
of that city, the SC held that there is no bar to its declared as unconstitutional the restriction imposed by the
holding on said date. COMELEC on media relative to discussing on air and print the
features of the plebiscite issues in the creation of the
As to the Second Issue – petitioner argued that the autonomous region for the Cordilleras and held that
phrase ―regular local elections‖ in par. (b) of Sec. 74 Plebiscites are matters of public concern and
does not only mean the ―day of the regular local importance and the peoples right to be informed and
elections‖ which for the year 2001 is May 14, but the to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision
election period as well, at 45 days immediately before would be best served by access to an unabridged
the day of the election. Thus contending that discussion of the issues.
beginning March 30, 2000, no recall election may be
held. Padilla Jr. vs. COMELEC 214 SCRA 735, the COMELEC
resolved to approve the conduct of the plebiscite in the area or
Had congress intended this limitation to refer to the units affected for the proposed Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa
campaign period, which period is defined in the OEC, and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo,
it could have expressly said so. If we follow Camarines Norte. Majority of the electorates in the units
petitioner‟s interpretation, it would severely affected did not favor the creation of Tulay-na-lupa.
limit the period a recall election will be held.
Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a special Civil Action of
Manuel Afiado et. al. vs. COMELEC 340 SCRA 600, Certiorari seek to set aside the Plebiscite contending that it was
the issue is ―WoN an elective official who became Mayor a complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid
by legal succession can be the subject of a recall election and illegal because the Plebiscite as mandated by COMELEC
by virtue of a PRA Resolution passed or adopted when the Res. 2312 should have been conducted only in the political unit
said elective official was still the Vice-Mayor‖. or units affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not have
included the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo.
Facts: Miranda became the substitute candidate for his
father, for the position of Mayor. Joel emerged as the HELD: With the approval and ratification of the 1987
winner over his opponent Abaya and he was later Constitution, more particularly Art. X, Sec. 10, the creation,
proclaimed with Navarro as Vice-Mayor. division, merger, abolition or alteration of the boundaries of any
political unit shall be subject to the approval by a majority
Defeated Abaya filed with the COMELEC a Petition to of the votes case in a Plebiscite in the “POLITICAL
Declare Null and Void Substitution which later was UNITS AFFECTED” and reiterated its ruling in Tan v.
amended seeking to declare the certificate of candidacy of COMELEC 142 SCRA 727 (1986) that‖ in the conduct of a
the father, Jose Miranda, as null and void. The COMELEC Plebiscite, it is imperative that all constituents of the mother
ruled that the Certificate of candidacy was not valid, and daughter units affected shall be included. The term
hence, he cannot be validly substituted by his son Joel, as ―political units directly affected‖ was held to mean that
a mayoralty candidate in Santiago City. residents of the political entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of a portion
While the Petition of Joel was pending with the SC, the thereof have a right to vote in the said Plebiscite or the
PRA of Santiago City convened on July 12, 1999 and plurality of political units which would participate in
adopted a Resolution calling for the recall of Vice-Mayor the Plebiscite.
Navarro for loss of confidence.
Tobias et. al. v. Abalos Dec. 8, 1994 (En Banc), the
After the Supreme court denied with finality the Petition exclusion of the constituents of San Juan to participate in the
of Joel, Vice-Mayor Navarro assumed and took oath as Plebiscite for the ratification of RA 7675 relative to the
new mayor of Santiago City. conversion of Mandaluyong into a highy urbanized city
notwithstanding that it involved a change in their legislative
COMELEC denied due course the PRA Resolution as moot district was upheld for the reason that the matter of separate
for the reason that the ― assumption by legal succession of district representation is merely ancillary to the conversion of
petitioner as the new Mayor is a supervening event which Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city.
rendered the recall proceedings against her moot and
academic. City of Pasig vs. COMELEC/Municipality of Cainta
Province of Rizal, Sept. 10, 1999, the issue as to the
The SC referred to the Resolution itself which propriety of the suspension of the Plebiscite
specifically referred to the recall of Navarro as proceedings pending the decision of the boundary
Vice-Mayor for her official acts as VM. Even if the dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the
PRA were to reconvene to adopt another City of Pasig was raised.
resolution for the recall of Navarro, this time as
Mayor, the same would still not prosper in view of
the limitation as prescribed in Sec. 74 which
provides that “No recall shall take place within
one year from the date of the official‟s assumption 7 Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed
of office or one year immediately preceding a by:
regular elections. Navarro assumed office on October (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
11, 1999 and recall elections can only be initiated between (2) A constitutional convention.
October 11, 2000 to October 11, 2001 which is now barred
by the May 14, 2001 elections. Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
V. PLEBISCITE three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section
shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
PLEBISCITE is the vote of the entire people or oftener than once every 5 years thereafter.
the aggregate of the enfranchised individuals The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
composing a state or nation expressing their
choice for a proposed measure. Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution … shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or
revision. xxx
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 8
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
FACTS: The City of Pasig passed on Ordinance creating
barangays Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality of Respondent COMELEC/Cayetano contends that:
Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective • There is no such action as a plebiscite protest under the
Plebiscite due to the pending case before the RTC of Constitution;
Antipolo for the settlement of the boundary dispute and • The laws and the COMELEC rules provided only for
prayed for its suspension or cancellation until the dispute election protests;
is decided by the RTC. The COMELEC suspended the • The quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the COMELEC over
holding of the Plebiscite for the creation of Brgy. election contests extends only to cases enumerated in Section
Karangalan but rendered the creation of Napico as moot 2(2), Article XI of the Constitution (sole judge of all contests
as the same was already ratified in the Plebiscite held for involving), which does not include controversies over plebiscite
the purpose. results, and;
• Even if the petition to annul plebiscite results is akin to an
HELD: The creation of Napico cannot be election protests, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction over election
considered as moot and it is most proper that the protests involving municipal officials and the COMELEC has
P be declared null and void in view of the pending only appellate jurisdiction in said cases.
boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta which
presents a PREJUDICIAL QUESTION AND MUST HELD: The SC held that the key to the case is its nature, which
BE DECIDED FIRST BEFORE THE P FOR THE involves the determination of whether the electorate of Taguig
PROPOSED BRGYS. BE CONDUCTED. voted in favor of or against the conversion of the municipality of
Taguig. The invocation of judicial power to settle disputes
Ma. Salavacion Buac/Antonio Bautista vs. involving the conduct of a Plebiscite is misplaced. Judicial
COMELEC, Alan Peter Cayetano, GR 155855, power as defined under Section 1, Article VIII of the
January 26, 2004 Constitution as the duty of the court of justice to settle actual
controversies involving the rights which are legally demandable
FACTS: A petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been
by petitioners Buac and Bautista assailing the October 28, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
2002 en banc resolution of the COMELEC which held that jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
it has no jurisdiction over controversies involving the government.
conduct of plebiscite and annulment of its results. The instant case assailing the regularity of the conduct of
The facts show that in April 1988, a plebiscite was the Taguig Plebiscite does not fit the kind of case calling for the
held in Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood exercise of judicial power. There is no plaintiff or defendant in
Law (RA No. 8487) proposing the conversion of Taguig the case for it merely involves the ascertainment of the vote of
from a municipality into a city. Without completing the the electorate on whether they approve or disapprove the
canvass of 64 other election returns, the PBC declared that conversion of their municipality into a highly urbanized city.
the ―NO‖ votes won and that the people rejected the In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the SC said that
conversion of Taguig to a city. The PBOC was however the said provision is explicit that COMELEC has power to
ordered by the COMELEC en banc to reconvene and ―enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
complete the canvass which the board did and in due time conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
issued an Order proclaiming that the negative votes recall‖. To enforce means to cause to take effect or to cause the
prevailed in the plebiscite conducted. performance of such act or acts necessary to bring into actual
Petitioners filed with the COMELEC a petition to effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails all the
annul the results of the plebiscite with a prayer for necessary to bring into actual effect or operation, a plan or
revision and recount of the ballots cast therein. Cayetano measure which entails all the necessary and incidental power
intervened and moved to dismiss the petition on the for it to achieve the holding of HOPE-FRECRE. The Sc was
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC. He surprised that for the first time, COMELEC yielded its historic
claimed that a plebiscite cannot be subject of an election jurisdiction over a motion for reconsideration which was even
protests. He averred that the jurisdiction to hear a filed out of time, thus rendering it without jurisdiction to
complaint involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged entertain the same.
with the RTC.
The COMELEC 2nd division initially gave due course
to the petition and ruled that it has jurisdiction over the
case. It treated the petition as akin to an election protest
COMELEC
considering that the same allegations of fraud and
irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots and
preparation of returns are the same grounds for assailing NATURE AND POWERS
the results of an election. It then ordered the Taguig ballot
boxes to be brought to its Manila Office and created 1. COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
revision committees to revise and recount the plebiscite CHAIRMAN & THE SIX (6) COMMISSIONERS
ballots.
In an unverified motion, Intervenor Cayetano moved Composed of a Chairman and six commissioners who shall be:
for reconsideration of the COMELEC Order insisting that o Natural born citizen of the Philippines and
it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition o At the time of their appointment, at least 35 years of
contesting the results of a plebiscite. age,
In a complete turnaround, the COMELEC 2nd o Holders of a college degree and
division issued an Order on November 29, 2001 granting o Must not have been candidates for any elective
the Motion for Reconsideration. It dismissed the petition position in the immediately preceding elections.
to annul the results of the plebiscite and ruled that o However, majority thereof, including the chairman, shall
COMELEC has no jurisdiction over said case as it involves be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
an exercise of quasi-judicial powers not contemplated engaged in the practice of law at least 10 years.8
under Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
On appeal, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the 2. MANNER OF APPOINTMENT/LIMITATIONS/REMOVAL
ruling of its 2nd division. It held that the COMELEC
cannot use its power to enforce and administer all laws The Chairman and the commissioners shall be
relative to plebiscites as this power is purely appointed by the President with the consent of the
administrative or executive and not quasi-judicial in commission on appointments for a term of 7 years
nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition without reappointment.
to annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
RTC under Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that term of the predecessor.
the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a
not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body temporary or acting capacity. 9
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Hence, the Commissioners are removable by impeachment.10
petition before the SC.
Can the President appoint or designate a temporary
Petitioner reiterates: chairman of the COMELEC?
• Jurisdiction to decide plebiscite protest cases is
constitutionally vested with the COMELEC Brillantes v. Yorac 192 SCRA 358, The President cannot
• COMELEC Order is discriminatory as during the validly designate Yorac as acting chairman on the legal premise
pendency of the Taguig case, the COMELEC assumed
jurisdiction over a similar case concerning the revision
and recount of the plebiscite ballots involving the 8 Section 1 (1) of Article IX –C
conversion of Malolos into a City. COMELEC resolved the 9 Sec. 1(2) of Article IX-C -
said case and already declared Malolos a city. 10 Section 8, Article XI of the Constitution,
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 9
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
that Art. IX-C Sec. 1(2) prohibits the appointment of infrastructure projects during the election period
members in a temporary or acting capacity. Art. IX-A which was alleged to constitute a violation of Sec. 261
Sec. 1(2) provides for the independence of the of the OEC. (Zaldivar v. Estenzo 23 SCRA 540; Gallardo
COMELEC and therefore, the choice of a v. Tabamo 32 SCRA 690).
temporary chairman falls under the discretion
and prerogative of the commission and cannot be A judge who restrained the suspension of the
exercised for it by the President. canvassing of election returns is guilty of ignorance of
the law and is administratively liable therefore.
1997 Bar Question: A month before the forth coming (Libardo v. Cesar 234 SCRA 13).
election, ―A‖ one of the incumbent Commissioners of the
COMELEC, died while in office and ―B‖, another The other executive/administrative pertains to all
Commissioner, suffered a sever stroke. In view of the questions affecting elections such as:
proximity of the elections and to avoid paralyzation in the
COMELEC, the President, who was not running for any 1) The determination of the number and location of polling
office, appointed Commissioner C of the COA, who places.
was not a lawyer but a CPA by profession, ad 2) Deputization/appointment of election officials and
interim Commissioner to succeed Commissioner A and inspectors
designated, by way of temporary measure, Associate 3) Supervise registration of voters
justice D of the Court of Appeals as Acting Associate 4) Award of bid contracts
Commissioner during the absence of Commissioner B. 5) Regulate the use of firearms
Question: Did the President do the right thing in 6) Call special elections
extending such ad interim appointment in favor of 7) Investigation and prosecution of election offenses
Commissioner C and designating Justice D acting 8) Declare a postponement, suspension, annulment or failure
Commissioner of the COMELEC? of elections
9) Regulate the use of franchise or permits to operate media
Suggested Answer: No. The President was wrong in of communications and information.
extending an ad interim appointment in favor of 10) Require compliance with the rules for the filing of
Commissioner C. In Summers vs. Ozaeta 81 Phil. certificates of candidacy.
754, it was held that an ad interim appointment is a 11) Proclamation of winners
permanent appointment. Under Section 15, Article 12) Registration of Political Parties and Accredit Citizens Arms
VII of the Constitution, within two months immediately
before the next presidential elections and up to the end of QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWERS
his term, the President cannot make permanent
appointments.
Pertains to:
1) Prescribing rules to govern procedure (COMELEC Rules of
The designation of Justice D as acting Associate Procedure) and
Commissioner is also invalid. Section 1(2), Article IX-C of 2) promulgation of rules and regulations relative to the
the Constitution prohibits the designation of any
conduct of elections to insure an honest, orderly, peaceful,
Commissioner of the COMELEC in a temporary or acting
free and credible elections, such as; issuance of rules to
capacity. Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution supervise and regulate media and advertisement, rules to
prohibits the designation of any member of the Judiciary implement prohibition against expenditures or those in
to any agency performing QJ or administrative functions.
excess of the limits authorized by law.
1998 BQ: Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is Brilliantes, Concepcion, Jr., De Venecia, Angara,
charged before the SB for allegedly tolerating violation of Galvez-Lim. Drilon, San Juan, Gonzales, Isleta and
the election laws against proliferation of prohibited
Bernas vs. COMELEC, GR 163193 June 15, 2004
billboards and election propaganda with the end in view of
FACTS: In this case, at issue was an En Banc Resolution No.
removing him from office. Will the action prosper? 67.12, dated April 28, 2004 of COMELEC providing en Banc
Resolution No. 6712, dated April 28, 2004 of COMELEC to
Suggested Answer: No. Under Section 8, Article XI of the
acquire automated counting machines and other equipment,
Constitution, the Commissioners are removable by
devices, and materials. COMELEC issued a resolution providing
impeachment. As held in the case of In re Gonzales, 160 for the 3 phases in the implementation:
SCRA 771, a public officer who is removable by PHASE I – computerized system of registration and voters
impeachment cannot be charged before the SB
validation or the so-called ―biometrics‖ system of registration;
with an offense which carries with it the penalty
PHASE II – Computerized voting and counting of votes;
of removal from office unless he is first PHASE III – Electronic Transmission of Results
impeached. Otherwise, he will be removed from In connection with PHASE II, COMELEC issued
office by a method other than impeachment.
Resolution No. 6074 awarding the AES contract to Mega Pacific
Consortium which was nullified by the SC on January 13, 2004
MEANING OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW which also voided the contract entered with Mega for the
purchase of computerized counting machines for the purpose of
Cayetano v. Monsod 210 SCRA 210, the Supreme Court implementing the 2nd phase of the modernization program.
held that engaging in law practice is not only confined to Consequently, COMELEC had to maintain the old manual
courtroom practice. It includes any activity, in or out voting and counting system for the May 10, 2004 elections.
of court, which requires the application of law, Similarly, the validation scheme under Phase I likewise
legal procedure, knowledge, training and encountered problems and had earlier made pronouncements
experience. In upholding the confirmation of that it was reverting to the old listing of voters. But despite the
Monsod, the SC held that the more than 10 years scrapping of Phase II, COMELEC ventured to implement Phase
of work experience of Monsod as a lawyer III of the AES through an electronic transmission of advanced
economist and other position requiring ―unofficial‖ results of the 2004 elections for national, provincial,
application of his legal knowledge constituted as and municipal position also dubbed as an ―unofficial quick
engaging in the practice of law as would qualify count.‖
him with such work experience to be Chairman of NAMFREL and political parties moved for reconsideration
the COMELEC. COMELEC Resolution No. 6712, alleging that:
• It disregards RA 8173, 8436, and 7166 authorizing only the
NATURE OF THE POWERS OF COMELEC citizen‘s arm to use an election return for an unofficial
count; other unofficial counts may not be based on an
The powers and functions possessed by the COMELEC election return;
ARE EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE which • The Commission‘s copy, the 2nd and 3rd copy of the
election returns, as the case may be, has always been
pertains to the power ― to enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, intended to be archived and its integrity preserved until
plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall‖. The power required by the COMELEC to resolve election disputes.
to enforce and enforce all laws, rules and Only the BEI is authorized to have been in contact with the
return before the Commission unseals it.
regulations governing elections is exclusive to the
COMELEC with the set purpose of insuring an honest, • The instruction contained in Resolution No. 6712 to break
orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections. the seal of the envelope containing copies 2 and 3 will
introduce a break in the chain of custody prior to its
opening by the COMELEC. In the process of prematurely
The RTC cannot assume jurisdiction over a case involving
the enforcement of the election code which pertained to breaking the seal of the BEI, the integrity of the
taking cognizance of a Special Civil Action filed before it Commissions copy is breached thereby rendering it void of
to restrain Mayor from pursuing certain any probative value.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 10
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
COMELEC asserts that Section 52(i) OEC grants In the exercise of its QJ functions, the COMELEC is
statutory basis for it to issue and resolution which cover empowered to cite a party for contempt of court
the use of the latest technological and electronic devices conformably with the rules of court and impose the appropriate
for ―unofficial‖ tabulation of votes. penalties as therein prescribed.
In assailing the validity of the resolution, petitioners
alleged that the Resolution is void: A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of
• For preempting the sole and exclusive authority of a Division shall be filed within ) days from the promulgation
Congress under VII, Section 4 to canvass votes for thereof.11 Such motion, if not pro-forma suspends the execution
the election of President and Vice-President; for implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling
• For disregarding RA 8173, 8436, and 7166 which and would in effect, suspend the running of the period to elevate
authorize only the citizen arm to use an election the matter to the SC (Sec. 4).
return for an ―unofficial‖ count;
• For violation of Section 52(i) of the OEC requiring Coquilla v. COMELEC G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002,
not less than 30 day notice of the use of new the SC resolved the issue on whether the 30-day period for
technological and electronic devices. appealing the resolution of the COMELEC was suspended by
the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner.
HELD: Private respondent in this case contends that the petition
1ST ISSUE: That the assailed resolution is void as it should be dismissed because it was filed late considering that
usurps the sole and exclusive authority of Congress to the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner‘s motion for
canvass the votes for the election of President and Vice- reconsideration for being pro-forma and conformably with Sec.
President in the guise of an ―unofficial‖ tabulation of 4 of Rule 19, the said motion did not suspend the running of the
election results based on a copy of the election returns. 30-day period for the filing of the petition for certiorari under
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution provides in part Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
that the returns of every election for President and Vice-
President duly certified by the BOC of each province or The COMELEC en Banc ruled that the motion for
city shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the reconsideration was pro-forma on the ground that the motion
President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificate of was a mere rehash of petitioners averments contained in his
canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than verified answer and memorandum, neither were there new
30 days after the day of the election, open all the matters raised that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of assailed resolution of the Second Division. However, the mere
Representative in joint public session, and the Congress, reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the
upon determination of the authenticity and due execution issued raised by the parties and passed upon by the
thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. court does not make a motion pro-forma; otherwise, the
2nd ISSUE: The resolution disregards existing laws movant‘s remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision
which authorizes solely the duly accredited citizens arm to but a new trial or some other remedy.
conduct the unofficial counting of votes. Under Section 27
of RA 7166, as amended by RA 8173 and reiterated in
Section 18 of RA 8436, the accredited citizens arm, in this In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for
case, NAMFREL – is exclusively authorized to use a copy reconsideration, the SC referred to its decision in Guerra
of the election returns in the conduct of an ―unofficial‖ Enterprises Company Inc. v. CFI of Lanao del Sur 32
counting of the votes, whether for the national or the local SCRA 314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought to be
elections. No other entity, including COMELEC itself, is achieved in the filing of a motion for reconsideration is
authorized to use a copy of the ER for purposes of ―precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and
conducting an ―unofficial‖ count. improper, contrary to the law or the evidence, and in doing so,
3RD ISSUE: Since Resolution No. 6712 was made the movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed
effective immediately a day after its issuance on April 28, upon by the court. It a motion for reconsideration may not
2004, the COMELEC could not have possibly complied discuss these issues, the consequence would be that after a
with the 30-day notice requirement provided under decision is rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing
Section 52(i) of the OEC. This indubitably violates the only motions for reopening and new trial.
constitutional right to due process of the political parties
and candidates. The SC further enumerated cases where a motion for
The AES provided in RA 8436 constitutes the entire reconsideration was held to be pro-forma: (1) it was a second
process of voting, counting of votes and motion for reconsideration; (2) it did not comply with the rule
canvassing/consolidation of results of the national and that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions
local elections corresponding to the Phase 1, 2, and 3 of alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the evidence;
the AES. The 3 phases cannot be affected independently of (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged error; (4) it merely
each other. Phase II was a condition sine qua non to the alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law or (5)
implementation of Phase 3 and the nullification by the SC the adverse party was not given due notice thereof.
of the contract for Phase II of the system effectively put on
hold at least for the May 10, 2004 elections, the Angelia v. COMELEC 332 SCRA 757 - As provided under
implementation of Phase 3 of the AES. Rule 13, (1) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AN EN BANC RESOLUTION IS
ADJUDICATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS A PROHIBITED PLEADING, EXCEPT IN ELECTION
OFFENSE CASES (SEC. 261 OF THE OEC).
Embraces the power to resolve controversies that The proper recourse of a party who is aggrieved by a Decision of
the COMELEC En Banc on a Motion for Reconsideration of a
may arise in the enforcement of election laws and
decision of a division in an ordinary action (election protest,
resolution of cases involving regional, provincial
and city officials or to election disputes in general. QW, appeal from decisions of the court in election protest
cases), is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure within 30 days from
Sec. 3, Article IX-C, that the COMELEC in the exercise
receipt of the aggrieved party of the said decision,
of its QJ functions “may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate rules and order or ruling.
procedures” in order to expedite the disposition
Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC 336 SCRA 701 - An en banc
of elections cases, including pre-proclamation
decision in a special action (petition to deny due course or to
controversies and summon parties to a
controversy pending before it.” cancel a certificate of candidacy, proceedings against a nuisance
candidate, disqualification of candidates and postponement or
suspension for elections, pre-proclamation controversies)
The authority to hear and decide election cases,
becomes final and executory five (5) days from
including pre-proclamations controversies IS vested
with a division and the COMELEC sitting en banc promulgation.
however does not have the authority over it in the
Reyes v. RTC Mindoro 244 SCRA 41, the SC ruled that in
first instance.
providing that the decisions, order and ruling of COMELEC
The COMELEC en banc can exercise jurisdiction which may be brought to the SC on certiorari under Art. IX-A#7
only on Motions for Reconsideration of the refers to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
resolution or decision of the COMELEC in division
Garces v. Court of Appeals 259 SCRA 99 (1996) and
as a requirement for the filing of a petition for
certiorari by the aggrieved party with the SC Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer 135 SCRA 25
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. (1985), the SC interpreted that ―term ‖final orders, rulings and
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 13
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
probable cause by the COMELEC absent a clear showing of
grave abuse of discretion.
JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE COMELEC
Pp. v. Inting July 25, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the
By way of exception, Sec. 2(2) of Art. IX-C of the COMELEC is given exclusive authority to investigate and
Constitution grants to the COMELEC: conduct preliminary investigations relative to commission of
election offenses and prosecute the same. A preliminary
1. ―EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over all investigation conducted by the Provincial Election Supervisor
contests relating to the elections, returns and involving an election offense does not have to be coursed
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and through the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC may take
cognizance of the investigation and determine WoN probable
city officials, and
2. APPELLATE JURISDICTION over all contests cause exist to issue a warrant of arrest. If the Provincial
involving elective municipal officials decided by trail Prosecutor performs any role at all as regards the prosecution of
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective an election case, it is by delegation or that he was deputized by
the COMELEC.
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction. As anchored on this constitutional provision
and Sec. 9 RA 6679, a petition for review involving Faelnar v. People 331 SCRA 429, in cases where the State
elections contests among municipal or barangay elective Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor exercises the power
to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense cases
officials should be filed with the COMELEC and not with
the Court of Appeals, which has no jurisdiction to and after the investigation submits its recommendation to the
entertain it. COMELEC, the issue of probable cause is already resolved. The
proper remedy to question the said resolution is to file
an appeal with the COMELEC and the ruling of the
Guieb vs. Fontanilla 247 SCRA 348 (1995) and Calucag
v. COMELEC 274 SCRA 405 the SC ruled that Section 9 of COMELEC on the appeal would be immediately final
RA 6679 which vests upon the RTC appellate jurisdiction and executory. However, if the conduct of the preliminary
over election cases decided by municipal or metropolitan investigation of the complaint for an election offence is
conducted by the COMELEC, the investigation officer prepared
trial courts is unconstitutional, and decisions of the latter
which are appealed to the RTC, which have no appellate its recommendation to the Law Department of the COMELEC
jurisdiction, are erroneously appealed and thus become which department in turn makes its recommendation to the
final.‖ COMELEC en banc on whether there is probable cause to
prosecute. It is the COMELEC en banc that determines
the existence of probable cause. The proper remedy of
POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF CERTIORARI, the aggrieved party is to file a Motion for
Reconsideration of such resolution. This effectively
PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
allows for a review of the original resolution, in the same
manner that the COMELEC on appeal, or motu propio, may
Relampagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690 (1995), it was review the resolution of the State prosecutor, or Provincial or
held that the COMELEC is vested with the power to issue city fiscal. (Take note that since this is an election offense a
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is
aid of its appellate jurisdiction consistent with allowed.)
Section 50 of BP 697 and Article 2(1) of the Constitution.
Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and
Carlos v. Angeles Supra, the SC declared that both the COMELEC 323 SCRA 778, the SC in upholding the power of
SC and COMELEC has concurrent jurisdiction to issue COMELEC to prosecute cases of violations of election laws
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over further explained that there are 2 ways through which a
decision of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in complaint for election offenses may be initiated.
election cases involving elective municipal
officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall (1) it may be filed by the COMELEC motu propio or
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. (Art. VIII 5(1) (2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the
1987 Constitution, Rule 65,Sec. 1) Philippines, candidate, registered political party,
coalition of political parties or organizations under the
Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the party-list system or any accredited citizen arms of the
COMELEC the power and function to investigate and commission. Motu propio complaints may be signed by
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of the Chairman of the COMELEC and need not be
election laws, including acts or omissions constituting verified. But those complaints filed by parties other
election frauds, offenses and malpractices. than the COMELEC must be verified and supported by
affidavits and other evidence.
POWER OF INVESTIGATION
The complaint shall be filed with the COMELEC Law
COMELEC v. Noynay, July 9, 1998, the COMELEC Department or with the offices of the ER, PES or RED, or the
resolved to file an Information for violation of Section State Prosecutors, provincial or city prosecutors. Whether
261(i) of the OEC against certain public school officials for initiated motu propio or filed with the COMELEC by any party,
having engaged in partisan political activities which was the complaint shall be referred to the COMELEC Law
filed by its Regional Director with the RTC presided by Department for investigation. Upon the direction of the
Judge Noynay. The judge ordered the records of the cases Chairman, the PI may be delegated to any lawyer of the
to be withdrawn and directed the COMELEC to file the Department, any RED or PES, or any COMELEC lawyer.
cases with the MTC on the ground that pursuant to
Section 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, the RTC has COMELEC v. Silva Feb. 10, 1998, the SC settled the issue as
no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum to whether the Chief State Prosecutor, who was designated by
imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed 6 the COMELEC to prosecute election cases, has the authority to
years imprisonment. The SC ruled that RA 7691 did not decide WoN to appeal from the orders of dismissal of the RTC.
divest the RTC of jurisdiction over election The authority belongs to the COMELEC and not the
offenses which are punishable with imprisonment prosecutor as the latter derive its authority from the
of not exceeding 6 years. The opening sentence of COMELEC and not from their offices. Propriety dictates,
Section 32, provides that the exclusive original jurisdiction that if the prosecutor believes, after the conduct of the PI, that
of Metropolitan Trial Courts, MTC and MCTC does not no probably cause warrants the prosecution of the accused who
cover those criminal cases which by specific provisions of have allegedly violated Sec. 27 of RA 6646 (tampering of
law fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of certificate of canvass), the matter would have been discussed
the SB, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefore. with the COMELEC and if the latter disagrees, seek permission
to withdraw from the case.
COMELEC v. Espanol 417 SCRA 554, it was ruled that
the COMELEC, thru its duly authorized legal officers Dino vs. Olivares 607 SCRA 251 (Dec, 4, 2009). The SC held
under Section 265 of the OEC, has the exclusive power to that being mere deputies or agents of the COMELEC (with
conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses continuing authority), provincial or city prosecutors deputized
punishable under the OEC and to prosecute the same. The by it are expected to act in accord with and NOT contrary to or
acts of these deputies within the lawful scope of their in derogation of its resolutions, directives or orders in relation
delegated authority are the acts of the COMELEC. to election cases that such prosecutors are deputized to
investigate and prosecute. They must proceed within the lawful
Garcia v. Commission on Elections 611 SCRA 55 – scope of their delegated authority.
Generally, the Court will not interfere with the finding of Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by
the COMELEC, either expressly or impliedly, when in its
judgment such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 14
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
the integrity of the process to promote the common good, administrative complaint with the COMELEC for lack of
or where it believes that successful prosecution of the case jurisdiction on the premise that he is under the executive
can be done by the COMELEC. department (DOJ) which was denied by COMELEC. It was
When the COMELEC en banc directed the City held that the administrative case against Tan is in
Prosecutor of Paranaque to transmit the entire records of relation to the performance of his duties as member of
the election offense case, it had the effect of the CBOC and not as prosecutor and hence, cannot
SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of the City Prosecutor. claim immunity from the power of the COMELEC.
Hence, the filing of the amended information and the However, under Section 2(8), the power of the COMELEC in
amended information themselves, is declared void and of this instance is limited to merely issuing a
no effect. recommendation to the property authority, the
Secretary of the DOJ, in this case, who shall take
Kilosbayan vs. COMELEC 280 SCRA 892, Kilosbayan appropriate action, either to suspend or remove from
filed a letter-complaint with the COMELEC against office the officer or employee, who may after due
incumbent officials running for public elective office for process, be found guilty of violation of election laws or
violation of Sec. 261 of the OEC alleging illegal failure to comply with instructions, order, decisions or
disbursement of public funds and submitting as evidence rulings of the COMELEC.
to support the complaint, published writings in
newspapers without any additional evidence to support POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT, FAILURE OR
the newspaper articles arguing that it was the COMELEC‘s ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS AND CALL FOR SPECIAL
constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses upon ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 5,6, & 7
any information of alleged commission of election OF THE OEC IN RELATION TO SEC. 4 OF RA 7166.
offenses. The COMELEC dismissed the complaint there
being no probable cause found. The SC held that it is
The grounds for declaring a postponement of elections is
not the duty of COMELEC to search for evidence provided under Sec. 5 of the OEC, namely; “when for any
to prove an election complaint filed before it. The serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or
task of COMELEC as investigator and prosecutor destruction of election paraphernalia or records, FM
is not the physical searching and gathering of
and other analogous circumstances of such a nature
proof in support of the alleged commission of an that the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become
election offense. The complainant still has the impossible in any political subdivision, the
burden to prove his complaint. Commission en banc may “motu propio or upon a
verified petition by any interested party, and after due
Bernardo vs. Abalos, G.R. No. 137266, December notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are
5, 2001 – In an election offense case, a motion for afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone
reconsideration of the decision of the COMELEC en banc
the election to a date which is reasonably close to the
should be filed first before filing a certiorari petition with
date of the election not held, suspended or which
the Supreme Court. resulted to a failure to elect but not later than 30 days
after the cessation of the cause for such postponement
In this case a criminal complaint was filed against Abalos
or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Sr., et. al. for violation of Section 261 of the OEC. The
COMELEC Law Department conducted the PI which Section 5 of the OEC provides for the grounds for declaring a
submitted its findings to the COMELEC en banc postponement of elections that is when for:
recommending that the complaint be dismissed for
1. Any serious cause such as violence.
insufficiency of evidence. The COMELEC en banc
2. Terrorism;
resolution was assailed before the SC. The SC ruled that 3. Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
petitioners did not exhaust all the remedies available to records;
them at the COMELEC level but not seeking a
4. Force majeure; and
reconsideration of the en banc resolution as required
5. Other analogous circumstances of such a nature that
under Section 1 Rule 13 of the COMELEC rules of the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become
procedure. impossible in any political subdivision.
The COMELEC under Sec. 2(4) of Article IX-C
Under these circumstances, the Commission en banc may
exercises direct and immediate supervision and ―motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any interested
control, during the election period, over national party, and after due notice and hearing, whereby all interested
and local officials or employees including
parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
members of any national or local law enforcement
postpone the election to a date which is reasonably close to the
agency or instrumentality of the government date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted to a
required by law to perform duties relative to the failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the cessation of
conduct of elections and appoint deputies for the
the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or
purpose of ensuring an HOPE-FRECRE. The
failure to elect.
power of the COMELEC over deputized offices
under Sec 2(6) covers both criminal and Section 6, on the other hand, prescribes the conditions for the
administrative cases.
exercise of the power to declare a Failure of Elections.
POWER TO SUPERVISE ELECTION OFFICERS AND Canicosa vs. COMELEC 282 SCRA 512 (1997) – The
DEPUTIES DURING ELECTION PERIOD power of COMELEC to declare a failure of elections involves
only the exercise of administrative function. Therefore,
Pursuant to Section 2(4) of the Article IX-C, COMELEC, COMELEC is not mandated to hear and decide cases first by
during the election period, exercises direct and immediate Division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the
supervision and control over national and local officials or COMELEC en banc which is only applicable in its exercise of its
employees including members of any national or local law adjudicatory or quasi judicial functions.
enforcement agency or instrumentality of the government
required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct Canicosa v. COMELEC, Sison v. COMELEC 304 SCRA 170
of elections and appoint deputies for the purpose of and Carlos v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571, the Supreme Court,
ensuring an HOPE-FRECRE. The power of the COMELEC conformably with Sec. 6 of the OEC stressed that there are only
over deputized offices under Section 2(8) covers both THREE (3) INSTANCES WHERE A FAILURE OF
criminal and administrative cases. ELECTIONS MAY BE DECLARED THAT IS, IF, ON
ACCOUNT OF FM, VIOLENCE TERRORISM, FRAUD,
Tan v. COMELEC 237 SCRA 353, Tan was the OTHER ANALOGOUS CAUSES THE –
incumbent City prosecutor of Davao City who was
designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the 1) Election in any polling place has not been held on
CBOC for the 1992 Synchronized National and Local the date fixed by law
Elections were Garcia and Alterado were contenders for 3) Or had been suspended before the hour fixed by
member of the HR for the Second Legislative District. law for the closing of the voting
Garcia was proclaimed winner and Alterado filed an 4) Or after the voting and during the preparation and
election protest with the HRET, criminal case for transmission of the election returns or the custody
falsification against the CBOC with the Ombudsman and or canvass thereof, such election results in a
with the COMELEC an Administrative case for failure to elect.
―Misconduct, Neglect of duty, Gross Incompetence and
Acts Inimical to the Service which was the only case TWO CONDITIONS MUST FURTHER CONCUR TO
pending after the HRET and Ombudsman dismissed the DECLARE A FAILURE OF ELECTIONS:
cases filed with it. Tan moved to dismiss the
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 15
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
(1) No voting has taken place in the that the matter relating to the declaration of failure of elections
precincts concerned on the date or allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise of
fixed by law or, even if there was quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. It involves an
voting, the election nevertheless administrative function which pertains to the enforcement and
resulted in a failure to elect and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the
(2) The votes not cast would affect the conduct of elections.
results of the elections.
Biliwang v. COMELEC, June 29, 1992 SC ruled that
Carlos v. Angeles – By revision of the ballots (as an COMELEC can annul an election by mandate of the extensive
incident in an election protest case), the trial court found powers granted to it under the 1987 Constitution to ―enforce
in a final tally that the ―valid‖ votes obtained by the and administer all laws relative to the conduct of an elections.‖
candidates were as follows: Carlos – 83,609 Serapio –
66,602 or a winning margin of 17,007 votes in favor of Pena v. HRET, 270 SCRA 270, the SC, however, stressed that
Carlos and winner in the May 11, 1998 elections. such power should be exercised with greatest care as it involves
the free and fair expression of the popular will. For this
However, the trial court set aside the final tally of votes purpose, the petitioner must be able to show proof that:
because of what it perceived to be “significant badges (1) the illegality has affected more than 50% of the votes
of fraud” attributable to the protestee which are as cast; and
follows: 1) failure of the keys turned over by the City (2) that the good votes cannot be distinguished from the
Treasurer to the trial court to fit the padlocks on the ballot bad votes.
boxes that compelled the court to forcibly open the
padlocks. The trial court concluded that the real keys Pasandalan v. COMELEC, et. al. G.R. No. 150312 July 18,
were lost or the padlocks substituted pointing to possible 2002, the SC held that a petition for declaration of failure
tampering of the contents of the ballot boxes (mere of elections is an „”extraordinary remedy” and
inability of the keys to fit into the padlocks does not affect therefore a “petition for declaration of failure of
the integrity of the ballot). 2) Seven (7) ballot boxes were elections must specifically allege the essential grounds
found empty, thus, the trial court concluded that there that would justify the same. Otherwise, the COMELEC can
were ―missing ballots‖ and ―missing election returns‖. dismiss outright the petition for lack of merit and no grave
abuse of discretion can be attributed to it in such case because
Coquilla V. COMELEC, supra, the SC stressed that the COMELEC must exercise with utmost circumspect the
―what is common in these three instances is the resulting power to declare a failure of election to prevent disenfranching
failure to elect. In the first instance, no election was held, voters and frustrating the electorate‘s will.‖
while in the second, the election is suspended. In the third
instance, circumstances attending the preparation, Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration of failure of election
transmission, custody or canvass of the election returns on the ground that while voting was going on, Cafgu‘s
caused a failure to elect. And, the term failure to elect indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters to panic
means nobody emerged as a winner.‖ and leave the polling places without casting their votes. In
taking advantage of the situation, the supporters of his
The COMELEC, based on the verified petition by an opponent took the official ballots and filled them up with his
interested party and after due notice and hearing, may call opponent‘s name and further, that the BEI‘s failed to affix their
for the holding or continuation of the election not held, initials at the back of several official ballots. Pasandalan, on the
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date basis of the affidavits of his own poll watchers, insists that a
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, technical examination of the official ballots in the contested
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not precincts be made which would show that only a few persons
later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such wrote the entries, citing the case of Typoco v. COMELEC 319
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to SCRA 498 and Basher v. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736. The
elect. COMELEC dismissed the petition.
HELD: The fact that a candidate proclaimed has CALLING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS/REGISTRATION OF
assumed office does not deprive the COMELEC of VOTERS DISCRETIONARY
its authority to annul any canvass and illegal
proclamation. In this case, it cannot be assumed that Bulaong v. COMELEC 220 SCRA 745, it was ruled that the
the proclamation of petitioners was legal precisely because
calling of a special election is discretionary on the part of the
the conduct by which the elections were held was put in
COMELEC and being discretionary, the COMELEC cannot be
issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of compelled by mandamus to call for a special elections
elections results and/or declaration of failure of elections. considering that mandamus is a remedy available only to
The cases relied upon by the petitioners that an
compel to the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a
election protest is the proper remedy for a losing
duty and not in the exercise of discretion.
candidate after proclamation of the winning
candidate involved pre-proclamation Lucero vs. COMELEC 235 SCRA 280, the Court held that in
controversies.
fixing the date of the special elections in case of
postponement or failure of elections, the COMELEC
The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v. should ascertain that
COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1, that ―a pre-proclamation (1) it should not be later than 30 days after the cessation of the
controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of
cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or
election results, or failure of elections‖. In pre-
the failure to elect and
proclamation cases, the COMELEC is restricted to an (2) it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not
examination of the election returns on their face and is held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect.
without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and
In this case, the SC upheld the validity of holding the special
investigate election irregularities. The COMELEC is duty-
elections more than one year from the date of the elections
bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, stating that the same is still considered reasonably closed to the
violence and other analogous causes in actions for date of the elections not held notwithstanding the fact that the
annulment of election results or for declaration of failure
term of the elective official concerned is only 3 years and that
of elections conformably with the OEC.
the delay was not attributable to the fault of the voters of the
precinct concerned.
Accordingly, the COMELEC, in the case of actions
for annulment of election results or declaration of
Polala Sambarani. Et al., v. COMELEC, GR 160427,
failure of elections, may conduct a technical
September 15, 2004, this transpired during the synchronized
examination of election documents and compare barangay and SK elections in 2002 and the holding of a special
and analyze voters signatures and thumbprints in elections that failed in 5 barangays. The COMELEC refused to
order to determine WoN the elections had indeed
hold another special elections explaining that it is no longer in a
been free, honest and clean.
position to call for another special elections considering that
Section 6 of the OEC provides that ―special elections shall be
Typoco Jr. vs. COMELEC, the SC held that the COMELEC held on a date reasonably close to the date of elections not held
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismiss the
but not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of
petition for declaration of elections as the allegations
such postponement. The COMELEC noted that more than 30
therein did not justify a declaration of failure of elections days had elapsed since the failed election.
unlike in this present case, where respondents COMELEC contend that to hold another special elections
exhaustively alleged massive fraud and terrorism, if
in these barangays will not only be tedious and cumbersome,
proven, could warrant a declaration of failure of elections.
but a waste of its previous resources. The COMELEC left to the
DILG the process of appointing the barangay captain and
Biliwang v. COMELEC June 29, 1992 - There is no barangay kagawads as well as the SK chairman and kagawads in
provision which grants to the COMELEC the power to
these barangays in accordance with the LGC.
annul an election. But the SC in this case that COMELEC
can annul an election by mandate of the extensive powers ISSUE: whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse
granted to it under the 1987 Constitution to ―enforce and of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
administer all laws relative to the conduct of an election.
denying/refusing to call another election
Peña v. HRET 270 SCRA 270 the SC however stressed, HELD: While the SC stressed that the Constitution gives the
that should power should be exercised with greatest care COMELEC broad powers to enforces and administer all laws
as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular
rules and regulations relative to the conduct of I, O, R, E and R,
will. For this purpose, the petitioner must be able to show
COMELEC anchored its refusal to call another special election
proof that (1) the illegality has affected more than 50% of on the last portion of Section (on a date reasonably close to the
the votes case and (2) that the good votes cannot be date of the elections not held, suspended, or which resulted in
distinguished from the bad votes.
the failure to elect. The prohibition on conducting special
elections after 30 days from the cessation of the cause of the
Hassan v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 125, the SC provided failure of elections is NOT absolute. It is directory, not
for concurrence of two pre-conditions for declaring a mandatory, and the Comelc possess residual power to conduct
failure of elections and to justify the calling of a special
special elections even beyond the deadline prescribed by law.
elections - (1) that no voting has been held in any precinct
or precincts because of FM, violence or terrorism and (2)
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 17
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The deadline in Section 6 cannot defeat the right of
suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. Article IX-C, Section 5 provides that the President cannot,
The COMELEC erroneously perceived that the deadline in without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC grant
Section 6 is absolute. pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence in cases
The SC referred to Section 45 of the OEC which involving violation of election laws and violation of election
specifically deals with the election of barangay officials. rules and regulations.
Unlike Section 6, Section 45 does not state special
elections should be held on a date reasonably close to the POWER TO REGISTER POLITICAL PARTIES AND ENLIST
date of the elections not held. Instead, Section 45 states CITIZENS ARM
that special elections should be held within 30 days from
the cessation of the cause for postponement. Logically,
Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5), authorizes the Comelec under the
special elections could be held anytime, provided the date Constitution to ―Register, after sufficient publication, political
of the special elections within 30 days from the time the parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
cause of postponement has ceased. The SC further ruled requirements, must present their platform or program of
that the reasons that COMELEC posed in refusing to hold
government; and accredit citizens‘ arms of the Commission on
a special election is void (erroneous interpretation of the Elections.
law and the perceived logistical, operational and financial Section 60 of the OEC/Section 1, Rule 32 of the
problem). Comelec Rules of Procedure provides that any group
pursuing the same political ideals may register with the
Akbayan, et. al. v. COMELEC and Benito v. the Comelec by filing a verified petition with its Law Department
Chairman and Commissions of COMELEC, March duly verified by its President and Secretary-General, or any
26, 2001, the petitioners seek to direct the COMELEC to official duly authorized to do so under its Constitutions and by-
conduct a special registration before May 14, 2001 General
laws.
Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21 contending that Before Comelec takes action, the Comelec shall first verify,
around 4M youth failed to register on or before December through its field offices, the status and capacity of the petitioner
27, 2000, the deadline set by COMELEC under RA 8189. and the veracity of the allegations in the petition. (Sec. 4, Rule
The COMELEC resolved to deny the request to conduct a
32). After the verification process, the Petition will be
two-day additional registration of new voters on February published with the Notice of Hearing.
18 & 18, 2001 for the reason that it would be operationally Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of
impossible to accomplish the same within the time left. Registration (Sec. 7):
(1) acquires juridical personality;
The SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave (2) be informed of the parties existence and ideals;
abuse of discretion in denying the request for the conduct (3) it identifies the party and its officers for purposes of
of a special registration and neither can COMELEC be
regulation by the Comelec.
compelled by mandamus to call the elections as the
It is however, not necessary for purposes of the electoral process
determination on WoN the conduct of a special that an organization be a political party.
registration of voters is feasible, possible or practical
within the remaining period before the actual date of
Limitations on Registration
election, involves the exercise of discretion and thus,
Religious sectors are prohibited to be registered for the
cannot be controlled by mandamus.
purpose of the electoral process which is made in the spirit
of separation of church and state and intended to prevent
1995 BQ: Due to violence and terrorism attending the
churches from wielding political power.
casting of votes in a municipality in Lanao del Sur during
the last 8 May 1995 elections, it became impossible to hold Does not extend to organizations with religious affiliations
therein free, orderly and honest elections. Several or to political partied which derive their principles from
candidates for municipal positions withdrew from the religious beliefs (ban on Catholic Church, Iglesia ni Kristo
race. One candidate for Mayor petitioned the COMELEC or the muslim denomination).
for the postponement of the elections and the holding of Those who seek to achieve their goals through unlawful
special elections after the causes of such postponement or means
failure of elections shall have ceased. Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
Those which are supported by any foreign government
1) How many votes of the COMELEC Commissioners (Section 2(5), Article IX-C)
may be cast to grant the petition?
Cancellation of Registration (Sec. 8) –
Suggested Answer: According to Section 7, Article IX-A of Upon verified complaint of any interested party, or motu propio
the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Elections shall by the Commission, the registration of any political party
decide by a majority vote of all its members in any coalition of political parties or organizations under the party-list
case or matter brought before it. In Cua v. system may be cancelled after due notice and hearing on the
COMELEC 156 SCRA 582, the SC stated that a two-to-one following grounds:
decision rendered by a Division of the COMELEC and a (a) Acceptance by the political party, coalition of political
three-to-two decision rendered by the COMELEC en banc parties, or organizations or any of its candidates, of
was valid where only five members took part in deciding financial contributions from foreign governments and/or
the case. their agencies for activities related to elections.
(b) Violation of laws, rules or regulations relating to elections,
2) A person who was not a candidate at the time of the plebiscites, referenda or initiative.
postponement of the elections decided to run for an (c) Untruthful statements in its petition for registration
elective position and filed a certificate of candidacy prior (d) The said political party, coalition of political parties or
to the special elections. May his certificate of candidacy organization has become a religious sect or denomination,
be accepted? is pursuing its goals thru violence or other unlawful means,
is refusing to adhere to or uphold the Constitution of the
Suggested Answer: No, his certificate of candidacy cannot Philippines, or is receiving support from any foreign
be accepted. Under Section 75 of the OEC, as a rule in government;
cases of postponement or failure of election no (e) Failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations
additional certificate of candidacy shall be of the Commission
accepted. (f) Failure to field official candidates in the last two preceding
elections or failure of their candidates to obtain at least five
3) Suppose he ran as a substitute for a candidate who (5) per centum of the votes cast in the last two preceding
previously withdrew his candidacy, will answer be the elections.
same.
Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections 620 SCRA
Suggested Answer: No, the answer will be different. 393 (May 6, 2010), the SC distinguished REGISTRATION and
Under Section 75 of the OEC, an additional certificate ACCREDITATION of a political party. The root of this petition
of candidacy may be accepted in cases of before the SC is the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC for
postponement or failure of election if there was a registration as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant
substitution of candidates; but the substitute must minority party. While the Comelec En Banc claimed
belong to and must be endorsed by the same jurisdiction over the registration of coalitions and has in fact
party. decreed NP-NPC‘s registration, the Comelec however did NOT
rule on the accreditation aspect. The registration of a
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT coalition and the accreditation of a dominant minority
TO GRANT PARDON, AMNESTY, PAROLE OR party are two separate matters that are substantively
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE distinct from each other.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 18
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Section 2(5), Article XI-C and Rule 32 of to a political party to nominate a replacement where a
the CRP regulate the registration of permanent vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to maintain the
political parties, organizations or party representation as willed by the people in the election (Sec.
coalition of political parties. Accreditation 45 (b) of RA 7160 Rule on Succession and as held in Navarro v.
as a dominant party is governed by Comelec CA 672 SCRA 355 (2010). Damasen was not a bonafide
Resolution No. 8752, Section 1 of which states member. Tumamao was husband of the VM who died).
that the petition for accreditation shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Commission who shall PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATION
docket it as an SPP (DM) case. This was the
manner the NP-NPC was docketed. Under RA 7941, THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM is a
Registration of political parties is a special mechanism of the proportional representation in the
proceedings assigned to a Division for handling election of representatives to the House of
under the CRP. No similar clear cut rule is Representatives from national, regional and sectoral
available to a petition for accreditation as a parties or organizations or coalitions thereof
dominant party. registered with the COMELEC to enable Filipinos
Registration must first take place before a belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented
request for accreditation can be made. sectors to contribute legislation that would benefit
Accreditation is the next natural step to follow them. ]
after registration. Party list representation shall constitute 20% of the total
Hence, when the Comelec En Banc, resolved the number of representatives, by selection or election from
registration of the NP- NPC the case is terminated and the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural minorities,
ripe for review by the SC via a Petition for Certiorari. The women, youth and such other sectors as may be provided by
issue with respect to accreditation is a separate issue law, except the religions sector (Art. VI, Sec. 5(2) 1987
which is treated in a separate proceeding. As ruled, a Constitution.
Motion for Reconsideration of a Resolution of the Comelec
En Banc is a prohibited pleading (Sec. 1(d) Rule 13). Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections 621 SCRA 385
The remedy available to a party is a petition for certiorari (June 22, 2010),
with the SC pursuant to Article IX-A, Sec. 7 and Rule 65 of The SC ruled that Comelec cannot issue rules and
the Rules of Court. regulations that provide a ground for the substitution of a party-
list nominee NOT written in R.A.7941.
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, represented by Sec. 8 provides – “Nomination of Party-List
its Chairman Eduardo J. Angara v. Comelec at. al Representatives. Each registered party, organization
(423 SCRA 665) or coalition shall submit to the Comelec not later than
FACTS: The LDP informed the Comelec by way of 45 days before the election a list of names, not less
Manifestation that only the Party Chairman or his than five (5), from which party-list representatives
authorized representative may endorse the COC of the shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number
party‘s official candidates; the Representative Butch of votes.
Aquino was on ―indefinite forced leave‖ and in the A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
meantime Ambassador Enrique Zaldivar was designation Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be
Acting Secretary General. named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for
Aquino in a comment alleged that the Party any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an
Chairman does not have the authority to impose elective office in the immediately preceding election. NO
disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General and that change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
the Manifestation filed has no basis praying that Comelec shall be allowed after the same shall have been
disregards the same. Comelec issued an order requiring submitted to the Comelec except in cases (1) where the
the parties to file verified petition. Pending resolution, a nominee dies, or (2) withdraws in writing his
Certificate of Nomination of Senator Panfilo Lacson as nomination, (3) becomes incapacitated in which case
LDP candidate for President was filed with the Comelec the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last
which was signed by Representative Aquino as LDP in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the
Secretary General. HR who are nominated in the party-list system shall
Comelec issued a Resolution granting the petition not be considered resigned.”
with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor CIBAC (Citizens‘ Battle Against Corruption) thru its
(Angara Wing and Aquino Wing). President Emmanuel Villanueva manifested their intent to
participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local
ISSUE: whether or not Comelec gravely abused its elections and submitted their list of 5 nominees (Villanueva,
discretion in issuing the subject Resolution Lokin (herein petitioner), Cruz-Gonzales, Tugna and Galang).
The list was later published in the newspapers of general
RULING: Comelec gravely abused its discretion. The circulation. Before the elections, Villanueva filed a certificate of
issue is simply ―Who as between the Party Chairman and nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of
Secretary General has the authority to sign certificates of nominees whereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna
candidacy of the official candidates of the party. While it and Galang and substituted Borje. The amended list included
has jurisdiction to rule upon questions of party identity Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales and Borje. Subsequently, Villanueva
and leadership as an incident to its enforcement powers it transmitted to Comelec the signed petitions of more than 81% if
was well within its competence to inquire into which party the CIBAC members in order to confirm the withdrawal of the
officer has authority to sign and endorse certificate of nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang.
candidacy of party‘s nominees. And to resolve the issue Based on the Party-List Canvas Report, it showed that
raised, the Comelec need only to turn to the Party CIBAC was entitled to a second seat, hence, the counsel of
Constitution and election laws. The Comelec Resolution is CIBAC filed with the Comelec sitting as National Board of
INDECISION in the guise of equity. Canvassers, a request to proclaim Lokin as the 2nd nominee
What is worse is that, Comelec divided the LDP into which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. Since
wings both having authority to nominate candidates for Comelec failed to act on the filing of the certificate of
every elective position. Consequently, Comelec planted nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of
seeds of confusion among the electorate who are apt to be nominees and the petitions of the more than 81% of CIBAC
confounded by two candidates from a single political members, Villanueva filed a petition to confirm the said
party. This was not only a disservice to the opposition but certificate with the Comelec which was docketed as E.M. No.
to the voting public as well as its Resolution facilitated 07-054. In the meantime, Comelec as NBC partially proclaimed
rather than forestalled, the division of the minority party. several party lists as having won which included Cibac.
The Secretary General of CIBAC informed the Secretary
Atienza, Jr. et. Al. vs Comelec 612 SCRA 761 – General of the HR to formally swear Lokin into office but which
Authority of Comelec over intra- party disputes is limited. was denied in view of the pendency of E.M. No. 07-054 which
The Comelec may intervene in disputes internal to a party approved the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin et. al. and
only when necessary to the discharge of its constitutional the substitution of Borje. Cruz-Gonzales was proclaimed as the
functions. The validity or invalidity of Atienza et. Al.‘s official second nominee.
expulsion was purely a membership issue that had to be Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamus to compel
settled within the party. It is an internal matter over respondent Comelec to proclaim him as the official second
which Comelec has no jurisdiction. nominee of CIBAC. Also, in another petition, Lokin assailed
Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804 (Rules and Regulations
Damasen vs. Tumamao 613 SCRA 49 (2010) – the Governing the filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate
discretion of accepting members to a political party is a and submission of Names of Nominees under the Party-List)
right and a privilege, a purely internal matter, which the and its resolution in E.M. No. 07-054.
Court cannot meddle in. The reason behind the right given
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 19
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The Comelec asserts that a petition for certiorari is The Court made reference to Sec. 5(1) of Article VI
an inappropriate recourse in law due to the proclamation (which identifies who the “members” of that House
of Cruz-Gonzales as representative and her assumption of are. The HR shall be composed of not more than 250
that office; that Lokin‘s proper recourse was an electoral members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
protest filed in the HRET, therefore, the Court has no from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
jurisdiction over the matter being raised by Lokin. CIBAC cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
posits that Lokin is guilty of forum shopping for filing a number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
petition for mandamus and a petition for certiorari, uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided
considering that both petitions ultimately seek to have by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
him proclaimed as the second nominee of CIBAC. registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations.
ISSUES: a) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction Clearly the members of the HR are 2 kinds
over the controversy. The Court has jurisdiction. The “members” who shall be elected from legislative districts and
controversy involving Lokin is neither an EP nor an action ―those who shall be elected through a party-list system‖. From
for QW, for it concerns a very peculiar situation in which the point of view of the Constitution, it is the party-list rep who
Lokin is seeking to be seated as second nominee of CIBAC. are ―elected‖ into office, NOT their parties or organizations.
Although an EP may properly be available to one part-list These representatives are elected, however, through that
organization seeking to unseat another party-list peculiar party-list system that the Constitution authorized and
organization to determine which between the defeated and that Congress by law established where the voters cast their
the winning party-list organizations actually obtained the votes for the organizations or parties to which such party-list
majority of the legal votes, Lokin‘s case is not one in which reps belong.
a nominee of a particular party-list organization thereby Once elected, both the district reps and the party-list reps
wants to unseat another nominee of the same party list. are treated in like manners. They have the same deliberative
Neither does an action for QW lie, considering that the rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can participate in the
case does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of making of laws that will directly benefit their legislative districts
Cruz-Gonzales to the RP, or some other case of or sectors. They are also subject to the same term limitations of
disqualification. 3 years for a max of 3 consecutive terms. The party list system
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action act itself recognizes party list nominees as members of the HR
for certiorari against the Comelec to seek the review of its (Sec. 2, RA 7941 Declaration of Policy – The State shall
resolution in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of promote proportional representation in the election of reps in
the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and the HR through a party-list system of registered national,
assumption of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
mandate is now implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the
of Procedure, which provides for the review of the marginalized and UR sectors x x x x to become
judgments, final orders or resolution of the Comelec and members of the HR ―.
the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 states, the mode of The Court held that initially, the authority to determine the
review is by a petition for certiorari in accordance with qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs to the
Rule 65 to be filed in the SC within the limited period of organization and to choose five from among the aspiring
30 days. The Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction nominees to comply with the law. But where an allegation is
over Lokins certiorari and for mandamus. made that the party or organization had chosen and allowed a
disqualified nominee to become its party-list rep in the lower
(b) Both actions, certiorari and mandamus did not violate house and enjoy the secured tenure that goes with the position,
the rule against forum shopping even if the actions the resolution of the dispute is taken out of its hand. Hence,
involved the same parties, because they were based on pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI, the HRET being the sole
different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the
different. qualifications of the members of the HR, the HRET has
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. The
(c) Comelec gravely abused its discretion in promulgating HRET was correct in dismissing the QW and retaining authority
Section 13 of Res. No. 7804 as it expanded the to rule on the qualifications.
exceptions under Sec. 8 of RA 7941 Section 8
enumerates only 3 instances in which the party- Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v.
list organization can substitute another person in Comelec 619 SCRA 585 (DELISTING)– The Comelec may
place of the nominee. The enumeration is motu propio OR upon verified complaint of any interested
exclusive. party, remove, or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
Abayhon vs. HRET et. al 612 SCRA 375/Palparan Jr. organization or coalition IF It: (a) fails to participate in the
vs. HRET et. al. – last 2 preceding elections; OR (b) fails to obtain at least
These two cases were consolidated and jointly 2% of the votes casts under the party-list system in the
resolved as it both concerns the authority of the HRET to 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it
pass upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list was registered (Section 6 RA 7941). The word ―OR‖ is a
groups that won seats in the lower house of Congress. disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of
Abayhon is the 1st nominee of the Aangat Tayo party- one thing from the other things enumerated. A party list group
list that won a seat in the HR during the 2007 elections. or organization that failed to farner 2% in a prior election and
Palparan on the other hand was the 1st nominee of Bantay immediately thereafter did not participate in the preceding
party-list. A petition for QW was filed with HRET against election – is something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of RA
the party-list groups and its nominee claiming that it was 7941. From this perspective, it may ben an unintended gap in
not eligible for a party-list since it did not represent the the law and as such is a matter for Congress to address. This
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Abayhon is case abandoned the Minero vs. Comelec G.R. No. 177548 May
the spouse of an incumbent congressional district 10, 2007.
representative and likewise does not belong to the UR and
marginalized. Petitioners also claim that Abayhon lost her Amores vs. HRET et. al., 622 SCRA 593 (2010)
bid as party-list rep called An Waray in the immediately Amores via a petition for QW with the HRET questioned
preceding elections of May 10, 2004. Palparan also was the legality of the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel
alleged to have committed various human rights violations Villanueva as re of CIBAC. It was alleged among other things,
against the marginalized sectors (Bantay represents the that Villanueva assumed office without a formal proclamation
victims of communist rebels, CAFGU, security guards and by the Comelec, disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector
former rebels.) of CIBAC since at the time of the filing of his certificates of
Abayhon and Palparan postures that the Comelec nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or
already confirmed the status of the party list as a national beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA 7941 and
multi-sectoral party-list organization, that HRET had no that his change of affiliation from CIBAC‘s youth sector to its
jurisdiction over the petitioner for QW since the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not
petitioners collaterally attacked the registration of the effected at least 6 months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so
party-list organization, a matter that fell within the as to be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15
jurisdiction of the Comelec. That it was the party-list that of RA 7941.
was taking a seat in the HR and not them, being only its The HRET dismissed the petition as it found the petition to
nominees. All questions involving their eligibility as be filed beyond the 10 days reglementary period, that the age
nominee, were internal concerns of the organization. The qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section 9 of
HRET dismissed the petition against party-list but upheld RA 7941 applied only to those nominated as such during the
its jurisdiction over nominees who both filed an MR which first 3 congressional terms after the ratification of the
was denied. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter
alleging that the HRET gravely abused its discretion. registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which
CIBAC, a multi sectoral organization, is not. As regards the
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 20
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
shift of affiliation, it was held that Section 15 did not apply (4) the proportional representation – the additional
as there was no resultant change in party list affiliation. seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be
computed ―in proportion to their total number of votes.‖
ISSUES: (1) whether the petition for QW was dismissible
for having been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether In this case, following the May 11, 1998 national elections which
Section 9 and 15 of RA 7941 apply to Villanueva. As to the is the first election for party-list representation, the COMELEC
first issue, the SC found grave abuse of discretion on the en banc proclaimed fourteen (14) parties and organization
part of HRET. The Court overlooked the technicality of which had obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast
timeliness and rules on the merits since the challenge goes for the party-list system which constitute a total of 25 nominees
into Villanueva‘s qualifications, it may be filed at anytime short of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit
during his term. Also date of proclamation was not clear. in the house. The PAGASA, filed with the COMELEC a Petition
As to the second and more substantial issue, the Court to proclaim the full number of party-list representative provided
made reference to Section 9 of RA 7941 which by the Constitution. They alleged that the filling up of the 20%
provides that in case of a nominee of the youth membership of party-list representative in the House, as
sector, he must at least be 25 but not more than provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Nine other
30 years of age on the day of the election. The party-list organizations filed their respective motions for
youth sectoral representative who attains the age intervention seeking the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA
of 30 during his term shall be allowed to continue on substantially the same grounds.
in office until the expiration of his term.
The Court did not find any textual support on the The COMELEC, contrary to its rules and regulations governing
interpretation of HRET that Section 9 applied only to the said elections, instead proclaimed the other 38 party list
those nominated during the first 3 congressional terms organization notwithstanding its not having garnered the
after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998. A required 2% votes.
cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law
is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no RULING: the SC ruled that the Sec 5(2) of Art. VI which states
room for construction or interpretation. Only room for that the sectoral representation shall constitute 20% of
application. The distinction is nowhere found in the law. the members of the HR is not “mandatory‖ as it merely
When the law does not distinguish, we must not provides a ceiling for party-list in congress. And, obtaining
distinguish. absolute proportional representation is restricted by the 3-seat
Respecting Section 15 of RA 7941, the Court per party limit to a maximum of two additional slots.
likewise found no textual support for HRET‘s COMELEC was held to have abused its discretion in
ratiocination that the provision did not apply to disregarding an act of Congress .
Villanueva‘s shift of affiliation from CIBAC‘s youth sector
to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector as Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC 359 SCRA 698 - at
there was no resultant change in party list affiliation. issue is the Omnibus Resolution of the Comelec which approved
Section 15 reads “Change of Affiliation: Effect – the participation of 154 organizations and parties and which the
Any elected party list rep who changes his SC remanded to the Comelec for the latter to determine
political party or sectoral affiliation during his evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations
term of office shall forfeit his seat; Provided, That allowed to participate in the party-list elections complied with
if he changes his political party or sectoral the requirements of the law. The SC ruled that the party-list that
affiliation within 6 months before an election, he the party-list organizations or parties must factually and truly
shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list represent the marginalized and underrepresented
rep under his new party or organization. constituencies mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the
The wordings of Section 15 is clear as it covers persons nominated by the party-list candidate organization
changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation and must be ―Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
which may occur within the same party since multi- underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.‖
sectoral party-list org are qualified to participate in the
Philippine party-list system. A nominee who changes his The Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines,
sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the COMELEC in
eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if its work.
the change has been effected at least 6 months before the
elections. Sec. 9 and 15 apply to Villanueva. 1. First, the political party, sector or organization must represent
As regards the contention that Villanueva is the 1st the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in
nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is NO Section 5 of the RA 7941. In other words, it must show –
moment. A party-list organization‘s ranking of its through the Constitution, articles of incorporation, by-laws,
nominees is a mere indication of preference, their history, platform of government and track record – that it
qualifications according to law are a different matter. represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and
underrepresented sectors.
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec 618 SCRA 32 –
Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women 2. Second, While major political parties are expressly allowed by
who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate, they must comply
transgendered individuals. They applied for registration with the declared statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens
with Comelec in 2006 and its accreditation was denied on belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented to be
the ground that the org had no substantial membership. elected to the HR. In other words, while they are not
Ladlad in 2009 again filed a petition for registration which disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties,
was dismissed by Comelec on moral grounds. they must show, however, that they represent the
The SC ruled that moral disapproval is not a interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.
sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of
homosexuals from participation to the party list system. 3. Third, The religious sector may not be represented into the
The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically party-list system. In view of the objections directed against the
enumerated, but whether a particular organization registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Humabong, which is
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express
RA 7941. The SC found that Ladlad has sufficiently constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be
demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements represented in the party-list system. Furthermore, the
for accreditation. Constitution provides that ―religious denominations and sects
shall not be registered.‖ The prohibition was explained by a
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC 342 SCRA member of the Constitutional Commission in this wise ―The
244, the SC provided for the parameters of the Filipino prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a
Party-List System which are: political party. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest
running as a candidate. This is not prohibited here; it is the
(1) the 20% allocation - the combined number of all registration of a religious sect as a political party.‖
party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the
total membership of the HR, including those under 4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified
the party-list; under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
(2) the 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a disqualification as follows:
minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are ‗qualified‖ to have a seat in the ―(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
HR; association organized for religious purposes;
(3) the 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless
of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its
to a maximum three seats; that is one ―qualifying‖ goal;
and two additional seats; and
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 21
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
(3) It is a foreign party or organization; 1. SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign 2. Mandamus will lie if it is a purely ministerial act of
government, foreign political party, foundation, Comelec.
organization, whether directly or through any of its 3. Comelec has no discretion to refuse enforcement of
officers or members or indirectly through third any decision of the SC
parties for partisan election purposes; 4. It is the averments in the complaint and not the
nomenclature given by the parties, that determine the
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or nature of the action (petition for mandamus may be
regulations relating to elections; treated as a petition for certiorari and mandamus
considering that it alleges that the respondent
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition; Commission acted contrary to prevailing
jurisprudence, hence, with grave abuse of discretion
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or and without jurisdiction
The Resolution of Comelec was not in the exercise of the
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding QJ functions but in the exercise of its administrative functions
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum to enforce and administer election laws.
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in The simplified formula in the Veterans case was reiterated
the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency and the four (4) inviolable parameters of the party list system
in which it has registered.‖ under the Constitution and RA 7941 are still the (1)20%
allocation; (2) 2% threshold; (3) 3 seat limit; (4) Proportional
5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, representation- the additional seats which a qualified party is
or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by entitled to shall be computed ―in proportion to their total
the government (referring to MAD of Richard Gomez). It number of votes.‖
must be independent of the government. The participants
of the government or it officials in the affairs of a party-list Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. G.R. No. 177271,
candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other parties, May 4, 2007, 523 SCRA 1
but also deleterious to the objective of the law; to enable Petitioners reacting on an emerging public perception that
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented the individuals behind the party-list groups do not, as they
sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of should, actually represent the poor and marginalized sectors.
Representatives. Petitioners wrote a letter to the Comelec requesting that the
complete list of the nominees of all parties who have been
6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the accredited pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 7804
requirements of the law, its nominees must likewise do so. prescribing rules and regulations to govern the filing of
Section 9 of RA 7941 reads – ―qualifications of Party-List manifestation of intent to participate and submission of names
Nominees – No person shall be nominated as party-list of nominees under the party-list system of representation in
representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the connection with the May 14, 2007 elections be published. The
Philippines, a RV, a resident of the Philippines for a period Comelec vehemently did not accede to the request of the
of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of petitioners, it based its refusal to disclose the names of the
the election, able to read and write, a bona-fide member of nominees of subject party-list groups on Section 7 of RA 7941
the party or organization which he seeks to represent for (more specifically the last sentence which states: ―the names of
at least 90 days preceding the day of the elections and is at the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.‖.
least 25 years of age on the day of the election. The Comelec believe that the party list elections must not
be personality oriented. Abalos said under RA 7941, the people
7. Seventh, not only the candidate party must represent the are to vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions not
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, so also must for their nominees.
likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the ISSUE: whether or not the disclosure of the names of the
nation as a whole. nominees are covered by the Right of Public to information.
8. Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well- HELD: The Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and
defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise release the names of the nominees of the party list groups. No
be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question.
whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral The last sentence of Section 7 is limited in scope and duration,
committee proceedings that ―the nominee of a party, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list which the same
national or regional, is not going to represent a particular provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election
district x x x.‖ day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute
nothing in RA 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing
Partido ng Mangagawa (PM) and BUTIL Farmers or even publishing through mediums other than the ―Certified
Party v. Comelec, et. al., the petition before the SC list‖ the names of the party-list nominees. The Comelec
involves the formula for computing the additional seats obviously misread the limited non-disclosure aspect of the
for winners in party-list elections and whether or not provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May
Comelec, as the National Board of Canvassers for the 2007 elections. The need for voters to be informed about
party-list system, could be compelled by the SC to matters that have a bearing on their choice. The ideal cannot be
mechanically apply the formula stated in the Comelec achieved in a system of blind voting, as veritably advocated in
Resolution reiterated in the Bagong Bayani cases in the the assailed resolution of the Comelec.
determination of qualified party-list organization and in
the proclamation of their respective nominees. Banat et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. 178271/12972 (2009) which
In the earlier case of Veterans Federation Party v. abandoned the matter of computation held in the Veterans
Comelec, the SC came up with a simplified formula for the Party case – intention was to fill the 20% and party list were
computation of additional seats for party-list which was ranked according to the votes cast for party-list and even those
reiterated in the other cases of Bagong Bayani, Bayan who did not reach the 2% were given seats in the second round
Muna, etc. With this development, PM and Butil filed with of the ranking. Those who garnered 2% automatically takes a
the Comelec a petition to re-tabulate the party-list votes seat in the first round.
and immediately proclaim their respective second
nominees to the HR. The Comelec, however, failed to Pimentel Jr. vs HRET GR no. 147589 and 147613
resolve the substantive issue and re-tabulate the votes
despite the lapse of time. Hence, the petition seeking the ―The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Comelec to Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally defined
mechanically apply the Veteran Federation formula in the limits, to choose from among its district and party-list
case. representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the
Comelec argued that the petition is improper relying House in the HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
on Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution that ―any Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House
order, decision or ruling of the Comelec may be brought to the authority to elect among their members those who would fill
the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members in the
from receipt of copy thereof‖ that this provision was Commission on Appointments. Under Section 17, Article VI of
construed as a special civil action of certiorari under Rule the Constitution, each chamber of Congress exercises the power
65 and not an appeal by certiorari under Rule 46 and that to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who among
the duty to proclaim the second nominee is not ministerial their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each
but discretionary, hence it is not subject to the writ of chamber‘s respective electoral tribunal.‖
mandamus. SC ruling:
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 22
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
POWER TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE 3) Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to
FRANCHISE answer; and
4) The result of the exist polls may be announced after the
The objective of the power vested in the COMELEC to closing of the polls on election day, and must clearly
regulate the enjoyment and utilization of franchise during identify the total number of respondents, and the places
the election period is to ensure equal opportunity, time, where they were taken. Said announcement shall state
that the same is unofficial and does not represent a trend.
space, equal rates for public.
Telecommunications Broadcast Attorneys of the Social Weather Stations vs. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496 –
Phils., Inc. (TELEBAP) and GMA Network Inc. v. SWS is a private non-stock, non-profit social research
institution conducting surveys in various fields, including
COMELEC April 21, 1998,
economics, politics, demography and social development, and
FACTS: TELEBAP, which is an organization of lawyers of thereafter processing, analyzing and publicly reporting the
radio and broadcasting network companies sued as results thereof. On the other hand, Kamahalan Publishing
Corporation publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of
citizens, taxpayers and registered voters and GMA
network, challenging the validity of Sec. 92 of BP 881 general circulation, which features newsworthy items of
(COMELEC Time and Space) on the grounds that (a) it information including election surveys.
takes property without due process of law and just
Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the
compensation; (b) that it denies radio and television
broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws and COMELEC from enforcing par. 5.4 of RA 9006 which provides,
(c) that it is in excess of the power given to COMELEC to ―Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published
supervise and regulate the operation of media of fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local
candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an
communication or information during the election period.
election.‖
HELD: As to the issue of personality of TELEBAP, the
court ruled that it has no legal standing because a The term ―election surveys‖ is defined in par. 5.1 of the law as
follows‖ Election surveys refer to the measurement of
citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional
question only when he can show that he has opinions and perception of the voters as regards a
personally suffered some actual or threatened candidate‟s popularity, qualification, platforms or a
injury as a result of the alleged illegal conduct of matter of public discussion in relation to the election,
including voters‟ preference for candidates or publicly
the government; that the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and that the injury is likely to be discussed issues during the campaign period.”
redressed by a favorable action. TELEBAP cannot sue
Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an election
as RV since the case does not concern their right
survey throughout the period of the elections both at the
of suffrage and much less as taxpayers since the
case did not involve the exercise by Congress of its national and local levels and release to the media the results of
taxing or spending power. As a corporate entity, such survey as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan also
states that it intends to publish election survey results up to the
TELEBAP will have standing to assert the right of radio
last day of the elections on May 14, 2001. HELD: Par. 5.4
and television companies only if it can be shown that the
party suing has some substantial relation to the 3rd party constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of
or the 3rd party cannot assert his constitutional right, or speech, expression and the press. It is invalid because it
imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression and it is
that the right of the 3rd party will be diluted unless the
a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even
party in court is allowed to espouse the 3rd party‘s
constitutional claim. None of these circumstances are though such suppression is only for a limited period, and the
present in this case. governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved
by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression.
With respect to the issue as to WoN Sec. 92 of BP 881
violates the due process clause and eminent domain In Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. COMELEC 359 SCRA
provision of the constitution by taking from radio and 698 (June 26, 2001), at issued is the Omnibus Resolution of the
COMELEC which approved the participation of 154
television broadcasting stations without payment of just
organizations and parties and which the SC remanded to the
compensation, it was ruled that all broadcasting,
whether by radio or by TV stations are licensed by COMELEC for the latter to determine evidentiary hearings,
the government. Airwave frequencies have to be whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate
in the party-list elections comply with the requirements of the
allocated as there are more individuals who want to
law. The SC ruled that the party-list organization or
broadcast than there are frequencies assigned. A
franchise is a privilege subject to amendment by party must factually and truly represent the
congress in accordance with the constitutional provision marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the persons nominated
when the common good so requires. The COMELEC time
by the party-list candidate-organization must be ―Filipino
provisions have been made as amendments of the
franchises of radio and TV stations and was not thought of citizens belonging to marginalized and
as taking of property without just compensation. The underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”
right of the listeners and viewers is paramount over the
Having remanded the case to COMELEC, the SC laid down the
right of the broadcasters.
following guidelines:
ABS-CBN vs COMELEC 323 SCRA 811, the SC defined
[REQUISITES TO BE CONSIDERED TO BECOME A
PARTY LIST ORGANIZATION:]
EXIT POLLS as a specie of electoral survey
conducted by qualified individuals or groups of
individuals for the purpose of determining the 1) FIRST, the PP, sector or organization must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in
probable result of an election by confidentially
Section 5 of RA 7941.
asking randomly selected voters whom they have
voted for, immediately after they have official cast 2) SECOND, while major political parties are expressly
their ballots. That an absolute prohibition is allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate,
they must comply with the declared statutory policy
unreasonably restrictive, because it effectively prevents
enabling Filipino citizens belonging to M and U to be
the use of exit poll data not only for election days of the
elections, but also for long term research. The concern of elected to the HR.
COMELEC of a non-communicative effect of the exit polls 3) THIRD, the religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system. FOURTH, it must not be disqualified
which is disorder and confusion in the voting centers does
under the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of RA
not justify a total ban of the exist polls. COMELEC should
instead set safeguards in place for those who intends to 7941.
conduct exit polls. 4) FIFTH, the party or organization must not be an adjunct
of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by
the government.
Sec. 5.5 of RA 9006, provides for the requirements for
the taking of exit polls: 5) SIXTH, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law, its nominees must likewise do so.
SEVENTH, not only the candidate party must represent
1) Pollsters shall not conduct their survey within fifty
the M and U sectors, so also must its nominees. EIGHT,
(50) meters from the polling place, whether said
survey is taken in a home, dwelling place and other while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the
places; nominees must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
2) Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing.
will benefit the nation as a whole.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 23
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
TO GRANT PARDON, AMNESTY, PAROLE OR
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
Section 60.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 24
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. There
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
must be animus manendi coupled with animust
non-revertendi.
Suffrage may be exercised:
Sarangani vs COMELEC 334 SCRA 379
1) By all citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law, who are:
2) At least 18 years of age, and SEC. 8 - SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF
3) Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least VOTERS/CREATION OF ELECTION REGISTRATION
one (1) year and in the place wherein they propose to BOARDS
vote for at least six (6) months immediately
preceding the elections.
A qualified voter can personally file an application for
4) No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of registration DAILY with the office of the election Officer during
suffrage.12 regular office hours. The Election Registration Boards
authorized to act on all applications for registration which is
composed of the Election Officer as Chairman and as members,
RA 8189 VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT/SALIENT
a public school official most senior in rank and the local civil
FEATURES
registrar or in his absence, the city or municipal treasurer.
Registration of voters is a means of determining who LIMITATION: No registration shall however be conducted
possess the qualifications of voters and regulating the during the period starting 120 days before a regular elections
exercise of the right of suffrage. and 90 days before a special elections.
Registration is essential to enable a qualified voter to vote
in any election, or any form of popular intervention. SEC. 9 – QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION
General Rule: 1) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment
to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1)
Suffrage may be exercised: year.
1) by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise 2) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment
disqualified by law, who are: by competent court or tribunal of having
2) At least 18 years of age, and committed any crime involving disloyalty to the
3) Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least duly constituted government such as rebellion,
one (1) year and in the place wherein they propose to sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and
vote for at least six (6) months immediately firearms law, or any crime against national
preceding the elections. security in accordance with the law.
4) No literacy, property, or other substantive 3) Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of authority
suffrage.13
WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED:
In addition to that provided under Sec. 1 Article V of the
Constitution and Sec. 117 of the OEC, Section 9 of RA 8189
further provide: Those sentenced by final judgment, disability is removed by
plenary pardon or amnesty or the expiration of five (5) after
―Any person who temporarily resides in another city, service of sentence.
municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation, For insane and incompetent, by an official declaration by a
profession, employment in private or public service, proper authority that the insanity or incompetency no longer
exist.
educational activities, work in the military or naval
reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed
Forces, or confinement or detention in government WHO ARE CONSIDERED ILLITERATE AND DISABLED
institution in accordance with law, shall NOT be VOTERS AND HOW DO THEY REGISTER?
deemed to have lost his original residence.
Section 14 - Illiterate or disabled applicants are referred
The 3rd paragraph of Sec. 9 further clarified Sec. 126 of the to as person who cannot by themselves prepare an
OEC: application for registration because of their physical
disability and/or inability to read and write.
―Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have
reached the required age or period of residence but, who, PROCEDURE FOR ILLITERATE APPLICANTS
on the day of election shall possess such qualifications,
may register as a voter.‖ May be assisted by the election officer or any member of an
accredited citizens arm.
REQUISITES WHEN NEW DOMICILE IS ACQUIRED The election officer shall place such illiterate person under oath,
BY CHOICE ask him the questions and record the answers given in order to
accomplish the application form in the presence of the majority
Romuladez v. RTC 226 SCRA 402 - In order to acquire of the members of the Board.
a new domicile by choice, there must concur: The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the applicant in
1) residence or bodily presence in the new the presence of the Board by means of thumb mark or some
locality; other customary mark and it shall be subscribed and attested by
2) an intention to remain in the new locality; the majority of the members of the Board.
POLLING PLACE: Building or place where the Board of Printing of official ballots and election returns
Election Inspectors conducts its proceedings and where
the voters cast their votes (Sec. 152, BP 881) Printed by the Government Printing Office and/or the Central
Bank printing facilities exclusively, under the exclusive
Designation of polling places supervision and control of the COMELEC. (Sec. 184, BP 881)
The registered political parties or coalitions of parties (or their
The COMELEC may introduce changes in the location of components should there be any dissolution or division of said
polling places when necessary after notice to the coalition) whose candidates obtained at least 10% of the total
registered political parties and candidates affected and votes cast in the next preceding senatorial election are each
hearing. entitled to have a watcher and/or representative in the
No location shall be changed within 45 days before a procurement and watermarking of papers to be used in the
regular election and 30 days before a special election, printing of election returns and official ballots, and in the
referendum or plebiscite except when it is destroyed or it printing, numbering, storage and distribution thereof. (Sec. 8,
cannot be used. (Sec. 153, BP 881) R.A. 6646)
The absentee voter shall apply to the elections for Refusal of the chairman and the members of the board of election
President, VP and Senators only and shall be inspectors to sign and furnish such certificate shall constitute an
limited to the BEI‟s, members of AFP, PNP and election offense and shall be penalized under this Code.
other government employees who, on election
day, may temporarily be assigned in connection OTHER WATCHERS
with the performance of election duties to places
where they are not registered. (As modified by Sec.
12 of RA 7166) The duly accredited citizens arm of the Commission shall be entitled
to appoint a watcher in every polling place. Other civic, religious,
professional, business, service, youth and any other similar
organizations, with prior authority of the Commission, shall be
entitled collectively to appoint one watcher in every polling place.
21 Sec. 168
22 Sec. 169 of the OEC was amended by EO 157 March 30 1987
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 29
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang bayan,
ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES
Punong Barangay or member of the Sangguniang Barangay: at
least 18 years old on election day.
COMMON QUALIFICATIONS: SK: 15-21 years old on election day.
Qualifications prescribed by law are continuing requirements
and must be possessed for the duration of the officer's active Common to qualifications for registration as a voter and
tenure. Once any of the required qualifications are lost, his for vying for an elective office is the matter of residence.
title to the office may be seasonably challenged.23
SC TREATS RESIDENCE AS SYNONYMOUS WITH
Qualifications for President and Vice-President24 DOMICILE
1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter, Coquilla v. COMELEC case, ―the term ―residence‖ is to be
3. Able to read and write, understood NOT in its common acceptation as referring to
4. At least forty years of age on the day of election, and ―dwelling‖ or ―habitation,‖ but rather to “domicile” or legal
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least ten years residence, that is, ―the place where a party actually or
immediately preceding such election. constructively has his permanent home, where he, no
matter where he may be found at any given time,
Qualifications for the Batasang Pambansa25- eventually intends to return and remain (animus
1. natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, manendi).‖ A domicle of origin is acquired by every person at
2. on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years birth. It is usually the place where the child‘s parents reside and
of age, continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new
3. able to read and write, domicile (of choice).
4. a registered voter in the constituency in which he
shall be elected, and Facts: In this case, petitioner Coquilla was born of Filipino
5. a resident thereof for a period of not less than six parents in Samar, where he grew up until he joined the US Navy
months immediately preceding the day of the subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He visited the
election. Philippines thrice while on leave from the US navy but
remained in the US even after his retirement. In 1998, he came
Sectoral Representative to the Philippines and secured a residence certificate although
1. natural-born citizen, he continued making several trips to the US.
2. able to read and write,
3. resident of the Philippines for a period of not less He applied for repatriation. His application was approved and
than one year immediately preceding the day of the took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines on November 10,
election, a 2000.
4. bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent,
and in the case of a representative of the agricultural On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter of
or industrial labor sector, shall be Samar which was approved on January 12, 2001. On February
5. a registered voter, and 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy stating therein that
6. on the day of the election is at least twenty-five he had been a resident of Samar for two (2) years. A petition for
years of age. cancellation of his certificate of candidacy was filed by Alvarez
on the ground of material misrepresentation by stating in his
Youth Sectoral Representative certificate that he had been a resident for 2 years when in fact
1. at least be eighteen and not be more than twenty-five he had resided therein for only about 6 months since November
years of age on the day of the election: 10, 2000, when he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.
2. any youth sectoral representative who attains the age The issues raised were as follows:
of twenty-five years during his term shall be entitled
to continue in office until the expiration of his term. a) Is Coquilla a resident of Oras for at least one (1)
year before the elections held on May 14, 2001?
RENUNCIATION of the office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of HELD: The SC ruled that petitioner lost his domicile of origin
the service for the full term for which they were elected. by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the US navy. From
then on and until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired
Residency Requirement Philippine citizenship, he was an alien without any right to
Pres. & VP: 10 years immediately preceding the elections reside in the Philippines save as our immigration laws may have
Senators: 2 years allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.
Members of the HR: 1 year.
Further Coquilla‘s contention that he re-established residence
Term of Office in this country when 1998 when he came back to prepare for the
Pres. & VP: 6 years (however no person who has mayoralty elections by securing a residence certificate was held
succeeded as Pres. and has served as such for more than 4 to be without merit because his entry in said dates was as a
years shall be qualified for election to same office at any visa-free balikbayan whose stay as such was valid for
time. Pres. is not eligible for re-election. VP 2 successive one year only. Hence, the same cannot constitute as a waiver
terms. of his status as an alien and as a non-resident the same having
Senators 6 years and two successive terms only. been acquired only on November 10, 2000
Members of HR 3 years and for 3 consecutive terms only.
b) Coquilla likewise contend that he was ―compelled to adopt
Local Elective Officials American citizenship‖ only by reason of his service in the US
armed forces.‖
Qualifications26.
(a) Citizen of the Philippines; a HELD: Coquilla was repatriated not under RA 2630
(b) Registered voter in the Barangay, municipality, city, (which applies to the repatriation of those who lost
or province or, in the case of a member of the their Philippine citizenship by accepting commission
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang in the armed forces of the US but under RA 8171 )
Panlungsod, or Sanggunian bayan, the district where
he intends to be elected; a Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC 248 SCRA 301 (1995),
(c) Resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately “it is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
preceding the day of the election; and able to read certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in
and write Filipino or any other local language or determining WoN an individual has satisfied the
dialect. constitutions residency qualification requirement. The
Governor, vice-governor or member of Sangguniang said statement becomes material only when there is or
Panlalawigan, or Mayor, vice-mayor or member of the appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities: at misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
least 23 years old on election day. render the candidate ineligible.
Mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities,
component cities, municipalities: at least 21 years old Perez v. COMELEC 317 SCRA 640, where the qualifications
on election day. of Aguinaldo, former governor of Cagayan, was at issue when he
filed his certificate of candidacy as member of the House of
Representative in the May 11, 1998 elections, the Court,
23 Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245; Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 reiterating its ruling in Aquino v. COMELEC, explained the
24 Section 63 meaning of residence as ― the place where a party actually or
25 Section 64 constructively has his permanent home‖ where he, no matter
26 SECTION 39. of Local Gov’t Code where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 30
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
return and remain, while domicile, is that to which the to run for an elective office under this Code, unless said
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the person has waived his status as permanent resident or
purposes of election law. And, the fact that a person immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the
is a registered voter in one district is not proof residence requirement provided for in the elections laws."
that he is not domiciled in another district.
Torayno Sr., V. COMELEC 337 SCRA 574, the purpose Trinidad vs COMELEC 315 SCRA a75
of the residence for seeking and holding public office, is to ―With the complaint for disqualification of private respondent
give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the rendered moot and academic by the expiration of petitioner‘s
needs, difficulties and aspiration, potentials for growth term of office therein contested, COMELEC acted with grave
and all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies abuse of discretion in proceeding to disqualify petitioner from
and on the party of the electorate, to evaluate the his reelected term of office in its second questioned Resolution
candidate‘s qualifications and fitness for the job they on the ground that ―it comes as a matter of course after his
aspire for. disqualification in SPA No. 95-213 promulgated after the 1998
election.‖ While it is true that the first questioned Resolution
In this case the residence qualification of Emano who filed was issued eight (8) days before the term of petitioner as Mayor
his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro expired, said Resolution had not yet attained finality and could
was at issue. Emano was elected provincial governor of not effectively be held to have removed petitioner from his
Misamis Oriental for his third term in 1995. In filing his office. Indeed, removal cannot extend beyond the term during
certificate of candidacy for governor, he declared his which the alleged misconduct was committed. If a public
residence in his certificate of candidacy to be in Misamis official is not removed before his term of office expires, he can
Oriental. no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another
term.‖
While still the governor, Emano executed on June 14,
1997 a voter registration record in Cagayan de Oro
CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY
(geographically located in the Province of
Misamis Oriental, a highly urbanized city, in
which he claimed 20 years of residence. He Candidate Any person aspiring for or seeking an elective
subsequently filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself
the city stating therein that his residence for the preceding or through an accredited political party, aggroupment, or
two years and five months was at Cagayan de Oro City. coalition of parties. (Sec. 79, BP 881)
Emano‘s opponent, filed a petition for disqualification of
Emano on that ground that he had allegedly failed to meet Guest Candidacy A political party may nominate and/or
the 1 year residence requirement. But prior to the support candidates not belonging to it. (Sec. 70, BP 881) Note
resolution of the disqualification case, Emano was however that this is not applicable in cases of political parties
proclaimed winner with Damasing trailing second. So, registered under the party-list system, as nominees must
Torayno et. al filed another Petition before the COMELEC, necessarily be bona fide members of the party.
this time for QW, where they sought
(1) the annulment of the election of Emano and FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
(2) proclamation of Damasing who garnered the next
highest number of votes. The COMELEC denied To be eligible for any elective public office, one must file a
the Petition, the two cases where consolidated certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by the Omnibus
(QW and Disqualification). Election Code.
Issue: WoN Emano‘s disqualified to run as mayor of CDO? Mode of Filing: Certificates must be filed by the candidate
personally or by his duly authorized representative. No certificate
Held: Respondent is an actual resident of Cagayan de Oro shall be filed by mail, telegram or facsimile. (Sec. 7, R.A. 7166)
for such a period of time necessary to qualify him to run
for mayor based on the following: Time of Filing: Certificates of candidacy must be filed in 12
(1) He had actually resided in a house he bought in 1973 legible copies not later than 120 days before the elections.
in Cagayan de Oro City (Sec. 11, R.A. 8436)
(2) Had actually held office there during his three terms
as provincial governor of Misamis Oriental, as the Place of Filing
provincial capitol was located in Cagayan de Oro
(3) And has registered as voter in the city during the The certificates of candidacy shall be filed in the following places:
period required by law.
President COMELEC main office (Manila)
Court gave the reason why the law requires a minimum Vice-
period of residence for candidates who seek to be elected President
is to prevent the possibility of a stranger or newcomer Senator
unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a Congressman Provincial election supervisor
community and not identified with the latter from seeking
an elective office to serve that community. It is also If NCR district: File with Regional
rooted in the desire that officials of district or localities be Election Director
acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their If legislative district in cities outside
constituents but, more important, with the constituents NCR which comprise one or more
themselves Emano in this regard cannot be legislative districts: File with City
deemed a stranger or newcomer when he ran for election registrar concerned
and was overwhelmingly voted as city mayor
Provincial Provincial election supervisor
having garnered a margin of 30,000 votes.
Offices
City / City or municipal election registrar
Nolasco vs COMELEC 275 SCRA 762
Municipal
Disqualified for vote-buying.
Offices
"Sec. 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: CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
(a) given money or other material consideration to
influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public The certificate of candidacy shall state the following:
officials performing electoral functions;
(b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his a. That the person filing the certificate is announcing his
candidacy; candidacy for the office stated therein and that he or
(c) spent in his election campaign an amount in she is eligible for such office;
excess of that allowed by this Code; b. The political party to which the candidate belongs;
(d) solicited, received or made any contribution c. Civil status;
prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or d. Date of birth;
(e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, e. Residence;
paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall f. Post office address for all election purposes;
be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if g. Profession or occupation;
he has been elected, from holding the office. Any h. That he / she will support and defend the
person who is a permanent resident of or an Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain faith
immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified and allegiance thereto;
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 31
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
i. That he / she will obey the laws, legal orders, SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
and decrees promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities;
A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable requisite in
j. That he / she is not a permanent resident or case of substitution of a disqualified candidate under SEC. 77. A
immigrant to a foreign country; candidate who dies, withdraws or is disqualified must be an
k. That the obligation imposed by oath is assumed official candidate of registered or accredited political party and
voluntarily, without mental reservation or
the substitute candidate must be of the same political party as
purpose of evasion; the original candidate and must be duly nominated as such by
l. That the facts stated in the certificate of the political party.
candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.
QUESTION: May an independent candidate who has
EFFECTS OF FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF withdrawn from such candidacy, then affiliate as party
CANDIDACY member of a political party, and is thereafter nominated
to substitute its candidate for mayor legally run as
Sec. 66 of the OEC provides that an appointive official is substitute candidate? YES!
considered resigned upon the filing of his/her
certificate of candidacy. The forfeiture is automatic Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 declared in the affirmative since
and the operative act is the moment of filing which shall there is no condition precedent that a substitute candidate must
render the appointive official resigned (applicable also to have been a member of the party concerned for a certain period
GOCC and can constitute as just cause for termination of of time before he can be nominated as such as the law merely
employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor provided that the substitute should be a person belonging to
Code27). and certified to by the same political party as the candidate to
Sec. 67 has already been amended R.A. 8436 and RA 9006 be replaced.
which provides that a candidate holding an elective
position whether national or local running for office other Any person holding a public appointive office, including
than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except members of the AFP and officers and employees of GOCCs,
for Pres. and VP, is considered resigned only upon shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of
the start of the campaign period corresponding to one's certificate of candidacy. (Sec. 66, BP 881) Only the
the position for which he/she is running. moment and act of filing are considered. Once the
certificate is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing, save
Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. 202 SCRA 779, October 15, a new election or appointment, can restore the ousted official.28
1991, Dimaporo was elected representative for the 2nd Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter,
district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 elections. On on-air correspondent or personality who is a candidate for any
January 15, 1990, he filed with the COMELEC a Certificate elective public office shall be deemed resigned, if so required by
of Candidacy for Regional Governor of the ARMM. The his/her employer, or shall take a leave of absence from his/her
election was scheduled for 17 February 1990. Having lost work as such during the campaign period. (Sec. 6.6, R.A. 9006)
in the ARMM elections, he expressed his intention to
resume performing his duties and functions as elected
member of congress. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE
Having failed in his bid, he points out that the term of A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may withdraw
office of members of the HR, as well as the grounds by the same prior to the election by submitting to the office
which the incumbency of said members may be shortened, concerned a written declaration under oath.
are provided for in the Constitution, which grounds are as
If a candidate files a certificate of candidacy for more than 1
follows: office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, he
may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be
1) Section 13 Art. VI: Forfeiture of his seat by eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other
holding any other office or employment in the
office or offices provided that this is done before the expiration
government or any subdivision, agency or of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy. (Sec. 73,
instrumentality thereof, including go or gocc or BP 881)
subsidiaries; The filing of the withdrawal shall not affect whatever civil,
2) Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a disciplinary
criminal, or administrative liabilities which a candidate may
action for disorderly behaviour have incurred. (Sec. 73, BP 881)
3) Section 17: Disqualification as determined by
resolution of the Electroal Tribunal in an RAMIREZ V. COMELEC: Since the certificate of
election contest
candidacy for the position of board member was filed by his
4) Section 7, oar. 2: Voluntary Renunciation of party and the said party had withdrawn that nomination, there
office. was substantial compliance with Sec. 73 of the Omnibus
He asserts that under the rule expressio unius est exlusio Election Code. His filing under oath within the statutory period
of his individual candidacy for mayor was a rejection of the
HELD: party nomination of the other officer.
The fact that the ground cited in Sec. 67, Article I.X of Go vs COMELEC 357 SCRA 739
OEC is not mentioned in the constitution itself as a mode
of shortening the tenure of office of members of congress “Go filed a certificate of candidancy for mayorship for
does not preclude its application to present members of Baybay, Leyte. Later, she also filed a certificate of
congress. Section 2 w/c provides xx all other officers and candidancy for governorship of Leyte. She filed a
employees may be removed from office as provided by
withdrawal of her candidacy for mayorship at 12:28 a.m.
law. Thus, the grounds are not exclusive. The act March 01, 2001.
contemplated in section 67 of BP 881 of filing of a C0C for
another office constitutes an overt and concrete act of Two opponents filed for her disqualification. The petitions were
voluntary resignation of the elective presently held.
based on the ground that petitioner filed certificates of candidacy for
two positions, namely, that for mayor of Baybay, Leyte, and that for
A candidate is required to file a certificate of candidacy in governor of Leyte, thus, making her ineligible for both.
order to make him eligible to run for public office and it is
in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world
Ruling: She is not disqualified for both office. Her submission of her
of the candidate‘s political creed or lack of political creed. withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy was a substantial
compliance with the law.
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy, may,
prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to
Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the
the office concerned a written declaration under oath. Omnibus Election Code, provides that:
In the event an official candidate of a political party dies,
withdraws or is disqualified after the last day for filing a
certificate of candidacy, the political party may substitute
another candidate. This is a privilege granted to a political
party.
28Note: Sec. 67 of BP 881 and the first proviso of Sec. 11 of R.A. 8436
(which states that "Any elective official, running for any officer other than one
which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-
President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the start of the
campaign period") have been repealed by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 (Fair
27 Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC May 31, 1993 Election Act of 2001).
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 32
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
"SEC. 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.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 33
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Jarilla v. COMELEC 232 SCRA 758, a
disqualification case was filed against a candidate on
the grounds that he is not a RV. COMELEC
dismissed the case on the ground that it was filed out
DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE
of time for the filing of petition to abate a nuisance
candidate. The SC ruled that the dismissal is
BEFORE ELECTIONS not applicable where the grounds referred to
is the ineligibility of a candidate which may be
Under the OEC filed anytime in a petition for QW.
1) HAS BEEN DECLARED BY COMPETENT 4) A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
AUTHORITY INSANE OR cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any
INCOMPETENT person on the ground that the candidate made
Incompetence- the same may also refer not only MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN HIS
to mental illness, disease or physical disability CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY. 31 Section 5 of
but also other causes which may include: RA 6646 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of
a. minority or procedure provide that the petition shall be filed
b. lack of residence requirement; within 5 days from the last day for the filing of a
c. any person who has been sentenced by certificate of candidacy.
final judgment for subversion,
insurrection rebellion; or for any False representation pertains to material
offense for which carries a penalty of matter affecting substantive rights of a
more than 18 months or for a crime candidate – the right to run for elective post for
involving moral turpitude, shall be which he filed the certificate of candidacy. The
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold material misrepresentation must refer to the
any office. 29 qualifications for the office, such as residence,
citizenship, age.
DISQUALIFICATION IS REMOVED: In addition to the requirement of materiality, the
1. Plenary pardon or granted amnesty; or false representation must consist of
2. upon declaration by a competent authority that deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or
said insanity or incompetence had been hide a fact which would otherwise render a
removed; candidate ineligible. It must be made with an
3. expiration of a period of 5 years from his service intention to deceive the electorate as to one‘s
of sentence unless of course within the same qualifications for public office. The use of a surname,
period he again becomes disqualified. when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as
to one‘s identity is not within the scope of the
2) GUILTY OF GIVING MONEY OR provision.
MATERIAL CONSIDERATION TO
INFLUENCE, INDUCE OR CORRUPT Cases:
VOTERS OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL
PERFORMING ELECTORAL Salcedo II v. COMELEC 312 SCRA 447, a candidate who
FUNCTIONS; THOSE WHO HAVE used her husband‘s name even though their marriage was void
COMMITTED TERRORISM TO was not guilty of misrepresentation concerning a material fact.
ENHANCE HIS CANDIDACY, HAVING
SPEND THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN Coquilla vs COMELEC, Section 5 & & of RA 6646
MORE THAN REQUIRED BY LAW provide that proceedings for denial or cancellation of a
P10.00/RV/P5.0030 certificate of candidacy is summary in nature. Thus, the
holding of a formal hearing is not mandatory. Coquilla however
3) Sec. 69, a petition to abate a NUISANCE cannot claim denial of the right because records show that he
CANDIDATE – the COMELEC may motu filed a verified answer. A Memorandum and a Manifestation
propio or upon verified petition of an before the COMELEC in which he submitted documents relied
interested party, refuse to give due course to or by him in his petition.
cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown
that it is filed in contemplation of a nuisance Abella v. COMELEC 210 SCRA 253, a candidate‘s
candidate or cancel the same if already filed. statement in her certificate of candidacy for the position of
This is an exception to the ministerial duty of governor of Leyte that she was a resident of Kananga, Leyte
the COMELEC and its officers to receive a when this was not so or that the candidate was a ―natural-born
certificate of candidacy under Sec. 76 Filipino when in fact he had become an Australian citizen in
Labo vs. COMELEC 211 SCRA 297, constitutes a ground for
A NUISANCE Candidate is the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy.
1. one who files his certificate to put the GROUND FIOR DQ UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
election process in mockery or disrepute; CODE (SEC. 40)
2. or to cause confusion among the
(Qualifications of local elective candidates under the LGC was asked
candidates by the similarity of names
(because in the appreciation of ballots, in the 1999 Bar)
where there are two candidates with the
same name or surname and only the 1) THOSE SENTENCED BY FINAL JUDGMENT FOR AN
OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE OR FOR
name or surname is written, it will be
considered a stray vote and will not be AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY ONE YEAR OR MORE
counted for either of the candidate IMPRISONMENT, WITHIN 2 YEARS* AFTER
unless of course one of the candidate SERVING SENTENCE.
with the same name or surname is an
incumbent – because of the equity of the a candidate for an elective office may likewise be
incumbent rule) or disqualified on the ground that the candidate has been
3. By other circumstances or acts which sentenced for a crime involving moral turpitude or for an
offense punishable by one (1 year or more imprisonment,
clearly demonstrate that the candidate
has no bona fide intention to run for within 2 years from serving sentence. 32
office, thus would prevent the faithful
determination of the true will of the NOTE: that the 1st ground for disqualification consists of two
(2) parts, namely:
people.
a. those sentenced by final judgment for an offense
A petition to declare a candidate a nuisance involving moral turpitude, regardless of the period of
candidate shall be filed by any registered candidate imprisonment; and (2) those sentenced by final
judgment for an offense, OTHER THAN one
for the same office within 5 days from the last
day of the filing of the certificate of involving moral turpitude, punishable by one (1) year
candidacy. or more imprisonment, within 2 years after serving
sentence.
Marquez jr. v. COMELEC and Rodriguez Labo Jr. V. COMELEC 176 SCRA 1 (1989), a
259 SCRA – FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE disqualification case was filed against Labor Jr. was elected
refers to a person who has been convicted by Mayor of Baguio City by Luis Lardizabal on the ground that he
final judgment. The SC said that when a person was not a citizen of the Philippines having been naturalized as
leaves the territory of a state not his own, an Australian citizen, which he did not contest and for having
homeward bound and subsequently learns of categorically declared in a number of sworn statements that he
the charges filed against him while he is in the was an Australian citizen. Based on these evidences Labo Jr.
service of his country, the fact that he does not was alleged to be ineligible for the elective position. While
subject himself to the jurisdiction of the former Labo Jr. asserts that his naturalization in Australia
state does not outrightly qualify him as a was annulled after it was found that his marriage to
fugitive from justice. In fact, when Rodriguez the Australian was bigamous, this circumstance alone
left the US, there was no complaint and arrest did not automatically restore his Philippine
warrant yet and there would be no basis in cirizenship.
saying that he is running away from any
prosecution or punishment. MERCADO V. MANZANO G.R. NO. 135083 MAY 25,
1999: The case was a case of the application of the jus soli and
4) THOSE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS A RESULT jus sanguinis on the same person. Manzano was born in
OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE California, acquired US citizenship by operation of the US
Constitution under the principle of jus soli. He was also a
Rodolfo E. Aquinaldo vs COMELEC 212 SCRA natural born Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935
768, a public official cannot be removed for Constitution, as his father and mother were Filipino at the time
administrative conduct committed during a of his birth. At the age of 6, his parent brought him to the
prior term as his re-election to office operates Philippines using an American passport as travel document.
as a condonation of the officer‘s previous His parents registered him as an alien with the Philippine
misconduct to the extent of cutting of the right to bureau of Immigration, was issued an ACR.
remove him therefore.
Held: The circumstances did not result in the loss of his
Grego v. COMELEC 274 SCRA 481, the Court Philippine citizenship, as he did not renounce it and did not
ruled that Sec. 40 of RA 7160 does not have any take an oath of allegiance to the US and the fact that respondent
retroactive effect. In this case a Deputy Sheriff was Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the BID &
removed for serious misconduct in 1981. He run in was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year
1992 & 1995. His removal in 1981 cannot serve as before he filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of
basis for his disqualification. Laws have prospective Makati, these were just assertions of his nationality
effect. before the termination of his American citizenship.
5) PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN A FOREIGN In ruling that Manzano is a Filipino citizen, the court
COUNTRY OR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED distinguished dual citizenship with dual allegiance :
THE RIGHT TO RESIDE ABROAD AND
CONTINUE TO AVAIL OF THE SAME RIGHTS Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiance
AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 7160. Arises when, as a result of the (ENTAILS A VOLUNTARY
concurrent application of the ACT ie. Taking an oath of
Caasi v. CA 191 SCRA 229 (1990). A different laws of two or more allegiance to another State)
disqualification case was filed against Merito Miguel states, a person is
under Sec. 68 of the OEC by rival candidate Caasi for simultaneously considered a Article IV Section 5 of the
the position of Municipal Mayor of Bolinao, national by the said states, 1987 Constitution on dual
Pangasinan on the ground that Miguel was a green such as a situation when a allegiance (Dual
card holder, therefore, a permanent resident of the person whose parents are allegiance of citizens is
U.S. and not Bolinao. While Miguel admitted having citizens of a state which inimical to the national
possessed a green card he however denied that he is a adheres to the principle of jus interest and shall be
resident of the US as his obtaining a green card is sanguinis is born in a state dealt with by law.”)
merely for convenience in order that he may freely which follows the doctrine of
enter the US for his periodic medical examination jus soli. Such person ipso
and to visit his children. The COMELEC dismissed facto, and without any
the disqualification case holding that the possession voluntary act on his part, is
of a green card did not sufficiently establish Miguel‘s concurrently considered a
abandonment of his resident in the Philippines. The citizen of both states.
SC on review however, reversed the decision of the
COMELEC stating that “to be qualified to run for
elective office in the Phils., the law requires
that the candidate who is a green card holder
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 35
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
CIRILO VALLES V. COMELEC & LOPEZ G.R. possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the
#138000 AUGUST 9, 2000: The mere fact that time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of
Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and office to which he has been elected. But to remove all
had an ACR are not acts constituting an effective doubts on this important issue, the Court held that the
renunciation of citizenship and do not militate repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the
against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For filing of his application on August 17, 1994 and being a
renunciation to effectively result in the lost of citizenship, former Filipino who has served the people repeatedly
the same must be express (Com. Act 63, Sec. 1). and at the age of 81, Frivaldo deserves a liberal
interpretation of the Philippine laws and whatever
An ACR does not amount to an express defects there were in his nationality should now be
renunciation or repudiation of one‟s citizenship33. deemed mooted by his repatriation.”(Finally!)
Similarly, her holding of an Australian passport as in the
Manzano case, were likewise mere ACTS OF 8) THREE-TERM LIMIT
ASSERTIONS BEFORE SHE EFFECTIVELY
RENOUNCED THE SAME. Thus, at the most, Lopez had Another ground which can serve as legal ground for disqualifying a
dual citizenship – she was an Australian and a Filipino, as candidate is the 3 TERM LIMIT OR HAVING SERVED 3
well. CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
The phrase “dual citizenship” under RA Sec. 40(d) “No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
of RA 7160 and Sec. 20 of RA 7854 must be consecutive terms in the same position. VOLUNTARY
understood as referring to “dual allegiance.” In RENUNCIATION of the office for any length of time
including sec. 5 Article IV on citizenship, the concern of shall not be considered as an interruption in the
the Constitutional Commission was not dual citizens per continuity of service for the full term for which the
se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their elective official concerned was elected”34.
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization. Hence, persons with mere dual Adormeo v. COMELEC & Talaga, Jr., G.R. No. 147927
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. February 4, 2002 and citing Borja v. COMELEC 295
Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be SCRA 157 and Lonzanida V. COMELEC 311 SCRA
subject to strict process with respect to the termination of 602: the term limit for elective local officials must be taken
their status, the filing of the certificate of candidacies for to refer to the ―right to be elected‖ as well as ―the right to
candidates with dual citizenship is sufficient election of serve in the same elective position‖.
Philippine citizenship as to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship considering that their Thus, two (2) conditions for the application of the
condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting disqualification must concur:
laws of different states.
That the official concerned has been elected for
The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not three consecutive terms in the same local government
automatically disqualify her from running for post; and
public office. For candidates with dual That he has fully served three consecutive terms.
citizenship, it is enough that they elect Phil.
Citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of Adormeo v. COMELEC, Talaga Jr., was elected mayor in
candidacy, to terminate their status as persons May 1992, he served the full term, was re-elected in 1995-
with dual citizenship. The filing of the certificate 1998 but lost in the 1998 elections to Tagarao. In the recall
of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign elections of May 2000, Talaga Jr. won and served the
citizenship effectively removing any disqualification as a unexpired term of Tagarao until June 30, 2001.
dual citizen. In the Certificate of Candidacy, one declares Talaga Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy for the same
that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she will position in the 2001 elections which candidacy was
support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines challenged on the ground that Talaga Jr. is already
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such barred by the 3 term limit rule. Adormeo contends that
declaration, which is under oath, operates as an Talagas candidacy violated Section 8, Article X of the
effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. Constitution which states that the term of office of local
elective officials shall be three years and no such official shall
Frivaldo v. COMELEC 174 SCRA 245 (1989). serve for more than three consecutive term. To further
Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of Sorsogon and bolster his case, he adverts to the comment of Fr. Joaquin
subsequently assumed office. A disqualification was filed Bernas who stated that in interpreting said provision that “if
on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having one is elected representative to serve the unexpired
been naturalized in the US in 1983, which he term of another, that unexpired term, no matter how
admitted but which he undertook only to protect short, will be considered one term for the purpose of
himself against then President Marcos. The SC computing the number of successive terms allowed”.
found Frivaldo disqualified for not having
possessed the requirement of citizenship which ISSUE: Was Talaga disqualified to run for mayor of
cannot be cured by the electorate, especially if they Lucena City in the May 14, 2001 elections.
mistakenly believed, as in this case, that he candidate was
qualified. HELD: Qualified! The term limit for elective local officials
must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as
Republic v. dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785, the well as the right to serve in the same elective
disqualification of Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo position considering that the continuity of his mayorship
opted to reacquire his Phili. Citizenship thru was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections which is
naturalization but however failed to comply with considered as an interruption in the continuity of service.
the jurisdiction requirement of publication, thus, The SC further held that the comment of Fr. Bernas is
the court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the pertinent only to members of the House of
naturalization of Frivaldo. He was again, disqualified. Representatives, there being no recall election
provided for members of Congress, unlike local
Frivaldo later reacquired Philippine citizenship. government officials.
In a 1996 decision, Frivaldo v. COMELEC 257
SCRA 721 (1996), he obtained the highest number of LONZANIDA V. COMELEC July 28, 1998,
votes in 3 consecutive elections but was twice declared by
the SC to be unqualified to hold office due to his alien Facts: Lonzanida served two consecutive terms as
citizenship. He claimed to have reassumed his lost Phil. municipal mayor Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995
Citizenship thru repatriation. It was established that he elections. In the May `1995 elections, Lonzanida ran for
took his oath of allegiance under the provision of PD 725 Mayor and was again proclaimed winner. He assumed office
at 2 pm on June 30, 1995, much later than the time he and discharged the duties thereof. Alvez filed an election
filed his certificate of candidacy. “The law does not protest which in a decision dated January 9, 1997 declared a
specify any particular date or time when the failure of elections rendering the results for the office of the
candidate must possess citizenship, unlike that of mayor of San Antonio as null and void. The office of the
residence and age as Sec. 39 of RA 7160 mayor of said municipality was declared vacant. the
specifically speaks of “qualification of elective COMELEC on Nov. 13, 1997, resolved the election protest
officials, not candidates” thus, the citizenship filed by Alvez in his favor after determining that Alvez got the
requirement in the local government code to be plurality of votes. The COMELEC issued a writ of execution
33 AZNAR V. COMELEC 185 SCRA 703 34 Section 43 (b) of RA 7160, Local Government Code
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 36
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post, which he obeyed because the proclamation of Aguinaldo already barred
and Alvez assumed office for the remainder of the term. the action. The fact that Aguinaldo was already
proclaimed, it is already the HRET who has
Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for jurisdiction over the same having exclusive original
Mayor in the 1998 elections and his opponent timely jurisdiction over the petition for declaration of
filed a petition to disqualify him for running for mayor Aguinaldo‟s ineligibility.
on the ground that he had served 3 consecutive terms in
the same post. Bagatsing v. COMELEC 320 SCRA 220, a disqualification
case was filed by candidates Bagatsing, Maceda and Lopez
ISSUE: Whether Lonzanida‟s assumption of against Atienza 7 days after the elections for allegedly
office from May 1995 to March 1998 may be disbursing public funds within the 45 day prohibitory period,
considered as service of one full term for the which amount was alleged to be distributed as financial
purpose of applying the 3-year limit for elective assistance to the public school teachers of Manila who manned
local government officials. the precinct polls for the said elections. Atienza was proclaimed
Mayor of the City of Manila. COMELEC First Division
HELD: Qualified! The two requisites for the dismissed the disqualification case and denied the motion to
application of the 3-term limit are wanting. suspend proclamation pending their MR with the COMELEC en
banc, petitioners filed a petition with the
First, petitioner cannot be considered as having been
elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and Issue: WoN the COMELEC first Division committed grave
second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 abuse of discretion in dismissing the disqualification case
mayoralty TERM BY REASON OF INVOLUNTARY against Atienza and referring the same to its law department for
RELINQUISHMENT OF OFFICE (Sec. 43 of RA 7169 & PI.
Sec. 8 of Art. X of the Constitution, requires the
renunciation to be ―voluntary‖ to be considered as an Held: A complaint for disqualification filed BEFORE the
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term election must be inquired into by the COMELEC for the purpose
for which the election official concerned was elected.) of determining whether the acts complained of have in fact been
Take note that he was not duly elected in the 1995 committed. When the inquiry results in a finding before the
elections as his proclamation as winner was declared election, the COMELEC shall order the candidate‘s
null and void. disqualification. In the case the complaint was not
resolved before the election, the COMELEC motu
“A proclamation subsequently declared void is propio or on motion of any of the parties, refer the said
no proclamation at all and while a proclaimed complaint to the Law Department of the COMELEC for
candidate may assume office on the strength of PI. COMELEC was held not to have abused its discretion in
the proclamation of the BOC, he is only a not ordering the suspension of the proclamation conformably
presumptive winner who assumes the office with its COMELEC Reso 2070 which provides that where a
subject of the final outcome of the election complaint is filed after the elections but before proclamation, as
protest. in this case, the complaint must be dismissed as a
disqualification case but shall be referred to the law department
Had the COMELEC lost jurisdiction? Yes. The for PI.
proclamation nor assumption of office of a candidate
against whom a petition for disqualification is pending In the event the law department makes a prima facie finding of
before the COMELEC does not divest the COMELEC of guilt and the corresponding information has been filed with the
jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and resolve it appropriate trial court, the complainant may file a petition for
on the merits. suspension of the proclamation of respondent with the court
before which the criminal case is pending and that court may
Borja v. COMELEC September 3, 1998: Issue: order the suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt
whether a Vice-Mayor who succeeds to the office of is strong. Since these circumstances are not present in this
mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder of case, not legal ground warrants the suspension of the
the term is considered to served a term in that office for proclamation.
the purpose of the 3-term limit.
CAMPAIGN PERIOD (excludes the day before and the day No movie, cinematography or documentary portraying the
of the elections) life or biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited
PRES., VP AND SENATORS starts 90 days in a theater, television stations or any public forum
before the date of election which coincides with the DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD or those portrayed by
start of the election period. an actor or media personality who is himself a candidate.
Members of the HR and local officials 45
days ELECTION SURVEYS
Brgy. Officials 15 days
Election Surveys – refers to the measurements of opinions
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT
and perceptions of the voters as regards a candidate‘s
popularity, qualifications, platforms or matter of public
FOR PRINTED AND BROADCAST MEDIA discussion in relation to the election, including voters‘
Allowed (RA 9006) provided the said advertisement shall preference or candidates or publicly discussed issued during the
bear and be identified by reasonably legible or audible campaign period. The person or entity who publishes a survey
words “Political advertisement paid for,” follows by is required to include the following information:
the true and correct name and address of the candidate or
party for whose benefit the election propaganda was 1. Name of the person, candidate, party or organization
printed or aired. who COMMISSIONED OR PAID FOR THE
SURVEY.
If the broadcast is given free of charge by the radio or 2. Name and address of the person or polling firm
television station, it shall be identified by the words who conducted the survey.
“airtime for this broadcast was provided free of 3. PERIOD during which the survey was conducted,
charge by” followed by the true and correct name and methodology used, including the number of individual
address of the broadcast entity. respondents and the areas form which they were
selected, and the specific questions asked.
Provided, that said print, broadcast donated shall 4. Margin of error of the survey
not be published or printed without the written
acceptance of the candidate or political party The survey together with the raw data gathered to support the
which acceptance shall be attached to the conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying
advertising contract and submitted to the and verification by the COMELEC, or by the registered
COMELEC. political party or any COMELEC accredited citizens
arm.
GUIDELINES of POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS
WHETHER BY PURCHASE OR DONATION LIMITATIONS
2. TELEVISION/RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS Political parties and party-list groups may be authorized by the
COMELEC COMMON POSTER AREAS FOR THEIR
National Candidates/ Registered Political Party CANDIDATE IN NOR MORE THAN 10 PUBLIC PLACES
Not more than 120 minutes of TV advertisement and such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like, wherein
180 minutes of radio. candidates can post, display or exhibit election propaganda.
Size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 X 16 feet or
Local Elective Offices its equivalent. With respect to independent candidates, may
not more than 60 minutes of TV advertisement and likewise avail of this but the difference is merely on the size
90 minutes of radio. which shall not exceed 4 x 6 feet or its equivalent.
COMELEC TIME AND SPACE Francisco Chavez v. COMELEC G.R. No. 162777, 31
August 2004) (read attached)
PRINT SPACE: COMELEC shall pay just
compensation (PPI ruling) in at least 3
NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION which
COMELEC shall allocated free of charge to the
national candidates. Broadcast network (radio and
TV), free of charge to COMELEC.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 38
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Composition of the Board of Canvassers (Sec. 221, BP No member of the board of canvassers shall feign illness in order
881, as amended by Sec. 20, RA 6646) to be substituted on election day until the proclamation of the
winning candidates. Feigning of illness constitutes an election
offense. (Sec. 224, B.P. 881)
PROVINCI MUNICIPA
CITY
AL L
JURISDICTION OF COMELEC OVER THE BOARD OF
City election CANVASSERS
registrar or a
lawyer of
Provincial COMELEC; COMELEC has direct control and supervision over the board of
election Election canvassers. Any member of the Board may, at any time, be
supervisor or In cities with more registrar or a relieved for cause and substituted motu proprio by the
Chair COMELEC. (Sec. 227, B.P. 881)
lawyer in the than 1 election representativ
man
regional registrar, e of
office of the COMELEC shall COMELEC COMELEC has the power to investigate and act on the propriety
COMELEC designate the or legality of the canvass of election returns made by the board
election registrar of canvassers.
who shall act as
chairman
Vice NATURE OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS‟ DUTIES
Municipal
Chair Provincial
City fiscal treasurer
man fiscal A canvassing board's task is to compile and add the results as
Most senior they appear in the election returns transmitted to it. (Guiao
district v. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 366)
school
supervisor or When Ministerial
Provincial City in his
Memb Once the COMELEC or the board of canvassers is satisfied in
superintende superintendent of absence a
er the authenticity of the returns, it has no power to look beyond
nt of schools schools principal of
the school the face thereof, and its task of tallying is merely ministerial.
district or the When there is an error in the computation which is discovered
elementary after proclamation, the board of canvassers can simply correct
school the error; the remedy being purely administrative.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 39
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CANVASS PROCEEDINGS
The City or Municipal Board of Canvassers shall prepare the
certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President, Senators,
There must be a strong prima facie case backed up by
a specific offer of evidence, and an indication of its Members of the House of Representatives, and Elective Provincial
nature and importance has to be made out to warrant Officials in 7 copies to be distributed as follows:
the reception of evidence aliunde, for the
1. 1st copy: Provincial board of canvassers – for
presentation of witnesses and the delays necessarily
entailed thereby. canvassing of election results for President, Vice-
President, Senators, Members of the House of
When COMELEC has determined after investigation Representatives and Elective Provincial Officials
and examination of the voting and registration
records that ACTUAL VOTING and ELECTION took 2. 2nd copy: COMELEC
place in the questioned precincts, election returns
cannot be disregarded but are accorded prima facie 3. 3rd copy: To be kept by the chairman of the board of
canvassers
status as bona fide reports of the result of voting for
canvassing and proclamation purposes.
4. 4th copy: Citizens' arm designated by the COMELEC
COMELEC should guard against PROCLAMATION to conduct media- based unofficial count
GRABBING and against attempts to paralyze the
canvassing and proclamation. 5. 5th to 7th copies: Representatives of any 3 of 6 major
political parties according to the voluntary agreement
To allow a respondent to raise belated questions of the parties; if there is no agreement, COMELEC
shall decide based on the criteria under sec. 26 of RA
before the COMELEC as to the returns during the
review of a case before the COMELEC, which 7166
question has not been raised before the board of
canvassers, would mean undue delays in the pre- City Boards of Canvassers of cities comprising one or more
legislative districts,Provincial Boards of Canvassers, and
proclamation proceedings.
District Boards of Canvassers in the Metro Manila area:
The Supreme Court can review the decisions of
COMELEC ONLY in cases of grave abuse of The foregoing Boards of Canvassers shall prepare the certificates of
canvass for President, Vice-President and Senators in 7 copies to be
discretion in the discharge of QUASI-JUDICIAL
POWERS and not in the exercise of its administrative distributed as follows:
duties.
1. 1st copy: Congress, directed to the Senate President
for use in the canvass of election results for President
Conclusiveness of findings
and Vice-President
The findings of the board of canvassers and the
2. 2nd copy: COMELEC, for use in the canvass of the
certificate of election issued by them are not conclusive
election results for Senators
but are merely PRIMA FACIE evidence of the result and
title to the office of those declared elected.
3. 3rd copy: To be kept by the chairman of the board of
canvassers
As to all other collateral matters, the findings of the
board are conclusive. However, such findings are not
conclusive in a direct proceeding to try title to the office. 4. 4th copy: Citizens' arm designated by the COMELEC
to conduct media- based unofficial count
The fact of having a plurality of votes lawfully cast is
5. 5th to 7th copies: Representatives of any 3 of 6 major
what confers title to the office UNLESS one is allowed
to go behind the certificate or returns to establish title political parties according to the
to the office before the appropriate tribunal. 6. voluntary agreement of the parties; if there is no
agreement, COMELEC shall decide based on the
criteria under sec. 26 of RA 7166
PREPARATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS
AND STATEMENT OF VOTES
Certificate of canvass
Statement of votes
NUMBER OF COPIES OF ELECTION RETURNS AND The board of canvassers shall forthwith make a certificate
THEIR DISTRIBUTION stating the name of the candidate who had been favored by luck
and his proclamation on the basis thereof.
RA 8173 which amended Sec. 27 of RA 7166 provides that in the
Nothing in the above shall be construed as depriving a
election for Pres. and VP, Senators and House of
Representatives, the ERS shall be distributed as candidate of his right to contest the election.
follows:
Proclamation of a Lone Candidate (R.A. 8295)
1st CBOC or MBOC
2nd Congress , directed to the Pres. of the Senate
3rd COMELEC Upon the expiration of the deadline for the filing of certificates
4th dominant majority party as may be determined by of candidacy in a special election called to fill a vacancy in
an elective position other than for President and Vice-President,
the COMELEC in accordance with law.
5th dominant minority party as may be determined by when there is only one (1) qualified candidate for such position,
COMELEC in accordance with law. the lone candidate shall be proclaimed elected to the position by
6th Citizen‘s Arms authorized by the COMELEC to proper proclaiming body of the COMELEC without holding the
special election upon certification by the COMELEC that he is
conduct an unofficial count
7th to be deposited inside the ballot box the only candidate for the office and is therefore deemed
elected. (Sec. 2)
Local Officials – (1) CBOC or MBOC (2) COMELEC (3) PBOC
In the absence of any lawful ground to deny due course or
(4) DMP (5) DMP (6) citizens arm for unofficial count (7)
inside ballot box. cancel the certificate of candidacy in order to prevent such
proclamation, as provided for under Sec. 69 and 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code, the lone candidate shall assume office
PROCLAMATION not earlier than the scheduled election day. (Sec. 3)
Duties of Board of Canvassers The COMELEC shall decide petitions for disqualification not
later than election day. Otherwise, such petitions shall be
After the canvass of election returns, in the absence of a deemed dismissed. (Sec. 3)
perfected appeal to the COMELEC, the Board of
Canvassers shall proclaim the candidates who obtained
the highest number of votes cast in the province, city,
municipality or barangay, on the basis of the certificates of
canvass. Failure to comply with this duty constitutes an
election offense. (Sec. 231, B.P. 881)
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 42
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
votes in every instance would paralyze canvass and proclamation.
Jurisprudence has held that the following issues are not proper in a
pre-proclamation controversy:
Appreciation of ballots, as this is performed by the
Board of Election Inspectors at the precinct level and
is not part of the proceedings of the Board of
Canvassers (Sanchez v. COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67,
reiterated in Chavez v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315);
Technical examination of the signatures and thumb
marks of voters (Balindong v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA
494; Matalam v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733);
Prayer for re-opening of ballot boxes (Alfonso v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 107847, June 2, 1994);
Padding of the Registry List of Voters of a
municipality, massive fraud and terrorism (Ututalum
v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335);
Challenges directed against the Board of Election
Inspectors (Ututalum v. COMELEC, supra)
Fraud, terrorism and other illegal electoral practices.
MODES OF CHALLENGING CANDIDACY These are properly within the office of election
& ELECTION RESULTS contests over which electoral tribunals have sole,
exclusive jurisdiction. (Loong v. COMELEC)
Pre-Proclamation Controversy
Procedure
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any
question or matter pertaining to or affecting the The procedure for filing a pre-proclamation controversy depends on
proceedings of the board of canvassers, or any the issue being raised:
matter raised under Sec. 233-236 of BP 881 in
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, (a) Questions involving the composition or proceedings of
custody and appreciation of the election returns. the board of canvassers, or correction of manifest
(Sec. 241, BP 881) errors
Jurisdiction: The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over WHERE: The controversy may be initiated either in the Board of
pre-proclamation cases. It may order, motu proprio or upon Canvassers or directly with the COMELEC. (Sec. 17, R.A. 7166)
written petition, the partial or total suspension of the
proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul partially or totally WHEN:
any proclamation, if one has been made. (Sec. 242, BP 881)
It depends:
(1) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board If filed with the Board first:
of election canvassers
(1) Petitioner submits his / her objection to the
(2) Canvassed election returns are either: chairman of the board of canvassers.
incomplete
contain material defects (2) The Board makes its ruling.
appear to be tampered with or falsified
contain discrepancies in the same returns or (3) Within 3 days from the ruling, the parties
in other authentic copies adversely affected may appeal the matter to the
COMELEC.
(3) The election returns were:
prepared under duress, threats, coercion, (4) Upon appeal, the COMELEC shall summarily
intimidation or decide the case within 5 days from the filing
obviously manufactured or not authentic thereof. (Sec. 19, R.A. 7166)
(4) Substituted or fraudulent returns in controverted If initiated directly with the COMELEC:
polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of the aggrieved (1) Petitioner files petition with the
candidate(s). COMELEC.
(5) Manifest errors in the Certificates of Canvass or
Election Returns (Sec. 15, R.A. 7166; Chavez v. (2) Upon the docketing of such petition, the
COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315) Clerk of Court concerned shall issue
summons with a copy of the petition to
This enumeration is restrictive and exclusive. The complete respondents.
election returns whose authenticity is not questioned must be
prima facie considered valid for purposes of canvass and (3) The Clerk of Court concerned shall
proclamation. To allow a re-count or a re-appreciation of the immediately set the petition for hearing.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 43
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The COMELEC shall hear and decide authorization is void ab initio, unless the contested returns
the petition en banc. do not adversely affect the results of the election. (Sec. 20,
R.A. 7166)
The Board of Canvassers shall not commence, proceed or
resume canvass unless otherwise ordered by the COMELEC. This procedure is mandatory. Non-compliance with any of the steps
(Sec. 5, Rule 27, COMELEC Rules of Procedure) above is fatal to the pre-proclamation petition.
(2) Upon receipt of such objection, the Board The prevailing candidate may still be unseated even though he has
automatically defers the canvass of the contested been proclaimed and installed in office if:
returns and proceeds to canvass the returns which
are not contested by any party. 1. The opponent is adjudged the true winner of the
election by final judgment of court in an election
(3) Within 24 hours from and after the presentation of contest;
such objection, the objecting party submits the
evidence in support of the objection, which shall be 2. The prevailing party is declared ineligible or
attached to the form for written objections. disqualified by final judgment of a court in a QUO
WARRANTO case; or
Within the same 24-hour period, any party may file a
written and verified opposition to the objection in the 3. The incumbent is removed from office for cause.
prescribed COMELEC form, attaching supporting
evidence, if any. The Board shall not entertain any Matalam v. COMELEC 271 SCRA 733
objection or opposition unless reduced to writing in
the prescribed forms. A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY was defined,
as a general rule, as any question pertaining to or
(4) The Board chairman immediately and formally affecting the proceedings of the BOC which may be
admits the evidence attached to the objection or raised by any candidate or by any registered political
opposition by affixing his signature at the back of party or coalition of political parties before the
each and every page thereof. Board or directly with the COMELEC, on any matter
raised under Secs. 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the OEC
(5) Upon receipt of the evidence, the Board considers the in relation to the preparation, transmission receipt
objection and the opposition, and summarily rules on custody and appreciation of the ER and Certificate of
the objection. The Board then enters its ruling on the canvass. (Sec. 243 OEC)
prescribed form and authenticates the same by
entering the signatures of all its members. Under Sec. 17 of RA 7166, questions affecting the
composition or proceedings of the BOC may be initiated
(6) The parties adversely affected by the ruling WITH THE BOARD OR DIRECTLY WITH THE COMELEC.
immediately inform the Board if they intend to However, matters raised under Sec. 233 to 236, shall be
appeal the ruling. Such information is then entered brought in the first instance before the BOC only.
in the minutes of canvass.
Exception: in Sec. 15 of RA 7166 which prohibits candidates
(7) The Board then sets aside the returns and proceeds for Pres. and VP, Senators and members of the HR from
to consider the other returns. The Board then filing PPC.
suspends the canvass after all the uncontested
returns have been canvassed and the contested The Commission exercises authority to decide PPC in two
return ruled upon by it. instances, to wit:
(1) in appeals from ruling of the BOC; and
(8) Within 48 hours from the ruling, the party adversely (2) in petitions directly filed with it.
affected files a written and verified notice of appeal
with the Board. The party then files an appeal with In appeals from the rulings of the board, TWO TYPES ARE
the COMELEC within a non-extendible period of 5 GENERALLY INVOLVED.
days thereafter.
1. The FIRST refers to RULINGS ON QUESTIONS
(9) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the CONTESTING ITS COMPOSITION OR
Board makes an appropriate report to the PROCEEDINGS, AND APPEAL THEREFROM
COMELEC, elevating therewith the complete records must be taken by the contestant adversely
and evidence submitted in the canvass, and affected within 3 days from such ruling.
furnishing the parties with copies of the report.
2. The second type refers to RULINGS ON
(10) The COMELEC summarily decides the appeal within QUESTIONS CONTESTING ELECTION
7 days from receipt of the record and evidence RETURNS.
elevated to it by the Board.
The party adversely affected must immediately
(11) The COMELEC's decision becomes executory after inform the board that he intends to appeal
the lapse of 7 days from receipt thereof by the losing from the ruling and the board shall enter said
party. information in the minutes of the canvass; and
Within 48 hours from the ruling, the adverse
(12) The COMELEC then authorizes the Board of party must file with the board a written and
Canvassers to proceed with the proclamation of the verified notice of appeal,
winner. Any proclamation made without COMELEC
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 44
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
And within an unextendible period of 5 standing of the aggrieved candidate. (Sec. 243
days thereafter, he has to take the appeal to the OEC)
COMELEC.
Summary Recent Jurisprudence:
Matalam v. Comlec 271 SCRA 733 - The enumeration of
the issues in a PPC is restrictive and exclusive37 and the 1) A proclamation made pending appeal of the ruling of the
COMELEC is limited and restricted only to an board of canvassers is void.
examination of the ER and is without jurisdiction to go 2) A petition to correct entries in the certificates of canvass
beyond or behind the ER. on the ground of manifest errors must be predicated on
errors that appear on the fact of the COC sought to be
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre- corrected. A petition for correction of manifest error
proclamation controversy. - The following shall be may be filed involving the election of members of the HR.
proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation 3) It is possible that a candidate receives zero votes in one
controversy: or two precincts. This fact alone cannot support the
contention that the ER contains statistically improbable
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of results. This is also true when only one candidate
canvassers; obtained all the votes in some precincts.
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, 4) Formal defects, duress, and intimidated are not grounds
contain material defects, appear to be tampered for excluding an ER.
with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the An order setting aside a proclamation must be rendered after prior
same returns or in other authentic copies thereof notice and hearing. Due process requirements must be present
as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of before the Commission Elections rules on the petition.
this Code; PETITION TO ANNUL OR SUSPEND PROCLAMATIO N
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress,
threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are
obviously manufactured or not authentic; and The filing with the COMELEC of a petition to annul or to suspend
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in proclamation suspends the running of the period to file an election
controverted polling places were canvassed, the protest. (Alangdeo v. COMELEC, June 1989)
results of which materially affected the standing
of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. No law provides for a reglementary period within which to file a
petition for the annulment of an election if there is as yet no
proclamation. (Loong v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1)
Sandoval v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 407, COMELEC
exercise exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio or There is no fixed time frame within which to file a petition to annul a
upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, proclamation, the same being limited only by the standard of
order the partial or total suspension of the proclamation of reasonableness. (Nachura, p. 386)
the candidate-elect or annul partially or totally any
proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF ELECTION
warrant in accordance with sec. 242 of the OEC.
Velayo v. COMELEC 327 SCRA 713 - A PPC is Nature: A petition to declare a failure of election is neither an
summary in nature, administrative in character election protest nor a pre-proclamation controversy. (Borja v.
and which is filed before the BOC. While it is true COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604)
that RA 7166 provides for summary proceedings in PP
cases and does not require a trial type hearing, Grounds for declaration: See previous discussion.
nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be stretched to
mean ex parte proceedings. Summary means with Jurisdiction of COMELEC:
dispatch with the least possible delay. But although the
proceedings are summary, the adverse party The COMELEC, sitting en banc, may declare a failure of election by a
nevertheless must at the very least be notified so majority vote of its members. (Sec. 4, R.A. 71660
that he can be apprised of the nature and purpose
of the proceeding. In this case, it was found that all The COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment of election
proceedings were conducted by the respondent COMELEC results or declaration of failure of elections, may conduct technical
without the participation of the petitioner. Worse, examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters'
respondent Navidad was allowed to file various motions signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the
without the knowledge of the petitioner. Plainly, these ex elections had indeed been free, honest and clean. (Loong v.
parte proceedings offend fundamental fairness and are COMELEC, supra)
null and void. This ruling was reiterated in the recent case
of Cawasa, et. al. v. COMELEC, et. al. G.R. 150469 July 3,
2002.
Requisites for the declaration of failure of election
SCOPE OF A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
(SEC. 242) Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking a
declaration of failure of election, the following conditions must
1) Illegal composition or proceedings of the concur:
BOC;
2) The canvassed ER‟s are incomplete, contain (1) No voting has taken place in the precincts concerned
material defects, appear to be tampered with, on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting,
or falsified or contain discrepancies in the the election nonetheless resulted in a failure to elect;
same returns or in other authentic copies as and
mention in Secs. 233 to 236;
3) The ER were prepared under duress, threats, (2) The votes cast would affect the results of the election.
coercion or intimidation or they are (Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54; Loong v.
obviously manufactured or not authentic; or, COMELEC, supra; Hassan v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA
125)
Ocampo v. COMELEC 325 SCRA 636, the
SC ruled that this fact must be evident from The election is only to be set aside when it is impossible from any
the face of the said documents. In the evidence within reach to ascertain the true result – when neither
absence of a strong evidence establishing from the returns nor from other proof can the truth be determined
spuriousness of the returns, the basic rule (i.e. where the illegality affects more than 50% of the total number of
that the ER shall be accorded prima facie votes cast and the remainder does not constitute a valid
status as bona fide reports of the results constituency).
of the count of the votes for canvassing
and proclamation purposes must prevail.
Procedure
4) When substitute or fraudulent returns in
controverted polling places are canvassed,
the result of which materially affect the (1) Petitioner files verified petition with the Law
Department of the COMELEC.
DISQUALIFICATION CASES
Procedure
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the
office to which he was elected, does not necessarily entitle the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 46
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction (i.e., the Municipal Trial Courts).
The Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction over municipal and barangay officals,
respectively.
ELECTION CONTESTS
It must be noted that cases involving qualifications of candidates for
the Sangguniang Kabataan filed before the election are decided by
Election contests, defined the Election Officer, while those filed after the election are decided by
the MTCs. (Nachura, p. 389)
These are adversarial proceedings by which matters involving
the title or claim to an elective office, made before or after
proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the Powers of the COMELEC in relation to election contests
contestant is claiming the office in dispute. The purpose of an
election contest is to ascertain the candidate lawfully elected to The power of COMELEC to decide election cases includes the power
office. to determine the validity or nullity of votes.
Until and unless the election protest is decided against him, a Election Protest
person who has been proclaimed as duly elected has the lawful
right to assume and perform the duties and functions of the WHO MAY FILE: Any candidate who has filed a certificate of
office. candidacy and has been voted upon for the same office, and
who has not himself caused or contributed to the
irregularities or frauds of which he complains
Jurisdiction over election contests
GROUNDS: Fraud, terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts
committed before, during or after the casting and counting of votes
Supreme Court
PERIOD FOR FILING: Within 10 days from proclamation of the
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole results of the election
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
disqualifications of the President, Vice-President, and may Where, after 5 days from the proclamation of the winning candidate,
promulgate its rules for such purpose. (Art. VII, Sec. 4, 1987 the loser files a motion for reconsideration in the pre-proclamation
Constitution) controversy, there are only 5 days which remain of the period within
which to file an election protest. (Roquero v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA
150)
Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and House of
Representatives PROCEDURE:
The Senate and the House of Representatives have A. For protests filed with the COMELEC (Rule 20 vis-à-vis
their own electoral tribunals. Each electoral tribunal has 9 Rules 10-19, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
members: 3 Supreme Court Justices, 6 members of the Senate
or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be (1) Protestant files a verified petition with the COMELEC
chosen on the basis of proportional within 10 days from proclamation and pays the required
representation from the political parties and the parties or docket fees. Failure to pay the basic docket fee will result
organizations registered under the party-list system in the dismissal of the protest. (Gatchalian v. COMELEC,
represented therein. (Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution) 245 SCRA 208)
For purposes of election contests cognizable by the (2) The Clerk of Court of the COMELEC or the division
Electoral Tribunals, the rules of procedure of such tribunals concerned issues the corresponding summons to the
shall prevail over the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. protestee within 3 days from the filing of the petition.
(Lazatin v. HRET, 168 SCRA 39)
(3) Protestee must file an answer within 5 days from service of
summons and a copy of the petition. The protestee may
COMELEC incorporate in his answer a counter-protest or
counterclaim.
The COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all
election contests relating to the elections, returns, and The COMELEC may not entertain a counter-protest filed
qualifications of all elective: beyond the reglementary period to file the same. (Kho v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 124033, Sept. 25, 1997)
(1) Regional Officials;
(2) Provincial Officials; and (4) Protestant has 5 days from receipt of the answer or answer
(3) City Officials with counterclaim or counter-protest to file his reply or
answer to counter-protest or counterclaim, respectively.
Decisions in these cases may be appealed to the Supreme
Court. If no answer is filed to the protest or counter-protest, a
general denial is deemed to have been entered.
The COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction (i.e., Regional Trial Courts) or involving (5) After the issues have been joined, the case shall be set for
hearing and presentation and reception of evidence.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 47
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Quo Warranto
(6) After the case has been submitted for decision, the
COMELEC shall render its decision. If the case is WHO MAY FILE: Any registered voter in the constituency
being heard by a Division, the case shall be decided
within 10 days. If it is being heard by the COMELEC GROUNDS: Ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
en banc, it shall be decided within 30 days. Philippines
(7) The decision of a division becomes final and PERIOD FOR FILING: Within 10 days from proclamation of the
executory after the lapse of 15 days following its results of the election
promulgation. The aggrieved party may file a timely
motion for reconsideration within 5 days from
promulgation of the decision on the grounds that the Award of damages
evidence is insufficient to justify the decision; or that
the said decision is contrary to law.
Actual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election
For the COMELEC en banc, the decision becomes contests or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with law.
final and executory 30 days from its promulgation. (Sec. 259, B.P. 881)
(1) Protestant files a verified petition with the RTC ELECTION PROTEST
within 10 days from proclamation.
An EP is a special statutory proceedings designed to
(2) Protestee must file an answer within 5 days after contest the right of a person, declared elected to enter
receipt of notice of the filing of the petition and a upon and hold office. It is strictly a contest between the
copy of the petition. defeated and winning candidates, based on grounds of
ELECTION FRAUDS OR IRREGULARITIES, as to who actually
Should the protestee desire to impugn the votes obtained the majority of the legal votes and, therefore, is
received by the protestant in other precincts, he entitled to hold office. It can only be filed by a candidate
may file a verified counter-protest within the same who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
period fixed for the filing of the answer. been voted for. It is a formal judicial proceedings that
goes into correctness of the counting and appreciation
(3) Protestant has 5 days from receipt of the counter- of ballots at the precinct level were the parties are
protest to file his answer to such counter-protest. allowed to present and examine evidence in detail. IT
IS FILED TEN (10) DAYS
(4) Any other candidate for the same office may
intervene in the case within 5 days from filing of GROUNDS:
the protest by filing a verified petition-in- 1. Fraud,
intervention. The protestant or protestee shall 2. Vote-buying,
answer the protest-in-intervention within 5 days 3. Terrorism,
after notice. 4. Presence of flying voters,
5. Misreading or misappreciation of the ballots,
(5) If no answer is filed to the protest, counter-protest disenfranchisement of voters,
or protest-in-intervention within the specified 6. Unqualified members of the BEI and
time limits, a general denial is deemed to have 7. other election irregularities.
been entered.
QUO WARRANTO
(6) After the issues have been joined, the case shall be
set for hearing. Presentation and reception of
evidence shall be completed within 30 days from A petition for QW on the other hand refers to questions of
the date of the commencement thereof. disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a
proceeding to unseat the ineligible person from office, but not to
(7) The Court shall decide the election contest within install the protestant in his place. It can be filed by any voter
30 days from the date it is submitted for decision, within ten (10) days from proclamation except on the ground of
but in every case within 6 months after its filing. citizenship, which can be filed at any time, considering that
Such decision shall declare who among the parties citizenship is a continuing qualification for an elective office.
has been elected, or in a proper case, that none of
them has been legally elected. What distinguished one remedy from the other is not the
label given to it but the allegations therein stated. So a
(8) The decision becomes final 5 days after its petition alleging fraud and irregularity which vitiated the conduct of
promulgation. No motion for reconsideration the election, although entitled QW, is an EP and vice versa. In view
shall be entertained. of these fundamental differences, they may not be availed of jointly
and in the same proceeding. They may however be separately filed,
Should an aggrieved party wish to appeal the with the second and later case suspended until the earlier is resolved.
decision to the COMELEC, he may do so by filing a An action for QW cannot however be converted into an EP.
notice of appeal within 5 days from promulgation
of the decision. Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a FPJ vs. GMA PET Case No. 002
– resolved the issue on whether a widow may
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PROTESTANT substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the
pendency of the protest case?
The death of the protestant does not extinguish an election
protest. An election protest is imbued with public interest Court where faced not only on who between protestant and
which raises it onto a plane over and above ordinary civil protestee was the true winner in the May 10, 2004 presidential
actions, because it involves not only the adjudication of the elections but also to decide whether the protestant‘s widow
private interest of the rival candidates but also the paramount Jesusa Sonora Poe could intervene and/or substitute for the
need of dispelling once and for all the uncertainty that beclouds deceased party, assuming arguendo that the protest could
the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall survive his death. GMA votes is 12,905,808/FPJ 11,782,232.
discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift. (De
Castro v. COMELEC, 267 SCRA 806, as cited in Nachura, p. Together with the filing of the notice of death the manifestation
393) to interevene was filed with the contention that:
However, it is not the heirs of the deceased who shall be the (1) Urgent need for her to contiue and substitute for her
successors-in-interest to the suit, but the succeeding candidate- late husband in the EP to ascertain the true and
elect. For example, if the deceased was a candidate for genuine will of the electorate;
governor, the real party in interest in the continuation of the (2) De Casto v. COMELEC and Lumogdang v.
proceedings is the Vice-Governor-elect, as he or she will Javier cases were used stating that the death of the
succeed in the event that the protestant is declared to be the protestant does not constitute a ground for the
person lawfully elected to the office. dismissal of the contest or to oust the court of
jurisdiction.
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 48
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
(3) cognizant that she cannot succeed or be entitled PRINCIPLES COMMON TO ALL ELECTION CONTESTS:
to the said office, but her utmost concern is one
that involves the public‘s interest.
1) Who may file – the person entitled to file an election
(4) that should it be determined that protestee did protest is a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
not garner the highest number of votes, be candidacy and has been voted to the same office.
prevented from exercising the powers, duties However, precision in the use of terms in an election
and responsibilities
protest is not indispensable. Substantial compliance is
sufficient.
GMA contends that pursuant to the rules of procedure of
the PET only the registered candidate who garnered the 2) Jurisdictional allegations – the jurisdiction facts
2nd and 3rd highest votes for the presidency may contest
necessary to confer JURISDICTION TO TRY AN
the election of president. She cannot use public interest to ELECTION PROTEST ARE:
justify her request to be substituted. a. That the protestant was a candidate who had
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and
Court ruled that Mrs. FPJ is not real party in
had been voted for the same office;
interest pursuant to Rule 14 of PET rules. Public b. That the protestee has been proclaimed;
office is personal to the public officer and not property c. That the petition was filed within ten (10)
transmissible to the heirs upon death. But in Vda. de days after the proclamation; and
Mesa the Court allowed substitution and intervention but
d. That fraud and election irregularities
only by a real party in interest in the person who would be vitiated the conduct of elections and
benefited or injured by the judgment and a party who is affected the legality thereof.
entitled to the avails of the suit. In de mesa and
lumogdang v. Javier cases, the VM was permitted to
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping -
substitute for the reason that if the mayor is unseated, the
VM succeeds the office.
The SC in Loyola v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995) and Lomarong
Court not unaware that a contest before election tribunals v. Dubguban 269 SCRA 624 (1997) ruled, that the SC Circular
has two aspects. First, right to hold public office and requiring that any complaint, petition or other initiatory
second, it is imbued with public interest. pleading must contain a non-forum certification applies to
PERSONAL ASPECT IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED election cases. The requirement is mandatory, not jurisdictional,
WITH PUBLIC INTEREST. But nobility of intentions so that non-compliance therewith may warrant the dismissal of
is not the point of reference in determining whether a election cases. A certification filed after the filing of the
person may intervene in an election protest. Rule 19, Sec. election case but within the reglamentary period to file the
1 of the Rules of Court is applicable. same constitutes as substantial compliance with the
circular but not one filed thereafter.
JURISDICTION OVER EP AND QW
Docket Fees –
1) Supreme Court – sitting en banc as Presidential
Electoral Tribunal, sole judge of all contests in Soller v. COMELEC 339 SCRA 684, the SC ruled that a court
relating to the E, R and Q of the Pres. and VP – acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
protest is filed 30 days after proclamation. prescribed docket fees.
Not subject to judicial review
2) Senate Electoral Tribunal – for members of Verification – in the same case, the fact that the petitioner failed to
senate as sole judge of all contest relating to the E, R, stated in the verification that the contents thereof are true and
and Q of its own members. Filed within 15 days correct of his own personal knowledge lack the proper verification
from date of proclamation. Not subject to and the pleading must be dismissed.
judicial review except on grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
3) HRET – members of HR to be filed within 10
days – each electoral tribunal shall be composed of Malaluan v. COMELEC 254 SCRA 397 where the SC ruled
nine members, three of whom shall be justices of the on the matter relative of an execution of a decision in an
SC to be designated by the CJ and the remaining 6 election protest case pending appeal. Since the judge acted
members of the senate or house of representatives, as without any precedent in this case, the Court held that Sec. 2,
the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which allows the RTC to
their proportional representation from the political order execution pending appeal upon good reasons
parties and the parties or organizations registered stated in a special order, may be made to apply by analogy
under the party list system. Senior justice shall be or suppletorily to election contests decided by it.
chairman (Art. VI, Sec. 17)
4) COMELEC – for regional, provincial and city Gutierrez v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 197, it was settled that
officials filed in 10 days. Subject to judicial review SEC. 2 RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT, can be applied
within 30 days from date of receipt of decision by pursuant to Rule 41 of the COMELEC rules of
aggrieved party Procedure, to election contests decided by courts. The
5) RTC for municipal officials 10 days – Subject to rationale being that the BOC are composed of persons who are
appeal with COMELEC within five (5) days from less technically prepared to make an accurate appreciation of
receipt of decision. Decisions of the COMELEC on the ballots, apart from their being more apt to yield to
contest on appeal involving municipal and barangay extraneous considerations, and that the board must have to act
officials are final and executory except on grounds of summarily, practically racing against time, while on the other
grave abuse of discretion within 30 days. hand, the judge has the benefit of all the evidence the
parties can offer and of admittedly better technical
In Veloria v. COMELEC 211 SCRA 907, an EP preparation and background.
was filed with the RTC by a condidate for a municipal
office. Instead of appealing within 5 days, they filed a Camlian v. COMELEC 271 SCRA, the Court ruled that
MR. When the MR was denied, they filed a Notice of execution pending appeal must be strictly construed against
Appeal. HELD: Sec. 256 of the OEC prohibits the movant as it is an exception to the general rule on
the filing of a MR in EC affecting municipal execution of judgments.
offices. The MR did not suspend the period to
appeal. Hence, the resolution dismissing the Ramas v. COMELEC Feb. 10, 1998, the Court enumerated
EP has become final and executory. what may constitute ―good reasons‖ for execution pending
Pangilinan v. CA 232 SCRA 32, EP was filed in appeal:
the RTC which was dismissed during the pre-trial for (1) the public interest involved or the will of the
failure of the counsel of respondents to appear. electorate
Respondent filed a MR which the RTC (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term
granted. Petitioner argued that a MR is not of the contested office and
allowed. HELD: In Com. Res. 2493, a pre-trial (3) the length of time that the election contest has
conference in EC was abolished. There was no basis been pending.
for the dismissal f the EC and since the EC is vested
with public interest, it is imperative that the real The filing of bond does not constitute. Nevertheless, the
choice of the electorate be determined. trial court may require the filing of a bond as a
6) MTC for barangay officials 10 days and five (5) days condition for the issuance of the corresponding writ
for appeal with COMELEC. of execution to answer for the payment of damages
ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated 49
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIA’S NOTES, JO PUZON’S NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
which the aggrieved party may suffer by reason 2 (6), Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 268, B.P. 881; De
of the execution pending appeal. Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760) However, it may validly
delegate the power to the Provincial Prosecutor or to the
Ombudsman.
DAMAGES – In Malaluan, the Court ruled that damages
cannot be granted in an election protest case ratiocinating that In the event that the COMELEC fails to act on any complaint
the provision of law allowing for damages under specific within 4 months from its filing, the complainant may file the
circumstances, more particularly compensatory and actual complaint with the fiscal or the Department of Justice, if
damages is provided under Art. 2176 of the civil code which is warranted. (Sec. 265, B.P. 881)
appropriate only in breaches of obligations in cases of contracts
and QC and on the occasion of crimes and quasi-delicts where
the defendant may be held liable for damages the proximate PREFERENTIAL DISPOSITION OF ELECTION OFFENSES
cause of which is the act or omission complained of. Therefore, Investigation and prosecution of election offenses shall be
the monetary claim of a party in an election case must given priority by the COMELEC. The investigating officer
necessarily be hinged on either a contract or QC or a tortuous
shall resolve the case within 5 days from submission.
act or omission or a crime in order to effectively recover actual
or compensatory damages. In the absence of any or all of The courts shall give preference to election cases over all
these, the claimant must be able to point out a specific other cases except petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Their
provision of law authorizing a money claim for
trial shall be commenced without delay and shall be
election protest expenses against the losing party. conducted continuously until terminated, and the case shall
be decided within 30 days from its submission for decision.
(Sec. 269, B.P. 881)
EVIDENCE ON THE ELECTION
The following may be used as evidence in contesting the results Election offenses
of the election:
Ballots are properly used as evidence when the election returns Change or alteration or transfer of a voter's precinct
are not available. assignment in the permanent list of voters without the
express written consent of the voter (Sec. 4, R.A. 8189)
1. Tampering, increasing, decreasing votes, or Election offenses are generally mala prohibita. Proof of criminal
refusal to correct tampered votes after proper intent is not necessary. Good faith, ignorance, or lack of malice is not
verification and hearing by any member of the a defense; the commission of the prohibited act is sufficient. (People
board of election inspectors (Sec. 27b, R.A. v. Bayona, 61 Phil. 181; People v. Fuentes, 181 Phil. 186)
6646)
2. Refusal to issue to duly accredited watchers the
certificate of votes cast and the announcement Penalties
of the election, by any member of the board of
election inspectors (Sec. 27c, R.A. 6646)
For individuals
Canvassing 1. Imprisonment of not less than 1 year but
not more than 6 years, without probation
Any chairperson of the board of canvassers who fails to give (Sec. 264, B.P. 881)
notice of meeting to other members of the board, candidate or 2. Disqualification to hold public office;
political party as required (Sec. 27e, R.A. 6646) 3. Deprivation of the right of suffrage