MANGILIMAN, Neil Francel D.

PLM JD 2nd year Blk. 2

201980051
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc issued the following Resolutions:

1. Decisions of the Municipal Trial Courts on Petitions for Inclusion/ Exclusion shall be
appealable to the Comelec Division.
Resolution is invalid. COMELEC cannot have appellate jurisdiction of the decisions of
the MTC. The law, specifically under B.P. 881, provides that it is the MTC who has exclusive
and original jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion cases and any appeal therefrom may be
lodged with the RTC, and it will be immediately final and executory. Thus, the resolution is
invalid.

2. Requiring that voters must have a legal right either as owner or lessee over their residence.
The resolution is invalid. It will be unconstitutional as it is provided under Article V
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that only physical residency and not legal residency shall be
required. Such resolution cannot supersede the Constitution as it is the Supreme Law of the land
and it would be in violation of voters’ right to suffrage. Thus, the resolution is invalid for being
contrary to the Constitution.

3. In an automated election, disqualifying Ms. A, a senatorial candidate, for campaigning the day
after she files her certificate of candidacy.
It depends on when Ms. A filed her CoC. The OEC provides under sec. 75 that the last
day of filing of the CoC is the day before the beginning of the campaign period. If Ms. A filed
her CoC on the last day of filing of such certificate, her act of campaigning the day after is within
the campaign period provided under the OEC and, thus, the resolution is invalid. Otherwise, if
she filed the CoC on a day other than the last day of filing of CoC her act of campaigning the day
after is a ground for disqualification and makes the resolution valid.

4. All national and local officials shall continue to hold their respective offices after the filing of
their certificates of candidacy.
It depends on whether the official is an elective or an appointive official. If it is an
elective official, it is provided under the law that he will continue to hold that office until June
30, 12 noon. On the other hand, for appointive officials, the mere act of filing will amount to a
resignation of the appointive position.
MANGILIMAN, Neil Francel D.
PLM JD 2nd year Blk. 2
201980051
5. Only those accredited party-list accredited organizations/ parties that garners 2% of the total
second votes can obtain a seat.
The resolution is invalid. It will run contrary to the 1987 Constitution as it provides under
Section 5(2) that “the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives.” Party-list groups garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may
still qualify for a seat in the allocation of additional seats for as long as the 20% has not yet been
filled up. The intent of the framers of the Constitution is to fill up all of the 20% and such will
never be filled up if the 2% threshold is maintained. Thus, the resolution is invalid for being
unconstitutional.

6. Lawyers are barred from being nominees of party-list organizations.

The resolution is invalid. The law does not provide for prohibition of lawyers from being
a nominee of a party-list organization. To hold the resolution valid would amount to amending
the law which the COMELEC cannot do as an administrative agency that does not exercise
legislative power. As long as one conforms to the qualifications required under the law, a lawyer
cannot be barred from being a nominee of a party0list organizations.

7. Disqualifies Mr. X, a mayoralty candidate, for indicating that he is a lawyer when he is only a
law student in his certificate of candidacy and not allowing him to be substituted.
The resolution is invalid. The reason for the disqualification of Mr. X is not one of the
valid grounds for a disqualification of a local candidate provided under the Omnibus Election
Code. Although Mr. X misrepresented himself as a lawyer despite not being one, it will still not
amount to a material misrepresentation as a ground for disqualification. To qualify as a material
misrepresentation, it is necessary that the person must not actually be qualified aside from
willfully misrepresenting a material fact. So long as Mr. X possesses the necessary
qualifications, the misrepresentation is not of a matter.

8. Recognizing Mr. B, the Vice-Governor as the Governor if the latter is disqualified by final
judgment for being a non-voter of the province.
Resolution is invalid. The law provides that in case of a disqualification by final
judgement entered after proclamation, the 2nd placer will effectively assume the position vacated
by the elected candidate if the candidate was disqualified for being a non-voter. It is only when
the candidate was disqualified for an election offense will the succession by operation of law for
local officials will take effect. In this case, since the disqualification was for being a non-voter,
the resolution is invalid.
MANGILIMAN, Neil Francel D.
PLM JD 2nd year Blk. 2
201980051
9. Disqualifying Ms. Y, a vice-mayoralty candidate, for giving away relief goods which bears her
name and photo.
The resolution is valid. It is provided COMELEC Resolution No. 9804 that no candidate
or his or her spouse or member of his family within the second civil degree of affinity or
consanguinity shall, directly or indirectly, participate in the distribution of any relief or other
goods to the victims of the calamity or disaster. Any such participation shall likewise be treated
as an election offense of vote-buying. Further, it is provided under the Omnibus Election Code
that vote-buying is an election offense and may cause the disqualification of a candidate, and a
one- to six-year imprisonment. Thus, the resolution is valid.

10. Disqualifying Mr. Z, a presidential candidate, for overspending. He spent P510M. Assume
there are 50M voters.
The resolution is valid. Under sec 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, a candidate may be
disqualified for several reasons. One of which is when a candidate spent in his election campaign
an amount in excess of that allowed by the OEC. The law provides that presidential candidates
may spend up to 10 pesos per voter. In this case, since there are only 50M voters, the threshold is
P500M. P510M is well over the amount Mr. Z is allowed to spend and therefore warrants his
disqualification.