Elec Final Notes

ELECTION LAWS
AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

2017 Pre-Bar Notes of Atty. Jocelyn Valencia; 2018 4th year Review Lectures of Atty. Valencia AdDU College of Law; 2017 2-Manresa TSN of Atty.
Valencia; Barbie Notes; 2016 Notes on Election Laws; Nachura Political Law Reviewer.

ELECTION LAWS 2 of 69
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881 13. RA 9189 (February 13, 2003), An Act Providing For a System of
THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Overseas Absentee Voting By Qualified Citizens of the Philippines
Abroad;
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881 OR THE OEC • RA 10590 - OVERSEAS VOTING ACT OF 2013 (AMENDED RA
9189)
• Enacted into law on December 3, 1985 and took effect upon its

approval (OEC, Section 283)
14. RA 9225 (August 29, 2003), An Act Making the citizenship of
• It is the basic statutory election law of the Philippines.
Philippine Citizens who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent,
• It codified all previous election laws, which repealed PD 1296 or
Amending For the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As
the “Election Code of 1978, as amended (OEC 282).
Amended;

SEVERAL AMENDMENTS OF BP 881 UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION:
15. RA 9244 (February 19, 2004), An Act Eliminating the Preparatory
Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall of Elective
1. RA 6646 (January 5, 1988), the Electoral Reform Law of 1987. Government Officials.
Specifically Section 2 thereof re-enacted the OEC, when it provided
that the “first local elections under the new Constitution and all 16. RA 9369 An Act which amended Republic Act 8436 or “An Act
subsequent elections and plebiscites shall be governed by this Act authorizing the Commission on Elections to Use an Automated
and by the provisions of the BP 881, otherwise known as the OEC Election System in the May 11, 1998 National and Local elections
of the Philippines, and other election laws not inconsistent with and in Subsequent National and Local electoral Exercises, to
this Act. Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness and Accuracy of
Elections, Amending for the Purpose BP Blg. 881, as Amended,
2. RA 6735 (August 4, 1989), An Act Providing for a System of Republic Act 7166 and other related laws;
Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefore;
17. RA 9525 an Act Appropriating the Sum of Eleven Million three
3. RA 7160 (October 10, 1991), The Local Government Code of 1991 Hundred One Million Seven Hundred Ninety thousand Pesos
Provisions relating to the Qualifications and Election of Local (Php11, 301,790,000.000 As Supplemental budget for an AES and
Elective Offices, the Recall of Local Elective Officials, and Local for other purposes;
Initiative and Referendum (Sections 39-43, 69-75, 120-127);
18. RA 10380 Local Absentee Voting for Media Act.
4. RA 7166 (November 26, 1991), An Act Providing for Synchronized
National and Local Election and for Electoral Reforms; SIGNIFICANCE OF ELECTION LAWS AND THESE AMENDMENTS

• The basic law on elections and these legislations (amendments)
5. RA 7941 (March 3, 1995), An Act Providing for the Election of
are designed to:
Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System and
a) Improve the law (OEC) and to protect the integrity of the
Appropriating Funds Therefor;
elections;

b) In order to achieve the objective of holding an honest,
6. RA 8171 (October 23, 1995), An Providing for the Repatriation of
orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections (HOPE-
Filipino Women Who Have Lost Their Philippine Citizenship by
FRECRE).
Marriage to Aliens and of Natural-Born Filipinos;

APPLICABILITY
7. RA 8189 (June 11, 1996), [(Voters Registration’s Act) An Act
Providing for a General Registration of Voters, Adopting a System • The OEC shall govern all elections of public officers and, to the
of Continuing Registration Prescribing the Procedures Thereof and extent appropriate, all referenda and plebiscite (Section 2 OEC).
Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds therefore]; • This is further strengthened by Sec. 2 (1) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, which empowers the COMELEC, to “enforce and
8. RA 8295 (June 6, 1997) – An Act Providing for the Proclamation of a administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
Lone Candidate for any Elective Office in a special Election, and for election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.” The
Other Purposes; COMELEC is mandated to apply the OEC and all other statutes
on the subject government election laws. (Section 36 of RA
9. RA 8436 (December 22, 1997), An Act Authorizing the Comelec to 7166).
Use An Automated System in the May 11, 1998 National and Local
Elections and in subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises. • RA 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991) in so far as – (Q-
(Sec. 11 thereof impliedly repealed Sec. 67 of BP 881 being E- D- R- I- R)
inconsistent with Sec. 11, which provides that elective officials i. The qualifications and elections of local elective
running for any office other than the one he/she is holding in a officials;
permanent capacity, except for Pres. And VP, shall be deemed ii. Disqualification of local elective officials
resigned only upon the start of the campaign period iii. Recall of local elective officials;
corresponding to the position for which he/she is running). iv. Local Initiative and Referendum.

10. RA 8524 (February 14, 1998), An Act Changing the Term of Office of CONSTRUCTION ON ELECTION LAWS
Barangay Officials and Members of the SK from 3 years to 5 years
amending Sec. 43 of RA 7160, Local Government Code of 7160. THREE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS
(SEC. 3, RULE 1, COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE):
11. RA 9006 (February 12, 2001), Political Advertising Ban and Fair
Election Practices Act. (Sec. 14 expressly repealed Sec. 67 & 85 (1) Provisions of election laws that has to be complied with or
(Political Ad Ban has been lifted), Sec. 10 & 11 of RA 6646 and performed by the election officials (those tasked by COMELEC to
rendered ineffective the provision of Sec. 11 of RA 8436 insofar as assist them in the enforcement of activities related to the
the applicability of Sec. 11 on the matter is concerned.) elections)
• Strictly construed against the election official and liberally
12. RA 9164 (March 19, 2002), An Act Providing for Synchronized construed in favor of the voter.
Barangay and SK Elections, Amending RA 7160, As Amended. • Before the election: Mandatory; hence strict construction

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law
th
Sources: 2017 Pre-Bar Notes of Atty. Jocelyn Valencia; 2018 4 year Review Lectures of Atty. Valencia AdDU College of Law; 2017 2-Manresa TSN of Atty. Valencia; Barbie Notes; 2016
Notes on Election Laws
• After the election: Directory; hence liberal construction
especially on provisions where if they were to be held as FACTS: Bince and Micu were Sangguniang Panlalawigan candidates in
mandatory, it will result to innocent voters being deprived Pangasinan during the 1992 elections. During the canvassing of the COCs
of their votes without any fault on their part. for the 10 municipalities of the 6th District, Micu objected to the
• Example: The Board of Election Inspectors, the chairman has inclusion of the COC of San Quintin, claiming that it contained false
to affix his signature at the back of the official ballot before statements.
it is handed over to the voter. It should be strictly applied
only when it is against the elective officials but the ballots Micu later secured a resolution from the COMELEC directing the
would not be invalidated. Provincial Board of Canvassers the correct number of votes from the
• It will not make it a stray vote for purposes of counting. municipality of San Quintin. Meanwhile, Micu filed several petitions for
• But WON it is genuine, it is strictly construed against the correction of the Statements of Votes (SOVs) for alleged errors in other
official. municipalities of the 6th district (Tayug and San Miguel). Note that the
• Reason: If you will disenfranchise the electorate and when errors were committed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBCs).
you disenfranchise, it will defeat the determination of the
true will of the electorate just because of the omission of an However, after canvassing the COCs for the 10 municipalities, it turns out
official, which is not even attributable to the voter. The Bince garnered 27,370 votes against Micu’s 27,369 or a margin of 1 vote.
chairman may be held for administrative charges. Bince was not yet proclaimed at this time because of the absence of
authority from the COMELEC. On June 29, the COMELEC en banc
(2) Provisions of election laws that require candidates for elective promulgated a resolution directing the PBC to continue with the
office to comply with. provincial canvass and proclaim the winning candidates. On June 24, the
• Strictly construed because of the fact that a candidate for an PBC acted on Micu’s petitions for correction of the SOVs for Tayug and
elective office has to comply with the mandatory San Miguel. Bince appealed, claiming that the PBC had no jurisdiction.
qualifications to run for public office.
• Example: The reglementary period within which to file an Subsequently the PBC filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking a
election protest or COC. Like the COC, when it required to be definitive ruling as to who should be proclaimed. Apparently, if the
sworn to by the candidate, it should be strictly construed corrections for the SOVs of Tayug and SM were to be included, Emiliano
BEFORE elections. However, due to the liberal construction Micu would gain plurality by 72 votes. The COMELEC resolved the PBC to
rule, liberal construction should be effected AFTER elections. proclaim the winning candidate on the basis of the completed and
corrected Certificates of Canvass. However on July 21, Bince was
(3) Provisions that determine as to which candidate won in the proclaimed winner.
electoral exercise.
• Liberally construed because the objective is to determine Micu filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to Annul Proclamation,
the will of the electorate. and Amended Urgent Petition for Contempt and Annul Proclamation,
• As a general rule, statutes providing for electoral contests alleging that the PBC defied the directive of the COMELEC. The COMELEC
are liberally construed as to give emphasis to the will of the held the officers who proclaimed Bince in contempt, and directed the
electorate. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure are also PBC to proclaim the true winner. The case later turned to the legality of
liberally construed to achieve a just and expeditious the PBC’s granting of the petition for the correction of the Tayug and SM
procedure. SOVs. Micu claims that his petitions for correction were valid under
Section 6, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Eventually,
INSTANCES WHERE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION IS NOT APPLICABLE: Bince’s proclamation was affirmed, but on Micu’s MFR to the en banc,
was set aside and declared null and void. Bince appealed to the SC in a
(C-A-C-P-D) (Peña v. HRET)
special civil action for certiorari.
1. When the amendment to pleadings in an election contest will
substantially change the cause of action, defense or theory of the
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed GAOD in nullifying Bince’s
case; proclamation. NO.
2. When the amendment will alter a final judgment on a substantial
matter; HELD: COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction. COMELEC did not act with
3. When the amendments will confer jurisdiction upon the court GAOD in annulling the proclamation of petitioner Alfonso Bince, Jr. and
when none existed before; in directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Pangasinan to order
4. When it seeks to cure a premature or non- existent cause of the MBCs of Tayug and San Miguel to make the necessary corrections in
action; the SOVs and COCs.
5. When the amendment is intended to delay the proceedings of the
case. Nullification was justified as the basis was a mathematical error
committed by the MBCs in the computation of votes. The COMELEC
Libanan vs HRET cannot be faulted for subsequently annulling the proclamation of
G.R. No. 129783 | 1997-12-22 petitioner Bince on account of a mathematical error in addition,
committed by the MBCs.
A ballot is considered valid and genuine for as long as it bears any one of
these authenticating marks, to wit: As to timeliness of Micu’s petitions for correction: The petitions to
a. The COMELEC watermark, or correct manifest errors were filed on time, that is, before the petitioner’s
b. The signature or initials, or thumbprint of the Chairman of the proclamation on July 21, 1992. The petition of the MBC of San Miguel
BEI; and, was filed on June 4, 1992, while that of the MBC of Tayug was filed on
c. In those cases where the COMELEC watermarks are blurred June 5, 1992. Still, private respondent’s petition was filed with the MBC
or not readily apparent to the naked eye, the presence of red of Tayug and San Miguel on June 10 and 11, 1992, respectively. It is
and blue fibers in the ballots. definitely well within the period required by Section 6, Rule 27 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Sec. 6 clearly provides that the petition for
It is only when none of these marks appears extant that the ballot can be correction may be filed at any time before proclamation of a winner.
considered spurious and subject to rejection.
What if the petitions for correction were filed out of time? No effect.
Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC Assuming for the sake of argument that the petition was filed out of
G.R. Nos. 111624—25 | March 9, 1995 time, this incident alone will not thwart the proper determination and
resolution of the instant case on substantial grounds. Adherence to a
th
technicality that would put a stamp of validity on a palpably void and Motion for Partial Reconsideration is merely a technicality that
proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people’s will should not defeat the will of the electorate. The Comelec may liberally
cannot be countenanced. Adjudication of cases on substantive merits construe or even suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of
and not on technicalities has been consistently observed by the Court. justice, including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matter pending
before the Comelec.”
Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve public interest,
and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand Engle vs. COMELEC and Menzon
if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the January 19, 2016
electorate in the choice of their elective officials. And also settled is the
rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to Rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory before
the end that the will of the people may not be defeated by mere the election, but when they are sought to be enforced after the election
technical objections. they are held to be directory only, if that is possible, especially where, if
they are held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their
[Note: COMELEC law involved – determination of winner; Construction – votes without any fault on their part.
liberal]
Over time, we have qualified this doctrine to refer only to matters of
Was allowing the correction of mathematical errors proper? YES form and cannot be applied to the substantial qualifications of
It does not involve the opening of ballot boxes; neither does it involve candidates.
the examination and/or appreciation of ballots. The correction sought by
respondents is correction of manifest mistakes in mathematical addition. Petitioner’s deceased husband's name remained on the ballot
Certainly, this only calls for a mere clerical act of reflecting the true and notwithstanding his death even before the campaign period for the local
correct votes received by the candidates. In this case, the manifest elections began. Yet, he received almost twice the number of votes as
errors only sought proper and diligent addition of the votes in Tayug and the second placer, private respondent, in a decisive victory. Since the
San Miguel. people of Babatngon, Leyte could not have possibly meant to waste their
votes on a deceased candidate, we conclude that petitioner was the
Consequently, by a margin of 72 votes, Micu indisputably won. Bince’s undisputed choice of the electorate as Vice-Mayor... on the apparent
proclamation and assumption into public office was therefore flawed belief that she may validly substitute her husband.
from the beginning, the same having been based in a faulty tabulation.
An election in which the voters have fully, fairly, and honestly expressed
The SC here was saying that COMELEC cannot be faulted for annulling their will is not invalid even though an improper method is followed in
the proclamation on the basis of the mathematical error. the nomination of candidates. We find that the late submission of
Romualdez's authority to sign the CONA of James L. Engle to the
When we say manifest, it is obvious. It is clear. It is visible to the naked COMELEC was a mere technicality that cannot be used to defeat the will
eye. The fact there is an error, it should not stop the validity on a void of the electorate in a fair and honest election.
proclamation because it is based on an error in the statement of votes.
Jurisprudence dictates that technicalities will be set aside. From the evidence it can be concluded that James L. Engle was not an
independent candidate but indeed a nominee of Lakas-CMD and he may
Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez v. Eufrocino C. Codilla be validly substituted by his wife, who was nominated by the same
668 SCRA 600 (2012) political party, in light of his unexpected demise prior to the elections.

Verification – (Defective verification) The verification of a pleading is Pacanan v. Comelec
only a formal, not jurisdictional requirement. The purpose of requiring 597 SCRA 189 (2009)
the verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the (Purpose of Liberal Construction)
petition are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is The Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction.
simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient
therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just,
Nature of Election controversy – An election controversy, by its nature, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every
touches upon the ascertainment of the people’s choice as gleaned from action and proceeding brought before the Comelec.
the medium of the ballot. For this reason, an election protest should be
resolved with utmost dispatch, precedence and regard of due process. This principle was reiterated in the more recent consolidated cases of
Obstacles and technicalities that fetter the people’s will should not stand Tolentino v. Comelec 617 SCRA 575 (2010) and De Castro vs. Comelec
in the way of a prompt determination of election contests. Thus, rules 617 SCRA 575, where the Court held that in exercising its powers and
on the verification of protests should be liberally construed. (Statutory jurisdiction, as defined by its mandate to protect the integrity of
Rules on Construction) elections, the Comelec “must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules
in resolving election disputes.”
Court upheld the jurisdiction of HRET as the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the member of the
SUFFRAGE
HRET.

THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
Salvador D. Viologo, Sr., v. Comelec
658 SCRA 516 (2011) Basis of the right of suffrage – The Philippines is a democratic and
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government

authority emanates from them. (Section 1, Article II of the Constitution)
FACTS: Motion for reconsideration was denied by Comelec en banc for

lack of verification as required by Section 3, Rule 20 of the Comelec Rules
A democratic and republic government derives all its powers, directly or
of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated Election System and Section
indirectly, from the people who represent the sovereign power of the
3, Rule 19 of CRP.
state.

Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal construction. In
CHARACTER OF A REPUBLICAN STATE AND A PUBLIC OFFICE
Quintos v. Comelec (440 Phil. 1045; 392 SCRA 489 (2002)), this Court
held that “the lack of verification of private respondent’s Manifestation Angel G. Naval v. COMELEC and Nelson B. Julia

th
(729 SCRA 299)

• It is not a necessary accompaniment of citizenship. It is granted to
Then Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno explained this: A REPUBLIC is a an individual only upon the fulfillment of certain minimum
representative government; a government run by and for the people. It conditions deemed essential for the welfare of the common good.
is not a pure democracy where the people govern themselves directly.
• Not otherwise disqualified by law - those who possess the
The essence of republicanism is representation and renovation, the qualification and none of the disqualification.
selection by the citizenry of a corps of public functionaries who derive
their mandate from the people and act on their behalf, serving for a • Not absolute as it is subject to existing substantive and
limited period only, after which they are replaced/not re-elected or procedural requirements provided in the Constitution, statutes
retained/re-elected, at the option of their principal (sovereignty). and valid rules and regulations (qualifications and requirement of
registration).
Obviously, a republican government is a responsible government whose
officials hold and discharge their position as a public trust and shall, • It is classified as political right, as well as a bounden duty of every
according to the Constitution, at all times be accountable to the people citizen enabling him to participate in the process of government
they are sworn to serve. to assure that it truly derives its powers solely from the consent
of the governed (Pungutan v. Abubakar 43 SCRA 1 (1972).
The purpose of a republican government, it is almost needless to state,
is the promotion of the common welfare according to the will of the • Means by which people express their sovereign judgment.
people themselves. (Nolasco v. Comelec 275 SCRA 763).

This holding was made in connection with the issue of the 3-term limit • Suffrage as a duty is in the nature of a public trust and constitutes
rule in connection with the re-apportionment of legislative district. a voter a representative of the whole people. This duty requires
that the privileged bestowed should be exercised not exclusively
Associated with a democratic process is the exercise of –SUFFRAGE for the benefit of the citizen or citizens proffering it but in good
faith and with intelligent zeal for the general benefit and welfare
WHO MAY EXERCISE SUFFRAGE of the State. (Cipriano Abanil v. Justice of the Peace Court of
1. ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, (Sec. 1, Art. V of 1987 the Bacolod, Negros Occidental et. al. 70 Phil. 28 (1940)).
Constitution)
• Not otherwise disqualified by law, • Suffrage also includes the right of the voter to verify whether the
• Who are at least 18 years of age, and vote-counting machines property recorded their vote.
• Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one
(1) year and • The SC rules that it is not only a statutory right; it is one that
• In the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six enables their individual participation in governance as sovereign.
(6) months immediately preceding the election. (Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. and Richard J. Gordon, as
• No literacy, property, or other substantive requirements Chairman vs. Comelec (787 SCRA 1). (Feature in the PCOS
shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. (RA 8189 machine is the Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT),
Voters Registration Act) functionality is in the form of a printed receipt and a touch screen
reflecting the votes in the voting-counting machine. Comelec
2. SUFFRAGE MAY ALSO BE EXERCISED BY QUALIFIED FILIPINOS decided not to implement it as it will add 5-7 minutes of voting
ABROAD time and may be used for vote buying. Procedure is that receipt
• Article V, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. The Congress can be read and thereafter deposited in a box).
shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity
of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by AS TO APPLICABILITY OF SUFFRAGE
qualified Filipinos abroad.” • Suffrage applies not only to elections, but may also extend to
• Congress enacted R.A. 9189 “Overseas Absentee Voting initiatives, referenda, plebiscite and recall.
Act of 2003” now amended by the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2013. SCOPE OF SUFFRAGE

SUFFRAGE; MEANING Sec. 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution, the Comelec is vested with
• Is the right and obligation of qualified citizens to: the power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
a) Vote in the election of certain national and local officers the conduct of election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall”.
of the government and (This pertains to the Administrative/Executive Power)
b) In the decision of public questions submitted to the • The fundamental election law is enshrined in the Constitution.
people (involves other forms of popular intervention). • The OEC or BP 881 is the basic statutory election law of the
• It is NOT a natural right but is a right created by law. (It is a Philippines that has undergone several amendments under the
tatutory right) 1987 Constitution that were designed to improve the law (OEC)
• It is a privilege granted by the State to such persons or classes as and to protect the integrity of the electoral process in order to
are most like to exercise it for the public good. achieve the objective of holding an HONEST, ORDERLY,
PEACEFUL, FREE and CREDIBLE ELECTIONS. (HOPE-FRECRE).
• (Pp. of the Philippine Islands v. Corral 62 Phil 945 as quoted in These legislative amendments (most significant are:
Kabataan Party-List vs. Comelec 777 SCRA 574). The case 1. RA 6646 The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987,
pertained to the implementation of RA 10367 which mandated 2. RA 7166 the Act providing for the Synchronized National and
the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration Local Elections, RA 8189 The Voters Registration Act,
system for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, 3. RA 9189 Overseas Absentee Voting Law,
permanent and updated list of voters through the adoption of 4. RA 9006 The Fair Elections Law,
biometric technology. Likewise registered voters whose 5. RA 9369 The Automated Election Law, among others)
biometrics have not been captured shall submit themselves for
validation and those who fail will result to their deactivation or Notwithstanding these legislative enactments, we can confidently say
No Bio-No Boto (amendment to RA Section 28 of RA 8189). that the OEC remains the basic law on elections that shall govern all
elections of public officers, and, to the extent appropriate, all referenda
th
and plebiscite (Section 2, of RA 6646 The Electoral Reforms Law which iv. In cases were a postponement and failure of elections are
re-enacted the OEC). declared by the Comelec in accordance with Sections 5,6,7
of BP 881).
FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION
Lucero v. Comelec / Borja v. Comelec
The sovereignty is not limited only to elections wherein the people vote 234 SCRA 280 (1994) / 260 SCRA 604 (1996).
for the candidates, it is also exercised through other electoral processes
wherein certain measures are submitted to the people for its approval. In fixing the date for special elections the Comelec should see to it that:
They are the following: 1. Special elections should be held not later than thirty (30) days
1. Elections; after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or
2. Plebiscite; suspension of the election or the failure to elect;
3. Initiative; 2. Special elections should be reasonably close to the date of the
4. Referendum; election not held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to
5. Recall. elect. (Lucero v. Comelec 234 SCRA 280 expound).

(1) ELECTIONS – is the means by which the people choose, through the Atty. Valencia: The period of 1yr and a half is still considered as
use of the ballot, their officials for definite and fixed periods and to reasonably close because it is not the fault of the voter.
whom they entrust, for the time being as their representatives, the
exercise of powers of government [Garchitorena v. Crescini 39 Phil. c) Manual Elections – Manual/mechanical casting/voting, counting,
258 (1918)] and canvassing stages which involves the following:
i. Use of paper “write-in” ballots during the casting stage;
Carlos v. Angeles ii. The “direct reading and manual tallying of votes” in
346 SCRA 571 (2000) multiple copies of election returns (ER); and
iii. The manual addition of results in Statement of Votes
Elections refers to the conduct of the polls (pre election, election proper (SOVs) and the Certificates of Canvass (COCs)
and post - election) – listing of votes, holding of electoral campaign, act
of casting and receiving the ballots from the voters, counting them, and d) Automated Election System (AES) – a system using appropriate
canvassing of the election returns and proclamation of candidates. It technology, which has been demonstrated in the voting,
refers to the entire and complete electoral process. counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election
result, and other electoral process. (Sec. 2, RA 9369, The
Atty. Valencia: It is not limited to the casting of votes but to the entire Automated Election System Law, As Amended)
electoral process.
(2) PLEBISCITE – an electoral process by which an initiative on the
ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS Constitution is approved or rejected by the people (Sec. 3 R.A.
6735 “The Initiative and Referendum Act). Generally associated
• It is the plurality of votes (which is determined not by the
with the ratification process.
number of registered voters but the voters who actually voted).

• A public office is filled only by those who receive the highest
Atty. Valencia: It is associated with the Yes or No vote.
number of votes cast in the election for that office which is the

basic tenet in all republican form of government. (Penera v.
WHEN REQUIRED
Comelec 599 SCRA 609; Rulloda v. Comelec 395 SCRA 535; Sunga
v. Comelec 288 SCRA 76). a) Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, with reference to the
voting to determine whether the voters in the country are in
KINDS OF ELECTION favor of or against the ratification of the Constitution or an
amendment thereto and
a) Regular election – This is one provided by law for the election of
b) Sec. 10, Art. X, in connection with the voting to determine
officers either nationwide or in certain subdivisions thereof, after
whether the voters in the political units affected agree to a
the expiration of the term of the former officers.
proposed creation, division, merger, abolition or boundary

change of a political unit. (C-D-M-A-B-C)
b) Special elections – election not regularly held but which is

conducted to supply a vacancy in a particular office before the
WHO WILL VOTE IN A PLEBISCITE
expiration of the full term for which the incumbent was elected.
• In Letter (a), if it is an amendment to the constitution, the
i. Sec. 4 of RA 7166 provides that, “in case a permanent whole Philippines will vote like in national elections.
vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of • In Letter (b), those political units affected.
Representative at least one (1) year before the expiration of
the term, the Comelec shall call and hold a special elections Padilla Jr. v. Comelec
to fill the vacancy not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 214 SCRA 735
90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy.
The Comelec resolved to approve the conduct of the plebiscite in the
ii. Article VI, Section 9, Constitution provides that in case of area or units affected for the proposed Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa
such vacancy in the Senate, the special elections shall be and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines
held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular Norte, Majority of the electorates in the units affected rejected the
elections. creation of Tulay-na-Lupa.

iii. Article VII, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, in case a vacancy Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a Special Civil Action for Certiorari,
occurs in the offices of the President and Vice-President, seek to set aside the Plebiscite asserting that it was a complete failure
with the limitation that no special elections can be called if and that the results obtained were invalid and illegal because the
the vacancy occurs within 18 months before the date of the Plebiscite as mandated by Comelec Res. No. 2312 should have been
next presidential elections. conducted only in the political unit or units affected (which is the 12
barangays and should not have included the mother unit of the
Municipality of Labo.)

th
HELD: With the approval and ratification of the 1987 Constitution, more subject of an election protest and that the jurisdiction to hear a
specifically, Art. X, Section 10, the creation, division, merger, abolition or complaint involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged with the RTC.
alteration of the boundaries of any political unit shall be subject to the
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a Plebiscite in the ‘POLITICAL Comelec 2nd division initially gave due course to the petition ruling that
UNITS AFFECTED” was held to mean that residents of the political entity it has jurisdiction over the case. It treated the petition as akin to an
who would be economically dislocated by the separation of a portion election protest considering that the same allegations of fraud and
thereof have a right to vote in the said Plebiscite or the plurality of irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots and preparation of
political units which would participate in the Plebiscite. returns are the same grounds for assailing the results of an election. It
then ordered the Taguig ballot boxes to be brought to its Manila Office
Tan v. Comelec and created revision committees to revise and recount the plebiscite
142 SCRA 727 (1986) ballots.

That “in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is imperative that all the Intervenor Cayetano, in an unverified motion, moved for reconsideration
constituents of the mother and daughter units affected shall be of the Comelec Order insisting that it has no jurisdiction to hear and
included. decide a petition contesting the results of a plebiscite. In a complete
turnaround, the Comelec 2nd division issued an Order granting the
Motion for Reconsideration. It dismissed the petition to annul the results
Sanidad v. Comelec
of the plebiscite and ruled that Comelec has no jurisdiction over said
181 SCRA 529
case as it involves an exercise of QJ powers not contemplated under
Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the restriction imposed
by Comelec on media relative to discussing on air and print the features On appeal, the Comelec en banc affirmed the ruling of its 2nd division. It
of the plebiscite issues in the creation of the autonomous region for the held that the Comelec cannot use its power to enforce and administer all
Cordilleras and held that plebiscite are matters of public concern and laws relative to plebiscites as this power is purely administrative or
importance and the peoples right to be informed and to be able to freely executive and not QJ in nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over
and intelligently make a decision would be best served by access to an the petition to annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC
unabridged discussion of the issues. under Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
City of Pasig v. Comelec/Municipality of Cainta Province of Rizal of any court or body exercising judicial or QJ functions. Hence, the
314 SCRA 179 (1999) petition before the SC.

The issue raised was the propriety of the suspension of the plebiscite HELD: The key to the case is its nature, which involves the
proceedings pending the decision of the boundary dispute between the determination of whether the electorate of Taguig voted in favor of or
Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig. The City of Pasig passed an against the conversion of the municipality of Taguig. The invocation of
Ordinance creating barangays Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality judicial power to settle disputes involving the conduct of a plebiscite is
of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscite due to misplaced. Judicial power as defined under Section 1, Article VIII of the
the pending case before the RTC of Antipolo for the settlement of the Constitution as the duty of the court of justice to settle actual
boundary dispute and that the said activities await the decision of the controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
RTC on the matter. enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
That Comelec suspended the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Brgy. Karangalan but rendered the creation of Napico as moot as the
same has already been ratified in the plebiscite held for the purpose. This case assailing the regularity of the conduct of the Taguig plebiscite
does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise of judicial power.
HELD: The creation of Napico cannot be considered as moot and it is There is no plaintiff or defendant in the case for it merely involves the
most proper that the plebiscite be declared null and void in view of the ascertainment of the vote of the electorate on whether they approve
pending boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta which presents a or disapprove the conversion of their municipality into a highly
prejudicial question and must be decided first before the plebiscite for urbanized city.
the proposed barangays be conducted.
In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the SC said that the said
JURISDICTION OVER CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING PLEBISCITE ISSUES provision is explicit that Comelec has power to “enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
Ma. Salvacion Buac/Antonio Bautista v. Comelec/Alan Peter Cayetano initiative, referendum and recall. To enforce means to cause to take
and some Intervenors effect or to cause the performance of such act or acts necessary to bring
421 SCRA 92 (2004) into actual effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails all the
necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the holding of honest,
FACTS: In April 1988, a plebiscite was held in Taguig for the ratification of orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections (HOPE FRECRE).
the Taguig Cityhood Law (RA No. 8487) proposing the conversion of
Taguig from a municipality into a city. Without completing the canvass of The SC was surprised that for the first time, Comelec yielded its historic
64 other election returns, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC) jurisdiction over a motion for reconsideration, which was even filed out
declared that the “NO” votes won and that the people rejected the of time, thus rendering it without jurisdiction to entertain the same.
conversion of Taguig to a city. The PBOC was however ordered by the
Comelec en banc to reconvene and complete the canvass which the (3) INITIATIVE – are lawmaking powers that belong to the people and
board did and in due time issued an Order proclaiming that the negative have been described as the “people power” features of our
votes prevailed. Constitution (Asked in the 2000 BAR).

Petitioners filed with the Comelec a petition to annul the results of the Initiative under RA 6735 is defined as the power of the people to:
plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount of the ballots. Cayetano a) Propose amendments to the Constitution or
intervened and moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of b) Propose and enact legislation through an election called for
jurisdiction of the Comelec. He claimed that a plebiscite cannot be the the purpose.


th
(4) REFERENDUM – power of the electorate to approve or reject a piece • Under Sec. 126 of RA 7160, this is defined as the “legal process
of legislation through an election called for the purpose. (Sec. 2 (c) whereby the RV of the local government units may approve,
R.A. 6735). amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the sanggunian.”

STATUTORY DEMARCATION BETWEEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: PROCEDURE IN THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
1. The petition is filed before the COMELEC, as it is the COMELEC
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides that “Amendments to who is vested with the power to call for the conduct of initiative
this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people and referendum.
through initiative upon a petition of: 2. The COMELEC will then schedule of special registration
a) At least 12% of the total number of registered voters, specifically for initiative and referendum. However, following the
b) Of which every legislative district must be represented by at enactment of RA 8189, there is no more special registration
least 3% of the registered voters therein”. because when you register under RA 8189 your record before the
COMELEC becomes permanent, and will be used by the COMELEC
Section 32, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall, not only in election but in all other forms of popular intervention
as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum also. THUS, no more need for registration.
and the exceptions therefrom, where the people can directly propose 3. After determining the sufficiency of the petition, the COMELEC
and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed shall within 30 days publish at least twice the petition in Filipino
by Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition and English and publish it in a newspaper of general circulation.
thereof signed by: 4. So, the date for the initiative or referendum shall be set not
a) At least 10% of the total number of registered voters, earlier then 45 days, but not later than 90 days from the
b) Of which every legislative district must be represented by at determination of the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.
least 3% of the registered voters thereof.” 5. The election registrars shall verify the signatures on the petition
on the basis of their [...] of votes and their voter's identification
CLASSES OF INITIATIVE card
(1) On the Constitution;
(2) On Statutes; EFFECTIVITY OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
(3) On Local Legislation. National law for enactment, 15 days following publication.
approval, amendment
LOCAL INITIATIVE 15 days following publication. If
• Under RA 7160, this is defined a the “legal process whereby the National law rejected no majority obtained, law remains
registered voters of a local government unit may directly propose, effective
enact, or amend any ordinance. Constitution Same day of the plebiscite
If the proposition is approved by a
INDIRECT INITIATIVE majority of the votes cast, it shall
• This is exercised by the people through a proposition sent to take effect fifteen (15) days after
Congress or the local legislative body for action. certification by the Commission as
• Any duly accredited people's organization, as defined by law, may if affirmative action thereon had
Local legislation
file a petition for indirect initiative with the House of been made by the local legislative
Representatives, and other legislative bodies. The petition shall body and local executive
contain a summary of the chief purposes and contents of the bill concerned. If it fails to obtain said
that the organization proposes to be enacted into law by the number of votes, the proposition
legislature. is considered defeated.

Number required for initiative LIMITATIONS ON INITIATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION
INITIATIVE INITIATED BY AT LEAST SOURCE • May be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution and
12% of total registered voters, Sec. 2, Art.
• Only once every five (5) years thereafter.
Constitution 3% per legislative district XVII,
• No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be
Constitution
submitted to the electorate
10% of total registered voters, Sec. 32, Art. 6,
Statutes
3% per legislative district Constitution
LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL INITIATIVE
Not less than 2K RVs in the region; Sec. 13, RA
7160 LGC 1. The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than
Not less than 1K RVs in the province once a year;
or city; 2. Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters that are within
the legal powers of the local legislative bodies to enact.
Local Not less than 100 voters in 3. If at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative
Legislation/ municipality; and; body shall adopt in toto the proposition presented, the initiative
Ordinance shall be cancelled. However, those against such action may, if
Not less than 50 voters in barangays they so desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein
may file with the sanggunian provided.
concerned proposing the adoption,
enactment repeal or amendment of LIMITATIONS UPON LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES
an ordinance. • Any proposition or ordinance or resolution approved through the
system of initiative and referendum as herein provided shall not be
CLASSES OF REFERENDUM repealed, modified or amended, by the local legislative body
concerned within six (6) months from the date therefrom, and may
(1) On Statutes;
(2) On Local Laws. be amended, modified or repealed by the local legislative body
within (3/4) of all its members: Provided, however, that in case of
barangays, the period shall be in (1) year after the expiration of the
LOCAL REFERENDUM
first six (6) months.

th
The Comelec denied the petition, reasoning that a lack of enabling law
Santiago, et. al. v. Comelec, et. al keeps them from entertaining such petitions. It invoked the 1997
336 SCRA 843 Supreme Court ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec (336 SCRA 843), where it
declared RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on
The Supreme Court here declared that RA 6735 as inadequate to proposals to amend the Constitution.
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution. ISSUES:
1. Whether the initiative petition of the Lambino group complied with
FACTS: Atty. Jesus Delfin filed a petition with the Comelec to amend the the provisions of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
constitution, specifically to lift the term limits of elective officials, by 2. Whether the Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec
people’s initiative. Atty. Delfin asked the Comelec for an order: (1) to fix declaring RA 6735 “incomplete and inadequate or wanting in
the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country (2) to essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause
cause the necessary publications of said Order and the said petition in to amend the Constitution.
newspapers of general and local circulation and (3) instruct the
municipal election registrars in all regions in the Philippines to assist HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the Comelec’s ruling on the petition
petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing station at the time and for people’s initiative on October 25, 2006 with a close 8-7 vote. As
on the dates designated for the purpose. ruled:

The Comelec issued an Order granting the petition. Santiago filed this The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic
special civil action for prohibition raising among other grounds that RA requirement of the Constitution for the conduct of people’s initiative.
6735 does not provide for people’s initiative to amend the constitution The Constitution requires that the amendment must be “directly
considering that the same is still pending with the Senate of which she is proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.”
the author. The petition of Atty. Delfin was not validly initiated as it
failed to comply with the signature requirement for initiating an Lambino’s group failed to include the full text of the proposed changes in
initiative. The Comelec never acquired jurisdiction over the petition as the signature sheets –a fatal omission, according to the Supreme Court
jurisdiction is acquired only after its filing – the petition being the ruling, because it means a majority of the 6.3M people who signed the
initiatory pleading. signature sheets could not have known the nature and effect of the
proposed changes.
HELD: The SC gave due course to the Petition on the legal premise that
the CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES ONLY TWO (2) METHODS OF For the petition to be valid, two essential requisites must be complied
PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION with, namely:
1. By Congress upon a vote of ¾ of all its members and a) The people must author, and thus sign, the entire proposal; no
2. By constitutional convention. agent or representative can sign on their behalf; and
b) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposed amendments must
The SC interpreted Sec. 2 of RA 6735 which provides that “the power of be embodied in the petition itself.
the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly
propose, enact, approved or reject, in whole or in part the Constitution, The rationale for the second requisite is that the signature requirement
laws, ordinance or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon would be rendered meaningless if the person affixing his signature has
compliance with the requirements of this Act, is hereby affirmed, not first seen and understood what it is that he is signing. Further, and
recognized and guaranteed.” more importantly, loose interpretation of the subscription requirement
can pose a significant potential for fraud. On-compliance with the above
It held that the inclusion of the word “constitution” here is neither mentioned requirement is fatal to the initiative petition. For sure, the
germane nor relevant to said action which exclusively relates to great majority of the 6.3M people who signed the signature sheets did
initiative and referendum on national and local laws, ordinances and not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing, as the
resolution. Therefore, the people are NOT accorded the power to proposed amendments were not stated in the signature sheets
“directly propose, enact, approved or reject, in whole or in part the
Constitution, through the system of initiative. They were not apprised of the nature and effect of the proposed
amendments, among which are substantial changes as follows:
The SC further declared that Comelec cannot validly promulgate rules 1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and
and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to thus member of the Parliament may be re-elected indefinitely;
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of 2. The Interim Parliament whose membership comprised of present
initiative. The power of Comelec to issue rules and regulations (QJ members of Congress can decide when to call the parliamentary
power) is limited only to what is provided under – (QL powers) elections. Thus, leaving them the absolute discretion to determine
a) Section 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution and their term limits.
b) By a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which 3. That within 45 days from the ratification of proposed changes, the
satisfied the “completeness” and the “sufficient standard” tests. interim Parliament may further propose revision or amendments to
the Constitution.
Raul Lambino, et. al. vs. Comelec
505 SCRA 160 (2006) Furthermore, a people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies
only to an amendment to the Constitution and not to its revision.

FACTS: Raul Lambino of Sigaw ng Bayan and Erico Aumentado of the
ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS OF THREE MODES OF
Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) filed a petition for
people’s initiative before the Commission on Elections on August 26, PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION:
2006, after months of gathering signatures all over the country. Lambino 1. By direct congressional action (3/4 votes of all its members);
claimed that the petition is backed by 6.3M registered voters 2. Through a constitutional convention, and
constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each legislative 3. Through a people’s initiative.
district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters. They further
claimed that the provincial and city Comelec officials had already verified First and second modes - as provided in Section 1 of Article XVII, apply to
the 6.3M signatures. both amendments and revisions.


th
Third mode - applies only to amendments. The distinction between the
first two modes and the third was intentional as shown by the Not satisfied and within 30 days from submission of their petition,
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. respondent resorted to their power of initiative under the LGC of 1991.
On June 18, 1996 Comelec issued Resolution No. 2845 adopting a
The Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be calendar of activities for local referendum to annul or repeal Kapasyahan
no deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the Bldg. 10.
Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3M signatures,
cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the Petitioner SBMA seeks to nullify the Order of Comelec denying
Constitution itself. petitioner’s plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum
on the proposition to recall the Kapasyahan as it was proceeding with a
In the case at bar, the Lambino’s group proposed changes constituted local initiative that proposes an amendment of a national law.
not just an amendment but a revision, because of the change in the form
of government from Presidential to Parliamentary, and the shift from a ISSUES:
bicameral to a unicameral legislature. 1. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating and implementing its Res. No. 2842 which govern the
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVISION AND AMENDMENT conduct of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal PK Blg. 10;
REVISION AMENDMENT and
Broadly implies a change that Broadly refers to a change that 2. Whether the questioned local initiative covers a subject within the
alters a basic principle in the adds, reduces, deletes, without powers of the people of Morong to enact (whether such initiative
constitution, like altering the altering the basic principle seeks the amendment of a national law.
principle of separation of power or involved.
the system of checks and HELD (1): In this case, the SC was compelled to distinguish Initiative from
balances. Referendum.

There is also revision if the change To begin with, the process started by Garcia et. al., was an initiative but
alters the substantial entirety of respondent Comelec made preparations for a referendum. In the body
the Constitution. of the Comelec Resolution No. 2842, the word “referendum” is repeated
Generally affects several Generally affects only the specific at least 27 times, but initiative is not mentioned at all. The Comelec
provisions of the Constitution. provision being amended. labeled the exercise as a referendum, the counting of votes was
May be proposed by: May be proposed by: entrusted to a referendum committee, the documents were called
• The Congress, upon a vote of • Congress, upon a vote of referendum returns and so forth.
three-fourths (3/4) of all its three-fourths of all its
Members; or Members; or INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
• A Constitutional convention. • A constitutional convention; This is a process of law making by Consists merely with the
or the people themselves without electorate approving or rejecting
• Directly by the people. the participation and against the what has been drawn up or
wishes of their elected enacted by the legislative body by
On the second pivotal issue of revisiting the ruling of the Court in representatives. simply indicating yes or no in the
Santiago vs. Comelec, the Court held that an affirmation or reversal of ballot.
the same would not change the outcome of the case. The Court must There is a need for the Comelec to
avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the supervise the process closely, it’s
case before the Court can be resolved on some grounds. (It is not the authority therein extending not
very lis mota of the case) only to the counting and
canvassing of votes but also to
In the resolution on the motion for reconsideration, the Court seeing to it that the matter or act
maintaining its 8-7 vote, denied with finality the motions for submitted to the people is in the
reconsideration of its October 25, 2006 decision dismissing the said proper form and language so it
petition to amend the 1987 Constitution through a people’s initiative. may be easily understood and
Ten justices however reiterated their earlier opinions that RA 6735 is voted upon by the electorate
sufficient and adequate as an enabling law for people’s initiative,
effectively abandoning Santiago v. Comelec. The Court upheld the Care in this activity must be
sovereign power of the people as the highest form of sovereignty and exercise that “no petition
deserves the highest respect. It is time to let the people’s voice be heard embracing more than one subject
once again as it was 20 years ago. And should this voice demand a shall be submitted to the
change in the Constitution, the SC should not be one to stand in its way. electorate, although two or more
propositions may be submitted in
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Comelec an initiative. “
252 SCRA 492 (1996)
HELD (2): SBMA insists that the creation of the SSEZ is now a fait
FACTS: Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan on April 1993, passed accompli for the benefit of the entire nation, and Morong cannot
Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its unilaterally withdraw its concurrence or impose new conditions for such
absolute concurrence to join the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) as concurrence as this would effectively render nugatory the creation of
required by Sec. 12 of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act the SSEZ. The SC agreed with the contention of Garcia that the position
of 1992). On September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the Kapasyahan to of SBMA is premature and conjectural because at this point the
the Office of the President. On May 24, 1993, respondent Garcia, et. al. resolution is just a proposal. If the people should reject it during the
filed a petition with the SB of Morong to annul PK Blg. 10, Serye 1993 referendum, then there is nothing to declare as illegal. A writ of
and therein proposed for amendments to the said law. The SB acted prohibition cannot issue upon a mere conjecture or possibility as courts
upon the petition and promulgated PK Blg. 18, requesting Congress to may decide only actual controversies and not hypothetical questions or
amend certain provisions of RA 7227 and informed respondents that the cases.
other matters in the proposed amendments were already submitted to
the Office of the President.

th
(5) RECALL – is the termination of official relationship of a local elective Petitioners must be at
At least 10% Over 300,000
public official for loss of confidence by the people prior to the end of least 45,000.
his term of office (Sec. 69, R.A. 7160 LGC).
DATE OF RECALL
PROCEDURE OF RECALL Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall with the appropriate local
1. A written petition for recall duly signed by the representatives of office of the Comelec, the Comelec or its duly authorized representative
the petitioners before the election registrar or his representative, shall set the date of the election or recall, which:
shall be filed with the Comelec through its office in the local • Shall NOT be later than 30 days upon the completion of the
government unit concerned; procedure outlined in the preceding article, in the case of the
2. The Comelec shall, within fifteen (15) days from the filing of the barangay, city or municipal officials, and
petition, certify to the sufficiency of the required number of • Shall NOT be later than 45 days in the case of provincial officials.
signatures. Failure to obtain the required number of signatures
automatically nullifies the petition; NOTE: The official sought to be recalled shall automatically be
3. If the petition is found to be sufficient in form, the Comelec or its considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to the pertinent
duly authorized representative shall, within three (3) days form the positions and like other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon.”
issuance of the certification, provide the official sought to be (Sec. 71)
recalled a copy of the petition, cause its publication a national
newspaper of general circulation and a newspaper of general EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL
circulation in the locality, once a week for three (3) consecutive • Recall shall become effective only upon the election and
weeks at the expense of the petitioners and at the same time post proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate who
copies thereof in public and conspicuous places for a period of not received the highest number of votes cast during the election in
less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days. recall. Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest
• Reason for posting: to allow the interested parties to number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed and he
examine and verify the validity of the petition and the shall continue in office. (Sec. 72).
authenticity of the signatures contained therein.
LIMITATIONS ON RECALL
4. The Comelec or its duly authorized representatives shall, upon
An elective official may be subject of recall elections:
issuance of certification, proceed independently with the
• Only ONCE during his term of office
verification and authentication of the signatures of the petitioners
• Exclusively on the ground of LACK OF CONFIDENCE.
and registered voters contained therein. Representatives of the
petitioners and the official sought to be recalled shall be duly • The recall cannot be undertaken within one (1) year from the
notified and shall have the right to participate therein as mere date of the official’s assumption of office or within one (1) year
observers. The filing of any challenge or protest shall be allowed immediately preceding a regular election. (Sec. 74)
within the period provided in the immediately preceding paragraph
and shall be ruled upon with finality within fifteen (15) days from NOTE: The elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be
the date of filing of such protest or challenge; allowed to resign while the recall process is in progress.
5. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec or its duly
authorized representative shall announce the acceptance of Paras v. Comelec
candidates to the positive and thereafter prepare the list of 264 SCRA 49
candidates which shall include the name of the official sought to be
recalled. FACTS: Paras, incumbent punong barangay sought to bar the recall
proceedings against him citing Sec. 74 (B) of RA 7160 that it was barred
Angobung v. Comelec by the scheduled SK elections.
269 SCRA 246 (1997)
HELD: SK elections are not considered a “regular local elections” for
RECALL - is the mode of removal of a public officer by the people before purposes of recall under Sec. 74.
the end of his term of office, which shall be exercised by the registered
voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official The term “regular local elections” is construed as one referring to:
subject of such recall belongs. • An election where the office held by the local elective official
sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled up by the

electorate.
The mode of initiating recall against a public elective official is now
• It is confined to the regular elections of elective national and local
limited to a petition commenced only by the registered voters in the
officials.
local unit concerned. Section 70 and 71 of RA 7160 is now amended by
RA 9244, otherwise known as An Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall
Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall of Elective Local Government Claudio v. COMELEC
Officials. 331 S 338, May 4, 2000

Section 70 of RA 7160 now reads as follows: “The recall of any elective FACTS: Jovito Claudio was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall be commenced by a May 11, 1998 elections. On May 19, 1999, several barangay chairs
petition of a registered voter in the LGU concerned and supported by formed an ad hoc committee for the purpose of convening the PRA
the registered voters in the LGU concerned during the election in which against Mayor Claudio on the ground of loss of confidence.
the local official sought to be recalled was elected subject to the
following percentage requirements: ISSUE 1: When does the process of "Recall" start for purposes of the one
year limitation in Paragraph (b) of §74 of the Local Government Code?
PERCENTAGE LGU VOTING POPULATION CONDITION
REQUIRED HELD 1: The term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers only to the recall
At least 25% Not more than 20, 000 - election, excluding the convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition
20,000 – not more than Petitioners must be at for recall with the COMELEC, or the gathering of the signatures of at
At least 20% least 25 % of the voters for a petition for recall.
75,000 least 5,000;
75,000 - not more than Petitioners must be at
At least 15%
300,000 least 15,000
th
ISSUE 2: WON the Phrase "Regular Local Election" in the Same Paragraph • Majority, including the Chairman, must be members of the
(b) of §74 of the LGC includes the Election Period for that Regular Philippine Bar engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
Election or Simply the Date of Such Election. years, before they may be appointed.

HELD 2: No. The law does not include the campaign period in counting MANNER OF APPOINTMENT |ART. IX-C, SEC. 1(2)|
the 1-year. Had Congress intended this limitation to refer to the • The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
campaign period, which period is defined in the Omnibus Election Code, President;
it could have expressly said so. • With the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
term of seven years without reappointment.
Atty. Valencia: It is wrong to say that it is a process because it refers only • Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for
to the actual date when the registered voters have to vote to either recall seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Members
the elective official or to vote him back to office. Recall election only for three years, without reappointment.
refers to the actual date of elections. • Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
(Brillantes v. Yorac)
Roque v. COMELEC
HOW DOES COMELEC TRANSACT BUSINESS
The Comelec is an independent constitutional body with a distinct and • In the exercise of its Constitutional or statutory powers,
pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions, and duties, the Commission may sit en banc or in two
awesome functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and lead Divisions. |Sec.1, Rule 3, CRP|
implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, it should not be
stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of • The Commission shall sit en banc in:
an organization of lesser responsibility. a. Cases hereinafter specifically provided, or
b. In pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of
It should be afforded ample elbowroom and enough wherewithal in the members of the Commission, or
devising means and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the c. In all other cases where a division is not authorized to act,
great objective for which it was created––to promote free, orderly, Examples: Petition to declare suspension, postponement
honest and peaceful elections. and failure of elections; or
d. Where, upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a
Thus, in the past, the Court has steered away from interfering with the Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an
Comelec’s exercise of its power, which, by law and by the nature of its action or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to
office properly pertain to it. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of the Commission en banc. |Sec.2, Rule 3, CRP|
discretion on Comelec’s part, as here, the Court should refrain from
utilizing the corrective hand of certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the • GENERAL RULE: COMELEC en banc has no jurisdiction in the first
acts of that body. instance over cases filed before he COMELEC. Is should be filed
in the division. The above are the exceptions.
COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS|ART. IX-C, SEC. 1| • The Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and decide
There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of (1) Chairman and protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special
six (6) Commissioners who must be a: cases, provisional remedies, contempt, and special proceedings
(1) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines; except in accreditation of citizen's arms of the Commission.
(2) At the time of their appointment: |Sec.3, Rule 3, CRP|
a. At least thirty-five years of age;
b. Holders of a college degree; DISQUALIFICATION OR INHIBITION OF MEMBERS
c. Must not have been candidates for any elective • No Member shall sit in any case in which:
positions in the immediately preceding elections. 1. He or his spouse or child is related to any party within the
(3) Majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be: sixth civil degree or consanguinity or affinity, or to the
a. Members of the Philippine Bar; counsel of any of the parties within the fourth civil degree
b. Who have been engaged in the practice of law for at of consanguinity or affinity, or
least ten years. 2. In which he has publicly expressed prejudgment as may be
shown by convincing proof, or
LIMITATIONS |Art. IX-A, Sec. 2| 3. In which the subject thereof is a decision promulgated by
• No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his him while previously serving as presiding judge of an
tenure, hold any other office or employment. inferior court, without the written consent of all the
• Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in parties, signed by them and entered in the records of the
the active management or control of any business which, in any case;
way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he • This is not an exclusive list.
be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract • Provided, that no Member shall be the "ponente" of an en banc
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the decision/resolution on a motion to reconsider a decision/resolution
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or written by him in a Division. |Sec.1, Rule 4, CRP|
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. QUORUM AND VOTES REQUIRED
• No member who is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines a. When sitting en banc, four (4) Members of the Commission shall
shall be appointed; constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business.
• No member who, at the time of their appointment, is under The concurrence of a majority of the Members of the
thirty-five years of age shall be appointed; Commission shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a
• No member who is not a holder of a college degree shall be decision, resolution, order or ruling;
appointed; b. When sitting in Division, two (2) Members of a Division shall
• No member who shall be a candidate for any elective positions constitute a quorum to transact business. The concurrence of at
in the immediately preceding elections shall be appointed; least two (2) Members of a Division shall be necessary to reach a

th
decision, resolution, order or ruling. If this required number is ballot as well as a system of absentee voting by qualified
not obtained, the case shall be automatically elevated to the Filipinos abroad (RA 9189 OAV)
Commission en banc for decision or resolution. 3. The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and
c. Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until
of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such
motions on interlocutory orders of the division, which shall be rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect
resolved by the division, which issued the order. |Sec.5, Rule 3, the secrecy of the ballot.
CRP| • RA 10366

Note: Interlocutory orders are those issued by the Division that are not REGISTRATION OF VOTERS; MEANING
yet final; hence, not reviewable by the Supreme Court via petition for • It is a means of determining who possess the qualifications as a
certiorari as well as final orders, resolutions, rulings and decisions of a voter and regulating the exercise of the right of suffrage.
division. (Ambil v. Comelec) • Registration does NOT confer the right to vote; it is but a
condition precedent to the exercise of the right.
POWERS OF THE COMELEC UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
1. EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS -- Enforce and administer HOW IS REGISTRATION DONE (R.A 8189 Voters Registration Act)
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, Under RA 8189, REGISTRATION refers to the:
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. |Art. IX-C, Sec.(2.1)| • ACT of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for
registration (Voters Registration Record VRR);
Note: This power is exclusive to the COMELEC • By a qualified voter;
a. Determination of the number and location of polling places;
• Before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he
b. Deputization/appointment of election officials and
resides and including the VRR in the book of RV
inspectors;
• Upon approval by the Election Registration Board (Sec. 3(a) RA
c. Supervise registration of voters;
8189).
d. Award of bid of contracts;

e. Regulate the use of firearms;
As stated in Section 2 thereof, RA 8189 was passed in order to
f. Call for special elections;
“systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a
g. Investigation and prosecution of election offenses;
clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters.
h. Declare postponement, suspension, or failure of elections

(exclusive to COMELEC);
BIOMETRIC REGISTRATION (RA 10367 Biometrics Law)
i. Regulate the use of franchise or permit to operate media of
communications and information; • To complement RA 8189 in the light of the advances in modern
j. Require compliance with the rules for the filing of COCs; technology, RA 10367 was signed into law in February 2013. It
k. Proclamation of winners (shared with trial courts); built on the policy considerations behind RA 8189 as it
l. Registration of political parties and accredited citizen’s arms institutionalized biometrics validation as part of the registration
process.
2. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE – Each Commission en banc may promulgate • As defined in the said law, “BIOMETRICS refers to a quantitative
its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or analysis that provides a positive identification of an individual
before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, such as voice, photograph, fingerprint signature, iris, and/or such
increase, or modify substantive rights. |Art. IX-A, Sec. 6| other identifiable features.” (Kabataan Party List, et. al. vs.
a. Issuance of rules to supervise and regulate media and Comelec (777 SCRA 574).
advertisement;
b. Rules to implement prohibition against expenditures; PROCEDURE FOR BIOMETRIC REGISTRATION
c. Those in excess of the limits authorized by law The RV is required to:
a) Personally appear before the Office of the Election Officer;
3. ADJUDICATORY/QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS – This embraces the b) Present a competent evidence of identity; and
power to resolve controversies that may arise in the enforcement c) Have his photo, signature and fingerprints recorded.
of election laws and resolution of cases involving regional,
provincial, and city officials, or to election disputes in general. It is, in effect, a manner of updating one’s registration for those already
“Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating registered under RA 8189, or a first-time registration for new registrants.
to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, The re-registration process is amply justified by the fact that the
provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all government is adopting a novel technology like biometrics in order to
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial address the bane of electoral fraud.
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.” |Art. IX-C, While registrants may be inconvenienced by waiting in long lines or by
Sec.(2.2)| not being accommodated on certain days due to heavy volume of work,
these are typical burdens of voting that are remedies by bureaucratic
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS improvements to be implemented by the COMELEC as an administrative
institution.

Article V, Section 1, 1987 Constitution. Suffrage may be exercised by:
NOTE: Registration extends to domestic and overseas voters.
1. All citizens of the Philippines;

• NOT otherwise disqualified by law;
• Who are at least 18 years of age KABATAAN PARTY-LIST v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 221318 | December 16, 2015 |PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
• Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one
(1) year; and
• In the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six Rights beget responsibilities; progress begets change.
(6) months in the immediately preceding the elections. FACTS: RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory
• No literacy, property or other substantive requirements biometrics registration system for new voters in order to establish a
shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters through the
2. Article V, Section 2, 1987 Constitution The Congress shall adoption of biometric technology.
provide for a system of securing the secrecy and sanctity of the

th
RA 10367 likewise directs that “registered voters whose biometrics have Lastly, the failure to validate did not preclude deactivated voters from
not been captured shall submit themselves for validation.” “Voters who exercising their right to vote in the succeeding elections. To rectify such
fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of status, they could still apply for reactivation.
application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall
be deactivated x x x.” THIRD ISSUE: No. Section 8 of RA 8189 provides that: System of
Continuing Registration of Voters. – x x x No registration shall, however,
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9721 as amended by Resolutions No. be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days
9863 and 10013. Among others, the said Resolution provides that: “the before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.
registration records of voters without biometrics data who failed to
submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of applications for The Court held that the 120-and 90-day periods stated therein refer to
registration for the purpose of the May 9, 2016 National and Local the prohibitive period beyond which voter registration may no longer be
Elections shall be deactivated. conducted. The subject provision does not mandate COMELEC to
conduct voter registration up to such time; rather, it only provides a
Herein petitioners filed the instant petition with application for period, which may not be reduced, but may be extended depending on
temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary mandatory the administrative necessities and other exigencies.
injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the biometrics
validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as COMELEC REGISTRATION OF DOMESTIC VOTERS
Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto. RA 8189 (The Voters Registration Act)

ISSUES: I. WHO MAY REGISTER
1. Whether or not the statutory requirement of biometrics
Section 9 – Who may Register – ALL CITIZENS of the Philippines NOT
validation is an unconstitutional requirement of literacy and
otherwise disqualified by law who are at least 18 years of age, who shall
property;
have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place
2. Whether or not biometrics validation passes the strict scrutiny
wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately
test;
preceding the elections.
3. Whether or not Resolution No. 9863 which fixed the deadline

for validation on October 31, 2015 violates Section 8 of RA 8189.
Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or

country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in
FIRST ISSUE: No. The Court held that biometrics validation is not a
private or public service, educational activities, work in the military or
“qualification” to the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a mere aspect
naval reservations, within the Philippines, service in the AFP, or
of the registration procedure, of which the State has the right to
confinement or detention in government institution in accordance with
reasonably regulate. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of
law, shall NOT be deemed to have lost his original residence.
suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right. The process of

registration is a procedural limitation on the right to vote.
Any person who, on the day of registration may not have reached the

required age or period of residence but, who on the day of election shall
Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must
possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.”
nonetheless still comply with the registration procedure in order to vote.

(Sec. 9 (repealed Sections 116 and 117 of the OEC). Sec. 9 clarified when
Unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a
the residency and age requirements should be attained) – Salient
literacy, property or other substantive requirement as contemplated by
amendments:
the Framers of the Constitution -that is, one which propagates a socio-

economic standard which is bereft of any rational basis to a person’s
ILLITERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS
ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good -the
same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case. Illiterates or disabled are referred to persons who cannot by themselves
prepare an application for registration because of:
SECOND ISSUE: Yes. In applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the • Physical disability; and/or
presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest • Inability to read and write. (Section 3 (e))
and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest,
and the burden befalls upon the State to prove the same. Section 14. Procedure for ILLITERATE applicants (those who cannot read
and write) – assisted by the election officer or any member of an
Presence of compelling state interest: Respondents have shown that the accredited citizens arm.
biometrics validation requirement under RA 10367 advances a • The election officer shall place such illiterate person under oath,
compelling state interest. It was precisely designed to facilitate the • Ask him the questions and record the answers given in order to
conduct of orderly, honest, and credible elections by containing -if not accomplish the application form;
eliminating, the perennial problem of having flying voters, as well as • In the presence of the majority of the members of the Board.
dead and multiple registrants. The foregoing consideration is • The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the applicant in
unquestionably a compelling state interest. the presence of the Board by means of thumb mark or some
other customary mark; and
Biometrics validation is the least restrictive means for achieving the • It shall be subscribed and attested by the majority of the
above-said interest: Section 6 of Resolution No. 9721 sets the procedure members of the Board.
for biometrics validation, whereby the registered voter is only required
to: (a) personally appear before the Office of the Election Officer; (b) Procedure for DISABLED voters – the application for registration of a
present a competent evidence of identity; and (c) have his photo, physically disabled person (ex. blind, no hands, senior citizen, mute)
signature, and fingerprints recorded. • May be prepared by any relative within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity; or
Moreover, RA 10367 and Resolution No. 9721 did not mandate • By the election officer; or
registered voters to submit themselves to validation every time there is • Any member of an accredited citizen’s arm using the data
an election. In fact, it only required the voter to undergo the validation supplied by the applicant.
process one (1) time, which shall remain effective in succeeding
elections, provided that he remains an active voter. NOTE: Common to both procedures, the fact of illiteracy and disability
shall be so indicated in the application.

th
2017 TSN: It is also common that election officers or members of the person to return to the place of his birth. (Faypon v. Quirino 96
citizen’s arm may assist them. Phil. 294 (1954))

RA 10366 – An Act Providing for Accessible Polling Places Exclusively for c) Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect the
Persons with Disabilities and Senior Citizens change of domicile, one must demonstrate:
• This law provides for accessible Polling Places for Persons with 1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
Disabilities (PWDS and Senior Citizens and also provides for, 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
among others, assistance in the accomplishment of registration residence and establishing a new one; and
forms. The law was in line with the objective of Sec. 29 of the 3. Act which correspond with the purpose. (Romuladez-
“Magna Carta for Persons with Disability” (RA No. 7277), which Marcos v. Comelec 248 SCRA1995))
provides that “polling places should be made accessible to
disabled persons during national and local elections.” d) While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a
• The Comelec shall likewise keep an updated record of PWDs and strong presumption of residence. The fact that a party
Senior Citizens registered voters, indicating the types of disability continuously voted on a particular locality is a strong factor in
and the assistance they need. (Sec. 6, RA 10366). In designing the assisting to determine the status of his domicile. (Domino v.
ballot, Comelec shall ensure reasonable accommodation to PWDs Comelec 330 SCRA 546 (1999))
and SC to enable them to accomplish the ballots by themselves
(Sec. 10) 6. It is not required that a person should have a house in order
• Comelec, in coordination with the National Council on Disability to establish his domicile. (Delos Reyes v. Solidum, 61 Phil.
Affairs (NCDA), the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and PWD 893)
and Senior Citizens organization shall organize, design, and
implement sensitivity training programs for person performing II. WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED TO REGISTER
electoral duties to familiarize them of the needs of the PWDs and (Section 11 of R.A. 8189 repealed Sec. 118 of the OEC)
SC. (Sec. 12) 1. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one (1) year. (1 year or more)
• TO REGISTER: Section 7. Assistance in the Accomplishment of 2. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by
Application Form. – A person with disability or senior citizen competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime
who cannot by himself or herself accomplish an application for involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as
registration, by reason of illiteracy or physical disability, shall be rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms
assisted by the Election Officer in the preparation of his or her law, or any crime against national security in accordance with
application form, or by any member of an accredited citizens’ law.
arm, or by a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth 3. Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent authority.
civil degree, or if he or she has none present, by any person of his
or her confidence who belongs to the same household. WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED
1. Plenary pardon or amnesty – (absolute pardon) those
4 persons na ang pwede mag assist to register: sentenced by final judgment. Article IX-C, Section 5 provides
1. The Election Officer; or that the President cannot, without the favorable
2. Any member of an accredited citizens’ arm; or recommendation of the Comelec grant pardon, amnesty, parole
3. A relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth or suspension of sentence in cases involving violation of election
civil degree, or laws and violation of election rules and regulations.
4. If he or she has none present, by any person of his or her 2. Expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence.
confidence who belongs to the same household. 3. Official declaration by the proper authority that the insanity or
incompetency no longer exist.
• TO VOTE: Section 11. Section Assistance in the Accomplishment
of the Ballot. – A person with disability or senior citizen who is DOUBLE REGISTRANTS
illiterate or physically unable to prepare the ballot by himself or
herself may be assisted in the preparation of his or her ballot by a TWO KINDS OF DOUBLE REGISTRANTS:
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree, (1) Those registrants who are found to be registered in two or more
or if he or she has none, by any person of his or her confidence districts/cities/municipalities - the latest registration shall
who belongs to the same household, or by any member of the prevail. As this is deemed to be more in consonance with the
BEls. intent of the concerned registered votes. Accordingly, they shall
be allowed to vote only in the district/city/municipality of their
2 persons ang pwede mag assist to vote: latest registration.
1. Relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil
degree; or (2) Double/Multiple Registrants who are found to be registered
2. If he or she has none, by any person of his or her confidence within the same district/city/municipality more than once- the
who belongs to the same household, or by any member of original registration shall prevail over subsequent registrations.
the BEls. (Comelec Res. 7893, 07 May 2007. See also Sec. 261 (y(5)) of the
OEC (Prohibited Acts) which provides “Any person who, being a
registered voter, registers anew without filing an application for
CASES ON RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT cancellation of his previous registration” shall be guilty of an
a) The term “residence” is synonymous with “domicile” which election offense).
imports: (I-P-C)
• Intention to reside in a fixed place, RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
• Personal presence in that place,
• Coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. (Nuval Romeo A. Jalosjos v. Comelec Dan Erasmo, Sr.
V. Guray, 52 Phil. 645 (1928). 670 SCRA 572 (2012)

b) Registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin
Jalosjos came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his
is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such
brother in Zamboanga Sibugay.
residence. This finds justification in the natural desire of every
th
The fact that the residential structure where petitioner intends to reside
RESIDENCE – The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking was still under construction on the lot she purchased means that she has
the position of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at not yet established actual and physical residence in the barangay,
least (1) year before the election. For purposes of the election laws, the contrary to the declaration of her witnesses that she has been an actual
requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile, meaning that a and physical resident of Brgy. Tugas since 2008.
person must not only intend to reside in a particular place but must also
have personal presence in such place coupled with conduct indicative of Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea
such intention. There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s 670 SCRA 664 (2012)
compliance with residency requirement since the question of residence
is a question of intention. It is not required that a candidate should have his own house in order to
establish his residence or domicile in a place. It is enough that he should
Still, jurisprudence had laid down the following GUIDELINES: live in the locality even in a rented house or that of a friend or relative.
a) Every person has a domicile or residence somewhere; What is of central concern then is that the person identified and
b) Where once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a established a place in the said City where he intended to live in and
new one; and return to for an indefinite period of time.
c) A person can have but one domicile at a time.
Absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession or
The Comelec concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle his domicile registration as a voter other than the place where one is elected, does
in Ipil since he was merely been staying at his brother’s house. not constitute loss of residence. Section 117 of the OEC provides that
“transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one’s occupation,
SC said that this circumstance alone cannot support such conclusion. profession, employment in private and public service, educational
Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not required activities, work force, the constabulary or national police force, or
to have a house in a community to establish his residence or domicile confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with
in a particular place. It is sufficient that he should live there even if it be law” is not deemed as loss of residence.
in a rented house or in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the
candidate own the house where he lives would make property a The Court ruled that there is nothing wrong in individual changing
qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has proved residences so he could run for an elective post, for as long as he is able
two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an intention of making it to prove with reasonable certainty that he has effected a change of
his domicile. residence for election law purposes for the period required by law.

It is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his domicile for The law does not require a candidate to be at home 24 hours a day 7
good. He left Australia, gave up his Australian citizenship, and renounced days a week to fulfill the residency requirement.
his allegiance to that country. In addition, he reacquired his old
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Asistio v. Trindad Pe-Aguirre
Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of G.R. No. 191124, 27 April 2010
Philippine Citizenship by the BID. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal

right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile
HELD: “Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer
there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga thereof, one must demonstrate:
Sibugay.
1. An actual removal or change of domicile;

2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
Mitra vs. COMELEC, Antonio Gonzales and Orlando Balbon, Jr. residence and establishing a new one; and
622 SCRA 744 (July 2010) 3. Acts corresponding with that purpose.

In this case, following the conversion of Puerto Princesa (Mitra’s Residence as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage
domicile of origin) from a component city to a highly urbanized city and for elective office, is DOCTRINALLY SETTLED to mean ‘domicile”,
whose residents can no longer vote for provincial officials, Mitra importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also
abandoned his domicile in Puerto Princesa and acquired a new one in personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
Aborlan which is within the LGU where he intended to run. Mitra bought intention inferable from a person’s acts, utterances and activities.
the old Maligaya Feedmill and used the second floor as his residence.
There must be animus manendi (intention to remain) coupled with
Comelec disqualified Mitra for the reason that Mitra’s residence is not animus non revertendi (intention to return) This purpose to remain in
the residence contemplated by law considering that he did not renovate or at the domicile of choice must for an indefinite period of time; the
or improve the structure. change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
HELD: The dwelling where a person permanently intends to return to
and to remain – his or her capacity or inclination to decorate the place, Limbona v. Comelec
or the lack of it, IS IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion G.R. No. 181970, June 25, 2008
when it determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s residence

based solely on very personal and subjective assessment standards when There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s compliance
the law is replete with standards that can be used. Comelec used wrong
with residency requirement since the question of residence is a
considerations in arriving at the conclusion that Mitra’s residence is not
question of intention.
the residence contemplated by law.

Coquilla vs. Comelec
Svetlana P. Jalosjos vs. Comelec/Tupag/Estrellada
385 SCRA 607
699 SCRA 507 (2013)

A former Filipino citizen cannot be considered a resident of the
HELD: To be an actual and physical resident of a locality, one must have Philippines and in the locality he intends to be elected prior to his
a dwelling place where one resides no matter how modest and
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
regardless of ownership.

The “term residence” is to be understood NOT in its common
acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation”, but rather to
th
“domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place where the party actually • During regular office hours;
or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where • The Election Registration Board (ERB) are authorized to act on
he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and all applications for registration.
remain (animus manendi)”.
LIMITATION
A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the • No registration shall be conducted during the period starting
place where the child’s parents reside and continues until the same is 120 days before regular elections; and
abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (by choice). • 90 days before special elections.
• Modified by RA 9369 or The AES Law saying that “(t)he
Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of
248 SCRA 30 (1995) COC/petition for registration/manifestation to participate in
the elections.”
HELD: “It is the fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of
candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD
individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification Sec. 15 – Election Registration Board – There shall be in each city and
requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or municipality as many as ERB’s as there are election officers therein.
appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact
which would otherwise render the candidate ineligible. COMPOSITION

1. Chairman –
Perez v. Comelec
• Election Officer (EO); and
317 SCRA 640
• In case of disqualification of the EO, the Commission
shall designate as acting EO who shall serve as
The qualifications of Rodolfo Aguinaldo former governor of Cagayan was chairman of the ERB.
at issue when he filed his certificate of candidacy as member of the HR
for the 3rd district of Cagayan in the 11 May 1998 elections. 2. Members –
a) The public school official most senior in rank; and
The Court reiterated the meaning of RESIDENCE as “the place where the b) The local civil registrar (LCR), or in his absence, the city or
party actually or constructively has his permanent home” where he, no municipal treasurer (MT).
matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to • In cases of the non-availability of the LCR or the MT,
return and remain, while DOMICILE, is that to which the Constitution Comelec shall designate any other appointive civil
refers when it speaks of residence for the purpose of election law. And, service official from the same locality as substitute.
the fact that a person is a registered voter in one district is not proof
that he is not domiciled in another district. RESTRICTIONS TO APPOINTMENT

⇒ No member of the board shall be related to each other or to any
Torayno Sr., vs. Comelec
incumbent city or municipal elective official within the 4th civil
337 SCRA 574 degree of consanguinity or affinity.
⇒ If in succeeding elections, any of the newly elected city or
The issue in this case is the residence qualification of Vicente Emano who municipal officials is related to a member of the board within
filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro. Court the same degree, such member is automatically disqualified in
explained that the purpose of the residence as required by Constitution order to preserve the integrity of the ERB.
and the law as a qualification for seeking and holding public office, is to
give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties Every registered party and such organizations as may be authorized by
and aspiration, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare the Comelec shall be entitled to a watcher in every registration board.
of their constituencies.
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OF APPLICATIONS (SEC. 17)
On the part of the electorate, to evaluate the candidate’s qualifications
a) Date of hearing posted in the city or municipal bulletin board
and fitness for the job they aspire for.
and EO office at least 1 week before date of hearing;

b) If objected to, EO shall receive evidence. Physical presence of
In this case Emano, cannot be deemed to be a stranger or newcomer
applicant in this case is mandatory to rebut evidence presented
when he ran for and was overwhelmingly voted as city mayor having
in opposition thereto.
garnered a margin of 30K votes.
c) If no objection to application, physical appearance not required

and will be duly informed in writing
Papandayan, Jr. vs. Comelec d) Applications for registration shall be heard and processed on a
381 SCRA 133 quarterly basis.
e) Board shall convene on the 3rd day of Monday of April, July,
DOMICILE connotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent October and January of every calendar year except in an election
for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. year to conform to the 120 days prohibitive period before
Election Day.
REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE A NEW DOMICILE BY CHOICE
a) An intention to remain there; (animus manendi) Section. 21 – Publication of Action on Application for Registration.
b) Residence or bodily presence in the new locality; and
c) An intention to abandon the old domicile. CHANGE OF RESIDENCE TO ANOTHER CITY OR MUNICIPALITY (SECTION
12)
PROCEDURE OF REGISTRATION Any registered voter who has transferred residence to another city or
municipality may:
Section 8 – System of Continuing Registration of Voters/Creation of • Apply with the EO of his new residence for the transfer of his
Election Registration Board. A qualified voter shall: registration records.
• Personally files an application for registration; • The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the
• DAILY; requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the ERB
• With the office of the election officer; in accordance with this Act.

th
• Upon approval of the application for transfer, and after notice of 4. Any person who has LOST HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP.
such approval to the EO of the former residence of the voter,
said EO shall transmit by registered mail the voter’s registration For those who lost their citizenship, declared insane and incompetent,
record to the EO of the voter’s new residence. the Comelec may request a certified list of such persons from the
government agencies concerned.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN THE SAME CITY OR MUNICIPALITY (SECTION
13) REACTIVATION (SEC. 28)
Any voter who has changed his address in the same city or municipality It is a process whereby a voter whose registration records has been
shall: deactivated:
• Immediately notify the EO in writing. • Files with the election officer a sworn application for
• If the change of address involves a change in precinct, the Board reactivation of his registration in the form of an AFFIDAVIT by
shall transfer his registration record to the precinct book of stating therein that the grounds for the deactivation no longer
voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new exist.
precinct. • May be filed at any time but not later than 120 days before a
• All changes of address shall be reported to the office of the regular election and 90 days before a special election.
provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila. • Upon approval, the Board shall retrieve the registration records
from the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding
DEACTIVATION (Sec. 27) precinct book of voters.

This is a process wherein:
REQUIREMENT: Local heads or representatives of political parties shall
• Registration record of a voter is removed by the ERB from the
be properly notified of the approved applications.
corresponding precinct book of voters; and

• Places the same in an inactive file;
• Properly marked and dated in indelible ink and after entering CANCELLATION (SECTION 29)
the cause for deactivation (listed below). It is a process wherein the Board:
• Cancels the registration records of those who have died;
CAUSES FOR DEACTIVATION (F- I- F- E- L) • As certified by the local civil registrar who shall submit each
1. Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment, INSANE month a certified list of persons who died during the previous
AND INCOMPETENT PERSONS as officially declared; month to the election officer of the place where the deceased is
registered.
The Clerks of Court of the MTC, MTCC, RTC and SB shall furnish the
Election Officer of the city or municipality concerned at the end of each PETITION FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION
month a certified list of persons who are disqualified by virtue of a final Remedies of persons whose:
judgment, with their addresses. • Application for reactivation, inclusion or correction has been
disapproved; or
2. Any person who FAILED TO VOTE in the two (2) successive • Those who intend to exclude a voter from the list of voters.
preceding regular elections as shown by his voting records.
3. Any person whose registration has been ORDERED EXCLUDED BY
THE COURT.
PETITION FOR INCLUSION PETITION FOR EXCLUSION
(SECTION 34) (SECTION 35)
ANY PERSON: • Any registered voter;
(D- S- N- W) • Representative of a political party; or
• Whose application for registration has been • The Election Officer.
disapproved by the Board; or
• Whose name has been stricken out from the list;
Who may file • Whose name was not included in the precinct list of
voters;
• Who has been included therein with a wrong or
misspelled name after the Board disapproves its
application for reinstatement or correction of name
may file with the court.
ANY TIME; ANY TIME;
Period to file Except 105 days prior to a regular election or 75 days Except 100 days prior to a regular election or 65 days prior
prior to a special election. to a special election.
The petition should be supported by: Supporting documents shall be:
• Certificate of disapproval of his application; and • Proof of notice to the Board and
Supporting documents
• Proof of service of notice upon the Board. • Proof of notice to the challenged voter.

MTC shall decide within fifteen (15) days after it’s MTC shall decide within ten (10) days.
Period to decide
filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the If the decision is for exclusion, the Board shall:
permanent list of voters, the Board shall:
• Place the application for registration previously • Remove the voter’s registration record from the
disapproved in the corresponding Book of Voters; corresponding Book of Voters; and
Effects if petition is granted
and • Enter the order of exclusion therein.
• Indicate in the application for registration the:
1. Date of the order of inclusion; and
2. The court, which issued the same.
Common Rules
(Sec. 32 of RA 8189) Section 32. Common Rules Governing Judicial, Proceedings in the Matter of Inclusion, Exclusion, and Correction of
th
Names of Voters.
a. Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be filed during office hours;
b. Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served upon the members of the
Board and the challenged voter upon filing of the petition. Service of such notice may be made by sending a
copy thereof by personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of a person of sufficient discretion in the
residence of the challenged voter, or by registered mail. Should the foregoing procedures not be practicable,
the notice shall be posted in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in two (2) other conspicuous
places within the city or municipality;
c. A petition shall refer only to one (1) precinct and implead the Board as respondents;
d. No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings. However, if the court should find that the
application has been filed solely to harass the adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the
culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses;
e. Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the proceedings may intervene and present his
evidence;
f. The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered upon a stipulation of facts. If
the question is whether or not the voter is real or fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing
shall be prima facie evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious; and
g. The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days from the date of its filing. Cases appealed to the
Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10) days from receipt of the appeal. In all cases, the court
shall decide these petitions not later than fifteen (15) days before the election and the decision shall become
final and executory.
WHERE TO APPEAL
JURISDICTION ON PETITION FOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION (SEC. 33) Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed
• The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original by the aggrieved party to:
jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in • The Regional Trial Court;
their respective cities or municipalities. • Within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof;
• BASIS: The Comelec shall decide all questions affecting • Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory;
elections, except the right to vote. This question is a justiciable • Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days
issue, which finds redress in the judiciary. (Article IX-C, Section 2 from the time it is received; and
(3) of the Constitution; Pungutan v. Comelec 43 SCRA 1 (1972). • The Regional Trial Court decision shall immediately become final
• Petition for inclusion/exclusion involves a question affecting the and executory.
right to vote. (Canicosa vs. COMELEC) • No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

Panlaqui v. Comelec Domino v. Comelec
613 SCRA 573 310 SCRA 546 (1999)

Voters’ inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of Except for the right to remain in the list of voters or for being excluded
whether a voter shall be included in or excluded from the list of voters therefrom for the particular election in relation to which the proceedings
based on the qualifications required by law and the facts presented to had been held, a decision in an exclusion proceeding, even if final and
show possession of these qualifications. unappealable does NOT acquire the nature of res judicata.

As distinguished from the procedure in certificates of candidacy (petition Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding would neither be conclusive
to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy) on the other on the voters political status, nor bar subsequent proceedings on his
hand, the denial/cancellation proceedings involve the issue of whether right to be registered as a voter in any other election. Disqualified now
there is a false representation of a material fact (Sec. 78). for lack of residency is not res judicata.

It is not within the province of the RTC in a voter’s inclusion/exclusion
Akbayan v. Comelec
proceedings to take cognizance of and determine the presence of a false
March 26, 2001
representation of a material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of

whether the misrepresentation relates to material fact and whether
there was an intention to deceive the electorate in terms of one’s • The petition for exclusion is a necessary component to registration
qualifications for public office. The finding that Velasco was not qualified since it is a safety mechanism that gives a measure of protection
to vote due to lack of residency requirement does not translate into a against flying voters, non-qualified registrants, and the like.
finding of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact • The prohibitive period, on the other hand, serves as the purpose of
which would otherwise render him ineligible. securing the voters substantive right to be included in the list of
voters.

Canicosa v. Comelec FACTS: Here, Akbayan filed a Petition with the Comelec praying for a 2-
282 SCRA 512 (1997) day special registration of new voters for the May 14, 2001. Akbayan
postured that there are around 5M Filipinos of voting age who failed to
The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the register before the registration deadline and this would undermine their
right to vote, which is not within the power and authority of the Comelec constitution right to vote and disenfranchise them. Comelec denied the
to rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to vote is petition on the grounds of operational impossibility.
a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular courts. [Article IX-
C, Section 2 (3) of the Constitution]. HELD: The right of suffrage is NOT absolute, as in the enjoyment of all
other rights, it is subject to existing substantive and procedural
requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute and other
repositories of law.

PROCEDURAL LIMITATION – must undergo the process of registration, in
addition to the maximum requirements set by the Constitution under

th
Section 1, Article V, the act of registration being an indispensable • ABSENTEE VOTING - refers to the process by which qualified
precondition and essential to the right of suffrage and election process. citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote.
Referring to Section 8 of RA 8189, the law is explicit that “no registration (Sec. 3(a))
shall however be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election.” COVERAGE
• All citizens of the Philippines abroad;
Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the hand speaks of the prohibitive period within • Who are not disqualified by law;
which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of voters from the • At least 18 years of age on election day;
permanent list of voters. Thus if the special registration of voters will be • May vote for President, VP, Senators and Party List
conducted, then the prohibitive period for filing petitions for exclusion Representatives (Sec. 4)
must likewise be adjusted to a later date, if not, then no one can
challenge the voters list which is violative of the principles of due DISQUALIFICATIONS (SECTION 5) | (L- R- C- I)
process and would open the registration process to abuse and seriously
a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with
compromise the integrity of the voter’s list and that of the entire
Philippine laws;
election.
b) Those who have expressly RENOUNCED their Philippine

citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country;
ABSENTEE VOTING c) Those who have COMMITTED AND ARE CONVICTED BY A FINAL
JUDGMENT by a court or tribunal of:
LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING • An offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES: one (1) year ( or 1 yr or more)
• In the performance of their election duties, • Including those who have committed and been found
• Stationed in the places other than the place where they are guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Article 137 of the
registered voters of (e.g. members of the PNP, AFP, officers of Revised Penal Code, such as disability not having removed
the Comelec, school teachers, among others) by plenary pardon or amnesty;
• They are allowed to vote in their respective place of work (Sec. • Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote
12, RA 7166). upon the expiration of five (5) years after service of
sentence;
RA NO. 10380 OR THE “LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING FOR MEDIA ACT” • Provided further, That the Commission may take
• This law allows media practitioners to vote on specified days cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts or
earlier than Election Day so that that even if on Election Day, tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the
they are assigned to cover election events away from their place formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court
of registration as voters, they would nonetheless have the on execution of judgments;
opportunity to cast their votes.
d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such
LIMITATION in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an
Those entitled to avail of local absentee voting shall only be allowed to affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring
vote for: that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in
• President; the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of
• VP; his/her registration under this Act. (Amended already by RA
• Senators; and 10590 effective on May 27, 2013)
• Party-List Representatives. • Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied
for citizenship in another country.
GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LOCAL • Failure to return shall be caused for the removal of the
ABSENTEE VOTING | (R- O- S- P- C) name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the
(1) The applicant is not a RV or his registration records have been National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her
deactivated; permanent disqualification to vote in absentia;
(2) It was filed out of time;
(3) It was not sworn to or otherwise not under oath by any e) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously DECLARED
person authorized to administer oath; INSANE OR INCOMPETENT by competent authority in the
(4) It was only photocopied/faxed; Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies,
(5) The Certification portion of the application form is not duly consulates or Foreign Service establishments concerned, unless
accomplished. such competent authority subsequently certifies that such person
is no longer insane or incompetent.
OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING (OAV)
RA 9189 Absentee Voters Act of 2003 Macalintal v. Comelec
405 SCRA 614 (2003)
Under RA 9189, Filipino citizens who are (1) OVERSEAS WORKERS, (2) (This ruling is already abandoned by RA10590 as of May 27, 2013)
IMMIGRANTS OR (3) PERMANENT RESIDENTS in other countries may The execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising
vote in Philippine national elections when they are away from the act. The affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of the
country on the day of the elections. intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume
residency in the Philippines, but more significantly, it serves as an explicit
Prior to the amendment, it further provided that in the case of expression that he had not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin. The
immigrants or permanent residents, they are required to file a sworn affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents abroad
statement that they will resume actual physical permanent residence because by their status in the host countries, they are presumed to have
within three (3) years from approval of their registration. (Sec. 5(d)) relinquished their intent to return to this country; thus, without the
(Amended already by RA 10590 effective on May 27, 2013) affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of Philippine domicile shall
remain.
SCOPE OF OAV
CASTING OF BALLOTS IN OAV

th
• The overseas voter shall cast his ballot within 30 days before The amended law also mandates the creation of the Resident Election
election day; Registration Boards (RERB). The specific provision is a new insertion
• or 60 days before election day in the case of seafarers. (Sec. institutionalizing the overseas voting system by creating an office within
16.3) the Comelec exclusively for overseas voting.

COUNTING OF BALLOTS OF OAV FACTS: Petitioners are dual citizens having retained or reacquired
a) Only ballots cast and mailed ballots received by embassies, Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
consulates and other foreign establishments before the closing Reacquisition Act of 2003. As such, they sought registration and
of voting on election day shall be counted (Sec. 16.7 and Sec. certification as overseas absentee voters under RA 9189 or the Overseas
18.3). Absentee Voting Act of 2003, in order to vote in the May 2004 elections.
b) The counting shall be conducted on site and shall be However, the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that per
synchronized with the start of counting in the Philippines (Sec. Comelec letter dated September 23, 2003, they have yet no residence
18.1). requirement as prescribed by the Constitution. Petitioners sought a
c) The SPECIAL BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS (SBEI) shall be clarification from the Comelec which thereafter, expressed the opinion
composed of a chairman and two (2) members: that dual citizens under RA 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage
• Chairman - The ambassador, consul general or career under the Overseas Absentee Voting Law because said law was not
public officer designated by the Comelec. enacted for them, hence, they are considered regular voters who have to
• 2 Members – meet requirements of residency, among others.
⇒ Government officers; or
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners and others who might have
⇒ In the absence thereof, two Filipino citizens
meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to
qualified to vote under this Acts shall be
RA 9225 may vote as absentee voter under RA 9189.
deputized as members (Sec. 18.3)

HELD: Section 1 of Article V of the Philippine Constitution prescribed
d) Immediately after the counting, the SBEI shall transmit by
facsimile or electronic mail the result to the Comelec and the residency requirement as a general eligibility factor for the right to vote.
On the other hand, Section 2 of Article V, authorizes Congress to devise
accredited major political parties.
a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident

may, as an exception to the residency prescription in the preceding
CANVASSING OF OAV
section, be allowed to vote.
A Special Board of Canvassers (SBOC) composed of:

• Chairman - a lawyer preferably of the Comelec; On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement that “duals” are
• A senior career officers from any government agency most likely non-residents, grants under Section 5(1) the same right of
maintaining a post abroad; and suffrage as granted to an absentee voter under RA 9189 which aims to
• In the absence of another government officer, a citizen of the enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos, who, save for the
Philippines qualified to vote under this Act, shall be constituted residency requirement exacted of an ordinary conditions, are qualified
to canvass the election returns. to vote as ruled in Macalintal vs. Comelec 405 SCRA 614.

The SBOC shall transmit by facsimile, electronic mail or any other safe
POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY LIST AND CITIZENS ARM
and reliable means of transmission, the (1) certificate of canvass and (2)
the statements of votes to the Comelec and the major accredited
parties. Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5) of the 1987 Constitution, authorizes the Comelec
to “Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations,
The certificates of canvass and the statements of votes shall be the or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present
primary basis for the national canvass. (Sec. 18.4) their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of
the Commission on Elections.
RA 10590 - OVERSEAS VOTING ACT OF 2013 (AMENDED RA 9189)
Section 60 of the OEC/Section 1, Rule 32 of the Comelec Rules of
• The President on May 27, 2013 signed into law RA 10590, OAV Procedure provides that any group pursuing the same political ideals
2013, amending the Overseas Voting Act of 2003. With the
may register with the Comelec.
passage of the law, Filipino immigrants abroad will no longer

need to execute an affidavit stating that they will return to the PROCEDURE ON REGISTRATION | (P- L- V- V- P- N- C)
Philippines within 3 years before they are allowed to vote in
absentia. • By filing a VERIFIED PETITION with the COMELEC’s Law
Department;
DUAL CITIZENS • Duly verified by its President and Secretary-General, or any
official duly authorized to do so under its Constitutions and by-
Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et. al. vs. Comelec laws.
G.R. No. 162759 | August 6, 2006. • Before Comelec takes action, the Comelec shall first VERIFY,
through its field offices, the status and capacity of the petitioner
DOCTRINE: Dual citizens were refused by Comelec to register and vote in and the veracity of the allegations in the petition. (Sec. 4, Rule
the 2004 Philippine elections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that 32).
“there is no provision in the dual citizenship law, RA 9225 (Citizenship • After the verification process, the Petition will be PUBLISHED
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 – requiring duals to actually with the Notice of Hearing.
establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before • Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of
they can exercise their right to vote.” Registration (Sec. 7) (1) is conferred juridical personality for
election related purposes (2) public is informed of the party’s
The ruling established a precedent that dual citizens can register and existence and ideals (3) it identifies the party and its officers for
vote without establishing residence in the Philippines. A provision in the purposes of regulation by the Comelec.
amended law is inserted to emphasize that dual citizens who reacquired • For purposes of the electoral process, an organization need not
or retained their Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 can exercise their be a political party.
right of suffrage.

LIMITATIONS ON REGISTRATION | (R- U- R- F)
th
1. Religious sect or denomination or association organized for power to register political parties necessarily involved the determination
religious purposes. of the persons who must act on its behalf. Thus, the Comelec may
• Registration of religious sects are prohibited for the resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case brought
purpose of the electoral process which is made in the before it, as an incident of its power to register political parties.
spirit of separation of church and state and intended to
prevent churches from wielding political power. Lico vs. Comelec
• This does not extend to organizations with religious 771 SCRA 596 (2015)
affiliations or to political parties, which derive their
principles from religious beliefs. FACTS: The case involves two rival factions of the same party-list
organization Ating Koop headed by Atty. Lico who represents the
2. Those who seek to achieve their goals through unlawful organization in the HR and the other group by Amparo Rimas
means; (respondents – Rimas Group. Based on the Constitution and By laws, its
3. Those that refuse to adhere to the Constitution; highest policy making body is the National Convention. The Central
4. Those that are supported by any foreign government (Sec. Committee takes over when the National Convention is not in session. In
2(5) Article IX-C). the 2010 elections Ating Koop earned a seat in the HR and Lico took his
oath of office and assumed office. (Lico is already a member of
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION (SEC. 8) HR/Congress this time)
• Upon verified complaint of any interested party, or motu propio
by the Commission; The nominees signed a term sharing agreement where Lico was to serve
• The registration of any political party, coalition of political as party rep for the 1st year of the 3-year tem. In a subsequent
parties or organizations under the party-list system may be convention which was controlled by the Rimas group, Atty. Lico was
cancelled after due notice and hearing on the following resolved to be expelled for certain acts in violation of its rules and
GROUNDS: regulations. It was filed with Comelec, which upheld the validity of the
expulsion with a declaration that to the Rimas group. Comelec made
1. Acceptance by the political party, coalition of political parties, or reference to the Lokin case where its said that when the resolution of an
organizations or any of its candidates, of financial contributions intra-party controversy is necessary or incidental to the performance of
from foreign governments and/or their agencies for activities the constitutionally-granted functions of the Comelec, it can step in and
related to elections; exercise jurisdiction over the intra-party matter.
2. Violation of laws, rules or regulations relating to elections,
plebiscites, referenda or initiative. ISSUE: The pivotal issue submitted with the SC of the jurisdiction of the
3. Untruthful statements in its petition for registration; Comelec over the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative from the
4. The said political party, coalition of political parties or HR on one hand, and from his party-list organization on the other.
organization has become a religious sect or denomination, is
pursuing its goals through violence or other unlawful means, is HELD: Lokin case involved nominees and not incumbent members of
refusing to adhere to or uphold the Constitution of the Congress. Hence, Comelec no longer has jurisdiction. (Since Lico is
Philippines, or is receiving support from any foreign already a member of Congress)
government;
5. Failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations of As regards the issue on which group legitimately represents Ating Koop
the Commission; (the elections held in Cebu in a meeting by Lico’s group and the meeting
6. Failure to field official candidates in the last two preceding by the Rimas group in Paranaque) were Comelec recognized the Rimas
elections or failure of their candidates to obtain at least five (5) group, the SC ruled that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion
per centum of the votes cast in the last two preceding elections. since the amendments to the Constitution and By laws of Ating Koop
(Changed to “at least two (2) %” under RA 7941, Sec. 6) were not registered with the Comelec. Neither elections were valid.

JURISDICTION OF COMELEC OVER INTER-PARTY DISPUTES/POWER TO From FT: While the COMELEC correctly dismissed the Petition to expel
REGISTER POLITICAL PARTIES petitioner Lico from the House of Representatives for being beyond its
jurisdiction, it nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his
Samson Alcantara, et. al. vs. Comelec expulsion from Ating Koop - a matter beyond its purview.
696 SCRA 547 (2013)
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution endows the HRET with

jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualifications of members of
Under the Constitution, the Comelec is empowered to register political
Congress. In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires
parties. In the exercise of its power to register political parties, the
jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon proclamation of the
Comelec necessarily possesses the power to pass upon the question of
winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office
who, among the legitimate officers of the part-list group, are entitled to
as member of the House of Representatives.
exercise the right and privileges granted to a party-list group under the

law. The Comelec’s jurisdiction on this point is well settled and is not
In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list
here disputed.
group; petitioner Lico took his oath; and he assumed office in the House

of Representatives. Thus, it is the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has
Atienza v. Comelec jurisdiction over the disqualification case.
(612 SCRA 961 (2010)
These findings already touch upon the qualification requiring a party-list
It was expressly settled that the Comelec possessed the authority to nominee to be a bona fide member of the party-list group sought to be
resolve intra-party disputes as a necessary tributary of its represented. The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of
constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and register the HRET are not parallel concepts that do not intersect. Rather, the
political parties. operation of the rule on intra-party matters is circumscribed by Section
17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence on the
As ruled in Kalaw v. Comelec, the Comelec’s powers and functions under jurisdiction of electoral tribunals. The jurisdiction of the HRET is
Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, “include the ascertainment of exclusive. It is given full authority to hear and decide the cases on any
the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible matter touching on the validity of the title of the proclaimed winner. It
for the acts.” The Court also declared in another case that the Comelec’s was for the HRET to interpret the meaning of the requirement of bona

th
fide membership in a party-list organization. It reasoned that under which is treated in a separate proceeding.
Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all
contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of the House of As ruled, a Motion for Reconsideration of a Resolution of the Comelec
Representatives. En Banc is a prohibited pleading (Sec. 1(d) Rule 13). The remedy
available to a party is a petition for certiorari with the SC pursuant to
NATURE OF A PARTY-LIST ORGANIZATION Article IX-A, Sec. 7 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• A party-list organization owes its existence to the State and the
latter’s approval must be obtained through its agent, the Comelec.
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, represented by its Chairman Edgardo
Dayao vs. Comelec J. Angara v. Comelec, et. al.
(689 SCRA 412) 423 SCRA 665, (the Comelec misapplied equity in this case).

SC declared that it is the State, acting through the Comelec that breathes FACTS: LDP informed the Comelec by way of Manifestation that only the
life to a party-list organization. The State, through the Comelec is a party Party Chairman or his authorized representative may endorse the COC of
to the principal contract entered into by the party-list organization and the party’s official candidates; that Rep. Butch Aquino was on “indefinite
its members – the Constitution and By-Laws- such that any amendment force leave” and in the meantime Ambassador Enrique Zaldivar was
to these contracts would constitute a novation requiring the consent of designated Acting Secretary General.
all the parties involved.
A Certificate of Nomination of Sen. Panfilo Lacson as LDP candidate for
Hence, amendments to the bylaws of the party list organization should President was filed with the Comelec, which was signed by Rep. Aquino
become effective only upon approval by the Comelec. (Similar to the as LDP Secretary General.
requirement of filing the amended bylaws and subsequent conformity of
the SEC under the corporation law. (this will be cross referenced to the Comelec issued a Resolution granting the petition with LEGAL EQUITY for
case of Reyes vs. Comelec in 708 SCRA 197 in a Petition to Deny Due both Petitioner and Oppositor (Angara Wing and Aquino Wing).
Course a Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of the OEC).
ISSUE: Whether or not it was correct for the COMELEC to grant the
REGISTRATION VS. ACCREDITATION OF A POLITICAL PARTY petition on the ground of equity? NO. Who as between the Party
Chairman and the Secretary General has the authority to sign certificates
Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections
of candidacy of the official candidates of the party?
620 SCRA 393 (May 6, 2010)

HELD: The ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its
FACTS: The root of this petition before the SC is the Nationalista Party- legitimate officers is a matter that is well within COMELEC’s authority.
Nationalista Party Coalition (NP-NPC) petition before the COMELEC for The source of this authority is not other than the fundamental law itself,
registration as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant minority which vests upon the Comelec the power and function to enforce and
party. The Comelec En Banc approved the registration of NP-NPC as a administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election.
coalition, but Comelec did NOT rule on the accreditation aspect. Hence, (Reiterated in Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance (A-IPRA) v.
the Petition before the SC that Comelec gravely abused its discretion. Comelec 696 SCRA 563)

HELD: The registration of a coalition and the accreditation of a dominant However in this case, the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion.
minority party are two separate matters that are substantively distinct Indeed, the petitioners Manifestation and Petition before the COMELEC
from each other. merely asked the Commission to recognize only those certificates of
candidacy signed by petitioner Sen. Angara or his authorized
REGISTRATION ACCREDITATION representative, and no other. While it has jurisdiction to rule upon
OF A POLITICAL PARTY OF A POLITICAL PARTY questions of party identity and leadership as an incident to its
Section 2(5), Article IX-C and Accreditation as a dominant enforcement powers, it well within its competence to inquire into which
Rule 32 of the CRP regulate the party is governed by Comelec party officer has authority to sign and endorse certificate of candidacy of
registration of political parties, Resolution No. 8752. party’s nominees. And to resolve the issue raised, the Comelec need only
organizations or coalition of to turn to the Party Constitution and election laws.
political parties.
Registration of political parties is No similar clear-cut rules are The COMELEC misapplied equity in the present case. For all its conceded
a special proceeding assigned to available to a petition for merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its
a Division for handling under the accreditation as a dominant replacement. The COMELEC should have decided the case on the basis
CRP. party. of the party constitution and election laws. It chose not to because of
its irrational fear of treading, as respondent Aquino put it, on
Section 1 of which states that unchartered territories. In truth, the COMELEC Resolution is indecision in
the petition for accreditation the guise of equity.
shall be filed with the Clerk of
the Commission who shall Worse, the COMELEC divided the LDP into wings, each of which may
docket it as an SPP (means nominate candidates for every elective position. By allowing each wing
Special Proceedings (DM) case. to nominate different candidates, the COMELEC planted the seeds of
confusion among the electorate, who are apt to be confounded by two
(This was the manner the NP- candidates from a single political party. The admonition against mocking
NPC was docketed) the electoral process not only applies to political parties but with greater
Registration must first take place Accreditation is the next natural force to the COMELEC.
before a request for step to follow after registration.
accreditation can be made. A political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the
association and to select a standard bearer who best represents the
REGISTRATION ---------à ACCREDITATION party’s ideologies and preference. Political parties are generally free to
When the Comelec En Banc, resolved the registration of the NP- NPC the conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision; this
case is terminated and ripe for review by the SC via a Petition for common-law principle of judicial restraint, rooted in the constitutionally
Certiorari. The issue with respect to accreditation is a separate issue protected right of free association, serves the public interest by allowing

th
the political processes to operate without undue interference. Thus, the ⇒ A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
rule is that the determination of disputes as to party nominations rests ⇒ Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be
with the party, in the absence of statutes giving the courts [sic] named in the list.
jurisdiction. ⇒ The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office
or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
Factual: Assuming that Rep. Aquino previously had such authority, this immediately preceding election.
Court cannot share the COMELEC’s finding that the same has not been ⇒ NO change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
revoked or recalled. No revocation of such authority can be more explicit shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to
than the totality of Sen. Angaras Manifestations and Petition before the the Comelec except in cases: (D-W-I)
COMELEC, through which he informed the Commission that Rep. 1. Where the nominee DIES, or
Aquinos had been placed on indefinite forced leave and that 2. WITHDRAWS in writing his nomination,
Ambassador Zaldivar has been designated Acting Secretary General, who 3. Becomes INCAPACITATED in which case the name of the
shall henceforth exercise all the powers and functions of the Secretary substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list.
General under the Constitution and By-Laws of the LDP. As the ⇒ Incumbent sectoral representatives in the HR who are
prerogative to empower Rep. Aquino to sign documents devolves upon nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered
Sen. Angara, so he may choose, at his discretion, to withhold or revoke resigned.” (Lokin Jr. v. COMELEC)
such power.
Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. Comelec
Damasen vs. Tumamao G.R. Nos. 694 SCRA 477 (2013)
613 SCRA 49 (2010)
The Supreme Court ruled – “Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the Constitution is
The discretion of accepting members to a political party is a right and a crystal clear that there shall be “a party-list system of registered
privilege, a purely internal matter, which the Court cannot meddle in. national, regional and sectoral parties or organization. “The commas
The reason behind the right given to a political party to nominate a after the words national, and regional, separate national and regional
replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to parties from sectoral parties. Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution
maintain the party representation as willed by the people in the election intended national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral,
(Sec. 45 (b) of RA 7160 Rule on Succession and as held in Navarro v. CA they would have stated “national and regional sectoral parties.” They did
672 SCRA 355 (2010). Damasen was not a bonafide member. Tumamao not, precisely because it was never their intention to make the party-list
was husband of the VM who died). system exclusively sectoral.

PARTY LIST What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in Section
5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list system is composed of 3-
R.A. 7941 or “An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List different groups, and the sectoral parties belong to only one of the 3
Representatives through the Part-List System”. groups.”

PARTY-LIST SYSTEM; MEANING NEW PARAMETERS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE COMELEC IN SCREENING
PARTIES, ORGANIZATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS SEEKING REGISTRATION
• It is a mechanism of the proportional representation,
AND/OR ACCREDITATION UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
• In the election of representatives to the House of Representatives,

• From national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
(1) Three different groups may participate in the party list system:
coalitions thereof,
(1) national parties, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3)
• Registered with the Comelec,
sectoral parties or organizations;
• To enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and
(2) National parties or organizations and regional parties or
underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and
benefit them. (Sec. 2)
do not need to represent any “marginalized and

underrepresented” sector;
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATION
(3) Political parties can participate in partly-list elections provided
• It shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives by they:
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, • Register under the party-list system; and
indigenous cultural minorities, women, youth and such other • Do not field candidates in legislative district elections.
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector • A political party, whether major or not, that field
(Sec. 11 and Art. V, Sec. 5(2) 1987 Constitution) candidates in legislative district elections can participate
in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that
can separately register under the party-list system.
THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM IS COMPOSED OF THREE (3) DIFFERENT
• The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral
GROUPS
party, and is linked to a political party through a
(1) National parties or organizations; coalition.
(2) Regional parties or organizations; and
(4) Sectoral parties or organizations may either be:
National and regional parties or organization are different from sectoral a) Marginalized and underrepresented; or
parties or organizations. The first two (2) need not be organized along b) Lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.”
sectoral lines and not represent any particular sector nor should they be • It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the
marginalized and underrepresented. special interests and concerns in their sector.
• The sectors that are “marginalized and
(3) Sectoral parties or organization. underrepresented” include: (L-P-F-U-I-H-V-O)
⇒ labor,
NOMINATION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES (SEC. 8)
⇒ peasant,
• Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the ⇒ fisherfolk,
Comelec not later than 45 days before the election a list of names, ⇒ urban poor,
not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall ⇒ indigenous cultural communities,
be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
⇒ handicapped,
th
⇒ veterans, and of registration. Cocofed failed to submit a list of 5 nominees (submitted
⇒ overseas workers. only 2 nominees) despite ample opportunity to do so before the
• The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” elections, which is a violation imputable to the party under said
include: (P-E-W-Y) provision.
⇒ professionals,
⇒ the elderly, Pursuant to Section 8 of RA 7941, the Court cannot leave to the party
⇒ women, and the discretion to determine the number of nominees it would submit.
⇒ the youth. The submission of the list is a statutory requirement for the registration
of party-list groups and the submission of this list is part of a registered
(5) A majority of the members of the sectoral parties or organization party’s continuing compliance with the law to maintain its registration.
that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must
belong to the “M and U” sector they represent. Similarly, a A party-list group’s previous registration with the Comelec confers no
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that vested right to the maintenance of its registration. In order to maintain
lack “well-defined constituencies” must belong to the sector they a party in a continuing compliance status, the party must prove not only
represent. its continued possession of the requisite qualifications but, equally, must
show its compliance with the basic requirements of the law.

⇒ The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “M and U” or that represent those who lack Abang Lingkod Party-List (Abang Lingkod) vs. COMELEC
“well-defined constituencies”, either: 708 SCRA 133 (2013)
a) Must belong to their respective sectors; or
b) Must have a track record or advocacy for their FACTS: Abang Lingkod (AL) is a sectoral organization that presents the
respective sectors. interests of peasant farmers and fisherfolks, and was registered under
the party-list system on December 22, 2009. It participated in the May
⇒ The nominees of national and regional parties or 2010 elections, but failed to obtain the number of votes needed for a
organizations must be bona fide members of such parties or seat in the HR. On May 31, 2012, AL manifested before the Comelec its
organizations. intent to participate in the May 2013 elections.

(6) National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be On August 2012, Comelec issued Resolution No. 9513 that required
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided previously registered Party-list groups that have filed their respective
that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified. Manifestations of Intent, to undergo summary evidentiary hearing for
purposes of determining their continuing compliance with the
COCOFED v. COMELEC requirements under RA 7941 and the guidelines set forth in Ang Bagong
703 SCRA 165 Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec case.

Comelec cancelled the registration of Abang Lingkod pointing out that it
Section 4 of RA 7941 Section 5 of RA 7941
failed to establish its TRACK RECORD in uplifting the cause of the M and
A party-list group already An applicant for registration has U, that it merely offered photographs of some alleged activities it
registered “need not register to file with the Comelec, not conducted after the May 2010 elections, some of the photographs were
anew” for purposes of every later than 90 days before the
edited and superimposed to make it appear that AL participated in the
subsequent election, but only election, a verified petition activities which constitutes untruthful/unlawful statements in its petition
needs to file a manifestation of stating its desire to participate in that can serve as ground for the cancellation of its registration. Further
intent to participate with the the party-list system as a
Comelec opined that AL failed to show that its nominees are themselves
Comelec. national, regional or sectoral M and U or that they have been involved in activities aimed at improving
party or organization or a the plight of the M and U sectors it claims to represent.
coalition of such parties or

organization.
ISSUE: Whether or not the party-list groups need to present evidence
showing that they have a track record in representing the M and U.
The applicant is required to
submit its constitution, by-laws,
HELD: NO. In Atong Paglaum, there is no mention that sectoral
platform of government, list of organizations intending to participate in the Partly-List elections are still
officers, coalition agreement and required to present a track record. It is sufficient that the ideals
other relevant information as
represented by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause
the Comelec may required. of the sector/s which they represent. Since the track record is no longer
a requirement, a group’s misrepresentation as to it track record cannot
Aside from these, the law
be used as a ground to deny or cancel its registration. It is no longer
requires the publication of the material to its qualification under the Party-List System.
applicant’s petition in at least 2
national newspapers of general
Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC
circulation. The Comelec then
621 SCRA 385 (June 22, 2010)
resolves the petition,
determining whether the
applicant has complied with all DOCTRINE: The Comelec cannot issue rules and regulations that provide
the necessary requirements. a ground for the substitution of a party-list nominee NOT written in R.A.
7941. (only 3 grounds under this law)
As early as February 8, 2012, Comelec had informed, through its
Resolution No. 9359, all registered parties who wished to participate in Sec. 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives.
the May 2013 party-list elections that they shall file with the Comelec a xxx
Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the party list election together “NO change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be
with its list of at least 5 nominees, no later than May 31, 2012. allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the Comelec except
in cases: (D-W-I)
Under Sec. 6(5) of RA 7941, violation of or failure to comply with laws, 1. Where the nominee DIES, or
rules and regulations relating to elections is a ground for the cancellation 2. WITHDRAWS in writing his nomination,

th
3. Becomes INCAPACITATED in which case the name of the with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC within the limited period of 30 days.
substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list.
The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins
FACTS: CIBAC (Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption) thru its President certiorari and for mandamus.
Emmanuel Villanueva manifested their intent to participate in the May
14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections and submitted their Both actions, certiorari and mandamus did not violate the rule against
list of 5 nominees (Villanueva, Lokin (herein petitioner), Cruz-Gonzales, forum shopping even if the actions involved the same parties, because
Tugna and Galang). The list was later published in the newspapers of they were based on different causes of action and the reliefs they sought
general circulation. were different.

Before the elections, Villanueva filed a certificate of nomination, Comelec gravely abused its discretion in promulgating Section 13 of
substitution and amendment of the list of nominees whereby it Res. No. 7804 as it expanded the exceptions under Sec. 8 of RA 7941
withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and substituted Section 8 enumerates only 3 instances in which the party-list
Borje. The amended list included Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales and Borje. organization can substitute another person in place of the nominee. The
Subsequently, Villanueva transmitted to Comelec the signed petitions of enumeration is exclusive.
more than 81% if the CIBAC members in order to confirm the withdrawal
of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) v. Comelec
705 SCRA 340 (2013)
Based on the Party-List Canvas Report, it showed that CIBAC was entitled
to a second seat, hence, the counsel of CIBAC filed with the Comelec HELD: The compliance with Section 8 of RA 7941 is essential as the said
sitting as National Board of Canvassers, a request to proclaim Lokin as provision is a safeguard against arbitrariness. Section 8 rids a party-list
the 2nd nominee, which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. organization of the prerogative to substitute and replace its nominees,
Since Comelec failed to act on the filing of the certificate of nomination, or even to switch the order of the nominees, after submission of the list
substitution and amendment of the list of nominees and the petitions of to Comelec.
the more than 81% of CIBAC members, Villanueva filed a petition to
confirm the said certificate with the Comelec which was docketed as
Abayhon vs. HRET et. al /Palparan Jr. vs. HRET et. al.
E.M. No. 07-054. In the meantime, Comelec as NBC partially proclaimed
612 SCRA 375
several party lists as having won, which included Cibac.

The withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin et. al. and the substitution of FACTS: Abayhon is the 1st nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list that
Borje were approved through a resolution by the COMELEC. Cruz- won a seat in the HR during the 2007 elections. Palparan on the other
Gonzales was proclaimed as the official second nominee. hand was the 1st nominee of Bantay party-list. A petition for QW was
filed with HRET against the party-list groups and its nominee claiming
Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamus to compel respondent that it was not eligible for a party-list since it did not represent the
Comelec to proclaim him as the official second nominee of CIBAC. marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Abayhon is the spouse of an
Lokin assailed Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804 (Rules and Regulations incumbent congressional district representative and likewise does not
Governing the filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate and belong to the UR and marginalized. Petitioners also claim that Abayhon
submission of Names of Nominees under the Party-List) and its lost her bid as party-list rep called Ang Waray in the immediately
resolution in E.M. No. 07-054. preceding elections of May 10, 2004. Palparan also was alleged to have
committed various human rights violations against the marginalized
The Comelec asserts that a petition for certiorari is an inappropriate sectors (Bantay represents the victims of communist rebels, CAFGU,
recourse in law due to the proclamation of Cruz-Gonzales as security guards and former rebels.)
representative and her assumption of that office; that Lokin’s proper
recourse was an electoral protest filed in the HRET, therefore, the Court Abayhon and Palparan postures that the Comelec already confirmed the
has no jurisdiction over the matter being raised by Lokin. CIBAC posits status of the party list as a national multi-sectoral party-list organization,
that Lokin is guilty of forum shopping for filing a petition for mandamus that HRET had no jurisdiction over the petitioner for QW since the
and a petition for certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately petitioners collaterally attacked the registration of the party-list
seek to have him proclaimed as the second nominee of CIBAC. organization, a matter that fell within the jurisdiction of the Comelec.
That it was the party-list that was taking a seat in the HR and not them,
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy. being only its nominees. All questions involving their eligibility, as
nominees, were internal concerns of the organization. The HRET
HELD. YES. The Court has jurisdiction. The controversy involving Lokin is dismissed the petition against the party-list but upheld its jurisdiction
neither an EP nor an action for QW, for it concerns a very peculiar over nominees who both filed a MR, which was denied. Hence, this
situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated as second nominee of special civil action for certiorari alleging that the HRET gravely abused its
CIBAC. Although an election protest may properly be available to one discretion was filed.
part-list organization seeking to unseat another party-list organization to
determine which between the defeated and the winning party-list HELD: The Court made reference to Sec. 5(1) of Article VI (which
organizations actually obtained the majority of the legal votes, Lokin’s identifies who the “members” of that House are. The HR shall be
case is one in which a nominee of a particular party-list organization composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise fixed by
wants to unseat another nominee of the same party list. Neither does an law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among
action for Quo Warrato lie, considering that the case does not involve the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
the ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the RP, or some other with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
case of disqualification. uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for certiorari against and sectoral parties or organizations.
the Comelec to seek the review of its resolution in accordance with
Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the TWO KINDS OF MEMBERS OF THE HR
oath and assumption of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional 1. Those who shall be elected from legislative districts; and
mandate is now implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of 2. Those who shall be elected through a party-list system.
Procedure, which provides for the review of the judgments, final orders
or resolution of the Comelec and the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 From the point of view of the Constitution, it is the party-list rep who
states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari in accordance are “elected” into office, NOT their parties or organizations. These

th
representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar party-list itself which prevented PGBI from participating in the 10 May 2010 party-
system that the Constitution authorized and that Congress by law list elections when it deleted PGBI, with grave abuse of discretion, from
established where the voters cast their votes for the organizations or the list of accredited party-list groups or organizations and, thereafter,
parties to which such party-list reps belong. refused to return it to the list despite the Court’s directive, PGBI should,
at the very least, be deemed to have participated in the 10 May 2010.
Once elected, both the district reps and the party-list reps are treated in
like manners. Amores vs. HRET et. al
• They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. 622 SCRA 593 (2010)
• They can participate in the making of laws that will directly
benefit their legislative districts or sectors. FACTS: Amores via a petition for QW with the HRET questioned the
• They are also subject to the same term limitations of 3 years for a legality of the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel Villanueva as rep of
max of 3 consecutive terms. CIBAC. It was alleged that Villanueva assumed office without a formal
proclamation by the Comelec, disqualified to be a nominee of the youth
The Party List System Act itself recognizes party list nominees as sector of CIBAC since at the time of the filing of his certificates of
members of the HR (Sec. 2, RA 7941 Declaration of Policy – The State nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the
shall promote proportional representation in the election of reps in the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA 7941 and that his change of
HR through a party-list system of registered national, regional and affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable their families sector was not effected at least 6 months prior to the May
Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and UR sectors x x x x to 14, 2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent the new sector
become members of the HR “. under Section 15 of RA 7941.

DOCTRINE: The HRET dismissed the petition as it found the petition to be filed
• Initially, the authority to determine the qualifications of a party- beyond the 10 days reglementary period, that the age qualification for
list nominee belongs to the organization and to choose five from youth sectoral nominees under Section 9 of RA 7941 applied only to
among the aspiring nominees to comply with the law. those nominated as such during the first 3 congressional terms after the
• But where an allegation is made that the party or organization ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is
had chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to become its thereafter registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which
party-list rep in the lower house and enjoy the secured tenure CIBAC, a multi sectoral organization, is not. As regards the shift of
that goes with the position, the resolution of the dispute is taken affiliation, it was held that Section 15 did not apply, as there was no
out of its hand. resultant change in party list affiliation.
• Hence, pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI, the HRET being the
sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the ISSUES:
qualifications of the members of the HR, the HRET has jurisdiction 1. Whether the petition for QW was dismissible for having been filed
to hear and pass upon their qualifications. The HRET was correct unseasonably; NO
in dismissing the QW and retaining authority to rule on the 2. Whether Section 9 and 15 of RA 7941 apply to Villanueva. YES
qualifications.
HELD (1): SC found grave abuse of discretion on the part of HRET. The
DELISTING OF PARTY-LIST GROUPS Court overlooked the technicality of timeliness and rules on the merits
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec since the challenge goes into Villanueva’s qualifications, it may be filed
619 SCRA 585 at anytime during his term. Also, the date of proclamation was not
clear.

The Comelec may motu propio OR upon verified complaint of any
HELD (2): The Court made reference to Section 9 of RA 7941, which
interested party, remove, or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
provides that in case of a nominee of the youth sector:
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
coalition IF It: • He must at least be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on
a) Fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections; OR the day of the election.
b) Fails to obtain at least two (2)% of the votes casts under the • The youth sectoral rep that attains the age of 30 during his term
party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his
constituency in which it was registered (Section 6 RA 7941). term.

The word “OR” is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and
independence of one thing from the other things enumerated. free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or
interpretation but only room for application. The distinction is nowhere
A party list group or organization that failed to garner 2% in a prior found in the law. When the law does not distinguish, we must not
election and immediately thereafter did not participate in the preceding distinguish.
election – is something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of RA 7941.
From this perspective, it may be an unintended gap in the law and as Respecting Section 15 of RA 7941, the Court likewise found no textual
such is a matter for Congress to address. This case abandoned the support for HRET’s ratiocination that the provision did not apply to
Minero vs. Comelec G.R. No. 177548 May 10, 2007. Villanueva’s shift of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas
Filipino workers and their families sector as there was no resultant
FACTS: Comelec removed PGBI in the list of qualified parties vying for a change in party list affiliation (since multisectoral lagi daw kuno).
seat under the party-list system of representation in violation of the
status quo order of the Supreme Court (to return PGBI to the list). Section 15 reads “ Change of Affiliation: Effect – Any elected party list
rep who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term
HELD: An equally important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is of office shall:
the right of free choice of the electorates on who shall govern them – • Forfeit his seat;
the party-list system affords them this choice, as it gives the • Provided, That if he changes his political party or sectoral
marginalized and underrepresented sectors the opportunity to affiliation within 6 months before an election, he shall NOT be
participate in governance. Comelec was cited for contempt by the Court. eligible for nomination as party-list rep under his new party
or organization.
Effect of removal by Comelec of PGBI in the list: As it was the Comelec

th
Section 15 is clear as it covers changes in both political party and sectoral their total number of votes.
affiliation and which may occur within the same party since multi-
sectoral party-list org are qualified to participate in the Philippine party- In this case, following the May 11, 1998 national elections which is the
list system. first election for party-list representation, the Comelec en banc
proclaimed 14 parties and organizations which had obtained at least 2%
A nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system which
will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if constitute a total of 25 nominees short of the 52 party-list
the change has been effected at least 6 months before the elections. representatives who should actually sit in the house. The PAG-ASA files
Sec. 9 and 15 apply to Villanueva. with the Comelec a Petition to proclaim the full number of party-list
representative provided by the Constitution. They alleged that the filling
As regards the contention that Villanueva is the 1st nominee of CIBAC, up of the 20% membership of party list representative in the House, as
whose victory was later upheld, is NO moment. A party-list org’s ranking provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Nine other party list
of its nominees is a mere indication of preference, their qualifications organizations filed their respective motions to intervene seeking the
according to law are a different matter. same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the same
grounds.
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec
618 SCRA 32 The Comelec, contrary to its rules and regulations governing the said
elections, instead proclaimed the other 38 party-list organization
FACTS: Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who notwithstanding its not having garnered the required 2% votes.
identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered
individuals. They applied for registration with Comelec in 2006 and its HELD: Sec. 5(2) of Article VI, which states that the sectoral
accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no representation shall constitute the 20%, is not “mandatory” as it merely
substantial membership. Ladlad in 2009 again filed a petition for provides a ceiling for party-list in Congress. And, obtaining absolute
registration which was dismissed by Comelec on moral grounds (Bible proportional representation is restricted by the 3-seat per party limit to
and Koran). That Ladlad tolerates immorality which offends religious a maximum of two additional slots. Comelec was held to have abused its
beliefs; that it does not have a concrete and genuine national political discretion in disregarding an act of Congress.
agenda to benefit the nation; that the LGBT sector is not among the
sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that it made Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. Comelec
untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national 359 SCRA 698 (2001)
existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELECs field
personnel. This case also reiterated the ruling in Veterans. At issue is the Omnibus
Resolution of the Comelec which approved the participation of 154
HELD: Moral disapproval is not a sufficient governmental interest to organizations and parties and which the SC remanded to the Comelec for
justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation to the party list the latter to determine evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties
system. and organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections
complied with the requirements of the law.
The Constitution provides in Sec. 5, Art. III: “No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise HELD: The party-list organizations or parties must factually and truly
thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
“government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the persons nominated by the
reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of party-list candidate-organization must be “Filipino citizens belonging to
neutrality.” Hence, the Court finds that it was grave violation of the non- the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
establishment clause for the Comelec to utilize the Bible and the Koran parties.” In remanding the case to Comelec the SC laid down the
to justify the exclusion of ang Ladlad. following guidelines –

In sum, the crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically THE 8-POINT GUIDELINES FOR SCREENING PARTY-LIST PARTICIPANTS
enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with the
st
requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The SC found that Ladlad 1 , the PP, sector or organization must represent the marginalized and
has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other
for accreditation. words, it must show – through the Constitution, articles of
incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of government and track
Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec record – that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and
342 SCRA 244 underrepresented sectors.
(Modified by Banat et.al vs. COMELEC)
nd
2 , while major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and
the Constitution to participate, they must comply with the declared
FOUR (4) UNIQUE PARAMETERS OF THE FILIPINO PARTY-LIST SYSTEM,
statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens belonging to the M and U to
to wit:
1. The 20% allocation – the combined number of all party-list be elected to the HR.

congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of rd
3 , religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. In
the HR, including those under the party-list;
view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay
Hayaang Humabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court
2. The 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a minimum of
notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may
2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are
“qualified” to have a seat in the HR; not be represented in the party-list system. Furthermore, the
Constitution provides that “religious denominations and sects shall not
be registered.” The prohibition was explained by a member of the
3. The 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of the number
Constitutional Commission in this wise “The prohibition is on any
of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum three
seats, that is, one qualifying and two (2) additional seats; religious organization registering as a political party. I do not see any
prohibition here against a priest running as a candidate. This is not

prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious sect as a political
4. The proportional representation – the additional seats that a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to party.”

th

th
4 , it must not be disqualified under the ground enumerated under Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC
Section 6 of RA 7941 G.R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007 | 523 SCRA 1
⇒ A religious sect or denomination or association organized for
religious purposes; Petitioners reacting on an emerging public perception that the
⇒ Advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; individuals behind the party-list groups do not, as they should, actually
⇒ A foreign party or organization; receives support from any represent the poor and marginalized sectors.
foreign government;
⇒ Fails to comply with laws rules or regulations relating to Petitioners, wrote a letter to the Comelec requesting that the complete
elections; list of the nominees of all parties who have been accredited pursuant to
⇒ Declared untruthful statement in its petition; Comelec Resolution No. 7804 prescribing rules and regulations to govern
⇒ It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year: the filing of manifestation of intent to participate and submission of
⇒ It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections or failed names of nominees under the party-list system of representation in
to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party list connection with the May 14, 2007 elections be published.
system in the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in
which it was registered. The Comelec refused to disclose the names of the nominees of subject
party-list groups based on Section 7 of RA 7941 (more specifically the
th
5 , the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project last sentence which states: “the names of the party-list nominees shall
organized or an entity funded or assisted by the government (referring not be shown on the certified list.” The Comelec believe that the party
to MAD of Richard Gomez). It must be independent of the government. list elections must not be personality oriented.
The participants of the government or it officials in the affairs of a
party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other parties, but Abalos said under RA 7941, the people are to vote for sectoral parties,
also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens organizations, or coalitions not for their nominees.
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and
organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives. ISSUE: Whether or not the Right of the Public to information covers the
disclosure of the names of the nominees. YES.
th
6 , the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law,
its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads – HELD: The Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the
“QUALIFICATIONS OF PARTY-LIST NOMINEES – No person shall be names of the nominees of the party list groups. No national security or
nominated as party-list representative unless he is: like concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees
⇒ A natural born citizen of the Philippines; of the party-list groups in question.
⇒ A Registered Voter;
⇒ A resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than 1 The last sentence of Section 7 is limited in scope and duration, meaning,
year immediately preceding the day of the election; that it extends only to the certified list, which the same provision
⇒ Able to read and write; requires to be posted in the polling places on Election Day. To stretch the
⇒ A bona-fide member of the party or organization which he coverage of the prohibition to the absolute nothing in RA 7941 that
seeks to represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through
the elections; and mediums other than the “Certified list” the names of the party-list
⇒ At least 25 years of age on the day of the election. nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure
aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the
th th
7 and 8 , not only the candidate party must represent the M and U May 2007 elections.
sectors, so also must its nominees must likewise be able to contribute
to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will There is a need for voters to be informed about matters that have a
benefit the nation as a whole. bearing on their choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a system of
blind voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the
WINDOW DRESSING OF PARTY-LIST PARTICIPANT Comelec.

NEW FORMULA IN THE ALLOCATION OF SEATS FOR PARTY-LIST
AKLAT or Assosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran Ng Lipunan at Adhikain Para sa REPRESENTATIVES
Tao, Inc. vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 162203, 14 April 2004
Banat et. al. vs. Comelec

G.R. 178271/12972 586 SCRA 210 (2009)
In this case, Comelec found that significantly, Aklat and A.K.L.A.T. have

substantially the same incorporators. In fact 4 of Aklat’s 6 incorporators
Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig Masa (AKMA-PTM) v. Comelec 758
are also incorporators of A.K.L.A.T. This substantial similarity is hard to
SCRA 2015.
ignore and bolsters the conclusion that the supposed re-organization

undertaken by Aklat is plain window-dressing as it has not really changed
After the VFP v. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781, 136786 and 136795, 06
its character as a business interest of persons in the book publishing
October 2000 ruling of the Supreme Court and the controversial
industry.
application of the “Panganiban Formula” by the Abalos Commission,

Party-list participants in Banat et al., filed separate complaints against
The Court observed that Aklat’s articles of incorporation and document
the Comelec on the proper allocation of seats in the party-list system.
entitled The Facts About Aklat which were attached to its petition for re-

qualification contain general averments that it supposedly represents
On 23 April 2009, the Supreme Court declared the 2% threshold clause
marginalized groups such as the youth, indigenous communities, urban
in relation to the distribution of the additional seats of RA 7941
poor and farmers/fisherfolks. These general statements do not measure
unconstitutional.
up to the first guideline set by the Bagong Bayani case for screening

party-list participants that “it must show – through its constitution,
Following Section 5, Article VI, par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, 20% of all
articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and
seats in the HR is reserved for sectoral representatives elected in the
track record – that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and
party list system. This formula is now called the “Carpio formula.”
underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should

belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.

th
Under the Banat and Bayan Muna cases (G.R. No. 179271 and G.R. No. CANDIDATE - refers to any person aspiring or seeking an elective public
179295, 21 April 2009), the SC laid down the: office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself or through an
accredited political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties. (Sec. 79,
LATEST FORMULA IN THE ALLOCATION OF SEATS FOR PARTY-LIST OEC)
PARTICIPANTS (CARPIO FORMULA)
1. The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked from the “CANDIDATE” UNDER THE AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN 2010
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered • “Any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office
during the elections. who has filed his COC and who has not died or withdrawn or
otherwise disqualified before the start of the campaign period
2. The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least 2% of for which he filed his COC.
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one • Provided, that, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a
guaranteed seat each. candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid
campaign period.” (Comelec Reso. No. 8678).
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the
ranking above-mentioned in paragraph no. 1 hereof shall be “CANDIDATE” UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of • “Any registered national, regional, or sectoral party, organization
votes until all the additional seats are allocated. (2% cap no longer or coalition thereof that has filed a manifestation to participate
considered in the second round since the 2% cap was declared under the part-list system which has not withdrawn or which has
unconstitutional in the Banat Case.) not be disqualified before the start of the campaign period.” (RA
7941)
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more
than 3 seats. Comelec Resolution No. 9615 adopted a broader definition of the term
“candidate” for the 13 May 2013 Elections to include party-list in include
Banat abandoned the matter of computation held in the Veterans Party all the above-definitions.
case considering that the intention was to fill the 20% seats in the HR.

ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES

QUALIFICATIONS
CITIZEN-
POSITION AGE RESIDENCY OTHERS
SHIP
At least 10 years
Natural- Registered voter;
immediately
President and VP At least 40 y/o on Election Day born
preceding the
citizen Able to read and write.
elections.
Senator At least 2 years
Natural- Registered voter;
immediately
At least 35 y/o on Election Day born
(Section 3, Article preceding the
citizen Able to read and write.
VI) elections.
A registered voter in the district in which he shall be
At least 1 year
Natural- elected.
Members of the immediately
At least 25 y/o on Election Day born (Except the party list reps);
HR preceding the
citizen
elections.
Able to read and write
Registered voter;

Party-List At least 25 y/o on Election Day At least 1 year
Natural- Able to read and write;
Nominees immediately
born
Youth sector- at least 25 but not preceding the
citizen A bona fide member of the party or organization, which
(RA 7941) more than 30 y/o. elections.
he seeks to represent for at least 90 days before the
elections.
On election day:
At least 23 y/o - Gov., V.G, Member
of SPanlalawigan, Mayor, VM,
Member of SPanlungsod of Highly
Urbanized cities.
A registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or

Elective Local province in the case of a member of the sangguniang
At least 21 y/o – Mayor and VM of At least 1 year
Government panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang
independent component cities or immediately Filipino
Officials bayan, the district where he intends to be elected
municipalities, component cities. preceding the Citizen

elections
(RA 7160) Able to read and write Filipino or any other local
At least 18 y/o – Member of
language or dialect
SPanglungsod or SBayan or punong
brgy or member of SBarangay.

At least 15 but not more than 21
y/o – For candidates for SK.
Common to all • Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the
offices service for the full term for which they were elected.

th
• Must not be nuisance candidate

Bengzon III v. HRET The same decision however affirmed the validity of a provision
357 SCRA 545 (2001) mandating random and “suspicionless” drug tests for students in
secondary and tertiary schools, as well as employees of public and
REPATRIATION results in the recovery of the original nationality. This private offices.
means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored
to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if According to the Court, random drug testing for in high school and
he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine college and for employees, is “a kind of search in which a reasonable
citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born parent might need to engage” and that “minor students have
Filipino. contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody
and supervision of their parents, guardians and schools.”
RA NO. 9165 (COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002)
SECTION 36 (G) DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL The court added that schools have a duty to safeguard the health and
well-being of their students and may adopt such measures as may
• All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both
reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty.
in the national and local government shall undergo mandatory

drug tests.
• Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486 on 23 December 2003 CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
implementing 9165. Publication of the results will be published.
• But the resolution does not indicate whether or not candidates MANUAL ELECTIONS
who test positive for drugs will be allowed to assume office if they • The COC of candidacy shall be filed on any day from the
win. commencement of the election period but not later than the day
• The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional this provision in before the beginning of the campaign period (Sec. 7, RA 7166)
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requiring • Provided, that in cases of postponement or failure of election
mandatory drug testing to all candidates for public office and under Section 5 and 6 of the OEC, no additional COC shall be
people facing criminal charges and likewise the Resolution No. accepted except in cases of substitution of candidates as provided
6486 in the case cited below. in Section 77. (Section 75, OEC)

Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM (RA 9369)
G.R. No. 157870, 03 November 2008 • The Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of
COC/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the
HELD: Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 effectively enlarges the qualification election.
requirements enumerated in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution. Said • Any person who files his COC within this period shall only be
section unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to be certified considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for
illegal drug-clean, obviously a pre-condition to the validity of a certificate which he filed his COC;
of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a condition sine qua non to • Provided that, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a
be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect. Viewed in candidate shall effect only upon the start of the aforesaid
its proper context, the implementing Comelec Resolution add another campaign period.
qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution, as the minimum, • This provision repealed Section 11 of RA 8436 which provides “for
required for membership in the Senate. Sec. 36(g) infringed the this purpose, the deadline for filing of COC/petition for
constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility registration/manifestation to participate in the election shall not
requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator. Getting be later than 120 days before the elections.
elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non-
compliance with the drug-testing requirement. SECTION 73 OF BP 881 (OEC) PAR. (1)
• Certificate of Candidacy – No person shall be eligible for any
The SC declared as unconstitutional Commission on Elections (Comelec) elective office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy
Resolution No. 6489, which implemented the drug testing among within the period fixed therein.
candidates • Sinaca v. Mula (315 SCRA 266) – it is the nature of a formal
manifestation to the whole world of the candidate’s political
Paragraph (g) of Section 36 of Republic Act 9165 violates the 1987 creed or lack of political creed.
Constitution because it adds another qualification for senators as • Coquilla v. Comelec (G.R. No. 139801, 31 May 2000) – A
enumerated in Section 3, Article VI of the charter. certificate that did not indicate the position for which the
candidate is running may be corrected. The SC ruling on the
A citizen’s right to elect a public official should not be defeated by effectiveness of the amended COC filed to correct the defect
unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the declared that the filing of an amended COC even after the
Constitution. Whether or not the drug-free bar set up under the deadline but before the election was substantial compliance with
challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of the law, which cured the defect.
no moment, as getting elected would be of little value if one cannot
assume office for non-compliance with the drug-testing requirement. EFFECT OF FILING MULTIPLE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY (SECTION 73
(3) BP 881)
The SC agreed with Pimentel’s arguments that the Constitution only
• No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filed in
prescribes this maximum of five qualifications for one to be a candidate
the same election (requirement to run for elective office), and if he
for the Senate. It added that there is no provision in the constitution
files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall
authorizing the Congress or Comelec to expand the qualification
not be eligible for any of them.
requirements of candidates for senator.

Villafuerte vs. Comelec
The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these
717 SCRA 312
qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade or weaken the

force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution.


th
Section 74 of BP 881 – a candidate shall use in a COC the name by which can constitute as a just cause for termination of employment in
he has been baptized, unless the candidate has changed his name addition to those set forth in the Labor Code.
through court-approved proceedings, and that he may include one
nickname or stage name by which he is generally or popularly known in • NEW LAW - Section 66 has already been repealed by RA 9369
the locality. to wit – “Any person holding a public office or position, including
active members of the AFP, and officers and employees in
WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY GOCC, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her
office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the
• However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of the
filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. (Atty. Valencia: Prior
certificates of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one
law did not provide when.)
certificate of candidacy may submit a written declaration under

oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the
• OLD LAW - Sec. 67 OEC – An elective official running for a
certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.
position other than the one he is holding in a permanent
• Pilar v. Comelec [245 SCRA 759 (1995)] – The withdrawal of a
capacity, except for President and Vice-President, is deemed
certificate of candidacy does not extinguish one’s liability for the
resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
administrative fine imposed by Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166, which

requires every candidate to file a true statement of all
contributions and expenditures in connection with the elections. • NEW LAW - Section 67 has been repealed by Section 14 of RA
9006 (The Fair Elections Law), a candidate holding an elective
⇒ Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall,
position whether national or local running for office other than
within thirty (30) days after the day of the election, file in
the one he is holding in a permanent capacity is considered
duplicate with the offices of the Commission the full, true
resigned only upon the expiration of his term.
and itemized statement of all contributions and

expenditures in connection with the election.
⇒ “Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to Sinaca v. Mula
file such statements or reports xxx shall constitute an 315 SCRA 266 (1999)
administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable
to pay an administrative fine ranging from P1,000.00 to The provision of the election law regarding certificates of candidacy,
P30,000.00 in the discretion of the Commission.” such as signing and swearing on the same, as well as the information
required to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the
• Villanueva v. Comelec [122 SCRA 636 (1983)] – the withdrawal of a elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory.
certificate of candidacy not made under oath produces no legal
effect; for all intents and purposes, the withdrawing candidate ELECTIVE OFFICIAL vs. APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL
remains a candidate. Quinto v. Comelec
• Go v. Comelec [357 SCRA 739 (2001)] – Where affidavit of G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010
withdrawal filed. There is nothing that mandates that the affidavit
of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the Substantial distinctions between elective official and appointive officials.
certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be
filed directly with the: Elective Officials Appointive Officials
⇒ Main office of the Comelec; They occupy their office by Hold their office by virtue of
⇒ Office of the regional election supervisor concerned; virtue of the mandate of the their designation thereto by an
⇒ Office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to electorate. appointing authority.
which the municipality involved belongs, or
⇒ Office of the municipal election officer of the said municipality. They are elected to an office for Some appointive officials hold
a definite term and may be their tenure while others serve
EFFECTS: FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY removed therefrom only upon at the pleasure of the appointing
Talaga v. Comelec/Alcala
stringent conditions. authority.
683 SCRA 197 (2012)
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
The rationale for the filing of CoC within a prescribed period and in fixing
the time limit for filing them are, namely: CANDIDATES IN CASE OF DEATH, DISQUALIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL
a) To enable the voters to know, at least 60 days prior to the OF ANOTHER (Section 77 BP 881)
regular election, the candidates from among whom they are
• After the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an
to make the choice; and
official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies,
b) To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the withdraws or is disqualified for any cause
votes cast.
⇒ Only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political

party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate
If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice of
who died, withdrew or was disqualified.
the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are voters,
⇒ The substitute candidate nominated by the political party
and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark
concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office
to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the
affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later
same election.
than mid-day of the date of the election.

⇒ If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur
OFFICIAL FILING A COC; WHEN CONSIDERED RESIGNED (Sec. 66 BP
between the day before the election and mid-day of election
881/OEC/ RA 9369)
day, said certificate may be filed with:
• OLD LAW – “An appointive official is considered resigned upon a) The board of election inspectors (BEI) in the political
the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The forfeiture is subdivisions where he is a candidate or;
automatic and the operative act is the moment of filing which b) In the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire
shall render the appointive official resigned.” electorate of the country, with the Commission.

• (Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC, May 31, 1993), DOCTRINE: A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable requisite
where the provision of Sec. 66 is applicable also to GOCC and in case of substitution of a disqualified candidate under Sec. 77.
th
• Under said provision, the candidate who dies, withdraws or is Barbara Ruby garnered the highest number of votes while Castillo
disqualified must be an official candidate of a registered or garnered second. Castillo contends that since the disqualification of
accredited political party; and Ramon was final prior to the election he should be declared winner.
• The substitute candidate must be of the same political party as Castillo made reference to case of Cayat: In this case, Rev. Fr. Nardo B.
the original candidate and must be duly nominated as such by the Cayat, the petitioner, was disqualified and his disqualification became
political party. final before the May 10, 20014 elections. Considering that no
substitution of Cayat was made, Thomas R. Pelileng, Sr. his rival
Rulloda vs. Comelec remained the only candidate for the mayoralty post in Buguias, Benguet.
G.R. No. 154198 January 20, 2003 (Cayat v. Comelec 522 SCRA 23 (2007)).

DOCTRINE: The absence of a specific provision governing substitution of HELD: In contrast, after Barbara Ruby substituted Ramon, the May 10,
candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition 2010 elections proceeded with her being regarded by the electorate of
against said substitution. Such a restrictive construction cannot be read Lucena City as a bona fide candidate. To the electorate, she became a
into the law where the same is not written. Indeed, there is more reason contender for the same position vied for by Castillo, such that she stood
to allow substitution of candidates where no political parties are on the same footing as Castillo. Such standing as a candidate negated
involved than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a Castillo’s claim of being the candidate who obtained the highest number
fact that must have been subsumed by law. of votes, and being consequently entitled to assume the office of Mayor.
The Court stressed that the existence of a valid CoC is a condition sine
qua non for a valid substitution. While Barbara won, although
Miranda v. Abaya
disqualified because of invalid substitution, the law of succession will
G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999
apply by operation of law.

Substitution is not allowed if certificate of the candidate to be EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES AFTER OFFICIAL BALLOTS
substituted was cancelled, because he was running for the 4th HAVE BEEN PRINTED IN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM
consecutive term. A person without a valid COC cannot be considered a
• (UNDER MANUAL VOTING?) Section 12 of RA 9006, 12 February
candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any
2001: in case of valid substitutions after the official ballots have
COC at all cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be a candidate at
been printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall
all.
be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole

ballot.
Talaga v. Comelec & Castillo and Castillo v. Comelec & Talaga • For this purpose, the official ballot shall provide spaces where the
683 SCRA 197 (2012) voters may write the name of the substitute candidates if they are
voting for the latter; provided, however, that if the substitute
FACTS: Ramon was disqualified having been found to be ineligible for the candidate has the same family name, this provision should not
position of Mayor of Lucena City which disqualification became final apply.
prior to the May 10, 2010 elections. • (UNDER AES) - Since Section 12 of RA 8436 has not been
amended nor repealed by RA 9369, it can be assumed that the
Barbara Ruby filed her CoC in substitution of Ramon. Castillo was the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered
opponent who filed a disqualification case against Barbara Ruby on the votes for the substitutes in an AES for the reason that the
ground that the substitution was not valid in view of the ineligibility of counting machine will not read any unwarranted marks on the
Ramon, Ramon did not voluntarily withdraw his CoC before the elections official ballot such as writing the name of the substitute
in accordance with Section 73 and that she was not an additional candidate.
candidate for the position of Mayor because her filing of her CoC was
beyond the period fixed by law. Comelec declared the substitution of
Barbara Ruby as invalid on May 20, 2011.

ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE CANDIDACY OF A CANDIDATE OR DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE
SECTION 12 SECTION 68 SECTION 69 SECTION 78 SECTION 40
(BP 881) (BP 881) (BP 881) (BP 881) (RA 7160)
1. Any person who 1. Those guilty of giving NUISANCE CANDIDATE Any MATERIAL 1. Those sentenced by
has been declared money or material (Bautista vs. Comelec 298 representation final judgment for:
by competent consideration to SCRA 480) contained in the COC ⇒ An offense
authority insane influence, induce or 1. One who files his COC that is FALSE. involving moral
or incompetent corrupt voters or to put the election turpitude; or
public official process in mockery or Pertains to a ⇒ For an offense
INCOMPETENCY - performing electoral disrepute; candidate’s eligibility or punishable by one
refers not only to functions; 2. Contemplates the qualification such as: (1) year or more
mental illness, disease 2. Those who have likelihood of (Maruhom vs. Comelec imprisonment,
or physical disability committed terrorism confusion, which the 594 SCRA 108) within 5 years
but also to other to enhance his similarity of surnames ⇒ Required age; after serving
Grounds
causes, which may candidacy. of two (2) candidates ⇒ Citizenship; sentence. (As
include minority or 3. Those who have spent may generate; ⇒ Residence; or amended)
lack of residence in the election ⇒ Status as a
requirement. campaign more than When 2 candidates with the registered voter; 2. Those convicted by
that required by law same name or surname and ⇒ Possession of a final judgment for
2. Any person who (Php10/RV/Php5.00); only the name or surname is natural-born violating the oath of
has been written, it will be considered Filipino status. allegiance to the
sentenced by final 4. Solicited, received, or as STRAY VOTE and will not Republic;
judgment for made any contribution be counted for either of the
subversion, prohibited under candidates unless one of 3. Those removed from
insurrection, sections 89, 95, 96, 97 them is an incumbent office as a result of an
th
rebellion. under 104; (EQUITY OF THE administrative case;
3. For any offense for INCUMBENT RULE)
which carries a 5. Any person who is a 4. Those with dual
penalty of more permanent resident of 3. One who, by citizenship;
than 18 months; or an immigrant to a circumstances or acts,
4. For a crime foreign country shall clearly demonstrates 5. Fugitives from justice
involving moral not be qualified to run that he or she has no in criminal or non-
turpitude. for any elective office bona fide intention to political cases here or
under this Code, run for office and abroad;
unless said person has would this prevent the
waived his status as faithful determination 6. Permanent residents
permanent resident or of the true will of the in a foreign country or
immigrant of a foreign people. those who have
country. acquired the right to
reside abroad and
continue to avail the
same right after;

7. Insane or feeble-
minded.
Registered voter or Registered voter or political The Comelec, may motu Any person through a Registered voter or
political party party proprio or upon verified verified petition seeking political party
petition of an interested to deny due course or
party (Registered candidate to cancel a certificate of
for the same office) refuse candidacy
to give due course to or
cancel a certificate of
candidacy If it is shown that
it is filed in contemplation
Who may
of a nuisance candidate or
file
cancel the same if already
filed.

This is an exception to the
ministerial duty of the
Comelec and its officers to
receive a certificate of
candidacy under Section 76
of the OEC.
Any day after the last As would validly cancel any Within 5 days from the last Not later than 25 days
day for filing of COC votes cast for him, as “stray day for the filing of COC. (As from the filing of the
but not later than the votes” if granted, should be amended by Section 5 of RA COC.
date of proclamation. filed before the day of the 6646)
elections.
When to

file
This will enable the
substitute candidacy to be Filing by mail shall not be
filed thus giving the allowed.
electorate a choice of
alternative candidates.
• Plenary pardon or
granted amnesty;
• Upon declaration
by a competent
authority that said
insanity or
How to incompetence had
remove been removed;
disqualific • Expiration of a
ation period of 5 years
from his service of
sentence unless of
course within the
same period he
again becomes
disqualified.
Petition for Petition for disqualification Verified petition to abate a Petition to deny due Petition for
Others disqualification nuisance candidate course to or cancel a disqualification
Section 68 deals with a CoC
NOTES petition to disqualify a
candidate for other
th
violation of the election
code as specified in said Jurisdiction: COMELEC
section, and against a sitting in division
candidate who is a
permanent resident or This shall be decided,
immigrant of a foreign after due notice and
country. That section does hearing, not later than
not specify a period within 15 days before
which to file the petition. elections.
SEC. 68 OF BP 881 67,173 votes or a difference of 104 votes. Celestino Martinez filed an
Election Protest Ad Cautelam based on 300 ballots less with only
Codilla vs. De Venecia “Martinez” or “C. Martinez” written on the line, which was considered
393 SCRA 634 stray on the ground that there was another congressional candidate
Edilito who had the same surname. The Comelec and HRET considered

the votes stray.
HELD: The power of Comelec to disqualify candidates is limited to the

enumerations mentioned in Section 68 of the OEC. Elements to be
Petitioner now invokes this Court's pronouncement in Bautista v.
proved are as follows:
COMELEC to the effect that votes indicating only the surname of two (2)
1. The candidate, personally or through his instructions, must have
candidates should not be considered as stray but counted in favor of the
given money or other material consideration; and
bona fide candidate after the other candidate with a similar surname
2. The act of giving material consideration or money should be for
was declared a nuisance candidate.
the purpose of influencing, inducing or corrupting the voters or

public officials performing electoral functions.
ISSUES:

1. What then is the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate
Aratea vs. Commission on Elections as such in a final judgment AFTER the elections?
683 SCRA 105 2. Should ballots containing only the similar surname of two (2)
candidates be considered as stray votes in favor of the bona fide
All the offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to election offenses under candidate?
the OEC, not to violations of other penal laws. There is absolutely
nothing in the language of Section 68 that would justify including HELD: NUISANCE CANDIDATE - one who, based on the attendant
violation of the 3-term limit rule, or conviction by final judgment of the circumstances, has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which
crime of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, as one of the ground the certificate of candidacy has been filed, his sole purpose being the
or offenses covered under Section 68. reduction of the votes of a strong candidate, upon the expectation that
ballots with only the surname of such candidate will be considered stray
SECTION 69 OF BP 881 and not counted for either of them.

Rev. Elly Chavez Pumatong v. Comelec The evidence clearly shows that Edilito C. Martinez, who did not even
G.R. No. 161872 13 April 2004 bother to file an answer and simply disappeared after filing his certificate
of candidacy, was an unknown in politics within the district, a "habal-
The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the habal" driver who had neither the financial resources nor political
disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide support to sustain his candidacy. The similarity of his surname with that
intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling of petitioner was meant to cause confusion among the voters and spoil
interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective and petitioner's chances of winning the congressional race for the Fourth
orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical Legislative District of Cebu.
considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the
number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical The votes should be counted in favor of the bonafide candidate. The SC
confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources ruled that Martinez should not be prejudiced by the Comelec’s
in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of inefficiency and lethargy. Nor should the absence of objection over
course, never attempt the State from the conduct of a mandated straying of votes during the actual counting bar petitioner from raising
electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be the issue in his election protest.
available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and
proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook Dela Cruz v. Comelec
example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our democratic G.R. No. 192221, 13 November 2012
institutions.
ISSUE: Should the votes cast for such nuisance candidate be considered
Martinez III vs. HRET stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate under the
610 SCRA 53 (January 2010) Automated Election System?

DOCTRINE: Proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt HELD: In an automated election, the Supreme Court likewise ruled not to
disposition. The declaration of a duly registered candidate as nuisance consider the votes cast for a nuisance candidate as stray but to count
candidate results in the cancellation of his COC. The votes should be them in favor of the bona fide candidate.
counted in favor of the bonafide candidate.
“As far as Comelec is concerned, the confusion caused by similarity of
FACTS: Celestino Martinez and private respondent Benhur Salimbangon surnames of candidates for the same position and putting the electoral
were among the candidates for member of the HR in the 4th District of process in mockery or disrepute, had already been rectified by the new
Cebu. Celestino Martinez filed a petition to abate Edilito C. Martinez as voting system where the voter simply shades the oval corresponding to
nuisance candidate, which was decided one month after the elections. the name of their chosen candidate. However, as shown in this case,
Salimbangon was proclaimed winner with 67,277 votes against Martinez Comelec issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010, 9 days before the
th
elections, with sufficient time to delete the names of disqualified Fermin v. Comelec
candidates not just from the Certified List of Candidates, but also from G.R. No. 179695 and G.R. No. 182369 | December 18, 2008
the Official Ballot. Indeed, what use will it serve if Comelec orders the
names of disqualified candidates to be deleted from list of official HELD: Section 5 (Procedure in cases of Nuisance candidates) and Section
candidates if the official ballots still carry their name? 7 (Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy
under RA 6646, did not in any way amend the period for filing “Section
The Court holds that the rule in Resolution No. 4116 considering the 78” petitions. While Section 7 of the said law makes reference to Section
votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a final judgment, 5 on the procedure in the conduct of cases for the denial of due course
particularly where such nuisance candidate has the same surname as to the COC’s of nuisance candidates (then chief Justice Davide in his
that of the legitimate candidate, not stray but counted in favor of the dissenting opinion in Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September
latter, remains a good law. 18, 1995 248 SCRA 400, explains that “the procedure hereinabove
provided mentioned in Section 7 cannot be construed to refer to Section
As earlier discuss, a petition to cancel or deny a CoC under Section 69 of 6 which does not provide for a procedure but to the effects of
the OEC should be distinguished from a petition to disqualify under disqualification cases, (but) can only refer to the procedure provided in
Section 68. Hence, the legal effect of such cancellation of a CoC of a Section 5 of the said Act on nuisance candidates, “ the same cannot be
nuisance candidate cannot be equated with a candidate disqualified on taken to mean that the 25-day period for filing Section 78 petitions is
grounds provided in the OEC and the Local Government Code. changed to 5 days counted from the last day for the filing of COC’s.

The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names of The clear language of Section 78 cannot be amended or modified by a
nuisance candidates remained in the ballot on election day, cannot be mere reference in a subsequent statute to the use of a procedure
discounted or eliminated, even under the automated voting system specifically intended for another type of action. Cardinal is the rule in
especially considering that voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside statutory construction that repeals by implication are disfavored and will
the name of the nuisance candidate instead of the bonafide candidate not be so declared by the Court unless the intent of the legislators is
they intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots to manifest. Noteworthy in Loong v. Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992), which
correct the same. upheld the 25-day period for filing Section 78 petitions, was decided long
after the enactment of RA 6646. Hence, Section 23, Section 2 of the
Joseph Timbol v. Comelec Comelec Rules of Procedure is contrary to the unequivocal mandate of
751 SCRA 456 the law. Following the ruling in Fermin, the Court declared: “as the law
stands, the petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC may be filed
On October 5, 2012 Timbol filed a CoC for member of the SP of the 2nd at anytime not later than 25-days from the time of the filing of the
District of Caloocan City. On January 15, 2013 he received a Subpoena COC.
from the Comelec Election Officer ordering him to appear before the
Comelec Office for a clarificatory hearing in connection with his CoC. Justimbaste v. Comelec
Timbol argued that he was not a nuisance candidate having ranked 8th 572 SCRA 736 (2008)
in the last elections and that; he has sufficient resources to sustain his
campaign. He pointed out that notwithstanding the clarificatory hearing, Material misrepresentation as a ground to deny due course or cancel a
his name was already among those listed as nuisance candidate in the certificate of candidacy refers to the falsity of a statement required to be
Comelec website. The Election Officer recommended that his CoC be entered therein as enumerated in Section 74 of the OEC. Concurrent
given due course and that his name be removed in the said list. His name with materiality is a deliberate intention to deceive the electorate as to
was however not removed from the list. one qualification making reference to Salcedo II that in order to justify
the cancellation of the COC under Section 78, it is essential that the false
Comelec contends that the petition is moot and academic considering representation mentioned therein pertained to a material matter for the
that the 2013 elections had already been conducted; that even assuming sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of
the petition is moot and academic, it maintained that it did not gravely a candidate – the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the
abused its discretion as he was given the opportunity to be heard during COC. There is also no showing that there was intent to deceive the
the clarificatory hearing and that the inclusion of the CoC of Timbol was electorate as to the identity of the private respondent, nor that by using
denied considering that the ballots had already started to be printed. his Filipino name the voting public was thereby deceived.

A case is moot and academic if it “ceases to present a justiciable
Hayudini v. Comelec
controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon
723 SCRA 223
would be of no practical use or value. When a case is moot and
academic, the SC generally declines jurisdiction over it.
The false representation in Section 78 must pertain to a material fact,
Exceptions: The SC has taken cognizance of moot and academic cases not to a mere innocuous mistake. A candidate who falsifies a material
when fact cannot run; if he runs and is elected, he cannot serve; in both cases.
1. There was grave violation of the Constitution; He or she can be prosecuted for violation of the election laws. These
2. The case involved a situation of exceptional character and was facts pertain to a candidate’s qualification for election office, such as his
of paramount public interest, or her citizenship and residence. Similarly, the candidate’s status as a
3. The issues raised required the formulation of controlling registered voter falls under this classification, as it is a legal requirement,
principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and which must be reflected in the CoC. The reason for this is obvious: the
4. The case was capable of repetition yet evading review. candidate, if he or she wins, will work for and represent the local
government under which he or she is running. Even the will of the
HELD: While the case is moot and academic, this does not preclude from people, as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of
setting forth “controlling and authoritative doctrines” to be observed by ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in the instant case,
Comelec in motu proprio denying due course to or cancelling CoC of that the candidate was qualified.
alleged nuisance. This motu proprio authority is always subject to the
alleged nuisance candidate’s opportunity to be heard. – An essential Sergio G. Amora, Jr. vs. Comelec and Arnielo S. Olandria
element of due process. 640 SCRA 473 (2011)
Petition for Petition to Deny Due
SECTION 78 of BP 881 Disqualification Course or Cancel the COC

th
Can be premised on Under 78, this can only be
Section 12 and 68 of the grounded on a statement of Pending the resolution of her motion, petitioner assumed office as
Basis OEC, or Section 40 of the a material representation in mayor of Sevilla and began discharging the powers of the office upon her
LGC. the said certificate that is proclamation. On 15 December 2013, however, she received the
false. COMELEC En Banc Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration
Fermin vs. COMELEC: Fermin vs. COMELEC: and upholding the cancellation of her COC.
A petition for Covers the absence of
disqualification does NOT substantive qualifications ISSUE: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
cover the absence of the of the candidate. holding that petitioner had failed to prove compliance with the one-year
substantive qualifications residency requirement for local elective officials.
of a candidate. Ex. Citizenship, residency,
status as a registered voter. HELD: YES. We remind the commission that the summary nature of
Grounds Sec. 68 is premised on the proceedings under Section 78 only allows it to rule on patent material
fact of commission of misrepresentations of facts, not to make conclusions of law that are
prohibited acts under even contrary to jurisprudence.
election laws (with the
exception of the existence Physical presence, along with animus manendi et revertendi, is an
of the fact of the essential requirement for the acquisition of a domicile of choice.
candidate's permanent However, the law does not require that physical presence be unbroken.
residency abroad). In Japzon v. Comelec, this Court ruled that to be considered a resident of
A person who is A person whose certificate a municipality, the candidate is not required to stay and never leave the
disqualified under Section is cancelled or denied due place for a full one-year period prior to the date of the election.
68 is merely prohibited to course under Section 78 is
continue as a candidate. not treated as a candidate Petitioner sufficiently established that she had already reacquired her
at all, as if he/she never Philippine citizenship when she started residing in Sevilla on 2 May 2012.
filed a CoC. It must be noted that the starting point from which her residence should
be counted was not material to the deliberations before COMELEC or in
His status is that of a person any of the pleadings submitted before this Court. The only controverted
Effects issue was whether her absence from the locality for four months out of
who has not filed a CoC.
A candidate who is But a person whose CoC has the 1 year and 11 days she had stated in her COC rendered her unable to
disqualified under Section been denied due course or fulfill the residence requirement.
68 can validly be cancelled under Section 78
substituted under Section cannot be substituted Considering that the only material issue before COMELEC was the
77. (Miranda v. Abaya) because he/she is never completeness of the period of residence, it should not have disregarded
considered a candidate. the following evidence showing specific acts performed by petitioner
(Miranda v. Abaya) one year before the elections, or by 13 May 2012, which clearly
When to Any day before the day of Within 25 days from the demonstrated her animus manendi et revertendi:
file the elections if it is under filing of the COC. • She made public her intention to run for the mayoralty position.
Sec. 68 In preparation for this aspiration, and in order to qualify for the
position, she went through the reacquisition process under
Republic Act No. 9225.
Juliet B. Dano vs. Comelec & Marie Karen Joy B. Digal
EN BANC [GR No. 210200, Sep 13, 2016] • She started to reside in her ancestral home, and even obtained a
CTC, during the first quarter of 2012.

• She applied for voter's registration in Sevilla.
FACTS: Petitioner was a natural-born Filipino who hailed from the
• She went back to the US to dispose of her properties located
Municipality of Sevilla, Province of Bohol (Sevilla). She worked as a nurse
there.
in the US and thereafter acquired American citizenship.

In Sabili, We said that the certification of the punong barangay should be
On 2 February 2012, she obtained a Community Tax Certificate (CTC)
given due consideration. COMELEC should have likewise done so in this
from the municipal treasurer of Sevilla. On 30 March 2012, she took her
case. Two disinterested persons attested that even after her
Oath of Allegiance before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate in
naturalization as an American citizen, petitioner had regularly visited her
Los Angeles, California. On 2 May 2012, petitioner went to Sevilla to
hometown to participate in community affairs. According to the punong
apply for voter's registration. Eight days later, she went back to the US
barangay, petitioner expressed, on several occasions, the latter's desire
and stayed there until 28 September 2012. She claims that she went
to come home. In this light, it should have been apparent to COMELEC
there to wind up her affairs, particularly to sell her house in Stockton,
that when petitioner returned in the first quarter of 2012, it was for
California, as well as her shares of stock in various companies. Upon
good; and that when she left for the US on 10 May 2012, her purpose
returning to the Philippines, petitioner executed a Sworn Renunciation
was to confirm her permanent abandonment of her US domicile.
of Any and All Foreign Citizenship on 30 September 2012. On 4 October

2012, she filed her COC for mayor of Sevilla. She represented herself
COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion lay in its failure to fully appreciate
therein as one who had been a resident of Sevilla for 1 year and 11 days
petitioner's evidence and fully explained absence from Sevilla. Instead, it
prior to the elections of 13 May 2013, or from 2 May 2012.
made a legal conclusion that a candidate who has been physically absent

from a locality for four out of the twelve months preceding the elections
Marie Karen Joy Digal filed a petition with the COMELEC for the
can never fulfil the residence requirement under Section 39 of the LGC.
cancellation of petitioner's COC. She alleged that petitioner had made
In addition, COMELEC cancelled petitioner's COC without any prior
material misrepresentations of fact in the latter's COC and likewise failed
determination of whether or not she had intended to deceive or mislead
to comply with the one-year residency requirement under Section 39 of
the electorate. This omission also constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
the LGC. 5 days before the elections, the COMELEC First Division issued a

Resolution cancelling the COC of petitioner. It highlighted that even if
It must be emphasized that the denial of due course to, or the
she had reacquired her Filipino citizenship, registered as a voter in
cancellation of, a COC must be anchored on a finding that the candidate
Sevilla, and executed her sworn renunciation, her prolonged absence
made a material representation that was false. In the sphere of election
resulted in her failure to reestablish her domicile in her hometown for
laws, a material misrepresentation pertains to a candidate's act done
the purpose of abiding by the one-year residence requirement.
th
with the intention to gain an advantage by deceitfully claiming 78. Verily, it was publicly known that James L. Engle was a member of
possession of all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications Lakas-CMD. As far as the party and his wife were concerned, James L.
when, in fact, the contrary is true. In Mitra v. Comelec, the cancellation Engle, as a member of Lakas-CMD, may be substituted as a candidate
of the COC was reversed, because the COMELEC "failed to critically upon his death.
consider whether Mitra deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform or
hide a fact that would otherwise render him ineligible for the position of In Rulloda v. Commission on Elections, technicalities and procedural
Governor of Palawan." Absent such finding, We cannot sustain the niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the
cancellation of petitioner's COC. true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be
liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
Atty. Valencia: The winding up of properties in another country is not a public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
material case in residency requirement. Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and
procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the
ENGLE vs. COMELEC and MENZON determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their
G.R. No. 215995 | January 19, 2016 elective officials. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law
that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of
Engle and Menzon vied for the position of Vice-Mayor of the the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.
Municipality of Babatngon, Province of Leyte in the May 13, 2013
Elections. Engle’s late husband, James L. Engle, was originally the Applying these jurisprudential precedents, we find that the late
candidate for said contested position; however, he died of cardiogenic submission of Romualdez’s authority to sign the CONA of James L. Engle
shock on February 2, 2013. Due to this development, petitioner filed her to the COMELEC was a mere technicality that cannot be used to defeat
certificate of candidacy on February 22, 2013 as a substitute candidate the will of the electorate in a fair and honest election.
for her deceased spouse.
Munder vs. Comelec
Menzon filed a Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancel the 659 SCRA 254 (2011)
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner arguing in the main that the
latter misrepresented that she is qualified to substitute her husband, Both remedies (Sec. 68 and 78) prescribe distinct period to file the
who was declared an independent candidate by the COMELEC. It would corresponding petition, on which the jurisdiction of the Commission on
appear that James L. Engle’s Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance Elections over the case is dependent.
(CONA) was signed by Lakas Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD)
Leyte Chapter President, Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez (Romualdez). FACTS: Munder filed CoC as mayor of Bubong, Lanao del Sur on 26
However, Lakas-CMD failed to submit to the COMELEC Law Department November 2009. Last day for filing of CoC was on 30 November 2009
the authorization of Romualdez to sign the CONAs of Lakas-CMD
candidates in Babatngon as prescribed by Section 6(3) of COMELEC Under Comelec Res. No. 8698, a petition to deny due course to or to
Resolution No. 9518. Thus, the COMELEC Law Department considered all cancel a CoC must be filed within 5 days from last day of the filing of the
Lakas-CMD candidates whose CONAs were signed by Romualdez as Coc but not later than 25 days from the filing.
independent candidates.
Atty. Sarip also filed a CoC for the same position. Atty. Sarip on 13 April
Respondent’s contention: petitioner violated Section 15, COMELEC 2010 filed a Petition for Disqualification with Comelec on the ground
Resolution No. 9518 which disallows the substitution of an independent that Munder was not a RV of Bubong and that his CoC was not
candidate. accomplished in full. Sarip anchored the disqualification on the
Certification of the EO that there was no Alfais T. Munder born on 07
Petitioner’s counter-argument: Petitioner posited that under Sec. 1, Rule May 1987 but there was another Munder Alfais Tocalo residing in
23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, the exclusive ground for denial or Bubong whose date of birth was 07 May 1984 registering for the first
cancellation of a COC is the falsity of a material representation contained time in 2003 and hence, was only 18 years old at the time of the said
therein. filing. Hence Sarip alleged that the Munder on record with Comelec is
not Munder who was running for Mayor.
When the petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner’s COC was still
pending, on May 15, 2013, the Municipal Board of Canvassers Munder overwhelmingly won in the elections with Sarip training second.
proclaimed petitioner as the duly-elected Vice-Mayor of Babatngon, The MBC proclaimed Munder on 15 May 2010. Munder in his Answer
Leyte. Petitioner was credited with the 6,657 votes cast for her husband denied any misrepresentation, dishonesty and mockery of justice; that
as against private respondent’s 3,515 votes. It was on July 5, 2013 that these were not grounds for disqualification of a candidate under
the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated its Resolution which denied due Comelec Resolution NO. 8696. That Sarip availed himself of the wrong
course to and cancelled petitioner’s COC resulting in the annulment of remedy as his petition should be treated as a Petition to Deny Due Course
petitioner’s previous proclamation as duly-elected Vice-Mayor of or to Cancel COC. That at the time Sarip filed the petition, the said period
Babatngon, Leyte and the declaration of private respondent as winner of had already lapsed.
the contested position.
The Comelec 2nd Division sustained Munder and ruled that the grounds
ISSUE: WON there was material misrepresentation in this case. invoked by Sarip were not proper for a petition for disqualification under
Section 78. Comelec En Banc however reversed the ruling of the second
RULING: NO. Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), a division and disqualified Munder in its October 4, 2010. Comelec ruled
petition to deny due course to, or cancel a COC may be filed on the on the question of the continuing possession of Munder of one of the
exclusive ground of false material representation in said COC. qualifications of the Office of the Mayor – being a RV of the municipality
where he runs as a candidate. Comelec disregarded the fact that Munder
The false representation which is a ground for a denial of due course to had already been proclaimed but still ruled against him and proceeded
and/or cancellation of a candidate’s COC refers to a material fact relating to declare him disqualified. (RTC already has jurisdiction). Munder was
to the candidate’s qualification for office such as one’s citizenship or ordered to vacate the Office (which further caused confusions and
residence. sought division among the constituents)

However, private respondent failed to demonstrate that petitioner made Munder argues that Comelec acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
a false statement regarding her qualifications or concealed any in taking cognizance of Sarip’s petition, which was filed beyond the
disqualification for the office to warrant its cancellation under Section reglementary period provided by law. That Comelec gravely abused its
th
discretion in effectively ruling upon his right to vote, when it attacked his qualification for public office.” [Salcedo II v. Comelec 312 SCRA 447
status as a RV, in order to disqualify him. Munder alleged that Sarip (1999)]
should have instead filed a petition for QW after his proclamation.
TWO REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONING THE QUALIFICATIONS
ISSUES: OF THE CANDIDATE BEFORE AND AFTER ELECTIONS:
1. May a petition filed as a Petition for Disqualification properly SECTION 78 SECTION 253
invoke, as a ground that the candidate sought to be disqualified (BP 881) (BP 881)
was not a RV and thus not be barred by the earlier prescriptive Time to initiate Before elections After elections
period applicable to Petition to Deny Due Course to or to Cancel petition
CoC? The qualifications for Two grounds –
2. Did Comelec gravely abuse its discretion in concluding that the elective office are 1. Ineligibility; or
Alfais Munder in the voter’s list is not the same as Alfais Munder misrepresented in the 2. Disloyalty to the
the candidate? certificate of candidacy. Republic of the
3. Does Sarip have the right to be installed as Mayor for having Philippines.
placed second in the electoral contest?
A candidate is
The ground of dishonesty in declaring that Munder was a RV, which in Grounds
ineligible if he is
fact he was not, was appropriate for a Petition to Deny Due Course to disqualified to be
or to Cancel CoC. The Comelec should have dismissed the petition elected to office, and
outright since it was premised on a wrong ground. he is disqualified if he
lacks any of the
In Amora, there are TWO (2) CATEGORIES OF THE GROUNDS IN qualification for
SECTION 68: election office.
1. Those comprising “PROHIBITED” ACTS of candidates; and The proceedings must be Petition for QW must
2. The fact of their PERMANENT RESIDENCY IN ANOTHER initiated before the be initiated within 10
COUNTRY when that fact affects the residency requirement Period to file the
elections. days after
of a candidate according to the law. petition
proclamation of the
election results.
In Fermin, the Court has debunked the interpretation that a petition for
disqualification covers the absence of the substantive qualifications of a Clearly, the ONLY INSTANCE where a petition questioning the
candidate (with the exception of the existence of the fact of the qualifications of a candidate for elective office can be filed before
candidate's permanent residency abroad). It has, in effect, even struck election is when the petition is filed under Section 78 of the OEC.
down a Comelec Resolution - Resolution No. 7800, which enumerated
the grounds for a petition for disqualification to include the non- Loong v. Comelec
registration of a candidate as voter in the locality where he or she is
216 SCRA 760 (1992)
running as a candidate.

The Court categorically declared that the period for filing a petition for
A petition to cancel a CoC gives a registered candidate the chance to
cancellation of candidacy based on false representation is covered by
question the qualification of a rival candidate for a shorter period: within
Rule 23 and NOT Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition at any time after
5 days from the last day of their filing of CoCs, but not later than 25 days
the last day for filing of CoC’s but not later than the date of
from the filing of the CoC sought to be cancelled. A petition for
proclamation, is merely a procedural rule that cannot supersede Section
disqualification may be filed any day after the last day of the filing of CoC
78 of the OEC.
but not later than the date of the proclamation.

The Comelec Second Division stated that the last day of filing of the CoCs Fermin v. Comelec
was on 21 December 2009. Thus, the period to file a Petition to Deny 574 SCRA 782 (2008)
Due Course or to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy had already prescribed
when Sarip filed his petition against Munder. A petition filed under Section 78 must not be interchanged or confused
with one filed under Section 68. The Court stressed that a petition which
Comelec abused its discretion in concluding that Munder was not the is properly a “Section 78 petition” must therefore be filed within the
Munder who was the mayoralty candidate. Registration was in 2003 and period prescribed therein, and a procedural rules subsequently issue by
present election was in 2010. Munder already attained eligibility to run Comelec cannot supplant this statutory period under Section 78.
for mayor.
JURISDICTION
Fernando V. Gonzalez vs. Comelec, et. al. • Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath
644 SCRA 761 (2011) and assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives,
the jurisdiction of the Comelec over election contests relating to
In order to justify the cancellation of CoC, it is essential that the false his election, returns and qualifications ENDS and the HRET own
representation mentioned therein pertain to a material matter for the jurisdiction BEGINS.
sanction imposed by Section 78 would affect the substantive rights of
the candidate – the right to run for the elective post for which he filed Perez v. Comelec
the CoC. 317 SCRA 641 (1999)

MATERIAL REPRESENTATION - refers to qualifications for elective office The Court does not have jurisdiction to pass upon the eligibility of the
(interpreted to refer to statements regarding age, residence and private respondent who was already a Member of the HR at the time of
citizenship or non-possession of natural-born Filipino status); the filing of the petition for certiorari – considering that by statutory
provision (Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the
Aside from the requirement of materiality, the false representation sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a qualifications of the members of the HR.
fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible; it must be
made with the intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s PROCEDURE IN FILING MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCLAMATION
th
⇒ Cannot be done motu proprio by the COMELEC division; What is indisputably clear is that the false material representation of
⇒ Section 6 of RA No. 6646 requires that the suspension must be Jalosjos is a ground for a petition under Section 78. However, since the
upon motion by the complainant or any intervenor whenever false material representation arises from a crime penalized by prisión
the evidence of guilt is strong. mayor, a petition under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code or
Section 40 of the Local Government Code can also be properly filed. The
SECOND PLACER RULE petitioner has a choice whether to anchor his petition on Section 12 or
• It is well-settled that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, or on Section 40 of the Local
majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving Government Code. The law expressly provides multiple remedies and
the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. the choice of which remedy to adopt belongs to the petitioner.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE SECOND PLACER RULE The COMELEC properly cancelled Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy. A void
certificate of candidacy on the ground of ineligibility that existed at the
The exception to the second placer rule is predicated on the concurrence
time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy can never give rise to a
of the following:
valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes.21 Jalosjos’ certificate of
1. The one who obtained the highest number of votes is
candidacy was cancelled because he was ineligible from the start to run
disqualified; and
for Mayor. Whether his certificate of candidacy is cancelled before or
2. The electorate is FULLY AWARE in fact and in law of a
after the elections is immaterial because the cancellation on such ground
candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within
means he was never a valid candidate from the very beginning, his
the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in
certificate of candidacy being void ab initio. Jalosjos’ ineligibility existed
favor of the ineligible candidate.
on the day he filed his certificate of candidacy, and the cancellation of

his certificate of candidacy retroacted to the day he filed it. Thus,
Diambrang vs. COMELEC and Patad Cardino ran unopposed. There was only one qualified candidate for
Oct. 11, 2016 | G.R. NO. 201809 Mayor in the May 2010 elections – Cardino – who received the highest
number of votes.
We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. COMELEC and Jalosjos v.
COMELEC that a void COC cannot produce any legal effect. Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be
proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or declared
Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not ineligible22 should be limited to situations where the certificate of
considered at all in determining the winner of an election. Even when candidacy of the first-placer was valid at the time of filing but
the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the will of the subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took
electorate is still respected, and even more so. The votes cast in favor of place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the
an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression of certificate of candidacy. If the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio,
the sovereign voice. The votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate then legally the person who filed such void certificate of candidacy was
candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected. never a candidate in the elections at any time. All votes for such non-
candidate are stray votes and should not be counted. Thus, such non-
As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that determine the candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections. If a certificate of
qualifications and disqualifications of those who are allowed to candidacy void ab initio is cancelled on the day, or before the day, of the
participate as players. When there are participants who turn out to be election, prevailing jurisprudence holds that all votes for that candidate
ineligible, their victory are stray votes. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled one
day or more after the elections, all votes for such candidate should also
Clearly, the prevailing ruling is that if the certificate of candidacy is void be stray votes because the certificate of candidacy is void from the very
ab initio, the candidate is not considered a candidate from the very beginning. This is the more equitable and logical approach on the effect
beginning even if his certificate of candidacy was cancelled after the of the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy that is void ab initio.
elections. Otherwise, a certificate of candidacy void ab initio can operate to defeat
one or more valid certificates of candidacy for the same position.
Patad's disqualification arose from his being a fugitive from justice. It
does not matter that the disqualification case against him was finally SUMMARY:
decided by the COMELEC En Banc only on 14 November 2011. Patad's a.
nd
COC is void ab initio – 2 placer rule does not apply.
certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. As such, Diambrang, being the • Meaning, the candidate who possesses all the qualifications and
first-placer among the qualified candidates, should have been none of the disqualifications who obtained the next highest
proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Kaludan, number of votes shall be declared elected.
Nunungan, Lanao del Norte. However, due to supervening events as we b. COC is valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be
previously discussed, Diambrang can no longer hold office. cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal
impediment that took effect, after the filing of the certificate of
DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS, JR., vs. COMELEC candidacy
G.R. No. 193237 October 9, 2012 •
nd
2 placer rule applies. The ineligibility of a candidate receiving
majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving
We now ask: Did Jalosjos make a false statement of a material fact in his the next highest number of votes to be declared elected.
certificate of candidacy when he stated under oath that he was eligible
to run for mayor? The COMELEC and the dissenting opinions all found Ashary M. Alauya (Clerk of Court, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City vs.
that Jalosjos was not eligible to run for public office. The COMELEC Judge Casan Ali L. Limbona
concluded that Jalosjos made a false material representation that is a 646 SCRA 1 (2011)
ground for a petition under Section 78. The dissenting opinion of Justice
Reyes, however, concluded that the ineligibility of Jalosjos is a DOCTRINE: The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a partisan political
disqualification which is a ground for a petition under Section 68 and not activity as the candidate thereby offers himself to the electorate for an
under Section 78. The dissenting opinion of Justice Brion concluded that elective post.
the ineligibility of Jalosjos is a disqualification that is not a ground under
Section 78 without, however, saying under what specific provision of law “No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage directly or
a petition against Jalosjos can be filed to cancel his certificate of indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.” The act
candidacy. of the Judge in filing a certificate of candidacy as a party-list


th
representative in the May 1998 elections without giving up his judicial HELD: The disqualification case was dismissed: Court said that by the
post violated not only the law, but also the constitutional mandate. statements in the Pardon, he was granted an absolute pardon that fully
restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right
Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis Bautista/Robelito to seek public elective office. The grant was clear and free from
Picar/Wilma Pagaduan ambiguity. The phrase in the presidential pardon at issue, which declares
678 SCRA 267 (2012) that former President Estrada “is hereby restored to his civil and
political rights” substantially complies with the requirement of express
The remedy of a person who fails to file the petition to disqualify a restoration.
certain candidate within the twenty-five (25)-day period prescribed by
Section 78 of the OEC is to file a petition for QW within 10 days from Marquez Jr. vs. Comelec and Rodriguez
proclamation of the results of the election as provided under Section 259 SCRA 296
253 of the OEC.
“Fugitive from justice” refer to a person who has been convicted by
Panlaqui v. Comelec final judgment. When person leaves the territory of a state not his own,
613 SCRA 573 homeward bound and subsequently learns of the charges filed against
him while he is in his own country, does not outrightly qualify him as a
Voters’ inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of fugitive from justice if he does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of
whether a petition shall be included in or excluded from the list of voters the former state. When Rodriguez left the US, there was yet no
based on the qualifications required by law and the facts presented to complaint filed and warrant of arrest, hence there is no basis in saying
show possession of these qualifications. that he is running away from any prosecution or punishment.

On the other hand, the COC denial/cancellation proceedings involve the (Not discussed by Atty. Valencia) In this case, it was also mentioned that
issue of whether there is a false representation of a material fact. The the phrase “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after
false representation must necessarily pertain not to a mere innocuous conviction to avoid punishment, but likewise those who, after being
mistake but to a material fact or those that refer to a candidate’s charged, flee to avoid prosecution.
qualification for elective office.
CONDONATION DOCTRINE
UNDER SECTION 40 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. 7160) • Abandoned already in the case of Carpio-Morales vs. CA and
Binay (Nov. 10, 2015).
The 1st ground for disqualification consists of two (2) parts, namely: • First adopted by the Supreme Court in the 1959 case of Arturo
1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving Pascual vs. Hon. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija (106 Phil 466),
moral turpitude, regardless of the period of imprisonment; and states that: “(o)ffenses committed, or acts done, during previous
2. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense, OTHER THAN term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this
one involving moral turpitude, punishable by one (1) year or is especially true where the constitution provides that the penalty
more imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence. in proceedings for removal shall not extend beyond the removal
[AMENDED to “within 5 years after serving sentence”] from office, and disqualification from holding office for the term
for which the officer was elected or appointed.”
Sec. 40 of RA 7160 limits the disqualification to two (2) years after • “The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other
service of sentence. This should now be read in relation to Sec. 11 of RA terms.”
8189, which enumerates those who are disqualified to register as a • The “reelection to office operates as a condonation of the
voter. The 2-year disqualification period under Sec. 40 is now deemed officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right
amended to last 5 years from service of sentence after which period to remove him therefore”.
the voter will be eligible to register as a voter and to run for an elective • “When the people have elected a man to office, it must be
public office. assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and
character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or
Risos-Vidal vs. Comelec misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by
747 SCRA 2010 reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will
of the people.”
A petition for disqualification was filed against former President Joseph
Estrada, first when he ran for President after he was pardoned by then Reyes v. Comelec
Pres. Arroyo. Three petitions for his disqualification was filed which were 254 SCRA 514 (1996)
effectively dismissed by Comelec on the uniform grounds that
a) The Constitutional proscription on reelection applies to a sitting A public officer who was found guilty in an administrative case and
president; and ordered removed in a decision that became final before the elections is
b) The pardon granted to former President Estrada by former not qualified to run for re-election.
President Arroyo restored the former’s right to vote and be voted
for a public office. Rodolfo Aguinaldo v. Luis Santos
212 SCRA 768 (1992)
Comelec denied the subsequent motions for reconsideration. However,
after the conduct of the May 10, 2010 synchronized elections, former However, if before the petition questioning the validity of the
Pres. Estrada only managed to garner the second highest number of administrative decision removing a public officer could be decided, the
votes. Again, former Pres. Estrada ventured into the political arena and term of office during which the alleged misconduct was committed
filed a COC this time vying for a local elective post, as Mayor of City of expire, and he is reelected, he can no longer be removed, because his
Manila. His disqualification was challenged on the ground of Sec. 40(a) of reelection operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous
RA 7160 (“those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him for it.
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment and further alleging that the Pardon granted to him was Conchita Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals and Jejomar Erwin S.
condition(al). Binay, Jr.
(G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November 2015)
(Not discussed by Atty. Valencia)
th
The SC “simply finds no legal authority to sustain the condonation foreign citizenship effectively removing any disqualification as a dual
doctrine in this jurisdiction”. It ruled that, “the concept of public office is citizen.
a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to the
people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly In the Certificate of Candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino
inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official’s administrative citizen and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the
liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such
by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office, or even declaration, which is under oath, operates as an effective renunciation of
another elective post. Election is not a mode of condoning an foreign citizenship.
administrative offense, and there is simply no constitutional or statutory
basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion that an official elected for NEW RULE UNDER RA 9225
a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising
from an offense done during a prior term.” Finally, the Supreme Court Lopez v. Comelec
held that no presumption exists in any statute or procedural rule that 559 SCRA 696 (2008)
the electorate, when reelecting a local official, are assumed to have

done so with knowledge of his life and character, and that they
The ruling in Valles in 2000 has been superseded by the enactment of RA
disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had any.
9225 in 2003. RA 9225 expressly provides for the condition before those

who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the
Grego v. Comelec Philippines.
274 SCRA 481
Section 5 of the said law states: “Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities.
SEC. 40 OF RA 7160 DOES NOT HAVE ANY RETROACTIVE EFFECT. – Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under this Act
shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant
In this case, a Deputy Sheriff was removed for serious misconduct in liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and
1981. He ran in 1992 & 1995. His removal in 1981 cannot serve as basis the following conditions xxx (2) Those seeking elective public office in
for his disqualification. Laws have prospective effect. the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office
as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the
DUAL CITIZENS CANNOT RUN FOR ANY ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a PERSONAL AND SWORN
RENUNCIATION OF ANY AND ALL FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP before any
OLD RULES: public officer authorized to administer an oath.
1. In Aznar, it was ruled that the mere fact that respondent
Osmeña was holder of a certificate stating that he is an PARAMETERS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES DUAL ALLEGIANCE
American citizen did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino &
that an application for an ACR was not tantamount to Hector G. Calilung vs. Secretary of Justice
renunciation of his Philippine Citizenship. G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
2. Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec, it was held that the fact that
Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the BID & was FACTS: Following the implementation of RA 9225 “An Act Making the
holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire foreign Citizenship
before he filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Permanent, amending for the purpose CA 63, as amended, petitioner
Makati, were just assertions of his nationality before the filed a petition against respondent DOJ Secretary Simeon Datumanong
termination of his American citizenship. who was tasked to implement laws governing citizenship. He prayed for
3. Valles v. Lopez, the Court held that the mere fact that Lopez was a writ of prohibition to stop respondent from implementing RA 9225.
a holder of an Australian passport and had an ACR are not act
constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do not He avers that RA 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article
militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, “Dual allegiance of citizens is
to effectively result in the lost of citizenship, the same must be inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law”. He
express (Com. Act 63, Sec. 1). Referring to the case of Aznar, an contends that the Act cheapens the Philippine citizenship since the Act
ACR does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation allows all Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become
of one’s citizenship. Similarly, her holding of an Australian foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their
passport as in the Manzano case, were likewise mere acts of foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law
assertions before she effectively renounced the same. Thus, at allows natural-born citizens to regain their Philippine by simply taking an
the most, Lopez had dual citizenship – she was an Australian and oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. The
a Filipino, as well. Constitution however, is categorical that dual allegiance is inimical to the
national interest.
Court clarified and as ruled in the Manzano case, “dual citizenship” as
used in the LGC and reconciled with Article IV Section 5 of the 1987 HELD: The intent of the legislature in drafting RA 9225 is to do away with
Constitution on dual allegiance (Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the provision in CA 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from
the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”) In recognizing natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other
situation in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, as countries. RA 9225 allows dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino
an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
be also a citizen of another state (jus sanguinis for the Philippines where naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
the child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the
of his/her place of birth as opposed to jus soli which determines Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.
nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth), the Court
explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to Plainly, Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual
citizens with dual allegiance. allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or
not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What
The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not automatically disqualify happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.
her from running for public office. For candidates with dual citizenship,
it is enough that they elect Phil. Citizenship upon the filing of their
certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as persons with dual
citizenship. The filing of the certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce
th
(Note: Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy cured by the electorate, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this
and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact case, that the candidate was qualified.
the law on dual allegiance.)
Republic v. Dela Rosa
De Guzman v. Comelec 232 SCRA 785
G.R. No. 180048 June 19, 2009
The disqualification of Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo opted to
It was held that “where the Oath of allegiance and certificate of reacquire his Philippine citizenship thru naturalization but however
candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2) of RA 9225 which further failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication, thus,
requires those seeking elective public office in the Philippines to make a the Court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the naturalization of
personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship as where the Frivaldo. He was again disqualified.
candidate for VM of Guimba, Nueva Ecija failed to renounce his
American citizenship, it was held that he was disqualified from running Frivaldo v. Comelec
for VM in the May 14, 2007 elections. 257 SCRA 72 (1996)

Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis Bautista et. al. Frivaldo later reacquired Philippine citizenship and obtained the highest
678 SCRA 267 (2012) number of votes in 3 consecutive elections but was twice declared by
the SC to be unqualified to hold office due to his lack of citizenship
Renunciation of foreign citizenship to be valid under Section 5(2) of RA requirement. He claimed to have re-acquired his Filipino citizenship thru
9225 – The language of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 is free from any repatriation. It was established that he took his oath of allegiance under
ambiguity. In Lopez v. Comelec, the Court declared it ‘s categorical and the provision of PD 725 at 2pm on 30 June 1995, much later than the
single meaning: a Filipino American or any dual citizen cannot run for time he filed his certificate of candidacy.
any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she
personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time The Court held that the “the law does not specify any particular date or
of filing the CoC. time when the candidate must possess citizenship unlike that of
residence and age, as Sec. 39 of RA 7160 specifically speaks of
To be valid, the renunciation must be contained in an affidavit duly “qualification of elective officials, not candidates” thus, the citizenship
executed before an officer of the law who is authorized to administer an requirement in the local government code to be possessed by an
oath stating in clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is renouncing elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the
foreign citizenship. start of the term of office to which he has been elected.

Casan Macode Maquiling v. Comelec et. al. But to remove all doubts on this important issue, the Court held that the
700 SCRA 367 (2013) repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of his
application on 17 August 1994 and being a former Filipino who has
The declared policy of RA 9225 is that “all Philippine citizens who served the people repeatedly and at the age of 81, Frivaldo deserves
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost liberal interpretation of the Philippine laws and whatever defects there
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act”. This policy were in his nationality should now be deemed mooted by his
pertains to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Section 5(2) repatriation.
requires those who have re-acquired Philippine citizenship and who seek
elective public office, to renounce any and all foreign citizenship. THREE (3) TERM LIMIT RULE

This requirement of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, when Article X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of RA 7160
read together with Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code which provides: “No local elective official shall serve for more than 3
disqualifies those with dual citizenship from running for any elective consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of office
local position, indicates a policy that anyone who seeks to run for for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
public office must be solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official
former Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship to continue using a concerned was elected.
foreign passport – which indicates the recognition of a foreign state of
the individual as its national – even after the Filipino has renounced his Laceda Sr., vs. Limena & Comelec
foreign citizenship, is to allow a complete disregard of this policy. 571 SCRA 603

If we allow dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce HELD: The rationale behind Section 2 of RA 9164, like Section 43 of RA
their foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign 7190 (Local Government Code) from which the 3-term rule was taken, is
passports, we are creating a special privilege for these dual citizens, primarily intended to broaden the choices of the electorate of the
thereby effectively junking the prohibition in Section 40(d) of the Local candidates who will run for office, and to infuse new blood in the
Government Code. It must be stressed that what is at stake here is the political arena by disqualifying officials from running for the same office
principle that only those who are exclusively Filipinos are qualified to after a term of 9 years.
run for public office.
This case involved a similar question in Latasa vs. Comelec 417 SCRA 601
Frivaldo v. Comelec where the Court held that where a person has been elected for 3
174 SCRA 245 (1989) consecutive terms as municipal mayor and prior to the end or
termination of such 3-year term the municipality has been converted by
Frivaldo was proclaimed governor elect of the Province of Sorsogon and law into a city, without the city charter interrupting his term until the
subsequently assumed office. A disqualification was filed against him by end of the 3-year term, the prohibition applied to prevent him from
the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter on the ground that he running for the 4th time as city mayor thereof, there being no break in
was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the US in 1983, the continuity of the terms. Comelec did not err nor commit any abuse
which he admitted but which he undertook only to protect himself of discretion when it declared Laceda disqualified and cancelled his COC.
against then President Marcos. The SC found Frivaldo is disqualified for
not having possessed the requirement of citizenship, which cannot be Adormeo v. Comelec & Talaga, Jr.
G.R. No. 147927 04 February 2002
th

Citing Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157 and Lonzanida v. Comelec 311 ISSUE: Whether Lonzanida’s assumption of office from May 1995 to
SCRA 602, it was ruled that the term limit for elective local officials must March 1998 may be considered as service of one full term for the
be taken to refer to: purpose of applying the 3-term limit for elective local government
1. The “right to be elected”; officials.
2. As well as the “right to serve in the same elective position.”
HELD: Lonzanida is still qualified to run for mayor and held that the 2
TWO (2) CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE requisites for the application of the 3-term limit is wanting. First,
DISQUALIFICATION MUST CONCUR: petitioner cannot be considered as having been elected to the post in
1. That the official concerned has been elected for three (3) the May 1995 elections, and second, the petitioner did not fully serve
consecutive terms in the same local government post; and the 1995-1998 mayoralty term by reason of involuntary relinquishment
2. That he has fully served the three (3) consecutive terms. of office.

FACTS: Talaga, Jr., was elected mayor of Lucena City in May 1992. He A proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all and
served the full term, was re-elected in 1995-98 but lost in the 1998 while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the
election to Tagarao. In the recall elections of May 2000, Talaga, Jr. won proclamation of the BOC, he is only a presumptive winner who assumes
and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until 30 June 2001. Talaga Jr. the office subject of the final outcome of the election protest.”
filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position in the 2001 ISSUE: Did the Comelec lose jurisdiction over the disqualification case
elections which candidacy was challenged by petition Adormeo on the when he was proclaimed as winner and that jurisdiction is already with
ground that Talaga, Jr. is already barred by the 3-term limit rule, and the RTC for QW?
Talagae violated Section 8, Article X of the Constitution.
HELD: The SC reiterated its ruling in Trinidad v. Comelec 288 SCRA 76
Bernas who stated that in interpreting said provision that “if one is (1998) that pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 6646, the proclamation nor
elected representative to serve the unexpired term of another, that assumption of office of a candidate against whom a petition for
unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered one term for disqualification is pending before the Comelec does not divest the
the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed.” Comelec of jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and resolve it on
(The court held that the comment of Fr. Bernas is pertinent only to the merits. (Also ruling in Dizon v. Comelec 577 SCRA 589).
member of the HR there being no recall elections provided for members
of Congress). Borja v. Comelec
295 SCRA 157 (1998)
The Comelec en banc ruled in favor of Talaga which reversed the ruling
of the 1st division and held that – 1) Talaga was not elected for 3 ISSUE: Whether a VM who succeeds to the office of mayor by operation
consecutive terms because he did not win the 11 May 1998 elections; 2) of law and serves the remainder of the term is considered to have served
that he was installed only as mayor by reason of his victory in the recall a term in that office for the purpose of the 3-term limit.
elections; 3) that his victory in the recall elections was not considered a
term of office and is not included in the 3-term disqualification rule and HELD: Succession for the unexpired term is not the service
finally 4) that he did not fully serve the 3 consecutive term. His loss in contemplated as would disqualify the elective official from running for
the 11 May 1998 elections is considered an interruption in the continuity the same elective post. The purpose of this provision is to prevent a
of his service as Mayor of Lucena City. circumvention of the limitation on the number of terms an elective local
official may serve. Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he
ISSUE: Was Talaga disqualified to run for Mayor of Lucena City in the 14 was elected as he was simply continuing the service of the official he
May 2001 elections? succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have fully served the
term notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of office prior to his
HELD: NO. In holding the qualifications of Talaga, the Court reiterated its expiration. (Asked in the 2001 BAR)
ruling in Borja that the term limit for elective local officials must be
taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in
Angel Naval v. Comelec and Nelson B. Julia
the same elective position considering that the continuity of his
729 SCRA 299 (2014)
mayorship was disrupted by the defeat in the 1998 elections which is
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service.
FACTS: Naval had been elected and had served as a member of the
Saggunian 2nd District, Province of Camarines Sur from 2004-2007,
Lonzanida v. Comelec and Lu
2007-2010, 2010-2013. Pursuant to RA 9716, the legislative districts in
28 311 SCRA 602 (July 1998)
Camarines Sur was reapportioned wherein 8 out of 10 towns were taken
from the old 2nd district to form the present 3rd district. The present
FACTS: Lonzanida was elected and served 2 consecutive terms as 2nd district is composed of 2 remaining towns, which was merged with 4
municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, prior to the 08 May 1995 towns from the old 1st district.
elections. In the May 1995 elections, Lonzanida ran for the same elective
post and was again proclaimed winner. He assumed office and In 2013, Naval ran and was re-elected. A petition to deny due course or
discharged the duties thereof. His proclamation in 1995 was contested to cancel the CoC of Naval was filed in 2012 by Julia invoking Section 78
by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an election protest before the for having served 3 consecutive terms. Naval alleges that the 1st, 2nd,
RTC of Zambales which rendered a decision declaring a failure of and 3rd districts of Camarines Sur are not merely renamed but are
elections rendering the result for the office as null and void. The office of composed of new sets of municipalities. With separation of the 2 towns
the mayor was then declared vacant. Both parties appealed to the from the other 8 towns, which used to comprise the 2nd district, the
Comelec and on 13 Nov. 1997, it resolved the election protest filed by voters from the 3rd legislative districts are no longer the same one as
Alvez in his favor after determining that Alvez garnered the plurality of those who had elected him to office in 2004 and 2007.
votes. The Comelec issued a writ of execution ordering Lonzanida to
vacate the post to which he obeyed and Alvez assumed for the HELD: The cases of Latasa, Lonzanida, Borja, Aldovino and Bandillo, were
remainder of the term. cited which all involve the application of the 3-term limit rule. The Court
however, considered the case as one of first impression and held that
Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor in the 11 May while the said cases involve the application of the 3-term limit rule, the
1998 and his opponent timely filed a petition to disqualify him for the factual and legal circumstances in those cases are different and the
same post. doctrinal values there do not directly address the issued of said case.
th

COMPARISON OF OLD CASES APPLYING THE THREE (3)-TERM LIMIT RULE
Naval vs. COMELEC Adormeo vs. Latasa vs. COMELEC Lonzanida vs. Borja vs. Aldovino Jr. vs. Bandillo vs.
COMELEC COMELEC COMELEC COMELEC COMELEC
Pertained to the Talaga, Jr., was The issue arose as a A candidate ran The mayor of The public office Two towns were
application of the 3- elected mayor of result of the for mayoralty post Pateros died and was preventively added to five of
term limit rule upon Lucena City in May conversion of a and won for 3 was succeeded in suspended which the 10 towns,
local elective official 1992. He served the municipality into a consecutive terms office by the VM. however did not which used to
whose district was full term. He was re- city wherein it was but was ousted He was not voted interrupt the comprise
RENAMED and/or elected in 1995-98 declared that there from office as a for the same elective official’s Camarines Sur’s
REAPPORTIONED. but lost in the 1998 was no interruption result of an office. term. and 1st District, to
election to Tagarao. of the incumbent’s election protest form the new 2nd
The Court noted In the recall mayor continuity of case. He was not Although he was District. The
that pursuant to elections of May service (municipal serving a term for barred from Comelec declined
said RA 9716, the 2000, Talaga, Jr. mayor to city Lonzanida did not which he was exercising the to apply the 3-
district which won and served the mayor). serve the full elected as he was functions of the term limit rule
elected him for the unexpired term of term. simply continuing position during against the
3rd and 4th time is Tagarao until 30 the service of the the period of elected Provincial
the same one which June 2001. official he suspension, his Board member on
brought him to succeeds, such continued stay the ground that
office in 2004 and The continuity of his official cannot be and entitlement to the addition of
2007. mayorship was considered to the office remain the 2 towns
disrupted by the have fully served the same. distinctively
defeat in the 1998 the term. created a new
elections, which is district, with an
considered as an altered territory
interruption in the and constituency.
continuity of
service.

The prohibition The rule does not The prohibition The rule does not The rule does not The prohibition The rule does not
applies apply applies apply apply applies apply

THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS (TENURES IN OFFICE) ARE NOT
CONSIDERED SERVICE OF TERM FOR PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE 3- The Court debunked the claim of Francis Ong that he was only a
TERM LIMIT presumptive winner in view of the ruling of the RTC that Alegre was the
1. Officer fills up a higher office by succession/operation of law; real winning candidate in the light of his being proclaimed by the MBOC
(Borja vs. COMELEC) coupled by his assumption of office and his continuous exercise of the
2. Officer is suspended from office (failed to serve full functions thereof from start to finish of the term, should legally be taken
term/involuntary); (?) as service for a full term in contemplation of the 3-term rule. Lonzanida
3. Officer unseated, ordered to vacate by reason of an election from which Ong sought refuge is not applicable in view of the
protest case; (Lonzanida vs. COMELEC) involuntary relinquishment of office before the expiration of his term.
4. Officer serving unexpired term after winning in the recall elections; (Same ruling in Rivera III vs. Comelec 523 SCRA) (Here, after the
5. Officer elected to a newly created legislative district (Bandillo case) expiration of term na yung ruling as to the election protest, unlike in
Lonzanida)
Ong vs. Alegre
479 SCRA 473 EFFECT OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Aldovino Jr., vs. Comelec
A petition for disqualification was filed against Francis Ong for having 609 SCRA 234 (2009)
violated the 3-term limit rule for having served as mayor of San Vicente
Camarines Norte in the May 1995, 1998 & 2001 elections. The Article X, Section 8 – both by structure and substance – fixes an elective
controversy revolves around the 1998-2001 mayoral term wherein the official’s term of office and limits his stay in office to 3 consecutive terms
election protest filed by Alegre was promulgated after the term of the as an inflexible rule that is stressed, no less, by citing voluntary
contested office has expired. renunciation as an example of circumvention. The provision should be
read in the context of interruption of term, NOT in the context of
ISSUE: Whether or not the assumption of Francis Ong as Mayor from July interrupting the full continuity of the exercise of the power of the
1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, may be considered as one full term service in elective position.
the context of the consecutive term limit rule.
(IN)VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION - refers only to the elective official’s
HELD: The Court declared that such assumption of office constitutes, for involuntary relinquishment of office and loss of title to this office. It does
Francis, “service for the full term” and should be counted as a full term not speak of the temporary “cessation of the exercise of power or
served in contemplation of the 3-term limit prescribed by the authority” that may occur for various reasons, with preventive
constitutional and statutory provisions, barring elective officials from suspension being only one of them.
being elected and serving for more than 3-consecutive terms.
th
Quoting Latasa – the law contemplates a rest period during which the • Followed by the true and correct name and address of the
local elective official steps down from office and ceases to exercise candidate or party for whose benefit the election propaganda was
power or authority over the inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of a printed or aired.
particular government unit.”
FREE OF CHARGE – if broadcast is given free of charge the radio and
EFFECTS OF DISQUALIFICATION television station, it shall be identified by the words:
• “Airtime for this broadcast was provided free of charge by”
Sec. 72 of the OEC and Section 6 of 6646 states: “any candidate who has • Followed by the true and correct name and address of the
been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted broadcast entity.
for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. • Provided that said print, broadcast donated shall not be published
or printed without the written acceptance of the candidate or
If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an political party which acceptance shall be attached to the
election to be disqualified and is voted for and received the winning advertising contract and submitted to the Comelec.
number of votes in such election, the Comelec shall continue with the
trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of GUIDELINES WHETHER BY PURCHASE OR DONATION – Print
the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof advertisements shall:
order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever • Not exceed ¼ page in broadsheet and ½ page in tabloids 3 x a
the evidence of guilt is strong.” week per newspaper, magazine or other publications during the
campaign period. (Section 6, RA 9006).
TWO REQUISITES BEFORE PROCLAMATION BE SUSPENDED DURING
PENDENCY OF ELECTION PROTEST: TELEVISION/RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS
a) Motion of the complainant or any intervenor; AND TV AD Radio AD
b) Whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. Not more than 120 Not more than 180
National candidates
minutes minutes
or registered political
CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA
party

ELECTION PERIOD Not more than 60 Not more than 90
Local candidates
minutes minutes of radio
• 120 days

• 90 days before the date of the election; and
• 30 days thereafter. GMA Network vs. COMELEC
• Which excludes the day before and the day of the elections. G.R. No. 205357, Sep. 2, 2014
(NOTE: Not discussed by Atty. Valencia)
CAMPAIGN PERIOD The above-mentioned time limits were held as unconstitutional in this
case as violative of the right of suffrage of the people to be adequately
• FOR PRESIDENT, VP, AND SENATORS - starts 90 days before
informed for the intelligent exercise of such birthright; candidates and
the date of the election
political parties need adequate breathing space, including the means to
• MEMBERS OF HR AND LOCAL CANDIDATES - starts 45 days
disseminate their ideas. This cannot be addressed by the very restrictive
• BARANGAY OFFICIALS – starts 15 days
manner by which the COMELEC implemented the time limits in regard of

political advertisements in the broadcast media.
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

COMELEC TIME AND SPACE
1. Section 80 BP881
• PRINT SPACE - Comelec shall pay just compensation (PPI ruling) in
Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period.
at least 3 newspapers of general circulation which Comelec shall
It shall be unlawful for any person whether or not a voter or candidate,
allocate free of charge to the national candidates.
or for any party or association of persons, to engage in an election
• BROADCAST NETWORK (RADIO AND TV) - free of charge to
campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign
period. Comelec. (Section 8, RA 9006)

LIMITATIONS IN BROADCASTING OF ELECTION ACCOUNTS
Provided, That political parties may hold political convention or meetings
to nominate their official candidates within 30 days before the Comelec shall ensure that radio and television or cable television
commencement of the campaign period and 45 days for President and broadcasting entities shall:
Vice-President. • Not allow the scheduling of any program or permit any sponsor to
manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or political party; or
2. RA 9006 (Fair Election Law), Section 3 • Unduly or repeatedly referring to or including said candidate
and/or political party in such program.
Election propaganda whether on television, cable television, radio, • Respecting, however, in all instances the right of said broadcast
newspapers or any other medium is hereby allowed for all registered entities to air accounts of significant news or newsworthy events
political parties, national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations and views on matter of public interest.
participating under the party-list elections and for all bona fide
candidates seeking national and local positions subject to the limitation RESTRICTIONS ON MEDIA PRACTITIONERS
on authorized expenses of candidates and political parties, observance • Any mass media columnist, commentator, reporter or non-air
of truth in advertising and to the supervision and regulation by the correspondent or personality who is a candidate for any elective
Comelec. office or is a campaign volunteer for or employed or retained in
any capacity by any candidate or political party shall be:
REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLISHED OR PRINTED BROADCAST ELECTION a) Deemed resigned if so required by their employer, or
PROPAGANDA b) Shall take a leave of absence from his/her work as such
during the campaign period.
RA 9006 now allows paid political advertisements for print and broadcast
media provided the said advertisement should: • Any media practitioner who is an official of a political party or
• Bear and be identified by reasonably legible or audible words member of the campaign staff of a candidate or political party
“Political advertisement paid for”
th
shall not use his/her time or space to favor any candidate or Comelec in its Resolution No. 9674 direct SWS and Pulse Asia as well as
political party. other survey firms of similar circumstance, to submit to Comelec the
names of all commissioners and payors of all surveys published from
• No movie, cinematography or documentary portraying the life or Feb. 12, 2013 to April 23, 2013, including those of their “subscribers”.
biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater,
television stations or any public forum during the campaign UNA wrote SWS to be furnished with the identity of persons who paid
period or those portrayed by an actor or media personality who is for the pre-election surveys. SWS replied but did not disclose the names.
himself a candidate. Hence, UNA wrote Comelec to direct SWS of furnish him with the names
pursuant to its Comelec Resolution 9674.
ELECTION SURVEYS (RA 9006 SECTION 5)
Rationale behind the power of Comelec under RA 9006 – implements
ELECTION SURVEYS - refer to the measurements of opinions and the constitutional desire to “guarantee equal access to opportunity for
perceptions of the voters as regards a candidate’s popularity, public service.” The Fair Elections Act represents the legislature’s
qualifications, platforms or matter of public discussion in relation the compliance with the requirement of Article XIII, Section 1. The mandate
election, including voters’ preference or candidates or publicly discussed for Congress to give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
issues during the campaign period. reduce political inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political
power for the common good. Further, the constitutional desire to
THE PERSON OR ENTITY THAT PUBLISHES A SURVEY IS REQUIRED TO “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service is the same
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: intent that animates the Constitution’s investiture in Comelec of the
1. Name of the person, candidate, party or organization who power to “supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all
commissioned or paid the survey; franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public
2. Name and address of the person or polling firm who conducted utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special
the survey; privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision.
3. Period during which the survey was conducted,
4. Methodology used; The inclusion of Election Surveys in RA 9006 in the list of items regulated
5. Including the number or individual respondents and is a recognition that Election Surveys are not a mere descriptive
6. The areas from which they were selected; and aggregation of data. Publishing surveys are a means to shape the
7. The specific questions asked; preference of voters, inform the strategy of campaign machineries, and
8. Margin of error of the survey. ultimately, affect the outcome of elections. Election surveys have a
similar nature as election propaganda. They are expensive, normally paid
The survey together with the raw data gathered to support the for by those interested in the outcome of the elections, and have
conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying and verification by tremendous consequences on election results.
the Comelec, or by the registered political party or any Comelec
accredited citizen arm. POSTING OF CAMPAIGN MATERIALS (SECTION 9 RA 9006)
• Political parties and party-list groups may be authorized by the
SOCIAL WEATHER STATION vs. COMELEC Comelec common poster areas for their candidates in not more
357 SCRA 496 than 10 public places such as plazas, markets, barangay centers
and the like, wherein, candidates can post, display or exhibit
FACTS: SWS is a private non-stock, non-profit social research institution election propaganda.
conducting surveys in various fields, including economics, politics, • The size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 x 16 feet or its
demography and social development, and thereafter, processing, equivalent.
analyzing and publicly reporting the results thereof. On the other hand, • With respect to independent candidates, they may likewise avail
Kamahalan Publishing Corporation publishes the Manila Standard, a of this but the difference is merely on the size, which shall not
newspaper of general circulation, which features newsworthy items of exceed 4 x 6 feet or its equivalent.
information including election surveys.
REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN ABROAD (RA 9189 SECTION 15)
Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the Comelec • The laws and regulations applicable to the Philippines shall govern
from enforcing par. 5.4 of RA 9006 that provides, “Surveys affecting the use of campaign materials, as well as the limits on campaign
national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an spending.
election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published
seven (7) days before an election”. EFFECTS (ALTHOUGH CONFLICTING) OF SURVEY ON VOTERS BEHAVIOR
HAVE BEEN POSTULATED:
Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an election survey (B-U-M-D-S-F)
throughout the period of the elections both at the national and local 1) BANDWAGON effect - where the “electors rally to support the
levels and release to the media the results of such survey as well as candidate leading in the polls. This assumes that knowledge of a
publish them directly. Kamahalan also states that it intends to publish popular tide will likely change voting intentions in favor of the
election survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, frontrunner, that many electors feel more comfortable
2001. supporting a popular choice or that people accept the perceived
collective wisdom of other as being enough reason for supporting
HELD: Par. 5.4 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom a candidate.
of speech, expression and the press. It is invalid because it imposes a
prior restraint on the freedom of expression and it is a direct and total 2) UNDERDOG effect - where electors rally to support the candidate
suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is trailing in the polls. This shift can be motivated by sympathy for
only for a limited period, and the governmental interest sought to be the perceived underdog.
promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of
freedom of expression. 3) MOTIVATING effect - where individuals who had not intended to
vote are persuaded to do so.
Social Weather Station, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc. vs. Comelec
755 SCRA 124 4) DEMOTIVATING effect - where voters abstain from voting out of
certainty that their candidate or party will win.

th
5) STRATEGIC voting - where voting is influenced by the chances of ISSUE (4): Whether ownership of facilities is different and independent
winning; and from the franchise or operation of the public utility, the former being
beyond the power of regulation by the Comelec.
6) FREE-WILL effect - where voters cast their ballots to prove the
polls wrong. Voters act in accordance with what is perceived to be HELD: The Comelec’s constitutionally delegated powers of supervision
an existing or emerging state of affairs with respect to how and regulation do not extend to the ownership per se of PUVs and
candidates are faring. transport terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to operate the
same. There is a marked difference between the franchise or permit to
PROHIBITED FORMS OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA operate transportation for the use of the public and the ownership per
I-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK), vs. Comelec se of the vehicles used for public transport.
755 SCRA 441
CAPTIVE-AUDIENCE DOCTRINE - when a listener cannot, as a practical

matter, escape from intrusive speech, the speech can be restricted. The
On January 15, 2013, the Comelec promulgated for the rules
doctrine recognizes that a listener has a right not to be exposed to an
implementing RA 9006 in connection with the May 13, 2013 national and
unwanted message in circumstances in which the communication cannot
local elections and subsequent elections.
be avoided.

Section 7 thereof, which enumerates the prohibited forms of election
The prohibition under the assailed provision of the Comelec Resolution is
propaganda provides – “To post, display or exhibit any election
not justified under the captive audience doctrine. The commuters are
campaign for propaganda material outside of authorized common poster
not forced or compelled to read the election campaign materials
areas, in public places or in private properties without the consent of the
posted on the PUVs and transport terminals nor are they incapable of
owner thereof.
declining to receive the message contained in the posted election

campaign materials since they may simply avert their eyes if they find
(g) PUBLIC PLACE referred to in the previous section (f) include any of
the same unbearably intrusive.
the following:

• (5) Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains, taxi
PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS (SECTION 95 OF BP881)
cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, whether motorized or not;
and
• (6) Within the premises of public transport terminals, such as No contribution for purposes of partisan political activity shall be made
bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train stations and directly or indirectly by any of the following:
the like. a) Public or private financial institutions;
XPN: Nothing herein shall prevent the making of any loan to a
Any violation shall cause the revocation of the public utility franchise and candidate or political party by any such public or private
will make the owner and/or jeepney operator of the transportation financial institutions legally in the business of lending money,
service liable for an election offense. and that the loan is made in accordance with laws and
regulations and in the ordinary course of the business;
In a letter, petitioner 1-Utak through its president sought clarification
from Comelec as regards the application of Section 7 (g) items 5 and 6 of b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public utility or in
Comelec Resolution No. 9615 in connection with privately-owned public possession of or exploiting any natural resources of the nation;

utility vehicles (PUV’s) and transport terminals. Petitioner requested
Comelec to reconsider the implementation of the assailed provisions and c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contract or sub-contract
allow private owners of PUV’s and transport terminals to post election to supply the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or
campaign materials on their vehicles and transport terminals. instrumentalities, with goods or services or to perform
construction or other works;
Comelec denied asserting that privately owned PUVs and transport
terminals are public places that are subject to its regulation pursuant to d) Natural and juridical persons who have been granted franchises,
the powers vested in it. Comelec points out that PUV’s and private incentives, exemptions, allocations or similar privileges or
transport terminals hold a captive audience – “the commuters, who concessions by the government or any of its divisions,
have no choice but be subject to the blare of political propaganda.” subdivisions or instrumentalities, including government-owned
or controlled corporations.
ISSUE (1): Whether the Resolution 9615 violates the right to free speech
of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals. e) Natural and juridical persons who, within the one year prior to
the date of the election, have been granted loans or other
HELD (1): YES Violative. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule accommodations in excess of 100K by the government or any of
violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities including
has no effect. government owned or controlled corporations.

ISSUE (2): Whether the Resolution is void as a restraint to free speech f) Educational institutions which have received grants of public
and expression for failure to satisfy the O’Brien Test. funds to no less than 100K; (100K or more)

HELD (2): Resolution constitute as prior restraint and unduly infringing g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or members of the
on the fundamental right of the people to freedom of speech. Comelec’s Armed Forces of the Philippines;
supervisory power does not extend to the very freedom of an
individual to express his preference of candidates in an election by h) Foreigners and foreign corporations.
placing election campaign stickers on his vehicle (Adiong).
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution
ISSUE (3): Whether the Constitutional objective to give an equal from any of the persons or entities enumerated herein. (Unlawful to
opportunity to inform the electorate is not impaired by posting political give and unlawful to receive)

advertisements on PUVs and transport terminals and
EXIT POLLS
ABS-CBN 323 SCRA 811

th
HELD: EXIT POLLS - as a specie of electoral survey conducted by qualified remove or cover the said billboards pending the resolution of the
individuals or groups of individuals for the purpose of determining the Comelec on his request for exemption.
probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly selected
voters whom they have voted for, immediately after they have officially Aggrieved, Chavez sent to the SC via a petition for prohibition seeking
cast their ballots. the said provision as unconstitutional based on the following grounds –
• It was a gross violation of the non-impairment clause;
An absolute prohibition is unreasonably restrictive because it effectively • An invalid exercise of police power;
prevents the use of exit poll data not only for election days of the • In the nature of an ex post facto law;
elections, but also for long-term research. The concern of Comelec of a • Contrary to the Fair Elections Act;
non-communicative effect of the exit polls which is disorder and • Invalid due to overbreadth.
confusion in the voting centers does not justify a total ban of the exist
polls. Comelec should instead set safeguards in place for those who ISSUE: Is Section 32 of Comelec Resolution No. 6520 an invalid exercise
intend to conduct exit polls. of police power?

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TAKING EXIT POLLS [Section 5.5 of RA 9006 Petitioner argues: the billboards (even if it bears his name) do not at all
(Fair Elections Law)] announce his candidacy for any public office nor solicit for such
a) Pollsters shall not conduct their survey within 50 meters from candidacy from the electorate; they are mere product endorsements
the polling place whether said survey is taken in a home, and not election propaganda. Prohibition is not within the scope of
dwelling place and other places; power of the Comelec.
b) Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing;
c) Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to answer; HELD: NO. Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the
and power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morale, peace,
d) The result of the exit polls may be announced after the closing education, good order or safety of the general welfare of the people. The
of the polls on election day, and must clearly identify: primary objective of the provision is to prohibit premature campaigning
• The total number of respondents, and and to level the playing field for candidates of public office, to equalize
• The places where they were taken. the situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand and
• Said announcement shall state that the same is unofficial lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by preventing the
and does not represent a trend. former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on
account of their resources and popularity. This is a valid reason for the
PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING exercise of police power as held in the Philippines Press Institute v.
Comelec case.
Section 80 of the OEC provides “it shall be unlawful for any person,
whether or not a voter or candidate or for any party, or association of It is true that when petitioner entered into the contract or agreements
persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity, to endorse certain products, he acted as a private individual and had all
except during the campaign period.” the right to lend his name and image to these products. However, when
he filed his COC for senator, the billboards featuring his name and image
assumed partisan political character because the same directly
Francisco Chavez v. Comelec et. al.
promoted his candidacy. If subject billboards were to be allowed,
G.R. No. 162777 31 August 2004
candidates for public office whose name and image are used to advertise
commercial products would have more opportunity to make themselves
FACTS: Chavez brought before the SC a Petition for Prohibition with known to the electorate, to the disadvantage of other candidates who
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as taxpayer do not have the same chance of lending their faces and names to
and citizen asking the Court to enjoin the Comelec from enforcing endorse popular commercial products as image models.
Section 21 of its Resolution No. 6520 dated 06 January 2004.
Similarly, an individual intending to run for public office within the next
Sec. 32 thereof provides: All propaganda materials such as posters, few months could pay private corporations to use him as their image
streamers, stickers or paintings on walls and other materials showing the model with the intention of familiarizing the public with his name and
picture or name of a person and all advertisements on print, in radio or image even before the start of the campaign period. This, without doubt,
on television showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, would be a circumvention of the rule against premature campaigning.
who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a
candidate for public office shall be immediately removed by said ISSUE: Is it violative of the non-impairment clause?
candidate and radio station, print media or television station within 3
days after the effectivity of these implementing rules; otherwise, he and HELD: NO. Section 32 neither violated the non-impairment clause as this
the said radio station, print media or television station shall be must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government. Equal
presumed to have conducted premature campaigning in violation of Sec. opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without regard to the
80 of the OEC. level of financial resources one may have at his disposal, is a vital
interest to the public.
Chavez on various dates entered in formal agreement with certain
establishment to endorse their products and pursuant thereto, 3 bill Contracts affecting public interest contain an implied reservation of the
boards were set up on some strategic areas in Metro Manila. police power as a postulate of the existing legal order. This power can be
Subsequently on 30 December 2003, Chavez filed his certificate of activated at anytime to change the provisions of the contract, or even
candidacy for the position of Senator. On 06 January 2004, Comelec abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or protection of the general
issued Resolution No. 6520, which contained Section 32. Comelec welfare. Such an act will not militate against the impairment clause,
directed Chavez to comply with the said provision and replied how he which is subject to, and limited by the paramount police power.
may have violated the assailed provision.
ISSUE: Is Sec. 32 of the Comelec Resolution in the nature of an ex post
Another letter was sent seeking exemption from the application of facto law?
Section 32, considering that the billboard adverted to are mere product
endorsements and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for premature HELD: NO. Not ex post facto – the offense as expressly prescribed in
campaigning under the rules. Comelec replied by informing him to Section 32, is the non-removal of the described propaganda materials
three (3) days after the effectivity of the said Resolution. If the candidate

th
for public office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the and that one who files to meet the early deadline “will still NOT be
given period, he shall be liable under Section 80 of the OEC for considered as a candidate.”Also in this case, the SC provided for the –
premature campaigning. Nowhere is it indicated in the said provision
that it shall operate retroactively. TWO ASPECTS OF A DISQUALIFICATION CASE
ELECTORAL ASPECT CRIMINAL ASPECT
ISSUE: Is the provision a violation of the Fair Elections Act as billboards Whether the offender Whether there is probable
are already permitted as lawful election propaganda? should be disqualified cause to charge a
Issue
from being a candidate candidate for an election
HELD: It was ruled that the provision does not prohibit billboards as or from holding office. offense.
lawful election propaganda. It only regulates their use to prevent If there is probable cause,
premature campaigning and to equalize, as much as practicable, the the Comelec through its
situation of all candidates by preventing popular and rich candidates Law Department, files the
from gaining undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of criminal information
their resources and popularity. Comelec was only doing its duty under Nature of
Summary in character. before the proper court.
the law (Sec. 3 and 13 of the Fair Elections Act on lawful propaganda) proceedings

Proceedings before the
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING proper court demand a
full-blown hearing.
Lanot v. Comelec Only clear Requires proof beyond
Evidence
507 SCRA 114 (2006) preponderance of reasonable doubt to
required
evidence convict.
Thus, the essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the OEC are: An erring candidate A criminal conviction shall
1. The person engages in an election campaign or partisan political may be disqualified result in the
activity; even without prior disqualification of the
2. The act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a Effect determination of offender, which may even
particular candidate or candidates; probable cause in a PI. include disqualification
3. The act is done outside the campaign period. from holding a future
public office.
The second element requires the existence of a “candidate”. Under Independence The electoral aspect may proceed independently of
Section 79(a), a candidate is one who “has filed a certificate of of proceedings the criminal aspect and vice-versa.
candidacy” to an elective public office. Unless one has filed his CoC, he is
not a “candidate.” Penera v. Comelec
599 SCRA 609
The third element requires the campaign period has not started when
the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed. Acts committed by Penera prior to 30 March 2007, the date when she
became a “candidate”, even if constituting election campaigning or
Assuming that all candidates to a public office file their CoC on the last partisan political activities, are not punishable under Section 80 of the
day, which under Section 75 of the OEC is the day before the start of the OEC. Such acts are within the realm of a citizen’s protected freedom of
campaign period, then no one can be prosecuted for violation of Section expression. Acts committed by Penera within the campaign period are
80 for acts done prior to such last day. (kay di paman sila candidate not covered by Section 80 as Section 80 punishes only acts outside the
before filing the COC) Before such last day, there is no “particular campaign period.”
candidate or candidates” to campaign for or against. On the day
immediately after the last day of filing, the campaign period starts and FACTS: Penera and Andanar were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica in
Section 80 ceases to apply since Section 80 covers only acts done the last May 14, 2007 elections. Andanar filed before the Office of the
“outside” the campaign period. Regional Election Director, Caraga Region, Region XIII, a petition for
disqualification against Penera for unlawfully engaging in election
In this case, there is no dispute that Eusebio’s acts of election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the commencement
campaigning or partisan political activities were committed outside the of the campaign period.
campaign period.
The Petition alleged that on 29 March 2007, a day before the start of the
ISSUE: The only question is whether Eusebio, who filed his CoC on 29 authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007, Penera and her
December 2003, was a “candidate” when he committed those acts partymates went around the different barangays in Sta. Monica,
before the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004. announcing their candidacies and requesting the people to vote for them
on the day of the elections. Penera alleged that the charge was not true
Section 11 of RA 8436 (AES Law) moved the deadline for the filing of CoC although having admitted that a motorcade did take place which was
to 120 days before Election Day. Thus, the original deadline was moved simply in accordance with the usual practice in nearby cities and
from 23 March 2004 to 2 January 2004 or 81 days earlier. The crucial provinces, where the filing of COC was preceded by a motorcade, which
question is: Did this change in the deadline for the filing the CoC make dispersed soon after the completion of such filing. Penera in her defense
one who filed his certificate of candidacy before 2 January 2004 cited Barroso v. Ampig (385 Phil 2237; 328 SCRA 530) wherein the Court
immediately liable for violation of Section 80 if he engaged in election ruled that a motorcade held by candidates during the filing of their COC’s
campaign or partisan political activities prior to the start of the campaign was not a form of political campaigning. Pending the disqualification
period on 24 March 2004? case, Penera was proclaimed as winner and assumed office.

Thus, because the early deadline of 2 January 2004 for purposes of HELD: In granting Penera’s MR, the SC En Banc held that Penera did not
printing of official ballots, Eusebio filed his CoC on 29 December 2003. engage in premature campaigning and should thus, not be disqualified as
Congress, however, never intended the filing of a CoC before 2 January a mayoralty candidate. The Court said-
2004 to make the person filing to become immediately a “candidate” for
purposes other than the printing of ballots. This legislative intent a) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision (or the assailed Decision)
prevents the immediate application of Section 80 of the OEC to those considered a person who files a certificate of candidacy already a
filing to meet the early deadline. The clear intention of Congress was to “candidate” even before the start of the campaign period. This is
preserve the “election periods as fixed by existing law” prior to RA 8436
th
contrary to the clear intent and letter of Section 15 of RA 8436, as contradictory – reversing Lanot but maintaining the constitutionality of
amended, which stated that a person who files his certificate of the said provision.
candidacy will only be considered a candidate at the start of the
campaign period, and unlawful acts or omission applicable to a CANVASSING BODIES
candidate shall take effect only upon the start of such campaign
period. In applying the said law – MANUAL CANVASSING

1. The effective date when partisan political acts become
Section 221, BP 881/RA 6646, Section 20 - Boards of Canvassers (Local
unlawful as to a candidate is when the campaign period
Boards). There shall be a board of canvassers for each province, city and
starts. Before the start of the campaign period, the same
municipality as follows:
partisan political acts are lawful;
a) PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS
2. Accordingly, a candidate is liable for an election offense only
• Chairman – Election supervisor or a lawyer in the regional
for acts done during the campaign period, not before. In
office of the Commission
other words, election offenses can be committed by a
• Vice Chairman – the provincial fiscal; and
candidate only upon the start of the campaign period.
Before the start of the campaign period, such election • Member – the provincial superintendent of schools.

offenses cannot be committed. Since the law is clear, the
b) CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS
Court has no recourse but to apply it. The forum for
examining the wisdom of the law, and enacting remedial • Chairman – city election registrar or a lawyer of the
measures, is not the Court but the Legislature. Commission;
⇒ In cities with more than one election registrar, the
b) Contrary to the assailed Decision, Section 15, of RA 8436, as Commission shall designate the election registrar
amended, does not provide that partisan political acts done by a as chairman.
candidate before the campaign period are unlawful, but may be • Vice Chairman – the city fiscal;
prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign period. Neither • Member – the city superintendent of schools.
does the law state that partisan political acts done by a candidate
before the campaign period are temporarily lawful, but becomes c) MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS
unlawful upon the start of the campaign period. Besides, such a • Chairman – the election registrar or a representative of
law as envisioned in the Decision, which defines a criminal act and the Commission;
curtails freedom of expression and speech, would be void for • Vice Chairman – the municipal treasurer;
vagueness. • Member – the most senior district school supervisor or in
his absence a principal of the school district or the
c) That Section 15 of RA 8436 does not expressly state that elementary school.
campaigning before the start of the campaign period is lawful, as
the assailed decision asserted, is no moment. It is a basic principle AES ELECTRONIC CANVASSING
of law that any act is lawful unless expressly declared unlawful by
law. The mere fact that the law does not declare an act unlawful BOARD OF CANVASSERS
ipso facto means that the act is lawful.
(1) CBOC AND MBOC shall canvass the votes for:
Thus, there is no need for Congress to declare in Section 15 of RA 8436 • President;
that partisan political activities before the start of the campaign period • VP;
is lawful. It is sufficient for Congress to state, “Any unlawful act or • Senators; and
omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start • Parties, organization or coalitions participating under the
of the campaign period.” The only inescapable and logical result is that party-list system
the same acts, if done before the start of the campaign period, are o By consolidating the electronically transmitted results contained
lawful. in the data source devices used in the printing of the ER.
o Upon completion of the canvass, it shall print the certificate of
d) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision further explained its canvass of votes for Pres, VP, senators and members of the HR and
ruling in Lanot v. Comelec (G.R. No. 164858, 16 November 2006). elective provincial officials; and
Lanot was decided on the ground that one who files a certificate of o Thereafter, proclaim the elected city or municipal officials, as the
candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign case may be.
period. This ground was based on the deliberations of the o Statement of Votes shall support each the municipal, city, district
legislators who explained that the early deadline for filing COC and provincial certificate of canvass of votes.
under RA 8436 was set only to afford time to prepare the machine o “Within 1-hour after canvassing, the Chairman of the district or
readable ballots, and they intended to preserve the existing provincial Board of Canvassers or the city board of canvassers of
election period, such that one who files his COC to meet the early those cities which comprise one or more legislative districts shall
deadline will still not be considered as a candidate. electronically transmit the Certificates of Canvass to:
§ The Commission sitting as the national board of
When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress decided to expressly canvassers (NBOC) for senators and party-list rep and
incorporate the Lanot doctrine into law, thus, the provision in Section § To the Congress as the NBOC for the president and VP
15, of RA 8436 that a person who files his certificate of candidacy shall directed to the President of the Senate.
be considered a candidate only at the start of the campaign period.
Congress wanted to insure that no person filing a certificate of candidacy
⇒ “The certificate of canvass transmitted electronically
under the early deadline required by the automated election system
and digitally signed shall be considered as official
would be disqualified or penalized for any partisan political act done
election results and shall be used as the basis for the
before the start of the campaign period. This provision cannot be
proclamation of a winning candidate”. (RA 9369).
annulled by the Court except on the sole ground of its

unconstitutionality. The assailed Decision, however, did not claim that
(2) COMELEC
this provision is unconstitutional. In fact, the assailed Decision
• National Board of Canvassers for Senators and Party-List
considered the entire Section 15 good law. Thus, the Decision was self-
Representatives

th
• Composed of the Chairman and members of the Commission been said, and properly, that its powers are limited generally to the
sitting en banc. mechanical or mathematical function of ascertaining and declaring the
• It shall canvass the results by consolidating the certificates of apparent result of the election by adding or compiling the votes cast
canvass electronically transmitted and thereafter proclaim for each candidate as shown on the face of the returns before them,
the winning candidates for senators and party-list rep. and then declaring or certifying the result so ascertained.
(Section 27, RA 9369)
The simple purpose and duty of the canvassing board is to ascertain and
(1) CONGRESS declare the apparent result of the voting while all other questions are to
• Senate and HR in joint public session as NBOC for President be tried before the court or other tribunal for contesting elections or in
and VP. quo warranto proceedings.
• Senate President shall open all the certificates not later than
30 days after the day of the election. (Section 28, RA 9369) In the case at bar, the MBOC motu propio suspended Ibrahim’s
proclamation when the issue of the latter’s eligibility is a matter which
CONSOLIDATION AND CANVASS OPERATORS the board has no authority to resolve. Further, under Section 644 of R.A.
• An Information Technology – capable person authorized to 6646, the COMELEC and not the MBOC has the authority to order the
operate the Consolidation and Canvass System (CCS), shall suspension of a winning candidates’s proclamation. Such suspension can
assist each of the BOC, to be known as CCS operators who only be ordered upon the motion of a complainant or intervenor relative
shall be deputized by the Commission. (Section 7, RA 9369) to a case for disqualification, or a petition to deny due course or cancel a
certificate of candidacy pending before the COMELEC, and only when the
LIMITATIONS evidence of the winning candidate’s guilt is strong. Besides, the
COMELEC en banc itself could not have properly ordered Ibrahim’s

disqualification because in taking cognizance of the matter, it had
(1) BP881, Section 222. Relationship with Candidates and other
already exceeded its jurisdiction.
members of the Board. The chairman and the members of the

boards of canvassers shall not be related within the 4th civil degree
STATUTORY POWER OF SUPERVISION OF COMELEC OVER THE BOC
of consanguinity or affinity to:
a. The power to revise, reverse or set aside the action of the
• Any of the candidates whose votes will be canvassed by the
boards, as well as to do what the boards should have done, even
said board; or
if questions relative thereto have not been elevated by an
• To any member of the same board.
aggrieved party to the COMELEC, for such power includes the

power to initiate motu proprio or by itself such steps or actions
(2) BP881, Section 224. Feigned Illness. Any member of the board of
as may be required pursuant to law.
canvassers feigning illness in order to be substituted on Election
b. Such authority as reviewing the actions of the board, extending
Day until the proclamation of the winning candidates shall be guilty
an inquiry of questions affecting the genuineness of election
of an election offense.
returns beyond the election records of the polling places

involved;
Section 30, RA 7166 – Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for
c. Annulling canvass or proclamation based on incomplete returns
the election of President and Vice-President: Determination of
or on incorrect or tampered returns;
Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates of Canvass. –
d. Invalidating a canvass or proclamation made in an unauthorized
1. CONGRESS – for Pres. & VP (Sec. 4, Article VII)
meeting of the Board of Canvassers either because it lacked a
2. COMELEC – Senators and Regional Officials –
quorum or because the board did not meet at all, or
3. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS – Members of the HR and
e. Requiring the board to convene by deputizing and instructing
provincial officials (composed of the PES, Provincial Prosecutor
the City Treasurer to convene the Boards of Canvassers for the
and provincial official of the DepEd
respective localities involved. (Aratuc vs. COMELEC)
4. DISTRICT BOC in each legislative district in MM – members of

the HR and municipal officials
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
5. CITY AND MBOC – member of the HR, city and municipal
officials composed of the city or municipal EO, City Prosecutor • It is an election document issued by the BEIs after the counting
and DepEd Superintendent and announcement of the results and before leaving the polling
place upon request of the accredited watcher.
SPECIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS (RA 9189, SECTION 18.4) • It shall contain the number of votes obtained by each candidate
RA 9189, Section 18 (4) – A Special Board of Canvassers composed of: written in words and figures, precinct #, name of the city or
municipality signed and thumb marked by each member of the
• Chairman – A lawyer preferably of the Commission;
board.
• Vice Chairman – a senior career officer from any of the

government agencies maintaining a post abroad;
• Member Secretary – Typoco vs. Comelec
o Another government officer; 614 SCRA 391
o In the absence thereof, a citizen of the Philippines In Garay v. Comelec 261 SCRA 222 (1996) the Court held that: a
qualified to vote under this Act deputized by the certificate of votes does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true
Commission. and genuine results of the election; only election returns are, pursuant
to Sections 231, 233-236 and 238 of BP881.” Again in De Guzman v.
… Shall be constituted to canvass election returns submitted to it by the Comelec 426 SCRA 698 (2004) the Court stated that, in an election
Special Boards of Elections Inspectors. “The Certificates of Canvass and contest where the correctness of the number of votes is involved, the
the accompanying Statements of Votes as transmitted via facsimile, best and most conclusive evidence are the BALLOTS themselves; where
electronic mail and any other means of transmission equally safe, secure the ballots cannot be produced or are not available, the ELECTION
and reliable shall be the primary basis for the national canvass. RETURNS would be the best evidence.”

KAMARUDIN K. IBRAHIM vs. COMELEC and BUAGAS a) BALLOTS;
G.R. No. 192289 January 8, 2013 b) In the absence thereof, ELECTION RETURNS.

The board of canvassers is a ministerial body. It is enjoined by law to ARIEL G. DE GUZMAN vs. COMELEC and NESTOR B. PULIDO
canvass all votes on election returns submitted to it in due form. It has [G.R. No. 159713. March 31, 2004]

th
th
4 COMELEC PBOC
In an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes is Dominant majority party Dominant majority
involved: as may be determined by party as may be
th
• The best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots 5 the Comelec in accordance determined by the
themselves; with law Comelec in accordance
• Where the ballots cannot be produced or are not available, the with law
election returns would be the best evidence. Dominant minority party Dominant minority
th as may be determined by party as may be
6
Doromal vs. Biron/Comelec Comelec in accordance determined by Comelec
613 SCRA 160 (2010) with law in accordance with law
Citizens Arms authorized Citizen’s Arms for
The certificate of votes, which contains the number of votes obtained by by the Comelec to conduct unofficial count.
th
each candidate, is issued by the BEI upon the request of the duly 7 an unofficial count to be
accredited watcher pursuant to Section 16 of RA 6646. deposited inside the ballot
box.
Relative to its evidentiary value, Section 17 of RA 6646 provides that Deposited inside the Deposited inside the
Sections 235 and 236 of BP 881 notwithstanding, the Certificate of Votes th compartment of the ballot compartment of the
8
shall be admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration, box for valid ballots. ballot box for valid
falsification or any anomaly committed in the preparation of the ballots.
election returns concerned, when duly authenticated by at least two
members of the BEI who issued the certificate. THE 30 CERTIFIED PRINTED COPIES FOR NATIONAL POSITIONS
14 copies To accredited major and national parties in accordance
Failure to present the CV shall however not bar the presentation of other with a voluntary agreement among them. Otherwise
evidence to impugn the authenticity of the ER. It cannot be a valid basis Comelec shall decide.
of canvass. 3 copies To the 3 accredited major local parties (same provision).
5 copies To the national broadcast or print media entities as may
Purpose of requiring authentication of at least 2 members of the BOC: equitably be determined by the Commission.
to safeguard the integrity of the certificate from the time it is issued by 2 copies To local broadcast & print media
the BEI to the watcher after the counting of votes at the precinct level up 4 copies To major citizen arms and accredited citizen arm.
to the time that it is presented to the board of canvassers to prove 1 copy To be place inside the ballot box
tampering.
1 last copy To the PBC.

FUNCTIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM
• Prevent or deter the members of the BEI or other official from
Section 19 RA 6369 amended Sec. 18 of RA 8436. “Sec. 22” –
altering the statement because they know of the existence of
• Each copy of the printed election returns shall bear the appropriate
such certificate.
control marks to determine the time and place of printing.
• To advise the candidate definitely of the number of his votes so
• Each copy shall be signed and thumbmarked by all the members of
that in case the election statement submitted to the BOC does
the BEI and watchers present.
not tally with the certificate in his hands, he may ask that the
• The chairman of the boards shall then publicly read and announce
other authentic copies of the same be used for the canvass.
the total number of registered voters who actually voted and the
• To serve as evidence of fraud in election protest cases and in
total numbers of votes obtained by each candidate based on the
subsequent prosecution of the election offenses against those
election returns.
liable therefore.
• Thereafter, the copies of the election returns shall be sealed and

placed in the proper envelopes for distribution.
STATEMENT OF VOTES
• Immediately after the 8th copy is printed, the poll clerk shall
• It is the tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the announce the posting of said copy on the wall within the premises
candidates or reflected in the ER. of the polling place or counting center, which must sufficiently be
lighted and accessible to the public.
CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS
• Any person may view or capture an image of the election return by
• It is based on the SV; and means of any data capturing device such as, but not limited to
• Serves as basis for proclamation. cameras at any time of the day for 48 hours following its posting.
• After such period (48hrs), the chairman of the BEI shall detach the
DISPOSITION OF ELECTION RETURNS ER from the wall and to be produced as may be requested by any
voter for image or data capturing or for any lawful purpose as may
MANUAL ELECTIONS be ordered by competent authority.
• Within one (1) hour after the printing of the ER, the chairman of
Election Returns and Distribution – Section 27 of RA 7166, as amended the BEI or any official authorized by the Comelec shall, in the
by RA 8045 and RA 8173, provides that in the election for, the ER shall be presence of watchers and representatives of the accredited citizens
distributed as follows: keep the same in his custody arm, political parties/candidates, if any, electronically transmit the
precinct results to the respective levels of the BOC, the dominant
COPIES OF PRESIDENT, VP, SENATORS majority and minority party, to the accredited citizen’s arm, and to
ELECTION AND MEMBERS OF THE HR LOCAL OFFICIALS the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster ng Pilipinas (KBP).”
RETURNS • The election results at the city/municipality canvassing centers
st
1 CBO or MBOC CBO or MBOC shall be transmitted in the same manner by the election officer or
Posted on a wall within the Posted on a wall within any official authorized by the commission to the district or
nd
2 premises of the polling the premises of the provincial canvassing centers.
place polling place • The election returns transmitted electronically and digitally
rd CONGRESS, directed to the COMELEC signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be
3 used as the basis for the canvassing of votes and the
Pres. of the Senate
proclamation of a candidate.
th
• After the electronic results have been transmitted additional copies HELD: What is common in these three instances is the resulting failure to
not to exceed 30 may be printed and given to requesting parties at elect.
their own expenses. (RA 9369) • In the first instance, no election was held;
• In the second, the election is suspended.
REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION • In the third instance, circumstances attending the
(Sections 5,6, & 7 of the OEC as amended by Sec. 4 of RA 7166) preparation, transmission, custody or canvas of the election
returns cause a failure to elect.
POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS
(SEC. 5 OF BP 881) And, the term FAILURE TO ELECT means nobody emerged as a winner.

GROUNDS (A-T-L-FO) PROCEDURAL RULES
a) Any serious cause such as violence; • On the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and
b) Terrorism; • After due notice and hearing; (There can be no hearing and the
c) Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, COMELEC can dismiss outright a petition if it lacks merit on its
d) Force Majeure; and face; Banaga Jr. vs. COMELEC; Pasandalan v. COMELEC)
e) Other analogous circumstances of such a nature that the • The Comelec may call for the holding or continuation of the
holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become impossible in any election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to
political subdivision. elect;
• On a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
• The Commission en banc
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
• May motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any interested

party, and
JURISDICTION
• After due notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are
afforded equal opportunity to be heard; • Any declaration of postponement, failure of election and calling
• (There can be no hearing and the COMELEC can dismiss outright for a special elections as provided in Section 5,6, & 7 shall be
a petition if it lacks merit on its face; Banaga Jr. vs. COMELEC; decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote
Pasandalan v. COMELEC) of its members. [Sec. 4 of RA 7166 (An Act Providing for the
• Shall postpone the election; Synchronized National and Local Elections]
• To a date which is reasonably close to the date of the election • This power is exclusively vested in the Comelec as ruled in the
not held, suspended or which resulted to a failure to elect but case of Sanchez v. Comelec 193 SCRA 849.
not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect. Loong v. Comelec
257 SCRA 1
FAILURE/ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS
(SEC. 6 OF BP 881) FACTS: A petition to declare failure of elections/annulment of elections
As reiterated in Dibaratun vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 367, citing Banaga Jr. v. on the ground of massive fraud in some municipalities was filed before
Comelec 336 SCRA 701 (2000) also in Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 517 proclamation. Comelec dismissed the petition for having been filed out
of time since it was filed only after petitioners realized that the
ANY OF THESE THREE (3) INSTANCES SHOULD BE PRESENT annulment of election would wipe out their lead.
a) The election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed on account of: HELD: It was ruled that the Comelec Resolution dismissing the petition
was arbitrary as no law provided for a reglementary period within
• Force majeure;
which to file a petition for annulment of elections if there is no
• Violence:
proclamation yet.
• Terrorism:

• Fraud or
Canicosa v. Comelec
• Other analogous causes. (Ex. natural calamities)
282 SCRA 512

b) The election in any polling place has been suspended before the
hour fixed by law for the closing of voting on account of FACTS: Canicosa filed with the Comelec a Petition to declare failure of
• FM; elections and to declare null and void the canvass and proclamation
• Terrorism; based on the following grounds (names of the RV did not appear on the
list, padlocks were not self locking among other) which was dismissed by
• Fraud or other analogous causes
the Comelec en banc on the ground that the allegations therein did not

justify the declaration of failure of elections.
c) After the voting and during the preparation and transmission of

the ER or in the custody of canvass thereof, such election results
Canicosa insists that it was error on the part of Comelec sitting en banc
in a failure to elect on the same grounds.
to rule on his petition, as a division should have first heard it.

TWO (2) CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR TO DECLARE A FAILURE OF
HELD: The matter relating to the declaration of failure of elections or the
ELECTIONS
allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise of QJ or
1. No voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date
adjudicatory functions. It involves an administrative function, which
fixed by law or, even if there was voting the election nevertheless
pertains to the enforcement and administration of all laws and
resulted in a failure to elect and
regulations relative to the conduct of elections.
2. The votes not cast would affect the results of the elections

(Carlos. V. Angeles)
Pasandalan vs. Comelec, et. al.

G.R. No. 150312 July 18, 2002
Coquilla v. Comelec

DOCTRINE: A petition for declaration of failure of elections is an
“extraordinary remedy” and therefore the petition must specifically
th
allege the essential grounds that would justify the same. Otherwise, the Ampatuan et. al. v. Comelec/Candao, et. al.
Comelec can dismiss the petition outright for lack of merit and no grave G.R. No. 149803, January 31, 2002
abuse of discretion can be attributed to it. The Comelec is mandated to
exercise this power with utmost circumspect to prevent disenfranchising FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition for declaration of failure of
voters and frustrating the electorate’s well.” elections in several municipalities in Maguindanao. During the pendency
of the hearing of said petition, the Comelec proclaimed petitioners as
FACTS: Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration of failure of election winners for the position of governor, vice-governor and board members.
on the ground that while voting was going on, Cafgus indiscriminately
fired their firearms causing the voters to panic and leave the polling Thereafter, the Comelec issued an order directing the continuation of
places without casting their votes and taking advantage of the situation, the hearing on the failure of elections and issued an order outlining the
the supporters of his opponent took the official ballots and filled them up procedure to be followed in the technical examination.
with his name, the BEI’s failed to affix their initials at the back of several
official ballots. Petitioners, relying on the case of Typoco, Jr. v. Comelec, contended that
by virtue of their proclamation, the only remedy left for private
Pasandalan, on the basis of the affidavits of his own poll watchers, respondents is to file an election protest, in which case, original
insists that a technical examination of the official ballots in the contested jurisdiction lies with the regular courts and that Comelec no longer has
precincts be made which would show that only a few persons wrote the jurisdiction to conduct a technical examination as it would defeat the
entries, citing the case of Typoco v. Comelec 319 SCRA 498 and Basher v. summary nature of a petition for declaration of failure of elections citing
Comelec 330 SCRA 736. several rulings that an election protest is the proper remedy for a losing
candidate after the proclamation of the winning candidates.
HELD: Comelec is not mandated to conduct a technical examination
before it dismisses a petition for nullification of election when the ISSUE: Whether the Comelec was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and
petition is, on its face, without merit. decide a petition for declaration of failure of elections after the winners
have already been proclaimed.
In the case of Typoco, petitioner buttressed his petition with
independent evidence that compelled the Comelec to conduct a HELD: It was ruled that the fact that the candidate proclaimed has
technical examination of the questioned returns. Typoco filed a Motion assumed office does not deprive the Comelec of its authority to annul
to Admit Evidence to prove that a substantial number of election returns any canvass and illegal proclamation.
were manufactured and claimed that the returns were prepared by only
one person based on the report of a licensed examiner of questioned In this case, it cannot be assumed that the proclamation of petitioners
documents who examined copies of the election returns. was legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were
held was put in issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of
However in this case, Pasandalan failed to attach independent and election results and/or declaration of failure of elections. The cases
objective evidence other than the self-serving affidavits of his own poll relied upon by petitioners that an election protest is the proper remedy
watchers. for a losing candidate after proclamation of the winning candidate
involved pre-proclamation controversies.
Basher v. COMELEC
330 SCRA 736 The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v. Comelec that “A pre-
proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of
GENERAL RULE: The fact that an election is actually held prevents as a election results, or failure of elections.”
rule, a declaration of failure of elections.
PRE-PROCLAMATION CASES ACTIONS FOR ANNULMENT OF
XPN: The Court, however, can annul an election if it finds that the ELECTION RESULTS OR FOR
election is attended with patent and massive irregularities and DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF
illegalities. ELECTIONS
Comelec is restricted to an The Comelec is duty-bound to
FACTS: A series of failed elections happened in Brgy. Maidan, examination of the election investigate allegations of fraud,
Municipality of Tugaya, Lanao del Sur during the 1997 Brgy. Elections. returns on their face. COMELEC is terrorism, violence and other
The election was reset to 30 August 1997. Due to the prevailing tension without jurisdiction to go beyond analogous causes conformably
in the locality, the voting started only at around 9 p.m. and lasted until or behind them and investigate with the OEC.
the early morning of the following day. election irregularities.
Summary in character. The Comelec may conduct
Basher filed a petition for the nullification of the election, which was technical examination of election
dismissed by the Comelec on the ground that actual voting had taken Properly limited to challenges documents and compare and
place. aimed against the BOC and analyze voters’ signatures and
proceedings before said board thumbprints in order to determine
HELD: The SC overturned the Comelec ruling because the election was relative to particular ER. whether or not the elections had
unauthorized and invalid. The electorate was not given sufficient notice indeed been free, honest and
that the election would push through after 9pm of the same day. Board of canvassers will not look clean.
Moreover, the voting did not comply with the procedure laid down by into allegations of irregularity that
the Comelec in its Resolution. are not apparent on the face of
ER’s that appear otherwise
Banaga Jr. vs. Comelec authentic and duly accomplished.
336 SCRA 701
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
The fact that a verified petition has been filed does not mean that a
hearing on the case should first be held before Comelec can act on it. JURISDICTION (BP 881 SEC. 242)
The petition must show on its face that the conditions necessary to
• The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-
declare a failure of elections are present. proclamation controversies.


th
• It may motu proprio and after due notice and hearing, order the 1. To correct manifest error in the certificate of canvass or ER
partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate- before it;
elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has 2. Authenticity and due execution of COC (SEC 68 of RA 9369
been made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with the amending Sec. 15 of RA 7166; Pimentel v. COMELEC);
succeeding sections. 3. Questions affecting the composition and proceedings of
the BOC. (Pimentel v. COMELEC)
Matalam v. Comelec
271 SCRA 733 MANDATORY TWO-STEP RULE OR PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN A
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY:
A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY is defined, as a general rule, any Sec. 20 of RA 7166 (repealing Sec. 245 OEC)
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the BOC which 1. Verbal objection to the inclusion of the ER; and
may be raised by any candidate or any registered political party or 2. To be formalized in writing within 24 hours.
coalition of political before the board or directly with the Comelec and • Failure to observe such rule is fatal to a candidate’s cause, leaving
on any matter raised under Sections 233-236 of the OEC in relation to him with no other remedy except an EP.
the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the • This cannot be cured by instituting a petition directly filed with
ER and Certificate of Canvass. the Comelec under Sec. 241.
• Editor’s way to reconcile the periods: This is before you file the
MATTERS THAT MAY BE RAISED BEFORE THE BOC notice of appeal within 48 hours from informing the BOC of your
1. On any matter raised under OEC – (D-M-T-D) intent to appeal.
o Section 233 – when ER are delayed, lost or destroyed;
o Section 234 – material defects in the ER; Sano Jr. vs. Comelec
o Section 235 – when ER appears to be tampered with or 611 SCRA 475
falsified; and
o Section 236 – discrepancies in the ER It is settled that a pre-proclamation controversy is summary in
o In relation to the (P-T-R-C-A) preparation, transmission, character; indeed, it is a policy of the law that pre-proclamation be
receipt, custody and appreciation of the ER and Certificate promptly decided, so as not to delay canvass and proclamation. The
of Canvass. board of canvassers will not look into allegations of irregularity that are
2. Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the BOC. not apparent on the face of ER’s that appear otherwise authentic and
3. To correct manifest error in the certificate of canvass or ER before duly accomplished.
it;
4. Authenticity and due execution of COC (SEC 68 of RA 9369 Macabago v. Comelec
amending Sec. 15 of RA 7166; Pimentel v. COMELEC); 392 SCRA 178

MATTERS THAT MAY BE RAISED BEFORE THE COMELEC HELD: The issues in a PPC is properly limited to challenges aimed against
1. Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the BOC. the BOC and proceedings before said board relative to particular ER to
which respondent should have made particular verbal objections
AUTHORITY OF THE COMELEC IN PPC subsequently reduced in writing.

GENERAL RULE: COMELEC exercises authority to decide PPC. SCOPE/ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED IN A PRE-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY
TWO INSTANCES: [BP 881 SECTION 243; COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE RULE 27 (4)]
(1) In appeals from the ruling of the BOC which is generally of two (I-I-D-M-M)
types: (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the BOC;
a. First type - are on questions contesting the composition or (b) The canvassed ER are incomplete, contain material defects,
proceedings of the BOC. appear to be tampered with, or falsified or contain
• Appeal therefrom must be taken by the contestant discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies
adversely affected within 3 days from such ruling to as mentioned in Sec. 233-236
the COMELEC; and (c) The ERs were prepared under duress, threats, coercion or
intimidation or
b. Second type - Ruling on questions contesting ER. (d) The ERs are obviously manufactured or not authentic
• The party adversely affected must immediately ⇒ Ocampo v. Comelec 235 SCRA 436, it was held that
inform the board that he intends to appeal from the this fact must be evident from the face of the said
ruling and the board shall enter said information in document. In the absence of a strong evidence
the minutes of the canvass; and establishing spuriousness of the returns, the basic
• Within 48 hours from the ruling, the adverse party rule is that the ER shall be accorded prima facie
must file with the board a written and verified status as bona fide reports of the results of the count
notice of appeal, and of the votes, which shall prevail for purposes of
• Within an unextendible period of 5 days thereafter, canvassing and proclamation.
he has to take the appeal to the Comelec. (e) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling
places are canvassed, the result of which materially affect the
(2) In petitions directly filed with it. standing of the aggrieved candidate. (Sec. 243)

EXCEPTIONS: Section 15 of RA 7166 • Under the AES in 2010 Elections – same scope and coverage.
• For purposes of the elections for Pres. and VP, Senators and
members of the HR, no PPC cases shall be allowed on matters STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY
relating the P-T-R-C-A of the ER or the certificate of canvass. Lagumbay v. Comelec
• XPN TO THE XPN: HOWEVER, this does not preclude the authority 16 SCRA 175 (1966)
of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written

complaint of an interested person:
Lagumbay doctrine is the prevailing case on statistical improbability
which states that:
th
• Where there exists uniformity of tallies in favor of candidates the proceedings to continue or when appropriate, order has been
belonging to one party and issued by the SC in a petition for certiorari.
• The systematic blanking out of the opposing candidates as
when all the candidates of one party received all the votes, ELECTION PROTEST
• Each of whom exactly the same number, and the opposing
candidates got zero votes; DEFINITION
• The election returns are obviously manufactures, contrary to al • Special statutory proceedings designed to contest the right of a
statistical improbabilities and utterly improbable and clearly person, declared elected to enter upon and hold office.
incredible. • It is strictly a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates as to who actually obtained the majority of the legal
Velayo v. Comelec votes and therefore, is entitled to hold office.
327 SCRA 713
NATURE OF ELECTION PROTEST PROCEEDING
A PPC is summary in nature, administrative in character and which is • It is a formal judicial proceeding that goes into the correctness of
filed before the BOC. It was ruled that while it is true that RA 7166 the counting and appreciation of ballots at the precinct level
provides for summary proceedings in PP cases and does not require a where the parties are allowed to present and examine evidence in
trial type hearing, nevertheless, summary proceedings couldn’t be detail.
stretched as to mean ex-parte proceedings. (So, other parties must be • (Pacanan vs. COMELEC) An election contest, unlike an ordinary
given opportunity to present evidence also). civil action, is clothed with a public interest. The purpose of an
election protest is to ascertain that the candidate proclaimed by
FACTS: Respondent objected to the inclusion of two (2) ER’s, which did the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is
not contain a vote for respondent being statistically improbable which sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the
was overruled by the BOC. basis of proclamation of the winning candidate.
• An election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication
HELD: It was ruled that it is possible for a candidate to get zero votes in of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but
one or few precincts. The bare fact that a candidate receive zero votes in paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved and
1 or 2 precincts can not support a finding that the ER are statistically the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of the
improbable. (Exception to the Lagumbay Doctrine) electorate. And the court has the corresponding duty to ascertain,
by all means within its command, who is the real candidate
Ocampo v. Comelec elected by the people.
325 SCRA 636
WHO CAN FILE
It was reiterated that if only one candidate obtained all the votes in • Can only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
some precincts, this is not sufficient to make the election returns candidacy and has been voted for.
statistically improbable.
PERIOD TO FILE
Rommel Munoz vs. Comelec, Carlos Balido Jr. • Within 10 days from proclamation
495 SCRA 407
GROUNDS (F-V-T-F-M-D-O)
RESULTS OF THE ELECTIONS – this phrase is not statutorily defined. • Fraud;
However, as explained in Lucero v. Comelec it means “the net result of • Vote-buying;
the election the rest of the precincts in a given constituency, such that if
• Terrorism;
the margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest rival in the
• Presence of flying voters;
latter precincts is less than the total number of votes in the precinct
• Misreading and misappreciation of the ballots;
where there was failure of election, then such failure would certainly
• Disenfranchisement of voters; and
affect “the results of the elections.”
• Other election irregularities.

EFFECT OF ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE OF CANDIDATE ELECT/WHEN PPC IS
THE STANDARDS TO BE OBSERVED IN AN ELECTION CONTEST
NOT DEEMED TERMINATED
• A pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable after the
proclamation of the winning candidates as the issues raised Jaime C. Regio vs. Comelec and Ronnie C. Go.
therein may be more closely examined and better resolved in an 711 SCRA 448 citing Rosal v. Comelec 518 SCRA 473 (2007)
EP. (RA 7166, Section 16 (2)).
• However, this is only true where the proclamation is based on a FACTS: Go challenged the proclamation of Regio. Go filed an election
complete canvass and on the assumption that the proclamation is protest and ballots were subject to revision. Go won in the revision and
valid. now claims to have won on the basis thereof. Comelec upon MR
• XPN: Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is reversed MeTC and 2nd and declared Go. Go did not submit any
no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s assumption evidence that the integrity of the ballots were preserved except for the
of office cannot deprive the Comelec of the power to declare such allegation that there were no news report as to the manner the ballot
nullity and annul the proclamation. boxes were delivered etc.
• Section 16 of RA 7166 provides that all-pre-proclamation cases
pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at In Rosal, the SC summarized the standards to be observed in an election
the beginning of the term of office involved and the rulings of the contest predicated on the theory that the election returns do not
boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, accurately reflect the will of the voters due to alleged irregularities in the
without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the appreciation and counting of ballots.
aggrieved party.
• HOWEVER, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the GUIDING STANDARDS:
evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the 1. Ballots cannot be used to overturn the official results as reflected
petition appears meritorious and accordingly issued an order for in the election returns unless it is first shown affirmatively that
the ballots have been preserved with a care which precludes the

th
opportunity of tampering and suspicion of change, abstraction or
substitution; EXCEPTIONS TO LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION POLICY:
2. The burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been 1. When the amendment to pleadings in an election contest will
preserved in such a manner is on the protestant; substantially change the cause of action, defense, or theory of the
3. Where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law, proof case;
must be made of such substantial compliance with the 2. When the amendment will alter a final judgment on a substantial
requirements of that mode as would provide assurance that the matter;
ballots have been kept inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations 3. When the amendment will confer jurisdiction upon the court
from the precise mode of achieving that end; when none existed before;
4. It is only when the protestant has shown substantial compliance 4. When it seeks to cure a premature or non-existent cause of
with the provisions of law on the preservation of ballots that the action;
burden of proving actual tampering or likelihood thereof shifts to 5. When the amendment is intended to delay the proceedings of the
the protestee; and case
5. Only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court or Comelec that
the integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it adopt the Douglas R. Cagas v. Comelec/Bautista
result as shown by the recount and not as reflected in the 663 SCRA 644 (2012)
election returns.

The Court has no power to review on certiorari an interlocutory order
Rosal was promulgated precisely to honor the presumption of regularity
or even a final resolution issued by a Division of the Comelec. The
in the performance of official functions. Following Rosal, it is presumed
governing provision is Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution,
that the BEI and the BOC had faithfully performed the solemn duty
which provides: Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
reposed onto them during the day of the elections. Primacy is therefore
Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the
accorded to the official results of the canvassing, even in cases where
date of its submission for decision or resolution.
there is a discrepancy between such results and the results of the

revision proceedings.
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon

the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
It is only when the protestant successfully discharged the burden of
rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself.
proving that the recounted ballots are the very same one counted during

the revision proceedings, will the court or the Commission, as the case
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
may be, even consider the revision result.
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme

Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of
The Rosal doctrine ensures that in election protest cases, the supreme
a copy thereof.
mandate of the people is ultimately determined. In laying down the rules

in appreciating the conflicting results of the canvassing and results of a
This provision, although it confers on the Court the power to review any
revision later made, the Court has no other intention but to determine
decision, order or ruling of the Comelec, limits such power to a final
the will of the electorate.
decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc and does not extend to an

interlocutory order issued by a Division of the Comelec.
The Rosal doctrine is also supplemented by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (Rules

of Procedure in Election Contests Before The Courts Involving Elective
Municipal and Barangay Officials which took effect May 15, 2007), Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec/Dante Tinga
establishing the following DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS: 648 SCRA 561 (2011)

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS The Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the
Sec. 6. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are Comelec en banc in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of the
considered as facts, unless contradicted and overcome by other Constitution, a rule which admits of exceptions as when the issuance of
evidence: the assailed interlocutory order is a patent nullity because of the
absence of jurisdiction to issue the same.
ON THE ELECTION PROCEDURE:
a. The election of candidates was held on the date and time set Soriano Jr. v. Comelec
and in the polling place determined by the Comelec; 520 SCRA 88 (2007)
b. The BEI were duly constituted and organized;
c. Political parties and candidates were duly represented by poll This Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or
watchers; even a final resolution of a division of the Comelec. However, the Court
d. The Minutes of Voting and Counting contains all the incidents held that an exception to this rule applies where the commission of
that transpired before the BEI; grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its face.

ON ELECTION PARAPHERNALIA: In Repol, what was assailed was a status quo ante Order without any
a. Ballots and ER that bear the security markings and features time limit, and more than 20 days had lapsed since its issuance without
prescribed by the Comelec are genuine; the Comelec First Division issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. The
b. The data and information supplied by the members of the BEI Court held that the status quo ante Order of the Comelec First Division
in the accountable forms are true and correct; and was actually a temporary restraining order because it ordered Repol to
c. The allocation, packing and distribution of election cease and desist from assuming the position of municipal mayor of
documents or paraphernalia were properly and timely done. Pagsanghan, Samar and directed Ceracas to assume the post in the
Xxxx xxx meantime. Since the status quo ante Order, which was qualified by the
phrase “until further orders from this Commission.” Had a lifespan of
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PROTEST; WHEN ALLOWED more than 20 days, this Order clearly violates the rule that a temporary
restraining Order has an effective period of only 20 days and
• The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET, that automatically expires upon the Comelec’s denial of preliminary
substantial amendments to the protest may be allowed only
injunction.”
within the same period for filing the election protest, which,

under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days
after the proclamation of the winner.
th
Ceriaco Bulilis v. Victorino Nuez, Presiding Judge of MCTC, Ubay Bohol, decisions, with the result that his name was reinstated in the Barangay
Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol Veterans Village’s list pending the resolution of the petition.
655 SCRA 241 (2011)
On November 28, 2009, Jalosjos filed his CoC for the position of
FACTS: Bulilis was proclaimed winner for the elections for punong representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay for the May
barangay. Opponent Victorino Nuez filed an EP (for judicial recount and 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a Petition to deny due course to or
annulment of proclamation) with MCTC. The counsel of Bulilis filed his cancel his CoC before the Comelec, claiming that Jalosjos made material
brief at 1:45pm on the date of preliminary conference and when the misrepresentations in his CoC when he indicated in it that he resided in
case was heard at 2pm, Nuez moved in open court to be allowed to Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. The Second Division of the Comelec issued a
present evidence ex parte since Bulilis only filed his brief on the date of joint resolution dismissing the petition of Erasmo for insufficiency in
the preliminary conference which is contrary to Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. form and substance. While Erasmo’s MR was pending before the
No. 08-4-15-SC which provides that the brief should be filed at least one Comelec En Banc, the May 10, 2010 elections took place resulting in
(1) day before the date of the preliminary conference. Judge Garces Jalosjos winning the elections and was proclaimed on May 13, 2010.
granted the motion.
In June 2, 2010, the CA rendered judgment in the voter’s exclusion case
Bulilis filed MR, which was denied by MCTC. Bulilis filed certiorari with before it holding that the lower courts erred in excluding Jalosjos since
RTC, which was dismissed on the ground that it is Comelec that has he was qualified under the Constitution and RA 8189. Erasmo filed a
exclusive jurisdiction in election cases involving municipal and barangay petition for review of the CA decision before the SC.
officials. Hence, the petition for certiorari with the SC.
On the other hand, Comelec en banc granted the MR of Erasmo and
Rule 28, Sections 1 and 2 of CRP/Section 12 Amendments to Rules 41, declared Jalosjos ineligible as he did not satisfy the residency
45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court/Section 8, Rule 14 of Comelec CRP. requirement since, by continuing to hold the position of Mayor in
Tampilisan, he should be deemed not to have transferred his residence
Based on these rules, the Court recognizes the Comelec’s appellate form that place to Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against all acts or omissions of
courts in election cases. Indeed, in the recent case of Galang, Jr. v. HELD: While the Constitution vests in the Comelec the power to decide
Geronimo 643 SCRA 631 (2011), the Court had the opportunity to rule all questions affecting elections, such power is not without limitation.
that a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial It does not extend to contests relating to the election, returns, and
court in an electoral protest was within the appellate jurisdiction of the qualifications of members of the HR and the Senate. The Constitution
Comelec. vests the resolution of these contests solely upon the appropriate
Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the HR.
Since it is the Comelec, which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an
appeal from the decision of the RTC in election contests involving The Court has already settled the question of when the jurisdiction of
elective municipal officials (Sec. 8 Rule 14 CRP), then it is also the the Comelec ends and when that of the HRET begins. The proclamation
Comelec, which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its of congressional candidates following the election divests Comelec of
appellate jurisdiction. jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the proclaimed Representative in favor of HRET.
Although Galang involved a petition for certiorari of an interlocutory
order of the RTC in a municipal election contest, the rationale for the QUO WARRANTO
above ruling applied to an interlocutory order issued by a municipal trial (SEC. 253 OF BP881)
court in a barangay election case. Under Rule 14, Section 8 of A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC, decisions of municipal trial courts in election contests PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO - refers to questions of disloyalty or
involving barangay officials are appealed to the Comelec. ineligibility of the winning candidate. It has the effect of disqualifying a
candidate to hold office to which he is elected.
Following the Galang doctrine, it is the Comelec, which has jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari involving acts of the municipal trial courts in Its primordial objective is to prevent an elective official from assuming
such election contests. office grounded on ineligibility. (Sec. 253 OEC)

DEMARCATION LINE BETWEEN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMELEC NATURE OF PROCEEDING – it is a proceeding to unseat the ineligible
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES person from office, but not to install the protestant in his place. ?
Romeo M. Jalosjos, Jr v. Comelec and Dan Erasmo, Sr.
674 SCRA 530 (2012) WHO CAN FILE – Any voter.

PERIOD TO FILE – Within 10 days from proclamation.
FACTS: In May 2007 Jalosjos ran for Mayor of Tampilisan, Zamboanga del

Norte and won. While serving as Tampilisan Mayor, he bought a
residential house and lot in Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Velasco v. Belmonte
Sibugay and occupied it in September 2008. Eight months after, he 780 SCRA 81
applied with the ERB of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay for the transfer of his
voter’s registration record which application was opposed by Erasmo in a The SC defined Quo Warranto as a proceeding to determine the right of
petition for exclusion before the MCTC of Ipil-Tungawan. a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the
holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has
MCTC ruled to exclude Jalosjos on the ground that Jalosjos did not forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. So, where the action is filed by
abandon his domicile in Tampilisan since he continue even then to serve a private person, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted
as its Mayor. Jalosjos appealed his case to the RTC of Pagadian City, position; otherwise, the respondent has a right to the undisturbed
which affirmed the MCTC decision on September 11, 2009. possession of the office.

Jalosjos elevated the matter to the CA through a petition for certiorari In this case ruled on whether the special civil action is really one for
with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction mandamus and not a quo warranto case. Court resolved the propriety of
which was granted and enjoined the courts below from enforcing their issuing a writ of mandamus to compel Speaker Belmonte Jr. and the Sec.
General to perform the specific acts sought by Velaso in this petition.

th
FACTS: Reyes, the opponent of Velasco, was subject of a Petition under proceedings. This procedure is to prevent confusion and conflict of
Section 78 for making material representation in her COC, which was authority.
declared final by the Comelec (Reyes failed to raised the Comelec En
Banc Resolution within 5 days from receipt of the ruling). Basarte vs. Comelec
Notwithstanding, the BOC proclaimed Reyes as the winning candidate 523 SCRA 76
for the position of Rep of the lone District of the Province of
Marinduque. The said proclamation was subsequently declared null and The prevailing rule that as long as the returns appear to be authentic and
void and instead after the BOC was ordered reconvened, Velasco was duly accomplished on their face, the BOC cannot look beyond or behind
declared winner. In the meantime Reyes already took her oath and them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting
assumed office in the HR. of the votes as it presupposes that the returns “appear to be authentic
and duly accomplished on their face”. This principle does not apply in
Based on this supervening event, Velasco wrote the Speaker to cases like the one at bar where there is a prima facie showing that the
administer his oath of office and register his name in the Roll of return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in the assailed
members of the HR and remove Reyes. First, at the time of Reyes return.
proclamation, her COC was already cancelled by the Comelec en banc
(Reyes did not avail the prescribed remedy. TRO from the SC. after 5 JURISDICTION OVER ELECTION PROTESTS AND QUO WARRANTO
days Comelec Resolution became final and executory). Second,

cancellation of COC was final and executory. Third, proclamation was
1. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL – Supreme Court sitting en
cancelled and Velasco elected (Reyes did not challenge or question the
th banc as sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
proclamation of Velasco). 4 , when Reyes took her oath in open session,
th and qualification of Pres. and VP.
Reyes had no valid COC nor a valid proclamation and 5 , Reyes has no
• Protest to be filed within 30 days from proclamation.
legal basis to serve as member and no legal personality to be recognized
• Not subject to judicial review (1987 Constitution). Joke on
as a party-respondent at a QW proceeding before the HRET. Not
Supreme Court body.
considered a candidate. Earlier case Reyes v. Comelec 708 SCRA 197.

2. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL – for members of senate as sole
Republic v. dela Rosa
judge over all contests relating to the election, returns and
232 SCRA 785 qualifications of its own members.
• Must be filed within 15 days from date of proclamation.
A QW assailing the public official’s title and seeking to prevent him from • Not subject to judicial review except on grave abuse of
holding office for alienage is not covered by the 10-days period for discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
appeal prescribed in Section 253 of the OEC. (1987 Constitution)

The distinction between an EP and QW as a remedy is not the label given 3. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL – for
to it but the allegations therein stated. If a petition alleges fraud and members of HR.
irregularity, which vitiated the conduct of the election, although • Must be filed within 10 days from proclamation.
entitled QW, is an EP and vice versa. In view of these fundamental
• Not subject to judicial review except on grave abuse of
differences, an EP and QW cannot be availed of jointly in the same
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
proceeding. They may be filed separately with the second and later case

suspended until the earlier is resolved. An action for QW cannot be
COMPOSITION OF ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
converted into an EP.
• Each ET has nine (9) members;
• Three (3) of whom shall be justices of the SC to be
Penera vs. Comelec
designated by the Chief Justice and
599 SCRA 609
• The remaining six (6) members of the senate or HR, as the
case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of their
It is the well-established principle that the ineligibility of a candidate proportional representation from the political parties and
receiving majority votes does not entitle the candidate receiving the the parties or organizations registered under the party list
next highest number of votes to be declared elected. In this case, the system.
rules on succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code
• Senior justice shall be chairman (Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987
shall apply which states that” if a permanent vacancy occurs in the office
Constitution).
of the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor concerned shall become the mayor.

4. COMELEC – for elective regional, provincial and city officials
A permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher
• Must be filed in 10 days from proclamation.
vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify or is removed
• Subject to judicial review within 30 days from date of
from office, voluntarily resigned, or is otherwise permanently
receipt of decision by aggrieved party. (To the SC)
incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.”
• The Comelec in the exercise of its QJ functions to transact

business “may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall
Virgnio Villamor vs. Comelec & Amytis de Dios-Batao
promulgate rules and procedures” in order to expedite the
496 SCRA 334 disposition of elections cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies and summon parties to a controversy
As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the pending before it.” (Section 7, Article IX-A and Rule 3 of the
winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular Comelec Rules of Procedure.)
election protest or a petition for QW. • The authority to hear and decide election cases, including
pre-proclamations controversies is vested with a division
The filing of an EP or a petition for QW precludes the subsequent filing of and
a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one • The Comelec sitting en banc does not have the authority
earlier filed, thus, depriving the Comelec of the authority to inquire into over it in the first instance. The Comelec en banc can
and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his exercise jurisdiction only on Motions for Reconsideration
proclamation. The reason is that once the competent tribunal has of the resolution or decision of the Comelec in division as a
acquired jurisdiction of an EP or a petition for QW, all questions relative requirement for the filing of a petition for certiorari by the
thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another

th
aggrieved party with the SC within 30 days from receipt of
a copy thereof (Sec. 3 Art. IX-C). 1. When a decision of a trial court is brought before the Comelec for
• A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or it to exercise appellate jurisdiction
ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from • The COMELEC division decides the appeal;
the promulgation thereof. (Sec. 2 Rule 19 of the Comelec • But, if there is a motion for reconsideration, the appeal
Rules of Procedure) proceeds to the en banc where the majority is needed for
• Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution for a decision.
implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling • If the process ends without the required majority at the
and would in effect suspend the running of the period to banc, the appealed decision stands affirmed.
elevate the matter to the SC (Sec.4).
2. If what is brought before the Comelec is an original protest
PROCEDURE FOR ELECTION PROTEST OF REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL AND involving the original jurisdiction of the Commission
CITY ELECTIVE OFFICIALS • The protest, as one whole process, is first decided by
1. Filing of Election protest to the COMELEC Division within 10 days the division, which process is continued in the banc if
after the proclamation of the results of the election. |Rule 20, there is a motion for reconsideration of the division
Sec. 1, CRP| ruling.
• If no majority decision is reached in the en banc, the
Note: If this required number is not obtained, the case shall be protest, which is an original, shall be dismissed. There
automatically elevated to the Commission en banc for decision or is no first instance decision that can be deemed
resolution. |Rule 3, Sec. 5(b), CRP| affirmed.

2. Filing of Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc Hence, if no decision is reached after the case is reheard, there are two
within 5 days from the promulgation thereof. |Rule 19, Sec. 2, different remedies available to the Comelec, to wit:
CRP| a. Dismiss the action or proceeding, if the case was originally
commenced in the Comelec; or
Grounds: b. Consider as affirmed the judgment or order appealed from,
• The evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, order or in appealed cases. This rule adheres to the constitutional
ruling; or provision that the Comelec must decide by a majority of all
• The said decision, order or ruling is contrary to law. |Rule 19, its members.
Sec. 1, CRP|
Maliksi v. Comelec and Saquilayan
Forms and Contents of MFR: (March 12, 2013)
• Verified and
• Shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the The petitioner assailed the use by the Comelec 1st Division of the ballot
decision, resolution, order or ruling which are not supported images in the CF cards. He alleged that the best and most conclusive
by the evidence or evidence are the physical ballots themselves, and when they cannot be
• Which are contrary to law, making express reference to the produced or when they are not available, the election returns would be
testimonial or documentary evidence or the provisions of law the best evidence of the votes cast.
alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. |Rule
19, Sec. 3, CRP| OLD RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the ballot images in the CF
cards, as well as the printouts of such images, are the functional
Effects of MR when not pro-forma equivalent of the official physical ballots filled up by the voters, and may
be used in an EP.
• Suspends the execution or implementation of the decision,

resolution, order or ruling. |Rule19, Sec. 2, CRP|
NEW RULING: In the succeeding Maliksi v. Comelec 11 April 2013,
• Suspends the running of the period (30 days from receipt of
where the SC granted the Extremely Urgent Motion For Reconsideration
the decision) to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
against the March 2013 Decision, it was explained –
|Rule 19, Sec. 4,CRP|
• That the 2 documents – the official ballot and its picture image-

are considered “original documents” simply means that both of
COMELEC HAS TWO (2) JURISDICTIONS IN THE EXERCISE OF QUASI-
them are given equal probative weight.
JUDICIAL AND ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS
• In short, when either is presented as evidence, one is not
(1) Exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
considered weightier than the other.
returns and qualifications of all elective, regional, provincial
• But this judicial reality does not authorize the courts, the
and city officials, and
Comelec and Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally
(2) Appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving:
resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots in the
o Municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
proceedings before them without notice to the parties.
jurisdiction, or (RTCs)
• Despite the equal probative weight accorded the official ballots
o Elective barangay officials decided by courts of
and the printouts of the picture images, the rules for the
limited jurisdictions. (MTCs)
revision of ballots adopted for their respective proceedings still
• Decisions, final order, or rulings of the Commission, on election
consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence
contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
for the voter’s will.
final, executory and not appealable. (Article IX-C, Section 2(2)
• In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are to be used
1987 Constitution)
only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or

their integrity has become compromised. (Same ruling in
Mendoza v. Comelec Vinzons Chaot v. HRET & Panotes January 23, 2013).
616 SCRA 443
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE COMELEC AND THE SC TO ISSUE
There is a difference in the result of the exercise of jurisdiction by the WRITS OF C-P-M
Comelec over election contests. The difference inheres in the kind of
jurisdiction invoked, which in turn, is determined by the case brought
Relampagos v. Cumba/ Carlos v. Angeles
before the Comelec.
th
243 SCRA 690 (1995) / 346 SCRA 571 (2000) Coquilla vs. Comelec, et. al.
G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002
Comelec is vested with the power to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction ISSUE: Whether the 30-day period for appealing the resolution of the
consistent with Section 50 of BP 881 and Article 2(1) of the Constitution. Comelec was suspended by the filing of a motion for reconsideration by
These ruling abandoned the earlier ruling in Garcia vs. de Jesus 206 SCRA petitioner.
779.
Private respondent in this case contends that the petition should be
It was also declared that both the SC and Comelec has concurrent dismissed because it was filed late considering that the Comelec en banc
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being pro-forma and
decision of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in election cases conformably with Sec. 4 of Rule 19 of the CRP, the said motion did not
(only) involving elective municipal officials. The Court that takes suspend the running of the 30-day period for the filing of the petition for
jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. (Art. certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
VIII 5(1) 1987 Constitution, Rule 65, Sec. 1)
The Comelec en banc ruled that the motion for reconsideration was pro-
5. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT – exclusive jurisdiction over all contests forma on the ground that the motion was a mere rehash of petitioners
relating to the election, qualifications and returns for municipal averments contained in his Verified Answer and Memorandum, neither
officials. were new matters raised that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the
• Protest to be filed 10 days from date of proclamation. assailed resolution of the Second Division.
• Subject to appeal with Comelec within five (5) days from
receipt of decision. HELD: The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the
• Decisions of the Comelec en banc on contest on appeal issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not
involving municipal and barangay officials are final and make a motion pro-forma; otherwise, the movant’s remedy would not
executory except on grounds of grave abuse of discretion be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other
within 30 days. remedy.

6. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT – exclusive jurisdiction over all In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for reconsideration, the
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications for SC referred to its decision in Guerra Enterprises Company Inc., v. CFI of
barangay officials. Lanao del Sur 32 SCRA 314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought to
• Protest to be filed within 10 days from proclamation. be achieved in the filing of a motion for reconsideration is “precisely to
• Appeal to the Comelec within 5 days from receipt of the convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to
decision. the law or the evidence, and in doing so, the movant has to dwell of
necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court. If a motion for
Guieb v. Fontanilla reconsideration may not discuss these issues, the consequence would be
that after a decision is rendered, the losing party would be confined to

filing only motions for reopening and new trial.
Regional Trial Courts has no appellate jurisdiction over all contests

involving barangay officials decided by the First Level Courts (MTC,
CASES WHERE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS HELD TO BE
MTCC, MeTC). It should be appealed directly to the COMELEC Division.
PRO FORMA:

• It was a second motion for reconsideration;
Calo v. Comelec / Pecson v. Comelec
• It did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the
610 SCRA 342/ 575 SCRA 634
findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not
supported by the evidence;
Decisions of the courts in election protest cases, resulting as they do
• It failed to substantiate the alleged errors;
from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and a full blown adversarial
• It merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to
proceedings, should at least be given similar worth and recognition as
law; or
decisions of the board of canvassers. This is especially true when
• The adverse party was not given due notice thereof.
attended by other equally weighty circumstances of the case, such as the

shortness of the term of the contested elective office, of the case.
RULE: Under Rule 13, (1) of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, a Motion
for Reconsideration of an En Banc Resolution is a prohibited pleading.
Mananzala vs. Comelec and Julie Monton

523 SCRA 31
XPN: in election offense cases (Sec. 261 of the OEC).

Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory Angelia v. Comelec
and not appealable. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in 332 SCRA 757
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be
decided by the Commission en banc. FACTS: Angelia filed before the SC a Petition for Certiorari to set aside
the resolution of the Comelec en banc annulling his proclamation
FACTS: A decision of the RTC was raised on appeal, which was heard by alleging that he was not given due notice and hearing.
the 2nd division, which reversed the decision of the RTC. In his MR
petitioner argues that the MR filed with the former 2nd division “has Without waiting for the resolution on his motion, Angelia filed the
thrown the whole case wide open for review as in a trial de novo in a instant petition on the sole assignment of error that Comelec violated his
criminal case” yet Comelec en banc failed to conduct a thorough review constitutional right to due process. Comelec raised that the petition
of the contested ballots. should be dismissed for being premature considering that the MR of
petitioner was still pending with the Comelec en banc and that he should
HELD: Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal have first withdrawn the MR before raising the said resolution with the
cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, the whole SC.
case is thrown open for review and the appellate court can resolve
issues which are not even set forth in the pleadings.

th
ISSUE: Whether a party can go to the SC via a Petition on Certiorari On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed an election protest with the
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court during the pendency of the MR filed RTC which rendered a Decision on January 7, 2008 RTC declaring private
with the Comelec en banc. respondent as winner with a plurality of 6 votes. 3 days after or on
January 10, 2008 petitioner filed a notice of appeal and paid 3K appeal
HELD: Petitioner acted correctly in filing the petition because the fee before the RTC and also appealed the RTC decision to the Comelec.
resolution of the Comelec en banc is not subject to reconsideration, and Out of the 3K-appeal fee required under Sec. 3, Rule 40 of the Comelec
therefore, any party who disagrees with it had only one recourse and Rules of Procedure, petitioner only paid 1K plus 200 to cover the legal
that was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of research/bailiff fees.
Civil Procedure. The filing of the petition would in effect constitute as an
abandonment of his MR with the Comelec. On March 17, 2008 Comelec 1st division issued on Order dismissing the
appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the correct appeal fee
Garces v. Court of Appeals 259 SCRA 99 (1996) within the 5-days reglementary period which is a ground for the
Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer 135 SCRA 25 (1985) dismissal of the appeal under Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the CRP.

HELD: The SC interpreted the term ”final orders, rulings and decisions of On March 28, 2008 petitioner filed a MR with the Comelec En Banc,
the Comelec reviewable by the SC on certiorari as provided by law are which denied the resolution declaring that the appeal was not perfected
those rendered in actions or proceedings before the Comelec and taken on time for non-payment of the complete amount of appeal and for late
cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its quasi-judicial payment as well, hence, did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal.
powers.
HELD: The SC noted that two (2) different tribunals earlier require the
XPN: When in the exercise of COMELEC’s administrative functions, the payment of two different appeal fees for the perfection of the appeals of
decision, ruling, or order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. SC election cases.
may still take cognizance of the petition under Rule 65. • Sec. 3, Rule 22 of the CRP (Appeals from decisions of Courts in
election Protest Cases): mandates that the notice of appeal must
PRINCIPLES COMMON TO ALL ELECTION CONTESTS be filed with 5-days after the promulgation of the decision. On
the other hand, Section 3 & 4 Rule 40 of the CRP amended the

amount of the appeal fees to 3.2K which should be paid with the
HOW ELECTION PROTESTS ARE INITIATED HEARD AND FINALLY
cash division of the Comelec;
RESOLVED
In order to confer jurisdiction on the tribunals, Comelec and the Courts, • Section 8 & 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15 SC (Rules of procedure
an EP of officer-elect, it is necessary to allege in the petition the in Election Contests before the Court Involving Elective Municipal
following facts: (JURISDICTION ALLEGATIONS) and Barangay Officials effective May 15, 2007): the procedure of
a. Protestant was a candidate who had duly filed a COC and had instituting an appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid for
been voted for the same office; the appeal to be given due course.
b. That the protestee has been proclaimed;
c. That the petition was filed within 10 days after proclamation; This requirement in the payment of appeal fees had caused much
d. That fraud and election irregularities vitiated the conduct of the confusion, which the Comelec addressed through the issuance of
elections and affected the legality thereof. Comelec Res. No. 8486 on July 15, 2008.
• The appeal to the Comelec of the trial court’s decision in
election contests involving municipal and barangay officials is
Miguel v. Comelec 335
perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and payment of
SCRA 172
the 1K appeal fee to the court that rendered the decision within
the 5-day reglementary period.
HELD: It is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of • The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the additional
the ballot boxes, examination and counting of ballots deposited
appeal fee of 3.2K to the Comelec Cash Division in accordance
thereunder whenever there is averment in an election protest that with Rule 40, Section 3 of the CRP, as amended, does not affect
requires the examination, scrutiny or counting of ballots as evidence. the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or
The purpose of opening the BB is to determine, with the minimum
ipso facto dismissal of the appeal.
amount of protracted delay, the truthfulness of the allegations of fraud

and anomalies in the conduct of electoral exercise. Comelec 1st division gravely abused its discretion in issuing the order

dismissing the appeal taking notice that the notice of appeal and the 1K
CERTIFICATE OF FORUM SHOPPING
appeal fee were, respectively filed and paid with the MTC on April 21,
2008 which date the appeal was perfected.
Loyola v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995)
Lomarong v. Dubguban 269 SCRA 624 (1997) Comelec Res. 8486 clarifying the rule on the payment of appeal fees was
issued only on July 15, 2008, or almost 3-months after the appeal was
It was ruled that the SC Circular requiring that any complaint, petition or perfected. Yet on July 31, 2008 or barely two weeks after the issuance of
other initiatory pleading must contain a non-forum certification applies Comelec Res. 8486, the Comelec 1st division dismissed the appeal for
to election cases. The requirement is mandatory, not (?) jurisdictional, non-payment of the 3.2K appeal fee.
non-compliance therewith may warrant the dismissal of the election
case. Considering that petitioner filed his appeal months before the
clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, the appeal should not be unjustly
PAYMENT OF APPEAL/FILING FEES prejudiced by Comelec Res. No. 8486. Fairness and prudence dictate the
1st division should have first directed petitioner to pay the additional
Pacanan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections 597 SCRA 189 appeal fee in accordance with the clarificatory resolution. Court further
Aguilar v. Comelec 591 SCRA 491 stressed the liberal construction policy.

Petitioner Pacanan, Jr. and private respondent Langi Sr. were candidates Villagracia v. Comelec
for mayor in the municipality of Motiong, Samar during the May 14, 513 SCRA 655 (2007)
2007 elections. Petitioner was proclaimed having garnered a total of
3,069 votes against private respondent’s 3,066 votes. While it is true that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case upon
complete payment of the prescribed filing fee, the rule admits of
th
exceptions, as when a party never raised the issue of jurisdiction in the HELD: Case of Ramas did not declare that such remedy is exclusive only
trial court. to election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials.
Sec. 1 of Rule 41 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure expressly provides
Gomez-Castillo v. Comelec that pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court shall be applicable by
621 SCRA 499 analogy or in a suppletory character.

The period of appeal and the perfection of appeal are not mere The Court stressed the import of the provision vis-à-vis election cases
technicalities to be so lightly regarded, for they are essential to the when we held that judgments in election cases which may be executed
finality of judgments, a notion underlying the stability of our judicial pending appeal includes those decided by trial courts and those
system. The short period of 5-days as the period to appeal recognizes rendered by the Comelec whether in the exercise of its original or
the essentiality of time in election protests, in order that the will of the appellate jurisdiction.
electorate is ascertained as soon as possible so that the winning
candidate is not deprived of the right to assume office, and so that any Saludaga vs. Comelec
doubt that can cloud the incumbent of the truly deserving winning 617 SCRA 601
candidate is quickly removed.
The discretion to allow execution pending reconsideration belongs to
Zanoras v. Comelec the division that rendered the assailed decision, order or resolution, or
G.R. No. 158610 November 12, 2004 the Comelec en banc, as the case may be – not to the presiding
Commissioner.
The mere filing of the notice of appeal was not enough. It should be
accompanied by the payment of the correct amount of appeal fee. The A writ of execution pending resolution of the MR of a decision of the
payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for division is not granted as a matter of right such that its issuance
the perfection of an appeal. (Rulloda v. Comelec 245 SCRA 702) becomes a ministerial duty that may be dispensed even just by the
Presiding Commission.

Loyola v. Comelec
337 SCRA 134 (1997) Calo v. Comelec
610 SCRA 342

The Court stressed that there is no longer any excuse for shortcoming in
the payment of filing fees. The Court held that in the case at bar “any The relevant rule provides that a motion for execution pending appeal
claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to filed by the prevailing party shall contain a 3-day notice to the adverse
pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases which may be filed party and execution pending appeal shall not issue without prior notice
after the promulgation of this decision is no longer acceptable (March and hearing. The purpose of these requirements is to avoid surprises
25, 1997). that may sprung upon the adverse party who must be given time to
study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the
The Loyola doctrine was reiterated in the subsequent cases of Miranda v. court. Where a party had the opportunity to be heard, then the purpose
Castillo 274 SCRA 503, Soller v. Comelec 339 SCRA 684 hold that a court has been served and the requirement substantially complied with. In this
acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the case, even the Comelec admitted that respondent was heard and
prescribed docket fees and errors in the payment of the filing fee is no afforded his day in court; hence, it should not have annulled the RTC
longer allowed. special order on said ground.

EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL San Miguel vs. Comelec
609 SCRA 424
Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec & Luis Bautista; Robelito v. Picar
& Wilma P. Pagaduan The law provides that the court “MAY” issue execution pending appeal.
678 SCRA 267 (2012) Evident from the usage of the word “may”, the language of the subject
provision denotes that it is merely directory, not mandatory, for the

trial court to issue the special order before the expiration of the period
There is no reason to dispute the Comelec’s authority to order
to appeal.
discretionary execution of judgment in view of the fact that the

suppletory application of the Rules of Court is expressly sanctioned by
The trial court may still thereafter resolve a motion for execution
Section 1, Rule 41 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
pending appeal (after the expiration of the period to appeal), provided:

1. The motion is filed within the 5-day reglementary period; and
Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal
2. The special order is issued prior to the transmittal of the
may be issued by an appellate court after the trial court has lost
records of the Comelec.
jurisdiction.

Malaluan v. Comelec
Fernando U. Batul v. Lucilo Bayron, et. al.
254 SCRA 397
424 SCRA 26 (2004)

This was the first case where a judge, acting without a precedent,
Execution pending appeal in the discretion of the courts applies
granted the motion for execution of its decision in an election protest
suppletorily in election cases including those involving city and provincial
case, pending appeal.
officials to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected candidate as

determined either by the Court or by Comelec. The Comelec resolution
It was ruled that Sec. 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which allowed the
granting execution pending appeal (by virtue of its original exclusive
RTC to order execution pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a
jurisdiction over all contest relating to the E, R and Q of provincial and
special order, may be made to apply by analogy or suppletorily to
city officials was raised before the SC arguing that Sec. 2 Rule 39 cannot
election contest decided by it. The posting of the supersedeas bond was
be applied and the only ground that will validly sustain execution of a
considered good reasons by the judge.
decision by a Comelec division pending reconsideration is when the MR

is not pro forma.
(Ramas v. COMELEC however says that bond alone does not constitute

“good reason”)

th
Except when the trial court reversed itself in a MR of its order granting
Camlian v. Comelec immediate execution, it cannot later on stay or restrain the execution
271 SCRA thereof in the guise of allowing the losing party to file a supersedeas
bond.
Executions pending appeal must be strictly construed against the
movant as it is an exception to the general rule on execution of The issue before the trial court where a motion for execution pending
judgments. appeal is filed is to determine whether or not there are “good reasons”
to justify the immediate execution pending appeal. The issue is not
whether there are good reasons to stay the immediate execution of the
Lim vs. Comelec et. Al. G.R. No. 171952 March 08, 2007
decision pending appeal.
Torres vs. Abundo, Sr. 512 SCRA 556

Trillanes IV vs. Pimentel, Sr.
REQUISITES BEFORE A MOTION FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL MAY
556 SCRA 471
BE GRANTED IN ELECTION CASES
(Relate to Rodolfo Aguinaldo on the condonation issue)
1. There must be motion by the prevailing party with notice to

the adverse party;
The case against Trillanes is not administrative in nature. And there is no
2. There must be good reasons for the execution pending appeal;
“prior term’ to speak of. In a plethora of cases, the Court categorically
3. The order granting execution pending appeal must state the
held that the doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal cases.
good reasons.
Election, or more precisely, election to office, does not obliterate a

criminal charge.
Ramas v. Comelec
286 SCRA 189 Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the
voters elected him to the Senate, “they did so with full awareness of the
WHAT CONSTITUTE “GOOD REASONS’ FOR EXECUTION PENDING limitations on his freedom of action and with the knowledge that he
APPEAL: (Fermo vs. COMELEC) could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish
1. The public interest involved or the will of the electorate; within the confines of prison.
2. The shortness of the remaining period of the term of the
contested office; Q: CAN DAMAGES BE AWARDED IN ELECTION PROTEST CASES?
3. The length of time that the election contest has been
pending.
Malaluan vs. Comelec

The filing of a bond alone does not constitute good reasons.
Nevertheless, the trial court may require the filing of a bond as condition The Court ruled that damages cannot be granted in an election protest
for the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution to answer for the case ratiocinating that the provision of law allowing damages under
payment of damages, which the aggrieved party may suffer by reason of specific circumstances, more particularly compensatory and actual
the execution pending appeal. damages is provided under Article 2176 of the Civil Code which is
appropriate only in breaches of obligations in contracts and QC and on
the occasion of crimes and QD where the defendant may be held liable
Istarul vs. Comelec
for damages the proximate cause of which is the act or omission
491 SCRA 300 (2006)
complained of.

The length of time that the election protest has been pending, thus, Therefore, the monetary claim of a party in an election case must
leaving petitioner only 21 months as the remaining portion of the term necessarily be anchored in contract, QC, or a tortious act or omission of
to serve as mayor, does not constitute “good reasons” to justify a crime in order to effectively recover actual or compensatory damages.
execution pending appeal. In the absence of any or all of these, the claimant must be able to point
out a specific provision of law authorizing a money claim for election
Referring to Fermo, the SC held that “shortness of term” alone and by protest expenses against the losing party.
itself cannot justify premature execution. It must be manifest in the
decision sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the The bonds or cash deposits required by the Comelec Rules of Procedure
victory of the protestant has been clearly established. are in the nature of filing fees not damages.

Navarosa v. Comelec JOCELYN "JOY" LIM-BUNGCARAS v. COMELEC AND RICO RENTUZA
411 SCRA G.R. Nos. 209415-17, November 15, 2016

The RTC in an election protest case granted execution pending appeal by Presently, the award of damages in election contests is provided under
Esto after finding that Esto won in the said election. In the same order Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code, which states:
the judge allowed protestee Navaroza to stay the execution of the SEC. 259. Actual or compensatory damages. - Actual or
decision pending appeal by filing a supersedeas bond in double the compensatory damages may be granted in all election contests
amount posted by the protestant. A Petition for Certiorari was filed by or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with law.
Esto with the Comelec where the Comelec 2nd division affirmed the trial (Emphasis supplied.)
court’s order granting execution pending appeal and nullified the stay of
the execution. What is patently clear from Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code is
that only actual or compensatory damages may be awarded in election
HELD: The Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion as it is for contests. The above provision is a stark contrast to the aforestated
Comelec in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to issue the provisions in the past election codes that expressly permit the award of
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition mandamus and injunction moral and exemplary damages. As the Court concluded in Atienza, the
over all contest involving elective municipal officials decided by the trial omission of the provisions allowing for moral and exemplary damages in
court of general jurisdiction elevate on appeal, and NOT the trial court, the current Omnibus Election Code clearly underscores the legislative
that may order the stay or restrain the immediate execution of the intent to do away with the award of damages other than those specified
decision pending appeal granted by the trial court of general jurisdiction in Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code, i.e., actual or
in an election contest. compensatory damages.44chanrobleslaw

th
the circumstances. As held in Andrade v. Court of Appeals, the
As to the award of attorney's fees. Concerning the trial court's award of entrenched rule is that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment
attorney's fees of P150,000.00 in favor of each of the private or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
respondents, the same is likewise unwarranted. and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some
motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.
Section 2, Rule 15 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC mandates that: SEC. 2.
Damages and attorney's fees. - In all election contests, the We reiterated in BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Manikan, Inc.51 that:
court may adjudicate damages and attorney's fees as it may Such an award, in the concept of damages under Article 2208 of the Civil
deem just and as established by the evidence, if the aggrieved Code, demands factual and legal justifications. While the law allows
party has included these claims in the pleadings. some degree of discretion on the part of the courts in awarding
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, the use of that judgment,
Thus, for the trial court to award attorney's fees, the same must be just however, must be done with great care approximating as closely as
and borne out by the pleadings and evidence of the party concerned. possible the instances exemplified by the law. Attorney's fees in the
concept of damages are not recoverable against a party just because of
Furthermore, Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the specific an unfavorable judgment. Repeatedly, it has been said that no premium
instances when attorney's fees may be awarded, among which is when should be placed on the right to litigate. (Citations omitted.)
the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate or Accordingly, we nullify the award of attorney's fees.
to incur expenses to protect the latter's interest.
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN AN ELECTION PROTEST CASE
Verily, the trial court used the aforementioned ground when it justified
the award of attorney's fees as follows: Finally, the [private respondents] Public office is personal to the public officer and is not a property
are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of transmissible to his heirs upon death. Thus, applying the doctrine of
Php150,000.00 each. The Supreme Court in Industrial Insurance action personalis moritur cum persona, upon the death of the
Company, Inc. vs. Bondad (330 SCRA 706) held that attorney's fees may incumbent, no heir of his may be allowed to continue holding his office
be awarded by a court if one who claims it is compelled to litigate or to in his place.
incur expenses to protect one's interest by reason of an unjust act or
omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought. But while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the
public officer, an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive
In the case at bar, while the private respondents did include their claim to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either
for attorney's fees in their memorandum before the trial court, the Court would oust the court for all authority to continue the protest
finds that they did not adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate their proceedings.
entitlement to said claim. Moreover, the fact that the private
respondents were compelled to litigate does not, by itself, merit the DEATH OF THE PROTESTEE
award of attorney's fees. The Court explained this concept in Mindex
• He should be substituted by his successor to the public office
Resources Development v. Morillo thusly: We find the award of
• The public officer next lower in rank (De la Victoria v. Comelec
attorney's fees to be improper. The reason which the RTC gave because
1991)
petitioner had compelled respondent to file an action against it falls

short of our requirement in Scott Consultants and Resource
DEATH OF PROTESTANT
Development v. CA, from which we quote: "It is settled that the award of
attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and counsel's fees • He should be substituted by the public official who would have
are not to be awarded every time a party wins suit. The power of the succeeded him (De Castro v. Comelec)
court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code
demands factual, legal, and equitable justification; its basis cannot be Fernando Poe v. Arroyo
left to speculation or conjecture. Where granted, the court must March 29, 2005
explicitly state in the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive
portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees." ISSUE: Whether or not the widow may substitute/intervene for the
protestant who die during the pendency of the latter’s protest case.
Moreover, a recent case ruled that "in the absence of stipulation, a
winning party may be awarded attorney's fees only in case plaintiff's HELD: NO. The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential election
action or defendant's stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and protest is Rule 14 of the PET Rules which provides: “only the registered
evident bad faith." candidate for Pres. or VP of the Philippines who received the 2nd and 3rd
highest number of votes may contest the election of the P and VP, as the
Indeed, respondent was compelled to file this suit to vindicate his rights. case may be, by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the PET within
However, such fact by itself will not justify an award of attorney's fees, 30 days after the proclamation of the winner.
when there is no sufficient showing of petitioner's bad faith in refusing
to pay the said rentals as well as the repair and overhaul costs. (Citations The Court made reference in its ruling in Vda de Mesa v. Mencias where
omitted; Emphasis supplied.) it rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs in election contest
where the protestant dies during the pendency of the protest on the
As to bad faith. The RTC ruled that the petitioners were guilty of bad grounds that the heirs are not real parties in interest and that a public
faith in filing their respective election protests against the private office is personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to
respondents, which protests were brushed aside as "a product or the heirs upon death.
figment of [the petitioners'] fertile and wild imaginations to make it
appear that there were fraud, irregularities and flagrant violations Rule 3, Section 15 of the Rules of Court allows substitution and
committed during the conduct of elections."49 Essentially, the trial court intervention upon the death of the protestee but by a real party in
arrived at the above conclusion in view of the apparent failure of the interest, one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment and
petitioners to adduce adequate evidence to prove their claims. entitled to avail of the suit. In the Mencias and Lumogdang v. Javier
cases, the Court permitted substitution by the VM since the VM is the
The Court, however, is not convinced. The failure of the petitioners to real party in interest considering that if the protest succeeds and the
adduce substantial evidence to sustain their election protests does not protestee is unseated, the VM succeeds to the office of the mayor that
necessarily lead to a conclusion that they were guilty of bad faith in the becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office.
filing of said cases. Such a conclusion is conjectural and unjustified under

th
The Court further held that nobility of intentions is not the point in • Also in both Rules, respondent is given the right to examine
reference in determining whether a person may intervene in an election evidence, but such right of examination is limited only to the
protest case. documents or evidence submitted by complainants, which she
may not have been furnished, and to copy them at her expense.
PROSECUTION OF ELECTION CASES
Faelnar v. People
The Comelec has the power and function to: 331 SCRA 429
• Investigate; and
• Where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election a. Where the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, exercises the power to conduct preliminary investigation of
offenses and malpractices. (Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the election offense cases and after the investigation submits its
Constitution) recommendation to the Comelec, the issue of probable cause is
• This prosecutorial power of the Comelec is reflected in Section already resolved.
265 of BP 881. • The proper remedy to question the said resolution is to file
• It is well settled that the finding of probable cause in the an appeal with the COMELEC and the ruling of the
prosecution of election offenses rests in the Comelec’s sound Comelec on the appeal would be immediately final and
discretion. (Garcia v. Comelec 611 SCRA 55 Jan. 2010) executory.
• This is already amended by Section 43 of RA 9369:
b. If the preliminary investigation of the complaint for an election
SEC. 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended offense is conducted by the Comelec, the investigation officer
to read as follow: prepares its recommendation to the Law Department which
department in turn makes its recommendation to the Comelec en
"SEC. 265. Prosecution. - The Commission shall, through its duly banc on whether there is probable cause to prosecute. It is the
authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other Comelec en banc, which determines the existence of probable
prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary cause.
investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and • The proper remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a
prosecute the same" Motion for Reconsideration of such resolution of the
Comelec en banc.
Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction to: • This effectively allows for a review of the original
• Try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation resolution, in the same manner that the Comelec on
of the OEC (Section 268 of the BP 881) appeal, or motu propio, may review the resolution of the
• Except those relating to the offense of failure to register or State prosecutor, or Provincial or city fiscal.
failure to vote, which shall be under the jurisdiction of the MeTC • (Take note that since this is an election offense a Motion
or MTC. for Reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is allowed.)

Arroyo v. Department of Justice
701 SCRA 753 Lozano v. Comelec
G.R. No. 94521, 28 October 1991
ISSUE: Whether the Comelec has the exclusive power to investigate and
prosecute cases of violations of election laws. VOTE-BUYING - The Court ruled that the traditional gift giving by the City
of Makati during Christmas does not constitute vote-buying. The Court
HELD: NO. In Banat Party-List v. Comelec, 599 SCRA 477 (2009), while held that it requires more than a mere tenuous deduction to prove the
recognizing the Comelec’s exclusive power to investigate and prosecute offense of vote-buying.
cases under BP 881, the Court pointed out that the framers of the 1987
Constitution did not have such intention. This exclusivity (Section 265 of Ong v. Martinez
BP 881) is thus a legislative enactment that can very well be amended by G.R. 87743, 21 August 1990
Section 43 of RA 6369.
Prohibition against appointment of a government employee within 45
Therefore, under the present law, the Comelec and other prosecuting days before a regular election refers to positions covered by civil service
arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercises concurrent and does not apply to the replacement of a councilor who died.
jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses.
(No longer deputies but exercises concurrent jurisdiction Comelec-DOJ The permanent vacancy for councilor exists and its filling up is governed
Task Force). by the Local Government Code while the appointment referred to in the
election ban provision is covered by the Civil Service Law.
Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and
the DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the assailed Joint Order Regalado v. CA
whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause G.R. No. 115962 15 February 2000
for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in accordance

with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. With more reason, therefore, that
THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION
we cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication
262 (H) ARE:
of the Comelec’s independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
1. Public officer or employee is transferred or detailed within the

election period as fixed by the Comelec, and
The procedure in conducting Preliminary Investigation is governed by
2. The transfer or detail was effected without prior approval of the
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the
Comelec in accordance with its implementing rules and
Comelec Rules of Procedure.
regulations.
• Under both Rules, the respondent shall submit his counter-

affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting
The fact that the transfer of an employee was needed is not an excuse
documents relied upon for his defense, within 10 days from
for failure to obtain approval from the Comelec. However, if the transfer
receipt of the subpoena, with the complaint and supporting
was made prior to the publication of the implementing rules and
affidavits and documents.

th
regulations, it is not an election offense because the said rules were not Generally, the Court will not interfere with the finding of probable cause
yet existent. (People v. Reyes, 14 August 1995) by the Comelec absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

ELECTORAL SABOTAGE (Section 27 (b) of RA 6646 as amended) Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and Comelec

In addition to the prohibited acts and election enumerated in Section The SC upheld the power of Comelec to prosecute cases of violations of
261 and 262 of OEC, as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election laws and further explained that there are:
election offense:
• Any person or member of the BEI or BOC who tampers, increases TWO (2) WAYS THROUGH WHICH A COMPLAINT FOR ELECTION
or decreases the votes received by a candidate in any election; or OFFENSES MAY BE INITIATED
• Any member of the Board who refuses after proper verification 1. By the Comelec motu proprio; or
and hearing to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered • Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman
votes; of the Comelec and need not be verified.
• Provided however, that when the tampering, increase or
decrease of votes or refusal to credit the correct votes and/or 2. Via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines, candidate,
deduct tampered votes are perpetrated on large scale or in registered political party, coalition of political parties or
substantial numbers, the same shall be considered not as an organizations under the party-list system or any accredited citizen
ordinary election offense under Section 261 of the OEC, but a arms of the commission.
special election offense to be known as electoral sabotage and • Those complaints filed by parties other than the Comelec
the penalty to be imposed shall be life imprisonment. must be verified and supported by affidavits and other
evidence.
ELECTORAL CHEATING; 3 MAIN TYPES
PROCEDURE
1. PRE-ELECTION - preventing qualified voters from registering; Ø The complaint shall be filed with the Comelec Law Department
2. ELECTION DAY - preventing registered voters from casting their or with the offices of the EO, PES or RED, or the State
vote freely, or influencing the BEI to cheat; Prosecutors, provincial or city prosecutors.
3. POST ELECTION - altering the results of the elections by making Ø Whether initiated motu proprio or filed with the Comelec by any
it appear that the losing candidate won. party, the complaint shall be referred to the Comelec Law
Department for investigation.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE VOTERS Ø Upon the direction of the Chairman, the PI may be delegated to
To bribe voters and of the involvement of a candidate and of his any lawyer of the Department, any RED or PES, or any Comelec
principal campaign managers in such conspiracy: BQ 1991 lawyer.
(a) Under Section 28 of RA 6646, proof that at least one voter in
different precincts representing at least 20% of the total Dino vs. Olivares
precincts in any municipality, city or province has been offered, 607 SCRA 251 (2009)
promised or given money, valuable consideration or other

expenditure by a candidate’s relatives, leaders and/or
HELD: Being mere deputies or agents of the Comelec (with continuing
sympathizers for the purpose of promoting the election of such
authority), provincial or city prosecutors deputized by it are expected to
candidate, give rise to a disputable presumption of conspiracy to
act in accord with and NOT contrary to or in derogation of its
bribe voters.
resolutions, directives or orders in relation to election cases that such
(b) Under Section 28, if the proof affects at least 20% of the
prosecutors are deputized to investigate and prosecute. They must
precincts of the municipality, city or province to which the public
proceed within the lawful scope of their delegated authority.
office aspired for by the favored candidate relates, this shall

constitute a disputable presumption of the involvement of such
Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by the Comelec,
candidate and of his principal campaign managers in each of the
either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment such revocation or
municipalities concerned, in the conspiracy.
withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the process to

promote the common good, or where it believes that successful
Comelec v. Noynay prosecution of the case can be done by the Comelec.
July 9, 1998 When the Comelec en banc directed the City Prosecutor of Paranaque to
transmit the entire records of the election offense case, it had the effect
The Comelec resolved to file Information for violation of Section 261(i) of of SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of the City Prosecutor. Hence, the filing
the OEC against certain public school officials for having engaged in of the amended information and the amended information themselves,
partisan political activities, which was filed by its Regional Director with is declared void and of no effect.
Branch 23 of RTC of Allen Northern Samar, presided by Judge Tomas B.
Noynay. The judge ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and Kilosbayan vs. Comelec
directed the Comelec to file the cases with the MTC on the ground that 280 SCRA 892
pursuant to Section 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, the RTC has

no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum imposable penalty in
Kilosbayan filed a letter-complaint with the Comelec against incumbent
each of the cases does not exceed 6 years imprisonment.
officials running for public elective office for violation of Sec. 261 of the

OEC alleging illegal disbursement of public funds and submitting as
HELD: RA 7691 did not divest the RTC of jurisdiction over election
evidence to support the complaint, published writings in newspapers
offenses, which are punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding 6
without any additional evidence to support the newspaper articles on
years. The opening sentence of Section 32 provides that the exclusive
the argument that it was the Comelec’s constitutional duty to prosecute
original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, MTC and MCTC does
election offenses upon any information of alleged commission of
not cover those criminal cases, which by specific provisions of law fall
election offenses. The Comelec dismissed the complaint there being no
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the SB, regardless of
probable cause found.
the penalty prescribed therefore.

Garcia v. Commission on Elections
611 SCRA 55

th
HELD: It is not the duty of the Comelec to search for evidence to prove election documents and paraphernalia shall be within close
an election complaint filed before it. The task of Comelec as investigator view of the watchers and the public.
and prosecutor is not the physical searching and gathering of proof in
support of the alleged commission of an election offense. The c. SEC. 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby
complainant still has the burden to prove his complaint. amended to read as follow: "SEC. 265. Prosecution. - The
Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers,
SALIENT FEATURES OF AMENDATORY AND NEW LAWS have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms
of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all
election offenses punishable under this Code, and prosecute
1. RA 8189 - SOME AMENDMENTS TO BP 881 the same"
a. Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The
personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be d. Section 12 amending RA 8436 Section 10: Examination and
conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the
office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the
the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a political parties and candidates or their representatives,
regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election. citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test.
The equipment or device to be used in the voting and
b. Section 9: Any person who, on the day of registration may not counting on the day of the electoral exercise, before voting
have reached the required age or period of residence but, who on start. Test ballots and test forms shall be provided by the
the day of election shall possess such qualifications, may register Commission.
as a voter.
e. Section 13 amending RA 8436 Section 11: For this purpose,
c. Section 14. Illiterate or Disabled Applicants. Any illiterate person the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of
may register with the assistance of the Election Officer or any certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation
member of an accredited citizen’s arms. The Election Officer shall to participate in the election. Any person who files his
place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions, certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be
and record the answers given in order to accomplish the considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period
application form in the presence of the majority of the members for which he filed his certificate of candidacy.
of the Board. The Election Officer or any member of an accredited
citizen’s arm shall read the accomplished form aloud to the 3. RA 10590 - OVERSEAS VOTING ACT OF 2013 (AMENDED RA
person assisted and ask him if the information given is true and 9189)
correct The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the • The President on May 27, 2013 signed into law RA 10590,
applicant in the presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or OAV 2013, amending the Overseas Voting Act of 2003.
some other customary mark and it shall be subscribed and With the passage of the law, Filipino immigrants abroad
attested by the majority of the members of the Board. will no longer need to execute an affidavit stating that
they will return to the Philippines within 3 years before
d. The application for registration of a physically disabled person they are allowed to vote in absentia.
may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member
of an accredited citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the
applicant. The fact of illiteracy or disability shall be so indicated in
the application.

e. Section 15. Election Registration Board.

2. RA 10366 (Please refer to page 14)

3. RA 9369 - SOME AMENDMENTS
a. Section 32 amending Section 212 of BP 881. Election
Returns. - The board of election inspectors shall prepare the
election returns simultaneously with the counting of votes in
the polling places as prescribed in Section 210 hereof. The
recording of vote shall be made as prescribed in said section.
The entry of votes in words and figures for each candidate
shall be closed with the signature and the clear imprint of the
thumbmark of the right hand of all the members, likewise to
be affixed in full view of the public, immediately after the last
vote recorded or immediately after the name of the
candidate who did not receive any vote.

b. Section 35 amending Section 206 of BP 881 Counting to be
Public and Without Interruption. - As soon as the voting is
finished, the board of election inspectors shall publicly count
in the polling place the votes cast and ascertain the results.
The Board may rearrange the physical set up of the polling
place for the counting or perform any other activity with
respect to the transition from voting [to] counting. However,
it may do so only in the presence of the watchers and within
close view of the public. At all times, the ballot boxes and all

th

Elec Final Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Elec Final Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elec Final Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTION LAWS

AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

(729 SCRA 299)

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

Edited by: AMPARO, NESTLE M. | AdDU Law

You might also like