I.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, JVL returned to the Philippines from Japan. On the
flight home were delegates of the Olympics which just ended. The Filipino athletes on
board expressed their frustration of the lack of government support. Wanting to make
laws to help the plight of athletes, on October 2, 2021, JVL filed his COC for congress
with an attachment of affidavit of renunciation of foreign citizenship. His opponent, LVJ,
hires you as lawyer to contest JVL’s candidacy on the basis of JVL’s Filipino citizenship
and residency. 

a. Before election day, what action or actions will you institute against JVL, and
before which court, commission or tribunal will you file such action/s? Reasons.  
(3%)

If I were Vito’s counsel, I would file before the COMELEC a petition to deny due course
or to cancel Certificate of Candidacy on the that ground the material representation in
the certificate is false.

The law provides that a verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any
material representation is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than
twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be
decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

b. If, during the pendency of such action/s but before election day, JV withdraws his
certificate of candidacy, can he be substituted as candidate? If so, by whom and
why? If not, why not?   (3%) 

No, Gabriel cannot be substituted as candidate.

The Omnibus Election Code provides that if after the last day for filing of certificates of
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered political party dies, withdraws, or is
disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to the same political party can
replace the candidate. The substitution must be done so not later than the mid-day of
the election day.

Applying the said rule, Gabriel cannot be substituted by any candidate as nowhere in
the facts does it appear that he is a member of registered political party.
 c. Can JVL be substituted until election day on the basis of COMELEC Resolution
10717? If so, what are the grounds, conditions, and until when?  If not, why not?
(5%)
An aspirant/official candidate of a duly registered PP or Coalition who dies, withdraws or is
disqualified for any cause after the last day for the filing of COCs may be substituted by an
aspirant/official candidate belonging to, and nominated by, the same PP or Coalition.

The substitute for an aspirant/candidate who died or was disqualified by final judgment,
may file a COC up to mid-day of Election Day; Provided that, the substitute and the
substituted aspirant/candidate have the same surnames.

If the death or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day
of Election Day, the substitute may file a COC with any of the Electoral Board, Election
Officer, Provincial Election Supervisor or Regional Election Director, as the case may be, in
the political subdivision where the person is a candidate, or in the case of a candidate for
President, Vice President and Senator, with the Law Department; Provided that, the
substitute and substituted candidate have the same surnames.

d. If the action/s instituted should be dismissed with finality before the election, and
JVL assumes office after being proclaimed the winner in the election, can the
issue of his candidacy and/or citizenship and residence still be questioned? If so,
what action or actions may be filed and where? If not, why not?   (5%)

1. Yes, the issue of his candidacy can still be

The question of the citizenship and residence of Gabriel can be questioned in the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal by filing a quo warranto case. Since it is within its jurisdiction to
decide the question of the qualification of Gabriel, the decision of the Commission on Elections does not
constitute res judicata (Jalandoni v. Crespo, HRET Case No. 01- 020, March 6, 2003). Once a candidate
for member of the House of Representatives has been proclaimed, the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal acquires jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications (Guerrero v
COMELEC,336 SCRA 458 [2000]).

. 
e. What are the grounds and the effects of a disqualification case under Section 68
and Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code? Compare and contrast. (10%) 
Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, a candidate may be disqualified if he
commits any of the election offense specified therein or he is a permanent resident of or
an immigrant to a foreign country. Disqualification under Section 68 gives rise to the de
jure officership of the candidate up to the point of disqualification. The petition for
disqualification must be filed at any time after the last day for filing of the certificate of
candidacy but not later that the candidate’s proclamation should he win in the elections.

Under Section 78 of the Code, on the other hand, a certificate of candidacy may be
denied due course or cancelled if found to be containing material representations which
are false and deliberately made. The disqualification under this provision makes the
certificate of candidacy void ab initio. The petition under Section 78 must be must filed
within 5 days prior to the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later
than 25 days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy.

II.

Enzo, 30 years old, natural-born Filipino and a resident of the Philippines since birth, is
a Davao-based entrepreneur who runs MEHEHE-KAKAMBING, a coalition of peoples’
organizations from farmer communities. MEHEHE-KAKAMBING’S operations consist of
empowering farmer leaders through livelihood projects and trainings on good
governance. The American Foundation for Global Initiatives, a private organization
registered in the US, receives a huge subsidy from the US State Department, which, in
turn is allocated worldwide to the Foundation’s partners like MEHEHE-KAKAMBING.
Enzo seeks to register MEHEHE-KAKAMBING as a party-list with himself as a nominee
of the coalition. 

A. Will MEHEHE-KAKAMBING and Enzo be qualified as a party-list and a nominee,

respectively? Decide with reasons. (5%)

No, KABAKA and Rudy will not be qualified as a party-list and a nominee.

Under the law, an organization receiving support from any foreign government,
foundation, or organization, directly or indirectly, are disqualified from registration in
the party-list system.

In the instant case, KABAKA receives a huge subsidy from the Dutch Foreign Ministry
through The Dutch Foundation, which is a foreign organization. Applying the said rule,
KABAKA cannot thus be qualified as a party-list system. Similarly, Rudy cannot qualify
as a nominee as KABAKA’s head.

B. If you are the lawyer against MEHEHE-KAKAMBING and Enzo, what are the
other grounds provided by RA 7941 that you should look into for refusal and
cancellation of registration? (5%) 
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious
purposes;

(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

(3) It is a foreign party or organization;

(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;

(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per
centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.

C. If MEHEHE-KAKAMBING was a national party organization, who may file for

refusal or cancellation of its registration? If MEHEHE-KAKAMABING was a
regional party, who may file for cancellation or refusal of its registration? (5%) 

The COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:

III.

Viking, former Provincial Governor of Bebbanburg, was arrested at the Lasang

TF Checkpoint carrying high-powered firearms in his car. He was charged and
convicted for violation of the COMELEC gun ban. He did not appeal his conviction and
instead applied for executive clemency. Acting on the favorable recommendation of the
Board of Pardons and Parole, President Theo granted him pardon. Viking filed his COC
for governor. A petition to deny or cancel COC was filed against him. Is Viking eligible to
run again for governor? Explain briefly. (5%) 

Yes, Mayor Galicia can run again for elective office but only after five (5) years.

Under the law, any person convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral
turpitude shall be disqualified to be a candidate for an elective national office. This
disqualification is deemed removed upon the expiration of a period of five years from
his service of sentence.
 Here, Mayor Galicia is guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. Only five
years after serving his sentence can he be eligible to run for office again.

IV

Governor Liam was serving his third term when he lost his governorship in a recall election.

a. Who shall succeed Governor Liam in his office as Governor? (1%)

Governor Diy should be succeeded by the candidate who received the highest number
of votes in the recall.

Under the law, the recall of an elective local official shall be effective upon the election
of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast
during the recall.

The candidate who received the highest number of votes in the recall will succeed
Governor Diy (Section 72 of the Local Government Code).

b. Can Governor Liam run again as governor in the next election? (2%)

Yes, Governor Diy can run again as governor in the next election.

Jurisprudence holds that a recall election is an interruption of the consecutiveness of the

term of office.

Here, Governor Diy’s term was interrupted by the recall. There being an interruption in
his term, the three-term limit cannot be made to apply in his case.

c. Can Governor Liam refuse to run in the recall election and instead resign from his position as
governor? (2%)

No, Governor Diy cannot refuse to run in the recall election.

The law provides that the official sought to be recalled shall be automatically
considered as duly registered candidate and shall be entitled to be voted upon.

V.

The President appointed Resres Podoy as Chairperson of the COMELEC on June 14, 2011 for a
term of seven (7) years pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. His term of office started on June 2, 2011
to end on June 2, 2018. Subsequently, the President appointed Ms. Sigeg O. Tee as the third
member of the COMELEC for a term of seven (7) years starting June 2, 2014 until June 2, 2021.  On
June 2, 2015, Chairperson Resres Podoy retired optionally after having served the government for
thirty (30) years.  The President then appointed Commissioner Sigeg O. Tee as COMELEC
Chairperson. The Commission on Appointments confirmed her appointment. The appointment
papers expressly indicate that Ms. Sigeg O. Tee will serve as COMELEC Chairperson “until the
expiration of the original term of her office as COMELEC Commissioner or on June 2, 2021.”  

Marites, a tax payer, files a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court asserting that the
appointment of Tee as COMELEC Chairperson is unconstitutional for the following reasons: (1) The
appointment of Tee as COMELEC Chairperson constituted a reappointment which is proscribed by
Section 1 (2), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution; and (2) the term of office expressly stated in the
appointment papers of Tee likewise contravenes the aforementioned constitutional provision. 

A. Will the constitutional challenge succeed? Explain. (5%)

No, the constitutional challenge will not succeed.

The Constitution prohibits the reappointment of COMELEC Commissioner after serving a

seven-year term. Promotional apportionment the appointee shall only serve the unexpired portion
of the last chariman’s term, and the rotational scheme of terms are maintained.

IN this case, Marikit’s appointment is valid as she had not yet fully served her term of seven
years as a Commissioner. She will, however, only be allowed to serve the remaining unexpired
term of Resres Podoy.

The first argument is untenable since Commissioner Marikit was not reappointed but actually was a
promotional appointment as she had not yet fully served her term. What the Constitution prohibits is a
reappointment of a COMELEC Commissioner after serving the seven-year term. On the second argument, the
limitation of the term of Commissioner Marikit as chairman until expiration of her original term on June 2,
2021 is valid only until June 8, 2018, that is, the unexpired portion of the last chairman’s term but invalid if
until 2021 as it exceeds the limitation. A promotional apportionment is allowed provided that the aggregate
period of the term of the appointee will not exceed seven years and that the rotational scheme of staggering
terms of the commission membership is maintained.

B. What is the rotational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC? (5%)

The rotational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC refers to the successive

appointment of the Chairman and its Commissioners in intervals of every after
two years upon expiration of their term starting from February 2, 1987.

C. What are the two conditions for its workability? (5%)

The rotational scheme has these two conditions for its workability:

1. The terms of the first commissioners should start on a common date and

2. Any vacancy due to death, resignation or disability before the expiration of the term
should only be filled for the unexpired balance of the term.
 VI.
Nikki was appointed by the President as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) while Congress was not in session. Pending confirmation of his appointment by the
Commission on Appointments, Nikki started to perform his official functions in the COMELEC, such
as attending en banc sessions, hearing election protests, signing Resolutions, issuing Orders, and
appearing before Congress during budget hearings.

Atty. Khloe questioned before the Supreme Court the exercise of official functions by Nikki, stating
that his ad interim appointment is not a permanent appointment but a temporary one pending
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and thus, prohibited under Article IX-C of the
1987 Constitution which states that “[i]n no case shall any Member [of the COMELEC] be appointed
or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

(a) Is Atty. Khloe’s contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)

NO, B’s contention is not correct. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes
effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into
office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its
permanent character.

The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. (Matibag v
Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002)

(b) If the Commission on Appointments by-passed the confirmation of Nikki, can he still be
reappointed by the President? Explain. (2.5%)

YES, the President can continue to reappoint A. Under the Rules of the Commission on Appointments, a by-
passed appointment can be considered again if the President renews the appointment. The prohibition on
reappointment in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed
ad interim appointments.

A by- passed ad interim appointment can be revived by a new ad interim appointment because there is no
final disapproval under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and such new appointment will not result in
the appointee serving beyond the fixed term of seven years. An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by
inaction of the Commission on Appointments does not constitute a term of office. The period from the time
the ad interim appointment is made to the time it lapses is neither a fixed term nor an unexpired term.

VII.

Mr. Square and Mr. Circle were the leading candidates in the vice-presidential elections. After
elections, Square emerged as the winner by a slim margin of 100,000 votes. Undaunted, Circle filed
a protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). After due consideration of the facts and the
issues, the PET ruled that Circle was the real winner of the elections and ordered his immediate
proclamation.

a. Aggrieved, Square filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari challenging the
decision of the PET alleging grave abuse of discretion. Does the Supreme Court have
jurisdiction? Explain. (3%)

No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the petition.

The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President
or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. The Presidential
Electoral Tribunal is not simply an agency to which the Members of the Senate Court
were assigned. It is not separate from the Supreme Court.

b. Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Square and Circle were contending for a senatorial
slot and it was the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) who issued the challenged ruling? (3%)

My answer would not be the same if it were the Senate Electoral Tribunal who issued
the challenged ruling.

It is provided under the Constitution that the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices
of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall
be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and
the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein.
The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

The Supreme Court would have jurisdiction if it were the Senate Electoral Tribunal who
issued the challenged ruling. The Supreme Court can review its decision if it acted with
grave abuse of discretion.

c. What is the composition of the PET? (2%)

The PET is composed of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court sitting en banc.

VIII.
Mayor Payong is eyeing re-election in the next mayoralty race. It was common knowledge in the
town that Mayor Payong will run for re-election in the coming elections. The deadline for filing of
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) is on March 23 and the campaign period commences the following
day. One month before the deadline, Payong has yet to file her CoC, but she has been going around
town giving away sacks of rice with the words "Mahal Tayo ni Mayor Payong" printed on them,
holding public gatherings and speaking about how good the town is doing, giving away pink payong
with "Kay Mayor Payong Ako" printed on them.

a. Mr. Green is the political opponent of Mayor Payong. In April, noticing that Mayor Payong
had gained advantage over him because of her activities before the campaign period, he
filed a petition to disqualify Mayor Payong for engaging in an election campaign outside the
designated period.

a.1. Which is the correct body to rule on the matter? Comelec en banc, or Comelec division?
Answer with reasons. (2%)

It is the Commission on Elections En Banc which should decide the petition. Since it involves the exercise of
the administrative powers of the Commission on Election, Section 3, Article Ix-C of the Constitution is not
applicable (Baytan V. COMELEC, 396 SCRA 703).

a.2. Rule on the petition. (5%)

The petition should be denied.

The Omnibus Election Code provides that it is unlawful for any person, whether or not
a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election
campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period.

In this case, Pink’s act of going around town and giving away sacks of rice with her
name printed on them, as well as the holding of public gatherings, although considered
as election campaign outside the campaign period, cannot be punished under the
Omnibus Election Code as such acts were committed prior to her being a candidate.

Hence, the petition should be denied.

b. Distinguish briefly between Quo Warranto in elective office and Quo Warranto in appointive
office. (3%)

In quo warranto in elective office, the cause of action is the ineligibility of the elected
candidate. In quo warranto in appointive office, on the other hand, the cause of action is
the illegality of the appointment.

In quo warranto in elective office, a voter may file the petition within 10 days after the
proclamation of the elected candidate. In quo warranto in elective office, the Solicitor
General or the person claiming to be entitled to the public office can file the petition
withing one year from the accrual of the cause of action.
 IX.

A law converted the component city of Malumanay, Laguna into a highly urbanized city. The Local
Government Code (LGC) provides that the conversion "shall take effect only after it is approved by
the majority of votes cast in a plebiscite to be held in the political units directly affected."

Before the COMELEC, Mayor Sigpa Bill Board of Malumanay City insists that only the registered
voters of the city should vote in the plebiscite because the city is the only political unit directly
affected by the conversion. Governor Tarp Rayako asserts that all the registered voters of the entire
province of Laguna should participate in the plebiscite, because when the LGC speaks of the
"qualified voters therein," it means all the voters of all the political units affected by such conversion,
and that includes all the voters of the entire province. He argues that the income, population and
area of Laguna will be reduced. Who, between Mayor Sigpa Bill Board and Governor Tarp Rayako,
is correct? Explain your answer. (5%)

Between Mayor Xenon and Yuri, Governor Yuri is correct. All the registered voters of
the entire Province of Laguna should participate in the plebiscite.

The Constitution provides that plebiscite must be held in the political units directly
affected.

Here, the conversion of City of Malumanay into a highly urbanized city will affect the
Province of Laguna and its residents, in that the territory of the province will be
reduced and the share of internal revenue allotment will be reduced, among others.
There being a probable material change in the political and economic rights of the entire
population of the Province of Laguna, the registered voters therein, therefore should
participate in the plebescite.

X.
Sec. 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that no elective official shall serve for more than
three (3) consecutive terms. Rule and explain briefly the reason if the official is prohibited to run for
another term in each of the following situations:

(a) if the official is a Vice-Mayor who assumed the position of Mayor for the unexpired term under the
Local Government Code;

The Vice Mayor is not prohibited to run for another term. Under the three-term limit
rule, only the term for which the local official was elected should be considered.

Here, he is not elected for the position of mayor but assumed the position due to some
circumstances. Only the term for which he was elected as vice mayor should be
considered.

(b) if the official has served for three consecutive terms and did not seek a 4th term but who won in a
recall election;
The official is not prohibited. A local candidate who served three consecutive terms and
did not seek a fourth term but ran and won in the recall can serve because a recall
election is not an immediate re-election.

(c) if the position of Mayor of a town is abolished due to conversion of the town to a city;
The Mayor of a town which was consequently converted into a city is prohibited. The
term of office of the municipal mayor should not be considered as different from that of
the city mayor.

(d) if the official is preventively suspended during his term but was exonerated; and

The official preventively suspended is prohibited. The temporary inability of an

elective official to exercise his functions due to preventive suspension is not an
interruption of his term because it did not involve the loss of title to the office.

(e) if the official is proclaimed as winner and assumes office but loses in an election protest. (5%)
The official proclaimed as winner and assumes office but loses in protest is not
prohibited as he did not fully served his term.

XI.

Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution establishes an Electoral Tribunal for each of the Houses of
Congress, and makes each Electoral Tribunal "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective Members." On the other hand, Sec. 2(1), C
(Commission on Elections), Art. IX of the Constitution grants to the COMELEC the power to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations "relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall." 

Considering that there is no concurrence of jurisdiction between the Electoral Tribunals and the
COMELEC, state when the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals begins, and the COMELEC's
jurisdiction ends. Explain your answer. (5%)

The jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals begins when the winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives. Once the Electoral Tribunal has obtained jurisdiction over the
election contest, the Commission on Election’s jurisdiction ceases.

XII.

The Province of Crocs is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative
district composed of four municipalities: Nurod, Nutubeg, Nusuga, and Nunet.
Boo Waya, a resident and registered voter of Nunet municipality, ran and was elected as member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Crocs in the 2013 and 2016 local elections.

While Boo Waya was serving his second term as sp member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the
four towns of Crocs into two legislative districts: Nurod and Nutubeg comprising the First District, and
Nusuga and Nunet comprising the Second District.

In the 2019 local elections, Boo Waya ran and was elected as member of the SP of Boo Waya
representing the Second District.

Boo Waya seeks your legal advice regarding his intention to run as a member of the SP of Boo
Waya for the Second District in the next local elections in 2022. What will you advise Boo Waya?
(5%)

I would Andres against running for SP member because in doing so, he would
violate the three-term limitation rule upon local elective officials.

The law provides that no local elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
full consecutive terms in the same position. In Latasa v. Comelec, the Court has
ruled that the three-term limit rule applies notwithstanding any reapportionment,
renaming, reclassification of local government unit.

XIII.
Aaaaah Halanga, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the
Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the
last national elections. Its first nominee, Kringkels, assumed office as the party-list representative.

About one year after Kringkels assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Aaaaah Halanga
expelled Kringkels from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Owel, its second nominee.
Kringkels questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Owel.

The Comelec considered Kringkel’s petition as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an
incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion. Is the
Comelec's ruling correct? (5%)

No, the Comelec’s ruling is incorrect.

The jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals begins when the winning candidate has been
proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives. Once the Electoral Tribunal has obtained jurisdiction over the election
contest, the Commission on Election’s jurisdiction ceases.

Here, it is the HRET which has the jurisdiction over the case because Alejandro is
already a member of the House of Representatives.
 XIV.

The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Olenata included Bogo and Padayon as contenders.
Bogo filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel Padayon’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for
misrepresenting himself as a Filipino citizen. Bogo presented as evidence a copy of Padayon’s
Spanish passport and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (Bl) showing that Padayon used
the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or Barcelona.
In his Comment, Padayon claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the
requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire
his Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn renunciation of his
Spanish citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to taking his oath of
allegiance to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his Philippine
passport despite reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine
passport, he said he had to wait for the issuance of a Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain
to visit his wife and minor children.

(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Padayon’s
CoC? (2.5%)

Yes, there is sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto’s CoC.

The Court has ruled that the sole act of foreign passport amounts to a recantation of the
oath of renunciation of foreign citizenship.

Here, by using his Spanish passport, Anacleto has effectively reverted to his status as a
dual citizen. Being a dual citizen, he is now disqualified from running in the election.
Thus, Anacleto’s CoC must be cancelled.

(b) In case Padayon’s CoC is properly cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Olenata
City: Bogo, who obtained the second highest number votes, or Chuychuyan, the duly-elected
Vice Mayor of the City? (2.5%)

In case Anacleto’s CoC is properly cancelled, Arnaldo should serve as mayor of

Ardania City.

The Court has ruled that in case of vacancies caused by those with void ab initio
certificates of candidacy, the person legally entitled to the vacant position would be the
candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes among those eligible.

In the instant case, Arnaldo, being the candidate with the second highest of votes,
should serve as mayor of Ardania City.

XV.
Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed
with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Dalia. Years ago, Dalia was charged and convicted of the crime of rape
by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which
carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. While Dalia was in prison, the
President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prison.
The second petition was against Namads. Namads’ residency was questioned because he was
allegedly a "green card holder," i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification
to this effect from the US Embassy.

Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued
two resolutions granting the petitions against Dalia and Namads.
Both Dalia and Namads filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions
cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en banc acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been
heard and resolved by one of the Comelec's Divisions.
Are Dalia and Namads correct? (5%)

A: Anselmo is incorrect. The rule is every quasi- judicial matter must first be tackled by a division subject to
appeal by way of a Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. In Jalosjos v. COMELEC (G.R. No.
205033, June 18, 2013), it was determined that a cancellation on the basis of perpetual disqualification is a
matter that can be taken judicial notice of. When it cancels A CoC on that ground, it is acting in performance of
an administrative function and, therefore, the rule in Article XI, Section 3 does not apply.

Ambrosio, on the other hand, is correct that the petition for the cancellation of his CoC should have been first
heard and resolved by the Comelec Division. Cancellation proceedings involve the COMELEC's quasijudicial
functions. The Constitution mandates the COMELEC, in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers, to hear and decide cases first by division and, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en
banc. (Bautista v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 154796-97, October 23, 2003)

XVI.

Atty. G ran for Governor of the Province of Pampanga, while his close friend, Atty. M, ran for Mayor
of the Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga. They both won convincingly. Eventually, the losing
candidates timely filed election protests. The losing gubernatorial candidate, Mr. A, filed his protest
before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga (RTC), whereas the losing mayoralty candidate, Mr. B,
filed his protest before the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga (MTC).

(a) What are the term limits for the positions of Atty. G and Atty. M? (1%)

A Governor and a mayor has a fixed term of three years. A governor can serve
only up to a maximum of three consecutive terms. Likewise, a mayor has also a
fixed term of three years with a maximum of three consecutive terms.
 (b) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A? Explain. (2%)

1.  The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A. COMELEC has jurisdiction over an
election contest between a losing gubernatorial candidate and a proclaimed winner of the
gubernatorial post. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]

(c) Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B? Explain. (2%)

1. The MTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B. The RTC has jurisdiction over an
election contest between a losing municipal mayoralty candidate and a proclaimed municipal mayor.
[Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]

XVII.

W, the incumbent Congressman of the Province of Albay, decided to run for Governor. He filed his
certificate of candidacy (CoC) for Governor without resigning from his post and continued exercising
his duties as Congressman, such as attending plenary sessions and committee hearings in the
House of Representatives.
One of W’s fiercest critics, X, claimed that W should not be dispensing the functions of a
Congressman since he is deemed ipso facto resigned as such upon his filing of a CoC for Governor
of Albay.
(a) Is X’s argument correct? Explain. (2.5%)

No, X’s argument is incorrect.

Section 47 of BP 881, which deemed elective officials ipso facto resigned when
they file their Certificate of Candidacy, is inoperative, and therefor W may still
continue office.

(b) Assuming that W is instead, an incumbent Undersecretary of the Department of National

Defense, what is the effect of the filing of his CoC for the position of Governor of Albay to
said post? Explain. (2.5%)

The filing of W’s COC for Governor of Albay renders him resigned.

Under the law, any person holding a public appointive office or position, including
active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in
government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

In this case, W, an undersecretary of the Department of National Defense, is an

appointive official. Hence, is considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon filing
his COC.