​ conduct of the BSKE on the last Monday of October 2023, pursuant to the
operative fact doctrine.
Link for AC Agra Slides (nahanap ko lang to sa google di ko alam kung ito yung gusto
ni sir haha): Link
Link for Sir Ostrea’s slides (09/26/2023): Link
Link for Sir Ostrea’s slides (11/14/2023): Link
Link for Syllabus: Link
SUFFRAGE
What is suffrage? (p.490, De Leon)
● Suffrage is the right as well as the obligation of qualified citizens to vote in the
election of certain national and local officers of the government and in the
decision of public questions submitted to the people.
● It necessarily includes the right to free speech and expression, specifically the
right of the voter to vocalize his choice of candidates to the public in general.
● Not a natural right, but merely a privilege to be given or withheld by the
lawmaking power subject to constitutional limitations.
● RIGHT - because it is the expression of the sovereign will of the people
○ People who bear the burden of the government should share in the
privilege of choosing the officials of the government
○ Vox populi, vox Dei
● DUTY - should be exercised in good faith and within intelligent zeal for the
general benefit and welfare of the State.
2 Objectives of Suffrage (p. 493, De Leon)
● Continuity of the government and the preservation of and perpetuation of its
benefits
a. Through elections - enable the people to choose their representatives
to discharge sovereign functions; and
b. Through plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall - To determine
their will upon such questions submitted to them.
● It is settled that in case of doubt, political laws must be so construed as to give
life and spirit to the popular mandate and freely expressed through the ballot
Case: Macalintal v. Comelec (2023) postponement of brgy election (Link)
Facts:
● The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the law which postponed the
holding of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (BSK) Elections (BSKE),
from its initial schedule of December 5, 2022 to the last Monday of October
2023, but recognizes the legal practicality and necessity of proceeding with the
Held:
● Postponement of the Barangay & SK Elections (BSBE) 2022 for purposes of
augmenting executive funds is unconstitutional as it transgresses the
prohibition against transfer of appropriations.
❌
● Strict scrutiny Test (failed)
❌
○ Legitimate government interest
○ Least restrictive means
● Holding of genuine, periodic elections is part of the constitutional guarantee of
free and meaningful exercise of the right to vote
● COMELEC DOES NOT have power to postpone elections on a national basis
Republicanism
● Republicanism is a theory of government that emphasizes the participation of
citizens for the common good of the community. The responsibilities and duties
of citizens are paramount, and the exemplary citizen readily subordinates
personal to public interests.
Case: Sanchez v. COMELEC incomplete election returns
Held:
● Sanchez’s petition for recount contending that the canvassed returns discarded
“Sanchez” votes as stray DOES NOT present a proper issue.
● Pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, to lessen delay
as much as possible.
● To allow the recount would entail multiple administrative and financial problems.
● Errors in the appreciation of ballots are proper subject for election protest and
NOT for recount.
DISSENTING OPINION by J. Sarmiento (Sir highlighted this during class)
● The recount should be allowed in order to be assured of the true will of the
people.
● If such recount will mean the inclusion of Sanchez in the winning ticket, then so
be it.
● That is the mandate of the people. If not, it means that the electorate prefer
Enrile.
Public Interest in Election Cases
● Election cases involved not only the adjudication of the private interest of rival
candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which
beclouds the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall discharge
the prerogatives of the offices within their gift. They are imbued with public
interest.
1

Who can vote? Qualifications of a voter?
ART. V. SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to
vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or
other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
1. Citizen of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law
2. at least eighteen years of age
3. a resident of the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election.
What are void voter qualifications?
No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise
of suffrage.
● Literacy requirement
○ Now, an illiterate person has the right to vote
● Property requirement
○ Congress cannot impose property requirements for their exercise of
suffrage
■ It is not a test of an individual capacity
■ It is inconsistent with the concept of a republican government
■ It is inconsistent with social justice principles
○ A law requiring all candidates for public offices to post a surety bond
equivalent to the 1-year salary or emoluments of the position for which
they are candidates, which shall be forfeited if the candidates, except
the winner, fail to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast, is
unconstitutional (Maquera v. Borra)
● Other substantive requirements:
○ Education
○ Sex
○ Taxpaying ability
Case: Maquera v. Borra bond b4 running = form of prop qualification (unconsti)
Facts:
● RA 4421 requires “all candidates for national, provincial, city and municipal
office” to post a surety bond equivalent to the 1-year salary of the position to
which he is a candidate.
○ If <10% votes, bond is forfeited, provided that there are less than 4
candidates.
Issue:
● W/N the provision is constitutional - NO
Held:
● It is unconstitutional because:
○ It imposes property qualifications
○ It is inconsistent with the nature and essence of a Republican system
and social justice.
Voter qualifications; citizenship
● It may be by birth or naturalization
Voter qualifications; residence
● Residence - not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.
● In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur:
○ Actual residence or bodily presence in the new locality
○ A bona fide intention to remain there and to abandon the old domicile
○ Acts which correspond with that purpose
● The mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the
intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile.
○ Ex. necessity to continue studies, work, the practice of a profession
Domicile and residence distinguished
● If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile
● If his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established, it is residence.
● You can only have a single domicile but you can have multiple residences
Residence, for election purposes, is used synonymously with domicile
● A minor follows the domicile of his parents
● Marriage does not affect the domicile of origin of the wife
○ The Family Code recognizes revolutionary changes in the concept of
women’s rights in the intervening years by making the choice of
domicile a product of mutual agreement between the spouses.
Temporary Residence (s9, RA 8189)
● Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality, or country
solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public
service, educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations within
the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National
Police Forces, or confinement or detention in government institutions in
accordance with law, shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.
2
Domicile
3 Types of Domicile
1. Domicile by origin: it follows the domicile of the parents
2. Domicile by choice: established by voluntary physical presence at the place
where domicile is claimed
3. Domicile by operation of law: persons who lack legal capacity to acquire
domicile of their own possess domicile by operation of law (from Britannica).
3 Rules of Domicile
1. A man must have a domicile somewhere.
2. A domicile once established remains until a new one is acquired.
3. A man can only have one domicile at a time.
3 Requisites to acquire new Domicile (Poe case)
1. Residence or bodily presence in a new locality
2. An intention to remain there (animus manendi)
3. An intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non revertendi)
Case: Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC domicile = Tacloban
Facts:
● She continuously lived in Manila, except for the time she studied and worked for
some years after graduation in Tacloban City.
● In 1959, she lived and resided in San Juan, Metro Manila after Ferdinand
Marcos became a senator.
● In 1965, she lived in San Miguel, Manila.
● In 1978, she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa as the Rep. of
Manila and later on served as the governor of Metro Manila.
● In 1995, IRM filed her CoC for Representative of 1st District of Leyte wherein
she provided that: Residence in the constituency where I seek to be elected
immediately preceding the election: ____ Years and seven months. She later
amended/corrected the CoC changing the entry “seven” months to “since
childhood”.
● She averred that the entry of the word “seven” was the result of an honest
misinterpretation thinking the word “residence” to mean actual or physical
residence and the “seven” merely reflected her actual and physical residence in
Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, and that she has always maintained Tacloban City as
her domicile or residence.
● In a Resolution promulgated a day before the 1995 elections, the COMELEC en
banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of a previous Resolution
declaring her not qualified to run for the position.
Issue:
● W/N IRM was a resident, for election purposes, of the 1st District of Leyte for 1
year at the time of the 1995 elections (YES)
Held:
● Domicile includes the twin elements of (1) the fact of residing or physical
presence in a fixed place” and (2) animus manendi, or the intention of returning
there permanently.”
● Domicile and residence distinguished:
○ If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is
to leave as soon as his purpose is established, it is residence.
○ BUT a person can only have a single domicile
○ Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence + intention to
remain for an unlimited time.
○ Residence, for election purposes, is used synonymously with domicile
● An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained
residences in different places.
● In this case, it is inescapable that IRM held various residences for different
purposes during the past 4 decades. None of these purposes unequivocally
point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban Leyte. While
IRM was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed the domicile of her
parents. She grew up in Tacloban, reached her adulthood there and eventually
established residence in different parts of the country for various reasons. But
she kept close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing residences in
Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important occasions there,
instituting projects for the province’s benefit, and establishing a political power
base there.
● These well-publicized ties to her domicile of origin are part of the history and
lore of the quarter century of Marcos power in our country. Either they were
completely ignored in the COMELEC Resolutions, or the majority of the
COMELEC did not know what the rest of the country always knew: the fact of
IRM’s domicile in Tacloban, Leyte.
Case: Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC
Facts:
● Poe was found by Edgardo Militar and was registered as a foundling. She was
then adopted by FPJ and Roces. In 2001, she became a naturalized US citizen.
She came back to the PH in 2005 and in 2006, she took her oath of allegiance.
She filed her CoC for President in 2015.
Issue:
● W/N Foundlings such as Poe should be considered natural-born citizens? (YES)
● W/N Poe met the residency requirement? (YES)
Held:
On Citizenship
● While the 1935 Constitution's enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no
restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either. Because of
3
 silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, there is a
need to examine the intent of the framers. Deliberations of the 1934
Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended foundlings to be
covered by the enumeration.
● Given the grave implications of the argument that foundlings are not
natural-born Filipinos, the Court must search the records of the 1935, 1973 and
1987 Constitutions "for an express intention to deny foundlings the status of
Filipinos. The burden is on those who wish to use the constitution to discriminate
against foundlings to show that the constitution really intended to inflict this
across the board marginalization.
○ SC: We find no such intent or language permitting discrimination
against foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee
the basic right to equal protection of the laws.
On Residency
● COMELEC virtually ignored a good number of evidenced dates, all of which can
evince animus manendi to the Philippines and animus non revertedi to the US.
● Evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and that she decided to permanently
abandon her U.S. residence
○ selling the house; taking the children from U.S. schools; notifying the
U.S. Post Office of the abandonment of their address in the U.S.; her
husband resigning from U.S. employment right after selling the U.S.
house. When petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it was for good
● Starting May 24,2005, upon returning to the Philippines, Grace Poe presented
overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon permanently
her domicile in the US, coupled with her eventual application to reacquire
Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225.
GENERAL RULE: residence could be counted only from acquisition of a permanent
resident visa or from reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
EXCEPTION: This case, where there is overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and
intent to abandon permanently her domicile in the US, coupled with her eventual
application to reacquire Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225.
Voter disqualifications, OEC
1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less
than 1 year, unless removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
a. He shall reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence
2. Any person adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of
having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and
firearms law, or any crime against national security in accordance with the
law.
a. He shall reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence
3. Insane or incompetent person as declared by competent authority
a. He shall reacquire the right to vote upon declaration by proper authority
that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.
Case: Pp v. Corral why criminals can’t vote
Facts:
● Coral was charged with having voted illegally at the June 5, 1934 general
elections. After due trial, he was convicted on the ground that he had voted
while laboring under a legal disqualification.
● It is undisputed that Coral was sentenced by final judgment on March 3, 1910, to
suffer eight years and one day of presidio mayor. There was also no evidence
that he was granted a plenary pardon.
● Sec. 432 (a) of the Revised Administrative Code provides that “any person who,
since Aug. 13, 1898, has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer not less
than eighteen months of imprisonment shall be disqualified from voting, such not
having been removed by plenary pardon.
● Sec. 2642 provides that “Whoever at any election vote or attempts to vote
knowing that he is not entitled to do so, . . . shall be punished by
imprisonment…and in all cases by deprivation of the right of suffrage for less
than 4 years.
Issue:
● WON Coral is qualified to vote in the 1934 elections (NO)
Held:
● "The manifest purpose of such restrictions upon this right is to preserve the
purity of elections. The presumption is that one rendered infamous by
conviction of a felony, or other base offense indicative of moral turpitude,
is unfit to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The exclusion
must for this reason be adjudged a mere disqualification, imposed for protection
and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not the denial of a
personal right.
● The disqualification is for protection, not punishment
Other Electoral Exercises (4)
1. Plebiscite
a. Electoral process by which a proposed amendment to, or revision of
the Constitution is submitted to the people for ratification
b. Required by the Constitution to secure the approval of the people
directly affected, before certain proposed changes (creation, division,
merger of a political unit) affecting LGUs may be implemented
4
 2. Referendum
a. Power of the electorate to approve or reject national or local legislation,
through an election called for the purpose.
b. Mode of appealing from an elected body to the whole body of voters
3. Initiative
a. Process where the registered voters directly propose, enact, or amend
laws, national or local, through an election called for the purpose.
b. Amendments to the Constitution may be directly proposed by the
people through initiative
c. There are 3 systems of initiative: 1. Initiative on the Constitution which
refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Consti; 2. Initiative on
statutes which refers to petitions proposing to enact a national
legislation; and, 3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay
law, resolution or ordinance (Sec. 3, RA. 6735 or The Initiative and
Referendum Act).
4. Recall
a. A method by which a public officer may be removed from office during
his tenure or before the expiration of his term by a vote of the people
after registration of a petition signed by a required percentage of the
qualified voters
Cases:
Marmeto v COMELEC (2017) Muntinlupa ppl power
Facts:
● Marmeto filed on behalf of the Muntinlupa People Power (MPP) a proposed
ordinance. He filed this to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa. The
proposal sought the creation of a sectoral council composed of 12 sectoral
representatives and the appropriation of the amount of ₱200M for the livelihood
programs and projects that would benefit the people of Muntinlupa City.
● It was denied twice by the COMELEC.
○ The first time it was denied, COMELEC stated that they could not act
upon it because the budget for the FY has already been passed.
○ For the second proposal, COMELEC denied it again because
Marmeto’s propositions are beyond the legal powers of the
Sangguinang Panglungod to enact and for lack of funds.
Issue:
● WON Comelec erred in dismissing the petition for being beyond the legal
powers of SP to enact (NO. Wherefore, petition is dismissed.)
Held
● The courts can review the terms only of an approved ordinance. It will be
premature for the courts to review the propositions contained in an initiative
petition that has yet to be voted for by the people because at that point, there is
no actual controversy that the courts may adjudicate.
● In as much as Comelec also has quasi-judicial and administrative functions, it is
Comelec which has the power to determine whether the propositions in an
initiative petition are within the powers of a concerned Sanggunian to enact. Its
power to review the substance of the propositions is also implied in Sec. 12 of
RA 6735, which gives SC appellate power to review the COMELEC's findings of
the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or referendum”.
● The ordinances proposed by Marmeto were outside the legal powers of the
Sanggunian to enact. Sec. 124(b) of the LGC states that “initiatives shall extend
only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunian
to enact. Therefore, COMELEC was correct in denying Marmeto’s proposed
ordinances.
● Marmento’s propositions are either sufficiently covered by or violative of the
LGC.
○ The creation of a separate local legislative body is ultra vires because
only elected district and sectoral representatives may exercise local
legislative power.
○ The sectoral council/MPP's proposed function overlaps with the Local
Development Council
○ The LGC requires local government funds and monies to be spent
solely for public purposes, and provides transparency and
accountability measures to ensure this end. Marmento’s proposal, on
the other hand, is subject to the guidelines to be later implemented by
Marmeto's MPP.
NOTE: It was also ruled by the Court here that COMELEC cannot defeat the exercise of
the people’s power of initiative due to lack of budgetary allocation for its conduct. It was
discussed that when COMELEC receives budgetary appropriation for “Current Operating
Expenditures”, such appropriation includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional
functions, which includes both regular and special elections, “elections” including other
kinds of electoral exercises such as recall, plebiscite, initiative, and referendum.
Santiago v. COMELEC (1997) “Initiative” stated in consti not self-executing
Facts:
● Jesus Delfin filed a petition with COMELEC to “amend” the Constitution so as to
lift the term limits of elective officials via People’s Initiative, particularly sections
4 and 7 of Article VI, sec. 4 of Article VII, and Sec. 8 of Article X.
● Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and others opposed the petition on the
ground that the constitutional provision on people’s initiative can only be
implemented by law to be passed by Congress and no such law has been
passed. They also argued that RA No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum
Act.”), which was relied upon by Delfin, contained no provision regarding
amendments to the Constitution.
● Sen. Defensor-Santiago contended that R.A. No. 6735 provided for three
systems of initiative, namely, (1) initiative on the Constitution, (2) on statutes and
5
 (3) on local legislation. But no provisions were specifically made for initiatives on
the Constitution.
● It was also the petitioners’ contention that the people’s initiative is limited to
amendments to the Constitution, and not to revision.
Issue:
● WON R.A. No. 6735 intended to include initiative on amendments to the
Constitution (YES)
Held:
● Yes, but it is inadequate for that purpose. Wherefore, the Delfin petition is
dismissed.
● R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution. But Sec. 2 of thereof did not suggest an initiative on amendments
to the Constitution. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and
Referendum and for Local Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle was provided
for initiative on the Constitution. The silence simply means that the main thrust
of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws
● RA No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to
the Constitution and has failed to provide sufficient standards for subordinate
legislation.
○ First, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on
amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word
"Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought.
○ Second, the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for
initiative on the Constitution.
○ Third, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution in the Act.
○ Lastly, it also cannot be accepted that the initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative
and Referendum since it covers only national laws, or laws which only
Congress can pass.
○ Upon careful scrutiny of the law, there was, therefore, an obvious
downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of
initiative. R.A. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a
reluctant lip service.
● COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative. (Only Congress may do so).
● The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative is recognized under Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the
Constitution, but it cannot be exercised if the Congress does not provide for its
implementation since said provision is not self-executory.
● The interpellations by the Constitutional Commission also showed that Sec. 2 is
limited only to proposals to amend and not to revise the Constitution, the latter
being reserved to the Congress or the Constitutional Convention.
Lambino v COMELEC, (2006) amendment v. revision
Facts:
● Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will
ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution under Section 5(b)
and (c)2 and Section 73 of the Initiative and Referendum Act.
● This petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article
VI (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive
Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.” These
proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
● They alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered
voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
● The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA
6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution.
Issue:
● WON the petition comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting an initiative
Held:
● No. Wherefore, petition is dismissed.
● The Lambino group’s signature sheet did not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they were asked to sign the signature sheet.
● The Court discussed that the framers of the Constitution intended that the draft
of the proposed constitutional amendments should be ready and shown to the
people before they sign such proposal.
● The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people.
As such, two elements must be present:
○ 1. The people must author and sign the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on their behalf.
○ 2. The proposal must be embodied in a petition.
● These requirements not only allow the people to be fully informed of what they
are signing, and what implications the proposed amendments will do to the
Constitution, it will also eliminate the possibility of allowing the people who
prepared the proposal to insert what they want to after acquiring the signatures
(this one is in my own words, but that’s what the Court essentially discussed).
6
 ● Also, under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the petition was in fact
a revision and not merely an amendment.
○ Quantitatively, the proposed changes overhauled two entire articles —
Articles VI and VII — thereby affecting a total of 105 provisions in the
entire Constitution.
○ Qualitatively, the proposed changes substantially altered the basic plan
of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a
bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
● Furthermore, the 6.3 million signatories did not actually sign the petition — their
signatures were merely attached to the petition.
● To add, Lambino group also admitted that they only circulated about 100,000
copies of the draft petition. Thus, out of the 6.3 million people who purportedly
signed the petition, only 100,000 people, assuming that everyone received a
copy, could have received one copy of the petition with certainty.
How to amend the Constitution?
1. There must be a proposal of amendments or revision, that is, the formulation of
the changes contemplated
a. Who?
i. Congress, upon ¾ vote of all its members
ii. Congress, voting ⅔ of all its members, calling a Constitutional
Convention
iii. Electorate, through popular initiative, upon a petition of:
1. At least 12% of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein.
2. But since RA 6735 is inadequate, amendment by
initiative and referendum must still await a valid law
(Santiago v. COMELEC).
2. Submission of the proposed amendments or revisions to the people
a. Through a plebiscite
3. Ratification
a. By a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such
amendment.
What is a special election?
● One provided for by law under special circumstances. It may refer to an election
not regularly held to fill a vacancy in office before the expiration of the full term
for which the incumbent was elected, or an election at which some issue or
proposition is submitted to the vote of the qualified electors.
● It also refers to an election held when there is a failure of election.
Case: Tolentino v COMELEC (2004) vacancy in senate
Facts:
● After her succession to the Presidency, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo nominated
Senator Teofisto Guingona as her Vice President, which in turn left a vacancy in
the Senate.
● COMELEC then held a special election alongside the regular election in which
the 13th Senator, Gregorio Honasan, will serve the remaining 3-year term of
Guingona.
● Petitioners Tolentino and Mojica filed a petition seeking to enjoin the COMELEC
from proclaiming the candidate for Senator receiving the 13th highest number of
votes as the winner.
Issue:
● WON the special election to fill the vacant 3-year term Senate seat was valid -
(YES. Wherefore, petition is dismissed.)
Held:
● Under Section 9 Article VI of the Constitution, a special election may be called to
fill any vacancy in the Senate and the House of Reps in the manner prescribed
by law. To implement this provision, Congress passed RA 6445.
● Thus, in case of a vacancy in Congress at least 1 year before the expiration of
the term, Section 2 of RA 6645 requires COMELEC:
“To call a special election by fixing the date of the said election, which should not be
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy, but in
case of a vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with
the next succeeding regular election; and
To give notice to the voters of, among other things, the office or officers to be voted for.”
● Moreover, Section 9 requires that the senator-elect will only serve the unexpired
term.
VOTER REGISTRATION
Define voter registration, voters’ lists, and the book of voters
Voter registration - the act of accomplishing and filing a sworn application for
registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality where
he or she resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval
by the Election Registration Board (ERB).
7
Voters’ list - enumeration of names of registered voters in a precinct duly certified by the
ERB for use in the election
Book of Voters (BV) - the compilation of all registration records in a precinct.
What is the remedy in case of breaches in the BV? (s39, RA 8189)
● The COMELEC may annul any book of voters upon verified petition by any voter
or election officer or duly registered political party, and after due notice and
hearing.
● What are the grounds?
○ When not prepared in accordance with the provisions of RA 8189
○ When prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation,
intimidation, force, or any similar irregularity [FBI]
○ When it contains statistically improbable data.
● Who has jurisdiction?
○ COMELEC, upon verified petition by any voter or election officer or
duly registered political party, and after due notice and hearing.
● When is the last day?
○ No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be
executed within 90 days before an election.
What are the 2 other remedies provided by law?
1. The challenge to the right to register before the ERB.
2. The petition for inclusion and exclusion before the MTC.
Effect of lack of voter registration on suffrage
● Registration is essential to the exercise of the right of suffrage, not the
possession thereof. It is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable
element in the election process.
● Although one is a qualified elector, he or she must nevertheless comply with the
registration procedure in order to vote.
● So, if you do not register, you cannot vote.
Is voter registration a substantive voting requirement?
● NO. Registration is a procedural limitation.
● Unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to a level of a literacy,
property, or other substantive requirement as contemplated by 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 ability to intelligently cast his or her
vote and to further the public good, the same CANNOT be struck down as
unconstitutional.
Case: Kabataan v COMELEC (2015) biometrics registration
Facts:
● In 2013, Pres. BS Aquino signed into law RA 10367 which mandates the
COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new
voters
● The law aims to establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of
voters through an adoption of biometric technology
● RA 10367 likewise directs that "registered voters whose biometrics have not
been captured shall submit themselves for validation."
● Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of
application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be
deactivated
○ Deactivated voters shall not be allowed to vote
● On July 1, 2013, the COMELEC, pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution,
commenced the mandatory biometric system of registration.
● To make biometric registration convenient and accessible to the voting public,
aside from the COMELEC offices in every local government unit, it likewise
established satellite registration offices in barangays and malls.
● COMELEC launched the NoBio-NoBoto public information campaign which ran
concurrently with the period of continuing registration.
● Petitioners filed the instant petition with the application for a TRO and/or writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the
biometrics validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as
COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto.
Issue:
● WON RA 10367 is unconstitutional for imposing a substantive requirement on
the right to vote (NO)
Held:
● The concept of a "qualification", at least insofar as the discourse on suffrage is
concerned, should be distinguished from the concept of "registration", which is
jurisprudentially regarded as only the means by which a person's qualifications
to vote is determined.
● The act of registering is only one step towards voting, and it is not one of the
elements that makes the citizen a qualified voter and one may be a qualified
voter without exercising the right to vote."
● Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification
for such right.
● The process of registration is a procedural limitation on the right to vote. The
right of a citizen to vote nevertheless remains conditioned upon it
8
 ● This requirement is not a "qualification" to the exercise of the right of
suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the
State has the right to reasonably regulate.
What is deactivation? Reactivation? See Biometrics Act.
Deactivation Reactivation
removal of the registered record of the reinstatement of a deactivated voter.
registered voter from the corresponding
precinct book of voters for failure to
comply with the validation process
What is validation?
The process of taking the biometrics of registered voters whose biometrics have not yet
been captured
What are the grounds for deactivation?
1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less
than 1 year, unless removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
a. He shall reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence
2. Any person adjudged by final judgment by competent court or tribunal of
having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and
firearms law, or any crime against national security in accordance with the
law.
a. He shall reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence
3. Any person who did not vote in the two successive preceding regular elections
as shown by their voting records. Regular elections do not include the SK
elections
4. Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the Court
5. Any person who has lost Filipino citizenship
6. Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of
application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections.
What is cancellation of voter registration? (s29, RA 8189)
● Act of the ERB to cancel registration records of those who have died as certified
by the Local Civil Registrar who submits each month a certified list of persons
who died during the previous month to the election officer of the place where the
deceased are registered.
● Distinguish from deactivation.
○ Cancellation cancels the records of those who have died while
deactivation removes the registration records of those who have been
disqualified.
How can deactivated voters regain their right to vote? (s28, RA 8189)
● Any voter whose registration has been deactivated may file with the Election
Officer a sworn application for reactivation of his registration in the form of an
affidavit stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist any time but
not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and
ninety (90) days before a special election. The Election Officer shall submit said
application to the Election Registration Board for appropriate action.
In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the
registration record from the inactive file and include the same in the
corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or representatives of
political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications.
What is biometrics?
Biometrics - refers to a quantitative analysis that provides a positive identification of an
individual such as voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, and other identifiable features
Who are voters with special needs? (3)
1. Illiterate persons
2. Persons with disabilities (PWDs)
3. Senior Citizens
Who can assist voters with special needs? (s11, RA 10366)
1. Relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree
2. If he or she has none, by any person of his or her confidence who belongs to the
same household, or by any member of the BEls.
3. For this purpose, the person who usually assists the person with disability or
senior citizen, such as a personal assistant, a caregiver or a nurse shall be
considered a member of his or her household: Provided, That no voter shall be
allowed to have an assistor on the basis of illiteracy or physical disability unless
it is so indicated in his or her registration record.
But if the physical inability to prepare the ballot is manifest, obvious, or visible,
said voter shall be allowed to be assisted in accomplishing the ballot by a
9
 qualified assistor, even if not stated or indicated in the registration record
(assistor must be of voting age).
● What is the procedure?
○ The assistor shall bind himself or herself in a formal document under
oath to fill out the ballot strictly in accordance with the instructions of
the voter and not to reveal the contents of the ballot prepared by him or
her, and shall prepare the ballot for the voter inside the voting booth.
○ Except for the members of the BEIs, no assistor can assist for more
than three (3) times. Any violation of this provision shall constitute an
election offense punishable under Section 262 of the Omnibus Election
Code.
How does a registered voter transfer registration? (s12, RA 8189)
● Any registered voter who has transferred residence to another city or
municipality may apply with the Election Officer of his new residence for the
transfer of his registration records.
● The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the requirements of
notice and hearing and the approval of the Election Registration Board, in
accordance with RA 8189. Upon approval of the application for transfer, and
after notice of such approval to the Election Officer of the former residence of
the voter, said Election Officer shall transmit by registered mail the voter’s
registration record to the Election Officer of the voter’s new residence.
● Any voter who has changed his address in the same city or municipality shall
immediately notify the Election Officer in writing. If the change in address
involves change in precinct, the Board shall transfer his registration record to the
precinct book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new
precinct. All changes of addresses shall be reported to the office of the
provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila.
What is the ERB (Election Registration Board)?
● It refers to the body constituted to act on all applications for registration as many
as there are election officers in each city or municipality.
● Composition:
○ Chair - Election officer
○ Members
■ Public school official most senior in rank, and
■ Local civil registrar (in his absence, the city or municipal
treasurer)
Where do voters register?
● At the Office of the Election Officer of the city or municipality where the applicant
resides or becomes a resident at least six months prior to election day.
● Such venue is NOT exclusive. There is a thing called satellite offices, which is
like a mini branch established by COMELEC field offices.
● See page 93 of Gujilde.s
When can voters register? (s9, RA 8189)
● Registration of voters is conducted daily in the Office of the Election Officer
during regular office hours except during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election.
● May the period be extended?
○ NO, unless both the date of filing and period of extension prayed for fall
outside the 120-day prohibited period as the COMELEC still has
sufficient time to prepare for elections.
● 120-day prohibited period
○ Period when voter registration may no longer be conducted.
○ May be extended depending on administrative necessities and other
exigencies.
How do voters register? (s12, RA 9853)
● An application for registration is personally filed in the office of the election
officer.
● Before the issuance of the application form, the applicant states his or her (1)
name, (2) exact address, and presents an identification document.
How do we prevent voter fraud via multiple voter registration? See s261 (y) (5),
OEC.
● When a person applies for registration, his or her name is verified with the
National List of Registered/ Deactivated Voters (NLRDV). If found, the applicant
is not issued an application for registration but advised to apply for transfer of
registration record if the name is found active in another city or municipality, or
apply for reactivation/transfer with reactivation of registration record if the name
is found deactivated.
● If the name does not appear in the NLDRV, the election officer uses a barangay
precinct map to verify whether the address given by the applicant is located
within the municipality or city. If the applicant is not a resident, the election
officer advises him or her to proceed to the Office of the Election Officer of the
city or municipality where he or she resides.
CASE: Baytan v COMELEC double registration
Facts:
● On June 15, 1997, petitioners were on their way to register for the May 1998
elections when they met the newly elected Barangay Captain Ignacio in Cavite
City. Ignacio led petitioners to register in Barangay 18 registration precinct
where the petitioners registered in this precinct
10
 ● When petitioners returned home, they wondered why the registrants in this
precinct looked unfamiliar to them. They then realized that their residence is
situated within the jurisdiction of Barangay 28. Thus, petitioners proceeded to
Barangay 28 precinct to be registered anew.
● Subsequently, petitioners sent a letter to former COMELEC Assistant Executive
Director Joson and furnished a copy thereof to COMELEC Registrar Francisco
Trias.
○ In this letter, petitioners requested for advice on how to cancel their
previous registration. They also explained the reason and
circumstances of their second registration and expressed their intention
to redress the error.
● The Election Officer of Cavite City forwarded copies of petitioners' Voters
Registration Records to the Provincial Election Supervisor, Atty. Ravanzo, for
evaluation. Ravanzo endorsed the matter to the Regional Director for
prosecution. Eventually, the Law Department endorsed the case to Ravanzo for
resolution.
● Ravanzo recommended filing an Information for double registration against
petitioners. In an en banc meeting, the COMELEC in its Minute Resolution No.
00-2281 affirmed the recommendation of Ravanzo.
Issue:
● WON the criminal cases should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of intent
and substantial compliance with the requirement of cancellation of previous
registration. (NO)
Held:
● There is no question that petitioners registered twice on different days and in
different precincts without canceling their previous registration. Since "double
registration" is malum prohibitum, petitioners' claim of lack of intent to violate the
law is inconsequential.
● Neither is the letter to Joson an application to cancel their previous registration.
This letter was sent after their second registration was accomplished and after
the election officer of Cavite City had already reported their act of double
registration to a higher official.
● Moreover, petitioners' claims of honest mistake, good faith and substantial
compliance with the Election Code's requirement of cancellation of previous
registration are matters of defense best ventilated in the trial proper rather than
at the preliminary investigation.
● The established rule is that preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the
full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence. It is for the presentation of
such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has
been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof (aka probable
cause).
● ​The finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests
in the COMELEC’s sound discretion.
○ The grant by the Constitution to the COMELEC of the power to
investigate and prosecute election offenses is intended to enable the
COMELEC to assure the people of "free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections."
○ This grant is an adjunct to the COMELEC's constitutional duty to
enforce and administer all election laws. Failure by the COMELEC to
exercise this power could result in the frustration of the true will of the
people and make an idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of
every qualified citizen to vote.
○ Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the
COMELEC absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
What are Polling Places, Voting Centers, and Precincts?
● Polling Place
○ The building or place where the board of election inspectors (BEI)
conducts its proceedings and where the voters shall cast their votes
(Sec. 151, OEC)
● Voting Centers
○ Refers to the building or place where the polling place is located
● Precincts
○ Basic unit of territory established by the COMELEC for the purpose of
voting
Who are voters with special needs? (p.
● Illiterate Persons
● Persons with Disabilities
● Senior Citizens
● Indigenous Peoples
What is detainee voting?
● It is the means by which persons deprived of liberty (PDL) are allowed to vote.
(Own words lang to haha)
Who are PDLs? (Aguinaldo case, 1st)
● Any person:
○ confined in jail, formally charged for any crime/s and
awaiting/undergoing trial; or
○ serving a sentence of imprisonment for less than one (1) year; or
○ whose conviction of a crime involving disloyalty to the duly
constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the
firearms laws or any crime against national security or for any
other crime is on appeal (COMELEC Resolution No. 9371, Rule 1,
sec. 2a).
11

How do detainees vote?
● COMELEC Resolution No. 9371: PDLs can cast their vote either:
(1) GR: through special voting centers in the detention facility, or
(2) XPN: through their voting precincts, provided that their registered
hometown is in the same city or municipality where the jail is located.
○ If there is no special voting center or the detainee is from another area,
the inmate may be escorted to the voting center where he/she is
registered, provided that there is a court approval and it is logistically
feasible for the prison management to escort the detainee to the polling
place.
CASE: Aguinaldo v New Bilibid Prison, gr 221201 (pending). PDL
Facts:
● COMELEC promulgated Reso. 9317 which provided the defined persons
deprived of liberty (PDL) who can register and vote, constituted a committee on
PDL voting and laid down the guidelines for registration and voting, designated
special polling places inside jails, and constituted a Special Board of Election
Inspectors and their support staff.
● PDL’s are generally not allowed to vote. However, this resolution provided for
those PDLs who can vote.
● Atty. Aguinaldo assails the resolution because:
○ It did not provide for an IRR
○ It did not undergo prior public consultations
○ Violates the equal protection clause by favoring PDL voters over other
classes of voters.
● Bucor, New Bilibid, OSG filed a comment arguing that the petition is
procedurally flawed and failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality of
Res. 9317.
● However, the Court partially granted the injunction/ TRO on the grounds that it
would impact the conduct of the 2016 elections; allowing detainees to VOTE
NATIONALLY but NOT locally during the 2016 elections.
● COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10113 General Instructions on the
Conduct of Counting and Canvassing of Ballots of Persons Deprived of Liberty
(PDL) Voters with Votes Cast in Favor of Local Candidates in Connection with
the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections. The 2016 National and Local
Elections then proceeded in due course.
Issue: W/N the requisites for judicial review were established? (NO)
Held:
● The Court's power of judicial review may be exercised in constitutional cases
only if all the following requisites are complied with:
○ the existence of an actual and appropriate case or controversy;
○ a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question;
○ the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity;
and
○ the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.
● Petitioner had not shown any such circumstances.
● Absent a clear showing of a diminished right for which petitioner will suffer
because of the implementation of the assailed COMELEC Resolution, it cannot
be said that a conflict of legal rights exists. On this score alone, the instant
petition is already dismissible.
What courts have Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the
inclusion/exclusion of voters? (s33, RA 8189)
● The MTC in their respective cities and municipalities.
● Decisions of the MTC may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the RTC
within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall
become final and executory.
● The RTC shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received
and the decision shall immediately become final and executory.
● No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Who is an excluded voter? (s34, RA 8189)
● Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the
Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list.
How is a voter excluded? (s35, RA 8189)
● Any registered voters, representative of a political party or the Election Officer,
may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from the
permanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the
challenged voter at any time except one hundred (100) days prior to a regular
election or sixty-five (65) days before a special election.
● The petition is accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the
challenged voter and shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
What are the general rules governing the petitions for
inclusion/exclusion of voters? (S32 RA 8189)
● When filed: During office hours
● Service: Upon the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) and
challenged voter [for petition for exclusion] (conventional or substituted service)
of the place, date & time of hearing of the petition
○ Each petition shall refer to 1 precinct only and implead the BEI as
respondents.
12
 ● Costs: Generally, no costs shall be assessed against any party unless the Court
finds the application was filed solely to harass the adverse party Who are qualified?
● Who may intervene: Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected ● Govt. officials and employees
may intervene and present his evidence ○ AFP
● Basis for decision: The decision shall be based on evidence presented and not ○ PNP
upon stipulation of facts ○ Electoral Boards
○ If the voter’s existence is challenged (not real; fictitious), ● Members of the media, including but not limited to:
non-appearance during the hearing shall be prima facie evidence that ○ Print, TV, photo, online, radio journalists
he is fictitious ○ Documentary makers
● Court Time periods to decide: The petition shall be heard and decided by the ○ TV production
MTC/MCTC within 10 days from filing ○ Bloggers
● Appeals to the RTC shall be decided within 10 days from the receipt of the ○ Freelance journalists
appeal. In all cases, the court shall decide not later than 15 days before the ● Provided they are duly registered voters whose registration is not deactivated
election and the decision shall become final and executory and on election day, they are temporarily assigned to perform election
duties or to cover and report on the elections in places where they are not
What are other grounds for the exclusion of a voter? (page 113, Gujilde) registered voters.
● Election laws and resolutions do not expressly specify grounds for such ○ Must be affiliated with formal organizations
challenge. But by implication, it is based on whether the applicant possesses ● Why are they called Local Absentee Voters? They are not in their place of
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications set by law. registration at the time of election because they are covering the elections.
● The most common ground is the lack of residence based on the mistaken belief
that the period of residence required, at least one year in the PH, and at least How do they vote?
six months in the place where they propose to vote, is reckoned prior to ● Before elections
registration, not election. ● They have designated polling places where they can vote
● What is the remedy?
○ Appeal to Municipal Courts Overseas Absentee Voting
What are the requirements?
Absentee Voting (Sec. 3(a), RA 9189) ● Same as normal voters, minus the residency requirement
● process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right ○ Provided that they show an affidavit expressing their intention to return
to vote to the Philippines (WALA NA ‘TO as of R.A. 10590)
NOTE: Under the amended law, Filipino immigrants and permanent residents shall no
Who can they vote for? (p. 86, Gujilde) longer be required to execute an affidavit declaring that they shall resume actual physical
● Only those in the national positions (President, VP, Senators, and Partylist permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three years from approval of their
Representatives) registration
● This is because they vote at the place where they are not registered and where
their local elective officials do not present themselves as candidates. Who are qualified? (Sec. 4, RA 9189)
● All PH citizens abroad
Local Absentee Voting (COMELEC Reso. No. 10725) ● Not otherwise disqualified by law
● System of voting whereby govt. officials and employees, including members of ● At least 18 year old at the day of elections
AFP and PNP, as well as members of the media, media practitioners including
their technical and support staff (media voters) who are duly registered voters, Who are disqualified? (Sec. 5, RA 9189, amended by RA 10590)
are allowed to vote for national positions, in places where they are not ● Those who lost their PH citizenship in accordance with PH laws
registered voters but where they are temporarily assigned to perform election
duties or to cover and report on the elections.
13
 ● Those who have expressly renounced their PH citizenship and who have
pledged allegiance to a foreign country, except those who have reacquired or
retained their PH citizenship under R.A. 9225;
● Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment of an offense
punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those who
have committed and been found guilty of disloyalty under RPC, such disability
not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty;
○ Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this
subsection shall automatically acquire the right to vote upon expiration
of five (5) years after service of sentence;
○ Provided, further, That the Commission may take cognizance of final
judgments issued by foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of
reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes prescribed by
the Rules of Court on execution of judgments;
● An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from
approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that
he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall
be the cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent
resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia. (WALA NA ‘TO as of R.A. 10590)
● Any PH citizen abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by competent
authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies,
consulates or foreign service establishments concerned, unless such competent
authority subsequently certifies that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent.
What happens to votes cast by overseas absentee voters who fail to return within 3
years as promised?
● The votes cast by qualified Filipinos abroad who failed to return within three
years shall not be invalidated because they were qualified to vote on the date of
the elections, but their failure to return shall be cause for removal of the names
of immigrants or permanent residents from the National registry of Absentee
Voters and their permanent disqualification to vote in absentia (Macalintal v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013).
Macalintal v COMELEC, gr 157013 (2003) (eb) (validity of RA 9189; invalidity of
JCOC provisions) overseas absentee voting act of 2003
● RA 10590 - upheld constitutionality (no affidavit of merit)
CASE: Nicolas-Lewis v COMELEC, gr 223705 (2019) (eb) (validity of s36.8)
Facts:
● Petitioners are successful applicants of RA 9225. They sought registration as
absentee-voters but were denied bc they lack the 1 yr requirement residency.
● The COMELEC said that dual citizens cannot avail the overseas absentee
voting bc the law was not enacted for them. IT also said that Filipinos who
re-acquired their citizenship are considered regular voters who have to meet the
residency requirement.
Issue:
● WON those who might have meanwhile retained/reacquired citizenship via RA
9225 may vote as absentee voter under RA 9189 (YES)
Held:
● Sec. 5 of RA 9189 allows an immigrant and permanent resident abroad to
register as voter for as long as he executes an affidavit to show that he has not
abandoned his domicile.
● There is an implicit acknowledgement that “duals” are most likely non-residents,
grants under Sec. 5 (1) the same right of suffrage granted to an absentee voter.
Do citizens who re-acquired their Philippine citizenship enjoy the right of suffrage?
If so, how exercised?
● YES, former natural-born Filipinos who re-acquired their Philippine citizenship
enjoy the right of suffrage.
● According to Republic Act No. 9225 (Dual Citizenship Law), former natural-born
Filipinos (NOT former naturalized) who have become naturalized citizens of
another country can retain/reacquire their Philippine citizenship by taking an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before a Philippine Consular
Officer.
● Upon retaining/reacquiring their Philippine citizenship, they shall enjoy full civil,
economic and political rights as Filipinos, including right of suffrage.
CASE: Nicolas-Lewis v COMELEC, gr 162759 (2006) (eb)
● Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to the residency
requirement found in Section
○ The fact that a Filipino may have been physically absent from the
Philippines and may be physically a resident of the United States, for
example, but has a clear intent to return to the Philippines, will make
him qualified as a resident of the Philippines under this law.
○ If we read the Constitution and the suffrage principle literally as
demanding physical presence, then there is no way we can provide for
offshore voting to our offshore kababayan,
○ [DELIBERATION ON RA NO 9189] Sen Angara:
■ “The key to this whole exercise is "qualified."”
■ “Anything that we may do or say in granting our compatriots
14
 abroad must be anchored on the proposition that they are
qualified. Absent the qualification, they cannot vote. And
"residents" (sic) is a qualification.
○ More practical reason is it is legally and constitutionally impossible to
give a franchise to vote to overseas Filipinos who do not physically live
in the country, which is quite ridiculous because that is exactly the
whole point of this exercise — to enfranchise them and empower
them to vote.

15
Political Parties, Registration and the Party-List System ● Qualifications [ART IX. (C) Sec. 1(1)]
○ Natural-born PH citizens
The COMELEC ○ At least 35 years old, at the time of appointment
What is the COMELEC? ○ holders of a college degree
● It is the principal government agency tasked by the Constitution to enforce and ○ must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
administer all laws and regulations concerning the conduct of regular and immediately preceding elections
special elections. ● Majority, including the Chair, must be lawyers engaged in the practice of law for
● It is a body that is designed to be constitutionally independent from the at least 10 years. (at least 3 commissioners, chair should always be a lawyer)
executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to ensure the
conduct of free, fair and honest elections. Is the appointment of a COMELEC commissioner ad interim valid? (p. 120, Gujilde)
● YES, as held in Matibag v. COMELEC.
What is the jurisdiction of the COMELEC? QL v QJ (Gujilde & Sir’s Slides) ● But appointment in a temporary or acting capacity is not valid because it violates
the security of tenure of its members, which is one of the many safeguards of
independence of the Commission.
Quasi-Legislative Quasi-judicial
● In case of vacancy in the Office of the Chair, and no one has been appointed
yet, its members may choose the acting chair, most likely guided by the
Power to promulgate rules and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over
Seniority Rule.
implementing the Election Code and election contests
● Take note of the difference between ad interim vs. acting capacity
related laws
Election Contests - relevant issues are
CASE: Matibag v COMELEC ad interim appointments = permanently effective until
elections, returns, and qualifications of all
disapproved by CA
elective officials, national or local
Facts:
● PGMA appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, Borra and
Has neither authority nor the license to Hears and decides protests or petitions in
Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of 7 years and all
expand anything to the law it seeks to ordinary actions, special actions, special
expiring on February 2, 2008. On May 22, 2001, the Office of the President
implement. cases, provisional remedies, contempt,
submitted to the Commission on Appointments the ad interim appointments,
and special proceedings except in
however, the latter did not act on the said appointments.
Resolutions issued for that purpose accreditation of its citizens’ arms.
● PGMA renewed the ad interim appointments to the same position and for the
should always be in accord with the law
same term. The Office of the President transmitted their appointments to the
to be implemented.
CoA for confirmation, however, Congress adjourned before the CoA could act
on their appointments.
How does the Constitution safeguard the independence of the COMELEC? (p. 121, ● PGMA renewed again the ad interim appointments. The Office of the President
Gujilde) submitted their appointments for confirmation to the CoA. They took their oaths
● Security of tenure - Art. IX(A), Sec. 2 of office anew.
● The salaries of its members are fixed by law and cannot be decreased during ● In his capacity as COMELEC Chairman, Benipayo issued a Memorandum
their tenure - Art. IX(A), Sec. 3 designating Cinco- Officer-in-Charge of the COMELEC's Education and
● Their approved annual appropriations are automatically and regularly released Information Dept. (EID) and reassigning petitioner to the Law Department.
(fiscal autonomy) - Art. IX(A), Sec. 5 ● The petitioner requested Benipayo to reconsider her relief as Director IV of the
● They appoint their officials and employees in accordance with law - Art. IX(A), EID and her reassignment to the Law Department. Petitioner reminded the
Sec. 4 heads of government offices that “transfer of employees are prohibited during
the election period”. Her petition was denied.
Composition of the COMELEC (p. 118, Gujilde) ● Petitioner filed an instant petition questioning the appointment and the right to
● 1 Chair and 6 Commissioners remain in office of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason. Petitioner claims that the ad
16
 interim appointments violate the constitutional provisions on the independence President in the meantime that Congress is in recess. It does not mean a
of the COMELEC, as well as on the prohibitions on temporary appointments and temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked at any time.
reappointments of its Chairman and members. ● Irrevocable. An ad interim appointee who has qualified and assumed office
● PGMA once again renewed the ad interim appointments to the same position becomes at that moment a government employee and therefore part of the civil
and for the same term. They took their oaths of office anew. service. He enjoys the constitutional protection that no officer or employee in the
civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.
Issue: W/N assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on the basis of ad o He can only be removed for cause, after notice and hearing, consistent
interim appointments issued by the President amounts to a temporary appointment with the requirements of due process
prohibited by the Constitution (NO)
Held: 2 Modes in Appointing Officials Subject to Confirmation by Commission on
● An ad interim appointment that is by-passed because of lack of time or failure of Appointments
CoA to organize is another matter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not 1. While Congress is in session - The President may nominate the prospective
been finally acted upon on the merits by the CoA at the close of the session of appointee, and pending consent of the Commission on Appointments, the
Congress. There is no final decision by CoA to give or withhold its consent to nominee cannot qualify and assume office.
the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent such decision, the 2. During the recess of Congress - The President may extend an ad interim
President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by-passed appointee. appointment which allows the appointee to immediately qualify and assume
The prohibition on reappointment in Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution office.
applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad interim appointments. ● Whether the President chooses to nominate the prospective appointee or
● Ad interim is different from acting capacity. extend, an ad interim appointment is a matter within the prerogative of the
● Ad interim appointments are permanent but their terms are only until the Board President because the Constitution grants her that power.
disapproves them. An ad interim appointment can be terminated for two causes
(resolutory conditions) specified in the Constitution: 4 Situations When an Appointment CANNOT be Reappointed.
○ Disapproval of his ad interim appointment by CoA. 1. Where an ad interim appointee to the COMELEC, after confirmation by the
○ adjournment of Congress without CoA acting on his appointment. Commission on Appointments, serves his full seven-year term.
2. Where the appointee, after confirmation, serves a part of his term and then
Ad interim Appointments Temporary or “Acting”
Appointments resigns before his seven-year term of office ends.
3. Where the appointee is confirmed to serve the unexpired term of someone who
Permanent and irrevocable except as Can be withdrawn or revoked at the died or resigned, and the appointee completes the unexpired term.
provided by law. pleasure of the appointing power. 4. Where the appointee has previously served a term of less than seven years,
and a vacancy arises from death or resignation.
Enjoys security of tenure. No security of tenure no matter how
briefly. What are the administrative powers of the COMELEC? (p. 129, Gujilde)
● Power to determine the number and location of polling places
Valid until disapproved by the CoA. Valid until terminated by the appointing
● Power to appoint election officials and inspectors
officer.
● Power to register voters
The President is constitutionally The President is constitutionally ● Power to deputize gov’t law enforcement agencies to ensure free, orderly,
ALLOWED to make these to the 3 PROHIBITED to make these to the 3 honest, peaceful, credible elections
independent constitutional commissions independent constitutional ● Power to register political parties, organizations, or coalitions
including the COMELEC. commissions including the COMELEC. ● Power to accredit citizens’ arms
● Power to prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President the
● Permanent. There was confusion because according to Black’s dictionary, the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action upon any officer or
meaning of “ad interim” is “in the meantime.” However, the Court explained that employee it deputized for violation of its orders.
ad interim appointments mean a permanent appointment made by the
17
 ● Direct control and supervision over all personnel involved in the conduct of
elections.
What are the incidental powers of the COMELEC? (Sir Ostrea’s Slides)
● Power to compel obedience, attendance of witnesses
● Power to investigate incidental to executive power to prosecute election
offenses
Can the COMELEC investigate election offenses? Is this
exclusive? See RA 9369, Sec. 43
● Yes, but not exclusive. The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal
officers, 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 the same”
What are election contests? (p.506, De Leon)
● Adversary proceedings by which matters involving the title or claim to an
elective office, made before or after proclamation of the winner, is settled
whether the contestant is claiming the office in dispute.
● It is a summary proceeding of a political character.
What is the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over election
contests? (p. 501, De Leon)
● Exclusive original jurisdiction - election contests of all regional, provincial, and
city officials [RPC]
● Appellate jurisdiction - election contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction (e.g. RTC), or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction (e.g. MTC,
MTTC) [MB]
Why is it important to determine the jurisdiction of COMELEC over the
qualifications of officials? Does it apply to all officials?
● When COMELEC receives a certificate of candidacy, they can motu proprio
make a determination of its completeness and determine whether it is
registrable.
What are the various tribunals for election contests?
● The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) - jurisdiction over election contests for the
Senate
● The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) - jurisdiction over
election contests for the lower house
● Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) - jurisdiction over President and VP
election contests
● Proper MTCs - exclusive original jurisdiction over barangay officials
● RTC - jurisdiction over municipal officials
What is the composition of an Electoral Tribunal? (Sec. 14, Art. VI, Consti)
● 9 members total (each ET)
● 3 SC Justices to be designated by the Chief Justice
○ The Senior Justice shall be the Chairman
● For SET/HRET: 6 members of Congress (senators if SET and congressmen for
HRET), chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented
How many divisions does the COMELEC have? What is their composition? (p. 207,
Gujilde)
● Two (2) divisions, each composed of three (3) Commissioners, one of whom is
the Presiding Commissioner
How does the COMELEC exercise its powers? Elaborate. NB S3, Art. IX C. (p. 207,
Gujilde)
● All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division. Motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
○ Applicable only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
power, NOT power to prosecute which includes administrative power
(Baytan v. COMELEC).
CASE: Garvida v Sales, gr 124893 (1997) SK age requirement
Facts:
● The SK elections was scheduled to be held on May 6, 1996. On March 16,
Garvida applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan ng
Kabataan of their barangay. But the Board of Election Tellers, denied her
application on the ground that Garvida, who was then twenty-one years,
exceeded the age limit for membership in the Katipunan ng Kabataan as laid
down in Section 3 [b] of COMELEC Resolution
● Garvida filed a "Petition for Inclusion as Registered Kabataang Member and
Voter" with the MCTC, which found her qualified and ordered her registration as
member and voter in the Katipunan ng Kabataan.
● Garvida then filed her CoC for the position of SK Chairman.
● Respondent Election Officer Rios, per advice of Provincial Election Supervisor
Pipo, disapproved Garvida’s CoC again due to her age
● Garvida appealed to COMELEC Regional Director Asperin who set aside the
order of respondents.
● Private respondent Sales, a rival candidate for SK Chairman, filed with the
COMELEC en banc a "Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of Certificate of
18
 Candidacy" against Garvida for falsely representing her age qualification in her
certificate of candidacy.
● Respondent Rios issued the memorandum to Garvida. The COMELEC en banc
then issued an Order directing the Board of Election Tellers and Board of
Canvassers of Barangay San Lorenzo to suspend the proclamation of Garvida
in the event she won in the election.
● Garvida won but in accordance with the Order or the COMELEC en banc, the
Board of Election Tellers did not proclaim her as the winner. Hence, the petition
was filed.
● However, the Board of Election Tellers proclaimed petitioner the winner for the
position of SK chairman. The proclamation was "without prejudice to any further
action by the COMELEC or any other interested party."
Issue:
● W/N COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction to act on the petition to deny or cancel
Garvida’s CoC (NO)
Held:
● Section 532 (a) of the LGC provides that the conduct of the SK elections is
under the supervision of the COMELEC and shall be governed by the Omnibus
Election Code.
● Also. Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that a petition to
deny due course to or cancel a CoC for an elective office may be filed with the
Law Department of the COMELEC on the ground that the candidate has made a
false material representation in his certificate.
● Under the same Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc.
○ Cases before a Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en
banc when the required number of votes to reach a decision,
resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division. Moreover, only
motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the
COMELEC in Division are resolved by the COMELEC en banc.
● In the instant case, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case to any of
its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It therefore acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the petition and
issued the order
Sub-issue: Petition itself did not comply with the formal requirements of pleadings under
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
● Every pleading before the COMELEC must be printed, mimeographed or
typewritten in legal size bond paper and filed in at least ten (10) legible copies.
Pleadings must be filed directly with the proper Clerk of Court of the COMELEC
personally, or, by registered mail.
● In the instant case, the subject petition was not in proper form. Only two (2)
copies of the petition were filed with the COMELEC.
● Also, the COMELEC en banc issued its Resolution on the basis of the petition
transmitted by facsimile, not by registered mail.
○ Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court.
Sub-issue: Garvida’s age
● Under Section 424 of the LGC, a member of the Katipunan ng Kabataan must
be… (c) 15 but not more than 21 years of age…
● Section 428 of the Code requires that an elective official of the Sangguniang
Kabataan must be at least 15 years but not more than 21 years of age on the
day of his election
● In this case, the day Garvida registered, she was 21 years and 9 months
(over-age na sya). Therefore, she was ineligible to run as candidate for the
Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
[Hindi na effective yung mga qualifications laid down in Garvida v. Sales ngayon since
may SK Reform Law of 2015 na (Wala rin sa syllabus natin yun) Sabi kase sa case yung
age requirement is 15-21 years old. But sa SK Reform Law, its already 18-24 years old.
Plus meron na prohibition na dapat ang SK na tatakbo ay walang relative within 2nd civil
degree of consanguinity and affinity na incumbent elected official both national and local -
Weiss]
How does the COMELEC exercise jurisdiction over election cases? NB S3 Art. IX
(C)
● In divisions but Motions for Reconsideration are to be decided en banc.
Other COMELEC powers (e.g. gun ban), p. 524, De Leon
● The COMELEC shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
(CONST, art. IX-A, sec. 8)
CASE: PADPAO v COMELEC, gr 223505 (2017) (eb) gun ban
Facts:
● The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10015 which provided for the rules
and regulations on the ban on bearing, carrying or transporting of firearms and
other deadly weapons and the engagement of the services of security personnel
or bodyguards during the election period, AKA “Gun Ban”
● Sec. 1, Rule III of Resolution No. 10015 lists those who may apply for authority
to bear, carry, or transport firearms or deadly weapons. Private security services
providers (PSSPs), which include private security agencies (PSAs), are
specifically included.
● Now, petitioners assail the Resolution, alleging that PSAs should not be required
to secure authority from the COMELEC as RA 5487 already grants to PSAs and
their security guards, watchmen, detectives, and security personnel authority to
possess, bear, carry, and transport firearms, being necessary equipment for the
19
 conduct business and practice of its personnel's profession. (dapat wala na
permit kasi necessary yung firearms for business)
● Petitioner maintains that the power to promulgate rules and regulations with
regard to said law is granted to the PNP in consultation with the Philippine
Association Of Detective & Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO).
Issue:
● W/N the Resolution (Gun Ban) is valid? (YES)
Held:
● The power of the COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations to enforce and
implement elections laws is enshrined in the Constitution.
● Under BP 881 and RA 7166, it is unlawful for any person to bear, carry, or
transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places during the election
period, even if otherwise licensed to do so, unless authorized in writing by
the COMELEC.
● The COMELEC does not encroach upon this authority of the PNP to regulate
PSAs — as it merely regulates the bearing, carrying, and transporting of
firearms and other deadly weapons by PSAs and all other persons, during
election period.
● Also, the resolution DOES NOT violate the Equal Protection Clause and the
Non-Impairment of contracts clause, because the Resolution applies to any and
all persons, whether private individuals or public officers.

What matters are excluded from the powers of the

COMELEC? (Sec. 2(3), Art. IX(C), Consti)
● The COMELEC has the power to decide, EXCEPT THOSE INVOLVING THE
RIGHT TO VOTE, all questions affecting elections, including determination of
the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.

20
Registration of Political Parties
Who fixes the relevant periods in an election? What is the legal basis? (p. 526, De
What is a political party? Leon)
● Organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles, and ● As provided in the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC may fix other
policies for the general conduct of government. reasonable periods for certain pre-election requirements in order that voters
○ How do you find out a party’s ideologies? The groups are merely shall not be deprived of their trite of suffrage and certain groups of right granted
required to attach to their verified petitions their "Constitution, by-laws, them in the Code.
platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other ● Unless indicated in the Code, the COMELEC is authorized to fix the appropriate
relevant information as may be required by the COMELEC.” period for the various prohibited acts enumerated therein, consistent with the
(Abang-Lingkod v. COMELEC) requirements of free, orderly and honest election. (Admin Code)
● It is a national party when its constituency is spread over a geographical
territory of at least a majority of the regions.
● It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over a geographical
territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
How do we know the agenda of a political party to know that they are actually a
political party? (sir’s question ‘to sa class)
● Its constitution, by-laws,

What parties may not be registered?

● Religious denominations;
● Groups who use violence to achieve their ends;
● Those supported by a foreign government.

Why should a political party register with the COMELEC? [JAR]

● To acquire Juridical personality;
● To qualify for Accreditation; and
● To entitle it to Rights and privileges (p. 640, De Leon).

What are the other benefits of registration of a political party?

● Entitled to one watcher during the elections to defend the status of your party
● Entitled to a copy of the election returns
What is the manner of nomination of candidates? (p. 384, Gujilde)
● Through a Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA), which is a
certified document nominating an aspirant as the official candidate of the
nominating political party or coalition, duly accepted by the nominee making him
or her a candidate with a political party.
● The nominee must accept the nomination by signing it, otherwise he is
considered an independent candidate.

What is the proper period for nominating candidates, whether national and local
elective? (p. 641, De Leon)
● National - Anytime, 165 days before the election;
● House of Representatives and Local - Anytime, 75 days before the election.
21
Party-List System (NOT INCLUDED IN MT)
What is the governing law? (RA 7941 as amended)
● Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act
CASE: Veterans Federation Party v COMELEC, gr 136781 (2000) 20% alloc. v 2%
threshold
Facts:
● To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the Const. and
RA 7941 mandate at least four inviolable parameters.
○ First, the twenty percent (20%) allocation- the combined number of
all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total
membership of the HoR, including those elected under the party list.
○ Second, the two percent (2%) threshold- only those parties garnering a
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list
system are “qualified” to have a seat in the HoR;
○ Third, the three-seat limit- each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three
seats; that is, one “qualifying” and two additional seats.
○ Fourth, proportional representation- the additional seats to which
a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to
their total number of votes.”
● The Comelec en banc proclaimed 13 party-list representatives from twelve 12
parties and organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the total
number of votes cast for the party-list system. Two of the proclaimed
representatives belonged to Petitioner APEC, which obtained 5.5% of the
votes. The Comelec en banc further determined that COCOFED (Philippine
Coconut Planters’ Federation, Inc.) was entitled to one party-list seat for having
garnered 186,388 votes, which were equivalent to 2.04 percent of the total
votes cast for the party-list system. Thus, its first nominee, Emerito S. Calderon,
was proclaimed as the 14th party-list representative.
○ Subsequently, PAG-ASA (People's Progressive Alliance for Peace and
Good Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social
Advancement) filed with the Comelec a "Petition asserting that the
filling up of the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives
in the HoR, as provided under the Const., was mandatory. It further
claimed that the literal application of the two percent vote requirement
and the three-seat limit under RA 7941 would defeat this Const.al
provision, for only 25 nominees would be declared winners, short of
the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the House.
Thereafter, nine other party-list organizations filed their respective
Motions for Intervention, seeking the same relief as that sought by
PAG-ASA on substantially the same grounds.
○ The Comelec grants PAG-ASA's Petition. It ordered the proclamation of
herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would
thus total 52 party-list representatives. It held that "at all times,
the total number of congressional seats must be filled up by eighty
(80%) percent district representatives and twenty (20%) percent
party-list representatives." In allocating the 52 seats, it
disregarded the two percent-vote requirements prescribed under
Section 11 (b) of RA 7941.
● The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier been
proclaimed winners objected to the proclamation and filed separate Motions for
Reconsideration. They contended that (1) under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only
parties, organizations, or coalitions garnering at least two percent of the votes
for the party-list system were entitled to seats in the House of Representatives;
and (2) additional seats should be allocated to those which had garnered the
two percent threshold in proportion to the number of votes cast for the winning
parties.
● The ruling of the Comelec En Banc- follows the 20% allocation of party-list
representatives in order to comply with the Const.al mandate. The strict
application of the 2% threshold would limit the concentration of party
representatives.
● Subsequently, this Court issued a Status Quo Order directing the Comelec “to
CEASE and desist from constituting itself as a National Board of Canvassers
until further orders
Issue:
● Whether the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in Section 5
(2), Article VI of the Const. Is mandatory and must be filled up completely and all
the time.
Held:
● No, the 20% is merely a ceiling. It is not required to fill up the 20%.
● SC held that Sec. 5, Art. 6 of the Const. conveys that Congress was vested with
the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list
representation system.
○ It explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in
the House reserved for party-list representatives.
● Congress deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations, and coalitions
participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the
party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list seat, as provided for in Sec.
11(b) in RA 7941
● In the issue of the “mathematical impossibility”, SC held that the prerogative to
determine whether to adjust or change this percentage requirement rests in
Congress.
What is the purpose of the party-list system?
22
 ● Party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political
parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in
the House of Representatives.
● The party-list system will be an entry point to membership in the House of
Representative for both these non-traditional parties that could not compete in
legislative district elections."
Cancellation of party-list registration
RA 7941 – Party-List System Act
● SECTION 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. — The COMELEC
may, motu proprio 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:
(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.
CASE: Abang-Lingkod v COMELEC, gr206952 (2013) (eb) sectoral org no need to
submit proof of track record as a group; ONLY nominees not factually belonging to the
sector he represents are required
Facts:
● ABANG-LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represents peasant farmers
and fisherfolk.
● ABANG-LINGKOD manifested before the COMELEC its intent to participate in
the May 2013 elections.
● In response, COMELEC issued a Resolution which required previously
registered Party Lists that have filed their respective Manifestations to undergo
summary evidentiary hearing for purposes of determining their continuing
compliance with the requirements under RA 7941 (Party-list Act).
● ABANG LINGKOD, in compliance with the resolution, filed with the COMELEC
pertinent documents to prove its continuing compliance with the requirements.
● After due proceedings, COMELEC cancelled ABANG LINGKOD’s registration
as it failed to establish its track record in uplifting the cause of the marginalized
and underrepresented; that they merely offered photographs of alleged activities
conducted after the May 2010 elections
○ COMELEC further opined that ABANG LINGKOD failed to show that its
nominees are themselves marginalized and underrepresented or that
they have been involved in activities aimed at improving the plight of
the marginalized sectors it claims to represent.
● The SC decided on the Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC case and cited this as
legal basis for remanding to the COMELEC the screening of partylists such as
ABANG LINGKOD. But the COMELEC maintained its decision.
Issue:
● W/N the COMELEC is correct in canceling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration
(NO)
Held:
● ABANG LINGKOD's registration was cancelled on the ground that it failed to
adduce evidence showing its track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented. COMELEC insists on requiring party-list groups to present
evidence showing that they have a track record in representing the marginalized
and underrepresented.
○ Track record - a record of past performance often taken as an indicator
of likely future performance.
● However, RA 7941 did not require groups intending to register under the
party-list system to submit proof of their track record as a group.
● Also, it was held in Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC that (1) for purposes of
registration under the party-list system, national or regional parties or
organizations need not represent any marginalized and underrepresented
sector; and (2) representation of the marginalized and underrepresented is only
required of sectoral organizations that represent the sectors stated under
Section 5 of RA 7941 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and
underrepresented.
● There was no mention that sectoral organizations intending to participate
in the party-list elections are still required to present a track record.
● It is sufficient that the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are
geared towards the cause of the sector/s, which they represent.
CASE: Lokin v COMELEC, gr 179431 (2016) withdrawal and substitution of nominees
Facts:
● Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) one of the organized groups duly
registered under the party-list system of representation that manifested their
23
 intent to participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local
elections.
● CIBAC, through its president submitted a list of 5 nominees from which its
representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the required number of
qualifying votes.(1) Villanueva; (2) Lokin; (3) Cruz-Gonales; (4) Tugna; (5)
Galang.
● Prior to the elections, CIBAC filed a certificate of nomination, substitution and
amendment of the list. The amended list of nominees included: (1) Villanueva,
(2) Cruz-Gonzales, and (3) Borje.
● After closing of the polls, Villanueva sent a letter to COMELEC the signed
petitions of more than 81% of the CIBAC members, to confirm the withdrawal of
the nomination of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and the substitution of Borje.
● CIBAC filed with the COMELEC en banc sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers a motion seeking the proclamation of Lokin as its second nominee.
This motion was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales
● COMELEC failed to act on the matter, prompting Villanueva to file a petition to
confirm the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of
nominees of CIBAC.
● COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the substitution of Cruz-Gonzales
and Borje. And proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales official 2nd nominee of CIBAC.
Issue:
● W/N COMELEC can issue IRRs that provide a ground for the substitution of a
party-list nominee not written in R.A. No. 7941 - NO.
Held:
● Legislature deprived the party-list organization of the right to change its
nominees or to alter the order of nominees once the list is submitted to the
COMELEC, except when: (a) the nominee dies; (b) the nominee withdraws in
writing his nomination; or (c) the nominee becomes incapacitated.
● Section 8 of RA7941 does not unduly deprive the party-list organization of its
right to choose its nominees, but merely divests it of the right to change its
nominees or to alter the order in the list of its nominees' names after submission
of the list to the COMELEC.
● Unlike Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941, Resolution 7804 provides four instances, the
fourth being when the "nomination is withdrawn by the party.
● Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 — to the extent that it allows the party-list
organization to withdraw its nomination already submitted to the COMELEC —
was invalid, CIBAC's withdrawal of its nomination of Lokin and the others and its
substitution of them with new nominees were also invalid and ineffectual.
Section 8 of the Partylist System Act specifies only THREE GROUNDS for
amending the list of nominees.
● To be valid, administrative IRRs must comply with the following requisites:
○ Its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;
○ It must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;
○ It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
and
○ It must be reasonable.
● This section deprived the partylist organizations of the right to change its
nominees or to alter the order of the list once it is submitted to the COMELEC,
EXCEPT WHEN:
○ (a) the nominee dies;
○ (b) the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; or
○ (c) the nominee becomes incapacitated.
● Rationale behind the prohibition to change the list of nominees: Transparency to
the public.
May the registration of a PLO be denied on grounds of sexual immorality?
● No. Moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental interest to
justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. (Ang
Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC)
● Those who are not enumerated, like the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community which identifies itself as marginalized and underrepresented sector
particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender
identity, may still register provided it complies with all other requirements.
CASE: Ang Ladlad v COMELEC, gr 190852 (2010)
Facts:
● Ang Ladlad LGBT Party applied for accreditation as a party-list Organization.
COMELEC denied on the ground that it is contrary to the teachings of the
bible/koran and to the New Civil Code and Revised Penal Code for its advocacy
of immorality contrary to public morals.
● COMELEC also said that Ladlad’s expressed sexual orientation would not
benefit the nation as a whole and that they really are not “differentiated” from
other people to even form a party supposedly for minority because they are still
male and female in the eyes of the law.
Issue:
● WON the use of public morals as a ground to deny Ang Ladlad’s Petition for
registration was proper
Held:
● No. Wherefore, petition for application for party-list accreditation is granted.
● Moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental interest to
justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system.
● The denial of Ang Ladlad’s registration on purely moral grounds amounts more
to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to
further any substantial public interest.
24
 ● Respondent’s blanket justifications give rise to the inevitable conclusion that the
COMELEC targets homosexuals themselves as a class, not because of any
particular morally reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting that implicates
our equal protection clause.
Is the party-list system for sectoral parties only?
● No. It is now settled that the party-list system is composed of three different
groups: national parties or organizations, regional parties or organizations, and
sectoral parties or organizations (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC).
What is the current method of computing party-list representation?
How shall the party-list representatives be allocated? (BANAT v. COMELEC)
● The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
● The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed
seat each.
● Those garnering a sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking, shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the
additional seats are allocated.
○ Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.
HOW IS IT DONE:
● Always remember, two percenters are given one guaranteed seats each. Then
the remaining number of seats after the guaranteed seats are given is
distributed in two stages.
○ For example, if there are 55 seats available and there are fifteen 2
percenters, that leaves 40 (55-15) remaining seats.
● In the first stage, the additional number of seats is given to the two percenters
by determining the whole number obtained when the percentage share of the
party list group is multiplied by the remaining number of seats. Suppose, for
example, that there are 40 remaining seats. TPLV = Total Party List Votes
○ if Party List A (PL-A) has 6% of the TPLV then 6% x 40 = 2.4. Thus,
PL-A is given 2 additional seats.
○ If Party List (PL-B) has 3% of the TPLV then 3% x 40 = 1.2. Thus, PL-B
is given 1 additional seat.
○ If Party List (PL-C) has 2% of the TPLV then 2% x 40 = 0.8. Thus, PL-C
is not given an additional seat.
○ There is a second stage if there are still vacant seats.
● In the second stage, one seat is awarded to the highest ranking (in terms of
percentage share) party-list group that did not receive any additional seats in the
first stage.
● Apply the three-seat limit.
CASE: Atong Paglaum v COMELEC, gr 203766 (2013) (eb) partylist not exclusive for
sectoral parties
Facts:
● Cases constitute 54 petitions for certiorari and petitions for certiorari and
prohibition by 52 party-list groups/organizations.
● Assailing multiple resolutions issued by the COMELEC disqualifying them from
participating in the May 13, 2013 party-list elections. They were disqualified
either by denial of their petitions for registration, or by cancellation of their
registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.
● Most of the disqualifications stated that the groups do not represent
“marginalized and underrepresented” sectors, or that the nominees do not
belong to such sectors they purport to represent.
● One petitioner was previously granted registration and accreditation but was
denied participation in the 2013 elections because of failure to represent any
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector;
● 12 petitioners were not able to secure mandatory injunction and are therefore
removed from the ballots; while 39 were able to secure such mandatory
injunction and are still included in the printed ballots.
Issue:
● W/N political parties can participate in the party-list system. - YES
● W/N national or regional parties need to represent “marginalized and
underrepresented” sectors. - NO
Held:
● RA 7941 (Party-List System Act)
○ In Sec 3(a), it is defined that a “party” is “either a political party or a
sectoral party or a coalition of parties.” In Sec 3(c), a “political party”
refers to an organized group advocating an ideology or platform,
principles, and policies for the general conduct of government.
Meanwhile, a “sectoral party” is defined in Sec 5, whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.
● the law intended to accept both sectoral and non-sectoral parties into the
system. The common denominator in both classification of parties is that they
cannot win a legislative district, but they can garner in nationwide elections at
least the same amount of votes to win a seat.
● The Court laid down new parameters in qualifying national, regional, and
sectoral parties under the party-list system, abandoning all previous rulings.
New Guidelines for Party-list (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC)
25
 1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields 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 sectoral wing is by itself
an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a
coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.” It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and
underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous ACAgra: ELFA. Slide 13 Title: Substitution of Party-List Nominees
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The
sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include professionals, the
elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies”
must belong to the sector they represent.
6. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack
“well-defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their respective
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors.
The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be
bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
7. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified
if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified

Substitution of Party-List Nominees

● In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list representatives, it is
automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees in the
order submitted to the Commission by the same party, organization, or coalition,
and serves the unexpired term.

26
CANDIDACY
Who is a candidate? (Sir Ostrea’s slides)
● A candidate is any person aspiring for or seeking public office who has filed a
CoC by himself or thru an accredited political party(ies) (Sec. 79, OEC)
● Further, any person who files is considered a candidate at the start of the
campaign period for which he filed his CoC (Sec. 15, RA 9369).
● Elements of a Candidate:
○ Intention to run/seek public office
○ Validly filed CoC, personally or thru representative with sworn/signature
Authority to file
○ Valid CoC
Certificate of Candidacy: Some Notable Elements (Res. 10717) (Sir Ostrea’s slides)
● Not an immigrant
● Will file Statements of Contributions and Expenditure (SOCE) within 30 days
after Election Day
● Gives consent to COMELEC to disclose and share personal data provided
● Facts in CoC are true and correct
● Whether or not aspirant is under accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification
to hold Public Office
What name may be used by a candidate for his candidacy? (Sir Ostrea’s slides)
● Registered name before the Local Civil Registry
● Baptismal Name
● Any other name under provisions of law
● If muslim, Hadji name after performing pilgrimage
● May include 1 nickname of stage name by which generally or popularly known
○ Ex. Joseph Estrada, rather that the name appearing in his birth
certificate “Joseph Ejercito”
Qualifications and disqualifications
Qualifications: (Art. IX, OEC)
President and Vice-President of the Philippines.
● natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write,
at least 40y of age on the day of election, and a resident of the Philippines for at
least 10 years immediately preceding such election.
Members of the Batasang Pambansa.
● natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least
25 years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter in the constituency in
which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than 6
months immediately preceding the day of the election.
A sectoral representative
● natural-born citizen of the Philippines, able to read and write, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of
the election, a bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent, and in the
case of a representative of the agricultural or industrial labor sector, shall be a
registered voter, and on the day of the election is at least 25 years of age.
The youth sectoral representative (SK)
● at least be 18 and not be more than 25 years of age on the day of the election:
Provided, however, That any youth sectoral representative who attains the age
of 25 years during his term shall be entitled to continue in office until the
expiration of his term.
Elective local officials
● Filipino citizens, registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province,
or in the case of a member for the sangguniang panlalawigan, panlugsod, or
bayan, the district where he or she intends to be elected, a resident in it for at
least 1 year immediately preceding election and able to read and write Filipino
or any other local dialect
Disqualifications: (p. 589, De Leon)
1. Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a
penalty of more than 18 months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
the plenary pardon or granted amnesty
2. Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by
final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of
having : (Sec. 68, OEC)
a. given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
b. committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
c. spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by
this Code;
d. solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections
89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
e. violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v,
and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office.
27
 3. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country
shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the
election laws.
Filing of Certificates of Candidacy/COCs (p. 569, De Leon)
● No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn
certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by the OEC
1. Certificate for more than 1 office (Sec. 73, OEC)
a. No person shall be eligible for more than 1 office to be filed in the same
election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one
office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the
expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the
person who filed for more than 1 certificate of candidacy may declare
under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the
certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.
2. Stray Vote
a. Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a COC or in favor of a
candidate for any office for which he did not present himself is void but
does not invalidate the whole ballot
3. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. (Sec. 76, OEC)
a. The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or
officer designated by the Commission or the board of election
inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty
to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.
Effect of filing
Case: Quinto v COMELEC [This is the MR, 2010]
Facts:
● In 1997, Congress enacted RA 8436 authorizing the COMELEC to use an
automatic election system starting 1998. In 2007, Congress amended the law by
enacting RA 9369.
● COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8678 to govern the filing of Certificates of
Candidacy for national and local positions. Section 4 of the Resolution reads:
Sec. 4. Effects of Filing of Certificates of Candidacy. (a) Any person holding a
public APPOINTIVE office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, and other 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. (b) Any person holding an ELECTIVE office
or position shall NOT BE CONSIDERED RESIGNED upon the filing of his certificate
of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position.
● Since they intend to run for elective office in the 2010 Elections, DENR
Undersecretary Eleazar Quinto (running for Pangasinan congressman) and
DENR Land Management Bureau Director Gerino Tolentino Jr. (running for
Manila councilor) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify sec. 4(a)
of Resolution 8678. According to them, imposing automatic resignation against
appointive officials who file their certificates of candidacy is offensive to the
equal protection clause because it gives an undue advantage to elective officials
who are allowed to remain in office despite the filing of their certificates of
candidacy.
● The COMELEC argued that no error was committed in issuing sec. 4(a) of
Resolution No. 8678 because it was merely copied verbatim from sec. 13 of
Republic Act No. 9363 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Issue:
● W/N the provision is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection
clause (NO)
Held:
● An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression
of the sovereign power of the people. It involves the choice or selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote. Considering that elected officials are
put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that
they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost
respect for the mandate of the sovereign will.
○ In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the
electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term
for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation
insofar as appointed officials are concerned.
● The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective officials is therefore
germane to the purposes of the law. For the law was made not merely to
preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of the public service; the
Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial scrutiny, also thought
it wise to balance this with the competing, yet equally compelling, interest of
deferring to the sovereign will.
Elective Officials Appointive Officials
Occupy their office by virtue of the Hold their office by virtue of their
mandate of the electorate designation thereto by an appointing
authority
They are elected to an office for a Some hold their office in a permanent
definite term and may be removed capacity and are entitled to security of
28
 ● Under Section 79(a) of the Election Code, a candidate is one who “has filed a
therefrom only upon stringent conditions tenure while others serve at the pleasure
of the appointing authority certificate of candidacy” to an elective public office. This is qualified by Section
15 of RA 8436, which provides that the person who filed a COC “shall only be
Expressly allowed to take part in As officers and employees in the civil considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he
political and electoral activities service, they are strictly prohibited from filed his certificate of candidacy.”
engaging in any partisan political ● In other words, “a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done
activity or take part in any election during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight – any
except to vote election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law
cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period.”
What is the effect of the filing by a candidate of a Certificate of Candidacy? ● This clear language is confirmed by the deliberations in Congress during the
enactment of this law.
● As such, there is no more offense of premature campaigning.
Elective Officials Appointive Officials
● The remedy is for Congress to amend the law.
Not deemed to have resigned from their Considered ipso facto resigned
office Nuisance candidates (s69, OEC)
Sec. 69 - The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested
party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that
said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to
ACAgra: ELFA. Slides 1, 3 Titles: Do we have ‘Candidates’ today? Incumbent Public
cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered
Officer/PO as Filers of COC
candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the
candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of
candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the
Election offense: Premature campaigning
electorate.
Case: Penera v COMELEC (Digest based on Sir Ostrea’s slides)
Cases: Santos v COMELEC, gr 235058 (2018) (eb)
Facts:
Facts:
● Rosalinda Penera was a candidate for mayor in Sta. Monica, Surigao Del Norte,
● Jennifer Roxas (respondent) filed a CoC for the position of member of the
during the 2007 elections. Before filing her COC, Penera held a motorcade
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay. She then filed a petition for disqualification
around the town.
against Rosalie Roxas before the COMELEC praying that the latter be declared
● The motorcade included two trucks and numerous motorcycles laden with
a nuisance candidate because her CoC was only filed for the sole purpose of
balloons, banners, and posters that showed the names of their candidates and
causing confusion among the voters by the similarity of their names.
the positions they sought.
○ She pointed out that Rosalie stated that her nickname was
● And one of the trucks had a public speaker that announced Penera’s candidacy
“Jenn-Rose,” to impersonate the former, when Rosalie’s real nickname
for mayor.
was actually “Saleng.”
● Based on these, a disqualification case for premature campaigning was filed
○ Respondent also argued that Rosalie’s intent to confuse the voters was
against her.
apparent because she chose the name “Roxas Jenn-Rose” to appear
● These acts, the COMELEC ruled, constitute campaigning before the start of the
in the official ballot even though respondent, a re-electionist candidate,
campaign period. Penera was disqualified.
was already using the name “Roxas Jenny” for election purposes.
Issue:
● COMELEC granted the petition and declared Rosalie Roxas as a nuisance
● W/N Penera was already a candidate to be liable for election offenses such as
candidate, canceling her CoC.
premature campaigning (NO)
● Rosalie filed a Motion for Reconsideration. While the motion is pending, the
Held:
elections proceeded. Respondent ranked 7th with 33,738 votes while Rosalie

29
 ranked 14th with 13,328. The top six (6) candidates were proclaimed as duly
elected.
● Respondent filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam against Santos (yung top 6)
before the COMELEC praying, among others, that the votes cast for Rosalie,
who was declared a nuisance candidate, be credited to her.
● Meanwhile, more than two (2) months after the elections, the COMELEC-En
Banc issued a Resolution denying Rosalie’s motion for reconsideration and
affirmed the Cancellation of her COC. The COMELEC-En Banc issued a Writ of
Execution (first writ of execution) to implement the resolutions.
● COMELEC-En Banc issued another writ of execution (second writ of execution)
and ANNUL the proclamation of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th placers.
Respondent was declared to garner 47,066 and ranked # 2.
Issue:
● W/N the votes of a nuisance candidate can only be credited to the legitimate
candidate if the decision or resolution is final and executory before the
proclamation of the winning candidate (NO)
Held:
● GR: In a nuisance petition, the votes of the nuisance candidate shall be credited
to the legitimate candidate once the decision becomes final and executory,
whether before or after the elections.
○ "final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively
cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of
election day - Jurisprudence
● A canceled certificate cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, much less to valid
votes. Said votes cannot be counted in favor of the candidate whose CoC was
canceled as he or she is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he or she never
filed a CoC. Thus, a petition to declare a person a nuisance candidate or a
petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate is already sufficient to cancel
the COC of the said candidate and to credit the garnered votes to the legitimate
candidate because it is as if the nuisance candidate was never a candidate to
be voted for.
● XPN: But in a multi-slot office, the votes of the nuisance candidate are not
automatically added to the legitimate candidate
○ In a multi-slot office, such as membership of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, a registered voter may vote for more than one candidate.
Hence, it is possible that the legitimate candidate and nuisance
candidate, having similar names, may both receive votes in one ballot.
○ In that scenario, the vote cast for the nuisance candidate should no
longer be credited to the legitimate candidate; otherwise, the latter shall
receive two votes from one voter
Marquez v COMELEC, gr 244274 (2019) (eb) in relation to the case of Maquera and
gr 248535 (2022).
Facts:
● Petitioner Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of senator.
He is a resident of Mountain Province, a real estate broker, and an independent
candidate.
● The COMELEC Law Department motu proprio filed a petition to declare
Marquez a nuisance candidate, arguing that he was virtually unknown to the
entire country and that absent clear proof of financial capacity, he will not be
able to sustain the financial rigors of a nationwide campaign.
● He argued that the COMELEC should not discount the potential for vastly
untapped sector of animal lovers, raisers and handlers, and the existing local
and foreign benefactors and donors who are willing and capable to subsidize the
expenses of a social-media-enhanced national campaign.
● The First Division ruled that in elections for national positions, the sheer
logistical challenge posed by nuisance candidates gives compelling reason for
the Commission to exercise its authority to eliminate nuisance candidates who
obviously have no financial capacity or serious intention to mount a nationwide
campaign.
Issue:
● W/N the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Marquez a
nuisance candidate for his failure to prove his financial capability to mount a
nationwide campaign. (YES)
Held:
● It was declared in Maquera v. Borra 'that the right to vote and to be voted for
shall not be made to depend upon the wealth of the candidate. The State cannot
require candidacy for a public office to be conditioned on the ability to file a
surety bond equivalent to the one-year salary of the position sought. This is a
constitutionally impermissible property qualification. The COMELEC cannot
condition a person's privilege to be voted upon as senator on his or her
financial capacity to wage a nationwide campaign.
○ Quite obviously, the financial capacity requirement is a property
requirement.
● The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it declared Marquez a
nuisance candidate on the ground of lack of proof of his financial capacity to
wage a nationwide campaign. By so doing, the COMELEC has effectively
imposed "property qualifications, which are inconsistent with the nature and
essence of the Republican system ordained in our Constitution and the principle
of social justice underlying the same × × x* already and clearly proscribed under
the ruling in Maquera.
● The COMELEC cannot conflate the bona fide intention to run with a financial
capacity requirement.
30
 ● A candidate's financial capacity to sustain the rigors of waging a nationwide
campaign does not necessarily equate to a bona fide intention to run for public
office. The COMELEC's burden is thus to show a reasonable correlation
between proof of a bona fide intention to run, on the one hand, and proof of
financial capacity to wage a nationwide campaign on the other.
ACAgra: ELFA. Slides 11; 16.1, 16.2 Title: Nuisance Candidate; Compare & Contrast
Cases
Withdrawal of candidates (p. 389, Gujilde)
How may a candidate withdraw?
● Any candidate may personally file, at any time before election day, a sworn
statement of withdrawal, in 5 original copies, with the office where the COC was
filed
May a candidate who withdrew be substituted?
● YES, a candidate who withdrew after the last day to file the CoC may be
substituted by a candidate belonging to, and nominated by, the same political
party or coalition within the period prescribed so that the name of the substitute
will be reflected on the official ballots.
May a candidate who withdrew file another certificate?
● YES, a withdrawing candidate may be substitute candidate provided he or she
belongs to, and is nominated, by the same political party or coalition.
May a withdrawal be withdrawn?
● YES, a candidate who withdrew may still withdraw his withdrawal to his revive
candidacy for the same position or file a CoC for another position, provided it
falls within the period to file.
May a person file multiple CoC?
● YES, provided he personally or through an authorized representative, filed with
the proper Office a sworn Statement of Cancellation to maintain desired office
and cancel the CoC for the other offices, stating the reasons, if any, before the
period to file expires. Otherwise, the aspirant is not eligible for any of them.
Substitute or guest candidates (S70, 77 OEC)
Sec. 70. Guest candidacy. - A political party may nominate and/or support candidates
not belonging to it.
Sec. 77 Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. - If
after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a
registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause,
only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate
of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The
substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of
candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than
mid-day of the day of the election.
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the
election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of
election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of
candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
ACAgra: ELFA. Slides 4, 8. Title: Substitute-Original & Substitute-Successor Candidates;
3 Substitution
Scenarios: Az for Bz; Az & Bz swap; C for Az
Independent Candidates
Who is an Independent Candidate? (p. 387, Gujilde)
● One who has not been nominated by a duly registered political party or coalition
● One whose Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) has been
submitted by a political party or coalitation not duly registered with the
COMELEC
● One who has not accepted a nomination, or has repudiated a certificate of
nomination from a duly registered political party or coalition
● One who accepts nominations from more than one duly registered political party
or coalition for the same constituency
● One whose CONA was filed after last day of the filing the CoC, different from the
position indicated in the CoC which was discovered only after last day of its
filing, cancelled, withdrawn or substituted by nominating party within the period
for the filing of the Coc, with conformity of the candidate, signed by a person
whose authority to sign it and specimen signature has not been submitted to the
Law Department within the period prescribed.
● One who has submitted two CONAs from the same political party but was
signed by two different officials, both of whom are authorized signatories of the
party an a CONA from individual members of the coalition.
May an independent candidate who withdrew be substituted? (p. 387, Gujilde)
● No, because there is no party representation to be maintained or continued.
● But during barangay elections where all candidates are considered independent
(non-partisan character), the spouse may substitute a candidate who dies.
31
ACAgra: ELFA. Slide 6 Title: Independent Candidate

Disqualification of a candidate and its effects (s78, 68, 72 OEC)

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - 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 contained
therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time
not later than 25 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.

Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a

party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the
Commission of having
a. given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the
voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
b. committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
c. spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this
Code;
d. solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95,
96, 97 and 104; or
e. violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he
has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent
resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for
any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the
residence requirement provided for in the election laws.

Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. - The Commission and the
courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the
end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in
which the disqualification is sought.

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be
voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason,
a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he
is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the
provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to
office. ACAgra: ELFA. Slide 12 Title: Petition to DQ Candidate

32
Material Misrepresentation (p. 393, Gujilde)
● Involves qualifications to hold public office like citizenship, age, residence,
voter’s registration, and literacy. It does not include innocuous mistakes like use
by a woman of surname of her husband who was previously married to another.
● The misrepresentation in the CoC must be material, deliberate, and willful.
There must be intent to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render the candidate ineligible (pertaining to the qualifications of
office).
○ Ex. Marcos being a tax evader is not a material qualification.
○ ELEMENTS
■ Falsity
■ Materiality
■ Intention to mislead, misinform or deceive
● Sec 78, OEC: Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
- 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 contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof 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.

When and where is a petition filed? ACAgra: ELFA. Slide 10 Title: Telling a Lie in COC
● When?
○ Within 5 days from last day to file a CoC, but not later than 25 days [IMPT] Distinguish Disqualified vs Unqualified candidate
from the time of the filing of the CoC subject of the petition.
○ In case of a substitute candidate, the petition must be filed within 5 Disqualified Unqualified
days from the time the substitute candidate filed CoC.
● Where? Any candidate who has been declared by A person without a valid certificate of
○ In the place or with the office of the field officer where the CoC subject final judgment to be disqualified. candidacy.
of the petition was filed or at the Office of the Clerk of the COMELEC in
Intramuros, Manila. Any person declared by competent
○ In case it is filed with the field officer, the latter instantly transmits 10 authority as insane or incompetent, or
sentenced by final judgment for
copies of the petition together with payment received and duplicate
subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for
copy of official receipt issued to the Clerk of the COMELEC in Manila. any offense for which he or she has been
sentenced to a penalty more than 18
months or for a crime involving moral
turpitude, unless given plenary pardon or
granted amnesty

Purpose is to prevent a purpose from

running/being a candidate.

33
 ● Labo’s disqualification became final only on 14 May 1992, three days after the
1. Dual citizenships
2. Feeble minded/insane 11 May 1992 elections. On election day itself, Labo was still legally a candidate.
3. Fugitive from justice
Doctrine on rejection of the second placer
● Distinguishing factor: Timing of the DQ
Poe-Llamanzanares v. COMELEC
● Applicable (i.e. 2nd placer/qualified cand. w/ highest no. of votes cannot
● Disqualification does not equate to ineligibility
succeed; Vice succeeds):
○ Disqualification = bars candidate from continuing
○ When judgment declaring candidate’s disqualification becomes final
○ Ineligibility = lacked qualifications to begin with
only AFTER the election was held (e.g. Labo v. COMELEC)
■ Because s/he was qualified/valid candidate at the time of
AFTER MIDTERMS election
● NOT applicable (i.e. 2nd placer/qualified cand. w/ highest no. of votes can
succeed):
Rule on the second-placer. See Labo v COMELEC
○ When judgment declaring a candidate's disqualification becomes final
FACTS:
BEFORE the election was held.
● Labo was elected as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Lardizabal, filed a petition
■ Said candidate cannot be voted for; votes cast for him shall
for quo warranto against Labo, asserting that Labo is an Australian citizen hence
not be counted (Sec. 6 RA 6636)
disqualified; that he was naturalized as an Australian after he married an
■ Even if the names of disqualified candidates appear on the
Australian. Labo avers that his marriage was void for being bigamous. Further,
ballot and votes are counted (stray votes), and they win and
Labo asserts that even if he is considered as an Australian, his lack of
assume office.
citizenship is just a mere technicality which should not frustrate the will of the
○ Certificate of Candidacy is void ab initio e.g. dual citizenship (Chua v.
electorate of Baguio who voted for him by a vast majority.
COMELEC), absolute perpetual disqualification attached to a criminal
case.
ISSUE: W/N Lardizabal, who obtained the second highest vote in the mayoralty race, can
■ Even if the names of candidates subsequently declared
replace Labo in the event that Labo is disqualified (NO)
disqualified appear on the ballot and votes are counted (stray
votes), and they win and assume office.
HELD:
● The disqualification of petitioner Labo does not necessarily entitle
Other Disqualification Cases:
petitioner Ortega as the candidate with the next highest number of votes
to proclamation as the Mayor of Baguio City.
Tecson v COMELEC, (2004) (What is Philippine citizenship for illegitimates?)
● While Ortega may have garnered the second highest number of votes for the
FACTS:
office of city mayor, the fact remains that he was not the choice of the sovereign
● On December 2003, Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his CoC for the position of
will. Petitioner Labo was overwhelmingly voted by the electorate for the office of
President.
mayor in the belief that he was then qualified to serve the people of Baguio City
○ In his CoC, FPJ stated that he is a natural-born citizen of the
and his subsequent disqualification does not make respondent Ortega the
Philippines
mayor-elect.
● Fornier filed a petition to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his
● The doctrine on the rejection of the second placer was applied in Labo and a
CoC upon the ground that FPJ made a material misrepresentation:
host of other cases because the judgment declaring the candidate’s
○ That he was a natural-born Filipino citizen when in fact his parents
disqualification in Labo and the other cases had not become final before the
were foreigners;
elections. Labo and other cases applying the doctrine on the rejection of the
■ His mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his
second placer have one common essential condition – the disqualification of the
father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of
candidate had not become final before the elections. This essential condition
Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.
does not exist in the present case.
■ Even considering that Allan Poe was a Filipino citizen, he
34
 could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ,
since he was an illegitimate child of an alien mother.
● (1) Allan Poe had a prior marriage to a certain
Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley,
and (2) even if no prior marriage existed, Allan Poe
married Bessie Kelly a year after the birth of FPJ.
● COMELEC: dismissed the case of Fornier for lack of merit. Hence, this petition
for certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N FPJ, as an illegitimate child, a Filipino following his father’s nationality.
(YES; The 1935 Constitution does not distinguish)
RATIO:
● Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses:
○ No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least
forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.
● Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship.
● FPJ’s grandpa Lorenzo Pou was a PH citizen by en masse Filipinization, making
his son Allan F. Poe (FPJ’s father) a PH citizen
○ Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be
drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old,
Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the
Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan,
his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any
other residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other
evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death,
such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse
Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902.
○ That citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to
his son, Allan F. Poe, father of the respondent FPJ.
● The Supreme Court held that it does not matter whether or not one is an
illegitimate child of his/her father, he/she still gets his/her citizenship as the
Constitution does not distinguish.
● Jurisprudence provides that an illegitimate child, as taking after the citizenship of
its mother, did so for the benefit of the child.
○ It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the illegitimate child of an alien
father in line with the assumption that the mother had custody, would
exercise parental authority and had the duty to support her illegitimate
child.
○ It was to help the child, not to prejudice or discriminate against him.
● The 1935 Constitution, which was the governing law at the time of birth of FPJ,
can never be more explicit than it is.
○ Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, the Constitution states
that among the citizens of the Philippines are “those whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines.”
○ It does not distinguish between legitimate or illegitimate children.
● But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that
respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on
hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held
guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of
candidacy.
Chua v COMELEC,(2016) (eb) (Effect of Re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship)
FACTS:
● Chua filed her CoC for Councilor for the 4th District of Manila during the 2013
National and Local Elections. The 4th District of Manila is entitled to 6 seats in
the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
● On May 15, 2013, Chua was proclaimed as a winner, garnering the 6th highest
number of votes.
○ On the same day, Fragata files a petition to “deny due course/cancel
Chua’s CoC” alleging that Chua was not a Filipino Citizen and is a
permanent resident of the United States.
○ In this petition, Fragata specifically alleged that Chua has been living in
the U.S. for 33 years, she was validly issued a Green Card, she
continues to reside in Georgia, USA, and etc.
○ Fragata prayed that Chua be disqualified as a candidate.
● With regard to her Filipino citizenship, Chua counters this petition by saying that
she was born to Filipino parents in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.
○ With respect to her residency, Chua alleged that she had been residing
in Sampaloc, Manila since 2008, and had complied with the one-year
period required to run for Councilor.
● Bacani filed a Motion to Intervene, alleging that since Chua should be
disqualified, she be the proclaimed Councilor as she was ranked 7th among all
candidates.
○ Bacani argued that Chua was a dual citizen, rendering Chua
unqualified to run for Councilor.
○ Based on the Bureau of Immigration, Chua was allegedly naturalized
as an American citizen in 1997 and was issued an American passport
in 2006.
○ Chua took an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines in 2011 but still
continued to use her American passport twice in 2012 and once in
2013.
35
 ○ More importantly, Chua did not execute an oath of renunciation of her
American Citizenship.
● The COMELEC Second Division resolved Fragata’s petition and allowed
Bacani’s Motion to Intervene.
ISSUE: W/N Chua disqualified to run for Councilor (YES)
HELD:
● Petitioner Chua failed to execute a sworn and personal renunciation of her
foreign citizenship particularly required of those seeking elective public office.
● Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
provides:
○ “2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the
qualification for holding such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath;”
● Chua cannot claim that she has renounced her American citizenship by taking
the Oath of Allegiance.
○ The oath of allegiance and the sworn and personal renunciation of
foreign citizenship are separate requirements, the latter being an
additional requirement for qualification to run for public office.
● With Chua’s failure to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of her
American citizenship, she was a dual citizen at the time she filed her CoC on
October 3, 2012.
○ Under Section 40 of the LGC, she was disqualified to run for Councilor
in the Fourth District of Manila during the 2013 National and Local
Elections.
● With her dual citizenship existing prior to the filing of the CoC, her Certificate of
Candidacy was void ab initio.
○ She was correctly considered a noncandidate.
○ All votes casted for her were stray, and the person legally entitled to
the position is private respondent Krystle Marie C. Bacani, the
candidate with the next highest number of votes among the eligible
candidates.
Lopez v COMELEC, (2008) (dual citizen) dual citizen; no renunciation by filing CoC
FACTS:
● Petitioner Eusebio Lopez was a candidate for the position of Chairman of
Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo.
● Days before the election, respondent Villanueva filed a petition for the
disqualification of petitioner on the ground that he is an American citizen, hence,
ineligible from running for any public office.
○ Petitioner argued that he is a dual citizen, a Filipino and at the same
time an American, by virtue of RA 9225, otherwise known as the
Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.
○ He returned to the Philippines and resided in Barangay Bagacay.
○ Thus, he said, he possessed all the qualifications to run for Barangay
Chairman.
○ After the votes for Barangay Chairman were canvassed, petitioner
emerged as the winner.
● COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution granting the petition for
disqualification, stating that petitioner was not able to regain his Filipino
citizenship in the manner provided by law.
○ According to COMELEC, to be able to qualify as a candidate in the
elections, petitioner should have made a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
■ Petitioner failed to do this.
● His MR having been denied, petitioner resorted to the present petition, imputing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for disqualifying him
from running and assuming the office of Barangay Chairman.
ISSUE: W/N the filing of a CoC operated as an effective renunciation of foreign
citizenship (NO)
HELD:
● The Supreme Court held that petitioner was born a Filipino but he deliberately
sought American citizenship and renounced his Filipino citizenship.
● He later on became a dual citizen by re-acquiring Filipino citizenship.
● More importantly, the Court's 2000 ruling in Valles has been superseded by the
enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in 2003.
○ R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditions before those who
re-acquire Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the
Philippines.
○ Petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the cited law.
○ This new law explicitly provides that should one seek elective public
office, he should first "make a personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized
to administer an oath".
○ Petitioner failed to comply with this requirement.
● While it is true that the petitioner won the elections, took his oath and began to
discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory cannot cure the
defect of his candidacy.
● Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a
36
 disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory
provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.
Aznar v COMELEC, (1990) (loss of Philippine citizenship) Osmeña’s grandson from
Cebu
FACTS:
● Private respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his CoC with the COMELEC for
the position of Governor of Cebu Province in the Jan. 18, 1988 local elections.
● On Jan. 22, 1988, the Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council (Cebu-PDP Laban,
for short), as represented by petitioner Aznar, in his capacity as its incumbent
Provincial Chairman, filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification
of private respondent on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen,
being a US citizen.
● On Jan. 27, 1988, petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation submitting a Certificate
issued by the then Immigration and Deportation Commissioner Miriam Defensor
Santiago certifying that private respondent is an American and is a holder of an
Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and an Immigrant Certificate of
Residence.
● The petitioner also filed a Supplemental Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the
Issuance of a TRO to enjoin the Cebu Provincial Board of Canvassers from
tabulating/canvassing the votes cast in favor of Osmena and proclaiming him
until the final resolution of the main petition.
● Thus, on Jan. 28, 1988, the COMELEC en banc resolved to order the Board to
continue canvassing but to suspend the proclamation.
● At the hearing before the COMELEC (First Division), the petitioner presented
the following exhibits tending to show that private respondent is an American
citizen:
○ Application for Alien Registration Form No. 1 of the Bureau of
Immigration signed by private respondent
○ Alien Certificate of Registration No. 015356 in the name of private
respondent
○ Permit to Re-enter the Philippines
○ Immigration Certificate of Clearance
● Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that he is a Filipino citizen,
alleging:
○ that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino and
son of the late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.
○ that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport No.
0855103 issued on March 25, 1987
○ that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth
and has not gone out of the country for more than six months
○ that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.
● The COMELEC (First Division) directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the
winning candidates. Having obtained the highest number of votes, private
respondent was proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu.
● Thereafter, on June 11, 1988, COMELEC (First Division) dismissed the petition
for disqualification for not having been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof
that private respondent is not a Filipino citizen.
ISSUE: W/N Osmena lost his Filipino Citizenship? (NO)
RATIO:
● The PH courts can only rule on PH nationality, the fact of American citizenship
under american laws is irrelevant.
● 2 ways to question the qualifications of a candidate
○ Before the election: (1) petition to deny due course or (2) cancellation
of the CoC on the ground of material misrepresentation; filed at any
time no later than 25 days from the filing of the CoC
○ After election: quo warranto on the ground if ineligibility or disloyalty to
the Republic of the Philippines; within 10 days after the proclamation
● In this case, Osmena filed his CoC on Nov. 19, 1987, while the petition for
disqualification was filed on Jan. 22, 1988.
○ Osmena was proclaimed on March 3, 1988.
○ Since the petition for disqualification was filed beyond the twenty
five-day period required in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, it
is clear that said petition was filed out of time.
● Modes of losing Filipino citizenship under CA 63 [RON]
○ Naturalization in a foreign country
○ Express Renunciation of citizenship
○ Subscribing to an Oath of allegiance
● Osmena is presumed to be Filipino as his father was Filipino; therefore it was
the burden of Aznar to outweigh such presumption.
○ In this case, no substantial evidence was proven to show any of the 3
modes of losing PH citizenship.
○ Aznar merely assumed that the Alien Certificate of Registration and the
permit to re-enter automatically meant that Osmena was American.
○ In fact, Osmena denies that he took the oath of allegiance of the US
and he has a PH passport and participates in the PH electoral
processes.
● The fact of the Alien Certificate of Registration does not follow (non sequitur)
that he is not STILL a Filipino, but merely that he possesses both.
○ To lose Filipino citizenship, there must be an express or implied
renunciation
NOTE: This case leaves to future law the effect of dual citizenship. The 1987 Constitution
37
stating that dual citizenship is inimical is not retroactive.
Cardino v COMELEC (dual citizenship as disqualification) oath of allegiance +
clerical error re: date of renunciation = still eligible
FACTS:
● After beating Cardino (petitioner) by almost 2k votes, Jalosjos (respondent) was
proclaimed the Mayor of Dapitan.
● Cardino immediately sought for the nullification of the CoC of Jalosjos through a
quo warranto on the ground of ineligibility as she became a naturalized
American citizen.
● Although she did comply with twin requirements for the reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225, the affidavit of renunciation was dated on July 16
2012, which was physically impossible since she only flew in (with her US
passport) on July 17, 2012.
● Cardino claimed that Jalosjos falsified the document; therefore upon filing
her CoC she still had dual citizenship.
● With that, her CoC was void; consequently, Cardino should be the one elected.
● Jalosjos claimed that the date was mistakenly placed as July 16, when in
fact it was supposed to be July 19.
● Jalosjos even presented the judge who testified the date of her personal
appearance.
● COMELEC heavily relied on the regularity presumption in favor of the judge and
dismissed the petition of Cardino due to the clerical error.
ISSUE: W/N Jalosjos is eligible (YES)
RATIO:
● According to Cardino, the ineligibility of Jalosjos stemmed from the fact that she
was a dual citizen of the Philippines and the USA when she submitted her CoC
for Mayor in the May 13, 2013 elections.
○ This is proscribed by Section 40 (d) of the LGC
● In Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC, the Court explained in detail the
requirements that must be complied with under Republic Act No. 9225 before a
person with dual citizenship can be qualified to run for any elective public office,
to wit: RA No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino
citizenship for natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic.
● The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores one's Filipino
citizenship and all civil and political rights and obligations.
● The law provides that those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall
meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath; The
court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that it was
indeed a mere clerical error.
● The court therefore affirms the findings and ruling of COMELEC en banc that it
was a mere clerical error and there was no falsification, and that Jalosjos did
divest herself of American citizenship.
Arnado v COMELEC, (2015) (continuing qualifications) Still used his US passport
after renunciation = negates renunciation
FACTS:
● Arnado was a natural born PH citizen but lost his PH citizenship when he was
naturalized as an American citizen.
○ He then planned to run for mayor of Kauswagan in 2010 elections so
he applied for repatriation, took an oath of allegiance to the Republic
and executed an affidavit to renounce his American citizenship in 2009.
○ He executed the renunciation because dual citizens are also prohibited
from running for public office.
● Then, his opponent discovered that he still used his US passport after his
renunciation and thus filed a complaint to disqualify him claiming that said use
negates the renunciation (i.e. he again became a dual citizen).
○ COMELEC en banc ruled he was qualified and he won overwhelmingly
so he served as Mayor but his opponent appealed to the SC (this is the
Maquiling case).
○ SC ruled that his use of US passport thus negated his renunciation and
he was thus actually disqualified to run in the 2010 election.
■ However, SC only decided this in April 2013 (2013 decision).
○ After the 2013 decision, he executed an affirmation of his renunciation
of US citizenship because he will run again for another term.
● But, prior to the 2013 SC decision, Arnado already filed his COC in 2012 to run
again as Mayor on the belief that he is qualified.
○ His opponent now seeks to cancel his 2012 COC arguing that the 2013
decision upheld that his renunciation was negated.
○ Hence, he was not qualified to run for the 2013 election as a dual
citizen.
○ COMELEC did disqualify him for the 2013 election and ruled that his
2013 affirmation has no effect since it was made after the deadline of
filing (i.e. qualifications should be possessed at time of filing) so he
appealed to the SC arguing):
a. COMELEC should have given him opportunity to correct his
qualification considering that SC decision which affected his
qualification only came after the deadline of filing and;
b. His landslide victory (84%) should be considered.
38
ISSUE: W/N Arnado is qualified to run for or hold public office (NO)
RATIO:
Why he was disqualified
● It was based on Section 4 (d) of the LGC which disqualifies dual citizens from
running any elective local position.
○ Arnado was considered a dual citizen by COMELEC because at the
time of filing of the COC, he did not comply with the requirement of
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
● Under Section 4(d) LGC, a person with "dual citizenship" is disqualified from
running for any elective local position.
○ In Mercado, it was clarified that the phrase "dual citizenship" in said
Section 4(d) must be understood as referring to "dual allegiance.''
○ Subsequently, Congress enacted RA 9225 allowing natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their Philippine citizenship by
reason of their naturalization abroad, to reacquire Philippine citizenship
and to enjoy full civil and political rights upon compliance with the
requirements of the law.
○ They may now run for public office in the Philippines, Provided that
they:
1. meet the qualifications for holding such public office as
required by the Constitution and existing laws; and
2. make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer
an oath prior to or at the time of filing of their CoC.
● The Comelec en banc did not err, nor did it commit grave abuse of discretion, in
upholding the Resolution of the Comelec Second Division disqualifying Arnado
from running for public office.
○ The reason for Arnado's disqualification to run for public office during
the 2010 elections - being a candidate without total and undivided
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines - still subsisted when
he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections on October 1, 2012.
● Moreover, it cannot be validly argued that Arnado should be given the
opportunity to correct the deficiency in his qualification, because at the
time this Court promulgated its Decision in Maquiling on April 16, 2013, the
period for filing the CoC for local elective office had already lapsed.
● Arnado's use of his US passport in 2009 invalidated his oath of
renunciation resulting in his disqualification to run for mayor of Kauswagan in
the 2010 elections.
○ Since then and up to the time he filed his CoC for the 2013
elections, Arnado had not cured the defect in his qualification.
○ Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and applicable to this case following
the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which
means to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are
established.
● When Arnado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, he was not totally unaware
that the use of his US passport after he had executed the Affidavit of
Renunciation might have an impact on his qualification and candidacy.
○ In fact, at that time, Maquiling had already reached this Court.
● But despite the petitions filed against him questioning his qualification to run for
public office in 2010, Arnado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012 unmindful of any
possible legal setbacks in his candidacy for the 2013 elections and without
executing another Affidavit of Renunciation.
○ In short, the argument that Arnado should be given the opportunity to
correct the deficiency in his CoC since Maquiling was promulgated
after the lapse of the period for filing a CoC for the 2013 elections, is
totally bereft of merit.
○ Consistent with our April 16, 2013 ruling in Maquiling, Arnado should
be made to face the consequences of his inaction since he could
have remedied it at the time he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012 or
even before that.
○ There is no law prohibiting him from executing an Affidavit of
Renunciation every election period if only to avert possible
questions about his qualifications.
Poe-Llamanzares v COMELEC now amended by Francisco v COMELEC
● To disqualify a candidate there must be a declaration by a final judgment of a
competent court that the candidate sought to be disqualified “is guilty of or found
by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or
the Constitution.”
● Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 are
flipsides of one to the other.
● Both do not allow, are not authorizations, are not vestment of jurisdiction, for the
COMELEC to determine the qualification of a candidate.
● The facts of qualification must beforehand be established in a prior proceeding
before an authority properly vested with jurisdiction.
● The prior determination of qualification may be by statute, by executive order or
by a judgment of a competent court or tribunal.
Trinidad v COMELEC, (effect of disqualification)
FACTS:
● Trinidad ran for re-election as Mayor for Iguig, Cagayan.
● Candidate Sunga, who was the second placer, sent letter-complaints to the
COMELEC, alleging that Trinidad (a) used government vehicles in his
campaign, which is an election offense, (b) used threats and coercion, and (c)
committed vote-buying.
39
 ● The COMELEC Law Department filed Informations in the RTC, and in 1998, the
COMELEC Division disqualified Trinidad from the 1995 elections.
● Trinidad filed an MR. By the time his MR was denied, Trinidad’s first term
(’95-’98) had already ended, and he had already begun his next term because
he won again.
● Nevertheless, Trinidad’s proclamation as mayor for the 1998 election was also
annulled. Trinidad filed a petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC can disqualify Trinidad’s ‘98 term even if the complaint was
filed for the ‘95 elections (NO)
(other issues were if the petitioner’s due process was violated, which the court said No
since he was afforded the opportunity to be heard)
RATIO:
● The expiration of the ’95-’98 term rendered the petition for disqualification moot
and academic.
● While it is true that the first questioned Resolution was issued eight (8) days
before the term of petitioner as Mayor expired, said Resolution had not yet
attained finality and could not effectively be held to have removed petitioner
from his office.
● Therefore, COMELEC acted with grave abuse in disqualifying Trinidad for the
’98 term.
● Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged
misconduct was committed.
● If a public official is not removed before his term of office expires, he can no
longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another term.
● Electoral laws should be construed liberally to give full effect to the will of the
people.
● The voters overwhelmingly chose Trinidad as Mayor (77.26%).
● Lastly, even if Trinidad was disqualified, the second place winner will not
become mayor because it is the vice mayor who succeeds.
● To simplistically assume that the second placer would have received the other
votes would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter.
● The second placer is just that, a second placer.
● He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of
voters.
● He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a
field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have
substantially changed.
● We are not prepared to extrapolate the results under the circumstances.
Cayat v COMELEC (conviction by final judgment) (crimes involving moral
turpitude)
FACTS:
● Cayat and Palileng were the only candidates for the mayoralty post in Buguias,
Benguet in the 10 May 2004 local elections.
○ Cayat filed his certificate of candidacy on 5 January 2004.
● On 26 January 2004, Palileng filed a petition for disqualification against Cayat
before the COMELEC Regional Election Office in Baguio City. Palileng’s petition
alleged that:
○ On January 05, 2004, [Cayat] filed his Certificate [of] Candidacy for
Mayor for the Municipality of Buguias, Benguet, Philippines alleging
among others as follows:
■ "I AM ELIGIBLE for the office [I] seek to [be] elected, x x x. I
hereby certify that the facts stated herein are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge."
○ The truth of the matter being that [Cayat] is not eligible to run as Mayor
having been convicted by final judgment for a criminal offense by the
Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Philippines, Branch 2, for the
Crime of Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness docketed as Criminal Case
Number 110490. Copies of the Information and the Order of conviction
dated October 03, 2003 is [sic] hereto attached and marked as ANNEX
"B" and "C";
○ In fact, [Cayat] is still under probation at the time he filed his Certificate
of Candidacy on January 05, 2004 after the Honorable Court granted
his application for probation on November 06, 2003.
○ Despite assumption of obligation imposed by this oath that the facts
stated in his Certificate of Candidacy are true to the best of his
knowledge, [Cayat] made misrepresentations and committed acts of
perjury when he declared that he is eligible for the said office while in
truth and in fact, Respondent was convicted in the above-mentioned
Criminal Complaint
○ At the time of filing his Certificate of Candidacy, [Cayat] is disqualified
to said office as Mayor as he is still serving his sentence and/or
disqualification was not yet removed or cured
● Atty. Julius D. Torres (Atty. Torres), COMELEC Provincial Election Supervisor for
Baguio-Benguet, served summons on Cayat by telegram through the
Telecommunications Office on 26 January 2004.
● However, Cayat did not personally receive the telegram. The
Telecommunications Office of Abatan, Buguias delivered the telegram to
Ferdinand Guinid (Guinid). Atty. Torres also instructed Mr. Francis Likigan,
Election Officer of Buguias, Benguet, to personally inform Cayat to file his
answer within three days from receipt of notice. Cayat did not file an answer.
● Despite Cayat’s non-participation, Atty. Torres proceeded with SPA (PES) No.
40
 C04-001. Palileng filed his position paper on 16 February 2004.
● Atty. Torres then resolved the issues based on available records. Atty. Torres
also submitted the entire record of the case together with his findings and
recommendation to the Office of the Clerk of the COMELEC on 24 February
2004
○ COMELEC said that Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness involves moral
turpitude, and on April 12, canceled Cayat’s COC.
● Cayat filed an MR claiming that COMELEC did not acquire jurisdiction over his
person but this was denied because he did not pay his filing fees
● In the local elections held on 10 May 2004, Cayat’s name remained on the
COMELEC’s list of candidates. In the Certificate of Canvass of Votes dated 12
May 2004, Cayat received 8,164 votes.
● Palileng, on the other hand, received 5,292 votes. Cayat was thus proclaimed
the duly elected Mayor of Buguias, Benguet. Cayat took his oath of office on 17
May 2004.
● On 29 July 2004, pending resolution by the COMELEC of SPC No. 04-043,
Palileng also filed a motion for execution of judgment in SPA Case No. 04-152.
● On 10 August 2004, the COMELEC First Division issued an order setting on 18
August 2004 the hearing on the motion for execution.
● Only Palileng’s counsel appeared during the hearing.
● The parties were instructed to file their respective memoranda within five days.
This was granted.
● COMELEC then canceled Cayat’s Certificate of Candidacy, nullifying Cayat’s
proclamation as Mayor of Buguias, Benguet, and declaring Palileng as Mayor of
Buguias, Benguet.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC’s cancellation of Cayat’s COC, nullification of Cayat’s
proclamation, and declaration Palileng as Mayor are proper (YES, due to moral
turpitude
RATIO:
● The COMELEC sent the telegram to the residence address of Cayat before the
date of promulgation, to which the telegram also included the date of the
promulgation of the decision.
● It is immaterial if Cayat personally received the telegram as long as the telegram
was sent and delivered before the said date to the residence address Cayat
indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy.
● Cayat failed to pay the filing fees when he filed his motion for reconsideration.
○ Thus, his disqualification became final three days after April 13, 2004.
(3 days because COMELEC Resolution provides for a three-day period
from the promulgation of its resolution within which to file a motion for
reconsideration.)
● By the time the elections took place on May 10, 2004, Palileng was the only
candidate for Mayor. (Cayat was disqualified by final judgment 23 days before
the May 10 elections.)
● The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment
before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be
counted.
○ This is a mandatory provision of law.
● The Resolution disqualifying Cayat became final before the elections. Therefore,
all the 8,164 votes in favor of him are stray.
○ There is no disenfranchisement of the 8,164 voters. Rather, the 8,164
voters are deemed by law to have deliberately voted for a
non-candidate, and thus their votes are stray and "shall not be
counted."
Dimapilis v COMELEC (perpetual disqualification to hold public office)
FACTS:
● Joseph C. Dimapilis (petitioner) was elected as Punong Barangay of Brgy.
Pulung Maragul in the October 2010 Barangay Elections.
○ He ran for re-election in 2013, and filed his CoC in October 2013,
declaring under oath that he is eligible for the office he seeks to be
elected to.
○ He won the elections and was proclaimed Punong Barangay in
October 2013.
● The COMELEC Law Department motu proprio filed a Petition for Disqualification
against petitioner pursuant to Section 40(b) of the LGC, which provides that
candidates removed from office due to an administrative case are disqualified
from running for local elective positions.
○ The COMELEC claimed that petitioner was barred from running
because he suffered the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification
to hold public office as a consequence of his dismissal from service as
Kagawad after being found guilty of the administrative offense of Grave
Misconduct by the Ombudsman.
○ The petitioner (Dimapilis) had the following arguments:
1) While the petition prayed for his disqualification, it partakes of
a petition to deny due course or to cancel CoC under the
OEC, and combining these two separate actions in one
petition is a ground for dismissal of the petition according to
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
2) The COMELEC Law Department cannot initiate the petition
motu proprio
3) The RTC has enjoined the implementation of the Ombudsman
decision because of the condonation doctrine
● The COMELEC Second Division (C2D) granted the petition, canceled
petitioner’s CoC, annulled his proclamation, and directed the Barangay Board of
41
 Canvassers to proclaim the candidate with the next highest number of votes. CoC void from the start since he was not eligible to run for any
● The C2D treated the petition as one for cancellation under Section 78 of the public office at the time he filed the same.
OEC, notwithstanding that it was captioned as a petition for disqualification ● The COMELEC may motu proprio bar from running for public office those
under Section 40(b) of the LGC, holding that the nature of the petition is based suffering from perpetual disqualification to hold office Under Section 2 (1),
on the allegations presented. It ruled that petition committed material Article IX (C) of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC has the duty to "[e]nforce
misrepresentation in avowing that he was eligible to run when he really suffered and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election x x
from perpetual disqualification. x."
● The C2D also upheld its Law Department’s authority to file a petition motu ○ The Court had previously ruled that the COMELEC has the legal duty
proprio as part of the COMELEC’s duty under the Constitution to enforce and to cancel the CoC of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of
administer laws relating to the conduct of elections. perpetual disqualification to hold public office, albeit, arising from a
● Finally, the C2D rejected the application of the condonation doctrine as this was criminal conviction.
abandoned in Carpio-Morales v. Binay, Jr. ○ Considering, however, that Section 52 (a), Rule 10 of the Revised
○ In any case, his CoC was void from the beginning due to his perpetual Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service similarly imposes
disqualification, which barred his re-election. He was never a candidate the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office as an
to begin with. accessory to the penalty of dismissal from service, the Court sees no
● Petitioner moved for reconsideration citing more or less the same arguments as reason why the ratiocination enunciated in such earlier criminal case
above. should not apply here.
● The COMELEC en banc ruled that absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar ● Whether or not the COMELEC is expressly mentioned in the judgment to
to an administrative prosecution and vice versa. implement the disqualification, it is assumed that the portion of the final
judgment on disqualification to run for elective public office is addressed to the
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in disqualifying petitioner (NO) COMELEC because under the Constitution the COMELEC is duty bound to
"[e]nforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
RATIO: election.”
● The petitioner was barred by perpetual disqualification
○ A CoC is a formal requirement for eligibility to public office.
○ Section 74 of the OEC provides that the CoC of the person filing it shall
state, among others, that he is eligible for the office he seeks to run,
and that the facts stated therein are true to the best of his knowledge.
■ To be "eligible" relates to the capacity of holding, as well as
that of being elected to an office.
■ Conversely, "ineligibility" has been defined as a
"disqualification or legal incapacity to be elected to an office or
appointed to a particular position."
■ In this relation, a person intending to run for public office must
not only possess the required qualifications for the position for
which be or she intends to run, but must also possess none of
the grounds for disqualification under the law.
○ In this case, petitioner had been found guilty of Grave Misconduct by a
final judgment, and punished with dismissal from service with all its
accessory penalties, including perpetual disqualification from holding
public office.
■ Verily, perpetual disqualification to hold public office is a
material fact involving eligibility which rendered petitioner's
42
CAMPAIGNING
Campaigning (p. 315, Gujilde)
● partisan political activity, it refers to an act designed to promote the election or
defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to public office.
● It includes forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other
groups of persons to solicit votes and/or undertake any campaign for or against
a candidate, holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades,
or other similar assemblies to solicit votes and/or undertake any campaign or
propaganda for or against a candidate, making speeches, announcements or
commentaries.
● It also includes holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for
public office, publishing or distributing campaign materials designed to support
or oppose election of any candidate, directly or indirectly soliciting votes,
pledges, or support for or against a candidate.
Campaign Period
● President, VP and Partylist: 90 days before elections
● District representatives and local officials: 45 days before elections
● Barangay officials: 15 days before elections
NOTE: The period does not include the day before and the day of the elections.
Premature campaigning (electoral paraphernalia)
Case: Pangkat Luna (Laguna) v COMELEC (not every act of beneficence from a
candidate may be considered “campaigning.” Burden of proof is on the petition)
Facts:
● 30 Jan. 2001, respondent Lazaro, who was then the Vice Gov of Laguna,
assumed by succession the office of the Governor, when then Laguna Gov Lina
was appointed Secretary of DILG by PGMA.
● Lazaro then filed her CoC for the gubernatorial position of Laguna.
● Herein petitioner Pangkat Laguna, a duly registered political party, filed with the
COMELEC a petition which sought to disqualify respondent Lazaro as
candidate in the gubernatorial race. It alleged that respondent:
○ committed acts violative of Section 80 (Election campaign or partisan
political activity outside the campaign period) and Section 261(v)
(Prohibition against release, disbursement or expenditure of public
funds) of the Omnibus Election Code;
○ "publicly declared her intention to run for governor" in the May
2001 elections;
○ February 2001, he ordered the purchase of sports equipment,
allegedly worth 4.5 million "serving no public purpose but to
promote her popularity as a candidate.";
○ on February 2001, he directed the purchase and distribution of medals
to various schools in Laguna, serving no meaningful public purpose but
to again promote her forthcoming candidacy.
● Lazaro filed an answer denying the allegations in the petition for disqualification.
● The COMELEC Second Division granted the petition to disqualify respondent.
Lazaro filed an MR before the COMELEC en banc.
● Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proclamation. The Provincial Board of
Canvassers proclaimed respondent Lazaro as the duly elected Governor of
Laguna in the May 2001 Elections.
● The COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution, the dispositive portion of
which declares:
○ "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by respondent Lazaro is hereby granted. The resolution issued by
the Second Division dated 11 May 2001 is hereby correspondingly
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Issue:
● W/N there was premature campaigning - NO
Held:
● Lazaro was not guilty of violating the provisions of Sec. 80 of the OEC.
○ SEC. 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside
campaign period. – It shall be unlawful for any person, whether 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: Provided, that political parties may hold political
conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within 30
days before the commencement of the campaign period and 45 days
for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
● "Not every act of beneficence from a candidate may be considered
‘campaigning.’ The term ‘campaigning’ should not be made to apply to any and
every act which may influence a person to vote for a candidate, for that would
be stretching too far the meaning of the term.
○ "In this present case, the respondent was not in any way directly (or)
indirectly soliciting votes.” Respondent Lazaro was merely
performing the duties and tasks imposed upon her by law, which
duties she has sworn to perform as the Governor of the Province
of Laguna.
● Lazaro has satisfactorily shown the regularity of the implementation of the
questioned sports and education programs. The number of items purchased and
the amount involved were within the regular purchases of the provincial
government. How the funds were sourced and how the program was
implemented, as correctly pointed out by respondent, (are) not for us to resolve
for such issue is way beyond our constitutionally mandated jurisdiction
43
 ● Jurisprudence provides that it requires more than a mere tenuous deduction to
prove the offense of vote buying. There has to be concrete and direct
evidence, or, at least, strong circumstantial evidence to support the charge
that respondent was indeed engaged in vote-buying.
● Regarding the release of funds, there was no proof by clear and convincing
evidence that Lazaro released the funds within 45 days before the election.
Additionally, the Court, quoting the COMELEC’s observation, stating that how
the funds were sourced and how the program was implemented, are not for us
to resolve for such issue is way beyond our constitutionally mandated
jurisdiction.
Prohibited contributions
What is a contribution? (p. 353, Gujilde)
● Includes a gift, donation, subscription, loan advance, or deposit of money or
anything of value, whether legally enforceable, made to influence election
results.
Taxable? – No. But any unexpended balance from contribution to any candidate or party
(aka excess contributions) shall be subject to income tax.
Limited? – Yes. This is to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance that is
sufficiently compelling that such interest satisfies even strict scrutiny.
Who may receive contributions? – Only candidates and party treasurers, but they may
designate representatives, as long as the same is reported to the COMELEC. (authority
should be written)
What are the prohibited contributions by candidates? (p.357, Gujilde)
● During the campaign period, on the day before and on the day of election, no
candidates are allowed to directly or indirectly make any donation, contribution,
or gift, or undertake the construction or repair of roads, bridges, schools, or any
structure for public use or for use of any religious or civic organization.
● Prohibition also applies to the candidate’s spouse or any relative within the 2nd
degree of consanguinity, or his campaign manager, agent, or representative, or
political party.
● XPN: normal and customary religious dues and contributions, as well as period
payments for legitimate scholarships and school contributions habitually made
before the prohibited period.
Entities prohibited from contributing to elections. See OEC, Revised Corporation
Code.
● Omnibus Election Code. SEC. 95. Prohibited contributions. – No contribution
for purposes of partisan political activity shall be made directly or indirectly by
any of the following:
(a) Public or private financial institutions:
(i) Provided, however, That nothing herein shall prevent the
making of any loan to a candidate or political party by any
such public or private financial institutions legally in the
business of lending money, and that the loan is made in
accordance with laws and regulations and in the ordinary
course of business;
(b) Natural and juridical persons who
(i) have been operating a public utility or in possession of or
exploiting any natural resources of the nation;
(ii) hold contracts or sub-contracts to supply the government or
any of its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities, with
goods or services or to perform construction or other works;
(iii) have been granted franchises, incentives, exemptions,
allocations or similar privileges or concessions by the
government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
(iv) within 1 year prior to the date of the election, have been
granted loans or other accommodations in excess of
P100,000 by the government or any of its divisions,
subdivisions or instrumentalities, including government-owned
or controlled corporations;
(c) Educational institutions which have received grants of public funds
amounting to no less than P100,000.00;
(d) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines; and
(e) Foreigners and foreign corporations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution from any of the
persons or entities enumerated herein (Sec. 95, OEC)
Revised Corporation Code
● only prohibits a foreign corporation to donate in aid of any political party or
candidate or for purposes of partisan political activity.
44
 Pamphlets Size Political matter - doesn't
Impliedly allows a domestic corporation to donate for such purpose, provided it is not one seem to be followed
of the juridical persons enumerated as prohibited from directly or indirectly contributing anymore
for purposes of partisan political activity under Sec. 95 of the OEC.
Posters Size, location
Lawful election propaganda (Fair Elections Act, s.3)
● Election propaganda whether on television, cable television, radio, newspapers Billboards** Size, location (public or
or any other medium is hereby allowed for all registered political parties, private property)
national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations participating under the
See: Diocese of Bacolod
party-list elections and for all bona fide candidates seeking national and local Case and Chavez case
elective positions subject to the limitation on authorized expenses of candidates
and political parties, observance of truth in advertising and to the supervision Ads (traditional media or Location, frequency,
and regulation by the COMELEC. social media/4th media) amount/cost

1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials
the size of which does not exceed eight and one-half inches in width and
fourteen inches in length (8.5 x 14 in);
2. Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any particular
political party or candidate for public office;
3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters whether framed, or posted, with an area not
exceeding two (2) feet by three (3) feet (2 x 3 ft), except that, at the site and on
the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of said
meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding three (3) feet by eight (8) feet (3 x 8
ft) in size, shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may be displayed five
(5) days before the date of the meeting or rally and shall be removed within
twenty-four (24) hours after said meeting or rally;
4. Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media: Provided, That the
advertisements shall follow the requirements set forth in Section 4 of this Act;
and
5. All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus Election
Code or this Act.
How about those not prohibited by law? – May be allowed, upon verified petition by
any person, in (8) legible copies, describing the election propaganda with samples, filed
with the COMELEC through its clerk who, upon receipt, sets it for hearing and sends
notice to petitioner.
Then publication in two newspapers of notice of hearing > hearing > if COMELEC
authorizes, publication in two newspapers again for one week.
Lawful Campaign Limitations Prohibitions
Materials
Streamers Size, time, location
Motorcades, etc
Movies** During the campaign
period
OST: What does Congress want to regulate as to Social Media?
1. What is the cost of the social media to produce the content
2. Boosting post (i.e. Likes, Influencers, Social Media Ops, Troll Farms)
Prohibited election propaganda (During campaign period) (p. 319, Gujilde)
● To print, public, post, or distribute any newspaper, newsletter, magazine, etc. or
any published or printed political matter,
○ unless they bear, and are identified by the reasonably legible or
audible words political advertisement paid by, followed by the true
name and address of the payor.
● To air or broadcast any election propaganda or political advertisement by TV or
radio or on the Internet for or against a candidate,
○ unless they bear and be identified by the reasonably legible or audible
words political advertisement paid for, followed by the true name
and address of the candidate or party for whose benefit the election
propaganda was printed or aired.
● To print, publish, broadcast, or display any such election propaganda donated or
given free of charge by any person or mass media entity to a candidate or party
without acceptance, and
○ unless they bear and be identified by the words printed free of
charge, or airtime for this broadcast was provided free of charge

45
 by, respectively followed by the true and correct name and address of
the payor
● To show, display or exhibit publicly in a theater, through a TV station, or any
public forum any movie, portraying the life or biography of a candidate.
○ [Ost: If the candidate portrays someone else, is this allowed?] -No.
Hindi yan allowed kasi indirect campaigning like Chavez. (Meer, 2023)
(eme ko lang yan di ko sure HAHA)
○ 6.7. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life or
biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater,
television station or any public forum during the campaign period.
○ 6.8. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by an actor or
media personality who is himself a candidate shall likewise be publicly
exhibited in a theater or any public forum during the campaign period.
○ FPJ PROVISION: Campaign indirectly by having a movie about
yourself circulated, cinematography, or by documentary shall be
publicly exhibited in a theatre, tv station or any public forum during
campaign period.
■ There are two ways to violate this rule:
● (a) portraying the life or biography of a candidate;
● (b) portrayed by an actor or media personality who is
himself a candidate
● Those election propaganda in excess of the size, duration, or frequency
authorized by law or resolution
● To allow scheduling of any program, or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or
oppose any candidate or party by unduly or repeatedly referring to, or
unnecessarily mentioning his name.
● To post, display, or exhibit any election campaign or propaganda material
outside authorized common poster areas, in public places or in private
properties without the consent of the owner.
Case: Chavez v COMELEC billboard ads for private companies
Facts:
● Chavez stands as a taxpayer and a citizen, asking this Court to enjoin the
COMELEC from enforcing Sec. 32 of its Reso. No. 6520.
○ Section 32. All propaganda materials such as posters, streamers,
stickers or paintings on walls and other materials showing the picture,
image, or name of a person, and all advertisements on print, in radio or
on television showing the image or mentioning the name of a person,
who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a
candidate for public office shall be immediately removed by said
candidate and radio station, print media or television station within 3
days after the effectivity of these implementing rules; otherwise, he and
said radio station, print media or television station shall be presumed to
have conducted premature campaigning in violation of Section 80 of
the Omnibus Election Code.
● Chavez, on various dates, entered into formal agreements with certain
establishments to endorse their products.
○ He authorized Andrew So to use his name and image for 96° North, a
clothing company.
○ Signed Endorsement Agreements with Konka International Plastics
Manufacturing Corporation and another corporation involved in the
amusement and video games business, G-Box.
● These last 2 agreements were entered into on October 14, 2003 and November
10, 2003, respectively.
○ Pursuant to these agreements, 3 billboards were set up along the
Balintawak Interchange of the North Expressway.
○ 1 billboard showed petitioner promoting the plastic products of Konka
International Plastics Manufacturing Corporation, and the other 2
showed petitioner endorsing the clothes of 96° North. One more
billboard was set up along Roxas Boulevard showing petitioner
promoting the game and amusement parlors of G-Box.
● December 30, 2003, petitioner filed his COC for Senator under Alyansa ng
Pag-asa, a tripartite alliance of three political parties: PROMDI, REPORMA, and
Aksyon Demokratiko.
● January 6, 2004, COMELEC issued Reso. No. 6520, which contained Sec. 32.
On January 21, 2004, petitioner was directed to comply with the said provision
by the COMELEC's Law Department. He replied by requesting the COMELEC
that he be informed as to how he may have violated the assailed provision.
○ He sent another letter dated February 23, 2004, this time asking the
COMELEC that he be exempted from the application of Sec. 32,
considering that the billboards adverted to are mere product
endorsements and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for
premature campaigning under the rules.
● COMELEC answered by issuing another letter ordering him to remove or cause
the removal of the billboards, or to cover them from public view pending the
approval of his request.
Issue: W/N Sec. 32 of COMELEC Reso. No. 6520 is a violation of the Fair Elections Act?
NO.
Held:
● Primary objective of the provision is to prohibit premature campaigning and to
level the playing fields for candidates.
● This is to ensure that the popular or rich candidates do not enjoy an undue
advantage in publicity. This then warrants a valid reason for the exercise of
police power.
46
 ○ Here, it was a mere regulation to equalize the exposure of
candidates through police power war chests
● COMELEC is authorized to regulate the utilization of all media communication or
information to ensure equal opportunity.
○ Accdg. to the OEC, directly or indirectly soliciting votes or support for a
candidate is considered to be under the term “election campaign.”
● Although initially, the petitioner entered into the contracts to endorse in his
private capacity, this changed when he filed his COC for Senator. The
billboards then assumed partisan political character because they indirectly
promoted his candidacy.
○ COMELEC has power since there is an indirect promotion
○ If not, this would circumvent the law on allowable campaign period
○ COMELEC can SUPERVISE or REGULATE media pursuant to
elections
OST: Can ongoing ad campaigns (e.g. billboards) be allowed during the campaign
period? - NO.
Unlawful solicitation for elections. See OEC.
● Same as the list of entities prohibited from contributing to elections. (Sec. 95,
OEC)
● It shall be unlawful for any person, including a political party or public or private
entity, to solicit or receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or contribution of
whatever form or nature from any foreign national, government or entity for the
purposes of influencing the results of the election. (Sec,. 96, OEC)
Spending limits (s13, RA 7166)
● CANDIDATES:
○ P10 for President and Vice-President;
○ P3 for other candidates for every voter currently registered in the
constituency where he filed his CoC
■ Provided, That a candidate without any political party and
without support from any political party may be allowed to
spend P5 for every such voter
● POLITICAL PARTIES:
○ P5 for every voter currently registered in the constituency or
constituencies where it has official candidates.
● Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding any contribution in cash or
in kind to any candidate or political party or coalition of parties for campaign
purposes, duly reported to the Commission, shall not be subject to the payment
of any gift tax.
SOCE: Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (Gujilde, p. 327)
● SOCE is the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and
expenditures in connection with the elections.
● It refers to the complete set of campaign finance disclosure statements that
candidates and parties are required by law to submit, in the form prescribed.
● It includes the main form and all its relevant schedules, with a copy of the
supporting receipts.
Who is required to file it? – All parties through the party treasurer and candidates
who participate in the elections, regardless of whether they won or lost, and even a
candidate who withdrew.
How is it filed? – filed in person, whether by the candidates and/or party treasurers, or
through their duly authorized representatives who must present a written authorization
from their principals using prescribed forms, not later than 30 days after election day.
Where to file? – to the office where they filed their CoC. For national candidates and
parties, directly to the Campaign Finance Office (CFO)
● Formal requisites:
○ Latest prescribed form should be used
○ It must be signed, dated, and notarized
○ It contains original receipts, if any
○ Authority to file, if it is filed by a person other than the candidate or
president or secretary general or treasurer of electoral parties
What if it is incomplete? – considered as not filed and shall subject the candidate or
party treasurer to the penalties prescribed by law
What are the penalties?
● An administrative offense
○ 1st offense: pay a fine from P1,000 to P30,000 at the COMELEC’s
discretion.
○ 2nd or subsequent failure to file, the fine shall be from P2,000 to
P60,000 at the COMELEC’s discretion. Also, the offender shall be
subject to perpetual disqualification to hold public office.
○ Good faith is not a defense (Maturan v. COMELEC).
Estrada v COMELEC, gr 212398 (2014) (eb) NB s4.3, 6.2 and 6.3, Fair Elections Act
and s111, OEC. anak ni Erap; SOCE; overspending on TV ads; spent Php20M
Relevant Provisions
● FAIR ELECTIONS ACT (RA 9006):
○ 4.3. Print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the
candidate or political party shall not be printed, published, broadcast or
47
 exhibited without the written acceptance by the said candidate or
political party. Such written acceptance shall be attached to the
advertising contract and shall be submitted to the COMELEC as
provided in Subsection 6.3 hereof. (OST: So a candidate cannot feign
ignorance of such)
○ 6.2. (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political party for a
nationally elective office shall be entitled to not more than one
hundred twenty (120) minutes of television advertisement and one
hundred eighty (180) minutes of radio advertisement whether by
purchase or donation.
○ (b) Each bona fide candidate or registered political party for a locally
elective office shall be entitled to not more than sixty (60) minutes of
television advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of radio
advertisement whether by purchase or donation.
○ For this purpose, the COMELEC shall require any broadcast station or
entity to submit to the COMELEC a copy of its broadcast logs and
certificates of performance for the review and verification of the
frequency, date, time and duration of advertisements broadcast for any
candidate or political party.
○ 6.3. All mass media entities shall furnish the COMELEC with a copy of
all contracts for advertising, promoting or opposing any political party or
the candidacy of any person for public office within five (5) days after
its signing. In every case, it shall be signed by the donor, the candidate
concerned or by the duly authorized representative of the political
party.
NOTE: The implementing guidelines of the above-quoted provisions are found in
Rule 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9476. (Relevant to the ruling)
● OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
○ Sec. 111. Effect of failure to file statement. - In addition to other
sanctions provided in this Code, no person elected to any public office
shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement
of contributions and expenditures herein required.
○ The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated
the winning candidate fails to file the statements required herein within
the period prescribed by this Code.
Facts:
● Edgar San Luis, a gubernatorial candidate and the incumbent governor of the
Province of Laguna, filed a petition for disqualification before the COMELEC
First Division against E.R. Ejercito
○ for distributing material consideration in the form of “Orange
Cards”, which could be used in any public hospital within the province.
○ He also alleged that Ejercito exceeded the maximum amount of
authorized expenses for the candidate by P16M.
● COMELEC disqualified him. Ejercito argued that an unidentified supporter
without his knowledge and consent executed the advertising contract with
ABS-CBN and Scenema Concept and that he must not be penalized for the acts
of third parties. He furthermore wishes to draw a distinction between
“contribution” and “expenditure”, for which COMELEC Reso. No. 9476 makes no
proscription on the amount of contributions.
Issue: WON Ejercito should be disqualified for overspending in his election campaign. –
YES
Held:
● R.A. No. 9006 explicitly directs that broadcast advertisements donated to the
candidate shall not be broadcasted without the written acceptance of the
candidate, which shall be attached to the advertising contract and shall be
submitted to the COMELEC, and that, in every case, advertising contracts shall
be signed by the donor, the candidate concerned or by the duly-authorized
⬆️
representative of the political party
● Conforming to the above , COMELEC Resolution 9476 (again: this is the
implementing guideline of the Fair Elections Act provisions) requires that
advertising contracts be signed by the donor and accompanied by the written
acceptance of the candidate before election propaganda materials donated
thereto shall be broadcasted. Thus, there was consent and the concept of
“independent expenditure” for which no authority or request for contributions
were made cannot be applied.
● There is likewise no merit in the petitioner's attempt to draw a distinction
between “contribution” and “expenditure”. The Court traced the legislative
history of the assailed provision and concluded that the intent of the lawmakers
was to regulate not just the election expenses of the candidate but also of his
contributor/supporter/donor, by including in the aggregate limit of the former’s
election expenses those incurred by the latter. Where the law does not
distinguish, neither should we. Rights of the supporters to freedom of speech
can neither be invoked for the regulation involved is content-neutral.
● He spent more than 20 Million pesos for advertisements on TV. This was
evidenced by the Advertising Contracts that was signed by him. His limit
should’ve been Php4,576,566 only (computed as 3 pesos x no. of voters
registered in his province, Laguna).
Sir Ostrea: Donations may exceed beyond maximum amount of authorized expenses
Pilar v COMELEC candidates withdrew, still required to file SOCE
Relevant Provision
48
 ● Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 — Statement of Contributions and Expenditures.
Effect of Failure to file statement. Every candidate and treasurer of the political
party shall within 30 days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the
officers of the commission, the full, true and itemized statement of all
⬆️
contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.
● Resolution No. 2348 was promulgated to implement this provision.
Facts:
● Juanito C. Pilar filed his CoC for the position of member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the province of Isabela. However, 3 days later, he withdrew his
CoC. As a result, COMELEC imposed a fine of ₱10k for failure to file his SOCE.
● Petitioner contends that it is clear from the law that the candidate must have
entered the political contest, and should have either won or lost.
Issue: WON petitioner is required to file his SOCE despite his withdrawal of candidacy. –
YES
Held:
● Section 14 of R.A. 7166 states that "Every candidate" has the obligation to file
his statement of contributions and expenditures. As the law makes no
distinction or qualification whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or
withdrew the same, the term "Every candidate" must be deemed to refer not
only to a candidate who pursued his campaign, but also to those who withdrew
his candidacy.
● Also, Section 13 of Resolution No. 2348 categorically refers to all candidates
who filed their certificate of candidacy.
Maturan v COMELEC non-filing of SOCE - perpetual DQ
Facts:
● Petitioner filed his CoC for Provincial Governor of Basilan in the 2016 National
and Local Elections.
● Allan Patiño, claiming to be a registered voter of Basilan, filed a petition for the
disqualification of the petitioner because based on the list issued by the
COMELEC Campaign Finance Officer, the latter had failed to file his SOCE
corresponding to the 2010 and 2013 elections.
● Petitioner opposed, arguing that the petition had been rendered moot on
account of his withdrawal from the mayoralty race during the 2013 elections;
and that, consequently, he could only be held accountable for the failure to file
his SOCE corresponding to the 2010 elections when he ran for Provincial
Governor of Basilan, and for which he had already paid a fine of P15k
● The COMELEC First Division declared the petitioner disqualified to hold public
office. The COMELEC en banc denied his appeal.
Issue: WON the COMELEC committed GAD when it dismissed the petition for
disqualification for being moot and academic and declared that petitioner is perpetually
disqualified to hold public office – NO, proper ruling ni COMELEC
Held:
● In imposing the penalty, the COMELEC clearly acted within the bounds of its
jurisdiction in view of the clear language of Sec. 14 of RA 7166.
● In Pilar vs. COMELEC, every candidate, including one who meanwhile
withdraws his candidacy, is required to file his SOCE by Sec. 14 of RA 7166.
○ Petitioner could not invoke good faith on the basis of his having
withdrawn his candidacy a day before the 2013 elections.
What are valid Electoral Propaganda?
1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials
2. Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any particular
political party or candidate for public office;
3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters whether framed, or posted, streamers
4. Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media
5. Mobile units, motorcades, online propaganda not prohibited by the OEC or the
Fair Election Act.
6. All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus Election
Code or this Act.
What are the 3 general limitations on electoral propaganda? (s3, Fair Elections Act)
1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed
materials, the size of which does not exceed 8 ½ inches in width and 14 inches
in length; (8.5 x 14 in.)
2. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters whether framed, or posted, with an area
not exceeding two (2) feet by three (3) feet (2 x 3 ft.), except that, during
rallies, streamers not exceeding three (3) feet by eight (8) feet (3 x 8 ft.) in size,
shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may be displayed five (5) days
before the date of the meeting or rally and shall be removed within twenty-four
(24) hours after said meeting or rally;
3. Any newspaper, newsletter, news weekly, gazette or magazine advertising,
posters, pamphlets, comic books, circulars, handbills, bumper stickers,
streamers, simple list of candidates or any published or printed political matter
and any broadcast of election propaganda by television or radio for or against a
candidate or group of candidates to any public office shall bear and be identified
by the reasonably legible or audible words “political advertisement paid for,”
followed by the true and correct name and address of the candidate or party for
whose benefit the election propaganda was printed or aired.
49
 If the broadcast is given free of charge by the radio or television station, it shall
be identified by the words “airtime for this broadcast was provided free of charge
by” followed by the true and correct name and address of the broadcast entity.
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC, gr 205728 (2015) (eb)
Facts:
● The Diocese of Bacolod posted 2 tarps within a private compound.
○ 1st read “IBASURA RH LAW,”
○ 2nd, more controversial one, “Conscience Vote,” and lists candidates
either as (Anti-RH) Team Buhay, with a check mark, or (Pro-RH) Team
Patay with an X mark, obviously based on how they voted on the RH
bill.
● Each tarpaulin was approximately 6 x 10 feet in size. (COMELEC: 2 x 3 ft. lang
dapat)
● Mavil Majarucon, Election officer of Bacolod City, issued a notice to remove
campaign materials addressed to the Bishop of Bacolod, on the ground that it
was oversized. In response the bishop requested for a definite ruling regarding
the legality of the tarpaulin.
● Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Issue:
● What’s the relevance of the 3 general limitations on electoral propaganda?
(Made this one lang to fit the syllabus)
Held:
● These provisions show that election propaganda refers to matters done by or
on behalf of and in coordination with candidates and political parties. Some level
of coordination with the candidates and political parties for whom the election
propaganda are released would ensure that these candidates and political
parties maintain within the authorized expenses limitation. — In this case, the
tarpaulin was not paid for by any candidate or political party.
● Sec. 3.3 – If applied to this case, will not pass the test of reasonability. A fixed
size for election posters or tarpaulins without any relation to the distance from
the intended average audience will be arbitrary. At certain distances, posters
measuring 2 by 3 feet could no longer be read by the general public and, hence,
would render speech meaningless. It will amount to the abridgement of speech
with political consequences.
Other Issues
1. WON the COMELEC has the legal basis to regulate expressions made by private
citizens -- NO. As the Diocese of Bacolod is neither a franchise holder nor a candidate,
the COMELEC has no constitutional power to regulate their speech. The Constitution
only gives it the power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchises or permits, or
public information campaigns among candidates.
● The speech was considered political speech, but not election propaganda. This
means, however, that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of
the named candidates and political parties, this does not necessarily mean it is
election propaganda.
● The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted “in return for consideration” by any
candidate, political party, or partylist group.
● Election propaganda, as defined by Sec. 1(4) of COMELEC Resolution No.
9615, does not include personal opinions.
2. WON the limitation on the size of the tarpaulin is content-neutral or
content-based. -- It is CONTENT-BASED despite only regulation of the size of the
tarpaulins. The size of the tarp strikes at a core part of expression; among others, it
enhances efficiency in communications and allows for more messages. Thus, the
regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity, and is subject to the clear and present
danger rule.
● Even if the regulation was looked at as content-neutral, it would still not pass the
three requirements for evaluating such restraints on freedom of speech. (Used
the O’Brien Test)
3. WON there was an infringement of the principle of separation between Church
and State. -- NO. The tarpaulins were not religious speech. Not all acts done by those
who are priests, bishops, ustadz, imams, or any other religious make such act immune
from any secular regulation. The religious also have a secular existence. They exist
within a society that is regulated by law.
In this case, the tarp does not on its face convey any religious doctrine of the Catholic
church. Thus, the speech was not religious, and could not be subject of any violation of
the separation of church and state.
NB s6.7, 6.8 Fair Elections Act (cases of Ferdinand Marcos, Alfredo Lim and ‘Bato’
dela Rosa)
● 6.7. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life or biography of
a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater, television station or any
public forum during the campaign period.
● 6.8. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by an actor or media
personality who is himself a candidate shall likewise be publicly exhibited in a
theater or any public forum during the campaign period.
● Movies:
○ Marcos - Iginuhit ng Tadhana: The Ferdinand E. Marcos Story (1965)
○ Lim - Alfredo S. Lim: The Untold Story (2013)
○ Dela Rosa - Bato: The Gen. Ronald Dela Rosa Story (2019)
What are election surveys? (De Leon, p. 605)
50
 ● Measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters as regards a candidate’s
popularity, qualifications, platforms or a matter of public discussion in relation to
the election, including voters’ preference for candidates or publicly discussed
issues during the campaign period.
Can the publication of election surveys be regulated? (De Leon, p.637)
● Yes.
Procedure:
1. During the election period, any person, natural as well as juridical, candidate or
organization that publishes a survey must likewise publish the following:
○ name of the person, candidate, party or organization who
commissioned or paid for the survey;
○ name of the person, polling firm or survey organization who conducted
the survey;
○ period during which the survey was conducted, the methodology
used, including the number of individual respondents and the areas
from which they were selected, and the specific questions asked;
○ The margin of error of the survey;
○ For each question for which the margin of error is greater than that
reported under paragraph
■ the margin of error for that question; and
○ A mailing address and telephone number, indicating it as an address or
telephone at which the sponsor can be contacted to obtain a written
report regarding the survey in accordance with No. (2);
2. The survey together with raw data gathered to support its conclusion shall be
available for inspection, copying and verification by the COMELEC or by a
registered political party or bona fide candidate, or by any COMELEC-accredited
citizen's arm. A reasonable fee sufficient to cover the costs of inspection,
copying and verification may be charged;
3. Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15 days before
an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published
seven (7) days before an election;
4. Exit polls may only be taken subject to the following requirements:
a. Pollsters shall not conduct their surveys within 50 meters from the
polling place, whether said surveys is taken in a home, dwelling place
and other places;
b. Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing;
c. Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to answer; and
d. The result of the exit polls may be announced after the closing of the
polls on election day, and must clearly identify the total number of
respondents, and the places where they were taken. Said
announcement shall state that the same is unofficial and does not
represent a trend.
SWS v COMELEC (2001)
Facts:
● SWS brought an action for prohibition to enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing
§5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides:
○ “Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15 days
before an election, and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be
published 7 days before an election.”
● The term "election surveys" is defined in §5.1 of the law as follows:
○ Refer to the measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters as
regards a candidate's popularity, qualifications, platforms or a matter of
public discussion in relation to the election, including voters' preference
for candidates or publicly discussed issues during the campaign period
(hereafter referred to as "Survey").
● Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results
constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any
clear and present danger to justify such restraint.
● They claim that SWS and other pollsters conducted and published the results of
surveys prior to the 1992, 1995, and 1998 elections up to as close as 2 days
before the election day without causing confusion among the voters and that
there is neither empirical nor historical evidence to support the conclusion that
there is an immediate and inevitable danger to the voting process posed by
election surveys.
● COMELEC justifies the restrictions in §5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 as necessary to
prevent the manipulation and corruption of the electoral process by
unscrupulous and erroneous surveys just before the election.
● It contends that (1) the prohibition on the publication of election survey results
during the period proscribed by law bears a rational connection to the objective
of the law, i.e., the prevention of the debasement of the electoral process
resulting from manipulated surveys, bandwagon effect, and absence of reply; (2)
it is narrowly tailored to meet the "evils" sought to be prevented; and (3) the
impairment of freedom of expression is minimal, the restriction being limited
both in duration, i.e., the last 15 days before the national election and the last 7
days before a local election, and in scope as it does not prohibit election survey
results but only require timeliness.
Issue: W/n § 5.4 of Fair Election Act is constitutional? - NO; Violates freedom of
speech, expression, and the press
Held:
● § 5.4 fails to meet criterion [3] of the O'Brien Test because the causal
connection of expression to the asserted governmental interest makes such
interest "not unrelated to the suppression of free expression."
51
 ○ By prohibiting the publication of election survey results because of the
possibility that such publication might undermine the integrity of the
election, §5.4 actually suppresses a whole class of expression, while
allowing the expression of opinion concerning the same subject by
newspaper columnists, radio and TV commentators, armchair theorists,
and other opinion makers.
○ In effect, §5.4 shows a bias for a particular subject, if not viewpoint,
by preferring personal opinion to statistical results. The
constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression means that "the
government has no power to restrict expression because of its
message, its ideas, its subject, or its content."
● §5.4 nonetheless fails to meet criterion [4] of the O'Brien Test, namely, that the
restriction be not greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest.
○ §5.4 aims at the prevention of last-minute pressure on voters, the
creation of bandwagon effect, "junking" of weak or "losing" candidates,
and resort to the form of election cheating called "dagdag-bawas."
○ Praiseworthy as these aims of the regulation might be, they cannot be
attained at the sacrifice of the fundamental right of expression,
when such aim can be more narrowly pursued by punishing unlawful
acts, rather than speech because of apprehension that such speech
creates the danger of such evils.
● §5.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of
expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression
even though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the
governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other
than the suppression of freedom of expression.
OST: Are pre-election surveys a form of electoral propaganda? YES. May psychological
emerut daw kasi

52
VOTING
Refer to Automated Election System/AES Act (RA 8436) as amended by RA 9369.
AES - ​a system using appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in the
voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election result, and other
electoral process; manages election data, automates polls
● Advantage
○ To speed up the voting, counting, consolidating, transmission and
canvassing of election results and even proclamation vis-à-vis a
manual election system
○ Further concern of manual elections: We now conduct synchronized
national and local elections, and all that data needs to be input in the
system. Thus, the challenge is that the manual election system is really
hard-pressed to deal with this volume of data required for synchronized
elections.
● Drawback: Transparency
OST: Addresses the following stages…
1. Pre-election day activities
2. Campaign Period
3. Election Day itself
a. Vote counting - undue burden on watchers and board members
b. Consolidation and transmission of precinct results to the corresponding
canvassing board (LBOC)
c. Canvassing of precinct results
d. Proclamation of winning candidates
Sec. 12, updated by RA 9369 (2007) (Relevant to an issue in Capalla)
Procurement of Equipment and Materials. —
● COMELEC is authorized to procure, by purchase, lease, rent or other forms of
acquisition, supplies, equipment, materials, software, facilities and other
services, from local or foreign sources free from taxes and import duties, subject
to accounting and auditing rules and regulations.
● With respect to the May 10, 2010 elections and succeeding electoral exercises,
the system procured must have demonstrated capability and been successfully
used in a prior electoral exercise here or abroad. Participation in the 2007 pilot
exercise shall not be conclusive of the system's fitness.
● Amount of any bid from a technology, software or equipment supplier: the cost
to the government of its deployment and implementation shall be added to the
bid price as integral thereto. The value of any alternative use to which such
technology, software or equipment can be put for public use shall not be
deducted from the original face value of the said bid.
Sec. 22, updated by RA 9369 (2007) Election Returns.
Number of Copies required by law = 30 copies
Sec. 29 as last updated by RA 9369 (2007) Random Manual Audit. —
A random manual audit in one precinct per congressional district randomly
chosen by the Commission in each province and city. Any difference between
the automated and manual count will result in the determination of root cause
and initiate a manual count for those precincts affected by the computer or
procedural error.
Capalla v COMELEC, gr 201112 (2012) Smartmatic (Option to Purchase) - discussed
by Sir
Facts:
● COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM entered into an (Automated Election System)
AES Contract which is a Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase (OTP) the
goods (such as the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), both software and
hardware. When the option expired, there was an agreement to extend the
period.
● When the extension was also about to expire, COMELEC issued a Resolution to
seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain conditions.
● COMELEC issued another Resolution accepting Smartmatic’s offer to extend
the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012. The Agreement on the
Extension of OTP under the AES Contract (Extension Agreement) was signed.
● COMELEC issued another Resolution approving the sale of the PCOS
machines for the upcoming 2013 elections.
● Claiming that the COMELEC issuances and transactions are illegal and
unconstitutional, petitioners filed several petitions before SC.
● Grounds: (1) They thought that it may have been a circumvention of the rule on
public bidding; (2) They also averred that such extension to exercise the option
will prejudice the government's interest; (3) VCM lacks demonstrated capacity
(since these are refurbished machines)
Issue:
● W/N the COMELEC issuances and transactions are illegal and unconstitutional.
(NO)
● W/N the OTP extension is valid. (YES)
Held:
● No. A reading of the other provisions of the AES contract would show that the
parties are given the right to amend the contract which may include the period
within which to exercise the option. There is, likewise, no prohibition on the
extension of the period, provided that the contract is still effective.
● COMELEC still retains the P50M due to Smartmatic-TIM as performance
security. In short, the performance security had not yet been released to
Smartmatic which indicates that the AES contract is still effective. Pursuant to
53
 Article 19 of the contract, the provisions thereof may still be amended by mutual
agreement of the parties provided said amendment is in writing and signed by
the parties.
● Considering that the AES contract is not an ordinary contract as it involves
procurement by a government agency, the rights and obligations of the parties
are governed not only by the Civil Code but also by RA 9184 (GOVERNMENT
PROCUREMENT REFORM ACT).
● 3 principles of public bidding:
○ Offer to the public (most essential);
○ Opportunity for competition; and
○ Basis for the exact comparison of bids.
● A winning bidder is not prevented from modifying certain provisions of the
contract bidded upon. However, such change must not constitute material
amendments that would alter the basic parameters of the contract and would
constitute a denial to the other bidders of the opportunity to bid on the same
terms.
● The conclusion in Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation
(PSALM) v. Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporated and Agan, Jr. v. Philippine
International Air Terminals Co., Inc., (PIATCO) cannot be applied in the present
case.
● First, Smartmatic-TIM was not granted an additional right that was not
previously available to the other bidders. The bidders were apprised that aside
from the lease of goods and purchase of services, their proposals should
include an OTP for the subject goods.
○ Unlike in PSALM where the winning bidder was given right of first
refusal which substantially amended the terms of the contract depriving
other bidders of terms and opportunities granted to winning bidder, the
option contract in this case was already part of the original contract and
not given only after Smartmatic-TIM emerged as winner.
● Second, the amendment of the AES contract is not substantial. The approved
budget for the contract was P11.2B charged against the supplemental
appropriations for election modernization. Bids were accepted provided that they
did not exceed said amount. The competitive public bidding conducted for the
AES contract was sufficient. A new public bidding would be unnecessary.
● Lastly, the amendment of the AES contract is more advantageous to the
COMELEC and the public because the P7.1B rentals paid for the lease of goods
and purchase of services under the contract was part of the purchase price (so
mababawasan na need bayaran). For the Comelec to own the goods, it was
required to pay only P2.1B.
○ If COMELEC did not exercise the option, the rentals already paid would
just be one of the government expenses for the past election and
would be of no use to future elections. Moreover, it is possible that
Smartmatic-TIM would again participate in the public bidding and could
win at a possibly higher price. The Comelec might end up acquiring the
same PCOS machines but now at a higher price.
● Confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of the COMELEC's
mandate to ensure free, honest, and credible elections, acceptance of the
extension of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of
the Deed of Sale, are the more prudent choices available to the Comelec for a
successful 2013 automated elections. The alleged defects in the subject goods
have been determined and may be corrected as in fact fixes and enhancements
had been undertaken by Smartmatic-TIM.
Doctrine:
As COMELEC is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of the
COMELEC's mandate to ensure free, honest, and credible elections, the acceptance of
the extension of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of the
Deed of Sale, are the more prudent choices available to the COMELEC for a successful
2013 automated election.
Notes: Request for Proposal 2 (RFP) for the Project consisting of the following
components:
Component 1:Paper-Based Automation Election System (AES)
1-A.Election Management System (EMS)
1-B.Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) System
1-C.Consolidation/Canvassing System (CCS)
Component 2:Provision for Electronic Transmission of Election Results using
Public Telecommunications Network
Component 3:Overall Project Management
● What are the advantages to AES? Speed, but we give up transparency.
○ To achieve the modernization program of the Philippine Electoral
System, which includes the automation of the counting, transmission
and canvassing of votes for the May 2010 national and local elections
with systems integration and over-all project management in a
comprehensive and well-managed manner.
○ Helps to further the policy of the State to ensure free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections, and assure the secrecy and sanctity of
the ballot in order that the results of elections, plebiscites, referenda,
and other electoral exercises shall be fast, accurate and reflective of
the genuine will of the people (RA 8436, as amended).
Pabillo v COMELEC, gr 216098 (2015) (What are the advantages to AES?)
(Warranty)
Facts:
54
 1. Under RA 9369 (amending RA 8436), COMELEC was mandated to prescribe
the adoption and use of the most suitable technology for elections. It also
authorized COMELEC to use a system in different provinces and to procure by
purchase, lease, rent or other forms of acquisition from local or foreign sources.
2. COMELEC published a Request for Proposal for the public bidding of the lease
with the option to purchase an AES to be used in the 2010 elections. COMELEC
en banc approved the recommendation to confirm Smartmatic-TIM as the
bidder. A 2009 AES Contract with option to purchase was entered into.
3. After the 2010 Elections, COMELEC partially exercised the OTP when it
purchased 920 units of PCOS machines. In 2013, COMELEC received from
Smartmatic-TIM a proposal letter to extend the warranty for 3 years.
4. In 2014, there was a memo to review the draft contract. COMELEC En Banc
issued a resolution approving the Extended Warranty Proposal because:
a. time is of the essence in the preparation for the 2016 National and
Local elections,
b. to give the repair of the PCOS to any third party provider,
c. to resort to direct contracting.
5. The petition alleged that COMELEC violated the GPRA (Procurement Act)
which requires competitive bidding. COMELEC failed to show that
Smartmatic-TIM is the sole entity which can provide the subject services.
As such, it cannot be concluded that Smartmatic is the only entity that has the
technical expertise in refurbishment, maintenance, diagnostics, and repair of the
PCOS machines.
6. COMELEC maintains that under OEC it is valid as it is authorized to enter into
negotiations and sealed bids.
Issue: Is the COMELEC Resolution extending the warranty valid? NO
Held:
● Reso. No. 9222 is void for being violative of the GPRA. Alternative methods
of procurement are allowed when (GPRA IRR):
1. There is prior approval of the head of the procuring entity on the use of
alternative methods of procurement.
2. The conditions required by law for the use of alternative methods are
present. (Not present in the case)
3. Procuring entity must ensure that the method chosen promotes
economy and efficiency.
4. The most advantageous price is obtained.
● The conditions required by law are not present (requisite 2). The limits for valid
direct contracting are found in Sec. 50, Article XVI of the GPRA (see note
below).
○ Here, the 10-year warranty by Smartmatic only provides for a
warranty on availability and access to purchase of parts and
services (Smartmatic only warranted a 1-year replacement).
○ Part of the AES procurement project is that Smartmatic must train
COMELEC personnel to service the machines. This, coupled with the
availability of parts (10 years) should mean that COMELEC already
has the means to service the machines.
● The extended warranty is premature. Lastly, it is not a continuing contract
(extension), it is a new contract, with a new offer and consideration with a new
payment.
● Basically, there is no need for direct contracting. It cannot do away with public
bidding because SMARTMATIC did not fall into the exception. This is because
the "goods" discussed in this case refers to the services and maintenance and
not the machines themselves.
● On another front, the COMELEC invokes the Court's ruling in Capalla to justify
its position. However, Capalla is not on all fours with the present cases;
hence, the stare decisis doctrine (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle
things which are established) is inapplicable.
○ Capalla upheld the amendment of the 2009 AES Contract (i.e., the
OTP's extension) since the OTP's exercise was more advantageous
to the COMELEC and the public. It was observed that the P7M+
rentals paid for the lease of goods and purchase of services under the
2009 AES Contract was already considered as part of the purchase
price, and for the COMELEC to own the subject goods, it was required
to pay only an additional P2M+. On the other hand, if the COMELEC
did not exercise the option, the rentals already paid would just be one
of the government expenses for the past election and, in effect, would
be of no use to future elections. (TLDR, the rentals paid was part of
the purchase price, so since naexercise OTP, di siya naging
expense on rentals lang. Kaya advantageous)
● Rationale: While this Court recognizes that the COMELEC should be given
sufficient leeway in exercising its constitutional mandate to enforce and
administer all election laws, it demands equal recognition that it is the Court's
constitutional duty to see to it that all governmental actions are legally
permissible.
○ The COMELEC has failed to justify its reasons for directly contracting
with Smartmatic-TIM: it had not shown that any of the conditions under
Section 50, Article XVI of the GPRA exists;
○ Further, its claims of impracticality were not supported by
independently verified and competent data; and lastly, its perceived
“warranty extension” is, in reality, just a circumvention of the
procurement law.
○ For all these counts, the conclusion thus reached is that the COMELEC
had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
Doctrine:
55
"Procurement of electoral services and goods constitutes a major part of the organization
of elections in terms of planning, costs and implementation (purchasing and distribution).
Integrity and transparency is thus essential; lack of integrity in the purchasing system
may put the legitimacy of the whole electoral exercise at risk." The COMELEC's Law
Department issued a memorandum, with subject heading "Review of the Draft Contract
for the 2014 Extension to the Warranty (Program 1)
NOTE: Sec. 50, Art. XVI of the GPRA:
SEC. 50. Direct Contracting. - Direct Contracting may be resorted to only in any of the
following conditions:
a) Procurement of Goods of proprietary nature, which can be obtained only from the
proprietary source, i.e. when patents, trade secrets and copyrights prohibit others from
manufacturing the same item;
b) When the Procurement of critical components from a specific manufacturer, supplier or
distributor is a condition precedent to hold a contractor to guarantee its project
performance, in accordance with the provisions of this contract; or,
c) Those sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer, which does not have sub-dealers
selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained at more
advantageous terms to the Government.
● These conditions were not met.
○ Procurement of goods of proprietary nature doesn’t apply because the
“goods” subject of the case are the services for the maintenance and
repair of the machines. The services are not proprietary in nature, and
are not included in Smartmatic’s intellectual property rights.
○ the COMELEC claims that Smartmatic-TIM will not take responsibility
for malfunctioning machines if they are tampered with by other entities
as per the warranty provisions. But, the Court ruled that the subject
"goods" to be procured, i.e., repair and refurbishment services, are not
critical components of any infrastructure project, whose manufacture
and/or supply may be solely availed of from Smartmatic-TIM. To add, it
was not shown that only Smartmatic is the only entity capable of
supplying parts for the machines’ repairs and refurbishment. Lastly,
Smartmatic-TIM's exclusive engagement cannot be considered as a
condition precedent to guarantee the performance of its warranties
under the 2009 AES Contract or the 2012 Deed of Sale.
Flowchart of Electoral System:
1. Precincts: We all vote at precinct levels
2. First-level Local Boards of Canvassers (Cities/Mun. & Districts): Precinct
votes transmitted to these BOCs through their electronic data that can be
compiled into election returns
a. If manual, election returns will be placed in one of the ballot boxes and
physically brought by the different Electoral Boards/EIB to the different
First level BOCs
3. Second-level BOCs (Provinces): Transmit the results from First-level BOCs to
Second-level BOCs
4. National Board of Canvassers (NBOCs): Transmit the results from
Second-level BOCs to National BOCs
a. Senators and Congressmen are one level
b. For President & VP: That’s another level
Rules during voting (Gujilde p. 507) fyi lang 2
1. Voters vote in the order of their arrival in the polling place
2. No watcher enters the place reserved for the voters and the Electoral Board,
mingles, and talks with the voters
3. No crowding of voters and disorderly behavior inside the polling place
4. Ballot box is locked during voting (not absolute tho)
5. No person carrying any firearm/deadly weapon shall enter the polling place
except those expressly authorized by the Commission like jail or prison escorts
Prohibited acts involving voting (Gujilde p. 508)
1. Unlawful for a voter to bring the ballot, ballot secrecy folder, marking pen, or
voter’s receipt outside the polling place
2. Speak with anyone other than persons allowed while inside the polling place
3. Prepare a ballot without using the ballot secrecy folder
4. Exhibit the contents, fill out his/her ballot accompanied by another, except for
illiterates or PWD
5. Unlawful to erase any printing from the ballot or out any distinguishing mark on
the ballot
Who prescribes the manner and procedure of voting?
COMELEC.
Who are not allowed inside the polling place?
Military, police or security personnel and any brgy official, elected or appointed, unless
allowed by the COMELEC.
Are firearms or deadly weapons allowed in the polling place?
No, except for those expressly authorized by COMELEC (i.e. escorts for jail or prison)
When and on what grounds may a voter be challenged?
Illegal voter or has committed illegal acts.
56

BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS (BEI)
now Electoral Boards and Boards of Canvassers (BOC)
Composition
● ​All must be public school teachers, giving preference to those with permanent
appointments, who are qualified, willing, and able to serve as
○ Chairman
○ Poll Clerk
○ Third member
● At least 1 member of the EB shall be IT-capable, DOST-trained, or certified to
use the AES (S3 RA 8436, as amended)
● Special Board of Inspectors (SBEI/SBET): Administer detainee voting in jail
facilities or local absentee voting, which is outside the usual polling places.
● Board of Election Tellers (BET) deputized during the BSKE
What are the qualifications of an election inspector?
a. Public school teacher
i. What if not enough public school teachers? -Commission may appoint
the ff in order: 1. Private school teacher, 2. Nat’l govt employees
(Gujilde p. 501)
b. Of good moral character
c. Irreproachable (exemplary) reputation
d. Registered voter
e. Never convicted of any election offense or any other crime punishable with
imprisonment of greater than 6 months
f. Can speak and write in English or the local dialect (S166 OEC)
g. At least 1 BEI member must be IT-capable and certified
Who cannot be election inspectors?
1. Uniformed personnel of the Dept of National Defense and all its attached
agencies (Election Service Reform Act)
2. Convicted of any election offense or any other crime punishable by more than 6
months of imprisonment
3. Those with pending election offense case (not sure tho)
4. If related within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity/affinity to any member of
the same Electoral Board or to any candidate to be voted for in the polling place
or his/her spouse (Sec. 167, Art XIV, OEC)
Salic v. COMELEC 2 sets of MBC, 3rd Member in dispute (Mimbantas or Magarang)
Facts:
● In 2001 local elections in Lanao del Sur, 2 Municipal Boards of Canvassers
(MBC), proclaimed different sets of municipal candidates as winners.
● Mayorship of Butig was contested by Salic and Pansar, while the candidates for
Vice-Mayor included Ditual and Kiram.
● The canvass of municipal election returns was conducted by the MBC of Butig.
However, proper composition of the board is a matter of controversy. The
dispute refers to who really was the lawful Third Member of the board.
○ Petitioners claim: that Mimbantas legally served as the Third Member,
○ Respondents: it was Magarang
● No dispute: Macabayao as Chairman & Palawan as 2nd member
● June 10, 2001 - Salic was proclaimed by the MBC as the duly-elected mayor of
Butig, signed by Macabayao-Mimbantas (Third Member).
○ The Macabayao-Mimbantas canvassing board also proclaimed Ditual
as vice-mayor, and a set of duly-elected councilors.
○ The COC signed by Macabayao-Mimbantas was submitted to the
Election Records and Statistics Division (ERSD) of the COMELEC
○ This COC was based on returns from 36 out of 40 precincts in Butig.
The Macabayao-Mimbantas board excluded the returns from the other
4 precincts.
○ Grounds for the disallowance of the returns are:
■ For the 3 precincts — false and obviously manufactured,
accomplished by a biased BEI as shown by the evidence and
as it appears on said return indicating different serial numbers
on the pages of the returns
■ 1 precinct - false, and obviously manufactured by a biased
BEI because the ballots are not legible being all soaked in and
marred by ink
● Pansar (Salic’s opponent) avers: Macabayao-Mimbantas board acted without
authority.
○ At the start of the municipal canvass — Macabayao, Palawan and
Magarang — after canvassing all the 40 election returns, Macabayao
declared a recess and announced to reconvene the following day. As
he left, Macabayao took with him all the election paraphernalia needed
to proclaim the winners. But he did not show up on the following day
when the board met to reconvene. On the instruction of Datusalangit,
Macalaba, PES in-charge, Palawan and Magarang ​
● ​Palawan-Magarang board issued a 2nd COC proclaiming Pansar as the elected
mayor and a set of municipal councilors as winners, different from those
proclaimed by the Macabayao-Mimbantas board. They included the 4 returns
excluded by the Macabayao-Mimbantas board.
● Salic filed a petition stating that Mimbantas and not Magarang was the
legitimate 3rd Member
● 2nd Division declared
○ the Macabayao-Mimbantas a sham, nullifying the proclamations of
Salic, Ditual, and 8 councilors.
57
 ○ ordered the exclusion of the returns from 3 clustered precincts for the
positions of mayor and vice-mayor, nullifying and declaring illegal the
Palawan-Magarang board's proclamation of Pansar as mayor.
○ ​gave credence to the Ad Hoc Committee declaring it was Magarang,
not Mimbantas, who was the duly-designated Third Member of the
MBC. Accordingly, only the Palawan-Magarang board had the authority
to act as the authorized MBC.
○ TL;DR:
■ Macabayao-Mimbantas board: Salic
■ Palawan-Magarang board: Pansar
Issue: Who was the legitimate 3rd member of the MBC, Mimbantas or Magarang?
Magarang.
Held:
● The law explicitly prescribes the minimum qualifications of who may sit as the
substitute Third Member of the MBC in the absence of the most senior school
district supervisor. (ung OG senior kasi nag inhibit bc may relationship to some
local candidates in this case)
○ The substitute must be a principal of the school district or the
elementary school. Mimbantas was not a principal, but an ordinary
elementary public school teacher.
○ The third member must be the most senior district supervisor, or in the
former’s absence, the principal of the school district or elementary
school.
● Macabayao-Mimbintas COC proclaiming Salic as mayor is void. The only valid
signature thereon is that of Chairman Macabayao's, but he alone cannot bind or
speak for the entire MBC
● COMELEC found that Magarang was the Acting Principal of Nanagun
National High School, which made him qualified under the law to sit in the
MBC. Salic does not dispute Magarang's appointment. However, Salic claimed
that Magarang had signed an Indorsement where he disqualified himself since
his cousins were candidates for the municipal council. Magarang said his
signature was forged. There is no basis to support that the COMELEC
committed GAD in finding that Magarang was the lawful MBC Third Member.
● Also there were serious irregularities of the Macabayao-Mimbantas board:
○ ​Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation all contained erasures
indicative of tampering to make it appear that they won in the election
even if the other candidates had higher votes were not included.
Ong v. COMELEC recount of votes should be last resort
Facts:
● Jose Ong, Jr. and Wilmar Lucero were candidates for the congressional seat
of the 2nd district of Northern Samar during the May 1992 elections.
○ Ong won over Lucero with only a difference of 204 votes as
determined by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Northern Samar
(PBC).
● Thereafter, Lucero filed a Petition with the COMELEC for the suspension of the
proclamation of Ong and for a recount in the following precincts:
○ Precinct 13 - there was a failure of election occasioned by the
snatching of ballot boxes (Sec. 6, Omnibus Election Code)
○ Precincts 7 and 16 - election returns from said precincts were either
missing or not legible (Sec. 15, RA 7166)
○ 52 other precincts - to correct "manifest errors" in view of the
disqualification of Alice Lucero, another candidate, thus leaving Wilmar
as the only candidate with that surname (Sec. 15, RA 7166).
● Lucero alleged that the precincts above had a total number of 433 registered
votes whose determination would materially affect the result of the elections.
● A day before the reconvening of the PBC, the COMELEC en banc ordered the
PBC to stop the canvassing of votes, considering "the pendency of a
pre-proclamation controversy before the COMELEC.”
● Thereafter, Lucero filed an urgent Motion for Clarification on the use of the
phrase “pre-proclamation controversy" considering that he alleged only
violations of Sections 6, 233 and 236 of the OEC and that under Sec. 15 of RA
7166, pre-proclamation cases are not allowed against candidates for the House
of Representatives.
● Subsequently, Ong moved to lift the suspension order.
● June 13 Order - COMELEC en banc approved only the recount in Precincts 7
and 16, and denied the others. It deferred its resolution on the issue of special
election for Precinct 13 until after the results from Precincts 7 and 16 shall have
been determined.
● Thereafter, Lucero filed with COMELEC an urgent motion to constitute a Special
Board of Election Inspectors.
● Ong’s TRO Petition - Five days later, Ong filed an instant petition for certiorari
with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from
enforcing their Orders.
● Pursuant to its questioned resolution dated June 13, the COMELEC en banc
constituted a Special Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), a Special Municipal
Board of Canvassers (MBC) for Precinct 16 and a Special Provincial Board of
Canvassers for Northern Samar (PBC).
● Precinct 16 Recount - Thereafter, upon orders of the COMELEC, the Special
BEI recounted the votes from Precinct 16 as contained in an election returns
showing the following results:
○ Lucero - 43 votes. (WINNER)
○ Ong - 2 votes.
● On the same day, the special MBC canvassed the said election return.
58
 ● Precinct 7 Canvass (NOT recount) - The next day, the special BEI also
canvassed the COMELEC's copy of the election return from Precinct 7:
○ Lucero - 29 votes.
○ Ong - 61 votes. (WINNER)
● The canvass of the election return from Precinct 7 was made after the special
MBC overruled Lucero’s objection.
● Lucero then filed a notice of appeal with the COMELEC.
● 2 days after, the Court granted the TRO applied early on by Ong. COMELEC
immediately ceased to conduct any proceeding advising through telegram, the
Provincial Election Supervisor, the Regional Election Inspector of Region VIII
and the PBC of Northern Samar regarding the same.
● Notwithstanding the TRO, Ong still filed with the Special PBC for Northern
Samar an urgent motion to proceed with the canvass and to proclaim the
winning candidate. Ong also sought to annul the recount.
● Hence, this petition.
○ Ong argued that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of
discretion in granting the recounts of votes in Precincts 7 and 16.
○ Ong also argued that the Orders were invalid because ​they were
issued by the COMELEC en banc, not by a division.
Issue:
● W/N the COMELEC erred in allowing the voting recounts? - YES. RECOUNT
SHOULD ONLY BE MADE AS A LAST RESORT.
Held:
1. The COMELEC en banc gravely abused its jurisdiction when it ordered a recount
in Precincts 7 and 16 because these are matters which should have been first
referred to its division.
● Sec. 3, Art. IX of the Constitution provides: All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in a division, provided that motions for reconsideration of
decision shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
● Election cases which include pre-proclamation controversies must first be heard
and decided by a division of the COMELEC. The COMELEC en banc does NOT
have the authority to hear and decide it in the first instance.
2. The COMELEC indiscriminately issued the order of recount even before the
remedies under Secs. 233 and 234 of the OEC were complied with.
● Nowhere in Sec. 233 is there any mention of a recount of ballots. Instead, the
remedy under said Section is a referral to other authentic copies of election
returns issued by the Commission.
● Under Secs. 234, 235 and 236 of the OEC, an order for a recount shall be
issued only as a last resort and only if the Commission is satisfied that the
identity and integrity of the ballots have not been violated.
● So restrictive is the authority to recount that under Sec. 237, once the integrity of
ballots is violated, the COMELEC shall not order a recount but shall seal and
secure the ballot box.
● In this case, the BOC should have first obtained the missing election returns
from the BEI concerned, or if said returns have been lost or destroyed, the BOC,
upon prior authority of the COMELEC, may use any of the authentic copies of
said election returns or a certified copy of said election returns issued by the
COMELEC.
● Had the members of the Board of Canvassers been more meticulous in their
duties, they would have examined and referred to other copies of the election
returns prior to issuing an order of recount.
● On the other hand, the COMELEC was correct as to the Canvass (instead of a
recount) in Precinct 7.
3. The issue at hand is a pre-proclamation controversy. Thus, because Ong is a
candidate of the HOR, his proclamation CANNOT be suspended.
● Secs 241 and 243 of the OEC include in their definition of a pre-proclamation
controversy “any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation
to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the
election returns.”
● As stated in Sec. 15 of RA 7166, for purposes of elections, no
pre-proclamation case is allowed against, among others, a candidate of
the House of Representatives.
● Thus, the COMELEC erred when it suspended the proclamation of the winner
(Ong) of the congressional seat of the 2nd district of Northern Samar and in
ordering a recount of Precincts 7 and 16.
● Even with the argument that RA 7166 allows the correction of “manifest errors”
(votes for disqualified Alice Lucero should be for Wilmar) even against an HOR
candidate, the Court ruled that the act of the BEI in declaring some votes as
stray involves the appreciation of ballots which must be a proper subject for an
election protest.
5. Lim v. COMELEC is NOT applicable.
● There, the pre-proclamation controversy was when Lim questioned the illegal
composition of the Municipal Board of Canvassers and the irregular appointment
of the Board of Election Inspectors.
● This has NO connection with the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody,
and appreciation of election returns. Thus, Sec. 15 of RA 7166 does NOT apply.
6. The case is NOT moot and academic even if the recounts were done before the
issuance of the TRO.
● Ong could not have sought the preservation of the status quo at the time the
TRO was received by the COMELEC for that would have rendered nugatory his
interest in reconvening the regular Provincial Board of Canvassers and
prevented a recount, thus skirting the procedure laid down in the OEC.
59
 ● The fact that supervening events have transpired after the issuance of the
suspension of proclamation does not make such order a fait accompli since it
constitutes a continuing prohibition on the regular Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Northern Samar from reconvening until further orders from the
COMELEC.
Pagdanganan v. COMELEC
Facts:
● The petition is regarding the validity and constitutionality of Republic Act 7056,
"An Act Providing for the National and Local Elections in 1992, Pave the Way for
Synchronized and Simultaneous Elections Beginning 1995, and Authorizing
Appropriations Therefor,".
● Gov. Emilio Osmeña (Cebu), Gov. Roberto Pagdanganan (Bulacan) and 4
congressmen filed this case assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7056
passed on June 20, 1991. They filed this petition claiming that they have actual
and material interest in the subject matter of the case not only as public officials
sworn to support and defend the Constitution but also as taxpayers having an
interest in seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully disbursed. In
assailing the said law, they claim that:
○ RA 7056 violates the mandate of the Constitution for the holding of
synchronized national and local elections on the second Monday of
May 1992;
○ Republic Act 7056, particularly the 2nd paragraph of Section 3 thereof,
providing that all incumbent provincial, city and municipal officials shall
hold over beyond June 30, 1992 and shall serve until their successors
shall have been duly elected and qualified violates Section 2, Article
XVIII (Transitory Provision) of the Constitution;
○ The same paragraph of Section 3 of Republic Act 7056, which in effect,
shortens the term or tenure of office of local officials to be elected on
the 2nd Monday of November, 1992 violates Section 8, Article X of the
Constitution;
○ Section 8 of Republic Act 7056, providing for the campaign periods for
Presidential, Vice-Presidential and Senatorial elections, violates the
provision of Section 9, Article IX under the title "Commission on
Elections" of the Constitution;
○ The so-called many difficult if not insurmountable problems mentioned
in Republic Act 7056 to synchronized national and local elections set
by the Constitution on the second Monday of May, 1992, are not
sufficient, much less, valid justification for postponing the local
elections to the second Monday of November 1992, and in the process
violating the Constitution itself. If, at all, Congress can devise ways and
means, within the parameters of the Constitution, to eliminate or at
least minimize these problems and if this, still, is not feasible, resort
can be made to the self correcting mechanism built in the Constitution
for its amendment or revision.
● On the other hand, the SolGen, counsel for COMELEC, prays for the denial of
this petition arguing that the question is political in nature and that the petitioners
lack legal standing to file the petition and what they are asking for is an advisory
opinion from the court, there being no justiciable controversy to resolve. On the
merits, the SolGen contends that Republic Act 7056 is a valid exercise of
legislative power by Congress and that the regular amending process
prescribed by the Constitution does not apply to its transitory provisions.
Issue:
● Is RA 7056 unconstitutional? YES.
Held:
● The law contravenes Article XVIII, Sec. 2 and 5 of the 1987 Constitution which
provides for the synchronization of national and local elections. The said law, on
the other hand, provides for the desynchronization of election by mandating that
there be two separate elections in 1992. The term of “synchronization” in the
mentioned constitutional provision was used synonymously as the phrase
holding simultaneously since this is the precise intent in terminating their Office
Tenure on the same day or occasion. This common termination date will
synchronize future elections to once every three years.
○ R.A. No. 7056 also violated Sec. 2, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution
which provides that the local official first elected under the Constitution
shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992. But under Sec. 3 of RA 7056,
these incumbent local officials shall hold over beyond June 30, 1992
and shall serve until their successors shall have been duly elected and
qualified. The Supreme Court, quoting Corpus Juris Secundum, states
that “it is not competent for the legislature to extend the term of officers
by providing that they shall hold over until their successors are elected
and qualified where the constitution has in effect or by clear implication
prescribed the term and when the Constitution fixes the day on which
the official term shall begin, there is no legislative authority to continue
the office beyond that period, even though the successors fail to qualify
within the time”.
● R.A. No. 7056 also violated the clear mandate of Sec. 8, Art. X of 1987
Constitution which fixed the term of office of all elective local officials, except
barangay officials, to three (3) years. If the local election will be held on the
second Monday of November 1992 under RA 7056, those to be elected will be
serving for only two years and seven months, that is, from November 30, 1992
to June 30, 1995, not three years.
● The law was also held violative of Sec. 9, Article IX of the Constitution by
changing the campaign period. RA 7056 provides for a different campaign
period, as follows:
60
 ○ a) For President and Vice-Presidential elections one hundred thirty
8436) executed as to prevent any person so
(130) days before the day of election. taken into custody from exercising his
○ b) For Senatorial elections, ninety (90) days before the day of the right to vote. Such order shall be
election, and executed by any peace officer to whom it
○ c) For the election of Members of the House of Representatives and may be delivered, but if none be present,
local elective provincial, city and municipal officers 45 days before the by any other person deputized by the
elections. board of election inspectors in writing.

Sec. 177 OEC. Arrest of absent

Powers (refer to RA 8436 and OEC) members. - The member or members of
a. Conducts voting and counting of votes in their respective polling places the board of election inspectors present
b. Acts as Commission deputies in the supervision and control of the election in may order the arrest of any other member
the polling places where they are assigned or substitute thereof, who in their
c. To assure the holding of a free, orderly, and honest elections judgment, has absented himself with
d. Full authority to maintain order within the polling place and its premises and intention of obstructing the performance
of duties of the board of election
keep access to it open and unobstructed
inspectors.
e. To enforce obedience to its lawful orders
f. Direct any peace officer to take into custody persons who refuse to comply with
lawful orders or conduct themselves in a disorderly manner Qualifications of election watchers (2nd par., Sec. 178, Art. XV of OEC)
g. Perform other functions prescribed by the COMELEC and election laws ● qualified voter of the city or municipality
● of good reputation and moral character
BEI: QA v. QJ powers ● shall not have been convicted by final judgment of any election offense or of
any other crime
QA QJ ● must know how to read and write Filipino, English, Spanish or any of the
prevailing local dialects, and
a. Conduct the voting and counting of Sec. 172 OEC. Proceedings of the
● not related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the
votes in their respective polling places; board of election inspectors. - The
meetings of the board of election chairman, or any member of the board of election inspectors in the polling
b. Act as deputies of the Commission in inspectors shall be public and shall be place where he seeks appointment as a watcher
the supervision and control of the election held only in the polling place authorized
in the polling places wherein they are by the Commission. Who are entitled to watchers (Sec. 12, RA 6646)
assigned, to assure the holding of the ● General Rule: 1 watcher in every polling place for:
same in a free, orderly and honest Shall have full authority to maintain order
○ Registered political party
manner; and within the polling place and its premises,
to keep access thereto open and ○ Coalition of political parties, and
c. Perform such other functions unobstructed, and to enforce obedience ○ Candidate
prescribed by this Code or by the rules to its lawful orders. If any person shall ○ Duly accredited citizen’s arm of the Commission
and regulations promulgated by the refuse to obey lawful orders of the board ● Exception: Collectively entitled only to 1 watcher:
Commission. of election inspectors, or shall conduct ○ Candidates for members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
himself in a disorderly manner in its Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan belonging to the
The Commission shall take immediate presence or within its hearing and thereby
same slate or ticket or
steps as may be necessary for the interrupt or disturb its proceedings, the
acquisition, installation, administration, board of election inspectors may issue ○ Candidates for city or municipal councilors belonging to the same slate
storage, and maintenance of equipment an order in writing directing any peace or ticket
and devices, and to promulgate the officer to take such person into ○ Other civic, religious, professional, business, service, youth and any
necessary rules and regulations for the custody until the adjournment of the other similar organizations, with prior authority of the Commission.
effective implementation of this Act. (RA meeting, but such order shall not be (Sec. 180, OEC)
61
 ● There shall also be recognized two principal watchers who shall sit as
observers in the proceedings of the board:
○ one representing the ruling coalition, and
○ the other the dominant opposition coalition
Who are not allowed inside the polling place (precincts)? See OEC.
● Unless the COMELEC specifically authorizes, the following are prohibited from
entering or staying within a 50 meter radius from the polling place, except to
vote:
○ Any officer or member of the AFP or PNP
○ Peace officers belonging to any extra-legal police agency
○ Special forces, reaction forces, strike forces
○ Civilian Armed Force Geographical Units
○ Barangay Tanods or other similar forces or para-military forces
(including special forces, security guards, and special policemen)
○ All other kinds of armed or unarmed extra-legal police forces
○ Any barangay official, whether elected or appointed
Is the prohibition against policemen or the military absolute?
● NO. The Electoral Board may, by majority vote if it deems necessary, detail in
writing policemen or peace officers to maintain peace and order, protect them
and/or election documents and paraphernalia. But they should not converse with
any voter, disturb, prevent, or in any manner obstruct free voter access to the
polling place.
How may a voter be challenged? (Sec. 199, OEC)
● Any voter, or watcher may challenge any person offering to vote
○ for not being registered,
○ for using the name of another, or
○ for suffering from existing disqualification.
● The BEI shall require proof of registration or the identity of the voter to
determine whether the allegations are true.
● If the said voter’s identity is challenged, then he or she shall be required to
present his voter's affidavit on election day
● In case of absence of or inability/failure to produce his voter's affidavit, he or
she shall not be prevented from voting:
○ If his or her identity is shown from the photograph, fingerprints, or
specimen signatures in his approved application in the book of voters,
or
○ If he or she is identified under oath by a member of the board of
election inspectors and such identification shall be reflected in the
minutes of the board.
Who is an illegal voter?
● A person who offers to vote but is not registered, uses the name of another, or
suffers existing disqualification.
Who is a voter who commits illegal acts?
● A voter commits certain illegal acts when he or she offers to vote but has either
received or expects to receive, paid, offered or promised to pay, has contributed,
offered or promised to contribute money or anything or value as consideration of
his vote or for the vote of another, made or received a promise to influence the
giving or withholding of any such vote, or made a bet or is interested directly or
indirectly in a bet which depends upon election results.
What is the current shading threshold for voting machines?
● The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has set at 25% the threshold for the
shading on ballots to be considered in electoral protests in the 2019 midterm
elections and in future polls.
● The threshold was set in Comelec Resolution No. 10419, issued on Wednesday,
September 5. This rule would apply in the May 13, 2019 elections and
subsequent elections, said the poll body.
Proper ground to transfer the counting of votes (Sec. 206, OEC)
● General Rule: As soon as the voting is finished, the board of election inspectors
(BEI) shall publicly count in the polling place the votes cast and ascertain the
results.
○ The BEI shall not adjourn or postpone or delay the count until it has
been fully completed, unless otherwise ordered by the COMELEC.
● Exception: The COMELEC, in the interest of free, orderly, and honest elections,
may order the BEI to count the votes and to accomplish the election returns and
other forms prescribed under OEC in any other place within a public building in
the same municipality or city:
○ Provided, That the said public building shall not be located within the
perimeter of or inside a military or police camp or reservation nor
inside a prison compound.
What is the evidentiary value of e-ballot images?
Maliksi v. COMELEC
Facts:
1. Maliksi and Saquilayan were both mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of
Imus, Cavite during the 2010 Automated National and Local Elections.
2. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Saquilayan as the duly
elected municipal mayor but Maliksi filed an election protest before the
RTC questioning the results of the elections in 209 clustered precincts.
62
 3. Saquilayan informed the trial court that his watchers were being limited to the
outside of the building where the ballot boxes and election paraphernalia were
kept, thus preventing them from looking over the security of the ballot boxes and
election paraphernalia.
4. RTC declared Maliksi as the duly elected Municipal Mayor. COMELEC nullified
RTC's decision and declared Saquilayan as the duly-elected Municipal Mayor.
5. COMELEC found that the integrity of the ballots had been compromised. It
ordered the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF
cards instead of recounting the physical ballots. Maliksi argues that COMELEC
should have never used the ballot images for they are merely secondary
evidence and their use is not warranted by the law.
Issue: Are ballot images only secondary evidence? NO.
Ruling:
1. "The picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are
likewise 'official ballots' that faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast by
the voter. As such, the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the
paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of
revision of votes in an electoral protest.”
2. Ballot Images--The ballot images, which are digital, are electronically
generated and written in the CF cards when the ballots are fed into the PCOS
machine. The ballot images are the counterparts produced by electronic
recording which accurately reproduce the original, and thus are the equivalent of
the original.
3. As pointed out by the COMELEC, the digital images of the physical ballots are
electronically and instantaneously generated by the PCOS machines once the
physical ballots are fed into and read by the machines. Hence, the ballot images
are not secondary evidence. The official physical ballots and the ballot images in
the CF cards are both original documents. The ballot images in the CF cards
have the same evidentiary weight as the official physical ballots.
Additionally, the COMELEC en banc accorded higher evidentiary value to the ballot
images because their integrity are more secure for the following reasons:
● The digital images are encrypted to prevent unauthorized alteration or access;
● The ballot images cannot be decrypted or in anyway accessed without
necessary decryption key;
● The ballot images may only be decrypted using a special system designed by
the COMELEC and not by any ordinary operating system or computer;
● The compact flash cards storing the digital images of all the ballots used in the
May 10, 2010 elections are kept in a secured facility within the Commission to
prevent unauthorized access.
4. Ballot Tampering--The questioned ballots affected a total of 33.38% or more than
one-third of the total ballots cast in those precincts. This is too massive to have not been
detected on election day, too specific to be random and too precise to be accidental —
which leaves a reasonable mind no other conclusion except that those cases of
double-shading were purposely machinated. These dubious and highly suspicious
circumstances left us with no other option but to dispense with the physical ballots and
resort to their digital images. To recount the tampered ballots will only yield to tampered
results defeating the point of this appeal.
5. While the SC ruled that ballot images and original ballots are both considered original
documents, they still decided to remand the case to the COMELEC because the latter
violated Maliksi’s constitutional right to due process when it decided not to inform the
parties of its decision to recount the ballots.
When are election returns (ERs) transmitted? (s18, RA 8436)
● Sec. 18. Election returns. — After the ballots of the precincts have been
counted, the election officer or any official authorized by the Commission shall,
in the presence of watchers and representatives of the accredited citizens’ arm,
political parties/candidates, if any, store the results in a data storage device and
print copies of the election returns of each precinct. The printed election returns
shall be signed and thumbmarked by the fourth member and COMELEC
authorized representative and attested to by the election officer or authorized
representative. The Chairman of the Board shall then publicly read and
announce the total number of votes obtained by each candidate based on the
election returns.
Thereafter, the copies of the election returns shall be sealed and placed in the proper
envelopes for distribution as follows:
A. In the election of president, vice-president, senators and party-list system:
(1) The first copy shall be delivered to the city or municipal board of canvassers;
(2) The second copy, to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate;
(3) The third copy, to the Commission;
(4) The fourth copy, to the citizens’ arm authorized by the Commission to conduct an
unofficial count. In the conduct of the unofficial quick count by any accredited citizens’
arm, the Commission shall promulgate rules and regulations to ensure, among others,
that said citizens’ arm releases in the order of their arrival one hundred percent (100%)
results of a precinct indicating the precinct, municipality or city, province and region:
Provided, however, that, the count shall continue until all precincts shall have been
reported.
(5) The fifth copy, to the dominant majority party as determined by the Commission in
accordance with law;
(6) The sixth copy, to the dominant minority party as determined by the Commission in
accordance with law; and
(7) The seventh copy shall be deposited inside the compartment of the ballot box for
valid ballots.
63
 The citizens’ arm shall provide copies of the election returns at the expense of
the requesting party.
For the purpose of the May 11, 1998 elections, after the national ballots have
been counted, the COMELEC authorized representative shall implement the
provisions of paragraph A hereof.
● B. In the election of local officials and members of the House of
Representatives:
(1) The first copy shall be delivered to the city or municipal board of
canvassers;
(2) The second copy, to the Commission;
(3) The third copy, to the provincial board of canvassers;
(4) The fourth copy, to the citizens’ arm authorized by the Commission to
conduct an unofficial count. In the conduct of the unofficial quick count by any
accredited citizens’ arm, the Commission shall promulgate rules and regulations
to ensure, among others, that said citizens’ arm releases in the order of their
arrival one hundred percent (100%) results of a precinct indicating the precinct,
municipality or city, province and region: Provided, however, That, the count
shall continue until all precincts shall have been reported.
(5) The fifth copy, to the dominant majority party as determined by the
Commission in accordance with law;
(6) The sixth copy, to the dominant minority party as determined by the
Commission in accordance with law; and
(7) The seventh copy shall be deposited inside the compartment of the ballot
box for valid ballots.
The citizens’ arm shall provide copies of election returns at the expense of the
requesting party.
After the votes from all precincts have been counted, a consolidated report of
votes for each candidate shall be printed.
After the printing of the election returns, the ballots shall be returned to the ballot
box, which shall be locked, sealed and delivered to the city/municipal treasurer
for safekeeping. The treasurer shall immediately provide the Commission and
the election officer with a record of the serial numbers of the ballot boxes and
the corresponding metal seals.
Who are the different BOCs?
Barangay Board of Canvassers (BBOC)
● The different chairpersons of the Board of Election Tellers (BETs) in the
barangay chosen and appointed as Chairman, Vice Chairman, and
Member-Secretary by the concerned election officer
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC)
● The municipal election officer or a representative of the Commission as Chair,
the municipal treasurer as Vice Chair, and the district school supervisor as
Member-Secretary.
City Board of Canvassers (CBOC)
● The city election officer or a lawyer of the Commission as Chair, city prosecutor
as Vice Chair, and the division superintendent of schools as Member-Secretary.
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC)
● The provincial election supervisor or a lawyer of the Commission as Chair, the
provincial prosecutor as Vice Chair, and the district school superintendent as
Member-Secretary.
When are COCs (certificates of canvass) transmitted?
Sec. 22. Number of copies of Certificates of Canvass of Votes and their
distribution. — (a) The certificate of canvass of votes for president, vice-president,
senators, members of the House of Representatives, parties, organizations or coalitions
participating under the party-list system and elective provincial officials shall be printed by
the city or municipal board of canvassers and distributed as follows:
(1) The first copy shall be delivered to the provincial board of canvassers for use in the
canvass of election results for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House
of Representatives, parties, organizations or coalitions participating under the party-list
system and elective provincial officials;
(2) The second copy shall be sent to the Commission;
(3) The third copy shall be kept by the chairman of the board; and
(4) The fourth copy shall be given to the citizens’ arm designated by the Commission to
conduct an unofficial count. It shall be the duty of the citizens’ arm to furnish independent
candidates copies of the certificate of canvass at the expense of the requesting party.
The board of canvassers shall furnish all registered parties copies of the certificate of
canvass at the expense of the requesting party.
(b) The certificate of canvass of votes for president, vice-president and senators, parties,
organizations or coalitions participating under the party-list system shall be printed by the
city boards of canvassers of cities comprising one or more legislative districts, by
provincial boards of canvassers and by district boards of canvassers in the Metro
Manila area, and other highly urbanized areas and distributed as follows:
64
(1) The first copy shall be sent to Congress, directed to the President of the Senate for
use in the canvas of election results for president and vice-president;
(2) The second copy shall be sent to the Commission for use in the canvass of the
election results for senators;
(3) The third copy shall be kept by the chairman of the board; and
(4) The fourth copy shall be given to the citizens’ arm designated by the Commission to
conduct an unofficial count. It shall be the duty of the citizens’ arm to furnish independent
candidates copies of the certificate of canvass at the expense of the requesting party.
The board of canvassers shall furnish all registered parties copies of the certificate of
canvass at the expense of the requesting party.
(c) The certificates of canvass printed by the provincial, district, city or municipal boards
of canvassers shall be signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and members of the
board and the principal watchers, if available. Thereafter, it shall be sealed and placed
inside an envelope which shall likewise be properly sealed.
In all instances, where the Board of Canvassers has the duty to furnish registered
political parties with copies of the certificate of canvass, the pertinent election returns
shall be attached thereto, where appropriate.
How do HUCs canvass votes for national positions? (s25 RA 9369)
● In the Metro Manila area, each municipality comprising a legislative district shall
have a district board of canvassers which shall canvass the votes for
President, VP, Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and
elective municipal officials by consolidating the electronically transmitted results
or the results contained in the data storage devices used in the printing of
election returns (S25(3) RA 9369)
● Within 1hr after the canvassing, the Chairman of the district or provincial board
of canvassers or the city board of canvassers of those cities which comprise one
or more legislative districts shall electronically transmit the certificates of
canvass to the Commission sitting as the NBOC for senators and party-list
representatives and to the Congress as the NBOC for the president and vice
president, directed to the President of the Senate
● The certificates of canvass transmitted electronically and digitally signed shall
be considered as official electronic results and shall be used as the basis for the
proclamation of a winning candidate.
Who comprise the NBOCs?
National Board of Canvassers for Senators
● The chairman and members of the Commission on Elections sitting en banc
● It shall canvass the results for senators by consolidating the results contained in
the data storage devices submitted by the district, provincial and city boards of
canvassers of those cities which comprise one or more legislative districts.
Thereafter, the national board shall proclaim the winning candidates for
senators.
National Board of Canvassers for President and Vice-President
● The Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session.
● The returns of every election for president and vice-president duly certified by
the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the president of the Senate.
● Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the president of the Senate shall,
not later than thirty (30) days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in
joint public session and the Congress upon determination of the authenticity and
the due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass all the results
for president and vice-president by consolidating the results contained in the
data storage devices submitted by the district, provincial and city boards of
canvassers and thereafter, proclaim the winning candidates for president and
vice-president.
What are some election offenses in connection with the AES? (s29 RA 8436)
● Utilizing without authorization, tampering with, destroying or stealing:
○ Official ballots, election returns, and certificates of canvass of votes
used in the System; and
○ Electronic devices or their components, peripherals or supplies used in
the System such as counting machine, memory pack/diskette, memory
pack receiver and computer set;
● Interfering with, impeding, absconding for purpose of gain, preventing the
installation or use of computer counting devices and the processing, storage,
generation and transmission of election results, data or information; and
● Gaining or causing access to using, altering, destroying or disclosing any
computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related
devices, facilities, hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified.
Can you proclaim based on an incomplete canvass?
● NO. See COMELEC v. Mamalinta.
65

COMELEC v Mamalinta, gr 226622 (2017) (eb) CARLO
Facts:
● During the 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections, petitioner
COMELEC appointed Mamalinta as Chairman of the Municipal Board of
Canvassers (MBOC) for South Upi, Maguindanao, together with Mato, Peñafiel,
Sr. as Vice-Chairman and Member, respectively.
● While performing their functions as such, the MBOC allegedly committed the
following acts:
○ on May 16, 2004, the MBOC proclaimed Datu Israel Sinsuat as
Mayor, Datu Jabarael Sinsuat as Vice-Mayor, and eight (8) members of
the Sangguniang Bayan as winning candidates, on the basis of
nineteen (19) out of the thirty-five (35) total election returns;
○ on even date, the MBOC caused the transfer of the place for
canvassing of votes from Tinaman Elementary School, South Upi,
Maguindanao to Cotabato City without prior authority from the
COMELEC;
○ two days later, they proclaimed a new set of winning candidates,
headlined by Gunsi, Jr. as Mayor and four (4) new members of the
Sangguniang Bayan on the basis of thirty (30) out of thirty-five (35)
election returns.
● Atty. Clarita Callar, Regional Election Director of the COMELEC Regional Office
No. XII, reported the incidents to the COMELEC En Banc, which in turn, directed
the COMELEC Law Department to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the
matter.
● Thereafter, the COMELEC Law Department recommended the filing of
administrative and criminal cases against the members of the MBOC, and
subsequently, Mamalinta was formally charged with Grave Misconduct, Gross
Neglect of Duty, Gross Inefficiency and Incompetence, and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service.
○ Mamalinta denied the charges, claiming that the MBOC’s acts of
double proclamation and transferring the place for canvassing were
attended by duress in view of the imminent danger to their lives due to
the violence and intimidation initiated by Gunsi's supporters.
● COMELEC En Banc Level: found Mamalinta guilty of the charges and
dismissed her from public service.
○ MBOC's acts of double proclamation; issuing such proclamations
based on an incomplete canvass of votes; and transferring the place
for the canvassing of votes are blatant violations of various laws and
COMELEC resolutions on the conduct of elections.
● CSC Level: affirmed the COMELEC En Banc ruling.
○ MR was denied
● CA Level: reversed and set aside the CSC ruling and reinstated Mamalinta to
her former position prior to her dismissal.
○ Mamalinta sufficiently substantiated her claims of duress by presenting
various documentary evidence (Joint-Affidavit she executed with her
Vice-Chairman Mato, and the Minutes of the MBOC and the Report,
both prepared by Peñafiel).
○ Mamalinta immediately flew to Manila after escaping the hostile
incidents they experienced in order to report the same to
then-COMELEC Chairman Abalos.
Issue:
● W/N Mamalinta is guilty of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. (YES)
Held:
● Mamalinta is being charged of committing the following acts, namely:
○ (a) the double proclamation of Sinsuat and Gunsi as mayor of South
Upi;
○ (b) the transfer of the place for canvassing of votes from Tinaman
Elementary School, South Upi, Maguindanao to Cotabato City without
prior authority from the COMELEC; and
○ (c) the premature proclamation of Sinsuat as the winning
candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of election
returns. (Liable sya dahil dito)
● Anent the first two (2) acts complained of, Mamalinta should not be held
administratively liable for the same to warrant her dismissal from the service, as
such acts were committed while under duress and intimidation.
○ The Court held that duress, as a valid defense, should be based on
real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's own life. It should not be
inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A threat of future injury
is not enough. It must be clearly shown that the compulsion must be of
such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape.
○ In this case, records reveal that Mamalinta and the rest of the MBOC of
South Upi, Maguindanao, were under heavy duress from supporters of
mayoralty candidate Gunsi. As stated in their Joint Affidavit, they were
forcibly taken and held hostage by Gunsi's supporters, and while
detained, were forced, intimidated, and coerced into declaring Gunsi as
the winning candidate, despite their earlier proclamation that Sinsuat
was the true winner of the elections.
● However, Mamalinta is liable for the third act: premature proclamation of Sinsuat
as the winning candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of election
returns.
● Jurisprudence provides that a complete canvass of votes is necessary in
order to reflect the true desire of the electorate, and that a proclamation of
66
 winning candidates on the basis of incomplete canvass is illegal and of no
effect.
● In this case, the COMELEC En Banc correctly pointed out that the uncanvassed
election returns can still drastically affect the outcome of the elections, since "at
the time of Sinsuat's proclamation, he garnered only [1,230] votes, with the
exclusion of the [12] election returns and [4] election returns that have yet to be
canvassed. These [4] election returns is equivalent to 42.91% of the total
registered voters of South Upi, Maguindanao."
● Notably, Mamalinta's defense of duress — which was upheld in her other two (2)
acts of double proclamation and unauthorized transfer of the place for
canvassing — is untenable in this instance as there was no showing that the
MBOC was intimidated or coerced into proclaiming Sinsuat as the winning
candidate for Mayor. The allegations of Mamalinta that force and threats were
exerted on her to make said premature proclamation are self-serving and not
supported by any other evidence, hence, cannot be relied upon.
● Therefore, Mamalinta's afore-described act of premature proclamation may still
be considered as Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and/or Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service, and thus, she should be held
administratively liable therefor.

67
 REMEDIES
Petition to deny due course to or cancel COC
Sec. 78- 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 contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The
petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than
15 days before the election.
● A person whose certificate is canceled/denied in due course under Sec. 78,
OEC = not treated as a candidate at all, as if they never filed a COC
Petition for Disqualification
GROUNDS:
Sec. 12 Disqualifications.
a. declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or
b. sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for
any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18
months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a
candidate and to hold any office
XPN: Plenary pardon or amnesty
S68 OEC:
a. Declared by final decision of a competent court, in an action or protest, guilty
or found by the Commission of having:
i. given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
ii. committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
iii. spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by
this Code;
iv. solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections
89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
v. violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v,
and cc, subparagraph 6
b. Any person who is a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country
i. XPN: Waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country
S40 LGC: For elective local position
a. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or
for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two
(2) years after serving sentence;
b. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
c. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
d. Those with dual citizenship;
e. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;
f. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to
reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this
Code; and
g. The insane or feeble-minded.
Effect: to merely prohibit to continue as a candidate, as opposed to the effect of a petition
to deny due course or cancel
Failure of election; call for special election
● Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place
has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested
party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of
the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a
date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the cessation of
the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
OST: What is the test to determine if there was a failure of elections?
1. Materially affect the elections
a. (Ex: if there was fraud for 2k votes, but the number of voters are 7k, no
failure of elections because it would not change the results
anyway = elections not materially affected)
● One of the legal vehicles that election results may be challenged
● This petition must specifically allege essential grounds justifying the exercise of
this extraordinary remedy. Otherwise, the Commission dismisses it outright for
lack of merit. No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to it because it must
be exercised with utmost circumspection the power to fail an election so as not
to disenfranchise voters and frustrate their will.
Pre-Proclamation Controversy (PPC) (s233, 234, 235 and 236, OEC.)
● Any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the Board of
Canvassers (BOC).
68
 ● May be raised by any candidate or registered political party or coalition of
parties before the BoC or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised
under Secs. 233-236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody, and appreciation of the election returns.
● Any candidate or any registered political party may raise a PPC under
appropriate grounds (Secs. 233-236, OEC)
● 4 exclusive grounds for a PPC:
1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the BOC
2. ERs which are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be
tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies
3. ERs prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation
4. Substitute or fraudulent ERs were canvassed
OST: Taking out the first ground, with the current AES system, how do we establish/prove
a pre-proc controversy now? (We have to contemplate this scenario because 80% of the
grounds are now gone)
● If the print-out from the VCM and what was fed to the machine don't match
● Evidence aliunde
accompanied the elections, supplying particulars that B’s supporters were
bought off and others prevented from casting their votes. But the COMELEC
dismissed the PPC since all the ERs appeared complete and valid. Was the
COMELEC correct?
○ Suggested Answer: YES. Such a contest is limited to claims that the
ERs are incomplete or that they contain material defects or that they
have been tampered with, falsified, or prepared under duress or that
they contain discrepancies in the votes credited to the candidates, the
difference of which affects the result of the elections (OEC, 243,
234-236)
○ The question of W/N there was terrorism…etc., cannot be subject of a
PPC but must be raised in a regulation election protest. B’s remedy is
to file an election contest and bring it to the HRET/SET
When are PPCs not allowed (s15, RA 7166)
● GR: PPC are not allowed for elections for President, Vice President, Senator or
Congressman
● XPN: Petitions for correction of manifest errors are allowed

● Proceeding is summary in nature What is the doctrine of statistical improbability?

Distinguish PPCs from a failure of elections or an election protest
Annulment of election results/Failure
of elections
The COMELEC is duty-bound to
investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism,
violence, and other analogous causes.
Such must materially affect the conduct of
elections.
Election Protest
Where there are additional allegations of
massive electoral irregularities such as
ballot box snatching, massive substitution
of voters, intimidation, flying voters, etc.
Pre-proclamation Controversy
The COMELEC is restricted from
examining election results on their face
(no jurisdiction to investigate election
irregularities).
Pre-proclamation Controversy
Where the inclusion of Election Returns is
contested on grounds that they were
obviously manufactured, altered, or
falsified and not authentic.
● Suhuri v COMELEC – The doctrine of statistical improbability is applied only
where the unique uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the
candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of all the
candidates of all the opposing parties appear in the election return.
○ The doctrine has no application where there is neither uniformity of
tallies nor systematic blanking of the candidates of one party.
● Thus, the bare fact that a candidate for public office received no votes in one or
two precincts, standing alone and without more, cannot adequately support a
finding that the subject election returns are statistically improbable. Verily, a zero
vote for a particular candidate in the election returns is but one strand in the web
of circumstantial evidence that the electoral returns were prepared under
duress, force, and intimidation. The Court has thus warned that the doctrine of
statistical improbability must be restrictively viewed. With the utmost care being
taken lest in penalizing fraudulent and corrupt practices — which is truly called
for — innocent voters become disenfranchised, a result that hardly commends
itself. Such prudential approach makes us dismiss Suhuri’s urging that some
electoral results had been infected with the taint of statistical improbability as to
warrant their exclusion from the canvass in a PPC (Suhuri v COMELEC)

● [BAR Q] A and B were both candidates for the same Congressional seat. B filed
a PPC with the COMELEC alleging that rampant vote-buying and terrorism

69
Suhuri v COMELEC, gr 181869 (2009) (eb) Doctrine of Statistical Improbability;
Suhuri received 0 votes from certain precincts
Facts:
● Suhuri ran for Municipal Mayor of Patik, Sulu during the May 2007 national and
local elections. His opponent was Hayudini.
● During the canvassing, Suhuri orally objected to include election returns from 25
precincts. He then filed a petition to the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC)
citing that the ERs were: (1) Obviously manufactured; (2) Tampered/falsified; (3)
Prepared under duress; (4) Characterized by statistical improbability. This was
denied.
● Suhuri appealed. But, MBC proclaimed Hayudini as the winner with 7,578 votes
and Suhuri 6,803 votes– a difference of 775 votes.
● Suhuri filed multiple petitions.
○ Petition-appeal with the COMELEC = given due course and assigned
to Comelec 2nd Division
○ Protest ad cautelam = held in abeyance bc of pending PPC
○ Petition to declare a failure of election = denied
● COMELEC 2nd Division ruled to exclude the 25 ERs and voided the
proclamation of Hayudini.
● Hayudini filed an MR. Granted by COMELEC en banc. Effect: Reversed and set
aside the resolution of the COMELEC 2nd Division–Hayudini’s proclamation is
valid.
Issue: W/N petitioner’s issue does not involve a PPC - YES, Suhuri’s grounds were not
proper
Held:
● Section 243, OEC limits a PPC. The enumeration is restrictive and exclusive.
The petition for a PPC must fail in the absence of proof that
○ ERs canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (Sec
234, OEC); or
○ appear to have been tampered with, falsified or prepared under
duress (Sec. 235, OEC); or
○ contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate, the
difference of which affects the result of the election (Sec 236, OEC).
● In a PPC, the COMELEC is restricted to examine the ER and cannot go beyond
ERs to investigate election irregularities. As long as the ERs appear to be
authentic and duly accomplished on their faces, the BoC cannot look beyond the
ERs to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes
● Suhuri's submission show that the ERs lacked one of the necessary BEI
signatures; that 6 of the contested ERs lacked some or all of the signatures
and/or thumbmarks of the poll watchers; that another 6 ERs might indicate a
statistical improbability of results; and that only 1 ER had no entries in the
spaces for the precinct number, barangay, city/municipality and province
● [RELEVANT] It was Suhuri’s contention that for Precinct Nos. 11A/12A,
17A/18A, 89A/90A, 91A/92A, 93A/94A and 95A/96A (6 of the 25 contested
election returns), he got zero (0) votes — a statistically improbable result, and
for Precinct Nos. 13A/14A, of the 210 total registered voters, respondent
Hayudini garnered a perfect 210 and petitioner got one (1) vote — a statistically
improbable result.
○ However, the cited irregularities and omissions could not be the bases
for granting his petition for the exclusion of the 25 ERs in a PPC.
○ Because = (1) Defects cited were mere irregularities/formal defects; (2)
MBC corrected the defects before the canvass of the ERs when
explained by the members of the BET; (3) allegation of statistical
improbability lacks substance and merit. (the rest is lack of evidence)
● Doctrine of statistical improbability: is applied only where the unique
uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to
one party and the systematic blanking of all the candidates of all the opposing
parties appear in the election return.
● Not applied; where there is neither uniformity of tallies nor systematic blanking
of the candidates of one party. Thus, the bare fact that a candidate for public
office received no votes in one or two precincts, standing alone and without
more, cannot adequately support a finding that the subject election returns are
statistically improbable. Verily, a zero vote for a particular candidate in the
election returns is but one strand in the web of circumstantial evidence that the
electoral returns were prepared under duress, force and intimidation.
Meaning: Applies when there is a strange pattern in the voting results where all the votes
for one party are the same and there is a deliberate lack of votes for candidates from
other parties. However, this principle doesn't apply if the votes are not uniform or if there
isn't a deliberate pattern of not voting for candidates from one party. Simply put, if a
candidate gets no votes in a few places, that alone doesn't prove that something fishy
happened in the election. It's just one small piece of evidence that could suggest that the
election results might have been manipulated through pressure or force.
What’s the use of the doctrine of statistical improbability if it’s not found in the
law? What is it used for?
● Pimentel case
○ Used as a means to show all of the grounds for a pre-proclamation
controversy
Where does it fall? Pre-proclamation controversy or election contest?
● Election contest even if you’re presenting an election return to show that you
were cheated on
What is the threshold of evidence required?
70
 ● Preponderance of evidence
○ Not substantial because that’s administrative
○ Not clear and convincing
Saludaga v COMELEC, gr 189431 (2010) (eb) Motion for execution pending
resolution of MR; elevate to COMELEC en banc upon lapse of 10 days reckoned
from filing of motion for execution
Facts:
● Petitioner Quintin Saludaga and respondent Artemio Balag were candidates for
Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar in the 2007 Elections. The Municipal
Board of Canvassers proclaimed Saludaga as the elected Mayor (5,913 votes)
over Balag (5,278 votes).
● Balag filed an election protest against Saludaga before the RTC. He contested
the results of the election in 18 precincts on the grounds of massive terrorism
and misappreciation of ballots. Saludaga filed a counter-protest disputing the
election results in 9 precincts on alleged irregularities and fraud committed by
the BEIs for misappreciation of ballots.
● RTC in its March 2008 Decision declared Balag as the winning mayoral
candidate, with 71 more votes than Saludaga (5,251 vs. 5,180). The trial court
invalidated 733 of Saludaga’s ballots: 698 were found to have been written only
by 1 person; 25 were written by 2 persons; while 10 were considered marked.
The court discounted 27 marked ballots as to Balag.
● Saludaga appealed to COMELEC. Meanwhile, Balag moved for execution
pending appeal, but the motion was denied. COMELEC affirmed the RTC
Decision with modification (Sept. 4, 2009 Order). It found that Balag won by
127 votes (5,276 vs. 5,149). Balag moved for execution. Saludaga filed a
verified MR of the COMELEC Resolution.
● COMELEC granted Balag’s motion for execution pending MR, ordering the
clerk of court to issue a writ of execution ordering Saludaga to cease and desist
from discharging the duties of Mayor of Lavezares and relinquish the office in
favor of Balag. Saludaga filed an MR but was denied (found guilty of forum
shopping).
Issue: W/N COMELEC Order granting execution pending resolution of MR is void - YES
Held:
● Sec. 2, Rule 19 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that a party may file
a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a division w/in 5
days from promulgation. Such motion, if not pro forma, suspends the execution
or implementation of the decision, resolution, order, or ruling.
● The COMELEC Rules does not contain an express provision on execution
pending appeal or resolution of MR. But SC promulgated the “Rules of
Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal
and Brgy. Officials” in 2007. Sec. 11(a), Rules of the said rule sets the criteria for
execution pending appeal:
○ There must be a motion by the prevailing party with three-day notice
to the adverse party. Execution pending appeal shall not issue without
prior notice and hearing. There must be good reasons for the execution
pending appeal. The court, in a special order, must state the good or
special reasons justifying the execution pending appeal.
● By analogy, this standard is also applicable in the grant of execution pending
resolution of the MR of a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of COMELEC.
● Saludaga assails the Order for 3 reasons:
○ COMELEC failed to certify and elevate the records upon lapse of 10
days in accordance w/ Item 6(b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8654.
○ The Order was signed only by the Presiding Commissioner.
○ Balag’s Motion for Execution pending MR does not satisfy the criteria
of the Rules in Election Contests.
● As to 1st reason: In this case, Balag filed a motion for execution on Aug. 13.
COMELEC 2nd Div. had only until Aug. 23 to resolve the same. The law is clear:
the 10 days w/in w/c COMELEC may suspend elevating the case to COMELEC
en banc is to be counted from the filing of motion for execution. After the lapse
of 10 days, the only power a division has is to certify and elevate the case.
Hence, after Aug. 23, the 2nd Div. no longer had jurisdiction to rule on the
motion for execution. Hence, Sept. 4 Order is void for having been issued
w/o jurisdiction.
● As to 2nd reason: Even if Order was promulgated w/in 10 days, it would still be
void because only Presiding Commissioner Ferrer signed it. An order resolving
a motion for execution requires more than the lone imprimatur of the Division
Chairman because the execution pending resolution of MR may issue only upon
good reasons contained in a special order (alam nyo na siguro yung good
reasons no Rule 39)
● The discretion to allow execution pending MR belongs to the division that
rendered the assailed decision, or the COMELEC en banc – not to the Presiding
Commissioner.
Cases on PPCs:
Ong v COMELEC, gr 163295 (2006) (eb) - carlo Mr. CDG
Facts:
● Private respondent Alegre and petitioner Francis Ong (incumbent) were
candidates for mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte in the 2004 elections.
● Alegre filed with the COMELEC Provincial Office a Petition to Disqualify, Deny
Due Course and Cancel CoC of Ong on the ground of violation of the
71
 three-consecutive term rule. Francis, according to Alegre, ran in the May
1995, May 1998, and May 2001 mayoralty elections and has assumed office as
mayor for three (3) consecutive full terms corresponding to those elections.
● In the May 1998 elections, both Alegre and Ong battled for the office of mayor of
San Vicente, Camarines Norte, with Ong being subsequently proclaimed by
COMELEC the winner in that contest. Alegre subsequently filed an election
protest, where the RTC declared Alegre as the duly elected mayor in that 1998
mayoralty contest, albeit the decision came out only on July 4, 2001, when
Francis had already fully served the 1998-2001 mayoralty term and was in fact
already starting to serve the 2001-2004 term as mayor-elect of the municipality
of San Vicente.
● COMELEC (Division) Level: dismissed Alegre’s petition, not finding the
three-term rule applicable
● COMELEC (en banc) Level: Upon MR, reversed the COMELEC division
Decision.
○ declaring Ong "as disqualified to run for mayor”
● When Francis received the news, he sought assistance from his political party,
Nationalist People’s Coalition, which immediately nominated his older brother,
Rommel Ong, as substitute candidate.
● On the same day, at 5:05PM (past the deadline), Rommel filed his own CoC for
the position of mayor, as substitute candidate for his brother Francis. Again,
Alegre filed a Petition to Deny Due Course to Cancel Certificate of Rommel
Ong.
● Because of the COMELEC’s inaction, Alegre wrote to then COMELEC
Commissioner Garcillano. The Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvasser of
San Vicente, as recommended by Comm. Garcillano, issued an order enjoining
all concerned not to canvass the votes cast for Rommel, prompting the latter to
file a protest with that Board.
○ Basis: "that substitution is not proper if the certificate of the substituted
candidacy is denied due course.”
● The Municipal Board of Canvassers then proclaimed Alegre as the winning
candidate for the mayoralty post in San Vicente, Camarines Norte.
Issue:
● W/N Francis's assumption of office as Mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte
for the mayoralty term 1998 to 2001 should be considered as full service for the
purpose of the three-term limit rule (YES)
Held:
● For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply, two
conditions or requisites must concur:
○ that the official concerned has been elected for three (3) consecutive
terms in the same local government post, and
○ that he has fully served three (3) consecutive terms.
● With the view we take of the case, the disqualifying requisites are present
herein.
● It is true that the Election Protest stated that it was Francis' opponent (Alegre)
who "won" in the 1998 mayoralty race and, therefore, was the legally elected
mayor of San Vicente. However, that disposition, it must be stressed, was
without practical and legal use and value, having been promulgated after the
term of the contested office has expired. (Nanalo nga si Alegre pero natapos na
ni Francis yung term, so wala rin)
● Here, there was actually no interruption or break in the continuity of Francis'
service respecting the 1998-2001 term (so he FULLY served three consecutive
terms). Unlike the cases he cited in his arguments, Francis was never unseated
during the term in question; he never ceased discharging his duties and
responsibilities as mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte for the entire period
covering the 1998-2001 term.
● (Minor Issue) Just as unmeritorious is Rommel's petition where he challenges
the COMELEC's act of not including his name as a substitute candidate in the
official list of candidates for the 2004 elections. As it were, existing COMELEC
policy provides for the non-inclusion of the name of substitute candidates in the
certified list of candidates pending approval of the substitution.
● As held in Miranda v. Abaya, a candidate whose CoC has been cancelled or
not given due course cannot be substituted by another belonging to the
same
Abayon v COMELEC, gr 222236 (2016) (special eb)
Facts:
● Abayon and Daza were contenders for Representative in the First Legislative
District of Northern Samar during the May 2013 Elections.
● Abayon emerged as the winner with Daza placing second
● Daza filed an Election Protest challenging election results in 25 clustered
precincts.
● The protest included allegations of massive fraud, vote-buying, intimidation, and
the use of illegal and fraudulent devices and schemes.
○ The protest also asserted that terrorism was committed by Abayon and
his unidentified cohorts, agents, and supporters.
● Daza claimed that these actions were orchestrated before, during, and after the
elections to benefit Abayon.
● Revision proceedings were conducted on the 25 clustered precincts
○ Abayon increased by 28 and the votes for Daza increased by 14
● Daza filed an Urgent Manifestation and Omnibus Motion on September 3, 2015,
seeking the withdrawal of his cause of action for the recount, revision, and
re-appreciation of the ballots in certain precincts.
72
 ○ Daza requested that his separate CoA for the annulment of election
results in identified precincts due to terrorism be upheld.
● The HRET GRANTED Daza's motion, directing the continuation of the reception
of Abayon's defense on the terrorism issue and holding in abeyance the
proceedings on his counter-protest.
● On November 4, 2015, Daza filed another motion, asking for the dismissal of
Abayon's counter-protest following the withdrawal of his cause of action for
recount.
● The HRET granted Daza's motion, dismissing Abayon's counter-protest in its
December 14, 2015 Resolution.
● Abayon filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking the
dismissal of his counter-protest, but it was denied.
● The HRET proceeded with the reception of evidence on the issue of terrorism in
remaining precincts and later decided the election protest in Daza's favor.
● In its February 3, 2016 Decision, the HRET annulled the election results in five
clustered precincts due to massive terrorism.
● The decision led to the deduction of votes, with Daza declared as the winning
candidate.
● The HRET highlighted evidence presented by Daza, including animosity from
the National Democratic Front-Eastern Visayas, distribution of vilifying comics,
intimidation of supporters, and meetings between Abayon and NDF-EV officials.
● The HRET disregarded certifications of peaceful elections, stating they had no
probative value against the evidence of terroristic acts.
● Abayon's motion for reconsideration was denied by the HRET
Issue:
● Whether the HRET had jurisdiction to annul the elections in the contested
precincts - YES
● Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the
elections on the ground of terrorism - YES (insufficient evidence)
Held:
JURISDICTION ISSUE
● The HRET had jurisdiction to determine whether there was terrorism in the
contested precincts.
● In the event that the HRET would conclude that terrorism indeed existed in the
said precincts, then it could annul the election results in the said precincts to
the extent of deducting the votes received by Daza and Abayon in order to
remain faithful to its constitutional mandate to determine who among the
candidates received the majority of the valid votes cast.
● The annulment of elections by electoral tribunals and the declaration of failure of
elections by the COMELEC serve different functions.
● Electoral tribunals' annulment is an incident of their judicial function, while
COMELEC's declaration of failure of elections is an exercise of its administrative
function.
● Electoral tribunals focus on annulling election results connected to a specific
election contest before them.
● COMELEC's declaration of failure of elections pertains to the entire election in
a concerned precinct or political unit.
● Annulment by electoral tribunals aims to determine the candidate with a majority
of legal votes in a specific contest.
● COMELEC's declaration of failure of elections seeks to facilitate the holding or
continuation of elections, addressing instances where elections were not held,
were suspended, or resulted in a failure to elect. Its declaration of failure of
elections may lead to the conduct of special elections to remedy the
deficiencies in the initial electoral process.
● COMELEC acts in its administrative capacity when declaring a failure of
elections, while electoral tribunals perform quasi-judicial functions when
annulling elections under similar grounds.
GADALEJ IN ANNULMENT
● There are two (2) indispensable requisites that must concur in order to justify the
drastic action of nullifying the election:
○ (1) The illegality of the ballots must affect more than 50% of the votes
cast on the specific precinct or precincts sought to be annulled, or in
case of the entire municipality, more than 50% of its total precincts and
the votes cast therein; and
○ (2) It is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the
lawful and unlawful ballots.
● Daza presented several residents of the concerned precincts to illustrate
NDF-EV's alleged terrorism before and during the elections.
○ Only 3 witnesses testified that they voted for Abayon out of fear from
NDF-EV, while others described the violence without specifying its
impact on voters' choices
○ The testimonies lacked reference to Abayon's alleged participation in
terrorism.
● Given the allegation of widespread terrorism, it was suggested that Daza should
have presented more voters coerced by NDF-EV to vote for Abayon.
● Official pronouncements by government agencies were presumed to be issued
in the regular performance of their duties, raising questions about the credibility
of unsubstantiated witness testimonies.
● HRET decision was clearly unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Thus, the HRET committed GADALEJ in annulling the elections in the contested
precincts
73
Pimentel III v COMELEC, gr 178413 (2008) (eb)
Facts:
● Two months after the 2007 elections, 11 candidates for senatorial posts were
proclaimed and had taken their oaths except to the 12th (last) post where
Pimentel and Zubiri were the contenders.
● COMELEC, as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), continued to canvas
proceedings to determine the winner for the last seat. Pimentel assailed the
proceedings before the NBOC and the Special Provincial Board of Canvassers
for Maguindanao (SPBOC).
● The SPBOC was created because Pimentel thru his counsel assailed some
irregularities as to the authenticity and due execution of Cert. of Canvass. They
also said that the provincial certificates of canvass and other documents were
tainted with fraud.
● The SPBOC then recanvassed the municipal certificates of canvass. Counsel
for Pimentel made several objections but these were denied. Thereafter,
Pimentel then filed a motion to exclude the provincial certificates of canvass on
the ground that it was manufactured, but this was denied.
● Hence, Pimentel filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking the court
(1) to issue TRO as to enjoin the COMELEC from canvassing, (2) to annul such
proceedings because it is unconstitutional and illegal proceedings and; (3) to
allow them to raise their objections and present evidence to prove their claims.
All petitions were denied, so the canvass proceedings before the NBOC
continued.
● Eventually, Zubiri was declared the 12th person in rank and had taken oath and
assumed office. Pimentel protested.
● Zubiri filed a motion to dismiss the petition of Pimentel due to his proclamation
and formal assumption to office. He claimed that, in consideration of his
proclamation and formal assumption of office, controversies involving his
election and qualification as a Senator are now within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).
Issue:
● W/N Pimentel can initiate a pre-proclamation controversy (NO)
Held:
● Under RA 7166, a pre-proclamation controversies refer to matters relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appearance of election returns
and certificates of canvass.
○ The “AND certificates of canvass” is an addition by RA 7166
● As Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166 was then worded, it would appear that
any pre-proclamation case relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or certificates of
canvass, was prohibited in elections for President, Vice-President,
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. The prohibition
aims to avoid delay in the proclamation of the winner in the election, which might
result in a vacuum in these sensitive posts.
● The recognized exceptions to the prohibition, namely: (1) correction of manifest
errors; (2) questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of
canvassers; and (3) determination of the authenticity and due execution of
certificates of canvass as provided in Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9369.
○ Manifest errors - those which appear on the face of the COC or
election returns sought to be corrected
● The determination of authenticity and due execution is allowed due to
amendments introduced by RA 7166. Under this amendment, the Congress
and COMELEC en banc acting as the NBOC have the duty to determine the
authenticity and due execution of the COCs.
● In the present case, the SPBOC was correct in refusing to allow Pimentel to
contest the municipal COCs at that stage since that would amount to a
pre-proclamation controversy. The SPBOC-Maguindanao is not the Congress
nor the COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC, specifically charged by Section
30 with the duty to determine the authenticity and due execution of the
certificates of canvass submitted to it. The exception applies only to
Congress or the COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC, and not to local
boards of canvassers who must still be deemed covered by the prohibition on
pre-proclamation controversies.
● Moreover, board of canvassers are ad hoc bodies that exist only for the interim
task of canvassing election returns. They do not have the facilities, the time and
even the competence to hear, examine and decide on alleged election
irregularities, unlike regular courts, the COMELEC, or electoral tribunals.
● The burden is upon Pimentel to establish that the Maguindanao MCOCs are
manufactured, and that it is evident on the face thereof. Although he has his
suspicions, he has yet no actual evidence that the Maguindanao MCOCs were
indeed manufactured.
○ Pimentel’s main objection to the MCOCs used in the canvass is that
they are mostly copy 2 or the copy to be posted on the wall. Comelec
Resolution provides that the copy 1 has to be transmitted for the
provincial canvassing of votes; however, the fact that copy 2 was the
one used, does not mean that such copy was manufactured, falsified,
or tampered with.
● The Court held that the resolution of the issues raised by Pimentel as to the
irregularities and suspicious circumstances surrounding the Maguindanao
MCOCs are more appropriate in a regular election protest, wherein the
parties may litigate issues raised by them.
○ Further, canvass proceedings are administrative and summary in
nature. As for local boards of canvassers, in elections for Senators,
they only need to determine the authenticity and due execution of the
74
 election returns or certificates of canvass on the face thereof. The
limitations on the powers and duties of the boards of canvassers are
meant to avoid any delay in the proclamation of the elected official.
○ Issues whose resolution would require the presentation and
examination of witnesses are more properly raised in a regular
election protest. Thus, any party does not have the right to question
and confront election officials and other witnesses at the canvassing
stage.
● Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
assumed office, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to
his election, returns, and qualifications ends, which means it is the SET
which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the complaint of Pimentel involving, as
it does, a contest relating to the election of Zubiri, now a member of the Senate.
○ Even the Court has no jurisdiction since the Constitution (Art 7, Sec 17)
provides that the electoral tribunal will be the sole judge of election
contests.
Marcos v Robredo, PET 005
BBM filed an election protest (EP) before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) on
June 29, 2016 after losing to Leni Robredo by a “slim” margin of 263,473 votes in the
2016 vice presidential race. His protest was premised on three causes of action:
1st cause: The proclamation of Robredo as the duly elected VP is null and void because
the COCs generated are not authentic and may not be used as basis to determine the
number of votes that the candidates for VP received.
2nd cause: Judicial revision or recount of votes due to massive electoral fraud such as
terrorism, violence, pre-shading of ballots, vote-buying, substitution of voters,
misreading of ballots, malfunctioning Vote Counting Machines and the like corrupted
the conduct of the elections and the election results
3rd cause: Annulment of election results for the position of Vice President in the
provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur and Basilan, on the ground of terrorism,
intimidation and harassment of voters as well as pre-shading of ballots in all of the
2,756 protested clustered precincts
The PET dismissed the petition’s 1st cause, as the veracity of BBM’s allegations on the
inauthenticity and unreliability of the certificates of canvass could only be determined by a
manual recount of all votes in all precincts. Since BBM limited the manual recount to his
second and third causes of action, the PET ruled that resolving the first cause of action
would have no practical effect.
As to the second cause of action, the PET found that after a recount of the votes in the
three pilot provinces (Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental) that Marcos selected,
Robredo’s lead even increased by about 15,000 votes, from a margin of 263,473 to
278,566.
As to the third cause of action, the PET faulted Marcos for failure to provide information
such as clustered precincts numbers and names of witnesses.
There are different ways to challenge election results, but what is required in all is
specificity: (1) failure of election; (2) pre-proclamation petitions; and (3) election
contests. When the protestant fails to meet the strict requirement of specificity and
established rules on evidence to support the allegations of election irregularities, the
election protest must be dismissed.
Failure of elections: Under BP Blg. 881, or the Omnibus Election Code, a failure of
election may be declared if, "on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or
such election results in a failure to elect, or in any of such cases the failure or suspension
of election would affect the result of the election. For its declaration, the alleged
illegality must have affected more than 50% of the votes cast (The test is dapat it
materially affects the conduct of elections).
Pre-proclamation petitions: Only the issues in Sec. 243 of the Omnibus Election Code
may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy: (1) Illegal composition/proceedings of
the BOC; (2) Canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects,
falsified, etc.; (3) Election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, and
they are not authentic; (4) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling
places were canvassed, the results materially affected the standing of the aggrieved
clients.
Election contests: only contemplate post-election scenarios; take the form of either an
election protest or a petition for quo warranto. Although distinct, both actions aim to
unseat a winning candidate after proclamation and assumption of office.
The PET also stated that the 3 requisites for the annulment of elections under the
Abayon ruling were not present:
1. unlawful ballots must have affected more than 50% of the votes cast on the
specific precincts sought to be annulled
2. it must be impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the
lawful and unlawful ballots
3. protestee is the one responsible for the unlawful acts committed.
75
Note: Differences between annulment of elections and declaration of failure of elections preparation of the returns. It is centered on the issue of who actually and validly
obtained the plurality of votes (Marcos v. Robredo).
ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS FAILURE OF ELECTIONS

Jurisdiction lies with electoral tribunals as The COMELEC can declare a failure of Quo warranto
an incident of their judicial function and elections, in exercise of its administrative ● An election contest relating to the qualifications of an elective official on the
an indispensable consequence of their functions ground of eligibility or disloyalty to the Republic to unseat an ineligible
mandate to decide all election contests person from office, but not to install the petitioner in his place.
○ Ineligibility - lack of constitutional or statutory qualifications to hold
Only annul the election results connected Declaration relates to the entire election public office
with the election contest before it in the precinct or political unit
○ Disloyalty - rebellion, sedition, violation of firearm laws, or any crime
against national security. (No need for criminal conviction because
Tribunal determines who among the COMELEC declares a failure with the
candidates garnered majority of the legal objective of holding a special election or offender is prosecuted administratively, so only substantial evidence is
votes cast continuing the elections (which were not needed)
held or suspended) ● An action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or
exercises a public office. It is appropriate only for the purpose of questioning the
What is required is for the petition to contain a specific allegation as to the acts of the
election of a candidate on the ground of disloyalty or ineligibility (Marcos v.
contested candidate. Otherwise, the petition could be dismissed. Here, Marcos’
Robredo).
allegations were bare and repetitious. He didn’t specify the precincts wherein violence
● As distinguished from an election protest:
was present, and no affidavits were submitted to support the claim that there were
○ QW is filed by any registered voter
unaccounted votes, or that vote-buying was present. The PET could have dismissed the
○ Issue in QW is not who won, but is the winner qualified to sit in
protest under Section 21 of the 2010 PET Rules for being insufficient in form and
the position
substance but J. Leonen said the PET gave Marcos opportunities to prove his claims.
● Any voter may initiate the action, because the petitioner will not be seated even
if the respondent is unseated.
Election contest (Gujilde, p.613)
● It only contemplates post-election scenarios.
President’s pardoning power (Bernas book)
● It takes the form of either:
● Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the
○ Election protest; or
execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed,
○ Petition for quo warranto
from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.
● Both actions aim to unseat a winning candidate after proclamation and
● In granting conditional pardons, delivery is essential, and delivery is not
assumption to office
complete without acceptance.
● Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution,
Election protest
the President may grant… pardons…, after conviction by final judgment.
● An election contest where a losing candidate for a particular position contests
(Art. VII, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution)
the results of the elections due to frauds or irregularities committed before,
● No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of
during, or after the casting and counting of votes and the preparation and
election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President
canvass of returns.
without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC. (Art. IX, C, Sec. 5,
● Proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. It is strictly a contest
1987 Constitution)
between the defeated and the winning candidates, based on the grounds of
electoral fraud or irregularities. It aims to determine who between them has
Conviction and pardon as affecting eligibility (De Leon, p. 870)
actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and, therefore, entitled to
● Temporary absolute disqualification = disqualifies the convict from public
hold the office (Abayon v. COMELEC).
office and right to vote, only during the term of the sentence.
● Involves a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the grounds
of fraud or irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots, or in the

76
● Accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification for the exercise of
suffrage = deprives the convict of the right to vote or hold public office
perpetually.
● Perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right
of suffrage = deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of sentence,
according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote or hold public office.
● Absolute pardon, granted after the election but before the date fixed by
law for assuming office = removes the disqualification prescribed by both the
criminal and electoral laws.

77