Q: Under the Local Government Code, name four
1234 requiring all
persons who are disqualified from running for any
elective position. (1999 Bar)
A: Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, the
following are disqualified from running for any local
elective position:
1. 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;
2. Those removed from office as a result of an
administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating
the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical
cases here or abroad;
6. 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 the Local Government
Code; and
7. The insane or feeble-minded.
Q: In the May 8, 1995 elections for local officials whose
terms were to commence on June 30, 1995, Ricky filed
on March 20, 1995 his certificate of candidacy for the
Office of Governor of Laguna. He won, but his
qualifications as an elected official was questioned. It is
admitted that he is a repatriated Filipino citizen and a
resident of the Province of Laguna. To be qualified for
the office to which a local official has been elected, when
at the latest should he be:
1. A Filipino Citizen? Explain.
2. A resident of the locality? Explain. (2005
BAR)
A. To be qualified for the office to which a local
official has been elected, it is sufficient that he is
a Filipino citizen at the time of his proclamation
and at the start of his term.
Philippine citizenship is required for holding an
elective public office to ensure that no person
owing allegiance to another country shall govern
our people and a unit of the Philippine territory.
An official begins to discharge his functions only
upon his proclaimation and on the day his term
of office begins.
B. To be qualified for the office to which a local
official has been elected, he must be a resident of
the locality for at least one year immediately
before the election. (Section 39(a), Local
Government Code)
Q: Congress enacted Republic Act No.
candidates for public offices to post an election bond
equivalent to the one (1) year salary for the position for
which they are candidates. The bond shall be forfeited if
the candidates fail to obtain at least 10% of the votes
cast. Is Republic Act No. 1234 valid?
A: It is invalid as the requirement effectively imposes a
property qualification to run for public office.
Q: (1) Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy
(COC) for municipal mayor stating that she is eligible to
run for the said position.
Pasyo Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same
position, filed a petition to deny due course or cancel
Bai's COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code
for material misrepresentation as before Bai filed her
COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Hence, she is disqualified perpetually
from holding any public office or from being elected to
any public office.
Before the election, the COMELEC cancelled Bai' s COC
but her motion for reconsideration (MR) remained
pending even after the election. Bai garnered the highest
number of votes followed by Pasyo Maagap, who took
his oath as Acting Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC
denied Bai's MR and declared her disqualified for
running for Mayor.
P. Maagap asked the Department of Interior and Local
Government Secretary to be allowed to take his oath as
permanent municipal mayor. This request was opposed
by Vice Mayor Umaasa, invoking the rule on succession
to the permanent vacancy in the Mayor's office. Who
between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor Umaasa has the
right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your
answer. (2015 BAR)
A: Pasyo Maagap would be entitled to occupy the position
of Mayor upon disqualification of Gandang Bai on the
basis of the petition to deny due course or cancel her
certificate of candidacy under the provisions of Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code.
The rule is that “an ineligible candidate who receives the
highest number of votes is a wrongful winner. By express
legal mandate, he could not even have been a candidate
in the first place, but by virtue of the lack of material time
or any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility
might not have been passed upon prior to election date.
Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold
himself out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly
qualified candidate. However, notwithstanding the
outcome of the elections, his ineligibility as a candidate
remains unchanged.
Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a
candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public
office. The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure
the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal
requirements of eligibility to run for public office.”
Accordingly, Gandang Bai “being a non- candidate, the
votes cast in his favor should not have been counted.” This
leaves Pasyo Maagap as “the qualified candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes.
Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local
Government Code will not apply.”
Q: In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired
Canadian citizenship. In 2008, Agripina retired and
returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her
hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after
returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of
allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her
Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.
In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of candidacy for
Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina's political rivals
lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to
question her candidacy. They questioned her eligibility to
run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to take
an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed
to perform an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship.
Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be
considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the
defense that, having complied with the requirements of
R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed
never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship. Is Agripina
disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the
citizenship requirement? (2018 BAR)
A: Agripina is eligible to run as member of Congress.
Repatriation results in the recovery of a person’s original
nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost
his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
Filipino citizen. If she were originally a natural-born citizen
before she lost her Philippine citizenship, she would be
restored to her former status as a natural-born Filipino.
RA 9225 makes a distinction between those naturalborn
Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the
effectivity of RA No. 9225. For those who were naturalized
in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have
reacquired their Philippine citizenship which was lost
pursuant to CA 63.In the case of those who became
foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect, they shall retain
Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign
citizenship, provided they take the oath of allegiance
under the new law.
Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian
citizen prior to the effectivity of RA 9225, she belongs to
the first category of natural-born Filipinos who lost their
Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign
country, under the first paragraph of Section 3.
As the new law allows dual citizenship, she was able to
reacquire her Philippine citizenship by taking the required
oath of allegiance
Q: President Alfredo died during his third year in office.
In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President
Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then
nominated the late President Alfredo's Executive
Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice
President. The nomination was confirmed by a majority
of all the Members of the House of Representatives and
the Senate, voting separately. Can Anastasia run as
President in the next election? (2018 BAR)
A: YES, Anastacia can still run as President in the next
election since she has served for less than four years.
Section 4, Article VII provides that “no person who has
succeeded as President and has served as such for more
than four years shall be qualified for election to the same
office at any time.”
Q: W, the incumbent Congressman of the Province of
Albay, decided to run for Governor. He filed his
certificate of candidacy (CoC) for Governor without
resigning from his post and continued exercising his
duties as Congressman, such as attending plenary
sessions and committee hearings in the House of
Representatives. One of W’s fiercest critics, X, claimed
that W should not be dispensing the functions of a
Congressman since he is deemed ipso facto resigned as
such upon his filing of a CoC for Governor of Albay.
(a) Is X’s argument correct? Explain.
(b) Assuming that W is instead, an incumbent
Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense,
what is the effect of the filing of his CoC for the position
of Governor of Albay to said post? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: (a) The argument of X is not correct.
Section 14 of RA 9006 (Fair Elections Act) reads: “Sec. 14.
Repealing Clause. - Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus
Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Sections 10
and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed.”
Section 47 of BP 881, which deemed elective officials ipso
facto resigned when they file their Certificate of
Candidacy, is inoperative, and therefor W may still
continue office.
(b) W would be considered ipso facto resigned.
Under Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881),
“any person holding a public appointive office or position,
including active members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and officers and employees in government-
owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered
ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy.”
W, as Undersecretary of the Department of National
Defense, is an appointive official, and therefor falls under
this provision
Q: A, a City Legal Officer, and B, a City ViceMayor, filed
certificates of candidacy for the position of City Mayor in
the May 14, 2001 elections.
a. Was A ipso facto considered resigned and, if so,
effective on what date?
b. Was B ipso facto considered resigned and, if so,
effective on what date? In both cases, state the reason or
reasons for your answer. (2002 BAR)
A: a. A was considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing
of his certificate of candidacy, because being a City Legal
Officer, he is an appointive official. Section 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code provides that any person holding a
public appointive office shall be considered ipso facto
resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
b. B is not considered ipso facto resigned. Section 67 of
the Omnibus Election Code considers any elective official
ipso facto resigned from office upon his filing of a
certificate of candidacy for any office other than the one
he is holding except for President and Vice-President, was
repealed by the Fair Election Act.
Q: Pedro Reyes is an incumbent Vice-Mayor of Quezon
City. He intends to run in the regular elections for the
position of City Mayor of Quezon City whose incumbent
mayor would have fully served three consecutive terms
by 2004.
1. Would Pedro Reyes have to give up his position as
Vice-Mayor:
a. Once he files his certificate of candidacy; or
b. When the campaign period starts; or
c. Once and if he is proclaimed winner in the
election; or
d. Upon his assumption to the elective office;
or
e. None of the above. Choose the correct
answer
2. If Pedro Reyes were, instead, an incumbent
Congressman of Quezon City, who intends to seek the
mayoralty post in Quezon City, would your choice of
answer in no. (1) above be the same? If not, which would
be your choice? (2003 BAR)
A: 1. The correct answer is (e).
Section 14 of the Fair Election Act repealed Section 67 of
the Omnibus Election Code, which provided that any
elected official, whether national or local, who runs for
any office other than the one he is holding in a permanent
capacity, except for President and Vice President, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy. Section 14 of the Fair
Election Act likewise rendered ineffective the first proviso
in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No.
8436.
Consequently, Pedro Reyes can run for Mayor without
giving up his position as Vice-Mayor. He will have to give
up his position as Vice-Mayor upon expiration of his term
as Vice-Mayor on June 30, 2004.
2. The answer is the same if Pedro Reyes is a Congressman
of Quezon City, because the repeal of Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code covers both elective national and
local officials.
Q: What is a "stray ballot"? (1994 BAR)
A: Uner Rule No. 19 of the rules for the appreciation of
ballots in Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, stray
ballot is one cast in favor of a person who has not filed a
certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an
office for which he did not present himself. Although the
Code does not provide for stray ballot, it is presumed that
stray ballot refers to stray vote.
Q: In the municipal mayoralty elections in 1980, the
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes
was subsequently declared to be disqualified as a
candidate and so ineligible for the office to which he was
elected. Would this fact entitle a competing candidate
who obtained the second highest number of votes to ask
and to be proclaimed the winner of the elective office?
Reasons. (2003 BAR)
A: YES. The rule is that “an ineligible candidate who
receives the highest number of votes is a wrongful
winner”. By express legal mandate, he could not even
have been a candidate in the first place, but by virtue of
the lack of material time or any other intervening
circumstances, his ineligibility might not have been passed
upon prior to election date.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, his
ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged. Ineligibility
does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate
but necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The
number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect
of failure to qualify with the substantive legal
requirements of eligibility to run for public office.
Accordingly, the disqualified candidate, being a non-
candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been
counted. This leaves the candidate who obtained the
second highest vote as the qualified candidate who
actually obtained the highest number of votes.
Q: The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ardania
included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders. Arnaldo
filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto's
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting
himself as a Filipino citizen. Arnaldo presented as
evidence a copy of Anacleto's Spanish passport and a
certification from the Bureau of Immigration (Bl)
showing that Anacleto used the same passport several
times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or
Barcelona. In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year
prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the
requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing
a sworn renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He
defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to
taking his oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a
practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his
Philippine passport despite reacquiring his Philippine
citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport,
he said he had to wait for the issuance of a Schengen
visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and
minor children.
(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there
sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto's CoC?
(b) In case Anacleto's CoC is properly cancelled, who
should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who
obtained the second highest number votes, or Andrea,
the duly-elected Vice Mayor of the City? (2018 BAR)
A: (a) The sole act of using a foreign passport does not
divest Anacleto of his Filipino citizenship which he
acquired by repatriation.
By representing himself as a Spanish citizen; however,
Anacleto voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier
status as a dual citizen. Such reversion was not
retroactive; it took place the instant Anacleto represented
himself as a Spanish citizen by using his Spanish passport.
He is, thus, disqualified for being a dual citizen, and his
CoC should be cancelled.
NOTE: The use of the foreign passport amounts to a
recantation of the Oath of Renunciation required to
qualify one to run for an elective position.
(b) The rule on succession would not apply if the
permanent vacancy was caused by one whose certificate
of candidacy was void ab initio. Specifically with respect to
dual citizens, their certificates of candidacy are void ab
initio, because they possess "a substantive [disqualifying
circumstance] [existing] prior to the filing of their
certificate of candidacy.
"Legally, they should not even be considered candidates.
The votes cast for them should be considered stray and
should not be counted. In cases of vacancies caused by
those with void ab initio certificates of candidacy, the
person legally entitled to the vacant position would be the
candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes
among those eligible; in this case, it was Arnaldo.
Q: Mayor Pink is eyeing re-election in the next mayoralty
race. It was common knowledge in the town that Mayor
Pink will run for re-election in the coming elections. The
deadline for filing of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) is on
March 23 and the campaign period commences the
following day. One month before the deadline, Pink has
yet to file her CoC, but she has been going around town
giving away sacks of rice with the words "Mahal Tayo ni
Mayor Pink" printed on them, holding public gatherings
and speaking about how good the town is doing, giving
away pink t-shirts with "Kay Mayor Pink Ako" printed on
them. Mr. Green is the political opponent of Mayor Pink.
In April, noticing that Mayor Pink had gained advantage
over him because of her activities before the campaign
period, he filed a petition to disqualify Mayor Pink for
engaging in an election campaign outside the designated
period.
a. Which is the correct body to rule on the matter?
Comelec en banc, or Comelec division? Answer
with reasons
b. Rule on the petition. (2012 BAR)
a. It is the Commission on Elections En Banc which
should decide the petition. Since it involves the
exercise of the administrative powers of the
Commission on Election, Section 3, Article Ix-C of
the Constitution is not applicable
b. The petition should be denied. Under Section 80
Of the Omnibus Election Code, to be liable for
premature campaigning, he must be a candidate
and unless he filed his CoC, he is not a candidate.
Q: Discuss the disputable presumptions:
a. of conspiracy to bribe voters;
b. of the involvement of a candidate and of his
principal campaign managers in such conspiracy.
(1991 BAR)
A: a. Under Sec. 28 of the Electoral Reforms Law, proof
that at least one voter in different precincts representing
at least twenty per cent (20%) of the total precincts in any
municipality, city or province was offered, promised or
given money, valuable consideration or other expenditure
by the relatives, leader or sympathizer of a candidate for
the purpose of promoting the candidacy of such
candidate, gives rise to a disputable presumption of
conspiracy to bribe voters.
b. Under Sec. 28, if the proof affects at least 20% of the
precincts of the municipality, city or province to which the
public office aspired for by the favored candidate relates,
this shall constitute a disputable presumption of the
involvement of the candidate and of his principal
campaign managers in each of the municipalities
concerned, in the conspiracy.
Q: What is your understanding of the principle of idem
sonans as applied in the Election Law? (1994 BAR)
A: Idem sonans literally means the same or similar sound.
This principle is made manifest in one of the rules for the
appreciation of ballots embodied in the Omnibus Election
Code, stating that "A name or surname incorrectly written
which when read, has a sound similar to the name or
surname of a candidate when correctly written shall be
counted in his favor.
Thus, if the name as spelled in the ballot, though different
from the correct spelling thereof, conveys to the ears
when pronounced according to the commonly accepted
methods, a sound practically identical with the sound of
the correct name as commonly pronounced, the name
thus given is a sufficient designation of the person
referred to.
The question whether one name is idem sonans with
another is not a question of spelling but of pronunciation
Its application is aimed at realizing the objective of every
election which is to obtain the expression of the voters
will.
Q: Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution establishes an
Electoral Tribunal for each of the Houses of Congress,
and makes each Electoral Tribunal "the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members." On the
other hand, Sec. 2(1), C (Commission on Elections), Art.
IX of the Constitution grants to the COMELEC the power
to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
"relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall." Considering that
there is no concurrence of jurisdiction between the
Electoral Tribunals and the COMELEC, state when the
jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals begins, and the
COMELEC's jurisdiction ends. Explain your answer. (2017
BAR)
A: To be considered a Member of the House of
Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the
following requisites: (1) A valid proclamation, (2) a proper
oath, and (3) assumption of office .
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed and taken
his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of
Representatives, the jurisdiction of the Commission on
Elections over the election contest ends, and the
jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal begins.
Q: Despite lingering questions about his Filipino
citizenship and his one-year residence in the
district, Gabriel filed his certificate of candidacy for
congressman before the deadline set by law. His
opponent, Vito, hires you as lawyer to contest
Gabriel’s candidacy.
a. Before election day, what action or
actions will you institute against Gabriel,
and before which court, commission or
tribunal will you file such action/s?
Reasons.
A: a. I will file a petition to cancel the certificate of
candidacy of Gabriel in the Commission on Elections
because of the false material representation that he
is qualified to run for congressman (Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code;574 SCRA 787 [2008]).
The question of the disqualification of Gabriel cannot
be raised before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, because he is not yet a member of
the House of Representatives
b. If, during the pendency of such action / s
but before election day, Gabriel withdraws
his certificate of candidacy, can he be
substituted as candidate? If so, by whom
and why? If not, why not?
b. If Gabriel withdraws, he may be substituted by a
candidate nominated by his political party.
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code states: “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.”
c. If the action/s instituted should be
dismissed with finality before the election,
and Gabriel assumes office after being
proclaimed the winner in the election, can
the issue of his candidacy and/or citizenship
and residence still be questioned? If so,
what action or actions may be filed and
where? If not, why not? (2010 BAR)
c. The question of the citizenship and residence of
Gabriel can be questioned in the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal by filing a quo
warranto case.
Since it is within its jurisdiction to decide the
question of the qualification of Gabriel, the decision
of the Commission on Elections does not constitute
res judicata.
Once a candidate for member of the House of
Representatives has been proclaimed, the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal acquires
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
qualifications.
Q: Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization
duly registered as such with the Commission on
Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the
winning party-list groups in the last national
elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed
office as the party-list representative. About one
year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim
Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro
from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with
Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned
before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement
by Andoy. The Comelec considered Alejandro's
petition as an intra-party dispute which it could
resolve as an incident of its power to register
political parties; it proceeded to uphold the
expulsion. Is the Comelec's ruling correct? (2018
BAR)
A: Alejandro’s petition should be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. It is the HRET which has jurisdiction
over the case, because Alejandro is already a
Member of the House of Representatives.
Q: Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of
Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with
the Comelec against two candidates running as
municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago,
Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape
by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted
his sentence and he was discharged from prison.
The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio's
residency was questioned because he was allegedly a
"green card holder," i.e., a permanent resident of the US,
as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US
Embassy.
Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department,
the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two
resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and
Ambrosio. Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate
petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the
resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs.
Both claimed that the Comelec en bane acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been
heard and resolved by one of the Comelec's Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (2018 BAR)
A: Anselmo is incorrect. The rule is every quasijudicial
matter must first be tackled by a division subject to appeal
by way of a Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC
en banc. In Jalosjos v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205033, June
18, 2013), it was determined that a cancellation on the
basis of perpetual disqualification is a matter that can be
taken judicial notice of. When it cancels A CoC on that
ground, it is acting in performance of an administrative
function and, therefore, the rule in Article IX, Section 3
does not apply.
Ambrosio, on the other hand, is correct that the petition
for the cancellation of his CoC should have been first
heard and resolved by the Comelec Division.
Cancellation proceedings involve the COMELEC's quasi-
judicial functions. The Constitution mandates the
COMELEC, in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers, to hear and decide cases first by division
and, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en
banc.
Q: During his third term, "A", a Member of the House of
Representatives, was suspended from office for a period
of 60 days by his colleagues upon a vote of two- thirds of
all the Members of the House. In the next succeeding
election, he filed his certificate of candidacy for the same
position. "B", the opposing candidate, filed an action for
disqualification of "A" on the ground that the latter's,
candidacy violated Section 7, Article VI of the
Constitution which provides that no Member of the
House of Representatives shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. "A" answered that he was not barred
from running again for that position because his service
was interrupted by his 60- day suspension which was
involuntary. Can ‘A’, legally continue with his candidacy
or is he already barred? Why? (2001 BAR)
A: A cannot legally continue with his candidacy. He was
elected as Member of the House of Representatives for a
third term. This term should be included in the
computation of the term limits, even if "A" did not serve
for a full term. He remained a Member of the House of
Representatives even if he was suspended.
Q: In the May 1992 elections, Manuel Manalo and
Segundo Parate were elected as Mayor and Vice Mayor,
respectively. Upon the death of Manalo as incumbent
municipal mayor, Vice Mayor Segundo Parate succeeded
as mayor and served for the remaining portion of the
term of office. In the May 1995 election, Segundo Parate
ran for and won as mayor and then served for the full
term. In the May 1998 elections, Parate ran for reelection
as Mayor and won again. In the May 2001 election,
Segundo Parate filed his certificate of candidacy for the
same position of mayor, but his rival mayoralty
candidate sought his disqualification alleging violation of
the three term limit for local elective officials provided
for in the Constitution and in the Local Government
Code. Decide whether the disqualification case will
prosper or not. (2001 BAR)
A: The disqualification case should be dismissed. As held
in Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157, in computing the
three-term limitation imposed upon elective local officials,
only the term for which he was elected to should be
considered. The term which he served as a result of
succession should not be included. It is not enough that
the official has served three consecutive terms. He must
have been elected to the same position three consecutive
times.
Q: Manuel was elected Mayor of the Municipality of
Tuba in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998. He fully
served his first two terms, and during his third term, the
municipality was converted into the component City of
Tuba. The said charter provided for a holdover and so
without interregnum Manuel went on to serve as the
Mayor of the City of Tuba.
In the 2001 elections, Manuel filed his certificate of
candidacy for City Mayor. He disclosed, though, that he
had already served for three consecutive terms as
elected Mayor when Tuba was still a municipality. He
also stated in his certificate of candidacy that he is
running for the position of Mayor for the first time now
that Tuba is a city. Reyes, an adversary, ran against
Manuel and petitioned that he be disqualified because
he had already served for three consecutive terms as
Mayor.
The petition was not timely acted upon, and Manuel was
proclaimed the winner with 20,000 votes over the 10,000
votes received by Reyes as the only other candidate. It
was only after Manuel took his oath and assumed office
that the COMELEC ruled that he was disqualified for
having ran and served for three consecutive terms.
a. As lawyer of Manuel, present the possible
arguments to prevent his disqualification and
removal.
b. How would you rule on whether or not
Manuel is eligible to run as Mayor of the newly-
created City of Tuba immediately after having
already served for three (3) consecutive terms
as Mayor of the Municipality of Tuba?
c. Assuming that Manuel is not an eligible
candidate, rebut Reyes' claim that he should be
proclaimed as winner having received the next
higher number of votes. (2005 BAR)
A: a. As lawyer of Manuel, I would argue that he should
not be disqualified and removed because he was a three-
term mayor of the municipality of Tuba, and, with its
conversion to a component city, the latter has a totally
separate and different corporate personality from that of
the municipality.
Moreover, as a rule, in a representative democracy, the
people should be allowed freely to choose those who will
govern them. Having won the elections, the choice of the
people should be respected.
b. Manuel is not eligible to run as mayor of the city of
Tuba. The 1987 Constitution specifically included an
exception to the people's freedom to choose those who
will govern them in order to avoid the evil of a single
person accumulating excessive power over a particular
territorial jurisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay in the
same office.
To allow Manuel to vie for the position of city mayor after
having served for three consecutive terms as a municipal
mayor would obviously defeat the very intent of the
framers when they wrote this exception. Should he be
allowed another three consecutive terms as mayor of the
City of Tuba, Manuel would then be possibly holding office
as chief executive over the same territorial jurisdiction
and inhabitants for a total of eighteen consecutive years.
This is the very scenario sought to be avoided by the
Constitution, if not abhorred by it.
c. Reyes cannot be proclaimed winner for receiving the
second highest number of votes. The Supreme Court has
consistently ruled that the fact that a plurality or a
majority of the votes are cast for an ineligible candidate at
a popular election, or that a candidate is later declared to
be disqualified to hold office, does not entitle the
candidate who garnered the second highest number of
votes to be declared elected. The same merely results in
making the winning candidate's election a nullity.
In the present case, 10,000 votes were cast for private
respondent Reyes as against the 20,000 votes cast for
petitioner Manuel. The second placer is obviously not the
choice of the people in this particular election. The
permanent vacancy in the contested office should be filled
by succession (Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105111,
[1992]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Reyes could not be proclaimed as
winner because he did not win the election. To allow the
defeated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his
rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the
electorate without any fault on their part and to
undermine the importance and meaning of democracy
and the people's right to elect officials of their choice
(Benito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106053, [1994]).
Q: How do you differentiate the petition filed under
Section 68 from the petition filed under Section 78, both
of the Omnibus Election Code? (2015 BAR)
A: A certificate of candidacy which is denied or cancelled
under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code would
make said certificate of candidacy void ab initio (which
would preclude the application of the rules on succession
for purposes of replacing him upon his disqualification
because, up to that point of his disqualification, he shall
be considered merely as a de facto officer), unlike in the
case of disqualification under Section 68 of Omnibus
Election Code, which would give rise to the de jure
officership of the disqualified candidate up to the point of
disqualification.
The other basic distinctions between petitions for
disqualification of candidates and petitions to reject or
cancel certificates of candidacy are follows:
Under Section 68 of OEC, a candidate may be disqualified
if he commits any of the election offenses or “prohibited
acts” specified therein, of if he is permanent resident of or
an immigrant to a foreign country. On the other hand,
under Section 78 of the same law, a certificate of
candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled if found
to be containing material representations which are false
and deliberately made. These would include
misrepresentations as to age, residence, citizenship or
non-possession of naturalborn status, registration as a
votes, and eligibility, as when one, although precluded
from running for a fourth term because of the three-term
limit rule, claims to be nonetheless qualified, or when one
claims to be eligible despite his disqualification on the
bases of an accessory penalty imposed upon him in
connection with his conviction in a criminal case.
A petition for disqualification under Section 68 may be
filed at any time after the last day for filing of the
certificate of candidacy but not later that the candidate’s
proclamation should he win in the elections, while a
petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy under Section 78 must be filed within 5 days
prior to the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy,
but not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of
the certificate of candidacy.
While a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is
merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person
whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under
Section 78 is not treated as candidate at all. Thus, a
candidate disqualified under Section 68 may be validly
substituted but only by an official candidate of his
registered or accredited party.
Q: The 1st Legislative District of South Cotabato is
composed of General Santos and three municipalities
including Polomolok. During the canvassing proceedings
before the District Board of Canvassers in connection
with the 2007 congressional elections, candidate MP
objected to the certificate of canvass for Polomolok on
the ground that it was obviously manufactured,
submitting as evidence the affidavit of a mayoralty
candidate of Polomok. The certificate of canvass for
General Santos was likewise objected to by MP on the
basis of the confirmed report of the local NAMFREL that
10 election returns from non-existent precincts were
included in the certificate. MP moved that the certificate
of canvass for General Santos be corrected to exclude the
results from the nonexistent precincts. The District Board
of Canvassers denied both objections and ruled to
include the certificate of canvass. May MP appeal the
rulings to the COMELEC? Explain. (2008 BAR)
A: NO, MP cannot appeal the rulings to the Commission
on Elections. Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166,
as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, no pre-
proclamation controversies regarding the appreciation of
election returns and certificates of canvass maybe
entertained in elections for members of the House of
Representatives. The canvassing body may correct
manifest errors in the certificate of canvass. His recourse is
to file a regular election protest before the HRET
(Pimentel v. COMELEC, 548 SCRA 169 [2008]).
Q: Under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881, as
amended), briefly differentiate an election protest from
a quo warranto case, as to who can file the case and the
respective grounds therefor.
A: An ELECTION PROTEST maybe filed by a losing
candidate for the same office for which the winner filed
his certificate of candidacy.
A QUO WARRANTO CASE may be filed by any voter who is
a registered voter in the constituency where the winning
candidate sought to be disqualified ran for office.
In an election contest, the issues are: (a) who received the
majority or plurality of the votes which were legally cast
and (b) whether there were irregularities in the conduct of
the election which affected its results.
In a quo warranto case, the issue is whether the candidate
who was proclaimed elected should be disqualified
because of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Philippines.
Q: In the municipal mayoralty elections in 1980, the
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes
was subsequently declared to be disqualified as a
candidate and so ineligible for the office to which he was
elected. Would this fact entitle a competing candidate
who obtained the second highest number of votes to ask
and be proclaimed the winner of the elective office?
Reasons. (2003 BAR)
A: According to Trinidad v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175
(1999), if the candidate who obtained the highest number
of votes is disqualified, the candidate who obtained the
second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed the
winner.
Since he was not the choice of the people, he cannot
claim any right to the office. However, the alleged
"second-placer," should be proclaimed if the certificate of
candidacy was void ab initio. In short, the winner was
never a candidate at all and all votes were stray votes.
Thus, the second-placer is the only qualified candidate
who actually garnered the highest number of votes (Tea v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 195229 [2012])
Q: Abdul ran and won in the May 2001, 2004 and 2007
elections for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi. After being
proclaimed Vice- Governor in the 2004 elections, his
opponent, Khalil, filed an election protest before the
Commission on Election. Ruling with finality on the
protest, the COMELEC declared Khalil as the duly elected
Vice- Governor though the decision was promulgated
only in 2007, when Abdul had fully served his 2004-2007
term and was in fact already on his 2007-2010 term as
Vice Governor.
a. Abdul now consults you if he can still run for Vice-
Governor of Tawi-Tawi in the forthcoming May 2010
election on the premise that he could not be considered
as having served as Vice-Governor from 2004- 2007
because he was not duly elected to the post, as he
assumed office merely as a presumptive winner and that
presumption was later overturned when COMELEC
decided with finality that had lost in the May 2004
elections. What will be your advice?
b. Abdul also consults you whether his political party can
validly nominate his wife as substitute candidate for
Vice- Mayor of TawiTawi in May 2010 elections in case
the COMELEC disqualifies him and denies due course to
or cancels his certificate of candidacy in view of a false
material representation therein. What will be your
advice? (2008 BAR)
A: a. I shall advice Abdul that he cannot run for
ViceGovernor of Tawi-Tawi in the May 2010 elections. His
second term should be counted as a full term served in
contemplation of the threeterm limit prescribed by
Section 8, Article X of the Constitution.
Since the election protest against him was decided after
the term of the contested office had expire, it had no
practical and legal use and value. (Ong v. Alegre, 479 SCRA
473)
b. I shall advise Abdul that his wife cannot be nominated
as substitute candidate for ViceGovernor of Tawi-Tawi.
The denial of due course and cancellation of a certificate
of candidacy is not one of the cases in which a candidate
may be validly substituted. A cancelled certificate does
not give rise to a valid candidacy. Under Section 77 of the
Omnibus Election Code, a valid candidacy is an
indispensable requisite in case of a substitution of a
disqualified candidate. (Miranda v. Abaya 311 SCRA 617).
Q: Atty. G ran for Governor of the Province of Pampanga,
while his close friend, Atty. M, ran for Mayor of the
Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga. They both won
convincingly. Eventually, the losing candidates timely
filed election protests. The losing gubernatorial
candidate, Mr. A, filed his protest before the Regional
Trial Court of Pampanga (RTC), whereas the losing
mayoralty candidate, Mr. B, filed his protest before the
Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga (MTC).
(a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by
Mr. A? Explain.
(b) Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by
Mr. B? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: (a) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case
filed by Mr. A.
COMELEC has jurisdiction over an election contest
between a losing gubernatorial candidate and a
proclaimed winner of the gubernatorial post. [Section
2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]
(b) The MTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed
by Mr. B.
The RTC has jurisdiction over an election contest between
a losing municipal mayoralty candidate and a proclaimed
municipal mayor. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]
Q: Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for
Congressman for the Lone District of Batanes. After a
close electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500
votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest
before the Commission on Election (COMELEC), claiming
that X should be disqualified to run for said position
because he is not a natural-born citizen. While the case
was pending, X was proclaimed by the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected Congressman
of the province.
(a) Distinguish between natural-born and naturalized
citizen under the 1987 Constitution.
(b) Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain.
(c) Did X’s proclamation divest the COMELEC of its
jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to
hear the case? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: (a) 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. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-
born citizens. [Art. IV, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.]
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who
acquire Philippine Citizenship through either: 1) Judicial
naturalization under CA 473 or 2) Administrative
Naturalization Law (R.A. 9139). A third option is Derivative
Naturalization, which is available to alien women married
to Filipino husbands found under section 15 of CA 473
which provides that: “Any woman who is now or may
hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and
who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed
a citizen of the Philippines.”
(b) No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The
Constitution prescribes that no person shall be a Member
of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines [Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1987 Const].
In this case, X is a naturalized citizen and is thus not
qualified to run for Congress.
(c) No, COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over the matter.
To divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction over election cases
of Members of the House of Representatives, the
following requisites must concur: 1. Valid Proclamation; 2.
Valid oath; and 3. Assumption of office on June 30. Thus,
the mere proclamation of X does not yet transfer
jurisdiction from the COMELEC to the HRET.
Q: Distinguish briefly between Quo Warranto in elective
office and Quo Warranto in appointive office. (2012 BAR)
A: In quo warranto in elective officer, the issue is the
ineligibility of the elected candidate (Section 3(E), Rule 1,
Rules Of Procedure In Election Cases). If he is ineligible,
the candidate who got the second highest number of
votes cannot be proclaimed elected (Sinsuat v. COMELEC,
492 Scra 264). A voter may file for quo warranto against
an elected candidate. The petition should be filed within
ten days after the proclamation of the elected candidate.
In quo warranto in appointive office, the issue is the
legality of the appointment. The court will decide who
between the parties has the legal title to the office.
It is the Solicitor General, a public prosecutor, or a person
claiming to be entitled to the public office who can file a
petition for quo warrato against an appointive official
(Section 2 And 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court). The
petition should be filed within one year after the cause of
action accrued (Section 11, Rules 66 of the Rules of Court)
Q: As counsel for the protestant, where will you file an
election protest involving a contested elective position
in: (a) the barangay? (b) the municipality? (c) the
province? (d) the city? (e) the House of Representatives?
A: In accordance with Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution an election protest involving the elective
position enumerated below should be filed in the
following courts or tribunals:
a. Barangay - Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, or Municipal Trial Court
b. Municipality - Regional Trial Court
c. Province – COMELEC
d. City – COMELEC
e. Under Section 17. Article VI of the Constitution,
an election protest involving the position of
Member of the House of Representatives shall be
filed in the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal.
Q: In an election protest involving the position of
Governor of the Province of Laguna between "A", the
protestee, and "B" the protestant, the First Division of
the Commission on Elections rendered a decision
upholding B's protest. Can "A" file a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, from the decision of the COMELEC First
Division? If yes, Why? If not what procedural step must
he undertake first? (2001 BAR)
A: "A" cannot file a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court. As held in Mastura vs. Commission on
Elections, 285 SCRA 493 (1998), the Supreme Court
cannot review the decisions or resolutions of a division of
the Commission on Elections. "A" should first file a motion
for reconsideration with the Commission on Elections en
banc.
Q: What is the effect if the certificate of candidacy of a
candidate is cancelled? Explain.
A: 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. (Secs. 6 and 7, RA
6646).
Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a
certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an
office for which he did not present himself shall be
considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the
whole ballot. (Sec. 211, Omnibus Election Code).
Q: When is a ballot considered as marked? Explain.
A: In order for a ballot to be considered marked, in the
sense necessary to invalidate it, it must appear that the
voter designedly place some superfluous sign or mark on
the ballot which might serve to identify it thereafter. No
ballot should be discarded as a marked ballot unless its
character as such is unmistakable.
The distinguishing mark which the law forbids to be
placed on the ballot is that which the elector may have
placed with the intention of facilitating the means of
identifying said ballot, for the purpose of defeating the
secrecy of suffrage which the law establishes. Thus,
marked ballots are ballots containing distinguishing marks,
the purpose of which is to identify them. (Perman v.
COMELEC, et al. G.R. No. 174010, February 8, 2007, Tinga,
J).
As it violates the sacredness of votes, it results in the
invalidation of the entire ballot.
Q: May an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division be
the subject of certiorari to the SC? Explain.
A: The general rule is that a decision or an order of a
COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly to the
Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari.
Furthermore, a motion to reconsider a decision,
resolution, order, or ruling of a COMELEC Division shall be
elevated to the COMELEC En Banc. However, a motion to
reconsider an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division
shall be resolved by the division which issued the
interlocutory order, except when all the members of the
division decide to refer the matter to the COMELEC En
Banc.
Thus, in general, interlocutory orders of a COMELEC
Division are not appealable, nor can they be proper
subject of a petition for certiorari. To rule otherwise would
not only delay the disposition of cases but would also
unnecessarily clog the Court docket and unduly burden
the Court. This does not mean that the aggrieved party is
without recourse if a COMELEC Division denies the motion
for reconsideration. The aggrieved party can still assign as
error the interlocutory order if in the course of the
proceedings he decides to appeal the main case to the
COMELEC En Banc. The exception enunciated in Kho and
Repol is when the interlocutory order of a COMELEC
Division is a patent nullity because of absence of
jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order, as where a
COMELEC Division issued a temporary restraining order
without a time limit, which is the Repol case, or where a
COMELEC Division admitted an answer with counter-
protest which was filed beyond the reglementary period,
which is the Kho case.
FACTS: Despite lingering questions about his Filipino
citizenship and his one-year residence in the district,
Gabriel filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman
before the deadline set by law. His opponent, Vito, hires
you as lawyer to contest Gabriel’s candidacy.
Q1: Before election day, what action or actions will you
institute against Gabriel, and before which court,
commission or tribunal will you file such action/s?
A: I will file a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy
of Gabriel in the COMELEC because of the false material
representation that he is qualified to run for congressman
The question of the disqualification of Gabriel cannot be
raised before the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, because he is not yet a member of the House of
Representatives.
Q2: If, during the pendency of such action / s but before
election day, Gabriel withdraws his certificate of
candidacy, can he be substituted as candidate? If so, by
whom and why? If not, why not?
A: If Gabriel withdraws, he may be substituted by a
candidate nominated by his political party.
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code states: “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.
Q3: If the action/s instituted should be dismissed with
finality before the election, and Gabriel assumes office
after being proclaimed the winner in the election, can
the issue of his candidacy and/or citizenship and
residence still be questioned? If so, what action or
actions may be filed and where? If not, why not? (2010
BAR)
A: The question of the citizenship and residence of Gabriel
can be questioned in the HRET by filing a quo warranto
case. Since it is within its jurisdiction to decide the
question of the qualification of Gabriel, the decision of the
Commission on Elections does not constitute res judicata
Once a candidate for member of the HOR has been
proclaimed, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over election
contests relating to his qualifications.
Q: Kabataan Party-List assailed the constitutionality of
R.A. 10367, which directs COMELEC to implement a
mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters
and those registered voters whose biometrics have not
been captured shall submit themselves for validation. In
compliance, COMELEC implemented rules and
regulations prescribing the procedure for validation,
deactivation, and reactivation of voters’ registration
records (VRRs). Kabataan Party-List claimed that R.A.
10367 is unconstitutional because biometric validation is
not different from the unconstitutional requirement of
literacy and property because mere non-validation
already absolutely curtails the exercise of the right of
suffrage through deactivation. Is R.A. 10367
unconstitutional?
A: NO. The Court ruled that the right to vote is not a
natural right but is a right created by law. Suffrage is a
privilege granted by the State to such persons or classes as
are most likely to exercise it for the public good.
A registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy,
property or other substantive requirement as
contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution - that is,
one which propagates a socioeconomic standard which is
bereft of any rational basis to a person's ability to
intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good -
the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional.
Court definitively characterized registration as a form of
regulation and not as a qualification for the right of
suffrage – “biometrics refers to a quantitative analysis that
provides a positive identification of an individual such as
voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris, and/or such
other identifiable features."

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION
 Administrative agency doing Executive function.
INHIBITIONS / DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1. Shall not, during tenure, hold any other office or
employment.
2. Shall not engage in the practice of any profession.
3. Shall not engage in the active management or
control of any business which in any way may be
affected by the functions of his office.
4. Shall not be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise
or privilege granted by the Government, any of
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or - controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. (SEC 2)
SEC 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their
officials and employees in accordance with law.
SEC 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their
approved annual appropriations shall be automatically
and regularly released.
SEC 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own
rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before
any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights.
SEC 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of
all its Members, any case or matter brought before it
within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. (Estella vs COMELEC: all of its
members and not majority of the members who deliberated &
voted therefrom)
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or
by the Commission itself.
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
thereof.
Note:
 When it reviews a decision of the Comelec, the
Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction; thus,
the proceeding is limited to issues involving grave
abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and does not ordinarily empower the
Court to review the factual findings of the
Commission.
 Certiorari under Rule 65 is the appropriate
remedy to invalidate disputed Comelec
resolutions, i.e., final orders, rulings and
decisions of the Comelec rendered in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers.
COMELEC
Chairman
6 Commissioners
 Natural born Filipino Citizens
 At least 35 years old
 Holders of college degree
 Have not been candidates for any elective position
in the immediately preceding election
 Majority, including Chairman, must be members of
the Phil Bar, engaged in the practice of law for at
least 10 years
Appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years w/o
reappointment
No member shall be appointed or designated in a
temporary/acting capacity.
It may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate
its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies.
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided en banc (SEC 3).
Cases which must first be heard and decided in
division:
 a) All election cases, including pre-
proclamation contests, originally
cognizable by the Commission in the
exercise of its powers.
b) Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
certificate of candidacy.
c) Cases appealed from the Regional Trial
Court or the Municipal Trial Court have
to be heard and decided in Division
before they may be heard en banc.
Exceptions:
a) A petition for the correction of manifest
errors alleges an erroneous copying of
figures from the election return to the
Statement of Votes by precinct. Such an
error in the tabulation of results, which
merely requires a clerical correction
without opening the ballot boxes or
examining the ballots, demands only the
exercise of the administrative power of
the Comelec. Hence, the Comelec en
banc may properly assume jurisdiction.
b) The power of the Comelec to prosecute
cases of violation of election laws
involves the exercise of administrative
powers which may be exercised directly
by the Comelec en banc.
Thus, the rule that all election cases, including pre-
proclamation cases, should first be heard and decided by
the Comelec in division applies only when the Comelec
exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions, not
when it exercises purely administrative functions.
COMELEC DECISIONS REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME
COURT:
 Only decisions of the Comelec en banc may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
 Only decisions of the Comelec made in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
power may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari.
Constitutional powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum or recall.
 The power of direct control and supervision
of the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) over Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK) elections does not contravene
the constitutional grant of powers to the
Comelec inasmuch as the election, and
contests involving election, of SK officials do
not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Comelec. Thus, it was within the authority of
the DILG Secretary to exempt a local
government unit from holding SK elections.
 The Comelec has the authority to annul the
results of a plebiscite. The Comelec,
whenever it is called upon to correct or
check what the Board of Canvassers
erroneously or fraudulently did during the
canvassing, can verify or ascertain the true
results of the plebiscite either through a pre-
proclamation case or through revision of
ballots.
 During the election period, the Comelec may
regulate enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises and permits for the operation of
transportation and other public utilities,
media of communication or information,
grants, special privileges, concessions — to
ensure equal opportunity, time, space, right
to reply, etc. — with the objective of holding
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections. [Sec. 4, Art. IX-C]
This power may be exercised only over
the media, not over practitioners of the
media. Thus, in this case, the Supreme
Court invalidated a Comelec resolution
prohibiting radio and TV commentators
and newspaper columnists from
commenting on the issues involved in
the forthcoming plebiscite for the
ratification of the organic law
establishing the CAR.
 Comelec cannot exercise the power of
apportionment. The Comelec is without authority
to reapportion the congressional districts, as only
Congress is vested with such power.
POWER TO DECLARE FAILURE OF ELECTION.
Comelec, sitting en banc, by a majority vote of its
members, may declare failure of elections and call for
special elections
Three instances where a FAILURE OF ELECTIONS may be
declared:
a. The election in any polling place has not
been held on the date fixed on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes;
b. The election in any polling place had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes; or
 c. After the voting and during the preparation
and transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof such election
results in a failure to elect on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes.
For the Comelec to conduct a hearing on a verified
petition to declare a failure of election, it is necessary that
the petition must show on its face two conditions:
a. that no voting has taken place in the precinct on
the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting,
the election nevertheless results in a failure to
elect;
b. the votes not cast would affect the results of the
election.
It was held that in fixing the date of the special elections,
the Comelec should see to it that
a. it should not be later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause of the postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect;
b. it should be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in
failure to elect.
The prohibition on conducting special elections after 30
days from the cessation of the cause for failure of election
is not absolute. It is directory, not mandatory, and the
Comelec has residual powers to conduct special elections
even beyond the deadline prescribed by the law.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial
and city officials.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided bv
the trial courts of general jurisduction or
involving elective barangav officials decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions
therein shall be final, executory and
unappealable.
 Power of the SC to review decisions of
the Comelec involves only final orders,
rulings and decisions of the Comelec en
banc rendered in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
This decision must be a final decision or
resolution of the Comelec en banc, not
of a division, and certainly not an
interlocutory order of a division
 Jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal is
exercised over the members of the
House or Senate, and a party to the
election controversy is a member of the
House or the Senate only after he has
been proclaimed, has taken his oath and
has assumed the functions of the office.
 Power to cite for contempt. The
Comelec has the statutory power to cite
for contempt, but the power may be
exercised only while the Comelec is
engaged in the performance of quasi-
judicial functions.
3. 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.
 While changes in the location of polling
places may be initiated by the written
petition of the majority of the voters, or
by agreement of all the political parties,
ultimately, it is the Comelec that
determines whether a change is
necessary after due notice and hearing.
 Decisions/determinations made by
Comelec in the exercise of this power,
being merely administrative (not quasi-
judicial) in character, may be questioned
in an ordinary civil action before trial
courts.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President,
law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities
of the Government, including the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of
ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and
credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political
parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
addition to other requirements, must present
their platform or program of government; and
accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections.
Groups which cannot be registered as political
parties:
a. religious denominations and sects;
b. those who seek to achieve their goals
through violence or unlawful means;
c. those who refuse to uphold and adhere
to the Constitution;
d. those supported by foreign
governments.
Financial contributions from foreign governments
and their agencies to political parties, organizations,
 coalitions, or candidates related to elections,
constitute interference in national affairs, and, when
accepted, shall be an additional ground for the
cancellation of their registration with the
Commission, in addition to other penalties that may
be prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of
election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
 It is well-settled that the finding of probable
cause in the prosecution of election offenses
rests in the Comelec’s sound discretion.
The Comelec exercises the constitutional
authority to investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases for violation of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election
fraud, offenses and malpractices
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials
decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not
appealable.
ART 9C-3
The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including
pre- proclamation controversies. All such election cases
shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided
by the Commission en banc.

7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures

to minimize election spending, including
limitation of places where propaganda materials
shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all
forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices,
and nuisance candidacies.

8. Recommend to the President the removal of any

officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for
violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its
directive, order, or decision.

9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a

comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or
recall.

Election Period

- Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in

special cases, the election period shall
commence ninety days before the day of the
election and shall end thirty days thereafter
(SEC 9).

IMPORTANT CONSTI. PROVISION (COMELEC):

ART 9C-2(2)

Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests

relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
SUFFRAGE is the right to vote in the election of officers
chosen by the people and in the determination of
questions submitted to the people.
 REFERENDUM is the power of the electorate to
approve or reject legislation through an election
called for the purpose.
a. REFERENDUM ON STATUTES - petition to
approve or reject an act or law, or part
thereof, passed by Congress.
b. REFERENDUM ON LOCAL LAW - petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or
ordinance enacted by regional assemblies
and local legislative bodies.
 PLEBISCITE is the submission of constitutional
amendments or important legislative measures
to the people for ratification.
 INITIATIVE is the power of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose
and enact legislation through an election called
for the purpose.
a. INITIATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION - petition
proposing amendments to the Constitution.
b. INITIATIVE ON STATUTES - petition proposing
to enact a national legislation.
c. INITIATIVE ON LOCAL LEGISLATION - petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial,
city, municipal or barangay law, resolution or
ordinance.
Indirect initiative is the exercise of initiative by
the people through a proposition sent to
Congress or local legislative body for action.
 RECALL - termination of official relationship of a
local elective official for loss of confidence prior
to the expiration of his term through the will of
the electorate.
ELECTION
- is the means by which the people choose their
officials for a definite and fixed period and to
whom they entrust for the time being the
exercise of the powers of government.
Suffrage or Right to Vote
 both a privilege and an obligation
 political right/ personal right
 part of sovereignty
 starts with registration
Any person who transfers residence to another city,
municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation,
profession or employment in private or public service,
education, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost his
original residence.
ARTICLE 5: SUFFRAGE
ARTICLE V
SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are
(a) at least eighteen years of age, and
(b) who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one year and
(c) 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for
securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance
of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote
under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on
Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.
Facts: The proclamation of mayoralty candidate was
voided after he was disqualified for vote-buying but he
obtained the highest number of votes. The second placer
insists he should be proclaimed winner.
Held: The candidate who obtains the second
highest number of votes may not be proclaimed
winner in case the winning candidate is
disqualified. The second placer is not the choice
of the people. The dispute involves not only the
mayoralty, it concerns suffrage which is the
bedrock of republicanism.
Facts: A couple was charged with an election offense for
preventing a voter from entering the polling place. But the
information was quashed for insufficiency because it failed
to negate the exception that there were more than 40
voters waiting inside the polling place.
Held: The exception does not form part of the
offense hence need not be alleged in the
information. It is a matter of defense. The validity
of this view is affirmed when we realize that the
case involves no less than suffrage, which is the
bedrock of all institutions.
Every unlawful obstacle, by whatever means or
method, interposed to the free entry of a voter
into the polling place to cast his vote, strikes at
the very heart of the right of suffrage.
SUFFRAGE FOR OVERSEAS ABSENTEE
VOTERS
RA 9189 Overseas Absentee Voting Act
An immigrant or permanent resident who is recognized as
such in the host country is disqualified from voting under
this Act.
Immigrant or permanent resident outside Phils =
abandonment of domicile.
For purposes of election, domicile and residence are the
same.
Residence is a requirement for registration.
Exceptions: Unless he executes an affidavit upon
registration that: (AMENDED NAAAAAA)
1. He shall resume actual permanent residence in
the country within 3 YEARS from approval of
registration
2. He has not applied for citizenship in another
country
3. Failure to return results in the removal of the
name from the National Registry of Absentee
voters (but vote remains valid)
4. Permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
Issue: Does Section 5(d) of RA No. 9189 allowing the
registration of voters who are immigrants or permanent
residents in other countries by their mere act of executing
an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the
Philippines, violate the residency requirement in Section 1
of Article V of the Constitution?
Held: No. Absentee voting is an exception to the
regular system of voting. It is intended to
accommodate soldiers and sailors and other
qualified voters who, on election day, are absent
from the place where they are residents or
registered. The execution of the affidavit is not
the enabling or enfranchising act.
It is not only proof of intention to return, but
more importantly, it serves as an express
declaration that the domicile was not
abandoned. Section 5 (d) does not circumvent
the Constitution. Instead, it complies with a
constitutional mandate which requires that
Congress legislate absentee voting that
presupposes the qualified citizen abroad is not
physically present in the country.
SUFFRAGE FOR LOCAL ABSENTEE
VOTERS
Who are qualified?
1. EO 157 - Any person who, by reason of public functions
and duties, is not in his place of registration on election
day, may vote in a city or municipality where he is
assigned on election day.
2. Members of the AFP and PNP and other government
officers and employees who, on election day, may be
temporarily assigned to perform election duties in a place
where they are not registered voters.
- It does not mean that all AFP and PNP can avail
of this, there is a requirement that they should
be prevented in voting in the area where they are
registered because of their election duties
3. Members of the Board of Election Inspectors – they
may vote in the polling place where they are assigned on
election day, provided they are registered voters in the
city, municipality or province and their voting is noted in
the minutes.
4. Members of media, media practitioners, including the
technical and support staff, who are duly registered voters
and who, on election day, may not be able to vote due to
the performance of their functions in covering and
reporting on the elections.
Who can they vote:
 - They can only vote for national positions, exactly
because they are not in the locality where they
reside and are registered to vote.
SUFFRAGE FOR DISABLED AND ILLITERATE VOTERS
Who may be assisted?
1. A person with disability
2. A senior citizen who is illiterate or physically
unable to personally prepare the ballot
Who can assist?
1. Relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree
2. If none, person of confidence who belong to the
same household.
3. By any member of the Board of Election
Inspectors
Provided: That the assistor be of voting age, but not
necessarily registered
WHAT IS MEANT BY VOTER’S REGISTRATION?
- The act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn
application for registration by a qualified voter
before the election officer of the city or
municipality wherein he resides and including the
same in the book of registered voters upon
approval by the Election Registration Board.
- Personal presence is necessary because of the
need for biometrics
Note:
- Registration does not confer the right to vote; it
is but a condition precedent to the exercise of
the right.
- Registration is a regulation, not a qualification to
suffrage.
WHO MAY REGISTER AS A VOTER:
1. Filipino citizen not disqualified by law
(Requisite of natural-born is only for those
seeking election)
2. At least 18 years old on or before election
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year
immediately preceding the elections.
4. Resident of the place where he proposes to vote
at least 6 months immediately preceding the
election (6 months prior to election, not
registration)
No literacy, property and other substantive requirement
shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage
WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED TO REGISTER AS VOTER:
1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one year (unless
granted a plenary pardon or an amnesty); but
right is reacquired upon the expiration of 5 years
after service of sentence.
2. Any person adjudged by final judgment of having
committed any crime involving disloyalty to the
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation
of the firearms laws or any crime against national
security (unless restored to full civil and political
rights in accordance with law); but right is
reacquired upon the expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence.
3. Insane or incompetent persons as declared by
competent authority unless subsequently
declared by competent authority that such
person is no longer insane or incompetent
GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
- Immediately after the barangay elections in 1997,
the existing certified list of voters shall cease to
be effective and operative. For purposes of the
May 1998 elections and all elections, plebiscites,
referenda, initiatives and recalls subsequent
thereto, the Comelec shall undertake a general
registration of voters.
PERIOD OF REGISTRATION:
The personal filing of application of registration of voters
shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election
Officer during regular office hours.
- No registration shall, however, be conducted
during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special
election.
ILLITERATE OR DISABLED VOTERS’ REGISTRATION
Who can assist?
1. Illiterate
 Election officer
 Member of the accredited citizen’s arm
2. PWDs
 Election officer
 Member of the accredited citizen’s arm
 Relative within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity
Facts: The Comelec conducted voter’s registration until
December 27, 2000. Petitioners, who claim to represent
the youth sector, asked it conduct registration February 17
and 18, 2001. They said that around 4 million youth voters
aged 18 to 21 failed to register on or before the deadline,
hence, the need for extension. It was also anchored on
the renewed political awareness and interest among the
youth to participate in the political process generated by
the recent political events in the country. The Comelec
refused on the ground that it will affect its preparations
for the elections. Contrary to popular belief, voter’s
registration is not limited to the act of going to the
election officer and writing down the names. Applications
for registration are subject to hearing, notice and action of
the Election Registration Board. It was argued that the
Comelec is endowed with standby or residual powers to
designate other dates for certain pre-election acts.
Held: No. The clear text of the law decrees that
voters be allowed to register daily during regular
office hours, except during the period starting
120 days before a regular election and 90 days
before a special election. The period outside the
120 day prohibition is sufficient for Comelec to
prepare for the elections. While Comelec has the
rule-making, it must be exercised in accordance
with prevailing law. The power to fix other
periods can be used only if the activities cannot
be reasonably held within the period provided by
law.
Romualdez v. RTC
- Residence and domicile are synonymous in
election cases.

Held: Suffrage is not absolute, it is subject to - Domicile imports not only intention to reside in a
substantive and procedural requirements. It is fixed place but also personal presence in that
regulated by measures like voters registration place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
which is not a mere statutory requirement. intention.

The State, in the exercise of its inherent police To acquire a new domicile of choice, the following
power, may then enact laws to safeguard and requisites must concur:
regulate the act of voter’s registration for the 1. Residence or bodily presence in the new locality
ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly 2. Intention to remain there.
and peaceful election. The law aids the vigilant 3. Intention to abandon the old domicile
and not those who slumber on their rights. While
voter’s registration is a pre-election act, we
cannot ask the Comelec to do the impossible.
The designation of other dates should be
DIFFERENT TYPES OF REGISTRATION:
premised on the capability of reasonable 1. New Registration
performance. 2. Transfer of Registration
The act of registration is an indispensable a. Change of residence to another city or
precondition to the right of suffrage, for it is part municipality
and parcel of the right to vote and an b. Change of address within the same city
indispensable element in the election process. or municipality
3. Reactivation of Registration Record
Facts: The Comelec resolved to register voters from 4. Correction of Entries in the Voters’ Registration
December 2, 2008 to December 15, 2009 as the period of Record
continuing voter registration using the biometric process a. Due to Marriage
for the purpose of the May 10, 2010 national and local b. Correction of Other Incorrect Entries
elections. It is however resolved to adjust the deadline
from December 15, 2009 to October 31, 2009 to afford it ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD
more time to prepare for the automated elections. It was - There shall be in each city and municipality as
argued that based on the NSO date, the projected voting many Election Registration Boards as there are
population from age group 18024 is 12.5 million which election officers therein.
could be disenfranchised for failure to register. It
encroaches on the legislative power by amending Section Composition of ERB:
8 of RA 8189 to expand the prohibitive period of
registration. But Comelec argued that it is empowered to 1. Chairman
fix other periods and dates for pre-election activities. 2. Members:
a. Public School Official most senior in
Whether Comelec can cut short the registration and
rank
accordingly adjust the deadline.
b. Local Civil Registrar

Powers of ERB:
 1. Acts on all applications for registration,
transfer, reactivation, correction of entry
2. Deactivates registration
3. Cancels registration
4. Decides challenges on the right to register
quarterly (The grounds on challenges on the
right to register are not specified)
Disqualification: No member of the Board shall be related
to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal
elective official within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
- Every registered party and such organizations as
may be authorized by the Commission shall be
entitled to a watcher in every registration board.
CHALLENGES TO RIGHT TO REGISTER
Who can challenge:
 Any voter
 Candidate
 Representative of a registered political party
Any voter, candidate or representative of a registered
political party may challenge IN WRITING any application
for registration, stating the grounds therefor. The
challenge shall be UNDER OATH and be attached to the
application, together with the proof of notice of hearing
to the challenger and the applicant.
Q: Is mandatory biometrics constitutional?
- Biometrics is a mere regulation, not an added
qualification to the right of suffrage
GROUNDS FOR DEACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION
1. Any person who has been sentence by final
judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less
than one year, such disability not having been
removed by plenary pardon or amnesty;
Provided, however, that any person disqualified
to vote (because of this) shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five
years after service of sentence as certified by the
clerks of courts.
2. Any person who has been adjudged by final
judgment by a competent court or tribunal of
having caused/committed any crime involving
disloyalty to the duly constituted government,
such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-
subversion and firearms laws, or any crime
against national security, unless restored to his
full civil and political rights in accordance with
law, Provided that he shall regain his right to vote
automatically upon expiration of five years from
service of sentence.
3. Any person declared by competent authority to
be insane or incompetent unless such
disqualification has been subsequently removed
by a declaration of a proper authority that such
person is no longer insane or incompetent.
4. Any person who did not vote in the two
successive preceding regular elections as shown
by their voting records (for this purpose, regular
elections do not include the Sangguniang
Kabataan elections).
5. Any person whose registration has been ordered
excluded by the court.
6. Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.
What is the remedy for deactivation?
- Reactivation
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
- Ground for cancellation is DEATH.
How to establish death?
1. Certification by the LCR
2. Submission by the LCR a certified list of
those who died during the previous month
to the election officer of the place where the
deceased is registered
Otherwise, COMELEC cannot cancel registration
even if there is personal knowledge of the death
of the registrant.
Is cancellation and deactivation the same?
- No. If deactivation, you still have the remedy
of reactivation. But in cancellation, no more
remedy.
REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION
- 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 120 days before a regular election
and 90 days before a special election.
COMMON RULES GOVERNING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN
THE MATTER OF INCLUSION, EXCLUSION AND
CORRECTION OF NAMES OF VOTERS
a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names
of voters shall be filed during office hours.
b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the
petition shall be served upon the members of the Board
and the challenged voter upon filing of the petition.
c) A petition shall refer only to one precinct and shall
implead the Board as respondents (1 petition 1 precinct)
d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these
proceedings. However, if the court finds that the
application has been filed solely to harass the adverse
party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the
culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses.
e) Any voter, candidate or political party affected by the
proceedings may intervene and present his evidence.
f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented
and in no case rendered upon a stipulation of facts.
If the question is whether or not the voter is real or
fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing
shall be prima facie evidence that the challenged voter is
fictitious.
g) The petition shall be heard and decided within 10 days
from the date of its filing.
Cases appealed to the RTC shall be decided within 10 days
from receipt of the appeal.
In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not later
than 15 days before the election and the decision shall
become FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
Challenge to Right to Register Inclusion and Exclusion
Administrative Judicial
Involves the right to register Involves the right to vote
JURISDICTION IN INCLUSION & EXCLUSION CASES
- The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in
their respective cities and municipalities.
- Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial
Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party
to the Regional Trial Court.
- The RTC shall decide the appeal within 10 days
from the time it is received and the decision shall
immediately BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
No MR shall be entertained.
PETITION FOR INCLUSION
- (a) Any person whose application for registration
has been disapproved by the Board or (b) whose
name has been stricken out from the list may file
with the court a petition to include his name in
the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any
time except 105 days prior to a regular election
or 75 days prior to a special election. It shall be
supported by a certificate of disapproval or his
application and proof of service of notice of his
petition upon the Board.
- The petition shall be decided within 15 days after
its filing.
PETITION FOR EXCLUSION
- (a) Any registered voter, (b) representative of a
political party or (c) the Election Officer, may file
with the 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 100 days prior to a
regular election or 65 days prior to a special
election. The petition shall be accompanied by
proof of notice to the Board and to the
challenged voter.
- Shall be decided within 10 days from its filing.
Facts: The Comelec excluded election returns on the
ground that they are spurious and/or manufactured or no
returns at all as these were prepared through massive
violence, terrorism and fraud. Voting was done by persons
other than the registered voters while armed men went
from one polling place to another, prepared the ballots
and dictated how the election returns should be returned.
It was argued that since the Comelec has no jurisdiction to
decide the right to vote, it cannot exclude election returns
because it disenfranchises votes which is purely judicial.
Held: It is true that inclusion or exclusion from
the list of voters is a purely judicial power to the
exclusion of the Comelec. But to determine
whether an election was held is purely within the
administrative jurisdiction of the Comelec. The
disenfranchisement is only provisional, subject to
the final determination of the validity of votes in
an election protest.
 Any question involving suffrage is removed from
the jurisdiction of the Comelec. However,
exclusion of election returns from canvassing
pertains to the administrative jurisdiction of the
Comelec.
Facts: The MTC excluded a voter in one place and
transferred his registration to another.
Held: Exclusion merely removes a name from the
voter’ list, it does not include transfer. It is
summary in nature hence the rule of res judicata
does not apply. The subject matter of exclusion is
removal from list whereas quo warranto involves
expulsion from office. It does not preclude the
Comelec from inquiring into the residence and
citizenship qualification of a candidate.
RES JUDICATA NOT APPLICABLE
- The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of
voters in the list of voters are summary in
character.
- Except for the right to remain in the list of voters
or for being excluded therefrom for the particular
election in relation to which the proceedings had
been held, a decision in an exclusion or inclusion
proceeding, even if final and unappealable, does
not acquire the nature of res judicata.
- It does not operate as a bar to any further action
that a party may take concerning the subject
passed upon in the proceeding.
- Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding
would neither be conclusive on the voter’s
political status, nor bar subsequent proceedings
on his right to be registered as a voter in any
other election.
DOUBLE-REGISTRANT
- It pertains to any person who, being a registered
voter, registers anew without filing an application
for cancellation of his previous registration.
- Double registrants are still qualified to vote
provided that COMELEC has to make a
determination on which registration is valid, and
which is void.
ANNULMENT OF LIST OF VOTERS
What are the grounds for annulment of list of voters?
1. Not prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the Continuing Registration Act
2. Prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery,
impersonation, intimidation, force or any
similar irregularity
3. Contains statistically improbable date
Who annuls?
The Commission upon verified petition by:
 Any voter
 Election officer
 Duly registered political party
Limitation on annulment of list of voters:
- No ruling, order or decision annulling the
book of voters shall be executed within 90
days before an election.
NB:
- The subsequent annulment of a voter’s
list in a separate proceedings where the
protagonists are not parties, cannot
retroactively and without due process
annul the previous election (Bashier v.
Comelec)
- The voter’s list in the previous elections
is valid and unquestioned prior to and on
the day of election. It was the only
legitimate roster used as basis for voting.
In the absence of prior petition to set it
aside, it is considered conclusive
evidence of persons who could vote in
that particular election. Since the
winning candidate was already
proclaimed, the preproclamation case
dies, the next remedy is an election
protest before a proper forum, which is
the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (Ututalum v. Comelec).
Facts: Way back in the 1950s and during the martial
law era, the dead, the birds and he bees voted in
Lanao. Several precincts and their books of votes
were sought to be annulled on the ground that they
contained ghost voters. It was opposed by the
incumbent mayor and the 23 Punong barangays on
the ground that the move is merely intended to
diminish bailiwicks.
The Comelec investigated and found that:
1. The supposed barangay Padian Tarogan does
not exist
2. The area has only two structures, one a
concrete house without a roof and the other
a wooden structure without walls and roof.
3. The name Padian Tarogan means a cemetery
and not a residential place
4. When the people around the area were
asked who among them is registered in
Padian, none of them answered in the
affirmative
5. Based on this report, the Comelec ruled that
Padian is a ghost precinct and should be
excluded in the special election
Held: It is erroneous for Comelec to rule that
Padian is a ghost precinct because it is a
barangay which should have at least one
precinct. But since it is a factual matter to be
determined by Comelec in the exercise of its
administrative power, the Court refuses to
review.
It is not impossible for a barangay not to
have actual inhabitants because people
migrate. A barangay may officially exist on
record and the fact that nobody resides
there does not result in its automatic
cessation as a unit of local government.
Under the LGC, abolition of a LGU may be
done by Congress if it involves a province,
city or municipality. If it involves a barangay,
it may be done by the Panglungsod
concerned subject to plebiscite, except in
Metro Manila and cultural communities.
The findings of the Comelec being an
administrative agency, cannot be reversed
on appeal on certiorari especially when no
significant facts and circumstances are
shown to have been overlooked or
disregarded which when considered would
have substantially affected the outcome of
the case.
because the sovereign will is not rendered
nugatory by the inclusion of some good
voters
PRECINCTS AND THEIR ESTABLISHMENT
- In preparation for the general registration in
1997, the Commission shall draw updated maps
of all the precincts nationwide. Upon completion
of the new precinct maps, all the precincts
established in the preceding elections shall be
deemed abolished.
- For the purpose of the general registration, the
Commission shall create original precincts only.
Spin-off precinct may be created after the regular
elections of 1998 to accommodate additional
voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction
of the original precincts.
- The Commission shall introduce a permanent
numbering of all precincts which shall be
indicated by Arabic numerals and a letter of the
English alphabet. Original or mother precincts
shall be indicated by the Arabic numeral and
letter "A of the English alphabet. Spin-off or
daughter precincts shall be indicated by the
Arabic numeral and letter of the English alphabet
starting with letter B and so on.
- No territory comprising an election precinct shall
be altered or a new precinct be established at the
start of the election period.
- Splitting of an original precinct or merger of two
or more original precincts shall not be allowed
without redrawing the precinct map/s one
hundred twenty (120) days before election day.

No voter is disenfranchised because no such

voter exists. Suffrage is not tampered with
when a list of fictitious voters is excluded
from election. Suffrage is conferred by the
Constitution only on citizens who are
qualified to vote and who are not otherwise
disqualified by law.

The exclusion of non-existent voters all the

more protects the validity and credibility of
the electoral process as well as suffrage