Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

REGISTRATION OF VOTER
WHO MAY REGISTER (RA 8189/9189), (An Act Providing for the General Registration of Voters providing for a System of Continuing Registration which took effect on June 11, 1996) Registration of voters is a means of determining who possess the qualifications of voters and regulating the exercise of the right of suffrage. Registration is essential to enable a qualified voter to vote in any election or any form of popular intervention. What is Registration Registration refers to the ACTof 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 RV upon approval by the Election Registration Board (Sec. 3(a)). The application of the voter will be subject to the approval or disapproval by the ERB during the hearings conducted for that purpose. The application will be published and notice by given to the applicant by mail. GlowingGloriaNote: it determines if one possess the qualifications in the exercise of the right to vote.

used wrong considerations in arriving at the conclusion that Mitras residence is not the residence contemplated by law. Domingo v. Comelec 310 SCRA 546 (1999). While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does not give rise to a strong presumption of residence. That fact that a party continuously voted in a particular locality is a strong factor in assisting to determine the status of his domicile. Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300. Requisites when new domicile is acquired by choice there must concur residence or bodily presence in the new locality an intention to remain in the new locality an intention to abandon the old domicile. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non-revertendi

GlowingGloriaNote: Common to both procedures, the fact of illiteracy and disability shall be so indicated in the application. HOW TO REGISTER Section 8 System of Continuing Registration of Voters/Creation of Election Registration Boards A qualified voter personally files an application for registration DAILY with the office of the election officer during regular office hours. The ERB are authorized to act on all applications for registration . LIMITATION: No registration shall be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular elections and 90 days before a special elections. Sec. 15 Election Registration Board There shall be in each city and municipality as many as ERBs as there are election officers therein. Composition Election Officer (EO) as chairman and as members, the public school official most senior in rank and the local civil registrar (LCR), or in his absence, the city or municipal treasurer (MT). In case of disqualification of the EO, the Commission shall designate as acting EO who shall serve as chairman of the ERB. In cases of the non-availability of the LCR or the MT, Comelec shall designate any other appointive civil service official from the same locality as substitute. Restrictions to appointment No member of the board shall be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal elective official within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of the newly elected city or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within the same degree, such member is automatically disqualified to preserve the integrity of the ERB. Every registered party and such organizations as may be authorized by the Comelec shall be entitled to a watcher in every registration board. Sec. 17 Procedure for hearing of applications. Date of hearing posted in the city or municipal bulletin board and EO office at least 1 week before date of hearing If objected to, EO shall receive evidence. Physical presence of applicant in this case is mandatory to rebut evidence presented in opposition thereto If no objection to application, physical appearance not required and will be duly informed in writing Applications for registration shall be heard and processed on a quarterly basis. Board shall convene on the 3rd day of Monday of April, July, October and January of every calendar year except in an election year to conform with the 120 days prohibitive period before election day.

Section 117. Qualifications of a voter. - Every citizen of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, eighteen years of age or over, who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the city or municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election, may be registered as a voter. Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation; profession; employment in private or public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force; the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his original residence.

Sec. 11 Disqualifications: Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the antisubversion and firearms law, or any crime against national security in accordance with the law. Insane or incompetent as declared by competent authority. GGN: The president cannot, without a favorable recommendation of the COMELEC grant pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence in cases involving violation of election laws, rule and regulations. WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED Plenary pardon or amnesty those sentenced by final judgment. Article IX-C, Section 5 provides that the President cannot, without the favorable recommendation of the Comelec grant pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence in cases involving violation of election laws and violation of election rules and regulations. Expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence Official declaration by the proper authority that the insanity or incompetency no longer exist.

DOMESTIC VOTERS Section 9 Who may Register All citizens of the Philippines NOT otherwise disqualified by law who are at least 18 years of age, who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the elections. Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations, within the Philippines, service in the AFP, or confinement or detention in government institution in accordance with law, shall NOT be deemed to have lost his original residence. Any person who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of residence but, who on the day of election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.

WHO ARE CONSIDERED ILLITERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS AND HOW DO THEY REGISTER? ILLITIERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS Illiterates or disabled are referred to as a persons who cannot by themselves prepare an application for registration because of their physical disability and/or inability to read and write. (Section 3 (e)) Section 14. Procedure for illiterate applicants (those who cannot read and write) assisted by the election officer or any member of an accredited citizens arm. The election officer shall place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions and record the answers given in order to accomplish the application form in the presence of the majority of the members of the Board. The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the applicant in the presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shall be subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of the Board. Procedure for disabled voters the application for registration of a physically disabled person (ex. blind, no hands, senior citizen, mute) may be prepared by any relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the election officer or any member of an accredited citizens arm using the data supplied by the applicant.

Section. 21 Publication of Action on Application for Registration SECTION 12. Change of Residence to another City or Municipality Any registered voter who has transferred residence to another city or municipality may apply with the EO of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records. The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the ERB in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of the application for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the EO of the former residence of the voter, said EO shall transmit by registered mail the voters registration record to the EO of the voters new residence. Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or Municipality Any voter who has changed his address in the same city or municipality shall immediately notify the EO in

Residency Requirement: Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In considering the residency issue, the dwelling where a person permanently intends to return to and to remain his or her capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, IS IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it determined the fitness of a dwelling as a persons residence based solely on very personal and subjective assessment standards when the law is replete with standards that can be used. Comelec

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct, the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new precinct. All changes of address shall be reported to the office of the provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila. DEACTIVATION, REACTIVATION AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

GGN: one of the salient provision of RA 8189 is that unlike in the OEC, cancellation can be made pag you possess the disqualifaction regardless if your dead or alive. However, in RA 8189, cancellation is only for those who are dead. Under the same law, if a person is disqualified, what will only happen that the ERB will remove the registration record of the disqualified voter from the precinct book of voters and transfer it to the inactive file and duly marked with the reason for deactivation. REMEDY: File a petition for reactivation GlowingGloriaNote: As a rule the physical appearance of the applicant is not necessary in the proceeding in an application for registration. This is true specially if there is no objection to the application. Under section 17 of RA 8189, a registrant whose application is not seasonably objected to shall be notified in writing stating therein that no objection was raised against his application and that he need not appear on the date set for hearing of his application. This means that physical appearance of the applicant concerned shall however, be mandatory in all cases where objection against his application have been seasonably filed with the proper ERB for him to rebut or refute evidence presented in opposition thereto.

Deactivation Sec. 27 DEACTIVATION is a process wherein the registration record of a voter is removed by the ERB from the corresponding precinct book of voters and places the same in an inactive filed properly marked and dated in indelible ink and after entering the cause for deactivation which are as follows: Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment, to suffer imprisonment for not less than (1) year such disability not having been moved by plenary pardon or amnesty. o Provided that any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reqcquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence as certified by the clerks of courts of the MTC, RTC and sandiganbayan Those person been adjudged by final judgment crime involving disloyalty or any crime against national security unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law o Provided he will regain his right to vote automatciallly upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence. Those declared by competent authority insane and incompetent persons as officially declared. Any person who failed to vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular elections as shown by his voting records. Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the court. Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.

Domino v. Comelec 310 SCRA 546 (1999). Except for the right to remain in the list of voters or for being excluded thereform for the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had been held, a decision in an exclusion proceeding, even if final and unappealable does not acquire the nature of res judicata. Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding would neither be conclusive on the voters political status, nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in any other election. INCLUSION Sec. 34 Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the list WHO MAY FILE: any person whose application for registration Has been disapproved by the Board; or Whose name has been stricken out from the list; Whose name was not included in the precinct list of voters Who has been included therein with a wrong or misspelled name (after the Board disapproves its application for reinstatement or correction of name) may file with the court.

JURISDICTION IN INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CASES PETITION FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION. Remedies of persons whose application for reactivation, inclusion or correction has been disapproved or those who intend to exclude a voter from the list of voters. Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 Voters inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of whether a petition shall be included in or excluded from the list of voters based on the qualifications required by law and the facts presented to show possession of these qualifications. On the other hand, the COC denial/cancellation proceedings involve the issue of whether there is a false representation of a material fact. Sec. 33 JURISDICTION The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or municipalities. (By express provision of Article IX-C, Section 2 (3) of the Constitution, the Comelec shall decide all questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. This question is a justiciable issue which finds redress in the judiciary. (Pungutan v. Comelec 43 SCRA 1 (1972). Panlaqui vs. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 It is not within the province of the RTC in a voters inclusion/exclu sion proceedings to take cognizance of and determine the presence of a false representation of a material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of whether the misrepresentation relates to material fact and whether there was an intension to deceiv e the electorate in terms of ones qualifications for public office. The finding that Velasco was not qualified to vote due to lack of residency requirement does not translate into a finding of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render him ineligible. Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512 (1997) The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to vote which is not within the power and authority of the Comelec to rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to vote is a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular courts. WHERE TO APPEAL Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory. Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the Regional Trial Court decision shall immediately become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 105 days prior to a regular election or 75 days prior to a special election. The petition should be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice upon the Board. MTC shall decide within fifteen (15) days after it filing. If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board shall place the application for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding BV and indicate in the application for registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the same. EXCLUSION Section 35 Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the list WHO MAY FILE: any registered voter, representative of a political party or the Election Officer. PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 100 days prior to a regular election or 65 days prior to a special election. Supporting documents shall be proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter. MTC shall decide within ten (10) days. If the decision is for exclusion, the Board, shall remove the voters registration record from the corresponding BV, enter the order of exclusion therein. Akbayan v. Comelec March 26, 2001 The petition for exclusion is a necessary component to registration since it is a safety mechanism that gives a measure of protection against flying voters, non-qualified registrants, and the like. The prohibitive period, on the other hand, serves as the purpose of securing the voters substantive right to be included in the list of voters. The bone of contention of petitioners in this case in praying for a 2-day special registration of new voters for the May 14, 2001 elections which was denied by the Comelec on account of operational impossibility, undermined their constitutional right to vote and caused the disenfranchisement of around 4M Filipinos of voting age who failed to register before the registration deadline set by the Comelec. As ruled, the right of suffrage is not absolute, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, it is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute and other repositories of law. Procedural limitation must undergo the process of registration, in addition to the maximum requirements set by the Constitution under Section 1, Article V, the act of registration being an indispensable precondition and essential to the right of suffrage and election process. Referring to Section 8 of RA 8189, the law is explicit that no

For purposes of the above the Clerks of Court of the MTC, MTCC, RTC and SB shall furnish the EO of the city or municipality concerned at the end of each month a certified list of persons who are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment, with their addresses. For those who lost their citizenship, insanity and incompetency, the Comelec may request a certified list of such persons from the government agencies concerned. Reactivation Sec. 28 REACTIVATION is a process whereby a voter whose registration records has been deactivated files with the election officer a sworn application for reactivation of his registration in the form of an affidavit by stating therein that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist. PERIOD TO FILE Any time but not later than 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Upon approval, the Board, shall retrieve the registration records from the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding precinct book of voters. REQUIREMENT: Local heads or representatives of political parties shall be properly notified of the approved applications. Cancellation Sec. 29 CANCELLATION is a process wherein the Board cancels the registration records of those who have died as certified by the local civil registrar who shall submit each month a certified list of persons who died during the previous month to the election officer of the place where the deceased is registered. Remedies persons whose application for reactivation, inclusion or correction has been disapproved or those who intend to exclude a voter from the list of voters

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

3 resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be caused for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia; Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign service establishments concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.

registration shall however be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the hand speaks of the prohibitive period within which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of voters from the permanent list of voters. Thus if the special registration of voters will be conducted, then the prohibitive period for filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted to a later date, if not, then no one can challenge the voters list which is violative of the principles of due process and would open the registration process to abuse and seriously compromise the integrity of the voters list and that of the entire election. BAR QUESTION: Congress enacted a law which amended the OEC by vesting in the COMELEC the jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion instead in the courts (mtc and rtc). Is it valid? Answer: Aniyo! (Nonono, nananana , nuga che chalaga) the said law will be unconstitutional. Under section 2 article IX-C the Comelec cannot decide the right to vote, which refers to the petition and exclusion of voters. What can it do is to file a petition for exclusion and inclusion to the court but it cannot decide on such matter.

OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTERS RA 9189 Absentee Voters Act of 2003 Overseas Absentee Voter refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of the elections. AttyValencia- RA 9189 was promulgated/enacted pursuant to the declaration of policies under Article 5, section 2 of the constitution wherein congress is mandated under the constitution to provide for a system of election and registration for qualified Filipinos who are in abroad and as provided in the declaration of policies in RA 9189 it is the prime duty of the State to provide a system of honest and orderly overseas absentee voting that upholds the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot, so how is it done? Because the constitution would want to ensure equal opportunity to all qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad in the exercise of this fundamental right. WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND OF OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTER UNDER RA 9189?A citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to register and vote under RA 9189 not otherwise disqualified by law and who is in abroad on the day of election. So you might be a registered voter under RA 8189(Voters Registration Act) but you may also apply under RA 9189. WHEN WE SAY ABSENTEE VOTING, WHAT DO WE MEAN?- refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercises their right to vote We also have a certified list of overseas absentee voter similar to the provisions of RA 8189. Under RA 9189: Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters refers to the list of registered overseas absentee voters whose applications to vote in absentia have been approved by the Commission, said list to be prepared by the Committee on Absentee Voting of the Commission, on a country-by-country basis. This list shall be approved by the Commission in an en banc resolution. "Day of Election" refers to the actual date of elections in the Philippines. National Registry of Absentee Voters" refers to the consolidated list prepared, approved and maintained by the Commission, of overseas absentee voters whose applications for registration as absentee voters, including those registered voters who have applied to be certified as absentee voters, have been approved by the Election Registered Board. o So this is a consolidation of all the certified list of all the absentee voters by country. (e)

SALIENT FEATURE OF RA 8189 A. WHO MAY REGISTER now under 8189, an applicant may register at anytime even if he is not yet 18 years of age or he does not yet possess the residency requirement provided that on the day of the election , he has already possess the above requirement. Under OEC, wlang ganyan. CONTINOUS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION- under RA 8189, It created the ERB. Date under the OEC it is the BEI, but now it is the ERB. Unlike in OEC, the schedule the dates of registration which is usually 2 weeks. The ERB is different from the BEI as to the composition. BEI, composed by the public school teachers appointed by the COMELEC. In ERB, it is composed of election officer as chairman and the members are the LCR or the municipal or city treasurer as the case may be. DISQUALIFICATION AND WHEN DISABILITY IS REMOVED- the disqualification is still there ( same same- bakit nagging salient toh? Research yek!) RULED ON DIABLED AND ILLETERATE VOTERS- this is with respect to the assistance of these voters. For illiterate only the election officer or the accredited citizen arms. For disabled voters, their relatives within 4th civil degree. In the absence of their relative, only then they can be assisted by the election officer or the accredited citizen arms. PHYSICAL APPEARANCE FOR APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATIONphysical appearance is not needed unless there is a seasonable (magic sarap) objection. If not objected, the applicant will only have notice from the Comelec that his application is approved or disapproved. If disapproved the remedy is a petition for inclusion (if the ground is like in sec 35 of the OEC) to be filed in the MTC. PROCESS OF DEACTIVATION, REACTIVATION AND CANCELLATIONunder oec, when you failed to vote for two consecutive year, your next remedy is to apply for registration again. However, under 8189, there is no need for re-registration because the ERB will do merely is to transfer the VRR from the active files to the inactive file stating the reasons for deactivation for any ground for disqualification. Also with respect to those who are sentenced by final judgment, there is no need to apply for registration again. After 5 years of the sentenced or after the pardon or amnesty , he may file a sworn application for reactivation stating that wla na ang disqualification. CANCELLATION under 8189 is only limited to those deceased. Every year according to mam Valencia, naga pass daw ang LCR ng record sa COMELEC. However take note GlowingGloria na ang reactivation may limitation. Section 8 of RA 8189 express provide that no reactivation shall be conducted 120 days before a regular election. PETITION FOR EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION- so ang jurisdiction kay sa courts ha. MTC appeal to RTC. No more motion for reconsideration. ( see upper notes)

GGN: Take note in that w/ respect to disqualification on immigrants/ permanent residents who is recognized by the host country, because immigration or residence to other country is as if you are renouncing however, section 5 also allows immigrants/ permanent residence to register as a voter for as long as he may execute an affidavit to show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuant to the Constitution. So if you will recall our study on the nature of the exercise of the right of suffrage, domicile is synonymous w/ residence. Ordinarily, when you are an absentee, you are not a resident and vice-versa and a person cannot at the same time be an absentee or residence. However, under our election laws an absentee is considered attached to his residence in the Philippines. Macalintal v. Comelec 405 SCRA 614 (2003) The execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act. The affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, but more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin. The affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents abroad because by their status in the host countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their intent to return to this country; thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain. GlowingGloriaNote: So in the case of Macalintal vs. COMELEC 405 SCRA 614, the constitutionality of RA 9189 was put at risk w/ respect to certain provisions, specifically section 17 & 25. Because of the declaration of the SC, certain portion of RA 9189 were declared void for being unconstitutional because it provided for the approval of an oversight committee. First, the SC said that the: The phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17.1, specifically subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee; The portion of the last paragraph of Section 17.1 w/ respect to the phrase only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee; The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19 specifically The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval; The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section 25 specifically It shall review, revise, amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission of the same law for being repugnant to Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the independence of constitutional commission, such as COMELEC.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Section 5 Disqualification: (a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws; (b) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country; (c) Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those who have committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such as disability not having removed by plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote upon the expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Provided further, That the Commission may take cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on execution of judgments; (d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall

F.

G.

But section 18.5 was also raised as unconstitutional but the SC UPHELD it with respect only to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for the Senators and party-list representatives but not as to the power to canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President.

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

4 to vote in a form prescribed by the Commission. The authorized officer of such embassy, consulate or other foreign service establishment shall transmit to the Commission the said application to vote within five (5) days from receipt thereof. The application form shall be accomplished in triplicate and submitted together with the photocopy of his/her overseas absentee voter certificate of registration. 11.2. Every application to vote in absentia may be done personally at, or by mail to, the embassy, consulate or foreign service establishment, which has jurisdiction over the country where he/she has indicated his/her address for purposes of the elections. 11.3. Consular and diplomatic services rendered in connection with the overseas absentee voting processes shall be made available at no cost to the overseas absentee voter.

(so who proclaim? By mandate of section 4, article 7 it is the Congress ). So what was considered void was the authority granted to the COMELEC in RA 9189 to proclaim the president and vice president. GlowingGloriaNote: So another issue in the case of Macalintal is when the SC said that the execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act. The affidavit required) is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, but more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin. The affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents abroad because by their status in the host countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their intent to return to this country, thus, w/o the affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain. So, section 6 provides how the personal registration be done. Of course, it should be done in person. (so I hold you responsible to read what is required and how they are able to register as an overseas absentee voter, there is no need for interpretation because the law is very clear). Sec. 6. Personal Overseas Absentee Registration. Registration as an overseas absentee voter shall be done in person. Qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad who failed to register under Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the "The Voters Registration Act of 1996", may personally apply for registration with the Election Registration Board of the city or municipality where they were domiciled immediately prior to their departure from the Philippines, or with the representative of the Commission at the Philippine embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments that have jurisdiction over the locality where they temporarily reside. Subject to the specific guidelines herein provided, the Commission is hereby authorized to prescribe additional procedures for overseas absentee registration pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, whenever applicable, taking into strict consideration the time zones and the various periods and processes herein provided for the proper implementation of this Act. The embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments shall transmit within (5) days from receipt the accomplished registration forms to the Commission, after which the Commission shall coordinate with the Election Officer of the city or municipality of the applicants stated residence for verification, hearing and annotation in the permanent list of voters. All applications for the May, 2004 elections shall be filed with the Commission not later than two hundred eighty (280) calendar days before the day of elections. For succeeding elections, the Commission shall provide for the period within which applications to register must be filed. In the case of seafarers, the Commission shall provide a special mechanism for the time and manner of personal registration taking into consideration the nature of their work. 6.1. Upon receipt of the application for registration, the Election Officer shall immediately set the application for hearing, the notice of which shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of the city or municipal building of the applicants stated residence for at least one (1) week before the date of the hearing. The Election Officer shall immediately furnish a copy of the application to the designated representatives of political parties and other accredited groups. 6.2. If no verified objection to the application is filed, the Election Officer shall immediately forward the application to the Election Registration Board, which shall decide on the application within one (1) week from the date of hearing without waiting for the quarterly meeting of the Board. The applicant shall be notified of the approval or disapproval of his/her application by registered mail.

6.3. In the event that an objection to the application is filed prior to or on the date of hearing, the Election Officer shall notify the applicant of said objection by registered mail, enclosing therein copies of affidavits or documents submitted in support of the objection filed with the said Election Officer, if any. The applicant shall have the right to file his counter-affidavit by registered mail, clearly stating therein facts and defenses sworn before any officer in the host country authorized to administer oaths. 6.4. The application shall be approved or disapproved based on the merits of the objection, counter-affidavit and documents submitted by the party objecting and those of the applicant. 6.5 A Certificate of Registration as an overseas absentee voter shall be issued by the Commission to all applicants whose applications have been approved, including those certified as registered voters. The Commission shall include the approved applications in the National Registry of Absentee Voters. 6.6. If the application has been approved, any interested party may file a petition for exclusion not later than two hundred ten (210) days before the day of elections with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing on the basis of the documents submitted in connection therewith. Should the court fail to render a decision within the prescribed period, the ruling of the Election Registration Board shall be considered affirmed. 6.7. If the application has been disapproved, the applicant or his authorized representative shall, within a period of five (5) days from receipt of the notice of disapproval, have the right to file a petition for inclusion with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court. The petition shall be decided within five (5) days after its filing on the basis of documents submitted in connection therewith. Qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad, who have previously registered as voters pursuant to Republic Act No. 8189 shall apply for certification as absentee voters and for inclusion in the National Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters, with a corresponding annotation in the Certified Voters List. So section 7 also provides for a continuing system of registration, similar to RA 8189 wherein the qualified voter can apply for registration in the election officer in the office of the COMELEC. Under RA 9189, section 7: The Commission shall ensure that the benefits of the system of continuing registration are extended to qualified overseas absentee voters. Towards this end, the Commission shall optimize the use of existing facilities, personnel and mechanisms of the various government agencies for purposes of data gathering, data validation, information dissemination and facilitation of the registration process. Section 10 also provides for Notice of Registration and Election where the Commission shall, through the embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments, cause the publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the place, date and time of the holding of a regular or special national election and the requirements for the participation of qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad, at least six (6) months before the date set for the filing of applications for registration. Section 11 provides for Procedure for Application to Vote in Absentia (I hold you responsible to read..!!! ) 11.1. Every qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad whose application for registration has been approved, including those previously registered under Republic Act No. 8189, shall, in every national election, file with the officer of the embassy, consulate or other foreign service establishment authorized by the Commission, a sworn written application

Right of Suffrage of Duals (Overseas Absentee Voters) under RA 9189. Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. No. 162759, August 6, 2006. - Petitioners are dual citizens having retained or reacquired Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. As such, they sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters under RA 9189 or the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, in order to vote in the May 2004 elections. However, the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that per Comelec letter dated September 23, 2003, they have yet no residence requirement as prescribed by the Constitution. Petitioners sought a clarification from the Comelec which thereafter, expressed the opinion that dual citizens under RA 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage under the Overseas Absentee Voting Law because said law was not enacted for them, hence, they are considered regular voters who have to meet requirements of residency, among others. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 may vote as absentee voter under RA 9189. HELD: Section 1 of Article V of the Philippine Constitution prescribed residency requirement as a general eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2 thereof, authorizes congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may, as an exception to the residency prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to vote. There is no provision in the dual citizenship law (RA 9225), requiring duals to actually establish residence and physical stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement that duals are most likely non-residents, grants under Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as granted to an absentee voter under RA 9189 which aims to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos, who, save for the residency requirement exacted of an ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote as ruled in Makalintal vs. Comelec 405 SCRA 614 GlowingGloriaNote: So in the case of Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et. al. vs. COMELEC, GR 162759, petitioners here are dual citizens having retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225. As such, they sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters under RA 9189, in order to vote in the May 2004 elections. However, the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that per COMELEC letter dated September 23, 2003, they have yet no residence requirement as prescribed by the constitution (1 yr. residency requirement). Petitioners sought a clarification from the COMELEC which thereafter, expressed the opinion that dual citizens under RA 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage under the Overseas Absentee Voting Law because the said law was not enacted for them, hence, they are considered regular voters who have to meet requirements of residency, among others since RA 9189 is specific only for those

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

5 (a) In every polling place there shall be a guard rail between the voting booths and the table for the board of election inspectors which shall have separate entrance and exit. The booths shall be so arranged that they can be accessible only by passing through the guard rail and by entering through its open side facing the table of the board of election inspectors. (b) There shall also be a guard rail for the watchers between the place reserved for them and the table for the board of election inspectors and at a distance of not more than fifty centimeters from the latter so that the watchers may see and read clearly during the counting of the contents of the ballots and see and count the votes recorded by the board of election inspectors member on the corresponding tally sheets. (c) There shall also be, if possible, guard rails separating the table of the board of election inspectors from the voters waiting for their turn to cast their votes, with entrance and exit to give them orderly access to the table and the booths during the voting. (d) The polling place shall be so arranged that the booths, the table, the ballot boxes and the whole polling place, except what is being written within the booths, shall be in plain view of the board of election inspectors, the watchers and other persons who may be within the polling place. OFFICIAL BALLOTS AND ELECTION RETURNS (Provisions of OEC) Section 181. Official ballots. - Ballots for national and local offices shall be of uniform size and color and shall be provided at public expense. They shall be printed on paper with watermarks or other marks that will readily distinguish the ballot paper from ordinary paper. Each ballot shall be in the shape of a strip with stub and detachable coupon containing the serial number of the ballot, and a space for the thumbmark of the voter on the detachable coupon. It shall bear at the top on the middle portion thereof the coat of arms of the Republic of the Philippines, the words "Official Ballot", the name of the city or the municipality and province in which the election is held, the date of the election, and the following notice: "Fill out this ballot secretly inside the voting booth. Do not put any distinctive mark on any part of this ballot." The ballot shall also contain the names of all the offices to be voted for in the election, allowing opposite the name of each office, sufficient space or spaces with horizontal lines where the voter may write the name or names of the individual candidates voted for by him. There shall not be anything on the reverse side of the ballot. Ballots in cities and municipalities where Arabic is of general use shall have each of the titles of offices to be voted printed in Arabic in addition to and immediately below the English title. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, the Commission is hereby empowered to prescribe a different form of ballot to facilitate voting by illiterate voters and to use or adopt the latest technological and electronic devices as authorized under paragraph (i) of Section 52 hereof. Section 182. Emergency ballots. - No ballots other than the official ballots shall be used or counted, except in the event of failure to receive the official ballots on time, or where there are no sufficient ballots for all registered voters or where they are destroyed at such time as shall render it impossible to provide other official ballots, in which cases the city or municipal treasurer shall provide other ballots which shall be as similar to the official ones as circumstances will permit and which shall be uniform within each polling place. The treasurer shall immediately report such action to the Commission. The municipal treasurer shall not undertake the preparation of the emergency ballots unless the political parties, candidates and the organizations collectively authorized by the Commission to designate watchers have been sufficiently notified to send their representatives and have agreed in writing to the preparation and use of emergency ballots. Section 183. Requisition of official ballots and election returns. - Official ballots and election returns shall be printed upon orders of the Commission. Requisition of official

qualified abroad. Issue: WON petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 may vote as absentee voter under RA 9189.SC held that section 1 of article 5 of the Philippine constitution prescribed residency requirement as a general eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, section 2 thereof, authorizes congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may, as an exception to the residency prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to vote. There is no provision in the dual citizenship law (RA 9225), requiring duals to actually establish residence and physical stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement that duals are most likely non-residents, grants under section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as granted to an absentee voter under RA 9225 which aims to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipino, who, save for the residency requirement exacted of an ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote as ruled in Makalintal vs. COMELEC, thus dual citizens cal also avail the benefits of RA 9189 provided that they have to comply with the requirements.

-so for example etong room na ito, dito yung precinct 1 so all those in precinct 1 will vote here in room D103 and room 103 is referred to as polling place. So here in ateneo, room 101 is another precinct, room 200 is also another precinct, Ateneo now is a voting center because a voting center contains several voting places. VOTING CENTER refers to the building or place where the polling place is located; So how are precincts arranged? Section 6. Arrangement of Precincts Every barangay shall have at least one (1) precinct. Each precinct, shall have no more than two hundred (200) voters and shall comprise contiguous and compact territories. -and no territory comprising of election precinct shall be altered or new precinct established at the start of the election period (90 days before the day of election and 30 days after). So the law provides for a process that has to be undertaken to alter/ change a precinct w/c should be done prior to the start of election period since all political parties and residence has to be notified. UNDER WHAT INSTANCE CAN A PRECINCT BE LEFT WITH 200 VOTERS? -So the minimum is 200 and once the 200 limit is obtained, precinct 1-A will be created called as daughter pricinct 1) As soon as the 200-limit for every precinct has been reached, a spin-off or daughter precinct shall be created automatically by the Commission to accommodate voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the original precinct. Thereafter, a separate list of new voters shall be prepared by the Election Officer; and An island or group of islands with less than two hundred (200) voters may comprise one (1) original precinct. -so if you notice kung saan kayo bomoboto, doon na talaga kayo bomoboto ever since kase you cannot just change a polling place. LIMITATION IN THE CHANGE IN LOCATION OF THE PRECINCT Sec.153.xxx That no location shall be changed within forty-five days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election or a referendum or plebiscite, except in case it is destroyed or it cannot be used (na sunog). Except upon written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct or agreement of all the political parties, thus a precinct may be changed or resolution of the commission upon prior notice or hearing. -However, under RA 8189 it has amended the 45 days under the OEC, so at the start of the election period nah or 90 days. ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTENTS OF POLLING PLACES ARTICLE 158-159 OF BP 881 OEC

Cordora v. Commission on Elections 580 SCRA 12 (2009) Cordora concluded that Tambunting failed to meet the residency requirement because of Tambuntings naturalization as an American. Cordoras reasoning fails because Tambunting is not a naturalized American. Residency, for the purpose of elections laws, includes the twin elements of the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there permanently, and is not dependent upon citizenship. GlowingGloriaNote: In the case of Cordora vs. COMELEC , 580 SCRA 12 (2009), Cordora concluded that Tambunting failed to meet the residency requirement because of Tambuntings naturalization as an American. Cordoras reasoning fails because Tambunting is not a naturalized American. Residency, for the purpose of election laws, includes the twin elements of the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there permanently, and is not dependent upon citizenship. PRECINCT/POLLING PLACE/VOTING CENTER Under RA 8189 (Voters Registration Act), is there a distinction between a precinct, polling place and a voting center? PRECINCT- refers to the basic unit of territory established by the Commission for the purpose of voting; a precinct is determined by a precinct map. so if you will note class dba magkakapit-bahay kayo, halimbawa you are residing in Jacinto, you will notice that when you vote magkaka-kilala kayo kase when you vote you reside in the same place. For example you reside in the Kalamansi st., Kasoy st., so yung magkakatabing street , so magkakilala kayo kase that is the basic unit of the territory for the purposes of identifying to what precinct. Halimbawa, precinct 1 is from Jacinto, to Juan Dela Cruz to Roxas, so that is the basic unit of territory. So yung sunod doon, the basic territory will be precinct 2, yung adjacent to Precinct 1. PRECINCT MAP - identifies the particular area or territory for which the precinct is covered and attached or nakadikit yan sa labas ng polling place. It also refer to a sketch or drawing of a geographical area stated in terms of streets or street blocks or sitios the residents of which would belong to a particular precinct; POLLING PLACE refers to the place where the Board of Election Inspectors conducts its proceeding and where the voters cast their votes;

2)

Section 158. Voting booth. - During the voting, there shall be in each polling place a booth for every twenty voters registered in the precinct. Each booth shall be open on the side fronting the table for the board of election inspectors and its three sides shall be closed with walls at least seventy centimeters wide and two meters high. The upper part shall be covered, if necessary, to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each booth shall have in the background a shelf so placed that voters can write therein while standing and shall be kept clearly lighted, by artificial lights, if necessary, during the voting. The Commission shall post inside each voting booth and elsewhere in the polling place on the day before the election, referendum and plebiscite a list containing the names of all the candidates or the issues or questions to be voted for, and shall at all times during the voting period keep such list posted in said places. Section 159. Guard rails. -

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

6 or affinity to any member of the board of election inspectors or to any candidate to be voted for in the polling place or his spouse. The BEI also exercises several powers because they are also deputies dba. section 168. Powers of the board of election inspectors. - The board of election inspectors shall have the following powers and functions: a) b) Conduct the voting and counting of votes in their respective polling places; Act as deputies of the Commission in the supervision and control of the election in the polling places wherein they are assigned, to assure the holding of the same in a free, orderly and honest manner; and Perform such other functions prescribed by this Code or by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission.

ballots shall be for each city and municipality, at the rate of one and one-fifth ballots for every registered voter in the next preceding election; and for election returns, at one set thereof for every polling place. Section 184. Printing of official ballots and elections returns. - The official ballots and election returns shall be printed by the Government Printing Office and/or the Central Bank printing facilities exclusively, under the exclusive supervision and control of the Commission which shall determine and provide the necessary security measures in the printing, storage and distribution thereof. Each ballot shall be joined by a perforated line to a stub numbered consecutively, beginning with number "1" in each city and municipality. Each ballot shall also have at the bottom a detachable coupon bearing the same number of the stub. Each pad of ballots shall bear on its cover the name of the city or municipality in which the ballots are to be used and the inclusive serial numbers of the ballots contained therein. The official ballots shall be bound in separate pads of fifty or one hundred ballots each as may be required. The election returns shall be prepared in sets of six copies per set and shall be numbered consecutively, beginning with number "1" in each city and municipality. Each set of the election returns shall be printed in such a manner that will ensure that the entries on the original of the returns are clearly reproduced on the other copies thereof and shall bear the name of the city or municipality in which the returns are to be used. For this purposes, the Commission shall acquire, if necessary, a special kind of carbon paper or chemically treated paper. Section 185. Sample official ballots. - The Commission shall provide the board of election inspectors with sample official ballots at the rate of thirty ballots per polling place. The sample official ballots shall be printed on colored paper, in all respects like the official ballots but bearing instead the words "Sample Official Ballot", to be shown to the public and used in demonstrating how to fill out and fold the official ballots properly. No name of any actual candidate shall be written on the spaces for voting on the sample official ballots provided by the Commission, nor shall they be used for voting. Section 186. Distribution of official ballots and election returns. - The official ballots and the election returns shall be distributed by the Commission to each city and municipality at the rate of one and one-fifth ballots for every voter registered in each polling place; and for election returns, at the rate of one set each for every polling place. The provincial, city or municipal treasurer shall respectively keep a record of the quantity and serial numbers of official ballots and election returns furnished the various provinces, cities, municipalities and polling places, as the case may be, legible copies of which record shall be furnished the duly authorized provincial, city or municipal representatives of the ruling party and the dominant opposition party, and the Commission immediately after the distribution is made of such official ballots and election returns. The Commission shall prescribe the use of official delivery receipts to be signed by the election registrar and the chairman of the board of canvassers upon receipt of the election returns. No official ballots or election returns shall be delivered to the board of election inspectors earlier than the first hour of election day: Provided, however, That the Commission, after written notice to the registered political parties and the candidates, may, for justifiable reasons, authorize the delivery of said official ballots and election returns to the board of election inspectors of any particular polling place at an earlier date. Section 187. Committee on printing, storage, and distribution of official ballots and election returns. - The Commission shall appoint a committee of five members, two of whom shall be from among its personnel, the third to be designated by the Commission on Audit, and the last two to be designated by the ruling party and the dominant opposition party to act as its representatives in supervising the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots and election returns. Upon the request of any candidate, political party or of civic, religious, professional, business, service, youth or any similar organizations collectively designated by the Commission, the latter shall allow any person designated by any of the former as watcher to observe the proceedings of the committee on the printing of official ballots and election returns, file objections, if any, witness the printing and distribution of the ballots and the returns and guard the premises of the printer.

Section 188. Duties of the committee on printing of official ballots and election returns. Under such orders or instructions as the Commission may issue, and in addition to general supervision and control over the printing and shipment of official ballots and election returns, the committee on printing of official ballots and election returns shall (a) take charge of the room or rooms where the paper and paraphernalia used in the printing of official ballots and election returns are stored and where printed official ballots and election returns are packed and prepared for shipment, (b) supervise all aspects relating to the printing, storage and shipment of official ballots and election returns and report to the Commission any irregularity which they believe may have been committed, and (c) perform such other related functions as the Commission may direct. Section 189. Representatives of the registered political parties in the verification and distribution of official ballots and election returns. - The ruling party and the dominant opposition party or their respective duly authorized representatives in the different provinces, cities and municipalities, shall submit the names of their respective watchers who, together with the representatives of the Commission and the provincial, city and municipal treasurer shall verify the contents of the boxes containing the shipment of official ballots, election returns and sample official ballots received by the said treasurers. The provincial treasurers shall keep a record of their receipt and distribution to each municipal treasurer, while the city and municipal treasurer shall each keep a record of their distribution to the board of election inspectors.

c)

BEIs also enjoy the privileged of voting in the precinct / polling place where they are assigned even if they are not in their registered voters of that precinct. For example, they are registered voter of precinct 10 and serving in precinct 1, they can vote in precinct 1 provided it is recorded in the minutes of voting, but if they are registered voter in Panabo and serving in Davao city, they cannot vote in Davao city because they are not registered in Davao city. Take note class that whatever happens kahit may golo, or ano are recorded in the minutes of voting. So that is one of the elections paraphernalia. WHAT ARE OTHER ELECTIONS PARAPHERNALIA? VRR or The voters registration record where your name is indicated, so that is a permanent record of law. Also, voters list, voters record kung saan nakalagay yung official ballot number na naka-lagay sa inyo. So the voting record will be the basis of the election registration votes or deactivate the particular voter who failed in the last 2 preceding elections. so how will that voter vote again? So e.pa-reactivate niya, so hindi na siya magregister again because of the process of deactivate and reactivation. BEI are also obliged to count the ballots and prepare the election returns. Voting time is also between 7:00am-3:00pm, only in certain cases that there are voters w/n the 50 meter radius should the BEI accommodate them, minsan may mga hanggang 5pm depende on the number of voters. After the counting of votes, the BEI will transmit the ballot boxes and election returns filled-up and duly signed to the election officer who will deliver the copy to the board of canvasser. GlowingGloriaNote so we also have an absentee voter na domestic, halimbawa you are a registered voter but na assign sa Tawi-tawi by nature of your job so you can vote as an absentee voter but you have to go through the process to apply subject to the approval of the COMELEC. The absentee voter can only vote for president, vice-president and senator. They cannot vote for the local officials for example in Tawi-tawi siya by reason of his job tapos gusto niyang bomoto there is a provision. This is limited only to BEIs, members of AFP, and govt authorities who on election day may temporarily be assigned, in connection to the performance of elections, where they are not registered. PROCEEDINGS- shall be public and held only in polling places. EXCEPTION: may be done in the nearest safe barangay or school building within the municipality by unanimous vote of the board and concurred in by the majority of the watchers present if there is imminent danger of violence, terrorism, disorder or similar causes. The BEI shall act through its chairman, and shall decide without delay by majority of the vote all questions which may arise in the performance of its duties. Prohibition on the BEI Section 205 OEC. Prohibition of premature announcement of voting. - No member of the board of election inspectors shall, before the termination of the voting, make any announcement as to whether a certain registered voter has already voted or not, as to

BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS WHO MANS THE ELECTION PRECINCTS?-the BEI, compose of the chairman and poll clerk and two members, each representing the two accredited political parties. QUALIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT?-so usually they are public school teachers, however, public school teachers may be appointed in case there is not enough public school teachers or employee in the civil service provided that they are registered in the city or municipality which they will serve. Section 164. Composition and appointment of board of election inspectors. - At least thirty days before the date when the voters list is to be prepare in accordance with this Code, in the case of a regular election or fifteen days before a special election, the Commission shall, directly or through its duly authorized representatives, constitute a board of election inspectors for each precinct to be composed of a chairman and a poll clerk who must be public school teachers, priority to be given to civil service eligibles, and two members, each representing the two accredited political parties. The appointment shall state the precinct to which they are assigned and the date of the appointment. Section 165. Oath of the members of the board of election inspectors. - The members of the board of election inspectors, whether permanent, substitute or temporary, shall before assuming their office, take and sign an oath upon forms prepared by the Commission, before an officer authorized to administer oaths or, in his absence, before any other member of the board of election inspectors present, or in case no one is present, they shall take it before any voter. The oaths shall be sent immediately to the city or municipal treasurer. Section 166. Qualification of members of the board of election inspectors. - No person shall be appointed chairman, member or substitute member of the board of election inspectors unless he is of good moral character and irreproachable reputation, a registered voter of the city or municipality, has never been convicted of any election offense or of any other crime punishable by more than six months of imprisonment, or if he has pending against him an information for any election offense. He must be able to speak and write English or the local dialect. A disqualification is also provided by law: (sec.167 OEC 881) Section 167. Disqualification. - No person shall serve as chairman or member of the board of election inspectors if he is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

how many have already voted or how many so far have failed to vote, or any other fact tending to show or showing the state of the polls, nor shall he make any statement at any time, except as witness before a court, as to how any person voted.

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY Atty Valencia Lecture: Section 73, BP 881/Omnibus Elections Code (OEC) , par. (1) Certificate of Candidacy No person shall be eligible for any elective office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed therein. Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266, it is the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidates political creed or lack of political creed. Section 73 (3) BP 881 No personal shall be eligible for more than one office to be filed in the same election (requirement to run for elective office), and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them (Effect of filing multiple certificates of candidacy). (Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy) - However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of the certificates of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices. Pilar v. Comelec 245 SCRA 759 (1995) The withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy does not extinguish ones liability for the administrative fine imposed by Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166, which requires every candidate to file a true statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the elections. Villanueva v. Comelec 122 SCRA 636 (1983) the withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy not made under oath produces no legal effect; for all intents and purposes, the withdrawing candidate remains a candidate. Go v. Comelec 357 SCRA 739 (2001) There is nothing that mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with the main office of the Comelec, the office of the regional election supervisor concerned, the office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality involved belongs, or the office of the municipal election officer of the said municipality. EFFECTS: FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY Sec. 66 BP 881/OEC. An appointive official is considered resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The forfeiture is automatic and the operative act is the moment of filing which shall render the appointive official resigned ( Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC, May 31, 1993) , where the provision of Sec. 66 is applicable also to GOCC and can constitute as a just cause for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor Code. Sec. 67 OEC An elective official running for a position other than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, is deemed resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Section 67 has been repealed by Section 14 of RA 9006 (The Fair Elections Law), a candidate holding an elective position whether national or local running for office other than the one he is holding in a permanent capaci is considered resigned only upon the expiration of his term.. Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 (1999) The provision of the election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing and swearing on the same, as well as the information required to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory. Section 7 RA 7166 - Time and Place of Filing WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE FILING OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (COC)? Section 66 OEC An appointive official is considered resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The forfeiture is automatic and the operative act is the moment of filing which shall render the appointive official resigned. Example of appointive officer? City administrator. Who else? So if they file a CoC? They are deemed to have forfeited their offices. What would be the basis of the forfeiture? The filing. What if after fifteen minutes they withdraw the CoC? Are still they deemed resigned? Yes, the act of filing itself results to them being resigned. What about elective officials? What section? Section 67 OEC An elective official running for a position other than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, is deemed resigned upon the filing of his CoC. What is the difference of the two provisions? Explain first Section 67, then we go to the amendment. Give me an example. The general rule first. A congressman who wants to run for senator who files a CoC is deemed ipso facto resigned upon his filing. Why? What is the position he is holding in a permanent capacity? Member of the House. So if he files a CoC other than that which he is holding in a permanent capacity, he is deemed resigned. The exception? If he files a CoC for President, he is not resigned from office. Is that the prevailing rule now? It has been repealed by Section 11 of RA 8436 That any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he/she is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to the position for which he/she is running. At the start of the campaign period, which is 90 days before the election for national officials and 45 days for local officials. Is that the prevailing law now? It has been repealed by Section 14 of RA 9006 which states that Sections 67 and 85 of the OEC and Sections 10 and 11 of RA 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first provision of the third paragraph of Section 11 of RA 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? In RA 8436, they are deemed resigned upon the start of the campaign period while in RA 9006, they are deemed resigned upon the expiration of his term. Is it expressly provided in 9006? What is your basis of saying they are deemed resigned only upon the expiration of their term? What is Section 85 that was mentioned? What was repealed there? Section 85 of OEC Prohibited forms of election propaganda. What form was repealed? (Not answered, even by Maam hehe)

ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES
Eligibility- a candidate is eligible to run if the candidate files a certificate of candidacy because even if one is qualified and not otherwise disqualified but he did not file his COC, how can he be eligible to be voted upon? So he has to file his COC GlowinGloriaNote: Qualification prescribed by law are continuing requirements and must be possessed for the duration of the officers active tenure. Once any of the required qualification is lost, his title to the office may be seasonable questioned ( Frivaldo vs Comelec) In a quo warranto proceeding For President and Vice-President No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least 40 years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President (Article VII, Section 2 and 3, Constitution) For Senator No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of election, is at least 35 years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the elections. (Article VI, Section 3, Constitution) For Members of the House of Representatives No person shall be a Member of the HR unless he is natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of election, is at least 25 years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than on year immediately preceding the election. (Article VI, Section 6, Constitution) Bengzon III v. HRET 357 SCRA 545 (2001) Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. Local Government Officials An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) years immediate preceding the day of the election; able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. Common to All Offices - Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which they were elected. RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) Section 36(g) provides that all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national and local government shall undergo mandatory drug tests. Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486 on 23 December 2003 implementing 9165. Publication of the results will be published. But the resolution does not indicate whether or not candidates who test positive for drugs will be allowed to assume office if they win.)

SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY Section 77 BP 881. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. After the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of the date of the election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with the board of election inspectors in the political subdivisions where he is

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

8 residence or bodily presence in the new locality; and (c) an intention to abandon the old domicile. Domingo vs. Comelec 310 SCRA 546. The term residence as utilized in the law prescribing the qualifications of suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as domicile, which imparts not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Intention to acquire a domicile whether actual residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, nor does the fact of physical presence without intention. When the Constitution speaks of residence, the latter should be understood, consistent with Webster, to mean actual, physical and personal presence in the district that a candidate seeks to represent. Atty Valencia Lectures : What is common to all officers is that voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which they were elected. What is the rational/purpose behind the requirement of residency as discussed in the case of Torayno? What is the evidence/supporting documents that Emano failed to meet the requirements? What is the nature of the disqualification? Which of the provision served as ground for the disqualification of Emano? Since residency is one of the issue here, what is the evidence that he made false declaration?

a candidate or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission. GlowingGloriaNote: A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable requisite in case of substitution of a disqualified candidate under Sec. 77. Under said provision, the candidate who dies, withdraws or is disqualified must be an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party and the substitute candidate must be of the same political party as the original candidate and must be duly nominated as such by the political party. Rulloda vs. Comelec G.R. No. 154198 January 20, 2003 The absence of a specific provision governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow substitution of candidates where no political parties are involved than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law. MAY AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WHO HAS WITHDRAWN FROM SUCH CANDIDACY, THEN AFFILIATE AS PARTY MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY, AND IS THEREAFTER NOMINATED TO SUBSTITUTE ITS CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR LEGALLY RUN AS SUBSTITUTE CANDIDATE? Yesyeyoh! Sinaca vs Mula: declared in the affirmative since there is no condition precedent that a substitute candidate must have been a member of the party concerned for a certain period of time before he can be nominated as such as the law merely provided that the substitute should be a person belonging to and certified to by the same political party as the candidate to be replaced. Any person holding a public appointed office, including members of the AFP and officers and employees of GOCCs shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of ones certificate. ( Sec. 66, BP 881) Only the moment and act of filing are considered. Once the certified is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing, save a new election or appointment, can restore the ousted official (section 67 of OEC) Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or personality who is a candidate for any elective public office shall be deemed resigned, if so required by his/her employer , or shall take a leave of absence from his/her work as such during the campaign period. ( Sec 66 RA 9006) What are the circumstances when substitution may be allowed? 1. Death 2. Disqualified by final judgment 3. When a candidate withdraws his candidacy. WHEN? After the last day of the filing of COC If any of those circumstances transpire, what is the procedure? If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission. What happen to the vote cast in favor of that person who was substituted? In case of a valid substitution, votes cast for the substituted candidates are considered stray, except of the substituted candidate and the substitute has the surname. What happens if the ballot has already been printed such as those provided in RA 9369 (automated) ? What happens to the votes for the substitute if his name is not written there? How will it be counted? The vote for the substitute candidate will be counted in favor of the substituted. ( this with respect to autoimated election ha kasi shade shade nlng. Any unwanted mark, di babasin ng PCOS)

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio Gonzales and Orlando Balbon, Jr. 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In considering the residency issue, the dwelling where a person permanently intends to return to and to remain his or her capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, IS IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it determined the fitness of a dwelling as a persons residence based solely on very personal and subjective assessment standards when the law is replete with standards that can be used. Comelec used wrong considerations in arriving at the conclusion that Mitras residence is not the residence contemplated by law. Cordora vs. Comelec 580 SCRA 12 The fact that a candidate has dual citizenship prior to his filing his certificate of candidacy DOES NOT disqualify him from running for public office. Coquilla vs. Comelec 385 SCRA 607 A former Filipino citizen (not having the status of an alien resident) cannot be considered a resident of the Philippines and in the locality he intends to be elected prior to his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The term residence is to be understood NOT in its common acceptation as referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence, that is, the place where the party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the childs parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (by choice.) Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec 248 SCRA 30 (1995). it is the fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render the candidate ineligible. Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 640, the qualifications of Rodolfo Aguinaldo former governor of Cagayan was at issue when he filed his certificate of candidacy as member of the HR for the 3rd district of Cagayan in the 11 May 1998 elections. The Court reiterated the meaning of residence as the place where the party actually or constructively has his permanent home where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, while domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purpose of election law. And, the fact that a person is a RV in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district. Torayno Sr., vs. Comelec 337 SCRA 574, the issue in this case is the residence qualification of Vicente Emano who filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro. Court explained that the purpose of the residence as required by Constitution and the law as a qualification for seeking and holding public office, is to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties and aspiration, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies. On the part of the electorate, to evaluate the candidates qualification s and fitness for the job they aspire for. In this case Emano, cannot be deemed to be a stranger or newcomer when he ran for and was overwhelmingly voted as city mayor having garnered a margin of 30K votes. Papandayan, Jr. vs. Comelec 381 SCRA 133. Domicile connotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. The requirements in order to acquire a new domicile by choice are: (a) an intention to remain there; (b)

WHY IS THE TERM RESIDENCE AT ISSUE IN THE CASE OF COQUILLA VS. COMELEC? -When you file a petition for disqualification based on Sec. 78, your evidence is the COC for making false declaration in the COC. WHY IS RESIDENCY AN ISSUE IN ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS. COMELEC? SC said that the statement in the COC must have a deliberate intention to deceive the public. GlowingGloriaNote: among those questioned talaga is the residencey requirement. For purposes of election laws, residence and domicile is synonymous. You may be a domicle of davao but you are a resident of cebu, you may vote in Cebu provided that you meet the qualification for residency but you cannot vote twice. ( flying voter naka) In the case of Coquilla vs Comelec- The term residence is to be understood NOT in its common acceptation as referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence, that is, the place where the party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the childs parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (by choice.)

ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE CANDIDACY OF A CANDIDATE OR DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE Rule 25 - Disqualification of Candidates Section 1. Grounds for Disqualification. - Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate. Sec. 2. Who May File Petition for Disqualification. - Any citizen of voting age, or duly registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties may file with the Law

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

9 When a candidate is not yet disqualified by final judgment during the Election Day and was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. The HRET has no jurisdiction to review decisions or resolutions of the Comelec, whether issued by a division or en banc. WHAT IS THE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE THAT A CANDIDATE SHOULD INCUR FOR HIM NOT TO BE CHALLENGED UNDER THE LAW BASED ON SECTION 68? A national candidate should spend only ten pesos per registered voter, and a local candidate should spend only five pesos per registered voter. WHAT RELEVANCE OF LETTER (D) IN SECTION 68? They are expenditures; transportation, food and drinks, prohibited contributions, soliciting, prohibited raising of funds. WHO CAN FILE BASED ON SECTION 68? Still under Section 2 of Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. So Section 12 and Section 68 are covered by Rule 25? Yes Maam. Atty Valencia: As what we have discussed, there are actions that one can challenge the candidacy of a candidate. Under the OEC, we have sec. 12 which are grounds similar to petitions for exclusion under RA 8189 w/ respect to the registration of a voter, also the provision in sec. 68 of the OEC providing for the manner w/c a candidate gives money or any consideration to influence/ corrupt voters and it also provide for grounds of expenditure, the limitation of how much a candidate can spend in an election. With respect to sec. 68, all petitions for disqualification based on sec. 68 is filed in the COMELEC for all candidates. With respect to members of HR and when the candidate won, the COMELEC loses jurisdiction over the candidates pending disqualification case if proclamation has already been made on a member of the HR. Unlike in sec. 72 with respect to effects of the disqualification case, if there is no decision yet of the COMELEC and the candidate/member of the HR garnered the highest number of votes the COMELEC thereafter loses jurisdiction over the case, but it would be different if COMELEC had jurisdiction over the elective official in which case the COMELEC shall continue the hearing and trial of the case and if the candidate garner the highest number of votes, the proclamation of that candidate may be suspended upon motion of the complainant / any intervenor if he can show proof that the evidence of guilt against that candidate is strong. Sec. 69 Petition to Abate a Nuisance Candidate

Department of the Commission a petition to disqualify a candidate on grounds provided by law. Sec. 3. Period to File Petition. - The petition shall be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation. Sec. 4. Summary Proceeding. - The petition shall be heard summarily after due notice. Sec. 5. Effect of Petition if Unresolved Before Completion of Canvass. - If the petition, for reasons beyond the control of the Commission, cannot be decided before the completion of the canvass, the votes cast for the respondent may be included in the counting and in the canvassing; however, if the evidence of guilt is strong, his proclamation shall be suspended notwithstanding the fact that he received the winning number of votes in such election.

WHERE DO YOU FILE? It shall be filed with the Law Department of the Comelec. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING? It is a summary proceeding. What do you mean by summary proceeding? It does not require a full blown trial. 2) (acts) Sec. 68 of the OEC Section 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. those guilty of giving money or material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt voters or public official performing electoral functions; those who have committed terrorism to enhance his candidacy those who have spend in the election campaign more than that required by law (Php10/RV/Php5.00)

GlowingGloriaNote: 4 categories of the disqualification 1. status ; 2. acts; 3. nuisance candidacy; and 4. falsity of the material representation in the certificate of candidacy. 1) (STATUS) SEC. 12 OF THE 0EC any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent (when we say incompetence, the same may refer not only to mental illness, disease or physical disability but also to other causes which may include minority or lack of residence requirement) any person who has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion for any offense for which carries a penalty of more than 18 months for a crime involving moral turpitude

NOTE: Section 68 deals with a petition to disqualify a candidate for other violations of the election code as specified in said section, and against a candidate who is a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. That section does not specify a period within which to file the petition. GlowingGloriaNotes- Sentenced by final judgment for : subversion, insurrection and rebellion any offense for which the candidate has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months of imprisonment; Any offense involving moral turpitude; Having given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters Having spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by the OEC GGN: among the amendments taken under the electoral reform law under RA 6646 and RA 7166- those who have spent more than the required amount during the election process is NO LONGER CRIMINALLY LIABLE; they can only be held ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE. Under OEC if you fail to submit statement of expenditures and contribution ( SEC) you may be imprisoned and be held criminally liable. Now, Failure to file will only hold the person liable to pay administrative fees if you are recidivist, 3 times ka wala nagfile, you can lose or there can be perpetual disqualification.

The disqualification is removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty upon declaration by a competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed expiration of a period of 5 years from his service of sentence unless of course within the same period he again becomes disqualified. Section 12 Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. WHO CAN FILE? Under Section 2 of Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure Who may file petition for disqualification Any citizen of voting age, or duly registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties may file with the Law Department of the Commission a petition to disqualify a candidate on grounds provided by law. WHAT IS THE PERIOD? Under Section 3 Period to file petition The petition shall be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.

3.

the Comelec, may motu propio or upon verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that it is filed in contemplation of a nuisance candidate or cancel the same if already filed. This is an exception to the ministerial duty of the Comelec and its officers to receive a certificate of candidacy under Section 76 of the OEC. COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE Rule 24 - Proceedings Against Nuisance Candidates Section 1. Grounds. - Any candidate for any elective office who filed his certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or who by other acts or circumstances is clearly demonstrated to have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, thus preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate, may be declared a nuisance candidate and his certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or may be cancelled. Sec. 2. Who May File Petition to Declare a Candidate as Nuisance Candidate. - Any registered candidate for the same elective office may file with the Law Department of the Commission a petition to declare a candidate as a nuisance candidate.

Codilla vs. De Venecia 393 SCRA 634, it was held that the power of Comelec to disqualify candidates is limited to the enumerations mentioned in Section 68 of the OEC. Elements to be proved are as follows: the candidate, personally or through his instructions, must have given money or other material consideration and the act of giving material consideration or money should be for the purpose of influencing, inducing or corrupting the voters or public officials performing electoral functions.

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

10 qualifications required by law and the facts presented to show possession of these qualifications. On the other hand, the COC denial/cancellation proceedings involve the issue of whether there is a false representation of a material fact. The false representation must necessarily pertain not to a mere innocuous mistake but to a material fact or those that refer to a candidates qualification for elective office. Loong c. Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992) If a person qualified to file a petition to disqualify a certain candidate fails to file the petition within the 15-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for whatever reasons, the election laws do not leave him completely helpless as he has another chance to raise the disqualification of the candidate by filing a petition for QW within 10 days from the proclamation of the results of the election. NOTE: In Fermin v. Comelec G.R. No. 179695 and G.R. No. 182369, December 18, 2008, the SC clarified that Section 5 (Procedure in cases of Nuisance candidates ) and Section 7 (Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy under RA 6646, did not in any way amend the period for filing Section 78 petitions. While Section 7 of the said law makes reference to Section 5 on the procedure in the conduct of cases for the denial of due course to the COCs of nuisance candidates (then chief Justice Davide in his dissenting opinion in Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995 248 SCRA 400, explains that the procedure hereinabove provided mentioned in Section 7 cannot be construed to refer to Section 6 which does not provide for a procedure but to the effects of disqualification cases, (but) can only refer to the procedure provided in Section 5 of the said Act on nuisance candidates, the same cannot be taken to mean that the 25-day period for filing Section 78 petitions is changed to 5 days counted from the last day for the filing of COCs. The clear language of Section 78 cannot be amended or modified b y a mere reference in a subsequent statute to the use of a procedure specifically intended for another type of action. Cardinal is the rule in statutory construction that repeals by implication are disfavored and will not be so declared by the Court unless the intent of the legislators is manifest. Noteworthy in Loong v. Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992), Which upheld the 25-day period for filing Section 78 petitions, was decided long after the enactment of RA 6646. Hence, Section 23, Section 2 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure is contrary to the unequivocal mandate of the law. Following the ruling in Fermin, the Court declared that as the law stands, the petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC may be filed at anytime not later than 25-days from the time of the filing of the COC. Salcedo v. Comelec 312 SCRA 447, it was ruled that a candidate who used her husbands name even through their marriage was declared void was not guilty of misrepresentation concerning a material fact. In order to justify the cancellation, it is essential that the false representation pertains to material matter affecting substantive rights of a candidate the right to run for elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy. The material misrepresentation must refer to the qualifications for the office, such as residence, citizenship, age. In addition to the requirement of materiality, the false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. GlowingGloriaNote: Salcedo vs. COMELEC SC said that other than the misrepresentation in the COC, the misrepresentation must be coupled with a deliberate attempt to mislead/ misinform the public. In this case, Salcedo, although her marriage to her husband is declared null and void she continued to use her husbands family name and the SC said that it does not constitute misrepresentation. She can continue to use the family name of her husband. Justimbaste v. Comelec 572 SCRA 736 (2008) Material misrepresentation as a ground to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy refers to the falsity of a statement required to be entered therein as enumerated in Section 74 of the OEC. Concurrent with materiality is a deliberate intention to deceive the electorate as to one qualification making reference to

The Commission may, at any time before the election, motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy of any candidate on any of the grounds enumerated under Section 1 of this Rule or when the substitute Certificate of Candidacy is not a proper case of substitution under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. Sec. 3. Period to File the Petition. - The petition shall be filed personally or through an authorized representative, within five (5) days from the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Sec. 4. Summary Proceeding. - The petition shall be heard summarily after due notice. Sec. 5. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. - The hearing and reception of evidence may be delegated in like manner as provided in Sec. 4 of the preceding Rule.

OEC Section 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. - The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. GlowingGloriaNote: section 69 is an exception to the ministerial duty of the Comelec to accept COC. Here they can refuse to accept it. There can also be motu proprio petition to abate nuisance candidate. This can only be filed by the registered candidate of the same office within 5 days from the last day of filling the COC 4. Sec. 78 OEC Petition to Deny due Course or to Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy.

WHO IS A NUISANCE CANDIDATE Section 69. Nuisance candidates. - The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. one who files his certificate to put the election process in mockery or disrepute contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the similarity of surnames of two (2) candidates may generate. (in the appreciation of ballots, when two candidates with the same name or surname and only the name or surname is written, will be considered stray vote and will not be counted for either of the candidate unless one of the candidate with the same name or surname is an incumbent equity of the incumbent rule) by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bonafide intention to run for office, thus would prevent the faithful determination of the true will of the people. (Bautista vs. Comelec 298 SCRA 480)

A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 (contents of the COC) of the OEC is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days before election. Ito ung nangyari kay Imelda. A petition disqualify was filed against her but it was a mistake in good faith Nagkamali sya paglagay on a question on how many months sya ion her residence. Petition was denied and favored Imelda. Sec. 78 expressly provides that petition to deny due course / cancel COC shall be filed w/n 25 days from the filing of the COC by any registered voter/political party.

COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE Rule 23 - Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy Section 1. Grounds for Denial of Certificate of Candidacy. - A petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy for any elective office may be filed with the Law Department of the Commission by any citizen of voting age or a duly registered political party, organization, or coalition or political parties on the exclusive ground that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false. Sec. 2. Period to File Petition. - The petition must be filed within five (5) days following the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy. Sec. 3. Summary Proceeding. - The petition shall be heard summarily after due notice. Sec. 4. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. - The Commission may designate any of its officials who are members of the Philippine Bar to hear the case and to receive evidence. Who may file by any person through a verified petition On What Grounds the candidate made material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. Section 78 deals exclusively with a petition to deny due course to a COC on the ground that a material representation in the contents of the certificate under Sec. 74, is false. (pertains to a candidates eligibility or qualification such as citizenship, residence or status as a registered voter Maruhom vs. Comelec 594 SCRA 108) Period to File Within 25 days from the last day for the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Jurisdiction Comelec sitting in a division. Fermin vs. COMELEC SC said that the period under sec. 78 has not been amended by the provisions of RA 6646. The provision in the COMELEC rules of procedure in so far as the filing of the petition under sec. 78 is declared constitutional. Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 Voters inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of whether a petition shall be included in or excluded from the list of voters based on the

Who can file a petition to declare a candidate a nuisance candidate shall be filed by any registered candidate for the same office within 5 days from the last day of the filing of the certificate of candidacy. (As amended by Section 5 of RA 6646 Martinez III vs. HRET 610 SCRA 53 (January 2010) Proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt disposition. The declaration of a duly registered candidate as nuisance candidate results in the cancellation of his COC. Sec. 69 pertains to nuisance candidate and as what we have said, it is the ministerial duty of the COMELEC that upon filing of the COC, as long as all requirements are the met, the COMELEC is mandated to receive the COC except if the candidate is contemplated as a nuisance candidate in which case the COMELEC may moto proprio refused to receive such COC. Who can file? -A candidate running for the same position who may be aggrieved by the running of such nuisance candidate may file a petition for disqualification w/n 5 days from the deadline of the filing of COC. GGN: example, surname ay Sandara park meron rin Gloria park na tumakbo. What if park lng ang nilagay? The vote here will be considered as stray vote. It will not be counted in favor of any candidate unless one of them is the incumbent by virtue of the equity of incumbent rule pero ngayon wala ng ganyan na appreciation ng ballot kasi automated na tayo. Meron lang ganyan when it involves barangay election.

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

11 Reyes vs. COMELEC: Reyes here was vice mayor when administrative charge was filed against him. The decision to remove him was filed and served upon him but he refused to receive it. So naglapse na yung period niya and he filed again a COC for the same office and sought the refuge in the case of Aguinaldo that he cannot be removed because he has not receive the resolution of the sanggunian removing him from office. But SC said that there is a provision that if he failed to receive it, it is considered served for all intents and purposes. So the decision to remove Reyes from office became final and executory and thus he was removed from office by virtue of an administrative charged w/c disqualifed him from running in the same public office. Lingatin vs. COMELEC- Same ruling of SC in Reyes vs. COMELEC. A petition for disqualification was filed on May 3, 2001 w/ election supervisor in Pagadian City. Lingatin filed a disqualification against the opposing candidate pursuant to sec. 40(d) of RA 7160 which disqualifies from running in any elective position on the ground that he was removed from office as a result of an administrative charged. However, the administrative charge has not become final and executory, so same w/ the case of Aguinaldo. Grego v. Comelec 274 SCRA 481, the Court ruled that Sec. 40 of RA 7160 does not have any retroactive effect. In this case a Deputy Sheriff was removed for serious misconduct in 1981. He run in 1992 & 1995. His removal in 1981 cannot serve as basis for his disqualification. Laws have prospective effect. GGN: In our jurisdiction, laws apply prospectively unless the law calls for retroactivity. So Grego was a sheriff who is to be removed for a serious misconduct in 1981, 10 yrs. before the effectivity of RA 7160 which provides ground for removal of an office by virtue of an administrative charged w/c took effect in 1991. So he ran in 1992 and in 1995 a petition for disqualification against Grego was filed and the SC said he cannot be disqualified because Sec. 40 will not apply to him, it does not have a retroactive effect. D. Those with dual citizenship. The relevant cases under this provision are the cases of Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec G.R. No. 135083 May 25, 1999 Aznar v. Comelec 185 SCRA 703 Cirilo Valles v. Comelec & Lopez G.R. #138000 August 9, 2000

Salcedo II that in order to justify the cancellation of the COC under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertained to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a candidate the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the COC. There is also no showing that there was an intent to deceive the electorate as to the identity of the private respondent, nor that by using his Filipino name the voting public was thereby deceived. Justimbaste vs. COMELECRuling is similar on the issue on misrepresentation. The SC reiterated its ruling in Marcos w/ respect to cancellation under sec. 78.

A candidate for an elective office may likewise be disqualified on the following grounds those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence. (Sec. 40) (Qualifications of local elective candidates under the LGC was asked in the 1999 Bar)
st

Lluz v. Comelec G.R. No. 172840 June 7, 2007 SC ruled that first, a misrepresentation in a COC is material when it refers to a qualification for elective office and affects the candidates eligibility; second, when a candidate commits a material misrepresentation & third, a misrepresentation of a non-material fact, or non-material misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a COC under Sec. 78. In other words, for a candidates certificate of candidacy to be denied due course or canceled by the Comelec, the fact misrepresented must pertain to a qualification for the office sought by the candidate. Punong barangay said that he was a CPA when in fact he is not). GGN: Lluz vs. COMELEC That if the qualification is irrelevant, it will not constitute a misrepresentation. For example yung barangay captain diba sinabi nya nah CPA cya when in fact he is not, so it will not qualify as misrepresentation because it is not a qualification for barangay chairman, bsta able to read and write ayos nah.

NOTE: The 1 ground for disqualification consists of two (2) parts, namely: (1) those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude, regardless of the period of imprisonment; and (2) those sentenced by final judgment for an offense, OTHER THAN one involving moral turpitude, punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence. Sec. 40 of RA 7160 limits the disqualification to two (2) years after service of sentence. This should now be read in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 8189 which enumerates those who are disqualified to register as a voter. The 2 year disqualification period under Sec. 40 is now deemed amended to last 5 years from service of sentence after which period the voter will be eligible to register as a voter and to run for an elective public office. A. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political cases.

B.

Disqualification under the Local Government Code R.A. 7160

Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: 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; Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case; Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic; Those with dual citizenship; Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad; Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and The insane or feeble-minded.

Marquez, jr. vs. Comelec and Rodriguez 259 SCRA, it was held that fugitives from justice refer to a person who has been convicted by final judgment. The SC ruled that when a person leaves the territory of a state not his own, homeward bound and subsequently learns of the charges filed against him while he is in his own country, does not outrightly qualify him as a fugitive from justice if he does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of the former state. When Rodriguez left the US, there was yet no complaint filed and warrant of arrest, hence there is no basis in saying that he is running away from any prosecution or punishment. GGN: A fugitive from justice is a person who was aware of the complaint filed against him and he left the country to evade prosecution. Unlike in the case of Rodriguez, when he left for US he was not yet aware of any complaint filed against him, it was only when he was at the comfort of his home in the Philippines that he learned, thus he cannot be considered a fugitive from justice. C. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative charge

A candidate for elective office may be disqualified if; a. A candidate sentenced by final judgment involving moral turpitude regardless of the number of years or a crime punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment. We also said that 2 years under sec. 40 has already been amended by RA 8189 because even if you have completed the service of your sentence after 2 years, you still cannot file a petition of reactivation of your deactivated voters registration record because the period of 5 years has not yet lapsed. So in order for you to regain your right to vote and file a sworn statement for reactivation of your voters registration records, it is essential that the 5 year period of service of sentence has already lapsed. b. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic c. Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political cases.

Rodolfo Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, it was held that a public elective official cannot be removed for administrative conduct committed during a prior term as his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the extent of cutting of the right to remove him therefore. GlowingGloriaNote: The issue raised is whether you can remove an elective official for an administrative conduct committed after the expiration of his term. So he was known to join the coup detat and an administrative charged was filed against him and was sanctioned for removal. However, he filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently appealed the decision removing him from office. While the appeal was pending in the office of the president, his 3 yr-term expired and thereafter filed his COC for governor and he overwhelmingly won. Issue: WON he can be disqualified by virtue of an administrative charged. SC said that pending the finality of the administrative case, the term of Aguinaldo has already expired, therefore his re-election to office constitutes a condonation of his previous administrative conduct. But of course administrative and criminal is separate and distinct, he can still be liable criminally.

In Aznar, it was ruled that the mere fact that respondent Osmea was holder of a certificate stating that he is an American citizen did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino & that an application for an ACR was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine Citizenship. GGN: So SC said that the fact that he stated that he is an American citizen did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino and that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. LABO vs Comelec In the case of Labo, it made mention of the petition for Quo warranto. This case was filed how many months after and so SC said nah filed out of time but premature for a petition for quo warranto since a petition for quo warranto should be filed 10 days after the proclamation or at the time that he discovered the ineligibility. So here, Labo was the Mayor of Baguio and was proclaimed as mayor. Subsequently, it was declared that he was an Australian citizen. So even on the lapse of 10 day period, a petition for QW was filed against Labo and SC said that since the issue is on eligibility(citizenship of Labo) which is a continuing requirement for holding elective position, then a petition for Quo warranto can be filed at any time. Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec, it was held that the fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the BID & was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before he

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

12 would serve as a ground for disqualification of the said candidate who possess dual citizenship. CAASI VS COMELEC In the case Caasi, if you would recall, one of the grounds under the Local Government Code is when the candidate is a green card holder, so in this case Caasi is a permanent resident of a foreign country and a holder of a green card. SC held that a permanent resident of a foreign country is not eligible to run for elective office and the act of filing a COC did not in itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent residence or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior waiver, he was disqualified to run for any elective office. So dapat sinurender muna nya ang green card niya. So nagkaroon ng judicial legislation because the law did not provide for that requirement in order for him to run for elective office. So how do we reconcile the case of Caasi with Makalintal? MAKALINTAL VS COMELEC So in Makalintal, residence is synonymous w/ domicile and that an immigrant who is a permanent resident in a foreign country may register and vote in the Philippines as long as such person execute an affidavit to show that such person has not abandoned his domicile of origin. So in the issue of green card, the contention that green card holder are consider to have abandoned their Philippine domicile, the Sol. Gen. suggested that the court may have to discard its ruling in Caasi vs. CA in so far as it relates to immigrants and permanent resident in countries who have executed and submitted their affidavit in conformity w/ sec. 5 of RA 8189 (Overseas Absentee Voters Act). Sol. Gen. maintains that through the execution of the requisite affidavits, the Congress of the Philippines with the concurrence of the President of the Republic had in fact given these immigrants and permanent residents the opportunity, pursuant to Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, to manifest that they had in fact never abandoned their Philippine domicile; that indubitably, they would have formally and categorically expressed the requisite intentions, i.e., "animus manendi" and "animus revertendi;" that Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad possess the unquestionable right to exercise the right of suffrage under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution upon approval of their registration, conformably with R.A. No. 9189. De Guzman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180048 June 19, 2009, it was held that where the Oath of allegiance and certificate of candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2) of RA 9225 which further requires those seeking elective public office in the Philippines to make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship as where the candidate for VM of Guimba, Nueva Ecija failed to renounce his American citizenship, it was held that he was disqualified from running for VM in the May 14, 2007 elections.

filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. -

GGN: In the case of Mercado and Valles, this is similar on the issue on dual citizenship, one is jus sanguinis and jus soli. So it was not the cause of Manzano to be born in the US of Filipino parents and he did not perform any act since it was his parents who processed his passport. SC said in both cases, the filing of COC constitutes a renunciation of their American citizenship. With respect to Valles, there is an issue on res judicata. So the issue of the citizenship of Lopez was declared by the SC as res judicata contrary to the claim of Valles that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding citing the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration . He insists that the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out anew. Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e. the principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in the case of Burca vs. Republic, an exception to this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present: o 1) a persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; o 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and o 3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.

(NOTE: In this case the SC considered the issue of the citizenship of Lopez as res judicata contrary to the claim of Valles that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial & administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is general not considered res judicata as held in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Com of Immigration 41 SCRA 292. Reference was made to the case of Burca vs. Republic 51 SCRA 248 which provided for an exception that in order for the doctrine to apply the following must be present (1) a persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy were said person is a party; (2) the SG or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and (3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by the SC) Lopez v. Comelec 559 SCRA 696 (2008) The ruling in Valles in 2000 has been superseded by the enactment of RA 9225 in 2003. RA 9225 expressly provides for the condition before those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the Philippines. Section 5 of the said law states: Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions xxx (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. AASJS Member-hector G. Calilung vs. Secretary of Justice G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, the SC took the opportunity to set parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance considering that it only made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship in Mercado vs. Manzano. FACTS: Following the implementation of RA 9225 An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire foreign Citizenship Permanent, amending for the purpose CA 63, as amended, petitioner filed a petition against respondent DOJ Secretary Simeon Datumanong who was tasked to implement laws governing citizenship. He prayed for a writ of prohibition to stop respondent from implementing RA 9225. he avers that RA 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. He contends that the Act cheapens the Philippine citizenship since the Act allows all Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens to regain their Philippine by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. The Constitution however, is categorical that dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest. SC HELD: The intent of the legislature in drafting RA 9225 is to do away with the provision in CA 63, which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. RA 9225 allows dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225. (Note: Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. ) GlowingGloriaNote: The SC took the opportunity to set parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance considering that it only made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship in Mercado vs. Manzano. So for purposes of running for elective office, what is required? -oath of allegiance and renunciation under sec.5(2) of RA 9225. So failure of the candidate to execute this affidavit, oath of allegiance and personal and sworn renunciation of citizenship,

Valles v. Lopez the Court held that the mere fact that Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and had an ACR are not act constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the lost of citizenship, the same must be express (Com. Act 63, Sec. 1). Referring to the case of Aznar, an ACR does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation of ones citizenship. Similarly, her holding of an Australian passport as in the Manzano case, were likewise mere acts of assertions before she effectively renounced the same. Thus, at the most, Lopez had dual citizenship she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well. In reconciling the disqualification under Sec. 40 of RA 7160. The Court clarified and as ruled in the Manzano case dual citizenship as used in the LGC and reconciled with Article IV Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance (Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.) In recognizing situation in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of another state (jus sanguinis for the Philippines where the child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of his/her place of birth as opposed to jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth), the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual allegiance. The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not automatically disqualify her from running for public office. For candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Phil. Citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of the certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen. In the Certificate of Candidacy, one declare that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.

Frivaldo v. Comelec 174 SCRA 245 (1989). Frivaldo was proclaimed governor elect of the Province of Sorsogon and subsequently assumed office. A disqualification was filed against him by the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the US in 1983, which he admitted but which he undertook only to protect himself against then President Marcos. The SC found Frivaldo disqualified for not having possessed the requirement of citizenship which cannot be cured by the electorate, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. GGN: In the case of Frivaldo you would notice nah ginawa na nga niya lahat may naturalization, act of congress, disqualified pa rin siya. It was only approved when he was old and filed a petition for repatriation under the 3 branches of the government and won overwhelmingly. To erase all doubts as to the citizenship of Frivaldo, retroactive na ang repatriation.

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

13

Republic v. dela Rosa 232 SCRA 785. The disqualification of Frivaldo was again at issued. Frivaldo opted to reacquire his Philippine citizenship thru naturalization but however failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication, thus, the Court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the naturalization of Frivaldo. He was again disqualified. Frivaldo v. Comelec 257 SCRA 72 (1996), Frivaldo later reacquired Philippines citizenship and obtained the highest number of votes in 3 consecutive elections but was twice declared by the SC to be unqualified to hold office due to his lack of citizenship requirement. He claimed to have re-acquired his Filipino citizenship thru repatriation. It was established that he took his oath of allegiance under the provision of PD 725 at 2pm on 30 June 1995, much later than the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. It was held that the the law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship unlike that of residence and age, as Sec. 39 of RA 7160 specifically speaks of qualification of elective officials, not candidates thus, the citizenship requirement in the local government code to be possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to which he has been elected. But to remove all doubts on this important issue, the Court held that the repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of his application on 17 August 1994 and being a former Filipino who has served the people repeatedly and at the age of 81, Frivaldo deserves liberal interpretation of the Philippine laws and whatever defects there were in his nationality should now be deemed mooted by his repatriation.

1. 2.

that the official concerned has been elected for three (3) consecutive terms in the same local government post; and that the has fully served the three (3) consecutive terms.

E.

3 term limit or having served 3 consecutive terms.

In this case, respondent Talaga, Jr., was elected mayor of Lucena City in May 1992. He served the full term, was re-elected in 1995-98 but lost in the 1998 election to Tagarao. In the recall elections of May 2000, Talaga, Jr. won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until 30 June 2001. Talaga Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position in the 2001 elections which candidacy was challenged by petition Adormeo on the ground that Talaga, Jr. is already barred by the 3-term limit rule. Adormeo contends that Talagas candidacy violated Section 8, Article X of the Constitution which states that the term of office of local elective officials shall be three (3) years and no such official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms citing the case of Lonzanida v. Comelec To further support his case, he adverts to the comment of Fr. Joaquin Bernas who stated that in interpreting said provision that if one is elected representative to serve the unexpired term of another, that unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed. st The Comelec en banc ruled in favor of Talaga which reversed the ruling of the 1 division and held that 1) Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms because he did not win the 11 May 1998 elections; 2) that he was installed only as mayor by reason of his victory in the recall elections; 3) that his victory in the recall elections was not considered a term of office and is not included in the 3-term disqualification rule and finally 4) that he did not fully serve the 3 consecutive term. His loss in the 11 May 1998 elections is considered an interruption in the continuity of his service as Mayor of Lucena City. ISSUE: Was Talaga disqualified to run for Mayor of Lucena City in the 14 May 2001 elections? SC HELD: In holding the qualifications of Talaga, the SC reiterated its ruling in Borja that the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position considering that the continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by the defeat in the 1998 elections which is considered as an interruption in the continuity of service. The SC further held that the comment of Fr. Bernas is pertinent only to member of the HR there being no recall elections provided for members of Congress. Lonzanida v. Comelec and Lu 28 311 SCRA 602 (July 1998), Lonzanida was elected and served 2 consecutive terms as municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, prior to the 08 May 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections, Lonzanida ran for the same elective post and was again proclaimed winner. He assumed office and discharged the duties thereof. His proclamation in 1995 was however contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an election protest before the RTC of Zambales which rendered a decision dated 09 January 1997 declaring a failure of elections rendering the result for the office as null and void. The office of the mayor was then declared vacant. Both parties appealed to the Comelec and on 13 Nov. 1997, it resolved the election protest filed by Alvez in his favor after determining that Alvez garnered the plurality of votes. The Comelec issued a writ of execution ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post to which he obeyed and Alvez assumed for the remainder of the term. Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor in the 11 May 1998 and his opponent timely filed a petition to disqualify him for the same post. ISSUE: Whether Lonzanidas assumption of office from May 1995 to March 1998 may be considered as service of one full term for the purpose of applying the 3-term limit for elective local government officials. It was held that Lonzanida is still qualified to run for mayor and held that the 2-rquisites for the application of the 3-term limit is wanting. First, petitioner cannot be considered as having been elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoralty term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of office.

As repeatedly ruled by the SC, a proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all and while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the proclamation of the BOC, he is only a presumptive winner who assumes the office subject of the final outcome of the election protest. Another issue raised in Lonzanida is that the Comelec already lost jurisdiction over the disqualification case when he was proclaimed as winner and that jurisdiction is already with the RTC for QW. The SC reiterated its ruling in Trinidad v. Comelec 288 SCRA 76 (1998) that pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 6646, the proclamation nor assumption of office of a candidate against whom a petition for disqualification is pending before the Comelec does not divest the Comelec of jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and resolve it on the merits. (Also ruling in Dizon v. Comelec 577 SCRA 589). Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157 (1998), the SC ruled on the issue on whether a VM who succeeds to the office of mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder of the term is considered to have served a term in that office for the purpose of the 3-term limit. The SC upheld the decision of the Comelec that succession for the expired term is not the service contemplated as would disqualify the elective official from running for the same elective post. The purpose of this provision is to prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the number of terms an elective local official may serve. Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he was elected as he was simply continuing the service of the official he succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have fully served the term notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of office prior to his expiration. (Asked in the 2001 BAR) In applying said policy, the following situations (tenures in office) are NOT considered service of term for purpose of applying the 3-term limit officer fills up a higher office by succession/operation of law officer is suspended from office (failed to serve full term/involuntary) officer unseated, ordered to vacate by reason of an election protest case officer serving unexpired term after winning in the recall elections;

Article X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of RA 7160 provides No local elective official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected. Laceda Sr., vs. Limena & Comelec 571 SCRA 603 the Court held that the rationale behind Section 2 of RA 9164, like Section 43 of RA 7190 (Local Government Code) from which the 3-term rule was taken, is primarily intended to broaden the choices of the electorate of the candidates who will run for office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena by disqualifying officials from running for the same office after a term of 9 years. The case of Laceda Sr. involved a similar question in Latasa vs. Comelec 417 SCRA 601 where the Court held that where a person has been elected for 3 consecutive terms as municipal mayor and prior to the end or termination of such 3-year term the municipality has been converted by law into a city, without the city charter interrupting his term until the end of the 3-year term, the prohibition applied to prevent him from running for the 4th time as city mayor thereof, there being no break in the continuity of the terms. Comelec did not err nor commit any abuse of discretion when it declared Laceda disqualified and cancelled his COC. Adormeo v. Comelec & Talaga, Jr. G.R. No. 147927 04 February 2002 and citing Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157 and Lonzanida v. Comelec 311 SCRA 602, it was ruled that the term limit for elective local officals must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. 2 conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur:

Ong vs. Alegre 479 SCRA 473 A petition for disqualification was filed against Francis Ong for having violated the 3term limit rule for having served as mayor of San Vicente Camarines Norte in the May 1995, 1998 & 2001 elections. The controversy revolves around the 1998-2001 mayoral term wherein the election protest filed by Alegre was promulgated after the term of the contested office has expired. The question for consideration is whether or not the assumption of Francis Ong as Mayor from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, may be considered as one full term service in the context of the consecutive term limit rule. The Court declared that such assumption of office constitutes, for Francis, service for the full term and should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of the 3-term limit prescribed by the constitutional and statutory provisions, barring elective officials from being elected and serving for more than 3-consecutive terms. The Court debunked the claim of Francis Ong that he was only a presumptive winner in view of the ruling of the RTC that Alegre was the real winning candidate in the light of his being proclaimed by the MBOC coupled by his assumption of office and his continuous exercise of the functions thereof from start to finish of the term, should legally be taken as service for a full term in contemplation of the 3-term rule. Lonzanida from which Ong sought refuge is not applicable in view of the involuntary relinquishment of office before the expiration of his term. (Same ruling in Rivera III vs. Comelec 523 SCRA )

Elections Law 2

nd

Exam Atty Valencia-2013-2014 Time to Glow

edited by Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol

14

Aldovino Jr., vs. Comelec 609 SCRA 234 (2009) Article X, Section 8 both by structure and substance fixes an elective officials term of office and limits his stay in office to 3 consecutive terms as an inflexible rule that is stressed, no less, by citing voluntary renunciation as an example of a circumvention. The provision should be read in the context of interruption of term, NOT in the context of interrupting the full continuity of the exercise of the power of the elective position. The voluntary renunciation it speaks of refers only to the elective officials involuntary relinquishment of office and loss of title to this office. It does not speak of the temporary cessation of the exercise of power or authority that may occur for various reasons, with preventive suspension being only one of them. Quoting Latasa the law contemplates a rest period during which the local elective official steps down from office and ceases to exercise power or authority over the inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of a particular government unit. DISQUALIFICATION CASES (EFFECTS) Sec. 72 of the OEC and Section 6 of 6646 states: any candidate who been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voter for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and is voted for and received the winning number of votes in such election, the Comelec shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. (Ruling in Coquilla case) Under RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act of 2002, also allowed substitution of candidates. However, in case of valid substitution, votes cast for the substituted candidates are considered stray, except if the substituted candidate has the same surname. Even in non-partisan election (barangay elections), candidates may be substituted. In Rulloda v. Comelec, Romeo Rulloda was a candidate for barangay chairman who passed away on 22 June 2002. His wife on 25 June wrote a letter to the Commission on Elections seeking permission to run as candidate for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan in lieu of her late husband which letter was supported by the Appeal-Petition containing several signatures of people purporting to be members of the electorate of said barangay. In view of the death of Rulloda, the EO issued a directive to the BBOC not to count the votes in favor of Betty or Rulloda. Rulloda however garnered the highest number of votes 516 as against Placidos 290. But notwithstanding, the BBOC proclaimed Placido as the winning candidate. Subsequently, Comelec denied due course the Certificate of Candidacy of Betty Petronila Rulloda based on Sec.9 of its Comelec Resolution 4801 setting forth guidelines in the filing of certificates of candidacy in connection with the July 15 Synchronized Barangay and SK Elections which disallowed substitution of candidates for the said elections. Hence, rulloda filed the instant petition seeking to annul Section 9 of Reso 4801 and to nullify the proclamation of Placido. Comelec contends that Reso 4801 cannot be subject of review in a petition for certiorari as it was issued not pursuant to its QJ functions but as an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of the barangay electins. It was held that the petition has merit.: election means the choice or selection of candidates to office by popular vote. There is no dispute that petitioner garnered the highest number of votes. Comelec ignored the purpose of election laws which is to give effect to, rather than frustrate the will of the voter. Since barangay elections are non-partisan, substitution under Sec. 77 is not allowed since there is no political party from which to designate the substitute. The absence of a specific provision governing substitution in

barangay elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. Such restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not written. There is more reason to allow the substitution where no political parties are involved than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law.