XI.

Election Law
A. Suffrage
*The exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is subject to
existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute
books and other repositories of law. Thus, as to the substantive aspect, Section 1, Article V
of the Constitutions provides:
"SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT LEAST
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES
FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY PROPOSE TO VOTE
FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION. NO
LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE
IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE."
As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon
certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of
registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in
addition to the minimum requirements set by fundamental charter, is obliged by law to
register, at present, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the
"Voter's Registration Act of 1996." AKBAYAN-Youth, et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066,
March 26, 2001.
B. Qualification and disqualification of voters
*It is incumbent upon one who claims Philippine citizenship to prove to the satisfaction of
the court that he is really a Filipino. No presumption can be indulged in favor of the
claimant of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt regarding citizenship must be resolved in
favor of the state. Go vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569-70, September 4, 2009.
*In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms. Both
import not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that
place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed
permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons,
one intends to return. Pundaodaya vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179313, September 17, 2009.
C. Registration of voters
*Section 8 of R.A. No. 8189 provides:
Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The personal filing of application of
registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during
regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting
one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a
special election.
The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular
office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90
days before a special election.
By the above provision, Congress itself has determined that the period of 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election is enough time for the COMELEC to

make ALL the necessary preparations with respect to the coming elections including: (1)
completion of project precincts, which is necessary for the proper allocation of official
ballots, election returns and other election forms and paraphernalia; (2) constitution of the
Board of Election Inspectors, including the determination of the precincts to which they
shall be assigned; (3) finalizing the Computerized Voters List; (4) supervision of the
campaign period; and (5) preparation, bidding, printing and distribution of Voters
Information Sheet. Such determination of Congress is well within the ambit of its legislative
power, which this Court is bound to respect. And the COMELECs rule-making power
should be exercised in accordance with the prevailing law. Kabataan Party-list
Representative Raymond Palatino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189868, December 15, 2009.
*The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the COMELEC resolution denying the petition of
certain youth sectors to conduct a special registration. The petitioners filed their petition
with the Court within the 120-day prohibitive period for the conduct of voter registration
under Section 8 of R.A. No. 8189, and sought the conduct of a two-day registration.
Petitioners were not denied the opportunity to avail of the continuing registration under
R.A. No. 8189. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights. The
right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein petitioners is not at all absolute. - Kabataan
Party-list Representative Raymond Palatino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189868, December 15,
2009.
*The period within which voters may register to vote is set by law and cannot be changed by
mere resolution of the COMELEC. In Kabataan Party-list Representative Raymond Palatino
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189868, December 15, 2009, the Supreme Court declared null and
void COMELEC Resolution No. 8585, which shortened the deadline of voters registration to
October 31, 2009 instead of December 15, 2009, as previously fixed by COMELEC
Resolution No. 8514. The added preparations for the May 2010 Automated Elections was
not a valid ground to justify its non-compliance with the system of continuing voter
registration under Section 8 of R.A. No. 8189.
D. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings
E. Political parties
* Complying with its constitutional duty to provide by law the "selection or election" of
party-list representatives, Congress enacted RA 7941 on March 3, 1995. Under this
statutes policy declaration, the State shall "promote proportional representation in the
election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof,
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end,
the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain
the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature,
and shall provide the simplest scheme possible."
For unlike the reserve seat system which assured sectoral groups of a seat in the House of
Representatives, the party-list system merely provides for a mechanism by which the
sectoral groups can run for election as sectoral representatives. The very essence of the
party-list system is representation by election. Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 136781, October 6, 2000.

*The party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens specifically those belonging
to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties to be elected to
the House of Representatives. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 147589, June 26, 2001.
*There are four (4) parameters in a Philippine-style party-list election system:
1. Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the House of Representatives is
the maximum number of seats available to party-list organizations, such that there is
automatically one party-list seat for every four existing legislative districts.
2. Garnering two percent of the total votes cast in the party-list elections guarantees a
party-list organization one seat. The guaranteed seats shall be distributed in a first round
of seat allocation to parties receiving at least two percent of the total party-list votes.
3. The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after allocation of the guaranteed seats,
shall be distributed to the party-list organizations including those that received less than
two percent of the total votes. The continued operation of the two percent threshold as it
applies to the allocation of the additional seats is now unconstitutional because this
threshold mathematically and physically prevents the filling up of the available party-list
seats. The additional seats shall be distributed to the parties in a second round of seat
allocation according to the two-step procedure laid down in the Decision of 21 April 2009 as
clarified in this Resolution.
4. The three-seat cap is constitutional. The three-seat cap is intended by the Legislature to
prevent any party from dominating the party-list system. There is no violation of the
Constitution because the 1987 Constitution does not require absolute proportionality for
the party-list system. The well-settled rule is that courts will not question the wisdom of the
Legislature as long as it is not violative of the Constitution.
These four parameters allow the mathematical and practical fulfillment of the
Constitutional provision that party-list representatives shall comprise twenty percent of the
members of the House of Representatives. At the same time, these four parameters uphold
as much as possible the Party-List Act, striking down only that provision of the Party-List
Act that could not be reconciled anymore with the 1987 Constitution. Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
179271, April 21, 2009.
1. Jurisdiction of the COMELEC over political parties
* The ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers is a matter
that is well within COMELEC's authority. The source of this authority is no other than the
fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In the
exercise of such power and in the discharge of such function, the Commission is endowed
with ample "wherewithal" and "considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that
will ensure the accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote
free, orderly and honest elections." Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 161265, February 24, 2004.
2. Registration

*Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants

The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter to
determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations
allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the requirements of the law. In
this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines, culled from
the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work.
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized
and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must
show -- through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of
government and track record -- that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and
underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests,
it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." In other
words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties,
they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented.
Third, in view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang
Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional
provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941,
which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:
"(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious
purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly
through third parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two
per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered."59

Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an
entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system,
the party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by
citizens. It must be independent of the government. The participation of the government or
its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal60 and unfair to other
parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of
Representatives.
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must
likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
"SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a
resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding
the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of
the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more
than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative
who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until
the expiration of his term."
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA
7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens "who belong to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties." Surely, the interests of the youth
cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working
class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the
nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. - Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001.
*COMELEC has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why special
protection is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its
position that petitioners admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to
irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 190582, April 8, 2010.
*From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis as other
political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is equally burdensome.
Hence, laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they
deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and
under-represented sectors. - Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April
8, 2010.
F. Candidacy
1. Qualifications of candidates

2. Filing of certificates of candidacy

a) Effect of filing
b) Substitution of candidates
c) Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive certificate
* The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. When a candidate files his certificate of
candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt.
This is provided in Sec. 76 of the Omnibus Election Code, thus:
Sec. 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.
The Court has ruled that the Commission has no discretion to give or not to give due
course to petitioners certificate of candidacy. The duty of the COMELEC to give due course
to certificates of candidacy filed in due form is ministerial in character. While the
Commission may look into patent defects in the certificates, it may not go into matters not
appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus
beyond the usual and proper cognizance of said body. Cipriano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
158830, August 10, 2004.
d) Nuisance candidates
e) Petition to deny or cancel certificates of candidacy
* A candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled or not given due course
cannot be substituted by another belonging to the same political party as that of the
former, thus:
While there is no dispute as to whether or not a nominee of a registered or accredited
political party may substitute for a candidate of the same party who had been
disqualified for any cause, this does not include those cases where the certificate of
candidacy of the person to be substituted had been denied due course and cancelled
under Section 78 of the Code.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. While the law enumerated the occasions where a
candidate may be validly substituted, there is no mention of the case where a candidate is
excluded not only by disqualification but also by denial and cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy. Under the foregoing rule, there can be no valid substitution for the latter case,
much in the same way that a nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy is denied
due course and/or cancelled may not be substituted. If the intent of the lawmakers were
otherwise, they could have so easily and conveniently included those persons whose
certificates of candidacy have been denied due course and/or cancelled under the
provisions of Section 78 of the Code. Ong vs. Alegre, G.R. Nos. 163295, 163354, January
2, 2006.
f) Effect of disqualification
*Those who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of probation which, we
reiterate, should not be equated with service of sentence, should not likewise be disqualified
from running for a local elective office because the two (2)-year period of ineligibility under

Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code [those sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment
are disqualified within two years after serving sentence] does not even begin to run.
Moreno vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006.
g) Withdrawal of candidates
G. Campaign
1. Premature campaigning
2. Prohibited contributions
3. Lawful and prohibited election propaganda
4. Limitations on expenses
5. Statement of contributions and expenses
H. Board of Election Inspectors and Board of Canvassers
1. Composition
2. Powers
I. Remedies and jurisdiction in election law
*Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution confers on the Supreme Court the power to
review any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, but limits such power to a final
decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory
order issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Cagas vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194139,
January 24, 2012.
*The power to fix the date of elections is essentially legislative in nature. By so doing,
Congress itself has made a policy decision in the exercise of its legislative wisdom that it
shall not call special elections as an adjustment measure in synchronizing the ARMM
elections with the other elections. After Congress has so acted, neither the Executive nor
the Judiciary can act to the contrary by ordering special elections instead at the call of the
COMELEC. The Court, particularly, cannot make this call without thereby supplanting the
legislative decision and effectively legislating. COMELEC has no power to call for the
holding of special elections unless pursuant to a specific statutory grant. - Datu Michael
Abas Kida, et al. vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011.
*The COMELEC has the power of enforcement and administration of Election Laws and
Regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall.
Its purpose is to protect the integrity of elections, to suppress all evils that may violate its
purity and defeat the will of the voters. Maruhom vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 139357, May 5,
2000.
*In the case of Roque vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188456, September 10, 2009, the Supreme
Court held that the COMELEC did not abdicate its mandate and responsibility under
Section 26 of R.A. No. 8436. With the view the SC takes of the automation contract, the
role of Smartmatic TIM Corporation is basically to supply the goods necessary for the
automation project, such as but not limited to the PCOS machines, PCs, electronic
transmission devices and related equipment, and the like. As lessees of the goods and the
backup equipment, the corporation and its operators would provide assistance with respect
to the machines to be used by the COMELEC which, at the end of the day, will be
conducting the election thru its personnel and whoever it deputizes.
1. Petition not to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy
2. Petition for disqualification
3. Petition to declare failure of elections

*In the case of Dibratun vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179365, February 2, 2010, it was held that
several conditions must concur before the COMELEC can act on a petition seeking to
declare a failure of elections:
(1) No voting took place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there
was voting, the election resulted in failure to elect;
(2) The votes not cast would have affected the result of the elections;
(3) The cause of such failure could only be any of the following: force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases.
4. Pre-proclamation controversy
*The COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation illegally made.
The fact that a candidate illegally proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise
of such power. It is also true that as a general rule, the proper remedy after the
proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular
election protest or quo warranto. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and one of those
is where the proclamation was null and void. In such a case, i.e., where the proclamation is
null and void, the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot deprive the
COMELEC of the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. Espidol vs. COMELEC, et
al., G.R. No. 164922, October 11, 2005.
5. Election protest
*The filing of an election protest or quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a preproclamation controversy or amounts to an abandonment of one earlier filed, thus
depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the
protestee or the validity of his proclamation. This is to prevent confusion and conflict of
authority. Villamor vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 169865, July 21, 2006.
6. Quo warranto
J. Prosecution of election offenses
*The COMELEC en banc has the power to prosecute election cases, and in the exercise of
such prosecutor power, it conducts preliminary investigation, decides whether or not there
exists a probable cause and files the corresponding action in court. Faelnar vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 140850-51, May 4, 2000.
*A candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. This
Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that "any person
who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy."
Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that
"any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start
of the campaign period. Penera vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009.