Maquiling v.

COMELEC (2013)
Facts: There were three Mayoralty candidates in Lanao del Norte Balua, Arnado and
Maquiling. Balua filed a Petition for Disqualification with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) against Arnado, a dual citizen who applied for repatriation, took his Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in an Affidavit of Renunciation, but despite his oath,
still continuously used his U.S. Passport even after filing his Certificate of Candidacy (COC).
Arnado subsequently won in the elections, but the COMELEC First Division disqualified him but
the COMELEC en banc ruled in his favor and upheld his repatriation.
Doctrine: The Court held that Arnado is disqualified from running because while he satisfied
the two requirements needed to qualify to run for a public office under Republic Act 9255 (i.e.,
taking the Oath of Allegiance and renouncing his foreign citizenship), his use of a foreign
passport after renouncing his foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of
representation as to ones nationality and citizenship. By representing himself as an American
citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen who is,
under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code, disqualified from running for any local elective
position. As Arnaldo is barred from even being a candidate, his COC is rendered void from the
beginning and the votes cast in his favor should not have even been counted. Maquiling is thus
the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes, making him the winner of
the elections. The rule of succession under the Local Government Code will thus not apply.
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203766, 2013)
This case stemmed from 54 petitions for certiorari from Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other
parties who were disqualified by the COMELEC in May 2013 as party-list for not being qualified
as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors. R.A. 7941 does not require
national and regional parties or organizations to represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors. The phrase marginalized and underrepresented should refer only to
those sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and
underrepresented. The nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must
have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented. National, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.
ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC (2013)
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (a) national parties or
organizations, (b) regional parties or organizations, and (c) sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need
to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the partylist system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party that field
candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or
lacking in well-defined political constituencies.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented
sector they represent.
6. National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of
their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.

ELECTION LAW 2012 Cases

I. Ineligibility of Candidate
A. Foreign Citizenship
Sobejana-Condon vs. Commission on Elections, 678 SCRA 267 held that a natural-born Filipino
citizen who became a naturalized citizen of a foreign country and repatriated cannot ran for
public office unless he executes a renunciation of foreign citizenships before an authorized
public officer.
B. Material Misrepresentation
Romeo Lonzanida and Estelo Antipolo were opposing candidates for Municipal Mayor in 2010. A
petition to deny due course or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Romeo Lonzanida was
filed on the ground that he had served as Mayor for four consecutive terms before the 2010
elections and made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy when he certified that
he was eligible. In addition, he was convicted of ten counts of falsification under the Revised
Penal Code, and the judgment became final on October 23, 2009. Romeo Lonzanida and Efren
Aratea were proclaimed as the winning candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively. The
Commission on Elections ruled that Romeo Lonzanida was disqualified. Efren Aratea claimed
that as elected Vice Mayor, he should succeed to the position of Mayor. HELD: Estelo Antipolo
should be proclaimed Mayor. Since the certificate of candidacy of Romeo Lonzanida was void, he
was never a candidate. All his votes were stray. Estelo Antipolo, the only qualified candidate,
got the highest number of votes for the position of Mayor. The penalty for the conviction of
Romeo Lonzanida automatically carried with it perpetual special disqualification to hold any
public office. A candidate who is ineligible commits a false material representation if he states in
his certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to run. (Aratea vs. Commission on Elections, 683
SCRA 105.)
C. Invalidation of Votes
Ramon Talaga and Philip Castillo filed their certificates of candidacy for City Mayor. Ramon
Talaga was disqualified, because he had been elected and had served as Mayor for three
consecutive terms. Barbara Ruby Talaga filed her certificate of candidacy as substitute for
Ramon Talaga. Votes cast in favor of Ramon Talaga were counted in favor of Barbara Ruby
Talaga. She was proclaimed elected. Philip Castillo argued that Ramon Talaga could not be
substituted, Ramon Talaga could not be considered as a candidate and that since he was the
candidate who got the highest number of votes, he should be proclaimed elected. HELD: After
Barbara Ruby Talaga substituted Ramon Talaga, elections proceeded with her being regarded by
the electorate as a bona fide candidate. Since Philip Castillo was not the candidate who got the
highest number of votes, he could not assume the office of City Mayor. The Commission on
Elections found the substitution by Barbara Ruby Talaga invalid after the elections. Since a
permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor resulted, it should be filled by the Vice Mayor
pursuant to the law on succession. (Talaga vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 197.)
Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. and Agapito Cardio were opposing candidates for City Mayor. Agapito
Cardio filed a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Dominador Jalosjos, Jr., since he
was disqualified because he had been convicted of robbery by final judgment and had not yet
served his sentence. HELD: Since the perpetual special disqualification of Dominador Jalosjos,
Jr. arising from his final conviction was a proper ground for the cancellation of his candidacy, his
certificate of candidacy was void. Agapito Cardio is the only qualified candidate who got the
highest number of votes. (Jalosjos, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 1.)
II. Nuisance Candidate
The Commission on Elections issued a resolution considering as stray the votes cast in favor of
candidates who were disqualified or whose certificates of candidacy were cancelled or denied
due course that whose names still appeared in the certified list of candidates.

Casmiro dela Cruz ran for Vice Mayor. Aurelio dela Cruz ran for the same office. Although he
was declared as a nuisance candidate, his name was not deleted in the certified list of
candidates. Casmiro dela Cruz asked the Commission on Elections to direct that all votes cast
for Aurelio dela Cruz be credited in his favor. The Commission on Elections instead ruled the
votes cast in his favor be considered as stray.
During the canvassing of votes, the 532 votes cast for Aurelio dela Cruz were considered stray.
Casmiro dela Cruz lost to the winner by 39 votes. HELD: Aurelio dela Cruz was declared a
nuisance candidate long before the elections. The votes cast for him should not have been
considered stray but counted in favor of Casmiro dela Cruz. (Dela Cruz vs. Commission on
Elections, 685 SCRA 347.)
III. Election Protest
A. Preliminary Conference Brief
Pedro Borjal and Isabelita Gravides were opposing candidates for Punong Barangay. Isabelita
Gravides was proclaimed the winner by two votes. Pedro Borjal filed an election protest. When
the case was set for preliminary conference, upon motion of Isabelita Gravides, the election
protest was dismissed, because the contents of the preliminary conference brief he filed did not
comply with the requirements of the Rules of Procedure on Election Contests. HELD: The
counsel of Pedro Borjal was misled by the Notice of Preliminary Conference issued by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, which erroneously applied the provision on pre-trial brief under the
Rules of Civil Procedure. His mistake in complying with the directive of the court should not
prejudice his cause. Another important consideration is that only two votes separated Isabelita
Gravides from Pedro Borjal. (Gravides vs. Commission on Elections, 685 SCRA 382.)
B. Recounting of Votes
Antonia Ceron and Romeo Arcillla were candidates for Barangay Kagawad. The candidates who
received the seven highest numbers of votes were proclaimed elected. Antonia Ceron was
ranked sixth, while Romeo Arcilla was ranked eighth. Romeo Arcilla protested the election of
Antonia Ceron. He alleged that in the tabulation of the election return for a certain precinct, the
total number of votes Antonia Ceron received was indicated by figures as 50, but the written
words erroneously indicated that she received 56 votes. The Court dismissed the election
protest for failure to specify the total number of precincts involved in the protest. Romeo Arcilla
did not appeal.
The three members of the board of election tellers involved in the disputed election return filed
a petition with the Commission on Elections to order a correction of the election return, because
the election return erroneously recorded that Antonio Ceron got 56 votes instead of 50 votes
because of too much noise during the counting of the votes. The Commission on Elections
ordered the correction. Antonia Ceron argued that a recounting of the votes should instead be
ordered. HELD: The discrepancy between the written words and figures is apparent on the face
of the election return. It can be corrected without the need of opening the ballot box. (Ceron vs.
Commission on Elections, 680 SCRA 441.)
C. Appeal
Bienvenido William Lloren and Rogelio Pua, Jr. were opposing candidates for Municipal Vice
Mayor. Rogelio Pua, Jr. was proclaimed the winner. Bienvenido William Lloren filed an election
protest in the Regional Trial Court. The election protest was dismissed on November 17, 2010.
On November 17, 2010, Bienvenido William Lloren filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal
fee to the Regional Trial Court. On December 2, 2010, he paid the appeal fee of P3,200.00 due
to the Commission on Elections. The Commission on Elections dismissed the appeal for failure of
Bienvenido William Lloren to pay the appeal fee within five (5) days from the day of his receipt
of the decision of the Regional Trial Court. HELD: Resolution No. 8486 of the Commission on
Elections allowed the appellant to pay the appeal fee due within fifteen (15) days from the time

of the filing of the notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court. Bienvenido William Lloren
perfected his appeal. (Lloren vs. Commission on Elections, 681 SCRA 167.)

ELECTION LAW 2013-2014 Cases

I. DISQUALIFICATION
Kamarudin Ibrahim ran for vice mayor. Because of the recommendation of the Law Department
that he be disqualified because he was not a registered voter, the Commission on Elections
disqualified him. He got the majority of the votes, but the board of canvassers suspended his
proclamation because of the issue regarding his qualification. HELD: The Commission on
Elections disqualified Kamarudin Ibrahim although no petition was filed against him. The board
of canvassers had no authority to suspend his proclamation. (Ibrahim vs. Commission on
Elections, 688 SCRA 129.)
II. SUBSTITUTION
Edna Sanchez and Osmundo Maligaya were opposing candidates for mayor. Armando Sanchez,
the husband of Edna Sanchez and candidate for governor, died. Edna Sanchez withdrew her
certificate of candidacy for mayor and filed her certificate of candidacy for governor as
substitute for her husband. On May 5, 2010, Renato Federico filed his certificate of candidacy
as substitute for mayor because of the withdrawal of Edna Sanchez.
The Commission on Elections gave due course to the certificates of candidacy of Edna Sanchez
and Renato Federico as substitute candidates. By that time, the official ballots had already
been printed with Edna Sanchez as official candidate for mayor. On May 11, 2010, the board of
canvassers proclaimed her as the winning candidate for mayor. Later on, the board of
canvassers proclaimed Renato Federico as the winning candidate for mayor. On June 1, 2010,
Osmundo Maligaya, the opposing candidate, filed a petition to annul his proclamation as mayor
on the ground that it was illegal. Renato Federico argued that his filing of his certificate of
candidacy was valid, because under the law he had until noon of election day to file his
certificate of candidacy. HELD: Republic Act No. 9369 empowered the Commission on
Elections to set the dates for certain pre-election proceedings. As automated election had been
mandated by law, there was a need for the early printing of ballots. Section 12 of Republic Act
No. 9006 provided that to avoid confusion, the surname of the substitute candidate should as
much as possible be the same as that of the substituted candidate.
Resolution No. 8678 provided that the substitute for a candidate who withdrew may file his
certificate of candidacy not later than December 14, 2009. However, the substitute for a
candidate who died, suffered permanent incapacity or was disqualified may file his certificate of
candidacy up to noon of election day. The substitution by Renato Federico for Edna Sanchez as
mayoralty candidate was not valid.
The petition of Osmundo Maligaya was filed on time. He became aware of the proclamation of
Renato Federico only on May 27, 2010. He had ten (10) days from that date to file his petition.
His petition was filed on time.
As Osmundo Maligaya is the only candidate for mayor, he should be proclaimed as the duly
elected mayor. (Federico vs. Commission on Elections, 689 SCRA 134.)
Richard Gomez ran for congressman of the fourth legislative district of Leyte. His opponent,
Buenaventura Juntilla, filed a petition for his disqualification on the ground that he was a
resident of Ormoc City and failed to meet the one-year residency requirement. The Commission
on Elections granted the petition. Richard Gomez accepted the decision with finality to facilitate
his substitution. His wife, Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez, filed her certificate of candidacy as the
substitute candidate. The Commission on Elections approved the substitution. Buenaventura
Juntilla filed a motion for reconsideration.

The name of Richard Gomez remained in the ballot. He received the highest number of votes.
His votes were credited in favor of Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez. She was proclaimed elected.
Buenaventura Juntilla filed a petition for quo warranto against her on the ground that she failed
to comply with the one-year residency requirement and that she did not validly substitute for
Richard Gomez. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal dismissed the petition.
HELD: The law requires that one must have validly filed a certificate of candidacy to be
considered a candidate. Only an official candidate may be substituted. If the certificate of
candidacy has been denied due course or was cancelled, the candidate cannot be substituted.
Richard Gomez was disqualified due to his failure to comply with one-year residency
requirement. The petition to disqualify Richard Gomez for non-compliance with the one-year
residency requirement actually involved the denial of due course or cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy of Richard Gomez. Consequently, the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal should not have sanctioned the substitution. (Tagolino vs. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 693 SCRA 574.)
III. DISQUALIFICATION AFTER PROCLAMATION
Armado Rommel, a natural born Filipino citizen, became a naturalized American citizen. He
repatriated and renounced his allegiance to the United States. He filed his certificate of
candidacy for municipal mayor. His opponent filed a petition to disqualify him or to cancel his
certificate of candidacy, because he used his American passport four times to travel abroad
after his renunciation of his allegiance to the United States. He was proclaimed as the winning
candidate. Afterwards, he was declared disqualified. HELD: Cesar Maquiling became the
winner and obtained the highest number of votes among the qualified candidates. The second
placer is actually the first placer among the qualified candidates. The disqualification of Armado
involved his citizenship. It does not involve the commission of election offenses, the effect of
which is to disqualify him from continuing as a candidate or from holding office, If he has
already been elected. (Maquiling vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420.)
Svetlana Jalosjos was proclaimed elected as municipal mayor. There was a pending petition for
cancellation of her certificate, because she was not a resident of the municipality. HELD: The
falsity of her representation in her certificate of candidacy shows that she has not been a
resident of the municipality for at least one year before the election and justified the
cancellation. She was never a valid candidate from the very beginning. She was a de facto
officer by virtue of the ineligibility. The eligible candidate who garnered the highest number of
votes must assume the office. The rule on succession in the Local Government Code cannot
apply. The ouster of the de facto officer cannot create a permanent vacancy, because it was the
de jure officer, the rightful winner in the election, who has the right to assume the position.
(Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections, 699 SCRA 507.)
IV. ELECTION CONTESTS
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato and Elmer Panotes were opposing candidates for representative of the
second legislative district of Camarines Norte. Elmer Panotes was proclaimed the winner.
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato filed an election protest claiming that there were irregularities in the
condition of the ballot boxes. Elmer Panotes moved that the picture images of the ballots in the
data storage device for the questioned precincts be printed. The motion was granted.
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato argued that the picture images of the ballots could not be regarded as
the equivalent of the original paper ballots. HELD: During the demonstration tests, the system
captured the images of the ballots in encrypted format which when decrypted were found to be
digitized representations of the ballots cast. The print outs of the ballots are the functional
equivalent of the ballots and may be used for revision of votes in the election protest.
(Vinzons-Chato vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 689 SCRA 107.)
Homer Saquilayan and Emmanuel Maliksi were opposing candidates for mayor. Homer
Saquilayan was proclaimed the winner. Emmanuel Maliksi filed an election protest in the
Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial decided in his favor. Homer Saquilayan appealed to the
Commission on Elections. Without notifying the parties, the Commission on Elections decided to

review the ballots through the use of the picture images of the ballots. HELD: The rules for
the revision of ballots still consider the official ballots to be the best evidence of the will of the
voters. The picture images are to be used only when it is shown that the official ballots are lost
or their integrity has been compromised. The disregard of the right of Maliksi to be informed of
the decision to print picture images of the ballots and to conduct the recount proceedings
during the appellate stage denied Imannuel Maliksi due process. (Maliksi vs. Commission on
Elections, 696 SCRA 272.)
V. PLEBISCITE
Republic Act No. 10360 created the Province of Davao Occidental. It was published in two
newspapers on January 26, 2013. In view of the preparations for the election on May 13, 2013,
the Commission on Elections decided to hold the plebiscite on the creation of the Province of
Davao Occidental on October 28, 2013 together with the barangay elections. Douglas IV
Caparas filed a petition for prohibition on the ground that Republic Act No. 10360 provided that
the plebiscite shall be held within sixty days after the elections. HELD: Sections 5 and 6 of the
Omnibus Election Code grant the Commission on Elections the power to set elections on another
date. The logistic and financial responsibility of holding a plebiscite close to the elections is a
case analogous to force majeure. (Cagas vs. Commission on Elections, 708 SCRA 672.)