Philippine Election Laws Outline

ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
PHILIPPINE ELECTION LAWS

Based on the Lectures and Outline of Atty. Jocelyn Valencia 1
INTRODUCTION/ GENERAL PROVISIONS
RA 7941 (Nov. 26, 1991) An act providing for the election

of party-list representatives through the party-list system;
RA 8189 (June 11, 1996 Voters Registration Act of 1996

providing for the General Registration of Voters &
Adopting a System of Continuing Registration;
RA 8295 (June 6, 1997 Proclamation of Lone Candidate

in Special Elections);
RA 8436, An Act Authorizing the COMELEC to Use an

Automated System in the May 11, 1998 National and local
Elections and in subsequent National and Local Electoral
Exercises. (Sec. 11, impliedly repealed Sec. 67 of BP 881
being inconsistent with Sec. 11, which provides that
elective officials running for any office other than the one
he/she is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
President and VP, shall be deemed resigned only upon the
start of the campaign period corresponding to the position
for which he/she is running);
RA 8524 (Feb. 14, 1998 An Act Changing the Term of

Office of Brgy. Officials and Members of the SK from 3
years to 5 years amending Sec. 43 (c) of RA 7160, the Local
Government Code of 1991;
RA 9006 Feb. 12, 2001, An Act to Enhance the Holding of

FRECRE through Fair Election Practices. (Sec. 14 of RA
9006 expressly repealed Sec. 67 of BP 881 and rendered
effective the provision of Sec. 11 of RA 8436 insofar as the
applicability of Sec. 11 on the matter is concerned).
RA 9164 (March 19, 2002), An Act Providing for

Synchronized Barangay and SK. Elections, amending RA
7160, as amended.
RA 9189, An Act Providing for a System of Overseas

Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines
Abroad.
RA 9225 (August 29, 2003), An Act Making the

Citizenship of Philippine Citizens who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent, Amending For the Purposes C.A.
No. 63, as amended
RA 9244 (February 19, 2004), An Act Eliminating the

Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting
Recall of elective Government Officials.
SOURCE OF POLITICAL POWER/ UNDERLIYING

PHILISOPHY:
Article II Sec. 1 of the Constitution: The Philippines
is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
LAWS GOVERNING ELECTIONS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Article II, Section 1: Declaration of Principles

o
o
o
o
Section 1 (foundation of the democratic process),

Section 13 (vital role of the youth in nation
building)
Section 23 (state encourage non-governmental,
community-based or sectoral organization (partylist),
Section 26 prohibition on political dynasties as may
be defined by law)
Article III Bill of Rights

o
o
o
o
Section 4 (freedom of speech and of expression);

Section 5 (No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights);
Section 8 (right to form associations for those
employed in public and private sectors);
Section 16 (speedy disposition of cases before all
judicial and QJ or administrative bodies)
Article IV on Citizenship (qualification of candidates

and voters);
Article V, Suffrage.
Article VI Legislative Department (composition of

the members of the HR, qualifications, term of office,
party list, vacancy, composition of the HRET and SET;
Article VII Executive Department (qualifications,

term of office, limitations of term, manner of canvass and
proclamation, composition of the PET, vacancy;
Article IX-A (common provisions for constitutional

offices) &
Article IX- C: COMELEC (composition, powers and

functions of the COMELEC, the body created by the
constitution to conduct any electoral exercise as well as
uphold and safeguard the integrity and sanctity of the
ballot in order to achieve its objective of holding an
honest, orderly peaceful free and credible elections);
Article X General provision on Local Government

(requirement for alteration of political boundaries);
Article XVI (General provisions) prohibition against

partisan political activities or prohibition on the
appointment or designation of a member of the armed
forces in the active service to a civilian position in the
government;
Article XVII
constitution
amendments
or
revisions
to
The basic law on elections and these amendments are designed to

improve the law and to protect the integrity of the elections
in order to achieve the objective of holding an:
HONEST,
ORDERLY
PEACEFUL
FREE AND
CREDIBLE elections (HOPE-FRECRE).
D. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (RA 7160)
RA 7160 The Local Government Code of 1991 for
1.
Recall of local elective officials;
2. Qualifications and Disqualifications of elections of local
elective officials;
3. Local initiative & referendum
Applicability
the
B. OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE BP 881 basic law on

elections.
C. AMENDMENTS UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION:
RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987). Sec.

2 thereof re-enacted the OEC when it provided that
the first local elections under the new Constitution
and all subsequent elections and plebiscites shall be
governed by this Act and by the provisions of the BP
881, otherwise known as the OEC of the Philippines,
and other election laws not inconsistent with this
Act;
RA 7166 (An Act which provided for the

synchronization of the National and Local Elections
of 1992;
RA 7904 (An Act Governing the conduct of the 1995

Senatorial and Local Elections;
Shall govern all elections of public officers and, to the extent

appropriate, all referenda and plebiscite. (Section 2 of the
Omnibus Election Code)
Further strengthened by Sec 2(1) of Art. IX-C, the Constitution
empowers the COMELEC to enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall.
The COMELEC is mandated to apply the OEC and all other
statutes on the subject governing election laws. (Section 36 of
RA 7166).
MODES OF POPULAR INTERVENTION

I. ELECTIONS/ SUFFRAGE
(i)
ELECTIONS DEFINED
Carlos v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571 (2000)
ELECTIONS is the choice or selection of candidates

to public office by popular vote through the use of
the ballot, and the elected officials of which are
determined through the will of the electorate.
The order of topics in the outline was modified minimally

In the context of the Constitution, the term election may

refer to the following:
(1) Conduct of the polls,
(2) Listing of voters,
(3) Holding of the electoral campaign, and
(4) The casting and counting of votes.
The winner is the candidate who has obtained a

majority or plurality of valid votes in the election.
Romualdez v. RTC 226 SCRA 408 - The right to vote is

a most precious political right, as well as a bounden duty
of every citizen, enabling and requiring him/her to
participate in the process of government so as to ensure
that the government can truly be said to derive its power
solely from the consent of the governed.
(ii)
ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS
In applying the rules of statutory construction however,

the provisions of election laws are divided into THREE
PARTS NAMELY;
FACTS: Trinidad and Sunga, were candidates in the

mayoralty race in the Province of Cagayan. Trinidad won
while Sunga garnered the second place and when Trinidad
was subsequently disqualified, Sunga claims that he
should be proclaimed.
2)
1)
3)
1)
HELD: The SC ruled that it would be extremely

repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally
guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not
acquired the majority or plurality of votes be proclaimed
winner and imposed as the representative of a
constituency, the majority of whom have positively
declared through their ballots that they do not
choose him.
(iv)
CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS
Election contests are REASONABLY AND

LIBERALLY CONSTRUED as it is imbued with
public interest to give way to the will of the electorate
and ascertain by all means the real candidate elected
by the people. - Sec. 3 Rule 1, COMELEC Rules of
Procedure
Reason: to promote the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring the
holding of an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and
credible elections and to achieve a just, expeditious
and inexpensive determination and disposition of
every action and proceeding brought before the
COMELEC.
Margarito Suliguin vs. COMELEC, March 23,

2006, GR No. 166046 citing the case of Bince v.
COMELEC, 242 SCRA 436, the SC held political laws
must be so construed so as to give life and spirit to
the popular mandate freely expressed through the
ballot. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election
cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true
will of the electorate.
Bince v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 273 - Laws governing
election contests must be liberally construed to the end
that the will of the people in the choice of public officials
may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
Those which refers to the conduct of elections required to

be observed by election officials;
Saya-Ange v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155087, November

28, 2003 - The rules and regulations for the conduct of
elections are mandatory before the election, but when it is
sought to enforce them after the election, they are to be
directory only, if that is possible especially where, if they are
held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their
votes without any fault on their part. When the voters have
honestly cast their ballots, the same should not be nullified
because the officers appointed under the law to direct the
election and guard the purity of the ballot have not done their
duty.
Fernandez vs COMELEC GR No. 9135 April 3, 1990

While Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as
An Act Providing For Synchronized National and Local
Elections and For Electoral Reforms, requires the BEI
chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot, the
mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same
although it may constitute an election offense
imputable to said BEI chairman.
BASIS OF PLURAILITY OF VOTES

Mitmug v. COMELEC 230 SCRA - The majority or
plurality of votes is determined by the number of
registered VOTERS WHO ACTUALLY CAST THEIR
VOTES OR THOSE WHO ACTUALLY VOTED AND NOT
BASED ON THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS.
There is no provision in our election laws which requires
that a majority of the registered voters must cast their
votes. All the law requires is that the winning candidates
must be elected by plurality of votes, regardless of the
actual number of ballots cast. Therefore, even if less
than 25% of the electorate in the questioned
precincts cast their votes, the votes has to be
respected.
Those which refers to the conduct of elections

required to be observed by election officials;
Those provisions which candidates for public
elective office are required to do and comply with;
Those provisions which cover procedural rules
designed to ascertain, in case of dispute, the actual
winner in the elections.
The rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are:

Mandatory before the elections, but when it is
Directory only after the elections most particularly if
innocent voters will be disenfranchised by the negligence
or omission of the elections officers (who will be liable
either criminally or administratively).
Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20,

2003 the winner is the candidate who has
obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast
in the election.
For, in all republican forms of
government, the basic idea is that no one can be declared
elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he
or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast
in the election.
(iii)
Benito vs COMELEC 235 SCRA 436 - the proclamation of

Benito as mayor-elect by the Municipal Board of Canvassers
was not a valid proclamation. The fact that the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes dies, or is later declared to
be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was
elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who
obtained the second highest number of votes to be
declared the winner of the elective office. Election
contests involve public interest, and technicalities and
procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they
constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of
the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. Laws
governing election contests must be liberally construed
to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officials may not be defeated by mere technical
objections. Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the
election laws should not frustrate the determination of the
popular will.
Sunga v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 76 - Plurality of votes is

the essence of an election or majority rule. A public office
is filled only by those who receive the highest number of
votes cast in the election for that office which is a basic
tenet in all republican form of government.
ISSUE: Whether Sunga should be declared winner.
Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained

therein shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule that the failure of
the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with
their mandated administrative responsibility, i.e., signing,
authenticating and thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the
voter with disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating the will of the
people. (as cited in Punzalan vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 126669. April
27, 1998])
Punzalan v. COMELEC April 27, 1998 - Section 15 of RA

6646 as amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7166, requires, in addition to
the preliminary acts for the conduct of vote as provided under
Sec. 191 of the OEC, the Chairman, to affix their signatures at
the back of each and every ballot to be used during the voting.
The failure on the part of these election officials to do their
duties will not invalidate the ballot for to rule otherwise would
disenfranchise the voters and place a premium on the official
ineptness and make it possible for a small group of
functionaries, by their negligence or their deliberate inaction to
frustrate the will of the electorate. It may however constitute
as an election offense imputable to the said BEI Chairman.
Bautista vs Castro 206 SCRA 305 - The absence of the

signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers in the
ballot given to a voter as required by law and the rules as proof
of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal. This requirement is
mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.
Marcelino C. Libanan v. HRET a ballot without the BEI

chairmans signature at the back is valid and not spurious,
provided that it bears any one o these other authenticating
marks, to wit
a. the COMELEC watermark; and
b. in those cases where the COMELEC
watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent,

the presence of red and blue fibers in the

ballots.
2)
Those provisions which candidates for public

elective office are required to do and comply
with;
The provision of law which candidates for
office are required to comply with are
generally regarded as mandatory and failure
to comply would be fatal to the candidate.
Example, rules prescribing the qualification of
candidates (such as age, citizenship or residency
requirements cannot be cured by vox populi vox dei),
deadline or filing of certificate of candidacy or
limitation of period within which to file an election
contest.
3)
Those provisions which covers procedural rules

designed to ascertain, in case of dispute, the
actual winner in the elections.
Maruhom v. COMELEC 331 SCRA 473, it was ruled

that laws and statutes governing election contests
especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally
construed and that in applying election laws, it
would be far better to err in favor of the popular
sovereignty than to be right in complex but little
understood legalisms.
Pea v. HRET 270 SCRA 340 - While statues
providing for election contests are to be liberally
construed, the rule likewise stands, that in an election
protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon the
issues he had raised in his original or amended
pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory
period for filing of the protest considering that
compliance therewith are rendered mandatory
for candidates.
within 18 months before the date of the next

presidential elections 4
OTHER FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION

II. INTIATIVE
RA 6735:
INITIATIVE IS DEFINED AS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE
TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OR
TO PROPOSE AND ENACT LEGISLATION THROUGH AN
ELECTION CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE.
Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly
either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the
law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or because
they want to amend or modify one already existing.
There are 3 systems of initiative:
a.
b.
c.
Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition

proposing amendments to the Constitution;
Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to
enact a national legislation; and
Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city or municipal or
barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
INDIRECT INITIATIVE is exercised of initiative by the
people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local
legislative body for action.
III. REFERENDUM
LIMITATIONS TO THE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
(WHEN LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION POLICY NOT
APPLICABLE)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
When the amendment to pleadings in an

election contest will substantially change the
cause of action, defense or theory of the case;
When the amendment will alter a final
judgment on a substantial matter;
When the amendments will confer jurisdiction
upon the court when none existed before;
When it seeks to cure a premature or nonexistent cause of action
When the amendment is intended to delay the
proceedings of the case.
Hofer v. HRET, GR. No. 158833, May 12, 2005 the time limit for presentation of evidence of 20 days
conformably with Rule 59 of the HRET Rules is explicit
and strictly complied with. It is not a technicality that
can be set aside as would make the liberal construction
policy operative.
TYPES OF ELECTIONS
1.
REGULAR ELECTIONS is an election held on such

dates established by law at regular intervals. Whether
national or local, it refers to an election participated in by
a. those who possess the right of suffrage,
b. are not otherwise disqualified by law and
c.
who are registered voters.
Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49 (1996) SK election

is not considered a regular elections because the said
elections are participated in by youth with ages ranging
from 15 to 21, some of whom are not qualified voters to
elect local or national elective officials.
2.
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
a)
b)
c)
2
3
In cases were postponement and failure of

elections are declared by COMELEC 2
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the
Senate or House of Representative at least 1
year before the expiration of the term 3, the
COMELEC shall call and hold a special election to fill
the vacancy not earlier than 60 days nor longer then
90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy,
However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate, the
special elections shall be held simultaneously with
the next succeeding regular elections.
In case a vacancy occurs in the offices of the
President and Vice-President, no special
elections shall be called if the vacancy occurs
Sec. 5,6,7, BP 881

Sec. 4, 7166
REFERENDUM is the power of the electorate to

approve or reject legislation through an election
called for the purpose. The law-making body submits
to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for
approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution which is
duly enacted or approved by such law making authority.
Referendum may be of 2 classes:

a.
Referendum on statutes which refer to a petition to

approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by
Congress; and
Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by
regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.
b.
SBMA V. COMELEC 262 SCRA 492 (1996) not only

Ordinances but also Resolutions are also appropriate subjects of
a local initiative.
WHO MAY EXERCISE: It is exercised by all registered voters of

the country, autonomous regions, provinces, cities and barangays.
REQUIREMENTS:
1)
To
exercise
the
REFERENDUM:
power
of
INITIATIVE
AND
National Law or Law passed by the legislative assembly

of an autonomous region, province or city:
a. at least 10% of the total number of registered voters,
b. of which every legislative district is represented by at
least 3% of the registered voters thereof,
c.
shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the
same with the COMELEC.
d. The percentage requirement is likewise applicable and is
deemed validly initiated to a referendum or initiative
affecting a law, resolution or ordinance
Law passed in a municipality
a.
b.
petition is signed by at least 10% of the RV of the

municipality
of which every barangay is represented by at least 3% of
the RV voters therein.
With respect to a barangay resolution or ordinance

a.
2)
signed by at least 10% of the registered voters of said

barangay.
a petition for an INITIATIVE on the 1987 Constitution,

a. must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters,
Art. VII, Sec. 10, Constitution

b.
c.
of which every legislative district must be

represented by at least 3% of the voters therein.
LIMITATION: Initiative may be initiated only
after 5 years following the ratification of the
1987 Constitution and only once every five (5)
years thereafter.
PROCEDURE IN THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE AND

REFERENDUM:
1.
2.
3.
The COMELEC, shall schedule a special registration of

voters at least 3 weeks before the scheduled initiative or
referendum.
After determining the sufficiency of the petition, the
COMELEC shall, within 30 days, publish the same in
Filipino and English at least twice in a newspaper of
general and local circulation and set the date of the
Initiative or Referendum not earlier than 45 days but not
later than 90 days from the determination by the
COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.
The Election Registrar shall verify the signatures on the
petition on the basis of the registry of voters, voters
affidavits and voters identification cards used in the
immediately preceding elections.
EFFECTIVITY OF INITIATIVE or REFERENDUM

1)
2)
3)
The national law proposed for enactment, approval or

amendment approved by a majority of the votes cast as
certified by the COMELEC, shall become effective 15
days following completion of its publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines.
The proposition to reject a national law approved by a
majority of the votes cast, shall be deemed repealed and
the repeal shall become effective 15 days following
the completion of publication of the proposition
and the certification by the Commission. But if
the majority is not obtained, the national law
sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in
full force and effect.
With regards to the proposition in an initiative on the
CONSTITUTION approved by a majority of the votes
cast in the plebiscite, the same shall become effective
as to the day of the plebiscite.
Santiago v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 106, COMELEC
cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through
the system of initiative. The power of the COMELEC to
issue rules and regulations is limited only to what is
provided under (A) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, or (b) by a law where subordinate legislation
is authorized and which satisfies the completeness
and sufficiency standard tests.
In this case the petition to propose amendments to the
Constitution particularly the lifting of the term limits of
public elective officials was not validly initiated as it failed
to comply with the signature requirement for initiating an
Initiative (Petition signed by at least 12% of all the
registered voters where each legislative district is
represented at least by 3%) . The COMELEC never
acquired jurisdiction over the petition as jurisdiction is
acquired only after its filing the petition being the
initiatory pleading.
Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25,

2006
FACTS: The Lambino Group commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution and then filed a petition with COMELEC to
hold a plebiscite for ratification under Sec. 5(b) and (c)
and Sec. 7 of RA 6735. The proposed changes under the
petition will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government. COMELEC did not give it due course for lack
of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend
the Constitution, pursuant to Santiago v. COMELEC
ruling.
ISSUES:
Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment
or revision
Whether the initiative petition is sufficient compliance
with the constitutional requirement on direct proposal by
the people
RULING:
Initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2, Art. XVII
on direct proposal by people
Sec. 2, Art. XVII...is the governing provision that
allows a peoples initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution. While this provision does not expressly state
that the petition must set forth the full text of the
proposed amendments, the deliberations of the framers of
our Constitution clearly show that: (a) the framers
intended to adopt relevant American jurisprudence on peoples

initiative; and (b) in particular, the people must first see the full
text of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the
people must sign on a petition containing such full text.
The essence of amendments directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition is that the entire
proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two
essential elements must be present.
2 elements of initiative
First, the people must author and thus sign the entire
proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must
be embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of
the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be
either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so
attached, the petition must stated the fact of such attachment.
This is an assurance that everyone of the several millions of
signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed
amendments before not after signing.
Moreover, an initiative signer must be informed at the
time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is
proposed and failure to do so is deceptive and misleading
which renders the initiative void.
In the case of the Lambino Groups petition, theres not a
single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes
in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state
that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. The
signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people
approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral- Parliamentary system of government. The
signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature
sheet. This omission is fatal.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people
without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a
gigantic fraud on the people. Thats why the Constitution
requires that an initiative must be directly proposed by the
people x x x in a petition - meaning that the people must sign
on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nations
fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general
or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and
unelected individuals.
The initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
disallowing revision through initiatives
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of
amending the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress
upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is
through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through
a peoples initiative.
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second
modes, applies to any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution. In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to
the third mode, applies only to amendments to this
Constitution. This distinction was intentional as shown by the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. A peoples
initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an
amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In
contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose
both amendments and revisions to the Constitution.
Does the Lambino Groups initiative constitute a revision of the
Constitution?
Yes. By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift
from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President and
the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a
revision, not a mere amendment.
Amendment vs. Revision
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances.
There is also revision if the change alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects
substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand,
amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision
generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while
amendment generally affects only the specific provision being
amended.
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific
provision of the Constitution without affecting any other section
or article, the change may generally be considered an
amendment and not a revision. For example, a change reducing
the voting age from 18 years to 15 years is an amendment and
not a revision. Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership
of mass media companies from 100% to 60% is an amendment
and not a revision. Also, a change requiring a college degree as
an additional qualification for election to the Presidency is

an amendment and not a revision.
The changes in these examples do not entail any
modification of sections or articles of the Constitution
other than the specific provision being amended. These
changes do not also affect the structure of government or
the system of checks-and-balances among or within the
three branches.
However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a
change is an amendment or a revision. A change in a
single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a
revision and not an amendment. For example, the
substitution of the word republican with monarchic or
theocratic in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution
radically overhauls the entire structure of government and
the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution.
Thus, each specific change will have to be examined caseby-case, depending on how it affects other provisions, as
well as how it affects the structure of government, the
carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the
underlying ideological basis of the existing Constitution.
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic
principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a
deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited
to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing
not only several provisions, but also the altered principles
with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions
normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent
assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertake
revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow peoples
initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable
deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake
only amendments and not revisions.
Tests to determine whether amendment or revision
In California where the initiative clause allows
amendments but not revisions to the constitution just like
in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test:
the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The
quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so
extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or
alteration of numerous existing provisions. The court
examines only the number of provisions affected and does
not consider the degree of the change.
The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative
effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The
main inquiry is whether the change will accomplish such
far reaching changes in the nature of our basic
governmental plan as to amount to a revision. Whether
there is an alteration in the structure of government is a
proper subject of inquiry. Thus, a change in the nature of
[the] basic governmental plan includes change in its
fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its
Branches. A change in the nature of the basic
governmental plan also includes changes that jeopardize
the traditional form of government and the system of
check and balances.
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the
Lambino Groups initiative is a revision and not merely an
amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Groups
proposed changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on the
Legislature and Article VII on the Executive - affecting a
total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the
basic plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.
A change in the structure of government is a revision
A change in the structure of government is a revision
of the Constitution, as when the three great co-equal
branches of government in the present Constitution are
reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in
the Constitution. A shift from the present BicameralPresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the
legislative and executive branches is a radical change in
the structure of government. The abolition alone of the
Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power
alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a
revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone
of one chamber of Congress alters the system of checksand-balances within the legislature and constitutes a
revision of the Constitution.
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference
between amendment and revision is only one of
procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group posits
that when a deliberative body drafts and proposes changes
to the Constitution, substantive changes are called
revisions because members of the deliberative body work
full-time on the changes. The same substantive changes,
when proposed through an initiative, are called
amendments because the changes are made by ordinary
people who do not make an occupation, profession, or
vocation out of such endeavor. The SC, however, ruled
that the express intent of the framers and the plain
language of the Constitution contradict the Lambino
Groups theory. Where the intent of the framers and the
language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated, courts

do not deviate from such categorical intent and language.
SBMA v. COMELEC 252 SCRA 492 (1996).
FACTS: Sangguniang bayan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan

Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its absolute
concurrence as required by RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and
Development Act) to join the Subic Special Economic Zone. On
September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the Kapasyahan to the
Office of the President. Petitioner SBMA seeks to nullify the
respondent COMELECs Orders denying petitioners plea to
stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on the
proposition to recall the Kapasyahan.
To begin with, the process started by respondents was an

Initiative
but
respondent
COMELEC
made
preparations for a Referendum. In the body of the
COMELEC Resolution No. 2842, the word referendum is
repeated at least 27 times, but initiative is not mentioned at all.
The COMELEC labeled the exercise as a referendum, the
counting of votes was entrusted to a referendum committee, the
documents were called referendum returns, the canvassers
referendum board of canvassers and the ballots themselves bore
the description referendum.
SC
DISTINGUISHED
REFERENDUM:
Initiative
Initiative is a process of
law-making by the people
themselves without the
participation and against
the wishes of their elected
representatives,
The process and the voting
in an initiative are more
complex.
INITIATIVE
FROM
Referendum
Referendum
consists
merely of the electorate
approving or rejecting what
has been drawn up or
enacted by a legislative
body.
Voters simply write either
yes or no in the ballot
The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances

but also resolutions (which pertains to an act passed by a
local legislative body) as appropriate subjects of a local initiative
in accordance with Section 32 Article VI of the Constitution.
IV. RECALL
RECALL is the mode of removal of a public officer

by the people before the end of his term of office
which shall be exercised by the registered voters of
a local government unit to which the local elective
official subject of such recall belongs. 5
Garcia vs. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100 (1993) The peoples

prerogative to remove a public officer is an incident of their
sovereign power and in the absence of a constitutional restraint,
the power is implied in governmental operations.
MODE OF INITIATING RECALL (RA 7160)
Limited to a petition commenced only by the registered

voters in the local unit concerned.6
Section 70: The recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or

barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a registered
voter in the LGU concerned with the following percentage
requirement:
At least 25% in the case of an LGU with a voting

population of not more than 20,000
At least 20% in the case of LGUs with a voting population

of at least 20,000 but not more than 75,000. Provided,
that in no case shall the required petitioners be less than
5,000
At least 15% in the case of local government units with a

voting population of at least 75,000 but not more than
300,000: Provided however, that in no case shall the
required number of petitioners be less than 15,000; and
At least 10% in the case of local government units with a

voting population of over 300,000: Provided, however,
that in no case shall the required petitioners be less than
45,000.
(1) Initiated by a written petition for recall duly signed
before the Election Registrar or his representative and
in the presence of a representative of the petitioner
and a representative of the official sought to be
recalled, and in a public place in the province, city,
municipality or brgy. as the case may be, shall be filed
with the COMELEC through its office in the local
government unit concerned.
5
Sec. 69 of RA 7160
Section 70 and 71 of RA 7160 is now amended by RA 9244, otherwise known as

an Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall
of Elective Local Government Officials.

(2) The COMELEC shall cause the publication of the petition

in a public and conspicuous place for a period of not less
than 10 days nor more than 20 days, for the purpose of
verifying the authenticity and genuineness of the petition
and the required percentage of voters.
(3) Upon the lapse of the said period, the COMELEC shall
announce the acceptance of candidates to the position and
prepare the list of candidates including the names of the
official sought to be recalled (as he is automatically
considered a registered candidate and entitled to be voted
upon (Sec. 71 RA 7160) but who is prohibited to resign
while the recall proceeding is in progress (Sec. 73).
First Issue the petitioner claims that when several

barangay chairpersons met and convened on May 19, 1999
and resolved to initiate the recall, followed by the taking of
votes on May 29, 1999, the process of recall began and that
since May 29, 1999 was less than 1 year after he had
assumed office, the PRA was illegally convened and all
proceedings held thereafter, including the filing of the
recall petition in July 2, 1999 were null and void.
The COMELEC on the other hand, maintains that the
process of recall starts with the filing of the petition for
recall and ends with the conduct of the recall elections and
that, since the petition for recall was filed on July 2, 1999,
exactly one year and 1 day after petitioners assumption of
office, he recall was validly initiated outside the one year
prohibited period. Both petitioner and COMELEC agreed
that the term recall as used in Sec. 74 refers to a process.
They however disagree as to when the process starts for
the purpose of the one year limitation in par. (b) of Sec. 74.
ELECTION ON RECALL
Upon the filing of the resolution or petition, the shall set

the date of the election on recall not later than 30 days for
city, brgy. or municipal officials and 45 days for provincial
officials.
RECALL as used in par. (b) of Sec. 74 refers to

the election itself by means of which voters decide
whether they should retain their local officials or
elect his replacement. Sec. 74 deals with restrictions
on the power of recall. On the other hand, Sec. 69 provides
that the power of recall shall be exercised by the registered
voters of the local government unit to which the local
elective official belongs. Since the power vested on
the electorate is not the power to initiate recall
proceedings (such power is vested in the PRA or in
at least 25% of the registered voters under Sec.
70), but the power to elect an official into office,
the limitations in Sec. 74 cannot be deemed to
apply to the entire recall proceedings.
EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL
only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in

the person of the candidate who received the highest
number of votes cast during the election in recall.
Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest
number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed
and he shall continue in office (Sec. 72).
LIMITATIONS ON RECALL
an elective official may be subject of recall elections only

once during his term exclusively on the ground of
lack of confidence.
The recall cannot be undertaken within 1 year from
the date of the officials assumption of office or
one (1) year immediately preceding a regular
election (Sec. 74).
In other words, recall in par. (b) of Sec. 74 refers

only to the RECALL ELECTION, which excludes the
preliminary proceedings to initiate recall such as the
convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition for recall
with the COMELEC, or the gathering of signatures of at
least 25% of the voters for a petition for recall.
Considering that the recall election in Pasay was set on
April 15, 2000, more than one after the petitioner assumed
office as mayor of that city, the SC held that there is no bar
to its holding on said date.
Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49: SK elections is not

considered a regular local elections for
purposes of recall under Sec. 74 of RA 7160. The
term regular local elections is construed as one referring
to an election where the office held by the local elective
official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled
up by the electorate. It is confined to the regular elections
of elective national and local officials.
As to the Second Issue petitioner argued that the phrase

regular local elections in par. (b) of Sec. 74 does not only
mean the day of the regular local elections which for the
year 2001 is May 14, but the election period as well, at 45
days immediately before the day of the election. Thus
contending that beginning March 30, 2000, no recall
election may be held.
Angobung v. COMELEC 269 SCRA 245, the petition

to initiate recall proceedings must be filed by at
least 25% of the total number of RV and cannot be
filed by one person only. The law merely stated
that the recall be initiated by a petition of at least
25% of the RV and did not provide that the
petition must be signed, considering that
process of signing is statutorily required to be
undertaken before the ER.
Malonzo v. COMELEC and the Liga ng mga barangay
March 11, 1997, Malonzo questioned the validity of recall
proceedings initiated by the said Liga composed of
Punong Barangays and SK Chairmen. The SC upheld the
validity of the recall proceedings and stated that while the
Liga is an entity distinct from the PRA, it so happens that
the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga
are the very same members of the PRA, the majority of
whom met and voted in favor of the resolution calling for
the recall of Mayor Malonzo.
Jovito Claudio v. COMELEC et. al and PRA of Pasay
v. COMELEC 331 SCRA 388 (2000),
Two issues were settled in the matter of recall:
1. On whether the word Recall in par. (b) of Sec. 74 of
RA 7160 includes the convening of the PRA and
the filing by it of a recall resolution and
2. On whether the phrase Regular Local Elections in
the same paragraph includes the election period
for that regular election or simply the date of the
election.
Facts: Claudio was the mayor of Pasay who assumed
office on July 1, 1998. Subsequently in May 29, 1999,
of the 1,790 members of the PRA 1079 adopted the
resolution entitled Resolution to initiate the recall of
Claudio as Mayor for Loss of Confidence.
Claudio and two others, filed oppositions alleging
procedural and substantive defects among which and
more importantly anent the issue at hand, that the
convening of the PRA took place within oneyear prohibited period.
Held:
Had congress intended this limitation to refer to the

campaign period, which period is defined in the OEC, it
could have expressly said so. If we follow petitioners
interpretation, it would severely limit the period a
recall election will be held.
Manuel Afiado et. al. vs. COMELEC 340 SCRA 600, the
issue is WoN an elective official who became Mayor by legal
succession can be the subject of a recall election by virtue of a
PRA Resolution passed or adopted when the said elective
official was still the Vice-Mayor.
Facts: Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father,
for the position of Mayor. Joel emerged as the winner over his
opponent Abaya and he was later proclaimed with Navarro as
Vice-Mayor.
Defeated Abaya filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare
Null and Void Substitution which later was amended seeking to
declare the certificate of candidacy of the father, Jose Miranda,
as null and void. The COMELEC ruled that the Certificate of
candidacy was not valid, hence, he cannot be validly substituted
by his son Joel, as a mayoralty candidate in Santiago City.
While the Petition of Joel was pending with the SC, the PRA of
Santiago City convened on July 12, 1999 and adopted a
Resolution calling for the recall of Vice-Mayor Navarro for loss
of confidence.
After the Supreme court denied with finality the Petition of Joel,
Vice-Mayor Navarro assumed and took oath as new mayor of
Santiago City.
COMELEC denied due course the PRA Resolution as moot for
the reason that the assumption by legal succession of
petitioner as the new Mayor is a supervening event which
rendered the recall proceedings against her moot and academic.
The SC referred to the Resolution itself which
specifically referred to the recall of Navarro as ViceMayor for her official acts as VM. Even if the PRA were
to reconvene to adopt another resolution for the recall
of Navarro, this time as Mayor, the same would still

not prosper in view of the limitation as prescribed

in Sec. 74 which provides that No recall shall take
place within one year from the date of the
officials assumption of office or one year
immediately preceding a regular elections.
Navarro assumed office on October 11, 1999 and recall
elections can only be initiated between October 11, 2000
to October 11, 2001 which is now barred by the May 14,
2001 elections.
the Plebiscite for the ratification of RA 7675 relative to the

conversion of Mandaluyong into a highy urbanized city
notwithstanding that it involved a change in their legislative
district was upheld for the reason that the matter of separate
district representation is merely ancillary to the conversion of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city.
V. PLEBISCITE
PLEBISCITE is the vote of the entire people or

the aggregate of the enfranchised individuals
composing a state or nation expressing their
choice for a proposed measure.
b)
Section 4 Art. XVII with reference to amendments or

revisions to the Constitution which may be proposed
by congress upon of the votes of all its members or
by constitutional convention 7
Padilla Jr. vs. COMELEC 214 SCRA 735, the

COMELEC resolved to approve the conduct of the
plebiscite in the area or units affected for the proposed
Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa and the remaining areas
of the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines
Norte. Majority of the electorates in the units affected
did not favor the creation of Tulay-na-lupa.
Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a special Civil
Action of Certiorari seek to set aside the Plebiscite
contending that it was a complete failure and that the
results obtained were invalid and illegal because the
Plebiscite as mandated by COMELEC Res. 2312 should
have been conducted only in the political unit or units
affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not have
included the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo.
HELD: With the approval and ratification of the 1987
Constitution, more particularly Art. X, Sec. 10, the
creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of the
boundaries of any political unit shall be subject to the
approval by a majority of the votes case in a
Plebiscite in the POLITICAL UNITS AFFECTED
and reiterated its ruling in Tan v. COMELEC 142 SCRA
727 (1986) that in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is
imperative that all constituents of the mother and
daughter units affected shall be included. The term
political units directly affected was held to mean that
residents of the political entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of a
portion thereof have a right to vote in the said
Plebiscite or the plurality of political units which
would participate in the Plebiscite.
HELD: The creation of Napico cannot be considered as

moot and it is most proper that the P be declared null
and void in view of the pending boundary dispute
between Pasig and Cainta which presents a
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION AND MUST BE DECIDED
FIRST BEFORE THE P FOR THE PROPOSED BRGYS.
BE CONDUCTED.
Sec. 10 Art. X relating to the creation, abolition,

merging, division or alteration of the boundaries of
any political unit.
Sanidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529 the Supreme

Court declared as unconstitutional the restriction imposed
by the COMELEC on media relative to discussing on air
and print the features of the plebiscite issues in the
creation of the autonomous region for the Cordilleras and
held that Plebiscites are matters of public concern
and importance and the peoples right to be
informed and to be able to freely and intelligently
make a decision would be best served by access to
an unabridged discussion of the issues.
Tobias et. al. v. Abalos Dec. 8, 1994 (En Banc), the

exclusion of the constituents of San Juan to participate in
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be

proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every 5
years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall
be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of
such amendment or revision. xxx
City of Pasig vs. COMELEC/Municipality of Cainta

Province of Rizal, Sept. 10, 1999, the issue as to the
propriety of the suspension of the Plebiscite
proceedings pending the decision of the boundary
dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the
City of Pasig was raised.
FACTS: The City of Pasig passed on Ordinance creating
barangays Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality of Cainta
moved to suspend or cancel the respective Plebiscite due to the
pending case before the RTC of Antipolo for the settlement of
the boundary dispute and prayed for its suspension or
cancellation until the dispute is decided by the RTC. The
COMELEC suspended the holding of the Plebiscite for the
creation of Brgy. Karangalan but rendered the creation of
Napico as moot as the same was already ratified in the
Plebiscite held for the purpose.
It is generally associated with the amending process of the

Constitution, particularly on the ratification aspects and is
required under the following:
a)
Ma. Salavacion Buac/Antonio Bautista vs. COMELEC,

Alan Peter Cayetano, GR 155855, January 26, 2004
FACTS: A petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed by
petitioners Buac and Bautista assailing the October 28, 2002 en
banc resolution of the COMELEC which held that it has no
jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of
plebiscite and annulment of its results.
The facts show that in April 1988, a plebiscite was held in
Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law (RA No.
8487) proposing the conversion of Taguig from a municipality
into a city. Without completing the canvass of 64 other election
returns, the PBC declared that the NO votes won and that the
people rejected the conversion of Taguig to a city. The PBOC
was however ordered by the COMELEC en banc to reconvene
and complete the canvass which the board did and in due time
issued an Order proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed in
the plebiscite conducted.
Petitioners filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the
results of the plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount of
the ballots cast therein. Cayetano intervened and moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
COMELEC. He claimed that a plebiscite cannot be subject of an
election protests. He averred that the jurisdiction to hear a
complaint involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged with
the RTC.
The COMELEC 2nd division initially gave due course to
the petition and ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case. It
treated the petition as akin to an election protest considering
that the same allegations of fraud and irregularities in the
casting and counting of ballots and preparation of returns are
the same grounds for assailing the results of an election. It then
ordered the Taguig ballot boxes to be brought to its Manila
Office and created revision committees to revise and recount
the plebiscite ballots.
In an unverified motion, Intervenor Cayetano moved for
reconsideration of the COMELEC Order insisting that it has no
jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition contesting the results
of a plebiscite.
In a complete turnaround, the COMELEC 2nd division
issued an Order on November 29, 2001 granting the Motion for
Reconsideration. It dismissed the petition to annul the results of
the plebiscite and ruled that COMELEC has no jurisdiction over
said case as it involves an exercise of quasi-judicial powers not
contemplated under Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution.
On appeal, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the ruling of
its 2nd division. It held that the COMELEC cannot use its power
to enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscites as this
power is purely administrative or executive and not quasijudicial in nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the
petition to annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the
RTC under Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. Hence, the petition before the SC.
Petitioner reiterates:
Jurisdiction to decide plebiscite protest cases is

constitutionally vested with the COMELEC
COMELEC Order is discriminatory as during the pendency

of the Taguig case, the COMELEC assumed jurisdiction over a
similar case concerning the revision and recount of the
plebiscite ballots involving the conversion of Malolos into a

City. COMELEC resolved the said case and already

declared Malolos a city.
Respondent COMELEC/Cayetano contends that:
There is no such action as a plebiscite protest under

the Constitution;
The laws and the COMELEC rules provided only for

election protests;
The quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the COMELEC over

election contests extends only to cases enumerated in
Section 2(2), Article XI of the Constitution (sole judge of
all contests involving), which does not include
controversies over plebiscite results, and;
Even if the petition to annul plebiscite results is akin

to an election protests, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction
over election protests involving municipal officials and the
COMELEC has only appellate jurisdiction in said cases.
HELD: The SC held that the key to the case is its nature,
which involves the determination of whether the
electorate of Taguig voted in favor of or against the
conversion of the municipality of Taguig. The invocation
of judicial power to settle disputes involving the conduct
of a Plebiscite is misplaced. Judicial power as defined
under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution as the
duty of the court of justice to settle actual controversies
involving the rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the government.
The instant case assailing the regularity of the
conduct of the Taguig Plebiscite does not fit the kind of
case calling for the exercise of judicial power. There is no
plaintiff or defendant in the case for it merely involves the
ascertainment of the vote of the electorate on whether
they approve or disapprove the conversion of their
municipality into a highly urbanized city.
In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the SC said
that the said provision is explicit that COMELEC has
power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall. To enforce means to cause to take
effect or to cause the performance of such act or acts
necessary to bring into actual effect or operation, a plan or
measure which entails all the necessary to bring into
actual effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails
all the necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the
holding of HOPE-FRECRE. The Sc was surprised that for
the first time, COMELEC yielded its historic jurisdiction
over a motion for reconsideration which was even filed out
of time, thus rendering it without jurisdiction to entertain
the same.
Brillantes v. Yorac 192 SCRA 358, The President cannot

validly designate Yorac as acting chairman on the legal premise
that Art. IX-C Sec. 1(2) prohibits the appointment of members
in a temporary or acting capacity. Art. IX-A Sec. 1(2)
provides for the independence of the COMELEC and
therefore, the choice of a temporary chairman falls
under the discretion and prerogative of the
commission and cannot be exercised for it by the
President.
1997 Bar Question: A month before the forth coming election,

A one of the incumbent Commissioners of the COMELEC,
died while in office and B, another Commissioner, suffered a
sever stroke. In view of the proximity of the elections and to
avoid paralyzation in the COMELEC, the President, who was
not running for any office, appointed Commissioner C of the
COA, who was not a lawyer but a CPA by profession, ad
interim Commissioner to succeed Commissioner A and
designated, by way of temporary measure, Associate justice D of
the Court of Appeals as Acting Associate Commissioner during
the absence of Commissioner B. Question: Did the President
do the right thing in extending such ad interim appointment in
favor of Commissioner C and designating Justice D acting
Commissioner of the COMELEC?
Suggested Answer: No. The President was wrong in
extending an ad interim appointment in favor of
Commissioner C. In Summers vs. Ozaeta 81 Phil. 754, it
was held that an ad interim appointment is a permanent
appointment.
Under Section 15, Article VII of the
Constitution, within two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, the
President cannot make permanent appointments.
The designation of Justice D as acting Associate Commissioner
is also invalid. Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution
prohibits the designation of any Commissioner of the
COMELEC in a temporary or acting capacity. Section 12, Article
VIII of the Constitution prohibits the designation of any
member of the Judiciary to any agency performing QJ or
administrative functions.
MEANING OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW
1. COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE

CHAIRMAN & THE SIX (6) COMMISSIONERS
Composed of a Chairman and six commissioners who

shall be:
o
Natural born citizen of the Philippines and
o
At the time of their appointment, at least 35 years
of age,
o
Holders of a college degree and
o
Must not have been candidates for any
elective
position
in
the
immediately
preceding elections.
o
However, majority thereof, including the chairman,
shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law at
least 10 years.8
2.
MANNER
APPOINTMENT/LIMITATIONS/REMOVAL
The powers and functions possessed by the COMELEC ARE

EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE which pertains to the
power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall. The power to enforce and enforce
all laws, rules and regulations governing elections is
exclusive to the COMELEC with the set purpose of insuring
an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections.
The RTC cannot assume jurisdiction over a case involving the

enforcement of the election code which pertained to taking
cognizance of a Special Civil Action filed before it to restrain
Mayor from pursuing certain infrastructure projects
during the election period which was alleged to
constitute a violation of Sec. 261 of the OEC. (Zaldivar
v. Estenzo 23 SCRA 540; Gallardo v. Tabamo 32 SCRA
690).
A judge who restrained the suspension of the

canvassing of election returns is guilty of ignorance of
the law and is administratively liable therefore.
(Libardo v. Cesar 234 SCRA 13).
OF
The Chairman and the commissioners shall be

appointed by the President with the consent of the
commission on appointments for a term of 7 years
without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor.
In no case shall any member be appointed or designated
in a temporary or acting capacity. 9
Commissioners are removable by impeachment.10
Section 1 (1) of Article IX C

9
Sec. 1(2) of Article IX-C 10
Section 8, Article XI of the Constitution,
Cayetano v. Monsod 210 SCRA 210, the Supreme Court held

that engaging in law practice is not only confined to courtroom
practice. It includes any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. In upholding the
confirmation of Monsod, the SC held that the more
than 10 years of work experience of Monsod as a
lawyer economist and other position requiring
application of his legal knowledge constituted as
engaging in the practice of law as would qualify him
with such work experience to be Chairman of the
COMELEC.
NATURE OF THE POWERS OF COMELEC
Can the President appoint or designate a temporary

chairman of the COMELEC?
1998 BQ: Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is charged

before the SB for allegedly tolerating violation of the election
laws against proliferation of prohibited billboards and election
propaganda with the end in view of removing him from office.
Will the action prosper?
Suggested Answer: No. Under Section 8, Article XI of the
Constitution, the Commissioners are removable by
impeachment. As held in the case of In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA
771, a public officer who is removable by impeachment
cannot be charged before the SB with an offense which
carries with it the penalty of removal from office
unless he is first impeached. Otherwise, he will be
removed from office by a method other than
impeachment.
COMELEC
NATURE AND POWERS

The other executive/administrative pertains to all

questions affecting elections such as:
For preempting the sole and exclusive authority of

Congress under VII, Section 4 to canvass votes for the
election of President and Vice-President;
For disregarding RA 8173, 8436, and 7166 which authorize
only the citizen arm to use an election return for an
unofficial count;
For violation of Section 52(i) of the OEC requiring not less
than 30 day notice of the use of new technological and
electronic devices.
1)
The determination of the number and location of

polling places.
2) Deputization/appointment of election officials and
inspectors
3) Supervise registration of voters
4) Award of bid contracts
5) Regulate the use of firearms
6) Call special elections
7) Investigation and prosecution of election offenses
8) Declare a postponement, suspension, annulment or
failure of elections
9) Regulate the use of franchise or permits to operate
media of communications and information.
10) Require compliance with the rules for the filing of
certificates of candidacy.
11) Proclamation of winners
12) Registration of Political Parties and Accredit Citizens
Arms
HELD:
1ST ISSUE: That the assailed resolution is void as it
usurps the sole and exclusive authority of Congress to canvass
the votes for the election of President and Vice-President in the
guise of an unofficial tabulation of election results based on a
copy of the election returns. Article VII, Section 4 of the
Constitution provides in part that the returns of every election
for President and Vice-President duly certified by the BOC of
each province or city shall be transmitted to the Congress,
directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
certificate of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later
than 30 days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representative in joint public session, and the Congress, upon
determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in
the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
2nd ISSUE: The resolution disregards existing laws
which authorizes solely the duly accredited citizens arm to
conduct the unofficial counting of votes. Under Section 27 of RA
7166, as amended by RA 8173 and reiterated in Section 18 of RA
8436, the accredited citizens arm, in this case, NAMFREL is
exclusively authorized to use a copy of the election returns in
the conduct of an unofficial counting of the votes, whether for
the national or the local elections. No other entity, including
COMELEC itself, is authorized to use a copy of the ER for
purposes of conducting an unofficial count.
3RD ISSUE: Since Resolution No. 6712 was made
effective immediately a day after its issuance on April 28, 2004,
the COMELEC could not have possibly complied with the 30day notice requirement provided under Section 52(i) of the
OEC. This indubitably violates the constitutional right to due
process of the political parties and candidates.
The AES provided in RA 8436 constitutes the entire
process
of
voting,
counting
of
votes
and
canvassing/consolidation of results of the national and local
elections corresponding to the Phase 1, 2, and 3 of the AES. The
3 phases cannot be affected independently of each other. Phase
II was a condition sine qua non to the implementation of Phase
3 and the nullification by the SC of the contract for Phase II of
the system effectively put on hold at least for the May 10, 2004
elections, the implementation of Phase 3 of the AES.
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Pertains to:
1) Prescribing rules to govern procedure (COMELEC
Rules of Procedure) and
2) promulgation of rules and regulations relative to the
conduct of elections to insure an honest, orderly,
peaceful, free and credible elections, such as;
issuance of rules to supervise and regulate media
and advertisement, rules to implement prohibition
against expenditures or those in excess of the limits
authorized by law.
Brilliantes, Concepcion, Jr., De Venecia, Angara,

Galvez-Lim. Drilon, San Juan, Gonzales, Isleta
and Bernas vs. COMELEC, GR 163193 June 15,
2004
FACTS:
In this case, at issue was an En Banc
Resolution No. 67.12, dated April 28, 2004 of COMELEC
providing en Banc Resolution No. 6712, dated April 28,
2004 of COMELEC to acquire automated counting
machines and other equipment, devices, and materials.
COMELEC issued a resolution providing for the 3 phases
in the implementation:
PHASE I computerized system of registration and
voters validation or the so-called biometrics system of
registration;
PHASE II Computerized voting and counting of
votes;
PHASE III Electronic Transmission of Results
In connection with PHASE II, COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 6074 awarding the AES contract to Mega
Pacific Consortium which was nullified by the SC on
January 13, 2004 which also voided the contract entered
with Mega for the purchase of computerized counting
machines for the purpose of implementing the 2nd phase
of the modernization program. Consequently, COMELEC
had to maintain the old manual voting and counting
system for the May 10, 2004 elections.
Similarly, the validation scheme under Phase I
likewise encountered problems and had earlier made
pronouncements that it was reverting to the old listing of
voters. But despite the scrapping of Phase II, COMELEC
ventured to implement Phase III of the AES through an
electronic transmission of advanced unofficial results of
the 2004 elections for national, provincial, and municipal
position also dubbed as an unofficial quick count.
NAMFREL and political parties moved for
reconsideration COMELEC Resolution No. 6712, alleging
that:
It disregards RA 8173, 8436, and 7166 authorizing
only the citizens arm to use an election return for an
unofficial count; other unofficial counts may not be
based on an election return;
The Commissions copy, the 2nd and 3rd copy of the
election returns, as the case may be, has always been
intended to be archived and its integrity preserved
until required by the COMELEC to resolve election
disputes. Only the BEI is authorized to have been in
contact with the return before the Commission
unseals it.
The instruction contained in Resolution No. 6712 to
break the seal of the envelope containing copies 2
and 3 will introduce a break in the chain of custody
prior to its opening by the COMELEC. In the process
of prematurely breaking the seal of the BEI, the
integrity of the Commissions copy is breached
thereby rendering it void of any probative value.
COMELEC asserts that Section 52(i) OEC grants
statutory basis for it to issue and resolution which cover
the use of the latest technological and electronic devices
for unofficial tabulation of votes.
In assailing the validity of the resolution, petitioners
alleged that the Resolution is void:
ADJUDICATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
Embraces the power to resolve controversies that may

arise in the enforcement of election laws and
resolution of cases involving regional, provincial and
city officials or to election disputes in general.
Sec. 3, Article IX-C, that the COMELEC in the exercise of

its QJ functions may sit en banc or in two divisions,
and shall promulgate rules and procedures in order
to expedite the disposition of elections cases, including
pre-proclamation controversies and summon parties
to a controversy pending before it.
The authority to hear and decide election cases, including

pre-proclamations controversies IS vested with a division
and the COMELEC sitting en banc however does not
have the authority over it in the first instance.
The COMELEC en banc can exercise jurisdiction only

on Motions for Reconsideration of the resolution or
decision of the COMELEC in division as a requirement
for the filing of a petition for certiorari by the
aggrieved party with the SC within 30 days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
In the exercise of its QJ functions, the COMELEC is

empowered to cite a party for contempt of court
conformably with the rules of court and impose the appropriate
penalties as therein prescribed.
A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of

a Division shall be filed within ) days from the promulgation
thereof.11 Such motion, if not pro-forma suspends the execution
for implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling
and would in effect, suspend the running of the period to elevate
the matter to the SC (Sec. 4).
Coquilla v. COMELEC G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002,

the SC resolved the issue on whether the 30-day period for
appealing the resolution of the COMELEC was suspended by
the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner.
Private respondent in this case contends that the petition
should be dismissed because it was filed late considering that
11
Sec. 2 Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

the COMELEC en banc denied petitioners motion for

reconsideration for being pro-forma and conformably with
Sec. 4 of Rule 19, the said motion did not suspend the
running of the 30-day period for the filing of the petition
for certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
SC held that although as a general rule, an administrative

order of the COMELEC is not a proper subject of a special civil
action for certiorari, but when the COMELEC however acts
capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing such an
order, the aggrieved party may seek redress from the SC via civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The main issue in the Loong case is whether the
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it ordered a
manual count of the 1998 Sulu local elections. The resolution of
the issue involved an interpretation of RA 8436 on automated
election in relation to the broad power of the COMELEC under
Section 2(1) of Article IX-C (enforcement, etc.). The SC took
cognizance as the issue is not only legal but one of first
impression and suffused with significance to the entire nation.
It is adjudicatory of the right of parties to the position of the
Governor of Sulu which are enough consideration to call for an
exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court.
The COMELEC en Banc ruled that the motion for

reconsideration was pro-forma on the ground that the
motion was a mere rehash of petitioners averments
contained in his verified answer and memorandum,
neither were there new matters raised that would
sufficiently warrant a reversal of the assailed resolution of
the Second Division. However, the mere reiteration in
a motion for reconsideration of the issued raised
by the parties and passed upon by the court does
not make a motion pro-forma; otherwise, the
movants remedy would not be a reconsideration of the
decision but a new trial or some other remedy.
In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for
reconsideration, the SC referred to its decision in Guerra
Enterprises Company Inc. v. CFI of Lanao del Sur
32 SCRA 314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought
to be achieved in the filing of a motion for reconsideration
is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is
erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or the
evidence, and in doing so, the movant has to dwell of
necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court. It a
motion for reconsideration may not discuss these issues,
the consequence would be that after a decision is
rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing only
motions for reopening and new trial.
The SC further enumerated cases where a motion for

reconsideration was held to be pro-forma: (1) it was a
second motion for reconsideration; (2) it did not comply
with the rule that the motion must specify the findings
and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not
supported by the evidence; (3) it failed to substantiate the
alleged error; (4) it merely alleged that the decision in
question was contrary to law or (5) the adverse party was
not given due notice thereof.
Angelia v. COMELEC 332 SCRA 757 - As provided

under Rule 13, (1) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AN EN BANC
RESOLUTION IS A PROHIBITED PLEADING,
EXCEPT IN ELECTION OFFENSE CASES (SEC. 261 OF
THE OEC).
The proper recourse of a party who is aggrieved by a
Decision of the COMELEC En Banc on a Motion for
Reconsideration of a decision of a division in an ordinary
action (election protest, QW, appeal from decisions of the
court in election protest cases), is to file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure within 30 days from receipt of the
aggrieved party of the said decision, order or
ruling.
Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC 336 SCRA 701 - An en banc

decision in a special action (petition to deny due course or
to cancel a certificate of candidacy, proceedings against a
nuisance candidate, disqualification of candidates and
postponement or suspension for elections, preproclamation controversies)
becomes final and
executory five (5) days from promulgation.
Reyes v. RTC Mindoro 244 SCRA 41, the SC ruled

that in providing that the decisions, order and ruling of
COMELEC which may be brought to the SC on certiorari
under Art. IX-A#7 refers to the special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65.
Garces v. Court of Appeals 259 SCRA 99 (1996) and

Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer 135 SCRA
25 (1985), the SC interpreted that term final orders,
rulings and decisions of the COMELEC reviewable by the
SC on certiorari as provided by law are those rendered in
actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken
cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or QJ powers. The Filipinas case involves a
resolution of the COMELEC awarding a contract for a
supply of voting booths to a private party, as a result of its
choice among various proposals submitted in response to
its invitation to bid, is not reviewable by certiorari as it is
not an order rendered in a legal controversy before it but
merely as an incident of its inherent administrative
functions over the conduct of elections. Hence, any
question arising from said order may be taken in an
ordinary civil action for injunction with the RTC.
Loong v. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832 (1999) and

Macabago v. COMELEC, November 18, 2002, the
issue brought before the SC is whether or not a petition
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure is a proper remedy to invalidate a
resolution of the COMELEC issued in the exercise of its
administrative powers?
10
Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358, the issue brought

before the SC is whether the SC has the power to review via
certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a
Division of the COMELEC. Pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI-A
of the Constitution each commission shall decide by a majority
vote of all its members in cases or matter brought before it
within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon filing of the last pleading, brief or
memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by the
commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
constitution or law, any decision, order or ruling of each
commission may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
The SC held that is has interpreted this provision to mean
final orders, rulings and decision of the COMELEC rendered in
the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers and that
the said final decision or resolution must be of the COMELEC
en banc, not of a division and certainty not an interlocutory
order of a division. The SC has no power to review via certiorari,
an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of
the COMELEC.
The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the
COMELEC en banc may be elevated to the SC is by way of a
special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1964
Revised Rules of court, now expressly provided in Rule 64 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Rule 65, Section 1, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on the other hand,
requires that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A MR is a plain
and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to abide by this
mandatory procedural requirement constitutes a ground for
dismissal of the petition.
Another issue in this case is that the decision of a member
of a division whose decision has not yet been promulgated prior
to his retirement cannot validly take part in the resolution or
decision much more could be the ponente of the resolution or
decision as a final decision or resolution becomes binding only
after it is promulgated. The resolution of decision of the
Division must be signed by a majority of its members and duly
promulgated. Otherwise, before that resolution is so signed and
promulgated, there is no valid resolution or decision to speak of.
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was

likewise discussed by the SC stressing that before a party is
allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded to him. A MR then is a prerequisite to the viability of a special civil action for certiorari
unless the party who avails of the latter can convincingly show
that his case falls under any of the following exceptions to the
rule:
When the question is purely legal;
Where judicial intervention is urgent;
Where the application may cause great and

irreparable damage;
Where the controverted acts violates due process;
Failure of a high government official from whom

relief is sought to act on the matter;
When the issue for non-exhaustion of administrative

remedies has been rendered moot.
Sabdullah T. Macabago v. COMELEC/Jamael M.

Salacop, 392 SCRA 178 (2002)
--(Failure if elections, annulment of elections, preproclamation, election protest, distinction between the
remedies under Rule 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court)
FACTS:
Macabago and Salacop were candidates for
Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur were Macabago
was proclaimend winner by the MBC.
Salacop filed a petition with the COMELEC against the
Macabago, the proclaimed Vice-Mayor, MC and MBOC to annul
the elections and the proclamation of candidates alleging
massive substitution of voters. Rampant and pervasive

irregularities in voting procedures in some precincts and

failure of the BEI to comply with Sections 28 and 29 of the
COMELEC Resolution No. 3743 and Section 193 of the
OEC, thus rendering the election process in those
precincts a mockery and the proclamation of the
candidates a nullity. The case was docketed as SPC-01234.
In support of his petition, Salacop appended thereto
photocopies of random Voters Registration Record
evidencing the fraud and deceit, as well as affidavits
tending to prove that serious irregularities were
committed in the conduct of the elections in the subject
precinct.
Petitioner denied the truth of the material allegations
in the petition and averred that it raised a PPC and that
the grounds would be proper in an Election Protest. The
COMELEC took cognizance of the petition and on
February 11, 2002, issued an Order directing the EO to
bring to and produce before the COMELEC Office in
Manila the original VRRs of the questioned precincts for
technical examination.
In the same Order, the COMELEC declared that
contrary to petitioners claims, the petition did not allege a
PPC, and characterized the petition as one for the
annulment of the election or declaration of failure of
election in the municipality, a special action covered by
Rule 26 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Hence,
COMELEC set aside the docketing of the petition as a
special case (SPC) and ordered the re-docketing thereof as
a special action (SPA).
After the examination of the evidence submitted by
the petitioner, the COMELEC concluded that there were
convincing proof of massive fraud in the conduct of the
elections in the four (4) precincts that necessitated a
technical examination of the original copies of the CRRs
and their comparison with the voters signature and
fingerprints. The COMELEC further noted that since the
lead of Macabago was only 124 votes vis--vis the 474
cotes of the contested precincts, the outcome of the
petition would adversely affect the result of the elections
in the Municipality.
Petitioner filed with the SC the instant special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, praying for the reversal of
the February 11, 2002 order of the COMELEC En Banc on
the following issues:
function of judicial review as the said action is undoubtedly

administrative in nature.
Salva v. Macalintal 340 SCRA 506 (2000), the SC held that

the issuance of the COMELEC of Resolution No. 2987 calling
for a plebiscite held in the affected barangays, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 10 of RA 7160 is a ministerial duty of the
COMELEC and is part and parcel of its administrative
functions. It does not involve the exercise of discretionary
authority as well as an exercise of its adjudicatory functions.
Any question pertaining to the validity of said resolution may
well be taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts.
Ma. Salvacion Buac, et. al., vs. COMELEC/Cayetano, et.

al. G.R. No. 155855, January 26, 2004. In thIS companion case
relative to the Taguig Plebiscite, it may be recalled that the SC
ruled that COMELEC has jurisdiction over plebiscite results as
part of its administrative functions to enforce and implement all
law relative to elections, initiative, referendum, plebiscite and
recall, the SC in ruling therein directed the COMELEC to
reinstate the petition to annul the results of the Taguig
Plebiscite and to decided it without delay.
The result of the revision committee was submitted to the
2nd division for hearing but failed to render a decision as the
required number of votes among its members could not be
obtained. Consequently, pursuant to Section 5(b) of Rule 3 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the case was elevated to the
COMELEC en banc for resolution.
Section 5. Quorum; Votes required. (b) When
sitting in divisions, two (2) members of a Division shall
constitute a quorum to transact business. The concurrence
of at leat two (2) members of a Division shall be necessary
to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling. If this
required number is not obtained, the case shall be
automatically elevated to the Commission en banc for
decision.
COMELEC en banc issued the assailed Resolution
declaring and confirming the ratification and approval of the
conversion of the Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized
city. Cayetano filed the instant petition contending that the
revision of the P ballots cannot be relied upon for the
determination of the will of the electorate and that many
irregularities, fraud, and anomalies attended the revision
proceedings. It was held that allegations of Cayetano are factual
in nature which would involve admissibility and sufficiency of
evidence presented during the revision proceedings before the
COMELEC. This cannot be done in the present special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rule of Civil
Procedure, as amended. Section 1 of the same rule confines the
power of the SC to resolve issues mainly involving jurisdiction,
including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction attributed to the public respondent.
Nevertheless, the SC, in the interest of the residents and
voters of the City of Taguig still reviewed the evidence and
found that the basis of Cayetano was erroneous. The factual
findings of COMELEC supported by evidence, are accorded, not
only respect, but finality.
Bulaong v. COMELEC First Division, 220 SCRA 745 and

Soller v. Commission on Elections 339 SCRA 685 (2000), the
SC ruled that the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the
requisite authority to hear and decide election cases including
pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. This power
pertains to the divisions of the Commission. A decision of the
COMELEC is void, where the controversy is not first resolved by
a division.
ISSUES:
(a) Whether petitioners recourse to this Court under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
is in order; and
(b) Whether the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess
or lack of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petition
of private respondent and in issuing the assailed Order.
HELD:
FIRST ISSUEPetitioner avers that he was impelled to
file the instant petition without first filing with the
COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of its order
because under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a MR of
an interlocutory order of the COMELEC En Banc is a
prohibited pleading and that the COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order. Salacop on the
other hand, insists that under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, a special civil action for certiorari filed
with this Court is proper only for the nullification of a final
order or resolution of the COMELEC and not of its
interlocutory order or resolution such as the assailed order
in this case.
The assailed order of the COMELEC declaring
Salacops petition to one for annulment of the elections or
for a declaration of a failure of elections in the
municipality and ordering the production of the original
copies of the VRRs for the technical examination is
administrative in nature (Canicosa v. COMELEC, 282
SCRA 512 (1997)). Rule 64, which is a procedural device
for the review of final orders, resolutions, or decision of
the COMELEC, does not foreclose recourse to the SC
under Rule 65 from administrative orders of said
Commission issued in the exercise of its administrative
function (Cabagnot v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 503 (1996).
As a general rule, an administrative order of the

COMELEC is not a proper subject of a special civil action
for certiorari (Tupay Loong v, COMELEC, 305 SCRA
832 (1999)). But when the COMELEC acts capriciously
or whimsically with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing such an order,
the aggrieved party may seek redress from the SC via a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules.
Chavez v. Commission in Elections 211 SCRA 315
(1992), the SC held that the resolution of the COMELEC in
deleting the name of a candidate in the list of qualified
candidates does not call for the exercise of the SCs
11
Based on the proceedings of the Soller case, the petition with

the COMELEC assailed the trial courts order denying the
motion to dismiss of Saulong election protest which was
however not referred to a division but was instead, directly
submitted to the COMELEC en banc.
The SC held that the order denying a motion to dismiss is but an
incident of the election protest filed with the RTC which is
interlocutory as the denial does not end the trials courts task of
adjudicating the parties contentions and determining their
rights and liabilities as regards each other. The authority to
resolve a petition for certiorari involving incidental
issues of election protest falls within the division of the
COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc. It further
stressed, that if the principal case, once decided on the merits is
cognizable on appeal by a division of the COMELEC, then, there
is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of
elections protest cases should not be first referred to a division
for resolution.
Canicosa vs. COMELEC 282 SCRA 512. Canicosa and Lajara

were candidates for Mayor in Calamba, Laguna were Lajera was
proclaimed winner. Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a
Petition to Declare Failure of Elections and to Declare Null and
Void the Canvass and Proclamation. (names of RV did not
appear on the list, padlocks were not self locking etc) which was
dismissed by the COMELEC en banc on the ground that the
allegations therein did not justify the declaration of failure of
elections.

Canicosa insists that it was error on the part of COMELEC

sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it should have first
been heard by a division. The SC held that the matter
relating to declaration of failure of elections or the
allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise
of QJ or adjudicatory functions.
It involves an
administrative function which pertains to the enforcement
and administration of all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of elections.
Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
however provide for exceptions when the COMELEC en
banc may take cognizance of cases at the first instance;
all other cases where the division is not

authorized to act;
declaring a postponement, failure or

suspension of elections;
where upon a unanimous votes of all the

members of a division, an interlocutory matter
or issue relative to an action or proceeding
before it is decided to be referred to the
Commission en banc.
Garvida v. Sales 271 SCRA 767, under the COMELEC

Rules of Procedure, the jurisdiction over a petition to
cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that the
candidate had made false material representation in his
certificate lies with the COMELEC sitting in a division, not
en banc. Cases before a division may only be entertained
by the COMELEC en banc when the required number of
votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not
obtained in the Division.
Aruelo Jr. v. CA, October 20, 1993, the Court held that
should there be a conflict between a rule of procedure
promulgated by the COMELEC and a Rule of Court, the
COMELEC Rule of Procedure will prevail I f the case is
brought before the COMELEC and the Rules of Court if
the election case is filed with the Court.
Jamil vs. COMELEC 283 SCRA 349 (1997), When the
Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the
necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be
reheard, and if rehearing no decision is reached, the action
or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced
in the Commission; in appealed cases, the judgment or
order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all
incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
(Section 6, COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the

COMELEC the power and function to investigate and where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses and malpractices.
POWER OF INVESTIGATION
COMELEC v. Noynay, July 9, 1998, the COMELEC resolved

to file an Information for violation of Section 261(i) of the OEC
against certain public school officials for having engaged in
partisan political activities which was filed by its Regional
Director with the RTC presided by Judge Noynay. The judge
ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed
the COMELEC to file the cases with the MTC on the ground that
pursuant to Section 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, the
RTC has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum
imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed 6 years
imprisonment. The SC ruled that RA 7691 did not divest the
RTC of jurisdiction over election offenses which are
punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding 6
years. The opening sentence of Section 32, provides that the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
MTC and MCTC does not cover those criminal cases which by
specific provisions of law fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RTC and of the SB, regardless of the penalty prescribed
therefore.
COMELEC v. Espanol 417 SCRA 554, it was ruled that the

COMELEC, thru its duly authorized legal officers under Section
265 of the OEC, has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable under the OEC
and to prosecute the same. The acts of these deputies within the
lawful scope of their delegated authority are the acts of the
COMELEC.
Garcia v. Commission on Elections 611 SCRA 55

Generally, the Court will not interfere with the finding of
probable cause by the COMELEC absent a clear showing of
grave abuse of discretion.
Pp. v. Inting July 25, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the
COMELEC is given exclusive authority to investigate and
conduct preliminary investigations relative to commission of
election offenses and prosecute the same. A preliminary
investigation conducted by the Provincial Election Supervisor
involving an election offense does not have to be coursed
through the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC may take
cognizance of the investigation and determine WoN probable
cause exist to issue a warrant of arrest. If the Provincial
Prosecutor performs any role at all as regards the prosecution of
an election case, it is by delegation or that he was deputized by
the COMELEC.
Faelnar v. People 331 SCRA 429, in cases where the State

Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor exercises the power
to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense cases
and after the investigation submits its recommendation to the
COMELEC, the issue of probable cause is already resolved. The
proper remedy to question the said resolution is to file
an appeal with the COMELEC and the ruling of the
COMELEC on the appeal would be immediately final
and executory. However, if the conduct of the preliminary
investigation of the complaint for an election offence is
conducted by the COMELEC, the investigation officer prepared
its recommendation to the Law Department of the COMELEC
which department in turn makes its recommendation to the
COMELEC en banc on whether there is probable cause to
prosecute. It is the COMELEC en banc that determines
the existence of probable cause. The proper remedy of
the aggrieved party is to file a Motion for
Reconsideration of such resolution. This effectively
allows for a review of the original resolution, in the same
manner that the COMELEC on appeal, or motu propio, may
review the resolution of the State prosecutor, or Provincial or
city fiscal. (Take note that since this is an election offense a
Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is
allowed.)
Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and

COMELEC 323 SCRA 778, the SC in upholding the power of
COMELEC to prosecute cases of violations of election laws
further explained that there are 2 ways through which a
complaint for election offenses may be initiated.
JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE COMELEC
By way of exception, Sec. 2(2) of Art. IX-C of the

Constitution grants to the COMELEC:
1.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over all

contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and
city officials, and
APPELLATE JURISDICTION over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trail
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction. As anchored on this constitutional provision
and Sec. 9 RA 6679, a petition for review involving
elections contests among municipal or barangay elective
officials should be filed with the COMELEC and not with
the Court of Appeals, which has no jurisdiction to
entertain it.
2.
Guieb vs. Fontanilla 247 SCRA 348 (1995) and Calucag

v. COMELEC 274 SCRA 405 the SC ruled that Section 9 of
RA 6679 which vests upon the RTC appellate jurisdiction
over election cases decided by municipal or metropolitan
trial courts is unconstitutional, and decisions of the latter
which are appealed to the RTC, which have no appellate
jurisdiction, are erroneously appealed and thus become
final.
POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF

PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
CERTIORARI,
Relampagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690 (1995), it was

held that the COMELEC is vested with the power to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction consistent with
Section 50 of BP 697 and Article 2(1) of the Constitution.
Carlos v. Angeles Supra, the SC declared that both the
SC and COMELEC has concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over
decision of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in
election cases involving elective municipal
officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. (Art. VIII 5(1)
1987 Constitution, Rule 65,Sec. 1)
12
(1) it may be filed by the COMELEC motu propio or

(2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the
Philippines, candidate, registered political party,
coalition of political parties or organizations under the
party-list system or any accredited citizen arms of the
commission. Motu propio complaints may be signed by
the Chairman of the COMELEC and need not be
verified. But those complaints filed by parties other
than the COMELEC must be verified and supported by
affidavits and other evidence.
13
The complaint shall be filed with the COMELEC Law

Department or with the offices of the ER, PES or RED, or
the State Prosecutors, provincial or city prosecutors.
Whether initiated motu propio or filed with the
COMELEC by any party, the complaint shall be referred to
the COMELEC Law Department for investigation. Upon
the direction of the Chairman, the PI may be delegated to
any lawyer of the Department, any RED or PES, or any
COMELEC lawyer.
COMELEC v. Silva Feb. 10, 1998, the SC settled the

issue as to whether the Chief State Prosecutor, who was
designated by the COMELEC to prosecute election cases,
has the authority to decide WoN to appeal from the orders
of dismissal of the RTC.
The authority belongs to the COMELEC and not
the prosecutor as the latter derive its authority
from the COMELEC and not from their offices.
Propriety dictates, that if the prosecutor believes, after the
conduct of the PI, that no probably cause warrants the
prosecution of the accused who have allegedly violated
Sec. 27 of RA 6646 (tampering of certificate of canvass),
the matter would have been discussed with the COMELEC
and if the latter disagrees, seek permission to withdraw
from the case.
Dino vs. Olivares 607 SCRA 251 (Dec, 4, 2009). The SC
held that being mere deputies or agents of the COMELEC
(with continuing authority), provincial or city prosecutors
deputized by it are expected to act in accord with and NOT
contrary to or in derogation of its resolutions, directives or
orders in relation to election cases that such prosecutors
are deputized to investigate and prosecute. They must
proceed within the lawful scope of their delegated
authority.
Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn
anytime by the COMELEC, either expressly or impliedly,
when in its judgment such revocation or withdrawal is
necessary to protect the integrity of the process to
promote the common good, or where it believes that
successful prosecution of the case can be done by the
COMELEC.
When the COMELEC en banc directed the City
Prosecutor of Paranaque to transmit the entire records of
the election offense case, it had the effect of
SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of the City Prosecutor.
Hence, the filing of the amended information and the
amended information themselves, is declared void and of
no effect.
Kilosbayan vs. COMELEC 280 SCRA 892, Kilosbayan
filed a letter-complaint with the COMELEC against
incumbent officials running for public elective office for
violation of Sec. 261 of the OEC alleging illegal
disbursement of public funds and submitting as evidence
to support the complaint, published writings in
newspapers without any additional evidence to support
the newspaper articles arguing that it was the COMELECs
constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses upon
any information of alleged commission of election
offenses. The COMELEC dismissed the complaint there
being no probable cause found. The SC held that it is
not the duty of COMELEC to search for evidence
to prove an election complaint filed before it. The
task of COMELEC as investigator and prosecutor
is not the physical searching and gathering of
proof in support of the alleged commission of an
election offense. The complainant still has the
burden to prove his complaint.
under
Sec
2(6)
covers
administrative cases.
criminal
and
POWER TO SUPERVISE ELECTION OFFICERS

DEPUTIES DURING ELECTION PERIOD
AND
Pursuant to Section 2(4) of the Article IX-C, COMELEC, during

the election period, exercises direct and immediate supervision
and control over national and local officials or employees
including members of any national or local law enforcement
agency or instrumentality of the government required by law to
perform duties relative to the conduct of elections and appoint
deputies for the purpose of ensuring an HOPE-FRECRE. The
power of the COMELEC over deputized offices under Section
2(8) covers both criminal and administrative cases.
Tan v. COMELEC 237 SCRA 353, Tan was the incumbent

City prosecutor of Davao City who was designated by the
COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the CBOC for the 1992
Synchronized National and Local Elections were Garcia and
Alterado were contenders for member of the HR for the Second
Legislative District.
Garcia was proclaimed winner and
Alterado filed an election protest with the HRET, criminal case
for falsification against the CBOC with the Ombudsman and
with the COMELEC an Administrative case for Misconduct,
Neglect of duty, Gross Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the
Service which was the only case pending after the HRET and
Ombudsman dismissed the cases filed with it. Tan moved to
dismiss the administrative complaint with the COMELEC for
lack of jurisdiction on the premise that he is under the executive
department (DOJ) which was denied by COMELEC. It was
held that the administrative case against Tan is in
relation to the performance of his duties as member of
the CBOC and not as prosecutor and hence, cannot
claim immunity from the power of the COMELEC.
However, under Section 2(8), the power of the COMELEC in
this instance is limited to merely issuing a
recommendation to the property authority, the
Secretary of the DOJ, in this case, who shall take
appropriate action, either to suspend or remove from
office the officer or employee, who may after due
process, be found guilty of violation of election laws or
failure to comply with instructions, order, decisions or
rulings of the COMELEC.
POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT, FAILURE OR

ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS AND CALL FOR SPECIAL
ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 5,6, & 7
OF THE OEC IN RELATION TO SEC. 4 OF RA 7166.
The grounds for declaring a postponement of elections is

provided under Sec. 5 of the OEC, namely; when for any
serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or
destruction of election paraphernalia or records, FM
and other analogous circumstances of such a nature
that the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become
impossible
in
any
political
subdivision,
the
Commission en banc may motu propio or upon a
verified petition by any interested party, and after due
notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are
afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone
the election to a date which is reasonably close to the
date of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted to a failure to elect but not later than 30 days
after the cessation of the cause for such postponement
or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Section 5 of the OEC provides for the grounds for declaring a

postponement of elections that is when for:
1.
Any serious cause such as violence.
2. Terrorism;
3. Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records;
4. Force majeure; and
5. Other analogous circumstances of such a nature that
the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become
impossible in any political subdivision.
Under these circumstances, the Commission en banc may

motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any interested
party, and after due notice and hearing, whereby all interested
parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
postpone the election to a date which is reasonably close to the
date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted to a
failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the cessation of
the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or
failure to elect.
Section 6, on the other hand, prescribes the conditions for the

exercise of the power to declare a Failure of Elections.
Canicosa vs. COMELEC 282 SCRA 512 (1997) The

power of COMELEC to declare a failure of elections involves
only the exercise of administrative function.
Therefore,
COMELEC is not mandated to hear and decide cases first by
Division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the
Bernardo vs. Abalos, G.R. No. 137266, December

5, 2001 In an election offense case, a motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the COMELEC en banc
should be filed first before filing a certiorari petition with
the Supreme Court.
In this case a criminal complaint was filed against Abalos
Sr., et. al. for violation of Section 261 of the OEC. The
COMELEC Law Department conducted the PI which
submitted its findings to the COMELEC en banc
recommending that the complaint be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence. The COMELEC en banc
resolution was assailed before the SC. The SC ruled that
petitioners did not exhaust all the remedies available to
them at the COMELEC level but not seeking a
reconsideration of the en banc resolution as required
under Section 1 Rule 13 of the COMELEC rules of
procedure.
The COMELEC under Sec. 2(4) of Article IX-C
exercises direct and immediate supervision and
control, during the election period, over national
and local officials or employees including
members of any national or local law enforcement
agency or instrumentality of the government
required by law to perform duties relative to the
conduct of elections and appoint deputies for the
purpose of ensuring an HOPE-FRECRE.
The
power of the COMELEC over deputized offices
both

COMELEC en banc which is only applicable in its exercise

of its adjudicatory or quasi judicial functions.
Canicosa v. COMELEC, Sison v. COMELEC 304

SCRA 170 and Carlos v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571, the
Supreme Court, conformably with Sec. 6 of the OEC
stressed that there are only THREE (3) INSTANCES
WHERE A FAILURE OF ELECTIONS MAY BE
DECLARED THAT IS, IF, ON ACCOUNT OF FM,
VIOLENCE
TERRORISM,
FRAUD,
OTHER
ANALOGOUS CAUSES THE
1)
3)
4)
HELD: It was ruled that the COMELEC Resolution dismissing

the petition was arbitrary as no law provided for a reglementary
period within which to file a petition for annulment of elections
if there is no proclamation yet.
Canicosa v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512, Canicosa filed with

the COMELEC a Petition to declare failure of elections and to
declare null and void the canvass and proclamation based on
the following grounds (names of the Registered Voters did not
appear on the list, padlocks were not self locking among other)
which was dismissed by the COMELEC en banc on the ground
that the allegations therein did not justify the declaration of
failure of elections.
Canicosa insists that it was an error on the part of the
COMELEC sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it should
have first been heard by a division. The SC held that the matter
relating to the declaration of failure of elections or allegations
raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise of quasi-judicial
or adjudicatory functions. It involves an administrative function
which pertains to the enforcement and administration of all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections.
Biliwang v. COMELEC, June 29, 1992 SC ruled that

COMELEC can annul an election by mandate of the extensive
powers granted to it under the 1987 Constitution to enforce
and administer all laws relative to the conduct of an elections.
Pena v. HRET, 270 SCRA 270, the SC, however, stressed that
such power should be exercised with greatest care as it involves
the free and fair expression of the popular will. For this
purpose, the petitioner must be able to show proof that:
(1) the illegality has affected more than 50% of the votes
cast; and
(2) that the good votes cannot be distinguished from the
bad votes.
Pasandalan v. COMELEC, et. al. G.R. No. 150312 July 18,

2002, the SC held that a petition for declaration of failure
of elections is an extraordinary remedy and
therefore a petition for declaration of failure of
elections must specifically allege the essential grounds
that would justify the same. Otherwise, the COMELEC can
dismiss outright the petition for lack of merit and no grave
abuse of discretion can be attributed to it in such case because
the COMELEC must exercise with utmost circumspect the
power to declare a failure of election to prevent disenfranching
voters and frustrating the electorates will.
Election in any polling place has not been

held on the date fixed by law
Or had been suspended before the hour fixed
by law for the closing of the voting
Or after the voting and during the
preparation and transmission of the election
returns or the custody or canvass thereof,
such election results in a failure to elect.
TWO CONDITIONS MUST FURTHER CONCUR TO

DECLARE A FAILURE OF ELECTIONS:
(1) No voting has taken place in the
precincts concerned on the date
fixed by law or, even if there was
voting, the election nevertheless
resulted in a failure to elect and
(2) The votes not cast would affect the
results of the elections.
Carlos v. Angeles By revision of the ballots (as an

incident in an election protest case), the trial court found
in a final tally that the valid votes obtained by the
candidates were as follows: Carlos 83,609 Serapio
66,602 or a winning margin of 17,007 votes in favor of
Carlos and winner in the May 11, 1998 elections.
However, the trial court set aside the final tally of votes
because of what it perceived to be significant badges
of fraud attributable to the protestee which are as
follows: 1) failure of the keys turned over by the City
Treasurer to the trial court to fit the padlocks on the ballot
boxes that compelled the court to forcibly open the
padlocks. The trial court concluded that the real keys
were lost or the padlocks substituted pointing to possible
tampering of the contents of the ballot boxes (mere
inability of the keys to fit into the padlocks does not affect
the integrity of the ballot). 2) Seven (7) ballot boxes were
found empty, thus, the trial court concluded that there
were missing ballots and missing election returns.
Coquilla V. COMELEC, supra, the SC stressed that

what is common in these three instances is the resulting
failure to elect. In the first instance, no election was held,
while in the second, the election is suspended. In the third
instance, circumstances attending the preparation,
transmission, custody or canvass of the election returns
caused a failure to elect. And, the term failure to elect
means nobody emerged as a winner.
The COMELEC, based on the verified petition by an
interested party and after due notice and hearing, may call
for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to
elect.
PROCEDURAL RULES
On the basis of a verified petition by any interested party

and after due notice and hearing, the COMELEC may call
for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to
elect.
Sanchez v. COMELEC 193 SCRA 849 - Sec. 4 of RA

7166 (An Act Providing for the synchronized national and
local elections stated that any declaration of
postponement, failure of election and calling for a special
elections as provided in Section 5,6, & 7 shall be decided
by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its
members.
This power is exclusively vested in the
COMELEC.
Loong v. COMELEC 257 SCRA 1, a petition to declare

failure of elections/annulment of elections on the ground
of massive fraud in some municipalities was filed before
proclamation. COMELEC dismissed the petition for
having been filed out of time since it was filed only after
petitioners realized that the annulment of election will
wipe out their lead.
14
Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration of failure of election

on the ground that while voting was going on, Cafgus
indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters to panic
and leave the polling places without casting their votes. In
taking advantage of the situation, the supporters of his
opponent took the official ballots and filled them up with his
opponents name and further, that the BEIs failed to affix their
initials at the back of several official ballots. Pasandalan, on the
basis of the affidavits of his own poll watchers, insists that a
technical examination of the official ballots in the contested
precincts be made which would show that only a few persons
wrote the entries, citing the case of Typoco v. COMELEC 319
SCRA 498 and Basher v. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736. The
COMELEC dismissed the petition.
The COMELEC is not mandated to conduct a technical
examination before it dismisses a petition for nullification of
election when the petition is, on its face, without merit. In the
case of TYPOCO vs. COMELEC 319 scar 498, petitioner
Typoco buttressed his petition with independent evidence that
compelled the COMELEC to conduct a technical examination of
the questioned returns. Typoco filed a Motion to Admit
Evidence to prove that a substantial number of election returns
were manufactured and claimed that the returns were prepared
by only one person based on the report of a licensed examiner of
questioned documents who examined copied of the election
returns. Pasandalan failed to attach independent and objective
evidence other than the self-serving affidavits of his own poll
watchers.
In Basher vs. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736, the SC held that the
fact that an election is actually held prevents as a rule, a
declaration of failure of elections, but the Court, however, can
annul an election if it finds that the election is attended with
patent and massive irregularities and illegalities. In this case,
after a series of failed elections during the 1997 Barangay
Elections, the election was reset to 30 august 1997. Due to the
prevailing tension in the locality, the voting started only at
around 9p.m. and lasted until the early morning of the following
day. Basher filed a petition for the nullification of the elections
which wad dismissed by the COMELEC on the ground that
actual voting had taken place.
The SC overturned the
COMELEC ruling because the election was unauthorized and
invalid. The electorate was not given sufficient notice that the
election would push through after 9pm of the same day.
Moreover, the voting did not comply with the procedure laid
down by the COMELEC in its Resolution.
in Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54, the SC ruled that the
COMELEC could dismiss outright a petition for nullification of

election if it is plainly groundless and the allegations

therein could be better ventilated in an election protest.
In Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC 336 SCRA 701 on the
other hand, it was ruled that the fact that a verified
petition has been filed does not mean that a hearing on the
case should first be held before the COMELEC can act on
it. The petition must show on its face that the conditions
necessary to declare a failure of elections are present.
Ampatuan et. al. v. COMELEC/Candao, et. al.,

G.R. No. 149803 January 31, 2002, private respondents
filed a petition for declaration of failure of elections in
several municipalities of Maguindanao. While the hearing
on the said petition was still pending, the COMELEC
proclaimed the petitioners as winners for the position of
Governor, vice-governor and board members. Thereafter,
the COMELEC issued an Order directing the continuation
of the hearing on the failure of elections and issued an
order outlining the procedure to be followed in the
conduct of the technical examination.
Petitioners, relying on the case of Typoco, Jr. v.
COMELEC, contended that by virtue of their
proclamation, the only remedy left for private respondents
is to file an election protest, in which case, original
jurisdiction lies with the regular courts and that the
COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction to conduct a
technical examination as it would defeat the summary
nature of a petition for declaration of failure of elections
citing several rulings that an election protest is the proper
remedy for a losing candidate after the proclamation of
the winning candidates.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC was divested of its
jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition for declaration of
failure of elections after the winners have already been
proclaimed.
HELD: The fact that a candidate proclaimed has
assumed office does not deprive the COMELEC of
its authority to annul any canvass and illegal
proclamation. In this case, it cannot be assumed that
the proclamation of petitioners was legal precisely because
the conduct by which the elections were held was put in
issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of
elections results and/or declaration of failure of elections.
The cases relied upon by the petitioners that an
election protest is the proper remedy for a losing
candidate after proclamation of the winning
candidate
involved
pre-proclamation
controversies.
The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v.
COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1, that a pre-proclamation
controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of
election results, or failure of elections.
In preproclamation cases, the COMELEC is restricted to an
examination of the election returns on their face and is
without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and
investigate election irregularities. The COMELEC is dutybound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism,
violence and other analogous causes in actions for
annulment of election results or for declaration of failure
of elections conformably with the OEC.
Accordingly, the COMELEC, in the case of actions
for annulment of election results or declaration of
failure of elections, may conduct a technical
examination of election documents and compare
and analyze voters signatures and thumbprints in
order to determine WoN the elections had indeed
been free, honest and clean.
Typoco Jr. vs. COMELEC, the SC held that the COMELEC

did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismiss the
petition for declaration of elections as the allegations
therein did not justify a declaration of failure of elections
unlike in this present case, where respondents
exhaustively alleged massive fraud and terrorism, if
proven, could warrant a declaration of failure of elections.
Biliwang v. COMELEC June 29, 1992 - There is no
provision which grants to the COMELEC the power to
annul an election. But the SC in this case that COMELEC
can annul an election by mandate of the extensive powers
granted to it under the 1987 Constitution to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of an election.
Pea v. HRET 270 SCRA 270 the SC however stressed,

that should power should be exercised with greatest care
as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular
will. For this purpose, the petitioner must be able to show
proof that (1) the illegality has affected more than 50% of
the votes case and (2) that the good votes cannot be
distinguished from the bad votes.
Hassan v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 125, the SC provided

for concurrence of two pre-conditions for declaring a
failure of elections and to justify the calling of a special
15
elections - (1) that no voting has been held in any precinct or

precincts because of FM, violence or terrorism and (2) that the
votes not cast therein is sufficient to affect the results of the
elections.
Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC 260 SCRA 604, a petition for

declaration of failure of elections and to nullify the canvass and
proclamation was filed by Borja wherein he alleged that there
was lack of notice of the date and time of canvass, there was
fraud in the conduct of the elections as several voters were
disenfranchised, presence of flying voters and unqualified
members of the BEI. The COMELEC dismissed the petition
ruling that the grounds relied upon by Borja were grounds
proper only in an election contest. SC upheld the decision of the
COMELEC.
Sardea v. COMELEC August 17, 1993, it was ruled that the

fact that copies of the ER for the MBC were lost and destroyed is
not one of the causes to warrant a failure of elections
considering that voting actually took place and there were other
valid ER which existed which can be used in the canvassing of
the votes. Besides, it was also found that the incident did not
affect the result of the elections.
Balindong v. COMELEC 260 SCRA 494, the SC ruled that

the mere fact that the transfer of polling place was not made in
accordance with law does not warrant a declaration of failure of
election and the annulment of the proclamation of the winning
candidate, unless the number of votes not cast will affect the
result of the election.
CALLING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS/REGISTRATION OF

VOTERS DISCRETIONARY
Bulaong v. COMELEC 220 SCRA 745, it was ruled that the

calling of a special election is discretionary on the part of the
COMELEC and being discretionary, the COMELEC cannot be
compelled by mandamus to call for a special elections
considering that mandamus is a remedy available only to
compel to the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a
duty and not in the exercise of discretion.
Lucero vs. COMELEC 235 SCRA 280, the Court held that in
fixing the date of the special elections in case of
postponement or failure of elections, the COMELEC
should ascertain that
(1) it should not be later than 30 days after the cessation of the
cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or
the failure to elect and
(2) it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not
held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect.
In this case, the SC upheld the validity of holding the special
elections more than one year from the date of the elections
stating that the same is still considered reasonably closed to the
date of the elections not held notwithstanding the fact that the
term of the elective official concerned is only 3 years and that
the delay was not attributable to the fault of the voters of the
precinct concerned.
Polala Sambarani. Et al., v. COMELEC, GR 160427,

September 15, 2004, this transpired during the synchronized
barangay and SK elections in 2002 and the holding of a special
elections that failed in 5 barangays. The COMELEC refused to
hold another special elections explaining that it is no longer in a
position to call for another special elections considering that
Section 6 of the OEC provides that special elections shall be
held on a date reasonably close to the date of elections not held
but not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of
such postponement. The COMELEC noted that more than 30
days had elapsed since the failed election.
COMELEC contend that to hold another special elections
in these barangays will not only be tedious and cumbersome,
but a waste of its previous resources. The COMELEC left to the
DILG the process of appointing the barangay captain and
barangay kagawads as well as the SK chairman and kagawads in
these barangays in accordance with the LGC.
ISSUE: whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
denying/refusing to call another election
HELD: While the SC stressed that the Constitution gives the
COMELEC broad powers to enforces and administer all laws
rules and regulations relative to the conduct of I, O, R, E and R,
COMELEC anchored its refusal to call another special election
on the last portion of Section (on a date reasonably close to the
date of the elections not held, suspended, or which resulted in
the failure to elect. The prohibition on conducting special
elections after 30 days from the cessation of the cause of the
failure of elections is NOT absolute. It is directory, not
mandatory, and the Comelc possess residual power to conduct
special elections even beyond the deadline prescribed by law.
The deadline in Section 6 cannot defeat the right of
suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. The
COMELEC erroneously perceived that the deadline in Section 6
is absolute.

The SC referred to Section 45 of the OEC which

specifically deals with the election of barangay officials.
Unlike Section 6, Section 45 does not state special
elections should be held on a date reasonably close to the
date of the elections not held. Instead, Section 45 states
that special elections should be held within 30 days from
the cessation of the cause for postponement. Logically,
special elections could be held anytime, provided the date
of the special elections within 30 days from the time the
cause of postponement has ceased. The SC further ruled
that the reasons that COMELEC posed in refusing to hold
a special election is void (erroneous interpretation of the
law and the perceived logistical, operational and financial
problem).
Akbayan, et. al. v. COMELEC and Benito v. the

Chairman and Commissions of COMELEC, March
26, 2001, the petitioners seek to direct the COMELEC to
conduct a special registration before May 14, 2001 General
Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21 contending that
around 4M youth failed to register on or before December
27, 2000, the deadline set by COMELEC under RA 8189.
The COMELEC resolved to deny the request to conduct a
two-day additional registration of new voters on February
18 & 18, 2001 for the reason that it would be operationally
impossible to accomplish the same within the time left.
The SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying the request for the conduct
of a special registration and neither can COMELEC be
compelled by mandamus to call the elections as the
determination on WoN the conduct of a special
registration of voters is feasible, possible or practical
within the remaining period before the actual date of
election, involves the exercise of discretion and thus,
cannot be controlled by mandamus.
1995 BQ: Due to violence and terrorism attending the

casting of votes in a municipality in Lanao del Sur during
the last 8 May 1995 elections, it became impossible to hold
therein free, orderly and honest elections.
Several
candidates for municipal positions withdrew from the
race. One candidate for Mayor petitioned the COMELEC
for the postponement of the elections and the holding of
special elections after the causes of such postponement or
failure of elections shall have ceased.
1) How many votes of the COMELEC Commissioners
may be cast to grant the petition?
Suggested Answer: According to Section 7, Article IX-A of
the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Elections shall
decide by a majority vote of all its members in any
case or matter brought before it.
In Cua v.
COMELEC 156 SCRA 582, the SC stated that a two-to-one
decision rendered by a Division of the COMELEC and a
three-to-two decision rendered by the COMELEC en banc
was valid where only five members took part in deciding
the case.
2) A person who was not a candidate at the time of the
postponement of the elections decided to run for an
elective position and filed a certificate of candidacy prior
to the special elections. May his certificate of candidacy
be accepted?
Suggested Answer: No, his certificate of candidacy cannot
be accepted. Under Section 75 of the OEC, as a rule in
cases of postponement or failure of election no
additional certificate of candidacy shall be
accepted.
3) Suppose he ran as a substitute for a candidate who
previously withdrew his candidacy, will answer be the
same.
Suggested Answer: No, the answer will be different.
Under Section 75 of the OEC, an additional certificate
of candidacy may be accepted in cases of
postponement or failure of election if there was a
substitution of candidates; but the substitute must
belong to and must be endorsed by the same
party.
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT

TO GRANT PARDON, AMNESTY, PAROLE OR
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
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.
POWER TO REGISTER POLITICAL PARTIES AND

ENLIST CITIZENS ARM
16
Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5), authorizes the Comelec under the

Constitution to Register, after sufficient publication, political
parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens arms of the Commission on
Elections.
Section 60 of the OEC/Section 1, Rule 32 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure provides that any group
pursuing the same political ideals may register with the
Comelec by filing a verified petition with its Law Department
duly verified by its President and Secretary-General, or any
official duly authorized to do so under its Constitutions and bylaws.
Before Comelec takes action, the Comelec shall first verify,
through its field offices, the status and capacity of the petitioner
and the veracity of the allegations in the petition. (Sec. 4, Rule
32). After the verification process, the Petition will be
published with the Notice of Hearing.
Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of
Registration (Sec. 7):
(1) acquires juridical personality;
(2) be informed of the parties existence and ideals;
(3) it identifies the party and its officers for purposes of
regulation by the Comelec.
It is however, not necessary for purposes of the electoral process
that an organization be a political party.
Limitations on Registration
Religious sectors are prohibited to be registered for the

purpose of the electoral process which is made in the spirit
of separation of church and state and intended to prevent
churches from wielding political power.
Does not extend to organizations with religious affiliations

or to political partied which derive their principles from
religious beliefs (ban on Catholic Church, Iglesia ni Kristo
or the muslim denomination).
Those who seek to achieve their goals through unlawful

means
Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
Those which are supported by any foreign government

(Section 2(5), Article IX-C)
Cancellation of Registration (Sec. 8)
Upon verified complaint of any interested party, or motu propio
by the Commission, the registration of any political party
coalition of political parties or organizations under the party-list
system may be cancelled after due notice and hearing on the
following grounds:
(a) Acceptance by the political party, coalition of political
parties, or organizations or any of its candidates, of
financial contributions from foreign governments and/or
their agencies for activities related to elections.
(b) Violation of laws, rules or regulations relating to elections,
plebiscites, referenda or initiative.
(c) Untruthful statements in its petition for registration
(d) The said political party, coalition of political parties or
organization has become a religious sect or denomination,
is pursuing its goals thru violence or other unlawful means,
is refusing to adhere to or uphold the Constitution of the
Philippines, or is receiving support from any foreign
government;
(e) Failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations
of the Commission
(f) Failure to field official candidates in the last two preceding
elections or failure of their candidates to obtain at least five
(5) per centum of the votes cast in the last two preceding
elections.
Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections 620 SCRA

393 (May 6, 2010), the SC distinguished REGISTRATION and
ACCREDITATION of a political party. The root of this petition
before the SC is the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC for
registration as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant
minority party.
While the Comelec En Banc claimed
jurisdiction over the registration of coalitions and has in fact
decreed NP-NPCs registration, the Comelec however did NOT
rule on the accreditation aspect. The registration of a
coalition and the accreditation of a dominant minority
party are two separate matters that are substantively
distinct from each other.
Section 2(5), Article XI-C and Rule 32 of the

CRP regulate the registration of political
parties, organizations or coalition of political
parties. Accreditation as a dominant party is
governed by Comelec Resolution No. 8752, Section 1
of which states that the petition for accreditation shall
be filed with the Clerk of the Commission who shall
docket it as an SPP (DM) case. This was the manner
the NP-NPC was docketed.
Registration of political parties is a special

proceedings assigned to a Division for handling under
the CRP. No similar clear cut rule is available to a
petition for accreditation as a dominant party.
Registration must first take place before a request for

accreditation can be made. Accreditation is the next
natural step to follow after registration.

Hence, when the Comelec En Banc, resolved the

registration of the NP- NPC the case is terminated and
ripe for review by the SC via a Petition for Certiorari. The
issue with respect to accreditation is a separate issue
which is treated in a separate proceeding. As ruled, a
Motion for Reconsideration of a Resolution of the Comelec
En Banc is a prohibited pleading (Sec. 1(d) Rule 13).
The remedy available to a party is a petition for certiorari
with the SC pursuant to Article IX-A, Sec. 7 and Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, represented by

its Chairman Eduardo J. Angara v. Comelec at. al
(423 SCRA 665)
FACTS: The LDP informed the Comelec by way of
Manifestation that only the Party Chairman or his
authorized representative may endorse the COC of the
partys official candidates; the Representative Butch
Aquino was on indefinite forced leave and in the
meantime Ambassador Enrique Zaldivar was designation
Acting Secretary General.
Aquino in a comment alleged that the Party
Chairman does not have the authority to impose
disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General and that
the Manifestation filed has no basis praying that Comelec
disregards the same. Comelec issued an order requiring
the parties to file verified petition. Pending resolution, a
Certificate of Nomination of Senator Panfilo Lacson as
LDP candidate for President was filed with the Comelec
which was signed by Representative Aquino as LDP
Secretary General.
Comelec issued a Resolution granting the petition
with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor
(Angara Wing and Aquino Wing).
ISSUE: whether or not Comelec gravely abused its
discretion in issuing the subject Resolution
RULING: Comelec gravely abused its discretion. The
issue is simply Who as between the Party Chairman and
Secretary General has the authority to sign certificates of
candidacy of the official candidates of the party. While it
has jurisdiction to rule upon questions of party identity
and leadership as an incident to its enforcement powers it
was well within its competence to inquire into which party
officer has authority to sign and endorse certificate of
candidacy of partys nominees. And to resolve the issue
raised, the Comelec need only to turn to the Party
Constitution and election laws. The Comelec Resolution is
INDECISION in the guise of equity.
What is worse is that, Comelec divided the LDP into
wings both having authority to nominate candidates for
every elective position. Consequently, Comelec planted
seeds of confusion among the electorate who are apt to be
confounded by two candidates from a single political
party. This was not only a disservice to the opposition but
to the voting public as well as its Resolution facilitated
rather than forestalled, the division of the minority party.
Atienza, Jr. et. Al. vs Comelec 612 SCRA 761

Authority of Comelec over intra- party disputes is limited.
The Comelec may intervene in disputes internal to a party
only when necessary to the discharge of its constitutional
functions. The validity or invalidity of Atienza et. Al.s
expulsion was purely a membership issue that had to be
settled within the party. It is an internal matter over
which Comelec has no jurisdiction.
Damasen vs. Tumamao 613 SCRA 49 (2010) the

discretion of accepting members to a political party is a
right and a privilege, a purely internal matter, which the
Court cannot meddle in. The reason behind the right given
to a political party to nominate a replacement where a
permanent vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to
maintain the party representation as willed by the people
in the election (Sec. 45 (b) of RA 7160 Rule on Succession
and as held in Navarro v. CA 672 SCRA 355 (2010).
Damasen was not a bonafide member. Tumamao was
husband of the VM who died).
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATION
Under RA 7941, THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM is a

mechanism of the proportional representation in
the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof registered with the COMELEC to enable
Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and
underrepresented
sectors
to
contribute
legislation that would benefit them. ]
Party list representation shall constitute 20% of the
total number of representatives, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural minorities, women, youth and such other sectors
as may be provided by law, except the religions sector
(Art. VI, Sec. 5(2) 1987 Constitution.
17
Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections 621 SCRA 385

(June 22, 2010),
The SC ruled that Comelec cannot issue rules and
regulations that provide a ground for the substitution of a partylist nominee NOT written in R.A.7941.
Sec. 8 provides Nomination of Party-List
Representatives. Each registered party, organization
or coalition shall submit to the Comelec not later than
45 days before the election a list of names, not less
than five (5), from which party-list representatives
shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number
of votes.
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be
named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for
any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an
elective office in the immediately preceding election. NO
change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
shall be allowed after the same shall have been
submitted to the Comelec except in cases (1) where the
nominee dies, or (2) withdraws in writing his
nomination, (3) becomes incapacitated in which case
the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last
in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the
HR who are nominated in the party-list system shall
not be considered resigned.
CIBAC (Citizens Battle Against Corruption) thru its
President Emmanuel Villanueva manifested their intent to
participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local
elections and submitted their list of 5 nominees (Villanueva,
Lokin (herein petitioner), Cruz-Gonzales, Tugna and Galang).
The list was later published in the newspapers of general
circulation. Before the elections, Villanueva filed a certificate of
nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of
nominees whereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna
and Galang and substituted Borje. The amended list included
Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales and Borje. Subsequently, Villanueva
transmitted to Comelec the signed petitions of more than 81% if
the CIBAC members in order to confirm the withdrawal of the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang.
Based on the Party-List Canvas Report, it showed that
CIBAC was entitled to a second seat, hence, the counsel of
CIBAC filed with the Comelec sitting as National Board of
Canvassers, a request to proclaim Lokin as the 2nd nominee
which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. Since
Comelec failed to act on the filing of the certificate of
nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of
nominees and the petitions of the more than 81% of CIBAC
members, Villanueva filed a petition to confirm the said
certificate with the Comelec which was docketed as E.M. No.
07-054. In the meantime, Comelec as NBC partially proclaimed
several party lists as having won which included Cibac.
The Secretary General of CIBAC informed the Secretary
General of the HR to formally swear Lokin into office but which
was denied in view of the pendency of E.M. No. 07-054 which
approved the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin et. al. and
the substitution of Borje. Cruz-Gonzales was proclaimed as the
official second nominee.
Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamus to compel
respondent Comelec to proclaim him as the official second
nominee of CIBAC. Also, in another petition, Lokin assailed
Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804 (Rules and Regulations
Governing the filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate
and submission of Names of Nominees under the Party-List)
and its resolution in E.M. No. 07-054.
The Comelec asserts that a petition for certiorari is an
inappropriate recourse in law due to the proclamation of CruzGonzales as representative and her assumption of that office;
that Lokins proper recourse was an electoral protest filed in the
HRET, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter
being raised by Lokin. CIBAC posits that Lokin is guilty of
forum shopping for filing a petition for mandamus and a
petition for certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately
seek to have him proclaimed as the second nominee of CIBAC.
ISSUES: a) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the
controversy. The Court has jurisdiction. The controversy
involving Lokin is neither an EP nor an action for QW, for it
concerns a very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to
be seated as second nominee of CIBAC. Although an EP may
properly be available to one part-list organization seeking to
unseat another party-list organization to determine which
between the defeated and the winning party-list organizations
actually obtained the majority of the legal votes, Lokins case is
not one in which a nominee of a particular party-list
organization thereby wants to unseat another nominee of the
same party list. Neither does an action for QW lie, considering
that the case does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of
Cruz-Gonzales to the RP, or some other case of disqualification.
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for
certiorari against the Comelec to seek the review of its
resolution in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the
1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of
office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now
implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, which
provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or
resolution of the Comelec and the Commission on Audit. As
Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari

in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC within the

limited period of 30 days. The Court has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins certiorari and for
mandamus.
party-list rep in the lower house and enjoy the secured tenure
that goes with the position, the resolution of the dispute is taken
out of its hand. Hence, pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI, the
HRET being the sole judge of all contests relating to, among
other things, the qualifications of the members of the HR, the
HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their
qualifications. The HRET was correct in dismissing the QW
and retaining authority to rule on the qualifications.
(b) Both actions, certiorari and mandamus did not violate

the rule against forum shopping even if the actions
involved the same parties, because they were based on
different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were
different.
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v.

Comelec 619 SCRA 585 (DELISTING) The Comelec may
motu propio OR upon verified complaint of any interested
party, remove, or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition IF It: (a) fails to participate in the
last 2 preceding elections; OR (b) fails to obtain at least
2% of the votes casts under the party-list system in the
2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it
was registered (Section 6 RA 7941). The word OR is a
disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of
one thing from the other things enumerated. A party list group
or organization that failed to farner 2% in a prior election and
immediately thereafter did not participate in the preceding
election is something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of RA
7941. From this perspective, it may ben an unintended gap in
the law and as such is a matter for Congress to address. This
case abandoned the Minero vs. Comelec G.R. No. 177548 May
10, 2007.
Amores vs. HRET et. al., 622 SCRA 593 (2010)

Amores via a petition for QW with the HRET questioned
the legality of the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel
Villanueva as re of CIBAC. It was alleged among other things,
that Villanueva assumed office without a formal proclamation
by the Comelec, disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector
of CIBAC since at the time of the filing of his certificates of
nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or
beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA 7941 and
that his change of affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its
overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not
effected at least 6 months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so
as to be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15
of RA 7941.
The HRET dismissed the petition as it found the petition to
be filed beyond the 10 days reglementary period, that the age
qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section 9 of
RA 7941 applied only to those nominated as such during the
first 3 congressional terms after the ratification of the
Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter
registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which
CIBAC, a multi sectoral organization, is not. As regards the
shift of affiliation, it was held that Section 15 did not apply as
there was no resultant change in party list affiliation.
(c) Comelec gravely abused its discretion in promulgating

Section 13 of Res. No. 7804 as it expanded the
exceptions under Sec. 8 of RA 7941 Section 8
enumerates only 3 instances in which the partylist organization can substitute another person in
place of the nominee.
The enumeration is
exclusive.
Abayhon vs. HRET et. al 612 SCRA 375/Palparan Jr.

vs. HRET et. al.
These two cases were consolidated and jointly
resolved as it both concerns the authority of the HRET to
pass upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list
groups that won seats in the lower house of Congress.
Abayhon is the 1st nominee of the Aangat Tayo partylist that won a seat in the HR during the 2007 elections.
Palparan on the other hand was the 1st nominee of Bantay
party-list. A petition for QW was filed with HRET against
the party-list groups and its nominee claiming that it was
not eligible for a party-list since it did not represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Abayhon is
the spouse of an incumbent congressional district
representative and likewise does not belong to the UR and
marginalized. Petitioners also claim that Abayhon lost her
bid as party-list rep called An Waray in the immediately
preceding elections of May 10, 2004. Palparan also was
alleged to have committed various human rights violations
against the marginalized sectors (Bantay represents the
victims of communist rebels, CAFGU, security guards and
former rebels.)
Abayhon and Palparan postures that the Comelec
already confirmed the status of the party list as a national
multi-sectoral party-list organization, that HRET had no
jurisdiction over the petitioner for QW since the
petitioners collaterally attacked the registration of the
party-list organization, a matter that fell within the
jurisdiction of the Comelec. That it was the party-list that
was taking a seat in the HR and not them, being only its
nominees. All questions involving their eligibility as
nominee, were internal concerns of the organization. The
HRET dismissed the petition against party-list but upheld
its jurisdiction over nominees who both filed an MR which
was denied. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari
alleging that the HRET gravely abused its discretion.
The Court made reference to Sec. 5(1) of Article
VI (which identifies who the members of that
House are. The HR shall be composed of not more than
250 members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall
be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila
area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ration, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations.
Clearly the members of the HR are 2 kinds
members who shall be elected from legislative districts
and those who shall be elected through a party-list
system. From the point of view of the Constitution, it is
the party-list rep who are elected into office, NOT their
parties or organizations. These representatives are elected,
however, through that peculiar party-list system that the
Constitution authorized and that Congress by law
established where the voters cast their votes for the
organizations or parties to which such party-list reps
belong.
Once elected, both the district reps and the party-list
reps are treated in like manners. They have the same
deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can
participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit
their legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject
to the same term limitations of 3 years for a max of 3
consecutive terms. The party list system act itself
recognizes party list nominees as members of the HR
(Sec. 2, RA 7941 Declaration of Policy The State
shall promote proportional representation in the election
of reps in the HR through a party-list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens
belonging to the marginalized and UR sectors x x
x x to become members of the HR .
The Court held that initially, the authority to
determine the qualifications of a party-list nominee
belongs to the organization and to choose five from among
the aspiring nominees to comply with the law. But where
an allegation is made that the party or organization had
chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to become its
18
ISSUES: (1) whether the petition for QW was dismissible for

having been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether Section 9 and
15 of RA 7941 apply to Villanueva. As to the first issue, the SC
found grave abuse of discretion on the part of HRET. The Court
overlooked the technicality of timeliness and rules on the merits
since the challenge goes into Villanuevas qualifications, it may
be filed at anytime during his term. Also date of proclamation
was not clear. As to the second and more substantial issue, the
Court made reference to Section 9 of RA 7941 which
provides that in case of a nominee of the youth sector,
he must at least be 25 but not more than 30 years of
age on the day of the election. The youth sectoral
representative who attains the age of 30 during his
term shall be allowed to continue in office until the
expiration of his term.
The Court did not find any textual support on the
interpretation of HRET that Section 9 applied only to those
nominated during the first 3 congressional terms after the
ratification of the Constitution or until 1998. A cardinal rule in
statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free
from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction
or interpretation. Only room for application. The distinction is
nowhere found in the law. When the law does not distinguish,
we must not distinguish.
Respecting Section 15 of RA 7941, the Court likewise
found no textual support for HRETs ratiocination that the
provision did not apply to Villanuevas shift of affiliation from
CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their
families sector as there was no resultant change in party list
affiliation. Section 15 reads Change of Affiliation:
Effect Any elected party list rep who changes his
political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of
office shall forfeit his seat; Provided, That if he
changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within
6 months before an election, he shall not be eligible for
nomination as party-list rep under his new party or
organization.
The wordings of Section 15 is clear as it covers changes in
both political party and sectoral affiliation and which may occur
within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list org are
qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list system. A
nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same
party will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral

affiliation if the change has been effected at least 6 months

before the elections. Sec. 9 and 15 apply to Villanueva.
As regards the contention that Villanueva is the 1st
nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is NO
moment.
A party-list organizations ranking of its
nominees is a mere indication of preference, their
qualifications according to law are a different matter.
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec 618 SCRA 32

Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women
who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or
transgendered individuals. They applied for registration
with Comelec in 2006 and its accreditation was denied on
the ground that the org had no substantial membership.
Ladlad in 2009 again filed a petition for registration which
was dismissed by Comelec on moral grounds.
The SC ruled that moral disapproval is not a
sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of
homosexuals from participation to the party list system.
The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically
enumerated, but whether a particular organization
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and
RA 7941. The SC found that Ladlad has sufficiently
demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements
for accreditation.
1.
First, the political party, sector or organization must represent

the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in
Section 5 of the RA 7941. In other words, it must show
through the Constitution, articles of incorporation, by-laws,
history, platform of government and track record that it
represents
and seeks to uplift marginalized
and
underrepresented sectors.
2.
Second, While major political parties are expressly allowed by

RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate, they must comply
with the declared statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented to be
elected to the HR. 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.
3.
Third, The religious sector may not be represented into the

party-list system. In view of the objections directed against the
registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Humabong, 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.
Furthermore, the
Constitution provides that religious denominations and sects
shall not be registered. The prohibition was explained by a
member of the Constitutional Commission in this wise The
prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a
political party. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest
running as a candidate. This is not prohibited here; it is the
registration of a religious sect as a political party.
4.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified

under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
disqualification as follows:
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC 342 SCRA

244, the SC provided for the parameters of the Filipino
Party-List System which are:
the 20% allocation - the combined number of all
party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the
total membership of the HR, including those under
the party-list;
(2) the 2% threshold only those parties garnering a
minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the
HR;
(3) the 3-seat limit each qualified party, regardless
of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled
to a maximum three seats; that is one qualifying
and two additional seats; and
(4) the proportional representation the
additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to
shall be computed in proportion to their total
number of votes.
(1)
In this case, following the May 11, 1998 national elections

which is the first election for party-list representation, the
COMELEC en banc proclaimed fourteen (14) parties and
organization which had obtained at least 2% of the total
number of votes cast for the party-list system which
constitute a total of 25 nominees short of the 52 party-list
representatives who should actually sit in the house. The
PAGASA, filed with the COMELEC a Petition to proclaim
the full number of party-list representative provided by
the Constitution. They alleged that the filling up of the
20% membership of party-list representative in the
House, as provided under the Constitution, was
mandatory. Nine other party-list organizations filed their
respective motions for intervention seeking the same relief
as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the same
grounds.
(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.
5.
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a

project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the
government (referring to MAD of Richard Gomez). It must be
independent of the government. The participants of the
government or it officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate
is not only illegal 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.
6.
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 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 RV, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than 1 year immediately
preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bonafide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the elections
and is at least 25 years of age on the day of the election.
7.
Seventh, not only the candidate party must represent the

marginalized and underrepresented sectors, so also must
likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment
of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
8.
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. Senator Jose
Lina explained during the bicameral committee proceedings
that the nominee of a party, national or regional, is not going to
represent a particular district x x x.
Partido ng Mangagawa (PM) and BUTIL Farmers Party

v. Comelec, et. al., the petition before the SC involves the
The COMELEC, contrary to its rules and regulations

governing the said elections, instead proclaimed the other
38 party list organization notwithstanding its not having
garnered the required 2% votes.
RULING: the SC ruled that the Sec 5(2) of Art. VI which
states that the sectoral representation shall
constitute 20% of the members of the HR is not
mandatory as it merely provides a ceiling for party-list
in congress.
And, obtaining absolute proportional
representation is restricted by the 3-seat per party limit to
a maximum of two additional slots. COMELEC was held
to have abused its discretion in disregarding an act of
Congress .
Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC 359 SCRA 698 at issue is the Omnibus Resolution of the Comelec which
approved the participation of 154 organizations and
parties and which the SC remanded to the Comelec for the
latter to determine evidentiary hearings, whether the 154
parties and organizations allowed to participate in the
party-list elections complied with the requirements of the
law. The SC ruled that the party-list that the party-list
organizations or parties must factually and truly represent
the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the persons
nominated by the party-list candidate organization must
be Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
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.
19

formula for computing the additional seats for winners in

party-list elections and whether or not Comelec, as the
National Board of Canvassers for the party-list system,
could be compelled by the SC to mechanically apply the
formula stated in the Comelec Resolution reiterated in the
Bagong Bayani cases in the determination of qualified
party-list organization and in the proclamation of their
respective nominees.
In the earlier case of Veterans Federation Party v.
Comelec, the SC came up with a simplified formula for the
computation of additional seats for party-list which was
reiterated in the other cases of Bagong Bayani, Bayan
Muna, etc. With this development, PM and Butil filed with
the Comelec a petition to re-tabulate the party-list votes
and immediately proclaim their respective second
nominees to the HR. The Comelec, however, failed to
resolve the substantive issue and re-tabulate the votes
despite the lapse of time. Hence, the petition seeking the
issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Comelec to
mechanically apply the Veteran Federation formula in the
case.
Comelec argued that the petition is improper relying
on Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution that any
order, decision or ruling of the Comelec may be brought to
the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days
from receipt of copy thereof that this provision was
construed as a special civil action of certiorari under Rule
65 and not an appeal by certiorari under Rule 46 and that
the duty to proclaim the second nominee is not ministerial
but discretionary, hence it is not subject to the writ of
mandamus. SC ruling:
1.
SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
2. Mandamus will lie if it is a purely ministerial act
of Comelec.
3. Comelec has no discretion to refuse
enforcement of any decision of the SC
4. It is the averments in the complaint and not the
nomenclature given by the parties, that
determine the nature of the action (petition for
mandamus may be treated as a petition for
certiorari and mandamus considering that it
alleges that the respondent Commission acted
contrary to prevailing jurisprudence, hence,
with grave abuse of discretion and without
jurisdiction
The Resolution of Comelec was not in the exercise of
the QJ functions but in the exercise of its administrative
functions to enforce and administer election laws.
The simplified formula in the Veterans case was
reiterated and the four (4) inviolable parameters of the
party list system under the Constitution and RA 7941 are
still the (1)20% allocation; (2) 2% threshold; (3) 3 seat
limit; (4) Proportional representation- the additional seats
which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of votes.
disclosure before the May 2007 elections. The need for voters
to be informed about matters that have a bearing on their
choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a system of blind
voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the
Comelec.
Banat et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. 178271/12972 (2009) which

abandoned the matter of computation held in the Veterans
Party case intention was to fill the 20% and party list were
ranked according to the votes cast for party-list and even those
who did not reach the 2% were given seats in the second round
of the ranking. Those who garnered 2% automatically takes a
seat in the first round.
Pimentel Jr. vs HRET GR no. 147589 and 147613

The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally defined
limits, to choose from among its district and party-list
representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the
House in the HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House
the authority to elect among their members those who would fill
the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members in the
Commission on Appointments. Under Section 17, Article VI of
the Constitution, each chamber of Congress exercises the power
to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who among
their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each
chambers respective electoral tribunal.
POWER TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE FRANCHISE
The objective of the power vested in the COMELEC to regulate

the enjoyment and utilization of franchise during the election
period is to ensure equal opportunity, time, space, equal rates
for public.
Telecommunications Broadcast Attorneys of the Phils.,

Inc. (TELEBAP) and GMA Network Inc. v. COMELEC
April 21, 1998,
FACTS: TELEBAP, which is an organization of lawyers of radio
and broadcasting network companies sued as citizens, taxpayers
and registered voters and GMA network, challenging the
validity of Sec. 92 of BP 881 (COMELEC Time and Space) on
the grounds that (a) it takes property without due process of law
and just compensation; (b) that it denies radio and television
broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws and (c)
that it is in excess of the power given to COMELEC to supervise
and regulate the operation of media of communication or
information during the election period.
HELD: As to the issue of personality of TELEBAP, the court
ruled that it has no legal standing because a citizen will
be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when
he can show that he has personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury as a result of the alleged
illegal conduct of the government; that the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and that the injury is likely to
be redressed by a favorable action. TELEBAP cannot sue as
RV since the case does not concern their right of
suffrage and much less as taxpayers since the case did
not involve the exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power. As a corporate entity, TELEBAP will have
standing to assert the right of radio and television companies
only if it can be shown that the party suing has some substantial
relation to the 3rd party or the 3rd party cannot assert his
constitutional right, or that the right of the 3 rd party will be
diluted unless the party in court is allowed to espouse the 3 rd
partys constitutional claim. None of these circumstances are
present in this case.
Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. G.R. No.

177271, May 4, 2007, 523 SCRA 1
Petitioners reacting on an emerging public
perception that the individuals behind the party-list
groups do not, as they should, actually represent the poor
and marginalized sectors. Petitioners wrote a letter to the
Comelec requesting that the complete list of the nominees
of all parties who have been accredited pursuant to
Comelec Resolution No. 7804 prescribing rules and
regulations to govern the filing of manifestation of intent
to participate and submission of names of nominees under
the party-list system of representation in connection with
the May 14, 2007 elections be published. The Comelec
vehemently did not accede to the request of the
petitioners, it based its refusal to disclose the names of the
nominees of subject party-list groups on Section 7 of RA
7941 (more specifically the last sentence which states: the
names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on
the certified list..
The Comelec believe that the party list elections must
not be personality oriented. Abalos said under RA 7941,
the people are to vote for sectoral parties, organizations,
or coalitions not for their nominees.
With respect to the issue as to WoN Sec. 92 of BP 881 violates

the due process clause and eminent domain provision of the
constitution by taking from radio and television broadcasting
stations without payment of just compensation, it was ruled
that all broadcasting, whether by radio or by TV stations
are licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have
to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to
broadcast than there are frequencies assigned. A franchise is
a privilege subject to amendment by congress in
accordance with the constitutional provision when the common
good so requires. The COMELEC time provisions have been
made as amendments of the franchises of radio and TV stations
and was not thought of as taking of property without just
compensation. The right of the listeners and viewers is
paramount over the right of the broadcasters.
ISSUE: whether or not the disclosure of the names of the

nominees are covered by the Right of Public to
information.
HELD: The Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose
and release the names of the nominees of the party list
groups. No national security or like concerns is involved
in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the
party-list groups in question. The last sentence of Section
7 is limited in scope and duration, meaning, that it
extends only to the certified list which the same provision
requires to be posted in the polling places on election day.
To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute
nothing in RA 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from
disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than
the Certified list the names of the party-list nominees.
The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure
aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to public
20
ABS-CBN vs COMELEC 323 SCRA 811, the SC defined
EXIT POLLS as a specie of electoral survey conducted

by qualified individuals or groups of individuals for the
purpose of determining the probable result of an
election by confidentially asking randomly selected
voters whom they have voted for, immediately after
they have official cast their ballots. That an absolute
prohibition is unreasonably restrictive, because it effectively
21
prevents the use of exit poll data not only for election days
of the elections, but also for long term research. The
concern of COMELEC of a non-communicative effect of
the exit polls which is disorder and confusion in the voting
centers does not justify a total ban of the exist polls.
COMELEC should instead set safeguards in place for those
who intends to conduct exit polls.
Sec. 5.5 of RA 9006, provides for the requirements for
the taking of exit polls:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Pollsters shall not conduct their survey within fifty

(50) meters from the polling place, whether said
survey is taken in a home, dwelling place and other
places;
Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing.
Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse
to answer; and
The result of the exist polls may be announced after
the closing of the polls on election day, and must
clearly identify the total number of respondents, and
the places where they were taken.
Said
announcement shall state that the same is unofficial
and does not represent a trend.
Social Weather Stations vs. COMELEC 357 SCRA

496 SWS is a private non-stock, non-profit social
research institution conducting surveys in various fields,
including economics, politics, demography and social
development, and thereafter processing, analyzing and
publicly reporting the results thereof. On the other hand,
Kamahalan Publishing Corporation publishes the Manila
Standard, a newspaper of general circulation, which
features newsworthy items of information including
election surveys.
Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin
the COMELEC from enforcing par. 5.4 of RA 9006 which
provides, Surveys affecting national candidates shall not
be published fifteen (15) days before an election and
surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published
seven (7) days before an election.
The term election surveys is defined in par. 5.1 of the law
as follows Election surveys refer to the
measurement of opinions and perception of the
voters as regards a candidates popularity,
qualification, platforms or a matter of public
discussion in relation to the election, including
voters preference for candidates or publicly
discussed issues during the campaign period.
Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an election
survey throughout the period of the elections both at the
national and local levels and release to the media the
results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
Kamahalan also states that it intends to publish election
survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14,
2001. HELD: Par. 5.4 constitutes an unconstitutional
abridgement of freedom of speech, expression and the
press. It is invalid because it imposes a prior restraint on
the freedom of expression and it is a direct and total
suppression of a category of expression even though such
suppression is only for a limited period, and the
governmental interest sought to be promoted can be
achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom
of expression.
In Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. COMELEC 359

SCRA 698 (June 26, 2001), at issued is the Omnibus
Resolution of the COMELEC which approved the
participation of 154 organizations and parties and which
the SC remanded to the COMELEC for the latter to
determine evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties
and organizations allowed to participate in the party-list
elections comply with the requirements of the law. The
SC ruled that the party-list organization or party
must
factually
and
truly
represent
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented
constituencies mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and
the persons nominated by the party-list candidateorganization must be Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties.
3)
THIRD, the religious sector may not be represented in the

party-list system. FOURTH, it must not be disqualified
under the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of RA
7941.
4)
FIFTH, the party or organization must not be an adjunct
of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by
the government.
5) SIXTH, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law, its nominees must likewise do so.
SEVENTH, not only the candidate party must represent
the M and U sectors, so also must its nominees. EIGHT,
while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the
nominees must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole.
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO
GRANT PARDON, AMNESTY, PAROLE OR SUSPENSION
OF SENTENCE
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ENLIST

CITIZENS ARMS (BP 881, Section 60-62)
Section 60.
Section 61. Registration.

1)
2)
3)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
Suffrage may be exercised:

1)
2)
3)
4)
By all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise

disqualified by law, who are:
At least 18 years of age, and
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.
No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement
shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.12
RA
8189
FEATURES
[REQUISITES TO BE CONSIDERED TO BECOME

A PARTY LIST ORGANIZATION:]
2)
file with the Commission a verified petition attaching

thereto its constitution and by-laws, platform or program
of government and such other relevant information as may
be required by the Commission.
The Commission shall, after due notice and hearing,
resolve the petition within ten days from the date it is
submitted for decision.
No religious sect shall be registered as a political party and
no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through
violence shall be entitled to accreditation.
Section 62. Publication of petition for registration or

accreditation.
The Commission shall require publication of the petition for
registration or accreditation in at least three newspapers of
general circulation and shall, after due notice and hearing,
resolve the petition within fifteen days from the date it is
submitted for decision.
FIRST, the PP, sector or organization must represent

the marginalized and underrepresented groups
identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.
SECOND, while major political parties are expressly
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
participate, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens belonging
to M and U to be elected to the HR.
"Political party" or "party" means an organized group of

persons pursuing the same ideology, political ideas or
platforms of government and includes its branches
and divisions.
To acquire juridical personality, quality it for subsequent
accreditation, and to entitle it to the rights and privileges herein
granted to political parties, a political party shall first be
duly registered with the Commission. Any registered
political party that, singly or in coalition with others, fails to
obtain at least ten percent of the votes cast in the constituency
in which it nominated and supported a candidate or candidates
in the election next following its registration shall, after notice
and hearing be deemed to have forfeited such status as a
registered political party in such constituency.
Having remanded the case to COMELEC, the SC laid

down the following guidelines:
1)
Art. IX-C Sec. 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.
VOTERS
REGISTRATION
ACT/SALIENT
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 the effect of the effectivity of RA 8189 to the

current permanent list of voters? RA 8189 provides for the
general registration of voters for purposes of the May 1998 elections.
Consequent thereto, all certified list of voters shall cease to be
effective and operative.
12
Sec. 1, Article V of the Constitution/Sec. 117 OEC

22
WHAT IS REGISTRATION?
Registration refers to the act of accomplishing
and filing of a sworn application for registration
by a qualified voter before the election office of
the city or municipality wherein he resides and
including the same in the book of registered
voters upon approval by the Election Registration
Board. (Sec. 3(a) )
the National Police forces or confinement or detention in

government institutions in accordance with law.
SEC. 11 - DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1)
2)
WHO MAY REGISTER?

General Rule:
Suffrage may be exercised:
1) by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are:
2) At least 18 years of age, and
3) 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.
4) No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.13
In addition to that provided under Sec. 1 Article V of the

Constitution and Sec. 117 of the OEC, Section 9 of RA 8189
further provide:
Any person who temporarily resides in another city,
municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation,
profession, employment in private or public service,
educational activities, work in the military or naval
reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed
Forces, or confinement or detention in government
institution in accordance with law, shall NOT be
deemed to have lost his original residence.
The 3rd paragraph of Sec. 9 further clarified Sec. 126 of the

OEC:
3)
WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED:
Section 14 - Illiterate or disabled applicants are referred

to as person who cannot by themselves prepare an
application for registration because of their physical
disability and/or inability to read and write.
PROCEDURE FOR ILLITERATE APPLICANTS
REQUISITES WHEN NEW DOMICILE IS ACQUIRED

BY CHOICE
Romuladez v. RTC 226 SCRA 402 - In order to acquire
a new domicile by choice, there must concur:
1) residence or bodily presence in the new
locality;
2) an intention to remain in the new locality;
3)
an intention to abandon the old domicile.
There must be animus manendi coupled with
animust non-revertendi.
SEC. 8 - SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION

OF
VOTERS/CREATION
OF
ELECTION
REGISTRATION BOARDS
The application for registration of a physically disabled person

may be prepared by any relative within the 4 th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the election
officer or any members of an accredited citizens arm
using the data supplied by the applicant.
NOTE: In both instance, the fact of illiteracy and disability

shall be so indicated in the application.
DEACTIVIATION, REACTIVIATION AND CANCELLATION

OF REGISTRATION
DEACTIVATION14 is a process wherein the
registration record of a voter is removed by the Board
from the corresponding precinct book of voters and
places the same in an inactive file properly marked and
dated in indelible ink and after entering the causes for
deactivation which are as follows:
A qualified voter can personally file an application for

registration DAILY with the office of the election Officer
during regular office hours. The Election Registration
Boards authorized to act on all applications for
registration which is composed of the Election Officer as
Chairman and as members, a public school official most
senior in rank and the local civil registrar or in his
absence, the city or municipal treasurer.
1)
2)
LIMITATION:
No registration shall however be
conducted during the period starting 120 days before a
regular elections and 90 days before a special elections.
3)
4)
SEC. 9 QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION

1)
2)
4)
5)
13
Citizenship - all citizens of the Philippines, NOT

otherwise disqualified by law
Age - at least 18 years old on the day of the election
Residence resident in the Philippines at least one (1)
year and six (6) months in the place wherein they
propose to vote immediately preceding the elections.
Residence requirement must be possessed at least on
the date of the elections. Residence and domicile
treated synonymous
Original residence not deemed lost temporarily
residing in another city, municipality or country solely
by reason of occupation, profession, employment,
educational activities, work in the military or naval
reservations within the Philippines, service in the AFP,
Sec. 1, Article V of the Constitution/Sec. 117 OEC
May be 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 thumb mark or some
other customary mark and it shall be subscribed and attested by
the majority of the members of the Board.
PROCEDURE FOR DISABLED APPLICANTS
Sarangani vs COMELEC 334 SCRA 379
Those sentenced by final judgment, disability is removed by

plenary pardon or amnesty or the expiration of five (5) after
service of sentence.
For insane and incompetent, by an official declaration by a
proper authority that the insanity or incompetency no longer
exist.
WHO ARE CONSIDERED ILLITERATE AND DISABLED

VOTERS AND HOW DO THEY REGISTER?
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.
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 anti-subversion and
firearms law, or any crime against national
security in accordance with the law.
Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent
authority
Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final

judgment as earlier enumerated and insane and
incompetent persons as official declared.
Any person who failed to vote in the 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
For the above purposes, the Clerks of Court of the MTC, MTCC,
RTC and SB is mandated to furnish the election office 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 addressed. With respect to those who lost their
citizenship, insanity and incompetence, the COMELEC may
request a certified list of such persons from the government
agencies concerned.
REACTIVATION15 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
14
15
Sec. 27
Sec. 28

therein that the grounds for the deactivation no

longer exist.
the voters substantive right to be included in the list of

voters.
When filed?
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 included the same in the
corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or
representatives of political parties shall be properly
notified of approved applications.
Facts: The bone of contention of petitioners praying for a twoday special registration of new voters for the May 14, 2001
elections which was denied by the COMELEC due to 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.
CANCELLATION16 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.
1)
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
HELD: The SC ruled that the right of suffrage is not

absolute as, in the enjoyment of all other rights, 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 minimum requirements
set by the Constitution under Section 1, Article V, the act of
registration being an indispensable precondition and element to
the right of suffrage and election process. Referring to Sec. 8 of
RA 8189, the law is explicit that no registration shall, however,
be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election.
JURISDICTION IN INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION

CASES 17
Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the other 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.
The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial courts shall have

original jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and
exclusion of voters in their respective municipalities.
WHERE TO APPEAL
Decisions of the MTC may be appealed by the aggrieved

party to the RTC within 5 days from receipt of notice
thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and
executory. RTC shall decide the appeal within 10 days
from the time it is received and the RTC decision shall
immediately become final and executory. NO motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained.
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF

VOTERS IN THE LIST18?
When 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 its
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 Book of voters and indicate in the
application for registration the date of the order of
inclusion and the court which issued the same.
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF
VOTERS FROM THE LIST19?
Any registered voters, representative of a political party or

the Election Office.
When 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 book of
voters, enter the order of exclusion therein.
Significance of Petitions for Exclusion
16
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 the purpose of securing
Sec. 29
17
Sec. 33
18
Sec. 34
19
Section 35
BQ 2001: Let us suppose that Congress enacted a law which

amended the OEC (particularly Sections 138, 139, 142, 143) by
vesting in the Commission on Elections the jurisdiction over
inclusion and exclusion cases filed by voters, instead of in the
courts (MTC, then RTC). Is the law valid or not, why?
SUGGESTED Answer:
The law granting the COMELEC
jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion cases is
unconstitutional. Under Section 2(3), Article IX-C of the
Constitution, the COMELEC cannot decide the right to
vote, which refers to the inclusion and exclusion of
voters.
Under Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the
Constitution, it can only file petitions in court for
inclusion or exclusion of voters.
Any person whose application for registration

(1) has been disapproved by the Board; or
(2) whose name has been striken out from the list; or
(3) whose name was not included in the precinct list of voters;
or
(4) who has been included therein with a wrong or misspelled
name;
(after the Board disapproved its application for reinstatement
or correction of name) may file with the court a petition
23
De Guzman et. al. v. COMELEC July 19, 2000, the validity

of Sec. 44 of RA 8189 was raised which reads: Reassignment of
Election Officers. No Election Officer shall hold office in a
particular city or municipality for more than 4 years. Any EO
who, either at the time of the approval of this Act or subsequent
thereto, has served for at least 4 years in a particular city or
municipality shall automatically be reassigned by the
Commission to a new station outside the original congressional
district.
With the foregoing provision, COMELEC promulgated Res. No.
97-0002 and issued several directives reassigning the
petitioners, who are either Ctiy or Municipal Election Officers,
to different stations.
Aggrieved by the said resolution,
petitioners went to the Supreme Court through a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of
a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO, assailing the validity
of Sec. 44 and raised several issues 1)
Sec. 44 of RA 8189 violates the equal protection

clause, because it singles out the City and Municipal
Election Officers as prohibited from holding office in
the same city or municipality for more than 4 years,
maintaining that there is no substantial distinction
between them and other COMELEC officials, and
therefore, there is no valid classification to justify the
objective of the provision of law under attack.
In this issue the Court ruled that the 1987 Constitution
permits a valid classification under the following
conditions:
(1) the classification must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) the classification must be germane to the purpose of the
law;
(3) the classification must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and
(4) the classification must not be limited to all members of
the same class.
In singling out of election officers in order to
ensure the impartiality of election officials by
preventing them from developing familiarity with
the people of their place of assignment does not
violate the equal protection clause. The legislature as
Polling
Contents
of ballotsEmergency
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS
NOTES,PlacesForm
JAZZIE SARONA;and
UP LAW
2001 ELECTION
NOTES
held in Lutz v. Araneta 98 Phil 1955 that legislature is
not required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of
all or none. While it may be true that all election
officers of COMELEC referred to by the petitioners are
exposed to the same evil sought to be addressed by the
statutes, it can be discerned that the legislature,
through the noble purpose of the law, would be
sufficiently served by breaking an important
link in the chain of corruption than by breaking
up each and every link thereof. The EO as defined
in Section 3 (n) of RA 8189 are the highest officials or
authorized representatives of such officials, large-scale
anomalies in the registration of voters can hardly be
carried out. Similarly, to require the COMELEC to
reassign all employees connected with the registration
of voters who have served for 4 years in a given city or
municipality would entail a lot of administrative burden
on the part of the COMELEC.
(2) On the issue that it violates the security of tenure of
civil servant as it duly deprives them of due process of
law, the rule that outlaws unconsented transfers as
anathema to security of tenure applies only to any
officer who is appointed not merely assigned to a
particular station and does not proscribe a transfer
carried out under a specific statute that empowers the
head of an agency to periodically reassign the
employees and officers in order to improve the service
of the agency. The guarantee of security of
tenure under the Constitution is not a
guarantee of perpetual employment. It means
that an employee cannot be dismiss (or
transferred) from service for cause other than
those provided by law and after due process is
accorded the employee. What it seeks to prevent is
capricious exercise of the power to dismiss. But, where
it is the law-making authority itself which furnishes the
ground for the transfer of a class of employees, no such
capriciousness can be raised for so along as the remedy
proposed to cure a perceived evil is germane to the
purposes of the law.
(3) Sec. 44 undermines the independency and authority
of the COMELEC to appoint its own officials and
employees. It was ruled that Sec. 44 merely provides
the criterion or basis for the reassignment or transfer of
an EO.
In fact, Sec. 44 even strengthens the
COMELECs power of appointment, as the power to
assign or transfer is within its exclusive jurisdiction.
24
Ballots
special election, referendum or plebiscite except in case it is

destroyed or it cannot be used.
No designation of polling places shall be changed except upon
written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct or
agreement of all political parties or by resolution of the
Commission upon prior notice and hearing. 20
Publication of Maps of Precincts

At least 5 days before the first registration day and until after the
election, the COMELEC shall post in the city or municipal hall
and in 3 other conspicuous places and on the door of each
polling place, a map of the city or municipality showing its
division into precincts. Such maps shall be kept posted until
after the election, referendum or plebiscite. (Sec. 151, BP 881)
POLLING PLACE: Building or place where the Board of

Election Inspectors conducts its proceedings and where the
voters cast their votes (Sec. 152, BP 881)
Designation of polling places
The COMELEC may introduce changes in the location of polling
places when necessary after notice to the registered political
parties and candidates affected and hearing.
No location shall be changed within 45 days before a regular
election and 30 days before a special election, referendum or
plebiscite except when it is destroyed or it cannot be used. (Sec.
153, BP 881)
Arrangements and Contents of Polling Places
Each polling place: at least 10 voting booths to enable the voters
to fill out their ballots secretly. (Sec. 158, BP 881)
The polling place shall be so arranged that everything, except
what is being written within the booths, shall be in plain view of
the BEI, the watchers and other persons within the polling
place. (Sec. 159 (d), BP 881)
The COMELEC shall post inside each voting booth and elsewhere
in the polling place on the day before the election and during
the voting period a list containing the names of all candidates or
the issues or questions to be voted for. (Sec. 158; BP 881)
There shall be a guard rail between the voting booths and the
table for the BEI. (Sec. 159; BP 881)
OFFICIAL BALLOTS, ELECTION RETURNS

& BALLOT BOXES
PRECINCT/POLLING PLACE/VOTING CENTER
PRECINCT refers to the basic unit of territory

established by the Commission for the purpose of voting.
PRECINCT MAPS refer to the 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 BEI
conducts its proceedings and where the voters cast their
votes.
VOTING CENTER refers to the building or place
where the polling place is located.
The ballots shall:

1.
be uniform in size;
2. be printed in black ink on white security paper with
distinctive, clear and legible watermarks that will readily
distinguish it from ordinary paper;
3. be in the shape of a strip with stub and a detachable coupon
containing the serial number of the ballot and a space for the
thumb mark of the voter on the detachable coupon;
4. bear at the top middle portion the coat-of-arms of the
Republic, the words, Official Ballot, the name of the city or
municipality and the province, the date of the election and
the following notice in English, Fill out this ballot secretly
inside the voting booth. Do not put any distinctive mark on
any part of this ballot;
5. contain the names of all the offices to be voted for, 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;
6. have nothing printed or written at the back except the
signature of the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors
In cities or municipalities where Arabic is of general use, ballots shall
have each of the titles of the offices to be voted for printed in Arabic
in addition to and immediately below the English title.
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions, COMELEC may prescribe
a different form of official ballot on the same watermarked security
paper to facilitate the voting by illiterate voters only and to use or
adopt the latest technological and electronic devices in connection
therewith. (Sec. 23, R.A. 7166)
ARRANGEMENT OF PRECINCTS
Every barangay shall have at least 1 precinct.

Each precinct shall have not more than 200 voters
and shall comprise contiguous and compact territories.
No territory comprising an election precinct shall be
altered or a new precinct established at the start of the
election period. (Sec. 5, RA 8189)
No location of a polling place shall be changed within 45
days before a regular elections and 30 days before a
GR: no ballots other than the official ballots shall be used or counted.
Exception: "emergency ballots" may be used:
1.
in the event of failure to receive the official ballots on time,
or
2. where there are no sufficient ballots for all registered
voters, or
20
Under the Sec. 153 and 154 of the OEC

Printing of official
and election
and DistributionBallot
SOURCES ballots
AND CONTRIBUTORS:
ATTY.returnsRequisition
VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS
NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; boxes
UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
3.
where they are destroyed at such time as shall render

it impossible to provide other official ballots.
In these cases, the city or municipal treasure 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. (Sec. 182, BP 881)
Printed by the Government Printing Office and/or the

Central Bank printing facilities exclusively, under the
exclusive supervision and control of the COMELEC. (Sec.
184, BP 881)
The registered political parties or coalitions of parties (or
their components should there be any dissolution or
division of said coalition) whose candidates obtained at
least 10% of the total votes cast in the next preceding
senatorial election are each entitled to have a watcher
and/or representative in the procurement and
watermarking of papers to be used in the printing of
election returns and official ballots, and in the printing,
numbering, storage and distribution thereof. (Sec. 8, R.A.
6646)
Ballots distributed to each city and municipality at the rate

of 11/5 ballots for every voter registered, and for
election returns, at the rate of one set for every polling
place. (Sec. 186, BP 881)
The ruling party and the dominant opposition party shall
submit the names of their watchers who, together with the
representatives of the COMELEC and the provincial, city,
and municipal treasurers shall verify the contents of the
boxes containing the shipment of official ballots, election
returns and sample official ballots. (Sec. 189, BP 881)
On the day of the voting, there shall be a ballot box one side of
which shall be transparent which shall be set in a manner
visible to the voting public. It shall contain two compartments,
one for valid ballots and the other for spoiled ballots.
provided with application forms to cast absentee ballots in their

place of assignment.
2.
POWERS OF BEI21
(1) Conduct the voting and counting of votes in
their respective polling places;
(2) Act as deputies of the COMELEC 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
(3) Perform such other functions prescribed by
this Code or by the rules and regulations
promulgated by the COMELEC.
VOTING PRIVILEGE
21
22
Members of the BEI and their substitute may vote in the

polling place where they are assigned provided
they are registered voters. 22
Under the OEC all that the BEI need to do is indicate in
the Minutes of Voting such fact.
Under EO 157, the appropriate head of the agency shall
within 30 days submit to the Commission a list of officers
who are registered voters, who, by reason of their duties
and functions, will be in places other than their place of
registration and who desire to exercise their right to vote,
with the request that said officers and employees be
Sec. 168
Sec. 169 of the OEC was amended by EO 157 March 30 1987
A sworn report on the manner of distribution of the

absentee ballots, indicating the number of ballot
transmitted to each province, names of the persons to
whom the absentee ballots are delivered, the serial
numbers of the ballots.
It shall be accompanied by a certificate of eligibility to vote
absentee for each particular voter.
The voters who cast absentee votes shall vote one week before
election day by delivery it to the RD, PES or the City or
Municipal Election Registrar concerned who in turn shall
transmit by fastest means to the Commission on Elections.
The absentee voter shall apply to the elections for

President, VP and Senators only and shall be limited to
the BEIs, members of AFP, PNP and other government
employees who, on election day, may temporarily be
assigned in connection with the performance of
election duties to places where they are not registered.
(As modified by Sec. 12 of RA 7166)
WATCHERS
(Sections 178-180, OEC)
Official watchers of candidates
Every registered political party, coalition of political parties and

every independent candidate shall each be entitled to one
watcher in every polling place.
QUALIFICATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DISQUALIFICATION
Related within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity to any member of the BEI or to any candidate to
be voted for in the polling place or his spouse.
The COMELEC after receipt of the accomplished forms, shall

transmit the exact number of absentee ballots to the
appropriate head of the government office for distribution to
the applicants. And submit to the COMELEC the following:
1.
In case there are not enough public school teachers, teachers in

private schools, employees in the civil service or other citizens
of known probity and competence who are registered voters of
the city or municipality may be appointed (Sec. 13, 6646).
The COMELEC upon verification that the persons included in

the list are qualified voters, shall transit the exact number of
application forms to the head of the office making the request
and after duly accomplishing it, shall return he same to the
COMELEC.
ABSENTEES
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

The BEI is composed of the:
1. Chairman,
2. Poll Clerk and
3. Third member who man the precincts, all of
whom shall be public school teachers.
25
qualified voter of the city or municipality,

of good reputation and
shall not have been convicted by final judgment of
any election offense or of any other crime,
must know how to read and write Pilipino, English,
Spanish or any of the prevailing local dialects, and
not related within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to the chairman or any
member of the board of election inspectors in the
polling place where he seeks appointment as a
watcher.
Each candidate, political party or coalition of political parties

shall designate in every province, highly urbanized city or
district in the Metropolitan Manila area, a representative
authorized to appoint watchers, furnishing the provincial
election supervisor or the city election registrar, as the case may
be, the names of such representatives.
The provincial election supervisors shall furnish the municipal
election registrars and election registrars of component cities
with the list of such representatives.
In the case of Metropolitan Manila, the designation of the
persons authorized to appoint watchers shall be filed with the
Commission, which shall furnish the list of such representatives
to the respective city and municipal election registrars.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF WATCHERS

Upon entering the polling place, the watchers shall present and
deliver to the chairman of the board of election inspectors his
appointment, and, his name shall be recorded in the minutes with a
notation under his signature that he is not disqualified under the
second paragraph of Section 178.
The appointments of the watchers shall bear the personal or the
facsimile signature of the candidate or the duly authorized
representatives of the political party or coalition who appointed him
or of organizations authorized by the Commission under Section 180.
The watchers shall have the right to stay in the space reserved for
them inside the polling place.
They shall have the right to
1.
witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the BEI,
including its proceedings during the registration of voters,
2. to take notes of what they may see or hear,
3.
to take photographs of the proceedings and incidents, if any,
during the counting of votes, as well as of election returns,
tally boards and ballot boxes,

4.
5.
6.
to file a protest against any irregularity or violation of

law which they believe may have been committed by the
board of election inspectors or by any of its members or
by any persons, to obtain from the board of election
inspectors a certificate as to the filing of such protest
and/or of the resolution thereon,
to read the ballots after they shall have been read by the
chairman, as well as the election returns after they shall
have been completed and signed by the members of the
board of election inspectors without touching them,
but they shall not speak to any member of the board of
election inspectors, or to any voter, or among
themselves, in such a manner as would distract the
proceedings, and to be furnished with a certificate of
the number of votes in words and figures cast for each
candidate, duly signed and thumb marked by the
chairman and all the members of the board of election
inspectors.
Refusal of the chairman and the members of the board of

election inspectors to sign and furnish such certificate shall
constitute an election offense and shall be penalized under this
Code.
OTHER WATCHERS
The duly accredited citizens arm of the Commission shall be
entitled to appoint a watcher in every polling place. Other civic,
religious, professional, business, service, youth and any other
similar organizations, with prior authority of the Commission,
shall be entitled collectively to appoint one watcher in every
polling place.
ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES
COMMON QUALIFICATIONS:
Qualifications26.
(a) Citizen of the Philippines; a
(b) Registered voter in the Barangay, municipality, city, or
province or, in the case of a member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sanggunian
bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a
(c) Resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; and able to read and
write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
Governor, vice-governor or member of Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, or Mayor, vice-mayor or member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities: at least 23
years old on election day.
Mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities,
component cities, municipalities: at least 21 years old on
election day.
Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang bayan,
Punong Barangay or member of the Sangguniang Barangay: at
least 18 years old on election day.
SK: 15-21 years old on election day.
Common to qualifications for registration as a voter and

for vying for an elective office is the matter of residence.
SC TREATS
DOMICILE
Qualifications for President and Vice-President24

1.
Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter,
3. Able to read and write,
4. At least forty years of age on the day of election, and
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.
RESIDENCE
AS
SYNONYMOUS
WITH
Coquilla v. COMELEC case, 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 a 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 domicle 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 new
domicile (of choice).
Facts: In this case, petitioner Coquilla was born of Filipino
parents in Samar, where he grew up until he joined the US Navy
subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He visited the
Philippines thrice while on leave from the US navy but
remained in the US even after his retirement. In 1998, he came
to the Philippines and secured a residence certificate although
he continued making several trips to the US.
Qualifications for the Batasang Pambansa251.

natural-born citizen of the Philippines and,
2. on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years
of age,
3. able to read and write,
4. a registered voter in the constituency in which he
shall be elected, and
5. a resident thereof for a period of not less than six
months immediately preceding the day of the
election.
He applied for repatriation. His application was approved and

took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines on November 10,
2000.
On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter of
Samar which was approved on January 12, 2001. On February
27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy stating therein that
he had been a resident of Samar for two (2) years. A petition for
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy was filed by Alvarez
on the ground of material misrepresentation by stating in his
certificate that he had been a resident for 2 years when in fact
he had resided therein for only about 6 months since November
10, 2000, when he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.
The issues raised were as follows:
Sectoral Representative
1. natural-born citizen,
2. able to read and write,
3. resident of the Philippines for a period of not less
than one year immediately preceding the day of the
election, a
4. bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent,
and in the case of a representative of the agricultural
or industrial labor sector, shall be
5. a registered voter, and
6. on the day of the election is at least twenty-five
years of age.
a) Is Coquilla a resident of Oras for at least one (1)

year before the elections held on May 14, 2001?
HELD: The SC ruled that petitioner lost his domicile of origin
by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the US navy. From
then on and until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired
Philippine citizenship, he was an alien without any right to
reside in the Philippines save as our immigration laws may have
allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.
Youth Sectoral Representative

1.
at least be eighteen and not be more than twenty-five
years of age on the day of the election:
2. any youth sectoral representative who attains the age
of twenty-five years during his term shall be entitled
to continue in office until the expiration of his term.
Further Coquillas contention that he re-established residence

in this country when 1998 when he came back to prepare for the
mayoralty elections by securing a residence certificate was held
to be without merit because his entry in said dates was as a
visa-free balikbayan whose stay as such was valid for
one year only. Hence, the same cannot constitute as a waiver
of his status as an alien and as a non-resident the same having
been acquired only on November 10, 2000
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.
Residency Requirement
Pres. & VP: 10 years immediately preceding the elections
Senators: 2 years
Members of the HR: 1 year.
b) Coquilla likewise contend that he was compelled to adopt

American citizenship only by reason of his service in the US
armed forces.
Term of Office
Pres. & VP: 6 years (however no person who has
succeeded as Pres. and has served as such for more than 4
HELD: Coquilla was repatriated not under RA 2630

(which applies to the repatriation of those who lost
their Philippine citizenship by accepting commission
in the armed forces of the US but under RA 8171 )
23
Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245; Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1

Section 63
25
Section 64
years shall be qualified for election to same office at any time.

Pres. is not eligible for re-election. VP 2 successive terms.
Senators 6 years and two successive terms only.
Members of HR 3 years and for 3 consecutive terms only.
Local Elective Officials
Qualifications prescribed by law are continuing requirements

and must be possessed for the duration of the officer's active
tenure. Once any of the required qualifications are lost, his
title to the office may be seasonably challenged. 23
26
24
26
SECTION 39. of Local Govt Code

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC 248 SCRA 301

(1995), it is the fact of residence, not a statement
in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be
decisive in determining WoN 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, where the

qualifications of Aguinaldo, former governor of Cagayan,
was at issue when he filed his certificate of candidacy as
member of the House of Representative in the May 11,
1998 elections, the Court, reiterating its ruling in Aquino
v. COMELEC, explained the meaning of residence as the
place where a 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 purposes of
election law. And, the fact that a person is a
registered voter in one district is not proof that he
is not domiciled in another district.
While still the governor, Emano executed on June 14,

1997 a voter registration record in Cagayan de Oro
(geographically located in the Province of
Misamis Oriental, a highly urbanized city, in
which he claimed 20 years of residence. He
subsequently filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of
the city stating therein that his residence for the preceding
two years and five months was at Cagayan de Oro City.
Emanos opponent, filed a petition for disqualification of
Emano on that ground that he had allegedly failed to meet
the 1 year residence requirement. But prior to the
resolution of the disqualification case, Emano was
proclaimed winner with Damasing trailing second. So,
Torayno et. al filed another Petition before the COMELEC,
this time for QW, where they sought
(1) the annulment of the election of Emano and
(2) proclamation of Damasing who garnered the next
highest number of votes. The COMELEC denied
the Petition, the two cases where consolidated
(QW and Disqualification).
Issue: WoN Emanos disqualified to run as mayor of CDO?
Held: Respondent is an actual resident of Cagayan de Oro
for such a period of time necessary to qualify him to run
for mayor based on the following:
(1) He had actually resided in a house he bought in 1973
in Cagayan de Oro City
(2) Had actually held office there during his three terms
as provincial governor of Misamis Oriental, as the
provincial capitol was located in Cagayan de Oro
(3) And has registered as voter in the city during the
period required by law.
Court gave the reason why the law requires a minimum
period of residence for candidates who seek to be elected
is to prevent the possibility of a stranger or newcomer
unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a
community and not identified with the latter from seeking
an elective office to serve that community. It is also
rooted in the desire that officials of district or localities be
acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their
constituents but, more important, with the constituents
themselves
Emano in this regard cannot be
deemed a stranger or newcomer when he ran for
and was overwhelmingly voted as city mayor
having garnered a margin of 30,000 votes.
(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, sub-paragraph 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 an 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 elections laws."
Torayno Sr., V. COMELEC 337 SCRA 574, the purpose

of the residence 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
and on the party of the electorate, to evaluate the
candidates qualifications and fitness for the job they
aspire for.
In this case the residence qualification of Emano who filed
his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro
was at issue. Emano was elected provincial governor of
Misamis Oriental for his third term in 1995. In filing his
certificate of candidacy for governor, he declared his
residence in his certificate of candidacy to be in Misamis
Oriental.
Nolasco vs COMELEC 275 SCRA 762

Disqualified for vote-buying.
"Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in
an action or protest in which he is a party is declared
by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or
found by the Commission of having:
27
Trinidad vs COMELEC 315 SCRA a75

With the complaint for disqualification of private respondent
rendered moot and academic by the expiration of petitioners
term of office therein contested, COMELEC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in proceeding to disqualify petitioner from
his reelected term of office in its second questioned Resolution
on the ground that it comes as a matter of course after his
disqualification in SPA No. 95-213 promulgated after the 1998
election. While it is true that the first questioned Resolution
was issued eight (8) days before the term of petitioner as Mayor
expired, said Resolution had not yet attained finality and could
not effectively be held to have removed petitioner from his
office. Indeed, removal cannot extend beyond the term during
which the alleged misconduct was committed. If a public
official is not removed before his term of office expires, he can
no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another
term.
CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY
Candidate Any person aspiring for or seeking an elective

public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself
or through an accredited political party, aggroupment, or
coalition of parties. (Sec. 79, BP 881)
Guest Candidacy A political party may nominate and/or

support candidates not belonging to it. (Sec. 70, BP 881) Note
however that this is not applicable in cases of political parties
registered under the party-list system, as nominees must
necessarily be bona fide members of the party.
FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

To be eligible for any elective public office, one must file a
certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by the Omnibus
Election Code.
Mode of Filing: Certificates must be filed by the candidate
personally or by his duly authorized representative. No certificate
shall be filed by mail, telegram or facsimile. (Sec. 7, R.A. 7166)
Time of Filing: Certificates of candidacy must be filed in 12
legible copies not later than 120 days before the elections.
(Sec. 11, R.A. 8436)
Place of Filing
The certificates of candidacy shall be filed in the following places:
President
VicePresident
Senator
Congressman
Provincial
Offices
City
Municipal
Offices
COMELEC main office (Manila)
Provincial election supervisor

If NCR district: File with Regional
Election Director
If legislative district in cities outside
NCR which comprise one or more
legislative districts: File with City
election registrar concerned
Provincial election supervisor
City or municipal election registrar
CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

The certificate of candidacy shall state the following:
a.
b.
c.
That the person filing the certificate is announcing his

candidacy for the office stated therein and that he or
she is eligible for such office;
The political party to which the candidate belongs;
Civil status;

d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Date of birth;
Residence;
Post office address for all election purposes;
Profession or occupation;
That he / she will support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines and will
maintain faith and allegiance thereto;
That he / she will obey the laws, legal orders,
and decrees promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities;
That he / she is not a permanent resident or
immigrant to a foreign country;
That the obligation imposed by oath is assumed
voluntarily, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion;
That the facts stated in the certificate of
candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.
EFFECTS
OF
CANDIDACY
FILING
OF
CERTIFICATE
A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable requisite in

case of substitution of a disqualified candidate under SEC. 77. A
candidate who dies, withdraws or is disqualified must be an
official candidate of 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.
QUESTION: 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? YES!
Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 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 appointive office, including

members of the AFP and officers and employees of GOCCs,
shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of
one's certificate of candidacy. (Sec. 66, BP 881) Only the
moment and act of filing are considered. Once the
certificate is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing, save
a new election or appointment, can restore the ousted official. 28
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. 6.6, R.A. 9006)
OF
Sec. 66 of the OEC provides that 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 (applicable also to
GOCC and can constitute as just cause for termination of
employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor
Code27).
Sec. 67 has already been amended R.A. 8436 and RA 9006
which provides that a candidate holding an elective
position whether national or local running for office other
than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except
for Pres. and VP, is considered resigned only upon
the start of the campaign period corresponding to
the position for which he/she is running.
Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. 202 SCRA 779, October 15,
1991, Dimaporo was elected representative for the 2nd
district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 elections. On
January 15, 1990, he filed with the COMELEC a Certificate
of Candidacy for Regional Governor of the ARMM. The
election was scheduled for 17 February 1990. Having lost
in the ARMM elections, he expressed his intention to
resume performing his duties and functions as elected
member of congress.
WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may withdraw

the same prior to the election by submitting to the office
concerned a written declaration under oath.
If a candidate files a certificate of candidacy for more than 1
office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, he
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 provided that this is done before the expiration
of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy. (Sec. 73,
BP 881)
The filing of the withdrawal shall not affect whatever civil,
criminal, or administrative liabilities which a candidate may
have incurred. (Sec. 73, BP 881)
Having failed in his bid, he points out that the term of

office of members of the HR, as well as the grounds by
which the incumbency of said members may be shortened,
are provided for in the Constitution, which grounds are as
follows:
1)
RAMIREZ V. COMELEC:
Since the certificate of
candidacy for the position of board member was filed by his
party and the said party had withdrawn that nomination, there
was substantial compliance with Sec. 73 of the Omnibus
Election Code. His filing under oath within the statutory period
of his individual candidacy for mayor was a rejection of the
party nomination of the other officer.
Go vs COMELEC 357 SCRA 739
Section 13 Art. VI: Forfeiture of his seat by

holding any other office or employment in the
government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including go or gocc or
subsidiaries;
2)
Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a disciplinary
action for disorderly behaviour
3)
Section 17: Disqualification as determined by
resolution of the Electroal Tribunal in an
election contest
4)
Section 7, oar. 2: Voluntary Renunciation of
office.
He asserts that under the rule expressio unius est exlusio
HELD:
The fact that the ground cited in Sec. 67, Article I.X of
OEC is not mentioned in the constitution itself as a mode
of shortening the tenure of office of members of congress
does not preclude its application to present members of
congress. Section 2 w/c provides xx all other officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by
law. Thus, the grounds are not exclusive. The act
contemplated in section 67 of BP 881 of filing of a C0C for
another office constitutes an overt and concrete act of
voluntary resignation of the elective presently held.
A candidate is required to file a certificate of candidacy in
order to make him eligible to run for public office and it is
in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world
of the candidates political creed or lack of political creed.
Go filed a certificate of candidancy for mayorship for

Baybay, Leyte. Later, she also filed a certificate of
candidancy for governorship of Leyte. She filed a
withdrawal of her candidacy for mayorship at 12:28 a.m.
March 01, 2001.
Two opponents filed for her disqualification. The petitions were
based on the ground that petitioner filed certificates of candidacy for
two positions, namely, that for mayor of Baybay, Leyte, and that for
governor of Leyte, thus, making her ineligible for both.
Ruling: She is not disqualified for both office. Her submission of her
withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy was a substantial
compliance with the law.
Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the
Omnibus Election Code, provides that:
"SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy.- No person shall be eligible for any
elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy
within the period fixed herein.
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy, may,

prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to
the office concerned a written declaration under oath.
"A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may,

prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to
the office concerned a written declaration under oath.
In the event an official candidate of a political party dies,

withdraws or is disqualified after the last day for filing a
certificate of candidacy, the political party may substitute
another candidate. This is a privilege granted to a political
party.
"No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be

filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
27
28
Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC May 31, 1993
28
Note: Sec. 67 of BP 881 and the first proviso of Sec. 11 of R.A. 8436
(which states that "Any elective official, running for any officer other than one
which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and VicePresident, shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the start of the
campaign period") have been repealed by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 (Fair
Election Act of 2001).

candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be

eligible for any of them. However, before the
expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of
candidacy, the person who 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."
2.
3.
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, HAVING SPEND THE
ELECTION
CAMPAIGN
MORE
THAN
REQUIRED BY LAW P10.00/RV/P5.0030
3)
Sec. 69, a petition to abate a NUISANCE

CANDIDATE 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 Sec. 76
Dimaporo vs Mitra Jr. 202 SCRA 779
Dimaporo was duly elected congressman of ARMM.

During the governatorial race, he filed a certificate of
candidacy. Upon his filing of his candidacy, his name
in the roll of congressmen was blotted. He did not win
in the governatorial race. He wants to be back in office
as congressman.
A NUISANCE Candidate is
Ruling: He lost his position ipso facto when he filed his

certificate of candidacy for governor.
1.
2.
Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 reads: "Any elective

official whether national or local running for any office other
than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity
except for President and Vice-President shall be considered
ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy."
Rationale of the law: this statutory provision seeks to ensure
that such officials serve out their entire term of office by
discouraging them from running for another public office and
thereby cutting short their tenure by making it clear that should
they fail in their candidacy, they cannot go back to their former
position. This is consonant with the constitutional edict that all
public officials must serve the people with utmost loyalty and
not trifle with the mandate which they have received from their
constituents.
3.
4)
BEFORE ELECTIONS
Under the OEC
30
Sec. 12
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
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or
hide a fact which would otherwise render a
candidate ineligible. It must be made with an
intention to deceive the electorate as to ones
qualifications for public office. The use of a surname,
when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as
to ones identity is not within the scope of the
provision.
Cases:
DISQUALIFICATION IS REMOVED:
1.
Plenary pardon or granted amnesty; or
29
Jarilla v. COMELEC 232 SCRA 758, a

disqualification case was filed against a candidate on
the grounds that he is not a RV.
COMELEC
dismissed the case on the ground that it was filed out
of time for the filing of petition to abate a nuisance
candidate. The SC ruled that the dismissal is
not applicable where the grounds referred to
is the ineligibility of a candidate which may be
filed anytime in a petition for QW.
A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any
person on the ground that the candidate made
MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN HIS
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY. 31 Section 5 of
RA 6646 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of
procedure provide that the petition shall be filed
within 5 days from the last day for the filing of a
certificate of candidacy.
DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE
HAS BEEN DECLARED BY COMPETENT

AUTHORITY
INSANE
OR
INCOMPETENT
Incompetence- the same may also refer not only
to mental illness, disease or physical disability
but also other causes which may include:
a. minority or
b. lack of residence requirement;
c.
any person who has been sentenced by
final judgment for subversion,
insurrection rebellion; or for any
offense for which carries a penalty of
more than 18 months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold
any office. 29
one who files his certificate to put the election

process in mockery or disrepute;
or to cause confusion among the candidates
by the similarity of names (because in the
appreciation of ballots, where there are two
candidates with the same name or surname
and only the name or surname is written, it
will be considered a stray vote and will not be
counted for either of the candidate unless of
course one of the candidate with the same
name or surname is an incumbent because
of the equity of the incumbent rule) or
By other circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona
fide intention to run for office, thus would
prevent the faithful determination of the true
will of the people.
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
1)
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.
2)
There is nothing in this Section which 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 director 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.
29
31
Salcedo II v. COMELEC 312 SCRA 447, a candidate who

used her husbands name even though their marriage was void
was not guilty of misrepresentation concerning a material fact.
Sec. 68
Sec. 78 of the OEC

Coquilla vs COMELEC, Section 5 & & of RA 6646

provide
that
proceedings
for
denial
or
cancellation of a certificate of candidacy is
summary in nature. Thus, the holding of a formal
hearing is not mandatory. Coquilla however cannot claim
denial of the right because records show that he filed a
verified answer. A Memorandum and a Manifestation
before the COMELEC in which he submitted documents
relied by him in his petition.
4)
Abella v. COMELEC 210 SCRA 253, a candidates

statement in her certificate of candidacy for the position of
governor of Leyte that she was a resident of Kananga,
Leyte when this was not so or that the candidate was a
natural-born Filipino when in fact he had become an
Australian citizen in Labo vs. COMELEC 211 SCRA 297,
constitutes a ground for the cancellation of a
GROUND
FIOR
DQ
UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE (SEC. 40)
THE
LOCAL
5)
(Qualifications of local elective candidates under the LGC was

asked in the 1999 Bar)
1)
Rodolfo E. Aquinaldo vs COMELEC 212 SCRA 768,

a public 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.
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.
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY

OR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO
RESIDE ABROAD AND CONTINUE TO AVAIL OF THE
SAME RIGHTS AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 7160.
a candidate for an elective office may likewise be

disqualified on the ground that the candidate has
been sentenced for a crime involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1
year or more imprisonment, within 2 years from
serving sentence. 32
NOTE: that the 1st ground for disqualification consists of

two (2) parts, namely:
a. 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.
MORAL TURPITUDE anything done

contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals. In general, ALL crimes of which
fraud or deceit is an element or those which are
inherently contrary to rules of right conduct,
honesty or morality in a civilized community,
involve moral turpitude. They include such
offenses as estafa, falsification of public
document, smuggling, bribery, murder, bigamy,
abduction, seduction, concubinage and violation
of BP 22.
THOSE CONVICTED BY FINAL JUDGMENT FOR

VIOLATING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE
REPUBLIC.
3)
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL AND

NON-POLITICAL CASES
Marquez jr. v. COMELEC and Rodriguez

259 SCRA FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
refers to a person who has been convicted by
final judgment. The SC said 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 the
service of his country, the fact that he does not
subject himself to the jurisdiction of the former
state does not outrightly qualify him as a
fugitive from justice. In fact, when Rodriguez
left the US, there was no complaint and arrest
warrant yet and there would be no basis in
saying that he is running away from any
prosecution or punishment.
Caasi v. CA 191 SCRA 229 (1990). A disqualification

case was filed against Merito Miguel under Sec. 68 of the
OEC by rival candidate Caasi for the position of Municipal
Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan on the ground that Miguel
was a green card holder, therefore, a permanent resident of
the U.S. and not Bolinao. While Miguel admitted having
possessed a green card he however denied that he is a
resident of the US as his obtaining a green card is merely
for convenience in order that he may freely enter the US
for his periodic medical examination and to visit his
children. The COMELEC dismissed the disqualification
case holding that the possession of a green card did not
sufficiently establish Miguels abandonment of his resident
in the Philippines. The SC on review however, reversed the
decision of the COMELEC stating that to be qualified
to run for elective office in the Phils., the law
requires that the candidate who is a green card
holder must have waived his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
country. His act of filing a certificate of candidacy for
elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute
a waiver of his status as permanent resident or immigrant
of the US.
6)
INSANE OR FEEBLE MINDED
7)
THOSE WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP (ALLEGIANCE)
The SC has ruled in various ways the issue as to whether a

candidate for electoral position is a Filipino citizen, in
cases of doubt, on the issue of citizenship. The rulings of
the SC however is not consistent on the matter as will
be noted in several cases.
AZNAR V. COMELEC 185 SCRA 703: the qualification of

Emilio Lito Osmea to be elected governor of Cebu was
raised. Aznar filed a disqualification case against him on the
ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen but a citizen of
the US being a holder of an alien Certificate of Registration.
Osmea maintained that he is a Filipino citizen being the
legitimate child of a Filipino; a holder of a valid and subsisting
Philippine passport; continuously residing in the Phils. Since
his birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six
months and a RV in the Philippines since 1965. Court 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.
Labo Jr. V. COMELEC 176 SCRA 1 (1989), a

disqualification case was filed against Labor Jr. was elected
Mayor of Baguio City by Luis Lardizabal on the ground that he
was not a citizen of the Philippines having been naturalized as
an Australian citizen, which he did not contest and for having
categorically declared in a number of sworn statements that he
was an Australian citizen. Based on these evidences Labo Jr.
was alleged to be ineligible for the elective position. While
Labo Jr. asserts that his naturalization in Australia
was annulled after it was found that his marriage to
the Australian was bigamous, this circumstance alone
did not automatically restore his Philippine
cirizenship.
MERCADO V. MANZANO G.R. NO. 135083 MAY 25,

1999: The case was a case of the application of the jus soli and
jus sanguinis on the same person. Manzano was born in
California, acquired US citizenship by operation of the US
Constitution under the principle of jus soli. He was also a
natural born Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935
Constitution, as his father and mother were Filipino at the time
of his birth. At the age of 6, his parent brought him to the
Philippines using an American passport as travel document.
His parents registered him as an alien with the Philippine
bureau of Immigration, was issued an ACR.
As discussed earlier, Sec. 40 of RA 7160

limits the disqualification to 2 years* after
service of sentence. But this should now be read
in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 8189 which
enumerates those who are disqualified to
register as a voter.
*Thus, 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.
2)
32
THOSE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS A RESULT OF

AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE
THOSE SENTENCED BY FINAL JUDGMENT FOR

AN OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
OR FOR AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY ONE
YEAR OR MORE IMPRISONMENT, WITHIN 2
YEARS* AFTER SERVING SENTENCE.
30
Sec. 12 of the OEC & Section 40 of RA 7160
31
Held: The circumstances did not result in the loss of his

Philippine citizenship, as he did not renounce it and did
not take an oath of allegiance to the US and 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 filed a certificate of
candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Makati, these were just
assertions of his nationality before the
termination of his American citizenship.
In ruling that Manzano is a Filipino citizen, the court

distinguished
dual
citizenship
with
dual
allegiance :
Republic v. dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785, the disqualification

of Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo opted to reacquire
his Phili. Citizenship thru naturalization but however
failed to comply with the jurisdiction requirement of
publication, thus, the court never acquired jurisdiction to hear
the naturalization of Frivaldo. He was again, disqualified.
Frivaldo later reacquired Philippine citizenship. In a

1996 decision, Frivaldo v. COMELEC 257 SCRA 721
(1996), he 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 alien citizenship. He
claimed to have reassumed his lost Phil. Citizenship thru
repatriation. It was established that he took his oath of
allegiance under the provision of PD 725 at 2 pm on June 30,
1995, much later than the time he filed his certificate of
candidacy. 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 August 17,
1994 and being a former Filipino who has served the
people repeatedly and at the age of 81, Frivaldo
deserves a liberal interpretation of the Philippine laws
and whatever defects there were in his nationality
should
now
be
deemed
mooted
by
his
repatriation.(Finally!)
Dual Citizenship
Arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more
states,
a
person
is
simultaneously considered a
national by the said states,
such as a situation when a
person whose parents are
citizens of a state which
adheres to the principle of jus
sanguinis is born in a state
which follows the doctrine of
jus soli. Such person ipso
facto, and without any
voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a
citizen of both states.
mistakenly believed, as in this case, that he candidate was

qualified.
Dual Allegiance
(ENTAILS A VOLUNTARY
ACT ie. Taking an oath of
allegiance to another State)
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.)
CIRILO VALLES V. COMELEC & LOPEZ G.R.

#138000 AUGUST 9, 2000: The mere fact that
Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and
had an ACR are not acts 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).
An ACR does not amount to an express
renunciation or repudiation of ones citizenship 33.
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.
8) THREE-TERM LIMIT
Another ground which can serve as legal ground for disqualifying a
candidate is the 3 TERM LIMIT OR HAVING SERVED 3
CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
The phrase dual citizenship under RA Sec. 40(d)

of RA 7160 and Sec. 20 of RA 7854 must be
understood as referring to dual allegiance. In
including sec. 5 Article IV on citizenship, the concern of
the Constitutional Commission was not dual citizens per
se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization.
Hence, persons with mere dual
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be
subject to strict process with respect to the termination of
their status, the filing of the certificate of candidacies for
candidates with dual citizenship is sufficient election of
Philippine citizenship as to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship considering that their
condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting
laws of different states.
33
Adormeo v. COMELEC & Talaga, Jr., G.R. No. 147927

February 4, 2002 and citing Borja v. COMELEC 295
SCRA 157 and Lonzanida V. COMELEC 311 SCRA
602: 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.
Frivaldo v. COMELEC 174 SCRA 245 (1989).

Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of Sorsogon and
subsequently assumed office. A disqualification was filed
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
AZNAR V. COMELEC 185 SCRA 703
No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same position. VOLUNTARY
RENUNCIATION of the 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 elected34.
Thus, two (2) conditions

disqualification must concur:
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 declares
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.
for
the
application
of
the
That the official concerned has been elected for

three consecutive terms in the same local government
post; and
That he has fully served three consecutive terms.
Adormeo v. COMELEC, Talaga Jr., was elected mayor in
May 1992, he served the full term, was re-elected in 19951998 but lost in the 1998 elections to Tagarao. In the recall
elections of May 2000, Talaga Jr. won and served the
unexpired term of Tagarao until June 30, 2001.
Talaga Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy for the same
position in the 2001 elections which candidacy was
challenged 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 years and no such official shall
serve for more than three consecutive term. To further
bolster 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.
ISSUE: Was Talaga disqualified to run for mayor of
Lucena City in the May 14, 2001 elections.
HELD: Qualified! 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 his 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 members of the House of
34
Section 43 (b) of RA 7160, Local Government Code

Representatives, there being no recall election

provided for members of Congress, unlike local
government officials.
during the pendency order the suspension of the

proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence
of quilt is strong.
LONZANIDA V. COMELEC July 28, 1998,

Facts: Lonzanida served two consecutive terms as
municipal mayor Zambales prior to the May 8,
1995 elections.
In the May `1995 elections,
Lonzanida ran for Mayor and was again proclaimed
winner. He assumed office and discharged the duties
thereof. Alvez filed an election protest which in a
decision dated January 9, 1997 declared a failure of
elections rendering the results for the office of the
mayor of San Antonio as null and void. The office of
the mayor of said municipality was declared
vacant. the COMELEC on Nov. 13, 1997, resolved the
election protest filed by Alvez in his favor after
determining that Alvez got the plurality of votes. The
COMELEC issued a writ of execution ordering
Lonzanida to vacate the post, which he obeyed and
Alvez assumed office for the remainder of the term.
Perez v. COMELEC & Aguinaldo, supra, the

disqualification case against Aguinaldo was decided on May 10,
1998 the day before the May 11, 1998 elections and was
proclaimed on May 16, 1998 and assumed office on May 17,
1998. Perez filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 1998
which the COMELEC denied in a decision dated June 11, 1998.
The SC ruled that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to
entertain the MR because the proclamation of
Aguinaldo already barred the action. The fact that
Aguinaldo was already proclaimed, it is already the
HRET who has jurisdiction over the same having
exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for
declaration of Aguinaldos ineligibility.
Bagatsing v. COMELEC 320 SCRA 220, a disqualification

case was filed by candidates Bagatsing, Maceda and Lopez
against Atienza 7 days after the elections for allegedly
disbursing public funds within the 45 day prohibitory period,
which amount was alleged to be distributed as financial
assistance to the public school teachers of Manila who manned
the precinct polls for the said elections. Atienza was proclaimed
Mayor of the City of Manila. COMELEC First Division
dismissed the disqualification case and denied the motion to
suspend proclamation pending their MR with the COMELEC en
banc, petitioners filed a petition with the
Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for

Mayor in the 1998 elections and his opponent timely
filed a petition to disqualify him for running for mayor
on the ground that he had served 3 consecutive terms in
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-year limit for elective
local government officials.
Issue: WoN the COMELEC first Division committed grave

abuse of discretion in dismissing the disqualification case
against Atienza and referring the same to its law department for
PI.
HELD: Qualified! The two requisites for the

application of the 3-term limit are wanting.
Held: A complaint for disqualification filed BEFORE the

election must be inquired into by the COMELEC for the purpose
of determining whether the acts complained of have in fact been
committed. When the inquiry results in a finding before the
election, the COMELEC shall order the candidates
disqualification. In the case the complaint was not
resolved before the election, the COMELEC motu
propio or on motion of any of the parties, refer the said
complaint to the Law Department of the COMELEC for
PI. COMELEC was held not to have abused its discretion in
not ordering the suspension of the proclamation conformably
with its COMELEC Reso 2070 which provides that where a
complaint is filed after the elections but before proclamation, as
in this case, the complaint must be dismissed as a
disqualification case but shall be referred to the law department
for PI.
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 (Sec. 43 of RA 7169 &
Sec. 8 of Art. X of the Constitution, requires the
renunciation to be voluntary to be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term
for which the election official concerned was elected.)
Take note that he was not duly elected in the 1995
elections as his proclamation as winner was declared
null and void.
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.
In the event the law department makes a prima facie finding of

guilt and the corresponding information has been filed with the
appropriate trial court, the complainant may file a petition for
suspension of the proclamation of respondent with the court
before which the criminal case is pending and that court may
order the suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt
is strong. Since these circumstances are not present in this
case, not legal ground warrants the suspension of the
proclamation.
Had the COMELEC lost jurisdiction? Yes. 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.
Borja v. COMELEC September 3, 1998: Issue:

whether a Vice-Mayor who succeeds to the office of
mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder of
the term is considered to served a term in that office for
the purpose of the 3-term limit.
Sec. 8 of Art X of the Constitution contemplates service
by local officials for 3 consecutive terms as a result of
election. The first sentence speaks of the term of office
of elective local officials and bars such official(s) from
serving for more than 3 consecutive terms. The term
served must therefore be one for which the
official concerned was elected. 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 because he is 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 its expiration. (Asked in the 2001Bar)
EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES
35
32
Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to

be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes
cast for him shall not be counted. 35
not declared by final judgment: but is voted for and
received the winning number of votes in such election, the
COMELEC shall continue with the trial and, upon
motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may
Sec. 72 of the OEC and Sec. 6 of RA 6646
CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA

ELECTION PERIOD
90 days before the date of the election and 30 days

thereafter.
CAMPAIGN PERIOD (excludes the day before and the day of the
elections)
PRES., VP AND SENATORS starts 90 days before

the date of election which coincides with the start of the
election period.
Members of the HR and local officials 45 days
Brgy. Officials 15 days

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT
FOR PRINTED AND BROADCAST MEDIA
Allowed (RA 9006) provided the said advertisement shall bear
and be identified by reasonably legible or audible words
Political advertisement paid for, follows by the true and
correct name and address of the candidate or party for whose
benefit the election propaganda was printed or aired.
If the broadcast is given free of charge by the radio or television

station, it shall be identified by the words airtime for this
broadcast was provided free of charge by followed by
33
the true and correct name and address of the broadcast

entity.
Provided, that said print, broadcast donated shall

not be published or printed without the written
acceptance of the candidate or political party
which acceptance shall be attached to the
advertising contract and submitted to the
COMELEC.
GUIDELINES of POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

WHETHER BY PURCHASE OR DONATION
1.
Shall not exceed page in broadsheet and

page in tabloids 3 x a week per newspaper,
magazine or other publications during the campaign
period.
Political parties and party-list groups may be authorized by the

COMELEC COMMON POSTER AREAS FOR THEIR
CANDIDATE IN NOR MORE THAN 10 PUBLIC PLACES
such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like, wherein
candidates can post, display or exhibit election propaganda.
Size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 X 16 feet or
its equivalent. With respect to independent candidates, may
likewise avail of this but the difference is merely on the size
which shall not exceed 4 x 6 feet or its equivalent.
Francisco Chavez v. COMELEC G.R. No. 162777, 31

August 2004) (read attached)
COMELEC TIME AND SPACE

PRINT SPACE: COMELEC shall pay just
compensation (PPI ruling) in at least 3
NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION which
COMELEC shall allocated free of charge to the
national candidates. Broadcast network (radio and
TV), free of charge to COMELEC.
LIMITATIONS IN BROADCASTING OF ELECTION

ACCOUNTS
COMELEC shall ensure that radio and television or
cable television broadcasting entitles shall not allow
the scheduling of any program or permit any sponsor
to manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or
political party or unduly or repeatedly referring to or
including said candidate and/or political party in
such program respecting, however, in all instances
the right of said broadcast entities to air accounts of
significant news or new worth events and views on
matters of public interest.
RESTRICTIONS ON MEDIA PRACTITIONERS

Any mass media columnist, commentator, reported
or non-air correspondent or personality who is a
candidate for any elective office or is a campaign
volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity
by any candidate or political party SHALL BE
DEEMED RESIGNED, if so required by their
employer, or SHALL TAKE A LEAVE OF
ABSENCE FORM HIS/HER WORK AS SUCH
DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD. Any media
practitioner who is an official of a political party or
member of the campaign staff of a candidate or
political party shall not use his/her time or space to
favor any candidate or political party.
No movie, cinematography or documentary

portraying the life or biography of a candidate shall
be publicly exhibited in a theater, television stations
or any public forum DURING THE CAMPAIGN
PERIOD or those portrayed by an actor or media
personality who is himself a candidate.
Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be

published 15 DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION and surveys
affecting local candidates shall not be published 7 DAYS
BEFORE AN ELECTION.
National Candidates/ Registered Political Party

Not more than 120 minutes of TV advertisement and
180 minutes of radio.
The survey together with the raw data gathered to support the
conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying
and verification by the COMELEC, or by the registered
political party or any COMELEC accredited citizens
arm.
POSTING OF CAMPAIGN MATERIALS
TELEVISION/RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS
Local Elective Offices

not more than 60 minutes of TV advertisement and
90 minutes of radio.
CANVASSING BODIES
The CANVASS OF VOTES refers to the process by which the

results in the election returns are tallied and totalled.
CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS are official tabulations of

votes accomplished by district, municipal, city and provincial
canvassers based on the election returns, which are the results
of the ballot count at the precinct level.
Canvass proceedings are administrative and summary in
nature.
Position
Pres. & Vice Pres.
(Sec. 4, Art. VII, Sec. 30
RA 7166)
Senators and Regional
Officials ( Sec. 2 EO 144
March 2, 1987)
Members of the HR and

Provincial officials (RA
7166)
Members of HR and
Municipal Officials
Member of the HR, city

and municipal officials,
Election Surveys refers to the measurements of

opinions and perceptions of the voters as regards a
candidates popularity, qualifications, platforms or matter
of public discussion in relation to the election, including
voters preference or candidates or publicly discussed
issued during the campaign period. The person or entity
who publishes a survey is required to include the following
information:
1.
2.
3.
Name of the person, candidate, party or

organization who COMMISSIONED OR PAID
FOR THE SURVEY.
Name and address of the person or polling
firm who conducted the survey.
PERIOD during which the survey was conducted,
methodology used, including the number of
individual respondents and the areas form which
they were selected, and the specific questions
asked.
Canvassing Body
Congress
COMELEC
Provincial Board of
Canvassers composed of
the PES, Prosecutor and
provincial official of the
DECS.
District BOC in each
legislative district in Metro
Manila
City and Municipal
BOC composed of city or
municipal election officer,
city pros. And DECS
Superintendent.
Composition of the Board of Canvassers (Sec. 221, BP 881, as

amended by Sec. 20, RA 6646)
PROVINCI
ELECTION SURVEYS
Margin of error of the survey
LIMITATIONS
PRINT ADVERTISEMENTS
2.
4.
Chair
man
Vice
Chair
man
Provincial
election
supervisor or
lawyer in the
regional
office of the
COMELEC
Provincial
fiscal
CITY
MUNICIPA
City election
registrar or a
lawyer of
COMELEC;
In cities with more
than 1 election
registrar,
COMELEC shall
designate the
election registrar
who shall act as
chairman
City fiscal
Election
registrar or a
representativ
e of
COMELEC
Municipal
treasurer
Most senior
district
school
supervisor or
Provincial
City
in his
Memb
superintende superintendent of
absence a
er
nt of schools
schools
principal of
the school
district or the
elementary
school

However, in case
of non-availability,
absence,
disqualification due to relationship, or incapacity for any cause
of any of the members of the Board of Canvassers, the
COMELEC may appoint the following as substitutes, in the
order named:
PROVINCIA
Chairma
n
CITY
MUNICIPAL
Ranking
lawyer of the
COMELEC
Ranking lawyer
of the COMELEC
Ranking
lawyer of the
COMELEC
(1) Provincial
auditor
(1) City auditor

or
equivalent;
(1) Municipal
Administ
rator;
(2) Registrar of
Deeds;
(2) Municipal
Assessor;
(3) Clerk of
Court
nominated
by the
Executive
Judge of
the RTC;
(3) Clerk of
Court
nominate
d by the
Executive
Judge of
the MTC;
(4) Any other

available
appointive
city official
(4) Any other

available
appointiv
e
municipa
l official
(2) Registrar
of Deeds
Vice
Chairma
n
(3) Clerk of
Court
nominate
d by the
Executive
Judge of
the RTC;
(4) Any other
available
appointiv
e
provincia
l official
Member
Same as for
ViceChairman
Same as for ViceChairman
Same as for
ViceChairman
PROHIBITIONS ON THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS
The chairman and the members of the Board of Canvassers

shall not be related within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to any of the candidates whose
votes will be canvassed by said board, or to any member of
the said board. (Sec. 222, B.P. 881)
No member or substitute member of the different boards of

canvassers shall be transferred, assigned or detailed
outside of his official station, nor shall he leave said
station without prior authority of the COMELEC during
the period beginning election day until the proclamation
of the winning candidates. (Sec. 223, B.P. 881)
No member of the board of canvassers shall feign illness in

order to be substituted on election day until the
proclamation of the winning candidates. Feigning of
illness constitutes an election offense. (Sec. 224, B.P. 881)
JURISDICTION OF COMELEC OVER THE BOARD OF

CANVASSERS
COMELEC has the power to investigate and act on the

propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns
made by the board of canvassers.
obviously manufactured;
contrary to probabilities;
clearly falsified; or
not legible
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CANVASS PROCEEDINGS
There must be a strong prima facie case backed up by a

specific offer of evidence, and an indication of its nature
and importance has to be made out to warrant the
reception of evidence aliunde, for the presentation of
witnesses and the delays necessarily entailed thereby.
When COMELEC has determined after investigation and

examination of the voting and registration records that
ACTUAL VOTING and ELECTION took place in the
questioned precincts, election returns cannot be
disregarded but are accorded prima facie status as bona
fide reports of the result of voting for canvassing and
proclamation purposes.
COMELEC should guard against PROCLAMATION

GRABBING and against attempts to paralyze the
canvassing and proclamation.
To allow a respondent to raise belated questions before the

COMELEC as to the returns during the review of a case
before the COMELEC, which question has not been raised
before the board of canvassers, would mean undue delays
in the pre-proclamation proceedings.
The Supreme Court can review the decisions of COMELEC

ONLY in cases of grave abuse of discretion in the discharge
of QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS and not in the exercise of
its administrative duties.
Conclusiveness of findings
The findings of the board of canvassers and the certificate of
election issued by them are not conclusive but are merely
PRIMA FACIE evidence of the result and title to the office of
those declared elected.
As to all other collateral matters, the findings of the board are
conclusive. However, such findings are not conclusive in a
direct proceeding to try title to the office.
The fact of having a plurality of votes lawfully cast is what
confers title to the office UNLESS one is allowed to go behind
the certificate or returns to establish title to the office before
the appropriate tribunal.
PREPARATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS AND

STATEMENT OF VOTES
Certificate of canvass
COMELEC has direct control and supervision over the

board of canvassers. Any member of the Board may, at
any time, be relieved for cause and substituted motu
proprio by the COMELEC. (Sec. 227, B.P. 881)
34
The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a

certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the
imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member,
supported by a statement of the votes received by each
candidate in each polling place and, on the basis thereof,
shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the
highest number of votes cast in the province, city,
municipality or barangay. (Sec. 231, B.P. 881)
Failure to comply with this requirement shall constitute an
election offense.
Statement of votes
The STATEMENT OF VOTES is a tabulation per precinct
of votes garnered by candidates as reflected in the election
returns; its preparation is an administrative function of the
board, purely a mechanical act over which COMELEC has
direct control and supervision.
The Statement of Votes supports the certificate of
canvass and is the basis of proclamation.
Consequently, any error in the Statement of Votes would
affect the proclamation made on the basis thereof.
Failure to object to the Statement of Votes before the
Board of Canvassers does not constitute a bar to raising the
issue for the first time before the COMELEC, as the law is
silent as to when such objection may be raised.
NATURE OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS DUTIES
A canvassing board's task is to compile and add the

results as they appear in the election returns
transmitted to it. (Guiao v. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 366)
When Ministerial
Once the COMELEC or the board of canvassers is satisfied

in the authenticity of the returns, it has no power to look
beyond the face thereof, and its task of tallying is merely
ministerial.
When there is an error in the computation which is
discovered after proclamation, the board of canvassers can
simply correct the error; the remedy being purely
administrative.
When Quasi-Judicial
The board of canvassers must be satisfied that the election
returns submitted to it are genuine and authentic. Thus, the
board of canvassers will not be compelled to canvass the
returns when they are found to be:
Number of Copies of the Certificates of Canvass and Their

Distribution (Sec. 29, R.A. 7166)
City or Municipal Board of Canvassers:
The City or Municipal Board of Canvassers shall prepare the
certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President, Senators,
Members of the House of Representatives, and Elective Provincial
Officials in 7 copies to be distributed as follows:

1.
1 copy: Provincial board of canvassers for

canvassing of election results for President,
Vice-President, Senators, Members of the
House of Representatives and Elective
Provincial Officials
2.
2nd copy: COMELEC
3.
3rd copy: To be kept by the chairman of the

board of canvassers
4.
4 copy: Citizens' arm designated by the

COMELEC to conduct media- based unofficial
count
5.
APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS AND DISPOSITION OF

ELECTION RETURNS
th
5th to 7th copies: Representatives of any 3 of 6

major political parties according to the
voluntary agreement of the parties; if there is no
agreement, COMELEC shall decide based on the
criteria under sec. 26 of RA 7166
APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS is an electoral activity

undertaken after close of voting while the ballot is being read by
the BEI during the counting.
Every ballot shall be presumed valid unless there is a

clear and good reason to justify its rejection for the
reason that a ballot is indicative of the will of the voter.
It is not required that it should be nicely or accurately written,
or that the name of the candidate voted for should be correctly
spelled. The ballot should be read in the light of the
circumstances surrounding the election and the voter
to give effect to, rather than frustrate the will of the
voter.
City Boards of Canvassers of cities comprising one or

more legislative districts,Provincial Boards of
Canvassers, and
District Boards of Canvassers in the Metro Manila
area:
The foregoing Boards of Canvassers shall prepare the
certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President and
Senators in 7 copies to be distributed as follows:
1.
1st copy: Congress, directed to the Senate

President for use in the canvass of election
results for President and Vice-President
2.
2nd copy: COMELEC, for use in the canvass of

the election results for Senators
3.
3rd copy: To be kept by the chairman of the

board of canvassers
4.
4th copy: Citizens' arm designated by the

COMELEC to conduct media- based unofficial
count
5.
5 to 7 copies: Representatives of any 3 of 6

major political parties according to the
voluntary agreement of the parties; if there is no
agreement, COMELEC shall decide based on the
criteria under sec. 26 of RA 7166
6.
35
st
th
RULES IN THE APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS:

1)
PRINCIPLE OF IDEM SONANS36 which literally

means the same or similar sound. The rule states that A
name or surname incorrectly written which when read, has
a sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate
when correctly written shall be counted in his favor.
(Asked in 1994 Bar)
2)
BALLOTS WITH PREFIXES BEFORE THE NAME

OF THE CANDIDATE IS VALID. Example, a candidate
for town mayor is an engineer, if the vote for him is
prefixed with the word engineer, it should not be
invalidated as a marked ballot under Rule 12. (Asked in the
1994 Bar)
3)
STRAY VOTE (NOT BALLOT) is one cast in favor

of a person who has not filed a certificate of
candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office
for which he did not present himself.
th
4)
While the vote for said person is considered a stray

vote, it shall not invalidate the whole ballot. (In the
1994 Bar, the question was What is a stray ballot?
Although the Code does not provide for stray ballot,
it is presumed that stray ballot refers to stray vote.)
MARKED BALLOT refers to a distinguishing

mark, figure or character which shows an
intention on the part of the voter to distinguish his
particular form from others of its class, and not
one that is common and distinguishable from, the
other of a designated class.
Not every mark made by a voter on the ballot which

may separate and distinguish it from other ballots
casts at the election will result in a declaration of
invalidity.
To
constitute
a mark
a
distinguishing mark, it must be placed on a
ballot with the deliberate intention that it
shall identify the ballot after the vote has been
cast, unless a statute enumerates certain marks as
illegal or distinguishing regardless of the question of
intent. A mark ballot shall not be counted the
whole ballot is invalidated.
Columbres v. COMELEC 340 SCRA 608: There

is no such presumption in law that the marking found
on the ballots have been made by third persons,
absent concrete evidence showing that they were
placed by the voter themselves. Instead, THE
LEGAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE
SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT HAS BEEN
PROTECTED AND PRESERVED.
Thus, an
examination of the questioned ballot is required in
order to ascertain the real nature of the alleged
markings thereon-whether they were written by
different persons, and whether they were intended to
identify the ballot.
Another issue in the Columbres case is whether the
COMELEC en Banc committed grave abuse of
discretion in declaring that the findings of the
division of the COMELEC on the contested ballots are
findings of facts that may not be the subject of a
motion for reconsideration.
The SC stressed
that to determine the winning candidate, the
application of election law and jurisprudence
in appreciating the contested ballots, is
essential. Any question on the appreciation of
36
Sec. 211 BP 881

ballots would directly affect the sufficiency of

the evidence supporting the declared winner,
hence, the decision, order or ruling of a
COMELEC division pertinent thereto is also a
proper subject of a motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC en banc.
6)
7)
8)
9)
Excess Ballots Sec. 207 OEC. Before proceeding to

count, the BEI shall count the ballots in the compartment
for valid ballots and compare the number with the actual
number of voters who voted. If there are excess ballots,
the poll clerk shall draw out as many ballots equal to the
excess without looking at them and the excess ballots shall
not be counted. Excess ballots shall be deposited in
the compartment for invalid ballots.
Spoiled Ballots refers to those ballots which were
accidentally defaced or torn and shall be deposited in the
compartment for invalid ballots and shall not be counted.
The voter is entitled to another ballot.
Equity of the Incumbent Rule if there are two or
more candidates with the same full name, first name or
surname and one of them is an incumbent and on the
ballot is written only such full name or surname, the vote
shall be counted in favor of the incumbent.
Otherwise, the same shall be considered a stray vote.
Neighborhood Rule even if the name of a candidate
was written on the wrong space, it should be counted if the
intention to vote for him can be determined.
PROCLAMATION
Duties of Board of Canvassers
After the canvass of election returns, in the absence of a

perfected appeal to the COMELEC, the Board of Canvassers
shall proclaim the candidates who obtained the highest number
of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay, on
the basis of the certificates of canvass. Failure to comply with
this duty constitutes an election offense. (Sec. 231, B.P. 881)
The Board of Canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as

winner unless authorized by the COMELEC after the latter has
ruled on any objections brought to it on appeal by a losing
party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void
ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect
the results of the election.
Once the Board of Canvassers has completed its duty, the board
cannot meet again and re-canvass the votes or reverse their
prior decision and announce different results.
When proclamation void
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES, STATEMENT OF VOTES,

STATEMENT OF CANVASS
Certificate of Votes (CV): - an election document

issued by the BEIs after the counting and
announcement of the results and before leaving
the polling place upon request of the accredited
watchers.
It shall contain the number of votes obtain by each
candidate written in words and figures, precinct #, name
of the city or municipality signed and thumb mark by each
member of the Board.
Evidentiary value: The CV shall be admissible in evidence

to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any anomaly
committed in the preparation of the election returns concerned,
when duly authenticated by at least two members of the
BEI who issued the certificate. Failure to present the CV
shall however not bar the presentation of other evidence to
impugn the authenticity of the ER. It cannot be a valid
basis of canvass.
FUNCTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
to prevent or deter the members of the BEI or other
official from altering the statement because they
know of the existence of such certificate;
(2) to advise the candidate definitely of the number of
his votes so that in case the election statement
submitted to the BOC does not tally with the
certificate in his hands, he may ask that the other
authentic copy of the be used for the canvass and
(3) to serve as evidence of fraud in election protests
cases and in subsequent prosecution of the election
offenses against those liable therefore.
Statement of Votes is a tabulation per precinct
of the votes obtained by the candidates as
reflected in the ER. The Certificate of Canvass is
in turn based on the statement of votes and is the
basis for proclamation.
NUMBER OF COPIES OF ELECTION RETURNS AND

THEIR DISTRIBUTION
5th
6th
7th
CBOC or MBOC
Congress , directed to the Pres. of the Senate
COMELEC
dominant majority party as may be determined by
the COMELEC in accordance with law.
dominant minority party as may be determined by
COMELEC in accordance with law.
Citizens Arms authorized by the COMELEC to
conduct an unofficial count
to be deposited inside the ballot box
Local Officials (1) CBOC or MBOC (2) COMELEC (3) PBOC

(4) DMP (5) DMP (6) citizens arm for unofficial count (7)
inside ballot box.
Notwithstanding the pendency of any pre-proclamation

controversy, the COMELEC may summarily order the
proclamation of other winning candidates whose election will
not be affected by the outcome of the controversy.
Election Resulting in a Tie (Sec. 240, B.P. 881)

A tie occurs when:
(a) 2 or more candidates receive an equal and
highest number of votes; or
(b) 2 or more candidates are to be elected for the
same position and 2 or more candidates received the
same number of votes for the LAST PLACE in the
number to be elected.
The board of canvassers, by resolution, upon 5 days notice to all

tied candidates, shall hold a special PUBLIC MEETING at
which the board shall proceed to the DRAWING OF LOTS of the
candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected the
candidates who may be favored by luck.
The candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to assume

office in the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality
of vote.
The board of canvassers shall forthwith make a certificate

stating the name of the candidate who had been favored by luck
and his proclamation on the basis thereof.
Nothing in the above shall be construed as depriving a

candidate of his right to contest the election.
Proclamation of a Lone Candidate (R.A. 8295)
Upon the expiration of the deadline for the filing of certificates

of candidacy in a special election called to fill a vacancy in
an elective position other than for President and Vice-President,
when there is only one (1) qualified candidate for such position,
the lone candidate shall be proclaimed elected to the position by
proper proclaiming body of the COMELEC without holding the
special election upon certification by the COMELEC that he is
the only candidate for the office and is therefore deemed
elected. (Sec. 2)
In the absence of any lawful ground to deny due course or

cancel the certificate of candidacy in order to prevent such
proclamation, as provided for under Sec. 69 and 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code, the lone candidate shall assume office
not earlier than the scheduled election day. (Sec. 3)
The COMELEC shall decide petitions for disqualification not

later than election day. Otherwise, such petitions shall be
deemed dismissed. (Sec. 3)
RA 8173 which amended Sec. 27 of RA 7166 provides that in the

election for Pres. and VP, Senators and House of
Representatives, the ERS shall be distributed as
follows:
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
A proclamation is void when it is based on incomplete returns

(Castromayor v. COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298) or when there is
yet no complete canvass (Jamil v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123648,
Dec. 15, 1997).
A void proclamation is no proclamation at all, and the
proclaimed candidates assumption into office cannot deprive
the COMELEC of its power to annul the proclamation.
Partial proclamation (Sec. 21, R.A. 7166)
(1)
36

When not allowedIssues
that may be
RaisedIssues
thatJOcannot
Procedure
be
raised
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS:
ATTY
. VALENCIAS NOTES,
PUZONS
NOTES,
JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
MODES OF CHALLENGING CANDIDACY

& ELECTION RESULTS
37
Challenges directed against the Board of Election

Inspectors (Ututalum v. COMELEC, supra)
Fraud, terrorism and other illegal electoral practices.
These are properly within the office of election
contests over which electoral tribunals have sole,
exclusive jurisdiction. (Loong v. COMELEC)
Pre-Proclamation Controversy
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any
question or matter pertaining to or affecting the
proceedings of the board of canvassers, or any
matter raised under Sec. 233-236 of BP 881 in
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody and appreciation of the election returns.
(Sec. 241, BP 881)
Jurisdiction: The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over
pre-proclamation cases. It may order, motu proprio or upon
written petition, the partial or total suspension of the
proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul partially or totally
any proclamation, if one has been made. (Sec. 242, BP 881)
The procedure for filing a pre-proclamation controversy depends on

the issue being raised:
(a) Questions involving the composition or proceedings of
the board of canvassers, or correction of manifest
errors
WHERE: The controversy may be initiated either in the Board of
Canvassers or directly with the COMELEC. (Sec. 17, R.A. 7166)
WHEN:
It depends:
(a)
If petition involves the illegal composition or

proceedings of the board, it must be filed immediately
when the board begins to act as such (Laodeno v.
COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705), or at the time of the
appointment of the member whose capacity to sit as such
is objected to if it comes after the canvassing of the board,
or immediately at the point where the proceedings are or
begin to be illegal. Otherwise, by participating in the
proceedings, the petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced
in the composition of the Board of Canvassers.
(b)
If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later

than 5 days following the date of proclamation, and must
implead all candidates who may be adversely affected
thereby.
(Sec. 5(b), Rule 27, COMELEC Rules of
Procedure)
Pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed for the

following positions:
President
Vice President
Senator
Member of the House of Representatives

(Sec. 15, R.A. 7166)
Nature of proceedings: SUMMARY by the COMELEC after
due notice and hearing. Questions which require more
deliberate and necessarily longer consideration are left for
examination in the corresponding election protest. (Sison v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 134096. March 3, 1999)
PROCEDURE:
If filed with the Board first:
(1) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board
of election canvassers
(1)
(2) Canvassed election returns are either:
incomplete
contain material defects
appear to be tampered with or falsified
contain discrepancies in the same returns or

in other authentic copies
Petitioner submits his / her objection to the

chairman of the board of canvassers.
(2) The Board makes its ruling.

(3) Within 3 days from the ruling, the parties
adversely affected may appeal the matter to the
COMELEC.
(4) Upon appeal, the COMELEC shall summarily
decide the case within 5 days from the filing
thereof. (Sec. 19, R.A. 7166)
(3) The election returns were:
prepared under duress, threats, coercion,

intimidation or
obviously manufactured or not authentic
If initiated directly with the COMELEC:
(4) Substituted or fraudulent returns in controverted

polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of the aggrieved
candidate(s).
(5) Manifest errors in the Certificates of Canvass or
Election Returns (Sec. 15, R.A. 7166; Chavez v.
COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315)
(1)
This enumeration is restrictive and exclusive. The complete

election returns whose authenticity is not questioned must be
prima facie considered valid for purposes of canvass and
proclamation. To allow a re-count or a re-appreciation of the
votes in every instance would paralyze canvass and
proclamation.
(3) The Clerk of Court concerned shall

immediately set the petition for hearing.
The COMELEC shall hear and decide the
petition en banc.
Jurisprudence has held that the following issues are not proper
in a pre-proclamation controversy:
Appreciation of ballots, as this is performed by

the Board of Election Inspectors at the precinct
level and is not part of the proceedings of the
Board of Canvassers (Sanchez v. COMELEC,
153 SCRA 67, reiterated in Chavez v.
COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315);
Technical examination of the signatures and

thumb marks of voters (Balindong v.
COMELEC, 260 SCRA 494; Matalam v.
COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733);
Prayer for re-opening of ballot boxes (Alfonso v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 107847, June 2, 1994);
Padding of the Registry List of Voters of a

municipality, massive fraud and terrorism
(Ututalum v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335);
Petitioner
files
COMELEC.
petition
with
the
(2) Upon the docketing of such petition, the

Clerk of Court concerned shall issue
summons with a copy of the petition to
respondents.
The Board of Canvassers shall not commence, proceed or resume

canvass unless otherwise ordered by the COMELEC. (Sec. 5, Rule
27, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
(b) Matters relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
returns and certificates of canvass
WHERE: Only with the Board of Canvassers
WHEN: At the time the questioned return is presented
for inclusion in the canvass.
WHO: Any candidate, political party or coalition of
political parties
PROCEDURE:
(1)
The contesting party makes an oral objection to the

chairman of the Board of Canvassers at the time the
questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass.
Such objection is recorded in the minutes of canvass.
Simultaneous with the oral objection, the objecting party

enters his objection in the form for written objections

prescribed by the COMELEC.
(2) Upon receipt of such objection, the Board
automatically defers the canvass of the contested
returns and proceeds to canvass the returns which
are not contested by any party.
(3) Within 24 hours from and after the presentation of
such objection, the objecting party submits the
evidence in support of the objection, which shall be
attached to the form for written objections.
Within the same 24-hour period, any party may file a
written and verified opposition to the objection in the
prescribed COMELEC form, attaching supporting
evidence, if any. The Board shall not entertain any
objection or opposition unless reduced to writing in
the prescribed forms.
The prevailing candidate may still be unseated even though he has

been proclaimed and installed in office if:
1.
The opponent is adjudged the true winner of the

election by final judgment of court in an election
contest;
2.
The prevailing party is declared ineligible or

disqualified by final judgment of a court in a QUO
WARRANTO case; or
3.
The incumbent is removed from office for cause.
Matalam v. COMELEC 271 SCRA 733
(4) The Board chairman immediately and formally

admits the evidence attached to the objection or
opposition by affixing his signature at the back of
each and every page thereof.
(5) Upon receipt of the evidence, the Board considers the
objection and the opposition, and summarily rules on
the objection. The Board then enters its ruling on the
prescribed form and authenticates the same by
entering the signatures of all its members.
A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY was defined,

as a general rule, as any question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings of the BOC which may be
raised by any candidate or by any registered political
party or coalition of political parties before the
Board or directly with the COMELEC, on any matter
raised under Secs. 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the OEC
in relation to the preparation, transmission receipt
custody and appreciation of the ER and Certificate of
canvass. (Sec. 243 OEC)
Under Sec. 17 of RA 7166, questions affecting the
composition or proceedings of the BOC may be initiated
WITH THE BOARD OR DIRECTLY WITH THE COMELEC.
However, matters raised under Sec. 233 to 236, shall be
brought in the first instance before the BOC only.
(6) The parties adversely affected by the ruling

immediately inform the Board if they intend to
appeal the ruling. Such information is then entered
in the minutes of canvass.
(7)
38
Exception: in Sec. 15 of RA 7166 which prohibits candidates

for Pres. and VP, Senators and members of the HR from
filing PPC.
The Board then sets aside the returns and proceeds

to consider the other returns. The Board then
suspends the canvass after all the uncontested
returns have been canvassed and the contested
return ruled upon by it.
The Commission exercises authority to decide PPC in two

instances, to wit:
(1) in appeals from ruling of the BOC; and
(2) in petitions directly filed with it.
(8) Within 48 hours from the ruling, the party adversely

affected files a written and verified notice of appeal
with the Board. The party then files an appeal with
the COMELEC within a non-extendible period of 5
days thereafter.
In appeals from the rulings of the board, TWO TYPES ARE

GENERALLY INVOLVED.
1.
The FIRST refers to RULINGS ON QUESTIONS

CONTESTING
ITS
COMPOSITION
OR
PROCEEDINGS, AND APPEAL THEREFROM
must be taken by the contestant adversely
affected within 3 days from such ruling.
2.
(10) The COMELEC summarily decides the appeal within

7 days from receipt of the record and evidence
elevated to it by the Board.
The second type refers to RULINGS ON

QUESTIONS
CONTESTING
ELECTION
RETURNS.
(11) The COMELEC's decision becomes executory after

the lapse of 7 days from receipt thereof by the losing
party.
The party adversely affected must immediately

inform the board that he intends to appeal
from the ruling and the board shall enter said
information in the minutes of the canvass; and
Within 48 hours from the ruling, the adverse
party must file with the board a written and
verified notice of appeal,
(9) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the

Board makes an appropriate report to the
COMELEC, elevating therewith the complete records
and evidence submitted in the canvass, and
furnishing the parties with copies of the report.
(12) The COMELEC then authorizes the Board of

Canvassers to proceed with the proclamation of the
winner. Any proclamation made without COMELEC
authorization is void ab initio, unless the contested
returns do not adversely affect the results of the
election. (Sec. 20, R.A. 7166)
This procedure is mandatory. Non-compliance with any of the

steps above is fatal to the pre-proclamation petition.
EFFECT OF FILING
CONTROVERSY
OF
PRE-PROCLAMATION
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of

canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain
material defects, appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns
or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress,
threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted
polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of the aggrieved
candidate or candidates.
The right of the prevailing party in the pre-proclamation

contest to the execution of COMELECs decision does not bar
the losing party from filing an election contest.
Despite the pendency of a pre-proclamation contest, the
COMELEC may order the proclamation of other winning
candidates whose election will not be affected by the outcome
of the controversy.
PROCLAMATION
OF
WINNING
A pre-proclamation controversy shall no longer be viable after

the proclamation and assumption into office by the candidate
whose election is contested. The remedy is an election protest
before the proper forum. (Mayor v. COMELEC, January
1989)
Matalam v. Comlec 271 SCRA 733 - The enumeration of the

issues in a PPC is restrictive and exclusive 37 and the COMELEC
is limited and restricted only to an examination of the ER and is
without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind the ER.
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in preproclamation controversy. - The following shall be proper
issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
The period to file an election contest shall be SUSPENDED

during the pendency of the pre-proclamation contest in the
COMELEC or the Supreme Court. (Alangdeo v. COMELEC,
June 1989)
EFFECT
OF
CANDIDATE
And within an unextendible period of 5 days

thereafter, he has to take the appeal to the
COMELEC.
37
Sandoval v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 407, COMELEC exercise

exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio or upon written
petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or
total suspension of the proclamation of the candidate-elect or
annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been
Sec. 242
39
Requisites
Grounds
for
for
disqualificationPriority
the declaration
Effect
of
failure
ofof
disqualification
disqualification
of election Procedure
case
cases
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS
NOTES, JAZZIE
SARONA;
UP LAW 2001
ELECTION
NOTES
made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with
sec. 242 of the OEC.
Velayo v. COMELEC 327 SCRA 713 - A PPC is

summary in nature, administrative in character
and which is filed before the BOC. While it is true
that RA 7166 provides for summary proceedings in PP
cases and does not require a trial type hearing,
nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be stretched to
mean ex parte proceedings.
Summary means with
dispatch with the least possible delay. But although the
proceedings are summary, the adverse party
nevertheless must at the very least be notified so
that he can be apprised of the nature and purpose
of the proceeding. In this case, it was found that all
proceedings were conducted by the respondent COMELEC
without the participation of the petitioner.
Worse,
respondent Navidad was allowed to file various motions
without the knowledge of the petitioner. Plainly, these ex
parte proceedings offend fundamental fairness and are
null and void. This ruling was reiterated in the recent case
of Cawasa, et. al. v. COMELEC, et. al. G.R. 150469 July 3,
2002.
SCOPE OF A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY

(SEC. 242)
1)
2)
3)
Illegal composition or proceedings of the

BOC;
The canvassed ERs are incomplete, contain
material defects, appear to be tampered with,
or falsified or contain discrepancies in the
same returns or in other authentic copies as
mention in Secs. 233 to 236;
The ER were prepared under duress, threats,
coercion or intimidation or they are
obviously manufactured or not authentic; or,
4)
Ocampo v. COMELEC 325 SCRA 636, the

SC ruled that this fact must be evident from
the face of the said documents. In the
absence of a strong evidence establishing
spuriousness of the returns, the basic rule
that the ER shall be accorded prima facie
status as bona fide reports of the results
of the count of the votes for canvassing
and proclamation purposes must prevail.
When substitute or fraudulent returns in

controverted polling places are canvassed,
the result of which materially affect the
standing of the aggrieved candidate. (Sec.
243 OEC)
Summary Recent Jurisprudence:

1)
A proclamation made pending appeal of the ruling

of the board of canvassers is void.
2)
A petition to correct entries in the certificates of
canvass on the ground of manifest errors must be
predicated on errors that appear on the fact of the
COC sought to be corrected.
A petition for
correction of manifest error may be filed involving
the election of members of the HR.
3)
It is possible that a candidate receives zero votes in
one or two precincts. This fact alone cannot
support the contention that the ER contains
statistically improbable results. This is also true
when only one candidate obtained all the votes in
some precincts.
4)
Formal defects, duress, and intimidated are not
grounds for excluding an ER.
An order setting aside a proclamation must be rendered after
prior notice and hearing. Due process requirements must be
present before the Commission Elections rules on the petition.
PETITION TO ANNUL OR SUSPEND PROCLAMATION
The filing with the COMELEC of a petition to annul or to
suspend proclamation suspends the running of the period to
file an election protest. (Alangdeo v. COMELEC, June 1989)
No law provides for a reglementary period within which to file a
petition for the annulment of an election if there is as yet no
proclamation. (Loong v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1)
There is no fixed time frame within which to file a petition to
annul a proclamation, the same being limited only by the
standard of reasonableness. (Nachura, p. 386)
DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF ELECTION
Jurisdiction of COMELEC:
The COMELEC, sitting en banc, may declare a failure of election by a
majority vote of its members. (Sec. 4, R.A. 71660
The COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment of election
results or declaration of failure of elections, may conduct technical
examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters'
signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the
elections had indeed been free, honest and clean. (Loong v.
COMELEC, supra)
Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking a

declaration of failure of election, the following conditions must
concur:
(1)
No voting has taken place in the precincts concerned

on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting,
the election nonetheless resulted in a failure to elect;
and
(2) The votes cast would affect the results of the election.
(Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54; Loong v.
COMELEC, supra; Hassan v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA
125)
The election is only to be set aside when it is impossible from any
evidence within reach to ascertain the true result when neither
from the returns nor from other proof can the truth be determined
(i.e. where the illegality affects more than 50% of the total number of
votes cast and the remainder does not constitute a valid
constituency).
(1)
Petitioner files verified petition with the Law

Department of the COMELEC.
(2) Unless a shorter period is deemed necessary by

circumstances, within 24 hours, the Clerk of Court
concerned serves notices to all interested parties,
indicating therein the date of hearing, through the
fastest means available.
(3) Unless a shorter period is deemed necessary by the
circumstances, within 2 days from receipt of the
notice of hearing, any interested party may file an
opposition with the Law Department of the
COMELEC.
(4) The COMELEC proceeds to hear the petition. The
COMELEC may delegate the hearing of the case and
the reception of evidence to any of its officials who
are members of the Philippine Bar.
(5) The COMELEC then decides whether to grant or
deny the petition. This lies within the exclusive
prerogative of the COMELEC.
DISQUALIFICATION CASES
See previous discussion.
The COMELEC and the courts shall give priority to cases of

disqualification for violation of the Omnibus Election Code, to the
end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than 7 days
before the election in which the disqualification is sought. (Sec. 72,
BP 881)
WHO MAY FILE:

Any citizen of voting age, or
Any duly registered political party, organization or coalition of
political parties
WHERE: Law Department of the COMELEC
WHEN:Any day after the last day for filing of certificates of
candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation
Nature: A petition to declare a failure of election is neither an

election protest nor a pre-proclamation controversy. (Borja v.
COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604)
Grounds for declaration: See previous discussion.

40
Election contests,
Jurisdiction
over
election
contests
Powers
Kinds
ofof
election
theSARONA;
COMELEC
contests
in2001
relation
to NOTES
election contests
SOURCESdefinedNature
AND CONTRIBUTORS:
ATTY. VALENCIAS
NOTES,
JO PUZONS
NOTES,
JAZZIE
UP LAW
ELECTION
Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be
disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him
shall not be counted.
If for any reason a candidate is not disqualified before an
election and he is subsequently voted for and receives the
winning number of votes in such election, the COMELEC or the
courts shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action,
inquiry, or protest and may order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate during the pendency of the case
upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, provided
that evidence of his guilt is strong. (Sec. 6, R.A. 6646)
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the
office to which he was elected, does not necessarily entitle the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office.
ELECTION CONTESTS
These are adversarial proceedings by which matters involving

the title or claim to an elective office, made before or after
proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the
contestant is claiming the office in dispute. The purpose of an
election contest is to ascertain the candidate lawfully elected to
office.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC on election

contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, executory and not appealable. (Sec. 2, Art. IX-C, 1987
Constitution) Note, however, that this does not preclude a recourse
to the Supreme Court by way of a special civil action for certiorari.
(Galido v. COMELEC, 193 SCFA 78)
Regional and Municipal Trial Courts
The Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction over municipal and barangay officals,
respectively.
It must be noted that cases involving qualifications of candidates for
the Sangguniang Kabataan filed before the election are decided by
the Election Officer, while those filed after the election are decided by
the MTCs. (Nachura, p. 389)
The power of COMELEC to decide election cases includes the power

to determine the validity or nullity of votes.
The COMELEC has the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus. However, this power can only be exercised in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction. (Relampagos v. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690)
There are 2 kinds of election contests that may be filed: an election

protest, and a quo warranto case.
Election Protest
An election contest is imbued with public interest.

The election contest must be liberally construed to favor the
will of the people. An election contest may not be defeated by
mere technical objections.
Until and unless the election protest is decided against him, a
person who has been proclaimed as duly elected has the lawful
right to assume and perform the duties and functions of the
office.
Supreme Court
WHO MAY FILE: Any candidate who has filed a certificate of

candidacy and has been voted upon for the same office, and
who has not himself caused or contributed to the
irregularities or frauds of which he complains
GROUNDS: Fraud, terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts
committed before, during or after the casting and counting of votes
PERIOD FOR FILING: Within 10 days from proclamation of the
results of the election
Where, after 5 days from the proclamation of the winning candidate,
the loser files a motion for reconsideration in the pre-proclamation
controversy, there are only 5 days which remain of the period within
which to file an election protest. (Roquero v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA
150)
PROCEDURE:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole

judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
disqualifications of the President, Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for such purpose. (Art. VII, Sec. 4, 1987
Constitution)
A.
For protests filed with the COMELEC (Rule 20 vis--vis

Rules 10-19, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
(1)
Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and House of

Representatives
The Senate and the House of Representatives have
their own electoral tribunals. Each electoral tribunal has 9
members: 3 Supreme Court Justices, 6 members of the Senate
or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. (Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution)
For purposes of election contests cognizable by the
Electoral Tribunals, the rules of procedure of such tribunals
shall prevail over the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
(Lazatin v. HRET, 168 SCRA 39)
COMELEC
(2) The Clerk of Court of the COMELEC or the division

concerned issues the corresponding summons to the
protestee within 3 days from the filing of the petition.
(3) Protestee must file an answer within 5 days from service of
summons and a copy of the petition. The protestee may
incorporate in his answer a counter-protest or
counterclaim.
The COMELEC may not entertain a counter-protest filed
beyond the reglementary period to file the same. (Kho v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 124033, Sept. 25, 1997)
(4) Protestant has 5 days from receipt of the answer or answer
with counterclaim or counter-protest to file his reply or
answer to counter-protest or counterclaim, respectively.
If no answer is filed to the protest or counter-protest, a
general denial is deemed to have been entered.
The COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all

election contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective:
(1) Regional Officials;
(2) Provincial Officials; and
(3) City Officials
Decisions in these cases may be appealed to the Supreme
Court.
The COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction (i.e., Regional Trial Courts) or involving
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction (i.e., the Municipal Trial Courts).
Protestant files a verified petition with the COMELEC

within 10 days from proclamation and pays the required
docket fees. Failure to pay the basic docket fee will result
in the dismissal of the protest. (Gatchalian v. COMELEC,
245 SCRA 208)
(5) After the issues have been joined, the case shall be set for
hearing and presentation and reception of evidence.
(6) After the case has been submitted for decision, the
COMELEC shall render its decision. If the case is being
heard by a Division, the case shall be decided within 10
days. If it is being heard by the COMELEC en banc, it shall
be decided within 30 days.
(7)
The decision of a division becomes final and executory

after the lapse of 15 days following its promulgation. The
aggrieved party may file a timely motion for
reconsideration within 5 days from promulgation of the

Award of damages
decision on the grounds that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision; or that the said
decision is contrary to law.
For the COMELEC en banc, the decision becomes
final and executory 30 days from its promulgation.
B.
ELECTION PROTEST and QUO WARRANTO

ELECTION PROTEST
For protests filed with the Regional Trial Courts

(Rule 35, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
(1)
Protestant files a verified petition with the RTC

within 10 days from proclamation.
(2) Protestee must file an answer within 5 days after

receipt of notice of the filing of the petition and a
copy of the petition.
Should the protestee desire to impugn the votes
received by the protestant in other precincts, he
may file a verified counter-protest within the same
period fixed for the filing of the answer.
An EP is a special statutory proceedings designed to

contest the right of a person, declared elected to enter
upon and hold office. It is strictly a contest between the
defeated and winning candidates, based on grounds of
ELECTION FRAUDS OR IRREGULARITIES, as to who actually
obtained the majority of the legal votes and, therefore, is
entitled to hold office. It can only be filed by a candidate
who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
been voted for. It is a formal judicial proceedings that
goes into correctness of the counting and appreciation
of ballots at the precinct level were the parties are
allowed to present and examine evidence in detail. IT
IS FILED TEN (10) DAYS
GROUNDS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(3) Protestant has 5 days from receipt of the counterprotest to file his answer to such counter-protest.
(4) Any other candidate for the same office may
intervene in the case within 5 days from filing of
the protest by filing a verified petition-inintervention. The protestant or protestee shall
answer the protest-in-intervention within 5 days
after notice.
6.
7.
(7)
The Court shall decide the election contest within

30 days from the date it is submitted for decision,
but in every case within 6 months after its filing.
Such decision shall declare who among the parties
has been elected, or in a proper case, that none of
them has been legally elected.
(8) The decision becomes final 5 days after its

promulgation. No motion for reconsideration
shall be entertained.
Should an aggrieved party wish to appeal the
decision to the COMELEC, he may do so by filing a
notice of appeal within 5 days from promulgation
of the decision.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PROTESTANT
The death of the protestant does not extinguish an election
protest. An election protest is imbued with public interest
which raises it onto a plane over and above ordinary civil
actions, because it involves not only the adjudication of the
private interest of the rival candidates but also the paramount
need of dispelling once and for all the uncertainty that beclouds
the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall
discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift. (De
Castro v. COMELEC, 267 SCRA 806, as cited in Nachura, p.
393)
However, it is not the heirs of the deceased who shall be the
successors-in-interest to the suit, but the succeeding candidateelect. For example, if the deceased was a candidate for
governor, the real party in interest in the continuation of the
proceedings is the Vice-Governor-elect, as he or she will
succeed in the event that the protestant is declared to be the
person lawfully elected to the office.
Quo Warranto
WHO MAY FILE: Any registered voter in the constituency
GROUNDS: Ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines
PERIOD FOR FILING: Within 10 days from proclamation of
the results of the election
Actual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election

contests or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with
law. (Sec. 259, B.P. 881)
Fraud,
Vote-buying,
Terrorism,
Presence of flying voters,
Misreading or misappreciation of the ballots,
disenfranchisement of voters,
Unqualified members of the BEI and
other election irregularities.
QUO WARRANTO
(5) If no answer is filed to the protest, counter-protest

or protest-in-intervention within the specified
time limits, a general denial is deemed to have
been entered.
(6) After the issues have been joined, the case shall be
set for hearing. Presentation and reception of
evidence shall be completed within 30 days from
the date of the commencement thereof.
41
A petition for QW on the other hand refers to questions of

disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a
proceeding to unseat the ineligible person from office, but not to
install the protestant in his place. It can be filed by any voter
within ten (10) days from proclamation except on the ground of
citizenship, which can be filed at any time, considering that
citizenship is a continuing qualification for an elective office.
What distinguished one remedy from the other is not the

label given to it but the allegations therein stated. So a
petition alleging fraud and irregularity which vitiated the conduct of
the election, although entitled QW, is an EP and vice versa. In view
of these fundamental differences, they may not be availed of jointly
and in the same proceeding. They may however be separately filed,
with the second and later case suspended until the earlier is resolved.
An action for QW cannot however be converted into an EP.
Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a FPJ vs. GMA PET Case No. 002
resolved the issue on whether a widow may
substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the
pendency of the protest case?
Court where faced not only on who between protestant and
protestee was the true winner in the May 10, 2004 presidential
elections but also to decide whether the protestants widow
Jesusa Sonora Poe could intervene and/or substitute for the
deceased party, assuming arguendo that the protest could
survive his death. GMA votes is 12,905,808/FPJ 11,782,232.
Together with the filing of the notice of death the manifestation
to interevene was filed with the contention that:
(1)
Urgent need for her to contiue and substitute for her

late husband in the EP to ascertain the true and
genuine will of the electorate;
(2) De Casto v. COMELEC and Lumogdang v.
Javier cases were used stating that the death of the
protestant does not constitute a ground for the
dismissal of the contest or to oust the court of
jurisdiction.
(3) cognizant that she cannot succeed or be entitled to
the said office, but her utmost concern is one that
involves the publics interest.
(4) that should it be determined that protestee did not
garner the highest number of votes, be prevented
from
exercising
the
powers,
duties
and
responsibilities
GMA contends that pursuant to the rules of procedure of the
PET only the registered candidate who garnered the 2 nd and 3rd
highest votes for the presidency may contest the election of
president. She cannot use public interest to justify her request
to be substituted.
Court ruled that Mrs. FPJ is not real party in interest
pursuant to Rule 14 of PET rules. Public office is personal
to the public officer and not property transmissible to the heirs
upon death. But in Vda. de Mesa the Court allowed
substitution and intervention but only by a real party in interest
in the person who would be benefited or injured by the
judgment and a party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. In
de mesa and lumogdang v. Javier cases, the VM was
permitted to substitute for the reason that if the mayor is
unseated, the VM succeeds the office.

Court not unaware that a contest before election tribunals

has two aspects. First, right to hold public office and
second, it is imbued with public interest.
PERSONAL ASPECT IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED
WITH PUBLIC INTEREST. But nobility of intentions
is not the point of reference in determining whether a
person may intervene in an election protest. Rule 19, Sec.
1 of the Rules of Court is applicable.
JURISDICTION OVER EP AND QW
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Supreme Court sitting en banc as Presidential

Electoral Tribunal, sole judge of all contests
relating to the E, R and Q of the Pres. and VP
protest is filed 30 days after proclamation.
Not subject to judicial review
Senate Electoral Tribunal for members of
senate as sole judge of all contest relating to the E, R,
and Q of its own members. Filed within 15 days
from date of proclamation. Not subject to
judicial review except on grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
HRET members of HR to be filed within 10
days each electoral tribunal shall be composed of
nine members, three of whom shall be justices of the
SC to be designated by the CJ and the remaining 6
members of the senate or house of representatives, as
the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
their proportional representation from the political
parties and the parties or organizations registered
under the party list system. Senior justice shall be
chairman (Art. VI, Sec. 17)
COMELEC for regional, provincial and city
officials filed in 10 days. Subject to judicial review
within 30 days from date of receipt of decision by
aggrieved party
RTC for municipal officials 10 days Subject to
appeal with COMELEC within five (5) days from
receipt of decision. Decisions of the COMELEC on
contest on appeal involving municipal and barangay
officials are final and executory except on grounds of
grave abuse of discretion within 30 days.
In Veloria v. COMELEC 211 SCRA 907, an EP
was filed with the RTC by a condidate for a municipal
office. Instead of appealing within 5 days, they filed a
MR. When the MR was denied, they filed a Notice of
Appeal. HELD: Sec. 256 of the OEC prohibits
the filing of a MR in EC affecting municipal
offices. The MR did not suspend the period to
appeal. Hence, the resolution dismissing the
EP has become final and executory.
Pangilinan v. CA 232 SCRA 32, EP was filed in
the RTC which was dismissed during the pre-trial for
failure of the counsel of respondents to appear.
Respondent filed a MR which the RTC
granted. Petitioner argued that a MR is not
allowed. HELD: In Com. Res. 2493, a pre-trial
conference in EC was abolished. There was no basis
for the dismissal f the EC and since the EC is vested
with public interest, it is imperative that the real
choice of the electorate be determined.
MTC for barangay officials 10 days and five (5) days
for appeal with COMELEC.
PRINCIPLES
CONTESTS:
COMMON
TO
ALL
ELECTION
1)
Who may file the person entitled to file an

election protest is a candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been voted to the
same office. However, precision in the use of terms
in an election protest is not indispensable.
Substantial compliance is sufficient.
2)
Jurisdictional allegations the jurisdiction facts

necessary to confer JURISDICTION TO TRY AN
ELECTION PROTEST ARE:
a. That the protestant was a candidate who
had duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and had been voted for the
same office;
b. That
the
protestee
has
been
proclaimed;
c. That the petition was filed within ten
(10) days after the proclamation; and
d. That fraud and election irregularities
vitiated the conduct of elections and
affected the legality thereof.
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping The SC in Loyola v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995) and
Lomarong v. Dubguban 269 SCRA 624 (1997) ruled, that
the SC Circular requiring that any complaint, petition
or other initiatory pleading must contain a non-forum
certification applies to election cases. The requirement is
mandatory, not jurisdictional, so that non-compliance
42
therewith may warrant the dismissal of election cases.

A
certification filed after the filing of the election case but
within the reglamentary period to file the same constitutes
as substantial compliance with the circular but not one
filed thereafter.
Docket Fees
in Soller v. COMELEC 339 SCRA 684, the SC ruled that a court
acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fees.
Verification in the same case, the fact that the petitioner failed to
stated in the verification that the contents thereof are true and
correct of his own personal knowledge lack the proper verification
and the pleading must be dismissed.
EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
Malaluan v. COMELEC 254 SCRA 397 where the SC ruled

on the matter relative of an execution of a decision in an
election protest case pending appeal. Since the judge acted
without any precedent in this case, the Court held that Sec. 2,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which allows the RTC to
order execution pending appeal upon good reasons
stated in a special order, may be made to apply by analogy
or suppletorily to election contests decided by it.
Gutierrez v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 197, it was settled that

SEC. 2 RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT, can be applied
pursuant to Rule 41 of the COMELEC rules of
Procedure, to election contests decided by courts. The
rationale being that the BOC are composed of persons who are
less technically prepared to make an accurate appreciation of
the ballots, apart from their being more apt to yield to
extraneous considerations, and that the board must have to act
summarily, practically racing against time, while on the other
hand, the judge has the benefit of all the evidence the
parties can offer and of admittedly better technical
preparation and background.
Camlian v. COMELEC 271 SCRA, the Court ruled that

execution pending appeal must be strictly construed against
the movant as it is an exception to the general rule on
execution of judgments.
Ramas v. COMELEC Feb. 10, 1998, the Court enumerated

what may constitute good reasons for execution pending
appeal:
(1) the public interest involved or the will of the
electorate
(2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term
of the contested office and
(3) the length of time that the election contest has
been pending.
The filing of bond does not constitute. Nevertheless, the
trial court may require the filing of a bond as a
condition for the issuance of the corresponding writ
of execution to answer for the payment of damages
which the aggrieved party may suffer by reason of the
execution pending appeal.
DAMAGES In Malaluan, the Court ruled that damages cannot be

granted in an election protest case ratiocinating that the provision of
law allowing for damages under specific circumstances, more
particularly compensatory and actual damages is provided under Art.
2176 of the civil code which is appropriate only in breaches of
obligations in cases of contracts and QC and on the occasion of
crimes and quasi-delicts where the defendant may be held liable for
damages the proximate cause of which is the act or omission
complained of. Therefore, the monetary claim of a party in an
election case must necessarily be hinged on either a contract or QC or
a tortuous act or omission or a crime in order to effectively recover
actual or compensatory damages. In the absence of any or all of
these, the claimant must be able to point out a specific
provision of law authorizing a money claim for election
protest expenses against the losing party.
EVIDENCE ON THE ELECTION
The following may be used as evidence in contesting the results of the
election:
Election Returns:
Election returns are properly used as evidence in an election contest
when what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of
each candidate, and the ballots cannot be produced or are not
available.
Ballots

JurisdictionSOURCES
over election
offenses Prosecution
election
offensesElection
offenses
AND CONTRIBUTORS:
ATTY. VALENCIASof
NOTES,
JO PUZONS
NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA;
UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Ballots are properly used as evidence when the election returns
are not available.
43
Certificate of Candidacy
Continued misrepresentation or holding out as a candidate of a

disqualified candidate or one declared by final and executory
judgment to be a nuisance candidate (Sec. 27f, R.A. 6646);
Poll-books and tally sheets may be used as evidence where by

law, poll-books or tally sheets are required to be kept.
Knowingly inducing or abetting such misrepresentation of a

disqualified or nuisance candidate (Sec. 27f, R.A. 6646);
Election Officials
Coercing, bribing, threatening, harassing, intimidating,

terrorizing, or actually causing, inflicting or producing violence,
injury, punishment, torture, damage, loss or disadvantage to
discourage any other person or persons from filing a certificate
of candidacy in order to eliminate all other potential candidates
from running in a special election (Sec. 5, R.A. 8295);
Poll-Books and Tally Sheets
Election officials may be called to testify in the absence of

ballots, tally sheets or poll-books.
Voters
Election Campaign
Voters may testify where the illegality consists in the casting of
votes by persons unqualified, unless it can be shown for whom
they voted, it cannot be allowed to change the result.
Certificate of Votes
Appointment or use of special policemen, special agents or the

like during the campaign period (Sec. 261m, B.P. 881)
Use of armored land, water or aircraft during the campaign
period (Sec. 261r, B.P. 881)
The provisions of Sections 235 and 236 of the Omnibus

Election Code notwithstanding, the certificates of votes shall be
admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration,
falsification or any anomaly committed in the election returns
concerned, when duly authenticated by testimonial or
documentary evidence presented to the board of election
inspectors who issued the certificate.
The failure to present any certificate of votes shall be a bar to
the presentation of other evidence to impugn the authenticity
of the election returns.
Unlawful electioneering (Sec. 261k, B.P. 881)

Acting as bodyguards or security in the case of policemen and
provincial guards during the campaign period (Sec. 261t, B.P.
881)
Removal, destruction, obliteration, or tampering of lawful
election propaganda, or preventing the distribution thereof
(Sec. 83, B.P. 881 vis--vis Sec. 262, B.P. 881)
Voting
ELECTION OFFENSES
1.
2.
The Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal actions or
proceedings for violation of election laws. (Sec. 268, B.P.
881; Juan v. People, G.R. No. 132378, January 18, 2000)
3.
The COMELEC has the exclusive power to investigate and
prosecute cases involving violations of election laws. (Sec.
2 (6), Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 268, B.P. 881; De
Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760) However, it may validly
delegate the power to the Provincial Prosecutor or to the
Ombudsman.
4.
5.
Counting of Votes
In the event that the COMELEC fails to act on any

complaint within 4 months from its filing, the
complainant may file the complaint with the fiscal or the
Department of Justice, if warranted. (Sec. 265, B.P. 881)
1.
2.
PREFERENTIAL
DISPOSITION
OFFENSES
OF
ELECTION
Investigation and prosecution of election offenses

shall be given priority by the COMELEC.
The
investigating officer shall resolve the case within 5
days from submission.
The courts shall give preference to election cases over
all other cases except petitions for writ of habeas
corpus. Their trial shall be commenced without delay
and shall be conducted continuously until terminated,
and the case shall be decided within 30 days from its
submission for decision. (Sec. 269, B.P. 881)
Any chairperson of the board of canvassers who fails to give notice of

meeting to other members of the board, candidate or political party
as required (Sec. 27e, R.A. 6646)
Acts of government or public officers
1.
3.
The various election offenses are enumerated
primarily under Sec. 261 of B.P. 881. However, other
election laws provide for other election offenses.
Some of the more significant offenses include the
following:
Registration
Failure of the Board of Election Inspectors to post the

list of voters in each precinct. (Sec. 9, R.A. 7166);
Change or alteration or transfer of a voter's precinct

assignment in the permanent list of voters without the
express written consent of the voter (Sec. 4, R.A.
8189)
Tampering, increasing, decreasing votes, or refusal to

correct tampered votes after proper verification and
hearing by any member of the board of election
inspectors (Sec. 27b, R.A. 6646)
Refusal to issue to duly accredited watchers the
certificate of votes cast and the announcement of the
election, by any member of the board of election
inspectors (Sec. 27c, R.A. 6646)
Canvassing
2.
Vote-buying and vote-selling (Sec. 261a, B.P. 881)

Conspiracy to bribe voters (Sec. 261b, B.P. 881): A
disputable presumption of a conspiracy to bribe
voters is created when there is proof that at least 1
voter in different precincts representing at least 20%
of the total precincts in any municipality, city or
province has been offered, promised or given money,
valuable consideration or other expenditure by a
candidate's relatives, leaders and/or sympathizers for
the purpose of promoting the election of such
candidate. (Sec. 28, R.A. 6646)
Coercion of subordinates to vote for or against any
candidate (Sec. 261d, B.P. 881)
Dismissal of employees, laborers, or tenants for
refusing or failing to vote for any candidate (Sec.
261d(2), B.P. 881)
Being a flying voter (Sec. 261z (2), B.P. 881)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Appointment of new employees, creation of new positions,

promotion, or giving salary increases within the election
period (Sec. 261g, B.P. 881)
Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service within
the election period without the prior approval of the
COMELEC (Sec. 261h, B.P. 881)
Intervening of public officers and employees in the civil
service in any partisan political activity (Sec. 261i, B.P. 881)
Use of public funds for an election campaign (Sec. 261o,
B.P. 881)
Illegal release of prisoners before and after election (Sec.
261n, B.P. 881)
Release, disbursement or expenditure of public funds
during the prohibited period (Sec. 261v, B.P. 881)
Construction of public works, etc. during the prohibited
period (Sec. 261w, B.P. 881)
Suspension of elective local officials during the election
period without prior approval of the COMELEC (Sec. 261x,
B.P. 881)
Coercion, intimidation, violence

1.
Coercion of election officials and employees

Good faith not
a defense
Penalties Arrests
in Connection
withPrescription
the
Election
SOURCES
AND CONTRIBUTORS:
ATTY. VALENCIAS
NOTES, JO PUZONS
NOTES,
JAZZIE Campaign
SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
and in connection with any election through any act

or language tending to support or oppose any
candidate, political party or coalition of political
parties under or pursuant to any order of whatever
name or nature and by whomsoever issued except
only upon a warrant of arrest issued by a competent
judge after all the requirements of the Constitution
have been strictly complied with.
Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent

devices or other forms of coercion (Sec. 261e, B.P.
881)
Use of undue influence (Sec. 261j, B.P. 881)
Carrying deadly weapons within the prohibited area
(Sec. 261p, B.P. 881)
Carrying firearms outside residence or place of
business (Sec. 261q, B.P. 881)
Organization or maintenance of reaction forces, strike
forces, or similar forces during the election period
(Sec. 261u, B.P. 881)
Other prohibitions
1.
Unauthorized printing of official ballots and
election returns with printing establishments
that are not under contract with the COMELEC
(Sec. 27a, R.A. 6646)
2. Wagering upon the results of elections (Sec.
261c, B.P. 881)
3. Sale, etc. of intoxicating liquor on the day fixed
by law for the registration of voters in the
polling place, or the day before the election or
on election day (Sec. 261dd (1), B.P. 881)
4. Opening booths or stalls within 30 meters of
any polling place (Sec, 261dd (2), B.P. 881)
5. Holding fairs, cockfights, etc. on election day
(Sec. 261dd (3), B.P. 881)
6. Refusal to carry election mail during the
election period (Sec. 261dd (4), B.P. 881). In
addition to the prescribed penalty, such refusal
constitutes a ground for cancellation or
revocation of certificate of public convenience or
franchise.
7. Discrimination in the sale of air time (Sec.
261dd (5), B.P. 881) In addition to the
prescribed penalty, such refusal constitutes a
ground for cancellation or revocation of the
franchise.
Election offenses prescribe 5 years from the date of their

commission.
If the discovery of the offense be made in an election contest

proceeding, the period of prescription shall commence on the
date on which the judgment in such proceedings becomes final
and executory. (Sec. 267, B.P. 881)
Failure to register or vote

Art. V, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that suffrage "may"
be exercised by qualified citizens of the Philippines, as
compared to the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which used the
term "shall." Thus, it can be said that under the current
Constitution, failure to register or to vote is no longer an
election offense.
Election offenses are generally mala prohibita. Proof of

criminal intent is not necessary. Good faith, ignorance, or lack
of malice is not a defense; the commission of the prohibited act
is sufficient. (People v. Bayona, 61 Phil. 181; People v.
Fuentes, 181 Phil. 186)
For individuals
1.
Imprisonment of not less than 1 year
but not more than 6 years, without
probation (Sec. 264, B.P. 881)
2. Disqualification to hold public office;
3. Deprivation of the right of suffrage
For a Foreigner
1.
Imprisonment of not less than 1 year
but not more than 6 years (without
probation);
2. Deportation after service of sentence
For a Political Party
Payment of a fine not less than P10,000 after a

criminal conviction
Persons Required by Law to Keep Prisoners in their

Custody
For prisoners illegally released from any

penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period,
where such prisoners commit any act of
intimidation, terrorism or interference in the
election, the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, provincial warden, jail keeper or
persons who are required by law to keep said
prisoners in their custody shall, if convicted, be
sentenced to suffer prison mayor in its
maximum period. (Sec. 264, B.P. 881)
No person shall be arrested or detained at any

time for any alleged offense committed during
44

Philippine Election Laws Outline

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philippine Election Laws Outline

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated

PHILIPPINE ELECTION LAWS

RA 7941 (Nov. 26, 1991) An act providing for the election

RA 8189 (June 11, 1996 Voters Registration Act of 1996

RA 8295 (June 6, 1997 Proclamation of Lone Candidate

RA 8436, An Act Authorizing the COMELEC to Use an

RA 8524 (Feb. 14, 1998 An Act Changing the Term of

RA 9006 Feb. 12, 2001, An Act to Enhance the Holding of

RA 9164 (March 19, 2002), An Act Providing for

RA 9189, An Act Providing for a System of Overseas

RA 9225 (August 29, 2003), An Act Making the

RA 9244 (February 19, 2004), An Act Eliminating the

SOURCE OF POLITICAL POWER/ UNDERLIYING

Article II, Section 1: Declaration of Principles

Section 1 (foundation of the democratic process),

Article III Bill of Rights

Section 4 (freedom of speech and of expression);

Article IV on Citizenship (qualification of candidates

Article VI Legislative Department (composition of

Article VII Executive Department (qualifications,

Article IX-A (common provisions for constitutional

Article IX- C: COMELEC (composition, powers and

Article X General provision on Local Government

Article XVI (General provisions) prohibition against

The basic law on elections and these amendments are designed to

B. OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE BP 881 basic law on

C. AMENDMENTS UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION:

RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987). Sec.

RA 7166 (An Act which provided for the

RA 7904 (An Act Governing the conduct of the 1995

Shall govern all elections of public officers and, to the extent

MODES OF POPULAR INTERVENTION

ELECTIONS is the choice or selection of candidates

The order of topics in the outline was modified minimally

ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated

In the context of the Constitution, the term election may

The winner is the candidate who has obtained a

Romualdez v. RTC 226 SCRA 408 - The right to vote is

In applying the rules of statutory construction however,

FACTS: Trinidad and Sunga, were candidates in the

HELD: The SC ruled that it would be extremely

CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS

Election contests are REASONABLY AND

Margarito Suliguin vs. COMELEC, March 23,

Those which refers to the conduct of elections required to

Saya-Ange v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155087, November

Fernandez vs COMELEC GR No. 9135 April 3, 1990

BASIS OF PLURAILITY OF VOTES

Those which refers to the conduct of elections

The rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are:

Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20,

Benito vs COMELEC 235 SCRA 436 - the proclamation of

Sunga v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 76 - Plurality of votes is

ISSUE: Whether Sunga should be declared winner.

Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained

Punzalan v. COMELEC April 27, 1998 - Section 15 of RA

Bautista vs Castro 206 SCRA 305 - The absence of the

Marcelino C. Libanan v. HRET a ballot without the BEI

ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go | Updated

the presence of red and blue fibers in the

Those provisions which candidates for public

Those provisions which covers procedural rules

Maruhom v. COMELEC 331 SCRA 473, it was ruled