COMELEC - Art.

IX-C

Section 1.

(1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of:

 a Chairman and six Commissioners
 who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and,
 at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
 holders of a college degree, and
 must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the immediately preceding
elections.
 However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
(2)
 The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment.
 Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for
five years, and the last Members for three 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.

Qualification of voters
1. Filipino citizenship
2. At least 18 years of age
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one year
4. Resident of the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months; and
5. Not otherwise disqualified by law (Sec.9, R.A. No. 8189)

Disqualification of voters
1. Persons sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year, unless
pardoned or granted amnesty; but right is reacquired before expiration of 5 years after service of
sentence.
2. Conviction by final judgment of any of the following crimes:
a. Crime involving disloyalty to the government
b. Any crime against national security
c. Firearms laws

But right is reacquired before expiration of 5 years after service of sentence.

3. Insanity or incompetence declared by competent authority (Sec. 118, B.P. 881 Omnibus Election
Code)

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS

Q: Which court has jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion proceedings?

A: 1. MTC ‐ original and exclusive
2. RTC ‐ appellate jurisdiction
 3. SC ‐ appellate jurisdiction over RTC on question of law

Q: Who may file a petition in an inclusion or exclusion proceedings?

1. Inclusion

a. Any private person whose application was disapproved by the Election Registration Board or
whose name was stricken out from the list of voters.

b. COMELEC

2. Exclusion

a. Any registered voter in the city or municipality

b. Representative of political party
c. Election officer
d. COMELEC (BP 881 Omnibus Election Code)

Q: What is the period for filing a petition in an inclusion or exclusion proceeding?

A:
1. Inclusion ‐ any day except 105 days before regular election or 75 days before a special
election. (COMELEC Reso. No. 8820)
2. Exclusion ‐ anytime except 100 days before a regular election or 65 days before a special
election. (COMELEC Reso. No. 9021)

Q: Do decisions in an inclusion or exclusion proceedings acquire the nature of res judicata?

A: No. The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the list of voters are summary in
character. Except for the right to remain in the list of voters or for being excluded therefrom for the
particular election in relation to which the proceedings had been held, a decision in an exclusion or
inclusion proceeding, even if final and unappealable, does not acquire the nature of res judicata. In this
sense, it does not operate as a bar to any further action that a party may take concerning the subject
passed upon in the proceeding. Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding would neither be conclusive
on the voter’s political status, nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in
any other election. (Domino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)

Omnibus Election Code (Secs. 70-71)

Section 70. Guest candidacy. - A political party may nominate and/or support candidates not belonging
to it.
Section 71. Changing political party affiliation. – An elective official may change his party affiliation for
purposes of the election next following his change of party within one year prior to such election.

Party-list System
Four parameters in Party-list election
Former Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban enumerated a system of 4 inviolable
parameters that determines the seat allocation method of the Philippine party-list system.

1. the twenty percent allocation (0.2TOTAL) —the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall
not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those
elected under the party list;

2. the two percent threshold (0.02THRESH) —only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of
the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are ‘qualified’ to have a seat in the House of
Representatives (sec. 11 of the Party-List Law, RA 7941);

3. the three-seat limit (3SEATCAP) —each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it obtained,
is entitled to a maximum of three seats, that is, one ‘qualifying’ and two additional seats (sec. 11 of RA
7941); and

4. Proportional representation (PR) —the additional seats which a party is entitled to shall be computed
‘in proportion to their total number of votes.’ (secs. 2 and 11 of RA 7941).

Chief Justice Panganiban failed to mention, however, whether the four inviolable parameters are
consistent with each other.

A system is consistent if and only if there is at least one solution. On the other hand, a system is
inconsistent if and only if it has no solution.

I believe that the system of four inviolable parameters mentioned by Chief Justice Panganiban is
inconsistent. Hence, no formula can be designed to give a correct solution.

0.2TOTAL Parameter Rephrased

The 1987 Constitution mandates that “the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the party list ....”

The 0.2TOTAL parameter does not faithfully follow this formulation. I believe the said parameter was
rephrased so that the 0.2TOTAL and 3SEATCAP parameters will be consistent.

Inconsistent PR and 3SEATCAP Parameters

The PR parameter is based on the principle of proportional representation which is the public policy of
the Party-List Law or RA 7941. This principle asserts that the qualified party’s share of the total seats is
equal to its share of the total votes of all qualified parties.

The qualified party’s share of the total seats is computed by dividing the number of seats it received by
the total number of seats.

The qualified party’s share of the total votes is determined by dividing the number of votes it garnered
by the total number of votes of all qualified parties.

Hence, by the PR parameter, the (ideal) number of seats that a qualified party shall be entitled to
receive is equal to its share of the total number of votes of all qualified parties multiplied by the total
number of party-list seats.

For example, in the 2007 party-election, the total number of party-list seats is 55. Thus, if a qualified
parties has 10 percent of the votes of all qualified parties, then by the PR parameter, its (ideal) number
of seats is 10% x 55 = 5.5. This means that the said party is entitled to at least 5 seats but not more than
6 seats.

If the 3SEATCAP parameter is imposed, then the said party cannot have more than 3 seats.

Since the two parameters are inviolable and both parameters produce inconsistent solutions where the
3SEATCAP parameter demands a number of seats that cannot exceed 3 while the PR parameter
demands a number of seats that is either 5 or 6, it follows that the 3-SEATCAP and the PR parameters
are inconsistent.

As a result, a formula that adheres with the 3SEATCAP is bound to violate the PR parameter.
The Panganiban Formula Violates the PR Parameter

If the Panganiban Formula is applied to the latest Party-List Tally (Canvass Report No. 27), a “solution” is
obtained with 21 seats where Buhay has 3 seats. The solution is consistent under the 0.2TOTAL,
.02THRESH and the 3-SEATCAP parameters.

By the PR parameter, Buhay with 14.2643% of the total votes of all qualified parties will get about
14.2643% × 55 = 7.84536495 seats.

The Panganiban Formula which assigns 3 seats to Buhay violates the PR parameter on Buhay by at least
4 seats.

The formula also violates the PR parameter on Bayan Muna by at least 4 seats also, on Cibac by at least
3 seats, on Gabriela, APEC, A Teacher and Akbayan by at least 2 seats each, on Alagad, Butil, Batas,
Anakpawis, COOP-NATCCO, Abono, Agap, ARC and An Waray by at least 1 seat each.

Thus, the total number of seats violated by the Panganiban Formula over all the qualified parties is at
least 28 seats. This is equivalent to at least (28/55) × 8,070,680 = 4,108,701 disenfranchised voters.

Since the system of parameters is inconsistent, no seat allocation formula can be designed to produce a
correct solution. Thus, a formula that adheres to the 3SEATCAP parameter will disenfranchise a number
of party-list voters if the PR parameter produces more than 3 seats for a qualified party.

CANDIDACY
Qualifications/Eligibilities of Candidates
Q: What are the qualifications for President and Vice President of the Philippines?
A: 1. Natural‐born citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter
3. Able to read and write
4. At least 40 years of age at the day of election
5. And a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.
(Sec. 63, B.P. No. 881 Omnibus Election Code)

Q: What are the qualifications of elective local officials?

A: 1. Must be a citizen of the Philippines
 2. A 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
3. A resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election
4. And able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. (Sec. 39, R.A. No.
7160 Local Government Code of the Philippines)

Constitutional and Statutory Qualifications of Candidates

 RA 10742, or Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2015, Sec 10

SEC. 10. Qualifications. – An official of the Sangguniang Kabataan, either elective or appointee, must be

 a citizen of the Philippines,

 a qualified voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan,
 a resident of the barangay for not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
elections,
 at least eighteen (18) years but not more than twenty-four (24) years of age on the day of the
elections,
 able to read and write Filipino, English, or the local dialect,
 must not be related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent
elected national official or to any incumbent elected regional, provincial, city, municipal, or
barangay official, in the locality where he or she seeks to be elected, and
 must not have been convicted by final judgment of any crime involving moral turpitude.

Who are Filipino Citizens?

Art. IV Secs. 1-5
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

SECTION 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship
in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

SECTION 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Disqualification of Candidates
Q: What are the grounds for disqualification of a
candidate?
A:

1. Declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority

2. Convicted by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or any offense for which
he has been sentenced to a penalty of 18 months imprisonment
3. Convicted by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude
4. Election offenses under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
5. Committing acts of terrorism to enhance candidacy
6. Spending in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed
7. Soliciting, receiving, making prohibited contributions
8. Not possessing qualifications and possessing disqualifications under the Local Government
Code
9. Sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense
punishable by one year or more of imprisonment within two years after serving sentence
10. Removed from office as a result of an administrative case
11. Convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic
12. Dual citizenship (more specifically, dual allegiance)
13. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non‐ political cases here or abroad
14. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside
abroad and continue to avail of the same right
15. Insane or feeble‐minded
16. Nuisance candidate
17. Violation of Sec. 73 OEC with regard to COC
18. Violation of Sec. 78: material misrepresentation in the COC

Note: When a candidate has not yet been disqualified by final judgment during the election day and was
voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. (Codilla v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605,
Dec. 10, 2002)

Petition for disqualification (Sec. 68) vs. Petition to deny due course to or cancel COC for false material
representation in the COC (Sec. 78)

 Petition for disqualification (Sec. 68)

SECTION 68. Disqualifications. – Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a
party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of
having
(a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public
officials performing electoral functions;
(b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
(c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code;
(d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
(e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, 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 any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.

 Petition to deny due course to or cancel COC for false material representation in the COC (Sec.
78)
SECTION 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. – A verified
petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the
person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required
under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five
days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice
and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

Petition to deny due course or to cancel COC

Denial of due course to or cancelling COC of a Nuisance Candidate

SECTION 69. Nuisance candidates. – The Commission may, motu proprio or upon a verified
petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is
shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause
confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for
the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination
of the true will of the electorate.

Petition to deny due course to or cancel COC for false material representation in the COC (Sec. 78) vs
Petition for Quo Warranto (Sec. 253)

SECTION 253. Petition for quo warranto. – Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to
the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within
ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election. (Art. XIV, Sec. 60, BP 697; Art. XVIII, Sec.
189, par. 2, 1978 EC)

RA 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987)

Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - 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 declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is
voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall
continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

Section 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. - The procedure
hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy
as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
CASTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES
1. Automated Election System (AES)
a. Two Types - Sec 2 of RA 9369

7. Paper-based election system - a type of automated election system that use paper
ballots, records and counts votes, tabulates, consolidates/canvasses and transmits electronically
the results of the vote count;"

8. Direct recording electronic election system - a type or automated election system

that uses electronic ballots, records, votes by means of a ballot display provided with
mechanical or electro-optical component that can be activated by the voter, processes data by
means of a computer programs, record voting data and ballot images, and transmits voting
results electronically;

b. Some requirements for the use of AES (RA 9369)

Section 11.
"SEC. 11. Functions of the Technical Evaluation Committee. - The Committee shall
certify, through an established international certification entity to be chosen by the
Commission from the recommendations of the Advisory Council, not later than three
months before the date of the electoral exercises, categorically stating that the AES,
including its hardware and software components, is operating properly, securely, and
accurately, in accordance with the provisions of this Act based, among others, on the
following documented results:
1. The successful conduct of a field testing process followed by a mock election event in
one or more cities/municipalities;
2. The successful completion of audit on the accuracy, functionally and security controls
of the AES software;
3. The successful completion of a source code review;
4. A certification that the source code is kept in escrow with the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas;
5. A certification that the source code reviewed is one and the same as that used by
the equipment; and
6. The development, provisioning, and operationalization of a continuity plan to cover
risks to the AES at all points in the process such that a failure of elections, whether at
voting, counting or consolidation, may be avoided.

For purposes of the 2007 elections, the certification shall be done not later than
eight weeks prior to the date of the elections.

If the Commission decides to proceed with the use of the AES without the
Committee's certification, it must submit its reason in writing, to the Oversight
Committee, no less than thirty (30) days prior to the electoral exercise where the AES
will be used.
 The Committee may avail itself of the expertise and service of resource persons
who are of known independence, competence and probity, are no partisan, and who do
not possess any of the disqualification applicable to a member of the Advisory Council
as provided herein. The resource persons shall also be subject to the same prohibitions
and penalties as the members of the Advisory Council.
The Committee shall closely coordinate with the steering committee of the
Commission tasked with the implementation of the AES in the identification and
agreement of the project deliverables and timelines, and in the formulation of the
acceptance criteria for each deliverable."

Section 14.
SEC.14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening
of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and
candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine
and test.

The equipment or device to be used in the voting and counting on the day of the
electoral exercise, before voting start. Test ballots and test forms shall be provided by
the Commission.

Immediately after the examination and testing of the equipment or device,

parties and candidates or their representatives, citizen's arms or their representatives,
may submit a written comment to the election officer who shall immediately transmit it
to the Commission for appropriate action.

The election officer shall keep minutes of the testing, a copy of which shall be
submitted to the Commission together with the minute of voting."

Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall

promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested
political party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof."

2. Electoral Boards
a. Can teachers still be compelled to serve in elections?
RA 10756 or the Election Service Reform Act (April 8, 2016) Sec. 3

SECTION 3. Rendering of Election Service. – The Electoral Boards to be

constituted by the Commission shall be composed of a Chairperson and two (2)
members, all of whom shall be public school teachers who are willing and available to
render election service.
Should there be a lack of public school teachers willing, available or qualified to serve,
the Commission may instead appoint the following persons in this order of preference:
(a) Private school teachers;
(b) National government employees:
(1) DepED nonteaching personnel;
 (2) Other national government officials and employees holding regular or
permanent positions, excluding uniformed personnel of the Department of
National Defense and all its attached agencies;
(c) Members of the Commission-accredited citizen arms or other civil society
organizations and nongovernmental organizations duly accredited by the Commission;
(d) Any registered voter of the city or municipality of known integrity and competence
who is not connected with any candidate or political party.

In cases where the peace and order situation so requires as determined by the
Commission and where there are no qualified voters willing to serve, uniformed
personnel of the Philippine National Police shall be deputized to render election service
as a last resort.

PROCLAMATION
1. Pre-proclamation Remedies
a. Suspension of Proclamation (Pending Case for Disqualification or Cancellation of COC)
RA 6646, Sec. 6 last sentence, in relation to Sec. 7 thereof

Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - 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 declared by final judgment before
an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of
votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing
of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any
intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation
of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

Section 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. -

The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

b. Failure of Election

c. Pre-proclamation controversies – Sec. 243 OEC

SECTION 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. – The

following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:

(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 Section 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.

2. Post-proclamation remedies
a. Election Protest
They are disputes which arise or are instituted after proclamation of winning candidates
and which issues pertain to the casting and counting of votes (Election Protests), or to the
eligibility or disloyalty of the winning candidates (Quo Warranto).
b. Quo Warranto
It is a proceeding to determine the right to the use or exercise of an office and to oust
the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well founded or if he has forfeited his
right to enjoy the privilege. Unlike an election protest, which can only be filed by a
candidate, any voter can file a petition for quo warranto.

Note: Election Protests and Quo warranto proceedings against a Congressman‐elect,

Senator‐ elect, President‐elect and VP‐elect are brought before the appropriate
electoral tribunals created by the Constitution.

Summary of Jurisdiction of Courts

1. COMELEC – sole judge of all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications
of all elective regional, provincial and city officials.
2. Supreme Court en banc – President and Vice President
3. SET – Senator
a. HRET – representative
4. RTC – over contests for municipal
officials
5. MeTC or MTC – for barangay officials