Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

QUIZ # 4 No. COMELEC En Banc has no power to decide the instant case.

Cardinal primary requirements of due process:


1. The right to a hearing which includes the right to presents one’s case & COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide
submit evidence in support thereof election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases
3. The decision must have something to support it
decided by it in the first instance is null and void.
4. The evidence must be substantial
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at IV. As a general rule, COMELEC en banc does not have authority to hear and decide
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
election cases and pre proclamation controversies at the 1st instance. Any decision
6. The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy rendered by COMELEC en banc as regards to election cases in the 1st instance is
7. The board or body should in all controversial question, render its decision null and void. However, there are instances that the COMELEC en Banc may validly
in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various hear in the 1st instance, among of such, is petition for postponement.
issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
8. The officer of tribunal conducting the investigation must be vested w/ V. GARCES v. CA
competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guaranty of honesty and impartial trial. No. Empeynado’s contention is wrong. The case is cognizable by the RTC.

QUIZ # 5 The “case” or “matter” referred to by the constitution must be something within
I. the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain to an election dispute. The
A. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of COMELEC settled rule is that “decision, rulings, order” of the COMELEC that may be brought
 Over all contests relating to elections, returns, qualification, of all elective to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that relate to the
regional, provincial, and city officials
COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving “elective
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
regional, provincial and city officials.”
 Municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction
In this case, what is being assailed is the COMELEC’s choice of an appointee to
 Elective brgy officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction
occupy the Gutalac Post which is an administrative duty done for the operational
II. set-up of an agency. The controversy involves an appointive, not an elective,
official. Hardly can this matter call for the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme
A. ) Ben Tang should flie his election protest before the RTC . Court.

Settled is the rule that the exclusive original jurisdiction over all election contests VI. JAMIL v. COMELEC
involving elective municipal officials is vested in RTC.
B is the winner. COMELEC Rules of Procedures provides, that when the Commission
B.) Tang should bring his appeal before the COMELEC. Law provides that COMELEC en banc is equally divided in opinion, in appealed cases, the judgment or order
is vested by law to exercise appellate jurisdiction over election protests decided by appealed from shall stand affirmed.
the trial courts of general jurisdiction.
VII. GUEVARRA v. COMELEC

Commission on Elections has no power nor authority to submit Rappler to


III. ABAD v. COMELEC contempt proceedings if its purpose is to discipline because of the publication of
the subject article.
COMELEC can have the authority to punish for contempt only when it is exercising Morales’ involuntary severance from office with respect to the 2004-2007 term is
judicial or quasi-judicial functions in nature and does not have such power when it an Involuntary severance from office which amounts to an interruption of
is exercising administrative or ministerial functions. continuity of service.

Thus, COMELEC has no power to cite for a contempt a person who published a QUIZ 6.
newspaper article critical of its conduct in letting contracts for the purchase of
ballot boxes to be used in elections because it does not involves judicial, but only I.
administrative functions.
a.)
VIII.
Natural Born Citizen are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
I will dismiss the case. COMELEC has no jurisdiction in the subject case. to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

It is the MeTC and MTC which are vested with jurisdiction over petitions for b.)
disqualification involving barangay election.
The following are Natural born citizens of the Philippines:
IX. CAYAT v. COMELEC
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
Contention of the Vice-Mayor is wrong. adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an and
election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. As such, 3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Palileng is the only candidate and the duly elected mayor. Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. (Section
1, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution)

 Case of Bengzon. NBC kaso nag serve sa US army. Bumalik sa pinas reaquired
X. DIZON v. MORALES
phil cit thru repatriation. Tumakbong mayor.
The Local Government Code provides that, No local elective official shall serve for
more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen
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 Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This means that a
elected. naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as
a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-
There should be a concurrence of two conditions for the application of the the born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his
three-bar rule: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three former status as a natural-born Filipino.
consecutive terms in the same local government post and (2) that he has fully
served three consecutive terms  Mercado v. Manzano. Si edu ay pinanganak sa tate. Tumakbong mayor. Pet
sought for the disqualification of Edu on the ground sec 40 LGC— proscription
Morales cannot be deemed to have served the full term of 2004-2007 because he
to run of person w/ dual citizenship.
was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term, thus the same
cannot be counted as a term for purposes of computing the three-term limit.
"Dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be  Voluntary renunciation of term, does not cancel the renounced term in the
understood as referring to dual allegiance. While dual citizenship is involuntary, computation of the three term limit
dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition. Article IV Sec. 5 of the
Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national  Lonzanida Case. Elected thrice as mayor. Before the expiration of her 3rd term,
interest and shall be dealt with by law." COMELEC declared such as term as null and void. On the ff election, pet filed
cc. Prr assailed the cc, on the ground of 3 term bar rule.
The filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce his
American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as Lonzanida’s assumption of office as mayor from May 1995 to 1998 cannot be
a dual citizen considered as service of one full term for the purpose of applying the three-
term limit for elective local government officials.
II. “Residence” means “domicile” (election laws)
 Individual’s permanent home
Two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: 1) that
 A place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to
the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the
return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they
same local government post and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive
disclose intent.
terms.
 Twin Requisites:
 Animus Manendi – Intent of returning permanently
His assumption of office in 1995 cannot be deemed to have been by reason of a
 Actual habitual residence/presence
valid election. Also, he did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term by
 Substantial tie – work, school, business, family
reason of involuntary relinquishment of office as he was ordered to vacate his
Change of Residence
post before the expiration of the term. Although he served the greater portion
Requisites:
of said term, he should not be considered disqualified because he did not serve
1. Residence or bodily presence in new locality;
three full consecutive terms.
2. Intention to remain there(animus manendi); and
3. Intention to abandon the old domicile(animus non revertendi).

IV. Fugitive from justice


III. 3 Term Disqualification RODRIGUEZ v. COMELEC

Three term disqualification Fugitive from justice is disqualified


Sec. 8, Art X, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 43, Loc Gov – No local elective official shall  Those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment
serve more than three consecutive terms.  Those who, after being charged (Philippines or abroad), flee to avoid
prosecution
Requisites: NOTE: Intent to evade must be established by proof of conviction or at least a
1. Official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the charge has been filed at time of flight
same local government post; and
2. He has fully served three consecutive terms
V.
 A person who has been elected but lost in election protest deemed not
having served a term.
Substitution of Candidates – if after the last day for filing of the CC, an official  Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is
candidate of a registered political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the
cause: Commission of having:
1.) He may be substituted by a candidate belonging to and nominated by the a) Given money or other materials consideration to influence, induce or
same political party; corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
2.) No substitute shall be allowed for any independent candidate; b) Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
3.) The substitute must file his certificate of candidacy not later than mid-day c) Spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this
of election day. Code;
d) Solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89,
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should happen between the day before 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
election and mid-day of the election day, CC may be filed with: e) Violated any of sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, pars. D, e, k, v and cc, sub
1.) Any Board of Election Inspectors in the political subdivision he is a par 6
candidate; or  Sec. 80 – political activity outside campaign period
2.) With COMELEC if it is a national position  Sec. 83 – removal or destruction of lawful election propaganda
 Sec. 85 – prohibited forms of election propaganda (RA 9006,
Withdrawal of certificate amend)
 GR: To be effective, withdrawal should be under oath or in the form of a  Sec. 86 – regulation of election propaganda through mass media
sworn declaration that he is withdrawing his CC.  Sec. 261 – (d)coercion of subordinates, (e) threat, intimidation or
 XPN: if accepted by election registrar, as a result of which a substitute files other forms of coercion, (k) unlawful electioneering, (v)
his CC in his place and receives the winning number of votes. prohibition against release or expenditure of public funds, (cc, sub
 Attempt to withdraw the withdrawal is equivalent to filing anew a CC and par. 6) solicitation of votes or undertaking any propaganda on the
is too late if filed beyond period. day of the election.
f) Permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country.
 Case of Vivero.
To be validly considered as withdrawal, there must be an under oath or the
form of a sworn declaration that he is withdrawing his Certificate of Candidacy.
b.) Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from
Hence there was no withdrawal of candidacy for the position of mayor where running for any elective local position. (LGC)
the candidate, before the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy,
personally appeared in the COMELEC office, asked for his certificate of 1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
candidacy and intercalated the word “vice” before the word mayor and the turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
following day wrote the election registrar saying that his name be included in imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
the list of official candidates for mayor. 2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to
the Republic;
VI. 4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non political cases here or abroad;
a.) Grounds for disqualification (Sec. 68, OEC)
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the
right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the II. Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from
effectivity of this Code; and running for any elective local position. (LGC)
7. The insane or feeble-minded.
III.
C.) Effect of disqualification
a.) Yes. Dina Tuwa may validly file the subject petition. The law provides, among
Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
others, that a citizen of voting age may validly file a pet for disqualification. Given
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a
that Dina tuwa is a registered voter then she is also qualified to petition a
candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified
disqualification case against Te.
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, Tuwa may file the subject petition on any day after the last day for filing of CoC but
or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the not later than the date of proclamation
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Sec. 6, RA 6646 – Electoral Reforms b.) Petition for Disqualification must be filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court of
Law of 1987) COMELEC.

c.) Yes. The law provides that it is only candidate who has been declared by final
d.) Nuisance Candidate
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall
Nuisance Candidates
not be counted.
 Petition to declare a duly registered candidate as a nuisance candidate.
(Sec 5, RA 6646 – Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) Absence of a final judgement declaring a candidate as disqualified, Te is deemed a
 Who may file: any registered candidate for the same office valid candidate for the mayoralty post. Hence, votes cast for Te should be counted.
 When to file: within 5 days from last day for filing of CC
 How: personally or through duly authorized representative with COMELEC d.) No. The law provides that, if for any reason a candidate is not declared by final
 GROUNDS: CC has been filed: judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the
 To put the election process in mockery or disrepute; winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue
 To cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
names of the registered candidates; or complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
 Clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his
to run for the office for which the CC has been filed and thus guilt is strong.
prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
(Sec, 69, BP 881) From the foregoing, COMELEC should proceed with the disqualification case
instituted against Te, and shall suspend the proclamation upon motion of the
QUIZ 7 plaintiff or any intervenor.

I.) Gwen Garcia pending case. IV.

Yes. V. Nuisance candidate.

. VI. CODILLA V. DE VENECIA


The respondent’s proclamation was premature given that the case against II. No.
petitioner had not yet been disposed of with finality. Settled is the rule that
COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction over motions for reconsiderations of the The residency requirement for voter registration provides that such person must
resolution/ decision of COMELEC in division. have been a resident in the place wherein she intends to vote for atleast 6 months
immediately preceeding the election.
In the intant case, the issue on the validity of the Resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division has not yet been resolved by the COMELEC en banc. The HRET
III. No. The law provides, that the application for registration of a physically
cannot assume jurisdiction over the matter. HRET has no jurisdiction to review
disabled person may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of
resolutions or decisions of the COMELEC, whether issued by a division or en banc
consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accredited
citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the applicant.

VI. Carpio-Morales v. Binay “Girlfriend” is not one of those allowed by law to prepare the application of a
disabled person.
Binay invoked the condonation doctrine when he asked the CA to stop the
preventive suspension order against him over the alleged overpricing of the Makati IV.
city hall parking building II.
A. If Dimapigilan is a candidate without any political party and without
Condonation doctrine provides that a public official cannot be removed for support from any political party he may spend P15,000. Otherwise,
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his reelection to Dimapigilan may spend P9,000.
office operates as a condonation to the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent
of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The law provides that candidates, except for president and vice-president,
may spend P3 for every voter currently registered in the constituency
SC decided that the said doctrine is now “bereft of legal basis” based on the 1987 where he filed his CoC. Provided, that a candidate w/o pol party and w/o
Constitution and the Local Government Code. any support from pol party may be allowed to spend P5 for every such
voter.
The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of
B. No. One of those who are prohibited from making any contributions to a
accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution,
candidate on an elective post is a foreigner. Thus, the proscription applies
is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official’s administrative
to the Chinese friend of Dimapigilan.
liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact
C. The Board of canvassers, upon 5 days notice to all the tied candidates, hold
that he was elected to a second term of office, or even another elective post.
a special public meeting to conduct a drawing of lots candidates who tied.
The declared winner is the candidate who will be favored by luck in draw
lots.
QUIZ 8

I. Yes. The LGC provides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense V. The ff are the grounds in pre proclamation proceedings:
involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, requires the right to run for elective post after two (2) years after 1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
serving sentence. Thus, Hood having his sentence completed May 2016 may validly 2. Material defects in the election returns
run for an elective post in May 2018. 3. The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
4. 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.

VI. No. Case should have been filed before the Board of Canvassers.

Direct resort to COMELEC involving pre proclamation cases is limited to pre


proclamation cases involving the elections for regional, provincial, city and
municipal officials relating to composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers.

VII.

ELECTION PROTEST QUO WARRANTO

Strictly a contest between the It is a proceeding purpose is to


defeated and winning candidate. If unseat the ineligible person form
the protestee be ousted, the office, but not to install the
protestant seats in the office vacated. protestant in his place. Thus, while
respondent may be unseated the
petitioner will not be seated.
Based on the grounds of election Questions of disloyalty or
frauds or irregularities, as to who ineligibility of the winning
actually obtained the majority of the candidate
legal votes and entitled to hold the
office.

Can only be filed by a candidate who It can be filed by any voter.


has duly filed a cert of candidacy and
has been voted for to the same office