ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 1

ELECTION CONTESTS
Note: There can be substantial compliance even after a motion to
16 TOMARONG V. LUBGUBAN dismiss has been filed on the ground of lack of certificate of non-
269 SCRA 624 forum shopping but it must be done asap (the next day) otherwise
(TAN, L.) the value of the SC Circular would lose its value.

FACTS: 17 BEAGAN V. BORJA

Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 261 SCRA 474
Barangay Elections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protest (TEEHANKEE)
before the respective MCTC’s. The winning candidates filed their
answers praying that the petitions be dismissed based on the FACTS:
affirmative defense that the protestants failed to attach to their ✾ May 1994. Barangay Elections in Bislig, Tanauan, Leyte
petitions the required certification on non-forum shopping as ✾ Election protest filed by Arnulfo Santillano, Egonio as
provided for in SC-AC No. 04-94. protestee, Beegan as intervenor
✾ About revision of three ballot boxes completed in October
The MCTC initially ruled to dismiss but deferred t o the Secretary of 1994, Revision Committee presented its report to the Court
Justice who then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled that November 3, 1994
the certification on non-forum shopping should be required in ✾ Problem arises when the abovementioned ballots were
elections contests before the MTC’s. Thus this petition under Rule reopened for Xeroxing purposes for the perusal of the
65. protestee’s counsel
✾ Office and Court Administrator viewed acts of respondents
HELD: in effecting the reopening of the ballot boxes and copying
The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is tantamount to misconduct in office
required for election contests. ✾ Balano (clerk of court) and Borja believed in good faith that
they had the authority to allow such.
Yes. The Court, citing Loyola v. Court of Appeals, said that: “We do
not agree that SC-AC No. 04-94 is not applicable to election cases. HELD:
There is nothing in the Circular that indicates that it does not apply Photocopying of ballots is not tantamount to misconduct in office.
to election cases. On the contrary, it expressly provides that the
requirements therein, which are in addition to those in pertinent ✾ As long as no tampering or alteration was manifest in
provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, ‘shall be Xeroxing/photocopying of court records, no liability
strictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, attaches to anyone.
applications or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies ✾ Respondents are exonerated.
other the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.’ Ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus.” 18 FERMO V. COMELEC
328 SCRA 52
In this case, the petitioners filed the required certification 18 days (VALDEZ)
after filing their petitions. It cannot be considered substantial
compliance with the requirements of the Circular. Quite obviously, FACTS:
the reglementary period for filing the protest had, by then, already ✾ LAXINA and FERMO- candidates for the position of Punong
expired. Petition dismissed.

Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08

ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Brgy. in QC. (1997 elections) LAXINA was proclaimed
winner
✾ FERMO- filed election protest question results in 4 clustered
precincts on ground of massive fraud and serious
irregularities.
✾ MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) and
granted a motion for execution pending appeal. COMELEC
reversed on ground that the possibility that the term of
contested seat might expire by the time appeal is decided
—not a “good reason” to warrant execution pending
appeal.
HELD:
A motion for executing pending appeal on ground of term
expiration is not “good reason” for issuance.
Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction and
possession of original record… in its discretion, order execution of
judgment or final order even before expiration of the period to
appeal
✾ Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on “good
reasons (combination of 2 or more will suffice):
1. PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED OR WILL OF
ELECTORATE
2. SHORTNESS of remaining portion of term of
contested office
3. LENGTH OF TIME that election contest has been
PENDING
✾ Shortness of remaining term- not good reason for execution
of judgment pending appeal—RA 8524: extended term of
office of Brgy. officials to 5 years (negates claim of FERMO
✾ Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal,
decision of FERMO’s proclamation as winner was stayed—
status quo (last actual peaceful uncontested situation
preceding the controversy) restored
✾ LAXINA: entitled to discharge functions
19 SAQUILAYAN V. COMELEC
416 SCRA 658
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
2
(DINO)
FACTS:
1. SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of
Municipal Mayor of Imus, Cavite.
2. SAQUILAYAN was proclaimed winner.
3. JARO instituted an Election Protest Case before the RTC,
contesting the results of all 453 election precincts. He
alleges the ff:
a. Votes in favor of JARO were considered stray
b. Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considered
null and void, or counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN)
c. Votes that were void (containing stickers or
markings) were counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN,
etc..
4. SAQUILAYAN filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied by
the RTC.
5. Questioning the denial of his Motion to Dismiss, the
COMELEC (Division) ruled in favor of SAQUILAYAN and
ordered the dismissal of the election protest. It ruled that
JARO’s allegations failed to state a cause of action, on the
basis of Pena v. HRET.
* Pena v. HRET held that the bare allegations of massive
fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism, without
specification and substantiation of where and how these
occurrences took place, render the protest fatally
defective.
6. Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC En
Banc, SAQUILAYAN’s Motion to Dismiss was again
dismissed, and the Election Protest Case was ordered to
proceed.
HELD:
1. The present case is similar to Miguel v. COMELEC, which
the COMELEC En Banc used as basis in ordering the
Election Protest Case to proceed.
2. IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precincts
in their respective municipalities.
3. As Miguel v. COMELEC is more recent than Pena v. HRET (as
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
used by the COMELEC Division), then the former should
prevail in case of a conflict.
4. Furthermore, election contests involve public interest.
Technicalities and procedural barriers should not be
allowed to stand if they constituted an obstacle to the
determination of the true will of the electorate.
5. 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.
6. Allowing the election protest to proceed would be the best
way of removing any doubt as to who was the real
candidate chosen by the electorate.
7. Decision of COMELEC En Banc affirmed.
20 SANTOS V. COMELEC
399 SCRA 611
(PADLAN)
FACTS:
 Petitioner (SANTOS) and Respondent (PANULAYA) were both
candidate for MAYOR of the Municipal of Balingoan, Misamis
Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections.
 MUNICIPAL Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed PANULAYA
as Mayor.
 SANTOS filed an ELECTION PROTEST in the RTC.
 RTC found that SANTOS obtained 76 votes more than
PANULAYA. RTC declared SANTOS as winner. RTC voided MBC’s
proclamation in favor of PANULAYA.
 SANTOS filed a MOTION FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL
with the RTC.
 PANULAYA APPEALED the RTC declaration in favor of SANTOS
to the COMELEC.
 COMELEC issued INJUNCTION against RTC to refrain from
acting on motion for execution pending appeal.
 RTC APPROVED motion for execution pending appeal.
 SANTOS took OATH of office and ASSUMED duties and
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
3
functions of his office.
 PANULAYA filed with COMELEC a PETITION FOR STATUS QUO
ANTE.
 COMELEC ISSUED ORDER directing parties to MAINTAIN
STATUS QUO ANTE, at the same time ENJOINING SANTOS from
assuming functions of mayor.
HELD:
Mere filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its
jurisdiction over the case and to resolve pending incidents such as
motions for execution pending appeal.
The following constitute good reasons and a combination of two
or more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal:
(1) public interest involved or 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 trial in the RTC took more than a year, while the three-year
term of the Office of the Mayor continued to run. The will of the
electorate, as determined by the trial court in the election protest,
had to be respected and given meaning.
Between the determination by the trial court of who of the
candidates won the elections and the finding of the Board of
Canvassers as to whom to proclaim, it is the court’s decision that
should prevail.
All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to allow
execution pending appeal was that the immediate execution
should be based "upon good reasons to be stated in a special
order." The rationale why such execution is allowed in election
cases is to give as much recognition to the worth of a trial judge’s
decision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the
proclamation by the board of canvassers.
Why should the proclamation by the board of canvassers suffice as
basis of the right to assume office, subject to future contingencies
attendant to a protest, and not the decision of a court of justice?
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Indeed, when it is considered that the board of canvassers is
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
act summarily, practically racing against time, while, on the other
hand, the judge has benefit of all the evidence the parties can offer
and of admittedly better technical preparation and background,
apart from his being allowed ample time for conscientious study
and mature deliberation before rendering judgment, one cannot
but perceive the wisdom of allowing the immediate execution of
decisions in election cases adverse to the protestees,
notwithstanding the perfection and pendency of appeals therefrom,
as long as there are, in the sound discretion of the court, good
reasons therefor.
To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending
appeal would bring back the ghost of the "grab-the-proclamation-
prolong the protest" techniques so often resorted to by devious
politicians in the past in their efforts to perpetuate their hold to an
elective office. This would, as a consequence, lay to waste the will
of the electorate.
ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT
21 DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. RAMOS
253 SCRA 559
(CONCEPCION)
FACTS:
This is an original action filed before the SC acting as a Presidential
Electoral Tribunal.
Miriam Defensor-Santiago (DS) ran for presidency in the 1992
National Elections. She lost, but filed this present protest against
the winner, Pres. FV Ramos.
Subsequently however, she ran for Senator in the 1995 Senatorial
elections. She won and assumed office as Senator in 1995.
Considering this factual milieu, the issues revolve on whether this
present electoral protest would still be valid, even after the
protestant has already assumed office as Senator, noting that
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
4
should she win this protest, her term as president would coincide
with her term as senator, which she is now in. Now, in 1996, the SC
as PET decides the case.
HELD:
There was abandonment of protest.
Yes. DS filed her certificate of candidacy to run for senator without
qualification or reservation. In doing so, she entered into a political
contract with the electorate, that, if elected, she would assume the
office as senator. This is in accord with the constitutional doctrine
that a public office is a public trust. In assuming the office of
Senator, she has effectively abandoned her determination to
pursue this present protest. Such abandonment operates to render
this protest moot.
Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform
the PET within 10 days if after the completion of the revision of the
ballots from her pilot areas, she still wishes to present evidence.
Since DS has not informed the Tribunal of any such intention, such
is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so.
ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, LOCAL OFFICIALS,
AND MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS; THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
22 VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. COMELEC
342 SCRA 244
(AGUINALDO)
FACTS:
Respondent proclaimed 14 party-list representatives from 13
parties which obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes
cast for the party-list system as members of the House of
Representatives. Upon petition for respondents, who were party-
list organizations, it proclaimed 38 additional party-list
representatives although they obtained less than 2% of the total
number of votes cast for the party-list system on the ground that
under the Constitution, it is mandatory that at least 20% of the
members of the House of Representatives come from the party-list
representatives.
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
HELD:
It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for the party-list
seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution vested
Congress with the broad power to define and prescribe the
mechanics of the party-list system of representatives. In the
exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress deemed it
necessary to require parties participating in the system to obtain at
least 2% of the total votes cast for the party list system to be
entitled to a party-list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only
those parties having a sufficient number of constituents deserving
of representation are actually represented in Congress.
**NOTES:
determination of total number of party-list representatives=
# districtrepresentatives
* .20
.80
additional representatives of first # ofvotesoffirstparty party=
# ofvotesofpartylistsystem
# votesofconcernedparty
additional seats for * additionalseatsforconcernedparty
# votesoffirstparty
concerned party=
23 ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC
359 SCRA 698
(ENRIQUEZ)
FACTS:
The Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the COMELEC is
challenged insofar as it approves the participation of 154
organizations and parties in the 2001 party-list elections.
Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents as the
party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and
underrepresented and not the mainstream political parties.
The COMELEC received several petitions for registration filed by
sectoral parties, etc. for the 2001 elections. The COMELEC allege
that verifications for the qualifications of these parties take a long
process and as a result the 2 divisions promulgated a separate
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
5
Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political parties
only on February 10, 2001. Before the February 12, 2001 deadline,
the registered parties and organizations filed their Manifestations,
stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. The
COMELEC approved the Manifestations of 154 parties and
organizations but denied those of several others.
ACAP filed before the COMELEC a petition praying that the names
of some respondents be deleted from the Certified List of Political
Parties…Participating in the Party List System for the May 14, 2001
Elections. It also prayed that the votes cast for the said
respondents be not counted or canvassed and that the latter’s
nominees not be proclaimed. Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth
also filed a similar petition against some of the respondents.
ISSUE 1: WON political parties may participate in the party-list
elections
The SC held that under the Constitution and RA 7941, private
respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections,
merely on the ground that they are political parties. Sec. 7 and 8,
Article IX-C provides that political parties may be registered under
the partylist system. In the ConCom deliberations, Com. Monsod
stated that the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up
the system, in order to give a chance to parties that consistently
place 3rd or 4th in congressional district elections to win a seat in
Congress. Sec. 3 of RA 7941 provides that a “party” is “either a
political party or a sectoral party or a collation of parties”. Sec. 11
of the same Act leaves no doubt as to the participation of political
parties in the party-list system. Indubitable, political parties – even
the major ones-may participate in the party-list elections.
ISSUE 2: WON the party-list system is exclusive to marginalized
and underrepresented sectors and organizations
For political parties to participate in the party-list elections their
requisite character must be consistent with the purpose of the
party-list system in the Constitution and RA 7941. The purpose of
the party-list system is to give “genuine power to our people” in
Congress. However, the constitutional provision is not self-
executory, hence RA 7941 was enacted.
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Proportional representation does not refer to the number of people
in a particular district, because the party-list election is national in
scope. It refers to the representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented as exemplified in Section 5 of the Act. The party-
list organization must factually and truly represent the
marginalized and underrepresented constituencies. The persons
nominated to the party-list system must also belong to the
underrepresented and marginalized sectors, organizations and
parties.
Lack of well-defined constituency refers to the absence of a
traditionally identifiable electoral group. It points to those with
disparate interests defined with the marginalized and
underrepresented. In the end, the COMELEC’s role is to see to it
that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and
underrepresented become members of Congress under the party-
list system. Not all sectors can be represented under the party-list
system. The law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of
Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion
owners of Forbes Park. While the mega-rich are numerically
speaking, a minority, they are neither marginalized nor
underrepresented. It is illogical to open the system to those who
have long been within it – those privileged sectors that have long
dominated the congressional district elections.
The SC held that it cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied
and prostituted by those who are neither marginalized nor
underrepresented.
Mendoza, dissenting: The text of Art. VI, Sec. 5(1)(2) provides for a
party-list system of registered, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations, and not for sectoral representation. It provides for
no basis for petitioner’s contention that whether it is sectoral
representation or party-list system the purpose is to provide
exclusive representation for marginalized sectors. The Record of
the ConCom speaks clearly against the petitioner’s assertion. Two
proposals for additional representation in the House of
Representatives were submitted namely, sectoral representation
and party-list system. These two are not the same. In the end, the
ConCom chose the party-list system. In choosing this system, the
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
6
ConCom did not intend to reserve the party-list system to the
marginalized or underrepresented. In fact, the party-list system
mandates the opposite.
Furthermore, Justice Mendoza holds that the majority
misapprehended the meaning of Section 2 of RA No. 7941. The
provision states that the purpose of the party-list system is to
promote promotional representation in the election of
representatives in the House of Representatives. To this end, a full,
free and open party system is guaranteed to obtain the broadest
possible representation of a party, sectoral or group interests in
the House of Representatives. While the representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors is a basic purpose of
the law, it is not its only purpose.
ISSUE 3: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785
The SC held that it is proper to remand the case to the COMELECT
to determine whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to
participate in the party-list elections comply with the requirements
of the law. In light of this, the SC provides for guidelines to assist
the COMELEC in its work. (1) The political party…must represent
the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section
5 of RA 7941, (2) Even if major political parties are allowed to
participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the
declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the
House of Representatives, (3) a party or an organization must not
be disqualified under Section 6 of the Act which enumerates the
grounds for disqualification, (4) the party or organization must not
be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or
assisted by the government, (5) party must not comply with the
requirements of the law, (6) not only the candidate party or
organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, so also must its nominees, (7) the nominee must likewise
be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
24 ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC
GR 147589, JANUARY 29, 2002
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
(ENRIQUEZ)
FACTS:
The COMELEC issued a TRO against the proclamation of APEC,
CIBAC and AMIN because they failed to meet the 8-point guidelines
set forth by this Court. The COMELEC found that APEC was merely
an arm of the Philippine Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PHILRECA)
and that it did not truly represent the marginalized sectors of
society, CIBAC was reported to be merely an extension of the Jesus
Is Lord (JIL) religious movement and did not represent the interest
of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society and
that Anak Mindanao (AMIN) was listed as having obtained only
1.6865% of the total votes cast for the party-list system, not
sufficient to meet the 2% required no. of votes.
ISSUE:
WON APEC, CIBAC and AMIN should be proclaimed winners aside
from those already validly proclaimed by the earlier Resolutions of
the SC.
RULING:
AMIN did not get more than two percent of the votes cast.
APEC and CIBAC have sufficiently met the 8-point guidelines of his
Court and have sufficient votes to entitle them to seats in
Congress. Issues are factual in character, Commission’s findings
are adopted, absent any patent arbitrariness or abuse or
negligence in its action. No substantial proof that CIBAC is merely
an arm of JIL, or that APEC is an extension of PHILRECA. The OSG
explained the these are separate entities with separate
memberships. Although APEC’s nominees are all professionals, its
membership is composed not only of professionals but also of
peasants, elderly, youth and women. APEC addresses the issues of
job creation, poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. CIBAC is
composed of he underrepresented and marginalized and is
concerned with their welfare. CIBAC is particularly interested in the
youth and professional sectors.
TRO partially lifted with regard to APEC and CIBAC.
25 ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
7
GR 147589, APRIL 10, 2002
(ENRIQUEZ—ang bagong bayani ng 2D!)
The COMELEC determined that the following party-list participants,
despite their having obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast,
have failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth in our
Decision: Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), Association of
Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Veterans Federation Party
(VFP), Abag Promdi (PROMDI), Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC),
Lakas NUCD-UMDP, and Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC).
The OSG, acting on behalf of the Comelec, in its Consolidated Reply
dated October 15, 2001 and in a Manifestation dated December 5,
2001, modified its position and recommended that APEC and CIBAC
be declared as having complied with the 8-point guidelines
ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS
26 OCCEÑA V. COMELEC
127 SCRA 404
(ZUÑIGA)
FACTS:
✾ Samuel Occena filed a petition for prohibition to declare as
unconstitutional the provisions in the Barangay Election Act
of 1982 (BP 222) which prohibited:
o any candidate in the 1982 barangay election from
representing himself as a member of a political
party;
o the intervention of political parties in a candidate's
nomination and filing of his certificate of
candidacy; and
o the giving of aid or support of political parties for or
against a candidate's campaign
✾ Occena prayed that the 1982 elections be declared null
and void, and new barangay elections held without the ban
on the involvement of political parties
✾ In 1982 the court considered the Comments of the Solicitor
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
General as an Answer
✾ Note that the decision in the case was delayed because all
the Justices resigned on May 1982 (*SC trivia: over
allegations that the bar exam results of Justice Ericta's son
were changed in his favor - there was pre-decoding of his
grades before official decoding and publication)
HELD:
The ban on the intervention of political parties in the election of
barangay officials is NOT violative of the constitutional guarantee
of the right to form associations and societies for purposes not
contrary to law.
Under the Barangay Election Act of 1982, the right to organize is
intact. Political parties may freely be formed although there is a
restriction on their activities, i.e., their intervention in the election
of barangay officials on May 17, 1982 is prescribed. But the ban is
narrow, not total. It operates only on concerted or group action of
political parties. The ban against the participation of political
parties in the barangay election is an appropriate legislative
response to the unwholesome effects of partisan bias in the
impartial discharge of the duties imposed on the barangay and its
officials as the basic unit of our political and social structure. It
would definitely enhance the objective and impartial discharge of
their duties for barangay officials to be shielded form political party
loyalty.
Some reasons for the restriction:
- "the barangay is the basic unit not only of our social structure but
also of our political structure. It would be a more prudent policy to
insulate the barangays from the influence of partisan politics. The
barangays, although it is true they are already considered regular
units of our government, are non-partisan; they constitute the base
of the pyramid of our social and political structure, and in order
that base will not be subject to instability because of the influence
of political forces, it is better that we elect the officials thereof
through a non-partisan system." (Deliberations on Parliamentary
Bill 2125 which later became BP Blg. 222)
- The Barangay Captain and the Barangay Council, apart from their
legislative and consultative powers, also act as an agency for
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
8
neutral community action such as the distribution of basic foodstuff
and as an instrument in conducting plebiscites and referenda.
- The Barangay Captain, together with the members of the Lupon
Tagapayapa appointed by him, exercises administrative supervision
over the barangay conciliation panels in the latter's work of settling
local disputes. The Barangay Captain himself settles or helps settle
local controversies within the barangay either through mediation or
arbitration.
The case of Imbong v. COMELEC also involved the restriction as
that prescribed in Sec. 4 of BP 222. In upholding the
constitutionality of what was then Sec. 8(a) of Republic Act No.
6132, the court said that "While it may be true that a party's
support of a candidate is not wrong per se, it is equally true that
Congress in the exercise of its broad law-making authority can
declare certain acts as mala prohibita when justified by the
exigencies of the times." The primary purpose of the prohibition
was to avoid the denial of the equal protection of the laws. The
sponsors of the provision emphasized that under this provision, the
poor candidate has an even chance as against the rich candidate.
Equality of chances may be better attained by banning all
organization support. The ban was to assure equal chances to a
candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as well as nobility
of purpose, so that the country can utilize their services if elected.
Fernando's Concurring Opinion:
Test of the permissible limitation on freedom of association: How
should the limitation 'for purposes not contrary to law' be
interpreted? It is submitted that it is another way of expressing the
clear and present danger rule for unless an association or society
could be shown to create an imminent danger to public safety,
there is no justification for abridging the right to form associations
or societies."
Teehankee's Dissenting Opinion:
The restriction denies "non-political" candidates the very freedoms
of effectively appealing to the electorate through the public media
and of being supported by organized groups that would give them
at least a fighting chance to win against candidates of the political
kingpins. The political bigwigs are meanwhile left to give their
"individual" blessings to their favored candidates, which in
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
actuality is taken by all as the party's blessings.
27 KANDUM V. COMELEC
GR 136969, JANUARY 18, 2000
(CHOTRANI)
FACTS:
Petitioner Amilhamja Kandum and respondent Hadji Gapur Ballaho
were candidates for Punong Barangay in Barangay Look Bisaya,
Tipo-Tipo, Basilan in the 1997 barangay elections. Petitioner
garnered 61 votes over respondent's 59 votes. When petitioner
was proclaimed the winner by the BBC, respondent filed an
election protest in the MCTC and secured a favorable decision.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the RTC. But when the RTC
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner filed a
notice of appeal to the COMELEC through the MCTC .
The COMELEC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for having
been filed out of time. (Appeal was filed 37 days after petitioner
received copy of the decision of the MCTC)
HELD:
RTC doesn't have jurisdiction over election protests involving
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction (the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts) lies with the COMELEC, not the RTC.
Under paragraph (2), Section 2, subdivision C, Article IX of the
Constitution,
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following
powers and functions:
xxx
(2) Exercise exclusive . . . appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
9
general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
28 BUHISAN V. COMELEC
GR 127328, JANUARY 30, 2001
(PEÑAFLORIDA)
FACTS:
Petitioner Jane Buhisan and private respondent Gordon Gorospe
were candidates for the position of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
Chairman of Barangay Poblacion, San Juan, Siquijor during the May
6, 1996 elections. Buhisan garnered 35 votes against Gorospe's 34
votes. Buhisan was proclaimed by the Board of Election Tellers as
the duly elected SK Chairman.
On May 13 Gorospe filed before the MCTC of Lazi, Siquijor an
election protest which seeks the annulment of the proclamation of
Buhisan and to declare the former the duly elected SK Chairman.
MCTC nullified Buhisan's proclamation and declared Gorospe as the
SK Chairman.
Buhisan appealed with the COMELEC. Electoral Contests
Adjudication Department of COMELEC returned the appeal. A
motion for reconsideration was filed. Also, Buhisan re-filed with the
COMELEC her appellant's brief insisting that public respondent take
cognizance of her appeal.
COMELEC dismissed the appeal and informed Buhisan that the
MCTC decision in the election protest may only be elevated to the
Commission en banc via a petition for review and not by ordinary
appeal.
HELD:
The COMELEC didn't commit any grave abuse of discretion with
dismissing the appeal due a mere technicality.
Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 dated February 6,
1996, governing the conduct of Sangguniang Kabataan elections
provides:
Sec.49. Finality of Proclamation.-The proclamation of the winning
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
candidate shall be final. However, the Metropolitan Trial
Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases, whose
decision shall be final. The Commission en banc in meritorious
cases may entertain a petition for review of the decision of the
MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure. An appeal bond of P2,000.00 shall be required, which
shall be refundable if the appeal is found meritorious.
Also, the COMELEC may entertain such petitions only on
meritorious gronds. By prescribing a specific mode to be adopted
in assailing the MCTC's decision, COMELEC is afforted opportunity
to examine the allegations on the face jof the petition if there is a
prima facie showing that the MCTC committed an error of fact or
law or gravely abused its discretion to warrant reversal or
modification of the decision. In other words, this manner of appeal
is discretionary on the part of the election tribunal. It is essential
that a prior determination be made regarding the existence of
meritorious reasons for the petition. Unlike in ordinary appeals,
acceptance of the petition is not a matter of course. Here an
appeal is obviously not the proper remedy allowed by the
COMELEC Rules Accordingly, public respondent cannot be faulted
for grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal
29 MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC
382 SCRA 2
(VALDEZ)
FACTS:
✾ MONTESCLAROS (petitioners), all 20 y.o. claims being in
danger of disqualification to vote and be voted for in the SK
elections should it be postponed from original date (MAY
02) to NOV 02
✾ RP Pres. Signed the bill into law postponing the elections
✾ During pendency of petition Congress enacted RA 9164-
synchronization of brgy. and SK elections on JUL 02;
provides that voters and candidates for SK elections must
be at least 15 but less than 18 on the day of election
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
10
HELD:
The subject law doesn't disfranchise the petitioners. It also doesn't
deprive them of any property right.
✾ SK: youth organization originally established by PD 684 as
KABATAANG BARANGAY (KB)—composed of all brgy.
residents less than 18 y.o.
o LGC renamed KB to SK and limited membership to
youths at least 15 but not more than 21 yo
o SK tasked to enhance social, political, economic,
cultural,… dev’t. of youth
✾ No vested right to the permanence of age requirement
under LGC; every law passed is always subject of
amendment or repeal
o Court cannot restrain Congress from amending or
repealing law; power to make laws includes power
to change laws; Court cannot direct COMELEC to
allow over-aged voters to vote or be voted in an
election limited under RA 9164
o Congress has power to prescribe qualifications
✾ PETITIONERS: no personal and substantial interest in the
SK elections—seeking to enforce right which has been
already limited with the passage of RA 9164—ceased to be
members of SK and no longer qualified to participate
o Only those who qualify can contest, based on a
statutory authority, any act disqualifying them—
membership in the SK is mere statutory right
conferred by law
✾ No one has vested right to any public office, much less
vested right to an expectancy of holding public office
30 MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC
GR 152295, AUGUST 13, 2002
FACTS:
HELD:
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES AND CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY
31 RECABO V. COMELEC
308 SCRA 793 (1999)
(FLORES)
FACTS:
✾ This is a petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the
Comelec’s resolution cancelling Kaiser Recabo’s certificate
of candidacy for Vice-Mayor in Surigao Del Norte
✾ Kaiser Recabo claimed to be LAKAS NUCD-UMDP’s official
candidate to the aforementioned position, substituting his
mother Candelaria Recabo
✾ Kaiser Recabo’s certificate of candidacy was only signed by
Governor Matugas, and not jointly with Robert Barbers
(space left blank) as intended by the certificate of
nomination
✾ On the other hand Respondent Reyes’ certificate of
nomination for Vice-mayor was signed by no other than
Fidel V. Ramos (National Chairman LAKAS) and Jose De
Venecia (Secretary General LAKAS)
HELD:
The certificate of candidacy of petitioner and that of his mother
who he substituted as candidate for Vice Mayor DID NOT
substantially complied with the requirements of being official
candidates of the LAKAS party.
✾ To allow Recabo to run would put the election process in
mockery for we would in effect be allowing an anomalous
situation where a single political party may field in multiple
candidate for a singe election position
✾ Lakas designated 2 party officers to issue certificates of
nomination, petitoner’s nomination was signed only by
one, while respondents signed by Ramos and JDV
✾ Comelec declared petitioner’s mother as and independent
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
11
candidate on account of the invalidity of her nomination,
thus there can be no valid substitution by petitioner for an
invalid nomination
✾ Besides, petitioner filed his candidacy out of time for an
independent candidate (although w/n prescriptive period of
a substituted candidate, useless because already adjudged
as an invalid nomination and substitution)
✾ Well-settled certificate filed beyond deadline not valid
✾ But Reyes’ motion to be declared winner, garnering the
second highest number of votes to Recabo can not be
granted, wound be tantamount to substitution of judgment
for the mind of the voter
32 BAUTISTA V. COMELEC
414 SCRA 299
(AQUINO, T.)
FACTS:
HELD:
DISQUALIFICATIONS
33 SOCRATES V. COMELEC
391 SCRA 457
(NEPOMUCENO)
FACTS:
✾ Petitioner is mayor of Puerto Princesa, who was removed
from office thru a recall proceeding initiated by the
majority of the incumbent barangay officials of the city
✾ Petitioner filed a motion to nullify the recall resolution but
was dismissed by the Comelec for lack of merit
✾ Comelec set date for conducting the recall election; former
3 term mayor Edward Hagedorn files his certificate of
candidacy
✾ Petitioner Adovo and Gilo files petition before Comelec to
disqualify Hagedorn claiming that he is disqualified from
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 12

running for a 4th term; petition was dismissed ✾ Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer
covered by the prohibition for two reasons
HELD: ✾ First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no
Hagedorn is qualified to run in the recall election longer an immediate reelection after three consecutive
terms
✾ Art. X Sec. 8 of 1987 Constitution: the term of office of
✾ Second, the intervening period constitutes an involuntary
elective local officials, except barangay officials, which
interruption in the continuity of service
shall be determined by law, shall be 3 years and no such
✾ Clearly, the constitution prohibits immediate reelection for
official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms.
a fourth term following three consecutive terms
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
✾ The constitution, however, does not prohibit a subsequent
shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
reelection for a fourth term as long as the reelection is not
of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
immediately after the end of the third consecutive term
✾ Sec. 43 (b) RA 7160: Term of office – no local official shall
✾ A recall election midway in the term following the third
serve for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same
consecutive term is a subsequent election but not an
position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
immediate reelection after the third term
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
✾ Neither does the constitution prohibit one barred from
continuity of service for the full term for which the elective
seeking immediate reelection to run in any other
official was elected
subsequent election involving the same term of office
✾ These constitutional and statutory provisions have 2 parts
✾ What the constitution prohibits is a consecutive fourth term
✾ The first part provides that an elective local official cannot
✾ The prohibited election referred to by the framers of the
serve ore than 3 consecutive terms
constitution is the immediate reelection after the third
✾ The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in
term, not any other subsequent election
determining the 3-term limit rule
✾ The framers expressly acknowledged that the prohibited
✾ The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office
election refers only to the immediate reelection, and not to
for any length of time does not interrupt the continuity of
any subsequent election, during the 6 year period following
service
the two term limit
✾ The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office
✾ The framers of the constitution did not intend “the period
for any length of time interrupts continuity of service and
of rest” of an elective official who has reached his term
prevents the service before and after the interruption from
limit to be the full extent of the succeeding term
being joined together to form a continuous service or
consecutive terms 34 ADORMEO V. COMELEC
✾ After 3 consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot 376 SCRA 90
seek immediate reelection for a fourth term (HOSAKA)
✾ The prohibited election refers to the next regular election
for the same office following the end of the third FACTS:
Pet Raymundo Adormeo and private resp Ramon Talaga were the
consecutive term

Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08

ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
only candidates who filed the certificates of candidacy for mayor of
Lucena City in the May 14, 2001 elections. Talaga was then the
incumbent mayor.
Adormeo filed a with the Provincial Election Supervisor a Petition To
Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and or
Disqualification of Talaga on the ground that the latter was elected
and had served as city mayor for 3 consecutive terms as follows: 1)
election of May 1992 where he served the full term; 2) election of
May 1995, again he served a full term; and 3) in the recall election
of May 12, 2000 where he served only the unexpired term of
Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao in the 1998 election.
Adormeo contended that Talaga’s candidacy as Mayor was a
violation of Sec 8 Art X of the Constitution---
Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be 3
years and no such official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.
Talaga claims that he only served for 2 consecutive terms and that
his service from May 2000 was not a full term because he only
served Tagarao’s unexpired term by virtue of the recall election. He
cites the case of Lonzanida giving 2 conditions for the
disqualification 1) that the official has been elected for 3
consecutive terms in the same local govt post; and 2) that he has
fully served 3 consecutive terms.
Comelec division ruled in favor of Adormeo. Comelec en banc
reversed, hence this petition.
HELD:
Talaga is qualified to run for mayor.
Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms having lost his 3rd
bid in the May 11, 1998 elections, said defeat is an interruption in
the continuity of his service as city mayor of Lucena.
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
13
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.
Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms and for nearly 2
years he was a private citizen. The continuity of his mayorship was
disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections. It was only by virtue
of the recall that he served Tagarao’s unexpired term. This did not
amount to a third full term.
Fr. Bernas’ comment 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” only pertains to the members
of the House of Representatives and not to local govt officials.
Neither can Talaga’s victory in the recall election be deemed as
“voluntary renunciation” under the Constitution.
35 DIANGKA V. COMELEC
323 SCRA 887
(REYES)
FACTS:
Petitioner Maimona Diangka filed a petition for certiorari
questioning the decision of COMELEC in disqualifying her as
candidate for Mayor of Ganassi, Lanao del Sur. Petitioner was the
wife of the incumbent Mayor. Ali Balindong, the other mayoralty
candidate, filed a special action for disqualification against Diangka
and her husband alleging that they committed 2 acts of terrorism:
* First, that they loaded the ballot boxes into an ambulance then
subsequently, through force and threats, made the watchers of
Balindong go down from the vehicle.
* Second, that Diangka’s husband went to the voting areas and
caused a commotion that prevented voters from voting.
In the results of the elections, Diangka emerged the winner.
COMELEC ordered the board of canvassers to cease and desist
from declaring Diangka as mayor, but that order came in late and
still Diangka was declared mayor. In the hearing for the
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
disqualification, only Balindong and lawyer appeared, hence
COMELEC disqualified Diangka. Diangka now assails the decision
via certiorari, meanwhile vice-mayor elect Macapodi assumed the
mayor position.
HELD:
Diangka can be held liable for the two acts of terrorism of her
husband thus, she could be disqualified by the COMELEC.
1. COMELEC determined that Diangka was at the front seat
beside the driver in the ambulance when the watchers of Balindong
were made to go down via threats. Her excuse that she did not
know nor was she in collusion with her husband can not hold water.
First, she admitted that she requested that the driver, after they
threatened the watchers, drop her off at the school. Such shows
she had control over the driver. Second, her mere presence in the
ambulance shows that she acquiesced to her husbands acts and
hence guilty also.
2. COMELEC determined that it was actually Diangka’s husband
who caused the commotion which prevented the voters from
voting. While it was not actually Diangka who committed the acts,
she did not prove that her running was not a mere alter ego of her
husband who is in his 3 term as mayor. This together with her
presence in the ambulance makes her guilty of the acts of
terrorism in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
Note: Grounds for Disqualification (Section 68 of Omnibus
Election Code):
a) Giving 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
d) Solicited, received or made any contribution which are
prohibited
36 SOON-RUIZ V. COMELEC
GR 144323, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
14
(TAN, E.)
FACTS:
Petitioner (SOLLER) and respondent (SAULONG) were both
candidates for mayor of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro.
Municipal board of canvassers proclaimed SOLLER duly elected
mayor.
SAULONG filed two actions:
a. COMELEC: “petition for annulment of the
proclamation/exclusion of election return”
b. RTC: election protest against SAULONG
SOLLER filed motion to dismiss—COMELEC granted, RTC denied
The denial by RTC of SOLLER’s motion to dismiss was questioned
via petition for certiorari with COMELEC. This certiorari was
dismissed by the COMELEC en banc.
HELD:
1. W/N COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in not ordering the dismissal of SAULONG’s election
protest.
YES. The decision of the COMELEC en banc is null and void. The
authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental
issues of election protest falls within the division of the COMELEC
and not on the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC en banc does not
have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases
including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. Any
decision by it in the first instance is null and void. 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 election protest should not be
referred first to a division of the COMELEC for resolution.
2. W/N RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to
dismiss respondent’s election protest.
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Yes. Close scrutiny of the receipts show that respondent failed to
pay the filing fee of P300. Thus, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over respondent’s election protest. COMELEC erred in
not ordering the dismissal of respondent’s protest case. Errors in
the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable.
The protest should have also been dismissed for lack of proper
verification (tantamount to filing an unsigned pleading), and for
failure to comply with the required certification against forum
shopping. This requirement is mandatory, and cannot be excused
by the fact that a party has not actually resorted to forum
shopping. Good faith is not an excuse.
Moreover, respondent’s petition was a pre-proclamation case,
which may no longer be entertained by the COMELEC after the
winning candidates have been proclaimed. By resorting to the
wrong remedy, respondent may be claimed to have abandoned the
pre-proclamation case that he filed.
PETITION GRANTED.
37 PAPANDAYAN, JR. V. COMELEC
381 SCRA 133
(BAUTISTA)
FACTS:
✾ Petitioner Papandayan and respondent Balt were
contending candidates for mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur
in the May 14, 2001 elections.
✾ COMELEC 2nd Division issued a resolution declaring
petitioner to be disqualified based on affidavits submitted
by respondent as evidence; ordered petitioner’s name to
be stricken off the list of candidates and all votes cast in
his favor not to be counted but considered as stray votes.
✾ On election day, petitioner was voted by the electorate as
municipal mayor. The following day, he received a
telegram from the COMELEC notifying him that the
COMELEC en banc denied his MR.
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
15
✾ Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC 1st Division
seeking the issuance of an order directing the Board of
Election Inspectors to count and tally the ballots cast in his
favor during the elections pursuant to COMELEC Resolution
4116. Resolution provides that if the disqualification case
has not become final and executory on the day of the
election, BEI shall tally and count the votes of the
candidate declared disqualified.
✾ Respondent filed pre-proclamation case; COMELEC issued
an order suspending the proclamation of petitioner but
despite said order, Municipal Board of Canvassers still
proclaimed petitioner as winner.
✾ Upon motion of respondent, COMELEC 1st Division set
aside petitioner’s proclamation; COMELEC en banc
sustained annulment of proclamation of petitioner
HELD:
Petitioner shouldn't be disqualified.
✾ # At the time the elections were held in May 14, 2001, the
assailed resolution, had not become final and executory.
Hence, the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) was duty
bound to tally and count the votes cast in favor of
petitioner.
✾ # COMELEC Resolution 4116 pertains to the finality of
decisions or resolutions of the Commission en banc or
division, particularly on Special Actions (Disqualification
cases)
✾ # Sec. 13, paragraphs (b) and (c) of said resolution
provide: (b) In Special Actions and Special cases, a decision
or resolution of the Commission en banc shall become final
and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation
unless restrained by the Supreme Court. (c) Unless a
motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, a decision or
resolution of a Division shall become final and executory
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
after the lapse of five (5) days in Special Actions and
Special cases and after fifteen (15) days in all other actions
or proceedings, following its promulgation.”
✾ # COMELEC Resolution 4116 further provides that: 3.
where the ground for the disqualification case is by reason
of non-residence, citizenship, violation of election laws and
other analogous cases and on the day of the election the
resolution has not become final and executory, the BEI
shall tally and count the votes of such disqualified
candidate.
✾ # Respondent, therefore, is in error in assuming that the
issuance of a temporary restraining order by this Court
within five (5) days after the date of the promulgation of
the assailed resolution is the operative act that prevents it
from attaining finality.
✾ # With due regard for the expertise of the COMELEC, we
find the evidence to be insufficient to sustain its resolution.
Petitioner has duly proven that, although he was formerly a
resident of the Municipality of Bayang, he later transferred
residence to Tangcal in the Municipality of Tubaran as
shown by his actual and physical presence therein for 10
years prior to the May 14, 2001 elections.
✾ # The principle of animus revertendi has been used to
determine whether a candidate has an “intention to return”
to the place where he seeks to be elected. Corollary to this
is a determination whether there has been an
“abandonment” of his former residence which signifies an
intention to depart therefrom.
✾ # Caasi v. Court of Appeals: respondent’s immigration to
the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of
his domicile and residence in the Philippines. Being a
green card holder was proof that he was a permanent
resident or immigrant of the United States.
✾ # Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives:
this Court, citing Faypon v. Quirino, applied the concept of
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
16
animus revertendi or “intent to return,” The fact that
respondent made periodical journeys to his home province
in Laoang revealed that he always had animus revertendi.
✾ # Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City: The term
“residence,” as used in the election law, imports not only
an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent
residence to which when absent for business or pleasure,
or for like reasons, one intends to return.
✾ # The Court explained that 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 there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old
domicile. There must be animus manendi coupled with
animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time;
the change of residence must be voluntary; and the
residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be
actual.
✾ # The record shows that when petitioner and his wife Raida
Guina Dimaporo got married in 1990, they resided in
Tangcal, Tubaran. From then on, there was manifest
intention on the part of petitioner to reside in Tubaran,
which he deemed to be the place of his conjugal abode
with his wife. The fact that he and his wife transferred
residence from Bayang to Tubaran shows that petitioner
was relinquishing his former place of residence in Bayang
and that he intended Tubaran to be his place of domicile.
Although petitioner worked as a private secretary of the
mayor of Bayang, he went home to Tubaran everyday after
work. This is proof of animus manendi.
✾ # It is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the
Constitution’s residency qualification requirement.
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
✾ # When the evidence of the alleged lack of residence
qualification of a candidate for an elective position is weak
or inconclusive and it clearly appears that the purpose of
the law would not be thwarted by upholding the victor’s
right to the office, the will of the electorate should be
respected.
38 MAGNO V. COMELEC
390 SCRA 495
(GO)
FACTS:
✾ Petitioner Nestor Magno ran for MAYOR of San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija in 2001.
✾ Private Respondent filed a petition for disqualification of
Magno because he was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
4 counts of Direct Bribery and sentenced. Magno applied
for probation and was discharged on March of 1998.
✾ COMELEC disqualified petitioner based on a provision of BP
881 (Omnibus Election Code) disqualifying a candidate
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude until after
the lapse of 5 years from the service of sentence.
✾ Magno claims Sec 40 (a) RA7160 (Local Government Code)
should apply instead of BP 881: A person convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude may run after the lapse of
2 years after the service of sentence.
✾ Sonia Isidro was declared Mayor while the case was
pending.
HELD:
First, Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude.
Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. Black’s Law
Dictionary defines it as ‘an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in
the private duties which a man owes his fellow men or society in
general…’ Direct bribery contemplates taking advantage of his
position and is a betrayal of the trust reposed to him by the public.
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
17
Second, he is not qualified.
RA 7160 should apply. First, RA 7160 is the more recent law. It
impliedly repeals BP 881 should there be any inconsistencies.
Second, RA 7160 is a special law applying specifically to local
government units. BP 881 applies for the election of any public
office. Special law prevails. Since he was discharged on March
1998, Magno’s disqualification ceased on March 2000.
*Court declared that it could not rule on Magno’s prayer for his
proclamation as winner of the mayoralty race, it being outside its
jurisdiction.
39 CODILLA, SR. V. DE VENECIA
393 SCRA 639
(AGUINALDO)
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for
representative. A voter filed with the COMELEC a petition to
disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner, who was then a
mayor, violated Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code by
distributing gravel and sand to voters to induce them to vote for
him. The COMELEC delegated the hearing to the Regional Director.
On election day, no hearing has been done yet. Petitioner won.
Respondent intervened in the disqualification case and prayed for
the suspension of the proclamation of petitioner. Petitioner was
not furnished a copy of the motion. COMELEC suspended the
proclamation because of the seriousness of the allegations against
petitioner. Petitioner has not been served any summons.
Petitioner filed his answer. He alleged that the repair of the roads
was undertaken without his authority. After a hearing on the
motion to suspend the proclamation of petitioner, the COMELEC
issued a resolution disqualifying petitioner and declaring the
immediate proclamation of the candidate who received the highest
number of votes. The votes of petitioner were declared stray.
Respondent was proclaimed elected and she assumed office.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC en
banc nullified the proclamation of respondent and ordered the
proclamation of petitioner. Respondent didn’t appeal from the
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
decision. She argued that since she assumed office, the COMELEC
doesn’t have jurisdiction to annul her proclamation.
HELD:
Petitioner was not notified of the petition for his disqualification
through the service of summons nor of the Motions to suspend his
proclamation.
The records of the case do not show that summons was served on
the petitioner. They do not contain a copy of the summons
allegedly served on the petitioner and its corresponding proof of
service. Furthermore, private respondent never rebutted
petitioner's repeated assertion that he was not properly notified of
the petition for his disqualification because he never received
summons.71 Petitioner claims that prior to receiving a telegraphed
Order from the COMELEC Second Division on May 22, 2001,
directing the District Board of Canvassers to suspend his
proclamation, he was never summoned nor furnished a copy of the
petition for his disqualification. He was able to obtain a copy of the
petition and the May 22 Order of the COMELEC Second Division by
personally going to the COMELEC Regional Office on May 23, 2001.
Thus, he was able to file his Answer to the disqualification case
only on May 24, 2001.
More, the proclamation of the petitioner was suspended in gross
violation of section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code which
provides:
"Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority.- The
Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of
disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a
final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before
the election in which the disqualification is sought.
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. Nevertheless, 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, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections
shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office."
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
18
(emphases supplied)
In the instant case, petitioner has not been disqualified by final
judgment when the elections were conducted on May 14, 2001.
The Regional Election Director has yet to conduct hearing on the
petition for his disqualification. After the elections, petitioner was
voted in office by a wide margin of 17,903. On May 16, 2001,
however, respondent Locsin filed a Most Urgent Motion for the
suspension of petitioner's proclamation. The Most Urgent Motion
contained a statement to the effect that a copy was served to the
petitioner through registered mail. The records reveal that no
registry receipt was attached to prove such service.72 This violates
COMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring notice and service of the
motion to all parties.
Respondent's Most Urgent Motion does not fall under the
exceptions to notice and service of motions. First, the suspension
of proclamation of a winning candidate is not a matter which the
COMELEC Second Division can dispose of motu proprio. Second,
the right of an adverse party, in this case, the petitioner, is clearly
affected. Given the lack of service of the Most Urgent Motion to the
petitioner, said Motion is a mere scrap of paper.
Under section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, the COMELEC can suspend
proclamation only when evidence of the winning candidate's guilt
is strong. In the case at bar, the COMELEC Second Division did not
make any specific finding that evidence of petitioner's guilt is
strong. Its only basis in suspending the proclamation of the
petitioner is the "seriousness of the allegations" in the petition for
disqualification. Absent any finding of evidence that the guilt is
strong, then clearly, there was grave abuse of discretion on the
part of COMELEC.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS; PRECINCTS AND POLLING
PLACES; BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS; WATCHERS;
OFFICIAL BALLOTS AND ELECTION RETURNS; CASTING AND
COUNTING OF VOTES
40 BAUTISTA V. COMELEC
298 SCRA 480
(SINGSON)
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
FACTS:
✾ Petitioner Cipriano “Efren” Bautista and private respondent
were duly registered candidates for the position of Mayor of
Navotas in the 1998 Elections. Aside from them, a certain
Edwin “Efren” Bautista (Edwin Bautista) also filed a
certificate of candidacy for the same position.
✾ Petitioner filed a petition praying that Edwin Bautista be
declared a nuisance candidate.
✾ COMELEC declared Edwin Bautista as nuisance candidate
and consequently ordered the cancellation of his certificate
of candidacy for the position of Mayor.
✾ MR was filed by Edwin Bautista; subsequently denied.
✾ Before final determination of Edwin Bautista’s MR, upon
request of petitioner’s counsel, the Regional Election
Director of NCR gave instructions to the BEI to tally
separately either in some portion of the same election
return not intended for votes for mayoralty candidates or in
a separate paper the votes “Efren Bautista”, “Efren”, “E.
Bautista” and “Bautista”, considered as stray votes.
✾ When the canvass of the election returns was commenced,
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Navotas refused to
canvass as part of the valid votes of petitioner the separate
tallies of votes on which were written “Efren Bautista”,
“Efren”, “E. Bautista” and “Bautista”.
✾ Petitioner filed with COMELEC a Petition to Declare Illegal
the Proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers;
dismissed for lack of merit.
HELD:
There was grave abuse of discretion in denying the inclusion as
part of petitioner’s valid votes the Bautista stray votes that were
separately tallied by the BEI and Board of Canvassers.
✾ # It must be emphasized that the case at bar involves a
ground for disqualification which clearly affects the voter’s
will and causes confusion that frustrates the same.
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
19
✾ # Election Laws give effect to, rather than frustrate, the
will of the voter. Thus, extreme caution should be observed
before any ballot is invalidated.
✾ # In the appreciation of ballots, doubts are resolved in
favor of their validity.
✾ # Matters tend to get complicated when technical rules are
strictly applied – technicalities should not be permitted to
defeat the intention of the voter, especially so if that
intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, as in this
case.
✾ # Sec. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code – the COMELEC
may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an
interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy 1) if it is shown that said certificate
has been filed to put the election process in mockery or
disrepute, 2) or to cause confusion among voters by the
similarity of the names of registered candidates; 3) or by
other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that
a 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.
✾ # Fatual circumstances and logic dictate that the
“Bautista” and “Efren” votes which were mistakenly
deemed as stray votes refer only to one candidate, herein
petitioner. Such votes, which represent the voice of approx.
21,000 electors could not have been intended for Edwin
Bautista, allegedly known in Navotas as a tricycle driver
and worse a drug addict, not known as “Efren” as stated in
his certificate of candidacy, but Boboy” or “Boboy Tarugo”
as his known appellation or nickname, and satisfactorily
and finally shown as a candidate with no political line up,
no personal funds that could have supported his campaign,
and no accomplishments which may be noted band
considered by the public, as against a known former public
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
officer who had served the people of Navotas as Brgy.
Official, councilor and vice mayor.
✾ # To rule otherwise will definitely result in the
disenfranchisement of the will of the electorate, which is,
as we mentioned, the situation that our election laws are
enacted to prevent.
41 PUNZALAN V. COMELEC
289 SCRA 702
(FERNANDEZ)
FACTS:
✾ Manalastas, Meneses and Punzalan were among of the 4
candidates for mayor of the municipality of Mexico
Pampanga
✾ Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Meneses
as the duly elected mayor
✾ Manalastas and Punzalan separately siled election protests
challenging the results of the elections; Meneses filed his
answer to both with counter protests: ordered consolidated
and jointly tried by the court
✾ Election contests sought the nullification of the election of
Meneses allegedly due to massive fraud, irregularities and
other illegal electoral practices during the registration and
voting as well as during the counting of votes
✾ Because of irregularities (massive fraud, illegal electoral
practices and serious anomalies; ballots, election returns
and tally sheets disappeared under mysterious
circumstances and filled up ballots with undetached lower
stubs and groups of ballot with stubs cut out with scissors
were found inside ballot boxes) found after hearing the
protests, the trial court was constrained to examine the
contested ballots and the handwritings appearing thereon
and came up with the declaration that Punzalan was the
winner in the elections
✾ various notices of appeal, motions for execution, petitions
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
20
for certiorari, prohibition with prayer for issuance of
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction
✾ Comelec promulgated a resolution affirming the
proclamation of Meneses
HELD:
On the first issue…
✾ While RA 7166 (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
✾ Failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the
board to comply with their mandated administrative
responsibility should not penalize the voter with
disenfranchisement
✾ A ballot without BEI chairman's signature at the back is
valid and not spurious
✾ For as long as the ballot bears any one of the following
authenticating marks, it is considered valid:
o The Comelec watermark
o Signature or initials or thumbprint of the Chairman
of the BEI
o Where the watermarks are blurred or not readily
apparent to the naked eye, the presence of red or
blue fibers in the ballots
✾ Every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless there is a
clear and good reason to justify its rejection
On the second issue…
✾ The appreciation of the contested ballots and election
documents involves a question of fact best left to the
determination of the Comelec
✾ The Comelec need not conduct an adversarial proceeding
or a hearing to determine the authenticity of ballots or the
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
handwriting found thereon; neither does it need to solicit
the help of the handwriting experts in examining or
comparing the handwriting; even evidence aliunde is not
necessary to enable the Commission to determine the
authenticity of the ballots and the genuineness of the
handwriting on the ballots as an examination of the ballots
themselves is already sufficient
✾ Minor and insignificant variations in handwriting must be
perceived as indicia of genuineness rather than of falcity
✾ Carelessness, spontaneity, unpremeditation and speed in
signing are evidence of genuineness
DOCTRINE:
✾ the laws and statues governing election contests especially
appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the
end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public
officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities
✾ an election protests is imbued with public interest so much
so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the
real choice of the people is imperative
ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
42 PILAR V. COMELEC
245 SCRA 759
(OBERIO)
FACTS:
Petitioner Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of
Isabela. 3 days later, he withdrew his certificate of candidacy.
COMELECimposed upon petitioner a fine of P10,000 for failure to
file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Petitioner filed
motion for reconsideration which was denied by COMELEC.
Petitioner went to COMELEC en banc which denied the petition in
its Resolution. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
HELD:
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
21
Petitioner should be held liable for failure to file his statement of
contributions and expenditures.
✾ Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to
file a statement of contribution and expenditures because
he was a "non-candidate," having withdrawn his certificate
of candidacy 3 days after its filing. Petitioner posits that "it
is xxx clear from the law that the candidate must have
entered the political contest, and should have either won
or lost".
Petitoner's argument is without merit.
✾ Section 14 of RA No. 7166 states that "every candidate"
has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and
expenditures. Where the law does not distinguish, courts
should not distinguish. The term "every candidate" must be
deemed to refer not only to a candidate who pursued his
campaign, but also to one who withdrew his candidacy.
✾ Section 13 of Resolution No. 2348 of the COMELEC, in
implementation of the provisions of RA 7166, categorically
refers to "all candidates who filed their certificates of
candidacy."
✾ Furthermore, Section 14 of the law uses the word "shall".
Such implies that the statute is mandatory, particularly if
public interest is involved—state has an interest in seeing
that the electoral process is clean and expressive of the
true will of the electorate. One way to attain such objective
is to pass a legislation regulating contributions and
expenditures, and compelling the publication of the same.
It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his
candidacy has accepted contributions and incurred
expenditures, even in the short span of his campaign. The
evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all too
remote.
✾ Resolution No. 2348 also contemplates the situation where
a candidate may not have received any contribution or
made any expenditure. Such candidate is not excused from
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
filing a statement.
✾ BP Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code provides that
"the filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not
affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities
which a candidate may have incurred." Petitioner's
withdrawal of his candidacy did not extinguish his liability
for the administrative fine.
ELECTION OFFENSES
43 LAUREL V. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE
323 SCRA 779
(AQUINO, P.)
FACTS:
✾ Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified letter-complaint to
Jose P. Balbuena charging Herman Tiu Laurel with
"Falsification of Public Documents" and violation of [Section
74] of the Omnibus Election Code.
✾ It alleged that both his father and mother were Chinese
citizens but when petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy
for the position of Senator he stated that his a natural-born
Filipino citizen
✾ An investigation was conducted by the COMELEC Law
Department and a Report was made recommending the
filing of Information.
✾ During en banc, COMELEC resolved to file the necessary
information against respondent and to file a criminal
complaint against respondent for falsification
✾ Director Balbuena filed an information for Violation of
Section 74, in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus
Election Code
✾ Plaintiff filed a Motion for Inhibition, seeking the inhibition
of the entire COMELEC because of its bias in rendering a
resolution.
✾ Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash alleging
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
22
lack of jurisdiction and lack of authority on the part of
Director Balbuena to file the information.
✾ Court denied.
✾ Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals.
✾ The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and ruled that
the proper procedure was followed by the COMELEC but
directed the trial court to remand the case to the COMELEC
for reception of petitioner's motion for reconsideration of
the COMELEC resolution dated January 25, 1996, which
approved the filing of a criminal complaint against
petitioner.
HELD:
1. It was error for the Court of Appeals to hold there was no flaw in
the procedure followed by the COMELEC in the conduct of the
preliminary investigation.
-No. There are two ways through which a complaint for election
offenses may be initiated. It may be filed by the COMELEC motu
proprio, or 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 partylist system or any
accredited citizens arms of the Commission
- Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the
COMELEC and need not be verified.
On the other hand, complaints filed by parties other than the
COMELEC must be verified and supported by affidavits and other
evidence.
- The complaint in question in this case is one filed by Pardo in his
personal capacity and not as chairman of the COMELEC.
- There is nothing in the rules that require that only the COMELEC
en banc may refer a complaint to the Law Department for
investigation.
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
- There is no rule against the COMELEC chairman directing the
conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he himself were the
complainant in his private capacity.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's
protestations on COMELEC's having acted as complainant,
investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner in the conduct of
the preliminary investigation ring hollow.
-No. the records show that there is basis to at least find probable
cause to indict the petitioner for violation of the Omnibus Election
Code and it appears from the records that Chairman Pardo had no
other participation in the proceedings which led to the filing of the
Information.
-The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be restrained from
investigating the complaint filed against petitioner, as the latter
would like the courts to do. The COMELEC is mandated by no less
than the Constitution to investigate and prosecute, when
necessary, violations of election laws. This power is lodged
exclusively with the COMELEC. For the entire Commission to inhibit
itself from investigating the complaint against petitioner would be
nothing short of an abandonment of its mandate under the
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
44 FAELNAR V. PEOPLE
331 SCRA 429
(CRUZ)
FACTS:
Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
barangay chairman during the 1997 barangay elections in Cebu.
One day after filing such certificate (april 9), a basketball
tournament was held in the sports complex dubbed as, “2nd Jing-
Jing Faelnar’s Cup” which lasted until April 30, 1997. This gave rise
to a complaint for electioneering against petitioner and Gillamac
filed by Antonio Luy. It was alleged that it was actually a form of
campaign done outside the official campaign period which should
start on May 1, 1997. 1. that there was a streamer bearing the
name of petitioner placed at the façade of the venue. 2. petitioners
name was repeatedly mentioned over the microphone. 3. it was
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
23
widely published in the local news paper. 4. a raffle sponsored by
Gillamac was held with home appliances as prize. It constituted an
election offense. Initially, Comelec en banc in a Resolution resolved
to dismiss the filing of the case in the RTC. Antonio Luy moved for
reconsideration prompting the Comelec to proceed with the filing
of the case against petitioner. Petitioner moved to quash on the
basis that the previous dismissal of the Comelec en banc, was
immediately final and executory. And that Luy’s motion for
reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under Commission’s
rules of procedure.
HELD:
A Motion for Reconsideration is allowed in election offense cases.
Section 1, Rule 13 of Comelec’s Rules of Procedure states, “the
following pleadings are not allowed, …(d) motion for
reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision
except in election offense cases…
It was also held that the Comelec en banc is the one that
determines the existence of probable cause in an election offense.
But it may also be delegated to the State Prosecutor or to the
Provincial or City Fiscal but may still be reviewed by the Comelec.
45 COMELEC V. TAGLE
397 SCRA 618
(LIM)
FACTS:
✾ Florentino Bautista ran for the position of Mayor in Kawit
Cavite
✾ He filed a complaint against the incumbent Mayor Poblete
and others supported by affidavits of 44 witnesses
attesting to vote- buying activities.
✾ The case was handled by a prosecutor of the COMELEC’s
law department.
✾ A separate complaint was filed by Rodelas and Macapagal
with the provincial prosecutor against the witnesses (vote-
selling)
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
✾ COMELEC en banc declared the resolution of the provincial
prosecutor to institute criminal actions against the
witnesses as null and void. COMELEC cited RA 6646
otherwise known as “The Electoral Reforms law of 1987”
which grants immunity from criminal prosecution persons
who voluntarily give information and willingly testify
against those liable for vote-buying or vote-selling.
✾ Law department of COMELEC filed a motion to dismiss the
case against the witnesses. This was denied by respondent
judge TAGLE.
✾ According to Tagle, for the witnesses to be exempt to
should have committed the overt act of divulging
information regarding the vote buying
HELD:
Witnesses are exempt from criminal prosecution.
✾ A free, orderly, honest , peaceful, and credible election is
indispensable in a democratic society, as without it
democracy would not flourish and would be a sham.
✾ One of the effective ways of preventing the commission of
vote-buying and of prosecuting those committing it is the
grant of immunity from criminal liability in favor of the
party whose vote was bought.
✾ The COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable
under the election laws and to prosecute the same, as may
be otherwise provided by law
✾ When the COMELEC nullifies a resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor which is the basis of the information for vote
selling, it in effect, withdraws the deputation granted to the
prosecutor.
✾ Where certain voters have already executed sworn
statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-buying
in a pending case, it cannot be denied that they had
already given information in the vote- buying case.
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
24
FAILURE OF ELECTION
46 LOONG V. COMELEC
257 SCRA 1
(LAURENTE)
Under the present state of our election laws, the COMELEC has
been granted precisely the power to annul elections. Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as, "The Synchronized
Elections Law of 1991," provides that the COMELEC sitting En Banc
by a majority vote of its members may decide, among others, the
declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections
as provided in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. The
COMELEC may exercise such power motu proprio or upon a verified
petition. The hearing of the case shall be summary in nature, and
the COMELEC may delegate to its lawyers the power to hear the
case and to receive evidence.
FACTS:
- This case stemmed from elections held in Sulu where LOONG
and private respondent Tan ran for the position of Governor while
pet. Tulawie and p.r. Estino ran for Vice-Governor
* Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the
COMELEC a re-canvass of the election returns of Parang and
Talipao.
* COMELEC, accordingly, relieved all the regular members of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) and ordered such recanvass
by senior lawyers from the COMELEC office in Manila. During the
re-canvass, private respondents objected to the inclusion in the
canvass of the election returns of Parang.
* The reconstituted MBC, however, merely noted said objections
and forwarded the same to respondent PBC for resolution.
* PBC denied the objections of private respondents and still
included the election returns of Parang municipality. The canvass
of respondent PBC showed petitioners to have overwhelmingly won
in the municipality of Parang.
- The private respondents filed petitions with the COMELEC
regarding the inclusion of the questioned certificates of canvass
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
and that there was failure of election in said municipality due to
massive fraud
Petitioners, likewise filed for failure of elections in 5 other
municipalities
COMELEC ruled annulling the results of the elections in Parang as
well as holding in abeyance the proclamation of the winning
candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor until further orders
from the Commission but dismissed other petitions for other
municipalities where it was alleged that there were also badges of
fraud
HELD:
COMELEC was incorrect in annulling elections of Parang, Sulu but
not ordering for special elections in the same municipality. It was
also incorrect in dismissing other petitions for failure of elections in
other municipalities where there were also badges of fraud.
We hold that, before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition
seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must
concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned
on the date fixed by law or, even if there were voting, the election
nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and, second, the votes
not cast would affect the result of the election. We must add,
however, that the cause of such failure of election should have
been any of the following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud
or other analogous causes. This is an important consideration for,
where the propriety of a pre-proclamation controversy ends, there
may begin the realm of a special action for declaration of failure of
elections.
While the COMELEC is restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, 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 duty bound 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, as the Omnibus Election Code denominates the same.
Thus, the COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment of
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
25
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. Needless to say, a pre-proclamation controversy is not the
same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration
of failure of elections
The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO CONDUCT SPECIAL
ELECTIONS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARANG, SULU, and is
DIRECTED TO SUPERVISE THE COUNTING OF THE VOTES AND THE
CANVASSING OF THE RESULTS TO THE END THAT THE WINNING
CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR AND VICE-GOVERNOR FOR THE
PROVINCE OF SULU BE PROCLAIMED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO REINSTATE SPA 95-289
AND TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL EXAMINATION, IF
ANY, OF PERTINENT ELECTION DOCUMENTS THEREIN AND TO HOLD
SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES DISPUTED IN SPA 95-
289 IN THE EVENT the COMELEC ANNULS THE ELECTION RESULTS
THEREIN OR DECLARES THEREAT FAILURE OF ELECTIONS.
47 HASSAN V. COMELEC
264 SCRA 125
(LABAGUIS POGI)
FACTS:
✾ Petitioner, Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan, and Private
Respondent, Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan, were
candidates for Vice-Mayor in Lanao del Sur
✾ However, due to threats of violence and terrorism in the
area, there was a failure of elections in six (6) out of
twenty-four (24) precincts. In one of the precincts, the
ballot boxes were burned, while in the other 5 precincts,
the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI)
failed to report to their respective polling places
✾ The COMELEC team, headed by Garcillano, recommended
the holding of special elections in said precincts and
scheduled it
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
✾ The members of the BEI again failed to report
✾ The COMELEC team rescheduled the elections in Liangan
Elementary School, which was 15 kilometers away from the
designated polling places
✾ The members of the BEI once more did not report for duty.
This constrained the COMELEC team to appoint
police/military personnel to substitute for the BEI
✾ The result of the special election was in favor of the Private
Respondent: Petitioner = 879, Respondent = 1,098
✾ Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC assailing the
validity of the re-scheduled special election
✾ COMELEC en banc denied the petition for a declaration of
failure of the elections and ordered the Board of
Canvassers to proclaim Private Respondent as the winning
vice-mayoralty candidate
✾ Thus, the petition for certiorari
HELD:
There was failure of elections.
✾ The concurrence of the following preconditions is necessary
for declaring a failure of election: (1) that no voting has
been held in any precinct or precincts because of force
majeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) that the votes not
cast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections.
✾ The COMELEC can not turn a blind eye to the fact that
terrorism was so prevalent in the area.
✾ Elections had to be set for the third time because no
members of the BEI reported for duty due to impending
threats of violence in the area. This in fact prompted
COMELEC to deploy military men to act as substitute
members just so elections could be held; and to thwart
these threats of violence, the COMELEC team, moreover,
decided to transfer the polling places to Liangan
Elementary School which was 15 kilometers away from the
polling place.
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
26
✾ The peculiar situation of this case cannot be overstated.
The notice given on the afternoon of the day before the
scheduled special elections and transferring the venue of
the elections 15 kilometers away from the farthest
barangay/school was too short resulting to the
disenfranchisement of voters. Out of the 1,546 registered
voters in the five (5) precincts, only 328 actually voted.
✾ It was quite sweeping and illogical for the COMELEC to
state that the votes uncast would not have in any way
affected the results of the elections. While the difference
between the two candidates is only 219 out of the votes
actually cast, the COMELEC totally ignored the fact that
there were more than a thousand registered voters who
failed to vote.
48 PASANDALAN V. COMELEC
384 SCRA 695
(MACASAET)
FACTS:
✾ Petitioner Pasandalan and respondent Bai salamona L.
Asum were candidates for mayor in the municipality of
Lumbayanague, Lanao del sur- May 14, 2001 elections
✾ On May 23, Pasandalan filed for nullification of election
results in certain barangays (Deromoyod, Lagin, Bualan
etc) on the ground that, (1) while the election was ongoing,
some Cafgu’s stationed near the schools indiscriminately
fired their firearms causing the voters to panic and leave
the voting centers without casting their votes, (2) failure to
sign of BEIs to sign their initials on certain ballots and (3)
taking advantage of the fist fights, the supporters of Asum
took the ballots and filled them up with the name of Asum.
✾ Comelec’s ruling: No credence given to the allegations of
Pasandalan. The 3 instances wherein a failure of election
could be declared is not present (1) The election is not held
– (election was still held), (2) the election is suspended- (it
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
was not), and (3) the election results in the failure to elect
(Asum was elected through the plurality of votes). The
evidence presented by Pasandalan were only affidavits
made by his own pollwatchers- thus considered as self
serving and insufficient to annul the results.
✾ Hence the petition in this court
HELD:
COMELEC didn't commit grave abuse of discretion in annulling
electionm.
✾ The irregularities alleged should have been raised as an
election protest and not in a petition to declare the nullity
of an election.
✾ Instances to declare a failure of election does not exist (1)
the election in a polling place has not been held on the
date fixed on account of force majeure, terrorism, violence
or fraud, (2) the election was suspended on the same
grounds in the 1st and (3) there was failure to elect still on
the same grounds.
✾ The election was held in the precincts protested as
scheduled, neither was it suspended (as proved by the
testimony of one of the election officers) nor was there
failure to elect. The alleged terrorism was not of that scale
to justify declaration of failure of elections.
✾ Credibility of the affidavits questioned: (1) it was pre-typed,
all that the poll watchers have to do is to fill it up and sign
it. (2) identical statements- human perception is different
for each. Persons when asked about a same incident,
although present in the incident, mat have different
observations.
49 AMPATUAN V. COMELEC
375 SCRA 503
(MARTINEZ)
FACTS:
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
27
✾ Petitioner Ampatuan and Respondent Candao were
candidates for the position of Governor of Maguindanao
during the 2001 elections
✾ May 2001: respondents filed a petition with the comelec for
the annulment of election results and/or declaration of
failure of elections in several municipalities. They claimed
that the elections were “completely sham and farcical”.
The ballots were filled-up en masse by a few persons the
night before the election day, and in some precincts, the
ballot boxes, official ballots and other election
paraphernalia were not delivered at all.
✾ Comelec suspended proclamation of winning candidates
✾ Petitioners filed a motion to lift suspension of proclamation.
Comelec granted and proclaimed the petitioners s winners.
✾ June 2001: Respondents filed with SC a petition to set aside
Comelec order and prelim injunction to suspend effects of
the proclamation of petitioners.
✾ July 2001: Comelec ordered the consolidation of the
respondents’ petition for declaration of failure of elections.
✾ Sept 2001: Petitioners filed the present petition and
claimed that by virtue of the proclamation, the proper
remedy available to the respondents was not petition for
declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.
The former is heard summarily while the latter involves a
full-blown trial.
✾ Oct 2001: Comelec ordered the suspension of the 2
assailed orders (with regard to respondents’ petition fro
failure of elections and directing the continuation of
hearing and disposition of the consolidated SPAs on the
failure of elections and other incidents related thereto)
✾ Nov 2001: Comelec lifts the suspension order
✾ SC issues TRO enjoining Comelec from lifting suspension
ISSUE:
W/N The Comelec was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and
decide respondents’ petition for declaration for failure of elections
after petitioners had been proclaimed
HELD: No. Petition dismissed
✾ The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office
does not deprive comelec of its authority to annul any
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
canvas and illegal proclamation.
✾ Validity of the proclamation may be challenged even after
the irregularly proclaimed candidate has assumed office.
✾ In the case at bar, the Comelec is duty-bound to conduct
an investigation as to the veracity of respondents’
allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that attended
the conduct of the May 2001 election.
✾ It is well to stress that the Comelec has started conducting
the technical examination on Nov 2001. However, by an
urgent motion for a TRO filed by the petitioners, in virtue of
which we issued a TRO, the technical examination was held
in abeyance until the present.
✾ In order not to frustrate the ends of justice, we lift the TRO
and allow technical examination to proceed with deliberate
dispatch.
Dissent: Justice Melo
✾ Issue: is the declaration of failure of elections by the
Comelec an executive-administrative function or a judicial
function?
✾ Held The authority given to Comelec to declare a failure of
elections and to call for the holding and continuation of
the failed election falls under its admin fxn.
✾ There are only 3 instances where a failure of elections may
be declared: 1) the election in any polling place has not
been declared 2) election in any polling place had not been
suspended 3) after voting and during transmission of ER,
such election results in a failure to elect on the ground of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous cause
✾ Under the circumstances of the present case and based on
applicable law, an election protest is the appropriate
remedy. Complex matters which necessarily entail the
presentation of conflicting testimony should not be
resolved in random, technical and summary proceedings
50 BASHER V. COMELEC
330 SCRA 736
(GONZALES)
FACTS:
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
28
Failure of elections in Barangay Maidan, Lanao del Sur was held
twice (May and June 1997), and a special elections was scheduled
for August 30. During the said election, voting started only around
9:00 pm because of the prevailing tension in the said locality.
Election Officer Diana Datu-Imam claimed that the town mayor was
too hysterical, yelled and threatened her to declare failure of
election in Maidan as the armed followers pointed their guns at her
and her military escorts responded in the same manner. With the
arrival of additional troops, the election officer proceeded to
Maidan to conduct the election starting at 9:00 pm until the early
morning of the following day at the residence of the former mayor.
The tally sheet showed that respondent Ampatua got 250 votes;
petitioner Basher got 15 votes and Razul got 10 votes. Respondent
was proclaimed winner. Petitioner now assails the validity of the
COMELEC Resolution dismissing the Petition to Declare Failure o
Election and to Call Special Election in Precinct No. 12 Baranggay
Maidan.
HELD:
There was a failure of election. This notwithstanding, there was an
invalid postponement of election.
First, the place where the voting was conducted was illegal.
Omnibus Election Code provides that election tellers shall
designate the public school or ay public building within the
Barangay to be used as polling place, election was held in the
residence of the former mayor which is located in Barangay
Pandarianao.
Second, the law provides that the casting of votes start at 7 am
and end at 3 pm except when there are voters present within 30
meters in front of the polling place who have nor yet cast their
votes. Election was held after 9:00 pm until the wee hours the
following day, certainly such was not in accordance with the law.
Third, Election Day was invalid because suspension of
postponement of election is governed by law and it provides that
when for any serious cause such as rebellion, insurrection,
violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia
and any analogous causes such nature that the free, orderly and
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 29

honest election should become impossible the COMELEC moto

proprio or upon written petition by 10 registered voter after
summary proceedings shall suspend or postpone the proceedings.
The election officer is without authority to declare a failure of
election for it is only the COMELEC itself has legal authority to
exercise such awesome power. Election Officer did not follow the
procedure for he postponement or suspension or declaration of
failure of election. She did not conduct any proceeding summary or
otherwise to find out any legal grounds for the suspension or
postponement or declaration of failure of election.

Finally, the electorate was not given ample notice of the exact
schedule and venue of the election, mere announcement over the
mosque is insufficient.

Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08