FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY – MAKATI

INSTITUTE OF LAW

IN PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE COURSE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AND ELECTION LAW

SUBMITTED BY:
ASEJO, REGINA
DAVID, VINCENT
DAYANGHIRANG,
ESTRELLA, TOM LUI
LANDICHO, CRISTINE
MIGUEL, THERESE
NISHIKAWA, SHINJI

SUBMITTED TO:
ATTY. BENEDICTO M. GONZALES JR.

APRIL 24, 2018

ELECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
CHAPTER XVII

PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT; ELECTION IN GENERAL

- Directly voted by the people
- Held on the 2nd day of May every 6 years
- Term of both offices shall be for the period of 6 years and shall begin at noon of 13 th
day of June following the day of election and shall and at the same date after lapse of
6 years
- Re-election for President is prohibited; as well as those who succeeded and served
the position for more than 4 years (note case of PGMA. The Supreme Court ruled that
it is not violative of the law because her being the President was mere completion of
unexpired term of ERAP)
- Vice-president shall not serve for more than 2 successive terms. Renunciation does
not interrupt the term of office.

CONCURRENCE OF SENATE
- After the certification of the board of canvassers of the returns of each city or province,
it shall be transmitted to the Senate addressed to the Senate President. It shall be
opened and authenticated in a joint public session before the presence of the Senate
and the Congress.
- The person with the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected.
- In case of 2 or more persons having equal and highest votes, the person chosen by
both houses by the vote of majority – Senate and House of Representatives voting
separately – shall be deemed elected.
- The Congress has the power to promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the
certificates

SUPREME COURT AS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

2
 - Although national canvass as to Presidential and Vice-presidential election is a
ministerial function of the Congress, it does not have the power to hear and
adjudicate electoral irregularities and disputes as such is vested to the judiciary –
Supreme Court.
- All election contests with regard to Presidential and Vice-presidential election shall be
brought before the Supreme Court for its judicial determination.

PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT; QUALIFICATIONS

- Natural-born citizen;
- Registered voter;
- Able to read and write;
- At least 40 years of age on the day of election; and
- Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election.

INSTANCES WHERE PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT BECOMES PERMANENTLY DISABLED, ILL,

DISQUALIFICATION, OR DEATH
- In case President fails to qualify or was not chosen, the Vice-president shall act as
President until the President elect shall have qualified.
- In case the President died or becomes permanently disabled, the Vice-president shall
take over and becomes the President.
- In case both President and Vice-president died, disqualified, or becomes permanently
disabled, the Senate President shall act as President until the position of President or
Vice-president shall have been chosen. If such is also absent, it shall be the Speaker of
the House of Representative shall act as President.
- Manner of selection for filing the vacancy of President and Vice-president shall be
provided by the Congress as provided by law.
- In case of removal or resignation of President, the Vice-president shall succeed the
position serving the unexpired term of the office (PGMA case). In case of both, the

3
 Senate President shall succeed, or in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representative until President or Vice-president shall have been elected.

PROCESS OF FILING THE VACANCY

- Congress shall convene on the 3rd day of the vacancy occurs without need of a call and
within 7 days, enact a law for special election of President and a Vice-president to be
held not earlier than 45 days nor later than 60 days from the time of such call
- The bill calling the special election shall be certified under Paragraph 2, Section 26, Art
VI of Constitution and shall become a law upon approval of Congress.
- No special election shall be called if vacancy occurs 18 months before the next
presidential election.

WHEN DOES VICE-PRESIDENT ACT AS PRESIDENT?

- Upon transmittal of the President to the Senate President and Speaker of the House
of Representative a written declaration of inability to discharge powers and duties of
his office
- Temporary Removal by the Congress; Whenever majority of all the Cabinet Members
transmit to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representative a
written declaration that President’s inability to discharge powers and duties of his
office. Note that President shall reassume office upon transmittal of written
declaration that such inability does not exist addressed to the Senate President and
Speaker of the House of Representative.
- If Cabinet Members still persists such inability by transmittal of another declaration,
Congress shall convene and determine if President is unable to discharge his powers
and duties by the vote of 2/3 of both houses voting separately within 12 days from
the day it convene. Otherwise, president shall continue exercising his powers and
duties.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRESIDENT’S CONDITION

4
 - Public shall be informed of the state of the President’s health in case of serious illness.
Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and Chief of Staff of Armed
Forces of the Philippines shall not be denied of access to the president during serious
illness.

ELECTION FOR SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

- Congress or the Legislative body shall be composed of 2 houses: Senate and House of
Representatives
- Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who shall be elected at large by qualified
voters.
- Senators’ term of office shall be 6 years and shall commence at noon on the 30 th day
of June following their election.
- No senator shall be allowed to serve for more than 2 consecutive terms.
- House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts.
- The party list representatives shall constitute 20% of total number of representatives
including those under the party list.
- ½ of the seats of the party list shall be filled by selection or election from different
sectors except religious sector after 3 consecutive terms after the ratification of the
Constitution.
- Members of the House of Representatives shall serve its office for 3 years which shall
begin at noon on the 30th day of June next of their election unless otherwise there is
another date provided by law.
- Election of the legislative branch shall be held on 2nd Monday of May.
- In instances of vacancies, a special election may be held to fill in such vacancy for
which the elected officer shall only serve the remaining unexpired portion of the term
of the position.

QUALIFICATIONS OF A SENATOR

5
 - Must be a natural born citizen of the Philippines;
- Must be at least 35 years of age on the day of the election;
- Must be able to read and write;
- Must be a registered voter; and
- Must be a resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding
the day of the election.

QUALIFICATIONS OF A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

- Must be a natural born citizen of the Philippines;
- Must be at least 25 years of age on the day of the election;
- Must be able to read and write; and
- Except for party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected and must be a resident thereof for a period of not less than 1 year
immediately preceding the election.

ELECTIONS FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS IN GENERAL; QUALIFICATIONS

- Must be a citizen of the Philippines;
- Must be a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or, in the case of a
member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, panlunsod, or bayan, the district where he
intends to be elected;
- Must be able to read and write Filipino or any other language or dialect; and
- Must be resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election
- Must be at least 21 years of age on the day of the election. However, for the position
of punong barangay and its members, they must be 18 years of age on the election
day. For Sangguniang Kabataan, its candidates must be at least 15 years of age but
not more than 21 years of age on the day of the election. It must be noted that the
age requirement for the SK Council has been already amended from at least 15 years
of age to at least 18 years of age on the day of the election.

6
DISQUALIFICATIONS
- Those sentenced by final judgement for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an
offense punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or more within 2 years before the
election;
- Those removed from an office by means of administrative case;
- Those convicted of violation of oath of allegiance to the Republic;
- Those persons having dual citizenship;
- Those fugitive from justice for criminal or non-political cases whether here in the
Philippines or abroad.
- Those persons having permanent residency in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the
effectivity of the Local Government Code; and
- Those persons who are incapacitated

MANNER OF ELECTION
 The Governor, Vice-Governor, City Mayor, City Vice-Mayor, Municipal Mayor, and Punong
Barangay shall be elected at large in their respective units by the qualified voters therein,
However, the Chairman for the Sangguniang Kabataan for each barangay shall be elected
by the registered voters as provided in the Local Government Code.
 The regular members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Panlunsod, and Bayan shall be
elected by district, as may be provided by law. It must be also noted that members of the
Sangguniang Barangay shall be also elected at large.
 The Presidents of the League of Sanggunian and members of the component cities and
municipalities shall serve as ex-officio members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, while
Presidents of the Liga ng mga Barangay and the Federation of Sangguniang Kabataan shall
serve as ex-officio members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Panlunsod, and Bayan.

7
 - The local officials elected shall serve its office for 3 years starting from noon of June
30, 1992, or such date as may be provided for by law, except that of elective barangay
officials.
- No local official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position. In
cases of voluntary renunciation of the position, it shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official
concerned was elected.
- In cases of permanent vacancy in the offices of Governor, Vice-governor, Mayor, Vice-
mayor, Punong Barangay the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in case of his
permanent inability, the second highest ranking member of the same, shall fill in the
vacancy. Subsequent vacancies in the office shall be automatically filled by the other
sanggunian members according to their ranking.In cases of two or more persons
having the same highest rank in the sanggunian, it shall be resolved by draw lots.
- It must be noted that those who succeeded the vacancy shall only serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the term.
- Ranking in the sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes
obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voter in each
district in the immediately preceding local election.

AUTOMATIC SUCCESSION NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SANGGUNIAN IN CASES OF VACANCY

- Permanent vacancies in the sanggunian where automatic succession provided do not
apply and shall be filled by appointment in the following manner: 1. The President
through the Executive Secretary, in the case of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and
Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent component
cities; 2. The Governor, in the case of Sangguniang Panlungsod of component cities
and the Sangguniang bayan; 3. The City or Municipal Mayor, in the case of
Sangguniang Barangay, upon the recommendation of the Sangguniang Barangay
concerned.

8
 - Except for the Sangguniang Barangay, only the nominee of the political party under
which the sanggunian member concern had been elected and whose elevation to the
position next higher in the rank created the last vacancy in the sanggunian shall be
appointed in the manner aforementioned.

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPOINTEE OF THE VACANCY

- shall come from the same political party as that of the sanggunian member who
caused vacancy; and
- a nomination and a certificate of membership of the appointee from the highest
official of the political;
- in case the permanent vacancy is caused by a sanggunian member who does not
belong to any political party, the local chief executive shall, upon recommendation of
the sanggunian concerned, appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
- In case of vancancy in the representation of the youth and the barangay in the
sanggunian, said vacancy shall be filled automatically by the official next in rank of the
organization concerned.

TEMPORARY VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE

- When the Governor, City or Municipal Mayor, or Punong Barangay is temporarily
incapacitated to perform his duties for physical or legal reasons such as, but not
limited to leave of absence, travel abroad, and suspension from office, the Vice-
Governor, City or Municipal Mayor, or the highest ranking Sangguniang Barangay
member shall automatically exercise the powers and perform duties and functions of
the Local Chief Executive except the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss employees
which can only be exercised if the period of temporary incapacity exceeds 30 working
days.
- Said temporary incapacity shall terminate upon submission of written declaration by
Local Chief Executive that he has returned back to office to appropriate sanggunian.

9
 In cases of legal incapacity, the Local Chief Executive shall also submit documents
showing that said legal causes no longer exist.
- In case of the Local Chief Executive is travelling within the country but outside his
jurisdiction, for the period of not exceeding 3 days, he may designate an officer-in-
charge of the said office. Such authorization shall speficy powers and functions that
the said local official shall exercise during his absence except the power to appoint,
suspend, and dismiss employees.
- In case of failure to issue such authorization, the Vice-Governor, Vice-Mayor, or the
highest ranking sanggunian member, as the case may be, shall have the right to
assume the functions of the said office on the 4th day of the absence of the Local Chief
Executive.
-
ELECTION FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS IN COMPONENT AND HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES
- Electorate of highly urbanized cities shall not vote in the election for the provincial
officials of the province in which it is located; provided, however, that no component
city shall be declared or be entitled to a highly urbanized city status within 90 days
prior to any election.
- Electorate of component cities shall be entitled to vote in the election for provincial
officials of the province of which it is a part.

ELECTIONS FORM MEMBERS OF REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ARMM

- Sangguniang Pampook is comprise of 17 member Rempresentatives in which
candidates for such shall be voted at large by the registered voters of each province
and cities.
- Elections of the Sangguniang Pampook shall be held simultaneously with the local
elections of 1986 and those duly elected shall serve for 4 years starting June 30, 1986.
- The Charter mandates the creation of autonomous regions: Muslim Mindanao and
Cordilleras. However, in the plebiscites held, only inhabitants of Muslim Mindanao
voted in favor of constituting themselves into a special autonomous region.

10
 - Sharing of power between the National Government and the Special Autonomous
Region was defined under RA6734 with the end in view of granting greater local
autonomy to the latter.
- In the case of Cordilleras, Cordillera Administrative Region was established by the
national government for the purposes of coordinating and facilitating the
development, planning, and administration of the area.

ELECTIONS FOR PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES; HOW FORMED

- Any organized groups of persons may register as a party, organization, or coalition for
purposes of party list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than 90 days before
the election by a petition verified by its President or Secretary stating its desire to
participate in the party-list system as a national, regional, or sectoral party or
organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations. Such petition must be filed
together with its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of
officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant information as the Commission kay
require.
- Thereafter, the COMELEC shall publish the petition in a national newspaper of general
circulation.
- After due notice and hearing, the COMELEC shall resolve the petition within 15 days
from submission for decision but no case not later than 60 days before the election.

REMOVAL AND/OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

- The COMELEC has the power to, by motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any
interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of
any national, regional, or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the
following grounds: 1. It is organized for religious purposes; 2. It advocates violence; 3.
It is a foreign party or organization; 4. It receives support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan

11
 election purposes; 5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules, or regulations
relating to elections; 6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition; 7. It has
ceased to exist for at least 1 year; or 8. It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in
the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

REGISTERED PARTIES
- The COMELEC shall prepare a certified list of parties which have applied or who have
manifested their desire to participate under party-list system and distribute copies
thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on the election day not later
than 60 days before the election.

NOMINATIONS OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES

- Each registered party shall submit to the COMELEC a list of names, not less than five
from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains required
number of votes not later than 44 days before the election.
- A person may be nominated in one list only. Only persons who have given their
consent in writing may be in the list. The said list shall not include any candidate for
any elective office or person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately preceding election.
- As a general rule, no change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be
allowed after the same shall been submitted to the COMELEC. Such change or
alteration may be only allowed by the COMELEC in cases where the nominee dies or
withdraws his nomination in writing, becomes incapacitated in which case the name
of the substitutes nominee shall be placed last in the list.
- It shall be noted that incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of
Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered
resigned.

12
PARTY-LIST NOMINEES; QUALIFICATIONS
 Must be a natural born citizen of the Philippines;
 Must be a registered voter;
 Must be a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than 1 year immediately
preceding the day of election;
 Must be able to read and write;
 Must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for
at least 90 days preceding the day of the election; and
 At least 25 years of age. It must be noted that in case of a nominee of the youth sector,
he must be at least 25 years of age but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the
election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of 30 during his term shall
be allowed to continue his term until it has expired.

MANNER OF VOTING
 Every voter shall be entitled to 2 votes. The first vote is for candidate member of the
House of Representative in his legislative district, and the other vote is for the party,
organization, or coalition he wants to be to be represented in the House of
Representatives; provided, that a vote cast for a party, sectoral, organization, or a
coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted.

NUMBER OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES

 The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of the members of
the House of Representatives including those under the partylist.
 Parties shall be ranked from highest to lowest number of votes received during the
election. Those parties who received at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall be entitled to one seat each; provided, that those garnering more than 2%
of votes in proportion to their total number of votes.
 Each party shall not be entitled to more than 3 seats.

13
ALLOCATION OF SEATS
 The COMELEC shall tally all votes for the parties on a nationwide basis, rank them
according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives
proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party as against
the total nationwide votes cast for party-list system.
 Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list submitted
by the respective parties.
 COMELEC has the power to promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of the Party List System Act as enshrine by the Constitution.

TERM OF OFFICE
 The party-list representatives duly elected shall have the term of 3 years in which shall
begin at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election unless otherwise
provided by law.
 No representative shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms.
 Voluntary renunciation of office shall not interrupt the continuity of his service for the full
term for which he was elected.

CHANGE OF AFFILIATION; EFFECT OF

 Any representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term
of office shall forfeit his seat.
 If he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election,
he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or
organization.

VACANCY
 In cases of vacancy, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative
from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC.
 The person who fills the vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of the office.

14
  If the list is exhausted, the party shall submit additional nominees to the COMELEC.

ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN PERIOD

1. Election and campaign period shall start 90 days prior to election for the positions of
President, Vice-President, and Senators.
2. While for Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial, city and
municipal officials, election and campaign period shall commence 45 days before the
election.
3. It must be noted that the COMELEC may exclude the day before the day of election itself,
Maundy Thursday and Good Friday in preparation of the election calendar.
4. Any election campaign and political activities outside the campaign period is prohibited
and shall be considered an election offense punishable under the Omnibus Election Code

CASTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES

CHAPTER XVIII

EFFECTS OF THE LAW ON AUTOMATED ELECTIONS

Automated Election Law (RA 9639)
a. COMELEC shall promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation and
enforcement of the Act
b. COMELEC is authorized to prescribed other manner or procedure for the
consolidation and canvassing of votes as technology evolves
c. Omnibus Election Code would still be the reference and would be compared with
its counterpart provisions

MANDATED VOTING HOURS

- 7:00 am – 3:00 pm, EXCEPT when voters present within 30m in front of the pooling place
not yet casted their vote in which case the voting shall continue but only to allow said
voters to cast their votes without interruption

15
 - Poll clerk shall prepare the list of the names of the voters consecutively numbered, and
would be announced thrice in the order they are listed
- In absence of fraud, keeping polls open and allowing voters to cast their votes beyond the
hour prescribed will not annul the election
d. Election inspection would be liable in violation of what is prescribed in the law

PERSONS ALLOWED IN AND AROUND THE POLLING PLACE

a. The following are the persons allowed in and around the polling place during the
day of the election: 1. Members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI); 2.
Watchers; 3. COMELEC representatives; 4. Voters casting their votes; 5. Voters
waiting for their turn to get inside the booths; and 6. Voters waiting for their turn
to cast their votes not exceeding 20 at any one time.
- Watchers should stay at their designated space and NOT to enter places for voters or BEI
and mingle with voters within the polling place.
a. It is UNLAWFUL for AFP officials (including PNP), home defense units, barangay
tanods, and other para-military forces to enter or stay inside any polling place but
in such case, they should leave immediately, and except when there is an actual
disturbance of the peace and order.
b. BEI, upon majority vote, entered in the minutes, and in writing, may state the
detail of police or any peace officer for their protection and the election
paraphernalia, and stay outside the polling place within the 30m radius near
enough to easily called by the BEI, but never at the door, and they are not allowed
to talk with the voters or disturb or prevent or obstruct their free access to the
polling place.

MANNER OF OBTAINING BALLOTS

- Voter shall approach the chairman and shall give his name and address with other data.
- When in doubt of identity, voter should present ID or if he doesn’t have any, BEI would
refer to the photograph and signature in the voter’s application
- Chairman would distinctly announce the voter’s name to be heard throughout the polling
place.

16
 - Voter would affix his signature on the space provided in the voting record.
- Chairman would deliver to the voter one ballot correctly folded.

MANNER OF PREPARING THE BALLOT

- Voter proceeds to the voting booth and fill the ballot with his desired candidates on
proper spaces provided.
- No voter should be allowed to enter a booth occupied by another, or enter the same
accompanied by somebody, or to stay there for a longer time, or speak with anyone while
inside the polling place.
- Preparing the ballot outside the voting booth, exhibiting the ballot’s contents to another,
and intentionally tear or deface such or by putting a distinguishing mark, using carbon
paper paraffin paper, or other materials on copy-making, are unlawful.

PREPARATION OF BALLOTS FOR ILLITERATE AND DISABLED PERSONS

- may be assisted by a relative by affinity or consanguinity within the 4 th civil degree, or if
he has none, any person of his confidence who belong to the same household, or a
member of the BEI, except 2 party members
- No voter shall be allowed to vote as illiterate or physically disabled unless indicated in the
registration record.
- The assistor shall not assist more than 3 times except the non-party members of the BEI.

SPOILED BALLOTS
- Defaced ballot
- If voter accidentally spoils or defaces a ballot, that it cannot be lawfully be used, voter
must surrender such ballot folded to the chairman who shall note in the corresponding
space on such ballot.
- No voter shall change his ballot more than TWICE.
- The spoiled ballot would be distinctly be marked with the word “spoiled” and signed by
the BEI and immediately placed in the compartment for spoiled ballots.

VOTING PROCESS

17
 - After filling up, voter must fold the ballot the same manner as when he received it and
returned to the chairman.
- In presence of the BEI, voter’s thumb mark is affixed on the corresponding pace in the
coupon and deliver the folded ballot to the chairman.
- Chairman, without unfolding the ballot, shall verify the number from the voting record
where it was previously entered.
- Voter shall affix his thumb mark by the side of the signature and the chairman would apply
indedible ink on the right forefinger nail or any available finger nail.
- Chairman would detach the coupon in the presence of the BEI and the voter, depositing
the ballot to the valid ballot compartment and the coupon for the spoiled ballots.

CHALLENGE OF ILLEGAL VOTERS

- An illegal voter is a voter either not registered, uses the name of another or suffering
from existing disqualification.
- BEI would satisfy itself as to see whether the ground for challenge is true by requiring
proof of registration or the identity of the voter.
- No affidavit shall be required unless his identity is challenged.

CHALLENGE BASED ON CERTAIN ILLEGAL ACTS

- Voter may be challenged due to:
e. receiving or expects to receive, paid or promise to be paid, contributed or
promised to contribute money or anything in consideration
f. received a promise to influence the giving or withholding of any vote
g. betting in any kind depending on the result of the election
- Voter must take a prescribed oath before the BEI that he has not committed any acts
alleged in the challenge.
- With the oath, voter is allowed to vote and challenge is dismissed.
- In case of refusal of oath, challenge shall be sustained and voter shall not be allowed to
vote.

COUNTING OF VOTES

18
 - Counting of votes should be made in public and without interruption in the polling place
the votes have been casted and ascertain results. In addition, it must be done only in the
presence of the watchers and within the close view of the public.
- BEI shall not adjourn, postpone, or delay the count until it was fully finished or completed,
unless otherwise ordered by COMELEC.
- COMELEC may authorize the BEI to count the votes and accomplish the election return
and other forms in any other place within the public building in the same municipality or
city on account of imminent danger of widespread violence.
- Transfer must be made in writing by the BEI by unanimous vote and endorsed in writing
by the majority of the watchers present.
- Said public building where the counting would take place must not be located within the
perimeter or inside a military camp or within prison or detention premises.
- OBJECTIVE: give no opportunity to malicious-minded persons to tamper with the ballot
box and its contents and thwart the expression of the true will of the electorate.

BEI ON EXCESS AND MARKED BALLOTS AND ON THE COMPARTMENT OF SPOILED BALLOTS
- BEI must comply with the Election Code on the instructions concerning excess and marked
ballots, and the compartment for spoiled ballots.
- Ballots inside the compartment are presumed to be spoiled ballots but if the BEI should
find that any ballot was erroneously deposited during the voting, or that any excess or
marked ballot has been erroneously deposited, BEI would open the compartment after
the voting and before the counting of the votes to draw out the ballots erroneously
deposited.

COUNTING PROCEDURE
- BEI would unfold the ballots and form separate piles of 100 ballots each with folders.
- Chairman shall take the ballots of the first pile one by one and read the names of the
candidates voted and offices where they are voted.
- Chairman signs and affix his right thumb mark at the back of the ballot immediately after
it is counted.

19
 - Poll clerk shall record the election returns and the tally board or sheet as the names voted
for each office are read.
- Each vote shall be recorded vertically, except every 5th vote which would be recorded
diagonally crossing the previous 4 vertical lines.
- Party member sees to it that chairman reads the vote as written on the ballot, and
another shall check the recording of the votes on the tally board/sheet and election
returns.
- After the 1st pile, BEI shall determine the total number of votes recorded, sum being noted
on the tally board/sheet and on the election returns.
- After all votes are summed up, counted ballots are then put inside an envelope provided,
close signed, and deposited in a compartment of valid votes.
- COMELEC would prescribe the procedure and the manner of counting of votes under the
automated system.

PROCLAMATION OF THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION IN THE POLLING PLACE

- Chairman of the board of election inspectors orally and publicly announces the total votes
received by the candidates and their corresponding office.

ALTERATIONS AND CORRECTIONS IN THE ELECTION RETURNS

h. Any correction or alteration in the election returns made by the BEI before the
announcement of the results of the election in the polling place shall be duly
initialed by all the members thereof.
i. After announcement of the results of the election in the polling place, the BEI shall
not make any alteration or amendment in any of the copies of the election returns,
unless so ordered by the Commission upon petition of all or the majority of the
members of the BEI within five (5) days from the date of the election or twenty-
four (24) hours from the time a copy of the election returns concerned is opened
by the Board of Canvassers, whichever is earlier. The petition shall be
accompanied by proof of service upon all candidates affected. If the petition is
filed by all members of the BEI and the result of the election would not be affected
by said correction and none of the candidates affected objects thereto, the

20
 Commission, upon being satisfied of the veracity of the petition and of the error
alleged therein, shall order the BEI to make the proper correction on the election
returns.
j. However, if a candidate affected by said petition objects thereto, whether the
petition is filed by all or only a majority of the members of the BEI and the result
of the election would be affected by the correction sought to be made, the
Commission shall proceed summarily to hear the petition. If it finds the petition
meritorious and there is no evidence or sign indicating that the identity and
integrity of the ballot box have been violated, the Commission shall order the
opening of the ballot box. After satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots
therein has also been duly preserved, the Commission shall order the recounting
of the votes of the candidates affected and the proper corrections made on the
election returns, unless the correction sought is such that it can be made without
the need of opening the ballot box.

BOARD OF CANVASSERS; COMPOSITION

PROVINCIAL
a. Chairman - Provincial Election Supervisor / Senior Lawyer of the regional office of
the commission
b. Vice-Chairman – Provincial Fiscal
c. Members – provincial superintendent of schools, one representative from each
ruling party¥

CITY
- Chairman – City Election Registrar / Lawyer of the commission
- Members – city fiscal, provincial superintendent of schools, one representative from each
ruling party

DISTRICTS OF METROPOLITAN MANILA

a. Chairman – lawyer of the commission

21
 b. Members – ranking fiscal in the district, most senior district school supervisor in
the district appointed upon consultation with DOJ and DOE, one representative
from each of the ruling parties

MUNICIPAL
- Chairman – election registrar / representative of the commission
- Members - municipal treasurer, district supervisor, any public school principal in the
absence of the DS, one representative from each of the ruling party

NEWLY CREATED POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS

k. Appointed by the Commission.
l. Members of the BOC shall not be related to any of the candidates up to the 4 th
civil degree of affinity or consanguinity or to any member of the same board
m. Majority vote of the members of the BOC shall concur to make a decision.
n. commission has direct control of the BOC. Any member at any time be relieved
for cause and substituted motu propio
o. BOC safekeeps the ballot boxes containing election returns in a rom padlocked by
3 locks. One key with the chairman, one with the representative of the ruling party
and one with the representative of the dominant opposition
p. Watchers can be assigned to guard the room. Violation of the right to assign
watchers constitute and electoral offense
q. Canvass of the BOC must be completed within the following but can be subject to
reasonable exceptions:
- municipalities – 36 hrs
- cities – 48 hrs
- provinces – 72 hrs
- As a general rule, the following persons are not allowed in the Canvass Room within a radius
of 50m: 1. Officers or members of the AFP; 2. Armed or unarmed persons belonging to
extralegal police agencies; 3. Special forces; 4. Reaction forces; 5. Strike forces; 6. Home
defense forces; 7. Barangay self-defense units; 8. Barangay tanods; and 9. Members of
security or police organizations.

22
- However, If BOC deems necessary, there are exceptions. To wit: 1. Protection of election
documents and paraphernalia; and Maintenance of peace and order.

MISSING/DESTROYED ELECTION RETURNS

1. BOC obtains from BEI concerned and use the authentic copies. If missing election
returns will not affect the results of the election, BOC can terminate the canvass and
proclaim candidates elected based on the available election returns

DISCREPANCIES IN ELECTION RETURNS

2. if discrepancies in the election returns from polling place or in the votes of any
candidate in words and in figures in the same return affects the results of the election,
the commission upon the motion of the BOC or any candidate affected shall
determine if the integrity of the ballot box has been preserved. If satisfied, the votes
will be recounted. If not, it will not be recounted and the ballot box will be sealed for
safe keeping.

CANVASS OF REMAINING OR UNQUESTIONED RETURNS TO CONTINUE

3. if it shall affect the result of the collection, no proclamation shall be made except
upon orders of the commission after due notice and hearing. Any proclamation made
in violation thereof shall be null and void.

CASES
ALTAJEROS vs COMELEC
DOCTRINE: The citizenship qualification of a candidate for an elective office applies at the time
of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term

FACTS:
- Petitioner Alajeros was a candidate for Mayor in Masbate
- Respondents are registered voters who filed with the COMELEC, a petition to disqualify
and to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Alajeros on the ground

23
 that he is not a Filipino citizen and has made false representations in his Certificate of
Candidacy that he was not a permanent resident of or immigrant to a foreign country
- Based on a letter from the Bureau of Immigration, petitioner was a holder of a permanent
US resident visa, an Alien Certificate of Registration and an Immigration Certificate of
Residence
- Petitioner: he did not commit false representation as he was already issued a certificate
of repatriation as early as 1997 by the special committee on naturalization after he filed
a petition for repatriation
- Zaragoza Jr. the regional election director and hearing officer of the case recommended
that petitioner Altajeros be disqualified from being a candidate for the position of Mayor
as the Local Government Code provides that an elective local official must be a citizen of
the Philippines, must not have dual citizenship, must not be a permanent resident of a
foreign country or must not have acquired the right to reside abroad
- In the present case, the fact that Altajeros is a citizen of US is proven by his Alien
Certificate of Registration, Immigration Certificate of Residence and a letter from BoI
Commissioner
- Although Altajeros has petitioned for repatriation, in 1997, he was not able to prove that
he has fully complied with the requirements that would perfect such repatriation which
is to take the necessary oath of allegiance and register such in the proper civil registry and
in the Bureau of Immigration
- COMELEC disqualified Altajeros and cancelled his certificate of candidacy; MR denied

ISSUES:
1. Is the registration of petitioners repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the
Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation? YES

2. When does the citizenship qualification of a candidate for an elective office apply?

HELD:

24
 1. The law is clear that repatriation is effected by taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines AND registration in the proper civil registry and Bureau of
Immigration

2. Alejeros took the oath of allegiance but his certificate of repatriation was registered with
the civil registry of makati only after six years

3. Alejeros only completed all the requirements of repatriation only after he filed his
certificate of candidacy but before the elections

- Citizenship qualification must be construed as applying to the time of proclamation of the

elected official and at the start of his term

- Law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess
citizenship, unlike that for residence and age

- The purpose of the citizenship qualification is to ensure that no alien shall govern our
people and our country.

- An official begins to govern only upon his proclamation; therefore such purpose would
not be thwarted but instead achieved by construing the citizenship qualification as
applying to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term

- Petitioners repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in 1997 and was
therefore qualified to run for mayor in the 2004 elections

ANG BAGONG BAYANI OFW LABOR PARTY vs COMELEC

FACTS:
- The COMELEC received several petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties,
organizations and political parties
- Akbayan Citizens Action Party, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth filed before the
COMELEC a petition praying that the names of some of the approved party lists be deleted

25
 and that the votes in favor of such party-lists not be canvassed or counted and their
respective nominees not to be proclaimed
- Ang Bagong-Bayani OFW Labor Party also questioned the resolutions from COMELEC,
they primarily contend the inclusion of poitical parties in the party-list system
ISSUE:

- Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections – YES!
- Whether or not the party list system is exclusive to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors and organizations
RATIO:

a. YES. Private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely
on the ground that they are political parties.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of
Representatives may be elected through a party-list system of registered national, r
egional, and sectoral partiesor organizations. Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8,
Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the party-
list system. Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for a party-list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x.
Section 3 expressly states that a party is either a political party or a sectoral party or
a coalition of parties. Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the
participation of political parties in the partylist system.

Indubitably, therefore, political parties even the major ones -- may participate in the
party-list elections.

The Court deemed it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter to
determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the

26
 requirements of the law . The Court layed down the following guidelines, culled from
the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work.
- The political party , sector , organization or coalition must represent the marginalized
and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it
must show -- through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history ,
platform of government and track record -- that it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily , majority of its membership
should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate
that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such
sectors.
- While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
Constitution 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.
- Religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.
- A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941,
which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:
- It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for
religious purposes;
- It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
- It is a foreign party or organization;
- It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party ,
foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or
members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;
- It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
- It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
- It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; ort fails to participate in the last two
(2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes

27
 cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered
- The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an
entity funded or assisted by , the government
- The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees
must likewise do so
- Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominee
- Nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole

CAESAR vs GARRIDO

DOCTRINE: The ineligibility of the mover of an election contest, supposing him to have been a
duly registered candidate, is not available as a defense in the contest proceeding.

The reason is that the contest raises merely a question as to the number of votes received by the
opposing candidates. Eligibility is a matter wholly apart from the question of the number of votes
received by a candidate, and its solution depends upon considerations quite different from those
involved in a contest.

FACTS:
- Macario Caesar filed a contest over the proclamation of Filomeno Garrido as president in
the municipality of Cabalian, Leyte.
- Upon hearing the case the trial court reversed the result reached by the board of
canvassers and found that the contestant had been elected over Garrido by a plurality of
71 votes. Judicial declaration was accordingly made to the effect that Macario E. Caesar
had been elected to the office and judgment was given against the contestee Garrido

28
 - The contest was instituted by a motion to dismiss with the statement that Garrido was a
duly qualified elector in the municipality of Cabalian and was a registered candidate who
had received votes for the office of municipal president in the election mentioned.
- Upon the filing of this motion, Garrido moved to dismiss on the ground that it was not
alleged in the Macarioś motion that the contestant was, at the time of the election,
eligible to the office for which he was a candidate. This motion to dismiss was overruled
by the trial court on the two grounds that the allegation that the protestant was a duly
qualified elector and registered candidate should be taken as implying that he was eligible
to the office, and that, at any rate, the ineligibility of a candidate is not proper matter of
exception or defense in a contest over an election. To this ruling the contestee excepted,
and error is here assigned thereto.

ISSUE: Whether or not the question as to the eligibility of a candidate for office should be
involved in a proceeding of contest. – NO

HELD:

No. The ineligibility of the mover of an election contest, supposing him to have been a
duly registered candidate, is not available as a defense in the contest proceeding. The reason is
that the contest raises merely a question as to the number of votes received by the opposing
candidates. Eligibility is a matter wholly apart from the question of the number of votes received
by a candidate, and its solution depends upon considerations quite different from those involved
in a contest.

As long as the law remained in this state, it was a rule that the eligibility of a candidate
could not be considered in an election contest (Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil., 238). The law
concerning the removal of ineligible officials has, however, been charged; and it is now provided
that when a person, alleged to be ineligible, is elected to a provincial or municipal office, his right
thereto is to be tried, upon the relation of any elector of the province or municipality concerned,
in a special proceeding in the nature of an action of quo warranto; and this proceeding must be

29
instituted within the two weeks after the proclamation of the election of the person whose right
to office is questioned (Election Law, sec. 408, as amended by Act No. 3387).

The law now stands, the question of eligibility may be tried in a judicial proceeding. But
the proceeding in which it maybe tried is not a contest; and the defense based on the alleged
ineligibility of the contestant is completely incongruous with the issue of an election protest.
Moreover, it is to be observed that the proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to try the
question of the eligibility of a candidate is to be instituted within the two weeks after the
proclamation of the person whose right to office is challenged. In the proceeding now before us
the contestant has never been proclaimed at all and will not be proclaimed, in the sense of the
law, until the decision of this court is published. The issue of ineligibility which is attempted to be
raised in the answer is premature. Another reason readily suggests itself why the ineligibility of
the contestant is not available as a defense in this contest. This consists in the fact that, if the
person who has received a majority of plurality of votes in any election is found to be ineligible,
the result is that the office is declared vacant and a new election has to be held to fill the vacancy.
In the case before us, if we should accept the defense of the ineligibility of the contestant and
adopt the course of dismissing the contest for that reason, the result would be that the contestee
would be in office though he in fact received fewer votes than the contestant. Thus, the eligibility
of the contestant must be made the subject of a separate proceeding at the proper juncture.
Judgment appealed by contestee Garrido must be AFFIRMED, and it is so ordered, with costs
against the appellant.

LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO vs COMELEC

DOCTRINE: "The ascertainment of the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers" is
a matter that is well within the authority of the COMELEC.

FACTS:
- The General Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered
political party , informed the COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party

30
 Chairman, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the
certificate of candidacy of the partys official candidates
- The same Manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had placed the LDP Secretary
General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on indefinite forced leave
- Rep. Aquino filed his Comment, contending that the Party Chairman does not have the
authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. As the Manifestation
filed by the LDP General Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino asked the COMELEC to
disregard the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ascertainment of the identity of political party and its officers within
COMELEC jurisdiction. - YES

HELD:

Yes. The court ruled that the COMELEC correctly stated that "the ascertainment of the
identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers" is a matter that is well within its authority.

The source of this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon
the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election. In the exercise of such power and in the discharge of such function,
the Commission is endowed with ample "wherewithal" and "considerable latitude in adopting
means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was
created to promote free, orderly and honest elections."

In the case at bar, the Party Chairman, purporting to represent the LDP, contends that
under the Party Constitution only he or his representative, to the exclusion of the Secretary
General, has the authority to endorse and sign party nominations. The Secretary General
vigorously disputes this claim and maintains his own authority. Clearly, the question of party
identity or leadership has to be resolved if the COMELEC is to ascertain whether the candidates
are legitimate party standard bearers or not. The assailed COMELEC Resolution is ANNULLED and
the Petition is GRANTED IN PART.

31
SOCRATES VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(WHAT CONSTITUTES “INVOLUNTARY INTERRUPTION” FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS COMPLIED WITH THE RULE ON THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS)

FACTS:
Hagedorn was elected serve full 3 consecutive terms in 1992, 1995 and 1998 as Mayor of
Puerto Princesa. Then he was disqualified and did not run in 2001. Socrates won as Mayor in 2001
from June 30, 2001 until a recall election on September 24, 2004. Again, Hagedorn filed his
candidacy and won. Intervenors filed disqualification against him because it would be his 4 th
consecutive term already. The petition was granted.

ISSUES : 1. Whether or not, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the
Recall election; and
2. Whether or not Hagedorn is qualified to run.

HELD:
1. No. because the protest or lost of confidence case against Socrates by the P preparatory
Recall Assembly (majority of incumbent barangay officials) is valid.
2. The nearly 15-month period when Hagedorn was out of office, although short of a full term
of 3 years, constituted an involuntary interruption (by the RECALL ELECTION) in the continuity of
his service as Mayor.

LOREN LEGARDA VS. NOLI DE CASTRO

(JURISDICTION OF THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERRORS IN ELECTION
RETURNS OR CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS)

FACTS:
On February 4, 2005, protestee filed a motion for reconsideration assailing a resolution
dated January 18, 2005 in which the Presidential Election Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction over

32
the protest of Loren Legarda and denied the motion of protestee Noli De Castro for its outright
dismissal. De Castro argued that a) where the correctness of the number of votes is the issue, the
best evidence are the ballots; and b) that the Tribunal cannot correct the manifest of errors on
the statements of votes and certificates of canvass.

ISSUE: W/N there was an electoral fraud.

HELD:
The court agreed on the first argument. However, on the second argument, the PET is
mandated by the Constitution to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualification of the President and Vice-President is expressly vested in the PET, section 4, Art
VII of the Constitution.

TORRES VS. RIBO

(THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS IS PARTLY MINISTERIAL AND PARTLY QUASI-
JUDICIAL)

FACTS:
- Mamerto Ribo (Governor); Alejandro Balderian and Bernardo Torres (members of the
provincial board) were opposing candidates for provincial Governor of Leyte. As such, they were
disqualified to form part of the provincial board of canvassers
- The COMELEC appointed the Division Superintendent of schools, the District Engineer, and the District
Officer to replace the disqualified members. However, they were not available. So, the provincial
treasurer, provincial fiscal, assistant civil engineer, chief clerk of the division superintendent
of schools, and the acting district health officer canvassed the votes. They proclaimed RIBO as
Governor-elect.
- In a meeting attended by the Treasurer, Fiscal, District Health officer, Division Superintendent, district
engineer and auditor they made a new canvass and proclaimed RIBO as the provincial Governor

33
 - CFI Leyt dismissed motion for a protest for provincial governor on the alleged ground that the motion
was filedout of time (based on Nov 22 filing of protest).

ISSUE: W/N the assistant civil engineer and chief clerk lawful members (de facto officers) of the provincial board
of canvassers?

HELD:
NO. Tizon and Pascual did not possess any of these conditions. They acted without any appointment, commission
or any color of title to the office. There was no acquiescence, public or private, in their discharge of the position. In
fact the very person most greatly affected by their assumption.

RATIO
Section 158 of the Revised Election Code designates the officers who are to comprise the provincial board of
canvassers, and Section 159 enumerates the officers to be appointed substitute members by the Commission on
Elections in case of the absence or incapacity of any of the members named in the next preceding section. They
are: the division superintendent of schools, the district health officer, the register of deeds, the clerk of the Court
of First Instance, and the justice of the peace of the provincial capital. This express enumeration excludes other
officers.

The act of the provincial board of canvassers of tabulating and summing up the election returns
is a ministerial duty but one phase of the function requires the exercise of quasi-judicial power
which is the determination of the genuineness and due execution of election of election returns-
whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns and signed by the proper
officers.

ROSAL VS. COMELEC

34
(GUIDELINES ON RELYING ON THE BALLOTS TO SETTLE THE ISSUE IN AN ELECTION PROTEST OF
WHO AMONG THE PARTIES WAS THE REAL CHOICE OF THE ELECTORATE)

FACTS:
Petitioner Noel E. Rosal and private respondent Michael Victor C. Imperial were
candidates for Mayor of Legaspi City. Petitioner won, respondent petitioned for annulment of
proclamation assailing for irregularities in the counting of votes. Revisions were done, and
Imperial declared winner by the Comelec 2nd division . Rosal assailed the decision and filed
motion for technical examination of contested ballots to the SC, that such were actually spurious
ballots that had been stuffed inside the ballot boxes. Motion denied, therefore Rosal filed a
petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not an interlocutory order rendered by a decision of the Comelec be assailed
by means of a special civil action for certiorari.

HELD: No. Interlocutory order of a Comelec division should be challenged at the 1 st Instance
(which is the Comelec 2nd division) through a proper motion for reconsideration. Also,the
Supreme Court summarized the following doctrines:
- The ballots cannot be used to overturn the official count as reflected in the election
returns unless it is first shown affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved with a
care which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all suspicion of change,
abstraction or substitution;
- The burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved in such a
manner is on the protestant;
- Where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made of such
substantial compliance with the requirements of that mode as would provide assurance
that the ballots have been kept inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations from the
precise mode of achieving that end;

35
 - It is only when the protestant has shown substantial compliance with the provisions of
law on the preservation of ballots that the burden of proving actual tampering or the
likelihood thereof shifts to the protestee , and
- Only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court or COMELEC that the integrity of the
ballots has been preserved should it adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as
reflected in the election returns.

ELECTION-RELATED DISPUTES
CHAPTER XIX

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CASES

This pertains to the question on inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters which is judicial in
nature.
The Sec. 49 provides for the following rules:
- These cases shall be decided not later than seven days before the date of the election
- It is within exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC or MeTC.
- Notice of such decision shall be served to all parties within twenty-four hours following
its promulgation
- Any party adversely affected may appeal therefrom within twenty-four hours to the RTC
- RTC shall decide the same not later than two days before the date of the election.
- In the case of Pangutan v Abubakar, it states that the right to vote is addressed by the
judiciary as guardian of Constitutional Right and is excluded from the authority vested to
COMELEC.

PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES; DEFINITION

- A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the
proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any
registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with

36
 the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to
the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.

JURISDICTION
- The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over it. It may (1) motu proprio or (2) upon
written petition and after due notice and hearing, (a) order a partial or (b) total
suspension of proclamation of any candidate-elect…

ISSUES RAISED IN PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY (Section 243)

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

PROCEDURE:
- Under, “Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers” the Section 244
of the OEC provides for the following:
- When the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers are contested, the
board of canvassers shall, within twenty-four hours, make a ruling thereon with notice to
the contestant
- Same contestant may appeal the matter to the Commission within five days after the
ruling with proper notice to the board of canvassers.
- After due notice and hearing, the Commission shall decide the case within ten days from
the filing.
- During the pendency of the case, the board of canvassers shall suspend the canvass until
the Commission orders the continuation or resumption…

CONTESTED ELECTION RETURNS (SECTION 245)

37
- Any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties, contesting the inclusion or
exclusion in the canvass of any election returns
- Any of the grounds authorized under this article or in Sections 234 (Material defects in
the election returns), 235 (When election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified)
and 236 (Discrepancies in election returns) of Article XIX
- Submit verbal objections to the chairman of the board of canvassers at the time the
questioned returns is presented for inclusion or exclusion, which objections shall be noted
in the minutes of the canvassing.

ROLE OF BOARD OF CANVASSERS

- Upon receipt of any such objections shall automatically defer the canvass of the contested
returns and shall proceed to canvass the rest of the returns which are not contested by
any party.
- Within twenty-four hours from and after the presentation of a verbal objection, the same
shall be submitted in written form to the board of canvassers. Thereafter, the board of
canvassers shall take up each contested return, consider the written objections thereto
and summarily rule thereon. Said ruling shall be made oral initially and then reduced to
writing by the board within twenty-four hours from the time the oral ruling is made.
- Any party adversely affected by an oral ruling on its/his objection shall immediately state
orally whether it/he intends to appeal said ruling. The said intent to appeal shall be stated
in the minutes of the canvassing.
- If a party manifests its intent to appeal, the board of canvassers shall set aside the return
and proceed to rule on the other contested returns. When all the contested returns have
been ruled upon by it, the board of canvassers shall suspend the canvass and shall make
an appropriate report to the Commission, copy furnished the parties.
- The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by
the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the
losing party and any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless
the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.

38
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
- All pre-proclamation controversies summary proceedings before Commission and shall be
executory after the lapse of five days from receipt by the losing party of the decision, unless
restrained by the Supreme Court.

PARTIAL PROCLAMATION
- Even with pending pre-proclamation controversy, the Commission may, (motu proprio or
upon the filing of a verified petition and after due notice and hearing), order the proclamation
of other winning candidates, not be affected by the outcome of the controversy.

EFFECT OF FILING PETITION TO ANNUAL OR SUSPEND PROCLAMATION

- Effect is suspension of the running of the period within which to file an election protest or
quo warranto proceedings.

THE PRE-PROCLAMATION CASES NOT ALLOWED IN ELECTIONS OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT,

SENATOR, AND MEMBER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (Republic Act No. 7166 - AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS AND FOR ELECTORAL
REFORMS, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)

Section 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President

Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives. -
For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and
Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases
shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the
certificates of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not
preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu
propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct
manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it…

39
ELECTION CONTEST IN GENERAL; DEFINITION
- In the case of Taule vs Santos, 1991, G.R. No. 90336, Election contests was
defined as adversary proceedings by which matters involving the title or claim of
title to an elective office, made before or after proclamation of the winner, is
settled whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute and in the
case of elections of barangay officials, it is restricted to proceedings after the
proclamation of the winners as no pre-proclamation controversies are allowed.

ELECTION CONTESTS FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

- Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution provides that …The returns of every
election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of
canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed
to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the
election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of
the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law,
canvass the votes.

- The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but
in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them
shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
A.M. No. 10-4-29-SC (related issues)

40
THE 2010 RULES OF THE PRESIENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
Rule 8. Inherent powers. - The Tribunal shall have the following inherent powers:
(a) Preserve and enforce in proceedings before it or before any of its Divisions or officials acting
under its authority;
(b) Administer or cause to be administered oaths in any contest before it, and in any order matter
where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
(c) Compel the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence in any contest before it.
(d) Compel obedience to its decisions, resolutions, orders and processes;
(e) Control its processes and amend its decisions, resolutions or orders to make them
conformable to law and justice;
(f) Authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and used instead of
the original copy thereof, and to restore and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings;
and
(g) Promulgate its own rules of procedure and amend or revise the same (R7)
Rule 14. How initiated.
- File an election protest or a petition for quo warranto against the President or Vice-
President.
- An election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto.
- A petition for quo warranto shall not include an election protest.

Rule 15. Election Protest.

- The registered candidate for President or Vice-President of the Philippines who received
the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or
Vice-President,
- File a verified election protest with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within
thirty days after the proclamation of the winner.

QUO WARRANTO

41
- Any registered voter who has voted in the election concerned within ten days after the
proclamation of the winner on the grounds of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines.

Rule 17. Contents of the protest or petition. –

(A) An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall commonly state the following facts:
- the position involved;
- the date of proclamation; and
- the number of votes credited to the parties per the proclamation.

(B) A quo warranto petition shall as state:

a. the facts giving the petitioner standing to the file the petition;
b. the legal requirements for the office and the disqualifications prescribed by law;
c. the protestee's ground for ineligibility or the specific acts of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines

(C) An election protest shall also state:

a. that the protestant was a candidate who had duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and had been voted for the same office.
b. the total umber of precincts of the region, province, or city concerned;
c. the protested precincts and votes of the parties to the protest in such precincts
per the Statement of Votes By Precincts, or if the votes of the parties are not
specified, an explanation why the votes are not specified ; and
d. a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the
electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the protested precincts.

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF ELECTION CONTEST

- An election protest or petition for quo warranto may be summarily dismissed by the
Tribunal without requiring the protestee or respondent to answer if, inter alia:
a. the protest or petition is insufficient in form and substance;
b. the protest or petition is filed beyond the periods provided in Rules 15 and 16;
c. the filing fee is not paid within the periods provided in Rules 15 and 16;

42
 d. the cash deposit or the first Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 200,000.00) is
not paid within ten days after the filing of the protest; and
e. the protest or petition or copies and their annexes filed with the Tribunal are
not clearly legible.

ELECTION CONTESTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

RULES (Section 17):

 The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
 TRIBUNAL shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members.
 Each tribunal should have nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on
the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

RULES (Section 19):

 The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within
thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized...
 The Commission on Appointments shall meet only (a) while the Congress is in session, (b)
at the call of its Chairman or (c) a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers
and functions as are herein conferred upon it

.ELECTION CONTESTS FOR REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL AND CITY OFFICIALS

JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION

43
 The Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa, elective regional, provincial and city
officials.

ELECTION CONTESTS FOR BATASANG PAMBANSA, REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL AND CITY

OFFICES; REQUISITES:

1. Sworn petition
2. File with the Commission
3. By any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for the same office
4. W/IN 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

ELECTION CONTESTS FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS; REQUISITES

1. A sworn petition
2. Filed with the proper regional trial court
3. By any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for the same office,
4. W/IN 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election

ELECTION CONTESTS FOR BARANGAY OFFICIALS; REQUISITES

1. A sworn petition
2. Filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court
3. By any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for the same office
4. W/IN 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election
5. The trial court shall decide the election protest within fifteen days after the filing
thereof.

44
 6. The decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court may be appealed within
ten days from receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional trial
court which shall decide the case within thirty days from its submission, and
whose decisions shall be final.

PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO; REQUISITES

- Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional,
provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines shall:
- File a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission
- Within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall:
- File a sworn petition for quo warranto with the regional trial court or metropolitan or
municipal trial court
- Within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

CASES
ABELLA VS COMELEC
(QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS)

FACTS:

- WHO is the rightful governor of the province of Leyte?

1. Petitioner Adelina Larrazabal who obtained the highest number of votes in the local
elections and was proclaimed as the duly elected governor but who was later declared by
the (COMELEC) "... to lack both residence and registration qualifications for the position
of Governor of Leyte as provided by Art. X, Section 12, Philippine Constitution and is
hereby disqualified as such Governor";

45
 2. Petitioner Benjamin Abella, who obtained the second highest number of votes for the
position of governor but was not allowed by the COMELEC to be proclaimed as governor
after the disqualification of Larrazabal; or
3. Leopoldo E. Petilla, the vice-governor of the province of. Leyte.

- ABELLA NOW CLAIMED HIS ALLEGED RIGHTS TO THE POSITION HAVING THE 2ND HIGHEST
VOTE.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the candidate who got the second highest vote may be proclaimed as governor
when the candidate for such position was disqualified.

RULING: NO.

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for,
and the votes case for him shall not be counted.

HOWEVER, while it is true that the disqualification case against Larrazabal was filed before she
could be proclaimed the fact remains that the local elections of February 1, 1988 in the province
of Leyte proceeded with Larrazabal considered as a bona-fide candidate.

- The voters of the province voted for her in the sincere belief that she was a qualified
candidate for the position of governor. Her votes were counted and she obtained the
highest number of votes. He was repudiated by the electorate.
- What matters is that in the event a candidate for an elected position who is voted for and
who obtains the highest number of votes is disqualified for not possessing the eligibility
requirements at the time of the election as provided by law, the candidate who obtains
the second highest number of votes for the same position can not assume the vacated
position.
- (Case Law of Frivaldo)Finally, there is the question of whether or not the private
respondent, who filed the quo warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. He

46
 cannot. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of
votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City.

Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest
number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican
forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared
carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.

BAI SANDRA SEMA VS HRET

(POWER AND JURISDICTION OF HRET)

FACTS:
1. On 12 June 2007, protestant Bai Sandra S.A. Sema, a congressional candidate of the Lakas-
CMD who obtained 87,237 votes or 18,345-vote difference from protestee Dilangalen.
2. Allegedly, it was on 1 June 2007, when the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Shariff
Kabunsuan proclaimed protestee Didagen P. Dilangalen as Representative of the Lone
District of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City.
3. Protestant Sema is protesting alleging that various Boards of Election Inspectors (BEI), in
connivance with the protestee, deliberately and wrongfully read, appreciated, and/or
tabulated the votes appearing in the ballots … in favor of the protestee;
4. On July 19, 2007, protestee filed an Answer saying that protestant had engaged in flying
voters and in massive vote-buying…
5. On September 10, 2009, the HRET issued the assailed Decision. The HRET found that majority
of the ballots…were rejected as fake or spurious ballots since they did not contain security
features described by (COMELEC). Nevertheless, the HRET ruled that petitioner failed to
prove by convincing evidence that the election itself, conducted on May 14, 2007, was tainted
by fraud and irregularities that frustrated the will of the electorate. The HRET concluded that
the ballots and/or ballot boxes must have been tampered with after the elections and the
counting and canvassing of votes. Thus, the HRET relied on the election returns and other

47
 election documents to arrive at the number of votes validly cast for petitioner and
respondent Dilangalen.

ISSUE: Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by relying on election returns and other election documents, instead of the ballots
themselves.

RULING: NO.
6. At the outset, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts and its
jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon a
showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. Absent such grave abuse
of discretion, this Court shall not interfere with the electoral tribunals exercise of its
discretion or jurisdiction.[5] Grave abuse of discretion has been described in Juan v.
Commission on Elections,[6] as follows:
Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution,
the law or existing jurisprudence. It means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as would amount to lack of jurisdiction…

There is no cavil of doubt as to the factual findings regarding the fake. What petitioner
questions is the Tribunal's reliance on election returns and/or tally sheets and other election
documents to arrive at the number of votes for each of the parties. However, jurisprudence has
established that such action of the HRET was well within its discretion and jurisdiction.

GENERAL RULE:
Indeed, the general rule is, if what is being questioned is the correctness of the number of votes
for each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence is the ballots themselves.
EXCEPTION:
However, this rule applies only if the ballots are available and their integrity has been preserved
from the day of elections until revision. When the ballots are unavailable or cannot be

48
produced, then recourse can be made to untampered and unaltered election returns or other
election documents as evidence.[8]

Since it is undisputed that there are hardly any valid or authentic ballots upon which the HRET
could base its determination of the number of votes cast for each of the parties, the HRET merely
acted in accordance with settled jurisprudence when it resorted to untampered and/or
unaltered election returns and other election documents as evidence of such votes.
THUS, there is no showing whatsoever that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion –
DISMISSED.

DIPATUAN VS COMELEC
(BARE ALLEGATION OF IRREGULARITY IS NOT A BASIS OF PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY)

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Dipatuan and private respondent Aleem Hosain Amanoddin were candidates
for Mayor of Bacolod Grande in the 1 February 1988 special local elections
in Lanao del Sur.
2. Earlier, on 25 February 1988, petitioner Dipatuan was proclaimed Mayor by a separate
Board of Canvassers headed, after the said Board had excluded the election returns from
Precincts Nos. 15, 17 and 21 from its canvass.
3. The COMELEC En Banc set aside both (a) the proclamation made by the Minalang Board
for being premature, the candidates not having been given the opportunity to appeal,
and (b) the proclamation by the Manggray Board on the ground that the latter Board had
not been properly constituted. A Special Board of Canvassers ("Special Board") was
therefore convened in Manila by the COMELEC to recanvass the election returns
from Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur.
4. On 21 June 1988, during the recanvass, petitioner objected to the inclusion of the election
returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17, contending that the returns from the two (2)
precincts were "spurious and manufactured".

49
 5. The petitioner claimed that the questioned returns were "obviously manufactured"
within the meaning of Section 243 (c) of the Omnibus Election Code and that therefore a
pre-proclamation controversy existed which must be resolved before proclamation of the
winning candidates.
6. The Special Board denied petitioner's objections. On appeal, the COMELEC Second
Division sustained the Special Board's action. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the
decision and denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
7. On 10 January 1989, the Court issued a TRO to COMELEC.

ISSUES:

WHETHER OR NOT the questioned returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17 were "obviously
manufactured" such that the propriety or legality of their inclusion in the canvass by the Special
Board presented a pre-proclamation controversy.

HELD: NO

We start by noting that the COMELEC (both Second Division and the Commission En Banc)
correctly emphasized that, under the regime of the Omnibus Election Code, pre-proclamation
controversies are properly limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and
proceedings before such Board of Canvassers, and not the Board of Election Inspectors nor
proceedings before such latter Board[1]and that such challenges should relate to particular
election returns to which petitioner should have made specific verbal objection subsequently
confirmed in writing.

In a pre-proclamation controversy, it is axiomatic that the COMELEC is not to look beyond

or behind election returns which are on their face regular and authentic returns. A party seeking
to raise issues resolution of which would compel the Comelec to pierce the veil, so to speak, of
election returns prima facie regular, has his proper remedy in a regular election protest.

2. Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code provides, in relevant part:

"Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. -- The following shall
be the proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:

50
xxx xxx xxx
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or
they are obviously manufactured or not authentic: and x x x" (Underscoring supplied)
Thus, in principle, the issues raised by petitioner do constitute issues properly raised in pre-
proclamation controversies. That the assailed returns were "obviously manufactured" must,
however, be evident from the face of the election returns themselves. In the case at bar,
petitioner does not claim that the election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17 had not been
made or issued by the Board of Election Inspectors or that they had been manufactured by some
unknown third party or parties; petitioner does not, in other words, claim that the returns
themselves were not authentic. DISMISSED.

EVILLO PORMENTO VS JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

(INTERPRETATION OF [T]HE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY RE-ELECTION)

FACTS:
8. Private respondent Joseph “Erap” Ejercito Estrada was elected President of the Republic
of the Philippines in the general elections held on May 11, 1998. He was however ousted
[“resigned” according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Estrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No.
146738, March 2, 2001] from office and was not able to finish his term.
9. He sought the presidency again in the general elections held on May 10, 2010.
10. Petitioner Atty. Evillo C. Pormento opposed Erap’s candidacy and filed a petition for the
latter’s disqualification, which was however denied by the COMELEC 2nd Division.
11. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari on May 7, 2010. However, under the
Rules of Court, the filing of such petition would not stay the execution of the judgment,
final order or resolution of the COMELEC that is sought to be reviewed.
12. Besides, petitioner did not even pray for the issuance of TROor writ of preliminary
injunction. Hence, private respondent was able to participate as a candidate for the
position of President in the May 10, 2010 elections where he garnered the second highest
number of votes.

51
ISSUE:
What is the proper interpretation of the following provision of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution: “[t]he President shall not be eligible for any re-election?”
RULING: ESTRADA WON
13. Private respondent was not elected President the second time he ran [in the May 2010
elections]. Since the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase “any reelection”
will be premised on a person’s second (whether immediate or not) election as President,
there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case.
14. As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. The Court is not
empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles
or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it.
In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.
15. An action is considered “moot” when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy.
16. Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation of a President
who has been duly elected in the May 10, 2010 elections, the same is no longer true today.
17. Following the results of that elections, private respondent was not elected President for
the second time. Thus, any discussion of his “reelection” will simply be hypothetical and
speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose.

GALLARDO VS RIMANDO
(SITUATION WHICH THE WINNING CANDIDATES MAY STILL BE UNSITTED FROM HIS POSITION)

FACTS:
18. Petitioner Gil C. Gallardo and private respondent Franco F. Rimando were rival candidates.
On January 19, 1988, Rimando was proclaimed the winner over Gallardo by a margin of
12 votes.
19. On January 22, 1988, Gallardo filed in (COMELEC) a petition to annul the proclamation of
Rimando. COMELEC dismissed the petition.
20. Gallardo appealed the COMELEC's final resolution to this Court but Rimando filed a
motion to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not filed within ten (10) days after

52
 the proclamation of the results of the election fixed in Sec. 51 of the Omnibus Election
Code.
21. Judge Quintos of the RTC denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:
Was Gallardo's election protest filed on time?
HELD: YES.
Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:
SEC. 251. Election contests for municipal offices. — A sworn petition contesting the election
of a municipal officer shall be filed with the proper regional trial court by any candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten days after
proclamation of the results of the election. (Art. XVIII, Sec. 190, 1978 EC.)
Sec. 248. Effect of filing petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation. — The filing with
the Commission of a petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation of any candidate …
22. Judge Quintos also misinterpreted Section 246 of the Omnibus Election Code which
provides that the decision of the COMELEC in a pre-proclamation controversy, etc. "shall
be executory after the lapse of five (5) days from receipt by the losing party of the decision
of the Commission, unless restrained by the Supreme Court." He erroneously thought that
because the Comelec's decision in the pre- proclamation case became final and executory
(absent a restraining order from the Supreme Court), the appellant lost his right to file an
election protest under Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code. That is not so.

The right of the prevailing party in a pre-proclamation case to the execution of the COMELEC's
decision (i.e., to be proclaimed and to assume office) after the lapse of five (5) days from receipt
of said decision by the losing party, unless restrained by the Supreme Court, does not bar the
losing party from filing an election contest within the ten-day period fixed in Section 251.
In "Gallardo vs. COMELEC," 1989, the appellant did not ask this Court to restrain the execution
of the COMELEC decision for the simple reason that his opponent, Rimando, had already been
proclaimed even before the pre-proclamation case was filed by him (Gallardo) in the COMELEC.
That circumstance, was precisely the reason why the COMELEC dismissed the pre-proclamation

53
case, for the rule is that after the winning candidate has been proclaimed and assumed office,
a pre-proclamation petition does not lie against him.
DOCTRINE: But, although already proclaimed and installed in office, he may still be unseated:
1. when his opponent is adjudged the true winner of the election by a final judgment of the
courts in the election contest (Sec. 251, Omnibus Election Code);
2. when the prevailing party is declared ineligible or disqualified by final judgment in a quo
warranto case (Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code); and
3. when the incumbent is removed from office for cause (Sec. 264, Omnibus Election Code,
Secs. 8, 9 and 12, Rep. Act No. 3019),

For all the foregoing, we hold that respondent Judge committed a patent error and a grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing Gallardo's timely election protest.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted.

JOSE ATIENZA VS COMELEC AND ROXAS II

(COMELEC JURISDICTION OVER INTRA PARTY DISPUTES)

FACTS:

- Franklin M. Drilon, the former president of the Liberal Party (LP) announced that his party
withdrew support for the administration of former Pres. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo. However,
Jose L. Atienza Jr., LP Chairman, alleged that Drilon made the announcement without
consulting the party first.
- Atienza hosted a party conference which resulted to the election of new officers, with Atienza
as LP president.
- Drilon filed a petition with the COMELEC to nullify the said election claiming that it was illegal
considering that the party’s electing bodies, NECO and NAPOLCO, were not properly
convened.
- Drilon claimed that under the LP Constitution, there is a three-year term and that it has not
yet ended.

54
- Atienza contested that the election of new officers could be likened to people power
removing Drilon as president by direct action.
- Atienza also alleged that the amendment to the LP Constitution providing the three-term had
not been properly ratified.
- The COMELEC held that the election of Atienza and others was invalid since the electing
assembly did not convene in accordance with the LP Constitution. The COMELEC also ruled
that since the said Constitution was not ratified, Drilon was only sitting in a hold-over capacity
since his term has been ended already.
- Subsequently, the LP held a NECO meeting to elect new party leaders before respondent
Drilon’s term expired which resulted to the election of Roxas as the new LP president.
- Atienza et al. sought to enjoin Roxas from assuming the presidency of the LP questioning the
validity of the quorum.
- The COMELEC issued a resolution denying petitioners Atienza et al.’s petition.
- As for the validity of petitioners Atienza, et al.’s expulsion as LP members, the COMELEC
observed that this was a membership issue that related to disciplinary action within the
political party. The COMELEC treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its
jurisdiction to resolve.

ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra-party disputes.

RULING: YES.
- YES but it is LIMITED. It does not have blanket authority to resolve any and all controversies
involving political parties. The COMELEC may intervene in disputes to a party only when
necessary to the discharge of its constitutional functions. The COMELEC may resolve an intra-
party leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an incident of its power to
register political parties.
- The validity of Roxas’ election as LP president is a leadership issue that the COMELEC had to
settle. Under the amended LP Constitution, the LP president is the issuing authority for
certificates of nomination of party candidates for all national elective positions; and who can
authorize other LP officers to issue certificates of nomination for local elective posts.

55
- According to Atienza, et al., proceedings on party discipline are likened to administrative
proceedings and are thus still covered by the requisites of due process particularly the one
set in Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations.
- But the requirements of administrative due process DO NOT APPLY TO THE INTERNAL
OAFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES. Although political parties play an important role in our
government, it is considered as a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION, note a state instrument.
Therefore, the discipline of its members does not involve the right to life, liberty, or property
that the constitution and our laws seek to protect. The only rights that these members have
are those that they have agreed amongst themselves, binding by way of contract. The proper
remedy would be to go to the regular courts, not to claim a violation of due process against
the government or any of its agencies.
- In conclusion, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it upheld Roxas’
election as LP President and refused to rule on the validity of Atienza et al.’s expulsion from
the party. Such expulsion is an issue of party membership and discipline, in which the
COMELEC cannot intervene.

JOSELITO MENDOZA VS COMELEC

(GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OF COMELEC)

FACTS:
- This case involves the election protest filed with the COMELEC against petitioner Joselito R.
Mendoza (Mendoza), who was proclaimed elected Governor of Bulacan in the 14 May 2007
elections.
- Mendoza garnered 364,566 votes while private respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan
(Pagdanganan) got 348,834 votes, giving Mendoza a winning margin of 15,732 votes.

- After the appreciation of the contested ballots, the COMELEC Second Division deducted a
total of 20,236 votes from Mendoza and 616 votes from Pagdanganan.

56
- As regards the claimed ballots, Mendoza was awarded 587 ballots compared to
Pagdanganan's 586 ballots. Thus, the result of the revision proceedings showed that
Pagdanganan obtained 342,295 votes, which is more than Mendoza's 337,974 votes.
- In its Resolution dated 1 December 2009 (Division Resolution), the COMELEC Second Division
annulled the proclamation of Mendoza and proclaimed Pagdanganan as the duly elected
Governor of Bulacan with a winning margin of 4,321 votes.
- The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Division Resolution on 8 February 2010. The COMELEC
En Banc issued a February 10, 2010 Order scheduling the case for re-hearing on February 15
2010, on the ground that THERE WAS NO MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS in the Feb 8
Resolution.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in proceeding with the
questioned Resolution and Order?
RULING: COMELEC abused its discretion.
- In this case, what is brought before the COMELEC is an ORIGINAL PROTEST invoking the
original jurisdiction of the Commission. The protest, is first decided by the division, which
process is continued in the banc if there is a motion for reconsideration of the division ruling.
If no majority decision is reached banc, the protest, which is an original action, shall be
DISMISSED. There is no first instance decision that can be affirmed.
- COMELEC acted in GADALEJ when it completely ignored and disregarded its very own decree
“that there was no majority vote of the members obtained in the Resolution of the
Commission En Banc promulgated on February 8, 2010” and proceeded with the questioned
Resolution and March 4, 2010 Order, thereby annulling the proclamation of petitioner
Mendoza as the duly elected governor of Bulacan and declaring Pagdanganan as the duly
elected governor.
- The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is underscored by the fact that the protest that
petitioner Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007 overstayed with the COMELEC until the present
election year when the end of the term of the contested office is at hand and there was hardly
enough time for the re-hearing that was conducted only on 15 February 2010. As the hearing

57
 time at the division had run out, and the re-hearing time at the banc was fast running out,
the unwanted result came about: incomplete appreciation of ballots; invalidation of ballots
on general and unspecific grounds; unrebutted presumption of validity of ballots.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS FIDEL RAMOS

(WHEN THE PROTESTANT IN AN ELECTION PROTEST IS DEEMED TO HAVE ABANDONED THE
PROTEST)
FACTS:
- The protestant, Miriam Defensor-Santiago ran for presidency and lost in the May 1992
election. In her Motion on the 16th day of August in the year 1995, reiterated in her comment
of the 29th of August of the same year, protestant Defensor-Santiago prayed that the revision
in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be dispensed with and the revision process in the
pilot areas be deemed computed.

- The Court deferred action on the motion and required, instead, the protestant and protestee
to submit their respective memoranda. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the election protest filed by Defensor-Santiago is moot and academic by
her election as a Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption of office as such on the
30th of June in the year 1995.

RULING: YES. The Court held that the election protest filed by Santiago has been abandoned or
considered withdrawn as a consequence of her election and assumption of office as Senator and
her discharge of the duties and functions thereof.

The protestant abandoned her “determination to protest and pursue the public interest involved
in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate.

58
Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura
of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential elections, thereby enhancing the all too
crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national recovery.

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.

TAULE VS SANTOS
(JURISDICTION OF THE COMELEC IN ELECTION DISPUTES)

FACTS:
- An election for the officers of the Federation of Associations of Barangay Council (FABC) was
held on June 18, 1989 despite the absence of other members of the said council. Including
Petitioner was elected as the president.
- Respondent Verceles sent a letter of protest to respondent Santos, seeking its nullification in
view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted.
- Respondent Santos issued a resolution on August 4, 1989 nullifying the election and ordering
a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of
Region V of the Department of Local Government. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by respondent Santos in his resolution on September 5,
1989.
- Thus, this petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

WON the respondent Santos has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the
election of the officers of the FABC.

59
RULING:
- Under Article IX, C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Elections shall
exercise "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction."
- The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay officials is limited
to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
- The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the organizational set-up of the
katipunan ng mga barangay composed of popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed
by law whose officers are voted upon by their respective members.
- The COMELEC exercises only appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective
barangay officials decided by the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts which likewise have
limited jurisdiction.
- While errors of jurisdiction may be reviewed and corrected by certiorari, errors of judgment
may be reviewed only by appeal.

TENGCO VS JOCSON
(TRIAL COURTS HAVE ONLY SPECIAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION OVER ELECTION CONTESTS)

FACTS:
- An original petition was filed in the Supreme Court for the writ of prohibition. Its purpose is
to obtain that writ to restrain the respondent judge from taking jurisdiction and deciding a
certain municipal election protest.
- In June, 1922, a general election was held in the municipality of Malolos for the election of
municipal officers and for other purposes. The board of municipal inspectors declared that
Mariano Tengco had been duly elected to the office of president of said municipality.

60
 Thereafter, Respondent Anastacio Santos presented a motion of protest in the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Bulacan, protesting said election; and
- Petitioner Tengco alleged that the facts stated therein were not sufficient to constitute an
election protest nor to justify a judicial investigation of said election, and prayed that the
motion of protest be dismissed.
- The theory of the petitioner herein is that protestant did not allege in his motion of protest
that he was a "registered candidate voted for at election," he was without right to present
the said motion of protest and the court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the
question presented thereby.

ISSUES:
- By virtue of the provisions of section 44 of Act No. 3030, by whom must the motion of
protest in a municipal election contest be presented?

- Does the Court of First Instance, which is given special jurisdiction in election protest cases,
acquire jurisdiction to hear and determine such a protest when it is presented by any
other person than those designated by the law?

RULING:
- MOTION OF PROTEST, BY WHOM MAY BE PRESENTED. — The "motion of protest" in
election contest cases must allege that it is presented by a "registered voted for," under
the provisions of section 44 of Act No. 3030. Unless the motion of protest shows that it is
presented by a "registered candidate voted for." the Court of First Instance acquires no
jurisdiction to hear and determine said motion.

- ELECTION CONTEST; COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE ARE COURTS OF SPECIAL JURISDICTION

IN ELECTION CONTEST CASES. — In courts of special and limited jurisdiction the record
must show jurisdictional facts. The Election Law makes the Court of First Instance a court
of special jurisdiction, and provides a special procedure for hearing and determining a
"motion of protest" in election cases. The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over

61
 an election protest until the special facts upon which it may take jurisdiction are expressly
in favor of the jurisdiction of a court of limited or special jurisdiction. When a court is
given special statutory jurisdiction, under proceeding different from the ordinary
proceedings, the special jurisdictional facts must appear, both with respect to the subject
to the subject-matter as well as with respect to the parties. Such court cannot, by any
supposed analogy to ordinary proceedings, exercise any power beyond that which the
legislature has given.

A motion of protest in election contest, which fails to aver protestant’s qualifications to maintain
the proceedings, cannot be amended to supply the omission after the lapse of the time which
the statute allows for the commencement of the proceeding. The requirements of section 44 of
Act No. 3030 are jurisdictional.

62