ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, Petitioner, vs.
THE as it did not assume jurisdiction over any pending
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIA ISABELLE
G. CLIMACO-SALAZAR, ROEL B. NATIVIDAD,
ARTURO N. ONRUBIA, AHMAD NARZAD K.
SAMPANG, JOSE L. LOBREGAT, ADELANTE
ZAMBOANGA PARTY, AND ELBERT C. ATILANO,
Respondents.
FACTS
On November 16, 2001, the Court promulgated its
Decision convicting petitioner by final judgment.
Consequently, he was sentenced to suffer the principal
penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
for each count, respectively, which carried the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification pursuant to Article 41 of the Revised
Penal Code. On April 30, 2007, then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo issued an order commuting his
prison term to sixteen (16) years, three (3) months and
three (3) days.
On April 26, 2012, petitioner applied to register as a
voter in Zamboanga City. However, because of his
previous conviction, his application was denied by the
Acting City Election Officer of the Election Registration
Board (ERB), prompting him to file a Petition for
Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Zamboanga City.
Pending resolution of the same, he filed a CoCon
October 5, 2012, seeking to run as mayor for
Zamboanga City in the upcoming local elections
scheduled on May 13, 2013. In his CoC, petitioner
stated, inter alia, that he is eligible for the said office
and that he is a registered voter of Barangay Tetuan,
Zamboanga City.
On October 18, 2012,the MTCC denied his Petition for
Inclusion on account of his perpetual absolute
disqualification which in effect, deprived him of the
right to vote in any election. Such denial was affirmed
by the Regional Trial Court in its Order which, pursuant
to Section 138 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as
amended, otherwise known as the "Omnibus Election
Code" (OEC), was immediately final and executory.
The COMELEC En Banc issued motu proprio
Resolution No. 9613 on January 15, 2013, resolving
"to CANCEL and DENY due course the Certificate of
Candidacy filed by Romeo G. Jalosjos as Mayor of
Zamboanga City in the May 13, 2013 National and
Local Elections" due to his perpetual absolute
disqualification as well as his failure to comply with the
voter registration requirement.
ISSUES
[1] Did the COMELEC En Banc act beyond its
jurisdiction when it issued motu proprio Resolution No.
9613 and in so doing, violated petitioner's right to due
process?
[2] Had petitioner's perpetual absolute disqualification
to run for elective office already been removed by
Section 40 (a) of the LGC?
HELD
The COMELEC En Banc did not exercise its quasi-
judicial functions when it issued Resolution No. 9613
petition or resolve any election case before it or any of
its divisions.Rather, it merely performed its duty to
enforce and administer election laws in cancelling
petitioner's CoC on the basis of his perpetual absolute
disqualification, the fact of which had already been
established by his final conviction.In this regard, the
COMELEC En Banc was exercising its administrative
functions, dispensing with the need for a motion for
reconsideration of a division ruling under Section 3,
Article IX-C of the Constitution, the same being
required only in quasi-judicial proceedings.
The denial of due course to and/or cancellation of
one's CoC generally necessitates the exercise of the
COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions commenced
through a petition based on either Sections 12 or 78of
the OEC, or Section 40 of the LGC, when the grounds
therefor are rendered conclusive on account of final
and executory judgments as when a candidate's
disqualification to run for public office is based on a
final conviction.
There is also no violation of procedural due process
since the COMELEC En Banc would be acting in a
purely administrative manner.
The petitioner was sentenced to suffer the principal
penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
which, pursuant to Article 41 of the RPC, carried with it
the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification and in turn, pursuant to Article 30 of the
RPC, disqualified him to run for elective office. As
discussed, Section 40 (a) of the LGC would not apply
to cases wherein a penal provision such as Article 41
in this case directly and specifically prohibits the
convict from running for elective office. Hence, despite
the lapse of two (2) years from petitioner's service of
his commuted prison term, he remains bound to suffer
the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification which consequently, disqualifies him to
run as mayor for Zamboanga City.
It is well to note that the use of the word "perpetual" in
the aforementioned accessory penalty connotes a
lifetime restriction and in this respect, does not depend
on the length of the prison term, which is imposed as
its principal penalty. Instructive on this point is the
Court's ruling in Lacuna v. Abes,where the Court
explained the meaning of the term "perpetual" as
applied to the penalty of disqualification to run for
public office.
The accessory penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification disqualified the convict for public office
and for the right to vote, such disqualification to last
only during the term of the sentence (Article 27,
paragraph 3, & Article 30, Revised Penal Code) that, in
the case of Abes, would have expired on 13 October
1961.
But this does not hold true with respect to the other
accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification
for the exercise of the right of suffrage. This accessory
penalty deprives the convict of the right to vote or to be
elected to or hold public office perpetually, as
distinguished from temporary special disqualification, EFREN ARATEA v. COMELEC AND ESTELA
which lasts during the term of the ANTIPOLO
sentence. DISMISSED. G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012, Carpio, J.

FACTS

Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida) and Estela D.

Antipolo (Antipolo) were candidates for Mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales in the May 2010 National and Local
Elections.

Dra. Sigrid S. Rodolfo (Rodolfo) filed a petition under

Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to disqualify
Lonzanida and to deny due course or to cancel
Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy on the ground that
Lonzanida was elected, and had served, as mayor of
San Antonio, Zambales for four (4) consecutive terms
immediately prior to the term for the May 2010
elections.

The COMELEC Second Division rendered a

Resolutionon 18 February 2010 cancelling Lonzanida’s
certificate of candidacy.

Lonzanida’s motion for reconsideration before the

COMELEC En Banc remained pending during the May
2010 elections. Lonzanida and Efren Racel Aratea
(Aratea) garnered the highest number of votes and
were respectively proclaimed Mayor and Vice-Mayor.

However, DILG stated that Lonzanida was disqualified

to hold office by reason of his criminal conviction,
Lonzanida had been convicted by final judgment of 10
counts of falsification under the Revised Penal Code,
and as a consequence, his office was deemed
permanently vacant, and thus, Aratea should assume
the Office of the Mayor in an acting capacity without
prejudice to the COMELEC’s resolution of Lonzanida’s
motion for reconsideration.

In another letter dated 6 August 2010, Aratea

requested the DILG to allow him to take the oath of
office as Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. In his
response, then Secretary Jesse M. Robredo allowed
Aratea to take an oath of office as "the permanent
Municipal Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales without
prejudice however to the outcome of the cases
pending before the COMELEC.

Issue:
Who is qualified to hold the office of the mayor, Estela
Antipolo, “the alleged second placer” or Efren Aratea,
the winning V-Mayor.

Held
Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be
proclaimed Mayor because Lonzanida’s certificate of
candidacy was void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was
never a candidate at all. All votes for Lonzanida were
stray votes. Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified
candidate, actually garnered the highest number of
votes for the position of Mayor.
Whether his certificate of candidacy is cancelled before
or after the elections is immaterial because the
cancellation on such ground means he was never a
candidate from the very beginning, his certificate of
candidacy being void ab initio. There was only one
qualified candidate for Mayor in the May 2010
elections .
Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, actually
garnered the highest number of votes for the position
of Mayor.
Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. ‒ The
certificate of candidacy shall state that the person
filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office
stated therein and that he is eligible for said office.
On the other hand, under Article 32 of the Revised
Penal Code, perpetual special
disqualification means that "the offender shall not
be permitted to hold any public office during the
period of his disqualification,” which is
perpetually.  Both temporary absolute disqualification
and perpetual special disqualification constitute
ineligibilities to hold elective public office.  anchored her petition on the theory that "Former
A person suffering from these ineligibilities is
ineligible to run for elective public office, and
commits a false material representation if he states
in his certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to
so run.
ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
(D)
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
FACTS
September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted
former President Estrada, a former President of the
Republic of the Philippines, for the crime of plunder.
October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo (former President Arroyo) extended
executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former
President Estrada.
October 2, 2012, former President Estrada once more
ventured into the political arena, and filed a Certificate
of Candidacy, this time vying for a local elective post,
that of the Mayor of the City of Manila.
January 24, 2013, Risos-Vidal, the petitioner in this
case, filed a Petition for Disqualification against former
President Estrada before the COMELEC. Risos Vidal
President Estrada is Disqualified to Run for Public
Office because of his Conviction for Plunder by the
Sandiganbayan Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua with Perpetual Absolute
Disqualification."
ISSUE: Whether or not former President Estrada is
qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a
result of the pardon granted to him by former President
Arroyo.
HELD
Yes, former President Estrada is qualified to vote and
be voted for in public office as a result of the pardon
granted to him by former President Arroyo. It is well-
entrenched that where the words of a statute are clear,
plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum. From
the words of a statute there should be no departure. It
is this Court’s firm view that the phrase in the
presidential pardon at issue which declares that former
President Estrada "is hereby restored to his civil and
political rights" substantially complies with the
requirement of express restoration.
 Reyes vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
2.
FACTS
Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
the position of Representative of the lone district of
Marinduque. Respondent, a registered voter and
resident of the Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque,
filed before the COMELEC a petition for the
cancellation of petitioner’s COC. On October 31, 2012,
the respondent filed the amended petition on the
ground that the petitioner’s COC contained material
misrepresentations regarding the petitioner’s marital
status, residency, date of birth and citizenship.
Respondent alleged that the petitioner is an American
citizen and filed in February 8, 2013 a manifestation
with motion to admit newly discovered evidence and
amended last exhibit.
On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division
issued a Resolution cancelling the petitioner’s COC on
the basis that petitioner is not a citizen of the
Philippines because of her failure to comply with the
requirements of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on
April 8, 2013. But on May 14, 2013 the COMELEC en
banc promulgated a Resolution denying the
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of
merit.
On May 18, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of
the May 13, 2013 elections and on June 5, 2013 took
her oath of office before the Speaker of House of
Representatives. She has yet to assume office at noon
of June 30, 2013.
On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued a
Certificate of Finality declaring the May 14, 2013
Resolution of the COMELEC en banc final and
executory.
qualification of the members of House of
Representative.
In R.A 9925, for a respondent to reacquire
Filipino citizenship and become eligible for public
office, the law requires that she must have
accomplished the following 1) take the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the
consul-general of the Philippine Consulate in the USA,
and 2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of her
American citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath. In the case at bar,
there is no showing that petitioner complied with the
requirements. Petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial
Administrator cannot be considered as the oath of
allegiance in compliance with RA 9225. As to the issue
of residency, the court approved the ruling if the
COMELEC that a Filipino citizen who becomes
naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his
domicile of origin. Upon reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship, he must still show that he chose to
establish his domicile in the Philippines through
positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be
counted from the time he made it his domicile of
choice. In this case, there is no showing that the
petitioner reacquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant
to RA 9225 so as to conclude  that the petitioner
renounced her American citizenship, it follows that she
has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.
Petitioner claim that she served as Provincial
Administrator of the province of Marinduque from
January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011 is not sufficient to
prove her one-year residency for she has never
recognized her domicile in Marinduque as she remains
to be an American citizen. No amount of her stay in the
said locality can substitute the fact that she has not
abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.
Held:
The instant petition was DISMISSED, finding no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC.

Petitioner then filed before the court Petition for

Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Status Quo Ante Order.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the
jurisdiction over the petitioner who is a duly proclaimed
winner and who has already taken her oath of office for
the position of member of the House of
Representative.
2. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in its
ruling that the petitioner is illegible to run for office

Discussion:
1. Pursuant to Section 17, Article 6 of the 1987
Constitution, the House of Representative Electoral
Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election returns and