ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 1

ELECTION LAW PRE-BAR REVIEW benefit of the citizen or citizens proferring it but in
Atty. Jocelyn Arro-Valencia good faith and with intelligent zeal for the general
benefit and welfare of the State. (Cipriano Abanil v.
Justice of the Peace Court of Bacolod, Negros
2014 BAR Examination Coverage for Election Laws Occidental et. al. 70 Phil. 28 (1940)).

A. Suffrage Sec. 1, Art. V of 1987 the Constitution provides, “Suffrage

B. Qualification and disqualification of voters may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not
C. Registration of Voters otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of age,
D. Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one
E. Political Parties year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least
a. Jurisdiction of the COMELEC over political 6 months immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
parties property, or other substantive requirements shall be imposed on
b. Registration the exercise of suffrage.
F. Candidacy
a. Qualification of candidates Suffrage may also be exercised by qualified Filipinos
b. Filing of certificates of candidacy abroad. Article V, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution further
i. Effect of filing provides that, “The Congress shall provide a system for
ii. Substitution of candidates securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
iii. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.”
receive certificate Congress enacted R.A. 9189 “Overseas Absenting Voting Act
iv. Nuisance candidates of 2003” now amended by the Overseas Absenting Voting Act
v. Petition to deny due course to or of 2013.
cancel certificates of candidacy SCOPE OF SUFFRAGE: FORMS OF POPULAR
vi. Effect of disqualification INTERVENTION
vii. Withdrawal of candidates
G. Campaign Sec. 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution, the
a. Premature campaigning Comelec is vested with the power to “enforce and administer all
b. Prohibited contributions laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election,
c. Lawful and prohibited election propaganda plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall”.
d. Limitations on expenses
e. Statement of contributions and expenses 1) Election – is the means by which the people
H. Board of Election Inspectors and Board of choose, through the use of the ballot, their officials
Canvassers for definite and fixed periods and to whom they
a. Composition entrust, for the time being as their representatives,
b. Powers the exercise of powers of government
I. Remedies and jurisdiction in election law (Garchitorena v. Crsecini 39 Phil. 258 (1918)). In
a. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a ordinary dialect or understanding, the Court in
certificate of candidacy Carlos v. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571 (2000) held that
b. Petition for disqualification elections refers to the conduct of the poles –
c. Petition to declare failure of elections listing of votes, holding of electoral campaign, act
d. Pre-proclamation controversy of casting and receiving the ballots from the
e. Election Protest voters, counting them, and making the election
f. Quo Warranto returns and proclaiming the candidates. . .it refers
J. Prosecution of election offenses to the entire and complete electoral process.

a. Kinds of Election
A. SUFFRAGE 1 Regular election – refers to an election
participated in by those who possess the right of suffrage
THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY - Section 1, Article and not disqualified by law and who are registered voters.
11 of the Constitution: “The Philippines is a democratic and 2. Special elections – election not regularly held
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all but which is conducted
government authority emanates from them.” A democratic and to supply a vacancy in a particular office
republic government derives all its powers, directly or indirectly, before the expiration of the full term for which
from the people – who represents the sovereign power of the the incumbent was elected. Sec. 4 of RA
state. 7166 provides that, “in case a permanent
vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of
SUFFRAGE Representative at least one (1) year before
Is the right to vote in the election of officers chosen the expiration of the term, the Comelec shall
by the people and in the determination of questions call and hold a special elections to fill the
submitted to the people. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer vacancy not earlier than 60 days nor longer
in Political Law 2009 edition) than 90 days after the occurrence of the
Suffrage applies not only to elections, but may also vacancy.
extend to initiatives, referenda, plebiscite and recall. Article VI, Section 9, Constitution provides
Means by which people express their sovereign that case such vacancy in the Senate, the
judgment. (Nolasco v. Comelec 275 SCRA 763). special elections shall be held simultaneously
Right and obligation of qualified citizens to vote in the with the next succeeding regular elections.
election of certain national and local officers of the Article VII, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, in
government and in the decision of public questions case a vacancy occurs in the offices of the
submitted to the people. President and Vice-President, a special
It is both a right and a privilege. Right being the election cannot be called if the vacancy
expression of the sovereign will of the people. occurs within 18 months before the date of
Privilege because its exercise is conferred only to the next presidential elections.
such persons or class of persons as are most likely In cases were a postponement and failure of
to exercise it for the purpose of the public good. elections are declared by the Comelec in
Suffrage as a duty is in the nature of a public trust accordance with Sections 5,6,7 of BP 881).
and constitutes a voter a representative of the whole Lucero v. Comelec 234 SCRA 280 (1994);
people. This duty requires that the privileged Borja v. Comelec 260 SCRA 604 (1996).
bestowed should be exercised not exclusively for the
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 2

In fixing the date for special elections the Comelec be best served by access to an unabridged discussion of the
should to see to it that: issues.
1) it should not be later than thirty (30) days after the
cessation of the cause of the postponement or City of Pasig v. Comelec/Municipality of Cainta Province of
suspension of the election or the failure to elect; Rizal, Sept. 10, 1999, the issue raised was the propriety of the
2) it should be reasonably close to the date of the suspension of the plebiscite proceedings pending the decision
election not held, suspended or which resulted in the of the boundary dispute between the Municipality of Cainta
failure to elect. (Lucero v. Comelec 234 SCRA 280). and the City of Pasig. The City of Pasig passed an Ordinance
creating barangays Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality
3. Manual Elections – Manual/mechanical casting/voting, of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscite
counting, and canvassing stages which involves the following – due to the pending case before the RTC of Antipolo for the
a. Use of paper “write-in” ballots during the casting settlement of the boundary dispute and that the said activities
stage; await the decision of the RTC on the matter.
b. The “direct reading and manual tallying of votes” in
multiple copies of election returns (ER); and That Comelec suspended the holding of the plebiscite
c. The manual addition of results in Statement of Votes for the creation of Brgy. Karangalan but rendered the creation of
(SOVs) and the Certificates of Canvass (COCCs) Napico as moot as the same has already been ratified in the
plebiscite held for the purpose. The SC held that the creation of
4. Automated Election System (AES) – a system using Napico cannot be considered as moot and it is most proper that
appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in the the plebiscite be declared null and void in view of the pending
voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta which presents a
election result, and other electoral process. (Sec. 2, RA 9369, prejudicial question and must be decided first before the
The Automated Election System Law, As Amended) plebiscite for the proposed barangays be conducted.

2) Plebiscite – an electoral process by which an Jurisdiction over controversies involving Plebiscite Issues
initiative on the Constitution is approved or - Ma. Salvacion Buac/Antonio Bautista v. Comelec/Alan
rejected by the people (Sec. 3 R.A. 6735 “The Peter Cayetano and some Intervenors, G.R. No. 155855,
Initiative and Referendum Act). Generally January 26, 2004, a petition for certiorari and mandamus was
associated with the ratification process. filed by petitioners Buac and Bautista assailing the October 28,
Plebiscite is required – 2002 en banc resolution of the Comelec which held that it has
no jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of
a. Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, plebiscite and the annulment of its results.
with reference to the voting to determine
whether the voters in the country are in favor The facts show that in April 1988, a plebiscite was held
of or against the ratification of the Constitution in Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law (RA No.
or an amendment thereto and 8487) proposing the conversion of Taguig from a municipality
b. Sec. 10, Art. X, in connection with the voting into a city. Without completing the canvass of 64 other election
to determine whether the voters in the political returns, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC) declared
units affected agree to a proposed creation, that the “NO” votes won and that the people rejected the
division, merger, abolition or boundary conversion of Taguig to a city. The PBOC was however
change of a political unit. ordered by the Comelec en banc to reconvene and complete
the canvass which the board did and in due time issued an
Padilla Jr. v. Comelec 214 SCRA 735, the Comelec resolved Order proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed.
to approve the conduct of the plebiscite in the area or units
affected for the proposed Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa and the Petitioners filed with the Comelec a petition to annul the results
remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines of the plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount of the
Norte, Majority of the electorates in the units affected rejected ballots. Cayetano intervened and moved to dismiss the petition
the creation of Tulay-na-Lupa. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Comelec. He claimed
that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election protest and
Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a Special Civil Action for that the jurisdiction to hear a complaint involving the conduct of
Certiorari, seek to set aside the Plebiscite asserting that it was a a plebiscite is lodged with the RTC.
complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid and
nd
illegal because the Plebiscite as mandated by Comelec Res. Comelec 2 division initially gave due course to the petition
No. 2312 should have been conducted only in the political unit ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case. It treated the petition
or units affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not as akin to an election protest considering that the same
have included the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo.) allegations of fraud and irregularities in the casting and counting
of ballots and preparation of returns are the same grounds for
HELD: With the approval and ratification of the 1987 assailing the results of an election. It then ordered the Taguig
Constitution, more specifically, Art. X, Section 10, the creation, ballot boxes to be brought to its Manila Office and created
division, merger, abolition or alteration of the boundaries of any revision committees to revise and recount the plebiscite ballots.
political unit shall be subject to the approval by a majority of the
votes cast in a Plebiscite in the ‘POLITICAL UNITS Intervenor Cayetano, in an unverified motion, moved for
AFFECTED” was held to mean that residents of the political reconsideration of the Comelec Order insisting that it has no
entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition contesting the results
of a portion thereof have a right to vote in the said Plebiscite or of a plebiscite.
the plurality of political units which would participate in the
nd
Plebiscite. The Court reiterated its ruling in Tan v. Comelec In a complete turnaround, the Comelec 2 division issued an
142 SCRA 727 (1986), that “in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is Order granting the Motion for Reconsideration. It dismissed the
imperative that all the constituents of the mother and daughter petition to annul the results of the plebiscite and ruled that
units affected shall be included. Comelec has no jurisdiction over said case as it involves an
exercise of QJ powers not contemplated under Section 2(2),
Sanidad v. Comelec 181 SCRA 529, the Supreme Court Article IX-C of the Constitution.
declared as unconstitutional the restriction imposed by Comelec
nd
on media relative to discussing on air and print the features of On appeal, the Comelec en banc affirmed the ruling of its 2
the plebiscite issues in the creation of the autonomous region division. It held that the Comelec cannot use its power to
for the Cordilleras and held that plebiscite are matters of public enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscites as this
concern and importance and the peoples right to be informed power is purely administrative or executive and not QJ in
and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition to
annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC under
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 3

Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within the exclusive Classes of Referendum – 1) On Statutes; 2) On Local Laws.
jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial or QJ
functions. Hence, the petition before the SC. Santiago, et. al. v. Comelec, et. al., 270 SCRA 106 (336
The SC held that the key to the case is its nature, which SCRA 843), the controversy brought to the Supreme Court by
involves the determination of whether the electorate of way of a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Taguig voted in favor of or against the conversion of the Court is “the right of the people to directly propose amendments
municipality of Taguig. The invocation of judicial power to to the Constitution through the system of Initiative under Section
settle disputes involving the conduct of a plebiscite is 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution”.
misplaced. Judicial power as defined under Section 1, Article
VIII of the Constitution as the duty of the court of justice to settle Atty. Jesus Delfin filed a petition with the Comelec to amend the
actual controversies involving rights which are legally constitution, specifically to lift the term limits of elective officials,
demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not by people’s initiative. Atty. Delfin asked the Comelec for an
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or order: (1) to fix the time and dates for signature gathering all
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or over the country (2) to cause the necessary publications of said
instrumentality of the government. Order and the said petition in newspapers of general and local
circulation and (3) instruct the municipal election registrars in all
This case assailing the regularity of the conduct of the Taguig regions in the Philippines to assist petitioners and volunteers in
plebiscite does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise establishing signing station at the time and on the dates
of judicial power. There is no plaintiff or defendant in the case designated for the purpose.
for it merely involves the ascertainment of the vote of the
electorate on whether they approve or disapprove the The Comelec issued an Order granting the petition. Santiago
conversion of their municipality into a highly urbanized city. filed this special civil action for prohibition raising among other
grounds that RA 6735 does not provide for people’s initiative to
In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the SC said that the amend the constitution considering that the same is still pending
said provision is explicit that Comelec has power to “enforce with the Senate of which she is the author. The petition of Atty.
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct Delfin was not validly initiated as it failed to comply with the
of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. To signature requirement for initiating an initiative. The Comelec
enforce means to cause to take effect or to cause the never acquired jurisdiction over the petition as jurisdiction
performance of such act or acts necessary to bring into actual is acquired only after its filing – the petition being the
effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails all the initiatory pleading.
necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the holding of
honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections (HOPE The SC gave due course to the Petition on the legal
FRECRE). The SC was surprised that for the first time, premise that the Constitution recognizes only two (2) methods
Comelec yielded its historic jurisdiction over a motion for of proposing amendments to the Constitution, viz (1) by
reconsideration which was even filed out of time, thus rendering Congress upon a vote of ¾ of all its members and (2) by
it without jurisdiction to entertain the same. constitutional convention.

INITIATIVE – are lawmaking powers that belong to the people The SC interpreted Sec. 2 of RA 6735 which
and have been described as the “people power” features of our provides that “the power of the people under a system of
Constitution (Asked in the 2000 BAR). Initiative under RA 6735 initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approved or
is defined as the power of the people to propose amendments reject, in whole or in part the Constitution, laws, ordinance or
to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance
an election called for the purpose. with the requirements of this Act, is hereby affirmed, recognized
and guaranteed.” It held that the inclusion of the word
REFERENDUM – power of the electorate to approve or reject a “constitution” here is neither germane nor relevant to said action
piece of legislation through an election called for the purpose. which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on
(Sec. 2©, R.A. 6735). national and local laws, ordinances and resolution. Therefore,
the people are not accorded the power to “directly propose,
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides that enact, approved or reject, in whole or in part the Constitution,
“Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly through the system of initiative.
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which The SC further declared that Comelec cannot validly
every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of
the registered voters therein”. the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative. The power of
Section 32, Article VI of the Constitution provides that Comelec to issue rules and regulations (QJ power) is limited
“Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of only to what is provided under –
initiative and referendum and the exceptions therefrom, where
the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or (a) Section 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution and
reject any act or law or part thereof passed by Congress or local (b) by a law where subordinate legislation is authorized
legislative body after the registration of a petition thereof signed and which satisfied the “completeness” and the
by at least 10% of the total number of registered voters, of “sufficient standard” tests.
which every legislative district must be represented by at least
3% of the registered voters thereof.” Raul Lambino, et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. No. 174153, October
25, 2006 the issue on initiative to propose amendments to the
RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 also 1987 Constitution was again at issue. FACTS: Raul Lambino of
provides for a “local initiative” defined as the “legal process Sigaw ng Bayan and Erico Aumentado of the Union of Local
whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) filed a petition for people’s
directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. Sec. 126 initiative before the Commission on Elections on August 26,
thereof provides for a “local referendum” defined as the “legal 2006, after months of gathering signatures all over the country.
process whereby the RV of the local government units may Lambino claimed that the petition is backed by 6.3M registered
approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the voters. constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with
sanggunian.” each legislative district represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters. They further claimed that the provincial and
Classes of Initiative – 1) On the Constitution; 2) On Statutes; city Comelec officials had already verified the 6.3M signatures
3) On Local Legislation. Indirect Initiative is exercised by the
people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local The Comelec denied the petition, reasoning that a lack of
legislative body for action. enabling law keeps them from entertaining such petitions. It
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 4

invoked the 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Santiago vs. direct congressional action (3/4 votes of all its members), b)
Comelec (336 SCRA 843), where it declared RA 6735 through a constitutional convention, and c) through a people’s
inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to initiative.
amend the Constitution. The Comelec ruling prompted
Lambino and Aumentado to bring their case before the The first and second modes, as provided in Section 1 of Article
rd
Supreme Court on the following issues - XVII, apply to both amendment and revision, but the 3 mode
applies only to amendments. The distinction between the first
(1) Whether the initiative petition of the Lambino group complied two modes and the third was intentional as shown by the
with the provisions of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.

(2)Whether the Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago vs. There can be no dispute that a people’s initiative can only
Comelec declaring RA 6735 “incomplete and inadequate or propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution
wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no
initiative clause to amend the Constitution. deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising
the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3M
The Supreme Court upheld the Comelec’s ruling on the petition signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes
for people’s initiative on October 25, 2006 with a close 8-7 vote. prescribed in the Constitution itself. The Lambino’s group
As ruled: proposed changes constituted not just an amendment but a
revision, because of the change in the form of government from
The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with Presidential to Parliamentary, and the shift from a bicameral to
the basic requirement of the Constitution for the a unicameral legislature.
conduct of people’s initiative. The Constitution require
that the amendment must be “directly proposed by DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVISION AND AMENDMENT.
the people through initiative upon a petition.” Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in
the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of power
Lambino’s group failed to include the full text of the or the system of checks and balances. There is also revision if
proposed changes in the signature sheets –a fatal the change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution.
omission, according to the Supreme Court ruling, On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that
because it means a majority of the 6.3M people who adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle
signed the signature sheets could not have known the involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the
nature and effect of the proposed changes. For the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the
petition to be valid, two essential requisites must be specific provision being amended.
complied with, namely: (a) the people must author, and
thus sign, the entire proposal; no agent or On the second pivotal issue of revisiting the ruling of the Court
representative can sign on their behalf; and (b) as an in Santiago vs. Comelec, the Court held that an affirmation or
initiative upon a petition, the proposed amendments reversal of the same will not change the outcome of the case.
must be embodied in the petition itself. The Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the
A people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be
only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its resolved on some grounds.
revision. Only Congress or a constitutional convention
may propose revisions to the Constitution. A people’s In the resolution on the motion for reconsideration, the Court
initiative may propose only amendments to the maintaining its 8-7 vote, denied with finality the motions for
Constitution. reconsideration of its October 25, 2006 decision dismissing the
The SC declared that “A popular clamor, even one said petition to amend the 1987 Constitution through a people’s
backed by 6.3M signatures, cannot justify a deviation initiative. . Ten justices however reiterated their earlier opinions
from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate as an enabling law to
itself.” amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative, effectively
abandoning Santiago v. Comelec.
The rationale for the second requisite is that the signature
requirement would be rendered meaningless if the person Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Comelec 252 SCRA
affixing his signature has not first seen and understood what it 492 (1996), an action for certiorari and prohibition was brought
is that he is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose to the SC seeking to nullify the ruling of the Comelec and
interpretation of the subscription requirement can pose a Resolution No. 2848 denying petitioner’s plea to stop the
significant potential for fraud. On-compliance with the above holding of a local initiative and referendum on the proposition to
mentioned requirement is fatal to the initiative petition. For recall Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the SB
sure, the great majority of the 6.3M people who signed the of Morong Bataan.
signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed In this case, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong,
changes before signing, as the proposed amendments were not Bataan on April 1993, passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
stated in the signature sheets. They were not apprised of the Serye 1993, expressing therein its absolute concurrence to join
nature and effect of the proposed amendments, among which the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) as required by Sec.
are substantial changes as follows: 12 of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of
1992). On September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the
1) the term limits on members of the legislature will Kapasyahan to the Office of the President. On May 24, 1993,
be lifted and thus member of the Parliament may respondent Garcia, et. al. filed a petition with the SB of Morong
be re-elected indefinitely; to annul PK Blg. 10, Serye 1993 and therein proposed for
2) The Interim Parliament whose membership amendments to the said law. The SB acted upon the petition
comprised of present members of Congress can and promulgated PK Blg. 18, requesting Congress to amend
decide when to call the parliamentary elections. certain provisions of RA 7227 and informed respondents that
Thus, leaving them the absolute discretion to the other matters in the proposed amendments were already
determine their term limits. submitted to the Office of the President.
3) That within 45 days from the ratification of
proposed changes, the interim Parliament may Not satisfied and within 30 days from submission of their
further propose revision or amendments to the petition, respondent resorted to their power of initiative under
Constitution. the LGC of 1991. On June 18, 1996 Comelec issued
Resolution No. 2845 adopting a calendar of activities for local
Furthermore, a people’s initiative to change the referendum to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Bldg. 10.
Constitution applies only to an amendment to the Constitution
and not revision. Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three Petitioner SBMA seeks to nullify the Order of Comelec denying
modes of proposing amendments to the Constitution: a) by petitioner’s plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 5

referendum on the proposition to recall the Kapasyahan as it At least 20% in the case of LGUs with a voting
was proceeding with a local initiative that proposes an population of at least 20,000 but not more than 75,000:
amendment of a national law. ISSUE: Provided, that in no case shall the required petitioners
be less than 5,000.
whether Comelec committed grave abuse of At least 15% in the case of local government units with
discretion in promulgating and implementing a voting population of at least 75,000 but not more
its Res. No. 2842 which govern the conduct than 300,000: Provided however, that in no case shall
of the referendum proposing to annul or the required number of petitioners be less than 15,000;
repeal PK Blg. 10 and and
whether the questioned local initiative covers At least 10% in the case of local government units with
a subject within the powers of the people of a voting population of over 300,000 thousand:
Morong to enact (whether such initiative Provided however, that in no case shall the required
seeks the amendment of a national law. petitioners be less than 45,000.

In this case, the SC was compelled to distinguish Initiative from DATE OF RECALL – Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall
Referendum. To begin with, the process started by Garcia et. with the appropriate local office of the Comelec, the Comelec or
al., was an Initiative but respondent Comelec made its duly authorized representative shall set the date of the
preparations for a referendum. In the body of the Comelec election or recall, which shall not be later than 30 days upon the
Resolution No. 2842, the word “referendum” is repeated at least completion of the procedure outlined in the preceding article, in
27 times, but initiative is not mentioned at all. The Comelec the case of the barangay, city or municipal officials, and 45 days
labeled the exercise as a referendum, the counting of votes was in the case of provincial officials.
entrusted to a referendum committee, the documents were
called referendum returns and so forth. As distinguished, The official sought to be recalled shall automatically be
initiative is a process of law making by the people themselves considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to the
without the participation and against the wishes of their elected pertinent positions and like other candidates, shall be entitled to
representatives while referendum consists merely with the be voted upon.” (Sec. 71)
electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or
enacted by the legislative body by simply indicating yes or no in EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL – recall shall become effective
the ballot. only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the
person of the candidate who received the highest number of
In initiative, there is a need for the Comelec to supervise votes cast during the election in recall. Should the official
the process closely, it’s authority therein extending not sought to be recalled receive the highest number of votes,
only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to confidence in him is thereby affirmed and he shall continue in
seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people is office. (Sec. 72).
in the proper form and language so it may be easily
understood and voted upon by the electorate. Care in this LIMITATIONS ON RECALL – an elective official may be
activity must be exercise that “no petition embracing more subject of recall elections only ONCE during his term of office
than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate, exclusively on the ground of LACK OF CONFIDENCE. The
although two or more propositions may be submitted in an recall cannot be undertaken within one (1) year from the date of
initiative. “ the official’s assumption of office or within one (1) immediately
preceding a regular election. (Sec. 74)
As to the second issue, SBMA insists that the creation of the
SSEZ is now a fait accompli for the benefit of the entire nation In Paras v. Comelec 264 SCRA 49, Paras, incumbent punong
and Morong cannot unilaterally withdraw its concurrence or brgy sought to bar the recall proceedings against him citing
impose new conditions for such concurrence as this would Sec. 74 (B) of RA 7160 that it was barred by the scheduled SK
effectively render nugatory the creation of the SSEZ. The SC elections. The SC settled the issue and held that the SK
agreed with the contention of Garcia that the position of SBMA elections is not considered a “regular local elections” for
is premature and conjectural because at this point the resolution purposes of recall under Sec. 74. The term regular local
is just a proposal. If the people should reject it during the elections is construed as one referring to an election where the
referendum, then there is nothing to declare as illegal. A writ of office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will
prohibition cannot issue upon a mere conjecture or possibility be contested and be filled up by the electorate. It is confined to
as courts may decide only actual controversies and not the regular elections of elective national and local officials.
hypothetical questions or cases.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
3) RECALL – is the termination of official relationship of a
local elective public official for loss of confidence by the people Article V Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens
prior to the end of his term of office (Sec. 69, R.A. 7160 LGC). of the Philippines NOT otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
In Angobung v. Comelec 269 SCRA 246 (1997), the Supreme least 18 years of age who shall have resided in the Philippines
Court ruled that recall is the mode of removal of a public officer for at least one (1) year and in the place wherein they propose
by the people before the end of his term of office which shall be to vote for at least six (6) months in the immediately preceding
exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to the elections. No literacy, property or other substantive
which the local elective official subject of such recall belongs. requirements shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

The mode of initiating recall against a public elective official is Section 2. The Congress shall provide for a system of securing
now limited to a petition commenced only by the registered the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system of
voters in the local unit concerned. Section 70 and 71 of RA absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
7160 is now amended by RA 9244, otherwise known as An
Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
of Instituting Recall of Elective Local Government Officials. disabled and illiterates to vote without the assistance of other
persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing
Section 70 of RA 7160 now reads as follows: “The recall of laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may
any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
be commenced by a petition of a registered voter in the LGU
concerned and supported by the registered voters in the LGU WHO MAY REGISTER (RA 8189, (An Act Providing for the
concerned during the election in which the local official sought General Registration of Voters providing for a System of
to be recalled was elected subject to the following percentage Continuing Registration which took effect on June 11,
requirements: 1996)
At least 25% in the case of an LGU with a voting
population of not more than 20,000
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 6

Registration of voters is a means of determining who possess involving violation of election laws and violation of
the qualifications as a voter and regulating the exercise of the election rules and regulations.
right of suffrage. Expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence
Registration does not confer the right to vote; it is but a Official declaration by the proper authority that the
condition precedent to the exercise of the right. insanity or incompetency no longer exist.
How is Registration done – Registration refers to the ACT of
accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration Double Registrants – In all cases where registrants are found
(Voters Registration Record VRR) by a qualified voter before to be registered in two (2) or more
the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides districts/cities/municipalities, the latest registration shall
and including the VRR in the book of RV upon approval by the prevail which is deemed to be more in consonance with the
Election Registration Board (Sec. 3(a)). intent of the concerned registered votes. Accordingly, they shall
be allowed to vote only in the district/city/municipality of their
REGISTRATION IS EXTENDED TO: DOMESTIC AND latest registration.
OVERSEAS VOTERS This is distinguished from the policy on double/multiple
FOR DOMESTIC VOTERS – GOVERNED BY RA 8189 The registrants found within the same district/city/municipality
Voters Registration Act where original registration shall prevail over subsequent
(Sec. 9 (repealed Sections 116 and 117 of the OEC). Sec. 9 registrations. (Comelec Res. 7893, 07 May 2007. See also Sec.
clarified when the residency and age requirements should be 261 (y(5)) of the OEC (Prohibited Acts) which provides “Any
attained) – Salient amendments: person who, being a registered voter, registers anew without
filing an application for cancellation of his previous registration”
Section 9 – Who may Register – All citizens of the shall be guilty of an election offense).
Philippines NOT otherwise disqualified by law who are at least
18 years of age, who shall have resided in the Philippines for Residency Requirement:
at least one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose
to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the Romeo A. Jalosjos v. Comelec Dan Erasmo, Sr. 670 SCRA
elections. 572 (2012)
Residence – The Local Government Code requires a candidate
Any person who temporarily resides in another city, seeking the position of provincial governor to be a resident of
municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation, the province for at least (1) year before the election. For
profession, employment in private or public service, educational purposes of the election laws, the requirement of residence is
activities, work in the military or naval reservations, within the synonymous with domicile, meaning that a person must not only
Philippines, service in the AFP, or confinement or detention in intend to reside in a particular place but must also have
government institution in accordance with law, shall NOT be personal presence in such place coupled with conduct
deemed to have lost his original residence. indicative of such intention. There is no hard and fast rule to
determine a candidate’s compliance with residency requirement
Any person who, on the day of registration may not have since the question of residence is a question of intention. Still,
reached the required age or period of residence but, who jurisprudence had laid down the following guidelines:
on the day of election shall possess such qualifications, (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;
may register as a voter.” (b) where once established, that domicile remains until he
acquires a new one; and
Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea 670 SCRA 670 (c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.
(2012) – The Court have held that “absence from residence to The Comelec concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle his
pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a voter domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother’s
other than the place where one is elected, does not constitute house. But this circumstance alone cannot support such
loss of residence”. Section 117 of the OEC provides that conclusion. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a
“transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one’s candidate is not required to have a house in a community to
occupation, profession employment in private and public establish his residence or domicile in a particular place. It is
service, educational activities work force, the constabulary or sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented house
national police force, or confinement or detention in government or in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the
institutions in accordance with law” is not deemed as loss of candidate own the house where he lives would make property a
residence. qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has
proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an
The Court ruled that there is nothing wrong in an individual intention of making it his domicile.
changing residences so he could run for an elective post, for as
long as he is able to prove with reasonable certainty that he has Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio Gonzales and
effected a change of residence for election law purposes for the Orlando Balbon, Jr. 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In this case,
period required by law. following the conversion of Puerto Princesa (Mitra’s domicile of
origin) from a component city to a highly urbanized city whose
Sec. 11– Disqualifications: (Section 11 of R.A. 8189 repealed residents can no longer vote for provincial officials, Mitra
Sec. 118 of the OEC) abandoned his domicile in Puerto Princesa and acquired a new
Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment one in Aborlan which is within the LGU where he intended to
to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year. run. Mitra bought the old Maligaya Feedmill and used the
Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment second floor as his residence.
by competent court or tribunal of having committed any In considering the residency issue, the dwelling where
crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted a person permanently intends to return to and to remain – his or
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the her capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it,
anti-subversion and firearms law, or any crime against IS IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion when
national security in accordance with law. it determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s
Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent residence based solely on very personal and subjective
authority. assessment standards when the law is replete with
standards that can be used. Comelec used wrong
WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED – considerations in arriving at the conclusion that Mitra’s
residence is not the residence contemplated by law.
Plenary pardon or amnesty – those sentenced by final
judgment. Article IX-C, Section 5 provides that the Assitio vs. Aguirre 619 SCRA 518 – Residence as used in the
President cannot, without the favorable law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective
recommendation of the Comelec grant pardon, office, is DOCTRINALLY SETTLED to mean ‘domicile”,
amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence in cases importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 7

of such intention inferable from a person’s acts, utterances and Composition – Election Officer (EO) as chairman and as
activities. Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a members, the public school official most senior in rank and the
transfer, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual removal or local civil registrar (LCR), or in his absence, the city or municipal
change of domicile; (2) bonafide intention of abandoning the treasurer (MT).
former place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) In case of disqualification of the EO, the Commission
acts which correspond to said purpose. Same ruling in earlier shall designate as acting EO who shall serve as chairman of the
case of Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300. ERB. In cases of the non-availability of the LCR or the MT,
Requisites when new domicile is acquired by choice. Comelec shall designate any other appointive civil service
official from the same locality as substitute.

Restrictions to appointment – No member of the board shall

ILLITIERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS – Illiterates or be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal
th
disabled are referred to as a persons who cannot by elective official within the 4 civil degree of consanguinity or
themselves prepare an application for registration because of affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of the newly elected city
their physical disability and/or inability to read and write. or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within
(Section 3 (e)) the same degree, such member is automatically disqualified to
preserve the integrity of the ERB.
Section 14. Procedure for illiterate applicants (those who Every registered party and such organizations as may
cannot read and write) – assisted by the election officer or be authorized by the Comelec shall be entitled to a watcher in
any member of an accredited citizens arm. The election every registration board.
officer shall place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the
questions and record the answers given in order to accomplish Sec. 17 – Procedure for hearing of applications.
the application form in the presence of the majority of the Date of hearing posted in the city or municipal bulletin
members of the Board. The accomplished form shall be board and EO office at least 1 week before date of
subscribed by the applicant in the presence of the Board by hearing
means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shall If objected to, EO shall receive evidence. Physical
be subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of presence of applicant in this case is mandatory to
the Board. rebut evidence presented in opposition thereto
If no objection to application, physical appearance not
Procedure for disabled voters – the application for required and will be duly informed in writing
registration of a physically disabled person (ex. blind, no Applications for registration shall be heard and
hands, senior citizen, mute) may be prepared by any processed on a quarterly basis. Board shall convene
th rd
relative within the 4 civil degree of consanguinity or on the 3 day of Monday of April, July, October and
affinity or by the election officer or any member of an January of every calendar year except in an election
accredited citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the year to conform with the 120 days prohibitive period
applicant. before election day.
Section. 21 – Publication of Action on Application for
NOTE: Common to both procedures, the fact of illiteracy and Registration
disability shall be so indicated in the application. SECTION 12. Change of Residence to another City or
Municipality – Any registered voter who has transferred
RA 10366 now provides accessible Polling Places for Persons residence to another city or municipality may apply with the EO
with Disabilities (PWDS and Senior Citizens and also provides of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records.
for, among others, assistance in the accomplishment of The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the
registration forms. The law was in line with the objective of Sec. requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the ERB
29 of the “Magna Carta for Persons with Disability” (RA No. in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of the application
7277) which provides that “polling places should be made for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the EO of the
accessible to disabled persons during national and local former residence of the voter, said EO shall transmit by
elections.” registered mail the voter’s registration record to the EO of the
The Comelec shall likewise keep an updated record of voter’s new residence.
PWDs and SC registered voters, indicating the types of
disability and the assistance they need. (Sec. 6, RA 10366). In Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or
designing the ballot, Comelec shall ensure reasonable Municipality –Any voter who has changed his address in the
accommodation to PWDs and SC to enable them to accomplish same city or municipality shall immediately notify the EO in
the ballots by themselves (Sec. 10) writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct,
Comelec, in coordination with the National Council on the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct
Disability Affairs (NCDA), the Commission on Human Rights book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his
(CHR), and PWD and Senior Citizens organization shall new precinct. All changes of address shall be reported to the
organize, design, and implement sensitivity training programs office of the provincial election supervisor and the Commission
for person performing electoral duties to familiarize them the in Manila.
needs of the PWDs and SC. (Sec. 12)
Sec. 27 – DEACTIVATION – is a process wherein the
HOW TO REGISTER registration record of a voter is removed by the ERB from the
corresponding precinct book of voters and places the same
Section 8– System of Continuing Registration of in an inactive file properly marked and dated in indelible ink
Voters/Creation of Election Registration Boards and after entering the cause for deactivation which are as
A qualified voter personally files an application for follows:
registration DAILY with the office of the election officer Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final
during regular office hours. The ERB are authorized to judgment, insane and incompetent persons as
act on all applications for registration . officially declared.
Any person who failed to vote in the two (2)
LIMITATION: No registration shall be conducted during the successive preceding regular elections as shown by
period starting 120 days before a regular elections and 90 days his voting records.
before a special elections. Any person whose registration has been ordered
excluded by the court.
Sec. 15 – Election Registration Board – There shall be in
Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.
each city and municipality as many as ERB’s as there are
For purposes of the above – the Clerks of Court of the
election officers therein.
MTC, MTCC, RTC and SB shall furnish the EO of the city or
municipality concerned at the end of each month a certified list
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 8

of persons who are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment, Court decision shall immediately become final and executory.
with their addresses. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
For those who lost their citizenship, insanity and
incompetency, the Comelec may request a certified list of such Domino v. Comelec 310 546 (1999). Except for the right to
persons from the government agencies concerned. remain in the list of voters or for being excluded thereform for
the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had
Sec. 28 – REACTIVATION – is a process whereby a voter been held, a decision in an exclusion proceeding, even if final
whose registration records has been deactivated files with the and unappealable does not acquire the nature of res
election officer a sworn application for reactivation of his judicata. Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding
registration in the form of an affidavit by stating therein that the would neither be conclusive on the voters political status,
grounds for the deactivation no longer exist. nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be
registered as a voter in any other election.
PERIOD TO FILE – Any time but not later than 120 days before
a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Upon Sec. 34 – Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the list – WHO
approval, the Board, shall retrieve the registration records from MAY FILE: any person whose application for registration –
the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding
precinct book of voters. Has been disapproved by the Board; or
REQUIREMENT: Local heads or representatives of political Whose name has been stricken out from the list;
parties shall be properly notified of the approved applications. Whose name was not included in the precinct list of
voters
Sec. 29 – CANCELLATION – is a process wherein the Board Who has been included therein with a wrong or
cancels the registration records of those who have died as misspelled name (after the Board disapproves its
certified by the local civil registrar who shall submit each month application for reinstatement or correction of name)
a certified list of persons who died during the previous month to may file with the court.
the election officer of the place where the deceased is
registered. PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 105 days prior to a regular
election or 75 days prior to a special election. The petition
PETITION FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION. Remedies of should be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his
persons whose application for reactivation, inclusion or application and proof of service of notice upon the Board. MTC
correction has been disapproved or those who intend to exclude shall decide within fifteen (15) days after it’s filing.
a voter from the list of voters.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list
Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 – Voters’ of voters, the Board shall place the application for registration
inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of previously disapproved in the corresponding BV and indicate in
whether a voter shall be included in or excluded from the list of the application for registration the date of the order of inclusion
voters based on the qualifications required by law and the facts and the court which issued the same.
presented to show possession of these qualifications. As
distinguished from the procedure in certificate of candidacies Section 35 – Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the list –
(petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy) WHO MAY FILE: any registered voter, representative of a
on the other hand, the denial/cancellation proceedings involve political party or the Election Officer.
the issue of whether there is a false representation of a material
fact (Sec. 78). PERIOD TO FILE: Any time except 100 days prior to a regular
election or 65 days prior to a special election. Supporting
Sec. 33 JURISDICTION – The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial documents shall be proof of notice to the Board and to the
Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion challenged voter. MTC shall decide within ten (10) days.
and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or
municipalities. (By express provision of Article IX-C, Section If the decision is for exclusion, the Board, shall remove
2 (3) of the Constitution, the Comelec shall decide all the voters registration record from the corresponding BV, enter
questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. This the order of exclusion therein.
question is a justiciable issue which finds redress in the
judiciary. (Pungutan v. Comelec 43 SCRA 1 (1972). Akbayan v. Comelec March 26, 2001 – The petition for
exclusion is a necessary component to registration since it is a
Again – in Panlaqui vs. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 - It is not safety mechanism that gives a measure of protection against
within the province of the RTC in a voter’s flying voters, non-qualified registrants, and the like. The
inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance of and prohibitive period, on the other hand, serves as the purpose of
determine the presence of a false representation of a securing the voters substantive right to be included in the list of
material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of whether voters.
the misrepresentation relates to material fact and whether there
was an intension to deceive the electorate in terms of one’s The bone of contention of petitioners in this case in praying for
qualifications for public office. The finding that Velasco was a 2-day special registration of new voters for the May 14, 2001
not qualified to vote due to lack of residency requirement elections which was denied by the Comelec on account of
does not translate into a finding of a deliberate attempt to operational impossibility, undermined their constitutional right to
mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise vote and caused the disenfranchisement of around 4M Filipinos
render him ineligible. of voting age who failed to register before the registration
deadline set by the Comelec.
Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512 (1997). The question of
inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to As ruled, the right of suffrage is not absolute, as in the
vote which is not within the power and authority of the Comelec enjoyment of all other rights, it is subject to existing substantive
to rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution,
vote is a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular statute and other repositories of law.
courts.
Procedural limitation – must undergo the process of
WHERE TO APPEAL – Decisions of the Municipal or registration, in addition to the maximum requirements set by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved Constitution under Section 1, Article V, the act of registration
party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) from receipt of being an indispensable precondition and essential to the right of
notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and suffrage and election process. Referring to Section 8 of RA
executory. Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within 8189, the law is explicit that “no registration shall however
ten (10) days from the time it is received and the Regional Trial be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election.”
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 9

sentence; Provided further, That the Commission

Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the hand speaks of the prohibitive may take cognizance of final judgments issued by
period within which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of
voters from the permanent list of voters. Thus if the special reciprocity and subject to the formalities and
registration of voters will be conducted, then the prohibitive processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on
period for filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted execution of judgments;
to a later date, if not, then no one can challenge the voters list (d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is
which is violative of the principles of due process and would recognized as such in the host country, unless
open the registration process to abuse and seriously he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit
compromise the integrity of the voter’s list and that of the entire prepared for the purpose by the Commission
election. declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later
ABSENTEE VOTING than three (3) years from approval of his/her
registration under this Act.
Local Absentee Voting – In local absentee voting, public a. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she
officials and employees, in the performance of their election has not applied for citizenship in another
duties, stationed in places other than the place where they are country.
registered voters of (e.g. members of the PNP, AFP, offices of b. Failure to return shall be cause for the
the Comelec, school teachers, among others) are allowed to removal of the name of the immigrant or
vote in their respective place of work (Sec. 12, RA 7166). permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her
RA No.10380, otherwise known as the “Local Absentee Voting permanent disqualification to vote in
for Media Act”, now allow media practitioners to vote on absentia;
specified days earlier than Election Day so that that even if on
Election Day, they are assigned to cover election events away (e) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously
from their place of registration as voters, they would declared insane or incompetent by competent
nonetheless have the opportunity to cast their votes. authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified
by the Philippine embassies, consulates or
Limitation: Those entitled to avail of local absentee voting foreign service establishments concerned, unless
shall only be allowed to vote for President, VP, Senators, and such competent authority subsequently certifies
Party-List Representative that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent.
Grounds for disapproval of the Application for Local
Absentee Voting Macalintal v. Comelec 405 SCRA 614 (2003) – The execution
1) The applicant is not a RV or his registration records of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act.
have been deactivated. The affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of the
2) It was filed out of time; intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back and
3) It was not sworn to or otherwise not under oath by any resume residency in the Philippines, but more significantly, it
person authorized to administer oath; serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact
4) It was only photocopied/faxed; abandoned his domicile of origin. The affidavit is required of
5) The Certification portion of the application form is not immigrants and permanent residents abroad because by
duly accomplished. their status in the host countries, they are presumed to
have relinquished their intent to return to this country;
OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING (OAV) – RA 9189 Absentee thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of
Voters Act of 2003 abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain.

Under RA 9189, Filipino citizens who are overseas workers, 3. Casting of Ballots in OAV – The overseas voter
immigrants or permanent residents in other countries may vote shall cast his ballot within 30 days before election day or 60
in Philippine national elections when they are away from the days before election day in the case of seafarers. (Sec. 16.3)
country on the day of the elections; Provided, That in the case 4. Counting of Ballots of OAV – a) Only ballots cast
of immigrants or permanent residents, they file a sworn and mailed ballots received by embassies, consulates and other
statement that they will resume actual physical permanent foreign establishments before the closing of voting on election
residence within three (3) years from approval of their day shall be counted (Sec. 16.7 and Sec. 18.3).
registration. (Sec. 5(d)) b) The counting shall be conducted on site and shall
be synchronized with the start of counting in the Philippines
A. Scope of OAV – Definition: Absentee voting refers to (Sec. 18.1).
the process by which qualified citizens of the c. The Special Board of Election Inspectors (SBEI)
Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote. (Sec. shall composed of a chairman and two (2) members
3(a)) The ambassador, consul general or
B. Coverage – All citizens of the Philippines abroad career public officer designated by
who are not disqualified by law, at least 18 years of the Comelec shall be the chairman.
age on election day, may vote for President, VP, In the absence of government
Senators and Party List Representatives (Sec. 4) officers, two Filipino citizens qualified
Section 5 – Disqualification: to vote under this Act shall be
(a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in deputized as members (Sec. 18.3)
accordance with Philippine laws; Immediately after the counting, the
(b) Those who have expressly renounced their SBEI shall transmit by facsimile or
Philippine citizenship and who have pledged electronic mail the result to the
allegiance to a foreign country; Comelec and the accredited major
(c) Those who have committed and are convicted by political parties.
a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an
offense punishable by imprisonment of not less 5. Canvassing of OAV – A Special Board of
than one (1) year, including those who have Canvassers (SBOC) composed of a lawyer preferably
committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as of the Comelec as chairman, a senior career officers
defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal from any government agency maintaining a post
Code, such as disability not having removed by abroad and, in the absence of another government
plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided, however, officer, a citizen of the Philippines qualified to vote
That any person disqualified to vote upon the under this Act, shall be constituted to canvass the
expiration of five (5) years after service of election returns.
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 10

The SBOC shall transmit by facsimile, under RA 9189 which aims to enfranchise as much as possible
electronic mail or any other safe and reliable means of all overseas Filipinos, who, save for the residency requirement
transmission, the certificate of canvass and the exacted of an ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote as ruled
statements of votes to the Comelec and the major in Makalintal vs. Comelec 405 SCRA 614.
accredited parties.
The certificates of canvass and the
statements of votes shall be the primary basis for the POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY LIST AND CITIZENS ARM
national canvass. (Sec. 18.4)
Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5), authorizes the Comelec under
Overseas Voting Act of 2013 – The President on May 27, the Constitution to “Register, after sufficient publication,
2013 signed into law RA 10590, OAV 2013, amending the political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
Overseas Voting Act of 2003. With the passage of the law, addition to other requirements, must present their platform
Filipino immigrants abroad will no longer need to execute an or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of
affidavit stating that they will return to the Philippines within 3 the Commission on Elections.
years before they are allowed in absentia.
Section 60 of the OEC/Section 1, Rule 32 of the Comelec
In the landmark case of Nicolas-Lewis vs. Comelec, dual Rules of Procedure provides that any group pursuing the
citizens were refused by Comelec to register and vote in the same political ideals may register with the Comelec. HOW? by
2004 Philippine elections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that filing a verified petition with its Law Department duly verified by
“there is no provision in the dual citizenship law, RA 9225 its President and Secretary-General, or any official duly
(Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 – requiring authorized to do so under its Constitutions and by-laws.
duals to actually establish residence and physically stay in the
Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote.” Before Comelec takes action, the Comelec shall first verify,
through its field offices, the status and capacity of the petitioner
The ruling established a precedent that dual citizens can and the veracity of the allegations in the petition. (Sec. 4, Rule
register and vote without establishing residence in the 32). After the verification process, the Petition will be published
Philippines. A provision in the amended law is inserted to with the Notice of Hearing.
emphasize that dual citizens who reacquired or retained their
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 can exercise their right of Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of
suffrage. Registration (Sec. 7) (1) acquires juridical personality (2) public
is informed of the party’s existence and ideals (3) it identifies
The amended law also mandates the creation of the Resident the party and its officers for purposes of regulation by the
Election Registration Boards (RERB). The specific provision is Comelec. For purposes of the electoral process that an
a new insertion institutionalizing the overseas voting system by organization need not be a political party.
creating an office within the Comelec exclusively for overseas
voting.
Limitations on Registration –
The amendments also empowers the Comelec to attain the It is a religious sect or denomination or association,
most effective and innovative way of using advance technology organized for religious purposes. Registration of
in enfranchising Filipinos overseas without compromising the religious sects are prohibited for the purpose of the
secrecy and sanctity of the electoral process. electoral process which is made in the spirit of
separation of church and state and intended to
Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. No. 162759, prevent churches from wielding political power.
August 6, 2006. - Petitioners are dual citizens having retained Does not extend to organizations with religious
or reacquired Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 or the affiliations or to political parties which derive their
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. As principles from religious beliefs.
such, they sought registration and certification as overseas Those who seek to achieve their goals through
absentee voters under RA 9189 or the Overseas Absentee unlawful means
Voting Act of 2003, in order to vote in the May 2004 elections. Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
However, the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that Those which are supported by any foreign
per Comelec letter dated September 23, 2003, they have yet no government (Sec. 2(5) Article IX-C)
residence requirement as prescribed by the Constitution.
Petitioners sought a clarification from the Comelec which Cancellation of Registration (Sec. 8) –Upon verified
thereafter, expressed the opinion that dual citizens under complaint of any interested party, or motu propio by the
RA 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage under the Commission, the registration of any political party, coalition of
Overseas Absentee Voting Law because said law was not political parties or organizations under the party-list system may
enacted for them, hence, they are considered regular be cancelled after due notice and hearing on the following
voters who have to meet requirements of residency, among grounds:
others. (a) Acceptance by the political party, coalition of
political parties, or organizations or any of its
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners and others who might have candidates, of financial contributions from foreign
meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship governments and/or their agencies for activities related
pursuant to RA 9225 may vote as absentee voter under RA to elections.
9189. (b) Violation of laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections, plebiscites, referenda or initiative.
HELD: Section 1 of Article V of the Philippine Constitution © Untruthful statements in its petition for registration
prescribed residency requirement as a general eligibility (d) The said political party, coalition of political parties
factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2 or organization has become a religious sect or
thereof, authorizes congress to devise a system wherein an denomination, is pursuing its goals thru violence or
absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may, as an other unlawful means, is refusing to adhere to or
exception to the residency prescription in the preceding section, uphold the Constitution of the Philippines, or is
be allowed to vote. receiving support from any foreign government;
(e) Failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or
There is no provision in the dual citizenship law (RA 9225), regulations of the Commission
requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically (f) Failure to field official candidates in the last two
stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to preceding elections or failure of their candidates to
vote. On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement obtain at least five (5) per centum of the votes cast in
that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under Section the last two preceding elections.
5(1) the same right of suffrage as granted to an absentee voter
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 11

Jurisdiction of Comelec over Inter-Party Disputes/Power to Aquino was on “indefinite force leave” and in the meantime
Register Political Parties Ambassador Enrique Zaldivar was designated Acting Secretary
General.
Samson Alcantara, et. al. vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 547 (2013) Aquino in a comment alleged that the Party Chairman
– Under the Constitution, the Comelec is empowered to register does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on
political parties. In the exercise of its power to register political the Secretary General and that the Manifestation filed has no
parties, the Comelec necessarily possesses the power to pass basis praying that Comelec disregards the same. Comelec
upon the question of who, among the legitimate officers of the issued an order requiring the parties to file verified petition.
part-list group, are entitled to exercise the right and privileges Pending resolution, a Certificate of Nomination of Sen. Panfilo
granted to a party-list group under the law. The Comelec’s Lacson as LDP candidate for President was filed with the
jurisdiction on this point is well-settled and is not here disputed. Comelec which was signed by Rep. Aquino as LDP Secretary
General
Comelec issued a Resolution granting the petition with
Luis LokinJr./Teresita Planas v. Comelec/CIBAC 674 SCRA LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor (Angara Wind
538 (2012) and Aquino Wing). ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec gravely
In Atienza v. Comelec (612 SCRA 961 (2010), it was expressly abused its discretion in issuing the subject Resolution. RULING
settled that the Comelec possessed the authority to resolve – the only issue is simply “Who as between the Party
intra-party disputes as a necessary tributary of its Chairman and the Secretary General has the authority to
constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and sign certificates of candidacy of the official candidates of
register political parties. The Court, therein cited Kalaw v. the party. Yes Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Comelec and Palmares v. Comelec which uniformly upheld the While it has jurisdiction to rule upon questions of party identity
Comelec’s jurisdiction over intra-party disputes: As ruled in and leadership as an incident to its enforcement powers. It
Kalaw v. Comelec, the Comelec’s powers and functions under well within its competence to inquire into which party officer has
Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, “include the authority to sign and endorse certificate of candidacy of party’s
ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its nominees. And to resolve the issue raised, the Comelec need
legitimate officers responsible for the acts.” The Court also only to turn to the Party Constitution and election laws. The
declared in another case that the Comelec’s power to register Comelec Resolution is INDECISION in the guise of equity. It
political parties necessarily involved the determination of the chose not to because of its irrational fear of treading, as Aquino
persons who must act on its behalf. Thus, the Comelec may contends, on “unchartered” territories but which have long been
resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case chartered by jurisprudence.
brought before it, as an incident of its power to register political Comelec divided the LDP into wings both having
parties. authority to nominate candidates for every elective position.
Consequently, Comelec planted seeds of confusion among the
Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections 620 SCRA 393 electorate who are apt to be confounded by two candidates
(May 6, 2010), the SC distinguished REGISTRATION and from a single political party. This was not only a disservice to
ACCREDITATION of a political party. The root of this petition the opposition but to the voting public as well as its Resolution
before the SC is the Nationalista Party-Nationalista Party facilitated, rather than forestalled, the division of the minority
Coalition (NP-NPC) petition before the COMELEC for party.
registration as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant
minority party. While the Comelec En Banc claimed jurisdiction Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance (A-IPRA) v.
over the registration of coalitions and has in fact decreed NP- Comelec 696 SCRA 563 – the Supreme Court reiterated its
NPC’s registration, the Comelec however did NOT rule on ruling in Laban that “the ascertainment of the identity of a
the accreditation aspect. The registration of a coalition and political party and its legitimate officers is a matter that is well
the accreditation of a dominant minority party are two within its authority. The source of this authority is not other than
separate matters that are substantively distinct from each the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the Comelec the
other. power and function to enforce and administer all laws and
Section 2(5), Article IX-C and Rule 32 of the CRP regulations relative to the conduct of election.”
regulate the registration of political parties,
organizations or coalition of political parties. Damasen vs. Tumamao 613 SCRA 49 (2010) – the discretion
Accreditation as a dominant party is governed by of accepting members to a political party is a right and a
Comelec Resolution No. 8752, Section 1 of which privilege, a purely internal matter, which the Court cannot
states that the petition for accreditation shall be filed meddle in. The reason behind the right given to a political party
with the Clerk of the Commission who shall docket it as to nominate a replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs
an SPP (means Special Proceedings (DM) case. This in the Sanggunian is to maintain the party representation as
was the manner the NP-NPC was docketed. willed by the people in the election (Sec. 45 (b) of RA 7160 Rule
Registration of political parties is a special on Succession and as held in Navarro v. CA 672 SCRA 355
proceeding assigned to a Division for handling (2010). Damasen was not a bonafide member. Tumamao was
under the CRP. No similar clear cut rules is available husband of the VM who died).
to a petition for accreditation as a dominant party.
Registration must first take place before a request for PARTY LIST
accreditation can be made. Accreditation is the next
natural step to follow after registration. R.A. 7941, otherwise known as An Act Providing for the
When the Comelec En Banc, resolved the registration of the Election of Party-List Representatives through the Part-List
NP- NPC the case is terminated and ripe for review by the SC System. The party-list system is a mechanism of the
via a Petition for Certiorari. The issue with respect to proportional representation in the election of representatives to
accreditation is a separate issue which is treated in a separate the HR from national, regional and sectoral parties or
proceedings. As ruled, a Motion for Reconsideration of a organizations or coalitions thereof, registered with the Comelec,
Resolution of the Comelec En Banc is a prohibited pleading to enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and
(Sec. 1(d) Rule 13). The remedy available to a party is a underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would
petition for certiorari with the SC pursuant to Article IX-A, Sec. 7 benefit them. (Sec. 2)
and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Party-list representation shall constitute 20% of the total number
of representatives by selection or election from the labor,
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, represented by its peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural minorities, women,
Chairman Edgardo J. Angara v. Comelec, et. al. 423 SCRA youth and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
665, (the Comelec misapplied equity in this case). LDP except the religious sector (Sec. 11 and Art. V, Sec. 5(2) 1987
informed the Comelec by way of Manifestation that only the Constitution)
Party Chairman or his authorized representative may endorse
the COC of the party’s official candidates; that Rep. Butch
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 12

NOTE: The party-list system is composed of three (3) different than 81% if the CIBAC members in order to confirm the
groups: (1) national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang.
or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or organization. Based on the Party-List Canvas Report, it showed that
National and regional parties or organization are different from CIBAC was entitled to a second seat, hence, the counsel of
sectoral parties or organizations. The former need not be CIBAC filed with the Comelec sitting as National Board of
nd
organized along sectoral lines and not represent any particular Canvassers, a request to proclaim Lokin as the 2 nominee
sectoral nor should they be marginalized and underrepresented. which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. Since
Comelec failed to act on the filing of the certificate of
Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. Comelec G.R. Nos. _______, 02 nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of nominees
April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled – “Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the and the petitions of the more than 81% of CIBAC members,
Constitution is crystal clear that there shall be “a party-list Villanueva filed a petition to confirm the said certificate with the
system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or Comelec which was docketed as E.M. No. 07-054. In the
organization. “The commas after the words national, and meantime, Comelec as NBC partially proclaimed several party
regional, separate national and regional parties from sectoral lists as having won which included Cibac.
parties. Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended The Secretary General of CIBAC informed the
national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral, Secretary General of the HR to formally swear Lokin into office
they would have stated “national and regional sectoral parties.” but which was denied in view of the pendency of E.M. No. 07-
They did not, precisely because it was never their intention to 054 which approved the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin
make the party-list system exclusively sectoral. et. al. and the substitution of Borje. Cruz-Gonzales was
What the framers intended, and what they expressly proclaimed as the official second nominee.
wrote in Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamus to compel
system is composed of 3-different groups, and the sectoral respondent Comelec to proclaim him as the official second
parties belong to only one of the 3 groups.” nominee of CIBAC. Also, in another petition, Lokin assailed
Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804 (Rules and Regulations
COCOFED v. Commission on Elections 703 SCRA 165 – Governing the filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate and
Section 4 and 5 of RA 7941 distinguished. Section 4 of RA submission of Names of Nominees under the Party-List) and its
7941, a party-list group already registered “need not register resolution in E.M. No. 07-054.
anew” for purposes of every subsequent election, but only The Comelec asserts that a petition for certiorari is an
needs to file a manifestation of intent to participate with the inappropriate recourse in law due to the proclamation of Cruz-
Comelec. Section 5 on the other hand provides, that an Gonzales as representative and her assumption of that office;
applicant for registration has to file with the Comelec, not later that Lokin’s proper recourse was an electoral protest filed in the
than 90 days before the election, a verified petition stating its HRET, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter
desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, being raised by Lokin. CIBAC posits that Lokin is guilty of
regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such forum shopping for filing a petition for mandamus and a petition
parties or organization. The applicant is required to submit its for certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately seek to
constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, have him proclaimed as the second nominee of CIBAC.
coalition agreement and other relevant information as the ISSUES: a) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction
Comelec may required. Aside from these, the law requires the over the controversy. The Court has jurisdiction. The
publication of the applicant’s petition in at least 2 national controversy involving Lokin is neither an EP nor an action for
newspapers of general circulation. The Comelec then resolves QW, for it concerns a very peculiar situation in which Lokin is
the petition, determining whether the applicant has complied seeking to be seated as second nominee of CIBAC. Although
with all the necessary requirements. an EP may properly be available to one part-list organization
seeking to unseat another party-list organization to determine
Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on elections 621 SCRA 385 which between the defeated and the winning party-list
(June 22, 2010), the SC ruled that Comelec cannot issue rules organizations actually obtained the majority of the legal votes,
and regulations that provide a ground for the substitution of a Lokin’s case is not one in which a nominee of a particular party-
party-list nominee NOT written in R.A.7941. list organization thereby wants to unseat another nominee of
Sec. 8 provides – “Nomination of Party-List Representatives. the same party list. Neither does an action for QW lie,
Each registered party, organization or coalition shall considering that the case does not involve the ineligibility and
submit to the Comelec not later than 45 days before the disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the RP, or some other case of
election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which disqualification.
party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for
the required number of votes. certiorari against the Comelec to seek the review of its
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. resolution in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the
Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of
named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for any office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now
elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, which
office in the immediately preceding election. NO change of provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or
names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be resolution of the Comelec and the Commission on Audit. As
allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari
Comelec except in cases (1) where the nominee dies, or (2) in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC within the
withdraws in writing his nomination, (3) becomes limited period of 30 days. The Court has original and exclusive
incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute jurisdiction over Lokins certiorari and for mandamus.
nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral (b) Both actions, certiorari and mandamus did not
representatives in the HR who are nominated in the party- violate the rule against forum shopping even if the actions
list system shall not be considered resigned.” involved the same parties, because they were based on
CIBAC (Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption) thru its different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were
President Emmanuel Villanueva manifested their intent to different.
participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local © Comelec gravely abused its discretion in
elections and submitted their list of 5 nominees (Villanueva, promulgating Section 13 of Res. No. 7804 as it expanded the
Lokin (herein petitioner), Cruz-Gonzales, Tugna and Galang). exceptions under Sec. 8 of RA 7941 Section 8 enumerates
The list was later published in the newspapers of general only 3 instances in which the party-list organization can
circulation. Before the elections, Villanueva filed a certificate of substitute another person in place of the nominee. The
nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of nominees enumeration is exclusive.
whereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and
Galang and substituted Borje. The amended list included Cocofed Case – As early as February 8, 2012, Comelec had
Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales and Borje. Subsequently, informed, through its Resolution No. 9359, all registered parties
Villanueva transmitted to Comelec the signed petitions of more who wished to participate in the May 2013 party-list elections
that they shall file with the Comelec a Manifestation of Intent to
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 13

Participate in the party list election together with its list of at peculiar party-list system that the Constitution authorized and
least 5 nominees, no later than May 31, 2012. Under Sec. 6(5) that Congress by law established where the voters cast their
of RA 7941, violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules and votes for the organizations or parties to which such party-list
regulations relating to elections is a ground for the cancellation reps belong.
of registration. Cocofed failed to submit a list of 5 nominees Once elected, both the district reps and the party-list
(submitted only 2 nominees) despite ample opportunity to do so reps are treated in like manners. They have the same
before the elections, which is a violation imputable to the party deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can
under said provision. participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their
Pursuant to Section 8 of RA 7941, the Court cannot legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the
leave to the party the discretion to determine the number of same term limitations of 3 years for a max of 3 consecutive
nominees it would submit. The submission of the list is a terms. The party list system act itself recognizes party list
statutory requirement for the registration of party-list groups and nominees as members of the HR (Sec. 2, RA 7941 Declaration
the submission of this list is part of a registered party’s of Policy – The State shall promote proportional representation
continuing compliance with the law to maintain its registration. in the election of reps in the HR through a party-list system of
A party-list group’s previous registration with the registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
Comelec confers no vested right to the maintenance of its organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino
registration. In order to maintain a party in a continuing citizens belonging to the marginalized and UR sectors x x x
compliance status, the party must prove not only its continued x to become members of the HR “.
possession of the requisite qualifications but, equally, must The Court held that initially, the authority to determine
show its compliance with the basic requirements of the law. the qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs to the
organization and to choose five from among the aspiring
Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) v. nominees to comply with the law. But where an allegation is
Comelec 705 SCRA 340 (2013) – the Supreme Court made that the party or organization had chosen and allowed a
reiterated. . compliance with Section 8 of RA 7941 is essential disqualified nominee to become its party-list rep in the lower
as the said provision is a safeguard against arbitrariness. house and enjoy the secured tenure that goes with the position,
Section 8 rids a party-list organization of the prerogative to the resolution of the dispute is taken out of its hand. Hence,
substitute and replace its nominees, or even to swotch the order pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI, the HRET being the sole
of the nominees, after submission of the list to Comelec. judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the
qualifications of the members of the HR, the HRET has
Abayhon vs. HRET et. al 612 SCRA 375/Palparan Jr. vs. jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. The
HRET et. al. – These two cases were consolidated and jointly HRET was correct in dismissing the QW and retaining authority
resolved as it both concerns the authority of the HRET to pass to rule on the qualifications.
upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups that
won seats in the lower house of Congress. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec
st
Abayhon is the 1 nominee of the Aangat Tayo party- 619 SCRA 585 (DELISTING)– The Comelec may motu propio
list that won a seat in the HR during the 2007 elections. OR upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove, or
st
Palparan on the other hand was the 1 nominee of Bantay cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any
party-list. A petition for QW was filed with HRET against the national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition IF
party-list groups and its nominee claiming that it was not eligible It: (a) fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections;
for a party-list since it did not represent the marginalized and OR (b) fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes casts under
underrepresented sectors. Abayhon is the spouse of an the party-list system in the 2 preceding elections for the
incumbent congressional district representative and likewise constituency in which it was registered (Section 6 RA
does not belong to the UR and marginalized. Petitioners also 7941). The word “OR” is a disjunctive term signifying
claim that Abayhon lost her bid as party-list rep called An Waray disassociation and independence of one thing from the other
in the immediately preceding elections of May 10, 2004. things enumerated. A party list group or organization that failed
Palparan also was alleged to have committed various human to garner 2% in a prior election and immediately thereafter did
rights violations against the marginalized sectors (Bantay not participate in the preceding election – is something that is
represents the victims of communist rebels, CAFGU, security not covered by Section 6(8) of RA 7941. From this perspective,
guards and former rebels.) it may be an unintended gap in the law and as such is a matter
Abayhon and Palparan postures that the Comelec for Congress to address. This case abandoned the Minero vs.
already confirmed the status of the party list as a national multi- Comelec G.R. No. 177548 May 10, 2007.
sectoral party-list organization, that HRET had no jurisdiction
over the petitioner for QW since the petitioners collaterally Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Comelec 646
attacked the registration of the party-list organization, a matter SCRA 63 (2011)
that fell within the jurisdiction of the Comelec. That it was the Comelec removed PGBT in the list of qualified parties vying
party-list that was taking a seat in the HR and not them, being for a seat under the party-list system of representation in
only its nominees. All questions involving their eligibility as violation of the status quo order of the Supreme Court. An
nominee, were internal concerns of the organization. The equally important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is
HRET dismissed the petition against party-list but upheld its the right of free choice of the electorates on who shall govern
jurisdiction over nominees who both filed an MR which was them – the party-list system affords them this choice, as it gives
denied. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari alleging the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the opportunity
that the HRET gravely abused its discretion. to participate in governance. Comelec was cited for contempt
The Court made reference to Sec. 5(1) of Article VI by the Court.
(which identifies who the “members” of that House are.
The HR shall be composed of not more than 250 members, Effect of removal by Comelec of PGBI in the list: As it was
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from the Comelec itself which prevented PGBI from participating in
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, the 10 May 2010 party-list elections when it deleted PGBI, with
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the grave abuse of discretion, from the list of accredited party-list
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a groups or organizations and, thereafter, refused to return it to
uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided the list despite the Court’s directive, PGBI should, at the very
by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of least, be deemed to have participated in the 10 May 2010
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations. Amores vs. HRET et. al 622 SCRA 593 (2010) – Amores via a
Clearly the “members” of the HR are two kinds. . .1) petition for QW with the HRET questioned the legality of the
those who shall be elected from legislative districts and 2) assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel Villanueva as rep of
“those who shall be elected through a party-list system”. From CIBAC. It was alleged among other things, that Villanueva
the point of view of the Constitution, it is the party-list rep who assumed office without a formal proclamation by the Comelec,
are “elected” into office, NOT their parties or organizations. disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since
These representatives are elected, however, through that at the time of the filing of his certificates of nomination and
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 14

acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA 7941 and that his change thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for
of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly,
workers and their families sector was not effected at least 6 “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent
months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so as to be qualified with this policy of neutrality.” Hence, the Court finds that it was
to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA 7941. grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the Comelec
The HRET dismissed the petition as it found the to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of ang
petition to be filed beyond the 10 days reglementary period, that Ladlad.
the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section In sum, the crucial element is not whether a sector is
9 of RA 7941 applied only to those nominated as such during specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization
the first 3 congressional terms after the ratification of the complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA
Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter 7941. The SC found that Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated
registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which its compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation.
CIBAC, a multi sectoral organization, is not. As regards the
shift of affiliation, it was held that Section 15 did not apply as Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec 342 SCRA 244, the
there was no resultant change in party list affiliation. SC provided for the four unique parameters of the Filipino
Party-list System which are as follows –
ISSUES: (1) whether the petition for QW was dismissible for The 20% allocation – the combined number of all
having been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether Section 9 and party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the
15 of RA 7941 apply to Villanueva. As to the first issue, the SC total membership of the HR, including those under the
found grave abuse of discretion on the part of HRET. The Court party-list;
overlooked the technicality of timeliness and rules on the merits The 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a
since the challenge goes into Villanueva’s qualifications, it may minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the
be filed at anytime during his term. Also date of proclamation party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the
was not clear. As to the second and more substantial issue, HR;
the Court made reference to Section 9 of RA 7941 which The 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of
provides that in case of a nominee of the youth sector, he the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
must at least be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on maximum three seats, that is, one qualifying and two
the day of the election. The youth sectoral rep who attains additional seats;
the age of 30 during his term shall be allowed to continue The proportional representation – the additional seats
in office until the expiration of his term. which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed
The Court did not find any textual support on the “in proportion to their total number of votes..
interpretation of HRET that Section 9 applied only to those In this case, following the May11, 1998 national elections
nominated during the first 3 congressional terms after the which is the first election for party-list representation, the
ratification of the Constitution or until 1998. A cardinal rule in Comelec en banc proclaimed 14 parties and organizations
statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from which had obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast
any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or for the party-list system which constitute a total of 25 nominees
interpretation. Only room for application. The distinction is short of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit
nowhere found in the law. When the law does not distinguish, in the house. The PAG-ASA files with the Comelec a Petition to
we must not distinguish. proclaim the full number of party-list representative provided by
Respecting Section 15 of RA 7941, the Court likewise the Constitution. They alleged that the filling up of the 20%
found no textual support for HRET’s ratiocination that the membership of party list representative in the House, as
provision did not apply to Villanueva’s shift of affiliation from provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Nine other
CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their party list organizations filed their respective motions to
families sector as there was no resultant change in party list intervene seeking the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA
affiliation. Section 15 reads “ Change of Affiliation: Effect – on substantially the same grounds.
Any elected party list rep who changes his political party or The Comelec, contrary to its rules and regulations
sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his governing the said elections, instead proclaimed the other 38
seat; Provided, That if he changes his political party or party-list organization notwithstanding its not having garnered
sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election, he the required 2% votes. RULING: Sec. 5(2) of Article VI which
shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list rep under states that the sectoral representation shall constitute the 20%
his new party or organization. is not “mandatory” as it merely provides a ceiling for party-list in
The wordings of Section 15 is clear as it covers congress. And, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation and which restricted by the 3-seat per party limit to a maximum of two
may occur within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list additional slots. Comelec was held to have abused its
org are qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list system. discretion in disregarding an act of Congress.
A nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same
party will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral The 8-point guidelines for screening party-list participants
affiliation if the change has been effected at least 6 months
before the elections. Sec. 9 and 15 apply to Villanueva. In Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. Comelec 359
st
As regards the contention that Villanueva is the 1 SCRA 698 (2001) (also reiterated the ruling in Veterans), at
nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is NO issue is the Omnibus Resolution of the Comelec which
moment. A party-list org’s ranking of its nominees is a mere approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties and
indication of preference , their qualifications according to law which the SC remanded to the Comelec for the latter to
are a different matter. determine evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec 618 SCRA 32 – Ladlad is complied with the requirements of the law. The SC ruled that
an organization composed of men and women who identify the party-list organizations or parties must factually and truly
themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered represent the marginalized and underrepresented
individuals. They applied for registration with Comelec in 2006 constituencies mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the
and its accreditation was denied on the ground that the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization
organization had no substantial membership. Ladlad in 2009 must be “Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
again filed a petition for registration which was dismissed by underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”
Comelec on moral grounds (Bible and Koran). In remanding the case to Comelec the SC laid down
the following guidelines –
The SC ruled that moral disapproval is not a sufficient First, the PP, sector or organization must represent
governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from the marginalized and underrepresented groups
participation to the party list system. The Constitution provides identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words,
in Sec. 5, Art. III that “No law shall be made respecting an it must show – through the Constitution, articles of
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 15

incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of of party-list participant. In this case, Comelec found that
government and track record – that it represents and significantly, Aklat and A.K.L.A.T. have substantially the same
seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented incorporators. In fact 4 of Aklat’s 6 incorporators are also
sectors. incorporators of A.K.L.A.T.. This substantial similarity is hard to
ignore and bolsters the conclusion that the supposed re-
Second, while major political parties are expressly organization undertaken by Aklat is plain window-dressing as it
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to has not really changed its character as a business interest of
participate, they must comply with the declared persons in the book publishing industry.
statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens The Court observed that Aklat’s articles of
belonging to the M and U to be elected to the HR. incorporation and document entitled The Facts About Aklat
which were attached to its petition for re-qualification contain
Third, religious sector may not be represented in the general averments that it supposedly represents marginalized
party-list system. In view of the objections directed groups such as the youth, indigenous communities, urban poor
against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang and farmers/fisherfolks. These general statements do not
Humabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the measure up to the first guideline set by the Bagon Bayani case
Court notes the express constitutional provision that for screening party-list participants. Sec. 5 of RA 7941 provides
the religious sector may not be represented in that “it must show – through its constitution, articles of
the party-list system. Furthermore, the incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track
Constitution provides that “religious denominations record – that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and
and sects shall not be registered.” The prohibition underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership
was explained by a member of the Constitutional should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.
Commission in this wise “The prohibition is on any
religious organization registering as a political party. Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. G.R. No. 177271,
I do not see any prohibition here against a priest May 4, 2007, 523 SCRA 1 - Petitioners reacting on an
running as a candidate. This is not prohibited here; it emerging public perception that the individuals behind the party-
is the registration of a religious sect as a political list groups do not, as they should, actually represent the poor
party.” and marginalized sectors. Petitioners, wrote a letter to the
Comelec requesting that the complete list of the nominees of all
Fourth, it must not be disqualified under the parties who have been accredited pursuant to Comelec
ground enumerated under Section 6 of RA 7941 Resolution No. 7804 prescribing rules and regulations to
(not a religious sect or denomination or association govern the filing of manifestation of intent to participate and
organized for religious purposes, advocates violence submission of names of nominees under the party-list system of
or unlawful means to seek its goal; a foreign party or representation in connection with the May 14, 2007 elections be
organization; receives support from any foreign published. The Comelec vehemently did not accede to the
government, fails to comply with laws rules or request of the petitioners, it based its refusal to disclose the
regulations relating to elections, declared untruthful names of the nominees of subject party-list groups on Section 7
statement in its petition, it has ceased to exist for at of RA 7941 (more specifically the last sentence which states:
least one (1) year, it fails to participate in the last 2 “the names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the
preceding elections or failed to obtain at least 2% of certified list.”.
the votes cast under the party list system in the 2
preceding elections for the constituency in which it The Comelec believe that the party list elections must not be
was registered) personality oriented. Abalos said under RA 7941, the people
are to vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions not
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an for their nominees.
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity
funded or assisted by the government (referring ISSUE: whether or not the disclosure of the names of the
to MAD of Richard Gomez). It must be independent nominees are covered by the Right of Public to information.
of the government. The participants of the HELD: The Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and
government or it officials in the affairs of a party-list release the names of the nominees of the party list groups. No
candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of
parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question.
law; to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and The last sentence of Section 7 is limited in scope and duration,
underrepresented sectors and organizations to be meaning, that it extends only to the certified list which the same
elected to the House of Representatives. provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election
day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the nothing in RA 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing
requirements of the law, its nominees must or even publishing through mediums other than the “Certified
likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads – list” the names of the party-list nominees. The Comelec
“qualifications of Party-List Nominees – No person obviously misread the limited non-disclosure aspect of the
shall be nominated as party-list representative provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May
unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, 2007 elections. The need for voters to be informed about
a RV, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not matters that have a bearing on their choice. The ideal cannot
less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of be achieved in a system of blind voting, as veritably advocated
the election, able to read and write, a bona-fide in the assailed resolution of the Comelec.
member of the party or organization which he seeks
to represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of New Formula in the Allocation of Seats for Party-List
the elections and is at least 25 years of age on the Representatives
day of the election.
Banat et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. 178271/12972 21 April 2009 –
Seventh and Eight not only the candidate party After the VFP v. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781, 136786 and
must represent the M and U sectors, so also 136795, 06 October 2000, ruling of the Supreme Court and the
must its nominees must likewise be able to controversial application of the “Panganiban Formula” by the
contribute to the formulation and enactment of Abalos Commission, Party-list participants in Banat et al., filed
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as separate complaints against the Comelec on the proper
a whole. allocation of seats in the party-list system. On 23 April 2009,
the Supreme Court declared the 2% threshold clause in relation
AKLAT (Assosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran Ng Lipunan at to the distribution of the additional seats of RA 7941
Adhikain Para sa Tao, Inc.) vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 162203, unconstitutional.
14 April 2004, came up with a ruling on the “Window-Dressing”
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 16

Following Section 5, Article VI, par. 2 of the 1987 on year immediately preceding the election. (Article VI,
Constitution, 20% of all seats in the HR is reserved for sectoral Section 6, Constitution)
representatives elected in the party list system. This formula is
now called the “Carpio formula.” For Party-List Nominees – No person shall be nominated as
Under the Banat and Bayan Muna cases (G.R. No. party-list representative unless he is a natural born-citizen of the
179271 and G.R. No. 179295, 21 April 2009), the SC laid down Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a
the latest formula in the allocation of seats for party-list period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the
participants: day of the election, able to read to read and write, a bona fide
1) The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked member of the party or organization which he seeks to
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election
they garnered during the elections. and is at least 25 years of age on the day of the election.
2) The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at
2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be least be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the
entitled to one guaranteed seat each. election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age
3) Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the of 30 during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until
ranking above-mentioned in paragraph no. 1 hereof, shall be the expiration of his term. (RA 7941).
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number
of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. Bengzon III v. HRET 357 SCRA 545 (2001) – Repatriation
4) Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means
more than 3 seats. that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
Banat abandoned the matter of computation held in the restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.. On
Veterans Party case considering that the intention was to fill the the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before
20% seats in the HR. he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his
former status as a natural-born Filipino.
ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES
Local Government Officials – An elective local official must be
Candidate defined: The term “candidate” refers to any person a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
aspiring or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a municipality, city or province or, in the case of a member of the
certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or
political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties. (Sec. 79, sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected;
OEC) a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; able to read and write Filipino
The terms “candidate” under the Automated Election System or any other local language or dialect.
(AES) in 2010, refers to “any person aspiring for or seeking an
elective public office who has filed his COC and who has not Common to All Offices - Voluntary renunciation of the office
dies or withdrawn or otherwise disqualified before the start of for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
the campaign period for which he filed his COC. Provided, that, in the continuity of the service for the full term for which they
unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take were elected.
effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period.”
(Comelec Reso. No. 8678). RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002) Section 36(g) provides that “all candidates for public
As regards a Party-List system, a “candidate” also refers to “any office whether appointed or elected both in the national and
registered national, regional, or sectoral party, organization or local government shall undergo mandatory drug tests. Comelec
coalition thereof that has filed a manifestation to participate issued Resolution No. 6486 on 23 December 2003
under the part-list system which has not withdrawn or which has implementing 9165. Publication of the results will be published.
not be disqualified before the start of the campaign period.” (RA But the resolution does not indicate whether or not candidates
7941). who test positive for drugs will be allowed to assume office if
they win.)
Comelec Reso. No. 9615 adopted a broader definition of the
term “candidate” for the 13 May 2013 Elections to include party- Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No.
list in include all the above-definitions. 157870, 03 November 2008 – Sec. 36(g) of RA 965 and
Comelec Resolution No. 6486 was challenged as the same
Qualifications illegally impose an additional qualification on candidates for
senator. Senator Pimentel point out that, subject to the
For President and Vice-President – No person may be provision on nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator
elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the needs only to meet the qualification laid down in Section 3, Art.
Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship; (2) voter
40 years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of registration; (3) literacy; (4) age and (5) residency. Beyond
the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such these stated qualification requirements, candidates for senator
election. need not possess any other qualification to run for senator and
There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate.
same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and As ruled, Sec. 36(h) of RA 9165, as sought to be
in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed implemented by Comelec assailed Resolution, effectively
from office in the same manner as the President (Article VII, enlarges the qualification requirements enumerated in Sec. 3,
Section 2 and 3, Constitution) Art. VI of the Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 36(g)
unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to be certified
For Senator – No person shall be a Senator unless he is a illegal drug-clean, obviously a pre-condition to the validity of a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of certificate of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a
election, is at least 35 years of age, able to read and write, a condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less proclaimed as senator-elect. Viewed in its proper context, the
than 2 years immediately preceding the elections. (Article VI, implementing Comelec Resolution add another qualification
Section 3, Constitution) layer to what the 1987 Constitution, as the minimum, required
for membership in the Senate. Sec. 36(h) infringed the
For Members of the House of Representatives – No person constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility
shall be a Member of the HR unless he is natural-born citizen of requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator.
the Philippines, and, on the day of election, is at least 25 years Getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume
of age, able to read and write, and except the party list office for non-compliance with the drug-testing requirement.
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he
shall elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 17

In Talaga v. Comelec/Alcala 683 SCRA 197 (2012) The High

1. Under the Manual Elections – The COC of candidacy shall Court provided for the rationale for the filing of CoC within a
be filed on any day from the commencement of the election prescribed period – The evident purposes of the requirement
period but not later than the day before the beginning of the for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them
campaign period; Provided, that in cases of postponement or are, namely; (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60 days
failure of election under Section 5 and 6 of the OEC, no prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom
additional COC shall be accepted except in cases of they are to make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and
substitution of candidates as provided un Section 77. (Section inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. If the law
75, OEC) does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice of
COC must be filed not later than the day before the the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there
date for the beginning of the campaign period. (Sec. 7, RA are voters, and votes may be cast even for unknown or
7166) factitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a
candidate for another office in the same election.
2. Under the AES – Section 11 of RA 8436 provides “for this
purpose, the deadline for filing of COC/petition for Sec. 66 BP 881/OEC. An appointive official is considered
registration/manifestation to participate in the election shall not resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The
be later than 120 days before the elections. forfeiture is automatic and the operative act is the moment of
The period has already been amended by RA 9369 filing which shall render the appointive official resigned
which now reads – “For this purpose, the Commission shall (Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC, May 31,
set the deadline for the filing of COC/petition of 1993), where the provision of Sec. 66 is applicable also to
registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any GOCC and can constitute as a just cause for termination of
person who files his COC within this period shall only be employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor Code.
considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period Section 66 has already been repealed by RA 9369 to
for which he filed his COC; Provided that, unlawful acts or wit – “Section 13. Section 11 of RA 8436 is hereby amended to
omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon the read as follows: “Any person holding a public office or position,
start of the aforesaid campaign period. Xxxx “. including active members of the AFP, and officers and
employees in GOCC, shall be considered ipso facto
Section 73, BP 881/Omnibus Elections Code (OEC) , par. (1) resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at
– Certificate of Candidacy – No person shall be eligible for the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of
any elective office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy.
candidacy within the period fixed therein. Sinaca v. Mula 315
SCRA 266, it is the nature of a formal manifestation to the
whole world of the candidate’s political creed or lack of political Sec. 67 OEC – An elective official running for a position other
creed. than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
President and Vice-President, is deemed resigned upon the
Coquilla v. Comelec G.R. No. 139801, 31 May 2000 – A filing of his certificate of candidacy. Section 67 has been
certificate which did not indicate the position for which the repealed by Section 14 of RA 9006 (The Fair Elections Law),
candidate is running may be corrected. The SC ruling on the a candidate holding an elective position whether national or
effectiveness of the amended COC filed to correct the defect local running for office other than the one he is holding in a
declared that the filing of an amended COC even after the permanent capaci is considered resigned only upon the
deadline but before the election was substantial compliance expiration of his term..
with the law which cured the defect.
Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 (1999) – The provision of the
Section 73 (3) BP 881 (Effect of filing multiple certificates of election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing
candidacy)– No person shall be eligible for more than one and swearing on the same, as well as the information required
office to be filed in the same election (requirement to run for to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the
elective office), and if he files his certificate of candidacy for elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory.
more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them.
Quinto v. Comelec G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010 – the
Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy - However, before Court ruled that substantial distinctions exists between elective
the expiration of the period for the filing of the certificates of official and appointive officials. The former occupy their office
candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to
candidacy may submit a written declaration under oath the an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only
office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive
certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices. officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by
an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their
Pilar v. Comelec 245 SCRA 759 (1995) – The withdrawal of a tenure while other serve at the pleasure of the appointing
certificate of candidacy does not extinguish one’s liability for the authority.
administrative fine imposed by Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166,
which requires every candidate to file a true statement of all SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
contributions and expenditures in connection with the elections.
Section 77 BP 881. Candidates in case of death,
Villanueva v. Comelec 122 SCRA 636 (1983) – the withdrawal disqualification or withdrawal of another. After the last day for
of a certificate of candidacy not made under oath produces no the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a
legal effect; for all intents and purposes, the withdrawing registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is
candidate remains a candidate. disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of
Go v. Comelec 357 SCRA 739 (2001) – Where affidavit of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or
withdrawal filed. There is nothing that mandates that the was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the
affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy
the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections
can be filed directly with the main office of the Comelec, the not later than mid-day of the date of the election. If the
office of the regional election supervisor concerned, the office of death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the
the provincial election supervisor of the province to which the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said
municipality involved belongs, or the office of the municipal certificate may be filed with the board of election inspectors in
election officer of the said municipality. the political subdivisions where he is a candidate or, in the case
of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the
EFFECTS: FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY country, with the Commission.
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 18

A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable that if the substitute candidate has the same family name, this
requisite in case of substitution of a disqualified candidate provision shall not apply.
under Sec. 77. Under said provision, the candidate who dies, Since Section 12 of RA 8436 has not been amended
withdraws or is disqualified must be an official candidate of a nor repealed by RA 9369, it can be assumed that the votes cast
registered or accredited political party and the substitute for the substituted candidates shall be considered votes for the
candidate must be of the same political party as the original substitutes in an AES for the reason that the counting machine
candidate and must be duly nominated as such by the political will not read any unwarranted marks on the official ballot such
party. as writing the name of the substitute candidate.

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
Rulloda vs. Comelec G.R. No. 154198 January 20, 2003 –
The absence of a specific provision governing substitution of Svetlana P. Jalosjos vs. Comelec/Tupag/Estrellada 699
candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a SCRA 507 (2013) – The SC stressed that to be an actual and
prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive physical resident of a locality, one must have a dwelling place
construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not where one resides no matter how modest and regardless of
written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow substitution of ownership. The fact that the residential structure where
candidates where no political parties are involved than when petitioner intends to reside was still under construction on the
political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must lot she purchased means that she has not yet established
have been subsumed by law. actual and physical residence in the barangay, contrary to the
declaration of her witnesses that she has been an actual and
Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999 – physical resident of Brgy. Tugas since 2008.
Substitution is not allowed if certificate of the candidate to be
th
substituted was cancelled, because he was running for the 4 Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea 670 SCRA 664
consecutive term. A person without a valid COC cannot be (2012). It is not required that a candidate should have his own
considered a candidate in much the same way as any person house in order to establish his residence or domicile in a place.
who has not filed any COC at all cannot, by any stretch of the It is enough that he should live in the locality even in a rented
imagination, be a candidate at all. house or that of a friend or relative. What is of central concern
then is that the person identified and established a place in the
Talaga v. Comelec & Castillo and Castillo v. Comelec & said City where he intended to live in and return to for an
Talaga, 683 SCRA 197 (2012) – In this case, Ramon was indefinite period of time.
disqualified having been found to be ineligible for the position of
Mayor of Lucena City which disqualification became final prior Jalosjos v. Comelec 683 SCRA 1 24 April 2012 – Jalosjos
to the May 10, 2010 elections. Barbara Ruby filed her CoC in came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his
substitution of Ramon. Castillo was the opponent who filed a brother in Zamboanga Sibugay. It is evident that Jalosjos did so
disqualification case against Barbara Ruby on the ground that with intent to change his domicile for good. He left Australia,
the substitution was not valid in view of the ineligibility of give up his Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance
Ramon, Ramon did not voluntarily withdraw his CoC before the to that country. In addition, he reacquired his old itizenship by
elections in accordance with Section 73 and that she was not taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
an additional candidate for the position of Mayor because her resulting in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of
filing of her CoC was beyong the period fixed by law. Comelec Philippine Citizenship by the BID. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited
declared the substitution of Barbara Ruby as invalid on May 20, his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up
2011 his domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except
Barbary Ruby garnered the highest number of votes in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
while Castillo garnered second. Castillo contends that since the
disqualification of Ramon was final prior to the election he Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio Gonzales and
should be declared winner. Castillo made reference to case of Orlando Balbon, Jr. 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In
Cayat. In this case, Rev. Fr. Nardo B. Cayat, the petitioner in considering the residency issue, the dwelling where a person
Cayat, was disqualified and his disqualification became final permanently intends to return to and to remain – his or her
before the May 10, 20014 elections. Considering that no capacity or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, IS
substitution of Cayat was made, Thomas R. Pelileng, Sr. his IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it
rival remained the only candidate for the mayoralty post in determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s residence
Buguias, Benguet. (Cayat v. Comelec 522 SCRA 23 (2007)). based solely on very personal and subjective assessment
In contrast, after Barbara Ruby substituted Ramon, the standards when the law is replete with standards that can
May 10, 2010 elections proceeded with her being regarded by be used. Comelec used wrong considerations in arriving at the
the electorate of Lucena City as a bona fide candidate. To the conclusion that Mitra’s residence is not the residence
electorate, she became a contender for the same position vied contemplated by law.
for by Castillo, such that she stood on the same footing as
Castillo. Such standing as a candidate negated Castillo’s claim Asistio v. Trindad Pe-Aguirre, G.R. No. 191124, 27 April
of being the candidate who obtained the highest number of 2010 – the High Court said – “Domicile is not easily lost. To
votes, and being consequently entitled to assume the office of successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate: (1)
Mayor. The Court stressed that the existence of a valid CoC an actual removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona fide
is a condition sine qua non for a valid substitution. intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one; and (3) acts which corresponding with
that purpose. There must be animus manendi coupled with
animus non revetendi. This purpose to remain in or at the
Effect of Substitution of Candidates after Official Ballots domicile of choice must for for an indefinite period of time; the
Have Been Printed in AES- in case of valid substitution after change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at
the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
substituted candidates shall be considered votes for the
substitutes.” (Sec. 12 RA 8436, 22 December 1997) Limbona v. Comelec, G.r. No. 181970, June 25, 2008 –
There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s
Under Section 12 of RA 9006, 12 February 2001 it compliance with residency requirement since the question of
provides – in case of valid substitutions after the official ballot residence is a question of intention.
have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates
shall be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the Coquilla vs. Comelec 385 SCRA 607 – A former Filipino
whole ballot. For this purpose, the official ballot shall provide citizen cannot be considered a resident of the Philippines and
spaces where the voters may write the name of the substitute in the locality he intends to be elected prior to his reacquisition
candidates if they are voting for the latter; Provided, however, of Philippine citizenship.
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 19

The “term residence” is to be understood NOT in its the same period he again becomes
common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation”, disqualified.
but rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place
where the party actually or constructively has his permanent 2) Sec. 68 of the OEC
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given those guilty of giving money or material consideration
time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus to influence, induce or corrupt voters or public official
manendi)”. A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at performing electoral functions;
birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside and those who have committed terrorism to enhance his
continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new candidacy
domicile (by choice.) those who have spend in the election campaign more
than that required by law (Php10/RV/Php5.00)
Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec 248 SCRA 30 (1995). “it is the
fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of candidacy NOTE: Section 68 deals with a petition to disqualify a
which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an candidate for other violations of the election code as specified in
individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification said section, and against a candidate who is a permanent
requirement. The said statement becomes material only when resident or immigrant of a foreign country. That section does
there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, not specify a period within which to file the petition.
misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render the
candidate ineligible. In Codilla vs. De Venecia 393 SCRA 634, it was held that the
power of Comelec to disqualify candidates is limited to the
Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 640, the qualifications of Rodolfo enumerations mentioned in Section 68 of the OEC. Elements
Aguinaldo former governor of Cagayan was at issue when he to be proved are as follows:
rd
filed his certificate of candidacy as member of the HR for the 3
district of Cagayan in the 11 May 1998 elections. The Court the candidate, personally or through his instructions,
reiterated the meaning of residence as “the place where the must have given money or other material consideration
party actually or constructively has his permanent home” where and
he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, the act of giving material consideration or money
eventually intends to return and remain, while domicile, is that should be for the purpose of influencing, inducing or
to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for corrupting the voters or public officials performing
the purpose of election law. And, the fact that a person is a RV electoral functions.
in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another
district. 3) Sec. 69 – Petition to Abate a Nuisance Candidate – the
Comelec, may motu propio or upon verified petition of an
Torayno Sr., vs. Comelec 337 SCRA 574, the issue in this interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a
case is the residence qualification of Vicente Emano who filed certificate of candidacy if it is shown that it is filed in
his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan de Oro. Court contemplation of a nuisance candidate or cancel the same if
explained that the purpose of the residence as required by already filed. This is an exception to the ministerial duty of
Constitution and the law as a qualification for seeking and the Comelec and its officers to receive a certificate of
holding public office, is to give candidates the opportunity to be candidacy under Section 76 of the OEC.
familiar with the needs, difficulties and aspiration, potentials for
growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their WHO IS A NUISANCE CANDIDATE
constituencies. On the part of the electorate, to evaluate the
candidate’s qualification s and fitness for the job they aspire for. one who files his certificate to put the election process
In this case Emano, cannot be deemed to be a stranger or in mockery or disrepute
newcomer when he ran for and was overwhelmingly voted as contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the
city mayor having garnered a margin of 30K votes. similarity of surnames of two (2) candidates may
generate. (in the appreciation of ballots, when two
Papandayan, Jr. vs. Comelec 381 SCRA 133. Domicile candidates with the same name or surname and only
connotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for the name or surname is written, will be considered
business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. stray vote and will not be counted for either of the
The requirements in order to acquire a new domicile by choice candidate unless one of the candidate with the same
are: (a) an intention to remain there; (b) residence or bodily name or surname is an incumbent – equity of the
presence in the new locality; and (c) an intention to abandon the incumbent rule)
old domicile. by other circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bonafide
ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE CANDIDACY OF A CANDIDATE intention to run for office, thus would prevent the
OR DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE faithful determination of the true will of the people.
(Bautista vs. Comelec 298 SCRA 480)
1) Sec. 12 of the 0EC –
any person who has been declared by competent Who can file – a petition to declare a candidate a nuisance
authority insane or incompetent (when we say candidate shall be filed by any registered candidate for the
incompetence, the same may refer not only to same office within 5 days from the last day of the filing of
mental illness, disease or physical disability but the certificate of candidacy. (As amended by Section 5 of RA
also to other causes which may include minority or 6646
lack of residence requirement)
any person who has been sentenced by final Rev. Elly Chavez Pumatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872 13
judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion April 2004 – The rationale behind the prohibition against
for any offense for which carries a penalty of more nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who
than 18 months have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to
for a crime involving moral turpitude divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its
electoral exercises are rational;, objective and orderly. Towards
The disqualification is removed by this end, the State takes into account the practical
plenary pardon or granted amnesty considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater
upon declaration by a competent authority the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for
that said insanity or incompetence had been logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of
removed time and resources in preparation for the election. These
expiration of a period of 5 years from his practical difficulties should, of course, never attempt the State
service of sentence unless of course within from the conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same
time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate these
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 20

logistical hardships, whenever necessary and proper. hand, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC can only
Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook be grounded on a statement of a material representation in the
example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our said certificate that is false. The petitions also have different
democratic institutions. effects. While a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is
merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person whose
Martinez III vs. HRET 610 SCRA 53 (January 2010) – certificate is cancelled or denied due course under Section 78 is
Proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC.
disposition. The declaration of a duly registered candidate as Thus in Miranda v. Abaya, this Court made the distinction that a
nuisance candidate results in the cancellation of his COC. candidate who is disqualified under Section 68 can validly be
substituted under Section 77, but a person whose CoC has
Dela Cruz v. Comelec G.R. No. 192221, 13 November 2012 - been denied due course or cancelled under Section 78 cannot
(Should the votes cast for such nuisance candidate be be substituted because he/she is never considered a
considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate.” (also ruled in Fermin v. Comelec 574 SCRA 782)
candidate?) – In an automated election, the Supreme Court,
likewise ruled not to consider the votes cast for a nuisance Mayor Barbara Ruby Talaga vs. Comele/Alcala 683 SCRA
candidate as stray but to count them in favor of the bona fide 197 (2012) – The High Court reiterated, that a Section 78
candidate. petition should not be interchanged or confused with a Section
“As far as Comelec is concerned, the confusion 68 petition. The remedies under the two sections are different
caused by similarity of surnames of candidates for the same eventualities. A person who is disqualified under Sectin 68 is
position and putting the electoral process in mockery or prohibited to continue as a candidate, but a person whose CoC
disrepute, had already been rectified by the new voting system is cancelled or denied due course under Section 78 is not
where the voter simply shades the oval corresponding to the considered as a candidate at all because his status is that of a
name of their chosen candidate. However, as shown in this person who has not filed a CoC. Miranda v. Abaya 311 SCRA
case, Comelec issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010, 9 617 (1999), has clarified that candidate who is disqualified
days before the elections, with sufficient time to delete the under Section 68 can be validly substituted pursuant to Section
names of disqualified candidates not just from the Certified List 77 because he remains a candidate until disqualified; but a
of Candidates, but also from the Official Ballot. Indeed, what person whose CoC has been denied due course or cancelled
use will it serve if Comelec orders the names of disqualified under Section 78cannot be substituted because he is not
candidates to be deleted from list of official candidates if the considered a candidate.
official ballots still carry their name?
The Court holds that the rule in Resolution No. 4116 Munder vs. Comelec 659 SCRA 254 (2011) - “Jurisprudence
considering the votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as has clearly established the doctrine that a petition for
such in a final judgment, particularly where such nuisance disqualification and a petition to deny due course to or to cancel
candidate has the same surname as that of the legitimate a certificate of candidacy, are two distinct remedies to prevent a
candidate, not stray but counted in favor of the latter, remains a candidate from entering an electoral race. Both remedies
good law. As earlier discuss, a petition to cancel or deny a CoC prescribe distinct period to file the corresponding petition, on
under Section 69 of the OEC should be distinguished from a which the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections over the
petition to disqualify under Section 68. Hence, the legal effect case is dependent.”
of such cancellation of a CoC of a nuisance candidate cannot
be equated with a candidate disqualified on grounds provided in Fernando V. Gonzalez vs. Comelec, et. al. 644 SCRA 761
the OEC and the Local Government Code. (2011) - “In order to justify the cancellation of CoC, it is
The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertain
the names of nuisance candidates remained in the ballot on to a material matter for the sanction imposed by Section 78
election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under would affect the substantive rights of the candidate – the right to
the automated voting system especially considering that voters run for the elective post for which he filed the CoC. Material
who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the representation refers to qualifications for elective office
nuisance candidate instead of the bonafide candidate they (interpreted to refer to statements regarding age, residence and
intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots citizenship or non-possession of natural-born Filipino status);
to correct the same. Aside from the requirement of materiality, the false
representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,
4) Sec. 78 OEC – Petition to Deny due Course or to Cancel misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render a
a Certificate of Candidacy. “A verified petition seeking to candidate ineligible; it must be made with the intention to
deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be deceive the electorate as to one’s qualification for public office.”
filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any (also ruled in Salcedo II v. Comelec 312 SCRA 447 (1999))
material representation contained therein as required under
Section 74 (contents of the COC) of the OEC is false. The Two remedies available for questioning the
petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the qualifications of the candidate: Distinction between the two
time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be proceedings under Section 78 and Section 253 under B.P.
decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days 881, thereof (1) Before elections under Section 78 and (2)
before election.” After elections under Section 253. The only difference
between the two proceedings is that, under Section 78, the
Who may file – by any person through a verified petition qualifications for elective office are misrepresented in the
On What Grounds – the candidate made material certificate of candidacy and the proceedings must be initiated
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. Section 78 before the elections, whereas a petition for QW under Section
deals “exclusively” with a petition to deny due course to a 253 may be brought on the basis of two grounds – (1)
COC on the ground that a material representation in the ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines,
contents of the certificate under Sec. 74, is false. (pertains to a and must be initiated within 10 days after proclamation of the
candidate’s eligibility or qualification such as citizenship, election results. Under Section 253, a candidate is ineligible if
residence or status as a registered voter Maruhom vs. he is disqualified to be elected to office, and he is disqualified if
Comelec 594 SCRA 108) he lacks any of the qualification for election office.
Clearly, the ONLY INSTANCE where a petition
Period to File – Within 25 days from the last day for the filing of questioning the qualifications of a candidate for elective office
the certificate of candidacy. can be filed before election is when the petition is filed under
Jurisdiction – Comelec sitting in a division. Section 78 of the OEC.
Period for filing a petition under Section 78 – In Loong
Sergio G. Amora, Jr. vs. Comelec and Arnielo S. Olandria v. Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992), the Court categorically
640 SCRA 473 (2011) - To emphasize, a petition for declared that the period for filing a petition for cancellation of
disqualification on the one hand, can be premised on Section candidacy based on false representation is covered by Rule 23
12 and 68 of the OEC, or Section 40 of the LGC. On the other and NOT Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition at any time
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 21

after the last day for filing of CoC’s but not later than the date of oath stating in clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is
proclamation, is merely a procedural rule that cannot supercede renouncing foreign citizenship.
Section 78 of the OEC.
A petition filed under Section 78 must not be Casan Macode Maquiling v. Comelec et. al. 700 SCRA 367
interchanged or confused with one filed under Section 68 – In (2013) – the declared policy of RA 9225 is that “all Philippine
Fermin v. Comelec 574 SCRA 782 (2008), the Court stressed citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
that a petition which is properly a “Section 78 petition” must deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
therefore be filed within the period prescribed therein, and a conditions of this Act”. This policy pertains to the reacquisition
procedural rules subsequently issue by Comelec cannot of Philippine citizenship. Section 5(2) requires those who have
supplant this statutory period under Section 78. re-acquired Philippine citizenship and who seek elective public
office, to renounce any and all foreign citizenship. This
Jurisdiction – Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, requirement of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship,
taken his oath and assumed office as a member of the House of when read together with Section 40(d) of the Local Government
Representatives, the jurisdiction of the Comelec over election Code which disqualifies those with dual citizenship from running
contests relating to his election, returns and qualifications for any elective local position, indicates a policy that anyone
ENDS and the HRET own jurisdiction BEGINS. who seeks to run for public office must be solely and exclusively
a Filipino citizen. To allow a former Filipino who reacquires
In Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 641 (1999) the Court does not Philippine citizenship to continue using a foreign passport –
have jurisdiction to pass upon the eligibility of the private which indicates the recognition of a foreign state of the
respondent who was already a Member of the HR at the time of individual as its national – even after the Filipino has renounced
the filing of the petition for certiorari – considering that by his foreign citizenship, is to allow a complete disregard of this
statutory provision (Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 policy.
Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the Panlaqui v. Comelec 613 SCRA 573 – Voters’
HR. inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the issue of
whether a petition shall be included in or excluded from the list
Procedure in filing Motion to Suspend Proclamation: The of voters based on the qualifications required by law and the
suspension of proclamation of a winning candidate is not a facts presented to show possession of these qualifications. On
matter which the Comelec Second Division can dispose of the other hand, the COC denial/cancellation proceedings
motu propio. Section 6 of RA No. 6646 requires that the involve the issue of whether there is a false representation of a
suspension must be upon motion by the complainant or any material fact. The false representation must necessarily pertain
intervenor. not to a mere innocuous mistake but to a material fact or those
that refer to a candidate’s qualification for elective office.
Second Placer Rule- It is well-settled that the ineligibility of a
candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible
candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be NOTE: In Fermin v. Comelec G.R. No. 179695 and G.R. No.
declared elected. 182369, December 18, 2008, the SC clarified that Section 5
(Procedure in cases of Nuisance candidates) and Section 7
Exceptions to the Second Placer Rule – The exception to the (Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of
second placer rule is predicated on the concurrence of the Candidacy under RA 6646, did not in any way amend the
following (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes period for filing “Section 78” petitions. While Section 7 of the
is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is FULLY AWARE in fact said law makes reference to Section 5 on the procedure in the
and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such conduct of cases for the denial of due course to the COC’s of
awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless nuisance candidates (then chief Justice Davide in his dissenting
case their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. These facts opinion in Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September
warranting the exception to the rules are not present in the case 18, 1995 248 SCRA 400, explains that “the procedure
at bar. hereinabove provided mentioned in Section 7 cannot be
construed to refer to Section 6 which does not provide for a
Ashary M. Alauya (Clerk of Court, Shari’a District Court, procedure but to the effects of disqualification cases, (but) can
Marawi City vs. Judge Casan Ali L. Limbona 646 SCRA 1 only refer to the procedure provided in Section 5 of the said Act
(2011) - Partisan political activity – The filing of a certificate of on nuisance candidates, “ the same cannot be taken to
candidacy is a partisan political activity as the candidate thereby mean that the 25-day period for filing Section 78 petitions is
offers himself to the electorate for an elective post. “No officer changed to 5 days counted from the last day for the filing
or employee in the civil service shall engage directly or of COC’s.
indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.” The clear language of Section 78 cannot be amended
The act of the Judge in filing a certificate of candidacy as a or modified b y a mere reference in a subsequent statute to the
party-list representative in the May 1998 elections without giving use of a procedure specifically intended for another type of
up his judicial post violated not only the law, but also the action. Cardinal is the rule in statutory construction that repeals
constitutional mandate. by implication are disfavored and will not be so declared by the
Court unless the intent of the legislators is manifest.
Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis Noteworthy in Loong v. Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992),
Bautista/Robelito Picar/Wilma Pagaduan 678 SCRA 267 which upheld the 25-day period for filing Section 78
(2012) - Remedy of a person who fails to file the petition to petitions, was decided long after the enactment of RA 6646.
disqualify a certain candidate within the twenty-five (25)-day Hence, Section 23, Section 2 of the Comelec Rules of
period prescribed by Section 78 of the OEC is to file a petition Procedure is contrary to the unequivocal mandate of the law.
for QW within 10 days from proclamation of the results of the Following the ruling in Fermin, the Court declared that “as the
election as provided under Section 253 of the OEC. law stands, the petition to deny due course to or cancel a
COC may be filed at anytime not later than 25-days from the
Renunciation of foreign citizenship to be valid under Section time of the filing of the COC.
5(2) of RA 9225 – The language of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 is
free from any ambiguity. In Lopez v. Comelec 559 SCRA 696 In Justimbaste v. Comelec 572 SCRA 736 (2008) – Material
(2008), the Court declared it ‘s categorical and single meaning: misrepresentation as a ground to deny due course or cancel a
a Filipino American or any dual citizen cannot run fo any certificate of candidacy refers to the falsity of a statement
elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she required to be entered therein as enumerated in Section 74 of
personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the OEC. Concurrent with materiality is a deliberate intention to
the time of filing the CoC. The Court also expounded on the deceive the electorate as to one qualification making reference
form of the renunciation and held that to be valid, the to Salcedo II that in order to justify the cancellation of the COC
renunciation must be contained in an affidavit duly executed under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation
before an officer of the law who is authorized to administer an mentioned therein pertained to a material matter for the
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 22

sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive In Aznar, it was ruled that the mere fact that respondent
rights of a candidate – the right to run for the elective post for Osmeña was holder of a certificate stating that he is an
which he filed the COC. There is also no showing that there American citizen did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino &
was an intent to deceive the electorate as to the identity of the that an application for an ACR was not tantamount to
private respondent, nor that by using his Filipino name the renunciation of his Philippine Citizenship.
voting public was thereby deceived.
Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec, it was held that the fact that
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in
CODE R.A. 7160 the BID & was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997,
A candidate for an elective office may likewise be only a year before he filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice-
disqualified on the following grounds – Mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his nationality before
the termination of his American citizenship.
those sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude or for an offense Valles v. Lopez, the Court held that the mere fact that Lopez
punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment, was a holder of an Australian passport and had an ACR are not
within 2 years after serving sentence. (Sec. 40) act constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do
(Qualifications of local elective candidates under not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For
the LGC was asked renunciation to effectively result in the lost of citizenship, the
in the 1999 Bar) same must be express (Com. Act 63, Sec. 1). Referring to the
case of Aznar, an ACR does not amount to an express
st
NOTE: The 1 ground for disqualification consists of two (2) renunciation or repudiation of one’s citizenship. Similarly, her
parts, namely: (1) those sentenced by final judgment for an holding of an Australian passport as in the Manzano case, were
offense involving moral turpitude, regardless of the period of likewise mere acts of assertions before she effectively
imprisonment; and (2) those sentenced by final judgment for an renounced the same. Thus, at the most, Lopez had dual
offense, OTHER THAN one involving moral turpitude, citizenship – she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well.
punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment, within 2
years after serving sentence. In reconciling the disqualification under Sec. 40 of RA 7160.
The Court clarified and as ruled in the Manzano case “dual
Sec. 40 of RA 7160 limits the disqualification to two (2) years citizenship” as used in the LGC and reconciled with Article IV
after service of sentence. This should now be read in relation to Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance (Dual
Sec. 11 of RA 8189 which enumerates those who are allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and
disqualified to register as a voter. The 2 year disqualification shall be dealt with by law.”) In recognizing situation in which a
period under Sec. 40 is now deemed amended to last 5 years Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, as an
from service of sentence after which period the voter will be involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different
eligible to register as a voter and to run for an elective public countries, be also a citizen of another state (jus sanguinis for
office. the Philippines where the child follows the nationality or
citizenship of the parents regardless of his/her place of birth as
Those convicted by final judgment for violating the opposed to jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship
oath of allegiance to the Republic on the basis of place of birth), the Court explained that dual
citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual
Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political allegiance.
cases.
The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not automatically
In Marquez, jr. vs. Comelec and Rodriguez 259 SCRA, it was disqualify her from running for public office. For candidates with
held that fugitives from justice refer to a person who has been dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Phil. Citizenship
convicted by final judgment. The SC ruled that when a person upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to terminate their
leaves the territory of a state not his own, homeward bound and status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of the
subsequently learns of the charges filed against him while he is certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship
in his own country, does not outrightly qualify him as a fugitive effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen.
from justice if he does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of
the former state. When Rodriguez left the US, there was yet no In the Certificate of Candidacy, one declare that he/she is a
complaint filed and warrant of arrest, hence there is no basis in Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the
saying that he is running away from any prosecution or Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
punishment. allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under oath,
operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Those removed from office as a result of an
administrative charge Lopez v. Comelec 559 SCRA 696 (2008)– The ruling in
Valles in 2000 has been superseded by the enactment of
In Rodolfo Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, it was held that a public RA 9225 in 2003. RA 9225 expressly provides for the condition
elective official cannot be removed for administrative conduct before those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a
committed during a prior term as his re-election to office public office in the Philippines. Section 5 of the said law states:
operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct “Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Those who retain or
to the extent of cutting of the right to remove him therefore. re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full
civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities
Grego v. Comelec 274 SCRA 481, the Court ruled that Sec. 40 and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and
of RA 7160 does not have any retroactive effect. In this case a the following conditions xxx (2) Those seeking elective public
Deputy Sheriff was removed for serious misconduct in 1981. office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding
He run in 1992 & 1995. His removal in 1981 cannot serve as such public office as required by the Constitution and existing
basis for his disqualification. Laws have prospective effect. laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy,
make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
Those with dual citizenship. The relevant cases under this citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an
provision are the cases of – oath.

Mercado v. Manzano & Comelec G.R. AASJS Member-hector G. Calilung vs. Secretary of Justice
No. 135083 May 25, 1999 G.R. No. 160869, may 11, 2007, the SC took the opportunity to
Aznar v. Comelec 185 SCRA 703 set parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance considering
Cirilo Valles v. Comelec & Lopez G.R. that it only made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual
#138000 August 9, 2000 citizenship in Mercado vs. Manzano.
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 23

FACTS: Following the implementation of RA 9225 “An Act Marcos. The SC found Frivaldo disqualified for not having
Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire possessed the requirement of citizenship which cannot be
foreign Citizenship Permanent, amending for the purpose CA cured by the electorate, especially if they mistakenly believed,
63, as amended, petitioner filed a petition against respondent as in this case, that the candidate was qualified.
DOJ Secretary Simeon Datumanong who was tasked to
implement laws governing citizenship. He prayed for a writ of Republic v. dela Rosa 232 SCRA 785. The disqualification of
prohibition to stop respondent from implementing RA 9225. he Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo opted to reacquire his
avers that RA 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Philippine citizenship thru naturalization but however failed to
Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states “ Dual comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication, thus,
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and the Court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the naturalization
shall be dealt with by law”. He contends that the Act of Frivaldo. He was again disqualified.
cheapens the Philippine citizenship since the Act allows all
Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign In Frivaldo v. Comelec 257 SCRA 72 (1996), Frivaldo later
citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their reacquired Philippines citizenship and obtained the highest
foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because number of votes in 3 consecutive elections but was twice
said law allows natural-born citizens to regain their Philippine by declared by the SC to be unqualified to hold office due to his
simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their lack of citizenship requirement. He claimed to have re-acquired
foreign allegiance. The Constitution however, is categorical that his Filipino citizenship thru repatriation. It was established that
dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest. he took his oath of allegiance under the provision of PD 725 at
2pm on 30 June 1995, much later than the time he filed his
HELD: The intent of the legislature in drafting RA 9225 is to do certificate of candidacy.
away with the provision in CA 63, which takes away Philippine
citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized The Court held that the “the law does not specify any particular
citizens of other countries. RA 9225 allows dual citizenship to date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship
natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine unlike that of residence and age, as Sec. 39 of RA 7160
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a specifically speaks of “qualification of elective officials, not
foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual candidates” thus, the citizenship requirement in the local
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the government code to be possessed by an elective official at the
Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term
Plainly, Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of of office to which he has been elected. But to remove all
dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue doubts on this important issue, the Court held that the
of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of
foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not his application on 17 August 1994 and being a former
made a concern of RA 9225. (Note: Section 5, Article IV of Filipino who has served the people repeatedly and at the
the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a age of 81, Frivaldo deserves liberal interpretation of the
self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact Philippine laws and whatever defects there were in his
the law on dual allegiance.) nationality should now be deemed mooted by his
repatriation.
In De Guzman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180048 June 19, 2009, it
was held that “where the Oath of allegiance and certificate of 3 term limit or having served 3 consecutive terms.
candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2) of RA 9225 which
further requires those seeking elective public office in the Article X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution and Section
Philippines to make a personal and sworn renunciation of 43(b) of RA 7160 provides “No local elective official shall serve
foreign citizenship as where the candidate for VM of Guimba, for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position.
Nueva Ecija failed to renounce his American citizenship, it was Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not
held that he was disqualified from running for VM in the May 14, be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for
2007 elections. the full term for which the elective official concerned was
elected.
Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec/Luis Bautista et. al.
678 SCRA 267 (2012) - Renunciation of foreign citizenship to In Laceda Sr., vs. Limena & Comelec 571 SCRA 603 – the
be valid under Section 5(2) of RA 9225 – The language of Court held that the rationale behind Section 2 of RA 9164, like
Section 5(2) of RA 9225 is free from any ambiguity. In Lopez v. Section 43 of RA 7190 (Local Government Code) from which
Comelec 559 SCRA 696 (2008), the Court declared it ‘s the 3-term rule was taken, is primarily intended to broaden the
categorical and single meaning: a Filipino American or any dual choices of the electorate of the candidates who will run for
citizen cannot run fo any elective public position in the office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena by
Philippines unless he or she personally swears to a disqualifying officials from running for the same office after a
renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing the term of 9 years.
CoC. The Court also expounded on the form of the
renunciation and held that to be valid, the renunciation must be The case of Laceda Sr. involved a similar question in Latasa
contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of the vs. Comelec 417 SCRA 601 where the Court held that where a
law who is authorized to administer an oath stating in clear and person has been elected for 3 consecutive terms as municipal
unequivocal terms that affiant is renouncing foreign citizenship. mayor and prior to the end or termination of such 3-year term
the municipality has been converted by law into a city, without
Maquiling vs. Comelec 700 SCRA 367 (2013) – If we allow the city charter interrupting his term until the end of the 3-year
dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce their term, the prohibition applied to prevent him from running for the
th
foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign 4 time as city mayor thereof, there being no break in the
passports, we are creating a special privilege for these dual continuity of the terms. Comelec did not err nor commit any
citizens, thereby effectively junking the prohibition in Section abuse of discretion when it declared Laceda disqualified and
40(d) of the Local Government Code. It must be stressed that cancelled his COC.
what is at stake here is the principle that only those who are
exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for public office. Adormeo v. Comelec & Talaga, Jr. G.R. No. 147927 04
February 2002 and citing Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157
Frivaldo v. Comelec 174 SCRA 245 (1989). Frivaldo was and Lonzanida v. Comelec 311 SCRA 602, it was ruled that
proclaimed governor elect of the Province of Sorsogon and the term limit for elective local officals must be taken to refer to
subsequently assumed office. A disqualification was filed the “right to be elected” as well as the “right to serve in the
against him by the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter same elective position.” Thus, two (2) conditions for the
on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been application of the disqualification must concur:
naturalized in the US in 1983, which he admitted but which he
undertook only to protect himself against then President
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 24

that the official concerned has been elected for three petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoralty term by
(3) consecutive terms in the same local government reason of involuntary relinquishment of office.
post; and
that the has fully served the three (3) consecutive As repeatedly ruled by the SC, a “proclamation subsequently
terms. declared void is no proclamation at all and while a
proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of
In this case, respondent Talaga, Jr., was elected mayor of the proclamation of the BOC, he is only a presumptive
Lucena City in May 1992. He served the full term, was re- winner who assumes the office subject of the final outcome
elected in 1995-98 but lost in the 1998 election to Tagarao. In of the election protest.”
the recall elections of May 2000, Talaga, Jr. won and served the
unexpired term of Tagarao until 30 June 2001. Talaga Jr. filed Another issue raised in Lonzanida is that the Comelec
his certificate of candidacy for the same position in the 2001 already lost jurisdiction over the disqualification case when
elections which candidacy was challenged by petition Adormeo he was proclaimed as winner and that jurisdiction is
on the ground that Talaga, Jr. is already barred by the 3-term already with the RTC for QW. The SC reiterated its ruling in
limit rule. Trinidad v. Comelec 288 SCRA 76 (1998) that pursuant to Sec.
6 of RA 6646, the proclamation nor assumption of office of a
Adormeo contends that Talaga’s candidacy violated Section 8, candidate against whom a petition for disqualification is pending
Article X of the Constitution which states that the term of office before the Comelec does not divest the Comelec of jurisdiction
of local elective officials shall be three (3) years and no such to continue hearing the case and resolve it on the merits. (Also
official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms ruling in Dizon v. Comelec 577 SCRA 589).
citing the case of Lonzanida v. Comelec To further support his
case, he adverts to the comment of Fr. Joaquin Bernas who Borja v. Comelec 295 SCRA 157 (1998), the SC ruled on the
stated that in interpreting said provision that “if one is elected issue on whether a VM who succeeds to the office of mayor by
representative to serve the unexpired term of another, that operation of law and serves the remainder of the term is
unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered one considered to have served a term in that office for the purpose
term for the purpose of computing the number of successive of the 3-term limit. The SC upheld the decision of the Comelec
terms allowed.” that succession for the expired term is not the service
contemplated as would disqualify the elective official from
The Comelec en banc ruled in favor of Talaga which reversed running for the same elective post. The purpose of this
st
the ruling of the 1 division and held that – 1) Talaga was not provision is to prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the
elected for 3 consecutive terms because he did not win the 11 number of terms an elective local official may serve.
May 1998 elections; 2) that he was installed only as mayor by Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he was elected
reason of his victory in the recall elections; 3) that his victory in as he was simply continuing the service of the official he
the recall elections was not considered a term of office and is succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have fully
not included in the 3-term disqualification rule and finally 4) that served the term notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of
he did not fully serve the 3 consecutive term. His loss in the 11 office prior to his expiration. (Asked in the 2001 BAR)
May 1998 elections is considered an interruption in the
continuity of his service as Mayor of Lucena City. ISSUE: Was In applying said policy, the following situations (tenures in
Talaga disqualified to run for Mayor of Lucena City in the 14 office) are NOT considered service of term for purpose of
May 2001 elections? applying the 3-term limit –

In holding the qualifications of Talaga, the Court reiterated its officer fills up a higher office by succession/operation
ruling in Borja that the term limit for elective local officials must of law
be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to officer is suspended from office (failed to serve full
serve in the same elective position considering that the term/involuntary)
continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by the defeat in the officer unseated, ordered to vacate by reason of an
1998 elections which is considered as an interruption in the election protest case
continuity of service. The Court further held that the officer serving unexpired term after winning in the
comment of Fr. Bernas is pertinent only to member of the recall elections;
HR there being no recall elections provided for members of
Congress. In Ong vs. Alegre 479 SCRA 473 – A petition for
disqualification was filed against Francis Ong for having
In Lonzanida v. Comelec and Lu 28 311 SCRA 602 (July violated the 3-term limit rule for having served as mayor of San
1998), Lonzanida was elected and served 2 consecutive terms Vicente Camarines Norte in the May 1995, 1998 & 2001
as municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, prior to the 08 elections. The controversy revolves around the 1998-2001
May 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections, Lonzanida ran mayoral term wherein the election protest filed by Alegre was
for the same elective post and was again proclaimed winner. promulgated after the term of the contested office has
He assumed office and discharged the duties thereof. His expired.
proclamation in 1995 was contested by his then opponent Juan
Alvez who filed an election protest before the RTC of Zambales The question for consideration is whether or not the assumption
which rendered a decision declaring a failure of elections of Francis Ong as Mayor from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001,
rendering the result for the office as null and void. The office of may be considered as one full term service in the context of the
the mayor was then declared vacant. Both parties appealed to consecutive term limit rule. The Court declared that such
the Comelec and on 13 Nov. 1997, it resolved the election assumption of office constitutes, for Francis, “service for the full
protest filed by Alvez in his favor after determining that Alvez term” and should be counted as a full term served in
garnered the plurality of votes. The Comelec issued a writ of contemplation of the 3-term limit prescribed by the constitutional
execution ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post to which he and statutory provisions, barring elective officials from being
obeyed and Alvez assumed for the remainder of the term. elected and serving for more than 3-consecutive terms.

Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor in The Court debunked the claim of Francis Ong that he was only
the 11 May 1998 and his opponent timely filed a petition to a presumptive winner in view of the ruling of the RTC that
disqualify him for the same post. ISSUE: Whether Lonzanida’s Alegre was the real winning candidate in the light of his being
assumption of office from May 1995 to March 1998 may be proclaimed by the MBOC coupled by his assumption of office
considered as service of one full term for the purpose of and his continuous exercise of the functions thereof from start
applying the 3-term limit for elective local government officials. to finish of the term, should legally be taken as service for a full
It was held that Lonzanida is still qualified to run for mayor and term in contemplation of the 3-term rule. Lonzanida from which
held that the 2-rquisites for the application of the 3-term limit is Ong sought refuge is not applicable in view of the involuntary
wanting. First, petitioner cannot be considered as having been relinquishment of office before the expiration of his term. (Same
elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and second, the ruling in Rivera III vs. Comelec 523 SCRA )
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 25

candidate or political party which acceptance shall be attached

Aldovino Jr., vs. Comelec 609 SCRA 234 (2009) – Article X, to the advertising contract and submitted to the Comelec.
Section 8 – both by structure and substance – fixes an elective
official’s term of office and limits his stay in office to 3 Guidelines whether by purchase or donation – Print
consecutive terms as an inflexible rule that is stressed, no less, advertisements shall not exceed ¼ page in broadsheet and ½
by citing voluntary renunciation as an example of a page in tabloids 3 x a week per newspaper, magazine or other
circumvention. The provision should be read in the context of publications during the campaign period. (Section 6, RA 9006).
interruption of term, NOT in the context of interrupting the full
continuity of the exercise of the power of the elective Television/Radio Advertisements – nation
position. The “voluntary renunciation” it speaks of refers only candidates/registered political party shall be entitled to not more
to the elective official’s involuntary relinquishment of office and than 120 minutes of TV advertisement and 180 minutes of
loss of title to this office. It does not speak of the temporary radio. Local candidates not more than 60 minutes of TV
“cessation of the exercise of power or authority” that may advertisement and 90 minutes of radio.
occur for various reasons, with preventive suspension
being only one of them. Quoting Latasa – the law Comelec Time and space – print space, Comelec shall pay
contemplates a rest period during which the local elective just compensation (PPI ruling) in at least 3 newspapers of
official steps down from office and ceases to exercise general circulation which Comelec shall allocate free of charge
power or authority over the inhabitants of the territorial to the national candidates. Broadcast network (radio and TV)
jurisdiction of a particular government unit.” free of charge to Comelec. (Section 8, RA 9006)

DISQUALIFICATION CASES (EFFECTS) Limitations In Broadcasting of Election Accounts –

Comelec shall ensure that radio and television or cable
Sec. 72 of the OEC and Section 6 of 6646 states: “any television broadcasting entities shall not allow the scheduling of
candidate who been declared by final judgment to be any program or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or
disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him oppose any candidate or political party or unduly or repeatedly
shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not referring to or including said candidate and/or political party in
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified such program respecting, however, in all instances the right of
and is voted for and received the winning number of votes in said broadcast entities to air accounts of significant news or
such election, the Comelec shall continue with the trial and news worthy events and views on matter of public interest.
hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the
complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof Restrictions on Media Practitioners – any mass media
order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate columnist, commentator, reporter or non-air correspondent or
whenever the evidence of guilt is strong.” personality who is a candidate for any elective office or is a
campaign volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity
CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if
so required by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence
Election period is 120 days - 90 days before the date of the from his/her work as such during the campaign period. Any
election and 30 days thereafter. Campaign period for Pres., VP media practitioner who is an official of a political party or
and Senators starts 90 days before the date of the election, 45 member of the campaign staff of a candidate or political party
days for members of the HR and local candidate and 15 days shall not use his/her time or space to favor any candidate or
for barangay official, which excludes the day before and the day political party
of the elections. No movie, cinematography or documentary portraying
the life or biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in
Prohibited Activities – Section 80 BP881 – Election a theater, television stations or any public forum during the
campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. campaign period or those portrayed by an actor or media
It shall be unlawful for any person whether or not a voter or personality who is himself a candidate.
candidate, or for any party or association of persons, to engage
in an election campaign or partisan political activity except RA 9006, Section 5 Election surveys – refers to the
during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may measurements of opinions and perceptions of the voters as
hold political convention or meetings to nominate their official regards a candidate’s popularity, qualifications, platforms or
candidates within 30 days before the commencement of the matter of public discussion in relation the election, including
campaign period and 45 days for President and Vice-President. voters’ preference or candidates or publicly discussed issues
during the campaign period. The person or entity who
RA 9006 (Fair Election Law), Section 3. Election propaganda publishes a survey is required to include the following
whether on television, cable television, radio, newspapers or information:
any other medium is hereby allowed for all registered political
parties, national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations Name of the person, candidate, party or organization
participating under the party-list elections and for all bona fide who commissioned or paid the survey;
candidates seeking national and local positions subject to the Name and address of the person or polling firm from
limitation on authorized expenses of candidates and political who conducted the survey
parties, observance of truth in advertising and to the supervision Period during which the survey was conducted,
and regulation by the Comelec. methodology used, including the number or individual
respondents and the areas from which they were
Requirements for Published or Printed Broadcast Election selected and the specific questions asked
Propaganda. RA 9006 now allows paid political advertisements Margin of error of the survey.
for print and broadcast media provided the said advertisement
shall bear and be identified by reasonably legible or audible The survey together with the raw data gathered to support
words “ Political advertisement paid for” followed by the the conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying and
true and correct name and address of the candidate or verification by the Comelec, or by the registered political party
party for whose benefit the election propaganda was or any Comelec accredited citizen arm.
printed or aired.
Posting of Campaign Materials – political parties and party-list
Free of charge – if broadcast is given free of charge the radio groups may be authorized by the Comelec common poster
and television station, it shall be identified by the words “airtime areas for their candidates in not more than 10 public places
for this broadcast was provided free of charge by” followed by such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like,
the true and correct name and address of the broadcast entity. wherein, candidates can post, display or exhibit election
Provided that said print, broadcast donated shall not be propaganda. The size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 x
published or printed without the written acceptance of the 16 feet or it equivalent. With respect to independent
candidates, may likewise avail of this but the difference is
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 26

merely on the size which shall not exceed 4 x 6 feet or its

equivalent. (Section 9, RA 9006) SOCIAL WEATHER STATION vs. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496
– This case involved the issue on election surveys. SWS is a
RA 9189, Section 15 – Regulation of Campaign Abroad – The private non-stock, non-profit social research institution
use of campaign materials, as well as the limits on campaign conducting surveys in various fields, including economics,
spending shall be governed b the laws and regulations politics, demography and social development, and thereafter,
applicable to the Philippines. processing, analyzing and publicly reporting the results thereof.
On the other hand, Kamahalan Publishing Corporation
BP881, Section 95 – Prohibited Contributions. No contribution publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of general
for purposes of partisan political activity shall be made directly circulation, which features newsworthy items of information
or indirectly by any of the following: including election surveys.
(a) Public or private financial institutions: Provided,
however, That nothing herein shall prevent the Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin
making of any loan to a candidate or political the Comelec from enforcing par. 5.4 of RA 9006 which
party by any such public or private financial provides, “Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be
institutions legally in the business of lending published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys
money, and that the loan is made in accordance affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days
with laws and regulations and in the ordinary before an election”.
course of the business;
(b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public The term “election surveys” is defined in par. 5.1 of the
utility or in possession of or exploiting any natural law as follows ”Election surveys refer to the measurement of
resources of the nation; opinions and perception of the voters as regards a candidate’s
(c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contract or popularity, qualification, platforms or a matter of public
sub-contract to supply the government or any of discussion in relation to the election, including voters’
its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities, preference for candidates or publicly discussed issues during
with goods or services or to perform construction the campaign period”.
or other works;
(d) Natural and juridical persons who have been Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an
granted franchises, incentives, exemptions, election survey throughout the period of the elections both at
allocations or similar privileges or concessions by the national and local levels and release to the media the
the government or any of its divisions, results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
subdivisions or instrumentalities, including Kamahalan also states that it intends to publish election survey
government-owned or controlled corporations. results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
(e) Natural and juridical persons who, within the one HELD: Par. 5.4 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of
year prior to the date of the election, have been freedom of speech, expression and the press. It is invalid
granted loans or other accommodations in because it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of
excess of 100K by the government or any of its expression and it is a direct and total suppression of a category
divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited
including government owned or controlled period, and the governmental interest sought to be promoted
corporations. can be achieved by means other than the suppression of
(f) Educational institutions which have received freedom of expression.
grants of public funds to no less than 100K;
(g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
(h) Foreigners and foreign corporations. In Francisco Chavez v. Comelec et. al. G.R. No. 162777 31
August 2004, Chavez brought before the SC a Petition for
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
any contribution from any of the persons or entities enumerated injunction as taxpayer and citizen asking the Court to enjoin the
herein. Comelec from enforcing Section 21 of its Resolution No. 6520
dated 06 January 2004. (Sec. 32 provides: All propaganda
ABS-CBN 323 SCRA 811, the SC defined exit polls as a specie materials such as posters, streamers, stickers or paintings on
of electoral survey conducted by qualified individuals or groups walls and other materials showing the picture or name of a
of individuals for the purpose of determining the probable result person and all advertisements on print, in radio or on television
of an election by confidentially asking randomly selected voters showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, who
whom they have voted for, immediately after they have officially subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a
cast their ballots. An absolute prohibition is unreasonably candidate for public office shall be immediately removed by said
restrictive because it effectively prevents the use of exit poll candidate and radio station, print media or television station
data not only for election days of the elections, but also for long within 3 days after the effectivity of these implementing rules;
term research. The concern of Comelec of a non- otherwise, he and the said radio station, print media or
communicative effect of the exit polls which is disorder and television station shall be presumed to have conducted
confusion in the voting centers does not justify a total ban of the premature campaigning in violation of Sec. 80 of the OEC)
exist polls. Comelec should instead set safeguards in place for
those who intends to conduct exit polls. Chavez on various dates entered in formal agreement
with certain establishment to endorse their products and
Section 5.5 of RA 9006 (Fair Elections Law) pursuant thereto, 3 bill boards were set up on some strategic
provides for the requirements for the taking of an exit polls: areas in Metro Manila. Subsequently on 30 December 2003,
Chavez filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
pollsters shall not conduct their survey within 50 Senator. On 06 January 2004, Comelec issued Resolution No.
meters from the polling place whether said survey is 6520 which contained Section 32. Comelec directed Chavez to
taken in a home, dwelling place and other places; comply with the said provision and replied how he may have
pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing; violated the assailed provision. Another letter was sent seeking
pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to exemption from the application of Section 32, considering that
answer; and the billboard adverted to are mere product endorsements and
the result of the exit polls may be announced after the cannot be construed as paraphernalia for premature
closing of the polls on election day, and must clearly campaigning under the rules.
identify the total number of respondents, and the
places where they were taken.. Said announcement Comelec replied by informing him to remove or cover
shall state that the same is unofficial and does not the said billboards pending the resolution of the Comelec on his
represent a trend. request for exemption. Aggrieved, Chavez sent to the SC via a
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 27

petition for prohibition seeking the said provision as advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their
unconstitutional based on the following grounds – resources and popularity. Comelec was only doing its duty
It was a gross violation of the non-impairment clause under the law (Sec. 3 and 13 of the Fair Elections Act on
An invalid exercise of police power lawful propaganda)
In the nature of an ex post facto law
Contrary to the Fair Elections Act Section 80 of the OEC provides “it shall be unlawful for any
Invalid due to overbreadth person, whether or not a voter or candidate or for any
party, or association of persons, to engage in an election
st
As to the 1 issue – is Section 32 of Comelec Resolution No. campaign or partisan political activity, except during the
6520 an invalid exercise of police power? Petitioner argues: the campaign period.”
billboards (even if it bears his name) do not at all announce his
candidacy for any public office nor solicit for such candidacy Penera v. Comelec 599 SCRA 609. The issue on
from the electorate; they are mere product endorsements and premature campaigning was raised. Facts show that Penera
not election propaganda. Prohibition is not within the scope of and Andanar were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica in the
power of the Comelec. last May 14, 2007 elections. Andanar filed before the Office of
the Regional Election Director, Caraga Region, Region XIII, a
RULING – police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, petition for disqualification against Penera for unlawfully
is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, engaging in election campaigning and partisan political activity
morale, peace, education, good order or safety of the general prior to the commencement of the campaign period.
welfare of the people. The primary objective of the provision
is to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the The Petition alleged that on 29 March 2007, a day before the
playing field for candidates of public office, to equalize the start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007,
situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand Penera and her partymates went around the different
and lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies and
preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the
exposure and publicity on account of their resources and elections. Penera alleged that the charge was not true although
popularity. This is a valid reason for the exercise of police having admitted that a motorcade did take place which was
power as held in the Philippines Press Institute v. Comelec simply in accordance with the usual practice in nearby cities
case. and provinces, where the filing of COC was preceded by a
motorcade, which dispersed soon after the completion of such
It is true that when petitioner entered into the contract or filing. Penera in her defense cited Barroso v. Ampig (385 Phil
agreements to endorse certain products, he acted as a private 2237; 328 SCRA 530) wherein the Court ruled that a motorcade
individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to held by candidates during the filing of their COC’s was not a
these products. However, when he filed his COC for senator, form of political campaigning. Pending the disqualification case,
the billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan Penera was proclaimed as winner and assumed office.
political character because the same directly promoted his
candidacy. If subject billboards were to be allowed, candidates Comelec ruled that Penera engaged in premature campaigning
for public office whose name and image are used to advertise in violation of Section 80 and disqualified Penera from
commercial products would have more opportunity to make continuing as a mayoralty candidate. The SC ruled no abuse of
themselves known to the electorate, to the disadvantage of discretion on the part of the Comelec and held that the conduct
other candidates who do not have the same chance of lending of a motorcade is a form of election campaign or partisan
their faces and names to endorse popular commercial products political activity which fall squarely under of Section 79 of the
as image models. Similarly, an individual intending to run for OEC.
public office within the next few months, could pay private
corporations to use him as their image model with the intention Penera moved for reconsideration arguing that she was not
of familiarizing the public with his name and image even before yet a candidate at the time of the supposed premature
the start of the campaign period. This, without doubt, would be campaigning, since under Section 15 of RA 8436 (the law
a circumvention of the rule against premature campaigning.. authorizing the Comelec to use an automated election system
for the process of voting, counting of votes, and
Section 32 neither violated the non-impairment clause as this canvasing/consolidating the results of the national and local
must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government. elections), as amended by RA 9369, is not officially a candidate
Equal opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without until the start of the campaign period.
regard to the level of financial resources one may have at his
disposal, is a vital interest to the public. The SC has stressed In granting Penera’s MR, the SC En Banc held that Penera did
that contracts affecting public interest contain an implied not engage in premature campaigning and should thus, not be
reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing disqualified as a mayoralty candidate. The Court said-
legal order. This power can be activated at anytime to change
the provisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for (a) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision (or
the promotion or protection of the genera; welfare. Such an act the assailed Decision) considered a person who files a
will not militate against the impairment clause. Which is subject certificate of candidacy already a “candidate” even before the
to and limited by the paramount police power. start of the campaign period. This is contrary to the clear intent
and letter of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended, which stated
On the issue that Sec. 32 of the Comelec Resolution is in the that a person who files his certificate of candidacy will only
nature of an ex post facto law. Not ex post facto – the offense be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign
as expressly prescribed in Section 32, is the non-removal of the period, and unlawful acts or omission applicable to a
described propaganda materials three (3) days after the candidate shall take effect only upon the start of such
effectivity of the said Resolution. If the candidate for public campaign period. In applying the said law –
office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the given
period, he shall be liable under Section 80 of the OEC for
premature campaigning. Nowhere is it indicated in the said
provision that it shall operate retroactively. (1) The effective date when partisan
political acts become unlawful
On the issue that the provision was a violation of the Fair as to a candidate is when the campaign
Elections Act as billboards are already permitted as lawful period starts. Before the start of the
election propaganda. It was ruled that the provision does not campaign period, the same partisan
prohibit billboards as lawful election propaganda. It only political acts are lawful.
regulates their use to prevent premature campaigning and to (2) Accordingly, a candidate is liable
equalize, as much as practicable, the situation of all candidates for an election offense only
by preventing popular and rich candidates from gaining undue
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 28

for acts done during the campaign period, there is probable cause, the Comelec through its Law
not before. In other words, election offenses Department, files the criminal information before the
can be committed by a candidate only upon proper court. Proceedings before the proper court
the start of the campaign period. Before the demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond
start of the campaign period, such election reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction
offenses cannot be committed. shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which
Since the law is clear, the Court has no recourse but to may even include disqualification from holding a future
apply it. The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and public office.
enacting remedial measures, is not the Court but the
Legislature. CANVASSING BODIES

(b) Contrary to the assailed Decision, Section 15, Section 221, BP 881/RA 6646, Section 20 - Boards of
of RA 8436, as amended, does not provide that partisan Canvassers (Local Boards). There shall be a board of
political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period canvassers for each province, city and municipality as follows:
are unlawful, but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the (a) Provincial Board of Canvassers – The provincial
campaign period. Neither does the law state that partisan board of canvassers shall be composed of the
political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period provincial election supervisor or a lawyer in the
are temporarily lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of regional office of the Commission, as chairman,
the campaign period. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the the provincial fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the
Decision, which defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of provincial superintendent of schools as member.
expression and speech, would be void for vagueness. (b) City Board of Canvassers – The city board of
canvassers shall be composed of the city election
© That Section 15 of RA 8436 does not registrar or a lawyer of the Commission, as
expressly state that campaigning before the start of the chairman, the city fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the
campaign period is lawful, as the assailed decision asserted, is city superintendent of schools, as member. In
no moment. It is a basic principle of law that any act is lawful cities with more than one election registrar, the
unless expressly declared unlawful by law. The mere fact that Commission shall designate the election registrar
the law does not declare an act unlawful ipso facto means that as chairman.
the act is lawful. Thus, there is no need for Congress to declare (c) Municipal Board of Canvassers. – The municipal
in Section 15 of RA 8436 that partisan political activities before board of canvassers shall be composed of the
the start of the campaign period is lawful. It is sufficient for election registrar or a representative of the
Congress to state that “any unlawful act or omission applicable Commission, as chairman, the municipal
to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the treasurer, as vice-chairman and the most senior
campaign period.” The only inescapable and logical result is district school supervisor or in his absence a
that the same acts, if done before the start of the campaign principal of the school district or the elementary
period, are lawful. school, as member.

(d) The Court’s 11 September 2009 Decision The proceedings of the board of canvassers shall be open
also reversed Lanot v. Comelec (G.R. No. 164858, 16 and public.
November 2006). Lanot was decided on the ground that one
who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the BP881, Section 222. Relationship with Candidates and other
start of the campaign period. This ground was based on the members of the Board. The chairman and the members of the
th
deliberations of the legislators who explained that the early boards of canvassers shall not be related within the 4 civil
deadline for filing COC under RA 8436 was set only to afford degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the candidates
time to prepare the machine readable ballots, and they intended whose votes will be canvassed by the said board, or to any
to preserve the existing election period, such that one who files member of the same board.
his COC to meet the early deadline will still not be considered
as a candidate. BP881, Section 224. Feigned Illness. Any member of the
board of canvassers feigning illness in order to be substituted
When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress decided to on election day until the proclamation of the winning candidates
expressly incorporate the Lanot doctrine into law, thus, the shall be guilty of an election offense.
provision in Section 15, of RA 8436 that a person who files his
certificate of candidacy shall be considered a candidate only RA 8436, Section 23 – National Board of Canvassers for
at the start of the campaign period. Congress wanted to Senators – The chairman and members of the Commission on
insure that no person filing a certificate of candidacy under the Elections sitting en banc, shall compose the national board of
early deadline required by the automated election system would canvassers for senators. It shall canvass the results for
be disqualified or penalized for any partisan political act done senators by consolidating the results contained in the data
before the start of the campaign period. This provision cannot storage devices submitted by the district, provincial and city
be annulled by the Court except on the sole ground of its boards of canvassers, of those cities which comprise one or
unconstitutionality. The assailed Decision, however, did not more legislative districts. Thereafter, the national board shall
claim that this provision is unconstitutional. In fact, the assailed proclaim the winning candidates.
Decision considered the entire Section 15 good law. Thus, the
Decision was self-contradictory – reversing Lanot but Section 30, RA 7166 – Congress as the National Board of
maintaining the constitutionality of the said provision. Canvassers for the election of President and Vice-President:
Determination of Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates
In Lanot vs. Comelec 507 SCRA 114, the Court ruled that of Canvass. –
there are two aspects of a disqualification case:
1) Congress for Pres. & VP (Sec. 4, Article VII)
1) Electoral aspect determines whether the offender 2) Comelec – Senators and Regional Officials –
should be disqualified from being a candidate or from 3) PBC – Members of the HR and provincial officials
holding office. Proceedings are summary in character (composed of the PES, Provincial Prosecutor and
and require only clear preponderance of evidence. An provincial official of the DepEd
erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior 4) District BOC in each legislative district in MM –
determination of probable cause in a PI. The electoral members of the HR and municipal officials
aspect may proceed independently of the criminal 5) City and MBOC – member of the HR, city and
aspect and vice-versa. municipal officials composed of the city or municipal
EO, City Prosecutor and DepEd Superintendent
2) Criminal aspect determines whether there is probable
cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. If
ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 29

RA 9189, Section 18(4) – A Special Board of Canvassers DISPOSITION OF ELECTION RETURNS

composed of a lawyer preferably of the Commission as
chairman, a senior career office from any of the government Election Returns and Distribution – RA 8173 amending Section
agencies maintaining a post abroad and, in the absence of 27 of RA 7166, provides that in the election for Pres., VP,
another government officer, a citizen of the Philippines qualified Senators and members of the HR, the ER shall be distributed
to vote under this Act deputized by the Commission, as vice- as follows -
st
chairman and member secretary, respectively, shall be 1 CBO or MBOC
nd
constituted to canvass election returns submitted to it by the 2 congress, directed to the Pres. of the Senate
Special Boards of Elections Inspectors. Xxx xxx “The rd
3 Comelec
Certificates of Canvass and the accompanying Statements of th
4 Dominant majority party as may be determined by
Votes as transmitted via facsimile, electronic mail and any other the Comelec in accordance with law
means of transmission equally safe, secure and reliable shall be th
5 Dominant minority party as may be determined by
the primary basis for the national canvass. Comelec in accordance with law
th
6 Citizens Arms authorized by the Comelec to
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES, STATEMENT OF VOTES, conduct an unofficial count to be deposited inside the
ELECTION RETURNS AND DISTRIBUTION ballot box.
Certificate of Votes – is an election document issued by the For Local officials – (1) CBOB or MBOC (2) Comelec (3) PBOC
BEI’s after the counting and announcement of the results and (4) DMP (5) DMP (6) Citizen’s Arms for unofficial count (7)
before leaving the polling place upon request of the accredited inside ballot box.
watcher. It shall contain the number of votes obtain by each
candidate written in words and figures, precinct #, name of the Petition to Declare a postponement, failure or annulment of
city or municipality signed and thumb marked by each member elections and call for a special elections in accordance with
of the board. Sections 5,6, & 7 of the OEC as amended by Sec. 4 of RA
7166.
Typoco vs. Comelec 614 SCRA 391 – In Garay v. Comelec
261 SCRA 222 (1996) the Court held that “(a) certificate of Sec. 5 of the OEC provides for the grounds for
votes does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and declaring a postponement of elections that is when for -
genuine results of the election; only election returns are, any serious cause such as violence,
pursuant to Sections 231, 233-236 and 238 of BP881.” Again in
terrorism,
De Guzman v. Comelec 426 SCRA 698 (2004) the Court stated
loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
that, in an election contest where the correctness of the number
records,
of votes is involved, the best and most conclusive evidence are
the ballots themselves; where the ballots can nor be produced FM and other analoguous circumstances of such a
or are not available, the election returns would be the best nature that the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should
evidence.” become impossible in any political subdivision.

Doromal vs. Biron/Comelec 613 SCRA 160 (2010) – the Jurisdiction - the Commission en banc may “motu propio or
certificate of votes, which contains the number of votes upon a verified petition by any interested party, and after due
obtained by each candidate, is issued by the BEI upon the notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded
request of the duly accredited watcher pursuant to Section 16 of equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election to a
RA 6646. Relative to its evidentiary value, Section 17 of RA date which is reasonably close to the date of the election not
6646 provides that Sections 235 and 236 of BP 881 held, suspended or which resulted to a failure to elect but not
notwithstanding, the Certificate of Votes shall be admissible in later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such
evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
anomaly committed in the preparation of the election returns
concerned, when duly authenticated by at least two members Sec. 6 on the other hand, prescribes the conditions for
of the BEI who issued the certificate. Failure to present the CV the exercise of the power to declare a Failure of Elections. As
reiterated in Dibaratun vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 367, citing
shall however not bar the presentation of other evidence to
Banaga Jr. v. Comelec 336 SCRA 701 (2000) also in
impugn the authenticity of the ER. It cannot be a valid basis of
canvass. Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 517 - to declare a failure of
elections, either of these three (3) instances should be
present conformably with Section 6 of the OEC –
Purpose of requiring authentication of at least 2 members of the
BOC – to safeguard the integrity of the certificate from the time
it is issued by the BEI to the watcher after the counting of votes the election in any polling place has not been held on
at the precinct level up to the time that it is presented to the the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence,
board of canvassers to proved tampering. terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes;
the election in any polling place has been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of voting on
FUNCTIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VOTES account of FM, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes
Prevent or deter the members of the BEI or other after the voting and during the preparation and
official from altering the statement because they know transmission of the ER or in the custody of canvass
of the existence of such certificate thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on the
To advise the candidate definitely of the number of his same grounds.
votes so that in case the election statement submitted
to the BOC does not tally with the certificate in his Based on the foregoing provisions, two (2) conditions must
hands, he may ask that the other authentic copies of concur to declare a failure of elections –
the same be used for the canvass
To serve as evidence of fraud in election protest cases no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned
and in subsequent prosecution of the election offenses on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting
against those liable therefore. the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect
and
Statement of Votes – is a tabulation per precinct of the votes the votes not cast would affect the results of the
obtained by the candidates or reflected in the ER. elections (Carlos. V. Angeles)

Certificate of Canvass – is based on the SV and which serves In the same case of Coquilla v. Comelec, the SC stressed
as basis for proclamation. that “what is common in these three instances is the resulting
failure to elect. In the first instance, no election was held, while
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 30

in the second, the election is suspended. In the third instance, merit. In the case of Typoco, petitioner buttressed his petition
circumstances attending the preparation, transmission, custody with independent evidence that compelled the Comelec to
or canvas of the election returns cause a failure to elect. And, conduct a technical examination of the questioned returns.
the term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner.” Typoco filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a
substantial number of election returns were manufactured and
Procedural Rules - On the basis of a verified petition by any claimed that the returns were prepared by only one person
interested party and after due notice and hearing, the Comelec based on the report of a licensed examiner of questioned
may call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, documents who examined copies of the election returns.
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date Pasandalan failed to attach independent and objective evidence
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended other than the self-serving affidavits of his own poll watchers.
or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than 30 days
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or In Basher, the fact that an election is actually held prevents
suspension of the election or failure to elect. as a rule, a declaration of failure of elections, the Court,
however, can annul an election if it finds that the election is
Sec. 4 of RA 7166 (An Act Providing for the Synchronized attended with patent and massive irregularities and
National and Local Elections) provides that any declaration of illegalities. In this case, after a series of failed elections in
postponement, failure of election and calling for a special Brgy. Maidan, Municipality of Tugaya, Lanao del Sur during the
elections as provided in Section 5,6, & 7 shall be decided by the 1997 Brgy. Elections, the election was reset to 30 August 1997.
Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members. Due to the prevailing tension in the locality, the voting started
This power is exclusively vested in the Comelec as ruled in the only at around 9 p.m. and lasted until the early morning of the
case of Sanchez v. Comelec 193 SCRA 849. following day. Basher filed a petition for the nullification of the
election which was dismissed by the Comelec on the ground
Loong v. Comelec 257 SCRA 1, a petition to declare failure of that actual voting had taken place. The SC overturned the
elections/annulment of elections on the ground of massive fraud Comelec ruling because the election was unauthorized and
in some municipalities was filed before proclamation.. Comelec invalid. The electorate was not given sufficient notice that
dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time since it the election would push through after 9pm of the same day.
was filed only after petitioners realized that the annulment of Moreover, the voting did not comply with the procedure laid
election will wipe out their lead. HELD: It was ruled that the down by the Comelec in its Resolution.
Comelec Resolution dismissing the petition was arbitrary as no
law provided for a reglementary period within which to file a Banaga Jr. vs. Comelec 336 SCRA 701, the fact that a verified
petition for annulment of elections if there is no proclamation petition has been filed does not mean that a hearing on the
yet. case should first be held before Comelec can act on it. The
petition must show on its face that the conditions necessary to
Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512, Canicosa filed with the declare a failure of elections are present.
Comelec a Petition to declare failure of elections and to declare
null and void the canvass and proclamation based on the Ampatuan et. al. v. Comelec/Candao, et. al., G.R. No.
following grounds (names of the RV did not appear on the list, 149803, January 31, 2002, private respondents filed a petition
padlocks were not self locking among other) which was for declaration of failure of elections in several municipalities in
dismissed by the Comelec en banc on the ground that the Maguindanao. During the pendency of the hearing of said
allegations therein did not justify the declaration of failure of petition, the Comelec proclaimed petitioners as winners for the
elections. position of governor, vice-governor and board members.

Canicosa insists that itswas error on the part of Thereafter, the Comelec issued an order directing the
Comelec sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it should have continuation of the hearing on the failure of elections and issued
first been heard by a division. The SC held that the matter an order outlining the procedure to be followed in the technical
relating to the declaration of failure of elections or the examination. Petitioners, relying on the case of Typoco, Jr. v.
allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise of QJ Comelec, contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the
or adjudicatory functions. It involves an administrative function only remedy left for private respondents is to file an election
which pertains to the enforcement and administration of all laws protest, in which case, original jurisdiction lies with the regular
and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. courts and that Comelec no longer has jurisdiction to conduct a
technical examination as it would defeat the summary nature of
Pasandalan vs. Comelec, et. al., G.R. No. 150312 July 18, a petition for declaration of failure of elections citing several
2002, the SC held that a petition for declaration of failure of rulings that an election protest is the proper remedy for a losing
elections is an “extraordinary remedy” and therefore the candidate after the proclamation of the winning candidates.
petition must specifically allege the essential grounds that
would justify the same. Otherwise, the Comelec can ISSUE: whether the Comelec was divested of its
dismiss the petition outright for lack of merit and no grave jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition for declaration of
abuse of discretion can be attributed to it. The Comelec is failure of elections after the winners have already been
mandated to exercise this power with utmost circumspect to proclaimed. HELD: It was ruled that the fact that the a
prevent disenfranchising voters and frustrating the electorate’s candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the
well.” Comelec of its authority to annul any canvass and illegal
proclamation. In this case, it cannot be assumed that the
In this case, Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration proclamation of petitioners was legal precisely because the
of failure of election on the ground that while voting was going conduct by which the elections were held was put in issue by
on Cafgu’s indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the respondents in their petition for annulment of election results
voters to panic and leave the polling places without casting their and/or declaration of failure of elections. The cases relied upon
votes and taking advantage of the situation, the supporters of by petitioners that an election protest is the proper remedy for a
his opponent took the official ballots and filled them up with his losing candidate after proclamation of the winning candidate
name, the BEI’s failed to affix their initials at the back of several involved pre-proclamation controversies.
official ballots. Pasandalan , on the basis of the affidavits of
his own poll watchers, insists that a technical examination The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v. Comelec that “
of the official ballots in the contested precincts be made a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an
which would show that only a few persons wrote the action for annulment of election results, or failure of
entries, citing the case of Typoco v. Comelec 319 SCRA 498 elections”. In pre-proclamation cases, the Comelec is
and Basher v. Comelec 330 SCRA 736. restricted to an examination of the election returns on their face
and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and
The SC held that the Comelec is not mandated to conduct a investigate election irregularities. The Comelec is duty-bound
technical examination before it dismisses a petition for to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other
nullification of election when the petition is, on its face, without analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 31

for declaration of failure of elections conformably with the OEC. written and verified notice of appeal, and within an
Accordingly, the Comelec, in the case of actions for annulment unextendible period of 5 days thereafter, he has to
of election results or declaration of failure of elections, may take the appeal to the Comelec
conduct technical examination of election documents and in petitions directly filed with it.
compare and analyze voters’ signatures and thumbprints in
order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed Macabago v. Comelec 392 SCRA 178 – it was held that issues
been free, honest and clean. in a PPC is properly limited to challenges aimed against the
BOC and proceedings before said board relative to particular
Borja, Jr. v. Comelec 260 SCRA 604, a petition for ER to which respondent should have made particular verbal
declaration of failure of elections and to nullify the canvass and objections subsequently reduced in writing.
proclamation was filed by Borja wherein he alleged that there
was lack of notice of the date and time of canvass, there was BP 881 Section 243.Comelec Rules of Procedure Rule 27 (4)
fraud in the conduct of the elections as several voters were - SCOPE/ISSUES that may be raised in a PRE-
disenfranchised, presence of flying voters and unqualified PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
members of the BEI. The Comelec dismissed the petition ruling
that the grounds relied upon by Borja were ground proper only Illegal composition or proceedings of the BOC
in an election contest. SC upheld the decision of the Comelec. The canvassed ER are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with, or falsified or
contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY authentic copies as mentioned in Sec. 233-236
The ER were prepared under duress, threats, coercion
BP 881, Section 242 – The Commission shall have exclusive or intimidation or they are obviously manufactures or
jurisdiction of all pre=proclamation controversies. It may motu not authentic – in Ocampo v. Comelec 235 SCRA 436,
propio and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or total it was held that this fact must be evident from the face
suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual of the said document. In the absence of a strong
partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as evidence establishing spuriousness of the returns, the
the evidence shall warrant in accordance with the succeeding basic rule is that the ER shall be accorded prima facie
sections. status as bona fide reports of the results of the count
of the votes which shall prevail for purposes of
Matalam v. Comelec 271 SCRA 733/BP 881 – a pre- canvassing and proclamation.
proclamation controversy is defined, as a general rule, any When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the BOC polling places are canvassed, the result of which
which may be raised by any candidate or any registered political materially affect the standing of the aggrieved
party or coalition of political before the board or directly with the candidate. (Sec. 243)
Comelec, on any matter raised under Sections 233 (when ER
are delayed, lost or destroyed), 234 (material defects in the PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN A Pre-PROCLAMATION
ER), 235 (when ER appear to be tampered with or falsified) CONTROVERSY
and 236 (discrepancies in the ER) of the OEC in relation to
the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and Sec. 20 of RA 7166 (repealing Sec. 245 OEC)
appreciation of the ER and Certificate of Canvass. provides for the mandatory two-step rule or requirement of
verbal objection to the inclusion of the ER and to be formalized
Section 17, RA 6646, questions affecting the composition or in writing within 24 hours. Failure to observe such rule is fatal
proceedings of the BOC may be initiated with the board or to a candidate’s cause, leaving him with no other remedy
directly with the Comelec. However, matters raised under Sec. except an EP. This cannot be cured by instituting a petition
233 to 236 shall be brought in the first instance before the BOC directly filed with the Comelec under Sec. 241
only.
Sandoval v. Comelec 323 SCRA 407, it was stressed that
EXCEPTIONS: Section 15 of RA 7166 provides that for Comelec exercises exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio
purposes of the elections for Pres. and VP, Senators and or upon verified petition, and after due notice and hearing, order
members of the HR, no Ppcases shall be allowed on matters the partial or total suspension of the proclamation of the
relating the P,T,R,C, and A of the ER or the certificate of candidate elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if
canvass, as the case may be. HOWEVER, this does not one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in
preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu accordance with Sec. 242 of the OEC.
proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to
correct manifest error in the certificate of canvass or ER before Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713 – a PPC is summary in
it. nature, administrative in character and which is filed before the
BOC. It was ruled that while it is true that RA 7166 provides for
Sano Jr. vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 475 – It is settled that a pre- summary proceedings in PP cases and does not require a trial
proclamation controversy is summary in character; indeed, it is type hearing, nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be
a policy of the law that pre-proclamation be promptly decided, stretched as to mean ex-parte proceedings.
so as not to delay canvass and proclamation. The board of
canvassers will not look into allegations of irregularity that are In Velayo case, respondent objected to the inclusion of two
not apparent on the face of ER’s that appear otherwise (2)ER’s which did not contain a vote for respondent being
authentic and duly accomplished. statistically improbable which was overruled by the BOC. It was
ruled that it is possible for a candidate to get zero votes in one
Authority of the Comelec in PPC – the Commission exercises or few precincts. The bare fact that a candidate receive zero
authority to decide PPC in two instances – votes in 1 or 2 precincts can not support a finding that the ER
are statistically improbable. (Exception to the Lagumbay
in appeals from the ruling of the BOC which is Doctrine)
generally of two types first type are n questions
contesting its composition or proceedings and appeal Lagumbay v. Comelec 16 SCRA 175 (1966) - The
therefrom must be taken by the contestant adversely Lagumbay doctrine is the prevailing case on statistical
affected within 3 days from such ruling .and the improbability which states that where there exists uniformity of
second type refers to ruling on questions contesting tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party and the
ER. The party adversely affected must immediately systematic blanking out of the opposing candidates as when all
inform the board that he intends to appeal from the the candidates of one party received all the votes, each of
ruling and the board shall enter said information in the whom exactly the same number, and the opposing candidates
minutes of the canvass and within 48 hours from the got zero votes, the election returns are obviously manufactures,
ruling, the adverse party must file with the board a
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 32

contrary to al statistical improbabilities and utterly improbable Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez v. Eufrocino C. Codilla/ 668
and clearly incredible. SCRA 600 (2012)

In Ocampo v. Comelec 325 SCRA 636, it was reiterated that if Verification – (Defective verification) The verification of a
only one candidate obtained all the votes in some precincts, this pleading is only a formal, not jurisdictional requirement. The
is not sufficient to make the election returns statistically purpose of requiring the verification is to secure an assurance
improbable. that the allegations in the petition are true and correct, not
merely speculative. This requirements is simply a condition
Imelda Dimaporo vs. Comelec/Vicente Belmonte 544 SCRA affecting the form of pleadings, and non compliance therewith
381 - (Sec. 15 of RA 7166) provides that for the purpose of the does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.
elections for president, VP, senator & member of the HR, no
pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to Nature of Election controversy – An election controversy, by
the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation its nature, touches upon the ascertainment of the people’s
of ER or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be, except choice as gleaned from the medium of the ballot. For this
as provided for in Sec. 30 hereof. However, this does not reason, an election protest should jibe resolved with utmost
preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu dispatch, precedence and regard of due process. Obstacles
propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to and technicalities that fetter the people’s will should not stand in
correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or ER before the way of a prompt determination of election contests. Thus,
it). rules on the verification of protests should be liberally
construed.
Rommel Munoz vs. Comelec, Carlos Balido Jr. 495 SCRA
407 - “Results of the Elections” Defined – the phrase “results of Court upheld the jurisdiction of HRET as the sole judge of all
the election” is not statutorily defined. However, as explained contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
in Lucero v. Comelec it means “the net result of the election the member of the HRET.
rest of the precincts in a given constituency, such that if the
margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest rival in the Salvador D. Viologo, Sr., v. Comelec 658 SCRA 516 (2011)
latter precincts is less than the total number of votes in the
precinct where there was failure of election, than such failure Facts: Motion for reconsideration was denied by Comelec en
would certainly affect “the results of the elections.” banc for lack of verification as required by Section 3, Rule 20 of
the Comelec Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated
EFFECT OF ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE OF CANDIDATE Election System and Section 3, Rule 19 of CRP.
ELECT/WHEN PPC IS NOT DEEMED TERMINATED – A pre-
proclamation controversy is no longer viable after the Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject liberal
proclamation of the winning candidates as the issues raised construction. In Quintos v. Comelec (440 Phil. 1045; 392
therein may be more closely examined and better resolved in SCRA 489 (2002)), this Court held that “the lack of verification
an EP. (RA 7166, Section 16 (2)). of private respondent’s Manifestation and Motion for Partial
Reconsideration is merely a technicality that should not defeat
However, this is only true where the proclamation is based on a the will of the electorate. The Comelec may liberally construe
complete canvass and on the assumption that the proclamation or even suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice,
is valid where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matter pending
is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s before the Comelec.”
assumption of office cannot deprive the Comelec of the power
to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. Nature of Election Protest: In Pacanan v. Comelec 597
SCRA 189 (2009), the Court, in clarifying the mandated liberal
Section 16 of RA 7166 provides that all-pre- construction of election laws held: An election contest, unlike
proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public interest. The
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of office purpose of an election protest is to ascertain that the candidate
involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of
shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of
regular election protest by the aggrieved party. HOWEVER, votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning
proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence candidate. An election contest therefore involves not only the
thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival
appears meritorious and accordingly issued an order for the candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public
proceedings to continue or when appropriate order has been concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over
issued by the SC in a petition for certiorari the real choice of the electorate. And the court has the
corresponding duty to ascertain, by all means within its
ELECTION PROTEST command, who is the real candidate elected by the people.

An EP is a special statutory proceedings designed to Moreover, the CRP are subject to a liberal construction. This
contest the right of a person, declared elected to enter upon liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and
and hold office. It is strictly a contest between the defeated and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the
winning candidates as to who actually obtained the majority of holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections
the legal votes and therefore, is entitled to hold office. and for achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination and disposition of every action and proceeding
NATURE OF PROCEEDING - It is a formal judicial proceedings brought before the Comelec.
that goes into the correctness of the counting and appreciation
of ballots at the precinct level were the parties are allowed to This principle was reiterated in the more recent consolidated
present and examine evidence in detail. cases of Tolentino v. Comelec 617 SCRA 575 (2010) and De
Castro vs. Comelec 617 SCRA 575, where the Court held that
WHO CAN FILE – can only be filed by a candidate who has in exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for. mandate to ptoetect the integrity of elections, the Comelec
“must not be straijackedted by procedural rules in resolving
PERIOD TO FILE – within 10 days from proclamation election disputes.”

GROUNDS – fraud, vote-buying, terrorism, presence of flying Douglas R. Cagas v. Comelec/Bautista 663 SCRA 644
voters, misreading and misappreciation of the ballots, (2012) - The Court has no power to review on certiorari an
disenfranchisement of voters, other election irregularities. interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a
Division of the Comelec. The governing provision is Section
7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: Section
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 33

7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its a trial court in an electoral protest was within the appellate
Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days jurisdiction of the Comelec.
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon Since it is the Comelec which has jurisdiction to take
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the RTC in
the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. election contests involving elective municipal officials (Sec. 8
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any Rule 14 CRP), then it is also the Comelec which has jurisdiction
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. This provision, although Although Galang involved a petition for certiorari of an
it confers on the Court the power to review any decision, order interlocutory order of the RTC in a municipal election contest,
or ruling of the Comelec, limits such power to a final decision or the rationale for the above ruling applied to an interlocutory
resolution of the Comelec en banc and does not extend to an order issued by a municipal trial court in a barangay election
interlocutory order issued by a Division of the Comelec. case. Under Rule 14, Section 8 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,
Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on certiorari decisions of municipal trial courts in election contests involving
an interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a barangay officials are appealed to the Comelec. Following the
Division of the Comelec. Galang doctrine, it is the Comelec which has jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari involving acts of the municipal
Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec/Dante Tinga 648 trial courts in such election contests.
SCRA 561 (2011) – The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction
to review an order, whether final or interlocutory even a ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR v. COMELEC AND DAN
final resolution of a division of the Comelec – the Court can ERASMO, SR. 674 SCRA 530 (2012)
only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the
Comelec en banc in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of Demarcation line between the jurisdiction of the Comelec
the Constitution, a rule which admits of exceptions as when the and the House of Representatives: Facts: In May 2007
issuance of the assailed interlocutory order is a patent nullity Jalosjos ran for Mayor of Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte and
because of the absence of jurisdiction to issue the same. (Court won. While serving as Tampilisan Mayor, he bought a
made reference to the case of Repol v. Comelec 428 SCRA residential house and lot in Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil,
321 (2004) which was affirmed in Soriano Jr. v. Comelec 520 Zamboanga Sibugay and occupied it in September 2008. Eight
SCRA 88 (2007) and Blanco v. Comelec 554 SCRA 755. months after, he applied with the ERB of Ipil, Zamboanga
Ruling in Soriano. . . “In the 2004 case of Repol v. Comelec, Sibugay for the transfer of his voters registration record which
the Court cited Ambil and held that this Court has no power to application was opposed by Erasmo in a petition for exclusion
review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final before the MCTC of Ipil-Tungawan. RTC ruled to exclude
resolution of a division of the Comelec. However, the Court Jalosjos on the ground that Jalosjos did not abandon his
held that an exception to this rule applies where the commission domicile im Tampilisan since he continue even then to serve as
of grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its face. In Repol, its Mayor. Jalosjos appealed his case to the RTC of Pagadian
what was assailed was a status quo ante Order without any City which affirmed the MCTC decision on September 11, 2009.
time limit, and more than 20 days had lapsed since its issuance Jalosjos elevated the matter to the CA through a petition for
without the Comelec First Division issuing a writ of preliminary certiorari with an application for the issuance of a writ of
injunction. The Court held that the status quo ante Order of the preliminary injunction which was granted and enjoined the
Comelec First Division was actually a temporary restraining courts below from enforcing their decisions, with the result that
order because it ordered Repol to cease and desist from his name was reinstated in the Barangay Veterans Village’s list
assuming the position of municipal mayor of Pagsanghan, pending the resolution of the petition.
Samar and directed Ceracas to assume the post in the
meantime. Since the status quo ante Order, which was On November 28, 2009, Jalosjos filed his CoC for the position
qualified by the phrase “until further orders from this of representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay
Commission.” Had a lifespan of more than 20 days, this Order for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a Petition to deny
clearly violates the rule that a temporary restraining Order has due course to or cancel his CoC before the Comelec, claiming
an effective period of only 20 days and automatically expires that Jalosjos made material misrepresentations in his CoC
upon the Comelec’s denial of preliminary injunction.” when he indicated in it that he resided in Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay. The Second Division of the Comelec issued a joint
Ceriaco Bulilis v. Victorino Nuez, Presiding Judge of MCTC, reso dismissing the petition of Erasmo for insufficiency in form
Ubay Bohol, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 52, Talibon, and substance. While Erasmo’s MR was pending before the
Bohol 655 SCRA 241 (2011) - Facts: Bulilis was proclaimed Comelec En Banc, the May 10, 2010 elections took place
winner for the elections for punong barangay. Opponent resulting in Jalosjos winning the elections and was proclaimed
Victorino Nuez filed an EP (for judicial recount and annulment of on May 13, 2010.
proclamation) with MCTC. The counsel of Bulilis filed his brief
at 1:45pm on the date of preliminary conference and when the In June 2, 2010, the CA rendered judgment in the voter’s
case was heard at 2pm, Nuez moved in open court to be exclusion case before it holding that the lower courts erred in
allowed to present evidence ex parte since Bulilis only filed his excluding Jalosjos since he was qualified under the Constitution
brief on the date of the preliminary conference which is contrary and RA 8189. Erasmo filed a petition for review of the CA
to Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. No. 08-4-15-SC which provides that decision before the SC. On the other hand, Comelec en banc
the brief should be filed at least one (1) day before the date of granted the MR of Erasmo and declared Jalosjos ineligible as
the preliminary conference. Judge Garces granted the motion. he did not satisfy the residency requirement since, by
continuing to hold the position of Mayor in Tampilisan, he
Bulilis filed MR which was denied by MCTC. Bulilis filed should be deemed not to have transferred his residence form
certiorari with RTC which was dismissed on the ground that it is that place to Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
Comelec that has exclusive jurisdiction in election cases
involving municipal and barangay officials. Hence, the petition While the Constitution vests in the Comelec the power to decide
for certiorari with the SC. all questions affecting elections, such power is not without
limitation. It does not extend to contests relating to the election,
(Rule 28, Sections 1 and 2 of CRP/Section 12 Amendments to returns, and qualifications of members of the HR and the
Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court/Section 8, Rule Senate. The Constitution vests the resolution of these contests
14 of Comelec CRP ). Based on these rules, the Court solely upon the appropriate Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or
recognizes the Comelec’s appellate jurisdiction over petitions the HR.
for certiorari against all acts or omissions of courts in election
cases. Indeed, in the recent case of Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo The Court has already settled the question of when the
643 SCRA 631 (2011), the Court had the opportunity to rule jurisdiction of the Comelec ends and when that of the HRET
that a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of begins. The proclamation of a congressional candidates
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 34

following the election divests Comelec of jurisdiction over

disputes relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the 2) SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL – for members of
proclaimed Representative in favor of HRET. senate as sole judge over all contest relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of its own members. Filed within 15
QUO WARRANTO days from date of proclamation. Not subject to judicial review
except on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
A petition for Quo Warranto refers to questions of disloyalty or excess of jurisdiction. (1987 Constitution)
ineligibility of the winning candidate. It has the effect of
disqualifying a candidate to hold office to which he is elected. 3) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
Its primordial objective is to prevent an elective official from TRIBUNAL – for members of HR to be filed within 10 days from
assuming office grounded on ineligibility. (Sec. 253 OEC) proclamation.

NATURE OF PROCEEDING – it is a proceeding to unseat the Composition - Each electoral tribunal shall be composed of nine
ineligible person from office, but not to install the protestant in members, three of whom shall be justices of the SC to be
his place. designated by the CJ and the remaining 6 members of the
senate or HR, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the
WHO CAN FILE – any voter. basis of their proportional representation from the political
PERIOD TO FILE - within 10 days from proclamation parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
party list system,. Senior justice shall be chairman (Art. VI,
Republic v. dela Rosa 232 SCRA 785, a QW assailing the Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution) .
public official’s title and seeking to prevent him from holding
office for alienage is not covered by the 10-days period for 4) COMELEC – for regional, provincial and city officials filed in
appeal prescribed in Section 253 of the OEC. 10 days. Subject to judicial review within 30 days from date of
receipt of decision by aggrieved party.
The distinction been an EP and QW as a remedy is not
the label given to it but the allegations therein stated. If a Article IX-C, Section 2(2) 1987 Constitution, Comelec
petition alleges fraud and irregularity which vitiated the conduct shall “Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all contests
of the election, although entitled QW, is an EP and vice versa. relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective,
In view of these fundamental differences, an EP and QW regional, provincial and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
cannot be availed of jointly in the same proceeding. They may over all contests involving municipal officials decided by trial
be filed separately with the second and later case suspended courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
until the earlier is resolved. An action for QW cannot be officials decided by courts of limited jurisdictions. Decisions,
converted into an EP. final order, or rulings of the Commission, on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final,
Penera vs. Comelec 599 SCRA 609, is the well-established executory and not appealable.”
principle that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority
votes does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest Mendoza v. Comelec 616 SCRA 443 – There is a difference in
number of votes to be declared elected. In this case, the rules the result of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Comelec over
on succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code election contests. The difference inheres in the kind of
shall apply which states that” if a permanent vacancy occurs in jurisdiction invoked, which in turn, is determined by the case
the office of the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor concerned shall become brought before the Comelec. When a decision of a trial court is
the mayor. A permanent vacancy arises when an elective local brought before the Comelec for it to exercise appellate
official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails jurisdiction, the division decides the appeal but, if there is a
to qualify or is removed from office, voluntarily resigned, or is motion for reconsideration, the appeal proceeds to the banc
otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions where the majority is needed for a decision. If the process ends
of his office.” without the required majority at the banc, the appealed decision
stands affirmed.
(Virgnio Villamor vs. Comelec & Amytis de Dios-Batao 496
SCRA 334) As a general rule, the proper remedy after the Upon the other hand, and this is what happened in the instant
proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested case, if what is brought before the Comelec is an original
would be to file a regular election protest or a petition for QW. protest involving the original jurisdiction of the Commission, the
The filing of an EP or a petition for QW precludes the protest, as one whole process, is first decided by the division,
subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts which process is continued in the banc if there is a motion for
to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus, depriving the reconsideration of the division ruling. If no majority decision is
Comelec of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title reach in the banc, the protest, which is an original, shall be
of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason dismissed. There is no first instance decision that can be
is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of deemed affirmed.
an EP or a petition for QW, all questions relative thereto will
have to be decided in the case itself and not in another Hence, if no decision is reached after the case is reheard, there
proceedings. This procedure is to prevent confusion and are two different remedies available to the Comelec, to wit (1)
conflict of authority. dismiss the action or proceeding, if the case was originally
commenced in the Comelec; or (2) consider as affirmed the
Basarte vs. Comelec 523 SCRA 76 – The prevailing rule that judgment or order appealed from, in appealed cases. This rule
as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly adheres to the constitutional provision that the Comelec must
accomplished on their face, the BOC cannot look beyond or decide by a majority of all its members.
behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting
or the counting of the votes as it presupposes that the returns Relampagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690 (1995) and in Carlos
“appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face”. v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571 (2000), Comelec is vested with the
This principle does not apply in cases like the one at bar where power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine, only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction consistent with Section 50
several entries having been omitted in the assailed return. of BP 881 and Article 2(1) of the Constitution. These ruling
abandoned the earlier ruling in Garcia vs. de Jesus 206 SCRA
JURSIDCITON OVER ELECTION PROTESTS AND QUO 779. It was also declared that both the SC and Comelec has
WARRANTO concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
1) SUPREME COURT – sitting en banc as Presidential mandamus over decision of trial courts of general jurisdiction
Electoral Tribunal as sole judge of all contests relating to the (RTC) in election cases involving elective municipal officials.
election, returns and qualification of Pres. and VP. Protest to The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive
be filed 30 days from proclamation. Not subject to judicial jurisdiction over the case. (Art. VIII 5(1) 1987 Constitution,
review (1987 Constitution). Joke on Supreme Court body. Rule 65, Sec. 1)
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 35

Comelec en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

Section 7, Article IX-A and Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of for being pro-forma and conformably with Sec. 4 of Rule 19 of
Procedure. The Comelec in the exercise of its QJ functions to the CRP, the said motion did not suspend the running of the 30-
transact business “may sit en banc or in two divisions, and day period for the filing of the petition for certiorari under Sec. 7
shall promulgate rules and procedures” in order to expedite Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
the disposition of elections cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies and summon parties to a controversy pending The Comelec en banc ruled that the motion for reconsideration
before it.” was pro-forma on the ground that the motion was a mere
rehash of petitioners averments contained in his Verified
Answer and Memorandum, neither were new matters raised
The authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre- that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the assailed
proclamations controversies is vested with a division and the resolution of the Second Division.
Comelec sitting en banc does not have the authority over it in
the first instance. The Comelec en banc can exercise The SC ruled however that the mere reiteration in a motion for
jurisdiction only on Motions for Reconsideration of the reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed
resolution or decision of the Comelec in division as a upon by the court does not make a motion pro-forma;
requirement for the filing of a petition for certiorari by the otherwise, the movant’s remedy would not be a
aggrieved party with the SC within 30 days from receipt of a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some
copy thereof (Sec. 3 Art. IX-C). other remedy.

Sec. 2 Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure a motion In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for
to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division reconsideration , the SC referred to its decision in Guerra
shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Enterprises Company Inc., v. CFI of Lanao del Sur 32 SCRA
Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution for 314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought to be achieved in
implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling and the filing of a motion for reconsideration is “precisely to
would in effect, suspend the running of the period to elevate the convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and improper,
matter to the SC (Sec.4). contrary to the law or the evidence, and in doing so, the movant
has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the
5) REGIONAL TRIAL COURT – exclusive jurisdiction over all court. If a motion for reconsideration may not discuss these
contests relating to the election, qualifications and returns for issues, the consequence would be that after a decision is
municipal officials. Protest to be filed 10 days from date of rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing only
proclamation. Subject to appeal with Comelec within five (5) motions for reopening and new trial.
days from receipt of decision. Decisions of the Comeledc en
banc on contest on appeal involving municipal and barangay The SC further enumerated cases where a motion for
officials are final and executory except on grounds of grave reconsideration was held to be pro forma:
abuse of discretion within 30 days.
it was a second motion for reconsideration;
6) MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT – exclusive jurisdiction over all it did not comply with the rule that the motion must
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications for specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be
barangay officials. Protest to be filed within 10 days from contrary to law or not supported by the evidence;
proclamation. Appeal to the Comelec within 5 days from receipt it failed to substantiate the alleged errors;
of the decision. it merely alleged that the decision in question was
contrary to law
Calo v. Comelec 610 SCRA 342/Pecson v. Comelec 575 or the adverse party was not given due notice thereof.
SCRA 634 – decisions of the courts in election protest cases,
resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and Under Rule 13, (1) of the Comelec Rules of
a full blown adversarial proceedings. Should at least be given Procedure, a Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc
similar worth and recognition as decisions of the board of Resolution is a prohibited pleading, except in election
canvassers. This is especially true when attended by other offense cases (Sec. 261 of the OEC).
equally weighty circumstances of the case, such as the
shortness of the term of the contested elective office, of the Angelia v. Comelec 332 SCRA 757, the SC addressed the
case. issue on whether a party can go to the SC via a Petition on
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court during the
Mananzala vs. Comelec and Julie Monton 523 SCRA 31. - pendency of the MR filed with the Comelec en banc. Angelia
Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Election filed before the SC a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the
contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall resolution of the Comelec en banc annulling his proclamation
be final, executory and not appealable; All such election cases alleging that he was not given due notice and hearing. Without
shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for waiting for the resolution on his motion, Angelia filed the
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the instant petition on the sole assignment of error that Comelec
Commission en banc. violated his constitutional right to due process. Comelec raised
that the petition should be dismissed for being premature
A decision of the RTC was raised on appeal which was heard considering that the MR of petitioner was still pending with the
nd
by the 2 division which reversed the decision of the RTC. In Comelec en banc and that he should have first withdrawn the
nd
his MR petitioner argues that the MR filed with the former 2 MR before raising the said resolution with the SC.
division “has thrown the whole case wide open for review as
in a trial de novo in a criminal case” yet Comelec en banc SC held that petitioner acted correctly in filing the petition
failed to conduct a thorough review of the contested ballots. because the resolution of the Comelec en banc is not subject to
Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal reconsideration, and therefore, any party who disagrees with it
cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, had only one recourse, that was to file a petition for certiorari
the whole case is thrown open for review and the appellate under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The filing of the
court can resolve issues which are not even set forth in the petition would in effect constitute as an abandonment of his MR
pleadings. with the Comelec.

Coquilla vs. Comelec, et. al. G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, What is contemplated by the term “final orders, rulings and
the SC resolved the issue on whether the 30-day period for decisions of the Comelec that may be reviewable by the SC
appealing the resolution of the Comelec was suspended by the on Certiorari? The SC in Garces v. Court of Appeals 259
filing of a motion for reconsideration by petitioner. Private SCRA 99 (1996) and Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v.
respondent in this case contends that the petition should be Ferrer 135 SCRA 25 (1985), the interpreted the term ”final
dismissed because it was filed late considering that the orders, rulings and decisions of the Comelec reviewable by the
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 36

SC on certiorari as provided by law are those rendered in

actions or proceedings before the Comelec and taken Sec. 3, Rule 22 of the CRP ( Appeals form
cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its quasi- decisions of Courts in election Protest Cases), mandates
judicial powers. that the notice of appeal must be filed with 5-days after the
promulgation of the decision. On the other hand, Section 3 & 4
PRINCIPLES COMMON TO ALL ELECTION CONTESTS Rule 40 of the CRP amended the amount of the appeal fees to
3.2K which should be paid with the cash division of the
1) WHO MAY FILE – a candidate who has duly filed a Comelec.
COC and has been voted for.
On the other hand, Section 8 & 9, Rule 14 of A.M.
2) Jurisdiction Allegations – (1) protestant was a No. 07-4-15 SC (Rules of procedure in Election Contests
candidate who had duly filed a COC and had been before the Court Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay
voted for the same office (2) that the protestee has Officials effective May 15, 2007) also provide the procedure of
been proclaimed (3) that the petition was filed within instituting an appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid for
10 days after proclamation (4) that fraud and election the appeal to be given due course.
irregularities vitiated the conduct of the elections and
affected the legality thereof. This requirement in the payment of appeal fees had
caused much confusion, which the Comelec addressed through
Miguel v. Comelec 335 SCRA 172, the SC ruled that it is the the issuance of Comelec Res. No. 8486 on July 15, 2008.
ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the The salient feature of the said resolution provide that “the
ballot boxes, examination and counting of ballots deposited appeal to the Comelec of the trial court’s decision in
thereunder whenever there is averment in an election protest election contests involving municipal and barangay
that requires the examination, scrutiny or counting of ballots as officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal
evidence. The purpose of opening the BB is to determine, with and payment of the 1K appeal fee to the court that rendered
the minimum amount of protracted delay, the truthfulness of the the decision within the 5-day reglementary period. The non-
allegations of fraud and anomalies in the conduct of electoral payment or the insufficient payment of the addition appeal fee
exercise. of 3.2K to the Comelec Cash Division in accordance with Rule
40, Section 3 of the CRP, as amended, does not affect the
CERTIFICATE OF FORUM SHOPPING perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or
ipso facto dismissal of the appeal.
The SC in Loyola v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995) and Lomarong
st
v. Dubguban 269 SCRA 624 (1997), it was ruled that the SC Comelec 1 division gravely abused its discretion in
Circular requiring that any complaint, petition or other initiatory issuing the order dismissing the appeal taking notice that the
pleading must contain a non-forum certification applies to notice of appeal and the 1K appeal fee were, respectively filed
election cases. The requirement is mandatory, not and paid with the MTC on April 21, 2008 which date the appeal
jurisdictional, non-compliance therewith may warrant the was perfected. Comelec Res. 8486 clarifying the rule on the
dismissal of the election case. payment of appeal fees was issued only on July 15, 2008, or
almost 3-months after the appeal was perfected. Yet on July
PAYMENT OF APPEAL/FILING FEES 31, 2008 or barely two weeks after the issuance of Comelec
st
Res. 8486, the Comelec 1 division dismissed the appeal for
Pacanan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 597 SCRA 189 non-payment of the 3.2K appeal fee.
Aguilar v. Comelec 591 SCRA 491 - Petitioner Pacanan, Jr.
and private respondent Langi Sr., were candidates for mayor in Considering that petitioner filed his appeal months
the municipality of Motiong, Samar during the May 14, 2007 before the clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, the
elections. Petitioner was proclaimed having garnered a total of appeal should not be unjustly prejudiced by Comelec Res.
st
3,069 votes against private respondent’s 3,066 votes. No. 8486. Fairness and prudence dictate the 1 division
should have first directed petitioner to pay the additional appeal
On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed an election fee in accordance with the clarificatory resolution. Instead it
protest with the RTC which rendered a Decision on January 7, hastily dismissed the appeal on the strength of the clarificatory
2008 RTC declaring private respondent as winner with a resolution which had taken effect only a few days earlier. (This
plurality of 6 votes. 3 days after or on January 10, 2008 unseemly haste is an invitation to outrage.) Court further
petitioner filed a notice of appeal and paid 3K appeal fee before stressed the liberal construction policy.
the RTC and also appealed the RTC decision to the Comelec.
Out of the 3K appeal fee required under Sec. 3, Rule 40 of the Villagracia v. Comelec 513 SCRA 655 (2007), while it is true
Comelec Rules of Procedure, petitioner only paid 1K plus 200 that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case upon complete
to cover the legal research/bailiff fees. On March 17, 2008 payment of the prescribed filing fee, the rule admits of
Comelec 1st division issued on Order dismissing the appeal on exceptions, as when a party never raised the issue of
the ground that petitioner failed to pay the correct appeal fee jurisdiction in the trial court.
within the 5-days reglementary period which is a ground for the
dismissal of the appeal under Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the Gomez-Castillo v. Comelec 621 SCRA 499 – The period of
CRP. On March 28, 2008 petitioner filed a MR with the appeal and the perfection of appeal are not mere technicalities
Comelec En Banc which denied the resolution declaring that the to be so lightly regarded, for they are essential to the finality of
appeal was not perfected on time for non-payment of the judgments, a notion underlying the stability of our judicial
complete amount of appeal and for late payment as well, hence, system. The short period of 5-days as the period to appeal
did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. recognizes the essentiality of time in election protests, in order
that the will of the electorate is ascertained as soon as possible
Before the SC is a petition for Certiorari raising that 1) so that the winning candidate is not deprived of the right to
Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to assume office, and so that any doubt that can cloud the
lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the correct appeal incumbent of the truly deserving winning candidate is quickly
fee was not paid on time; 2) In failing to consider, that assuming removed.
that the correct appeal fee was not paid on time, the alleged
non-payment is not in anyway attributable to petitioner; 3) that Zanoras v. Comelec G.R. No. 158610 November 12, 2004,
assuming the correct appeal fee was not paid on time, there are the mere filing of the notice of appeal was not enough. It should
highly justifiable and compelling reasons to resolve the subject be accompanied by the payment of the correct amount of
case on the merit in the interest of justice and public interest. appeal fee. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is
an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. (Rulloda
The SC noted that two (2) different tribunals earlier v. Comelec 245 SCRA 702)
require the payment of two different appeal fees for the
perfection of the appeals of election cases.
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 37

Loyola v. Comelec 337 SCRA 134 (1997), the Court stressed Camlian v. Comelec 271 SCRA, executions pending appeal
that there is no longer any excuse for shortcoming in the must be strictly construed against the movant as it is an
payment of filing fees. The Court held that in the case at bar exception to the general rule on execution of judgments.
“any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any
failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases Ramas v. Comelec 286 SCRA 189, what may constitute “good
which may be filed after the promulgation of this decision is no reasons’ for execution pending appeal
longer acceptable (March 25, 1977). The Loyola doctrine was
reiterated in the subsequent cases of Miranda v. Castillo 274 The public interest involved or the will of the
SCRA 503, Soller v. Comelec 339 SCRA 684 hold that a court electorate
acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of The shortness of the remaining period of the term of
the prescribed docket fees and errors in the payment of the the contested office
filing fee is no longer allowed. The length of time that the election contest has been
pending.
EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
The filing of a bond alone does not constitute good
TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON V. COMELEC/LUIS reasons. Nevertheless, the trial court may require the filing of a
BAUTISTA/ROBELITO V. PICAR/WILMA P. PAGADUAN 678 bond as condition for the issuance of the corresponding writ of
SCRA 267 (2012) execution to answer for the payment of damages which the
aggrieved party may suffer by reason of the execution pending
Executions Pending Appeal - There is no reason to dispute appeal.
the Comelec’s authority to order discretionary execution of
judgment in view of the fact that the suppletory application of Fernando U. Batul v. Lucilo Bayron, et. al. 424 SCRA 26,
the Rules of Court is expressly sanctioned by Section 1, Rule execution pending appeal in the discretion of the courts applies
41 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Under Section 2, Rule suppletorily in election cases including those involving city and
39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal may be provincial officials to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected
issued by an appellate court after the trial court has lost candidate as determined either by the Court or by Comelec.
jurisdiction. In Batul v. Bayron 424 SCRA 26 (2004), the Court The Comelec resolution granting execution pending appeal (by
stressed the import of the provision vis-à-vis election cases virtue of its original exclusive jurisdiction over all contest relating
when we held that judgments in election cases which may be to the E, R and Q of provincial and city officials) was raised
executed pending appeal includes those decided by trial courts before the SC arguing that Sec. 2 Rule 39 cannot be applied
and those rendered by the Comelec whether in the exercise of and the only ground that will validly sustain execution of a
its original or appellate jurisdiction. decision by a Comelec division pending reconsideration is when
the MR is not pro forma.
Saludaga vs. Comelec 617 SCRA 601 – The discretion to
allow execution pending reconsideration belongs to the division Case of Ramas did not declare that such remedy is exclusive
that rendered the assailed decision, order or resolution, or the only to election contests involving elective municipal and
Comelec en banc, as the case may be – not to the presiding barangay officials. Sec. 1 of Rule 41 of the Comelec Rules of
Commissioner. A writ of execution pending resolution of the MR Procedure expressly provides that pertinent provisions of the
of a decision of the division is not granted as a matter of right Rules of Court shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory
such that its issuance becomes a ministerial duty that may be character.
dispensed even just by the Presiding Commission.
Navarosa v. Comelec 411 SCRA, the RTC in an election
Calo v. Comelec 610 SCRA 342 – The relevant rule provides protest case granted execution pending appeal by Esto after
that a motion for execution pending appeal filed by the finding that Esto won in the said election. In the same order the
prevailing party shall contain a 3-day notice to the adverse party judge allowed protestee Navaroza to stay the execution of the
and execution pending appeal shall not issue without prior decision pending appeal by filing a supersedeas bond in double
notice and hearing. The purpose of these requirements is to the amount posted by the protestant.. A Petition for Ceriorari
avoid surprises that may sprung upon the adverse party who nd
was filed by Esto with the Comelec where the Comelec 2
must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the division affirmed the trial court’s order granting execution
motion before a resolution by the court. Where a party had the pending appeal and nullified the stay of the execution. The
opportunity to be heard, then the purpose has been served and Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion as it is for Comelec
the requirement substantially complied with. In this case, even in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to issue the
the Comelec admitted that respondent was heard and afforded extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition mandamus and
his day in court; hence, it should not have annulled the RTC injunction over all contest involving elective municipal officials
special order on said ground. decided by the trial court of general jurisdiction elevate on
appeal, and NOT the trial court, that may order the stay or
San Miguel vs. Comelec 609 SCRA 424 – The law provides restrain the immediate execution of the decision pending appeal
that the court “may” issue execution pending appeal. Evident granted by the trail court of general jurisdiction in an election
from the usage of the word “may”, the language of the subject contest.
provision denotes that it is merely directory, not mandatory, for
the trial court to issue the special order before the expiration of Except when the trial court reversed itself in a MR of its
the period to appeal. The trial court may still thereafter resolve order granting immediate execution, it cannot later on stay or
a motion for execution pending appeal, provided: (i) the motion restrain the execution thereof in the guise of allowing the losing
is filed within the 5-day reglementary period; and (ii) the special party to file a supersedeas bond. The issue before the trial
order is issued prior to the transmittal of the records of the court where a motion for execution pending appeal is filed is to
Comelec. determine whether or not there are “good reasons” to justify the
immediate execution pending appeal. The issue is not whether
Malaluan v. Comelec 254 SCRA 397, this was the first case there are good reasons to stay the immediate execution of the
where a judge, acting without a precedent, granted the motion decision pending appeal.
for execution of its decision in an election protest case, pending
appeal. It was ruled that Sec. 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court LIM VS. COMELEC ET. AL. G.R. NO. 171952 March 08, 2007;
which allowed the RTC to order execution pending appeal upon Torres vs. Abundo, Sr. 512 SCRA 556; - Before granting a
good reasons stated in a special order, may be made to apply motion for execution pending appeal in election cases, the SC
by analogy or suppletorily to election contest decided by it. The laid down the following requisites –
posting of the supersedeas bond was considered good reasons (1) there must be motion by the prevailing party with
by the judge. notice to the adverse party
(2) there must be good reasons for the execution pending
appeal
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 38

(3) the order granting execution pending appeal must death. The Court pursuant to Rule 3, Section 15 of the rules of
state the good reasons. Court, however, allowed substitution and intervention upon the
Good reasons (Fermo v. Comelec) death of the protestee but by a real party in interest, one who
1) public interest involved or will of the electorate would be benefited or injured by the judgment and entitled to
2) shortness of the remaining term of the contested office avail of the suit. In the Mencias and Lumogdnag v. Javier
3) length of time that the election contest has been cases, the Court permitted substitution by the VM since the VM
pending is the real party in interest considering that if the protest
succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the VM succeeds to
Istarul vs. Comelec 491 SCRA 300 (2006) – the length of time the office of the mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly
that the election protest has been pending, thus, leaving elected cannot assume office.
petitioner only 21 months as the remaining portion of the term to
serve as mayor, does not constitute “good reasons” to justify The Court further held, that nobility of intentions is not the point
execution pending appeal. Referring to Fermo, the SC held that in reference in determining whether a person may intervene in
“shortness of term”: alone and by itself cannot justify premature an election protest case.
execution. It must be manifest in the decision sought to be
executed that the defeat of the protestee and the victory of the PROSECUTION OF ELECTION CASES
protestant has been clearly established.”
Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the
Trillanes IV. Vs. Pimentel, Sr. 556 SCRA 471 (relate to Comelec the power and function to investigate and where
Rodolfo Aguinaldo on the condonation issue) – The case appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
against Trillanes is not administrative in nature. And there is no including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
“prior term’ to speak of. In a plethora of cases, the Court offenses and malpractices. This prosecutorial power of the
categorically held that the doctrine of condonation does not Comelec is reflected in Section 265 of BP 881. It is well settled
apply to criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, election to that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election
office, does not obliterate a criminal charge. Petitioners offenses rests in the Comelec’s sound discretion. (Garcia v.
electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters Comelec 611 SCRA 55 Jan. 2010)
elected him to the Senate, “they did so with full awareness of
the limitations on his freedom of action and with the knowledge Comelec v. Noynay, July 9, 1998, the Comelec resolved to file
that he could achieve only such legislative results which he an Information for violation of Section 261(i) of the OEC against
could accomplish within the confines of prison. certain public school officials for having engaged in partisan
political activities which was filed by its Regional Director with
CAN DAMAGES BE AWARDED IN ELECTION PROTEST Branch 23 of RTC of Allen Northern Samar presided by Judge
CASES Tomas B. Noynay. The judge ordered the records of the cases
to be withdrawn and directed the Comelec to file the cases with
Malaluan vs. Comelec, the Court ruled that damages cannot the MTC on the ground that pursuant to Section 32 of BP 129
be granted in an election protest case ratiocinating that the as amended by RA 7691, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
provision of law allowing damages under specific cases since the maximum imposable penalty in each of the
circumstances, more particularly compensatory and actual cases does not exceed 6 years imprisonment. The SC ruled
damages is provided under Article 2176 of the Civil Code which that RA 7691 did not divest the RTC of jurisdiction over election
is appropriate only in breaches of obligations in contracts and offenses which are punishable with imprisonment of not
QC and on the occasion of crimes and QD where the defendant exceeding 6 years. The opening sentence of Section 32,
may be held liable for damages the proximate cause of which is provides that the exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan
the act or omission complained of. Trial Courts, MTC and MCTC does not cover those criminal
cases which by specific provisions of law fall within the
Therefore, the monetary claim of a party in an election case exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the SB, regardless of
must necessarily be anchored in contract, QC, or a tortiuos act the penalty prescribed therefore.
or omission of a crime in order to effectively recover actual or
compensatory damages. In the absence of any or all of these, Comelec vs. Espanol 417 SCRA 554, it was ruled that the
the claimant must be able to point out a specific provision of law Comelec, thru its duly authorized legal officers, under Section
authorizing a money claim for election protest expenses against 265 of the OEC, has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
the losing party. investigation of all election offenses punishable under the OEC
and to prosecute the same. The acts of these deputies within
The bonds or cash deposits required by the Comelec the lawful scope of their delegated authority are the acts of the
Rules of Procedure are in the nature of filing fees not damages Comelec.

Garcia v. Commission on Elections 611 SCRA 55 –

Generally, the Court will not interfere with the finding of
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN AN ELECTION PROTEST probable cause by the Comelec absent a clear showing of
CASE grave abuse of discretion.

Fernando Poe v. Arroyo March 29, 2005, the Court resolved the Pp. v. Inting July 25, 1990, Comelec is given exclusive
issue on whether the widow may substitute/intervene for the authority to investigate and conduct preliminary investigations
protestant who die during the pendency of the latter’s protest relative to commission of election offenses and prosecute the
case. same. A preliminary investigation conducted by the Provincial
Election Supervisor involving an election offense does not have
The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC
election protest is Rule 14 of the PET Rules which provides may take cognizance of the investigation and determine
“only the registered candidate for Pres. or VP of the Philippines whether or not probable cause exist to issue a warrant of arrest.
nd rd
who received the 2 and 3 highest number of votes may If the Provincial Prosecutor performs any role at all as regards
contest the election of the P and VP, as the case may be, by the prosecution of an election case, it is by delegation or that he
filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the PET within 30 days was deputized by the Comelec.
after the proclamation of the winner.
Faelnar v. People 331 SCRA 429, (a) where the State
The Court made reference in its ruling in Vda de Mesa Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor exercises the power
v. Mencias where it rejected substitution by the widow or the to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense cases
heirs in election contest where the protestant dies during the and after the investigation submits its recommendation to the
pendency of the protest on the grounds that the heirs are not Comelec, the issue of probable cause is already resolved. The
real parties in interest and that a public office is personal to the proper remedy to question the said resolution is to file an
public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon
 ELECTION LAWS REVIEW 39

appeal with the COMELEC and the ruling of the Comelec on information and the amended information themselves, is
the appeal would be immediately final and executory. declared void and of no effect.

(b) If the preliminary investigation of the complaint for an Kilosbayan vs. Comelec 280 SCRA 892, Kilosbayan filed a
election offence is conducted by the Comelec, the investigation letter-complaint with the Comelec against incumbent officials
officer prepares its recommendation to the Law Department running for public elective office for violation of Sec. 261 of the
which department in turn makes its recommendation to the OEC alleging illegal disbursement of public funds and
Comelec en banc on whether there is probable cause to submitting as evidence to support the complaint, published
prosecute. It is the Comelec en banc which determines the writings in newspapers without any additional evidence to
existence of probable cause. The proper remedy of the support the newspaper articles on the argument that it was the
aggrieved party is to file a Motion for Reconsideration of such Comelec’s constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses
resolution. This effectively allows for a review of the original upon any information of alleged commission of election
resolution, in the same manner that the Comelec on appeal, or offenses. The Comelec dismissed the complaint there being on
motu propio, may review the resolution of the State prosecutor, probable cause found. The SC rued that it is not the duty of
or Provincial or city fiscal. (Take note that since this is an the Comelec to search for evidence to prove an election
election offense a Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc complaint filed before it. The task of Comelec as
resolution is allowed.) investigator and prosecutor is not the physical searching
and gathering of proof in support of the alleged
Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and commission of an election offense. The complainant still
Comelec, the SC upheld the power of Comelec to prosecute has the burden to prove his complaint.
cases of violations of election laws and further explained that
there are two (2) ways through which a complaint for
election offenses may be initiated.

(1) it may be filed by the Comelec motu propio or

(2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen
of the Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition
of political parties or organizations under the party-list system or
any accredited citizen arms of the commission.

Motu propio complaints may be signed by the

Chairman of the Comelec and need not be verified. But those
complaints filed by parties other than the Comelec must be
verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence.

The complaint shall be filed with the Comelec Law

Department or with the offices of the EO, PES or RED, or the
State Prosecutors, provincial or city prosecutors. Whether
initiated motu propio or filed with the Comelec by any party, the
complaint shall be referred to the Comelec Law Department for
investigation. Upon the direction of the Chairman, the PI may
be delegated to any lawyer of the Department, any RED or
PES, or any Comelec lawyer.

Comelec v. Silva Feb. 10, 1998, the SC settled the issue as to

whether the Chief State Prosecutor, who was designated by the
Comelec to prosecute election cases, has the authority to
decide whether or not to appeal from the orders of dismissal of
the RTC. It was held that the authority belongs to the Comelec
and not the prosecutor as the latter derive its authority from the
Comelec and not from their offices. Propriety dictates, that if
the prosecutor believes, after the conduct of the PI, that no
probable cause warrants the prosecution of the accused who
have allegedly violated Sec. 27 of RA 6646 (tampering of
certificate of canvass), the matter would have been discussed
with the Comelec and if the latter disagrees, seek permission to
withdraw from the case.

Dino vs. Olivares 607 SCRA 251 (2009). The SC held that
being mere deputies or agents of the Comelec (with continuing
authority), provincial or city prosecutors deputized by it are
expected to act in accord with and NOT contrary to or in
derogation of its resolutions, directives or orders in relation to
election cases that such prosecutors are deputized to
investigate and prosecute. They must proceed within the lawful
scope of their delegated authority.

Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by the

Comelec, either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment
such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the
integrity of the process to promote the common good, or where
it believes that successful prosecution of the case can be done
by the Comelec.

When the Comelec en banc directed the City Prosecutor of

Paranaque to transmit the entire records of the election offense
case, it had the effect of SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of
the City Prosecutor. Hence, the filing of the amended