TOPIC 2

IV. FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION

A. ELECTIONS
B. PLEBISCITE
C. INITIATIVE
D. REFERENDUM
E. RECALL

A. ELECTIONS

It is the means by which the people choose, through the use of the ballot, their
officials for definite and fixed periods and to whom they entrust, for the time
being as their representatives, the exercise of powers of government. An
embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the
people.

Specifically, the term election, in the context of the Constitution may refer to the:
- Conduct of polls
- Listing of voters
- Holding of the electoral campaign
- Casting and counting of the votes

Kinds of Elections Discussion

1. Regular Election An election held on such dates established by law at regular
intervals. Whether national or local, it refers to an election
participated in by:
a. those who possess the right of suffrage and
b. not disqualified by law and
c. who are registered voters.

2. Special Elections Election not regularly held but which is conducted

§ to supply a vacancy in a particular office before the
expiration of the full term for which the incumbent
was elected. Sec. 4 of RA 7166 provides that, “in case
a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or
House of Representative at least one (1) year before
the expiration of the term, the Comelec shall call and
hold a special elections to fill the vacancy not earlier
than 60 days nor longer than 90 days after the
occurrence of the vacancy.

Page 1
 § Article VI, Section 9, Constitution provides that in
case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special
elections shall be held simultaneously with the next
succeeding regular elections.
§ Article VII, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, in case a
vacancy occurs in the offices of the President and
Vice-President, with the limitation that no special
elections can be called if the vacancy occurs within
18 months before the date of the next presidential
elections.
§ In cases were a postponement and failure of
elections are declared by the Comelec in accordance
with Sections 5, 6, 7 of B.P. 881. [Lucero v. Comelec
234 SCRA 280 (1994); Borja v. Comelec 260 SCRA 604
(1996)]. In fixing the date for special elections the
Comelec should see to it that:
1. special elections should be held not be later than
thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of the
postponement or suspension of the
2. special elections should be reasonably close to the
date of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in the failure to elect.

3. Manual Manual/mechanical casting/voting, counting, and

Elections canvassing stages which involves the following –
a. Use of paper “write-in” ballots during the casting
stage;
b. The “direct reading and manual tallying of votes” in
multiple copies of election returns (ER); and
c. The manual addition of results in Statement of Votes
(SOVs) and the Certificates of Canvass (COCs).

4. Automated A system using appropriate technology which has been

Election System demonstrated in the voting, counting, consolidating,
(AES) canvassing, and transmission of election result, and other
electoral process. (Sec. 2, RA 9369, The Automated Election
System Law, As Amended)

Page 2
 Additional discussion
of the assigned cases

Jose Carlos vs. Hon. Adoracion Angeles, in her capacity as the Acting Presiding
Judge of RTC Caloocan City (Br. 125) and Antonio Serapio 364 SCRA 571

The trial Court set aside § There was no evidence on record that
the proclamation of petitioner Carlos had a hand in any of the
petitioner Carlos and irregularities that respondent Serapio averred. It is
declared respondent Serapio wrong for the trial court to state that petitioner
as the duly elected mayor of Carlos had control over the "election
Valenzuela City despite its paraphernalia" or over electric services. The
finding that petitioner Commission on Elections has control over election
garnered 83,609 valid votes paraphernalia, through its officials and deputies,
while respondent obtained as well as utilities such as electric and even
66,602 valid votes, or a telephone services during election period. What is
winning margin of 17,007 important, however, is that the voters of
votes. Valenzuela were able to cast their votes freely
and fairly. And in the election protest case, the
The trial court held that trial court was able to recount and determine the
the fraud was attributable to valid votes cast.
petitioner Carlos who had
control over the election § If the final tally of valid votes shall be set
paraphernalia and the basic aside because of the "significant badges of fraud",
services in the community the same would be tantamount to situation where
such as the supply of no valid votes cast at all for the candidates, and,
electricity. thus, no winner could be declared in the election
protest case. In short, there was failure of election.
The Supreme Court In such case, the proper remedy is an action before
held that the trial court acted the Commission on Elections en banc to declare a
without jurisdiction or with failure of election or to annul the election. The
grave abuse of discretion. trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure
of election.

§ Contrary to the trial court’s finding that

petitioner obtained 83,600 valid votes against
66,602 valid votes for the respondent as second
placer, or a plurality of 17,007 votes, the trial court
declared the second placer as the winner. This is
a blatant abuse of judicial discretion by any
account. It is a raw exercise of judicial function
in an arbitrary or despotic manner, amounting to
evasion of the positive duty to act in accord with

Page 3
 law.

§ The Court emphasized that election to office

is determined by the highest number of votes
obtained by a candidate in the election.

Manuel Sunga vs. COMELEC and Ferdinand Trinidad 288 SCRA 76

Sunga (second placer) § While Sunga may have garnered the second
contends that he is entitled to highest number of votes, the fact remains that he
be proclaimed as the duly was not the choice of the people of Iguig,
elected Mayor of the Cagayan. "The wreath of victory cannot be
Municipality of Iguig, transferred from the disqualified winner to the
Province of Cagayan, in the repudiated loser because the law then as now
event that Trinidad (first only authorizes a declaration of election in favor
placer) is disqualified. of the person who has obtained a plurality of
votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving
The Supreme Court the next highest number of votes to be declared
held that the Sunga’s elected."
contention finds no support
in law and jurisprudence. In § To simplistically assume that the second
the event that Trinidad is placer would have received the other votes would
adjudged to be disqualified, be to substitute our judgment for the voter. The
a permanent vacancy will be second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the
created for failure of the election. He was repudiated by either a majority or
elected mayor to qualify for plurality of voters. He could not be considered the
the said office. In such first among qualified candidates because in a field
eventuality, the duly elected which excludes the disqualified candidate; the
vice-mayor shall succeed as conditions would have substantially changed.
provided by law. (Aquino v. COMELEC)

§ Election is the process of complete

ascertainment of the expression of the popular
will. Its ultimate purpose is to give effect to the
will of the electorate by giving them direct
participation in choosing the men and women
who will run their government. Thus, it would be
extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the
constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a
candidate who has not acquired the majority or
plurality of votes is proclaimed winner and imposed as
the representative of a constituency, the majority of
whom have positively declared through their
ballots that they do not choose him.

Page 4
Sultan Mohamad Mitmug vs. COMELEC, MBOC of Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del
Sur and Datu Gambai Dagalangit 230 SCRA 54

The turnout of voters § There can be failure of election in a political

during the 11 May 1992 unit only if the will of the majority has been
election in Lumba-Bayabao, defiled and cannot be ascertained. But, if it can be
Lanao del Sur, was determined, it must be accorded respect.
abnormally low. As a result,
several petitions were filed § After all, there is no provision in our election
seeking the declaration of laws which requires that a majority of registered
failure of election in voters must cast their votes. All the law requires
precincts where less than is that a winning candidate must be elected by a
25% of the electorate plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual
managed to cast their votes. number of ballots cast.
But a special election was
ordered in precincts where § Thus, even if less than 25% of the electorate
no voting actually took place. in the questioned precincts cast their votes, the
same must still be respected. There is prima
The Commission on facie showing that private respondent was elected
Elections (COMELEC) ruled through a plurality of valid votes of a valid
that for as long as the constituency.
precincts functioned and
conducted actual voting
during election day, low
voter turnout would not
justify a declaration of failure
of election.

The Supreme Court

upheld the foregoing
contention of COMELEC.

Petronila Rulloda vs. COMELEC, Remegio Placido, et. al. (2003)

Romeo N. Rulloda, one § Contrary to respondent’s claim, the absence

of the two candidates for of a specific provision governing substitution of
Barangay Chairman of Sto. candidates in barangay elections cannot be
Tomas in Pangasinan, died inferred as a prohibition against said substitution.
before the barangay elections Such a restrictive construction cannot be read into
was conducted. The widow, the law where the same is not written. Indeed,
Petitioner Petronila “Betty” there is more reason to allow the substitution of
Rulloda, substituted the candidates where no political parties are involved
deceased and consequently than when political considerations or party

Page 5
won the elections. affiliations reign, a fact that must have been
subsumed by law.
Private respondent
Placido argues that inasmuch § The Memorandum of the COMELEC Law
as the barangay election is Department as well as the assailed Resolution No.
non-partisan, there can be no 5217, indubitably appears that the petitioner
substitution because there is Rulloda’s letter-request to be allowed to run as
no political party from which Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her
to designate the substitute. late husband was treated as a certificate of
candidacy.
Private respondent
likewise contends that the § To reiterate, it was petitioner Rulloda who
votes in petitioner’s favor obtained the plurality of votes in the contested
can not be counted because election. Technicalities and procedural niceties in
she did not file any certificate election cases should not be made to stand in the
of candidacy. In other words, way of the true will of the electorate. Laws
private respondent was the governing election contests must be liberally
only candidate for Barangay construed to the end that the will of the people
Chairman. in the choice of public officials may not be
defeated by mere technical objections.
The Supreme Court, in
this case, ruled in favor of § Election contests involve public interest, and
the petitioner. technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if
they constitute an obstacle to the determination of
the true will of the electorate in the choice of their
elective officials. The Court frowns upon any
interpretation of the law that would hinder in any
way not only the free and intelligent casting of the
votes in an election but also the correct
ascertainment of the results.

Constancio Pacanan, Jr. vs. COMELEC and Francisco Langi, Sr. et. al. (2003)

Private Respondent § During the pendency of petitioner’s MR,

Langi, Sr. filed an election Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 8486 on July
case before the RTC Samar 15, 2008 to clarify the implementation of the
questioning the proclamation Comelec Rules regarding the payment of filing
of Petitioner Pacanan as fees which provides:
mayor of Motiong, Samar.
RTC declared private “x x x The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court's
respondent as the winner. decision in election contests involving municipal and
barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the
On January 10, 2008, notice of appeal and the payment of the P1,000.00 appeal
petitioner filed a notice of fee to the court that rendered the decision within the five-

Page 6
appeal and paid P3,015 day reglementary period.
appeal fee before RTC. He
also appealed the RTC The non-payment or the insufficient payment of
decision to the Comelec and the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the COMELEC
paid on February 14, 2008 Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of
only P1,200 out of the P3,000 the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, does not
appeal fee required by affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in
Section 3, Rule 40 of the outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal.
Comelec Rules of Procedure
to the Cash Division of Following, Rule 22, Section 9 (a) of the
Comelec. COMELEC Rules, the appeal may be dismissed. And
pursuant to Rule 40, Section 18 of the same rules, if the
On March 17, 2008, fees are not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take
Comelec dismissed the action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the
petitioner’s appeal due to his action or the proceeding. In such a situation, the
failure to pay the correct COMELEC is merely given the discretion to dismiss the
appeal fee within the appeal or not. x x x”
reglementary period.
§ Thus, applying the mandated liberal
In this case, Supreme construction of election laws, the Comelec should
Court granted the Pacanan’s have initially directed the petitioner to pay the
petition. The case was correct appeal fee with the Comelec Cash
remanded to Comelec for Division, and should not have dismissed outright
further proceedings. RTC petitioner’s appeal. This would have been more in
Samar was directed to consonance with the intent of the said resolution
refund to petitioner the which sought to clarify the rules on compliance
amount of P2,000 as the with the required appeal fees.
excess of the appeal fee paid
on January 10, 2008. § The Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject
to a liberal construction. This liberality is for the
purpose of promoting the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring the
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections and for achieving just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination and
disposition of every action and proceeding
brought before the Comelec.

§It has been frequently decided, and it may be

stated as a general rule recognized by all courts,
that statutes providing for election contests are to
be liberally construed to the end that the will of
the people in the choice of public officers may not
be defeated by mere technical objections.

Page 7
Jonas Taguiam vs. COMELEC and Anthony C. Tuddao 594 SCRA 474

Petitioner Taguiam was § In Jaramilla v. Commission on

proclaimed as the 12th Elections and Dela Llana v. Commission on
winning candidate for the Elections, the Court affirmed the COMELEC’s
Sangguniang Panglungsod of suspension of its rules of procedure regarding the
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. late filing of a petition for correction of manifest
error and annulment of proclamation in view of
Private respondent its paramount duty to determine the real will of
Tuddao filed before the electorate. The Court have consistently
COMELEC a Petition for employed liberal construction of procedural rules
Correction of Manifest Errors in election cases to the end that the will of the
and Annulment of the people in the choice of public officers may not be
Proclamation of Pettioner. defeated by mere technical objections.
Said petition was granted by
COMELEC. § In the instant case, records show that
petitioner was declared the 12th winning
Petitioner avers that candidate based on Statement of Votes by
private respondent’s petition Precincts (SOVPs) containing mathematical and
should have been dismissed clerical errors.
outright by COMELEC for
failure to show any § The total number of votes in the SOVPs of
justification for its late filing. the identified precincts are markedly different
from the votes tabulated in their respective
While the petition was Election Returns, i.e., petitioner was given
indeed filed beyond the 5- additional votes, while private respondent’s votes
day reglementary period, the were reduced, which altered the outcome of the
Supreme Court held that election. Petitioner was declared the last winning
COMELEC however has the candidate for the position of Sangguniang
discretion to suspend its Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City, instead of
rules of procedure or any private respondent.
portion thereof pursuant to
Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 1 of § For acting pursuant to its Constitutional
the COMELEC Rules of mandate of determining the true will of the
Procedure. electorate with substantiated evidence, the Court
finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
COMELEC in annulling the proclamation of
petitioner. Said proclamation is flawed from the
beginning because it did not reflect the true and
legitimate will of the electorate. Having been
based on a faulty tabulation, there can be no valid
proclamation to speak of.

Page 8
Margarito Suliguin vs. COMELEC, Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) of
Nagcarlan, Laguna and Ecelson Sumague 485 SCRA 219

During the May 10, 2004 § Assuming for the sake of argument that the
elections, Petitioner Suliguin petition was filed out of time, this incident alone
received 6,605 votes while will not thwart the proper determination and
Private respondent Sumague resolution of the instant case on substantial
received 6,647 votes. grounds. Adherence to a technicality that would
Petitioner was proclaimed as put a stamp of validity on a palpably void
the 8th Sangguniang Bayan proclamation, with the inevitable result of
member of Nagcarlan, frustrating the people’s will cannot be
Laguna and he then countenanced.
subsequently assumed office.
§ In an election case, the Comelec is mandated
However, in the to ascertain by all means within its command who
Statement of Votes (SOV) the real candidate elected by the electorate is. The
covering Precincts 1A to 19A, Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law
private respondent appears or the rules that would hinder in any way not only
to have received only 644 the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an
votes when, in fact, he election but also the correct ascertainment of the
received 844 votes. results.

Upon review, the § In the case at bar, the simple mathematical

MBOC discovered that it procedure of adding the total number of votes
had, indeed, failed to credit garnered by respondent Sumague as appearing in
respondent Sumague his 200 the Statement of Votes submitted to the Comelec
votes It filed before the would readily reveal the result that he has forty-
Comelec a "Petition to two (42) votes more than petitioner. Such result
Correct Entries Made in the would, in effect, dislodge petitioner from said
Statement of Votes" for post, and entitle respondent Sumague to occupy
Councilor. The Comelec the eighth and last seat of the Sangguniang Bayan
resolved to grant the petition of Nagcarlan, Laguna. Petitioner himself never
of the MBOC and nullified disputed the discrepancy in the total number of
the proclamation of votes garnered by respondent Sumague, and
Petitioner Suliguin. instead questioned the personality of the MBOC
to file the petition and insisted that such petition
Petitioner maintains was not filed on time.
that the Comelec should
have denied the MBOC’s § Disputes in the outcome of elections involve
petition for having been filed public interest; as such, technicalities and
out of time. He likewise procedural barriers should not be allowed to
questions the personality of stand if they constitute an obstacle to the
the MBOC itself to file the determination of the true will of the electorate in
petition before the Comelec the choice of their elective officials. Laws

Page 9
contending that upon the governing such disputes must be liberally
proclamation of the winning construed to the end that the will of the people in
candidates in the election, the choice of public officials may not be defeated
the MBOC adjourns sine die by mere technical objections.
and becomes functus officio.
§ Furthermore, where the proclamation is
Supreme Court affirmed flawed because it was based on a clerical error or
the Comelec’s resolution. mathematical mistake in the addition of votes
and not through the legitimate will of the
electorate, there can be no valid proclamation to
speak of and the same can be challenged even
after the candidate has assumed office.

Alfonso Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC, Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) of

Pangasinan PBOC, Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) of Tayug and San
Miguel, Emiliano Micu et. al. 242 SCRA 273

Parties were candidates in the 1992 § The main issue in this case is
elections for a seat in the Provincial Board, the allowance of the correction of
6th District of Pangasinan. what are purely mathematical
and/or mechanical errors in the
Private respondent together with the addition of the votes received by
MBOCs of Tayug and San Manuel filed with both candidates. It does not
the PBOC Petitions for Correction of the involve the opening of ballot
Statements of Votes (SOVs) for alleged boxes; neither does it involve the
manifest errors committed in the examination and/or appreciation
computation thereof. PBOC granted the said of ballots.
petitions.
§ The correction sought by
Subsequently, PBOC filed a petition private respondent and
with the COMELEC seeking a "definitive respondent MBOCs of Tayug and
ruling and a clear directive or order as to San Manuel is correction of manifest
who of the two (2) contending parties should mistakes in mathematical addition.
be proclaimed" averring that "there were Certainly, this only calls for a
corrections already made in a separate sheet mere clerical act of reflecting the
of paper of the SOV and Certificates of true and correct votes received by
Canvass (COC) of Tayug and San Manuel, the candidates by the MBCs
Pangasinan which corrections if to be involved. In this case, the manifest
considered by the Board in its canvass and errors sought to be corrected
proclamation, candidate Emiliano will win involve the proper and diligent
by 72 votes. On the other hand, if these addition of the votes in the
corrections will not be considered, candidate municipalities of Tayug and San
Alfonso Bince, Jr. will win by one (1) vote. Manuel, Pangasinan.

Page 10
 COMELEC directed PBOC to complete § In Tayug, the total votes
the canvassing of the COCs and to proclaim received by petitioner Bince was
the winning candidate on the basis of the erroneously recorded as 2,486
complete and corrected COCs. when it should only have been
2,415. Petitioner Bince, in effect,
PBOC proclaimed petitioner for the was credited by 71 votes more.
second position of the Provincial Board.
Assailing the foregoing, private respondent § In San Manuel, petitioner
sought to annul the said proclamation. The Bince received 2,179 votes but was
COMELEC issued a resolution annulling the credited with 6 votes more, hence,
proclamation of petitioner on the ground the SOV reflected the total
that PBOC excluded the corrected COCs of number of votes as 2,185. On the
MBOCs of Tayug and San Miguel. It then other hand, the same SOV
directed the PBOC to reconvene again and indicated that private respondent
proclaim the winning candidate based on the Micu garnered 2,892 votes but he
completed and corrected COCs submitted by actually received only 2,888, hence
the MBOCs of all municipalities of 6th was credited in excess of 4 votes.
District of Pangasinan.
§ Consequently, by margin of
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari 72 votes, private respondent
before the Supreme Court seeking to set indisputably won the challenged
aside foregoing resolution. SC declared seat in the Sangguniang
COMELEC’s resolution as null and void on Panlalawigan of the sixth district of
the ground that there was no valid correction Pangasinan.
of the SOVs and COCs for the municipalities
of Tayug and San Miguel to warrant the § Petitioner's proclamation and
annulment of petitioner’s proclamation. SC assumption into public office was
directed the COMELEC to resolve pending therefore flawed from the
incidents before it. beginning, the same having been
based on a faulty tabulation.
Consequently, COMELEC First Division Hence, respondent COMELEC did
promulgated a resolution affirming the not commit grave abuse of
proclamation of petitioner Bince by PBOC. discretion in setting aside the
illegal proclamation.
Private respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration before the COMELEC En
Banc which was granted. It declared the
proclamation of petitioner as null and void.
Further, it ordered PBOC to reconvene and
to order the MBOCs of San Miguel and
Tayug to make the necessary corrections of
the SOVs and COCs in said municipalities.
PBOC was likewise directed to include the
results thereof in its canvass in order to

Page 11
proclaim the second elected member of the
Provincial Board.

Petitioner assailed the aforementioned

resolution of the COMELEC via a petition for
certiorari which was, however, dismissed by
the SC.

Abdulmadid P.B. Maruhom vs. COMELEC and Hadji Jamil Dimaporo

331 SCRA 473

As a result of § It is clear, given the foregoing facts of this

irregularities, anomalies and case, that the roundabout manner within which
electoral frauds, petitioner petitioner virtually substituted his answer by
Maruhom was illegally belatedly filing a motion to dismiss three (3)
proclaimed as the duly months later is a frivolous resort to procedure
elected mayor of Marogong, calculated to frustrate the will of the electorate.
Lanao del Sur in the 1998
elections. § As pointedly observed by the COMELEC in
its challenged Resolution, petitioner only filed his
Private respondent filed motion to dismiss "when the results of the trial
an election protest (Manual appeared to be adverse to him". If petitioner truly
Judicial Recount, revision intended to move for the preliminary hearing of
and reappreciation of ballots) his special and affirmative defenses as he claims,
against the petitioner before then he should have simultaneously moved for
the RTC Malabang, Lanao the preliminary hearing of his special and
del Sur. Petitioner filed an affirmative defenses at the time he filed his
answer with counter-protest. answer. Otherwise, he should have filed his
motion to dismiss "within the time for but before
During the hearing of filing the answer. . ." pursuant to Section 1, Rule
the election protest, 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
petitioner thru counsel orally
moved for the dismissal of § Petitioner's argument that the filing of a
the said protest which was motion to dismiss in an election contest filed with
vigorously opposed by a regular court is not a prohibited pleading was
private respondent thru well taken by the Supreme Court. The Court
counsel arguing that said pointedly stated in Aruelo v. CA that “nowhere in
motion is clearly dilatory. Part VI of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is it
RTC granted petitioner’s provided that motions to dismiss and bill of particulars
prayer to file an Omnibus are not allowed in election protests or quo
Motion to Dismiss in warranto cases pending before regular courts.”
substantiation of all the oral
motions he made. However, § The foregoing pronouncement, however, will

Page 12
the said omnibus motion was not extricate petitioner from his predicament
denied by RTC for lack of because the denial of petitioner's motion to
merit. dismiss was based on the fact that the other
grounds relied therein was considered
During the pendency of unmeritorious and not because the said motion is
the election protest in the a prohibited pleading in electoral protest cases.
RTC, petitioner filed before While the challenged COMELEC Resolution may
COMELEC a petition not have been entirely correct in dismissing the
for certiorari and prohibition. petition in this regard, the soundness of its
discretion to accord unto the trial court the
COMELEC dismissed competence to resolve the factual issues raised in
the same holding that a the controversy cannot be doubted.
motion to dismiss in an
election protest case filed in § The Supreme further reasoned that:
the RTC is a prohibited
pleading. It likewise held “At balance, the question really boils down to
that a motion to dismiss filed a choice of philosophy and perception of how to
after the answer is not interpret and apply the laws relating to elections;
allowed. literal or liberal; the letter or the spirit; the naked
provision or the ultimate purpose; legal syllogism
In this case, SC held that or substantial justice; in isolation or in the context
the COMELEC did not of social conditions; harshly against or gently in
commit grave abuse of favor of the voter's obvious choice. In applying
discretion. elections laws, it would be far better to err in
favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in
complex but little understood legalisms.”

Teodoro Peña vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and Alfredo
E. Abueg, Jr. 270 SCRA 340

HRET issued a § In requiring the private respondent to

resolution which held that answer the petition, the HRET was not ruling on
the Petition Ad Cautelam of the formal and substantive sufficiency of the
Petitioner Peña failed to state petition. The order to require an answer is but a
a cause of action, and is matter of course, as under the Revised Rules of
therefore, insufficient in form Procedure of the HRET.
and substance, meriting its
dismissal. § A perusal of the Petition Ad Cautelam, reveals
that Petitioner makes no specific mention of the
In the said petition, precincts where widespread election, fraud and
Petitioner questioned the irregularities occured. This is a fatal omission, as it
election of the private goes into the very substance of the protest. Under
respondent Abueg, Jr. as Section 21 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of
Member of the House of HRET, insufficiency in form and substance of the

Page 13
Representatives representing petition constitutes a ground for the immediate
the Second District of dismissal of the Petition.
Palawan.
§ While it is conceded that statutes providing
It is the Petitioner's for election contests are to be liberally construed
view that the instant petition to the end that the will of the people in the choice
is sufficient in form and of public officers may not be defeated by mere
substance even while failing technical questions, the rule likewise stands, that
to specify the precincts in an election protest, the protestant must stand or
where irregularities allegedly fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or
occurred. Nowhere is it amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the
provided that the statutory period for filing of the protest.
specification of the precincts
is a jurisdictional § Admittedly, the rule is well-established that
requirement that must be the power to annul an election should be
complied with in order that exercised with the greatest care as it involves the
an election protest can be free and fair expression of the popular will. It is
entertained by the HRET. only in extreme cases of fraud and under
circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest
He further contends degree a fundamental and wanton disregard of
that the fact that the HRET the law that elections are annulled, and then
did not summarily dismiss only when it becomes impossible to take any
the Petition Ad Cautelam, and other step. This is as it should be, for the
instead, required the private democratic system is good for the many although
respondent Abueg to file an abhorred by a few.
Answer, the HRET has thus
made a prior determination
that the petition is sufficient
in form and substance.

The Supreme Court,

however, affirmed HRET’s
resolution.

Sergio Bautista vs. Hon. Jose Castro, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch
IX (Quezon City), Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, and Roberto Miguel
206 SCRA 305

Private Respondent § It should be noted that while respondent

Miguel filed an election case court considered the report of Mr. Pagui, it did not
before the City Court of rely solely on the said report. In the words of
Quezon City on the ground respondent court, "It has taken pains and
of fraud and illegal acts or meticulous effort to examine with its naked eye
practices allegedly the questioned ballots and handwritings and

Page 14
committed by Bautista after compare the same with each other . . ."
the latter was proclaimed as
the the duly elected § The respondent court was circumspect in
Barangay Captain of relying on its own findings on whether or not
Barangay Teachers Village these contested ballots were prepared by one
East, Quezon City, in the person. The ballots are the best evidence of the
1982 Barangay elections with objections raised. Resort to handwriting experts is
a plurality of 2 votes. not mandatory. Handwriting experts, while
probably useful, are not indispensable in
The City Court held that examining or comparing handwriting, this can be
both parties received the done by the COMELEC (in this case, the court
same number of votes. taking cognizance of the appeal in this election
protest) itself.
Acting on private
respondent’s appeal, CFI § The law (Sec. 14 of B.P. 222) and the rules
Rizal declared Miguel as the implementing it (Sec. 36 of Comelec Res. No. 1539)
winner with a plurality of 24 leave no room for interpretation. The absence of
votes. the signature of the Chairman of the Board of
Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter as
Petitioner Bautista required by law and the rules as proof of the
questions the reliance by the authenticity of said ballot is fatal. This
CFI on the opinion report of requirement is mandatory for the validity of the
one Desiderio A. Pagui, who said ballot.
was never presented and
qualified as an expert § The presence of an arrow with the words
witness, finding that the "and party," was meant for no other purpose than
questioned handwritings to Identify the voter. It cannot be said that these
appearing in the contested writings were accidental.
ballots were written by one
and same person. He § As a general rule, a voter must write on the
likewise contends that CFI ballot only the names of candidates voted for the
misapplied Section 36(f) of offices appearing thereon. Certain exceptions,
Comelec Resolution No. 1539 however, are provided in Section 149 of the
when it invalidated ballots Revised Election Code. For example, prefixes such
without the signature of the as "Sr.," "Mr.", and the like and suffixes such as
Chairman of the Board of "hijo", "Jr.", etc. will not invalidate the ballot (par.
Election Tellers and ballots 5). Initials (paragraph 15), nicknames or
which contained an arrow appellation of affection and friendship will not
with the words “and party”. invalidate the ballot, if accompanied by the name
or surname of the candidate, and above all, if they
were not used as a means to identify the voter.

§ Even under a liberal view, the words written

on the ballots under consideration cannot be

Page 15
 considered as falling within the exception to the
rule. Consequently, they are irrelevant
expressions that nullified the ballots.

Mario Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and Jose
Ramirez 238 SCRA 520

The HRET affirmed the § A ballot is considered valid and genuine for
proclamation of herein as long as it bears any one of these authenticating
private respondent Ramirez marks, to wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark, or (b)
declaring him to be the duly the signature or initials, or thumbprint of the
elected Representative of Chairman of the BEI; and, (c) in those cases where
Eastern Samar for having the COMELEC watermarks are blurred or not
obtained the plurality of readily apparent to the naked eye, the presence of
votes over petitioner red and blue fibers in the ballots. It is only when
Libanan. none of these marks appears extant that the ballot
can be considered spurious and subject to
Relying on the Court’s rejection.
pronouncement in Bautista
vs. Castro, Petitioner § The reliance on Bautista vs. Castro by
contends that the 311 ballots petitioner, is misdirected. It would appear evident
(265 of which have been for that the ruling in Bautista vs. Castro was prompted
private respondent Ramirez) because of the express declaration in Section 36(f)
without the signature of the of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539, implementing
Chairman of the BEI, but Section 14 of B.P. Blg. 222, that: "Any ballot returned
which had the COMELEC to the chairman . . . which does not bear the signature
water-marks and/or colored of the chairman . . . shall be considered as spoiled . . .
fibers, should be invalidated. and shall not be counted."
It is the position of petitioner
that the purpose of the law in § It must be stressed that B.P. Blg.
requiring the BEI Chairman 222, otherwise known as the "Barangay Election
to affix his signature at the Act of 1982," approved on 25 March 1982, itself
back of the ballot when he categorically expresses that it shall only be
issues it to the voter is "to "applicable to the election of barangay officials."
authenticate" the ballot and,
absent that signature, the § The difference in the rules may not be too
ballot must be considered difficult to discern. The stringent requirements in
spurious. B.P. Blg. 222 should be justifiable considering that
the official barangay ballots would be provided by
HRET however ruled the city or municipality concerned with the
that the absence of the COMELEC merely prescribing their size and
signature of the Chairman of color. Thus, the official ballots in B.P. Blg. 222,
the BEI in the ballots did not being supplied and furnished by the local
government themselves, the possibility of the

Page 16
render the ballots spurious. ballots being easily counterfeited might not have
been discounted. The absence of authenticating
The Supreme Court marks prescribed by law ,i.e., the signature of the
held that the HRET did not chairman of the Board of Election Tellers at the
commit grave abuse of back of the ballot, could have well been really
discretion in declaring the thought of to be fatal to the validity of the ballot.
foregoing decision.
§ Section 24 of R.A. No. 7166 (failure to
authenticate the ballot shall constitute an election
offense), upon the other hand, contains no similar
stringent provisions such as that seen in Section
36(f) of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539.

§ There is really nothing in the above law to

the effect that a ballot which is not so
authenticated shall thereby be deemed spurious.
The law merely renders the BEI Chairman
accountable for such failure.

§ The courts may not, in the guise of

interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and
embrace situations neither provided nor intended
by the lawmakers. Where the words and phrases
of a statute are not obscure and ambiguous, the
meaning and intention of the legislature should be
determined from the language employed, and
where there is no ambiguity in the words, there
should be no room for construction.

Page 17
 V. PLEBISCITE

Additional discussion
of the assigned case/s

Sanidad vs. Comelec G.R. 90878 (1990)

- Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 was declared null and void
by the Supreme Court, which provides:

“Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or

announcers. — During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day
before and on the plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio
or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.”

- It is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was
granted to the Comelec was the power to supervise and regulate the
use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the
operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of
communication or information to the end that equal opportunity, time
and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates
therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among
candidates are ensured.

- The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the possibility

that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a
candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. This
is also the reason why a "columnist, commentator, announcer or
personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is required to take a
leave of absence from his work during the campaign period (2nd par.
Section 11(b) R.A. 6646). It cannot be gainsaid that a columnist or
commentator who is also a candidate would be more exposed to the
voters to the prejudice of other candidates unless required to take a
leave of absence.

Page 18
 VI. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
Power of the people to propose bills Right reserved to the people to adopt
and laws to enact or reject them at the or reject any act or measure passed by
polls independent of the legislative a legislative body that would normally
assembly become a law without action on the
part of the electors
It is the work of the electorate Begun and consented by law-making
body
Process of law-making by the people Consists merely of the electorate
themselves without the participation of approving or rejecting what has been
the legislative body drawn up or enacted by a legislative
body
Process and voting is more complex Voters simply write yes or no
Two or more propositions may be No petition embracing more than one
submitted to the electorate subject.

REVISION AMENDMENT
Broadly implies a change that alters a Broadly refers to a change that adds,
basic principle in the Constitution, like reduces, deletes, without altering the
altering the principle of separation of basic principle involved.
powers or the system of checks and
balances. There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial entirety of
the Constitution
Revision generally affects several Amendment generally affects only the
provisions of the Constitution. specific provision being amended.

v Initiative is limited to amendments to the constitution and does not apply

to revisions. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and
is, therefore, outside the power of the people’s initiative. (Santiago vs.
Comelec)

v Proposal to to change the form of government from Presidential to

Parliamentary and shift from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature,
constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Therefore, such proposal cannot
be effected through the system of initiative, which by express provision of
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to amendments.
(Lambino vs. Comelec)

Page 19
Additional discussion
of the assigned case/s

Santiago vs. Comelec 270 SCRA 106

R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE

ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS,
UNFORTUNATELY, INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM.

- First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC,

Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to
the Constitution. The said section reads:

Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. — The power of the people under a

system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact,
approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws,
ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon
compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed. (Emphasis supplied).

The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed

afterthought. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said
section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on
national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section
is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier,
initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to
AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose,
enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through
the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws,
ordinances, or resolutions."

- Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act

defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it
as one of the three systems of initiative, and that Section 5
(Requirements) restates the constitutional requirements as to the
percentage of the registered voters who must submit the proposal. But
unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not
provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution.
Section 5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of
the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, as among the contents
of the petition, the provisions of the Constitution sought to be
amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.

Page 20
 - Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and
Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum
(Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution.
This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main
thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local
laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the
implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it
could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the
order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and
local laws.

COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES

AND REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS VOID.

- It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate

rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the
people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through
the system of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No.
6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's power under Section 2(1) of Article
IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations
referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a)
Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where
subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the
"completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.

Lambino vs. Comelec 505 SCRA 160

The Initiative Petition does not comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People.

- The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people

through initiative upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on its
face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements
must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire
proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second,
as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a
petition.

- These essential elements are present only if the full text of the
proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their

Page 21
 assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
amendment is "directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition" only if the people sign on a petition that contains
the full text of the proposed amendments.

- A signature requirement would be meaningless if the person

supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is
signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the
subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud.
For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the
signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes
before signing. They could not have known the nature and effect of
the proposed changes, among which are:

1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus
members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely;

2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its

members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, decide to
call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the interim
Parliament will determine the expiration of their own term of office;

3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the

interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or
revisions to the Constitution.

- There can be no dispute that a people's initiative can only propose

amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits
initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation from the
constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the Constitution. A
popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million signatures, cannot
justify a deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the
Constitution itself.

A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary.

- The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the
basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the
conduct and scope of a people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
There is no need to revisit this Court's ruling in Santiago vs.
Comelec declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions" to cover the system of initiative to
amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will
not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court must

Page 22
 decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does
not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to implement
the initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution.

v It must be pointed out, however, that there was a subsequent Minute

Resolution issued by the Supreme Court wherein ten of its members
stated that R.A. 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution
through a people’s initiative. (Minute Resolution, Lambino vs. Comelec,
November 21, 2006).

SBMA vs. Comelec 252 SCRA 492

Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing

Resolution No. 2848 providing for the rules and guidelines to govern the conduct of the
referendum proposing to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Morong Bataan.

- To begin with, the process started by private respondents was an

INITIATIVE but respondent Comelec made preparations for a
REFERENDUM only. In fact, in the body of the assailed Resolution,
the word "referendum" is repeated at least 27 times, but "initiative" is
not mentioned at all. The Comelec labeled the exercise as a
"Referendum"; the counting of votes was entrusted to a "Referendum
Committee"; the documents were called "referendum returns"; the
canvassers, "Referendum Board of Canvassers" and the ballots
themselves bore the description "referendum". To repeat, not once
was the word "initiative" used in said body of Resolution No. 2848.
And yet, this exercise is unquestionably an INITIATIVE.

- There are statutory and conceptual demarcations between a

referendum and an initiative. Initiative is a process of law-making by
the people themselves without the participation and against the
wishes of their elected representatives, while referendum consists
merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn
up or enacted by a legislative body. Hence, the process and the voting
in an initiative are understandably more complex than in a
referendum where expectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes"
of "No" in the ballot.

- From the above differentiation, it follows that there is need for the
Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely, its authority thereon
extending not only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to
seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people is in the
proper form and language so it may be easily understood and voted

Page 23
 upon by the electorate. This is especially true where the proposed
legislation is lengthy and complicated, and should thus be broken
down into several autonomous parts, each such part to be voted upon
separately. Care must also be exercised that "(n)o petition embracing
more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate," although
"two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative".

- In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration

and supervision of the process itself, akin to its powers over the
conduct of elections. These law-making powers belong to the people,
hence the respondent Commission cannot control or change the
substance or the content of legislation. In the exercise of its
authority, it may (in fact it should have done so already) issue
relevant and adequate guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of
these "people-power" features of our Constitution.

VII. RECALL
Cases

Paras vs. Comelec 264 SCRA 49

Paras, incumbent punong brgy § The term regular local elections is

sought to bar the recall proceedings construed as one referring to an
against him citing Sec. 74 (B) of RA 7160 election where the office held by the
that it was barred by the scheduled SK local elective official sought to be
elections. The SC settled the issue and recalled will be contested and be filled
held that the SK elections is not up by the electorate. It is confined to
considered a “regular local elections” for the regular elections of elective national
purposes of recall under Sec. 74. and local officials.

Angobung vs. Comelec 269 SCRA 245

Loser in mayoralty election de § The law, Section 69 (d) of the

Alban filed a petition for recall against Local Government Code of 1991, is
winner Angobung. COMELEC plain and unequivocal as to what
approved. initiates recall proceedings: only a
petition of at least 25% of the total
Angobung contested, saying that a number of registered voters, may
petition for recall cannot be signed by validly initiate recall proceedings. The
only one person (violative of the 25% Court took careful note of the phrase,
"petition of at least twenty-five percent

Page 24
requirement). (25%)" and point out that the law does
not state that the petition must be
SC cannot sanction the procedure signed by at least 25% of the registered
of the filing of the recall petition by a voters; rather, the petition must be "of"
number of people less than the or by, at least 25% of the registered
foregoing 25% statutory requirement, voters, i.e., the petition must be filed,
much less, the filing thereof by just one not by one person only, but by at least
person, as in the instant case, since this 25% of the total number of registered
is indubitably violative of clear and voters.
categorical provisions of subsisting law.
§ Hence, while the initiatory recall
petition may not yet contain the
signatures of at least 25% of the total
number of registered voters, the
petition must contain the names of at
least 25% of the total number of
registered voters in whose behalf only
one person may sign the petition in the
meantime.

Afiado vs. Comelec 340 SCRA 600

Joel emerged as the winner over § The specific purpose of the PRA
his opponent Antonio Abaya as Mayor was to remove Navarro as the elected
of Santiago City in the 1998 elections Vice-Mayor of Santiago City since PRA
and he was later proclaimed. Amelita S. Resolution No. 1 expressly states that
Navarro also won and was proclaimed "…it is hereby resolved to invoke the
as the Vice-Mayor of Santiago City. rescission of the electoral mandate of
the incumbent City Vice-Mayor
However, the proclamation of Amelita S. Navarro for loss of
Miranda was annulled, thus, Navarro confidence through a recall election to
became the new Mayor by virtue of the be set by the Commission on Election
law on succession. as provided for under Section 71 of the
Local Government Code of 1991."
Subsequently, the Preparatory However, the said PRA Resolution No.
Recall Assembly (PRA) passed and 1 is no longer applicable to her
adopted Preparatory Recall Assembly inasmuch as she has already vacated
Resolution No. 1 for the recall of Vice- the office of Vice-Mayor on October 11,
Mayor Amelita S. Navarro. 1999 when she assumed the position of
City Mayor of Santiago City.
The corollary issue in the case at
bench is whether or not an elective § Even if the PRA were to
official who became City Mayor by reconvene to adopt another resolution
legal succession can be the subject of a

Page 25
recall election by virtue of a Preparatory for the recall of Navarro, this time as
Recall Assembly Resolution which was Mayor of Santiago City, the same
passed or adopted when the said would still not prosper in view of
elective official was still the Vice- Section 74 (b) of the Local Government
Mayor. Code of 1991 which provides that "No
recall shall take place within one (1)
year from the date of the official's
assumption of office or one (1) year
immediately preceding a regular
election." There is no more allowable
time in the light of that law within
which to hold recall elections for that
purpose. The then Vice-Mayor Amelita
S. Navarro assumed office as Mayor of
Santiago City on October 11, 1999. One
year after her assumption of office as
Mayor will be October 11, 2000 which
is already within the one (1) year
prohibited period immediately
preceding the next regular election in
May 2001.

Page 26
 VIII. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

The independence of the Commission on Elections is safeguarded by:

1. A fixed term and impeachment as the method of removal of the chairman
and commissioners.
2. Prohibition against reappointment.
3. Fixed Compensation during term of office.
4. Freedom from supervisoin and interference in the exercise of its functions
by any governmental agency, except the SC but which is limited only to
reviewing the decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC on petition by
certiorari of an aggrieved party under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which
is confined only to determining wheter there was grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of patent and
substantial denial of due process committed by it in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial powers.

Nature of Powers

§ The COMELEC is an administrative agency, as such the power it

possesses are executive, quasi-judicial, and quasi-legislative and some
extent judicial. By exception, it has been given the power to be the sole
judge of all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective local officials.

§ Under Rule 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the COMELEC has

the following powers:
1. Express Powers
- In the performance of its administrative, quasi-judicial and
judicial functions, the Commission shall exercise all powers
and functions as are expressly vested upon it by the
Constitution and by the law.

2. Implied Powers
- The Commission shall likewise exercise such powers as are
implied in or are necessary to the effective exercise of its
express powers.

3. Inherent Powers
- When performing its constitutional or statutory functions, the
Commission shall have inherent power to:
(a) Preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) Enforce order in proceedings before it or before any of

Page 27
 its offices or officials empowered to conduct
investigation under its authority.
(c) Compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
processes.
(d) Control its ministerial officers and all other persons in
any manner connected with a case before it, and in
every manner appertaining thereto;
(e) Compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case
pending before it;
(f) Administer or cause to be administered oaths in a
case pending before it, and in all other cases where it
may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
(g) Amend and control its processes and orders so as to
make them comformable to law and justice;
(h) Authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or
other paper to be filed and used instead of the
original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its
records and proceedings.

§ Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for the manner on

how the COMELEC transacts business, the COMELEC has the following
General Powers:

Section 1. How Business is Transacted. - In the exercise of its

Constitutional or statutory powers, functions, and duties,
the Commission may sit en banc or in to Divisions.

Section 2. The Commission En Banc. - The Commission

shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter specifically provided,
or in pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of
the members of the Commission, or in all other cases
where a division is not authorized to act, or where, upon a
unanimous vote of all the Members of a Division, an
interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or
proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the
Commission en banc.

Section 3. The Commission Sitting in Divisions. - The

Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and
decide protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special
actions, special cases, provisional remedies, contempt, and
special proceedings except in accreditation of citizen's
arms of the Commission.

Page 28
 Section 4. Composition of a Division. - Each Division shall
be composed of three Commissioners, one of whom shall
be the Presiding Commissioner. The Commission en banc
shall determine who shall compose a Division.

Section 5. Quorum; Votes Required. - (a) When sitting en

banc, four (4) Members of the Commission shall constitute
a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. The
concurrence of a majority of the Members of the
Commission shall be necessary for the pronouncement of
a decision, resolution, order or ruling.

(b) When sitting in Division, two (2) Members of a

Division shall constitute a quorum to transact business.
The concurrence of at least two (2) Members of a Division
shall be necessary to reach a decision, resolution, order or
ruling. If this required number is not obtained, the case
shall be automatically elevated to the Commission en
banc for decision or resolution.

(c) Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order

or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the
Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory
orders of the division which shall be resolved by the
division which issued the order.

Additional discussion
of the assigned case/s

Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino vs. Comelec (2004)

The assailed Resolution of the § It is plain that the COMELEC

COMELEC provides: misapplied equity in the present case.
For all its conceded merits, equity is
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, available only in the absence of law and
the petition is GRANTED with LEGAL not as its replacement. Equity is
EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor. described as justice without legality,
The candidates for President down to the which simply means that it cannot
last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad supplant, although it may, as often
nominated and endorsed by LDP Chairman happens, supplement the law. The
Edgardo J. Angara are recognized by the COMELEC should have decided the
Commission as official candidates of LDP case on the basis of the party

Page 29
"Angara Wing". The candidates from constitution and election laws. In truth,
President down to the last Sangguniang the COMELEC Resolution is indecision
Bayan Kagawad as nominated and endorsed in the guise of equity.
by LDP Secretary General Agapito "Butz"
Aquino are recognized as official candidates § To resolve this simple issue, the
of LDP "Aquino Wing". COMELEC need only to turn to the
Party Constitution. It need not go so far
Consequently, each faction or "Wing" as to resolve the root of the conflict
is entitled to a representative to any election between the party officials. It need only
committee to which it may be entitled as resolve such questions as may be
created by the Commission for the May 10, necessary in the exercise of its
2004 elections. x x x The two LDP "Wings" enforcement powers.
are further entitled to and be accorded the
rights and privileges with corresponding § By allowing each wing to
legal obligations under Election Laws.” nominate different candidates, the
COMELEC planted the seeds of
The Supreme Court declared the confusion among the electorate, who
nullity of the such Resolution. The Court are apt to be confounded by two
directed the COMELEC to recognize as candidates from a single political party.
official candidates of LDP only those
whose Certificates of Candidacy (COCs) § In Recabo, Jr. v. Commission on
were signed by LDP Party Elections, this Court declared that the
ChairmanAngara or his duly electoral process envisions one
authorized representative/s. candidate from a political party for
each position, and disunity and discord
Further, the SC held that Rep. amongst members of a political party
Aquino had no power to sign and should not be allowed to create a
nominate candidates in behalf of the mockery thereof. The admonition
LDP. However, the foregoing did not against mocking the electoral process
result to the denial of the COCs of the not only applies to political parties but
candidates he may have signed. The SC with greater force to the COMELEC.
held that his signature was affixed
thereto prior to, or on the basis of, the
challenged COMELEC Resolution which
recognized his authority to sign on
behalf of LDP, the same did not
constitute material representation that
is false. In such case, the candidates
were simply deemed as not nominated
by the LDP and were considered
independent candidates.

Page 30