ELECTION LAWS

Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

ELECTIONS DEFINED The court annuls and declares void the trial court decision. The
case is remanded to the trial court for decision.
CARLOS V. ANGELES
346 SCRA 571 (2000) The “significant badges of fraud” are belied by the facts
pointed out by the SC:
Digested by: EBUEZA
a. that the keys turned over did not fit into the padlocks of the
FACTS: ballot boxes: The mere inability of the keys to fit into the
padlocks attached to the ballot boxes does not affect the
In the May 11, 1998 elections, Jose Carlos was proclaimed as integrity of the ballots.
the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela over Antonio Serapio.
Serapio filed an election protest challenging the results and the b. that 7 ballot boxes did not contain any ballot and 2 of the 7
case was assigned to Judge Angeles of the RTC of Caloocan did not contain any election returns: It is a standard procedure
(because of the inhibition of all the judges of the RTC in of the Comelec to provide extra empty ballot boxes for the use
Valenzuela). The final tally showed that Carlos won over a of the Board of Election Inspectors or the Board of Canvassers,
margin of 17,007 votes. However, the trial court set aside the in case of necessity.
final tally of valid votes because of its finding of “significant
badges of fraud”. The trial court held that the fraud was c. that some precincts experienced various brownouts:
attributable to Carlos and it declared Serapio as the duly Witnesses testified that the counting of votes proceeded
elected mayor of Valenzuela City. smoothly and no commotion or violence occurred during the
brownout.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction. d. that some of the assigned watchers of Serapio were not in
their posts: As long as notices were duly served to the parties,
(2) Whether or not the trial court acted without jurisdiction or the counting and canvassing of votes may validly proceed in
with grave abuse of discretion. the absence of watchers.

RULING: Even assuming that the Trial Court was correct in holding that
the final tally of valid votes may be set aside because of the
(1) YES. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the present significant badges of fraud, the same would be tantamount to
petition. a ruling that there was failure of election. In a petition to annul
an election, two conditions must be averred: (1) the illegality
Both the Supreme Court and Comelec (in aid of its appellate must affect more than 50% of the votes cast and (2) the good
jurisdiction) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of votes can be distinguished from the bad ones. Neither of these
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of trial conditions was present in the case at bar.
courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in election cases involving
elective municipal officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
ROMUALDEZ vs. RTC
(2) YES. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion 226 SCRA 408
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in proclaiming
Serapio the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela even without a Digested by: EBUEZA
majority of votes cast in his favor.
FACTS:
The trial court in its decision actually pronounced a failure of
election by disregarding and setting aside the results of the Petitioner Romualdez is a natural- born citizen of the
election. The trial court erred to the extent of ousting itself of Philippines. he is the son of Kokoy Romualdez, the former
jurisdiction because the grounds for failure of election were Governor of Leyte, who is also the niece of Imelda R. Marcos.
not significant and even non-existent. More importantly, the In 1980, he established his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
commission of fraud cannot be attributed to Carlos as there During the days of People Power, relatives of the deposed
was no evidence on record that he had a hand in any of the President Ferdinand Marcos fled the country because of fear
irregularities that Serapio averred. and personal safety. They sought asylum in the United States.


1 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

On 1991, the U.S. Immigration informed Romualdez to depart campaign period. He cited Art. XXII of BP Blg. 881 or the
from the U.S. or they will be deported. He immediately Omnibus Election Code was clearly violated by Trinidad.
returned to his residence in Leyte, Philippines and then Another complaint was filed by Sunga with the Comelec
registered himself as a voter. charging Trinidad this time violating Sec. 261, par., (e) referring
to threats, intimidation, terrorism or other forms of coercion
In 1992, private respondent Advincula filed a petition to of the Omnibus Election Code. Included in the complaint is
exclude petitioner from the list of the voter alleging that the vote buying and some other election violations. This was then
latter is a U.S. resident and is not qualified to run into public followed by an amended petition for disqualification.
office. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) denied the petition but
when the issue was raised to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the In a Minute Resolution dated 25 May 1995, the COMELEC 2nd
appellate court reversed the MTC’s ruling and disqualified Division referred the complaint to its Law Department for
Romualdez as a registered voter. investigation. Hearings were held wherein the petitioner
adduced evidence to prove his accusations. The respondent on
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is qualified to be a the other hand, opted not to submit any evidence at all to
registered voter in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte? counter the claims of the latter.

RULING: Meanwhile, the election results showed that Trinidad garnered
the highest number of votes, while Sunga trailed second.On 10
Yes. The court is affirmative on this issue. It ruled that the May 1995 Sunga moved for the suspension of the
petitioner is qualified as a registered voted because he is still proclamation of Trinidad. However, notwithstanding the
considered a resident of Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. The self-exile motion, Trinidad was proclaimed the elected mayor,
of the Romualdez’ is understandable because of the fear prompting Sunga to file another motion to suspend the effects
brought by the People Power Revolution. of the proclamation. Both motions were not acted upon by the
COMELEC 2nd Division.
The Court said that their sudden departure cannot be
described as voluntary or abandonment of residence. But it On 28 June 1995 the COMELEC Law Department submitted its
was acted upon due to inevitable situation. Report to the COMELEC En Banc recommending that Trinidad
be charged in court for violation of the following penal
In this case, the Court ruled that Romualdez is a resident of provisions of the Omnibus Election Code: (a) Sec. 261, par. (a),
Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. The right to vote is a precious political on vote buying; (b) Sec. 261, par. (e), on threats, intimidation,
right of which every citizen has the right to exercise by terrorism or other forms of coercion; and, (c) Sec. 261, par. (o),
principle of Suffrage. on use of any equipment, vehicle owned by the government or
any of its political subdivisions. The Law Department likewise
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - recommended to recall and revoke the proclamation of
Ferdinand B. Trinidad as the duly elected Mayor of Iguig,
ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS Cagayan. Instead proclaim Manuel C. Sunga as the duly elected
Mayor directing him to take his oath and assumes his duties
SUNGA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and functions as the elected Mayor.
G.R. No. 125629, March 25, 1998
The COMELEC En Banc approved the findings of the Law
Digested by: EBUEZA Department and directed the filing of the corresponding
information in the Regional Trial Court against Trinidad. The
FACTS: disqualification case was referred to the Comelec 2nd Division
for hearing. On May 2 1996, Sunga filed a Second Urgent
Petitioner Manuel C. Sunga is one of the candidates for the Motion to suspend the effects and annul the proclamation
position as Mayor in the Municipality of Iguig, Province of with Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of the Petition.
Cagayan during the election period of May 1995. Private
respondent Ferdinand B. Trinidad, the incumbent Mayor, was ISSUE: Whether or the proclamation of Trinidad will be
a candidate for re-election in the same municipality. affected due to the pending disqualification case against him.

On Aprill 22, 1995, Sunga filed a letter of complaint for
disqualification with the Comelec against Trinidad accusing
him for using three (3) Local Government vehicles during the

2 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

RULING:
Petitioner’s letter-request was considered a certificate of
Yes. Sec. 6. Effects of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate candidacy when COMELEC issued its resolution denying the
who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified same. In the contested election, it was petitioner who
shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be obtained the plurality of votes. Technicalities and procedural
counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the
judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election
for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of
the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated
hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of by mere technical objections.
the complainant. And during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the evidence of his guilt is strong.
BASIS OF PLURALITY OF VOTES
COMELEC should continue the trial and hearing of the
disqualification case to its conclusion, i.e., until judgment is MITMUG V. COMELEC
rendered thereon. COMELEC is with authority to annul any 230 SCRA
canvass and proclamation which was illegally made.
Digested by: MAMAC
In the present case, it is clear that the complaints filed by Sunga
against Trinidad before the RTC with the recommendation of FACTS:
COMELEC is an indication that there was indeed a prima facie
evidence of violations of the election laws. Petitioner Norlainie Limbona , her husband, and respondent
Malik Alingan were mayoralty candidates in Pantar, Lanao Del
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Norte. After filing their Certificate of Candidacy, Respondent
filed a petition of disqualifying the husband of petitioner for
RULLODA V. COMELEC non-compliance with the one year residence requirement.
G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003 Subsequently, respondent also filed the same petition, this
time against the petitioner. Petitioner filed a withdrawal of her
Digested by: MAMAC candidacy which the COMELEC granted. The COMELEC granted
the disqualification of petitioner’s husband. Petitioner filed a
FACTS: new Certificate of Candidacy as substitute candidate for her
husband which was approved by COMELEC. Respondent yet
Comelec denied petitioner’s request to substitute her again sought Petitioner’s disqualification.
deceased husband in the Barangay Chairman Candidacy
despite the fact that petitioner apparently garnered the Petitioner claimed that she has been staying , sleeping and
highest votes when constituents wrote her name in the ballots. doing business in her house for more than 20 months in Lower
Respondents cited resolution 4801 and Section 7 of the Kalangaan.
Omnibus Election Code which prohibits substitution of
candidates. Private respondent Placido contended that it was ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner satisfied the one year
only right that he be proclaimed winner since he was the only residency requirement and qualify to run for the office mayor
one who filed a certificate of candidacy and, hence, the only in Pantar, Lanao del Norte?
candidate running.
RULING:
ISSUE: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion
when Comelec denied petitioner’s request that she be allowed No. Petitioner failed to qualify the one-year residence
to run for elections. requirement. In order to acquire domicile by choice, there
must be residence or bodily presence in the new locality, an
RULING: intention to remain there, and intention to abandon the old
domicile. A person’s domicile once established is considered to
There being no specific provision governing substitution of continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is
candidates in barangay elections, a prohibition against said established.
substitution cannot be said to exist.

3 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

The court noted the findings of the COMELEC that petitioner’s special elections be conducted because of the failure
domicile of origin is Manguing, Lanao Del Norte, which is his of elections. However, COMELEC did not grant the petition,
also her place of birth; and that her domicile by operation of instead it ordered that the votes in the 3 precincts to be
law by virtue of marriage, is Rapusan, Marawi City. Hence, included in order to proclaim the councilors. It also ordered for
failure to comply with the residence requirement, Petitioner is the respondent to be proclaimed.
disqualified to run for the office of mayor in Pantar, Lanao del
Norte. ISSUE: WON there was a failure of elections should be declared
and special elections be conducted in Lanao del Sur?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RULING:
CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS
No. COMELEC en banc has the exclusive power to postpone,
BENITO VS COMELEC declare a failure of election, or to call a special one. Sec 6 OEC
235 SCRA 436 provides that there is failure of elections when:

Digested by: MAMAC It is not held on the date fixed in the, or suspended before the
hour fixed by law for the closing of voting, or transmission of
SUMMARY: election returns resulted to a failure to elect
A group of armed men opened fired in a school which
disrupted the elections for mayor in the Municipality of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Calanogas, Lanao del Sur. Benito wanted to declare failure of
elections in 3 of the precincts therein alleging that voting did BINCE v. COMELEC
not resume after the incident. However the court did not give 242 SCRA 273
credence to such allegation because of the affidavits of BEI and
final reports of election officers in charge that indeed, Digested by: MAYPA
elections resumed. SC said that the power to declare failure
of elections is exclusively with COMELEC. Such must be FACTS:
exercised with caution and only if there is evidence that voters
were disenfranchised due to violence, intimidation and Bince and Macu were Sangguniang Panlalawigan candidates in
threats. Pangasinan during the 1992 elections. During the canvassing
of the COCs for the 10 municipalities of the 6th District, Micu
FACTS: objected to the inclusion of the COC of San Quintin, claiming
that it contained false statements. Micu later secured a
Benito and Pagayawan are candidates in the mayoralty resolution from the COMELEC directing the Provincial Board of
elections in Calanogas, Lanao Del Sur. On the day of elections, Canvassers the correct number of votes from the municipality
30 armed men interrupted the voting by firing shots of San Quintin.
in Disimban Elementary School. As a result, the voters
panicked and scrambled for their safety. Meanwhile, Micu filed several petitions for correction of the
Statements of Votes (SOVs) for alleged errors in other
Benito: After the incident, military forces took the ballot boxes municipalities of the 6th district (Tayug and San Miguel). Note
and were taken to the municipal hall. Voting did not resume that the errors were committed by the Municipal Board of
after that. Canvassers (MBCs). However, after canvassing the COCs for
the 10 municipalities, it turns out Bince garnered 27,370 votes
Pagayawan: Voting resumed an hour after the armed against Micu’s 27,369 or a margin of 1 vote. Bince was not yet
men disappeared. No further disruptions were made and proclaimed at this time because of the absence of authority
elections were closed at 3pm. As evidence he submitted the from the COMELEC.
final report of the acting election officer which testified to such
fact. After the tabulation of votes, respondent won by a margin On June 29, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution
of 48 votes. The ballots in the enumerated precincts were directing the PBC to continue with the provincial canvass and
excluded after petitioner’s objection that these arrived after proclaim the winning candidates.
the canvassing of 19 others. Respondent was proclaimed
mayor because even considering the excluded votes, the result On June 24, the PBC acted on Micu’s petitions for correction of
of the elections would not change. Benito then asked that the SOVs for Tayug and San Miguel. Bince appealed, claiming

4 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

that the PBC had no jurisdiction. Subsequently the PBC filed a correction may be filed at any time before proclamation of a
petition with the COMELEC seeking a definitive ruling as to winner.
who should be proclaimed.
What if the petitions for correction were filed out of time? No
Apparently, if the corrections for the SOVs of Tayug and SM effect. Assuming for the sake of argument that the petition
were to be included, Emiliano Micu would gain plurality by 72 was filed out of time, this incident alone will not thwart the
votes. The COMELEC resolved the PBC to proclaim the winning proper determination and resolution of the instant case on
candidate on the basis of the completed and corrected substantial grounds. Adherence to a technicality that would
Certificates of Canvass. put a stamp of validity on a palpably void proclamation, with
the inevitable result of frustrating the people’s will cannot be
However, on July 21, Bince was proclaimed winner. Micu filed countenanced. Adjudication of cases on substantive merits
an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to Annul Proclamation, and not on technicalities has been consistently observed by
and Amended Urgent Petition for Contempt and Annul the Court.
Proclamation, alleging that the PBC defied the directive of the
COMELEC. The COMELEC held the officers who proclaimed Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve
Bince in contempt, and directed the PBC to proclaim the public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers
true winner. should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle
to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the
The case later turned to the legality of the PBC’s granting of choice of their elective officials. And also settled is the rule that
the petition for the correction of the Tayug and SM SOVs. Micu laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to
claims that his petitions for correction were valid under the end that the will of the people may not be defeated by
Section 6, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of mere technical objections.
Procedure.Eventually, Bince’s proclamation was affirmed, but
on Micu’s MR to the en banc, was set aside and declared null Was allowing the correction of mathematical errors proper?
and void. YES It does not involve the opening of ballot boxes; neither
Bince appealed to the SC in a special civil action for certiorari. does it involve the examination and/or appreciation of ballots.
The correction sought by respondents is correction of manifest
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed Grave Abuse mistakes in mathematical addition. Certainly, this only calls for
of Discretion in nullifying Bince’s proclamation. a mere clerical act of reflecting the true and correct votes
received by the candidates. In this case, the manifest errors
RULING: only sought proper and diligent addition of the votes in Tayug
and San Miguel. Consequently, by a margin of 72 votes, Micu
NO. COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction. COMELEC did not indisputably won. Bince’s proclamation and assumption into
act with GAOD in annulling the proclamation of petitioner public office was therefore flawed from the beginning, the
Alfonso Bince, Jr. and in directing the Provincial Board of same having been based in a faulty tabulation.
Canvassers of Pangasinan to order the MBCs of Tayug and San
Miguel to make the necessary corrections in the SOVs and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COCs. Nullification was justified as the basis was a
mathematical error committed by the MBCs in the MARUHOM v. COMELEC
computation of votes. The COMELEC cannot be faulted for 331 SCRA 473
subsequently annulling the proclamation of petitioner Bince
on account of a mathematical error in addition, committed by Digested by: MAYPA
the MBCs.
FACTS:
As to timeliness of Micu’s petitions for correction, the petitions
to correct manifest errors were filed on time, that is, before Petitioner Maruhom and Respondent Dimaporo were both
the petitioner’s proclamation on July 21, 1992. The petition of candidates for Mayor in the Municipality of Marogong, Lanao
the MBC of San Miguel was filed on June 4, 1992, while that of del Sur. During the counting of votes, serious irregularities,
the MBC of Tayug was filed on June 5, 1992. Still, Micu’s anomalies and electoral frauds were committed at the
petition was filed with the MBC of Tayug and San Miguel on instance of Maruhom or his followers in that votes actually
June 10 and 11, 1992, respectively. It is definitely well within casted for the Dimaporo were not counted and credited in his
the period required by Section 6, Rule 27 of the COMELEC favor thru the concerted acts, conspiracy and manipulation of
Rules of Procedure. Sec. 6 clearly provides that the petition for the Board of Election Inspectors, military, Election Officer and

5 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

the Machine Operator who happens to be a nephew of the As a diabolical scheme to cause further delay of the
Maruhom. Many official ballots were refused or rejected by proceedings of the case more specifically the revision of
the machine. As a result of the foregoing irregularities, ballots, Maruhom filed the COMELEC an instant petition for
anomalies and electoral frauds, Maruhom was proclaimed as certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
winner because he appeared to have obtained 2,020 votes injunction and also filed an urgent motion before the RTC
while Dimaporo garnered 2,000 votes with a slight margin of praying that further proceedings in Election Case No. 11-127
only 20 votes. be deferred until after Maruhom’s petition with COMELEC
shall have been finally resolved. Before Dimaporo’s counsel
Dimaporo then filed before COMELEC a petition to annul the could file his opposition to said urgent motion and in the
proclamation of Maruhom docketed as SPC No. 98-226 and absence of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction
thereafter also filed an ordinary "Protest ad Cautelam" before issued by the COMELEC, the RTC already issued an order
the Regional Trial Court and for manual judicial recount, granting the same motion and ordering the Revision
revision and re-appreciation of ballots docketed as Election Committee to hold in abeyance the scheduled revision of
Case No. 11-127. Maruhom filed an answer with counter- ballots until further order from the court. Maruhom’s petition
protest in Election Case No. 11-127 and prayed to hold in was later dismissed by the COMELEC, hence, the instant
abeyance further proceedings since the protest is subject to petition with the SC, on the grounds that COMELEC acted in
the petition of Dimaporo filed before the COMELEC. Before the excess of, or with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack
COMELEC could set the hearing on the petition, Dimaporo filed of jurisdiction in:
a motion to withdraw his petition in said SPC No. 98-228 and
which was granted by COMELEC. 1.] holding that a motion to dismiss an election protest case
filed in the Regional Trial Court is a prohibited pleading;
On the case filed before the RTC of which a Revision
Committee was already duly created and its membership duly 2.] holding that the motion to dismiss filed after the answer is
appointed in open court which committee. After the Revision not allowed;
Committee was directed by the RTC to commence the revision
of ballots, Maruhom thru counsel orally moved for the 3.] failing to resolve the issues raised in SPR No. 52-98 which
dismissal of the protest. Dimaporo through counsel opposed are sufficient legal bases to dismiss Election Case No. 11-127.
the said oral motion to dismiss and orally argued that the
motion is clearly dilatory having been made only after the ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC abdicated its duty under its
Revision Committee has been ordered to commence the own rules of procedure and under the Constitution and the
revision of ballots. After the oral arguments of both parties, election laws amounting grave abuse of discretion in
Maruhom’s counsel asked that he be given ample time to file dismissing the SPR No. 52-98 and thereby affirming the RTC
a written Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and the RTC allowed the decision denying the motion to dismiss the election protest
filing of the Omnibus Motion in substantiation of all the oral filed Dimaporo against Maruhom.
motions he made, furnishing a copy thereof to Dimaporo’s
counsel who was likewise given an equal period of time to RULING:
comment. Maruhom then filed his motion to dismiss to which
Dimaporo filed a vigorous opposition to motion to dismiss. NO. Section 2(1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the
During the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws
opposition thereto, Maruhom’s counsel requested for ample and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
time to file a rejoinder to the vigorous opposition to motion to plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall" which intends to
dismiss submitted Dimaporo which was granted by the court give the COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for
so that Maruhom filed his rejoinder and Dimaporo filed his it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest,
comment thereto and thereafter all incidents were submitted peaceful and credible elections.
for resolution of the court. Subsequently, the RTC issued the
assailed order denying the Maruhom’s motion to dismiss for The Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate must
lack of merit and ordering the Revision Committee to report to do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass
the court for their oath taking and to receive the instruction of of the votes cast in the elections. In the performance of its
the court in the revision of the ballots and other allied matters. duties, the Commission must be given a considerable latitude
Maruhom filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC in adopting means and methods that will insure the
denied for lack of merit. accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created
to promote free, orderly and honest elections. The choice of
means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are

6 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should massive fraud and disenfranchisement of voters occurred, nor
not be interfered with. did it point out how many votes would be gained by the
protestant as a result of the same.
As to the filing of the motion to dismiss, the Court found that
the same appears to be part of a perfidious plot to prevent the Pena later submitted a list of specific contested precincts on
early termination of the proceedings in the election case as July 10, or 17 days after Abueg’s answer.
evidenced by a confluence of events clearly showing a pattern
of delay employed by Maruhom to avert the revision ballots. In October, the HRET ruled that while it had jurisdiction over
Furthermore, while the challenged COMELEC Resolution may the petition, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
not have been entirely correct in dismissing the petition, the election returns and qualifications of the members of the
soundness of its discretion to accord unto the trial court the House of Representatives, the said petition, however, fails to
competence to resolve the factual issues raised in the state a cause of action, and is therefore, insufficient in form
controversy cannot be doubted. and substance, meriting its dismissal.

Verily, the Court held that the legal compass from which the Pena filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election
controversies is the principle that "clean elections control the ISSUE: Whether or not the HRET committed GAOD in
appropriateness of the remedy." In the same vein, the Court dismissing Pena’s petition ad cuatelam for lack of substance
ruled that “in applying elections laws, it would be far better to (which Pena later cured)?
err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex
but little understood legalisms.” RULING:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No, Pena’s petition is lacking substance hence dismissal is
proper.
PEÑA v. HRET
270 SCRA 340 A perusal of the petition Ad Cuatelam, reveals that petitioner
makes no specific mention of the precincts where widespread
Digested by: MAYPA election, fraud and irregularities occurred. This is a fatal
omission, as it goes into the very substance of the protest.
FACTS:
The prescription that the petition must be sufficient in form
Pena and Abueg were rivals for the Congressional seat in and substance means that the petition must be more than
Palawan during the May 8, 1995 elections. Apparently, Abueg merely rhetorical. If the allegations contained therein are
was proclaimed winner. unsupported by even the faintest whisper of authority in fact
and law, then there is no other course than to dismiss the
On May 22, Pena filed a petition AD CAUTELAM with the HRET, petition, otherwise, the assumption of an elected public
claiming that the elections in the 2nd district of Palawan were official may, and will always be held up by petitions of this sort
tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote---buying, by the losing candidate.
intimidation and terrorism and other serious irregularities
committed before, during and after the voting, and during the The defect in the instant case arises from the failure to allege
counting of votes and the preparation of election returns and the contested precincts. Only a bare allegation of “massive
certificates of canvass which affected the results of the fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism and other
election. serious irregularities,” without specification and
substantiation of where and how these occurrences took
Because of these irregularities, Pena stated that he lost the place, appears in the petition. We cannot allow an election
election by almost 7k votes. He then assailed Abueg’s protest based on such flimsy averments to prosper,
proclamation. otherwise, the whole election process will deteriorate into an
endless stream of crabs pulling at each other, racing to
Abueg filed an answer and a motion to dismiss on June 23, disembark from the water.
averring that the HRET has not acquired jurisdiction over the
petition, the same being insufficient in form and substance. In Substantial amendments may be allowed but must be within
essence, the motion to dismiss anchors its challenge on the time period (10 days after winner’s proclamation)
fact that the petition failed to allege the precincts where the

7 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET, that with respect to ninety-six (96) precincts of the 157 protested
substantial amendments to the protest may be allowed only by Punzalan.
within the same period for filing the election protest, which,
under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days Since the two (2) election protests involved the same parties
after the proclamation of the winner. and subject matter, they were ordered consolidated and were
jointly tried by the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 44.
Exception to liberal construction:
While it is conceded that statutes providing for election Succinctly, the election contests sought the nullification of the
contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the will election of Meneses allegedly due to massive fraud,
of the people in the choice of public officers may not be irregularities and other illegal electoral practices during the
defeated by mere technical questions, the rule likewise stands, registration and the voting as well as during the counting of
that in an election protest, the protestant must stand or fall votes.
upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended
pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for First. Punzalan maintains that the COMELEC acted with grave
filing the protest. abuse of discretion in declaring as valid the ballots credited to
Meneses which did not bear the signature of the BEI chairman
Admittedly, the rule is well-established that the power to at the back thereof, invoking the ruling of this Court in Bautista
annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as v. Castro
it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will. It is
only in extreme cases of fraud and under circumstances which First. Punzalan maintains that the COMELEC acted with grave
demonstrate to the fullest degree a fundamental and wanton abuse of discretion in declaring as valid the ballots credited to
disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and then only Meneses which did not bear the signature of the BEI chairman
when it becomes impossible to take any other step. at the back thereof. wherein it was held that the absence of
the signature of the BEI chairman in the ballot given to a voter
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of
said ballot is fatal.
FERNANDEZ VS. COMELEC
GR No. 9135 April 3, 1990 ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in the decision.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RULING:

In EPC No. E-005-95 declaring Ferdinand D. Meneses as having
PUNZALAN VS. COMELEC garnered 7,719 votes or 33 votes more than the 7,686 votes
G.R. No. 126669 April 27, 1998 received by Danilo D. Manalastas and dismissing the instant
protest.
Digested by: BAGUIO
In EPC No. E-006-95 declaring Ernesto M. Punzalan as the duly
FACTS: elected Municipal Mayor of Mexico, Pampanga. Protestee
Ferdinand D. Meneses is hereby ordered to vacate his position
On May 30, 1995, Danilo Manalastas filed an election protest and to cease and desist from further discharging the duties and
docketed as Election Case No. E-005-95 before the Regional functions officially... vested in the Office of the Municipal
Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, challenging the results Mayor of Mexico, Pampanga which now and henceforth,
of the elections in the municipality's forty-seven (47) precincts. unless otherwise disqualified by law, are conferred unto and in
In due time, Ferdinand Meneses filed his answer with counter favor of Ernesto M. Punzalan, who is hereby ordered to act,
protest impugning the results in twenty-one (21) precincts of perform and discharge the duties, functions and
the 47 protested by Manalastas. responsibilities and all incidents appertaining to and in
connection with the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Mexico,
On June 2, 1995, Ernesto Punzalan filed his own election Pampanga, immediately and after he shall have taken his oath
protest docketed as Election Case No. E-006-95, also before of office as such.
the RTC in San Fernando, Pampanga, questioning the results of
the elections in one hundred and fifty seven (157) precincts. The counterclaims interposed by Ferdinand D. Meneses in
Meneses, on his part, filed an answer with counter-protest both cases are hereby dismissed.


8 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

The authorities concerned are hereby ordered to enforce, his certificate of candidacy. Section 155(11) of the 1978
implement and assist in the enforcement and implementation Election Code provides:
of this Decision immediately after Ernesto M. Punzalan shall
have had taken his oath of office. "11. The use of nicknames and appellations of affection and
friendship, if accompanied by the first name or surname of the
As soon as this Decision becomes final, let notice thereof be candidate, does not annul such vote, except when they were
sent to the Commission on Elections, Department of Interior used as a means to identify the voter, in which case the whole
and Local Governments and Commission on Audit. ballot is invalid: Provided, That if the nickname used is
Without pronouncement as to costs. unaccompanied by the name or surname of a candidate and it
is the one by which he is generally or popularly known in the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - locality and stated in his certificate of candidacy, the same shall
be counted in favor of said candidate, if there is no other
SERGIO BAUTISTA v. JOSE P. CASTRO candidate for the same office with the same nickname."
GR No. 61260, Feb 17, 1992
While the name written was "BLBIOY," there was no doubt that
Digested by: BAGUIO the voter intended to vote for "BIBOY," the nickname of which
petitioner was popularly known and which nickname was duly
FACTS: registered in his certificate of candidacy. Hence, the
respondent court's decision as regards to Exhibit "5" is
This petition seeks the reversal of the decision of respondent reversed and the vote is counted for petitioner.
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal,
Branch 9, Quezon City rendered in an appealed election case Exhibit "6" was invalidated by both respondent court and the
and which decision proclaimed herein private respondent city court as stray vote on the ground that petitioner's name,
Roberto Miguel as the duly elected Barangay Captain of written as "Bo. Barangay Bautista" was placed on the first line
Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City, in the Barangay intended for councilmen. In the case of Farin v. Gonzales and
Elections held on May 17, 1982, with a plurality of twenty-four CA, G.R. No. L-36893, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 237, cited
(24) votes over herein petitioner Sergio Bautista. by petitioner, it was ruled that where the name of a candidate
is not written in the proper space in the ballot but is preceded
Both the petitioner Sergio Bautista and private respondent by the name of the office for which he is a candidate, the vote
Roberto Miguel were candidates for the office above should be counted as valid for such candidate.
mentioned. After canvass, petitioner Bautista was proclaimed
the winner by the Barangay Board of Canvassers on May 17, Such rule stems from the fact that in the appreciation of the
1982 with a plurality of two (2) votes. ballot, the object should be to ascertain and carry into effect
the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with
ISSUES: reasonable certainty. In this case, while the name of petitioner
(1) Whether or not the supposed opinion of a person, who was was written in the space for... barangay councilman, his name
brought by private respondent but who was never presented was preceded by the name of the office for which he is being
as a witness, is competent and admissible evidence to support elected, that as Punong Barangay or Barangay Captain (See
the appellate court's (CFI) conclusion that no less than Exh. "6"). The respondent court ruled that what was placed
eighteen (18) votes cast in favor of... your petitioner were before the name BAUTISTA was Bo. Barangay and not Po.
written by one and the same person. Barangay for Punong Barangay (or Barangay Captain). We
believe however that the voter's intention to vote for
(2) Whether or not a ballot which does not contain the BAUTISTA as Barangay Captain was present and said vote
signature of the poll chairman be considered a valid ballot. should be counted in favor of petitioner.

(3) Whether or not respondent judge acted correctly in its Respondent court correctly invalidated Exhibit "7." This ballot
appreciation of the contested ballots cannot be considered as a vote for petitioner whose name was
written seven (7) times in the ballot. The writing of a name
RULING: more than twice on the ballot is considered to be intentional
and serves no other purpose... than to identify the ballot
Petitioner objects to respondent court's ruling rejecting Exh. (Katigbak v. Mendoza, L-24477, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA
"5." The word "BLBIOY" was written in the space for Barangay 543).
Captain. "BIBOY," petitioner's nickname was duly registered in

9 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of respondent court is MODIFIED HRET Decision (May 28, 1997) The HRET dismissed Libanan’s
as regards Exhibits "5" and "6." Private respondent Roberto protest and affirmed the proclamation of Ramirez, declaring
Miguel is declared the duly elected Barangay Captain of the latter as the duly elected Representative of Eastern Samar
Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City, with a plurality of as he obtained plurality of votes over the former.
twenty-two (22) votes. The temporary restraining order issued
by this Court on December 2, 1982 is hereby LIFTED. HRET Resolution (June 20, 1997) The HRET denied with finality
Libanan’s motion for reconsideration, holding that fraud of the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ballots is not presumed and it should be established, if any,
pursuant to Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code. It even
LIBANAN V. HRET AND RAMIREZ credited Libanan with 30 votes since there was an error in
GR No. 129783, December 22, 1997 computation and rejected 12 for Ramirez. Ramirez still had a
99-vote lead nevertheless.
Digested by: OSTAN
ISSUE: Whether or not HRET committed grave abuse of
FACTS: discretion in ruling that the absence of the signature of the BEI
Chairman in the ballot did not render the ballots spurious.
In the May 8, 1995 elections, Marcelino Libanan (Petitioner)
and Jose Ramirez (Respondent) were among the candidates for RULING:
the only congressional seat of Eastern Samar. On May 13,
1995, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Eastern Samar NO. There is nothing in Section 24 of RA 7166 saying that a
proclaimed Ramirez as the duly elected Representative of the ballot not authenticated shall be deemed spurious. The
District with 41,523 votes. Libanan only got 40,869 votes provision states that “in every case before delivering an official
(difference = 654 votes). Libanan then filed an election protest ballot to the voter, the Chairman of the Board of Election
before the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal Inspector shall, in the presence of the voter, affix his signature
(Respondent – HRET) to annul Ramirez’ proclamation and at the back thereof. Failure to authenticate shall be noted in
proclaim him as the winner instead. Ramirez filed an answer the minutes of the Board of Election Inspectors and shall
and counter-protest to this, praying its dismissal as he was the constitute an election offense punishable under Section 263
rightful winner. and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.”

Contention of Petitioner Libanan claimed that the May 1995 When the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure and
elections were tainted with irregularities which were initiated ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature
by Ramirez, his supporters, and even peace officers. He should be determined from the language employed, and
contested 79 precincts in 5 of the 23 municipalities of the where there is not ambiguity in the words, there should be no
district. He also claimed that the returns/ballots of some room for consideration.
precincts were tampered with to be in favor of Ramirez. He
argued that the absence of thumbmark or BEI Chairman’s The law merely renders the BEI Chairman accountable for such
signature at the back of a ballot rendered it spurious, even with failure, not to disenfranchise the voter. The court may thus not
COMELEC watermarks, as the law required the presence of enlarge the scope of a statute and embrace situations not
such signature. intended or provided by the lawmakers. In fact, before RA
7166 became a law, Section 22 of its House Bills 34639 and
Contention of Respondent Ramirez denied the allegations and 34660 which provided that “x x x any ballot which is not so
counter-protested that it was actually Libanan who engaged in authenticated shall be deemed spurious x x x” was even
vote buying, lansadera, terrorism, and tearing of voters list to deleted, evidencing the intention of the legislature.
force them.
In this case, the HRET committed no grave abuse of discretion
HRET Findings The HRET found that there was no evidence to in ruling that a ballot is considered valid and genuine for as long
support the tampering and the tearing of voters list. No as it bears any one of these authenticating marks: (a) COMELEC
spurious ballots were found, thus appreciating of the ballots. watermark; or (b) signature or initials, or thumbprint of the BEI
It said that Section 24 of RA 7166 shall not consider a ballot Chairman; and (c) in those case where the COMELEC
with no BEI Chairman’s signature at its back will not per se be watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent to the naked
a spurious ballot, although such action is an election offense. eye, the presence of red and blue fibers in the ballots. It is only
This was considered an error of the BEI Chairman and not a when none of these marks appear that the ballot can be
disenfranchising of the voter. considered spurious and subject to rejection.

10 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - According to Justice Davide, Jr.’s concurring opinion, the term

“regular local election” must be confined to the regular
REGULAR ELECTIONS election of elective local officials who are the Provincial
Governors, Vice-Governors of provinces, Mayors and Vice-
PARAS V. COMELEC Mayors of cities and municipalities, Member of the
GR No. 123169, November 4, 1996 Sanggunians of provinces, cities and municipalities, punong
barangays and members of the sangguniang barangays, and
Digested by: OSTAN the elective regional officials of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao, as recognized in Section 2(2) of Article IX-C
FACTS: of the Constitution.

Danilo Paras (Petitioner) was the incumbent Punong Barangay A regular election, whether national or local, can only refer to
of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won in the 1994 regular an election participated in by those who possess the right of
barangay election. suffrage, are not otherwise disqualified by law, and who are
registered voters. One of the requirements for the exercise of
As registered voters of the barangay filed a petition for his suffrage under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution is that
recall, the Commission on Elections (Respondent – COMELEC) the person must be at least 18 years of age, and one requisite
scheduled a petition signing on October 14, 1995 and set the before he can vote is that he be a registered voter pursuant to
recall election on November 13, 1995. 29.30% of the registered the rules on registration prescribed in the Omnibus Election
voters signed the petition which was above the 25% required Code (Section 113-118).
by law. However, COMELEC rescheduled the recall to
December 16, 1995, upon Paras’ opposition. Since the SK still includes the youth with ages ranging from 15-
21 in Section 424 of the LGC, its elective officials have not
To prevent the recall from pushing through, Paras filed a attained the status of local elective officials. Also, although the
petition for injunction with the RTC. The RTC eventually SK Chairman is an ex-officio member of the sangguniang
dismissed the petition and required petitioner to explain why barangay, it does not make him an elective barangay official.
he should not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting that
the barangay recall election was without COMELEC approval. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Again, the COMELEC rescheduled the recall election to January
13, 1996. Hence, the present petition. REFERENDUM

Contention of Petitioner Paras cited Section 74(b) of RA 7160 SMBA V. COMELEC, GARCIA, AND CALIMBAS
(Local Government Code – LGC) which states that “no recall GR No. 125416, September 26, 1996
shall take place within 1 year from the date of the official
assumption to office or 1 year immediately preceding a regular Digested by: OSTAN
local election”. He insisted that the scheduled January 13, 1996
recall election was barred since the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) FACTS:
election, a regular election, was set by RA 7808 on the first
Monday of May 1996, and every 3 years thereafter. By virtue of RA 7227 (The Bases Conversion and Development
Act of 1992) creating the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ),
ISSUE: Whether or not the SK election is considered a regular the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (Petitioner – SMBA) was
election created to implement the converting of the Subic military
reservation into alternative productive uses.
RULING:
The American navy eventually turned over the Subic military
NO. The SK election is not a regular local election for purposes reservation to the Philippine government, prompting SBMA to
of recall under Section 74 of the LGC. start its task in preserving seaports, airports, building, houses,
and other installations left by the American navy.
Paras interpreted the law too literally which leads to absurdity
which the Court does not approve of as it constricts rather than The Sangguiniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan then passed
fulfills the law’s purpose and defeats the intention of its Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing its
authors. absolute concurrence to join the SSEZ. However, Enrique


11 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Garcia and Catalino Calimbas (Respondents) filed a petition to The Initiative and Referendum Act differentiates one from the
annul this. other and the definitions are also echoed in the LGC. An
initiative is resorted to by the people directly either: (1)
Despite the Sanguniang Bayan requesting the Congress to because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law,
amend certain provisions of RA 7227 particularly those related ordinance, resolution, or act that they desire; or (2) because
to the Kapasyahan, Garcia and Calimbas resorted to their they want to amend or modify one already existing. It is
power of initiative under Section 122(b) of the Local entirely the work of the electorate – a process of law-making
Government Code (LGC). by the people themselves without the participation and
against the wishes of their elected representatives.
The Commission on Elections (Respondent – COMELEC)
thereby issued a resolution denying the petition for local A referendum entails the law-making body to submit to the
initiative on the ground that the subject thereof was merely a registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or
resolution in the form of a Pambayang Kapasyahan and not an rejection, any ordinance or resolution which is duly enacted or
ordinance, directing its Provincial Election Supervisor to hold approved by such law-making authority, all under the control
action on the authentication of signatures being solicited by and direction of the COMELEC. It is begun and consented to by
the respondents. the law-making body with the electorate merely approving or
rejecting what has been drawn by a legislative body.
SBMA sought to nullify COMELEC’s resolution denying its plea
to stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
proposition to recall Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye
1993. EFFECTIVITY OF INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM

After the President issued a Proclamation defining the bounds SANTIAGO V. COMELEC
of the SSEZ, COMELEC issued another resolution (Resolution G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997
No. 2848) adopting a “Calendar of Activities for local
referendum on certain municipal ordinance passed by the Digested by: HONTANOSAS
Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan”.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave abuse
of discretion in promulgating a referendum through Resolution Atty. Delfin filed with COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the
No. 2848 Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by
People's Initiative" wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an
RULING: order:

YES. In this case, the respondents started an initiative but 1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the
COMELEC made preparations for a referendum only, although country;
it is unquestionably an initiative. The COMELEC cannot change
the substance of legislation regarding initiative and 2. Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the
referendum. attached "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in
newspapers of general and local circulation;
Under Section 13 of RA 6735, the local legislative body is given
the opportunity to enact the proposal. If it refuses/neglects to 3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the
do so within 30 days from its presentation, the proponents Philippines, to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing
through their duly authorized and registered representatives signing stations at the time and on the dates designated for the
may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to purpose.
the local legislative body concerned. Should the proponents be
able to collect the number of signed conformities within the Attached to the petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on
period granted by said statute, the Commission on Elections the 1987 Constitution" embodying the proposed amendments
"shall then set a date for the initiative (not referendum) at which consist in the deletion from the aforecited sections of
which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered the provisions concerning term limits, and with the following
voters in the local government unit concerned x x x”. proposition:

12 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL c.3 the reason or reasons therefor;
ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE c.4 that it is not one of the exceptions provided therein;
PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4 OF c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987 c.6 an abstract or summary proposition is not more than
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION? one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly
written or printed at the top of every page of the
According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first be petition. (Emphasis supplied).
submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be
twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters in the enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC. repealed" only strengthens the conclusion that
Section 2, quoted earlier, excludes initiative on
ISSUE: Whether or not the instant petition is viable despite the amendments to the Constitution.
pendency in the COMELEC of the Delfin Petition
While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and
HELD: Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and
Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided
Yes, the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure in for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to
cases of transcendental importance. As stated in Kilosbayan, the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is
Inc. v. Guingona, Jr. initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If
Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the
A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality implementation of the initiative on amendments to the
which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor,
of the importance of issues raised. In the landmark Emergency considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest,
Powers Cases, this Court brushed aside this technicality or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly
because the transcendental importance to the public of these propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, important than the initiative on national and local laws.
brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.
We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on
ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. NO. 6735 was intended to include amendments to the Constitution is subsumed under the
the system of initiative on amendments to the constitution. subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is
national in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National Initiative
HELD: and Referendum) and Subtitle III (Local Initiative and
Referendum) leaves no room for doubt that the classification
No, while it is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on
Act defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and its nature and character. It is "national initiative," if what is
mentions it as one of the three systems of initiative, and that proposed to be adopted or enacted is a national law, or a law
Section 5 (Requirements) restates the constitutional which only Congress can pass. It is "local initiative" if what is
requirements as to the percentage of the registered voters proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or
who must submit the proposal. But unlike in the case of the resolution which only the legislative bodies of the
other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Section municipalities, and barangays can pass. This classification of
5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of initiative into national and local is actually based on Section 3
the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, of the Act, which we quote for emphasis and clearer
amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, understanding:
as among the contents of the petition, the provisions of the
Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on Sec. 3. Definition of terms —
the Constitution. Said paragraph (c) reads in full as follows:
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1 contents or text of the proposed law sought to be a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition
enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, proposing amendments to the Constitution;
as the case may be;
c.2 the proposition;

13 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

a.2 Initiative on Statutes which refers to a petition proposing The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative
to enact a national legislation; and only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading.
Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC,
a.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe
barangay law, resolution or ordinance. the form of the petition; 63 (2) to issue through its Election
Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number
Hence, to complete the classification under subtitles there of registered voters in each legislative district; 64 (3) to assist,
should have been a subtitle on initiative on amendments to the through its election registrars, in the establishment of
Constitution. signature stations; 65 and (4) to verify, through its election
registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, voters, voters' affidavits, and voters' identification cards used
insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of in the immediately preceding election.
initiative on amendments to the constitution, is void.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A.
HELD: No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be
entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The
Yes, insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Commission must have known that the petition does not fall
Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to under any of the actions or proceedings under the COMELEC
satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which
delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. reason it did not assign to the petition a docket number.
Hence, the said petition was merely entered as UND,
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more than a
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by
the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December
Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file
that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the
power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
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. SBMA v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 125416 September 26, 1996
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Digested by: HONTANOSAS
petition.
FACTS:
HELD:
The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition of
Yes, under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Garcia, Calimbas, et al. by promulgating Pambayang
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye 1993, requesting Congress of the
Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of the total Philippines so amend certain provisions of RA 7227,
number of registered voters of which every legislative district particularly those concerning the matters cited in items (A),
is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. (B), (K), (E), and (G) of Garcia, et al’s petition. The Sangguniang
The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required Bayan of Morong also informed Garcia, et al that items (D) and
number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet (H) had already been referred to and favorably acted upon by
gathered signatures and that the purpose of his petition is the government agencies concerned, such as the Bases
primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures. Conversion Development Authority and the Office of the
Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be President.
deemed validly initiated.
Not satisfied, and within 30 days from submission of their
petition, Garcia, et al resorted to their power initiative under

14 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

the Local Government Code of 1991,4 Sec. 122 paragraph (b) (c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or
of which provides as follows: reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose.
It may be of two classes, namely:
Sec. 122. Procedure in Local Initiative. —
(b) If no favorable action thereon is taken by the sanggunian c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to
concerned, the proponents, through their duly authorized and approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by
registered representatives, may invoke their power of Congress; and
initiative, giving notice thereof to the sangguniang concerned.
c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to
On July 6, 1993, Commission En Banc in Comelec Resolution approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by
No. 93-1623 denied the petition for local initiative by Garcia, regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.
ett al on the ground that the subject thereof was merely a
resolution (pambayang kapasyahan) and not an ordinance. Along these statutory definitions, Justice Isagani A.
Cruz defines initiative as the "power of the people to propose
ISSUE: Whether the respondent Comelec committed grave bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls
abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing its independent of the legislative assembly." On the other hand,
Resolution No. 2848 which "govern(s) the conduct of the he explains that referendum "is the right reserved to the
referendum proposing to annul or repeal Pambayang people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been
Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would
Morong, Bataan". without action on the part of electors become a law." The
foregoing definitions, which are based on Black's and other
HELD: leading American authorities, are echoed in the Local
Government Code (RA 7160) substantially as follows:
Yes, to begin with, the process started by Garcia, et al was an
INITIATIVE but Comelec made preparations for a Sec. 120. Local Initiative Defined. — Local initiative is the legal
REFERENDUM only. process whereby the registered voters of local government
unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance.
There are statutory and conceptual demarcations between a
referendum and an initiative. In enacting the "Initiative and Sec. 126. Local Referendum Defined. — Local referendum is
Referendum Act, Congress differentiated one term from the the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local
other, thus: government units may approve, amend or reject any
ordinance enacted by the sanggunian.
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact The local referendum shall be held under the control and
legislations through an election called for the purpose. direction of the Comelec within sixty (60) days in case of
provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: municipalities and thirty (30) days in case of baranggays.

a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition The Comelec shall certify and proclaim the results of the said
proposing amendments to the Constitution; referendum.

a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing Prescinding from these definitions, the Court gather that
to enact a national legislation; and initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly
either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact
a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition the law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or because they want to amend or modify one already existing.
barangay law, resolution or ordinance. Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given
the opportunity to enact the proposal. If it refuses/neglects to
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the
through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative proponents through their duly-authorized and registered
body for action. representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving
notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should
the proponents be able to collect the number of signed

15 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

conformities within the period granted by said statute, the HELD: No, the municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage.
Commission on Elections "shall then set a date for the initiative It is not yet an approved law. Should the people reject it, then
(not referendum) at which the proposition shall be submitted there would be nothing to contest and to adjudicate. It is only
to the registered voters in the local government unit when the people have voted for it and it has become an
concerned. approved ordinance or resolution that rights and obligations
can be enforced or implemented thereunder. At this point, it
On the other hand, in a local referendum, the law-making body is merely a proposal and the writ or prohibition cannot issue
submits to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, upon a mere conjecture or possibility. Constitutionally
for approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution which is speaking, courts may decide only actual controversies, not
duly enacted or approved by such law-making authority. Said hypothetical questions or cases.
referendum shall be conducted also under the control and
direction of the Commission on Elections. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In other words, while initiative is entirely the work of the RECALL
electorate, referendum is begun and consented to by the law-
making body. Initiative is a process of law-making by the GARCIA VS. COMELEC
people themselves without the participation and against the G.R. No. 111511 October 5, 1993
wishes of their elected representatives, while referendum
consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what Digested by: HONTANOSAS
has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body. Hence, the
process and the voting in an initiative are understandably more FACTS:
complex than in a referendum where expectedly the voters
will simply write either "Yes" of "No" in the ballot. Garcia was elected governor of the province of Bataan in the
May 11, 1992 elections. In the early evening of July 1993, some
From the above differentiation, it follows that there is need for mayors, vice-mayors and members of the Sangguniang Bayan
the Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely, its of the twelve (12) municipalities of the province met at the
authority thereon extending not only to the counting and National Power Corporation compound in Bagac, Bataan. At
canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that the matter or about 12:30 A.M of the following day, July 2, 1993, they
act submitted to the people is in the proper form and language proceeded to the Bagac town plaza where they constituted
so it may be easily understood and voted upon by the themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the
electorate. This is especially true where the proposed recall election of Garcia. The mayor of Mariveles, Honorable
legislation is lengthy and complicated, and should thus be Oscar, de los Reyes, and the mayor of Dinalupihan, the
broken down into several autonomous parts, each such part to Honorable Lucila Payumo, were chosen as Presiding Officer
be voted upon separately. Care must also be exercised that and Secretary of the Assembly, respectively. Thereafter, the
"(n)o petition embracing more than one subject shall be Vice-Mayor of Limay, the Honorable Ruben Roque, was
submitted to the electorate,"16 although "two or more recognized and he moved that a resolution be passed for the
propositions may be submitted in an initiative". recall of Garcia on the ground of "loss of confidence."

In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises ISSUE: Whether or not the right to recall does not extend
administration and supervision of the process itself, akin to its merely to the prerogative of the electorate to reconfirm or
powers over the conduct of elections. These law-making withdraw their confidence on the official sought to be recalled
powers belong to the people, hence the respondent at a special election and that such prerogative necessarily
Commission cannot control or change the substance or the includes the sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to
content of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it may (in initiate a recall proceedings or not."
fact it should have done so already) issue relevant and
adequate guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of these HELD:
"people-power" features of our Constitution.
No, Garcia cannot point to any specific provision of the
ISSUE: Whether or not the questioned local initiative covers a Constitution that will sustain this submission. To be sure, there
subject within the powers of the people of Morong to is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that
enact; i.e., whether such initiative "seeks the amendment of a the people have the "sole and exclusive right to decide on
national law." whether to initiate a recall proceeding." The Constitution did
not provide for any mode, let alone a single mode, of initiating

16 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

recall elections. Neither did it prohibit the adoption of not recall its subject official. Likewise, a PRA resolution of recall
multiple modes of initiating recall elections. The mandate that is rejected by the people in the election called for the
given by section 3 of Article X of the Constitution is for purpose bears no effect whatsoever. The initiatory resolution
Congress to "enact a local government code which shall merely sets the stage for the official concerned to appear
provide for a more responsive and accountable local before the tribunal of the people so he can justify why he
government structure through a system of decentralization should be allowed to continue in office. Before the people
with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum render their sovereign judgment, the official concerned
. . ." By this constitutional mandate, Congress was clearly given remains in office but his right to continue in office is subject to
the power to choose the effective mechanisms of recall as its question. This is clear in section 72 of the Local Government
discernment dictates. The power given was to select which Code which states that "the recall of an elective local
among the means and methods of initiating recall elections are official shall be effective only upon the election and
effective to carry out the judgment of the electorate. Congress proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate
was not straightjacketed to one particular mechanism of receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election
initiating recall elections. What the Constitution simply on recall."
required is that the mechanisms of recall, whether one or
many, to be chosen by Congress should be effective. Using its ISSUE: Whether or not the resolution of the members of the
constitutionally granted discretion, Congress deemed it wise preparatory recall assembly subverted the will of the
to enact an alternative mode of initiating recall elections to electorate of the province of Bataan who elected Garcia with a
supplement the former mode of initiation by direct action of majority of 12,500 votes.
the people. Congress has made its choice as called for by the
Constitution and it is not the prerogative of this Court to HELD:
supplant this judgment. The choice may be erroneous but even
then, the remedy against a bad law is to seek its amendment No, the contention proceeds from the erroneous premise that
or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of the resolution of recall is the recall itself. It refuses to recognize
powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, the reality that the resolution of recall is a mere proposal to
adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law. the electorate of Bataan to subject Garcia to a new test of faith.
The proposal will still be passed upon by the sovereign
ISSUE: Whether or not Resolution 1, the Bataan Preparatory electorate of Bataan. As this judgment has yet to be expressed,
Recall Assembly did not only initiate the process of recall but it is premature to conclude that the sovereign will of the
had de facto recalled Garcia from office, a power reserved to electorate of Bataan has been subverted. The electorate of
the people alone. Bataan may or may not recall Garcia in an appropriate election.
If the electorate re-elects Garcia, then the proposal to recall
HELD: him made by the preparatory recall assembly is rejected. On
the other hand, if the electorate does not re-elect Garcia, then
No, Garcia have misconstrued the nature of the initiatory he has lost the confidence of the people which he once
process of recall by the PRAC. They have embraced the view enjoyed. The judgment will write finis to the political
that initiation by the PRAC is not initiation by the people. This controversy. For more than judgments of courts of law, the
is a misimpression for initiation by the PRAC is also initiation judgment of the tribunal of the people is final for "sovereignty
by the people, albeit done indirectly through their resides in the people and all government authority emanates
representatives. It is not constitutionally impermissible for the from them."
people to act through their elected representatives. Nothing
less than the paramount task of drafting our Constitution is - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
delegated by the people to their representatives, elected
either to act as a constitutional convention or as a PARAS V. COMELEC
congressional constituent assembly. The initiation of a recall 264 SCRA 49
process is a lesser act and there is no rhyme or reason why it
cannot be entrusted to and exercised by the elected Digsted by: SORIANO
representatives of the people. More far out is Garcia’s stance
that a PRA resolution of recall is the recall itself. It cannot be FACTS:
seriously doubted that a PRA resolution of recall merely, starts
the process. It is part of the process but is not the whole Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula,
process. This ought to be self evident for a PRA resolution of Cabanatuan City who won during the 1994 barangay election.
recall that is not submitted to the COMELEC for validation will A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the

17 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

registered voters of the barangay. Acting on the petition for ANGOBUNG V. COMELEC
recall, Comelec resolved to approve the petition, scheduled 269 SCRA 245
the petition signing on 14 October 1995, and set the recall
election on 13 November 1995. At least 29.30% of the Digested by: SORIANO
registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25%
requirement provided by law. The Comelec, however, deferred FACTS:
the recall election in view of petitioner’s opposition. On 6
December 1995, the Comelec set anew the recall election, this Angobung won as the Mayor of Tumauni in the 1995 Local
time on 16 December 1995. To prevent the holding of the Elections garnering 55% of all the votes. In September 1996,
recall election, petitioner filed before the RTC Cabanatuan City Alban filed a Petition for Recall against Angobung. The Deputy
a petition for injunction (SP Civil Action 2254-AF), with the trial Executibe Director for Operations Joson submitted to the
court issuing a TRO. After conducting a summary hearing, the COMELEC a Memorandum recommending the approval of the
trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the petition petition for recall filed by private respondent and its signing by
and required petitioner and his counsel to explain why they other qualified voters in order to garner at least 25% of the
should not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting that the total number of registered voters as required by Section 69(d)
barangay recall election was without Comelec approval. of the Local Government Code of 1991.

ISSUE: Whether or not the recall election is valid. ISSUE: Whether or not the Resolution violated the statutory
minimum requirement of 25% as to the number of signatures
RULING: supporting any petition for recall

No, the recall is not valid. It is a rule in statutory construction RULING:
that every part of the statute must be interpreted with
reference to the context,i.e., that every part of the statute Yes, Alban proceeded to file the petition for recall with only
must be considered together with the other parts, and kept herself as the filer and initiator. She claims in her petition that
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. The she has, together with many others in Tumauini, Isabela, lost
evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an elective local confidence in the leadership of petitioner. But the petition
official to recall election once during his term of office. does not bear the names of all these other citizens of Tumauini
Paragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely who have reportedly also become anxious to oust petitioner
designates the period when such elective local official may be from the post of mayor. The law is plain and unequivocal as to
subject of a recall election, that is, during the second year of what initiates recall proceedings: only a petition of at least 25%
his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's of the total number of registered voters, may validly initiate
interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include recall proceedings. We take careful note of the phrase,
the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of "petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%)" and point out
the Local Government Code on recall, a mode of removal of that the law does not state that the petition must be signed by
public officers by initiation of the people before the end of his at least 25% of the registered voters; rather, the petition must
term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808 to be be "of" or by, at least 25% of the registered voters, i.e., the
held every three years from May 1996 were to be deemed petition must be filed, not by one person only, but by at least
within the purview of the phrase "regular local election", as 25% of the total number of registered voters.
erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no recall election can
be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the Local - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Government Code.
MALONZO V. COMELEC

Digested by: SORIANO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTS:

1,057 Punong Barangays, Sangguniang Barangay members and
SK chairmen constituting a majority of the Preparatory Recall
Assembly (PRA) of Caloocan passed a resolution expressing
loss of confidence in incumbent Mayor Malonzo and calling for
the initiation of recall proceedings against him. Malonzo filed

18 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

a petition with COMELEC challenging the validity of recall

process. The COMELEC, however, rejected the petition. It then ISSUE: WON the word “recall” in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of
declared the recall proceedings to be in order. Malonzo the Local Government Code includes the convening of the
challenged the recall proceedings, essentially claiming that the preparatory recall assembly and the filing by it of a recall
notices for the meeting of the PRA were not properly served. resolution.
Moreover, he argued that it was the Liga ng mga Barangay and
not the PRA which initiated the recall, contrary to the HELD: NO. Recall is a process which begins with the convening
requirements of law. of the preparatory recall assembly or the gathering of the
signatures at least 25% of the registered voters of a local
ISSUE: Whether or not recall is valid government unit, and then proceeds to the filing of a recall
resolution or petition with the COMELEC, the verification of
RULING: such resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the recall
election, and the holding of the election on the scheduled date.
Needless to state, the issue of propriety of the notices sent to However, as used in paragraph (b) of § 74, "recall" refers to the
the PRA members is factual in nature, and the determination election itself by means of which voters decide whether they
of the same is therefore a function of the COMELEC. In the should retain their local official or elect his replacement. The
absence of patent error, or serious inconsistencies in the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to the recall election and
findings, the Court should not disturb the same. The factual not to the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall.
findings of the COMELEC, based on its own assessments and
duly supported by gathered evidence, are conclusive upon the 1. Because §74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which,
court, more so, in the absence of a substantiated attack on the according to §69, is a power which shall be exercised by the
validity of the same. registered voters of a local government unit. Since the voters
do not exercise such right except in an election, it is clear that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited within the
one-year period provided in paragraph (b);
JOVITO CLAUDIO VS. COMELEC
331 SCRA 388 2. Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b)
is to provide voters a sufficient basis for judging an elective
Digested by: LEMENTE local official, and final judging is not done until the day of the
election; and
FACTS: Jovito Claudio was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City
in the May 11, 1998 elections. He assumed office on July 1, 3. Because to construe the limitation in paragraph (b) as
1998. including the initiation of recall proceedings would unduly
curtail freedom of speech and of assembly guaranteed in the
Sometime during the second week of May 1999, the chairs of Constitution.
several barangays in Pasay City gathered to discuss the
possibility of filing a petition for recall against Mayor Claudio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
for loss of confidence. On May 29, 1999, 1,073 members of the
PRA composed of barangay chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang MANUEL AFIADO ET. AL. VS. COMELEC
kabataan chairs of Pasay City, adopted Resolution No. 01, S- G.R. No. 141787. September 18, 2000
1999, entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE RECALL OF
JOVITO O. CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY CITY FOR LOSS OF Digested by: CULLO
CONFIDENCE.
FACTS:
He became the subject of a petition for recall filed by the
Preparatory Recall Assembly of Pasay City (PRA) on July 2, During the May 11, 1998 elections in Santiago City, Joel
1999. The petition was opposed on grounds that it violated the Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father, Jose
one-year prohibitory period from assumption of office and the "Pempe" Miranda, for the position of Mayor. When the ballots
pendency of an election case seeking the annulment of the were counted, Joel emerged as the winner over his opponent
proclamation of the incumbent mayor, a prejudicial question. Antonio Abaya and he was later proclaimed Amelita S. Navarro
The petition was, nevertheless, granted by the COMELEC, also won and was proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Santiago
ruling that recall starts with the filing of the petition. City.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed separate petition.

19 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

On May 13, 1998, the defeated candidate, Antonio Abaya, filed academic. A perusal of the said Resolution reveals that the
before the COMELEC against Joel Miranda a Petition to Declare person subject of the recall process is a specific elective official
Null and Void Substitution with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of in relation to her specific office.
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order,
docketed as SPA No. 98-288, which was later amended. The The title itself suggests that the recall is intended for the
amended petition sought the declaration of the certificate of incumbent Vice Mayor of Santiago City. The third paragraph of
candidacy of Jose Miranda, the father of Joel, as null and void. the resolution recounted "the official acts of City Vice Mayor
Navarro that brought forth the loss of confidence in her
The petition, as amended, was granted by the COMELEC en capacity and fitness to discharge the duties and to perform the
banc, and consequently the election and proclamation of Joel functions of her public office." And because of such acts, the
Miranda as Mayor of Santiago City was annulled. Joel Miranda assembly "RESOLVED to invoke the rescission of the electoral
filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied with mandate of the incumbent City Vice Mayor." Clearly, the intent
finality by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated September of the PRA as expressed in the said Resolution is to remove the
28, 1999.Navarro thus became the new Mayor of Santiago City petitioner as Vice Mayor for they already lost their confidence
by virtue of the law on succession. Navarro took her oath of in her by reason of her official. acts as such. To recall, then, the
office and assumed her position as Mayor of Santiago City on petitioner when she is already the incumbent City Mayor is to
October 11, 1999. deviate from the expressed will of the PRA. Having, thus,
succeeded to the position of City Mayor, the petitioner was
Meanwhile, on July 12, 1999, while the said G.R. No. 136531 placed beyond the reach of the effects of the PRA Resolution.
was still pending in the Supreme Court, petitioners convened
the barangay officials of Santiago City who compose the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) at the Santiago City
People’s Coliseum after giving them due notice. On the same EVARDONE V. COMELEC
date, July 12, 1999, the PRA passed and adopted Preparatory G.R. No. 94010 December 2, 1991
Recall Assembly Resolution No. 1 for the recall of Vice-Mayor
Amelita S Navarro. Digested by: CULLO

On September 9, 1999, while subject Preparatory Recall FACTS:
Resolution No. 1 was under evaluation in the COMELEC’s Head
Office, Vice Mayor Amelita S. Navarro file a petition which Felipe Evardone (hereinafter referred to as Evardone) is the
sought the nullification of the said PRA Resolution No. 1. This mayor of the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar, having been
prompted the petitioners to file an Urgent Motion for the Early elected to the position during the 1988 local elections. He
Resolution of the Petition. assumed office immediately after proclamation.

On February 18, 2000, sensing the urgency of the situation Herein respondents filed a petition for recall with the Office of
since PRA Resolution No. 1 was not yet acted upon by the the Local Election Registrar (LER) in said municipality against
COMELEC, the herein petitioners filed the present petition for said mayor. The respondent COMELEC issued a resolution,
mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to resolve and approving the recommendation of the LER, to hold the signing
deny immediately Navarro’s petition. of the petition for recall. On July 10, 1990, Evardone prayed for
a TRO which was favorably issued on July 12, 1990. On the
ISSUE: Whether or not an elective official who became City same day, July 12, the TRO was received by the central office
Mayor by legal succession can be the subject of a recall of COMELEC. But it was only in July 15 that the field agent of
election by virtue of a Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution the respondent COMELEC received the telegraphic notice of
which was passed or adopted when the said elective official the TRO—a day after the completion of the signing process
was still the Vice-Mayor. sought to be temporarily stopped by the TRO.

RULING: On July 26, 1990, the respondent COMELEC issued a resolution
which nullified the signing process held in Sulat, Eastern Samar
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. for being violative of the order (the TRO) of this Court. The
COMELEC held that: “x x x. The critical date to consider is the
The assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the service or notice of the Restraining Order on 12 July 1990 upon
new Mayor of Santiago City is a supervening event which the principal i.e. the Commission on Election, and not upon its
rendered the recall proceeding against her moot and agent in the field.”

20 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

held in Parades vs. Executive Secretary, there is no turning

Evardone however argued that the resolution earlier issued by back the clock.
respondent is null and void as he maintained that Article X,
Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution repealed Batas Pambansa The constituents have made a judgment and their will to recall
Blg. 337 in favor of one to be enacted by Congress. the incumbent mayor (Evardone) has already been ascertained
and must be afforded the highest respect. Thus, the signing
Since there was, during the period material to this case, no process held last 14 July 1990 in Sulat, Eastern Samar, for the
local government code enacted by Congress after the recall of Mayor Felipe P. Evardone of said municipality is valid
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution nor any law for that matter and has legal effect.
on the subject of recall of elected government officials,
Evardone contends that there is no basis for COMELEC However, recall at this time is no longer possible because of
Resolution No. 2272 and that the recall proceedings in the case the limitation provided in Sec. 55 (2) of B.P. Blg, 337, which
at bar is premature. states:

ISSUES: "SEC. 55. Who May Be Recalled; Ground for Recall; When
(1) Whether or not the adoption of the 1987 Constitution Recall May not be Held. - x x x
abrogated the provisions of BP 337 making the COMELEC
resolution null and void. (2) No recall shall take place within two years from the date of
the official's assumption of office or one year immediately
(2) Whether or not the Temporary Restraining Order issued by preceding a regular local election
the Court rendered nugatory the signing process of the
petition for recall. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RULING: PLEBISCITE

(1) No. COMELEC was vested the power to promulgate the SANIDAD V. COMELEC
questioned resolution in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 181 SCRA 529
3 of the 1987 Constitution which expressly provides that all
existing laws not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall Digested by: BALANI
remain operative, until amended, repealed or revoked.
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 7160 providing for the Local Government
Code of 1991, approved by the President on 10 October 1991, On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT
specifically repeals B.P. Blg. 337 as provided in Sec. 534, Title PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA
Four of said Act. But the Local Government Code of 1991 will AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. Pursuant to
take effect only on 1 January 1992 and therefore the old Local said law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras shall take part
Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) is still the law applicable to in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally
the present case. Prior to the enactment of the new Local scheduled last December 27, 1989 which was, however, reset
Government Code, the effectiveness of B.P. Blg. 337 was to January 30, 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. 2226
expressly recognized in the proceedings of the 1986 dated December 27, 1989.
Constitutional Commission.
The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested by
(2) No. While it is true that the Supreme Court issued a the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881),
Temporary Restraining Order on 12 July 1990, the signing of said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated
the petition for recall took place just the same on the Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite
scheduled date through no fault of the respondent COMELEC on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
and Apelado, et al. The signing process was undertaken by the
constituents of the Municipality of Sulat and its Election In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner
Registrar in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist of
earlier issued by this Court. As attested by Election Registrar the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly
Sumbilla, about 2,050 of the 6,090 registered voters of Sulat, newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras,
Eastern Samar or about 34% signed the petition for recall. As assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2167

21 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public

Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or information campaigns and forums among candidates are
announcers. — During the plebiscite campaign period, on the ensured. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is
day before and on the plebiscite day, no mass media the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any
columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use undue advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space
his column or radio or television time to campaign for or or radio or television time.
against the plebiscite issues.
However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section
Petitioner believes that said provision of COMELEC Resolution 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the
No. 2167 constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally- Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and
guaranteed freedom of the press and further imposes regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of
subsequent punishment for those who may violate it because their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media
it contains a penal provision. practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during
plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the
Article XIII, Section 122, Election Offenses and Banned Acts or candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a
Activities. — Except to the extent that the same may not be plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.
applicable plebiscite. the banned acts/activities and offenses 2167 has no statutory basis.
defined in and penalized by the Omnibus Election Code Anent respondent Comelec's argument that Section 19 of
('Sections 261, 262, 263 and Article' XXII, B.P. Blg. 881) and the Comelec Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar petitioner-
pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6646 shall be aplicable to the columnist from expressing his views and/or from campaigning
plebiscite governed by this Resolution. for or against the organic act because he may do so through
the Comelec space and/or Comelec radio/television time, the
Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were same is not meritorious. While the limitation does not
to express their views, beliefs and opinions on the issue absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression, it is still a
submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact help in the restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express
government drive and desire to disseminate information, and his view. No reason was advanced by respondent to justify
hear, as well as ventilate, all sides of the issue. such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is
tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of
Respondent Comelec maintains that the questioned provision expression for no justifiable reason.
of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is not violative of the
constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of RULING:
the press. Rather it is a valid implementation of the power of
the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance.
or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and
the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. intelligently make a decision would be better served by access
to an unabridged discussion of the issues, including the forum.
It is stated further by respondent that Resolution 2167 does The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite
not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum
from campaigning for or against the Organic Act. He may still where the right to expression may be exercised. Comelec
express his views or campaign for or against the act through spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for
the Comelec space and airtime. expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of
information to the public concerned because they are limited
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or
2167 is unconstitutional. television times.

RULING:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, 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

22 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

PADILLA JR. VS. COMELEC intentional, because in the plebiscite to be conducted, it must
214 SCRA 735 involve all the units affected.

“If it is the creation of a barangay, the municipality itself must
Digested by: PERTURBOS
participate in the plebiscite because it is affected. It would

mean a loss of a territory.”
FACTS:
When the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted "in
In the plebiscite held throughout the Municipality of Labo and the political units directly affected," it means that residents of
twelve other barangays, only 2,890 votes favored the creation the political entity who would be economically dislocated by
of Tulay-Na-Lupa, while 3,439 voters voted against it. the separation of a portion thereof have a right to vote in said
Consequently, the day after the political exercise, the plebiscite.
Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared the rejection and
Evidently, what is contemplated by the phrase "political units
disapproval of the independent Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa
directly affected," is the plurality of political units which would
by a majority of voters.
participate in the plebiscite. Logically, those to be included in
Thus, herein petitioner Padilla, as Governor of Camarines such political areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of
Norte, seeks to set aside the plebiscite conducted on the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those
December 15, 1991, and prays that a new plebiscite be living in the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
undertaken.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Petitioner Padilla averred that the plebiscite was a complete

failure, as the plebiscite should have been conducted only in
TOBIAS ET. AL VS ABALOS
the political unit or units affected with the creation of Tulay-
G.R No. L-114785, December 8, 1994
Na-Lupa, and that the plebiscite should not have included the

remaining area of the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo,
Digested by: FEROLINO
Camarines Norte.

Petitioner argues that with the approval and ratification of the FACTS:
1987 Constitution, particularly Article X, Section 10, the ruling
set forth in Tan v. COMELEC relied upon by respondent Mandaluyong and San Juan were one legislative district until the
COMELEC is now passé, thus reinstating the case of Paredes v. passage of the RA 7675 with title An Act Converting the
Executive Secretary which held that where a local unit is to be Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be
segregated from a parent unit, only the voters of the unit to be known as the City of Mandaluyong." Same bill is now in question
segregated should be included in the plebiscite. at to its constitutionality by the petitioners by invoking their
right as tax payers and residents of Mandaluyong.


ISSUE: Whether or not the plebiscite conducted in the twelve With a plebiscite held on April 10, 1994, people of Mandaluyong
barangays and the Municipality of Labo, is valid. voted to for the the conversion of Mandaluyong to a highly
urbanized city ratifying RA 7675 and making it in effect.


RULING: ISSUE: WON RA 7675 is in:

Yes. The plebiscite is valid.
1. Violation of Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution
Padilla erroneously provides that since Tan v. COMELEC was regarding 'one subject one bill rule".
based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution,the
Supreme Court ruling in the same is no longer applicable under 2. Violation of Article VI, Sections 5(1) and (4) as to the number
Section 10 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, as the of members of the Congress to 250 and re-appropriating the
constitutional provision deleted the words "unit or." legislative districts.

The rationale of the court provides, on the other hand, that
RULING:
deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Section 10, Article X of the

1987 Constitution from its precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of
Applying liberal construction the Supreme Court dismissed the
the 1973 Constitution has not affected their ruling in Tan v.
contention of constitutionality pertaining to Art VI 26(1) saying
COMELEC. Moreover, Associate Justice Davide also provides,
"should be given a practical rather than a technical construction.
that the deletion of the words "unit or" was precisely

23 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

It should be sufficient compliance with such requirement if the respective plebiscites scheduled, and filed Petitions with the
title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are Commission on Elections (hereinafter referred to as COMELEC)
germane to that general subject." on June 19, 1996.

As to Article VI Sec 5(1), the clause "unless otherwise provided In both Petitions, the Municipality of Cainta called the
by law" was enforced justifying the act of the legislature to attention of the COMELEC to a pending case before the
increase the number of the members of the congress. Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, for
settlement of boundary dispute.
Article VI Sec 5 (4) was also overruled as it was the Congress itself
which drafted the bill reapportioning the legislative district. According to the Municipality of Cainta, the proposed
barangays involve areas included in the boundary dispute
In view of the foregoing facts, the petition was dismissed for lack subject of said pending case; hence, the scheduled plebiscites
of merit. should be suspended or cancelled until after the said case shall
have been finally decided by the court.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In UND No. 96-016, the COMELEC accepted the position of the
CITY OF PASIG VS. COMELEC Municipality of Cainta and ordered the plebiscite on the
September 10, 1999 creation of Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance until
after the court has settled with finality the boundary dispute
Digested by: LIBRE involving the two municipalities.

FACTS: The COMELEC, however, ruled differently in UND No. 97-002,
dismissing the Petition for being moot in view of the holding of
The propriety of the suspension of plebiscite proceedings the plebiscite as scheduled on March 15, 1997 where the
pending the resolution of the issue of boundary disputes creation of Barangay Napico was ratified and approved by the
between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig. majority of the votes cast therein.

G.R. No. 125646 involves the proposed Barangay Karangalan 1st petition: COMELEC ordered the plebiscite on the creation
while G.R. No. 128663 involves the proposed Barangay Napico. of Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance until after the
court has settled with finality the boundary dispute involving
The City of Pasig claims these areas as part of its the two municipalities. Hence, the filing of G.R. No. 125646 by
jurisdiction/territory while the Municipality of Cainta claims the City of Pasig.
that these proposed barangays encroached upon areas within
its own jurisdiction/territory. 2nd Petition: The COMELEC dismissed the Petition for being
moot in view of the holding of the plebiscite where the
On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan creation of Barangay Napico was ratified and approved by the
Village that they be segregated from its mother Barangays majority of the votes cast therein. Hence, the filing of G.R. No.
Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted 128663 by the Municipality of Cainta.
and separated into a distinct barangay to be known as
Barangay Karangalan, the City Council of Pasig passed and ISSUE: Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the
approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating Barangay creation of Barangays Karangalan and Napico should be
Karangalan in Pasig City. suspended or cancelled in view of the pending boundary
dispute between the two local governments?
Plebiscite on the creation of said barangay was thereafter set
for June 22, 1996. RULING:

September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig similarly issued Ordinance The plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should
No. 52, Series of 1996, creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City. be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary
dispute between Pasig and Cainta by the Antipolo RTC. In the
Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March 15, 1997. same vein, the plebiscite held to ratify the creation of Barangay
Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside.
Immediately upon learning of such Ordinances, the
Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the

24 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Civil Case No. 94-3006 involving the boundary dispute 1. The Petition of the City of Pasig in G.R. No. 125646 is
between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig DISMISSED for lack of merit.
presents a prejudicial question which must first be decided
before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed barangays 2. The Petition of the Municipality of Cainta in G.R. No. 128663
may be held. is GRANTED.

Pasig argues that there is no prejudicial question since the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
same contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not
come into play where both cases are civil, as in the instant MANNER OF APPOINTMENT / LIMITATIONS / REMOVAL
case.
Can the President appoint or designate a temporary
SC: in Vidad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. 42- in the interest of chairman of the COMELEC?
good order, we can very well suspend action on one case
pending the final outcome of another case closely interrelated BRILLANTES VS. YORAC
or linked to the first. 192 SCRA 358

Pasig claims that the areas covered by the proposed Barangays Digested by: LIBRE
Karangalan and Napico are within its territory yet portions of
the same area are included in the boundary dispute case FACTS: The petitioner is challenging the designation by the
pending before the Antipolo RTC. President of the Philippines of Associate Commissioner Haydee
B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in
Whether or not the areas in controversy shall be decided as place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been named
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Cainta or Pasig has chairman of the fact-finding commission to investigate the
material bearing to the creation of the proposed Barangays December 1989 coup d' etat attempt.
Karangalan and Napico The qualifications of the respondent are conceded by the
petitioner and are not in issue in this case. What is the power
A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial of the President of the Philippines to make the challenged
jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds or designation in view of the status of the Commission on
by more or less permanent natural boundaries. Precisely Elections as an independent constitutional body and the
because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending specific provision of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the
civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, Constitution that "(I)n no case shall any Member (of the
to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a
would only be an exercise in futility. Not only that, we would temporary or acting capacity.”
be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of such
barangays. Haydee Yorac, an associate commissioner in the COMELEC,
was appointed by then President Corazon Aquino as a
The SC did not agree that merely because a plebiscite had temporary substitute.
already been held in the case of the proposed Barangay
Napico, the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already The petitioner is challenging the designation on the ground
been rendered moot and academic. that the choice of the Acting Chairman of the Commission on
Elections is an internal matter that should be resolved by the
The issues raised by Cainta in its petition before the COMELEC members themselves and that the intrusion of the President of
against the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of the Philippines violates their independence. He cites the
Barangay Napico are still pending determination before the practice in this Court, where the senior Associate Justice serves
Antipolo Regional Trial Court. as Acting Chief Justice in the absence of the Chief Justice. No
designation from the President of the Philippines is necessary.
Tan v. COMELEC: Considering that the legality of the plebiscite
itself is challenged for non-compliance with constitutional The petitioner invokes the case of Nacionalista Party v.
requisites, the fact that such plebiscite had been held and a Bautista, 85 Phil. 101, where President Elpidio Quirino
new province proclaimed and its officials appointed, the case designated the Solicitor General as acting member of the
before Us cannot truly be viewed as already moot and Commission on Elections and the Court revoked the
academic. designation as contrary to the Constitution. It is also alleged


25 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

that the respondent is not even the senior member of the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Commission on Elections.
NATURE OF THE POWERS OF COMELEC
The petitioner contends that the choice of the Acting Chairman
of the Commission on Elections is an internal matter that ZALDIVAR vs. ESTENZO
should be resolved by the members themselves and that the 23 SCRA 540
intrusion of the President of the Philippines violates their
independence. He cites the practice in this Court, where the Digested by: LIBRE
senior Associate Justice serves as Acting Chief Justice in the
absence of the Chief Justice. No designation from the FACTS:
President of the Philippines is necessary. Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, the
competence of a court of first instance to pass upon and
ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of the Acting Chairman entertain a special civil action to prohibit municipal mayors,
of the COMELEC is unconstitutional? presumed to be partial to the candidacy of a congressional
candidate, from appointing special policemen, and agents with
RULING: the sole purpose, so it is alleged, to terrorize voters and thus
frustrate the basic objective of the Election Code, which is to
The Supreme Court ruled that the designation is assure the free and honest expression of popular will.
unconstitutional.
Petitioner Zaldivar was the incumbent Municipal Mayor and
Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes was names as respondent in a special civil case.
all the Constitutional Commissions as “independent.” The respondent Pepito was one of the petitioners therein
Although essentially executive in nature, they are not under (special civil case).
the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge
of their respective functions. Each of these Commissions In the special civil case, Pepito, a supporter of the candidacy
conducts its own proceedings under the applicable laws and its for re-election of Congressman Tan, alleged that Zaldivar,
own rules and in the exercise of its own discretion. Its known to be sympathetic to the candidacy of Roldolfo Revilla,
decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to review on acted with grave abuse of discretion in his official capacity as
Certiorari by this Court as provided by the Constitution in Municipal Mayor, when he caused to appoint special
Article IX-A, Section 7. The choice of a temporary chairman policemen and agents to be paid from public funds and to be
comes under that discretion. Such discretion cannot be provided with uniforms and firearms for the sole purpose of
exercised for it, even with its consent, by the President of the utilizing said policemen to terrorize and arrest electors
Philippines. The Court has not the slightest doubt that the sympathetic to Congressman Tan during the elections of
President of the Philippines was moved only by the best of November 9, 1965.
motives when she issued the challenged designation. But while
conceding her goodwill, we cannot sustain her act because it Pepito contended that such action by Zaldivar is not
conflicts with the Constitution. Hence, even as this Court sanctioned by the Secretary and COMELEC, and that such acts
revoked the designation in the Bautista case, so too must it would frustrate the will of the people to vote freely for the
annul the designation in the case at bar. men for their choice.

The designation by the President of the Philippines of Hon. Estenzo decided in favor of Pepito and issued the order
respondent Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the for the arrest of Zaldivar and granted the issuance of writ of
Commission on Elections is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and preliminary injunction.
the respondent is hereby ordered to desist from serving as
such. Zaldivar sought for the setting aside of the order as they were
issued by the trial court without jurisdiction.
This is without prejudice to the incumbent Associate
Commissioners of the Commission on Elections restoring her ISSUE: May a court of First Instance pass upon and entertain a
to the same position if they so desire, or choosing another special civil action to prohibit municipal mayors alleged to have
member in her place, pending the appointment of a acted with the sole purpose of terrorizing others and thus
permanent Chairman by the President of the Philippines with frustrate the basic objective of the Election Code?
the consent of the Commission on Appointments.


26 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

RULING: before them is decided. It is imperative that the faith in the

impartiality of the judiciary be preserved unimpaired.
Under the Constitution, the Commission on Elections has
"exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all The conclusion reached as to the lack of jurisdiction of the
laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all courts of first instance in litigations of this character would go
other functions which may be conferred upon it by law." In the far in fortifying and bolstering the belief in the reality of a truly
implementation of the above constitutional prerogative, the independent judiciary, free from partisanship and aloof from
Commission on Elections is vested under the Election Code politics.
with "direct and immediate supervision over the provincial,
municipal, and city officials designated by law to perform The writ for certiorari prayed for is granted; the decision
duties relative to the conduct of elections." rendered by respondent Judge, the order for the arrest of
petitioner, the warrant of arrest, the order granting the
It could even suspend "from the performance of said duties issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and the writ of the
any of said officials who shall fail to comply with its preliminary injunction made permanent
instructions, orders, decisions, or rulings and appoint their
temporary substitutes and, upon recommendation of the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Commission, the President of the Philippines may remove any
or all such officials who shall be found guilty of non-feasance, GALLARDO vs TABAMO
malfeasance, or misfeasance in connection with the 32 SCRA 690
performance of their duties relative to the conduct of
elections." Digested by: LIBRE

In the special civil action for prohibition before respondent FACTS:
Judge, its essentially political character is manifest, the main
allegation being the alleged utilization of the power of This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of
petitioner Zaldivar, as municipal mayor, named respondent the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioners seek to prohibit,
therein, to avail himself of the authority of his office to appoint restrain and enjoin respondent Judge Tabamo from continuing
special policemen or agents to terrorize voters so that they with the proceedings in a petition for injunction, prohibition
would support the congressional candidate of his choice. and mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction and restraining order as a taxpayer’s suit.
Both under the Constitution and the Revised Election Code, it
is not so much the power, but the duty of the Commission on April 10, 1992, private respondent filed his petition (special
Elections to exercise supervision over municipal officials civil action # 465) before the court a quo against petitioners to
precisely to enforce the Election Code. prohibit and restrain them from pursuing or prosecuting
certain public works projects as it violates the 45-day ban on
No other agency is better suited to preclude abuse of authority public works imposed by the Omnibus Election Code (Batas
on the part of local officials, the sanction being that it could Pambansa Bldg. 881) because although they were initiated few
recommend to the President their removal if found guilty of days before March 27, 1992, the date of the ban took effect,
"non-feasance, malfeasance or misfeasance in connection they were not covered by detailed engineering plans,
with the performance of their duties relative to the conduct of specifications or a program of work which are preconditions
elections.” for the commencement of any public works projects.

It is not improbable that courts of first instance would be The questions projects are classified into two (2) categories:
resorted to by leaders of candidates or political factions
entertaining the belief whether rightly or wrongly that local a. Those that are locally-funded, consisting of 29 different
officials would employ all the power at their command to projects for the maintenance or oncreting of various roads, the
assure the victory of their candidates. rehabilitation of the Katibawasan Falls and the construction of
the Capitol Bldg.
Even if greater care and circumspection, than did exist in this
case, would be employed by judges thus appealed to, it is not b. Those designated as foreign-assisted, consisting of fifteen
unlikely that the shadow of suspicion as to alleged partisanship (15) projects which include the construction of Human
would fall on their actuations, whichever way the matter Development Center, various Day Case cum Production
Centers and waterworks systems; the extension and

27 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

renovation of various buildings; the acquisition of hospital and a) "[E]nforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of
laboratory of office and equipment. elections”

On the same day, the respondent Judge issued the question b) "[D]eputize, with the consent or at the instance of the Prime
Temporary Restraining Order. In the same order, he directed Minister, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of
the petitions to file their answers within 10 days from receipt the Government, including the Armed Forces of the
of notice and set the hearing on the application for the Philippines, for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, and
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction for April 24, 1992. honest elections,"

Instead of filling the answer, the petitioners files the special c) [P]erform such other functions as may be provided by law,"
civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer of it was not expressly vested with the power to promulgate
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. regulations relative to the conduct of an election.

They contend that the case principally involves an alleged xxx 1987 Constitution, implicitly grants the Commission the
violation of the Omnibus Election Code thus the jurisdiction is power to promulgate such rules and regulations. The pertinent
exclusively vested in the COMELEC, not the Regional Trial portion of Section 2 of Article IX-C thereof reads as follows:
Court.
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the following powers and functions:
subject matter of Special Action No. 465?
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
RULING: the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
and recall.
The material operative facts alleged in the petition therein
inexorably link the private respondent's principal grievance to The present Commission on Elections possesses, inter alia, the
alleged violations of paragraphs (a), (b), (v) and (w), Section following powers:
261 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881).
l) Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over
Essentially, therefore, Civil Case No. 465 before the trial court national and local officials or employees, including members
is for the enforcement of laws involving the conduct of of any national or local law enforcement agency and
elections. instrumentality of the government required by law…

Zaldivar vs. Estenzo, this Court explicitly ruled that considering The Commission may relieve any officer or employee referred
that the Commission on Elections is vested by the Constitution to in the preceding paragraph from the performance of his
with exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration duties relating to electoral processes who violates the election
of all laws relative to the conduct of elections, the assumption law or fails to comply with its instructions, orders, decisions or
of jurisdiction by the trial court over a case involving the rulings, and appoint his substitute.
enforcement of the Election Code "is at war with the plain
constitutional command, the implementing statutory The acts sought to be restrained in Special Civil Action No. 465
provisions, and the hospitable scope afforded such grant of before the court a quo are matters falling within the exclusive
authority so clear and unmistakable in recent decisions." jurisdiction of the Commission.

Said case was decided under the aegis of the 1935 Constitution As a matter of fact, the specific allegations in the petition
and R.A. No. 180, otherwise known as the Revised Election therein of violations of paragraphs (a), (b), (v) and (w), Section
Code, which took effect on 21 June 1947 xxx 1935 Constitution 261 of the Omnibus Election Code provide a stronger basis and
"exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all reason for the application of the Zaldivar doctrine.
laws relative to the conduct of elections," exercised "all other
functions . . . conferred upon it by law" and had the power to In Zaldivar, no specific provision of the Revised Election Code
deputize all law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of then in force was alleged to have been violated. What was
the Government for the purpose of insuring free, orderly and sought to be enjoined was the alleged wielding by Zaldivar,
honest elections xxx 1973 Constitution: then a municipal mayor, of the power, by virtue of his office,
to appoint special policemen or agents to terrorize voters into
supporting the congressional candidate of his choice.

28 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

met with corresponding sanction. As a judicial officer, he is

In holding that the then Court of First Instance did not have expected to know and keep abreast with the latest law and
jurisdiction over the case, this Court considered the jurisprudence. His feeling of sympathy and fairness cannot
constitutional power of the Commission on Elections to have serve as a license for him to deliberately transgress or dispense
exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all with the existing laws involving the controversy. The defense
laws relative to the conduct of elections and to exercise all made by the judge is unavailing. He acted with grave abuse of
other functions which may be conferred by law. discretion in issuing his order knowing full well that he does
not have jurisdiction to act on the petition. While his reasons
It is not true that, as contended by the petitioners, the for issuing the assailed order are perhaps commendable and
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under the election laws demonstrative of his concern for peace and order during the
is limited to criminal actions for violations of the Omnibus election period in the given community, he lost sight of his
Election Code. bounden duty as a judge to be the embodiment of
Petition is hereby GRANTED. Special Civil Action No. 465 is SET competence, integrity and independence. (Rule 1.01, Canon
ASIDE. Civil Case is hereby ordered DISMISSED 1). A judge should behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Rule 2.01, Canon 2).

LIBARDO VS CESAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
234 SCRA 13
ADJUDICATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
Digested by: PEREZ

FACTS: COQUILLA VS. COMELEC
GR No. 151914/July 31, 2002
Mayor Perlita Libardos was an official mayoralty candidate of
the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) in Magno, Lanao Digested by: PEREZ
del Norte. Wilfredo Randa, the candidate of the Nationalist
People’s coalition during the canvassing filed a complaint for FACTS:
Preliminary Injunction with the MTC of Kolambugan, Maigo,
Lanao del Norte presided over by judge Abdullah Casar. Judge Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras Eastern
ordered the board of Canvassers to suspend the canvassing of Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he was
the election returns of Precinct No. 10-A until either the subsequently naturalized as a US citizen after joining the US
Comelec, or Iligan RTC could act on the complaint of Randa. It Navy. On 1998, he came to the Philippines and took out a
caused the delay in the canvassing of the of the election residence certificate, although, he continued making several
returns which was resumed only after the Provincial Election trips to the United States. CoquillA, eventually applied for
Supervisor of Lanao del Norte sent a message to the Comelec repatriation under RA No. 8171 to the special committee on
requesting that an order be issued ordering the board of naturalization which was approved on November 7, 2000, and
Canvassers to disregard the Restraining Order of the judge. The on November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the
judge admitted having issued without jurisdiction the Philippines. On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration
questioned order, He justified its issuance as an immediate as a voter of Butnga , Oras, Eastern Samar which was approved
remedy and arrangement to prevent bloodshed between the in 2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of
contending parties. Office of Court Administrator ruled against candidacy stating that he has been a resident of Oras, Eastern
the judge. Samar for two years. Oras incumbent mayor, Neil Alvarez, who
was running for re-election sought to cancel Coquillas
ISSUE: certificate of candidacy on the ground of that his statement as
Was judge Casar grossly ignorant of the law? to the two-year residency in Oras was a material
misrepresentation as he only resided therein for six months
RULING: after his oath as a citizen. Before the COMELEC could render a
decision, election commenced and Coquillo was proclaimed
YES. The Court of Administrator in its report stated that an the winner. On July 19, 2001, the Second Division of the
order made by Judge Casar to the Board of Canvasser to COMELEC granted Alvarez petition and ordered the
suspend the canvassing of the election returns of Precinct 10- cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy.
A was issued without jurisdiction. The acts complained should

29 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

ISSUE: Was Comelec’s order of cancellation of the certificate alleging that he was not given due notice and hearing. Without
of candidacy on Coquilla proper? waiting for the resolution of his motion, Angelia filed the
instant petition with COMELEC for violating his constitutional
RULING: right to due process when it passed the Aug 18, 1998
ES. COMELEC properly ordered the cancellation of Coquilla’s resolution annulling his proclamation and reconvening the
COC. RA 6646 provides that the proceeding for disqualification Municipal Board of Canvassers without prior notice and
of candidates or for the cancellation or denial of certificates of hearing.
candidacy, which have been begun before the elections should
continue even after such election and proclamation of the ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC made mistake in the
winners. Thus, COMELEC still had jurisdiction over his case annulment of Angelia’s proclamation?
although he was already proclaimed the COC was correctly
cancelled because Coquilla did not possess the legal HELD:
qualification of at least one-year residency. The term residence
is to be understood as the domicile or legal residence. He has NO. COMELEC’s Resolution No. 2962 (General Instructions for
lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a US citizen and Municipal/City/Provincial and District Boards of Canvassers in
he has not re-established his claimed domicile in Oras by mere connection with the May 11, 1998 elections) clearly directed
filing of taxes or by obtaining a voter’s registration as it only that in case there exist discrepancies in the votes of any
requires six months residency. The material falsification he candidate in taras/tally as against the votes obtained in
committed merits the cancellation of his COC. words/figures in the same returns/certificate, the votes in
taras/tally shall prevail. Based on the evidence presented and
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - affidavit by the poll clerk and the Board of Election Inspectors,
there was an erroneous tabulation of votes which resulted
ANGELIA VS COMELEC petitioner Tan as the winning candidate. As said error was
G.R. No. 135468/May 31, 2000 discovered after proclamation, all that is required is to
convene the board of canvassers to rectify the error
Digested by: PEREZ committed in order that the true will of the voters will be
effected.
FACTS: Petitioner Angelia and Private respondent Tan were
candidates for the position of member of Sangguniang Bayan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
of Leyte during the May 1998 elections.
BANAGA, JR. V. COMELEC
After canvass of votes, Angelia ranked 8th (4 votes ahead of Tan 336 SCRA 701
who ranked 9th) Tan filed a petition for quo warranto with RTC
against Angelia. He alleged that in Precinct No. 84 A and 84 A1, Digested by: GAUDICOS
he was credited with only 82 votes, when he actually obtained
92. In precinct No. 23A, Angelia was credited with 18 votes, FACTS:
when he actually garnered only 13. Therefore, according to
Tan, he received a total of 7771 votes, as to Angelia’s 7760 Petitioner Banaga, Jr. and respondent Bernabe, Jr. were both
votes. On June 12, 1998 – Angelia took his oath and assumed candidates for vice-mayor of Parañaque City in the May 1998
office. Subsequently, he filed petition for annulment of election. In said election, the city board of canvassers
proclamation of Angelia with COMELEC. He presented several proclaimed respondent Bernabe, Jr., as the winner for having
pieces of evidence, including Election Returns, affidavit of poll garnered 71,977 votes over petitioner Banaga, Jr.’s 68,970
clerk (stating that she inadvertently entered only 82 votes votes.
instead of 92 for Tan), and affidavit of another poll clerk
(indicated 18 instead of 13 as total votes for Angelia). Tan also Dissatisfied with the result, Banaga, Jr. filed with the COMELEC
submitted affidavit of Matugas, chairperson of BEI of Precinct on May 1998, a Petition to Declare Failure of Elections and/or
84 A and A1, corroborating the affidavit of Duavis. COMELEC For Annulment of Elections, alleging that said election was
annulled the proclamation of petitioner. Commission en Banc replete with election offenses, such as vote buying and flying
hereby annuls the proclamation of Angelia, and directs the voters. He also alleged that numerous Election Returns
municipal board of canvassers to effect the corrections in the pertaining to the position of Vice-Mayor in Parañaque City
total number of votes received and thereafter proclaim the appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated. In fact, there were
winning candidate for Municipal Kagawad based on the people arrested who admitted the said election offenses.
corrected results. Angelia filed a motion for reconsideration, Therefore, the incidents were sufficient to declare a failure of

30 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

elections because it cannot be considered as the true will of he garnered. Municipal BOC admitted in its answer that it had
the people. Petitioner Banaga, Jr. is praying that he should be made a mistake in the counting of votes of Comia. Thus, the
adjudged as the duly elected Vice-Mayor. trial court rendered its decision annulling the proclamation of
Respondent COMELEC dismissed petitioner’s suit and held that Reyes and declared Comia as the 8th winning candidate. Reyes
the election offenses relied upon by petitioner do not fall filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC but COMELEC's First
under any of the instances enumerated in Section 6 of the Division dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground that he
Omnibus Election Code. The election tribunal concluded that had failed to pay the appeal fee within the prescribed period.
based on the allegations of the petition, it is clear that an
election took place and that it did not result in a failure to elect ISSUE: Whether the filing of the motion for reconsideration
and therefore, cannot be viewed as an election protest. before the COMELEC en banc may be dispensed with by the
petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether respondent COMELEC acted with grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing Banaga, Jr.’s petition RULING: No. A motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc is required for the filing of a petition for
RULING: certiorari. Reyes’ argument that this may be dispensed with
because the only question raised in his petition is a question of
No. Respondent COMELEC committed no grave abuse of law is not correct. Questions raised involve the interpretation
discretion in dismissing the petition to declare failure of of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the facts
elections and/or for annulment of elections for being of this case. The questions tendered are, therefore, not pure
groundless. The petition to declare a failure of election and/or questions of law. Art. IX, C, Sec. 3 of the Constitution provides
to annul election results must show on its face that the that COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall
conditions necessary to declare a failure to elect are present. promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
Respondent COMELEC only based its decision on the disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code with regard to controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and
declaring a failure of election. There are three instances where decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration
a failure of election may be declared, namely: (a) the election of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on Conformably to these provisions of the Constitution, all
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must
analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling place has been be decided by the COMELEC in division. Should a party be
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the dissatisfied with the decision, he may file a motion for
voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. It is, therefore,
or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and during the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc that, in
the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in accordance with Art. IX, A, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, "may be
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari."
failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes. The instances not - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
being present in the petition of Banaga, Jr., the respondent
COMELEC has no other recourse but to dismiss the petition. GARCES V. COURT OF APPEALS
259 SCRA 99
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digested by: GAUDICOS
REYES V. RTC OF ORIENTAL MINDORO
244 SCRA 41 FACTS:

Digested by: GAUDICOS Petitioner Lucita Q. Garces was appointed Election Registrar
for Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte, replacing respondent
FACTS: Claudio Concepcion from the said position. The respondent
was, in turn, to be transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte.
Reyes and Comia were candidates for members of the The Civil Service Commission approved the appointments
Sangguniang Bayan. The Municipal BOC proclaimed Reyes as which were supposed to take effect upon assumption of office.
the 8th winning candidate. Comia then filed an election protest Concepcion refused the transfer which made Garces unable to
before the trial court alleging that a vital mistake was resume her post in Gutalac. Also, the Provincial Election
committed by the BOC in the computation of the total votes Supervisor Salvador Empeynado, also a respondent in this

31 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

case, issued a memorandum prohibiting her from assuming - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

office in Gutalac as the same is not vacant.
returns/certificates of canvass; and (4) to suspend the
On February 24, 1987, Garces was directed by the Office of the proclamation of the 24 winning candidates. Due to failure of
Assistant Director to defer her Gutalac post. However, on April the Comelec to act on his petition, he filed, an urgent petition
15, 1987, the petitioner received a letter from Acting Manager for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of
of Finance Service Department with enclosed check to cover a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Comelec from
expenses on construction of polling booths, addressed “Mrs. proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate, without
Lucita Garces E.R. Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte” which was first implementing Comelec’s resolution of May 12, 1992.
interpreted by the petitioner to mean as overriding the
previous deferment order while COMELEC en banc cancelled He filed a manifestation stating that his urgent petition dated
Concepcion’s appointment to Liloy since he is still occupying May 22, 1992 (petition that Comelec find ways of crediting the
the post in Gutalac. votes of Chavez to his name) was dismissed by Comelec and
prayed that the petition ad cautelam at bar be considered a
On February 26, 1988, Garces filed a petition for mandamus regular petition.
with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and
damages against Empeynado and Concepcion which was later ISSUE: Whether or not his petition has merit.
dismissed by the court on two grounds: (1) that the proper
remedy is quo warranto and (2) that the matters referred RULING:
under the constitution pertain only to those involving the
conduct of elections. COMELEC cancelled the appointments of No, the Court declared that his petition is devoid of merit.
Garces to Gutalac and Concepcion to Liloy through a resolution Francisco’s urgent petition dated May 22, 1992 was dismissed
passed en banc. Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the by Comelec on May 30, 1992. Had it not been prayed that the
dismissal of the case by the RTC. proclamation of the 24th winning senatorial candidate be
suspended, which this Court granted on June 4, 1992, the
Respondent Empeynado challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC instant petition would have been dismissed outright for having
contending that this “matter” is cognizable by the COMELEC become moot and academic. But even then, this Court could
under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. He argues that not have acted favorably on petitioner’s plaint.
this case should be reviewed only by the Supreme Court and
that if RTC has jurisdiction over COMELEC Resolution’s The alleged inaction of respondent Comelec in ordering the
cancelation the appointments, then RTC becomes a reviewer deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name in the list of qualified
of an en banc COMELEC resolution contrary to the candidates does not call for the exercise of the Court’s function
aforementioned provision of the Constitution. of judicial review. This Court can review the decisions or orders
of the Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of discretion
ISSUE: Whether this case is cognizable by the Regional Trial committed by it in the discharge of its quasijudicial powers and
Court or by the Supreme Court not those arising from the exercise of its administrative
functions. Respondent Commission’s alleged failure to
RULING: implement its own resolution is undoubtedly administrative in
nature, hence, beyond judicial interference. As aptly observed
The Court decided that: “the petition for review is hereby by the Solicitor General, respondent Comelec can
DENIED without prejudice to the filing of the proper action administratively undo what it has administratively left undone.
with the appropriate body.” It resolved that the contention of Moreover, respondent Comelec has in fact, on May 6, 1992 to
respondent Empeynado challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC be exact, ordered the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name not
on this matter is without merit. The said provision in the only on the official list of candidates, but also on the election
Constitution is inapplicable since there was no case filed returns, tally sheet and certificate of canvass. Hence,
before COMELEC. Also, the provision only refers to cases petitioner’s allegation that respondent Comelec failed to
involving elective official and not appointive. According to the implement Res. No. 92-132 does not hold water.
Court’s decision: “To rule otherwise would surely burden the
Court with trivial administrative questions that are best In the case at bar, petitioner’s allegation that “Chavez” votes
ventilated before the RTC, a court which the law vests with the were either invalidated or declared stray has no relation to the
power to exercise original jurisdiction over ‘all cases not within correctness or authenticity of the election returns canvassed.
the exclusive jurisdiction over of any court, tribunal, person, or Otherwise stated, petitioner has not demonstrated any
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.’” manifest error in the certificates of canvass or election returns

32 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

before the Comelec which would warrant their correction. As duty of the Comelec that is enjoined by law and is part and
the authenticity of the certificates of canvass or election parcel of its administrative functions.
returns are not questioned, they must be prima facie
considered valid for purposes of canvassing the same and It involves no exercise of discretionary authority on the part of
proclamation of the winning candidates. respondent Comelec; let alone an exercise of its adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial power to hear and resolve controversies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - defining the rights and duties of party-litigants, relative to the
conduct of elections of public officers and the enforcement of
SALVA VS. MACALINTAL the election laws.” Briefly, Comelec Resolution No. 2987 which
340 SCRA 506 provides for the rules and regulations governing the conduct
of the required plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to the
Digested by: MILITAR Comelec’s quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of
its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of plebi-
FACTS: scites, thus, the said resolution may not be deemed as a “final
order” reviewable by certiorari by this Court. Any question
In 1998, the Sangguinang Panlalawigan of Batangas enacted pertaining to the validity of said resolution may be well taken
Ordinance 05, which abolished Brgy. San Rafael and ordered in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts.
its merger with Brgy. Dacanlao. The Governer of Batangas
vetoed the ordinance as it was not shown that it complied with - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the requisites in Sections 7 & 9 of the LGC. The governor’s veto
was overridden by Resolution 345. SALVACION BUAC VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. 155855, January 26, 2004
Consequently, the Comelec promulgated Resolution 2987 to
govern the conduct of the needed plebiscite. The petitioners, Digested by: MILITAR
officials and residents of Brgy. San Rafael, filed for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order against the plebiscite with the FACTS:
trial court. The trial court denied their petition, claiming that it
had no jurisdiction over acts, resolutions, or decisions of the The facts show that in April 1988, a plebiscite was held in
Comelec. The trial court directed the petitioners to bring the Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law (RA No.
case to the Supreme Court. 8487) proposing the conversion of Taguig from a municipality
into a city. Without completing the canvass of 64 other
Apparently, the plebiscite was conducted during the pendency election returns, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC)
of the case. The petitioners maintain that since their action is declared that the “NO” votes won and that the people rejected
based on the validity of Ordinance 05 and Resolution 345, the the conversion of Taguig to a city. The PBOC was however
trial court had jurisdiction. They further maintained that the ordered by the Comelec en banc to reconvene and complete
Supreme Court only had exclusive jurisdiction when Comelec the canvass which the board did and in due time issued an
exercises its quasi-judicial functions. However, when the Order proclaiming that the negative votes prevailed.
Comelec acts in a purely ministerial manner, the case may be
subject to the RTC. Petitioners filed with the Comelec a petition to annul the
results of the plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. of the ballots. Cayetano intervened and moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Comelec.
RULING: He claimed that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an
election protest and that the jurisdiction to hear a complaint
Yes, Comelec Resolutions on the conduct of plebiscites are involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged with the RTC.
administrative in nature and subject to RTC. As aptly explained
by the Solicitor General, in the instant case, after the Comelec Comelec 2nd division initially gave due course to the petition
ascertained the issuance of the ordinance and resolution ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case. It treated the
declaring the abolition of barangay San Rafael, it issued petition as akin to an election protest considering that the
Comelec Resolution No. 2987 calling for a plebiscite to be held same allegations of fraud and irregularities in the casting and
in the affected barangays, pursuant to the provisions of counting of ballots and preparation of returns are the same
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7160. We agree with the grounds for assailing the results of an election. It then ordered
Solicitor General that Resolution No. 2987 is thus a ministerial the Taguig ballot boxes to be brought to its Manila Office and

33 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

created revision committees to revise and recount the performance of such act or acts necessary to bring into actual
plebiscite ballots. effect or operation, a plan or measure which entails all the
necessary and incidental power for it to achieve the holding of
Cayetano moved for reconsideration of the Comelec Order honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections. The
insisting that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition Court was surprised that for the first time, Comelec yielded its
contesting the results of a plebiscite. Comelec 2nd division historic jurisdiction over a motion for reconsideration which
issued an Order granting the Motion for Reconsideration. It was even filed out of time, thus rendering it without
dismissed the petition to annul the results of the plebiscite and jurisdiction to entertain the same.
ruled that Comelec has no jurisdiction over said case as it
involves an exercise of quasi-judicial powers not contemplated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
under Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
BULAONG VS. COMELEC
The Comelec en banc affirmed the ruling of its 2nd division. It G.R. No. 107987 March 31, 1993
held that the Comelec cannot use its power to enforce and
administer all laws relative to plebiscites as this power is purely Digested by: MASTURA
administrative or executive and not quasi-judicial in nature. It
concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition to annul the FACTS:
Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC under Section
19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC shall have Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong, M.D. and private respondent Luis
exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within the exclusive Villafuerte were both candidates for the office of the provincial
jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial or quasi- governor of Camarines Sur in the May 11, 1992 local elections.
judicial functions. Bulaong was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers
as the duly elected governor on June 30, 1992 and took his
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition is with merit. oath of office on July 1, 1992. On July 9, 1992, Villafuerte filed
an election protest and subsequently, on August 21, 1992 filed
RULING: an Omnibus Motion praying that the venue for the ballot
revision proceedings be conducted at the main office of the
Yes, the court held that the petition is impressed with merit. Commission on Elections in Intramuros, Manila.
The Court held that the key to the case is its nature, which
involves the determination of whether the electorate of Taguig ISSUE: WON the revision of ballots must be conducted at the
voted in favor of or against the conversion of the municipality main office of COMELEC instead of the COMELEC Division.
of Taguig. The invocation of judicial power to settle disputes
involving the conduct of a plebiscite is misplaced. Judicial RULING:
power as defined under Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution as the duty of the court of justice to settle actual No. For said motion to be considered en banc, it requires the
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable unanimous vote of the members of the division as mandated
and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In the case at bar,
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of there was an absence of such vote. Instead of withholding its
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the decision on such interlocutory matter, the First Division of the
government. COMELEC decided to exercise its power under Section 6 of Rule
20 of the COMELEC Rules which states:
This case assailing the regularity of the conduct of the Taguig
plebiscite does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise "When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so
of judicial power. There is no plaintiff or defendant in the case warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Commission or
for it merely involves the ascertainment of the vote of the Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall immediately
electorate on whether they approve or disapprove the order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of
conversion of their municipality into a highly urbanized city. voters with voting records, book of voters and other
documents used in the election to be brought before the
In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the Court said that the Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots. x x x
said provision is explicit that Comelec has power to “enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct The revision of ballots shall be made in the office of the Clerk
of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. To of Court concerned or at such places as the Commission or
enforce means to cause to take effect or to cause the Division shall designate, and shall be completed within three

34 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

(3) months from the date of the order, unless otherwise petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protest
directed by the Commission." Bulaong vs. Comelec, First should not be referred first to a division of the COMELEC for
Division, 220 SCRA 745, G.R. No. 107987 March 31, 1993 resolution.

This section impliedly reveals the discretionary power of the As can be gleaned from the proceedings aforestated,
COMELEC Division or En Banc to order a revision of ballots. This petitioner’s petition with the COMELEC was not referred to a
can be gleaned from the use of the phrase, "whenever in the division of that Commission but was, instead, submitted
opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so directly to the Commission en banc. The petition for certiorari
demand." Although in most instances the revision of ballots assails the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss
takes place in the office of the Clerk of Court concerned, private respondent’s election protest. The questioned order of
revision of ballots may also be held in "such places as the the trial court is interlocutory because it does not end the trial
Commission or Division shall designate." court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and
determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Therefore, the authority to resolve petition for certiorari
involving incidental issues of election protest, like the
SOLLER VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS questioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of
G.R. No. 139853 September 5, 2000 the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc.

Digested by: MASTURA Note that the order denying the motion to dismiss is but an
incident of the election protest. If the principal case, once
FACTS: decided on the merits, is cognizable on appeal by a division of
the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions for
Thomas and Angel were both candidates for mayor of the certiorari relating to incidents of election protest should not be
municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 referred first to a division of the COMELEC for resolution.
elections. On May 14, 1998, the municipal board of canvassers Clearly, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in
proclaimed petitioner Ferdinand Thomas Soller duly elected taking cognizance of petitioner’s petition in the first instance.
mayor. On May 19, 1998, private respondent Angel Saulong
filed with the COMELEC a “petition for annulment of the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
proclamation/exclusion of election return.” On May 25, 1998,
private respondent filed with the RTC of Pinamalayan, Oriental CANICOSA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Mindoro, an election protest against petitioner. On June 15, G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997
1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterprotest alleging
respondent’s unpaid required filing fee, RTC’s refusal to Digested by: MASTURA
dismiss respondent’s election protest.
FACTS:
On August 31, 1999, the COMELEC en banc dismissed
petitioner’s suit. The election tribunal held that private RICARDO “BOY” CANICOSA and SEVERINO LAJARA were
respondent paid the required filing fee. It also declared that candidates for mayor in Calamba, Laguna in May 8, 1995
the defect in the verification is a mere technical defect which elections. Lajara was proclaimed winner after obtaining
should not bar the determination of the merits of the case. The majority of votes. On 15 May 1995 Canicosa filed with the
election tribunal stated that there was no forum shopping to COMELEC a Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to
speak of. Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation because
of alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and
ISSUE: WON the authority to resolve petitions for election counting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence,
protest is within COMELEC threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting,
and delay in the delivery of election documents and
RULING: paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer. Canicosa particularly averred that: (a) the names of
Yes. The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving the registered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their
incidental issues of election protest falls within the divisions of precincts; (b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered
the COMELEC and not the COMELEC en banc; If the principal voters were not able to vote with strangers voting in their
case, once decided on its merits, is cognizable on appeal by a stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he actually
division of the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why received; (d) control data of the election returns was not filled

35 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

up in some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of On April 23, 1996, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy
the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without for the position of Chairman, Sangguniang Kabataan.
padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there was delay Respondent Election Officer Dionisio F. Rios disapproved
in the delivery of election returns. But the COMELEC en banc petitioner's certificate of candidacy again due to her age. 5
dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations Petitioner, however, appealed to COMELEC Regional Director
therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election. Filemon A. Asperin who set aside the order of respondents and
allowed petitioner to run.
ISSUE: WON inclusion/exclusion from the list of voters (which
involves the right to vote) is within the power and authority of On May 6, 1996, election day, petitioner garnered 78 votes as
COMELEC against private respondent's votes of 76. 10 In accordance with
the May 2, 1996 order of the COMELEC en banc, the Board of
RULING: Election Tellers did not proclaim petitioner as the winner.

The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters Petitioner argues that Section 3 [b] of Resolution No. 2824 is
involves the right to vote which is not within the power and unlawful, ultra vires and beyond the scope of Sections 424 and
authority of COMELEC to rule upon. 428 of the Local Government Code of 1991. She contends that
the Code itself does not provide that the voter must be exactly
Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on 8 May 1995 21 years of age on Election Day. She urges that so long as she
the final list of voters was posted in each precinct pursuant to did not turn twenty-two (22) years old, she was still twenty-
Sec. 148 of RA No. 7166. Based on the lists thus posted one years of age on Election Day and therefore qualified as a
Canicosa could have filed a petition for inclusion of registered member and voter in the Katipunan ng Kabataan and as
voters with the regular courts. The question of inclusion or candidate for the SK elections.
exclusion from the lists of voters involves the right to vote
which is not within the power and authority of COMELEC to ISSUE:
rule upon. The determination of whether one has the right to 1. Did the COMELEC en banc have jurisdiction to act on the
vote is a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular petition to deny or cancel her certificate of candidacy?
courts. 2. Did the petitioner exceeded the age requirement to run as
an elective official of the SK?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RULING:
GARVIDA V. SALES
G.R. No. 124893 April 18, 1997 I. No, section 532 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991
provides that the conduct of the SK elections is under the
Digested by: BALANI supervision of the COMELEC and shall be governed by the
Omnibus Election Code.
FACTS:
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a
The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections nationwide was petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the
scheduled to be held on May 6, 1996. On March 16, 1996, COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a
petitioner applied for registration as member and voter of the Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc
Katipunan ng Kabataan. The Board of Election Tellers, when the required number of votes to reach a decision,
however, denied her application on the ground that petitioner, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division.
who was then twenty-one years and ten (10) months old, Moreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions,
exceeded the age limit for membership in the Katipunan ng orders or rulings of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by
Kabataan as laid down in Section 3 [b] of COMELEC Resolution the COMELEC en banc.
No. 2824.
In the instant case, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case
On April 2, 1996, petitioner filed a "Petition for Inclusion as to any of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It therefore
Registered Kabataang Member and Voter" with the Municipal acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
Circuit Trial Court. In a decision dated April 18, 1996, the said when it entertained the petition and issued the order of May
court found petitioner qualified and ordered her registration 2, 1996. 18
as member and voter in the Katipunan ng Kabataan.


36 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

II. Yes, the general rule is that an elective official of the proclamation case before the COMELEC. Gatchalian filed on
Sangguniang Kabataan must not be more than 21 years of age June 15, 1992 a Motion to Dismiss claiming that: (a) the
on the day of his election. The only exception is when the petition was filed out of time; (b) there was a pending protest
official reaches the age of 21 years during his incumbency. case before the COMELEC; and (c) Aruelo failed to pay the
Section 423 [b] of the Code allows him to serve the remaining prescribed filing fees and cash deposit on the petition.
portion of the term for which he was elected. Conversely, the
SK official must not have turned 21 years old before his The trial court, on the other hand, issued an order dated July
election. Reading Section 423 [b] together with Section 428 of 10, 1992, denying Gatchalian's Motion to Dismiss and ordering
the Code, the latest date at which an SK elective official turns him to file his answer to the petition within five days from
21 years old is on the day of his election. The maximum age of notice, otherwise, "a general denial shall be deemed to have
a youth official must therefore be exactly 21 years on election been entered.
day. Section 3 [b] in relation to Section 6 [a] of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2824 is not ultra vires insofar as it fixes the On August 6, 1992, Gatchalian filed before the Court of
maximum age of an elective SK official on the day of his Appeals, a petition for certiorari which alleged grave abuse of
election. discretion on the part of the trial court in denying his Motion
to Dismiss and his Motion for Reconsideration. Earlier, that is
In the case at bar, petitioner was born on June 11, 1974. On on July 23, 1992, Gatchalian filed before the trial court a
March 16, 1996, the day she registered as voter for the May 6, Motion for Bill of Particulars, which was opposed by Aruelo.
1996 SK elections, petitioner was twenty-one (21) years and
nine (9) months old. On the day of the elections, she was 21 On August 11, 1992, Gatchalian submitted before the trial
years, 11 months and 5 days old. When she assumed office on court his Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim,
June 1, 1996, she was 21 years, 11 months and 20 days old and alleging inter alia, that Aruelo was the one who committed the
was merely ten (10) days away from turning 22 years old. election fraud and that were it not for the said fraud,
Petitioner may have qualified as a member of the Katipunan Gatchalian's margin over Aruelo would have been greater. The
ng Kabataan but definitely, petitioner was over the age limit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in denying Gatchalian's
for elective SK officials set by Section 428 of the Local petition, but declared, at the same time, that Gatchalian's
Government Code and Sections 3 [b] and 6 of Comelec Answer With Counter-Protest and Counterclaim was timely
Resolution No. 2824. She was ineligible to run as candidate for filed.
the May 6, 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
Aruelo now claims that in election contests, the COMELEC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rules of Procedure gives the respondent therein only five days
from receipt of summons within which to file his answer to the
ARUELO JR. V. CA petition (Part VI, Rule 35, Sec. 7) and that this five-day period
October 20, 1993 had lapsed when Gatchalian filed his answer. According to him,
the filing of motions to dismiss and motions for bill of
Digested by: BALANI particulars is prohibited by Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure; hence, the filing of said
FACTS: pleadings did not suspend the running of the five-day period,
or give Gatchalian a new five-day period to file his answer.
Aruelo and Gatchalian were rival candidates in the May 11,
1992 elections for the office of the Vice-Mayor of the ISSUE: Whether or not Gatchalian timely filed his pleading.
Municipality of Balagtas. Gatchalian won over Aruelo by a
margin of four votes, such that on May 13, 1992, the Municipal RULING:
Board of Canvassers proclaimed him as the duly elected Vice-
Mayor of Balagtas, Bulacan. On May 22, 1992, Aruelo filed with Yes. Petitioner filed the election protest with the Regional Trial
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition seeking to Court, whose proceedings are governed by the Revised Rules
annul Gatchalian's proclamation on the ground of "fraudulent of Court. Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules of
alteration and tampering" of votes in the tally sheets and the Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before the regular
election returns. courts. As expressly mandated by Section 2, Rule 1, Part I of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the filing of motions to
On June 2, 1992, Aruelo filed with the Regional Trial Court, a dismiss and bill of particulars, shall apply only to proceedings
petition protesting the same election. Aruelo, however, brought before the COMELEC.
informed the trial court of the pendency of the pre-

37 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a rule disputed returns, there could have been no complete and valid
prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. canvass, which is a prerequisite to a valid proclamation. In
The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice addition, Section 245 of the OEC prohibits the proclamation by
and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court. the BOC of a candidate as winner where returns are contested
except in cases authorized by COMELEC. No authority had
Private respondent received a copy of the order of the been given by COMELEC to the MBC for the proclamation of
Regional Trial Court denying his motion for a bill of particulars the candidate.
on August 6, 1992. Under Section 1 (b), Rule 12 of the Revised
Rules of Court, a party has at least five days to file his answer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
after receipt of the order denying his motion for a bill of
particulars. Private respondent, therefore, had until August 11,
1992 within which to file his answer. The Answer with Counter-
Protest and Counterclaim filed by him on August 11, 1992 was
filed timely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JAMIL VS COMELEC
GR NO. 123648 DECEMBER 15, 1997

Digested by: SAHIDSAHID

FACTS:

Jamil and Balindong were the candidates for mayor in Sultan
Gumander. Balindong objected the inclusion of some ballots
due to irregularities, this was denied and Jamil was proclaimed
as winner. Balindong appealed, it was granted and he was then
proclaimed as the winner and not Jamil.

ISSUE: Are the proclamations made valid?

RULING:

NO. Both proclamations were illegal. It is a settled rule that an
incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis
of a valid proclamation. Furthermore, the SC ordered the
COMELEC to proclaim and conduct investigations.

The proclamation of a candidate based on an incomplete
canvass in null and void for the simple reason that a complete
canvass is a prerequisite for a valid proclamation. Issuances of
the Municipal BOC “setting aside” the election return from a
precinct for “further investigation,” or “to go deeper into the
contradicting testimonies of the Chairperson and the
watchers,” or to “summon the two (2) BEI who failed to affix
their signatures and explain the alleged increase of votes of a
candidate and the use of unauthorized envelope without seal
containing the election returns and thereafter a ruling on the
matter shall be rendered” are not definitive rulings of
exclusion by such board because they merely defer the
inclusion of the election returns pending further investigation.
There being no ruling on the inclusion or exclusion of the

38 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

RECITATION: proclamation of petitioner. As agreed upon by the parties, a

recount of the votes was made, as a result, Carbonel won. MTC
JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE COMELEC promulgated a decision declaring as elected barangay captain.
Calucag appealed this ruling to RTC which was opposed by
GUIEB V. FONTANILLA Carbonel on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the proper
247 SCRA 348 forum being the commission on elections. On July 18, 1994 RTC
dismissed the appeal.
Digested by: SAHIDSAHID
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC has exclusive appellate
FACTS: jurisdiction over election contest involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction?
Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the
position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Nilombot, Sta. HELD:
Barbara, Pangasinan in the barangay election of May 1994.
After completion of the canvass the former was proclaimed as The COMELEC is the proper appellate court clothed with
the winning candidate to which the latter seasonably filed an jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which must be filed within five
election protest with the Municipal Trial Court. days after the promulgation of the MTC's decision.

The Municipal Trial Court confirmed the proclamation of the An appeal to the RTC of the ruling by the MTC on an election
petitioner and dismissed the protest to which private protest involving the position of Barangay Captain is
respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which gave a dismissible on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The COMELEC
favorable decision by reversing the court a quo. has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election contests
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the High involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of
Court regarding the decision. limited jurisdiction. Article IX-C Section 2(2) of the
Constitution, provides that the COMELEC shall exercise
ISSUE: Is the RTC the proper forum for the appeal and who has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
jurisdiction on election contests involving barangay positions? elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
HELD: contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
The RTC had absolutely no jurisdiction over the appeal from officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
the decision of the MTC. Citing paragraph 2(c) of Article IX of
the Constitution the Supreme Court held that it is the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMELEC and not the RTC that has exclusive jurisdiction over
all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND
courts of limited jurisdiction. MANDAMUS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Relampagos v. Cumba
G.R. No. 118861 April 27, 1995
Calucag v COMELEC
274 SCRA 405 Digested by: MUÑOZ

Digested by: SAHIDSAHID FACTS:

FACTS: In the synchronized elections of May 11, 1992, the petitioner,
Emmanuel Relampagos and private respondent, Rosita Cumba
Calucag and Carbonel were both candidates for Barangay were candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality
captain in Brgy. Caritan Centro, Tuguegarao, Cagayan during of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. Cumba was proclaimed the
the May 9, 1994 elections. wherein the former won by a winning candidate.
difference of one vote.
Unwilling to accept defeat, Relampagos filed an election
Private respondent filed an election protest praying for the protest with the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte. On
judicial recounts of the ballots cast and annulment of the June 29,1994, the trial court found that Relampagos have won

39 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

with a margin of six votes over Cumba and rendered CARLOS VS. ANGELES SUPRA
judgement in favor of the petitioner Relampagos. G.R. No. 142907 November 29, 2000

As a result, Cumba then filed with the respondent COMELEC a Digested by: EBUEZA
petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial
court granting the motion for execution pending appeal and FACTS:
the writ of execution.
On May 21, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers,
On February 9, 1995, the COMELEC promulgated its resolution Valenzuela metro manila proclaimed Petitioner Jose
stating that, the Commission has exclusive authority to hear Emmanuel L. Carlos as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela
and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus garnering a votes of 102, 688, the highest number of votes in
in election cases as authorized by law, and therefore, assumes the election returns.
jurisdiction of the instant petition for certiorari which is hereby
granted and that the Order of the court be declared null and However, on June 1, 1998, respondent Antonio M. Serapio
void. filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro manila challenhing the results of said
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction over election. The respondent obtained 77, 270 votes, the second
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in election highest number of votes. But due to the inhibition of all judges
cases where it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. of the RTC Valenzuela, the case was ultimately assigned to RTC
Caloocan, Branch 125. This was presided by respondent Judge
RULING: Adoracion G. Angeles.

Yes. We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. The Municipal Treasurer of Valenzuela, who by law has the
Blg. 697 provides: “The Commission is hereby vested with custody of the ballot boxes, collected and delivered the ballot
exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, boxes to RTC Caloocan. The RTC conducted a pre- trial
prohibition and mandamus involving election cases” remains conference of the parties but it did not produce a substantial
in full force and effect but only in such cases where, under results as the parties merely paid superficial service and only
paragraph (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution, it has agreed that both parites admit to sue and be sued in their
exclusive appellate jurisdiction. capacity; that both of the parties admit that the protestant was
a candidate during the May 11, 1998 election; that both of the
Moreover, in discharging its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to parties admit that the protestee has been proclaimed as the
Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C, the COMELEC acts as a court of justice elected Mayor of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, on May 21, 1998;
performing judicial power and said power includes the and that both of the parties admit that the protestee allegedly
determination of whether or not there has been grave abuse obtained 102,688 votes while the protestant obtained 77, 270
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Simply votes per canvass of election returns of the Bureau of
put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary Canvassers.
writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. The court came up with revision reports which also showed
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged that the petitioner got the highest number of votes.
resolution of 9 February 1995 of the Commission on Elections Nevertheless, in its decision, the trial court set aside the final
in SPR No. 1-94 entitled "Rosita Cumba vs. Manuel M. tally of valid votes because of its finding of "significant badges
Relampagos, et al. " is AFFIRMED. of fraud," which it attributed to the present petitioner. The
court then declared respondent Antonio M. Serapio as the
winning candidate of the said election as Mayor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - However, the petitioner appealed to the COMELEC, and also
filed a petition to the SC questioning the decision of the RTC.
The private respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review, by
petition for certiorari as a special civil action, the decision of

40 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

the regional trial court in an election protest case involving an The power to nullify an election must be exercised with the
elective municipal official considering that it has no appellate greatest care with a view not to disenfranchise the voters, and
jurisdiction over such decision. only under circumstances that clearly call for such drastic
remedial measure. More importantly, the trial court has no
Whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. It is the COMELEC
abuse of discretion when the court set aside the proclamation en banc that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a
of petitioner and declared respondent Serapio as the duly failure of election. Assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction
elected mayor of Valenzuela City despite its finding that to declare a failure of election, the extent of that power is
petitioner garnered 83,609 valid votes while respondent limited to the annulment of the election and the calling of
obtained 66,602 valid votes, or a winning margin of 17,007 special elections. The result is a failure of election for that
votes. particular office. In such case, the court cannot declare a
winner.
RULING:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Supreme Court is vested with original jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the POWER OF INVESTIGATION
decision of the regional trial court in the election protest case
before it, regardless of whether it has appellate jurisdiction COMELEC V. NOYNAY
over such decision. Article VIII, Section 5 (1) of the 1987 July 9, 1998
Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the
powers to exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting Digested by: SISTUAL
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, FACTS:
and habeas corpus.
COMELEC filed an information for violation of Section 261(i) of
Constituionally, the Commission on Election (Comelec) has the Omnibus Election Code against private respondents
appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases involving Diosdada Amor, a public school principal, and Esbel Chua and
elective municipal officials decided by courts of general Ruben Magluyoan, both public school teachers, for having
jurisdiction, as provided for in Article IX (C), Section 2 of the engaged in partisan political activities. Forthwith, nine
1987 Constitution that COMELEC shall exercise the following information’s for violation of Section 261(i) of the Omnibus
powers and functions exercise exclusive original jurisdiction Election were filed with Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court
over all contests relating to the elections, returns and of Allen, Northern Samar respondent Judge Tomas B. Noynay,
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city motu proprio ordered the records of the cases to be
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law Department to file
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general the cases with the appropriate Court. The Regional Trial Court
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum
trial courts of limited jurisdiction. imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed six
years of imprisonment. The petitioner filed this special civil
In like manner, the Comelec has original jurisdiction to issue action. It contends that public respondent "has erroneously
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving misconstrued the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7691 in arguing
election cases in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. that the Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
In this case, both the Supreme Court and COMELEC have to try and decide election offenses" Because pursuant to
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code.
and mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general
jurisdiction (RTCs) in election cases involving elective ISSUES:
municipal officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall Whether R.A. No. 7691[1] has divested Regional Trial Courts of
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Relative to the jurisdiction over election offenses, which are punishable with
appeal that petitioner filed with the COMELEC, the same would imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years.
not bar the present action as an exception to the rule because
under the circumstances, appeal would not be a speedy and Whether the Comelec has the exclusive power to conduct
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable
under the Code.


41 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

RULING: under B.P. 129 by RA 7691 does not vest upon the MTC
jurisdiction over criminal election offenses despite its
Under Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, Regional expanded jurisdiction."
Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to try and
decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Code except those relating to the offense of failure to register
or failure to vote. Among the offenses punished under the PEOPLE VS. INTING
Election Code are those enumerated in Section 261 thereof. 187 SCRA 788 July 25, 1990
The offense allegedly committed by private respondents is
covered by paragraph (i) of said Section Digested by: MAMAC

Under Section 264 of the Code the penalty for an election FACTS:
offense under the Code, except that of failure to register or
failure to vote, is "imprisonment of not less than one year but February 6, 1988 | Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint
not more than six years" and the offender shall not be subject against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of with the
to probation and shall suffer disqualification to hold public (COMELEC), for allegedly transferring her, a permanent
office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal
Mayor to a very remote barangay and without obtaining prior
by virtue of the exception provided for in the opening sentence permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.
of Section 32, the exclusive original jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and COMELEC, acting on the complaint, directed the Provincial
Municipal Circuit Election Supervisor of Dumaguete City:

Trial Courts does not cover those criminal cases which by (1) to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case;
specific provisions of law fall within the exclusive original (2) to prepare and file the necessary information in court;
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, (3) to handle the prosecution if the evidence submitted shows
regardless of the penalty prescribed therefor. Otherwise a prima facie case and
stated, even if those excepted cases... are punishable by (4) to issue a resolution of prosecution or dismissal as the case
imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years... jurisdiction may be.
thereon is retained by the Regional Trial Courts or the
Sandiganbayan, as the case may be Undoubtedly, pursuant to After a preliminary investigation of Barba's complaint, Atty.
Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, election offenses Lituanas filed with the respondent trial court a criminal case
also fall within the exception. It is obvious that respondent for violation of Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor.
judge did not read at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of
B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. RTC: issued a warrant of arrest against the accused OIC Mayor.

A review of the pertinent provision of law would show that But before the accused could be arrested, the trial court set
pursuant to Sec. 265 and 267 of the Omnibus Election Code, aside its order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is not
the COMELEC, has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2,
investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Code and the RTC shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction
to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for The court stated that it "will give due course to the information
violation of the same. The Metropolitan, or MTC, by way of filed in this case if the same has the written approval of the
exception exercises jurisdiction only on offenses relating to Provincial Fiscal after which the prosecution of the case shall
failure to register or to vote. Noting that these provisions be under the supervision and control of the latter."
stand... together with the provisions that any election offense
under the code shall be punishable with imprisonment of one Atty. Lituanas failed to secure the written approval of the
(1) year to six (6) years and shall not be subject to probation Provincial Fiscal. RTC quashed the information.

Sec. 263, Omnibus Election Code), we submit that it is the MR - DENIED
special intention of the Code to vest... upon the RTC
jurisdiction over election cases as a matter of exception to the
general provisions on jurisdiction over criminal cases found

42 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

ISSUE: W/N A preliminary investigation conducted by a First, the determination of probable cause is a function of the
Provincial Election Supervisor involving election offenses have Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for
to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before the the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and the
RTC may take cognizance of the investigation and determine Judge alone makes this determination.

whether or not probable cause exists?
Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not
RULING: bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the
determination of probable cause. The Judge does not have to
NO. [ART 9C SEC2] In effect the 1987 Constitution mandates follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the
the COMELEC not only to investigate but also to prosecute Prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual.
cases of violation of election laws.
It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic
This means that the COMELEC is empowered to conduct notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the
preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses Prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the
for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause Judge to make his determination.
and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive
with COMELEC. And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the
preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the
Hence, the Provincial Fiscal, as such, assumes no role in the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary
prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal or Prosecutor investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender
files an information charging an election offense or prosecutes should be held for trial or released.
a violation of election law, it is because he has been deputized
by the COMELEC. He does not do so under the sole authority The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest
of his office. is made by the Judge (JUDICIAL IN NATURE). The preliminary
investigation proper-whether or not there is reasonable
Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its duly ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense
authorized legal officers, have exclusive power to conduct charged and, therefore, whether or not he should be subjected
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable as to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is the
provided for in the preceding section, and to prosecute the function of the Prosecutor (EXECUTIVE IN NATURE).
same: Provided, That in the event that the Commission fails to
act on any complaint within two (2) months from filing, the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
complainant may file the complaint with the Office of the Fiscal
or with the Department of Justice for proper investigation and FAELNAR V. PEOPLE
prosecution, if warranted. 331 SCRA 429

The Commission may avail of the assistance of other Digested by: MONDEJAR
prosecuting arms of the government.
FACTS:
It is only after a preliminary examination conducted by the
COMELEC through its officials or its deputies that section 2, On April 8, 1997, petitioner Eugenio Faelnar filed a certificate
Article III of the 1987 Constitution comes in. This is so, because, of candidacy for the position of Barangay Chairman of
when the application for a warrant of arrest is made and the Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City in the May 12, 1997 barangay
information is filed with the court, the judge will then elections. The following day, on April 9, 1997, a basketball
determine whether or not a probable cause exists for the tournament, dubbed the "2nd JING-JING FAELNAR'S CUP,"
issuance of a warrant of arrest. opened at the Guadalupe Sports Complex and lasted up to
April 30, 1997.
DIFF BET. PROBABLE CAUSE determined by a Judge and Public
Prosecutor This gave rise to a complaint for electioneering filed against
petitioner and Cecilio Gillamac by Antonio Luy. The complaint
ART 3 SEC 2 PROVIDES: “no search warrant or warrant of arrest alleged that the basketball tournament was actually a
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined campaign gimmick staged outside the campaign period which
personally by the judge ... " officially started on May 1, 1997, in violation of the Omnibus
Election Code.

43 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

that his a natural-born Filipino citizen. An investigation was

Petitioner moved to quash the information or, in the conducted by the COMELEC Law Department and a 19 Report
alternative, for reinvestigation of the case, contending that was made recommending the filing of Information. During en
Resolution No. 97-3040, which dismissed the complaint banc, COMELEC resolved to file the necessary information
against him, was immediately executory and could no longer against respondent and to file a criminal complaint against
be reconsidered respondent for falsification Director Balbuena filed an
information for Violation of Section 74, in relation to Section
ISSUE: WON the office who filed the information had no 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. Plaintiff filed a Motion for
authority to do so. Inhibition, seeking the inhibition of the entire COMELEC
because of its bias in rendering a resolution. Plaintiff filed on
HELD: 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash alleging lack of jurisdiction
and lack of authority on the part of Director Balbuena to file
Where the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor the information. Court denied. Petitioner then filed a petition
exercises the power to conduct preliminary investigation of for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
election offense cases and after the investigation submits its upheld the trial court and ruled that the proper procedure was
recommendation to the Comelec, the issue of probable cause followed by the COMELEC but directed the trial court to
is already resolved. The proper remedy to question the said remand the case to the COMELEC for reception of petitioner's
resolution is to file an appeal with the COMELEC and the ruling motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated
of the Comelec on the appeal would be immediately final and January 25, 1996, which approved the filing of a criminal
executory. complaint against petitioner.

If the preliminary investigation of the complaint for an election ISSUE:
offence is conducted by the Comelec, the investigation officer
prepares its recommendation to the Law Department which (1) Whether or not it was error for the Court of Appeals to hold
department in turn makes its recommendation to the Comelec there was no flaw in the procedure followed by the COMELEC
en banc on whether there is probable cause to prosecute. It is in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
the Comelec en banc which determines the existence of
probable cause. The proper remedy of the aggrieved party is (2) Whether or not The Court of Appeals erred in holding that
to file a Motion for Reconsideration of such resolution. This petitioner's protestations on COMELEC's having acted as
effectively allows for a review of the original resolution, in the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner
same manner that the Comelec on appeal, or motu propio, in the conduct of the preliminary investigation ring hollow.
may review the resolution of the State prosecutor, or
Provincial or city fiscal. HELD:

NOTE: Since this is an election offense a Motion for (1) No, the SC upheld the power of Comelec to prosecute cases
Reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is allowed. of violations of election laws and further explained that there
are two (2) ways through which a complaint for election
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offenses may be initiated.

HERMAN TIU LAUREL VS. RTC JUDGE OF MANILA (1) it may be filed by the Comelec motu propio; or
AND COMELEC
323 SCRA 778 (2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the
Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition of
Digested by: MAYPA political parties or organizations under the party-list system or
any accredited citizen arms of the commission.
FACTS:
Motu propio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the
Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified letter-complaint to Jose Comelec and need not be verified. But those complaints filed
P. Balbuena charging Herman Tiu Laurel with "Falsification of by parties other than the Comelec must be verified and
Public Documents" and violation of [Section 74] of the supported by affidavits and other evidence.
Omnibus Election Code. It alleged that both his father and
mother were Chinese citizens but when petitioner filed a The complaint shall be filed with the Comelec Law Department
certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator he stated or with the offices of the EO, PES or RED, or the State

44 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Prosecutors, provincial or city prosecutors. Whether initiated The case was dismissed by the said judges when Chief State
motu propio or filed with the Comelec by any party, the Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno, designated by the COMELEC to
complaint shall be referred to the Comelec Law Department prosecute, filed a comment joining in the respondent’s request
for investigation. Upon the direction of the Chairman, the PI of dismissal of the case. The COMELEC through Jose P.
may be delegated to any lawyer of the Department, any RED Balbuena, sought to appeal the dismissal of the case however
or PES, or any Comelec lawyer. this was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on account of due
process because the prosecutor had taken an earlier stand in
The complaint in question in this case is one filed by Pardo in the case against the COMELEC. Thus the petition for certiorari
his personal capacity and not as chairman of the COMELEC. and mandamus seeks the nullification of the orders of the
There is nothing in the rules that require that only the judges in the Notices of appeal.
COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to the Law
Department for investigation. There is no rule against the ISSUE: Whether or not the authority to decide the appeal is for
COMELEC chairman directing the conduct of a preliminary the prosecutor or the COMELEC to decide.
investigation, even if he himself were the complainant in his
private capacity. RULING:

(2) No, the records show that there is basis to at least find The Supreme Court held that Whether the orders of dismissal
probable cause to indict the petitioner for violation of the should be appealed is for the COMELEC to decide, not for Chief
Omnibus Election Code and it appears from the records that State Prosecutor whom it has merely deputized to represent
Chairman Pardo had no other participation in the proceedings them in court.
which led to the filing of the Information. The entire COMELEC
cannot possibly be restrained from investigating the complaint It is important to remember that the 1987 Constitution
filed against petitioner, as the latter would like the courts to mandates the COMELEC not only to investigate but also to
do. The COMELEC is mandated by no less than the Constitution prosecute cases of violation of election laws. This means that
to investigate and prosecute, when necessary, violations of the COMELEC is empowered to conduct preliminary
election laws. This power is lodged exclusively with the investigation in cases involving election offenses for the
COMELEC. For the entire Commission to inhibit itself from purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause and
investigating the complaint against petitioner would be for filing information in court. This power is exclusive with the
nothing short of an abandonment of its mandate under the COMELEC.
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
In the present case, prosecutors designated by the COMELEC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - to prosecute the cases act as its deputies. They derive their
authority from it and not from their offices. Consequently, it
COMELEC V. SILVA was beyond the power of Chief State Prosecutor Balbuena to
G.R. No. 129417 February 10, 1998 oppose the appeal of the COMELEC. For that matter, it was
beyond his power, as COMELEC-designated prosecutor, to
Digested by: JOHAYR leave to the trial courts the determination of whether there
was probable cause for the filing of the cases and, if it found
FACTS: none, whether the cases should be dismissed.

Petitioner COMELEC charged private respondents Erasto - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tanciongco and Norma Castillo with violations of Section 27 of
R.A. No. 6646, together with Zenon Uy, filed with the Regional KILOSBAYAN VS. COMELEC
Trial Court of Bataan. Tanciongco, who is provincial prosecutor 280 SCRA 892
of Bataan, was vice chairman, while Castillo, who is division
superintendent of schools, was secretary of the Provincial Digested by: GALOPE
Board of Canvassers of Bataan and Uy, who is assistant
regional director of elections, was chairman of the board. They FACTS:
were accused for having tampered with the ballots in favor of
Juan Ponce Enrile in the May 8, 1995 elections. The Judge who In a letter, dated March 17, 1992, respondent Cesar Sarino, the
presided was respondent Lorenzo R. Silva Jr and Judge then Secretary of Interior and Local Government, requested
Benjamin T. Vianzon. for authority to negotiate, enter into a sign Memoranda of
Agreements with accredited Non-Governmental Organization

45 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

(NGOs) in order to utilize them to implement the projects of Government which disbursed this huge amount shortly before
the CDF. the May 11, 1992 elections and "request[ing] that . . . these
offenses and malpractices be investigated promptly,
Respondent Franklin Drilon, the then Executive Secretary, thoroughly, impartially, without fear or favor.
granted the above-mentioned request of secretary Sarino.
Such an authority was extended to all the Regional Directors of In support of the letter-complaint, documentary evidences like
the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). copies of Teodoro Benigno's newspaper articles on the SHO's
Respondent Tiburcio Relucio, on April 24, 1992, entered into a use of PYHSDFI-obtained CDF, respondent Enriquez's
Memorandum of Agreement with an accredited NGO known testimony before the Commission on Appointments, DILG
as the "Philippine Youth Health and Sports Development Budget Officer Barata's testimony before the Senate Finance
Foundation, Inc." (PYHSDFI). Not long after its incorporation, Committee, and Norberto Gonzales' affidavit, were submitted
that is, in 1987, the PHYSDFI suspended its operations because by petitioner. The Comelec En Banc promulgated a resolution
of lack of fund donations and the migration to the United dismissing the charges against the respondents all on the
States of many of its members. The foundation became active ground of insufficiency of evidence to establish probable
again in October, 1991. In order to be eligible for financial cause. The COMELEC En Banc unanimously held that
assistance, the PYHSDFI, on December 12, 1991, applied with newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no evidentiary value,
the DILG for accreditation as NGO in accordance with the and that no other evidence except Mr. Benigno's articles were
guidelines. submitted to prove the existence of the so-called Sulo Hotel
Operations.
Under the said Memorandum of Agreement, it was the express
responsibility of the DILG to effect the release and transfer to Kilosbayan filed a petition to the Supreme Court ascribing
PYHSDFI of the amount of Seventy Million Pesos grave abuse of discretion to COMELEC for refusing and/or
(P70,000.000.00) from the aggregate allocation of the CDF for neglecting to gather more evidence of respondents'
the complete implementation of the foundation's sports, culpability, pursuant to its constitutional duty to prosecute
health and cultural work program. election offenses.

Respondent Salvador Enriquez, as Secretary of the Department ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC is duty-bound to search for
of Budget and Management (DBM), signed on April 22, 1992 evidence to prove a complaint.
and released on April 30, 1992, Advice of Allotment (AA) No.
BC-8494-92- 215 dated April 22, 1992, allocating the amount HELD:
of Seventy Million Pesos from the CDF under object 200-10 to
cover financial assistance for sports, health and cultural No. The contention of petitioner Kilosbayan — that it is the
programs and other related activities in the various barangays Comelec that is duty-bound to search for evidence to prove its
in the National Capital Region. During the hearing of the letter-complaint — is downright erroneous.
Senate Committee on Finance on November 22, 1993, DILG
Budget Officer Rafael Barata confirmed the above allotment as The task of the Comelec as investigator and prosecutor, acting
part of the amount of Three Hundred Thirty Million Pesos upon any election offense complaint, is not the physical
(P330,000,00000) that was released by the DBM from the 1992 searching and gathering of proof in support of a complaint for
CDF. an alleged commission of an election offense. A complainant,
who in effect accuses another person of having committed an
Respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) received from act constituting an election offense, has the burden, as it is his
petitioner Kilosbayan a letter informing the former of "two . . . responsibility, to follow through his accusation and prove his
serious violations of election laws" thus: 1) The documented complainant.
admission of Secretary of Budget Salvador Enriquez that the
amount of P70 million was released by his department, shortly If the complainant fails to proffer the necessary evidence to
before the elections of May 11, 1992, in favor of a private show probable cause, notwithstanding the lack of denial or any
entity, the so- called "Philippine Youth, Health and Sports evidence in controversion, of the accusation, the complaint
Development Foundation," headed by Mr. Ronaldo Puno, who must be dismissed, since any person accused of a crime is
had been repeatedly identified by columnist Teodoro Benigno presumed innocent and does not at all have to make a
as a key member of the Sulu Hotel Operation (SHO), which had response or reaction to the charges against him.
reportedly engaged in dirty election tricks and 2) The illegal
diversion of P330 million by Malacanang from the Countryside The Comelec, in acting upon an election offense complaint in
Development Fund to the Department of Interior and Local the course of preliminary investigation, initially facilitates the

46 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

confrontation process between the complainant and the investigate and prosecute cases of violation of election laws
respondents by requiring the submission of and interfacing, translates, in effect, to the exclusive power to conduct
their respective evidences. Ultimately, the Comelec passes preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses
upon the contending parties' respective submission and proofs for the twin purpose of filing an information in court and
and weighs the fact and circumstances established therefrom. helping the Judge determine, in the course of preliminary
Contrary to the asseveration of petitioner Kilosbayan, the inquiry, whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued.
preliminary investigation is not an occasion for the Comelec to,
as a duty, spoon feed the complainant with evidence needed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to prove its case.
BERNARDO VS. ABALOS
Discussion as to the Power of Comelec to Investigate: GR No. 137266, December 5, 2001

Section 2 (7) of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides Digested by: EDRALIN
that the Comelec shall exercise the power to "investigate and,
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of elections FACTS:
laws, including act or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices". Discerning the rationale for this On April 14, 1998 respondent Mandaluyong City Mayor
grant of prosecutorial powers to the Comelec, we already had Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., and his son respondent Benjamin
occasion to rule, thus: "Benhur" C. Abalos, Jr., candidate for City Mayor of the same
city in the May 11, 1998 elections, conducted an all-expense-
The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to free affair at a resort in Quezon Province for the Mandaluyong
enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of City public school teachers, registered voters of the said city
election and the concomitant authority to investigate and and who are also members of the Board of Election Inspectors.
prosecute election offenses is not without compelling reason. The said event was alleged to be presented as a political
The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this campaign for Abalos Jr. Furthermore, his political jingle was
power to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest played all throughout and his shirts being worn by some
conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the participants. Also, Abalos Sr. also made an offer and a promise
frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere idle then to increase the allowances of the teachers. With this,
ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen petitioners filed a criminal complaint with the COMELEC
to vote. against the two respondents for vote-buying, and allegedly
conspiring with their co-respondents in violating the Omnibus
This constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelec Election Code. However, on November 26, 1998, the Director
finds statutory expression under Section 265 of Batas of the Law Department submitted his findings to the
Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election COMELEC En Banc recommending that the complaint be
Code, to wit: dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Sec. 265. Prosecution. — The Commission shall, through its ISSUE: Whether or not the instant petition with the Court
duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to without first submitting a motion for reconsideration with the
conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses COMELEC En Banc succeed.
punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The
Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting RULING:
arms of the government: Provided, however, That in the event
that the Commission fails to act on any complaint within four No. Petitioners' complaint expressly states that no supporting
months from his filing, the complainant may file the complaint affidavits were submitted by the complaining witness to
with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for sustain their charge of vote buying. Suffice it to state that the
proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted. absence of such supporting affidavits shows the frailty of
petitioners' complaint. Indeed, it is vulnerable to dismissal.
Insofar as the prosecution of election offenses is concerned,
therefore, the Comelec is the "public prosecutor with the A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation Procedure, as amended, can only be resorted to if "there is no
and the prosecution of election offenses punishable under the appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
[Omnibus Election] Code before the competent court." This ordinary course of law.’’ Having failed to file the required
constitutional and statutory mandate for the Comelec to motion for reconsideration of the challenged Resolution,

47 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

petitioners’ instant petition is certainly premature.

Significantly, they have not raised any plausible reason for Tan moved for dismissal of the complaint contending that he
their direct recourse to this Court. was under the Executive Department as the City Prosecutor
specifically the Department of Justice, therefore not subject to
Notes: COMELEC’s jurisdiction.
Section 28 of Republic Act 6646 provides:
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the
"SEC. 28. Prosecution of Vote-buying and Vote-selling. — The administrative charge against Tan
representation of a complaint for violations of paragraph (a) or
(b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 supported by RULING:
affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or
promise by or of the voter’s acceptance of money or other YES. The COMELEC’s authority under Section 2(6) and (8),
consideration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of Article IX of the Constitution is all-encompassing when it
candidate, shall be sufficient basis for an investigation to be comes to election matters. Section 52, Article VII of the
immediately conducted by the Commission, directly or Omnibus Election Code also provides for the jurisdiction of the
through its duly authorized legal officers, under Section 68 or COMELEC.
Section 265 of said Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
In this case, the administrative case against Tan pending with
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the COMELEC is in relation to the performance of his duties
and an election canvasser, not as a city prosecutor.
POWER TO SUPERVISE ELECTION OFFICERS AND DEPUTIES
DURING ELECTION PERIOD The COMELEC’s mandate includes its authority to exercise
direct and immediate supervision and control over national
TAN VS. COMELEC and local officials or employees, including members of any
237 SCRA 353, October 4, 1994 national or local law enforcement agency and instrumentality
of the government, required by law to perform duties relative
Digested by: OSTAN to the conduct of elections.

FACTS: In order to help ensure that such duly deputized officials and
employees of government carry out their respective assigned
Incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao City Antonio V.A. Tan tasks, the law has also provided that upon the COMELEC’s
(Petitioner) was designated by the COMELEC as the Vice recommendation, the corresponding proper authority shall
Chairman of the City Board of Canvassers in Davao (May 10, take appropriate action, either to suspend of remove from
1992). This was for the May 11, 1992 synchronized national office the officer or employee who may, after due process, be
and local elections in accordance with Section 20 (a) of RA No. found guilty of violation of election laws or failure to comply
6646 and Section 221(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. with instructions, orders, decision, or rulings of the COMELEC.
881).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
After the Board of Canvassers declared Manuel Garcia as the
winner for the congressional seat representing the Second POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT, FAILURE OR
District of Davao City, another candidate Senforiano Alterado ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS AND CALL FOR SPECIAL
(Respondent) filed cases questioning the validity of the ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 5, 6 & 7 OF THE
proclamation. The latter then accused the Board of Canvassers OEC IN RELATION TO SEC. 4 OF RA 7166.
of “unlawful, erroneous, incomplete, and irregular canvass”.
CANICOSA VS. COMELEC
The HRET dismissed Alterado’s electoral protest. The Office of GR No. 120318 Dec. 5, 1997
the Ombudsman dismissed criminal complaint for Falsification
of Public Documents and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Digested by: SERRANO
Corrupt Practices Act for lack of criminal intent. However, the
administrative charge for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross FACTS:
Incompetence, and Acts Inimical to the Service filed with the
COMELEC against the City Board of Canvassers which included Ricardo Canicosa and Severino Lajara were candidates for
Tan was still pending. mayor. After obtaining a majority of votes, Lajara was

48 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close
Canicosa filed with the Commission on Elections a Petition to to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
Declare Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after
Canvass and Proclamation because of alleged widespread the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of votes, suspension of the election or failure to elect.
preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation,
vote buying, unregistered voters voting, and delay in the Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of
delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from the election may be declared, namely:
precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the
Canicosa particularly averred that: date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
(a) the names of the registered voters did not appear in the list fraud, or other analogous causes;
of voters in their precincts;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before
(b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered voters were the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account
not able to vote with strangers voting in their stead; of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous
(c) he was credited with less votes than he actually received; causes; or

(d) control data of the election returns was not filled up in (c) after the voting and during the preparation and
some precincts; transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of
(e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self- causes.
locking metal seals; and,
None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of
(f) there was delay in the delivery of election returns. But the those enumerated. Canicosa bewails that the names of the
COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground that registered voters in the various precincts did not appear in
the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of their respective lists of voters. But this is not a ground to
election. declare a failure of election. The filing of a petition for
declaration of failure of election therefore is not the proper
ISSUE: WON Canicosa’s contentions were tenable? remedy. The day following the last day for registration of
voters, the poll clerk delivers a certified list of voters to the
HELD: election registrar, election supervisor and the COMELEC,
copies of which are open to public inspection. On the same
No. Indeed, the grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a day, the poll clerk posts a copy of the list of registered voters
declaration of failure of election. in each polling place. Each member of the board of election
inspectors retains a copy of the list which may be inspected by
Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus the public in their residence or in their office during office
Election Code, reads: hours

Sec. 6. Failure of election: If, on account of force majeure, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the
election in any polling place has not been held on the date SISON VS. COMELEC
fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for GR No. 134096 Mar. 3, 1999
the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in Digested by: HONTANOSAS
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or FACTS:
suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any While the election returns were being canvassed by the
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the Quezon City Board of Canvassers but before the winning
holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or candidates were proclaimed, Sison commenced suit before the

49 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

COMELEC by filing a petition entitled "In the Matter of the With respect to pre-proclamation controversy, it is well to note
Petition to Suspend the Canvassing of Votes and/or that the scope of pre-proclamation controversy is only limited
Proclamation in Quezon City and to Declare a Failure of to the issues enumerated under Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election.” The said petition was supposedly filed pursuant to Election Code, and the enumeration therein is restrictive and
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. exclusive. The reason underlying the delimitation both of
881, as amended) on the ground of "massive and orchestrated substantive ground and procedure is the policy of the election
fraud and acts analogous thereto which occurred after the law that pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily
voting and during the preparation of election returns and in decide, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass and
the custody or canvass thereof, which resulted in a failure to proclamation be delayed as little as possible. That is why such
elect." questions which require more deliberate and necessarily
longer consideration, are left for examination in the
While the petition was pending before the COMELEC, the City corresponding protest.
Board of Canvassers proclaimed the winners of the elections in
Quezon City, including the winning candidate for the post of However, with the proclamation of the winning candidate for
vice mayor. On June 22, 1998, the COMELEC promulgated its the position contested, the question of whether the petition
challenged resolution dismissing the petition before it on the raised issues proper for a pre-proclamation controversy is
ground (1) that the allegations therein were not supported by already of no consequence since the well-entrenched rule in
sufficient evidence, and (2) that the grounds recited were not such situation is that a pre-proclamation case before the
among the pre-proclamation issues set forth in Section 17 of COMELEC is no longer viable, the more appropriate remedies
Republic Act No. 7166. being a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.
The Court have carefully reviewed all recognized exceptions to
ISSUE: Whether or not Sison may succeed in either of the the foregoing rule but found nothing that could possibly apply
remedies he opted to pursue, that is, failure of elections may to the instant case based on the recitations of the petition.
be declared and pre-proclamation controversy. What is more, in paragraph 3 of the COMELEC's Omnibus
Resolution No. 3049 (Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases)
HELD: dated June 29, 1998, it is clearly stated therein that "All other
pre-proclamation cases shall be deemed terminated pursuant
No, under the pertinent codal provision of Omnibus Election to Section 16, R.A. 7166.
Code, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of
elections may be declared, namely: Section 16 which is referred to in the aforecited omnibus
resolution refers to the termination of pre-proclamation cases
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the when the term of the office involved has already begun, which
date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, is precisely what obtains here. The Court is, of course, aware
fraud, or other analogous causes; that Sison cites the said omnibus resolution in maintaining that
his petition is one of those cases which should have remained
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before active pursuant to paragraph 4 thereof. That exception,
the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account however, operates only when what is involved is not pre-
of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other proclamation controversy such as petitions for disqualification,
analogous causes; or failure of election or analogous cases. But as the Court have
earlier declared, his petition, though assuming to seek a
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and declaration of failure of elections, is actually a case of pre-
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or proclamation controversy and, hence, not falling within the
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on ambit of the exception.
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes. In any case, that omnibus resolution would not have been
applied in the first place because that was issued posterior to
The court have painstakingly examined Sison’s petition before the date when the herein challenged resolution was
the COMELEC but found nothing therein that could support an promulgated which is June 22, 1998. There was no provision
action for declaration of failure of elections. He never alleged that such omnibus resolution should have retroactive effect.
at all that elections were either not held or suspended.
Furthermore, sison’s claim of failure to elect stood as a bare
conclusion bereft of any substantive support to describe just - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
exactly how the failure to elect came about.

50 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

CARLOS V. ANGELES the proclamation of protestee Jose Emmanuel Carlos by the

G.R. No. 142907 Municipal Board of Canvassers and declared protestant
Antonio M. Serapio as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela
Digested by: CATUNGAL City.

FACTS: ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to declare
a failure of election.
Petitioner Jose Emmanuel L. Carlos and respondent Antonio
M. Serapio were candidates for the position of mayor of the RULING:
municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila (later converted into
a City) during the May 11, 1998 elections. The trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure of
election.
Antonio M. Serapio who obtained 77,270 votes, the second
highest number of votes, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that:
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, an election protest challenging the
results. "Sec. 6. Failure of Election.—If, on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the
The revision of the ballots showed the following results: election in any polling place has not been held on the date
The final tally showed: fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
(a) protestant Serapio - 66,602 votes. preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody of canvass thereof, such election results in a failure
(b) protestee Carlos - 83,609 votes, giving the latter a winning to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of
margin of 17,007 votes. election would affect the result of the election, the
Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
The court invalidated 19,975 votes of the protestee and interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the
validated 33 stray votes in his favor. holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close
Nevertheless, in its decision, the trial court set aside the final to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
tally of valid votes because of its finding of "significant badges resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty (30) days
of fraud," namely: after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect." (Emphasis
1. The keys turned over by the City Treasurer to the court did supplied)
not fit into the padlocks of the ballot boxes that had to be
forcibly opened; RA 7166 provides that:

2. Seven (7) ballot boxes did not contain any ballot and two (2) "Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special
ballot boxes out of the seven (7) ballot boxes did not contain Elections".-- The postponement, declaration of failure of
any election returns; election and the calling of special elections as provided in
Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be
3. Some schools where various precincts were located decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote
experienced brownouts during the counting of votes causing of its members. The causes for the declaration of a failure of
delay in the counting although there was no undue commotion election may occur before or after the casting of votes or on
or violence that occurred; the day of the election." (Emphasis supplied)

4. Some of the assigned watchers of protestant were not in It is the Commission (Comelec) sitting en banc that is vested
their posts during the counting of votes. with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of election.

On April 24, 2000, the trial court rendered a judgment ruling We have held that: "To declare a failure of election, two (2)
that the perpetuation of fraud had undoubtedly suppressed conditions must occur: first, no voting has taken place in the
the true will of the electorate of Valenzuela and substituted it precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there
with the will of the protestee. Notwithstanding the plurality of were voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to
valid votes in favor of the protestee, the trial court set aside elect; and, second, the votes not cast would affect the result

51 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

of the election." Neither of these conditions was present in the ISSUE: Whether or not Coquilla had been a resident of Oras,
case at bar. Eastern Samar at least one (1) year before the elections held
on May 14, 2001 as he represented in his certificate of
We find that the trial court committed a grave abuse of candidacy.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
rendering its decision proclaiming respondent Serapio the duly RULING:
elected mayor of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, on the basis of its
perception of the voice of the people of Valenzuela, even No. Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code (R.A No. 7160)
without a majority or plurality votes cast in his favor. In fact, provides:
without a single vote in his favor as the trial court discarded all
the votes. Thus, the decision is not supported by the highest Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen
number of valid votes cast in his favor. This violated the right of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
to due process of law of petitioner who was not heard on the municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of
issue of failure of election, an issue that was not raised by the the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or
protestant. "A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be
result, a party is deprived of the opportunity of being heard." elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common
COQUILLA V. COMELEC acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation,” but
G.R. No. 151914 rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place
where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
Digested by: SORIANO home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any
given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus
FACTS: manendi).” A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at
birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside
Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of
Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he was new domicile (domicile of choice).
subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen after joining the US
Navy. In 1998, he came to the Philippines and took out a In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras
residence certificate, although he continued making several by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in
trips to the United States. 1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000, when he
reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an alien
Coquilla eventually applied for repatriation under R.A. No. without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our
8171 which was approved. On November 10, 2000, he took his immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or
oath as a citizen of the Philippines. as a resident alien.

On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter In Caasi v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that immigration
of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar which was approved in 2001. to the United States by virtue of a “green card,” which entitles
On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy one to reside permanently in that country, constitutes
stating that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. With more reason
2 years. then does naturalization in a foreign country result in an
abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.
Incumbent mayor Alvarez, who was running for re-election
sought to cancel Coquilla’s certificate of candidacy on the
ground that his statement as to the two year residency in Oras
was a material misrepresentation as he only resided therein
for 6 months after his oath as a citizen. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Before the COMELEC could render a decision, elections
commenced and Coquilla was proclaimed the winner. On July
19, 2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and ordered the
cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy.

52 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

SANCHEZ V. COMELEC on a date to be fixed by it, which shall specify the offices to be
193 SCRA 849 voted for, that it is for the purpose of filling a vacancy or a
newly created elective position, as the case may be.
Digested by: ANCHETA
Clearly, under Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, when the
FACTS: election "results in a failure to elect, the COMELEC may call for
the holding or continuation of the election as soon as
In the local elections held on January 30, 1980, Virgilio Sanchez practicable." We construe this to include the calling of a special
was the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party for election in the event of a failure to elect in order to make the
Municipal Mayor of San Fernando, Pampanga, while Armando COMELEC truly effective in the discharge of its functions. In
Biliwang was the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan's official candidate fact, Section 8 of the 1978 Election Code, supra, specifically
for the same position. The latter was proclaimed winner by the allows the COMELEC to call a special election for the purpose
Municipal Board of Canvassers of said town. But due to of filling a vacancy or a newly created position, as the case may
widespread terrorism that happen which cause some be. There should be no reason, therefore, for not allowing it to
irregularities after the casting of votes or specifically during the call a special election when there is a failure to elect.
counting of votes and preparation of election returns, the
COMELEC declared failure of election and calls for a special - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
election.
PASANDALAN V. COMELEC, ET. AL.
ISSUE: Whether, COMELEC have the power to annul an entire G.R. No. 150312 July 18, 2002
municipal election on the ground of post-election terrorism
(G.R. No. L-5564, Baliwang Case) and does the COMELEC have Digested by: PERTURBOS
the authority to call for a special election (G.R. No. L-55513,
Sanchez Case). FACTS:

RULING:
Pasandalan and private respondent Asum, were candidates for

mayor in the Municipality of Lumbayangue, Lanao del Sur, in
YES, 1978 Election Code provides, SEC. 175. Suspension and
the May 14, 2001 elections. On 23rd day of the same month
annulment of proclamation. The Commission shall be the sole
and year, Pasandalan filed a petition before the COMELEC,
judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its
seeking for the nullification of the election results in Barangay
decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory. It may,
Cabasaran, Lamin, Barangay Wago, Barangay Meniros,
motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice
Barangay Bualan, and Barangay Pantaon, a total of sixteen
and hearing order the suspension of the proclamation of a
precincts within these barangays in Lumbayanague, Lanao del
candidate-elect or annul any proclamation, if one has been
Sur.
made, on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 172, 173
and 174 hereof. Pasandalan alleged that while voting was ongoing, CAFGUs
stationed near Sultan Gunting Elementary School
YES, Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 explicitly provides: indicscriminately filed their firearms, hence causing voters to
panic and leave without casting votes. The Asum's supporters,
Sec. 5. Failure of Election. Whenever for any serious cause such taking advantage of such confusion, allegedly took the official
as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election ballots, filed them with Asum's name, and placed them within
paraphernalia or records, force majeure and other analogous ballot boxes, thus marring the election results.
cases of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and
Pasandalan also contends that the Board of Election Inspectors
honest election should become impossible, the election for a
(BEI, for brevity) allegedly failed to sign their initials at the back
local office fails to take place on the date fixed by law, or is
of several ballots and remove the detachable coupons, and
suspended, or such election results in a failure to elect, the
that the BEI members merely affixed their initials only during
Commission on Elections shall, on the basis of a verified the counting of votes.
petition and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding
or continuation of the election as soon as practicable. Section Lastly, Pasandalan also alleges that in other precincts, Asum's
8 of the same 1978 Election Code empowers the COMELEC to supporters took advantage of the fistfight between Asum's
call a special election to fill a vacancy or a newly created nephew and Candidate Norania Salo's supporters, similarly
elective position. SEC. 8. Call of special election. Special grabbed the oficial ballots and filled them in with Asum's
elections shall be called by the Commission by proclamation name.

53 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Asum denied Pasandalan’s allegation that the volley of shots

fired on May 14, 2001 disrupted the voting, countering that the Based on the foregoing, three instances justify a declaration of
gunshots were heard around 2:35 p.m. and not at the start of failure of election. These are:
the voting. On June 30, 2001, Asum was sworn into office and
assumed the position of municipal mayor of the (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the
Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur. date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud or other analogous causes;
Hereafter, The Comelec ruled that the power to declare a

failure of election, being an extraordinary remedy, could be
(b) the election in any polling place has been suspended before
exercised only in three instances: (1) the election is not held;
the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account
(2) the election is suspended; or (3) the election results in a
of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
failure to elect. The third instance is understood in its literal
causes; or
sense, that is, nobody was elected.

The Comelec dismissed the petition because none of the (c) after the voting and during the preparation and
grounds relied upon by Pasandalan falls under any of the three transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
instances justifying a declaration of failure of election. First, canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on
the elections in the questioned precincts were held as account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
scheduled. Second, the gunshots heard during the casting of analogous causes.
votes did not suspend the election as the voting continued
normally. Third, Asum was elected by a plurality of votes. What is common in these three instances is the resulting
failure to elect. In the first instance, no election is held while in
the second, the election is suspended. In the third instance,
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC erred in not declaring a
circumstances attending the preparation, transmission,
failure of election within the 16 questioned precincts.
custody or canvas of the election returns cause a failure to
elect. The term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a
RULING: winner.

No. The Comelec correctly dismissed the petition for Pasandalan asserts that the conditions for the declaration of
declaration of failure of election because the irregularities failure of election are present in this case. We do not agree.
alleged in the petition should have been raised in an election Pasandalan’s allegations do not fall under any of the instances
protest, not in a petition to declare a failure of election. that would justify the declaration of failure of election. The
election was held in the protested precincts as scheduled. At
Under RA7166 (The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991), it is no point was the election in any of the precincts suspended.
provided that the COMELEC En Banc is empowered to declare Nor was there a failure to elect because of force majeure,
a failure of Election under Section 6 of the OEC (BP Blg 881), violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes during the
which likewise prescribes the conditions for the excercise of preparation, transmission, custody and canvass of the election
the power of declaring a failure of election: returns. The alleged terrorism was not of such scale and
prevalence to prevent the holding of the election or to cause
"SEC. 6. Failure of Election. - If, on account of force majeure, its suspension. In fact, the casting and counting of votes, the
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the preparation, transmission and canvassing of election returns
election in any polling place has not been held on the date and the proclamation of the winning candidate took place in
fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for due course.
closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in Courts exercise the power to declare a failure of election with
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a deliberate caution so as not to disenfranchise the electorate.
failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or The fact alone that actual voting took place already militates
suspension of election would affect the result of the election, against Pasandalan’s cause. Terrorism may not be invoked to
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the greater
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the number of the electorate through the misdeeds of only a few,
holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or absent any of the three instances specified by law. To warrant
which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days a declaration of failure of election on the ground of fraud, the
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or fraud must prevent or suspend the holding of an election, or
suspension of the election or failure to elect."

54 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

mar fatally the preparation, transmission, custody and canvass armed followers of the mayor pointed their guns at her military
of the election returns. escorts, who responded in a like manner towards the former.
Datu-Imam declared a failure of election in order to ease their
The allegations of massive substitution of voters, multiple aggression.
voting, and other electoral anomalies should be resolved in a
proper election protest in the absence of any of the three ISSUES:
instances justifying a declaration of failure of election. In an Whether or not Election Officer Diana Datu-Imam has
election protest, the election is not set aside, and there is only authority to declare a failure of election.
a revision or recount of the ballots cast to determine the real
winner. Whether or not the election postponement or suspension or
the declaration of a failure of election is valid.
The nullification of elections or declaration of failure of
elections is an extraordinary remedy. The party who seeks the RULING:
nullification of an election has the burden of proving
entitlement to this remedy. It is not enough that a verified As election officer, Datu-Imam has no authority to declare a
petition is filed. The allegations in the petition must make out failure of election. Only the Comelec itself has legal authority
a prima facie case for the declaration of failure of election, and to exercise such awesome power. An election officer alone, or
convincing evidence must substantiate the allegations. even with the agreement of the candidates, cannot validly
postpone or suspend the elections.
In the instant case, it is apparent that the allegations do not
constitute sufficient grounds for the nullification of the Any suspension or postponement of an election is governed by
election. Pasandalan even failed to substantiate his allegations Section 2 of RA 6679,which states that "when for any serious
of terrorism and irregularities. His evidence consisted only of cause such as rebellion, insurrection, violence, terrorism, loss
affidavits. Mere affidavits are insufficient, more so in this case or destruction of election paraphernalia, and any analogous
since the affidavits were all executed by Pasandalan’s own poll causes of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and
watchers. honest election should become impossible in any barangay,
the Commission on Election motu proprio or upon sworn
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - petition of ten (10) registered voters of a barangay, after
summary proceedings of the existence of such grounds, shall
BASHER VS. COMELEC suspend or postpone the election therein to a date reasonably
330 SCRA 736 close to the date of the election that is not held or is suspended
or postponed, or which resulted in a failure to elect, but not
Digested by: LUCERO later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause for
such suspension or postponement of the election or failure to
FACTS: elect, and in all cases not later than ninety (90) days from the
date of the original election."
Petitioner Hadji Rasul Batador Basher and Private Respondent
Abulkair Ampatua were both candidates for the position of Datu-Imam did not follow the procedure laid down by law for
Punong Barangay in Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur election postponement or suspension or the declaration of a
during the May 12, 1997 barangay election. The election was failure of election. The report of Datu-Imam to the Comelec
declared a failure and a special one was set for June 12, 1997. states that she did not conduct any proceeding, summary or
Again the election failed and was reset to August 30, 1997. otherwise, to find out whether any of the legal grounds for the
suspension or postponement or the declaration of failure of
Election Officer Diana Datu-Imam of Tugaya, Lanao del Sur the election actually existed in the barangay concerned.
postponed the election in Barangay Maidan from the official
original schedule of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. of August 30, 1997
to 10:00 p.m. of August 30, 1997 until the early morning of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
August 31, 1997 because she was allegedly advised by some
religious leaders not to proceed with the election because "it
might trigger bloodshed." She also claimed the town mayor
was being too hysterical, yelled and threatened her to declare
a failure of election in Maidan and when she insisted to
personally confirm the probable cause of bloodshed, the

55 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

MITMUG V. COMELEC ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse
230 SCRA 54 of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denyinh motu
proprio and without due notice and hearing the petitions
Digested by: FEROLINO seeking to declare a failure of election in some or all of the
precincts in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur.
FACTS:
RULING:
Sultan Mitmug and Datu Dagalangit were among the
candidates for the mayoralty position of Lumba-Bayabao No. Petition to annul an election is not a pre-proclamation
during the May 11, 1992 election. Other candidates for the said controversy. Consequently, the proclamation of a winning
position also included Datu Elias Abdusalam and Datu Bagtao candidate together with his subsequent assumption of office is
Khalid. not an impediment to the prosecution of the case to its logical
conclusion.
There were 67 precincts in the said municipality. Voter turnout
was rather low, particularly in 49 precincts. Five of these Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, within 24 hours from
precincts did not conduct actual voting at all. COMELEC the filing of a verified petition to declare a failure to elect,
ordered the holding of a special election day. notices to all interested parties indicating therein the date of
hearing should be served through the fastest means available.
Mitmug filed a petition seeking the annulment of the special The hearing of the case will also be summary in nature.
election alleging various irregularities such as the alteration,
tampering and substitution of ballots. COMELEC considered Based on the foregoing, the clear intent of the law is that a
the petition moot since the votes in the subject precincts were petition of this nature must be acted upon with dispatch only
already counted. after hearing thereon shall have been conducted.

Other petitions seeking the declaration of failure of election in Since COMELEC denied the other petitions which sought to
some or all precincts of Lumba-Bayabao were also filed with include 43 more precincts in a special election without
COMELEC by other mayoralty candidates. Mitmug filed a conducting any hearing, it would appear then that there
motion to intervene in these four petitions but COMELEC, indeed might have grave abuse of discretion in denying the
treated the same as a motion for reconsideration and promptly petitions.
denied it considering that under the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure such motion was a prohibited pleading. Thereafter, However, a closer examination of the COMELEC Rules of
a new board of Election Inspectors was formed to conduct the Procedure, particularly Sec., Rule 26, thereof which was lifted
special election. from Sec.6, B.P. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election
Code of the Philippines, indicates otherwise.
Sultan Mitmug impugned the creation of the Board.
Nevertheless, new Board convened and began the canvassing Sec. 2. Failure of election. – If, on account of force majeure,
of votes. violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the
election in any precinct has not been held on the date fixed by
Datu Dagalangit was proclaimed the duly elected Mayor. law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during
the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or
Mitmug filed petition for certiorari seeking the declaration of in the custody of canvass thereof, such election results in a
failure of election in 49 precincts where less than a quarter of failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or
the electorate were able to cast their votes. He also prayed for suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin Datu the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
Dagalangit from assuming office. Mitmug lodged an election interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the
protest with the RTC disputing the result not only some but all holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or
the precincts of Lumba-Bayabao. which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close
to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
COMELEC et al. assert that with the filing of an election protest, resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty (30) days
petitioner is already deemed to have abandoned the instant after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
petition. suspension of the election or failure to elect.

56 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must dismissing the petition.
concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precinct or
precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, RULING:
the election nevertheless results in failure to elect;
and, second, the votes not cast would affect the result of the NO. COMELEC based its decision on the provision of Section 6
election. of the Omnibus Election Code.

In this case, it is indubitable that the votes not cast will There are three instances where a failure of election may be
definitely affect the outcome of the election. But, the first declared:
requisite is missing, i.e., that no actual voting took place, or
even if there is, the results thereon will be tantamount to a 1.The election in any polling place has not been held on the
failure to elect. Since actual voting and election by the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
registered voters in the questioned precincts have taken place, fraud or other analogous causes
the results thereof cannot be disregarded and excluded.
COMELEC therefore did not commit any abuse of discretion, 2.The election in any polling place has been suspended before
much less grave, in denying the petitions outright. There was the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account
no basis for the petitions since the facts alleged therein did not of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
constitute sufficient grounds to warrant the relief sought. For, causes
the language of the law expressly requires the concurrence of
these conditions to justify the calling of a special election. 3.After the voting and during the preparation and transmission
of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - such election results in a failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.
BANAGA, JR. V. COMELEC
336 SCRA 701 These instances were not present in the petition therefore it
was dismissed.
Digested by: RIZALDA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTS:
AMPATUAN ET. AL. V. COMELEC/CANDAO
Petitioner Banaga and Respondent Bernabe were candidates G.R. No. 149803 January 31, 2002
for Vice-Mayor of the City of Paranaque. Bernabe was declared
the winner. Dissatisfied, Banaga filed with COMELEC a petition Digested by: LIBRE
to Declare Failure of Elections and/or For Annulment of
Elections. FACTS:

He alleged that the election was done with vote buying and The case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
flying voters. He also alleged that Election Returns pertaining 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with
to the office of Vice-Mayor were altered, falsified, or preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order 1 to
fabricated. People were arrested for committing such nullify and set aside two (2) orders of the Commission on
offences. Elections (COMELEC), ordering a random technical
examination of pertinent election paraphernalia and other
Petitioner asks COMELEC to annul the election and that he be documents in several municipalities in the province of
adjudged as Vice-Mayor. Maguindanao to determine a failure of elections.

COMELEC dismissed the petition and held that the election Petitioner Ampatuan and respondent Candao contended for
offenses do not fall under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election the position of governor. The slate of Ampatuan emerged as
Code. winners as per election returns.

The petitioner now alleges that COMELEC has committed On May 23, 2001, respondents filed a petition with the
grave abuse of discretion for dismissing his petition. Comelec for the annulment of election results and/or


57 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

declaration of failure of elections 6 in several municipalities 7

in the province of Maguindanao. On September 26, 2001, petitioners filed the present petition.

It was claimed that the elections were completely sham and They claimed that by virtue of their proclamation pursuant to
farcical. The ballots were filled-up en masse by a few persons the June 14, 2001 order issued by the Comelec, the proper
the night before election day, and in some precincts, the ballot remedy available to respondents was not a petition for
boxes, official ballots and other election paraphernalia were declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.
not delivered at all.
The former is heard summarily while the latter involves a full-
On May 25, 2001, the Comelec issued an order suspending the blown trial.
proclamation of the winning candidates for congressman of
the second district, governor, vice-governor and board On October 5, 2001, petitioners filed a motion reiterating their
members of Maguindanao. request for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the
implementation of the July 26, 2001 and August 28, 2001
On May 30, 2001, petitioners filed with the Comelec a motion Comelec orders.
to lift the suspension of proclamation.
On October 22, 2001, the Comelec issued an order suspending
On June 14, 2001, the Comelec issued an order lifting the the implementation of the two (2) assailed orders.
suspension of proclamation of the winning candidates for
governor, vice-governor and board members of the first and However, on November 13, 2001, the Comelec issued another
second districts. order lifting the suspension.

Accordingly, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Respondents petitioned before the Supreme Court the
petitioners’ winners. suspension ofthe effects of the said proclamation and insisted
that there had been a “failure of election”.
On June 16, 2001, respondents filed with the Supreme Court a
petition to set aside the Comelec order and preliminary The COMELEC ordered the consolidation of respondents’
injunction to suspend the effects of the proclamation of the petitions and a random technical examination on several
petitioners. precincts.

Petitioners assumed their respective offices on June 30, 2001. Petitioners contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the
proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for
On July 17, 2001, the Court resolved to deny respondents’ declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on
Petitioners’ assumption into office notwithstanding, on July respondents’ petitions even after proclamation of petitioners
26, 2001, the Comelec ordered the consolidation of as winners.
respondents’ petition for declaration of failure of elections.
RULING:
The COMELEC further ordered a random technical
examination on four to seven precincts per municipality on the The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul election
thumb-marks and signatures of the voters who voted and results and/or declare a failure of elections.
affixed in their voter’s registration records, and forthwith
directed the production of relevant election documents in The Court held that respondents’ allegations of massive fraud
these municipalities. and terrorism, which led to a failure to elect, fell squarely
within Sec 6. Of the Omnibus Election Code (Failure of
On August 28, 2001, the Comelec issued another order 17 Election).
directing the continuation of the hearing and disposition of the
consolidated SPAs on the failure of elections and other “The Comelec is duty-bound to conduct an investigation as to
incidents related thereto. the veracity of respondents’ allegations of massive fraud and
terrorism that attended the conduct of the May 14, 2001
On September 27, 2001, the Comelec issued an order outlining election”. There can be no assumption that petitioners’
the procedure to be followed in the technical examination. proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was

58 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections the SC issued a TRO for the implementation of the COMELEC
were held was put in issue by respondents. order, and subsequently a cease and desist order was issued.

The Court, in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, directed Finally, the SC promulgated a decision in April 22, 1993 which
COMELEC to proceed with the hearing of the consolidated ordered that SPA-92-292 is annulled and set aside and that
petitions and the technical examination with deliberate pre-proclamation issue be raffled to any division of the
dispatch. COMELEC. Subsequently, SPA 92-292 was raffled to the first
division of the COMELEC which conducted the hearings
The petition is hereby DISMISSED. thereon and received arguments and evidence of both parties.
However, during the consultations on the case by the
The temporary restraining order issued on November 20, 2001 Members of the First Division, the concurrence of at least two
is DISSOLVED. of them could not be obtained; accordingly, pursuant to the
COMELEC Rules, the case was elevated for proper disposition
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - to the COMELEC en banc.

LUCERO VS. COMELEC On January 7, 1994, COMELEC en banc promulgated a
235 SCRA 280 resolution which issued an order calling for a special election
in precint 13 and after including in the tabulation the results of
Digested by: CULLO the special election of Precinct No. 13, to decide the issue of
the recount of the votes (ballots) of Precinct No. 7 of Silvino
FACTS: Lobos, pursuant to Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code,
to resolve the discrepancy of the votes of petitioner Lucero in
The canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of the same return, if such discrepancy of votes of the candidates
Northern Samar credited Jose L. Ong, Jr. with 24,272 votes and concerned would affect the over-all results of the election
Wilmar P. Lucero with 24,068 votes, or a lead by Ong of 204 after the totality of the votes of the contending parties shall
votes. However, this tally did not include the results of Precinct have been determined.
No. 7 of the municipality of Silvino Lobos, where the submitted
election returns had not been canvassed because they were Both Lucero and Ong challenged the COMELEC resolution by
illegible; of Precinct No. 13 of Silvino Lobos, where the ballot way of special civil action of certiorari. Ong questioned the
boxes were snatched and no election was held; and of Precinct authority of the COMELEC to call for a special election in
No. 16, also of Silvino Lobos, where all copies of the election Precinct No. 13 almost two years after the regular election.
returns were missing.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
As such, Lucero asked the COMELEC via SPA-92-282 (Special discretion in calling for a special election in Precinct No. 13
Action Cases) to suspend the proclamation of Jose L. Ong, to after almost two (2) years, or more specifically after one (1)
correct the total votes so far counted by recount, to conduct a year and ten (10) months, following the day of the
special election in precint 13 in accordance with sec. 6 of the synchronized elections.
OEC, and to order a recount for votes of representative of 2nd
district and all 52 precints with “manifest errors”. Acting on RULING:
Lucero’s urgent manifestation, COMELEC directed PBC from
reconvening until further orders. Yes. On the authority of the COMELEC to order the holding of
a special election, Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
On June 13, 1992, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a provides:
resolution. It ordered the PBC to bring to the commission the
ballot boxes of precint 7 and 16 within 3 days. On June 15, Sec. 6. Failure of election. — If, on account of force
1992, Lucero filed an urgent motion to constitute a Special majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes
Board of Election Inspectors (SBEI) to count the votes of the election in any polling place has not been held on the date
precint 7 and 16. fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
Aggrieved, Ong filed a special action for certiorari before the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
SC, he questioned the COMELEC’s order to recount the ballots. the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
Despite the pendency of the petition, the COMELEC ordered failure to elect, and if in any of such cases the failure or
the SBEI to count the ballots for precint 16. ON June 25, 1992, suspension of election would affect the result of the election,

59 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any case, presupposes that no candidate had been proclaimed and
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the therefore the people of the Second Legislative District of
holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or Northern Samar would be unrepresented in the House of
which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close Representatives until the special election shall ultimately
to the date of the election not held, suspended or which determine the winning candidate, such that if none is held,
resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after they would have no representation until the end of the term.
the cessation of the cause of such postponement or under the aforesaid constitutional and statutory provisions,
suspension of the election or failure to elect. the elected officials have already served their constituencies
for more than one-half of their terms of office. Fourth, if the
The first paragraph of Section 4 of R. A. No. 7166 likewise law had found it fit to provide a specific and determinate time-
provides: frame for the holding of a special election under Section 6,
then it could have easily done so in Section 4 of R. A. No. 7166.
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections.
— The postponement, declaration of failure of election and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and
7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the BILIWANG VS. COMELEC
Commission sitting en banc by a majority votes of its members. 114 SCRA 454 June 29, 1992
The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur
before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the Digested by: LEMENTE
election.
FACTS:
There are, therefore, two requisites for the holding of special
elections under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election The Resolution of the Commission on Elections, dated May 15,
Code, viz., (1) that there is a failure of election, and (2) that 1980, in Pre-Proclamation Case No. 41 entitled Virgilio Sanchez
such failure would affect the results of the election. vs. Mayor Armando P. Biliwang and the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of San Fernando, Pampanga. In the local elections
According to Comelec records, the number of registered voters held on January 30, 1980, Virgilio Sanchez was the official
in Precinct No. 13 is two hundred thirteen (213). Since the lead candidate of the Nacionalista Party (NP) for Municipal Mayor
of respondent Ong is less than the number of registered of San Fernando, Pampanga, while Armando Biliwang was the
voters, the votes in that precinct could affect the existing result Kilusang Bagong Lipunan,s (KBL) official candidate for the same
because of the possibility that petitioner Lucero might get a position. On February 1, 1980, Sanchez filed with the
majority over Ong in that precinct and that majority might be Commission on Elections a Petition to declare null and void the
more than the present lead of Ong. The two requirements local elections in San Fernando, Pampanga due to alleged large
then for a special election under Section 6 of the Omnibus scale terrorism. On the same day, the COMELEC denied the
Election Code have indeed been met. Petition for lack of merit. Sanchez moved for reconsideration.
On February 8, 1980, the COMELEC recalled its Resolution and
The Supreme Court also resolved that the aforesaid required Biliwang and the Municipal Board of Canvassers to
constitutional and statutory proscriptions are inapplicable to answer. Hearings were conducted thereafter.On November
special elections which may be called under Section 6 of the 19, 1980, Sanchez filed a petition for Certiorari with this court,
Omnibus Election Code. docketed as G.R.No. 55513, wherein he seeks a modification
of the portion of the COMELEC Resolution of May15, 1980
First, the special election in the former is to fill permanent refusing to call a special election. On December 6, 1980,
vacancies in the Office of the President, Vice President, and Biliwang instituted, also with this Court, a Petition for
Members of Congress occurring after the election, while the Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No.
special election under the latter is due to or by reason of a 55642, assailing the same COMELEC Resolution and alleging
failure of election. Second, a special election under Section 6 that same body has no power to annul an entire municipal
would entail minimal costs because it is limited to only the election. These two Petitions were ordered consolidated and
precincts involved and to the candidates who, by the result of were heard by the court en banc on July 28,1981.
the election in a particular constituency, would be affected by
the failure of election. On the other hand, the special election ISSUES: Does the COMELEC have the power to annul an entire
for the Offices of the President, Vice President, and Senators municipal election on the ground of post-election terrorism?
would be nation-wide, and that of a Representative, district- Does the COMELEC have the authority to call for a special
wide. Third, Section 6, when specifically applied to the instant election?

60 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

HELD: so directly, it is clearly inferred from its relevant provisions that

where the grounds of contest are that legal votes were
Biliwang Asserts that COMELEC lacks the power to annul rejected and illegal votes received, the motion of protest
elections of municipal officials particularly so because, under should state in what precincts such irregularities occurred. xxx
Section 190 of the 1978 Election Code, the power to try The specification in the motion of protest of the election
election contests relative to elective municipal officials is precinct or precincts where the alleged irregularities occurred,
vested in Courts of First Instance. Be that as it may, it should is required in order to apprise the contestee of the issues
be recalled that what COMELEC actually rejected were the which he has to meet. xxx”
sham and illegal returns in San Fernando, and that kind of
fraud and terrorism perpetrated thereat was sufficient cause HELD:
for voiding the election as a whole. Besides, COMELEC is
empowered motu proprio to suspend and annul any As to the adequacy of the protest, we agree with respondent
proclamation as, in fact, it did annul Biliwang’s proclamation. HRET in ruling for the insufficiency of the same. A perusal of
the petition Ad Cautelam, reveals that Petitioner makes no
It may be true that there is no specific provision vesting the specific mention of the precincts where widespread election,
COMELEC with authority to annul an election. However, there fraud and irregularities occured. This is a fatal omission, as it
is no doubt either relative to COMELEC’s extensive powers. goes into the very substance of the protest. Under Section 21
Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is tasked with the of the Revised Rules of Procedure of HRET, insufficiency in
function to “enforce and administer all laws relative to the form and substance of the petition constitutes a ground for the
conduct of elections.” The 1978 Election Code accords it immediate dismissal of the Petition.
exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all
laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET, that
insuring free, orderly and honest elections. substantial amendments to the protest may be allowed only
within the same period for filing the election protest, which,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days
after proclamation of the winner.
PEÑA V. HRET
270 SCRA 270 In sum, this Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions and orders
of electoral tribunals operates only upon a showing of grave
Digested by: RAGAZA abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal. Only where
such a grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court
FACTS: interfere with the electoral tribunal’s judgment. There is such
showing in the present petition.
Petitioner questioned the election of the private respondent IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby resolves to
Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr. as Member of the House of DISMISS the present petition for lack of merit. The resolution
Representatives representing the Second District of the of the respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
province of Palawan. Petitioner and the private respondent dated October 12, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.
were contenders for the said Congressional Office in the May
8, 1995 elections. On May 12, 1995, upon canvassing the votes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
cast, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Palawan proclaimed
the private respondent as the winner. HASSAN V. COMELEC
264 SCRA 125
On May 22, 1995, the instant petition was filed with the HRET
averred that the elections encountered some irregularities and Digested by: BAGUIO
other fraudulent acts that resulted to the winning of Abueg. In
its Resolution of October 12, 1995, the respondent HRET ruled FACTS:
that although it had jurisdiction over the petition, as the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan petioner, and private respondent,
qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives, Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan were candidates for the Office
the said petition, however, fails to state a cause of action, and of the Vice-Mayor while the other private respondents were
is therefore, insufficient in form and substance, meriting its candidates for councilors in Madalum, Lanao del Sur in the last
dismissal, stating that in Fernando vs. Pastor M. Endencia, regular local elections of May 8, 1995. However, due to threats
Supreme court held that “while the election law does not say

61 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

of violence and terrorism in the area there was failure of mayoralty candidate, Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan, and
elections in six out of twenty-four precincts in Madalum. eight winning candidates for member, Sangguniang Bayan of
that municipality."
The ballot boxes were burned and there were threats by
unidentified persons elections did not take place because the ISSUE: Was there a failure of Election?
members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) failed to
report to their respective polling places. Regional Election HELD:
Director Virgilio O. Garcillano recommended to the COMELEC
the holding of special elections in said precincts. The special Yes, The authority of the COMELEC to declare a failure of
elections were thereby set on May 27, 1995. On said date, election is provided by Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code,
however, the members of the BEI again failed to report for which reads:
duty in their respective polling places.
SEC. 6. Failure of election." If, on account of force majeure,
In an Order dated May 28, 1995, the COMELEC Team re- violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the
scheduled the elections in these precincts for May 29, 1995 at election in any polling place has not been held on the date
Liangan Elementary (Arabic) School, which is 15 kilometers fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
away from the designated polling places. On May 29, 1995, the the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
members of the Board did not again report for duty. Hence, preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the COMELEC Team was constrained to appoint police/military the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
personnel to act as substitute members so as to push through failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or
with the elections. suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan filed a petition with the COMELEC interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the
assailing the validity of the May 29 re-scheduled special holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or
elections on the grounds that the voting which started at 10:00 which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close
A.M. was forcibly ended at around 2:00 p.m. because of to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
exchanges of rapid gunfiring and grenade launching between resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after
unknown elements and the Army or PNP soldiers,the voting the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
was moved about 15 kilometers away from the respective suspension of the election or failure to elect. (Sec. 7, 1978 EC)
polling places,only a few but not all concerned due to short
notice that was on the night before the re-scheduled,only 328 In several cases,[5] the Court has ruled that the pre-conditions
out of the 1,645 registered voters of said 5 precincts were able for declaring a failure of election are: (1) that no voting has
to vote constituting only about 21.1% and disenfranchising been held in any precinct or precincts because of force
78% of the registered voters and the regular members of the majeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) that the votes not cast
BEI did not report for duty and were substituted by military therein suffice to affect the results of the elections. The
personnel. concurrence of these two (2) circumstances are required to
justify the calling of a special election.
At the same time, private respondent Mangondaya P. Hassan
Buatan also filed a petition with the COMELEC assailing the It is essential to the validity of the election that the voters have
inaction of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Madalum on notice in some form, either actual or constructive of the time,
his petition to be proclaimed the winning vice-mayoralty place and purpose thereof.[9] The time for holding it must be
candidate. authoritatively designated in advance. The requirement of
notice even becomes stricter in cases of special elections
On February 21, 1996 the COMELEC en banc issued a where it was called by some authority after the happening of
resolution denying the petition for a declaration of failure of a condition precedent, or at least there must be a substantial
elections and to call special elections in Precinct Nos. 7-A compliance therewith so that it may fairly and reasonably be
(Abaga), 9, 9-A, 10, 13 and 14, in Madalum, Lanao del Sur. It said that the purpose of the statute has been carried into
disposed of the consolidated petitions (SPA 95-283 and SPA effect.[10] The sufficiency of notice is determined on whether
95-286) by directing "the Regional Election Director of Region the voters generally have knowledge of the time, place and
XII in consultation with the Commissioner-in-Charge of Region purpose of the elections so as to give them full opportunity to
XII to reconstitute the Municipal Board of Canvassers of attend the polls and express their will or on the other hand,
Madalum, Lanao del Sur, of which shall convene forthwith and whether the omission resulted in depriving a sufficient number
complete the canvass by proclaiming the winning vice-

62 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

of the qualified electors of the opportunity of exercising their absence of proof that actual notice of the special elections has
franchise so as to change the result of the election. reached a great number of voters, we are constrained to
consider the May 29 elections as invalid. If only to ascertain the
From the foregoing, it is not difficult for us to rule that there will of the people and to prevent that will from being muted, it
was insufficiency of notice given as to the time and transfer of is necessary that a special election be held in view of the failure
the polling places. The low turnout of voters is more than of elections in Madalum, Lanao del Sur.
sufficient proof that the elections conducted on that day was
vitiated. A less than a day's notice of time and transfer of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
polling places 15 kilometers away from the original polls
certainly deprived the electors the opportunity to participate BORJA VS COMELEC
in the elections. 260 SCRA 604

Respondents argue that since voting actually occurred on May Digested by: CERNA
29, the substantial requirement of notice was complied with,
which should not necessarily invalidate the elections; more so, FACTS:
if the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the
elections. Capco was elected as Vice mayor for Pateros but the elected
Mayor died. Capco succeeded as Mayor by operation of law.
We disagree. It was quite sweeping and illogical for the After such term, he got elected twice as Mayor and served.
COMELEC to state that the votes uncast would not have in any After, he ran again in the next elections; Borja, his co-candidate
way affected the results of the elections. While the difference for Mayor, filed a petition for Capco’s disqualification and
between the two candidates is only 219 out of the votes argued that Capco already served for three terms and should
actually cast, the COMELEC totally ignored the fact that there be barred from running in accordance with Constitutional
were more than a thousand registered voters who failed to provisions.
vote. Aside from Precinct 7-A where the ballot box had been
burned and which had 219 voters, the COMELEC failed to ISSUE: Whether or not a Vice-mayor who succeeds to the
consider the disenfranchisement of about 78% of the office of mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder
registered voters in the five (5) precincts of Madalum. Out of of the term is considered to have served a term in that office
the 1,546 registered voters, only 328 actually voted because of for the purpose of the three-term limit?
the insufficient and ineffectual notice given of the time and
place of elections. Whether or not another special election HELD:
would turn the tide in petitioner's favor is of no moment
because what is more important is that the electors should not No. A clear examination of the Constitutional Commission
have been deprived of their right to vote which was rather unravels the purpose of the three term limit. It is to emphasize
apparent in the case at bar. 1) the protection of monopoly of power and 2) the power of
the electorate. The Commission further explains to wit:
In an already decided case:
x x “The term served must therefore be one for which [the
In fixing the date of the special election, the COMELEC should official concerned] was elected. If he is not serving a term for
see to it that: (1) it should be not later than thirty days after which he was elected because he is simply continuing the
the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension service of the official he succeeds, such official cannot be
of the election or the failure to elect, and (2) it should be considered to have fully served the term now” x x
reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended, or which resulted in failure to elect. The first The bone of contention here is whether or not Capco was
involves questions of fact. The second must be determined in elected as Mayor in the first term of service – in which the
the light of the peculiar circumstances of a case. obvious answer is in the negative.

The re-scheduling of the special elections from May 27 to May In the instant case because he was not elected to the office of
29, was done in uncommon haste and unreasonably too close the mayor in the first term but simply found himself thrust into
for all voters to be notified of the changes, not only as to the it by operation of law. Neither had he served the full term
date but as to the designated polling place. We must agree because he only continued the service, interrupted by the
with the dissenting opinion that even in highly urbanized areas, death, of the deceased mayor.
the dissemination of notices poses to be a problem. In the

63 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HELD:

SARDEA VS COMELEC NO. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, which is identical
August 17, 1993 to Section 2, Rule 26 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, reads
as follows:
Digested by: ERUM
Sec. 6. Failure of election. — If, on account of force majeure,
FACTS: violence, terrorism, fruad, or other analogous causes the
election in any polling place has not been held on the date
On May 12, 1992, sympathizers of defeated mayoralty fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
candidate Edwin Sardea stormed the municipal building of the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
Quezon City and destroyed all the election materials and preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
paraphernalia, including the copies of the election returns the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
furnished to the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Mauban - failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or
Quezon. suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
Two days later, the Board assessed the extent of the damage interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the
and discovered that the election returns in the possession of holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or
the MTC Judge of Mauban were intact, so it ordered the which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close
retrieval of said election returns for use in the canvass. to the date of the election not held, suspended or which
However, due to the absence of certain forms needed for the resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after
canvass, the same was suspended. the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect. (Sec. 7, 1978 EC).
When the Board informed the parties that it would continue
the canvassing of the returns, the counsel of petitioner The pre-conditions for declaring a failure of election are: "(1)
objected and later filed a petition to stop the proceedings on that no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts
the ground that the Board had no authority from the COMELEC because of force mejeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) that
to use the copies of the election returns obtained from the the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the
MTC of Mauban. This was overruled by the Board. elections. The language of the law clearly requires the
concurrence of the[se] two circumstances to justify the calling
Subsequently, the appeal of Sardea was dismissed on the of a special election."
ground that during the special meeting of the COMELEC dated
May 22, 1992, Provincial Election Supervisor Atty. Adolfo The destruction and loss of the copies of the election returns
Ilagan, acting on the authority given by Active Executive intended for the Municipal Board of Canvassers on account of
Director Resurreccion Bora of the COMELEC, ordered the MTC violence committed on May 13, 1992 is not one of the causes
Judge of Mauban “to make available the copies of the election that would warrant the declaration of a failure of election
returns, etc, in his possession for the use of the Municipal because voting actually took place as scheduled on May 11,
Board of Canvassers.” 1992 and other valid election returns still existed. Moreover,
the incident did not affect the result of the election.
Eventually, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed the
private respondent as the duly elected Mayor, Vice-Mayor, The power to throw out or annul an election should be
and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mauban, Quezon. exercised with the utmost care and only under circumstances
Thus, petitioners filed a Special Action seeking to declare a which demonstrate beyond doubt either that the disregard of
failure of election on the ground that there were substantial the law had been so fundamental or so persistent and
grounds to declare such; and the Board gravely abused its continuous that it is impossible to distinguish and what votes
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in are lawful and what are unlawful, or to arrive at any certain
canvassing the impugned election returns without prior result whatsoever, or that the great body of the voters have
authority from the COMELEC. been prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from
exercising their franchise .
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in denying the petition to declare a failure of While it is true that in local elections, the original copy of the
election in Mauban, Quezon Province. election returns is to be delivered to the city or municipal
board of canvassers as a body for its use in the city or municipal

64 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

canvass, there is no provision in the Omnibus Election Code conditions existed in the case at bar, because the election
stating that the canvass should be based only on the original actually took place in Precinct No. 4 and, although it appeared
copy of the election returns. Besides, the duplicate copy of that 66 voters were not able to vote, their votes, even if
election returns that were used in the canvass of votes were counted in petitioner’s favor, could not overcome private
not only authentic copies or certified copies but duplicate respondent’s margin of 149.
originals. Moreover, petitioner failed to show or even make an
allegation that the use of the duplicate originals of the returns COMELEC herein issued a temporary restraining order,
had in some definite manner caused him prejudice, like ordering private respondent to cease and desist from
uncounted votes in his favor or alteration of an election result exercising the duties and functions of the Office of the Mayor
otherwise in his favor. of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, until further orders from this Court.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ISSUE: Whether or not a failure of election should be declared?

BALINDONG V. COMELEC RULING:
260 SCRA 494
No. The mere fact that the transfer of polling place was not
Digested by: CAYABAN made in accordance with law does not warrant a declaration
of failure of election and the annulment of the proclamation of
FACTS: the winning candidate, unless the number of uncast votes will
affect the result of the election.
Petitioner Sultan Amer Balindong (Balindong) and private
respondent Cabib A. Tanog (Tanog), as mayor of Pualas, Lanao In the case at bar, although the COMELEC declared the transfer
del Sur, were candidates for municipal mayor of Pualas, Lanao of the polling place to be illegal, the fact is that only 66, out of
del Sur in the elections held on May 8, 1995. Tanog thus led by 255 registered voters in Precinct No. 4 were not able to vote.
a margin of 149 votes. Assuming that all the 63 signatures on the affidavit 6 submitted
by petitioner were authentic and that the 63 voters who signed
On May 17, 1995, Balindong filed in the COMELEC a Petition to the complaint-affidavit would have voted for petitioner, their
Suspend and/or Annul Proclamation of respondent Tanog. He votes would increase petitioner’s 2,122 votes to 2,185 only,
alleged that the polling place in Precinct No. 4 had been which is still less than private respondent’s total of 2,271 votes.
transferred from Barangay Lumbac to Barangay Talambo, both The additional votes would not have materially affected the
in the municipality of Pualas, without prior notice and hearing, results of the election so as to warrant a declaration of failure
with the result that voters in Lumbac, who were his supporters, of election. Thus, in Co. v. COMELEC, we upheld the transfer of
were not able to cast their votes. Balindong claimed that, over polling places ordered by the Election Registrar four days
his objection, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) before the election, allegedly because the teachers, who were
proceeded with the canvass, including therein the election members of the Board of Election Inspectors, were afraid of
return from Precinct No. 4. reported terrorists’ plans to disrupt the elections in the
affected areas. Only barangay captains in the areas were
The COMELEC en banc held that the transfer of the polling notified of the change. Despite claims that the transfer of
place of Precinct No. 4 was illegal because it was made only by polling place was illegal, because it was made in disregard of
agreement of the watchers of the candidates and the members §§ 152, 153, and 154 of the OEC, and that it had resulted in the
of the Board of Election Inspectors, the District Officer of the disfranchisement of 15,000 voters, we upheld the COMELEC in
DECS, the Municipal Treasurer and an Election Officer, without refusing to declare a failure of election, it appearing that the
notice and hearing and in violation of the prohibition against disfranchised voters were only 2,978 and represented only
transfers less than 45 days before a regular election, as 22.6% of the entire electorate, and their votes would not affect
provided in §§ 153-154 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). the result of the election even if they were counted.

The COMELEC held, however, that a failure of election could
not be declared because for such a declaration to be proper
under §6 of the OEC, two conditions must concur, namely, (1) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
that no voting has taken place in the precinct on the date fixed
by law or, even if there was voting, the election results in a
failure to elect; and (2) that the votes not cast would affect the
result of the election. The COMELEC ruled that neither of these

65 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

CALLING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS / REGISTRATION OF VOTERS Sur to Manila for a recount and revision of ballots, for the
DISCRETIONARY purpose of determining who won the gubernatorial race in
Camarines Sur.
BULAONG VS. COMELEC
220 SCRA 745 Being an interlocutory matter, the question now before us is
whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC committed
Digested by: MANGUDADATU grave abuse of discretion in refusing to refer petitioner's
motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. It is our
FACTS: opinion that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion. For said motion to be considered en banc, it
Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong, M.D. and private respondent Luis requires the unanimous vote of the members of the division as
Villafuerte were both candidates for the office of the provincial mandated by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In the
governor of Camarines Sur in the May 11, 1992 local elections. case at bar, there was an absence of such vote. Instead of
Petitioner, having obtained a total of 184,654 votes as against withholding its decision on such interlocutory matter, the First
private respondent's vote of 155,359 or a difference of 29,295 Division of the COMELEC decided to exercise its power under
votes, was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as Section 6 of Rule 20 of the COMELEC Rules which states:
the duly elected governor on June 30, 1992. Accordingly,
petitioner took his oath of office on July 1, 1992. When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so
warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Commission or
On July 9, 1992, private respondent filed an election protest Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall immediately
questioning the precinct results of ten (10) Municipalities of order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of
Baao, Buhi, Cabusao, Calabanga, Libmanan, Pamplona, voters with voting records, book of voters and other
Pasacao, Pili, San Fernando and Sipocot and the City of Iriga. documents used in the election to be brought before the
Subsequently, on August 21, 1992, private respondent filed an Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots.
Omnibus Motion praying that the venue for the ballot revision
proceedings be conducted at the main office of the The revision of ballots shall be made in the office of the Clerk of
Commission on Elections in Intramuros, Manila. 1Petitioner Court concerned or at such places as the Commission or
opposed private respondent's prayer citing that ballot revision Division shall designate, and shall be completed within three
proceedings need not be held in Manila since there was no (3) months from the date of the order, unless otherwise
untoward incident that happened during the canvassing of directed by the Commission.
votes from May 12 to May 30, 1992 in Naga.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Acting on private respondent's prayer, the First Division of the
COMELEC through its order dated September 9, 1992 granted AKBAYAN-YOUTH VS COMELEC
private respondent's prayer for a revision of ballots to be held G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001
in Manila. 2This order was received by petitioner on September
16, 1992. Digested by: LEDESMA

ISSUE: Whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC FACTS:
committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to refer
petitioner's motions for reconsideration. Around four million youth failed to register on or before the
December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC
RULING: under Republic Act No. 8189 (Voter's Registration Act of 1996).
Herein petitioners - representing the youth sector - seek to
No,It is not mandatory on the part of a division of the COMELEC direct the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a
to refer all pending motions for reconsideration to the special registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections,
COMELEC en banc. of new voters ages 18 to 21. Through a Letter dated January
25, 2001, Chairman if the Committee on Electoral Reforms,
Admittedly, the order regarding the revision of ballots is an Suffrage, and People's Participation invited the COMELEC to a
interlocutory order because it still requires a party to perform public hearing for the purpose of discussing the extension of
certain acts leading to the final adjudication of a case. The the registration of voters to accommodate those who were not
order in the case at bar is for the Provincial Election Supervisor able to register before the COMELEC deadline which was on
of Camarines Sur to transfer the ballot boxes from Camarines December 27, 2020. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

66 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

denied the petition to conduct a two-day additional BETITO VS. THE CHAIRMAN
registration of new voters through a Resolution dated AND COMMISSIONS OF COMELEC
February 8, 2001 on the ground that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 March 26, 2001
explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted
during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days Digested by: ALAMARES
before a regular election and that the Commission has no more
time left to accomplish all pre-election activities. Petitioners FACTS:
however invoke the so called "standby" powers or "residual"
powers of the COMELEC, as provided under the relevant AKBAYAN allege that around four million youth failed to
provisions of Section 29, Republic Act No. 6646 (An act register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by
introducing additional reforms in the electoral system and for the COMELEC. As such, they seek to direct it to conduct a
other purposes) and adopted verbatim in Section 28 of special registration before the 2001 elections. Senator Roco
Republic Act No. 8436 (An act authorizing the COMELEC to use then acted on the AKBAYAN’s clamor and invited COMELEC for
an automated election system in the May 11, 1998 national or a public hearing to discuss the possibility of extending the
local electoral exercises, providing funds therefore and for registration.
other purposes).
After the hearing, Commissioner Borra met with COMELEC
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave officials to discuss said special registration. It was the
abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution dated consensus of the group to disapprove the request for
February 8, 2001 denying the two-day extension of new voters. additional registration of voters on the ground that Section 8
of R.A. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be
HELD: conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty
(120) days before a regular election and that there’s no more
No. This Court is of the firm view that respondent COMELEC time left to accomplish all pre-election activities. The request
did not commit an abuse of discretion, much less be adjudged was ultimately denied by the COMELEC.
to have committed the same in some patent, whimsical and
arbitrary manner, in issuing Resolution No, 3584. Further, the Aggrieved, AKBAYAN and BETITO each filed a petition for
COMELEC in denying the request of petitioners to hold a mandamus to compel COMELEC to conduct a special
special registration, acted within the bounds and confines of registration albeit on different grounds.
the applicable law on the matter - Section 8 of R.A. 8189. In
issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent COMELEC simply ISSUE: Can the petitioners compel COMELEC to conduct
performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all special registration through a writ of mandamus?
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, inter alia, questions relating to the registration of HELD:
voters; evidently, respondent COMELEC merely exercised a
prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely The Court held that NO. As an extraordinary writ, the remedy
falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally mandated of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a
powers. Hence, whatever action respondent takes in the ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not
exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically on issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer
matters involving voters' registration, pertains to the wisdom where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his
rather than the legality of the act. Accordingly, in the absence judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required
of clear showing of grave abuse of power or discretion on the to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and
part of respondent COMELEC, this Court may not validly not that of the court.
conduct an incursion and meddle with affairs exclusively
within the province of respondent COMELEC - a body accorded Considering the circumstances where the writ of mandamus
by no less than the fundamental law with independence. lies and the peculiarities of the present case, the Court is of the
firm belief that petitioner’s failed to establish, to its
satisfaction, that it are entitled to the issuance of this
extraordinary writ so as to effectively compel COMELEC to
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - conduct a special registration of voters. For the determination
of whether or not the conduct of a special registration of
voters is feasible, possible or practical within the remaining


67 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

period before the actual date of election, involves the exercise provision, for only 25 nominees would be declared winners,
of discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by mandamus. short of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually
sit in the House.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On October 15, 1998, the Comelec Second Division
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATION (RA 7941) promulgated the present assailed Resolution granting PAG-
ASA's Petition. It also ordered the proclamation of herein 38
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. COMELEC respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would
342 SCRA 244 thus total 52 party-list representatives. It held that "at all
times, the total number of congressional9 seats must be filled
Digested by: BALANI up by eighty (80%) percent district representatives and twenty
(20%) percent party-list representatives."
FACTS:
The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier
Complying with its constitutional duty to provide by law the been proclaimed winners on the basis of having obtained at
"selection or election" of party-list representatives, Congress least two percent of the votes cast for the party-list system,
enacted RA 7941 on March 3, 1995. Under this statute’s policy objected to the proclamation of the 38 parties and filed
declaration, the State shall "promote proportional separate Motions for Reconsideration. They contended that
representation in the election of representatives to the House (1) under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only parties, organizations
of Representatives through a party-list system of registered or coalitions garnering at least two percent of the votes for the
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or party-list system were entitled to seats in the House of
coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging Representatives; and (2) additional seats, not exceeding two
to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations for each, should be allocated to those which had garnered the
and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies two percent threshold in proportion to the number of votes
but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of cast for the winning parties, as provided by said Section 11.
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole,
to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards ISSUE:
this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?
House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to
compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide 2. Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-
the simplest scheme possible." seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

On May 11, 1998, the first election for party-list representation RULING:
was held simultaneously with the national elections. A total of
one hundred twenty-three (123) parties, organizations and First Issue: Whether the Twenty Percent Constitutional
coalitions participated. On June 26, 1998, the Comelec en banc Allocation Is Mandatory
proclaimed thirteen (13) party-list representatives from twelve
(12) parties and organizations, which had obtained at least two No. The Constitution simply states that "the party-list
percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
system. number of representatives including those under the party-
list."
On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA (People’s Progressive Alliance for
Peace and Good Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the
and Social Advancement) filed with the Comelec a "Petition to Constitution, easily conveys the equally simple message that
Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives Congress was vested with the broad power to define and
provided by the Constitution." It alleged that the filling up of prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of
the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives representation. The Constitution explicitly sets down only the
in the House of Representatives, as provided under the percentage of the total membership in the House of
Constitution, was mandatory. It further claimed that the literal Representatives reserved for party-list representatives.
application of the two percent vote requirement and the
three-seat limit under RA 7941 would defeat this constitutional

68 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, it will be Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to
shown presently that Section 5 (2), Article VI of the ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors and
Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for organizations.
party-list seats in Congress.
HELD:
Second Issue: Is the Two Percent Threshold and Three-Seat-Per-
Party Limit Constitutional? The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be
remanded to the COMELEC which will determine, after
Yes. The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law, but with organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution
the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The
representative state, all government authority emanates from resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrain
the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by proclaiming any winner” during the last party-list election,
them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected shall remain in force until after the COMELEC have compiled
persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of and reported its compliance.
people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list
system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the
which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and party-list elections. Under the Constitution and RA 7941,
which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list
elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.
The Three-Seat-Per-Party Limit is also Constitutional, Congress Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members
set the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party, of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a
organization or coalition. "Qualified" means having hurdled party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
the two percent vote threshold. Such three-seat limit ensures parties or organizations."
the entry of various interest-representations into the
legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the
membership, would dominate the party-list seats, if not the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the
entire House. party-list system. For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also
provides for "a party-list system of registered national,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is
BAGONG BAYANI VS COMELEC "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of
359 SCRA 689 parties."

Digested by: CLARION That political parties may participate in the party-list elections
does not mean, however, that any political party -- or any
FACTS: organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The
Bagong Bayani and and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before the requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
COMELEC a Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of
COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154 the Constitution. The provision on the party-list system is not
organizations and parties, including those impleaded, in the self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in
2001 party list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was
of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party list thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of
system was intended to benefit the marginalized and the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the
none-marginalized or overrepresented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ISSUES:
Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-
list elections



69 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

PIMENTEL JR. VS HRET These constitutional provisions are reiterated in Rules 3 and 4
GR No. 147589 & 147613 (a) of the 1998 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, to wit:
Digested by: MUÑOZ
"Rule 3. Composition. - The Tribunal shall be composed of nine
FACTS: Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining
On March 3, 1995, the Party-List System Act took effect. This six shall be Members of the House of Representatives who
sought to promote proportional representation in the election shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation
of representatives to the House of Representatives through a from the political parties and the parties or organizations
party-list system in pursuant of section2 of the Republic registered under the party-list system represented therein.
Act 7941. On 11 May 1998, national elections were held, The Senior Justice in the Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
which included for the first time the election of party-list group
through popular vote. Fourteen representatives were elected Rule 4. Organization. - (a) Upon the designation of the Justices
coming from thirteen party-list groups including APEC, ABA, of the Supreme Court and the election of the Members of the
COOP-NATCO, AKBAYAN, and ABANSE. Subsequently, the House of Representatives who are to compose the House of
House constituted its House of Representatives Electoral Representatives Electoral Tribunal pursuant to Sections 17 and
Tribunal and Commission of Appointments contingent by 19 of Article VI of the Constitution, the Tribunal shall meet for
electing representatives to these bodies. It appears that no its organization and adoption of such resolutions as it may
one from the party-list group was nominated. On 18 January deem proper."
2000, Senator Pimentel wrote two letters to Senate President
Ople as Chairman of Commission of Appointments and Justice Likewise, Section 1 of the Rules of the Commission on
Melo as chairman of the House of Representatives Electoral Appointments provides: "Section 1. Composition of the
Tribunal to reorganize both bodies in order to include party- Commission On Appointments. Within thirty (30) days after
list representative in accordance to Sec. 17 and 18 Art. VI both Houses of Congress shall have organized themselves with
of the Constitution. On 2 February 2000, Petitioners filed a the election of the Senate President and the Speaker of the
petition in the Supreme Court, they assert that respondents House of Representatives, the Commission on Appointments
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to shall be constituted. It shall be composed of twelve (12)
act positively on Senator Pimentel’s letter. Hence, they Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of
invoked section 11 of Republic Act 7941. The Solicitor Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
General’s consolidated comment shows that the party-list proportional representation from the political parties and
group only constitutes 6.36% of the House parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented herein.
ISSUE: Whether the present composition of the House
Electoral Tribunal violates the constitutional requirement of The discretion of the House to choose its members to the HRET
proportional representation because there are no party-list and the CA is not absolute, being subject to the mandatory
representatives in the HRET. constitutional rule on proportional representation. However,
under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court may not
HELD: interfere with the exercise by the House of this constitutionally
mandated duty, absent a clear violation of the Constitution or
NO. The Constitution expressly grants to the House of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally jurisdiction. Otherwise, ‘the doctrine of separation of powers
defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-list calls for each branch of government to be left alone to
representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to discharge its duties as it sees fit. Neither can the Court
the House in the HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the speculate on what action the House may take if party-list
Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House representatives are duly nominated for membership in the
the authority to elect among their members those who would HRET and the CA.
fill the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members
in the Commission on Appointments. Under Section 17, Article Moreover, it is a well-settled rule that a constitutional question
VI of the Constitution, each chamber of Congress exercises the will not be heard and resolved by the courts unless the
power to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who following requirements of judicial inquiry concur: (1) there
among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of must be an actual controversy; (2) the person or party raising
each chamber’s respective electoral tribunal. the constitutional issue must have a personal and substantial

70 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

interest in the resolution of the controversy; (3) the HELD:

controversy must be raised at the earliest reasonable
opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the constitutional issue No. Petitioners' argument is without merit, All broadcasting,
must be indispensable to the final determination of the whether by radio or by television stations, is licensed by the
controversy. government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as
there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there
The Court finds no grave abuse in the action or lack of action are frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege
by the HRET and the CA in response to the letters of Senator subject, among other things, to amended by Congress in
Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI of the 1987 accordance with the constitutional provision that "any such
Constitution and their internal rules, the HRET and the CA are franchise or right granted shall be subject to amendment,
bereft of any power to reconstitute themselves. alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common good
so requires."
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for prohibition and
mandamus are DISMISSED. In truth, radio and television broadcasting companies, which
are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - through which they transmit broadcast signals and images.
They are merely given the temporary privilege of using them.
POWER TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE FRANCHISE
Finally, it is argued that the power to supervise or regulate
TELECOM VS COMELEC given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Sec 4 of the Constitution
G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998 does not include the power to prohibit. In the first place, what
the COMELEC is authorized to supervise or regulate by Art. IX-
Digested by: LANDICHO C, Sec 4 of the Constitution, among other things, is the use by
media of information of their franchises or permits, while what
FACTS: Congress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation
of print space or air time for political ads. In other words, the
Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of object of supervision or regulation is different from the object
the Philippines, Inc. is an organization of lawyers of radio and of the prohibition.
television broadcasting companies. They are suing as citizens,
taxpayers, and registered voters. The other petitioner, GMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Network, Inc., operates radio and television broadcasting
stations throughout the Philippines under a franchise granted ABS-CBN VS COMELEC
by Congress. G.R. No. 133486

Sec. 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 which prohibits the sale or donation Digested by: LUCAS
of print space or air time for political ads, except to the
Commission on Elections under Sec 90, of B.P. No. 881, the FACTS:
Omnibus Election Code, with respect to print media, and Sec
92, with respect to broadcast media. In the present case, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 98-1419, dated April 21, 1998.
validity of Sec 92 of B.P. Blg. No. 881 was questioned by the In the said Resolution, where COMELEC approved the issuance
petitioners and claims that the requirement that radio and of a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN or any other groups, its
television time be given free, takes property without due agents or representatives from conducting such exit survey
process of law and violates the eminent domain clause of the and to authorize the Honorable Chairman to issue the same.
Constitution which provides for the payment of just
compensation and that it denies broadcast media the equal The resolution was issued form allegedly upon information
protection of the laws; and that, in any event, it violates the from a reliable source that ABS-CBN has prepared a project to
terms of the franchise of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections, and to make an
exit survey of the vote during elections for national officials,
ISSUE: WON Sec 92 of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code) is valid particularly the President and VP, results of which shall be
for reason that it is in excess of the power given to the immediately broadcasted.
COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of
communication or information during the period of election. COMELEC believed that such project might conflict with the
official COMELEC count, as well as the unofficial quick count

71 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It had

also not authorized ABS- CBN to make an exit survey. On May SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS V COMELEC
9, 1998, the Court issued a TRO prayed by ABS-CBN, directing 357 SCRA 496
COMELEC to cease and desist until further orders form
implementing the said resolution and TRO. Exit polls were Digested by: MULIT
actually conducted and reported by media without any
difficulty or problem. FACTS:

COMELEC filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The OSG Petitioner, Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) is a private non-
on the other hand, moved to dismiss the petition for the stock, non-profit social research institution conducting surveys
following grounds: in various fields. On the other hand, petitioner Kamahalan
Publishing Corporation publishes the Manila Standard, a
1. Mootness newspaper of general circulation.
2. Prematurity
3. Failure to seek reconsideration on the assailed Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the
resolution. Commission on Elections from enforcing Section 5.4 of RA.
No.9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides that: “Surveys
ISSUE: Is the banning of exit polls justified? affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15)
days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates
HELD: shall not be published seven (7) days before an election”.

No. COMELEC invoked “Clear and present danger test” Petitioner claimed that no empirical nor historical evidence to
(definition: the evil consequence of the comment or utterance support the conclusion that there is an immediate and
must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence inevitable danger to tile voting process posed by election
extremely high" before the utterance can be punished) in surveys. They contend that there is no reason for ordinary
banning the exit polls: The Court ruled that such arguments are voters to be denied access to the results of election surveys,
purely speculative and clearly untenable. which are relatively objective.

First, by the very nature of a survey, the interviewees or Respondent Commission on Elections justifies the restrictions
participants are selected at random, so that the results will as in §5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 as necessary to prevent the
much as possible be representative or reflective of the general manipulation and corruption of the electoral process by
sentiment or view of the community or group polled. unscrupulous and erroneous surveys just before the election.
It contends that (1) the prohibition on the publication of
Second, the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par election survey results during the period proscribed by law
with the official Comelec count. It consists merely of the bears a rational connection to the objective of the law, i.e., the
opinion of the polling group as to who the electorate in general prevention of the debasement of the electoral process
has probably voted for, based on the limited data gathered resulting from manipulated surveys, bandwagon effect, and
from polled individuals. absence of reply; (2) it is narrowly tailored to meet the "evils"
sought to be prevented; and (3) the impairment of freedom of
Finally, not at stake here are the credibility and the integrity of expression is minimal, the restriction being limited both in
the elections, which are exercises that are separate and duration, i.e., the last 15 days before the national election and
independent from the exit polls. The holding and the reporting the last 7 days before a local election, and in scope as it does
of the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the not prohibit election survey results but only require timeliness.
elections, since the former is only part of the latter. If at all, the
outcome of one can only be indicative of the other. ISSUE: Whether or not the provision is constitutional in view of
Art. IX-C, §4 of the Constitution, which gives the COMELEC
The assailed Comelec Resolution is too broad, since its supervisory power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of
application is without qualification as to whether the polling is franchise for the operation of media of communication.
disruptive or not.
HELD:
The petition is hereby granted.
No. Section 5,4 is unconstitutional and does not fall under Art.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IX-C of the constitution which gives the COMELEC supervisory

72 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchise for The Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the COMELEC a
the operation of media of communication, no presumption of petition praying to amend the certified list. It also asked that
invalidity attaches to a measure like §5.4 the votes for the respondents should not be canvassed and
their nominees not proclaimed. Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-
For as the court pointed out in sustaining time ban on media Youth also filed for their cancellation of registration and
political advertisements, the grant of power to the COMELEC nomination.
under Art. IX-C, §4 is limited to ensuring "equal opportunity,
time, space, and the right to reply" as well as uniform and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a petition assailing
reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media facilities the March 26, 2001 Resolution, saying that the COMELEC may
"public information campaigns and forums among proceed with canvassing of votes cast but should bar the
candidates." The Court stated: proclamation of any winner until further orders of the Court. It
contends that “the inclusion of political parties in the party-list
The technical effect of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution may system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned
be seen to be that no presumption of invalidity arises in Resolution”.
respect of exercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on
the part of the Comelec for the Purpose of securing equal ISSUES: Whether or not the political parties may participate in
opportunity among candidates for political office, although the party-list elections.
such supervision or regulation may result in some limitation of
the rights of free speech and free press. HELD:

Hence, the Court held hold that §5.4 is invalid because (1) it YES, BUT WITH CONDITIONS.
imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is
a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even Under the Constitution and RA 7941, the respondent parties
though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections merely on
the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be the ground that they are political parties.
achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of
expression. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members
of the House of Representatives may “be elected through a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations”. Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C of the
BAGONG BAYANI VS COMELEC Constitution also provides that political parties may be
G.R. No. 147589 June 26, 2001 registered under the party-list system. Section 2 of RA 7941
also provides for “a party-list system of registered national,
Digested by: OSTAN regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof”. Section 3 states that a “party” is “either a political
FACTS: party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties”.

During the 2001 elections, the COMELEC received petitions for HOWEVER, the party-list system seeks to enable certain
registration filed by sectoral parties, organizations, and Filipino citizens, specifically those belonging to marginalized
political parties. Hearings were conducted for verifications as and underrepresented sectors, organizations, and parties, to
to their status and capacity. The number of petitions hindered be elected in the House of Representatives. While the
the early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is
which were promulgated only on February 10, 2001. not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that
not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system.
The parties and organizations that were registered then filed
their Manifestations in wanting to participate in the party-list The purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the
elections, even those that were denied registrations. Some system, in order to enhance the chance of sectoral groups and
filed beyond the February 12, 2001 deadline. Still, the organizations to gain representation in the House of
COMELEC approved the Manifestations of 154 parties and Representatives through the simplest scheme possible.
organizations but denied others, as stated in its March 26,
2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. Thus, the case was remanded to the COMELEC for further
determination of the 154 political parties that shall be allowed
to participate in the party-list elections, complying with the

73 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

requirements of the law. The Court directed the COMELEC to The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be
refrain from proclaiming any winner during the last party-list for an indefinite period of time. The change must be voluntary
election until the COMELEC has complied with the report. and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile
must be actual. The sudden departure from Another country
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - by Romualdez cannot be described as voluntary or as
abandonment of residence applying the concept of “domicile
REQUISITES WHEN NEW DOMICILE IS ACQUIRED BY CHOICE by choice”. It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a
most precious political right, as well as a bounden duty of every
ROMUALDEZ V. RTC citizen, enabling and requiring him to participate in the process
226 SCRA 402 of government so as to ensure that the government can truly
be said to derive its power solely from the consent of the
Digested by: JIMENEZ governed.

FACTS: Romualdez, a natural born citizen of the Philippines - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
established his legal residence at Brgy. Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
He soon thereafter served as Brgy. Captain and eventually SIGNIFICANCE OF PETITIONS FOR EXCLUSION
acted as the Campaign Manager of the Kilusang Bagong
Lipunan in Leyte where he voted. When the eventful days on AKBAYAN YOUTH V. COMELEC
February of 1986 came, Romualdez feared for his life and his G.R. NO. 147066, 26 MARCH 2001
immediate family. They left the Philippines and sought asylum
in the USA. As early as 1987, Romualdez attempted to come Digested by: EDRALIN
back to the Philippines to run for a congressional seat in Leyte.
On 1991, the US government issued a letter to Romualdez FACTS:
stating that if the latter would not depart from the US at his
expense on or before August of 1992, he would be deported. AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et al.
So Romualdez fled back immediately into the Philippines. seek to direct the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to
Upon his arrival, he registered himself anew as a voter at conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General
Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. Advincula, private respondent, filed a Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to
petition praying that Romualdez be excluded from the list of petitioners, around four million youth failed to register on or
voters for abandoning his domicile. Advincula argued that before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent
Romualdez is not qualified to be registered as a voter because COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189.
he failed to have acquired the one-year residence after coming
from the US. And That he voluntarily left the country and Commissioners Tancangco and Lantion submitted
abandoned his residence at Leyte. Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the Request for
a Two-day Additional Registration of New Voters Only.
ISSUE: Whether or not Romualdez has abandoned his
residence in Leyte. Commissioner Borra called a consultation meeting among
regional heads and representatives and a number of senior
HELD: staff headed by Executive Director Mamasapunod Aguam. It
was the consensus of the group, with the exception of Director
No. The court treats domicile and residence as synonymous Jose Tolentino, Jr. of the ASD, to disapprove the request for
terms wherein the terms as used in the election law imports additional registration of voters on the ground that Section 8
not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal of R.A. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be
presence in that place with the intention of doing so. And that conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty
when absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return. (120) days before a regular election and that the Commission
In this case, Romualdez acquired his residence in Leyte. He may has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities.
have lost said residence by adopting another choice of Then, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584. This
domicile. To Acquire a new domicile by choice, the following memorandum resolved to deny the request to conduct a two-
must concur: day additional registration of new voters on February 17 and
18, 2001.
1. Residence or bodily presence in the new locality
2. An intention to remain there Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth, et al.
3. An intention to abandon the old domicile. filed before this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and

74 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Mandamus, which seeks to set aside and nullify respondent served for at least four (4) years in a particular city or
COMELEC's Resolution and/or to declare Section 8 of R. A. municipality shall automatically be reassigned by the
8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively Commission to a new station outside the original congressional
causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others district."
similarly situated. Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of Thereafter, the COMELEC issued several directives reassigning
a writ of mandamus directing respondent COMELEC to conduct the petitioners, who are either City or Municipal Election
a special registration of new voters and to admit for Officers, to different stations.
registration petitioners and other similarly situated young ISSUE: WON Section 44 of Republic Act No. 8189 violates the
Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May 14, 2001 General ‘equal protection clause’ enshrined in the Constitution.
Elections.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court can compel
respondent COMELEC, through the extraordinary writ of NO. The petition is barren of merit. The "equal protection
mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new voters clause" of the 1987 Constitution permits a valid classification
during the period between the COMELECs imposed December under the following conditions:
27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections. 1. The classification must rest on substantial distinctions;
2. The classification must be germane to the purpose of the
RULING: law;
3. The classification must not be limited to existing conditions
The Supreme Court cannot control the exercise of discretion of only; and
a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to 4. The classification must apply equally to all members of the
exercise his judgment in reference to any manner in which he same class.
is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be The singling out of election officers in order to "ensure the
exercised and not that of the court. The remedy of mandamus impartiality of election officials by preventing them from
lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not developing familiarity with the people of their place of
a discretionary one. assignment" does not violate the equal protection clause of
the Constitution.
The petitioners failed to establish that they are entitled to the In Lutz vs. Araneta, it was held that "the legislature is not
issuance of this extraordinary writ so as to eefctively compel required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of ‘all or
COMELEC to conduct a special registration of voters. For the none’". This is so for under inclusiveness is not an argument
determination of whether or not the conduct of a special against a valid classification. It may be true that all the other
registration of voters within the remaining period before the officers of COMELEC referred to by petitioners are exposed to
actual date of election, involves the exercise of discretion, thus the same evils sought to be addressed by the statute.
cannot be controlled by the mandamus. In this case, it can be discerned that the legislature thought the
noble purpose of the law would be sufficiently served by
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - breaking an important link in the chain of corruption than by
breaking up each and every link thereof. Verily, under Section
DE GUZMAN ET. AL. V. COMELEC 3(n) of RA 8189, election officers are the highest officials or
G.R. No. 129118 July 19, 2000 authorized representatives of the COMELEC in a city or
municipality. It is safe to say that without the complicity of
Digested by: MONDEJAR such officials, large scale anomalies in the registration of voters
can hardly be carried out.
FACTS: Moreover, to require the COMELEC to reassign all employees
(connected with the registration of voters) who have served at
At bar is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent least four years in a given city or municipality would entail a lot
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and of administrative burden on the part of the COMELEC.
temporary restraining order, assailing the validity of Section 44
of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189) otherwise known as "The
Voter’s Registration Act of 1996". - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"SEC. 44. Reassignment of Election Officers. - No Election
Officer shall hold office in a particular city or municipality for
more than four (4) years. Any election officer who, either at
the time of the approval of this Act or subsequent thereto, has

75 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

SC TREATS RESIDENCE AS SYNONYMOUS WITH DOMICILE In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras
by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in
COQUILLA V. COMELEC 1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000, when he
G.R. No. 151914 July 31, 2002 reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an alien
without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our
Digested by: GAUDICOS immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or
as a resident alien.
FACTS:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern
Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he was ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC
subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen after joining the US G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
Navy. In 1998, he came to the Philippines and took out a
residence certificate, although he continued making several Digested by: ALAMARES
trips to the United States.
FACTS:
Coquilla eventually applied for repatriation under R.A. No.
8171 which was approved. On November 10, 2000, he took his Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, petitioner, filed her Certificate of
oath as a citizen of the Philippines. Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First
District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor on
On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter March 8, 1995; it was stated therein that she is a residence of
of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar which was approved in 2001. that district for seven months. As a result, another candidate,
On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy Montejo, respondent, filed a petition for cancellation and
stating that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for disqualification of the petitioner.
2 years.
Marcos filed a petition to change the seven months to “since
Incumbent mayor Alvarez, who was running for re-election childhood” because she thought that what was asked was her
sought to cancel Coquilla’s certificate of candidacy on the "actual and physical" presence in Tolosa and not residence of
ground that his statement as to the two year residency in Oras origin or domicile in the First Legislative District, to which she
was a material misrepresentation as he only resided therein could have responded "since childhood.". The COMELEC
for 6 months after his oath as a citizen. denied the petitioner’s petition. Meanwhile, Marcos garnered
the highest votes after the election.
Before the COMELEC could render a decision, elections
commenced and Coquilla was proclaimed the winner. On July ISSUE: Is the petitioner qualified to run for the said position?
19, 2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and ordered the
cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. RULING:

ISSUE: Whether Coquilla had been a resident of Oras, Eastern The Court held that YES. In Ong vs. Republic this court took the
Samar at least one year before the elections held on May 14, concept of domicile to mean an individual’s “permanent
2001. home,” “a place to which, whenever absent for business or for
pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and
HELD: circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.” Based on
the foregoing, domicile includes the twin elements of “the fact
No. The term “residence” is to be understood not in its of residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and animus
common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently. For
“habitation,” but rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that political purposes, residence is used synonymously with
is, “the place where a party actually or constructively has his domicile.
permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be
found at any given time, eventually intends to return and As such, the Court held that Marcos, is qualified to run for the
remain (animus manendi).” A domicile of origin is acquired by said position.
every person at birth. It is usually the place where the child’s
parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice).

76 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

PEREZ V. COMELEC entertain the motion because the proclamation of private

G.R. No. 137329 August 9, 2000 respondent barred further consideration of petitioner’s
action. In the same vein, considering that at the time of the
Digested by: MAMAC filing of this petition on June 16, 1998, private respondent was
already a member of the House of Representatives, this Court
FACTS: has no jurisdiction over the same. Pursuant to Art. VI, §17 of
the Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral
On March 26, 1998, private respondent filed his certificate of Tribunal has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition
candidacy for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan for the declaration of private respondent’s ineligibility. As this
in the May 11, 1998 elections. Four days later, on March 30, Court held in Lazatin v. House of Representatives Electoral
1998, petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed in the COMELEC a Tribunal:”
petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a
candidate on the ground that he had not been a resident of the WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
district for at least one (1) year immediately before the day of
the elections as required by Art. VI, §6 of the Constitution. When does section 6 of R.A. 6646 apply to petitions for
disqualifying a candidate and when does it not apply?
On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC, in a
unanimous resolution, dismissed the petition for In the case supra, R.A 6646, section 6 cannot be applied since
disqualification, finding private respondent Aguinaldo there was already a decision made by COMELEC based on
qualified to run as representative for the Third District of substantial evidence, dismissing the petition for
Cagayan. disqualification, finding private respondent Aguinaldo
qualified to run as representative for the Third District of
ISSUE: Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Cagayan. Accordingly he was proclaimed elected and, on May
instant petition for certiorari and eventually pass upon private 17, 1998, he was sworn in office. It therefore barred further
respondent’s eligibility for the office of Representative of the consideration of petitioner’s action.
Third District of Cagayan?
“Petitioner’s remedies should have been:
RULING: 1. to reiterate her prayer in the petition for disqualification,
and move for the issuance of an order by the COMELEC
…the following provision of R.A. No. 6646: suspending the proclamation of private respondent pending
Sec. 6 Effect of Disqualification Case. ¾ Any candidate who the hearing of the said petition and, in the event the motion
has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not was denied before the proclamation of private respondent, file
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If a petition for certiorari in this Court with a prayer for a
for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment restraining order to enjoin the proclamation of private
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and respondent;
receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
Court or Commission (COMELEC) shall continue with the trial 2. to file a petition for quo warranto in the House of
and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion Representatives Electoral Tribunal within ten (10) days after
of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the the proclamation of private respondent as Representative-
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of elect on May 16, 1998.”
such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
“As already stated, the petition for disqualification “In the case of Lonzanida where this court held that the clear
against private respondent was decided by the First Division of legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial
the COMELEC on May 10, 1998. The following day, May 11, and hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion i.e.,
1998, the elections were held. Notwithstanding the fact that until judgment is rendered. The outright dismissal of the
private respondent had already been proclaimed on May 16, petition for disqualification filed before the election but which
1998 and had taken his oath of office on May 17, 1998, remained unresolved after the proclamation of the candidate
petitioner still filed a motion for reconsideration on May 22, sought to be disqualified will unduly reward the said candidate
1998, which the COMELEC en banc denied on June 11, and may encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede
1998. Clearly, this could not be done. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 the resolution of the petition until after he has been
authorizes the continuation of proceedings for disqualification proclaimed.”
even after the elections if the respondent has not been
proclaimed. The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to

77 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

“…In Aguam v. COMELEC this Court held- ‘Time and again this Comelec, this time for quo warranto, in which they sought (1)
Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC the annulment of the election of private respondent; and (2)
is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which the proclamation of Erasmo B. Damasing, who had garnered
was illegally made. The fact that a candidate proclaimed has the next highest number of votes, as the duly elected mayor of
assumed office, we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such the city.
power. It of course may not be availed of where there has
been a valid proclamation. Since private respondent’s petition ISSUE: Whether or not Emano failed the constitutional
before the COMELEC is precisely directed at the annulment of residency requirement?
the canvass and proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into
this issue is within the area allocated by the Constitution and HELD:
law to COMELEC xxx Really, were a victim of a proclamation to
be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that NO. Emano was actually and physically residing in CDO while
proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, discharging his duties as governor and even paid his
baneful effects may easily supervene.” community tax certificate in the same. The Comelec found that
Emano and his family had actually been residing in Capistrano
“It must be emphasized that the purpose of a disqualification Sbdv, Gusa, CDO, in a house he had bought in 1973.
proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if Furthermore, during the three terms (1988-1998) that he was
elected. From serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the governor of Misamis Oriental, he physically lived in that city,
election laws. Obviously, the fact that a candidate has been where the seat of the provincial government was located. In
proclaimed elected does not signify that his disqualification is June 1997, he also registered as voter of the same city. these
deemed condoned and may no longer be the subject of a facts indubitably prove that Vicente Y. Emano was a resident
separate investigation.” of Cagayan de Oro City for a period of time sufficient to qualify
him to run for public office therein. Moreover, the Comelec did
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - not find any bad faith on the part of Emano in his choice of
residence. There was no challenge to his eligibility to continue
TORAYNO, SR. v. COMELEC running the province; hence, this Court cannot make any
337 SCRA 574 , August 09, 2000 pronouncement on such issue. On the basis, however, of the
facts proven before the Comelec, we hold that he has satisfied
Digested by: SANTOALLA the residence qualification required by law for the mayorship
of the city. We stress that the residence requirement is rooted
FACTS: in the desire that officials of districts or localities be acquainted
not only with the metes and bounds of their constituencies
During the 1995 elections, Vicente Y. Emano ran for, was but, more important, with the constituents themselves -- their
elected, and proclaimed provincial governor of Misamis needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and
Oriental. It was his third consecutive term as governor of the development, and all matters vital to their common welfare.
province. In his Certificate of Candidacy dated March 12, 1995, The requisite period would give candidates the opportunity to
his residence was declared to be in Tagoloan, Misamis be familiar with their desired constituencies, and likewise for
Oriental. On June 14, 1997, while still the governor of Misamis the electorate to evaluate the former's qualifications and
Oriental, Emano executed a Voter Registration Record in fitness for the offices they seek. In other words, the actual,
Cagayan de Oro City (geographically located in the Province of physical and personal presence of Emano in CDO is substantial
Misamis Oriental), a highly urbanized city, in which he claimed enough to show his intention to fulfill the duties of mayor and
20 years of residence. On March 25, 1998, he filed his for the voters to evaluate his qualifications for the mayorship.
Certificate of Candidacy for mayor of the city, stating therein Petitioners' very legalistic, academic and technical approach to
that his residence for the preceding two years and five months the residence requirement does not satisfy this simple,
was at 1409 San Jose Street, Capistrano Subdivision, Gusa, practical and common-sense rationale for the residence
Cagayan de Oro City. Among those who ran for the mayorship requirement.
of the city in 1998, are the petitioners, filed a Petition before
the Comelec, which they sought the disqualification of Emano
as mayoral candidate, on the ground that he had allegedly - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
failed to meet the one-year residence requirement. Prior to
the resolution of their Petition, the Comelec proclaimed
private respondent as the duly elected city mayor. Thus, on
May 29, 1998, petitioners filed another Petition before the

78 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

NOLASCO v. COMELEC disqualified candidate is excluded, the condition would have

275 SCRA 762 , July 21, 1997 substantially changed

Digested by: ABELLA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FACTS: TRINIDAD VS COMELEC AND SUNGA
315 SCRA 75 Sept 23, 1999
A disqualification case was filed against Meycauayan, Bulacan
Mayor-elect Florentino Blanco for alleged performing acts Digested by: FERNANDEZ
which are grounds for disqualification under the Omnibus
Election Code – giving money to influence, induce or corrupt FACTS:
the voters or public officials performing election functions: for
committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy, and for Petitioner (herein private respondent) Manuel C. Sunga was
spending an amount for his campaign in excess of what is one of the candidates for the position of Mayor in the
allowed by the law. The COMELEC First Division required both Municipality of Iguig, Province of Cagayan, in the May 8, 1995
parties to submit their position papers. The case was decided elections. Private respondent (herein petitioner) Ferdinand B.
against Blanco. Trinidad, then incumbent mayor, was a candidate for re-
election in the same municipality.
A reconsideration was moved by Blanco in the COMELEC En
Banc. Nolasco, the vice-mayor-elect took part as intervenor, On 22 April 1995, Sunga filed with the COMELEC a letter-
urging that should Blanco be finally disqualified, the mayoralty complaint for disqualification against Trinidad, accusing him of
position be turned over to him. The parties were allowed to file using three (3) local government vehicles in his campaign, in
their memoranda. En Banc denied Blanco and Nolasco’s violation of Section 261, par. (o), Art. XXII, of BP Blg. 881
motions thus this petition for certiorari. (Omnibus Election Code, as amended).

ISSUES: On 7 May 1995, Sunga filed another letter-complaint with the
1. WON Blanco was denied due process and equal protection COMELEC charging Trinidad this time with violation of Sec.
of laws 261, par. (e) (referring to threats, intimidation, terrorism or
other forms of coercion) of the Omnibus Election Code.
2. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
proclaiming Alarilla as the duly elected mayor. This was followed by an Amended Petition for disqualification
consolidating the charges in the two (2) letters-complaint,
HELD: including vote buying, and providing more specific details of
the violations committed by Trinidad.
1. Blanco was not denied due process and equal protection of
the laws. He was given all the opportunity to prove that the Meanwhile, the election results showed that Trinidad garnered
evidence on his disqualification was not strong. Blanco’s the highest number of votes, while Sunga trailed second.
contention that the minimum quantum of evidence was not
met is untenable. What RA 6646 and the COMELEC Rules of Notwithstanding the motion for suspension of the
Procedure require is a mere evidence of guilt that should be proclamation of Trinidad filed by Sunga, Trinidad was
strong to justify the COMELEC in suspending a winning proclaimed the elected mayor, prompting Sunga to file
candidate’s proclamation. another motion to suspend the effects of the
proclamation. Both motions were not acted upon by the
2. Nolasco, not Alarilla, is adjudged as the Mayor of COMELEC 2nd Division.
Meycauayan. It is already a settled principle in the case of The COMELEC En Banc approved the findings of the Law
Reyes v COMELEC that the candidate with the second highest Department and directed the filing of the corresponding
number of votes cannot be proclaimed winner in case the informations in the Regional Trial Court against
winning candidate be disqualified. There cannot be an Trinidad. Accordingly, four (4) informations for various
assumption that the second placer would have received the election offenses were filed in the Regional Trial Court of
other votes otherwise it is a judgment substituting the mind of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. The disqualification case, on the other
a voter. It cannot be assumed that the second placer would hand, was referred to the COMELEC 2nd Division for hearing.
have won the elections because in the situation where the

79 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the petition for candidate, Johnny R. Banatao. This gives petitioner a high
disqualification. Sunga filed the instant petition contending 77.26% of the votes cast. There is no doubt, therefore, that
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in petitioner received his municipality’s clear mandate. This,
dismissing the petition for disqualification. despite the disqualification case filed against him by private
respondent.
Private respondent’s Petition with this Court was granted and
COMELEC was ordered to reinstate. Finally, on June 22, 1998, Indeed, in election cases, it is fundamental that the peoples
the COMELEC 1st Division (former 2nd Division) promulgated will be at all times upheld. This Court has time and again
the first questioned Resolution disqualifying petitioner as a liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our
candidate in the May 8, 1995 elections. COMELEC En country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people,
Banc denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and also for in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give
annulled his proclamation as duly elected Mayor of Iguig, life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through
Cagayan in the May 11, 1998 elections. Private respondent the ballot.
assails the arguments raised in the Petition and prays that he
be proclaimed as the elected Mayor in the 1998 elections. To simplistically assume that the second placer would have
received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment
ISSUES: for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a
(1) WON petitioner’s proclamation as Mayor in the 1998 second placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by
elections can be cancelled on account of the disqualification either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be
case filed against him in the 1995 elections. considered the first among qualified candidates because in a
field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions
(2) WON respondent, as the candidate receiving the second would have substantially changed. To allow private
highest number of votes be proclaimed as Mayor in the event respondent, a defeated and repudiated candidate, to take
of petitioner’s disqualification. over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is
to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their
RULING: part and to undermine the importance and meaning of
democracy and the people’s right to elect officials of their
(1) No, petitioner’s proclamation as Mayor in the 1998 choice.
elections cannot be cancelled on account of the
disqualification case filed against him in the 1995 election. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
With the complaint for disqualification of private respondent
rendered moot and academic by the expiration of petitioners EFFECTS OF FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
term of office therein contested, COMELEC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in proceeding to disqualify petitioner from DIMAPORO VS MITRA JR.
his reelected term of office in its second questioned Resolution 202 SCRA 779
on the ground that it comes as a matter of course after his
promulgated after the 1998 election. While it is true that the Digested by: EBUEZA
first questioned Resolution was issued eight (8) days before
the term of petitioner as Mayor expired, said Resolution had FACTS:
not yet attained finality and could not effectively be held to
have removed petitioner from his office. Indeed, removal Petitioner Mohammad Ali Dimaporo was elected as
cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged Representative for the Second Legislative District of Lanao del
misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed Sur during the 1987 congressional Elections. He filed a
before his term of office expires, he can no longer be certificate of Candidacy with Comelec on January 15, 1990 for
removed if he is thereafter reelected for another term. the position of Regional Governor of Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) immediately following the
(2) No, the candidate who received the second highest number elections.
of votes cannot be proclaimed Mayor in the event of
petitioner’s disqualification Upon knowing the latter’s political quest, respondent Speaker
of the House of representatives excluded Dimaporo’s name
As per the Certificate of Canvass, petitioner obtained 5,920 from the Roll of Members of the House of representatives
votes as against the 1,727 votes obtained by private pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election
respondent and 15 votes garnered by the third mayoral Code. The provisions stipulated under this code states that

80 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

“Any elective official whether national or local running for any Thus, Dimaporo was considered ipso facto resigned for the
office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent reason that he seeks for another post in public service leaving
capacity except for President and Vice-President shall be his Congressional mandate which he owes from the people
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing who casted their votes for him to be their Representative for
of his certificate of candidacy.” the Second Legislative District of Lanao del Sur

Mohamad Ali Dimaporo lost in the autonomous regional - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
elections. He filed a letter addressing the respondent Speaker
expressing his intention to resume performing his duties and SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
functions as a duly elected Legislator. He asserts that he did
not lose his seat in Congress claiming that under Section 67, QUESTION: May an independent candidate who has
Article IX of B.P. 881 is not operative under the present withdrawn from such candidacy, then affiliate as party
Constitution. Thus, it is not applicable to the present members member of a political party, and is thereafter nominated to
of the Congress. substitute its candidate for mayor legally run as substitute
candidate?
In support of his contention, that the term of office of the
Member of the House of Representative may be shortened, SINICA VS MULA
are provided for in the Constitution. Section 2, Article XVIII 315 SCRA 266
thereof provides that "the Senators, Members of the House of
Representatives and the local officials first elected under this Digested by GUERRERO
Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992," while
Section 7, Article VI states: "The Members of the House of FACTS: In the May 1998 elections, petitioner Emmanuel Sinica
Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years was a substitute candidate for the mayoral post of the Matugas
which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon Wing after their original candidate, Teodoro Sinica, Jr., was
on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. He disqualified for being convicted of bigamy. He was proclaimed
asserts that under the rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius, winner after the canvassing.
Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is repugnant to these
constitutional provisions in that it provides for the shortening (Matugas Wing was a faction in the LAKAS-NUCD-UMPD party,
of a congressman's term of office on a ground not provided for as well as the Barbers Wing. Each faction has separate
in the Constitution. candidates for the mayoral post in the Municipality of
Malimono , Surigao del Norte.)
Moreover, he asserts that he has not lost his seat as it is only
when a congressman holds another office or employment that Respondent Mula (who got Sinica, Jr. disqualified) filed a
forfeiture is decreed. Filing a certificate of candidacy is not disqualification case against Emmanuel Sinica before the
equivalent to holding another office of employment. COMELEC. He alleged that said substitution was invalid
because:
ISSUES: Whether or not Dimaporo can still be considered as a
member of Congress even after he has filed for another a) Sinica was not member of the LAKAS party when he was
government position. nominated as a substitute; and
b) it lacks approval of Sen. Barbers as a joint signatory of the
HELD: substitution.

No. Dimaporo cannot be considered as member of the The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the disqualification
Congress. His filing of certificate for the position as Governor case. However, when respondent Mula filed a Motion for
of ARMM is considered as an overt act or a form of abandoning Reconsideration, COMELEC en banc set aside the resolution of
his mandate to the people for public service. He should the Second Division and disqualified EMMANUEL asserting
therefore resign and leave his Congressional seat if he wants that the substitution violated the provisions of Sec. 77 of the
to seek for another position. Under the law, a public office is a Omnibus Election Code that the substitute must belong to the
public trust. Public officers like elected officials of any same political party as the substituted candidate. Emmanuel
government post must serve the people with the highest D. Sinaca was not valid because he was an independent
degree of integrity and responsibility. candidate for councilor prior to his nomination as substitute
candidate in place of the withdrawing candidate who was a
Lakas party member.

81 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

vice mayor accordingly. Ramirez then filed a petition for

Therefore, this case before the Supreme Court. certiorari and mandamus seeking the annulment COMELEC’s
order. Ramirez further contended that (1) the COMELEC acted
ISSUE: Whether or not the substitution of Emmanuel Sinica without jurisdiction because the case was resolved by it
was against the provisions of Section 77 of the Omnibus without having been first acted upon by any of its divisions,
Election Code. and (2) the MBC had already made motu proprio a correction
of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes in its certification
RULING: and thus it was a grave abuse of its discretion for the COMELEC
to order a re-computation of votes based on the allegedly
NO. Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only mandates uncorrected Statement of Votes.
that a substitute candidate should be a person belonging to
and certified by the same political party as the candidate to be ISSUE:
replaced.
1. Whether or not COMELEC acted without jurisdiction.
Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, had
first withdrawn his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang 2. Whether or not there was a grave abuse of its discretion
Bayan Member before he joined the LAKAS party and when the COMELEC order a re-computation of votes based on
nominated by the LAKAS MATUGAS Wing as the substitute the allegedly uncorrected Statement of Votes.
candidate. He had filed his certificate of candidacy and his
certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate signed RULING:
by Gov. Matugas with his written acceptance of the party's
nomination. Therefore, he is a bona fide LAKAS member. No. Pursuant to Rule 27, Section 5 of the 1993 Rules of the
COMELEC, the pre-proclamation controversies involving,
There is nothing in the Constitution or the statute which manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results may
requires as a condition precedent that a substitute candidate be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc. Jurisprudence
must have been a member of the party concerned for a certain provides the assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC en
period of time before he can be nominated as such. banc over petitions for correction of manifest error directly
filed with it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here, Ramirez is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction
WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE of the COMELEC en banc. Not only did he participate in the
proceedings, but he also sought affirmative relief from the
RAMIREZ VS COMELEC COMELEC en banc by filing a Counter-Protest. It is certainly not
G.R. No. 122013 March 26, 1997 right for a party taking part in proceedings and submitting his
case for decision to attack the decision later for lack of
Digested by: AMPARADO jurisdiction of the tribunal because the decision turns out to be
adverse to him.
FACTS:
Moreover, the corrections should be made either by inserting
Both petitioner Ramirez and private respondent Go were corrections in the Statement of Votes which was originally
candidates for vice mayor in the election of May 1995. Ramirez prepared and submitted by the MBC, or by preparing an
was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers entirely new Statement of Votes incorporating therein the
(MBC) with results showing that he obtained 1,367 votes corrections. The certification issued by the MBC is thus not the
against private respondent’s 1,235 votes. Thereafter, Go filed proper way to correct manifest errors in the Statement of
in the COMELEC a petition for the correction of manifest error Votes. More importantly, the corrections should be based on
in the Statement of Votes. He alleged that, based on the the election returns but here the corrections appear to have
entries in the Statement of Votes, he obtained 1,515 votes as been made by the MBC on the bases of the Certificates of
against petitioner’s 1,367 votes but that because of error in Votes issued. Also, the Statement of Votes was not even
addition, he was credited with 1,235 votes. prepared until after the proclamation of the winning
candidate. This is contrary to the Omnibus Election Code.
Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution
directing the MBC to reconvene and re-compute the votes in Thus, as ruled in Villaroya v. Commission on Elections, the
the Statement of Votes and proclaim the winning candidate for COMELEC has ample power to see to it that the elections are

82 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

held in clean and orderly manner and it may decide all "SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy. - No person shall be eligible
questions affecting the elections and has original jurisdiction for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate
on all matters relating to election returns, including the of candidacy within the period fixed herein.
verification of the number of votes received by opposing
candidates in the election returns as compared to the "A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to
statement of votes in order to insure that the true will of the the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office
people is known. Such a clerical error in the statement of votes concerned a written declaration under oath.
can be ordered corrected by the COMELEC.
"No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy
for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of
GO VS COMELEC them. However, before the expiration of the period for the
357 SCRA 739 filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who has file more
than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the
Digested by: ANCHETA office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the
certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices."
FACTS:
There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the
MA. Catalina Go is the incumbent representative of the Fifth affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office
District, province of Leyte, whose term of office will expire at where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed.
noon on 30 June 2001. On 27 February 2001, petitioner filed Thus, it can be filed directly with the main office of the
with the municipal election officer of the municipality of COMELEC, the office of the regional election director
Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, concerned, the office of the provincial election supervisor of
Leyte. the province to which the municipality involved belongs, or the
office of the municipal election officer of the said municipality.
On 28 February 2001, at 11:47 p.m., petitioner filed with the
provincial election supervisor of Leyte, with office at Tacloban While it may be true that Section 12 of COMELEC Resolution
City, another certificate of candidacy for governor of the No. 3253-A, adopted on 20 November 2000, requires that the
province of Leyte. Simultaneously therewith, she attempted to withdrawal be filed before the election officer of the place
file with the provincial election supervisor an affidavit of where the certificate of candidacy was filed, such requirement
withdrawal of her candidacy for mayor of the municipality of is merely directory, and is intended for convenience. It is not
Baybay, Leyte. Hiowever, the provincial election supervisor of mandatory or jurisdictional. An administrative resolution can
Leyte refused to accept the affidavit of withdrawal and not contradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supply a
suggested that, pursuant to a COMELEC Resolution No. 3253- deficiency in the law.Hence, the filing of petitioner's affidavit
A, she should file it with the municipal election officer of of withdrawal of candidacy for mayor of Baybay with the
Baybay, Leyte where she filed her certificate of candidacy for provincial election supervisor of Leyte sufficed to effectively
mayor. But due to time constraints she was late for filling the withdraw such candidacy. the COMELEC thus acted with grave
said withdrawal for her candidacy for mayor. abuse of discretion when it declare petitioner ineligible for
both positions for which she filed certificates of candidacy.
Meanwhile, Atty. Felipe V. Montejo and Atty. Arvin V. Antoni
herein respondents filed a petition to cancel the COC of Go on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the ground for running for dual position which is prohibited
under the Election Code. Hence, this case. DIMAPORO vs. MITRA, JR.
G.R. No. 96859 OCTOBER 15, 1991
ISSUE: Whether Go's application for withdrawal for the mayor
position filed in the Provincial Election Supervisor valid. Digested by: ERUM

RULING: FACTS:

YES, Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as Petitioner Mohamad Ali Dimaporo was elected Representative
the Omnibus Election Code, provides that: for the Second Legislative District of Lanao del Sur during the
1987 congressional elections. On 15 January 1990, petitioner
filed with the COMELEC a Certificate of Candidacy for the

83 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

position of Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Constitution is different from the forfeiture decreed in Section
Muslim Mindanao in the immediately following elections. 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881, which is actually a mode of
voluntary renunciation of office under Section 7, par. 2 of
Upon being informed of this development by the COMELEC, Article VI of the Constitution.
respondents Speaker and Secretary of the House of
Representatives excluded petitioner's name from the Roll of The legal effects of filing a certificate of candidacy for another
Members of the House of Representatives pursuant to Section office having been spelled out in Section 67, Article IX, B.P. Blg.
67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code which states: Any 881 itself, no statutory interpretation was indulged in by
elective official whether national or local running for any office respondents Speaker and Secretary of the House of
other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity Representatives in excluding petitioner's name from the Roll
except for President and Vice-President shall be considered ipso of Members. The Speaker is the administrative head of the
facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate House of Representatives and he exercises administrative
of candidacy. powers and functions attached to his office. As administrative
officers, both the Speaker and House Secretary-General
In support of his contention, petitioner points out that the perform ministerial functions. It was their duty to remove
term of office of members of the House of Representatives, as petitioner's name from the Roll considering the unequivocal
well as the grounds by which the incumbency of said members tenor of Section 67, Article IX, B.P. Blg. 881. When the
may be shortened, are provided for in the Constitution. Section Commission on Elections communicated to the House of
2, Article XVIII thereof provides that "the Senators, Members Representatives that petitioner had filed his certificate of
of the House of Representatives and the local officials first candidacy for regional governor of Muslim Mindanao,
elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June respondents had no choice but to abide by the clear and
30, 1992," while Section 7, Article VI states: "The Members of unmistakable legal effect of Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg.
the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of 881. It was their ministerial duty to do so.
three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
election. He asserts that under the rule expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is NUISANCE CANDIDATE
repugnant to these constitutional provisions in that it provides
for the shortening of a congressman's term of office on a JURILLA VS. COMELEC
ground not provided for in the Constitution. G.R. No. 105436 June 2, 1994

Moreover, he claims that he cannot be said to have forfeited Digested by: LIBRE
his seat as it is only when a congressman holds another office
or employment that forfeiture is decreed. Filing a certificate of FACTS:
candidacy is not equivalent to holding another office or
employment. EUGENIO JURILLA, MARCIANO MEDALLA, BERNARDO NAZAL,
REY MEDINA, MELENCIO CASTELO, GODOFREDO LIBAN and
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s mere filing of his COC ANTONIO V. HERNANDEZ were among the candidates in the 11
constitutes forfeiture of his position in Congress. May 1992 synchronized elections for the six (6) positions of
councilor for the Second District of Quezon City.
RULING:
On 23 March 1992, respondent Antonio V. Hernandez filed
YES. Forfeiture is automatic and permanently effective upon with the Commission on Elections his certificate of candidacy
the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office. Only for one of the contested seats.
the moment and act of filing are considered. Once the
certificate is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing save In Item No. 6 of his certificate he gave as his address "B 26, L 1
a new election or appointment can restore the ousted official. New Capitol Estates, Quezon City." However, he did not
indicate on the space provided in Item No. 12 therein his
As the mere act of filing the certificate of candidacy for another Precinct Number and the particular Barangay where he was a
office produces automatically the permanent forfeiture of the registered voter.
elective position being presently held, it is not necessary, as
petitioner opines, that the other position be actually held. The
ground for forfeiture in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987

84 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

His biodata submitted together with his certificate of COMELEC referred to the action taken by petitioners herein as
candidacy gave his address as "Acacia Street, Mariana, Quezon one to declare private respondent a "nuisance candidate" and
City," which is part of the Fourth District of Quezon City. intimating that they should have instead petitioned COMELEC
to refuse to give due course to or cancel the certificate of
In other words, his certificate of candidacy and his biodata filed candidacy of private respondent, citing Sec. 69 of BP Blg. 881,
with COMELEC did not expressly state that he was a registered which provides:
voter of Quezon City.
Sec. 69. Nuisance candidates. — The Commission may, motu
In view of the seeming deficiency in the certificate of candidacy proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party,
of private respondent, petitioners herein challenged his refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy
qualification before public respondent COMELEC explaining if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the
however that since they became aware of the grounds for election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
private respondent’s qualification only after the elections, they among the voters by the similarity of the names of the
chose to file their petition under Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which
of Procedure authorizing the filing of such petition at any day clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide
after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy but not intention to run for the office for which the certificate of
later than the date of proclamation. candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful
determination of the true will of the electorate.
On 2 June 1992, COMELEC promulgated its questioned
resolution denying the petition for disqualification for being ISSUE: Whether or not the omission sufficient to cause the
filed outside the reglementary period under Sec. 5 of RA 6646, disqualification of respondent as nuisance candidate?
which pertains to nuisance candidates.
RULING:
Hence the instant petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of The holding of COMELEC that private respondent Hernandez
COMELEC in issuing the assailed resolution of 2 June 1992. was a "nuisance candidate" is erroneous because, tested
against the provisions of Sec. 69, there is no way by which we
In the case at bench, his failure to so state in his certificate of can categorize him as a "nuisance candidate".
candidacy his Precinct Number is satisfactorily explained by
him in that at the time he filed his certificate he was not yet Hence, the procedure therein provided could not have been
assigned a particular Precinct Number in the Second District of properly invoked by petitioners herein.
Quezon City.
Neither could they apply Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
He was formerly a registered voter of Manila, although for the Procedure which would require such petition to be filedat any
past two (2) years prior to the elections he was already a day after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy but not
resident of "B 26, L 1 New Capitol Estates," admittedly within later than the date of proclamation.
the Second District of Quezon City.
While COMELEC therefore proceeded on the erroneous
Confirming the explanation of private respondent, Barangay premise that private respondent Hernandez should be treated
Captain Manuel Laxina testified that he was the Barangay as a "nuisance candidate" as already shown, nevertheless its
Captain of New Capitol Estates since 8 October 1986; that conclusion to dismiss the petition and give due course to the
petitioner (private respondent herein) was a resident of New candidacy of private respondent he being a qualified voter of
Capitol Estates for two (2) years as of the time he testified. Precinct No. 233-B, New Capitol Estates, Barangay Batasan
Hills, must be sustained.
After due notice and hearing, and without any written
opposition, the petition was granted by the Metropolitan Trial WHEREFORE, there being no grave abuse of discretion
Court of Quezon City the dispositive portion of the order committed by respondent Commission on Elections in issuing
stating that its questioned resolution of 2 June 1992.

Consequently, as a registered voter of Precinct Number 233-B, The instant petition is dismissed.
New Capitol Estates, Quezon City, as judicially confirmed, the
COMELEC had no other recourse but to declare that he was - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
eligible, hence qualified, to run for the position in question.

85 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE BEFORE ELECTIONS certificate of candidacy under Sec. 78 of the (sic) Omnibus
Election Code.
SALCEDO II VS. COMELEC
312 SCRA 447 August 16, 1999 However, in its en banc Resolution dated October 1998, the
Comelec overturned its previous resolution, ruling that
Digested by: CAYABAN Ermelita’s certificate of candidacy did not contain any material
misrepresentation. It disposed of the case in this manner –
FACTS:
The record shows that respondent Ermelita C. Salcedo married
On February 1968, Neptali P. Salcedo married Agnes Celiz, Neptali Salcedo on September 1986. Under Article 370 of the
which marriage is evidenced by a certified true copy of the Civil Code, the respondent may use her husbands surname.
marriage contract issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Hence, there is no material misrepresentation nor usurpation
Ajuy, Iloilo. Without his first marriage having been dissolved, of anothers name.
Neptali P. Salcedo married private respondent Ermelita Cacao
in a civil ceremony held on September 1986. Two days later, Furthermore, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed
Ermelita Cacao contracted another marriage with a certain the Ermelita, as the duly elect mayor of the municipality of
Jesus Aguirre, as shown by a marriage certificate filed with the Sara, Iloilo. Any defect in the respondents certificate of
Office of the Civil Registrar. candidacy should give way to the will of the electorate.

Petitioner Victorino Salcedo II (Victorino) and private ISSUE: Whether the use of such surname constitutes a material
respondent Ermelita Cacao Salcedo both ran for the position misrepresentation under section 78 of the Omnibus Election
of mayor of the municipality of Sara, Iloilo in the May 1998 Code (the Code) so as to justify the cancellation of her
elections. However, on April 1998, petitioner Victorino filed certificate of candidacy.
with the Comelec a petition seeking the cancellation of private
respondents Ermelita’s certificate of candidacy on the ground HELD:
that she had made a false representation therein by stating
that her surname was Salcedo. Petitioner Victorino contended No. The use of such surname does not constitute a material
that private respondent Ermelita had no right to use said misrepresentation under section 78 of the Omnibus Election
surname because she was not legally married to Neptali Code (the Code) so as to justify the cancellation of her
Salcedo. On May 1998, private respondent Ermelita was certificate of candidacy.
proclaimed as the duly elected mayor.
Every person aspiring to hold any elective public office must
Ermelita claimed that she had no information or knowledge at file a sworn certificate of candidacy. One of the things which
the time she married Neptali Salcedo that he was in fact should be stated therein is that the candidate is eligible for the
already married; that, upon learning of his existing marriage, office.
Ermelita encouraged Neptali to take steps to annul his
marriage with Agnes Celiz because the Agnes had abandoned In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate
their marital home since 1972 and has not been heard from of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course to
since that time; that on February 1998, Neptali Salcedo filed a or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a petition by any
petition for declaration of presumptive death before the RTC person pursuant to section 78 of the Code which states that -
of Iloilo, which was granted by the court; that Neptali Salcedo
and Jesus Aguirre are one and the same person; and that since “A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
1986 up to the present she has been using the surname certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively
Salcedo in all her personal, commercial and public on the ground that any material misrepresentation contained
transactions. therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The
petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five
On August 1998, the Comelecs Second Division ruled, by a vote days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy
of 2 to 1, that since there is an existing valid marriage between and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later
Neptali Salcedo and Agnes Celiz, the subsequent marriage of than fifteen days before the election.”
the Neptali with Ermelita is null and void. Consequently, the
use by Ermelita of the surname Salcedo constitutes material If the petition is filed within the statutory period and the
misrepresentation and is a ground for the cancellation of her candidate is subsequently declared by final judgment to be
disqualified before the election, he shall not be voted for, and

86 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a section 253, a candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be
candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election elected to office, and he is disqualified if he lacks any of the
to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning qualifications for elective office.
number of votes in such election, the Court or the Comelec
shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, Therefore, it may be concluded that the material
or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any misrepresentation contemplated by section 78 of the Code
intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the refer to qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever strengthened by the fact that the consequences imposed upon
the evidence of his guilt is strong. The fifteen-day period in a candidate guilty of having made a false representation in his
section 78 for deciding the petition is merely directory. certificate of candidacy are grave to prevent the candidate
from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him
As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the for violation of the election laws. It could not have been the
certificate of candidacy under section 78, it is essential that the intention of the law to deprive a person of such a basic and
false representation mentioned therein pertain to a material substantive political right to be voted for a public office upon
matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect just any innocuous mistake.
the substantive rights of a candidate - the right to run for the
elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy. Petitioner Victorino has made no allegations concerning
Although the law does not specify what would be considered private respondent Ermelita’s qualifications to run for the
as a material representation, the Court has interpreted this office of mayor. Aside from his contention that she made a
phrase in a line of decisions applying section 78 of the Code. misrepresentation in the use of the surname Salcedo, Victorino
There are two instances where a petition questioning the does not claim that private respondent lacks the requisite
qualifications of a registered candidate to run for the office for residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification
which his certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised under necessary to run for a local elective office as provided for in the
the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), to wit: Local Government Code. Thus, Victorino has failed to discharge
the burden of proving that the misrepresentation allegedly
(1) Before election, pursuant to Section 78 thereof which made by Ermelita in her certificate of candidacy pertains to a
provides that: Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to material matter.
cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking
to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false
be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any representation under section 78 must consist of a deliberate
material misrepresentation contained therein as required attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In other words, it must
any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to ones
filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after qualifications for public office. The use of a surname, when not
due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the intended to mislead or deceive the public as to ones identity,
election. and is not within the scope of the provision.

(2) After election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof, viz: Sec. There is absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara,
253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting the Iloilo were deceived by the use of such surname by Ermelita.
election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, Victorino does not allege that the electorate did not know who
provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of they were voting for when they cast their ballots in favor of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn Ermelita Cacao Salcedo or that they were fooled into voting for
petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days someone else by the use of such name. It may safely be
after the proclamation of the results of the election. assumed that the electorate knew who Ermelita was, not only
by name, but also by face and may have even been personally
The only difference between the two proceedings is that, acquainted with her since she has been residing in the
under section 78, the qualifications for elective office are municipality of Sara, Iloilo since at least 1986. Bolstering this
misrepresented in the certificate of candidacy and the assumption is the fact that she has been living with Neptali
proceedings must be initiated before the elections, whereas a Salcedo, the mayor of Sara for three consecutive terms, since
petition for quo warranto under section 253 may be brought 1970 and the latter has held her out to the public as his wife.
on the basis of two grounds - (1) ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to Also arguing against petitioners claim that private respondent
the Republic of the Philippines, and must be initiated within intended to deceive the electorate is the fact that private
ten days after the proclamation of the election results. Under respondent started using the surname Salcedo several years

87 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

before the elections. In her application for registration of her On July 19, 2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and
rice and corn milling business filed with the Department of ordered the cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of
Trade and Industry in 1993, Ermelita used the name Ermelita candidacy. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but
Cacao Salcedo. From 1987 to 1997, she also used the surname his motion was denied by the COMELEC en banc on January 30,
Salcedo in the income tax returns filed by herself and by 2002. Hence this petition.
Neptali Salcedo. The evidence presented by Ermelita on this
point, which has remained uncontested by Victorino, belie ISSUES:
Victorino’s claims that Ermelita merely adopted the surname 1. Whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to decide this
Salcedo for purposes of improving her chances of winning in case notwithstanding the proclamation of petitioner.
the local elections by riding on the popularity of her husband.
Thus, we hold that private respondent did not commit any 2. Whether petitioner had been a resident of Oras, Eastern
material misrepresentation by the use of the surname Salcedo Samar at least one (1) year before the elections held on May
in her certificate of candidacy. 14, 2001 as he represented in his certificate of candidacy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3. Whether the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before
the COMELEC en banc did not suspend the running of the
COQUILLA vs COMELEC period for filing this petition for certiorari because the motion
G.R. No. 151914, September 17, 2002 was pro forma.

Digested by: ABELLA HELD:

FACTS: 1. Yes. R.A. No. 6646 provides:

Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern SECTION 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who
Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he was has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen after joining the US be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.
Navy. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
In1998, he came to the Philippines and took out a receives the winning number of votes in such election,
residence certificate, although he continued making several the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and
trips to the United States. hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of
the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency
Coquilla eventually applied for repatriation under R.A. No. thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such
8171 which was approved. On November 10, 2000, he took his candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
oath as a citizen of the Philippines. (Emphasis added)

On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter SECTION 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar which was approved in 2001. a Certificate of Candidacy. — The procedure hereinabove
provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or
On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of
stating that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
2 years.
The rule then is that candidates who are disqualified by final
Incumbent mayor Alvarez, who was running for re-election judgment before the election shall not be voted for and the
sought to cancel Coquilla’s certificate of candidacy on the votes cast for them shall not be counted. But those against
ground that his statement as to the two year residency in Oras whom no final judgment of disqualification had been rendered
was a material representation as he only resided therein for 6 may be voted for and proclaimed, unless, on motion of the
months after his oath as a citizen. complainant, the COMELEC suspends their proclamation
because the grounds for their disqualification or cancellation
Before the COMELEC could render a decision, elections of their certificates of candidacy are strong. Meanwhile, the
commenced and Coquillo was proclaimed the winner. proceedings for disqualification of candidates or for the
cancellation or denial of certificates of candidacy, which have

88 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

been begun before the elections, should continue even after In the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be
such elections and proclamation of the winners. pro forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second
motion for reconsideration,[or (2) it did not comply with the
rule that the motion must specify the findings and
2. No. Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code (R.A No. conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by
7160) provides: the evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors,
or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was
Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given
of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, notice thereof.
municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of
the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or The 16-page motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in
sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be the COMELEC en banc suffers from none of the foregoing
elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year defects, and it was error for the COMELEC en banc to rule that
immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was pro forma because
read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. the allegations raised therein are a mere “rehash” of his earlier
pleadings or did not raise “new matters.” Hence, the filing of
The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common the motion suspended the running of the 30-day period to file
acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation,” but the petition in this case, which, as earlier shown, was done
rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place within the reglementary period provided by law.
where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus
manendi).” A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at ABELLA V. COMELEC
birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside 210 SCRA 253
and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of
new domicile (domicile of choice). Digested by: GALOPE

In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras Topic: A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person on
1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000, when he the ground that the candidate made material
reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an alien misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy.
without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our
immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or FACTS:
as a resident alien.
Petitioner Benjamin P. Abella was the official candidate of the
In Caasi v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled Liberal Party for provincial governor of Leyte in the local
that immigration to the United States by virtue of a election held on February 1, 1988. The private respondent is
“greencard,” which entitles one to reside permanently in that the wife of Emeterio V. Larrazabal, who was disqualified by the
country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the Commission on Elections on January 18, 1988, for lack of
Philippines. With more reason then does naturalization in a residence. Emeterio V. Larrazabal filed her own certificate of
foreign country result in an abandonment of domicile in the candidacy in substitution of her husband. The following day, at
Philippines. about 9:30 o'clock in the morning, Silvestre de la Cruz, a
registered voter of Tacloban City, filed a petition with the
3. It is contended that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration provincial election supervisor of Leyte to disqualify her for
before the COMELEC en banc did not suspend the running of alleged false statements in her certificate of candidacy
the period for filing this petition because the motion was pro regarding her residence. This was immediately reported to the
forma. main office of the Commission on Elections, which could not
function, because all but one of its members had not yet been
The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. De la Cruz
issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does then came to this Court, which issued a temporary restraining
not make a motion pro forma; otherwise, the movant’s order on February 4, 1988, enjoining the provincial board of
remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a canvassers of Leyte 'from proclaiming Adelina Larrazabal as
new trial or some other remedy. the winning candidate. On March 1, 1988, the Commission on

89 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Elections having been fully constituted, we remanded the RULING:

petition thereto for appropriate action, including maintenance
or lifting of the Court's temporary restraining order of February Adelina Larrazabal lacks the required residence on the
4, 1988. evidence of record to the effect that despite protestations to
the contrary made by the petitioner, she has established her
In the meantime, petitioner Abella, after raising various verbal residence at Ormoc City from 1975 to the present and not at
objections reduced to writing during the canvass of the Kananga, Leyte. Her attempt to purportedly change her
election returns, seasonably elevated them to the Commission residence one year before the election by registering at
on Elections in ten separate appeals. While the resolutions Kananga, Leyte to qualify her to ran for the position of
were pending Abella intervened on March 7, 1988 in the governor of the province of Leyte clearly shows that she
disqualification case, docketed as SPC No. 88-546, and the considers herself already a resident of Ormoc City. In the
following day filed a complaint, with the Law Department of absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, the reliance on
the COMELEC charging the private respondent with the provisions of the Family Code was proper and in
falsification and misrepresentation of her residence in her consonance with human experience. The petitioner did not
certificate of candidacy. present evidence to show that she and her husband maintain
separate residences, she at Kananga, Leyte and her husband at
On February 3, 1989, this Division unanimously upheld virtually Ormoc City.
all the challenged rulings of the provincial board of canvassers,
mostly on the ground that the objection raised were merely As for being a REGISTERED VOTER: The evidence shows that
formal and did not affect the validity of the returns or the Adelina Larrazabal’s supposed cancellation of registration in
ballots, and ordered the proclamation of the winner after Ormoc City and transfer of registration in Kananga, Leyte, is
completion of the canvass. The disqualification case was also not supported by the records. She was not in the list of
dismissed by a 2-1 decision, and the matter was referred to the voters.The certification of the Election Registrar of Kananga
Law Department for 'preliminary investigation for possible that as of that date Mrs. Adelina Larrazabal was not a
violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code. registered voter in any of the' precincts in Kananga. It was only
on February 15, 1988, or two weeks after the election day that
The motion for reconsideration of the resolution on the pre- the same Registrar certified for the first time that there were
proclamation cases was denied by the COMELEC en banc on two voters lists, the first without the names of the Larrazabals
April 13, 1989, with no dissenting vote. These cases are the and the second, which appeared only after February 1,
subject of G.R. Nos. 87721-30, where we issued on April 18, submitted by the Chairman of the Board for Precinct 17 which
1989, another temporary restraining order to the provincial contained the spouses Larrazabals' names.
board of canvassers of Leyte to CEASE and DESIST from
resuming the canvass of the contested returns and/or from - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
proclaiming private respondent Adelina Larrazabal Governor
of Leyte. The motion for reconsideration of the resolution on FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL AND NON-POLITICAL
the qualification case was also denied by the COMELEC en CASES
banc.
MARQUEZ JR. V. COMELEC AND RODRIGUEZ
The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on who 259 SCRA
is the rightful governor of the province of Leyte 1) petitioner
Adelina Larrazabal (G.R. No. 100739) who obtained the highest Digested by: PEREZ
number of votes in the local elections of February 1, 1988 and
was proclaimed as the duly elected governor but who was later FACTS:
declared by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) "... to
lack both residence and registration qualifications for the Both Rodriguez and Marquez, Jr. run for governor of Quezon
position of Governor of Leyte as provided by Art. X, Section 12, Province in the May 1992 elections. Rodriguez won and was
Philippine Constitution in relation to Title II, Chapter I, Sec. 42, proclaimed duly-elected governor. Marquez challenged
B.P. Blg. 137 and Sec. 89, R.A. No. 179 and is hereby Rodriguez’ victory via petition for quo warranto before the
disqualified as such Governor"; COMELEC alleging that Rodriguez left the United States with
pending charge against him before the Los Angeles Municipal
Court for fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft and
attempted grand theft of personal property.


90 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Therefore, he is a "fugitive from justice", a ground for and learns subsequently of charges filed against him while in
disqualification/ineligibility under Section 40(e) of the Local the relative peace and service of his own country, the fact that
Government Code (R.A. 7160). COMELEC then promulgated a he does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of the former
Consolidated Resolution for quo warranto case filed by state does not qualify him outright as a fugitive from justice.
Marquez in 1992 elections and SPA No. 95-089 present Besides, there is no law requiring petitioner to travel to the
disqualification case, where it found Rodriguez a fugitive from United States and subject himself to the monetary burden and
justice in line with the MARQUEZ Decision’s (1995) definition tedious process of defending himself before the country's
of "fugitive from justice.” courts. During that time, Rodriguez was also in public service.
He could not have gone back to the United States in the middle
With Rodriguez’s walk-out during the hearing of the case, of his term nor could he have traveled intermittently thereto
COMELEC considered him as having waived his right to without jeopardizing the interest of the public he serves.
disprove the authenticity of Marquez' documentary evidence.
In the May 8, 1995 election Rodriguez won as governor against - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
his rival Marquez. Marquez challenge Rodriguez' candidacy via
petition for disqualification before the COMELEC, based THOSE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS A RESULT OF AN
principally on the same allegation that Rodriguez is a "fugitive ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
from justice." COMELEC made a report entitled "EVIDENCE OF
THE PARTIES and COMMISSION'S EVALUATION" wherein the
COMELEC, declared that Rodriguez is NOT a "fugitive from RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO V. COMELEC
justice" as defined in the main opinion of the MARQUEZ 212 SCRA 768
Decision. Digested by: JOHAYR

Evidence has established that Rodriguez arrived in the FACTS:
Philippines (June 25, 1985) long before the criminal charge
was instituted in the Los Angeles Court (November 12, 1985). In March 19, 1990, in an administrative case against Cagayan
Governor Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo, the Secretary of Local
ISSUE: Whether or not Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice" Government found the governor guilty of disloyalty to the
contemplated as disqualification under Section 40(e) of the Republic for involvement in the failed December 1989 coup
Local Government Code. d'etat, and ordered his dismissal.

HELD: Mr. Aguinaldo went to the Supreme Court and filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary mandatory
NO. A fugitive from justice is defined as “not only those who injunction and/or restraining order, questioning the decision
flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who, of the Secretary of Local Government. While the SC case was
after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.” This indicates pending, Mr. Aguinaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for the
that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that makes a May 11, 1992 elections to run again for the governorship. On
person leaves a particular jurisdiction, and there can only be May 9, 1992, petitions for disqualification were filed against
intent to evade prosecution or punishment when the fleeing him with the COMELEC, and the COMELEC ordered his
person knows of an already instituted indictment, or of a disqualification. In May 14, 1992, the SC issued a TRO against
promulgated judgment of conviction. Intent to evade on the the COMELEC to cease and desist from enforcing its May 9,
part of a candidate must therefore be established by proof 1992 resolution pending the outcome of the SC disqualification
that there has already been a conviction or at least, a charge case. The TRO, in effect, allowed the canvassing of the votes
has already been filed, at the time of flight. This cannot be and returns in Cagayan. The SC also ordered COMELEC not to
applied in the case of Rodriguez since he arrived in the proclaim a winner until the SC’s decision. Later, the SC
Philippines on June 25, 1985, five months before the filing of annulled COMELEC’s May 9, 1992 resolution because the
the felony complaint in the Los Angeles Court on November disqualification case was still pending before the SC.
12, 1985 and of the issuance of the arrest warrant. It was Eventually, Mr. Aguinaldo won by a landslide which led to his
clearly impossible for Rodriguez to have known about such being proclaimed governor.
felony complaint and arrest warrant at the time he left the US,
as there was in fact no complaint and arrest warrant, much ISSUE: Whether or not Mr. Aguinaldo’s re-election to the
less conviction to speak of yet at such time. The Court also position of Governor of Cagayan rendered the administration
agrees with the COMELEC that: When, in good faith, a person case pending moot and academic
leaves the territory of a state not his own, homeward bound,

91 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

RULING: beat the odds by emerging sixth in a battle for six councilor
seats. However, on May 13, 1995, petitioner Grego, claiming
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Aguinaldo’s re-election to be a registered voter of Precinct No. 966, District II, City of
to the position of Governor of Cagayan has rendered the Manila, filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification,
administration case pending before the Supreme Court moot praying for Basco's disqualification, for the suspension of his
and academic. proclamation, and for the declaration of Romualdo S. Maranan
as the sixth duly elected Councilor of Manila's Second District.
Clear then, the rule is that a public official cannot be removed The COMELEC's First Division resolved to dismiss the petition
for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, for disqualification on October 6, 1995, ruling that "the
since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the administrative penalty imposed by the Supreme Court on
officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the respondent Basco on October 31, 1981 was wiped away and
right to remove him therefor. Moreover, the Supreme Court condoned by the electorate which elected him" and that on
cited that The Court should ever remove a public officer for account of Basco's proclamation on May 17, 1995, as the sixth
acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise duly elected councilor of the Second District of Manila, "the
would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their petition would no longer be viable." Petitioner's motion for
officers. When a people have elected a man to office, it must reconsideration of said resolution was later denied by the
be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and COMELEC en banc. Hence, this petition.
character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or
misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, ISSUE:
by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule 1. Whether or not Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160
the will of the people. Therefore, the petitioner is granted by applies retroactively to those removed from office before it
the Supreme Court and the decision of public respondent took effect on January 1, 1992.
Secretary of Local Government, dismissing petitioner as
Governor of Cagayan is reversed by the said court. 2. Whether or not private respondent's election in 1988, 1992
and in 1995 as City Councilor of Manila wiped away and
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - condoned the administrative penalty against him

Grego v. COMELECR RULING:
274 SCRA 481
1. No. Well-settled is the principle that while the Legislature
Digested by: LEDESMA has the power to pass retroactive laws which do not impair the
obligation of contracts, or affect injuriously vested rights, it is
FACTS: equally true that statutes are not to be construed as intended
On October 31, 1981, Basco was removed from his position as to have a retroactive effect so as to affect pending
Deputy Sheriff upon a finding of serious misconduct in an proceedings, unless such intent is expressly declared or clearly
administrative complaint lodged by a certain Nena Tordesillas. and necessarily implied from the language of the enactment.
Subsequently, Basco ran as a candidate for Councilor in the There is no provision in the statute which would clearly indicate
Second District of the City of Manila in 1988 local elections. He that the same operates retroactively. It, therefore, follows that
won and, accordingly, assumed office. He sought re-election in Section 40 (b) of the Local Government Code is not applicable
the May 11, 1992 synchronized national elections. Again, he to the present case. That the provision of the Code in question
succeeded in his bid and he was elected as one of the six (6) does not qualify the date of a candidate's removal from office
City Councilors. However, a petition for quo warranto was filed and that it is couched in the past tense should not deter us
before the COMELEC by Cenon Ronquillo, another candidate from applying the law prospectively. The basic tenet in legal
for councilor in the same district, who alleged Basco's hermeneutics that laws operate only prospectively and not
ineligibility to be elected councilor on the basis of the retroactively provides the qualification sought by petitioner. A
Tordesillas ruling. At about the same time, two more cases statute, despite the generality in its language, must not be so
were also commenced by Honorio Lopez II in the Office of the construed as to overreach acts, events or matters which
Ombudsman and in the Department of Interior and Local transpired before its passage. Lex prospicit, non respicit. The
Government. All these challenges were, however, dismissed, law looks forward, not backward.
thus, paving the way for Basco's continued stay in office.
2. Not tenable. The issue of whether or not Basco's triple
Basco remained undaunted and ran again for councilor in 1995 election to office cured his alleged ineligibility is actually beside
local elections seeking a third and final term. Once again, he the point because the argument proceeds on the assumption

92 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

that he was in the first place disqualified when he ran in the disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his election
three previous elections. This assumption, of course, is thereto is null and void.
untenable considering that Basco was NOT subject to any
disqualification at all under Section 40 (b) of the Local The reason for Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code is not
Government Code which, as we said earlier, applies only to hard to find. Residence in the municipality where he intends to
those removed from office on or after January 1, 1992. In view run for elective office for at least one (1) year at the time of
of the irrelevance of the issue posed by petitioner, there is no filing his certificate of candidacy, is one of the qualifications
more reason for the Court to still dwell on the matter at length. that a candidate for elective public office must possess (Sec.
42, Chap. 1, Title 2, Local Government Code). Miguel did not
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - possess that qualification because he was a permanent
resident of the United States and he resided in Bolinao for a
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR THOSE period of only three (3) months (not one year) after his return
WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO RESIDE ABROAD AND to the Philippines in November 1987 and before he ran for
CONTINUE TO AVAIL OF THE SAME RIGHTS AFTER THE mayor of that municipality on January 18, 1988.
EFFECTIVITY OF RA 7160
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAASI VS. CA
191 SCRA 229 (1990) THOSE WITH DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Digested by: SAMONTE AZNAR VS. COMELEC
185 SCRA 703
FACTS:
Digested by: MULIT
Private respondent MERLITO MIGUEL was elected as municipal
mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan during the local elections of FACTS:
January 18, 1988. His disqualification, however, was sought by
herein petitioner, MATEO CAASI, on the ground that under SEC Herein private defendant filed for a certificate of candidacy for
68 of the OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE, private respondent was 1988 elections which is contested by Jose B. Aznar of Cebu
not qualified because he is a green card holder, hence, a PDP-Laban Provincial Council on the ground that private
permanent resident of the United States of America, not of respondent is allegedly not a Filipino citizen.
Bolinao, Pangasinan.
Petitioner submitted a Certification that Osmeña is an
ISSUES: American, Application for Alien Registration Form No.1, Alien
(1) Whether or not a green card is a proof that the holder is a Certificate Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence
permanent resident of US. of the defendant, thus causing the suspension of the
proclamation of the private defendant.
(2) Whether respondent Miguel has waived his status as a
permanent resident of the USA prior to the local elections on Osmeña, in response, maintained his being Filipino by alleging,
January 18, 1988. that his ancestors are all Filipinos, that he is a holder of a valid
and subsisting Philippine Passport, that he has been
HELD: continuously residing in the Philippines since birth, that he
hasn’t gone out of the country for more than six months, and
The Supreme Court ruled that Miguel’s immigration to the US that he has been a registered voter since 1965.
in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and
residence in the Philippines. His intention to live there ISSUE: WON Osmena is a citizen of the Philippines and is
permanently is evidenced by his possession of a GREEN CARD, qualified to hold public office.
which is a conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of
the US despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. There is HELD:
no clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that
status nor he surrendered his green card to the appropriate US Yes. Petitioner’s contention that private respondent is not a
authorities before he ran for Mayor of Bolinao in the local Filipino citizen and, therefore, disqualified from running for
election on January 18, 1988. The court concluded that he was and being elected to the office of Provincial Governor of Cebu,
is not supported by substantial and convincing evidence.

93 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

There are two administrative decisions on the question of the

In the proceedings before the COMELEC, the petitioner failed petitioner's citizenship. The first was rendered by COMELEC
to present direct proof that private respondent had lost his and found the petitioner to be a citizen of the Philippines. The
Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. second was rendered by the Commission on Immigration and
No. 63. Among others, these are: Deportation (CID) and held that the petitioner was not a citizen
of the Philippines.
(1) by naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and The decision of the CID took into account the official statement
(3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the of the Australian, that the petitioner was still an Australian
Constitution or laws of a foreign country. citizen as of that date by reason of his naturalization in 1976.
The petitioner contended that his marriage to an Australian
From the evidence, it is clear that private respondent Osmeña national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine
did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three citizenship, only made him a dual national and his
mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode of losing naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that
Philippine citizenship. his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous.

In the instant case, private respondent vehemently denies ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Labo Jr is a Filipino citizen.
having taken the oath of allegiance of the United States. He is
a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has RULING:
continuously participated in the electoral process in this
country since 1963 up to the present, both as a voter and as a No. The petitioner's contention that his marriage to an
candidate. Thus, private respondent remains a Filipino and the Australian national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of
loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed. Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or finding
that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that
In the case of Osmeña, the Certification that he is an American marriage. He became a citizen of Australia because he was
does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, naturalized as such through a formal and positive process, as
of both nationalities or citizenships. Indeed, there is no express he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such
renunciation here of Philippine citizenship; truth to tell, there naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or
is even no implied renunciation of said citizenship. made the Affirmation of Allegiance.

Parenthetically, the statement in the 1987 Constitution that The petitioner now claims that his naturalization in Australia
"dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest only made him a dual national and did not divest him of his
and shall be dealt with by law" (Art. IV, Sec. 5) has no Philippine citizenship. Such a specious argument cannot stand
retroactive effect. And while it is true that even before the against the clear provisions of CA No. 63, which enumerates
1987 Constitution, Our country had already frowned upon the the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among
concept of dual citizenship or allegiance, the fact is it actually these are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express
existed. Be it noted further that under the aforecited proviso, renunciation of citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath of
the effect of such dual citizenship or allegiance shall be dealt allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
with by a future law. Said law has not yet been enacted. country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner. It is also
worth mentioning in this connection that under Article IV,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section 5, of the present Constitution, "Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
LABO JR. V. COMELEC with by law."
176 SCRA 1 (1989)
Even if the petitioner asserts that his naturalization in Australia
Digested by: FULGUERAS was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the
Australian citizen was bigamous, that circumstance alone did
FACTS: not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship.

Ramon Labo Jr won as the mayor of Baguio City on 1988.
Lardizabal, the losing candidate filed a petition for quo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
warranto questioning his citizenship on the ground that Labo
is a naturalized Australian citizen as his wife is an Australian.

94 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

MERCADO V. MANZANO Clearly, in including §5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern

G.R. NO. 135083 MAY 25, 1999 of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual
citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their
Digested by: HONTANOSAS allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization. Hence, the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. No.
FACTS: 7160, §40(d) and in R.A. No. 7854, §20 must be understood as
referring to "dual allegiance." Consequently, persons with
Manzano is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
Immigration under Alien Certificate of Registration No. B- Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be
31632 and alleged that he is a Filipino citizen because he was subject to strict process with respect to the termination of
born in 1955 of a Filipino father and a Filipino mother. He was their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should
born in the United States, San Francisco, California, September suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they
14, 1955, and is considered in American citizen under US Laws. elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons
But notwithstanding his registration as an American citizen, he with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the
did not lose his Filipino citizenship. unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different
states.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manzano possesses dual citizenship - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
and, if so, whether he is disqualified from being a candidate for
vice mayor of Makati City. DUAL CITIZENSHIP VS. DUAL ALLEGIANCE

RULING: CIRILO VALLES V. COMELEC AND LOPEZ
G.R. No. 138000 August 9, 2000
No, to begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual
allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the Digested by: AMPARADO
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the FACTS:
said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a
person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on 1934 in Australia, to
the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows parents Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen, and Theresa
the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without Marquez, an Australian. In 1949 she left Australia and came to
any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a settle in the Philippines. Subsequently, she married Leopoldo
citizen of both states. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. Lopez, a Filipino citizen. Since then, she has continuously
IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as
citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship: a candidate, as well. She served as the Provincial Board
Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental.
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli; In 1992, she was elected governor of Davao Oriental. However,
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien her election was challenged by her opponent, Taojo in a
fathers if by the laws of their father's' country such children are petition for quo warranto due to her alleged Australian
citizens of that country; citizenship. COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country ground that no evidence confirmed that Rosalind had
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or renounced her Filipino citizenship. In the 1995 local elections,
omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine Lopez ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. Her
citizenship. opponent, Rabat, filed a petition for disqualification,
contesting her Filipino citizenship but the said petition was also
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in dismissed. Later, when Lopez ran for the 1998 elections for
which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, governor of Davao Oriental, a petition for disqualification was
loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is filed in the Comelec by Cirilo R. Valles questioning again
involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's Lopez's Filipino citizenship. The COMELEC’s First Division
volition. issued a Resolution dismissing the petition. The COMELEC en
banc likewise denied the petition. Hence, the present petition.

95 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Valles further argued that Lopez is an Australian citizen, FRIVALDO VS COMELEC

considering that: (a) In 1988, she registered herself with the 174 SCRA 245 (1989)
Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and was
issued Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR); (b) she applied Digested by: CATUNGAL
for the issuance of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR),
and (c) She was issued Australian Passport. Since in her FACTS:
application for ACR and ICR, Lopez expressly declared under
oath that she was a citizen of Australia, the declaration Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of
forfeited her Philippine citizenship, and disqualified her to run the province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988, and assumed
for an elective office. office in due time. On October 27, 1988, the League of
Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter (hereafter, League),
ISSUE: Whether or not Lopez’ dual citizenship automatically represented by its President, Salvador Estuye, who was also
disqualify her from running for a public office. suing in his personal capacity, filed with the Commission on
Elections a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo; election and
RULING: proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen,
having been naturalized in the United States on January 20,
No. The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not 1983. In his answer dated May 22, 1988, Frivaldo admitted that
automatically disqualify her from running for a public office. he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded
the special and affirmative defenses that he had sought
As cited in the case of Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court American citizenship only to protect himself against President
clarified “dual citizenship” as used in the Local Government Marcos.
Code and reconciled the same with Article IV, Section 5 of the
1987 Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in ISSUE: Whether or not Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen of the
which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, and Philippines at the time of his election on January 18, 1988, as
as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of provincial governor of Sorsogon.
different countries, be also a citizen of another state, the Court
explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer RULING:
to citizens with dual allegiance. The phrase “dual citizenship”
in R.A. 7160 and in R.A. 7854 must be understood as referring In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19, 1987,
to “dual allegiance”. Thus, persons with mere dual citizenship Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen of the
do not fall under this disqualification. Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such
status. The evidence shows, however, that he was naturalized
Moreover, the court held that the fact that the private as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per the following
respondent had dual citizenship did not automatically certification from the United States District Court, Northern
disqualify her from running for a public office. Furthermore, it District of California, as duly authenticated by Vice Consul
was ruled that for candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough Amado P. Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in San
that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their Francisco, California, U.S.A.
certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of candidacy The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was
sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. Even so, it
any disqualification as a dual citizen. This is so because in the cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced
certificate of candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino into embracing American citizenship. His feeble suggestion
citizen and that he/she will support and defend the that his naturalization was not the result of his own free and
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and voluntary choice is totally unacceptable and must be rejected
allegiance. Such declaration, which is under oath, operates as outright.
an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and
Therefore, when the respondent filed her certificate of reacquire Philippine citizenship, the petitioner should have
candidacy in 1992, such fact alone terminated her Australian done so in accordance with the laws of our country. Under CA
citizenship. No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine
citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - naturalization, or by repatriation.


96 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

It does not appear that Frivaldo has taken these categorical REPUBLIC VS DELA ROSA
acts. He contends that by simply filing his certificate of G.R. No. 104654, 6 June 1994
candidacy he had, without more, already effectively recovered
Philippine citizenship. But that is hardly the formal declaration Digested by: PENDATUN
the law envisions — surely, Philippine citizenship previously
disowned is not that cheaply recovered. If the Special FACTS:
Committee had not yet been convened, what that meant
simply was that the petitioner had to wait until this was done, September 20, 1991 - Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization
or seek naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. under the Commonwealth Act No. 63 before the RTC Manila.

This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as October 7, 1991 - Judge dela Rosa set the petition for hearing
provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive on March 16, 1992, and directed the publication of the said
allegiance to another country. The fact that he was elected by order and petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of
the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation general circulation, for 3 consecutive weeks, the last
of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only publication of which should be at least 6 months before the
to the citizens of this country. The qualifications prescribed for date of the said hearing.
elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The
will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure January 14, 1992 - Frivaldo asked the Judge to cancel the
the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, March 16 hearing and move it to January 24, 1992, citing his
as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this intention to run for public office in the May 1992 elections.
rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of Judge granted the motion and the hearing was moved to
citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the February 21. No publication or copy was issued about the
Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only, order.
abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other
state. February 21, 1992 - the hearing proceeded. February 27, 1992
- Judge rendered the assailed Decision and held that Frivaldo
It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the is readmitted as a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines by
natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our naturalization.
laws, which is all the more reason why it should be treasured
like a pearl of great price. But once it is surrendered and Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for Certiorari
renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. This under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to R.A.
country of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is like a No. 5440 and Section 25 of the Interim Rules, to annul the
jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it is not quick to decision made on February 27, 1992 and to nullify the oath of
welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant allegiance taken by Frivaldo on same date.
children. The returning renegade must show, by an express
and unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and love. ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo was duly re-admitted to his
citizenship as a Filipino.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and petitioner JUAN G.
FRIVALDO is hereby declared not a citizen of the Philippines RULING:
and therefore DISQUALIFIED from serving as Governor of the
Province of Sorsogon. Accordingly, he is ordered to vacate his No. The supreme court ruled that Private respondent is
office and surrender the same to the duly elected Vice- declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore
Governor of the said province once this decision becomes final disqualified from continuing to serve as governor of the
and executory. Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate his office and to
surrender the same to the Vice-Governor of the Province of
Sorsogon once this decision becomes final and executory. The
proceedings of the trial court was marred by the following
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - irregularities:

(1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled
date of hearing, without a publication of the order advancing
the date of hearing, and the petition itself;


97 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

(2) the petition was heard within six months from the last Talaga only served two consecutive full terms. There was a
publication of the petition; disruption when he was defeated in the 1998 elections. His
election during the 2000 recall election is not a continuation of
(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before his two previous terms which could constitute his third term
the finality of the judgment; and thereby barring him for running for a fourth term. Victory in
the 2000 recall election is not the “voluntary renunciation”
(4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the contemplated by the law.
two-year waiting period.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LONZANIDA VS COMELEC
THREE-TERM LIMIT G.R. No. 135150 July 28, 1999

ADORMEO VS. COMELEC Digested by: ELMAN
G.R. No. 147927, February 4, 2002
FACTS:
Digested by: LEMENTE
Romeo Lonzanida was duly elected and served two
FACTS: consecutive terms as municipal mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995 elections. In the May 1995
Ramon Talaga, Jr. served as mayor of Lucena City during terms elections Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales
1992-1995 and 1995-1998. During the 1998 elections, Talaga and was again proclaimed winner. He assumed office and
lost to Bernard G. Tagarao. However, before Tagarao’s 1998- discharged the duties thereof. His proclamation in 1995 was
2001 term ended, a recall election was conducted in May 2000 however contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed
wherein Talaga won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of
until June 2001. When Talaga ran for mayor in 2001, his Zambales, which in a decision dated January 9, 1997 declared
candidacy was challenged on the ground that he had already a failure of elections. The court ruled declaring the results of
served as mayor for three consecutive terms in violation of the the election for the office of the mayor in San Antonio,
three term-limit rule. Comelec found Talaga disqualified to run Zambales last May 8, 1995 as null and void on the ground that
for mayor. Talaga filed a motion for reconsideration which there was a failure of election. Accordingly, the office of the
Comelec granted. Talaga was then elected Mayor. mayor of the Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales is hereby
declared vacant. Both parties appealed to the COMELEC. On
ISSUE: Whether or not Talaga was disqualified to run as mayor November 13, 1997 the COMELEC resolved the election
given that he had already served two full terms and he won in protest filed by Alvez and after a revision and re-appreciation
the 2000 recall elections. of the contested ballots declared Alvez the duly elected mayor
of San Antonio, Zambales by plurality of votes cast in his favor
HELD: totaling P1,720 votes as against 1,488 votes for Lonzanida. On
February 27, 1998 the COMELEC issued a writ of execution
The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post, which he obeyed, and
to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the Alvez assumed office for the remainder of the term. May 11,
same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an 1998 elections Lonzanida again filed his certificate of
individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective candidacy for mayor of San Antonio. On April 21, 1998 his
local office, he must also have been elected to the opponent Eufemio Muli timely filed a petition to disqualify
same position for the same number of times before the Lonzanida from running for mayor of San Antonio in the 1998
disqualification can apply. elections on the ground that he had served three consecutive
terms in the same post. On May 13, 1998, petitioner Lonzanida
For nearly two years Talaga was a private citizen. The was proclaimed winner.
continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the
1998 elections. The time between his second term and the ISSUE: Whether petitioner Lonzanida's assumption of office as
recall election is sufficient interruption. Thus, there was no mayor of San Antonio Zambales from May 1995 to March 1998
three consecutive terms as contemplated in the may be considered as service of one full term for the purpose
disqualifications in the LGC. of applying the three-term limit for elective local government
officials.

98 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts

RULING: to an interruption of continuity of service. The petitioner
vacated his post a few months before the next mayoral
NO. Two conditions for the application of the disqualification elections, not by voluntary renunciation but in compliance
must concur: with the legal process of writ of execution issued by the
COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary severance from
1) that the official concerned has been elected for three office is an interruption of continuity of service and thus, the
consecutive terms in the same local government post; and petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term. In
sum, the petitioner was not the duly elected mayor and that
2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms. he did not hold office for the full term; hence, his assumption
of office from May 1995 to March 1998 cannot be counted as
The two requisites for the application of the three-term rule a term for purposes of computing the three-term limit. The
are absent. First, the petitioner cannot be considered as Resolution of the COMELEC finding him disqualified on this
having been duly elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, ground to run in the May 1998 mayoral elections should
and second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 therefore be set aside.
mayoral term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of
office. After a re-appreciation and revision of the contested - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ballots the COMELEC itself declared by final judgment that
petitioner Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections BORJA, JR VS COMELEC
and his previous proclamation as winner was declared null and G.R. No. 133495 September 3, 1998
void. His assumption of office as mayor cannot be deemed to
have been by reason of a valid election but by reason of a void Digested by: SANTOALLA
proclamation. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a
proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at FACTS:
all and while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the
strength of the proclamation of the Board of Canvassers, he is Capco was elected as Vice-Mayor of Pateros in 1988 for a term
only a presumptive winner who assumes office subject to the ending in 1992. In 1989, he became Mayor, by operation of
final outcome of the election protest. Lonzanida did not serve law, upon the death of the incumbent, Cesar Borja. Thereafter,
a term as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales from May 1995 to Capco was elected and served as Mayor for two more terms,
March 1998 because he was not duly elected to the post; he from 1992 to 1998. In 1998, Capco filed a Certificate of
merely assumed office as presumptive winner, which Candidacy for Mayor of Pateros in the May 11, 1998 elections.
presumption was later overturned by the COMELEC when it Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who was also a candidate for
decided with finality that Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayor, sought Capco’s disqualification on the ground that
mayoral elections. Second, the petitioner cannot be deemed Capco would have already served as Mayor for 3 consecutive
to have served the May 1995 to 1998 term because he was terms by June 30, 1998; hence, he would be ineligible to serve
ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the for another term. The Second Division of the Comelec declared
term. The respondents’ contention that the petitioner should Capco disqualified but the Comelec en banc reversed the
be deemed to have served one full term from May 1995-1998 decision and declared Capco eligible to run for mayor. Capco
because he served the greater portion of that term has no legal was subsequently voted and proclaimed as mayor.
basis to support it; it disregards the second requisite for the
application of the disqualification, i.e., that he has fully served ISSUE: W/N a vice-mayor who succeeds to the office of mayor
three consecutive terms. The second sentence of the by operation of law and serves the remainder of the term is
constitutional provision under scrutiny states, “Voluntary considered to have served a term in that office for the purpose
renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be of the three-term limit.
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for
the full term for which he was elected. “The clear intent of the RULING:
framers of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent
the three-term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and No. The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to
at the same time respect the people’s choice and grant their refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve the
elected official full service of a term is evident in this same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an
provision. Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective
the renounced term in the computation of the three-term local office, he must also have been elected to the
limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office for any same position for the same number of times before the

99 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

disqualification can apply. Capco was qualified to run again as In his answer, AGUINALDO claimed that while he had been a
mayor in the next election because he was not elected to the resident of Gattaran, Cagayan in 1990, he transferred his
office of mayor in the first term but simply found himself thrust residence to Tuguegarao, Cagayan by renting an apartment at
into it by operation of law. Neither had he served the full term No. 13-E Magallanes St., Tuguegarao, Cagayan, in order to hide
because he only continued the service, interrupted by the his mistress from public view because, at that time, his
death, of the deceased mayor. The vice-mayor’s assumption of marriage to his former wife was still subsisting.
the mayorship in the event of the vacancy is more a matter of
chance than of design. Hence, his service in that office should On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC, in a
not be counted in the application of any term limit. unanimous resolution, dismissed the petition for
disqualification, finding Aguinaldo qualified to run as
The policy embodied in the constitutional provision (Art. X, §8) representative for the Third District of Cagayan.
is not only to prevent the establishment of political dynasties
but also to enhance the freedom of choice of the people. A ISSUE: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to entertain
consideration of the historical background of Art. X, §8 of the the instant petition for certiorari and eventually pass upon
Constitution reveals that the members of the Constitutional AGUINALDO the eligibility for the office of Representative of
Commission were as much concerned with preserving the the Third District of Cagayan.
freedom of choice of the people as they were with preventing
the monopolization of political power. In discussing term RULING:
limits, the drafters of the Constitution did so on the
assumption that the officials concerned were serving by NO. PEREZ, in sustaining the affirmative side of the question,
reason of election. To consider Capco to have served the first invokes the following provision of R.A. No. 6646:
term in full and therefore ineligible to run a third time for
reelection would be not only to falsify reality but also to Sec. 6 Effect of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who has
unduly restrict the right of the people to choose whom they been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be
wish to govern them. voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If
for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES Court or Commission (COMELEC) shall continue with the trial
and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion
PEREZ VS. COMELEC of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of
Digested by: ECHIVERE such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

FACTS: The petition for disqualification against AGUINALDO was
decided by the First Division of the COMELEC on May 10, 1998.
On March 26, 1998, AGUINALDO filed his certificate of The following day, May 11, 1998, the elections were held.
candidacy for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan Notwithstanding the fact that AGUINALDO had already been
in the May 11, 1998 elections. Four days later, on March 30, proclaimed on May 16, 1998 and had taken his oath of office
1998, PEREZ, as a voter and citizen, filed in the COMELEC a on May 17, 1998, PEREZ still filed a motion for reconsideration
petition for the disqualification of AGUINALDO as a candidate on May 22, 1998, which the COMELEC en banc denied on June
on the ground that he had not been a resident of the district 11, 1998.
for at least one (1) year immediately before the day of the
elections as required by Art. VI, 6 of the Constitution. Clearly, this could not be done. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646
authorizes the continuation of proceedings for disqualification
In support of her claim, PEREZ presented AGUINALDO’s even after the elections if the respondent has not been
certificates of candidacy for governor of Cagayan in the 1988, proclaimed.
1992, and 1995 elections; his voters affidavit which he used in
the 1987, 1988, 1992, 1995, and 1997 elections; and his voter The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to entertain the
registration record dated June 22, 1997, in all of which it is motion because the proclamation of AGUINALDO barred
stated that he is a resident of Barangay Calaoagan Dackel, further consideration of PEREZ’s action.
Municipality of Gattaran, which is outside the Third District of
Cagayan.

100 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

In the same vein, considering that at the time of the filing of Motion for Reconsideration and a Second Motion to Suspend
this petition on June 16, 1998, AGUINALDO was already a Immediate Intended Proclamation of Respondent
member of the House of Representatives, this Court has no beforeCOMELEC en banc. Atienza was proclaimed as the
jurisdiction over the same. Pursuant to Art. VI, 17 of the Mayor of Manila.
Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for the ISSUE: Whether or not the proclamation of Atienza is valid.
declaration of AGUINALDO’s ineligibility. As this Court held in
Lazatin v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal: RULING:

The use of the word sole emphasizes the exclusive character of The mere filing of a petition for disqualification is not a ground
the jurisdiction conferred. The exercise of the power by the to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate. In the
Electoral Commission under the 1935 Constitution has been absence of an order suspending proclamation, the winning
described as intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if candidate who is sought to be disqualified is entitled to be
it had remained originally in the legislature. Earlier, this grant proclaimed as a matter of law. This is clear from Section 6 of
of power to the legislature was characterized by Justice R.A. 6646 providing that the proclamation of the candidate
Malcolm as full, clear and complete. Under the amended 1935 sought to be disqualified is suspended only if there is an order
Constitution, the power was unqualifiedly reposed upon the of the COMELEC suspending proclamation. Here, there was no
Electoral Tribunal and it remained as full, clear and complete order suspending private respondents proclamation.
as that previously granted the legislature and the Electoral Consequently, private respondent was legally proclaimed on
Commission. The same may be said with regard to the June 4, 1998. If before the proclamation, the Law Department
jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals under the 1987 makes a prima facie finding of guilt and the corresponding
Constitution. information has been filed with the appropriate trial court, the
complainant may file a petition for suspension of the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - proclamation of the respondent with the court before which
the criminal case is pending and that court may order the
BAGATSING VS. COMELEC suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt is
G.R. No. 134047. December 8, 1999. strong. Mere pendency of a disqualification case does not bar
for the proclamation of winner.
Digested by: SORIANO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTS:
MARKED BALLOT
Amado S. Bagatsing, Ernesto M. Maceda and Jaime Lopez and
herein private respondent Jose L. Atienza were candidates for COLUMBRES VS. COMELEC
the position of Mayor of Manila in the May 11, 1998 elections. 340 SCRA 608
Seven days after the elections, petitioners filed with the
COMELEC a complaint for disqualification against private Digested by: MANGUDADATU
respondent on the ground that the latter allegedly caused the
disbursement of public funds in the amount of P3,375,000.00 FACTS:
Pesos, more or less, within the prohibited forty-five-day period
before the elections. The alleged disbursement was intended Petitioner Rolando Columbres and private respondent Hilario
to be distributed in the form of financial assistance to the Guzman, Jr. were candidates for position of Mayor of San
public school teachers of the City of Manila who manned the Jacinto, Pangasinan during the 1998 elections. After
precinct polls in that city during the elections. The COMELEC canvassing, the Municipal Board of Cavassers proclaimed
first division issued an order for the suspension of the private respondent to have won with 4,248 votes against
proclamation of Atienza based on Art 68 of the Omnibus petitioner’s 4,104 votes.
Election Code. The COMELEC en banc ruled that any complaint
for disqualification based on Section 68 of the Omnibus Petitioner then filed an election protest with the RTC and
Election Code, filed after the elections against a candidate who contested 42 precints and prayed for the revision of ballots.
has already been proclaimed as winner shall be dismissed as a
disqualification case. The Suspension was lifted however the ISSUES:
case was referred to the Legal Department of the Commission. (1) Whether the findings of fact of the COMELEC Division,
The Petitioners filed on the morning of the proclamation a especially in matters of appreciation of ballots, is absolute and

101 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

cannot be the subject of a motion for reconsideration before of Datu Piang were falsified and spurious, because they were
the COMELEC en banc; prepared notwithstanding the alleged failure to count all the
ballots therein. He asserts that the counting of votes for 165
(2) Whether in appreciation of ballots, when a ballot is found precincts inside the old Municipal Building was disrupted and
to be marked, absent any evidence aliunde, there is the cut short by grenade explosions which allegedly resulted in
presumption that the markings were placed by a third person, chaos and pandemonium. Candao denied the contentions that
and therefore, should not invalidate the ballot. no counting of votes was conducted in Datu Piang and that no
election was held at all in Maganoy.
HELD:
ISSUES: Whether or not questioned election returns could be
(1) No. What is being challenged is not the sufficiency of the proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy.
evidence but the appreciation thereof by the COMELEC
Division. If the appreciation of the Division is erroneous, there HELD:
is the implication that such finding or ruling is contrary to law
and thus, may be a proper subject of a motion for No, because such petition is not within the ambit of a pre-
reconsideration. proclamation controversy. The Omnibus Election Code defines
a pre-proclamation controversy as "any question pertaining to
(2) No. There is no such presumption in law. Instead, the legal or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which
presumption is that the sanctity of the ballot has been may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political
protected and preserved. party or coalition of political parties before the board or
directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under
The case was remanded back to the COMELEC en banc. Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - returns. As it was held in the case of Sanchez vs. COMELEC,
“The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to issues
EFFECT OF PROCLAMATION OF WINNING CANDIDATE enumerated under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code.
The enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in
MATALAM VS. COMELEC pre-proclamation controversy, is restrictive and exclusive.”
271 SCRA 733
The petition must fail because it effectively implores the Court
Digested by: MILITAR to disregard the statutory norm that pre-proclamation
controversies are to be resolved in a summary proceeding. He
FACTS: asks the Court to ignore the fact that the election returns
appear regular on their face, and instead to determine
Norodin Matalam and Private Respondent Zacaria Candao whether fraud or irregularities attended the election process.
were both candidates for Governor of the Province of In the case at bar, Matalam is clearly asking too much by
Maguindanao in the May 8, 1995 elections. Matalam ordering the Comelec and the Court to look beyond the face of
challenged the authenticity of the election returns in the the documents. The Court noted that almost all of the Boards
municipalities of Datu Piang and Maganoy before the of Election Inspectors had completed the counting of votes
Municipal Boards of Canvassers ("MBC") and thereafter at when the grenade explosions disrupted the proceedings.
Provincial Board of Canvassers ("PBC"). Matalam filed a Moreover, as soon as it was safe to do so, the election officials
petition before the COMELEC for the same issue since the PBC took steps to safeguard the election documents by gathering
rejected his petitions. During the pendency of the decision, and keeping them in the Treasurer’s Office, under constant
PBC proclaimed Candao as the duly elected governor of watch of military authorities that had cordoned off the area.
Maguindanao but such proclamation was nullified by the
COMELEC because of Section 20 (1) of Republic Act No. 7166 In the present case, the Court notes the passion, energy and
requires that proclamations of winning candidates during the vigor with which petitioner and his counsel have pleaded their
pendency of an appeal or petition should be authorized by the cause. But, while they may have presented enough allegations
COMELEC. to warrant an election protest, they have failed to satisfy the
very restrictive grounds required in a pre-proclamation
Comelec Second Division denied the petitions of Matalam and controversy.
reinstated the proclamation of Candao because of lack of
strong evidence. Matalam contends that the election returns - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

102 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

and (2) that the canvass of the results for the congressional
SANDOVAL VS. COMELEC election by the district board of canvassers for Malabon and
G.R No. 133842, January 26, 2000 Navotas be... suspended until the alleged manifest error is
corrected.
Digested by: FEROLINO
Meanwhile, the proceedings of the municipal board of
FACTS: canvassers of Navotas were disrupted by the riotous exchange
of accusations by the supporters of the opposing mayoralty
Petitioner Federico S. Sandoval and private respondent Canuto candidates. The COMELEC had to move the venue to the
Senen Greta, together with Pedro Domingo, Mariano Santiago, Philippine International Convention Center in Manila... to
Symaco Benito and Warren Serna, vied for the congressional finish the canvass.
seat for the Malabon-Navotas legislative district during the
election held on May 11, 1998. On May 28, 1998, private respondent filed with the COMELEC
an Urgent Manifestation/Motion in connection with SPC
On election day, after the votes have been cast and counted in No.98-143. It prayed that the canvass of the, results of the
the various precincts in the two municipalities, their respective congressional election by the district board of canvassers be
board of canvassers convened to canvass the election returns suspended until the alleged manifest error... in SPC No.98-143
forwarded by the board of election inspectors. is corrected... t 4:15 in the afternoon on May 28, 1998, the
district board of canvassers convened at the Philippine
On May 17, 1998, the Malabon municipal board of canvassers International Convention Center. It took up private
concluded its proceedings. The board issued a certificate of respondent's petition to correct the manifest error arising
canvass of votes stating that it canvassed 804 out of 805 from the non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass.
precincts in the municipality. The certificate of canvass showed
that private respondent obtained the... highest number of the district board of canvassers found that a total of 804
votes in Malabon with 57,760 votes, with petitioner coming in election returns were canvassed by the Malabon municipal
second with 42,892 votes. board of canvassers.

On the same day, after obtaining copies of the statements of The district board of canvassers then proceeded to canvass the
votes, Ma. Rosario O. Lapuz, authorized representative of certificates of canvass from the two municipalities. Counsel for
private respondent wrote then COMELEC Chairman Bernardo private respondent requested that the canvassing be
Pardo[5] and informed him that several election returns were suspended until the Commission has resolved their petition for
not included in the... canvass conducted by the Malabon correction of manifest error in the... certificate of canvass of
municipal board of canvassers. She moved that the certificate Malabon. The district board of canvassers, however, denied
of canvass issued by said board be declared "not final." the request.

On May 23, 1998, private respondent filed with the COMELEC After canvassing the municipal certificates of canvass, the
an Urgent Petition entitled "In re: Petition to Correct Manifest district board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner the duly
Error in Tabulation of Election Returns by the Municipal Board elected congressman of the legislative district of Malabon-
of Canvassers of Malabon, NCR. Navotas. The board declared that petitioner obtained a total
vote of 82,339 over private respondent's 80,319 votes.
The petition was docketed as SPC No.98-143. It alleged that Petitioner took his oath of office on the same day.
while the certificate of canvass showed that 804 election
returns were canvassed and tabulated, only 790 election The following day, on May 29, 1998, private respondent filed
returns were actually canvassed. Private respondent with the COMELEC in connection with SPC No.98-143 an
contended that there was a manifest error... in the non- "Urgent Appeal from the Decision of the Legislative District
recording or copying of the results in 14 election returns from Board of Canvassers for Malabon and Navotas with Prayer for
14 precincts into the statement of votes. the Nullification of the Proclamation of Federico S. Sandoval as
Congressman." It alleged that there was a verbal order from
It prayed: (1) that the municipal, board of canvassers of the COMELEC Chairman to suspend the canvass and
Malabon be reconvened to correct said manifest error by proclamation of the winning candidate for congressman of the
entering the results of the elections in the 14 election returns Malabon-Navotas legislative district; that the district board of
into the statement of , votes and that the certificate of canvass canvassers proceeded... with the canvass and proclamation
be corrected to reflect the complete results in 804 precincts; despite the verbal order; and that the non-inclusion of the 19

103 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

election returns in the canvass would result in an incomplete adjudication of the case. The facts show that COMELEC set
canvass of the election returns. It prayed that the decision of aside the proclamation of petitioner, without the benefit of
the district board of canvassers be reversed and that... the prior notice and hearing and it rendered the questioned order
municipal board of canvassers of Malabon be reconvened to based solely on private respondent's allegations.
complete its canvass. It also prayed that the proclamation of
petitioner as congressman be annulled. Citing Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code, private
respondent argues that the COMELEC is authorized to annul an
On May 30, 1998, private respondent filed with the COMELEC illegal proclamation even without notice and hearing because
an Urgent Petition docketed as SPC No.98-206. The petition the law states that it may motu proprio order a partial or total
sought the annulment of petitioner's proclamation as suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or
congressman. annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been
made. We reject the argument. Section 242 of the Omnibus
It alleged that at about 4:00 in the afternoon on May 28, 1998, Election Code reads:
the COMELEC Chairman directed... the district board of
canvassers to suspend the canvass and proclamation pending "Sec. 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-
the resolution of the petition for correction of manifest error proclamation controversies. The Commission shall have
in the municipal certificate of canvass of Malabon; that the exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. It
district board of canvassers still proceeded with the canvass in may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due
spite of the order; that the proclamation was made despite the notice and hearing, order the partial or total suspension of the
non-inclusion of election returns from 19 precincts in proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul partially or
Malabon; and that the non-inclusion of these election returns totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the
will materially affect the result of the election. Private evidence shall warrant in accordance with the succeeding
respondent prayed that the proclamation of... petitioner as sections."
congressman be annulled and that the municipal board of
canvassers of Malabon be ordered to reconvene to include the The phrase "motu proprio" does not refer to the annulment of
19 election returns in the canvass. proclamation but to the manner of initiating the proceedings
to annul a proclamation made by the board of canvassers. The
On June 2, 1998, the COMELEC en banc issued an order setting law provides two ways by which annulment proceedings may
aside the proclamation of petitioner. be initiated. It may be at the own initiative of the COMELEC
(motu proprio) or by written petition. In either case, notice and
The COMELEC ruled that the proclamation by the district board hearing is required. This is clear from the language of the law.
of canvassers was void because: (1) it was made in defiance of
the verbal order by the COMELEC Chairman relayed... through The law requires that the hearing be held before the COMELEC
Executive Director Resurrection Z. Borra to suspend the rules on the petition. Here, the public respondent first issued
proclamation of the winner in the congressional election until an order annulling the proclamation of petitioner and then set
the Commission has resolved private respondent's petition for the date of the hearing.
correction of manifest error in the certificate of canvass; and
(2) it was based on an... incomplete canvass. Public respondent submits that procedural due process need
not be observed in this case because it was merely exercising
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC's order to set aside petitioner's its administrative power to review, revise and reverse the
proclamation was valid. actions of the board of canvassers. It set aside the
proclamation made by the district board of canvassers for the
RULING: No. Although the COMELEC is clothed with position of congressman upon finding that it was tainted with
jurisdiction over the subject matter and issue of SPC No.98-143 illegality.
and SPC No. 98-206, the exercise of its jurisdiction tainted with
illegality. It hold that its order to set aside the proclamation of Taking cognizance of private respondent's petitions for
petitioner is invalid for having been rendered without due annulment of petitioner's proclamation, COMELEC was not
process of law. Procedural due process demands prior notice merely performing an administrative function. The
and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also necessary that administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to
the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its ruling. In determine the number and location of polling places, appoint
other words, due process requires that a party be given an election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of voters,
opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the deputize law enforcement agencies and government
case and that the evidence should be considered in the instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and

104 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

credible elections, register political parties, organizations or On October 6, 1998, The COMELEC en banc annulled the
coalitions, accredit citizens' arms of the Commission, proclamation of petitioner and The Board of Canvassers of
prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President Gapan, Nueva Ecija was directed to convene immediately and
the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action immediately proclaim the winning candidate for mayor of
upon any officer or employee it has deputized for violation or Gapan, Nueva Ecija. It was only on October 8, 1998 that
disregard of its directive, order or decision. In addition the petitioner was informed of the Resolution by telegram as the
Commission also has direct control and supervision over all private respondent never named petitioner Velayo as
personnel involved in the conduct of election. However, the respondent to the case. Thus, the special civil action for
resolution of the adverse claims of private respondent and certiorari arose. The petitioner contends that The Comelec
petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest error in the committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
questioned certificate of canvass requires the COMELEC to act jurisdiction when it annulled the proclamation of petitioner
as an arbiter. It behooves the Commission to hear both parties without the required notice and hearing consistent with due
to determine the veracity of their allegations and to decide process.
whether the alleged error is a manifest error.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ex parte annulment of petitioner’s
Hence, the resolution of this issue calls for the exercise by the proclamation is null and void.
COMELEC of its quasi- judicial power. It has been said that
where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of HELD:
judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise
of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other Yes. The records will show that petitioner was not furnished
than a judicial officer,... it is deemed quasi-judicial. The any notice of the pre-proclamation proceedings against him
COMELEC therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot from beginning to end. Respondent Natividad did not give
ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving petitioner copies of his notices of appeal from the rulings of
the petitions filed by private respondent. the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Nor was petitioner given
copies of private respondent's petitions and motions filed with
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the COMELEC. Even the COMELEC's Second Division failed to
notify petitioner about the promulgation of its Order dated
VELAYO VS. COMELEC June 9, 1998 which dismissed the pre-proclamation cases
G.R. No. 135613, March 09, 2000 against him for being moot and academic. He was not also
given a copy of private, respondent's Motion for
Digested by: LUCERO Reconsideration against said Order. Also, he was not furnished
a copy of the July 4, 1998 Order of the Comelec (2nd Division)
FACTS: which elevated respondent Natividad's Motion for
Reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. All that petitioner
Petitioner Arthur V. Velayo and private respondent Ernesto received from the COMELEC on October 8, 1998 was its en
Natividad were among the candidates for mayor of Gapan, banc resolution annulling his proclamation.
Nueva Ecija in the May 11, 1998 elections. On May 17, 1998,
the Board proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Mayor of It cannot be denied that petitioner Velayo is a real party in
Gapan, Nueva Ecija with a vote of 10,697. Private respondent interest. As the proclaimed Mayor, petitioner stands to be
garnered 10,427 votes. prejudiced by whatever action COMELEC may take on the
appeals filed by respondent Natividad. His non-inclusion as
Private respondent filed a case to Suspend/Annul the respondent and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the
Proclamation of the Winning Candidates on the ground that COMELEC which resulted in the cancellation of his
some election returns are incomplete, has material defects, proclamation constitute clear denial of due process.
and it does not contain the thumbmarks of official watchers.
Among others, private respondent prayed that proclamation Petitioner's proclamation as Mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija by
of the winning candidates be suspended and until after a the Municipal Board of Canvassers on May 17, 1998 was not
faithful and impartial canvass of the returns shall have been only summarily annulled by the COMELEC. It was annulled ex
had; or the proclamation of the winning candidates shall be parte, i.e., solely on the basis of the evidence presented by
annulled, if any have been illegally done, on the basis of the private respondent, absolutely depriving petitioner an
sham, pre-determined and manipulated canvass of the opportunity to present his rebuttal evidence. This ex parte
returns. annulment of petitioner's proclamation is null and void for


105 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

being repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution EFFECT OF DEATH OF PROTESTANT
and, should, therefore, be set aside.
DE CASTRO VS. COMELEC
It is true that RA No. 7166 provides for summary proceedings GR No. 125249 Feb. 7, 1997
in pre-proclamation cases and does not require a trial type
hearing. Nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be Digested by: JUMAMIL
stretched to mean ex parte proceedings. Summary simply
means with dispatch, with the least possible delay. It signifies FACTS:
that the power may be exercised without a trial in the ordinary
manner prescribed by law for regular judicial proceedings. But Petitioner De Castro was proclaimed Mayor of Gloria, Oriental
although the proceedings are summary, the adverse party Mindoro during the May 8,1995 elections. In the same
nevertheless must at the very least be notified so that he can elections, private respondent Medrano was proclaimed Vice-
be apprised of the nature and purpose of the proceeding. In Mayor of the same municipality.
the case at bar, all the proceedings were conducted by the
respondent COMELEC without the participation of the On May 19, 1995, De Castro’s rival candidate, the late Nicolas
petitioner. Worse, respondent Natividad was allowed to file M. Jamilla, filed an election protest before the RTC of Oriental
various motions without the knowledge of the petitioner. Mindoro. During the pendency of said contest, Jamila died.
Plainly, these ex parte proceedings offend fundamental Four days after death, the trial court dismissed the election
fairness and are null and void. protest ruling as it did that “as this case is personal, the death
of the protestant extinguishes the case itself. The issue or
Section 18 of RA 7166 states: issues brought out in this protest have become moot and
academic.”
Sec. 18. Summary disposition of pre-proclamation
controversies. — All pre-proclamation controversies on When Medrano learned about the dismissal of the protest, he
election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of filed his Omnibus Petition/Motion (For Intervention and/or
the records and evidence elevated to it by the board of Substitution with Motion for Reconsideration). Subsequently,
canvassers, be disposed of summarily by the Commission Opposition thereto was filed by De Castro. The trial court
within seven (7) days from receipt thereof. Its decision shall be denied Medrano’s Omnibus Petition/Motion. Unable to agree
executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt by the with the trial court, Medrano filed a petition for certiorari and
losing party of the decision of the Commission. mandamus before the COMELEC. Thus, COMELEC granted the
petition.
In the case at bar, the records were carefully examined and it
does not clearly appear that the COMELEC annulled the ISSUE:
proclamation of Velayo on the basis of the official records and (1) Whether or not said contest is a personal action which is
evidence adduced by the parties before the Board of extinguished upon the death of the real party in interest.
Canvassers. The importance of these official records and
evidence cannot be overemphasized. The records contain the (2) Whether or not private respondent is not a real party in
contested election returns, the objections of the aggrieved interest.
party, the opposition of the prevailing party, the evidence of
the parties, and the rulings of the Board of Canvassers. R.A. No. HELD:
7166 explicitly provides that it is only on the basis of these
official records that the COMELEC can decide the pre- (1) It is true that a public office is personal to the public officer
proclamation controversy in a summary manner. Without the and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death.
official records, the respondent COMELEC cannot validly Thus, applying the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum
decide a pre-proclamation controversy. There is no showing persona, upon the death of the incumbent, no heir of his may
that the official records of the Board of Canvassers were be allowed to continue holding his office in his place.
forwarded to the respondent COMELEC and were used to
cancel Velayo's proclamation. But while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive
to the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal
and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the death of either would oust the court of all authority to
continue the protest proceedings.


106 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

An election contest, after all, involves not merely conflicting The Rule 14 of the PET Rules provide –
private aspirations but is imbued with paramount public
interests. The death of the protestant, as in this case, neither Rule 14. Election Protest.–Only the registered candidate for
constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who received
the trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the election contest. the second or third highest number of votes may contest the
election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may
(2) The asseveration of petitioner that private respondent is be, by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential
not a real party in interest entitled to be substituted in the Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the
election protest in place of the late Jamilla, is utterly without proclamation of the winner.
legal basis. Categorical was our ruling in Vda. de De Mesa and
Lomugdang that: The SC has decided in the case of Vda. De Mesa (1966) that:

“x x x the Vice Mayor elect has the status of a real party in xxx while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive
interest in the continuation of the proceedings and is entitled to the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal
to intervene therein. For if the protest succeeds and the and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that
protestee is unseated, the Vice-Mayor succeeds to the office the death of either would oust the court of all authority to
of Mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected can not continue the protest proceedings. Hence, we have allowed
assume the post.” substitution and intervention but only by a real party in
interest. A real party in interest is the party who would be
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is
entitled to the avails of the suit.
ELECTION PROTEST & QUO WARRANTO
The contest of before election tribunals has two aspects - first,
POE VS. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO it is in pursuit of one’s right to a public office, and second, it is
P.E.T. Case No. 002 March 29, 2005 imbued with public interest.

Digested by: CERNA In this protest, Mrs. FPJ will not immediately and directly
benefit from the outcome should it be determined that the
FACTS: declared president did not truly get the highest number of
votes. We fully appreciate counsel’s manifestation that
Fernando Poe Jr. lost to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the 2004 movant/intervenor herself claims she has no interest in
elections, to which Mr. FPJ, filed seasonably an election protest assuming the position as she is aware that she cannot succeed
before the Electoral Tribunal on July 23, 2004; unfortunately, to the presidency, having no legal right to it.
he died on November 2004. Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe, popularly
known as the cinema star Susan Roces ir hereafter referred to Following the logic from the law and jurisprudence, Mrs. FPJ or
as Mrs. FPJ claims that because of the untimely demise of her Susan Roces cannot intervene and substitute for the deceased
husband and in representation not only of her deceased protestant in the election protest
husband but more so because of the paramount interest of the
Filipino people, there is an urgent need for her to continue and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
substitute for her late husband in the election protest initiated
by him to ascertain the true and genuine will of the electorate EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
in the 2004 elections. Mrs. FPJ, has overly stressed that it is
with the "paramount public interest" in mind that she desires MALALUAN VS COMELEC
"to pursue the process" commenced by her late husband. She 254 SCRA 397
avers that she is "pursuing the process" to determine who truly
won the election, as a service to the Filipino people. Digested by: PERTURBOS

ISSUE: Whether or not Mrs. FPJ can intervene and substitute FACTS:
for the deceased protestant in the election protest
Petitioner Malaluan and Private Respondent Evangelista were
HELD: both mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Kidapawan,
in the Synchronized National and Local Elections held on May
No, Mrs. FPJ cannot intervene and substitute in such case. 1992. Private respondent Evangelista was proclaimed by the

107 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly elected Mayor, as legal provision authorizing the money claim in the context of
Evangelista was, thus, said to have a winning margin of 706 election cases. Absent any of these, we could not even begin
votes. But, on May 22, 1992, Malaluan filed an election protest to contemplate liability for damages in election cases,, except
with the RTC, contesting 64 out of the total 181 precincts of insofar as attorney's fees are concerned, as provided in the
the said municipality. Civil Code.

The trial court then declared Petitioner Malaluan as the duly The court could not attribute to petitioner Malaluan any
elected municipal mayor of Kidapawan. Acting without breach of contract or quasi-contract; or tortious act nor crime
precedent, the court found Evangelista liable not only for that may make him liable for actual damages. Neither has
Malaluan's protest expenses, but also for moral and exemplary private respondent Evangelista been able to point out to a
damages and attorney's fees. On February 3, 1994, private specific provision of law authorizing a money claim for election
respondent appealed the trial court decision to the COMELEC. protest expenses against the losing party.

On February 1994, Petitioner Malaluan filed a motion for - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
execution pending appeal. The motion was granted by the trial
court. By virtue of said order, Malaluan assumed the office of GUTIERREZ VS COMELEC
Municipal Mayor of Kidapawan, North Cotabato, and exercised GR No. 142527 March 1, 2001
the powers and functions of said office. Such exercise was not
for long. In the assailed decision adverse to Malaluan's Digested by: RAGAZA
continued governance of the Municipality of Kidapawan, the
First Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) FACTS:
ordered Malaluan to vacate the office, said division having
found and so declared Private Respondent Evangelista to be On may 12, 1997 Arsenio Alvarez petitioner, with 590 votes,
the duly elected Municipal Mayor of said municipality. The was proclaimed punong barangay Dona Aurora, Quezon city.
COMELEC en banc affirmed said decision. His opponent respondent Abad Sarmiento obtained 585 votes.
Respondent filed an election protest in the MTC claiming
Malaluan filed this petition before us on May 31, 1995 as a irregularities on the ballot readings on contested precincts.
consequence. RTC ruled that respondent won the election having 596 votes
while petitioner only has 550. On appeal the COMELEC second
ISSUES: division ruled that the private respondent won over petitioner.
(1) Whether or not the present petition pending appeal is Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile,
already moot and academic. respondent filed a motion for execution pending appeal which
the petitioner opposed. COMELEC en Banc denied the motion
(2) Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion for reconsideration and affirmed the decision of the second
in awarding the damages in favor of Evangelista. division. It then granted the motion for execution pending
appeal. Petitioner brought before the supreme court this
RULING: petition for certiorari assailing the resolution of COMELEC
ENBANC , denying the motion for reconsideration of herein
First, Yes. The court notes that the present petition pending petitioner and affirming the resolution of its second division
appeal is already moot and academic. It is significant to note alleging that the COMELEC en Banc granted the respondents
that the term of office of the local officials elected in the May, motion for execution pending appeal when the appeal was no
1992 elections expired on June 30, 1995. longer pending, thus the motion had become obsolete and
unenforceable
This petition, thus, has become moot and academic insofar as
it concerns petitioner's right to the mayoralty seat in his ISSUES: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse
municipality because expiration of the term of office contested of discretion when it prematurely acted on the motion for
in the election protest has the effect of rendering the same execution pending appeal.
moot and academic.
RULING:
Second, Yes. The criterion for a justifiable award of election
protest expenses and salaries and emoluments, remains to be We note that when a motion for execution pending appeal was
the existence of a pertinent breach of obligations arising from filed, petitioner had a motion for reconsideration before the
contracts or quasi-contracts, tortious acts, crimes or a specific second division. This pending motion for reconsideration

108 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

suspended the execution of the resolution of the second decisively the question as to who is the true winner in the last
division. Appropriately then, the division must act on the elections.
motion for reconsideration. Thus, when the second division
resolved both petitioners motion for reconsideration and Moreover, apart from petitioner's sweeping and self-serving
respondents motion for execution pending appeal, it did so in allegation that the appeal is dilatory, no supporting argument
the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction. or explanation whatsoever is offered why he considers it so.
Correspondingly, we do not find that the COMELEC abused its The omission militates against the pretended urgency of the
discretion when it allowed the execution pending appeal. motion for execution pending appeal. We are sure that both
Petitioner is DISMISSED, and the en Banc Resolution of the petitioner and private respondent would want to see the light
COMELEC is AFFIRMED. at the end of the tunnel. Finally, the issue of "illegally
manufactured votes" is best ventilated, and must accordingly
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - be threshed out, in the election case before the COMELEC.

CAMLIAN V. COMELEC WHEREFORE, the instant petitio is hereby DENIED.
271 SCRA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digested by: LUCAS
RAMAS VS. COMELEC
FACTS: G.R. No. 130831 February 10, 1998

CAMLIAN and POQUINTO were both candidates for mayor at Digested by: SISTUAL
Isabela, Basilan during May 1995 elections.
FACTS:
After canvassing Poquinto have higher votes compared to
Camlian resulting to his proclamation as winner and in effect The petitioners and the private respondents were the official
he assumed office and discharged his duties and candidates of the Nationalist Peoples Coalition (NPC) and the
responsibilities. Lakas-NUCD, respectively, for the elective municipal positions
of Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur, in the elections of 8 May 1995.
CAMLIAN then filed for Electoral Protest at RTC Basilan. Jan After the canvass of the election returns, the Municipal Board
1996, RTC ruled in favor of CAMLIAN and declared him as a of Canvassers of Guipos declared and proclaimed the
winner of the 1995 election. petitioners as the duly elected municipal officials to wit:

RTC also granted petitioners motion for execution pending Petitioner Roberto D. Ramas -- as Mayor
appeal. Petitioner Francisco N. Oraiz -- as Vice Mayor
Petitioner Benerando F. Miranda -- as fifth Member of the
The issue was raised to COMELEC and in turn COMELEC issued Sangguniang Bayan (SB)
TRO directing Judge Memoracion to cease and desist from Petitioner George V. Baterna -- as sixth Member of the SB
implementing RTCs order hence this case. Petitioner Tomas R. Lacierda -- as seventh Member of the SB
Petitioner Pedro T. Calimot, Jr. -- as eighth Member of the SB
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
for issuing TRO. Respondents Raul F. Famor and Ponciano P. Cajeta, the losing
candidates for mayor and vice mayor, respectively, as well as
HELD: Merlyn U. Rabe et al the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th placers,
respectively, for members of the SB, seasonably filed separate
Not every invocation of public interest with particular election protests with the RTC of Pagadian City. The cases were
reference to the will of the electorate can be appreciated as a docketed as Election Protest Cases Nos. 07-95, 08-95, 09-95,
good reason especially so if the same appears to be self-serving 10-95, 11-95, and 12-95 and thereafter consolidated and
and has not been clearly established. Public interest will be jointly tried. The trial court rendered a 103-page
best served when the candidate voted for the position is finally decision declaring petitioner Miranda and all the private
proclaimed and adjudged winner in the elections. Urgency and respondents except Mabascog as winners in the 8 May 1995
expediency can never be substitutes for truth and credibility. elections. The dispositive portion thereof reads as follows:
The appeal interposed by private respondent to the COMELEC
does not seem to be merely dilatory as it aims to resolve WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring:

109 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)
ELECTION LAWS
Atty. Krisna Samantha Caballero

Dissolve/Recall Temporary Restraining Order and the

For Mayor, RAUL F. FAMOR, as winner with the margin of Two petitioners opposition thereto, as well as the Urgent Motion to
hundred Ninety Eight (298) votes over protestee Roberto Cite for Contempt, although the motions were heard on 9 July
Ramas, and as a consequence, the proclamation and oath 1996.
taking of Protestee Roberto Ramas as Municipal Mayor of
Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur, as null and void and of no force This Court has explicitly recognized and given approval to
and effect; execution of judgments pending appeal in election cases filed
under existing election laws. In those cases, the immediate
Private respondents Famor et al filed a Motion for Immediate execution was made in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39 of
Execution of Decision Pending Appeal alleging as follows: the Rules of Court reading as follows:

That pursuant to Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and SEC. 2. Execution pending appeal. -- On motion of the
the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Tomas Tobon Uy vs. prevailing party with notice to the adverse party the court may,
COMELEC and Jose C. Neyre, and Daniel Garcia & Teodoro in its discretion, order execution to issue even before the
Ohara vs. Ernesto De Jesus & Cecilia David & Comelec, Regional expiration of the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be
Trial Courts can order execution pending appeal. On May 1996, stated in a special order. If a record on appeal is filed
the petitioners filed their Opposition to the Motion for thereafter, the motion and the special order shall be included
Immediate Execution of the Consolidated Decision. On that therein.
same day, they filed their respective Notices of Appeal. The
next day, or on 29 May 1996, the trial court issued an All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to
order granting the motion for execution pending appeal. The allow execution pending appeal was that the immediate
order reads as follows: execution should be based upon good reasons to be stated in
Acting upon the Motion for Execution of the decision pending a special order. The rationale why such execution is allowed in
appeal with the opposition thereto, the Court finds the Motion election cases is, as stated in Gahol v. Riodique, to give as much
to be well taken and there being a good reason to grant the recognition to the worth of a trial judges decision as that which
same, taking into consideration this involves the public interest is initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation by the board
and the near expiration of the term of office of two (2) years of canvassers.
and the pendency of the protest which lasted for one (1) year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEREFORE, the Motion is granted, let a writ of execution be
issued to enforce the decision of the Court pending appeal for NOTHING FOLLOWS
the reason aforecited.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse
of discretion.

RULING:

The supreme court held No.

The Commission on Elections is DIRECTED to forthwith cause
the full implementation of the execution pending appeal.

In the instant case, the trial court relied on the following as
good reasons for its grant of execution pending appeal: (1)
public interest, (2) near expiration of the term of office
involved, and (3) pendency of the election protest for one year.
The trial court cannot, therefore, be said to have acted with
grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the COMELEC acted correctly
when it denied SPR No. 14-96.

If any error was committed by the COMELEC, it was in the
failure to resolve private respondents Motion To

110 JMC - College of Law
LLB 2.4 (S.Y. 2020-2021)