Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case on Election Law

Case on Election Law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3 |Likes:
Published by Cfaye Robes
ekec law
ekec law

More info:

Published by: Cfaye Robes on Mar 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, and Jesus Emmanuel Pimentel,GR 136191,November 29, 1999F
: Jesus O. Typoco, (“TYPOCO”)
and Jesus
Emmanuel Pimentel (“PIMENTEL”) were both candidates for theposition
of Governor in Camarines Norte during the May 11, 1998 elections. On June 10, 1998, TYPOCO filed apetition alleging thatmassive fraud and irregularities attended the preparation of the election returns considering thatupon technical examination, 305election returns were found to have been prepared in group by
one person. A reportby the COMELEC’s ERSD Voters
Identification Division disclosed, among others,
that the “handwritten entries on278 COMELEC copies of election returns
particularly under the columns Congressman/Governor/Vice-Governor/Nickname or Stage Name, were written by one and thesame person in groups.The COMELEC
 En Banc
 promulgated a resolution dismissing TYPOCO’s petition for the
Declaration of Failure of Elections and/or Annulment of Elections in Camarines Norte for lack of merit, claiming that the groundscited by TYPOCO do not fall under any of the instancesenumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Whether or not the findings of the ERSD Voters Identification Division can warrant the declaration of a Failure of Electionsand/or Annulment of Elections?
No; Petition DISMISSED
First, the Court pointed to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166,
otherwise known as “The Synchronized ElectionsLaw of 1991,”
from which the COMELEC derives its authority to declare a failure of elections. Second, the courtquoted Section 6 of the samelaw, which enumerates the causes for a declaration of a Failure of Election. These areexplained in the case of 
 Mitmug v. Commission on Elections
, wherein the Court held that two conditions mustconcur:
, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law, or even if there wasvoting, theelection nevertheless resulted in a failure to election; and
the votes cast would affect the result of the election. In
 Loong v. Commission on Elections
, the Court added that the cause of such failure of election shouldhave been any of the following:
 force majeure
, violence, terrorism, fraud of other analogous cases. Further in
 Borja,jr. v. Commission on Elections,
the Court stated that “The COMELEC can call for 
the holding or continuation of election by reason of failure of election onlywhen the election is not held, is suspended or results in a failure toelect. The latter phrase, in turn, must be understood in its literal
sense, which is “nobody was
elected.”Clearly then, the Court held that there
are only three instances where a failure of electionmay be declared,namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of 
 force majeure
,violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases; (b) the election in any polling place had been suspended beforethe hourfixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of 
 force majeure
, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes; (c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of theelection returns or in thecustody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account o
 force majeure
, violence,terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. In all instances there must have been failure to elect; this is obvious inthefirst scenario whre the election was not held and the second where the election was suspend. As to thethirdscenario, the preparation and transmission of the election returns, which gave rise to the consequence of a failure toelectmust as aforesaid be literally interpreted to mean that nobody emerged as a winner.While fraud is a ground to declare afailure of election, the commission of fraud must be such that itprevented or suspended the holding of an electionincluding the preparation and transmission of the election returns.The ground invoked by TYPOCO is not proper ina declaration
of failure of election. TYPOCO’s relief was for 
COMELEC to order a recount of the votes cast, onaccount of the falsified election returns, which is properly thesubject of an election contest. The COMELEC, therefore,
had no choice but to dismiss TYPOCO’s petition in
Carlos vs angeles
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of mayor of the municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila (later convertedinto a City) during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the mayor. The private respondent filed an electionprotest with the RTC. The court came up with revision reports which also showed that the petitioner got the highest number of votes. Nevertheless, in

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->