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

election philippine law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Published by Cfaye Robes
cases by atty monsayac.. in baste law
cases by atty monsayac.. in baste 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





G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSFacts:Comelec refused to recognize AngLadlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves aslesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs),as a party list based on moral grounds. In the elevation of the case tothe Supreme Court, Comelec alleged that petitioner made misrepresentation in their application.Issue:Whether or not AngLadlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list.Ruling:
AngLadlad LGBT Party’s application for registration should be granted.
Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a violation of the non
-establishment clause laiddown in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution. The proscription by law relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose
(that is, the conduct prohibited or sought to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend
theexistence and progress of human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed to substantiate theirallegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society.The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.Laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on thesame basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---notby our own laws or by any international laws by which we adhere.x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xANG BAGONG BAYANI vs. ComelecG.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001BAYAN MUNA vs. ComelecFacts
Petitioners challenged the Comelec’s Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which approved the parti
cipation of 154 organizations andparties, including those herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners sought the disqualification of privaterespondents, arguing mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not themainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Unsatisfied with the pace by which Comelec acted on theirpetition, petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court.Issue:1. Whether or not pe
titioner’s recourse to the Court was proper.
 2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party list elections.3. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.Ruling:1. The Court may take cognizance of an issue notwithstanding the availability of other remedies "where the issue raised is onepurely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency." The facts attendant to the case rendered it justiciable.2. Political parties
even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list elections subject to the requirements laid down in theConstitution and RA 7941, which is the statutory law pertinent to the Party List System.Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the groundthat they are political parties. 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” . It is however,incumbent upon the Comelec to determine proportional representation of the “marginalized and underrepresented”, the criteria
forparticipation, in relation to the cause of the party list applicants so as to avoid desecration of the noble purpose of the party-listsystem.3. The Court acknowledged that to determine the propriety of the inclusion of respondents in the Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, astudy of the factual allegations was necessary which was beyond the pale of the Court. The Court not being a trier of facts.However, seeing that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the Constitution, the Court decided to setsome guidelines culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work. The Court ordered that the petition beremanded in the Comelec to determine compliance by the party lists.
AGONG BAYANI vs COMELEC G.R. No. 147589 - June 26, 2001Facts:
BagongBayani and andAkbayan Citizens Party filed before the COMELEC a Petitionunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challengingOmnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by theCOMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154 organizations and
parties,including those impleaded, in the 2001 party list elections. Petitioners seek thedisqualification of private respondents,arguing mainly that the party list system wasintended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented;not the mainstream politicalparties, the none-marginalized or overrepresented.Issues:a.Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list electionsb.Whether or not the party-
list system is exclusive to ‘marginalized andunderrepresented’ sectors and organ
izations.Held:The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the COMELECwhich will determine, after summaryevidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties andorganizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the
requirements of theConstitution and RA 7941. The resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrainproclaiming any winner”
during the last party-list election, shall remain in force until after theCOMELEC have compiled and reported its compliance.a.Yesb.No.Rationale:a.Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-listelections. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondentscannotbedisqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-listsystem of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations."Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution,political parties may be registered under the party-list system. For its part, Section 2of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional andsectoral parties ororganizations or coalitions thereof, x xx." Section 3 expressly statesthat a"party" is"either a political partyor a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."b.That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean,however, that any political party -- or anyorganization or group for that matter -- maydo so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistentwiththe purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.The provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "inaccordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was thusup to Congress tosculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution.Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xPenera, Rosalinda A. vs. COMELEC and Edgar T. Andanar Supreme Court En BancG.R. No. 181613 November 25, 2009FACTS:Petitioner and private respondents were candidates for mayor of the MunicipalityofSta.Monica, Surigaodel Norte in the last May2007 elections. The former filed her certificate of candidacy on the day before the prescribed campaign period. When shewent tothe COMELEC Office for filing she was accompanied by her partymates.Thereafter, they had a motorcade which was consist of twotrucks and ten motorcyclesrunning around the municipality convincing the residents to vote for her and the other candidates of theirpolitical party.Due to this, private respondent filed a petition against her alleging prematurecampaigning as provided in the Omnibus
Election Code Section 80 which says: “Electionor partisan political activity outside campaign period.
--- It shall be unlawful for anyperson, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, toengage in an election campaign or
partisan political activity except during the campaign period.” She argued that she is not guilty since she was not yet a can
didate atthat timeand the campaign period has not yet started when the motorcade was conducted.While the petition was pending in theCOMELEC, she was voted as mayor andtook her office thereafter. The COMELEC Second Division decided in favor of thecomplainantand found her guilty of premature campaigning. Likewise, when sheappealed in the COMELEC En Banc, the previous decision wasaffirmed.Subsequently, she filed with the Supreme Court which decided against her. It heldthat the conduct of the motorcade is aform of election campaign or partisan politicalactivity, falling under Section 79(b)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code which
says:“*h+olding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of 
votes and/or undertaking any campaign orpropaganda for or
against a candidate*.+” Furthermore, it was held that she should
vacatethe position. Now, she comes for a motion for reconsideration using the same arguments.ISSUE:Is petitioner guilty of premature campaigning?RULING:No, she is not.Any act is lawful
unless expressly declared unlawful by law. It is enough thatCongress stated that “any unlawful act or
omission applicable to a candidate shall takeeffectonly
upon the start of the campaign period.” So, it is lawful if done before the startof the campaign
period. This plain language of the lawneed not be construed further.Moreover, on the day of the motorcade, she was not yet a candidate for. As whatwas decided in theLanot Casewhich says that prior to the campaign period, even if thecandidate has filed his/her certificate of candidacy, he/she is not yetconsidered as acandidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots. Hence, she cannot be guilty of premature campaigning forin the first place there is no candidate to talk about. What shedid was an exercise of her freedom of expression.JUDGMENT:
WHEREFORE, we GRANT petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera’s Motion for Reconsideration. We SET ASIDE the Decision of this Court in
G.R. No. 181613 promulgated on 11 September 2009, as well as the Resolutions dated 24 July 2007 and 30January 2008 of theCOMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En Banc,respectively, in SPA No. 07-224. Rosalinda A. Penera shall continue as Mayor of Sta.Monica, Surigaodel Norte.DISSENTING OPINIONS:Chico-Nazario, J:It is obvious that the motorcade was planned to gain more votes from their constituents. Even if she was not yet a candidate at thattime, she can he held guilty of premature campaigning as an ordinary citizen committing the prohibited act.Abad, J:But the fact that Penera was not yet a candidate before she actually handed in her certificate of candidacy to the designatedCOMELEC official does not exempt her fromthe prohibition against engaging in premature election campaign. Section 80
whichimposes the ban ensnares “any person,” even a non
-candidate.x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xPenera vs. Comelec: Decriminalizing Premature CampaigningThe case of Penera vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009) has effectively voided a section of the Omnibus Election Code(OEC) on premature campaigning.The Supreme Court reinstated Rosalinda Penera as mayor of the municipality of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte as it granted hermotion for reconsideration and set aside its earlier decision affirming her disqualification by the Comelec for premature
campaigning. Penera’s disqualification stemmed from her alleged premature campaigning wh
en she and her supporters had amotorcade a day before the start of the authorized campaign period for the 2007 elections.For one to commit a violation of premature campaigning under Section 80 of the OEC, the following elements must exist:(1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity;(2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate;(3) the act is done outside the campaign period.[2]Clearly, the second element requires the existence of a
“candidate.” Under Section 79(a) of the OEC, a candidate is one who “hasfiled a certificate of candidacy” to an elective public office. This is further qualified by Section 15 of R.A. 8436, which p
rovides that
the person who filed a CoC “shall only be co
nsidered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his
certificate of candidacy.”
In other words, “a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before.” Ac
cordingto the Supre
me Court, the law is “clear as daylight —
any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election
law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period.”
 I believe that Penera vs. Comelec has made partisan political activities, in whatever form, lawful before the start of the officialcampaign period. Since the Supreme Court has declared that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done duringthe campaign period, premature campaigning is effectively decriminalized.Thus, any partisan political activity, provided they are lawful (i.e. not violative of any other law), done by a person who has alreadyfiled his COC before the official campaign period, is legal.

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)//-->