Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest On Election Law
Case Digest On Election Law
Soller v. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 139853
FACTS
Petitioner and private respondent (Saulong) were both candidates for
mayor of the municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11,
1998 elections. The petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by the
municipal board of canvassers. Private respondent filed a petition with
the COMELEC to annul the proclamation. Later, private respondent
filed an election protest against petitioner with the RTC. The COMELEC
dismissed the pre-proclamation case filed by private respondent, while
the RTC denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but said motion was denied.
Petitioner then filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari
contending that respondent RTC acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private
respondents election protest. The COMELEC en banc dismissed
petitioners suit. Petitioner now questions this decision of the COMELEC
en banc.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to decide on the case.
HELD
The SC has ruled in previous cases that the COMELEC, sitting en banc,
does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases
including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. This
power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the
Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first
instance is null and void. In the SCs view, the authority to resolve
petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, like
the questioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of the
COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc.
2.
FACTS
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy
for the position of Representative for the new Second Legislative
District of Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that
he was a resident of the aforementioned district for 10 months. Faced
with a petition for disqualification, he amended the entry on his
residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The
Commission on Elections dismissed the petition on 6 May and allowed
Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino won. Acting on a motion
for reconsideration of the above dismissal, the Commission on Election
later issued an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the
Commission resolved the issue. On 2 June, the Commission on
Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office
for lack of constitutional qualification of residence.
ISSUE
Whether residency in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes
domicile to warrant the
disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district.
HELD
The place 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, i.e., his domicile, is that to
which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the
purposes of election law. The purpose is to exclude strangers or
newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community
from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that
community for electoral gain. Aquinos certificate of candidacy in a
previous (1992) election indicates that he was a resident and a
registered voter of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for more than 52 years
prior to that election. Aquinos connection to the Second District of
3.
Facts
Petitioner Tony L. Benwaren and private respondent Edwin Crisologo
were candidates for the position of Municipal Mayor of the Municipality
of Tineg, Abra in the May 2004 elections.
During the canvass of the election return of Precinct No. 16A, counsel
for petitioner objected to the inclusion of the election return on the
ground that the same was allegedly prepared under duress, force or
intimidation, or was prepared by persons other than the Board of
Election Inspectors (BEI) concerned.
The MBC deferred the proclamation of the winning candidate for the
position of Municipal Mayor because it contended that the contested
election return from Precinct No. 16A would affect the result of the
election for the position. To speedily settle and put an end to the
controversy reconstitution of the MBC with new members, to, among
others, determine if the identity and integrity of the said ballot box and
the ballots contained therein were not violated; and, proceed to
recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new
election return for the said precinct; and then canvass the said return
and proclaim the winning candidate/s; or
During the examination of the election return, the MBC found that the
integrity of the ballot box was violated as it was left unattended and
was never delivered to its proper custodian. The ballots were not also
placed in properly sealed or placed in enveloped prepared by Comelec.
The New MBC proclaimed private respondent Crisologo as the duly
elected mayor of Tineg, Abra based on the results of the remaining
uncontested election returns.
Due to the unfavorable result, Benwaren filed a Petition to Annul
Proclamation or to Suspend the Effects Thereof and Petition to Declare
Illegal [the] Proceedings of the New Board of Canvassers of Tineg,
Abra.
In a Resolution dated February 18, 2005, the COMELEC First Division
dismissed the petition for lack of merit, declaring the New MBC was
specifically mandated by it to determine whether the identity and
integrity of the ballot box for Precinct No. 16A and its ballots were
violated. Thus, it held that the matter was left to the sound discretion
of the members of the New MBC, which complied with its order. It
added that the New MBC is presumed to have regularly performed its
official duty absent a strong proof to the contrary by petitioner.
Petitioner filed a a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the ruling of the New
MBC that the integrity of the ballot box for Precinct No. 16A, Barangay
Lanec, Tineg, Abra, and its contents had been violated.
2. Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it illegally proclaimed private
respondent Crisologo based on incomplete canvass of votes.
4.
Trinidad vs Commission on Elections and
Sunga
G.R. No. 135716
September 23, 1999
This is a petition for certiorari questioning the Resolution of the
Commission on Elections disqualifying petitioner as a mayoralty
candidate in the May 1995 elections. Likewise, it seeks the review of a
subsequent resolution annulling petitioners proclamation as elected
mayor in the May 1998 elections.
Facts:
1. NO. Petitioner was able to file an Answer with Counter Petition and
Motion to Dismiss. He was also able to submit his counter-affidavit and
sworn statements of forty-eight witnesses. He was also given a chance
to explain in his Motion for Reconsideration. He was afforded an
opportunity to be heard, through his pleadings, therefore, there is no
denial of procedural due process.
2. NO. Petitioner cannot be disqualified from his reelection term of
office. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the
alleged misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed
before his term of office expires, he can no longer be removed if he is
thereafter reelected for another term.
3. NO. As earlier decided by the Supreme Court, the candidate who
obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed
winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. That would be
5.
This is a petition for prohibition to set aside Resolution No. NBC 01-005
dated 5 June 2001 (Resolution No. 01-005) and Resolution No. NBC
01-006 dated 20 July 2001 (Resolution No. 01-006) of respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Resolution No. 01-005
proclaimed the 13 candidates elected as Senators in the 14 May 2001
elections while Resolution No. 01-006 declared official and final the
ranking of the 13 Senators proclaimed in Resolution No. 01-005.
Facts:
Following the appointment of Senator Teofisto Guingona as VicePresident of the Philippines, the Senate on February 8, 2001 passed
Resolution No. 84, calling on COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a
special election to be held simultaneously with the regular elections on
May 14, 2001. Twelve senators, with 6-year term each, were due to be
elected in that election. The resolution further provides that the
Senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall
serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto Guingona,
Jr. which ends on June 30, 2004.
On June 5, 2001, after canvassing the election results, the COMELEC
proclaimed 13 candidates as the elected Senators, with the first 12
Senators to serve the unexpired term of 6 years and the 13th Senator
to serve the full term of 3 years of Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr.
Gregorio Honasan ranked 13th.
Petitioners Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica, as voters and taxpayers,
filed the instant petition for prohibition, praying for the nullification of
Resolution No. 01-005. They contend that COMELEC issued Resolution
01-005 without jurisdiction because: (1) it failed to notify the electorate
of the position to be filled in the special election as required under
Section 2 of RA 6645; (2) it failed to require senatorial candidates to
indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they seek election
under the special or regular elections as allegedly required under
Section 73 of BP 881; and, consequently, (3) it failed to specify in the
Voters Information Sheet the candidates seeking election under the
special or regular senatorial elections as purportedly required under
Section 4, paragraph 4 of RA 6646. Tolentino and Mojica add that
because of these omissions, COMELEC canvassed all the votes cast for
the senatorial candidates in the 14 May 2001 elections without
distinction such that there were no two separate Senate elections held
simultaneously but just a single election for thirteen seats, irrespective
of term. Tolentino and Mojica sought the issuance of a temporary
restraining order during the pendency of their petition. Without issuing
any restraining order, the Supreme Court required COMELEC to
Comment on the petition. Honasan questioned Tolentinos and Mojicas
standing to bring the instant petition as taxpayers and voters because
they do not claim that COMELEC illegally disbursed public funds; nor
claim that they sustained personal injury because of the issuance of
Resolutions 01-005 and 01-006.
Issue:
WON the Special Election held on May 14, 2001 should be nullified:
(1) for failure to give notice by the body empowered to and
(2) for not following the procedure of filling up the vacancy pursuant to
R.A. 6645.
HELD:
(1) Where the law does not fix the time and place for holding a special
election but empowers some authority to fix the time and place after
the happening of a condition precedent, the statutory provision on the
giving of notice is considered mandatory, and failure to do so will
render the election a nullity.
The test in determining the validity of a special election in relation to
the failure to give notice of the special election is whether want of
notice has resulted in misleading a sufficient number of voters as
would change the result of special election. If the lack of official notice
misled a substantial number of voters who wrongly believed that there
was no special election to fill vacancy, a choice by small percentage of
voters would be void.
(2) There is no basis in the petitioners claim that the manner by which
the COMELEC conducted the special Senatorial election on May 14,
2001 is a nullity because the COMELEC failed to document separately
the candidates and to canvass separately the votes cast for the special
election. No such requirement exists in our election laws. What is
mandatory under Section 2 of R.A. 6645 is that the COMELEC fix the
date of election, if necessary, and state among others, the office/s to
be voted for.
Significantly, the method adopted by the COMELEC in conducting the
special election on May 14, 2001 merely implemented the procedure
specified by the Senate in Resolution No. 84. Initially, the original draft
of said resolution as introduced by Senator Francisco Tatad made no
mention of the manner by which the seat vacated by former Senator
Guingona would be filled. However, upon the suggestion of Senator
Raul Roco, the Senate agreed to amend the resolution by providing as
it now appears, that the senatorial cabdidate garnering the 13th
highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of
former Senator Teofisto Giongona, Jr.
6.
Taule vs Santos
August 12, 1991
G. R. No. 90336
Held:
7.
Issue:
WON the substitution of Emmanuel Sinica was against the provisions of
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Held:
NO. Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only mandates that a
substitute candidate should be a person belonging to and certified by
the same political party as the candidate to be replaced.
Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, had first
withdrawn his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan Member
before he joined the LAKAS party and nominated by the LAKAS
MATUGAS Wing as the substitute candidate. He had filed his certificate
of candidacy and his certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty
candidate signed by Gov. Matugas with his written acceptance of the
partys nomination. Therefore, he is a bona fide LAKAS member.
There is nothing in the Constitution or the statute which requires as a
condition precedent that a substitute candidate must have been a
member of the party concerned for a certain period of time before he
can be nominated as such.
8.
Facts:
Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy
for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Private
respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, a candidate for the same position, filed
a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC
alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
residency. Private respondent contended that petitioner lacked the
Constitutions one-year residency requirement for candidates for the
House of Representatives.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has satisfied the residency requirement as
mandated by Art. VI, Sec. 6 of the Constitution
Held:
Yes. For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with
domicile. The Court upheld the qualification of petitioner, despite her
own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in
the district for only 7 months, because of the following: (a) a minor
follows the domicile of her parents; Tacloban became petitioners
domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought the
family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual
removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the
former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive proof
of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be
deemed to continue; (c) the wife does not automatically gain the
husbands domicile because the term residence in Civil Law does not
9.
Held:
NO. A certificate of candidacy filed beyond reglementary period is void.
Section 7, Batasang Pambansa Bilang 52, provides that The sworn
certificate of candidacy shall be filed in triplicate not later than January
4, 1980. It is a fact admitted by the petitioner that the President had
not extended the period within which to file the certificate of
candidacy.
This Court is powerless to grant the remedy prayed for in the petition.
Having been filed beyond January 4, 1980, the certificate of candidacy
of the petitioner is void.
10.
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the COMELEC for
issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their
certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions.
Facts:
In preparation for the 2010 elections, the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 8678 the Guidelines on the Filing of
Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of Official Candidates
of Registered Political Parties in Connection with the May 10, 2010
National and Local Elections. Sec. 4 of Resolution No. 8678 provides
that Any person holding a public appointive office or position x x x
shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of
his certificate of candidacy (automatic resignation) however it exempts
those elected officials saying that Any person holding an elective
office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or
position.
Sec.13(par. 3) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9369 provides: x x x any
person holding a public appointive office or position x x x shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office x x x.
Held:
No. Sec. 4(a) of the COMELEC Resolution is null and void for being
violative of the equal protection clause and for being overbroad. Sec.
13(par. 3) of R.A. 9369 & Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code were
also declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Sec. 66 of BP Blg. 881 & RA 8436 relating to the automatic resignation
of elective officials upon the filing of their CoCs was repealed by R.A.
9006 (Fair Election Act). There was, thus, created a situation of
obvious discrimination against appointive officials who were deemed
ipso facto resigned from their offices upon the filing of their CoCs, while
elective officials were not.
Four (4) requisites of valid classification must be complied with in order
that a discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutional
norm of equal protection:
(1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law.
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the en banc
resolution of public respondent Commission on Elections promulgated
on June 29, 1998, in a COMELEC special action case, SPA No. 98-383.
Facts:
Petitioner Banaga, Jr. and respondent Bernabe, Jr. were both candidates
for vice-mayor of the City of Paraaque in the May 1998 election. In
said election, the city board of canvassers proclaimed respondent
Bernabe, Jr., as the winner for having garnered 71,977 votes over
petitioner Banaga, Jr.s 68,970 votes.
Dissatisfied with the result, petitioner filed with the COMELEC on May
1998, a Petition to Declare Failure of Elections and/or For Annulment of
Elections, alleging that said election was replete with election offenses,
such as vote buying and flying voters. He also alleged that numerous
Election Returns pertaining to the position of Vice-Mayor in the City of
Paraaque appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated.
In fact, there were people arrested who admitted the said election
offenses. Therefore, the incidents were sufficient to declare a failure of
elections because it cannot be considered as the true will of the
people.
Petitioner Banaga, Jr. is praying that he should be adjudged as the duly
elected Vice-Mayor in the City of Paraaque, during the May 1998 local
elections.
Respondent COMELEC dismissed petitioners suit and held that the
election offenses relied upon by petitioner do not fall under any of the
instances enumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. The
election tribunal concluded that 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 and therefore, cannot be viewed as an election
protest.
Thus, this petition for certiorari alleging that the respondent COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction for dismissing his petition motu propio without any basis
whatsoever and without giving him the benefit of a hearing.
Issues:
person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Considering the
citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the
following classes of citizens of the Philippines to posses dual
citizenship: (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli; (2) Those born in the
Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers country such children are citizens of that country; (3) Those
who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to
have renounced Philippine citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other
hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by
some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship
is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals volition.
By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post,
private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect
renounced his American citizenship. The filing of such certificate of
candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively
removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen;
that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country;
that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and
bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without
mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this
country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship
and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. On the
other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippine,
when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and
adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist,
and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his
election of Philippine citizenship.
Held:
Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President
of the Philippines who received the second or third highest
number of votes may contest the election of the President or the
Vice-President, as the case may be, by filing a verified petition
with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty
(30) days after the proclamation of the winner.
An election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the
protestant or to the protestee, hence, substitution and
intervention is allowed but only by a real party in interest. Note
that Mrs. FPJ herself denies any claim to the office of President
but rather stresses that it is with the paramount public interest
in mind that she desires to pursue the process commenced by
her late husband. However, nobility of intention is not the point of
reference in determining whether a person may intervene in an
election protest. In such intervention, the interest which allows a
person to intervene in a suit must be in the matter of litigation
and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor
will either gain or lose by the effect of the judgment. In this
protest, Mrs. FPJ will not immediately and directly benefit from
the outcome should it be determined that the declared president
did not truly get the highest number of votes.
It is unlawful:
(f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly exhibit any election
propaganda in any place, whether public or private, mobile or
stationary, except in the COMELEC common posted areas and/or
billboards
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11,
1992 elections assails the COMELEC's Resolution insofar as it prohibits
the posting of decals and stickers in "mobile" places like cars and other
moving vehicles. According to him such prohibition is violative of
Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of Republic
Act No. 6646.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of decals and
stickers on "mobile" places, public or private, and limit their location or
publication to the authorized posting areas that it fixes.
HELD:
The petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of Section 15 (a) of
Resolution No. 2347 of the COMELEC providing that "decals and
stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas
provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof" is DECLARED NULL and
VOID. The COMELEC's prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on
"mobile" places whether public or private except in designated areas
provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional
grounds. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental
right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III).
Significantly, the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned
prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his
preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree
with him.
Also, the questioned prohibition premised on the statute (RA 6646) and
as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth. The restriction as
to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it
encompasses even the citizen's private property, which in this case is a
The powers vested by the Constitution and the law on the COMELEC
may either be classified as those pertaining to its adjudicatory or quasijudicial functions, or those which are inherently administrative and
sometimes ministerial in character