Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Election Yow
Election Yow
1
NALDOZA vs. LAVILLES ( 254 SCRA 286 )
( 254 SCRA 286 )
Election Laws
Election Laws
Election Laws
4
COMELEC vs. NOYNAY ( 292 SCRA 254 )
Election Laws
5
PEOPLE vs. REYES ( 247 SCRA 328 )
Election Laws
6
MAPPALA vs. NUEZ ( 240 SCRA 600 )
Election Laws
Election Laws
Election Laws
Election Laws
10
ZACATE vs. COMELEC ( G.R. No. 144678, Mar. 1, 2001 )
Election Laws
11
Election Laws
12
Election Laws
13
MANUEL C. SUNGA vs. COMELEC ( 288 SCRA 76 )
Election Laws
14
BENJAMIN P. ABELLA vs. COMELEC ( 201 SCRA 253 )
Election Laws
15
xxxx
Election Laws
16
MELANIO SAMPAYAN, et al. vs. RAUL DAZA, et al. ( 213 SCRA 807 )
Election Contests, C. Quo Warranto
Facts: Petitioners filed a petition seeking to disqualify Daza, then incumbent
congressman of their congressional district in Makati, from continuing to exercise the
functions of his office on the ground that the latter is a greencard holder and a lawful
permanent resident of the United States. They also alleged that Mr. Daza has not by
any act or declaration renounced his status as permanent resident thereby violating
the Omnibus Election Code (Section 68) and the 1987 Constitution (section 18,
Article III).
Respondent Congressman filed his Comment denying the fact that he is a permanent
resident of the United States as evidenced by a letter order of the US Immigration
and Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, U.S.A, he had long waived his status when
he returned to the Philippines on August 12, 1985.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Daza should be disqualified as a member of the
House of Representatives for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Held: The Supreme Court vote to dismiss the instant case, first, the case is moot and
academic for it is evident from the manifestation filed by petitioners dated April 6,
1992, that they seek to unseat the respondent from his position as Congressman for
the duration of his term of office commencing June 30, 1987 and ending June 30,
1992. Secondly, jurisdiction of this case rightfully pertains to the House Electoral
Tribunal. Under Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, it is the House
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election
returns and qualification of its members.
The petitioners appropriate remedy should have been to file a petition to cancel
respondent Dazas certificate of candidacy before the election for a quo warranto
case with the House of Electoral Tribunal within ten days after Dazas proclamation.
Election Laws
17
Election Laws
18
Election Laws
19
Election Laws
20
Election Laws
21
Election Laws
22
Election Laws
23
Election Laws
24
Election Laws
25
RELAMPAGOS vs. CUMBA ( 243 SCRA 502 )
Election Laws
26
Election Laws
27
Election Laws
28
CASTROMAYOR vs. COMELEC (250 SCRA298)
Election Laws
29
Election Laws
30
VILLAROYA vs. COMELEC ( 155 SCRA 633 )
Election Laws
31
ALFONSO vs. COMELEC ( GR 107847, June 2, 1997 )
Election Laws
32
Election Laws
33
Election Laws
34
Election Laws
35
election
Held: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. The only evidence presented by
the petitioner to prove the alleged irregularities were the self-serving contracts of his
watchers and inspectors. Returns cannot be excluded on mere allegations that the
returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns on their face appear to be
regular and without any physical signs of tampering. The election irregularities cited
by the petitioner would require the presentation of evidence which cannot be done in
a pre-proclamation controversy which is summary in nature.
Election Laws
36
PATORAY vs. COMELEC ( 249 SCRA 440, 1995 )
Election Laws
37
the
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Under the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, a pre-election controversy which relates to the illegal composition of the
Board must be filed immediately when the Board begins to act as such or at the time
of the appointment of the member whose capacity to sit as such is objected to if it
comes after the canvassing of the Board or immediately at the point where the
proceedings begin to be illegal.
In the case of Laudenio, he filed his petition 5 days after Longcop had been
proclaimed. A pre-proclamation controversy before the COMELEC is no longer
possible and must be dismissed after a proclamation has been made. Besides, he
can no longer question the Boards composition after having actively participated in
the proceedings.
Election Laws
38
Election Laws
39
Election Laws
40
Election Laws
41
RAMIREZ vs. COMELEC ( 270 SCRA 590, 1997 )
Election Laws
42
Election Laws
43
Election Laws
44
Election Laws
45
Election Laws
46
Election Laws
47
Election Laws
48
Election Laws
49
Election Laws
50
Election Laws
51
Election Laws
52
CASIMIRO vs. COMELEC ( 171 SCRA 468, 1989 )
Election Laws
53
AQUINO vs. COMELEC ( 22 SCRA 288, 1968 )
Election Laws
54
SABINIANO vs. COMELEC ( 101 SCRA 289, 1980 )
Election Laws
55
QUILALA vs. COMELEC ( 188 SCRA 502, 1990 )
Election Laws
56
ESPINO vs. ZALDIVAR ( 21 SCRA 1204, 1967 )
Election Laws
57
GARAY vs. COMELEC ( 261 SCRA 222, 1996 )
Election Laws
58
BALINDONG vs. COMELEC ( 27 SCRA 567, 1969 )
Election Laws
59
SILVERIO vs. CASTRO ( 19 SCRA 222, 1967 )
Election Laws
60
TRAJANO vs. INCISO ( 19 SCRA 340, 1967 )
Election Laws
61
Election Laws
62
Election Laws
63
GADON vs. GADON ( 9 SCRA 652, 1963 )
Election Laws
64
Election Laws
65
TAJANLANGIT vs. CAZEAS ( 5 SCRA 567, 1962 )
Election Laws
66
GALIDO vs. COMELEC ( 193 SCRA 78, 1991 )
Election Laws
67
BAUTISTA vs. COMELEC ( 296 SCRA 480, 1998 )
Election Laws
68
BAUTISTA vs. CASTRO ( 206 SCRA 305,1992 )
Election Laws
69
SANCHEZ vs. COMELEC ( 153 SCRA 67, 1987 )
Election Laws
70
ALBERTO A. VILLAVERT vs. TOBIAS FORNIER ( G.R. No. L-3050. October 17,
1949 )
Casting of Votes
Facts: This is an election contest involving the office of provincial governor of
Antique, the contending parties being the registered candidates for said office in the
election held on November 11, 1947. The provincial board of canvassers declared
Alberto A. Villavert elected with a majority of 60 votes. Tobias Fornier protested, and
the trial court found that he had obtained a majority of 36 votes over Villavert and
consequently declared him elected. Villavert appealed to the Court of Appeals and
the latter also found that Tobias Fornier had won the election with a majority of 28
votes.
Issue: Whether or not the 40 ballots were properly rejected by the Court of Appeals
on the ground that Villaverts name was written not on the dotted line following the
words Provincial Governor but on the double line immediately above said words
and below the instructions to the voter.
Held: The 40 ballots were valid. The provision of section 135 of the Revised Election
Code that the voter shall fill his ballot by writing in the proper space for each office
the name of the person for whom he desires to vote, does not necessarily invalidate
votes cast for a candidate for provincial governor whose name is written not on the
dotted line following the words Provincial Governor but on the double line
immediately above said words and below the instructions to the voter. The purpose
of said provision is to identify the office for which each candidate is voted. It cannot
be doubted that the intention of the voter in writing the name of said candidate was to
vote him for one of the offices specified on the ballot. Neither can there be any
reasonable doubt that the office for which the voter intended to vote said candidate
was that of provincial governor (1) because that was the office for which he was a
registered candidate, (2) because the space on which his name was written was
such that the vote could not have been intended for a member of the provincial board
or for any other office specified farther down in the ballot, and (3) because no other
name was written on the dotted line immediately following the words Provincial
Governor. If the intention of the voter can be ascertained in an indubitable manner,
as in this case, it should be given effect not frustrated.
Election Laws
71
CANUTO F. PIMENTEL vs. PEDRO FESTEJO ( G.R. No. L-2327. January 11,
1949)
Casting of Votes
Facts: Pedro Festejo was proclaimed elected as mayor of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur, in
the elections of November 11, 1947, with 1,108 votes against 1,101 votes in favor of
Canuto F. Pimentel. The latter protested. The trial court found that Festejo received
1,107 votes and Pimentel 1,101 votes and, consequently, dismissed the protest.
Appellant appealed, contending that the lower court erred in not crediting to him the
fifty-nine ballots mentioned in his first three assignments of error as votes in his favor,
with which he would appear to have received a total of 1,160 votes and, therefore,
enough majority to win the election. As stated in appellants brief, his name in the
thirty-seven ballots mentioned in his first assignment of error was written on the line
corresponding to vice-mayor, in the eight ballots mentioned in his second
assignment of error was written on the line corresponding to the second space for
member of the provincial board, and in the fourteen ballots mentioned in his third
assignment of error was written in the space for councilor. Either names of other
persons, not candidates for mayor, are written in the space for mayor in said ballots,
or said space appears to be in blank.
Issue: Whether or not appellant can claim as votes in his favor ballots with his name
which does not appear written in the space reserved for mayor.
Held: For any ballot to be counted for a candidate for mayor, it is indispensable that
his name is written by the voter in the proper space for mayor, which word is clearly
printed in the ballot and cannot be mistaken by a person who, as provided by the
Constitution, is able to read. A name can be counted for any office only when it is
written within the space indicated upon the ballot for the vote for such office (Lucero
vs. De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852). It is impossible to count a ballot as vote for a
candidate for mayor, when his name is clearly written in the space reserved for
another office.
Election Laws
72
Election Laws
FELIX
V.
KATIPUNAN
vs.
( G.R. No. 43043. December 19, 1935 )
73
JULIO
A.
ANTIPORDA
Casting of Votes
Facts: The Court of First Instance in this case declared Antiporda municipal
president-elect of Binagonan, Rizal, with a majority of 10 votes over the protestant
Katipunan. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, affirmed said decision, having found,
after considering the grounds of the appeal, that the protestee still had a majority of
four votes over the protestant. A petition for reconsideration of the decision of SC
was filed and it was granted. Consequently, the SC decision rendered on July 30,
1935,
was
set
aside
and
the
case
was
set
for
rehearing.
The petitioner and appellant assigns as the courts first error its failure to count in his
favor 73 of the 89 ballots cast in precinct No. 3 after 6 oclock in the afternoon of the
election day by voters who were unable to vote at that time but were within a radius
of 50 meters from the precinct.
Issue: Whether or not 89 ballots cast in precinct No. 3 after 6 oclock in the afternoon
of the Election Day by voters who were unable to vote at that time but were within a
radius of 50 meters from the precinct were valid.
Held: The 89 ballots were valid. Evidence was presented by the appellant to the
effect that 89 voters, whose names appear in the list Exhibit C, were within the radius
of 50 meters at the closing of the precinct. It is, therefore, undisputed that there were
voters within the radius of 50 meters at the closing of the voting. The law provides
that in such case these voters should be allowed to vote, even after 6 oclock in the
afternoon.
Election Laws
74
PIO VALENZUELA vs. JUAN B CARLOS ( G.R. No. 17565. December 7, 1921 )
Casting of Votes
Facts: At the general election held in the Province of Bulacan on June 3, 1919, three
persons presented themselves as candidates for the office of provincial governor, to
wit, Juan B. Carlos, Pio Valenzuela, and Silvino Lopez. When the election was over,
it was found that, Juan B. Carlos had been elected provincial governor. Dissatisfied
with the result, Pio Valenzuela, in due time filed a motion to contest the election.
Upon submission of the case for decision, CFI of Bulacan, decided that Carlos had
been elected and accordingly dismissed the contest. From this decision the
contestant appealed. One of the assigned errors was that the action of the judge in
repairing to the municipality of Bustos was unauthorized and that the judicial acts
there done are devoid of legal effect. The matter was regards the taking of
testimonies from the numerous voters from the first precinct of Bustos presented in
the CFI.
Issue: Whether or not the court erred in admitting as evidence the testimonies of
voters.
Held: The lower court was correct in admitting the testimonies of voters as evidence.
Where the returns from a certain precinct are impugned as fraudulent, and it is found
upon opening the boxes that they have been violated, the candidate in whose
interest the act of violation is alleged to have been committed may introduce as
witnesses voters who, waiving their privilege of secrecy, will swear that they voted for
him. Such evidence is admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating the returns.
Election Laws
75
JOSE LINO LUNA vs. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ ( G.R. No. 13744. November 29,
1918 )
Casting of Votes
Facts: An election for the office of governor of the Province of Rizal was held on the
6th day of June, 1916. At said election Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio Rodriguez and
Servando de los Angeles were candidates for said office. The election was closed,
the votes cast were counted, and a return was made by the inspectors of said
municipalities to the provincial board of Canvassers, who, after a canvass,
proclaimed Eulogio Rodriguez, having received a plurality of said votes, as duly
elected governor of said province. Jose Lino Luna presented a protest in the CFI and
a new trial was ordered. Additional evidence was adduced. Judge McMahon found
that the inspectors in Binangonan did not close the polls at 6 oclock p.m., and that a
large number of persons voted after that time. The judge then directed that the total
vote of Rodriguez be reduced, without ascertaining how many had been cast for
Rodriguez and how many for Luna.
Issue: Whether or not the ballots cast after the hour fixed for closing were valid.
Held: The ballots were valid. The law provides that at all elections, the polls shall be
open from seven oclock in the morning until six oclock in the afternoon. The polls
should be open and closed in strict accord with said provisions. Voters who do not
appear and offer to vote within the hours designated by the law should not be
permitted to vote if the time for closing the polls has arrived. Upon the other hand, if
the voter is prevented, during the voting hours, from voting, and is not permitted to
vote by reason of the failure of the inspectors to do their duty, then, certainly, in the
absence of some fraud, neither such votes nor the entire vote of the precinct should
be annulled simply because some votes were cast after the regular hours. The ballot
of the innocent voter should not be annulled and he should not be deprived of his
participation in the affairs of his government when he was guilty of no illegal act or
fraud. The election inspectors should be held to comply strictly with the law. If they
violate the law, they should be punished and not the innocent voter.
Election Laws
76
Election Laws
77
MARCELINO C. LIBANAN vs. HRET ( G.R. No. 129783. December 22, 1997 )
Casting of Votes
Facts: Petitioner Marcelino Libanan and private respondent Jose Ramirez were
among the candidates for the lone congressional seat of Eastern Samar in the May
1995 elections. After the canvass of the returns was made on 13 May 1995, the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Eastern Samar proclaimed respondent Ramirez to
have been duly elected Representative of the District.
Petitioner Libanan filed an election protest before the HRET claiming, among other
things, that the absence of the BEI Chairmans signature at the back of the ballots
could not but indicate that the ballots were not those issued to the voters during the
elections thus, indicating that they were spurious and invalid. He averred that the law
would require the Chairman of the BEI to authenticate or sign the ballot before
issuing it to the voter.
Issue: Whether or not the ballots without the BEI Chairmans signature are valid.
Held: A ballot without BEI chairmans signature at the back is valid and not spurious,
provided that it bears any one of these other authenticating marks, to wit: (a) the
COMELEC watermark; and (b) in those cases where the COMELEC watermarks are
blurred or not readily apparent, the presence of red and blue fibers in the ballots.
What should, instead, be given weight is the consistent rule laid down by the HRET
that a ballot is considered valid and genuine for as long as it bears any one of these
authenticating marks, to wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark, or (b) the signature or
initials, or thumbprint of the Chairman of the BEI; and (c) in those cases where the
COMELEC watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent to the naked eye, the
presence of red or blue fibers in the ballots. It is only when none of these marks
appears extant that the ballot can be considered spurious and subject to rejection.
Election Laws
78
Election Laws
79
JUANITO C. PILAR vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTION ( G.R. No. 115245. July 11,
1995. 245 SCRA 759 )
Campaign,
D.
Statement
of
Contributions
and
Expenses
Facts: On March 22, 1992, petitioner Juanito C. Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy
for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of
Isabela. On March 25, 1992, petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy. In M.R.
Nos. 93-2654 and 94-0065 dated November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994
respectively, the COMELEC imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand
Pesos for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the COMELEC.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is liable for failure to file a statement of contributions
and expenditures notwithstanding his having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy
three days after his filing.
Held: The petitioner is liable. Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 states that every
candidate has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures.
Well-recognized is the rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not
distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. No distinction is to
be made in the application of a law where none is indicated. In the case at bench, as
the law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued his
candidacy or withdrew the same, the term every candidate must be deemed to refer
not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign, but also to one who withdrew his
candidacy.
Election Laws
80
COLLADO vs. ALONZO (15 SCRA 562)
Election Laws
81
Election Laws
82
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs. COMELEC (207 SCRA 1)
Election Laws
83
Election Laws
84
Election Laws
85
Election Laws
86
SUNGA vs. COMELEC (288 SCRA 76)
Election Laws
87
NOLASCO vs. COMELEC (275 SCRA 762)
Election Laws
88
AQUINO vs. COMELEC (248 SCRA 400)
Election Laws
89
Election Laws
90
GO vs. COMELEC
( 357 SCRA 739, 2001 )
Election Laws
91
GARVIDA vs. SALES, JR. ( 271 SCRA 767, 1997 )
Election Laws
92
Election Laws
93
Election Laws
94
Election Laws
95
RODRIGUEZ vs. COMELEC ( 259 SCRA 296, 1996 )
Candidates, B. Disqualifications
Facts: The petitioner Eduardo T. Rodriguez was a candidate for Governor in the
Province of Quezon in the May 8, 1995 elections. His rival candidate for the said
position was Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr., herein private respondent. Private
respondent filed a petition for disqualification before the COMELEC based principally
on the allegation that Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice. Private respondent
revealed that a charge for fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft and attempted
grand theft of personal property is pending against the petitioner before the Los
Angeles Municipal Court. Rodriguez is therefore a fugitive from justice which is a
ground for his disqualification/ ineligibility under Section 40 (e) of the Local
Government Code according to Marquez.
Rodriguez, however, submitted a certification from the Commission of Immigration
showing that Rodriguez left the US on June 25, 1985- roughly five (5) months prior to
the institution of the criminal complaint filed against him before the Los Angeles
Court.
Issue: Whether or not Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice.
Held: No. The Supreme Court reiterated that a fugitive from justice includes not only
those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who, being charged,
flee to avoid prosecution. The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the
compelling factor that animates ones flight from a particular jurisdiction. And
obviously, there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when
there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment or of a
promulgated judgement of conviction.
Election Laws
96
Election Laws
97
Election Laws
98
Election Laws
99
Election Laws
100
Election Laws
101
Election Laws
102
Election Laws
103
Election Laws
104
Election Laws
105
Election Laws
106
Election Laws
107
Election Laws
108
Election Laws
109
AKBAYAN YOUTH vs. COMELEC ( G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001 )
Voters, B. Registration
Facts: Petitoners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the Comelec to
conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections of new
voters. According to the petitioners around 4 Million youth failed to register on or
before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent Commission under
R.A. 8189. On January 29, 2001 Commissioners Tantangco and Lantion submitted
Memorandum No. 2001-027 requesting for a two-day additional registration of new
voters, to be set on February 17 and 18, 2001 nationwide. Subsequently, Comelec
issued Resolution No. 3584 denying said request, it was the consensus.
Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus,
which seeks to nullify respondent Comelecs resolution and / or to declare Sec. 8 of
R.A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the
disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing Resolution No. 3584 dated Feb. 8, 2001 as it denies petitioners right to vote.
Held: The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage.
For registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in
the election process. Section 8 of R.A. 8189, provides that no registration shall be
conducted 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.
In the light of the foregoing the assailed resolution must be upheld. The so-called
stand-by powers or residual powers of the Comelec, as raised by the petitioners is
provided under the relevant provisions of Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646 and adopted
verbatim in Section 28 of R.A. No. 8436, wherein the commission shall fix other
periods and dates for the accomplishment of pre-election acts if it is no longer
possible to observe the dates and periods prescribed by law, cannot be applied in
this case.
The Supreme Court held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies for the purpose of
upholding the resolution. Section 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its
being exercised or availed of and not otherwise. In the case at bar the Comelec
stated the operational impossibility of holding the additional two-day registration,
and therefore Section 8 of R.A. 8436 may not apply. Comelec acted within the
confines of the applicable law in denying the petitioners request.
Election Laws
110
Election Laws
111
Election Laws
112
EVANGELISTA vs. SANTOS ( 86 P.R. 387 )
Election Laws
113
UYTENGSU vs. REPUBLIC ( 95 P.R. 890 )
Election Laws
114
Election Laws
115
SUMULONG vs. COMELEC ( 73 P.R. 288, 1942 )
Election Laws
116
Election Laws
117
Election Laws
118
Election Laws
119
Election Laws
120
PEOPLE vs. DELGADO ( 189 SCRA 715, 1990 )
Election Laws
121
Election Laws
122
Election Laws
123
Election Laws
124
Election Laws
125
PERALTA vs. COMELEC ( 82 SCRA 30 )
Election Laws
126
GARCHITORENA vs. CRESCINI ( 39 PR 258, 1918 )
Election Laws
127