Absentee Voting

Cordora v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2009 Facts A complaint for disqualification was filed by Gaudencio Cordora alleging that Gustavo Tambunting made false assertions in his certificate for candidacy for the 2004 elections. Cordora stated that Tambunting was not eligible to run for local public office because Tambunting lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements since the latter was a naturalized American citizen. However Tambunting contended that he was born to a Filipino mother and an American father making him a dual citizen which is not an impediment to his running for the elections. Issue Cordora‘s petition is not an action to disqualify Tambunting because of Tambunting‘s failure to meet citizenship and residency requirements. Neither is the present petition an action to declare Tambunting a non-Filipino and a non-resident. The present petition seeks to prosecute Tambunting for knowingly making untruthful statements in his certificates of candidacy.

Held Petition dismissed. Tambunting does not deny that he is born of a Filipino mother and an American father. Neither does he deny that he underwent the process involved in INS Form I-130 (Petition for Relative) because of his father‘s citizenship. Tambunting claims that because of his parents‘ differing citizenships, he is both Filipino and American by birth. Cordora, on the other hand, insists that Tambunting is a naturalized American citizen. The court agrees with Commissioner Sarmiento‘s observation that Tambunting possesses dual citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his birth, it was no longer necessary for Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire American citizenship. The process involved in INS Form I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship which Tambunting acquired at birth. The certification from the Bureau of Immigration which Cordora presented contained two trips where Tambunting claimed that he is an American. However, the same certification showed nine other trips where Tambunting claimed that he is Filipino. Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual citizenship prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy before the 2001 elections. The fact that Tambunting had dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office. persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.

Ugodoracion v COMELEC
April 18, 2008 Facts Ugodoracion ang Tungol were both candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Albuquerque, Province of Bohol in the May 14, 2007 elections. Tungol filed a disqualification complaint against Ugodoracion alleging material representation in the COC of the latter and that he failed to meet the residency requirement. Ugodoracion was said to be a green card holder since 2001. Issue Whether there is material representation that would justify the cancellation of the COC. Whether Ugodorocion lost his domicile of origin Held SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. -- The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation assumed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge. xxxx SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing not later than fifteen days before the election. We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in contemplation of election laws, is synonymous to domicile. Domicile is the place where one actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return (animus revertendi) and remain (animus manendi). It consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile is classified into (1) domicile of origin, which is acquired by every person at birth; (2) domicile of choice, which is acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of origin; and (3) domicile by operation of law, which the law attributes to a person independently of his residence or intention.

Japson v COMELEC
G.R. No. 180088, Jan. 19, 2009 Facts Petitioner Japson and Respondent Ty were both running for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, in the local elections held on 14 May 2007. Japson sought to disqualify his opponent. According to Japson, Ty was guilty of misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy for although the latter was a natural born Filipino he acquired American citizenship and lived in the States for almost 25 years. Hence the latter could not have met the required citizenship and residency requirement. Ty argued that he had reacquired his Philippine citizenship and renounced his American citizenship, and he had been a resident of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for more than one year prior to the 14 May 2007 elections. Therefore, Ty sought the dismissal of Japzon‘s Petition in SPA No. 07-568. Issue Given the aforementioned facts was Ty able to meet the citizenship and residency requirement. Held The Court finds no merit in the Petition at bar.

There is no dispute that Ty was a natural-born Filipino. He was born and raised in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines. However, he left to work in the USA and eventually became an American citizen. On 2 October 2005, Ty reacquired his Philippine citizenship by taking his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before Noemi T. Diaz, Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, USA, in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225.16 At this point, Ty still held dual citizenship, i.e., American and Philippine. It was only on 19 March 2007 that Ty renounced his American citizenship before a notary public and, resultantly, became a pure Philippine citizen again. It bears to point out that Republic Act No. 9225 governs the manner in which a natural-born Filipino may reacquire or retain17 his Philippine citizenship despite acquiring a foreign citizenship, and provides for his rights and liabilities under such circumstances. A close scrutiny of said statute would reveal that it does not at all touch on the matter of residence of the natural-born Filipino taking advantage of its provisions. Republic Act No. 9225 imposes no residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. Clearly, Republic Act No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. This is only logical and consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for dual citizenship. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is also a citizen. Residency in the Philippines only becomes relevant when the natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship decides to run for public office.

Certificate of Candidacy .

The Commission may not. The duty of the COMELEC to give due course to certificates of candidacy filed in due form is ministerial in character.The Commission. by itself. she even won the elections. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. whose certificate of candidacy was cancelled by the COMELEC motu proprio on the ground that she was not a registered voter in the barangay where she intended to run. after notice and hearing. the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. August 10. However she and several others were disqualified because the COMELEC adopted a resolution recommended by the Commission‘s law department to this effect because it is said that she together with several others were not registered voters of the barangay were they intended to run. . The Court has ruled that the Commission has no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner‘s certificate of candidacy. 2004 Facts Petitioner Elena Cipriano filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the 2002 SK elections. . Pasay City. election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. thus: Sec. . provincial election supervisor. 158830. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy. Held The court disagrees. Cipriano. 78. While the Commission may look into patent defects in the certificates. it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. 76 of the Omnibus Election Code. 76. the duly elected SK Chairman of Barangay 38. not later than fifteen days before the election. Nonetheless. without the proper proceedings.A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. This is provided in Sec.R. look into the qualifications of a candidate and cancel his certificate of candidacy on the ground that he lacks the qualifications prescribed by law? This is the issue that needs to be resolved in this petition for certiorari filed by Ellan Marie P. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twentyfive days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided. in the exercise of its power to enforce and administer election laws. It states: Sec. No. deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. Issue May the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).Cipriciano v COMELEC G. on its own. Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code allows any person to file before the COMELEC a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that any material representation therein is false. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of said body. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.

pursuant to a COMELEC resolution. she should file it with the municipal election officer of Baybay. prior to the election. 881. "A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may. Issue Is petitioner disqualified to be candidate for governor of Leyte and mayor of Baybay.. Section 73. a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay.R.. Only a few minutes were left before the deadline so instead of going to Baybay Leyte to personally seek the cancellation she decided to just fax her withdrawal to her father living in Balay. COMELEC gave due course to the petition of Montejo. at 12:28 a. Leyte? (a) Must the affidavit of withdrawal be filed with the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was filed? (b) May the affidavit of withdrawal be validly filed by fax? Held Petition was granted. the provincial election supervisor of Leyte refused to accept the affidavit of withdrawal and suggested that. The respondent Montejo and several other sought the disqualification of petitioner because she filed two COCs. The court holds that petitioner's withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay. Hence this petition. on February 28. Leyte. withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written declaration under oath. "No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election. and left in full force her certificate of candidacy for governor.m. Leyte. Leyte. Leyte where she filed her certificate of candidacy for mayor. provides that: "SEC. annulling the COMELEC resolution declaring petitioner disqualified for both positions of governor of Leyte and mayor of the municipality of Baybay. Leyte on February 27. 1 March 2001 was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. 2001. May 10. 73. and if . Leyte because she filed certificates of candidacy for both positions? Was there a valid withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Baybay. Certificate of candidacy.Loreta-Go v COMELEC G. 147741. because of this she sought the withdrawal of her COC as mayor. However. The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay. No. Batas Pambansa Blg. Leyte was effective for all legal purposes.No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein. the following day. However. The father was able to send it at 12:28 am. 2001 Facts Petitioner filed with the municipal election officer of the municipality of Baybay. 2001 she filed another certificate of candidacy for the position of Governor. otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code.

he shall not be eligible for any of them." There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. . Thus. or the office of the municipal election officer of the said municipality. before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy. However. the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices. the office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality involved belongs. the office of the regional election director concerned.he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office. it can be filed directly with the main office of the COMELEC.

Iolilo. when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to one's identity. is not within the scope of the provision." It must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one's qualifications for public office. In her defense. There is absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara. Ermelita claimed that she did not know that Neptali was already married. The use of a surname. Petitioner does not allege that the electorate did not know who they were voting for when they cast their ballots in favor of "Ermelita Cacao Salcedo" or that they were fooled into voting for someone else by the use of such name.Salcedo II v COMELEC 312 SCRA 447. or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. . misinform. Victorino filed a disqualification complaint against Ermelita since she was using the surename Salcedo when in fact her marriage to a certain Neptali Salcedo was void. The Court AFFIRMS the en banc Resolution of the Commission on Elections denying the petition to cancel private respondent's certificate of candidacy. Held Private respondent did not commit any material misrepresentation A false representation under section 78 must consist of a "deliberate attempt to mislead. Issue Did private respondent commit any material representation by stating that her surename was Salcedo when in fact her marriage was void. Iloilo were deceived by the use of such surname by private respondent. 1999 Facts Victorino Salcedo II and Eremelita Salcedo both ran for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Sara.

Issue Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that there was no valid substitution by Luna for Hans Roger. by itself. The COMELEC may not. No.Luna v COMELEC G. Held There was a valid substitution . Tomas Layao together with several others filed a disqualification petition against her since she was a registered voter of Bangued and not Lagayan Abra. without the proper proceedings. Del Rosario. deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. In Sanchez v. 2007 Facts Joy Chrisma Luna filed her certificate of Candidacy as a substitute candidate for Hans Roger for the 2004 elections a vice mayor of Lagayan Abra. April 24. Hence this petition. 165983. COMELEC ruled in favor of the disqualification case. . the Court ruled that the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC. Furthermore there can be no valid substitution since Hans Roger the candidate sought to be substituted was only 20 years old on the day of the election.R. However.

The false representation must pertain to a material fact that affects the right of the candidate to run for the election for which he filed his COC. in Marantao and Marawi. or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. COMELEC could not consider both registrations valid because it would then give rise to the anomalous situation where Maruhom could vote in two precincts at the same time. then COMELEC should determine which registration was valid and which one was null. Comelec granted the disqualification complaint Issue Whether the COMELEC erred in declaring petitioner as a double registrant. 00-1513 that while the first registration of any voter subsists. 00-1513 on 25 July 2000. Aside from the requirement of materiality. misinform. Given Maruhom‘s double registration in Marawi and Marantao. . 2009 Facts Salic Maruhom and Abinal were bothe candidates for Mayor in the municipality of Marantao Lanao del Sur. any subsequent registration thereto is void ab initio. In other words. A candidate could only be disqualified for a ground provided by law. To foster honesty and credibility in the registration of voters. and there was no law declaring double registration as a ground for disqualification. 179430. COMELEC laid down the rule in Minute Resolution No. 07-093 contending that she was qualified to run as municipal mayor of Marantao.Jamela Salic Maruhom v COMELEC G. Abinal filed a disqualification case against Salic Maruhom due to the fact that the latter was a registered voter in two precincts. This was precisely the situation that the COMELEC intended to address when it issued its Minute Resolution No. Maruhom filed before the COMELEC an Answer with Motion to Dismiss SPA No. as she had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law. so as to avoid the padding of vote registration. This would be a dangerous precedent that would open the floodgates to massive election cheating and fraud. And disqualifying him for false representation Held Under Section 78 of the OEC.R. residence or status as a registered voter. the false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead. seven years prior to the 14 May 2007 elections in which Maruhom intended to run. it must be made with the intention to deceive the electorate as to the would-be candidate‘s qualifications for public office. July 27. Maruhom also insisted that she did not make false material representations in her COC. No. Such material fact refers to a candidate’s eligibility or qualification for elective office like citizenship. a false representation of material fact in the COC is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the COC. Furthermore Abinal alleges that there were material representations in the COC of Maruhom regarding her name and residence in Marawi and Marantao.

189698 February 22. At first the complaint was granted but upon motion for reconsideration by respondent COMELEC the decision was reversed. The classification rests on substantial distinctions.
 2. The test used is reasonableness which requires that:
 1. It applies equally to all members of the same class. No. and
 4. This is as evidenced by the case of Farinas v Executive Secretary .R. Appointive officials are said to be resigned from their positions once they filed their COCs. The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. municipal or barangay level.Quinto v COMELEC G. It is not limited to existing conditions only. Issue Is the assailed provision unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause Held No it does not violate the equal protection clause. It is germane to the purposes of the law. and (b) they limit these civil servants‘ activity regardless of whether they be partisan or nonpartisan in character. and. or whether they be in the national.
 3. 2010 Facts Petitioners sought that the provision of the Omnibus Election code regarding the differential treatment between appointive and elective officials be declared unconstitutional mainly because it violates the equal protection clause and was suffering from overbreadth as they prohibit the candidacy of all civil servants holding appointive posts: (a) without distinction as to whether or not they occupy high/influential positions in the government. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.

Pre election Remedies .

163295. But more importantly. and (2) that he has fully served three (3) consecutive terms. there was actually no interruption or break in the continuity of Francis‘ service respecting the 1998-2001 term. he never ceased discharging his duties and responsibilities as mayor of San Vicente. Unlike Lonzanida. Camarines Norte for the entire period covering the 1998-2001 term. here. The assailed COMELEC resolutions are affirmed. the result of the mayoralty election was declared a nullity for the stated reason of ―failure of election‖. However in 1998 when Ong was proclaimed the winner. In this case. However the decision annulling the proclamation of Ong as winner only came out in 2001. Held Petition dismissed. there was an effective interruption of the continuity of service. COMELEC ruled in favor of Alegre. followed by an order for him to vacate the office of mayor. Francis was never unseated during the term in question. as a consequence thereof. According to him Ong is banned to run for the 2004 elections as Mayor since he has already reached his three term limit. Issue whether or not petitioner Francis‘s assumption of office as Mayor of San Vicente. there being an involuntary severance from office as a result of legal processes. No. January 23. Ong was proclaimed mayor for the 1995. Lonzanida did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term. Petitioner cannot rely on the case of Lozanida v COMELEC. 2006 Facts John Stanley Alegre and Francis Ong. 1998. then incumbent mayor were both running for the position of Mayor in the May 2004 elections in San Vicente Camarinas Norte.R. For his defense petitioner cites Lozanida v COMELEC. On the other hand. It is because of this event that Alegre sought for the disqualification of Ong. two conditions or requisites must concur. The difference between the case at bench and Lonzanida is at once apparent. Camarines Norte for the mayoralty term 1998 to 2001 should be considered as full service for the purpose of the three-term limit rule. the proclamation of Lonzanida as mayor-elect was nullified. . For one. Hence this petition. For the threeterm limit for elective local government officials to apply. the failure-of-election factor does not obtain in the present case. By this time Ong had already served his full term. and. in Lonzanida. to wit: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three (3) consecutive terms in the same local government post. In fine. an election protest was filed against him by Alegre.Ong v Alegre G. and 2001 elections. For another.

this petition. an act abhorred by our Constitution. if we were to allow the so-called ―substitute‖ to file a ―new‖ and ―original‖ certificate of candidacy beyond the period for the filing thereof. a complaint to cancel certificate of candidacy was filed against him by Antonio Abaya which was granted. 1998 elections. COMELEC granted Abaya‘s complaint. Isabela. and 2. If a person was not a candidate. he is and was not a candidate at all. No. Shortly after the deadline for filing for candidacy. Besides. Three days after. . if the disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably filed certificate of candidacy. 136351 July 28. Joel Miranda filed his certificate of candidacy as a substitute for Pempe Miranda.Miranda v Abaya G. Abaya filed a disqualification case against Joel Miranda for void substitution.R. Whether the order of the Comelec directing the proclamation of the private respondent was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. it would be a crystalline case of unequal protection of the law. Whether the annulment of petitioner‘s substitution and proclamation was issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Hence. 1999 Facts Jose ―Pempe‖ Miranda then incumbent mayor of Santiago City. he cannot be substituted under Section 77 of the Code. filed his certificate of candidacy for the same mayoralty post for the synchronized May 11. Held A disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid certificate of candidacy in the first place because. Of course. Issue 1. After a motion for reconsideration.

nor senatorial candidates. the magnitude of the responsibility of those officers. However. respectively. Candidates who. such as: a) candidate who cannot wage a nationwide campaign. and this means keeping those who are not serious in running for office out of the race. do not possess the constitutional and legal qualifications of the office to which they aspire to be elected.R. the following criteria was observed in the determination of the candidates who have bona fide intention to run for the office for which they seek to be elected: 1. 104443 April 13. This is in line with the ruling in Tajanan v COMELEC Held ―xxx This does not mean that this Court is declaring national politics as the sole preserve of the so-called ‗traditional politicians‘. No.Tajanan v COMELEC G. We recognize the need to keep the number of candidates to a manageable level. 1992 Facts In line with the 2004 and 2010 elections COMELEC issued a resolution adopting the recommendation of it‘s law department regarding the limiting of the number of candidates to ensure the dignity and manageability of the election for the Offices of the President. on the face of said certificate. and d) candidates for president or vice-president who do not present running mates for president or vice-president. which involves the election of government officials from the President down to city and municipal officials. Candidates whose certificate of candidacy would cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of names and surnames with other candidates. b) candidates who do not have a platform of government. Candidates who have no intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed as shown by circumstances or acts that clearly demonstrate the lack of such bona fide intention. Candidates who. on the face of their certificate of candidacy. . Vice-President and Senators. 3.‖ Considering the dignity that must be accorded the Offices of the President. filed their certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute. and 4. 2. given the complexity of the present political exercise. c) candidates who are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with national constituency. Vice-President and Senators.

not en banc. Garvida is declared ineligible for being over the age qualification for candidacy in the May 6. Moreover.R. September 10. Issues 1) WON the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction to act on the petition to deny or cancel her certificate of candidacy. San Lorenzo. 1996. However Section 532 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides that the conduct of the SK elections is under the supervision of the COMELEC and shall be governed by the Omnibus Election Code. The Board of election Tellers denied her application since she is said to be over the age limit which is 21. She was 21 and 10 mos. Manila. Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy for an elective office may be filed with the Law Department of the COMELEC on the ground that the candidate has made a false material representation in his certificate. 1996 elections of the Sangguniang Kabataan. The petition may be heard and evidence received by any official designated by the COMELEC after which the case shall be decided by the COMELEC itself and that the jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC sitting in Division. 1996 to the Commission on Elections National Office. The Omnibus Election Code. Having been declared qualified. the MTCT ruled that she was qualified. she filed a certificate of candidacy for the SK chairman position. Old. The COMELEC en banc sent a resolution ordering the suspension of proclamation of Garvida in the event that she wins.G. resolutions. Article IX. 1997 Facts Lynette Garvida filed a petition for her inclusion as a member and voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan in Brgy. resolution. the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case to any of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. in Section 78.122872. order or ruling is not obtained in the Division.
 In the instant case. It therefore acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the petition and issued the order of May 2. No. only motions to reconsider decisions. Her opponent. Bangui Ilocos Norte. Cases before a Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the required number of votes to reach a decision.
 In relation thereto. However. Bangui. The petition was sent by facsimile and registered mail on April 29. Sales sought her disqualification filing with the COMELEC en banc a ―Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy‖ against petitioner Garvida for falsely representing her age qualification in her certificate of candidacy. and is ordered to vacate her position as Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo. governs the procedure to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. orders or rulings of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by the COMELEC en banc. (not pubcor)
 2) WON cancellation of her certificate of candidacy on the ground that she has exceeded the age requirement to run as an elective official of the SK is valid Garvida v Sales Held Lynette G. Ilocos Norte. . It is therefore the COMELEC sitting in Divisions that can hear and decide election cases.

Election Propaganda .

with so many of our population falling below the poverty line. and by the prevalence of poverty. as far as practicable. and (5) invalid due to overbreadth. August 31. (4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate. or . (3) in the nature of an ex-post facto law. wherein the petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No.‖ except to the COMELEC.‖ This Court ruled therein that this objective is of special importance and urgency in a country which. on one hand. A close examination of the assailed provision reveals that its primary objectives are to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field for candidates of public office. parades. clubs. No. ―election campaign‖ or ―partisan political activity‖ is defined as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office.R. Under the Omnibus Election Code. is characterized by extreme disparity in income distribution between the economic elite and the rest of society. on the other. by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. or other similar assemblies. to equalize the situation between popular or rich candidates. the situations of rich and poor candidates by preventing the former from enjoying the undue advantage offered by huge campaign ―war chests. The latter is a valid reason for the exercise of police power as held in National Press Club v. 2004 Facts Frank Chavez filed a petition for prohibition with a writ of preliminary injunction against a resolution made by the COMELEC regarding premature campaigning. (3) Making speeches. or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office. 6646. the contracts he entered into to endorse the products were made by him as a private individual. the assailed resolutions are a valid exercise of police power. which prohibited the sale or donation of print space and air time ―for campaigning or other political purposes. 162777. COMELEC. Issue Whether the assailed provision is unconstitutional as the same is allegedly (1) a gross violation of the non-impairment clause. Held Petition denied. According to him. (2) an invalid exercise of police power. (4) contrary to the Fair Elections Act. conferences. Activities included under this definition are: (1) Forming organizations. like ours. or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate (2) Holding political caucuses. Moreover. for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate.Chavez v COMELEC G. The obvious intention of this provision is to equalize. associations. meetings. petitioner cannot claim that the subject billboards are purely product endorsements and do not announce nor solicit any support for his candidacy. It is because of this resolution that he was ordered by COMELEC to remove the billboards containing his product endorsements along the Balintawak North Expressway months before the election. announcements or commentaries. committees. rallies. and lesser-known or poorer candidates.

pledges or support for or against a candidate .(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes.

is not paid for by candidates for political office. political parties and programs of government. . Alongside the media representatives.National Press Club v COMELEC 207 SCRA 1 Facts In this case the representatives of the mass media filed a petition in order to declare Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. their qualifications. By virtue of the operation of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution. Moreover. their qualifications. Held The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods. Issue Whether Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. and programs and so forth. Section 11 (b) does not purport in any way to restrict the reporting by newspapers or radio or television stations of news or news-worthy events relating to candidates. two national candidates and one local candidate further allege that such provision is a curtailment of the right to be informed. Section 11 (b) does not reach commentaries and expressions of belief or opinion by reporters or broadcasters or editors or commentators or columnists in respect of candidates. In sum. so long at least as such comments. Section 11 (b) is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability. opinions and beliefs are not in fact advertisements for particular candidates covertly paid for. 66461 as unconstitutional. Section 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary other coverage that. The assailed provision prevents the media industry to sell or donate space for political advertisements. Section 11 (b) as designed to cover only paid political advertisements of particular candidates. Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability in time to election periods. in responsible media. 66461 invades and violates the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression.

As such.ready. in its present form and as interpreted by Comelec in its 22 March 1995 letter directives. Firstly. Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police power of the State. there was no effort (and apparently no inclination on the part of Comelec) to show that the police power — essentially a power of legislation — has been constitutionally delegated to respondent Commission. Section 2 of Resolution No. while private property may indeed be validly taken in the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state. . 2772. 2772. No attempt was made to demonstrate that a real and palpable or urgent necessity for the taking of print space confronted the Comelec and that Section 2 of Resolution No. The assailed resolution was asking publishers for a free ―COMELEC space‖ wherein they are required to provide free space in their newspapers to be used by the COMELEC for election regulation purposes. As earlier noted. This argument was. however. the Solicitor General also contended that Section 2 of Resolution No. even if read as compelling publishers to "donate" "Comelec space. without a showing of existence of a national emergency or other imperious public necessity. the Office of the Solicitor General contended that such was not unconstitutional for it merely provided for guidelines to be followed for the procurement of COMELEC space. Issue Whether Resolution No. to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers. COMELEC is still mandated to regulate and supervise the information operations of the media industry in order to ensure the impartiality of the elections.compliance. even if the assailed provision is mandatory. indiscriminately and without regard to the individual business condition of particular newspapers or magazines located in differing parts of the country. " may be sustained as a valid exercise of the police power of the state. purports to require print media enterprises to "donate" free print space to Comelec. The Solicitor General is also of the view that. 2772 was itself the only reasonable and calibrated response to such necessity available to the Comelec. They move that such resolution be stricken down as unconstitutional. there was no attempt to show compliance in the instant case with the requisites of a lawful taking under the police power. made too casually to require prolonged consideration on our part. In addition to this they are asked to process raw data to make it camera. 2772 is a blunt and heavy instrument that purports. In behalf of the COMELEC. Section 2 of Resolution No. Furthermore there were no administrative or criminal sanctions for non. 2772 issued by respondent Commission on Elections is valid. They contend that this was tantamount to involuntary servitude and was not a valid exercise of police power.Philippne Press Institute v COMELEC 244 SCRA 272 Facts This case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against a resolution made by the COMELEC. Secondly. Held According to the court. Section 2 suffers from a fatal constitutional vice and must be set aside and nullified.

1998 Facts The petitioners Emilio Osmena and Pablo P Garcia seek for the nullification of the decision made by the supreme court in NPC v COMELEC wherein it ruled for the validity of the Electoral Reform Laws of 1987. Issue Whether the assailed decision is unconstitutional Held The petition is DISMISSED. Content regulation cannot be done in the absence of any compelling reason. According to them the ban to political advertising creates a disadvantage to the poor candidates for they are deprived of a medium which they can afford to pay unlike the more affluent candidates who can provide for other means than dissemination of information through media. Said law prohibits the selling and donating of space for campaign and any political purposes except for COMELEC. Instead of leveling the playing field it worsens it. For unlimited expenditure for political advertising in the mass media skews the political process and subverts democratic self-government.Osmena v COMELEC 288 SCRA 447. . What is bad is if the law prohibits campaigning by certain candidates because of the views expressed in the ad. A number of decisions are cited by the court but it all came down to the fact the State can prohibit campaigning outside a certain period as well as campaigning within a certain place. According to them the court erred in ruling in the NPC case that the freedom of speech was not violated for such was a valid regulation for election purposes.

The court said in its decision that with the prohibition on media advertising by candidates themselves. is likewise to uphold the people's right to information on matters of public concern. They argue that such is unconstitutional for it is tantamount to the taking of property without due process of law and that such was enacted in excess of the power granted to COMELEC to supervise and regulate the elections. 2 of the Omnibus Election Code." while Art. Art III. More than merely depriving candidates of time for their ads. §7 of the Constitution provides that "the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. To affirm the validity of §92. Both contends the validity of the provision regarding the so. the COMELEC Time and COMELEC Space are about the only means through which candidates can advertise their qualifications and programs of government.P. they are also public trustees charged with the duty of ensuring that the people have access to the diversity of views on political issues.called COMELEC space of Sec." Furthermore. establish. This right of the people is paramount to the autonomy of broadcast media. 881 is to hold public broadcasters to their obligation to see to it that the variety and vigor of public debate on issues in an election is maintained. therefore. it said that to affirm the validity of §92 of B. More than merely depriving their qualifications and programs of government. §6 states that "the use of property bears a social function [and] the right to own. GMA is a network station granted a franchise by Congress. Held Petition DISMISSED. For while broadcast media are not mere common carriers but entities with free speech rights. Issue Whether the questioned provision is tantamount to the taking of property without due process of law and whether such is enacted in excess of the power granted to COMELEC to supervise and regulate the elections. The use of property bears a social function and is subject to the state's duty to intervene for the common good. Blg.TELEBAP v COMELEC 289 SCRA 337. Broadcast media can find their just and highest reward in the fact that whatever altruistic service they may render in connection with the holding of elections is for that common good. and operate economic enterprises [is] subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands. the failure of broadcast stations to provide air time unless paid by the government would clearly deprive the people of their right to know. 1998 Facts TELEBAP is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. XII. .

SWS and KPC argue that such resolution is a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech.SWS v COMELEC 357 SCRA 496. §11(b). the prohibition imposed by §5. but the curtailment of the right of expression is direct.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression.‖ By prohibiting the publication of election survey results because of the possibility that such publication might undermine the integrity of the election.4 cannot be justified on the ground that it is only for a limited period and is only incidental. COMELEc on their part avers that such is a valid regulation in order not to manipulate the election results. if not viewpoint. 5. armchair theorists.‖ Thus. absolute. No. Sec. Issue Whether Sec.A. by preferring personal opinion to statistical results. (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period. However a resolution was issued by COMELEC stating that ―Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an election‖. radio and TV commentators. or its content.4 fails to meet criterion [3] of the O’Brien test because the causal connection of expression to the asserted governmental interest makes such interest ―not unrelated to the suppression of free expression. This sufficiently distinguishes §5.4 shows a bias for a particular subject matter. It constitutes a total suppression of a category of speech and is not made less so because it is only for a period of fifteen (15) days immediately before a national election and seven (7) days immediately before a local election. 2001 Facts SWS is a research institution that conducts surveys while KPC publishes the Manila Standard. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression means that ―the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message. there was actually no ban but only a substitution of media advertisements by the COMELEC . and other opinion makers. For the ban imposed by R. but it also provided an alternative so that. Held The petition is GRANTED. Both wanted to conduct an election survey during the 2001 national and local elections.A. 6646. and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression.4 from R. 6646. §5.4 actually suppresses a whole class of expression. and substantial.4 is a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech. The court has two points First. a newspaper of general circulation here in the Philippines. No. its subject matter. as this Court pointed out in Osmeña. The prohibition may be for a limited time. §11(b) is not only authorized by a specific constitutional provision. COMELEC and Osmeña v. contrary to the claim of the Solicitor General. COMELEC. 5. while allowing the expression of opinion concerning the same subject matter by newspaper columnists. In effect. The court rules that §5. its ideas. which this Court found to be valid in National Press Club v. §5.

when such aim can be more narrowly pursued by punishing unlawful acts.4 aims at the prevention of last-minute pressure on voters. that the restriction be not greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest. they cannot be attained at the sacrifice of the fundamental right of expression. rather than speech because of apprehension that such speech creates the danger of such evils. namely. §5.space and COMELEC hour. §5. Second.4 nonetheless fails to meet criterion [4] of the O’Brien test. the creation of bandwagon effect. Even if the governmental interest sought to be promoted is unrelated to the suppression of speech and the resulting restriction of free expression is only incidental. As already stated. and resort to the form of election cheating called ―dagdag-bawas. ―junking‖ of weak or ―losing‖ candidates. .‖ Praiseworthy as these aims of the regulation might be.

Monica Surigao del Norte . Monica. 2009 Facts Penera and Andanar are mayoralty candidates for the May 2007 elections in Sta. they did not ask the people to vote for them. COMELEC ruled in favor of the disqualification case. this petition Issue Whether Penera should be disqualified for rengaging in premature campaigning Held Petition DISMISSED. at the beginning of the campaign period. it is only at the start of the campaign period. Hence. Compared to the other candidates who are only about to begin their election campaign. However. The court said that a person. when the person officially becomes a candidate. constituting premature campaigning. only after said person officially becomes a candidate. 181613.Penera v COMELEC G. at the start of the campaign period. No. Andanar filed a disqualification case against Penera and the other maembers of her political party for there were witnesses that allege that Penera engaged in premature campaigning. can said acts be given effect as premature campaigning under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. a candidate who had previously engaged in premature campaigning already enjoys an unfair headstart in promoting his/her candidacy. She admitted that she was in the motorcade but she should not be disqualified because she and her party did not make any speech and that they only played a marching background music and waved to the crowd. after filing his/her COC but prior to his/her becoming a candidate (thus. So technically according to her. can already commit the acts described under Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code as election campaign or partisan political activity. She was seen in a motorcade prior to the official campaign period in certain baranggays of Sta. Only after said person officially becomes a candidate. shall accrue to his/her benefit. Obviously. can his/her disqualification be sought for acts constituting premature campaigning. .R. November 25. prior to the start of the campaign period). that the undue and iniquitous advantages of his/her prior acts.

Appreciation of Ballots .

In Teacher's Village Quezon City. The Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed Bautista as the winner by 2 votes. Whether or not respondent Judge acted correctly in its appreciation of the contested ballots Held . Castro filed a protest.Bautista v Castro 206 SCRA 305 Facts Bautista and Castro were candidates for the position of Brgy. Capt. Capt. Petitioner Sergio Bautista filed the instant petition for review by certiorari Issue Whether or not a ballot which does not contain the signature of the poll chairman be considered a valid ballot. The trial court rendered a decision that Castro garnered the same number of votes as Bautista and declared Miguel as the duly elected Brgy.

The ballots in question had indications with reasonable certainty . In the reading and appreciation of ballots. The trial court ruled in favor of Dojillo and proclaimed him as winner. Pangasinan. every ballot is presumed valid unless there is a clear reason to justify its rejection. However. Pangasinan. The object in the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter. A ballot indicates the voter's will. 166542. San Fabian. There is no requirement that the entries in the ballot be written nicely or that the name of the candidate be spelled accurately. A discussion on the issues of appreciation of ballots Held Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED and Vidal is declared the winner. As to the appreciation of ballots the court was guided by the pieces of evidence presented by the lower court and COMELEC. San Fabian. July 25. Of course. the COMELEC in its resolutions reversed the decision.R. Dojillo filed a disqualification case against Vidal for misappreciation of ballots and incorrect tallying of votes. 2006 Facts Petitioner Dojillo and respondent Vidal were candidates for the 2002 barangay and SK elections running for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Nibaliw Vidal. if it can be determined with reasonable certainty. Vidal was able to obtaine 374 votes while Dojillo received 371 votes.Dojillo v COMELEC G. the BET declared Vidal as the winner. No. Hence this petition Issue Whether respondent is the duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Nibaliw Vidal.

Canvassing .

. any remedy of the losing party is an election protest. According to the court what is involved here is a simple problem of arithmetic. Iloilo in the elections held on May 8. prohibition. However Garin the chairman of the Board of Canvassers rechecked the tally and she found out that some votes were overlooked. This led Garin to report such incident to the COMELEC so that the board can be given the authority to reconvene in order to re tally the votes. the MBC will be acting in an administrative capacity. Among which was Castromayor. It begs the question. Hence any question pertaining to the proceedings of the MBC may be raised directly to the COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections. since the Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation. According to her Dorito another candidate garnered 51 more votes than Castromayor. and mandamus for the remedy of the losing party must be an election protest. therefore. 1995. In making the correction in computation. Upon hearing this Castromayor filed a petiotion for certiorari. After the elections were held the Board of Canvassers began tallying the votes. to say that this is not a preproclamation controversy and the procedure for preproclamation controversies cannot be applied to the correction in the computation of the totals in the Statement of Votes. The Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. A fax letter was sent to the COMELEC in order for the latter to suspend the proclamation in favor of Castromayor. under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. What has just been said also disposes of petitioner's other contention that because his proclamation has already been made.Castromayor v COMELEC 205 SCRA 298 Facts Castromayor was a candidate for a seat in the eight-member Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality of Calinog. any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation. Issue Whether COMELEC holds the right to suspend the proclamation of Castromayor Held The Petition is DISMISSED. On the basis of the canvass the winners were declared. Indeed. COMELEC resolved to act on the suspension of the proclamation.

They found out that the ballots were indeed tampered with. When the votes were being canvassed Dilangalen objected to the inclusion of the ballots from the Municipality of Matonog. Hence. contending that the same were tampered. replace the members of the board or proclaim the winners itself. once the election returns were found to be falsified or tampered with. Of course. Issue Whether there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC Held It is settled jurisprudence that COMELEC can suspend the canvass of votes pending its inquiry whether there exists a discrepancy between the various copies of election returns from the disputed voting centers. COMELEC ordered a recount while. if it should refuse. From the recount Dilangalen was found to have garnered the highest votes. COMELEC ordered for the examination of these ballots and formed a new set of Board of Canvassers. Corollarily. the COMELEC can annul the illegal canvass and order the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winners on the basis of the genuine returns or. .Mastura v COMELEC 285 SCRA 493 Facts Mastura and Dilangalen were congressional candidates for the first district of Maguindanao for the May 1995 elections. Mastura was not in favor of the actions of COMELEC.

a special election was declared by the COMELEC. The Comelec held that ―the special elections in the 4 contested precincts were not genuinely held and resulted in failure to elect on account of fraud. a ground floor and shall be of sufficient size to admit and comfortably accommodate forty voters at one time outside the guard rail for the board of election inspectors. 153. 152. the venue of the special elections was transferred to the adjacent municipalities of Sultan Naga Dimaporo and Sapad in lieu of the regular polling places located in barangays Bangko. and hearing: provided. Designation of polling places. The polling place shall be located within the territory of the precinct as centrally as possible with respect to the residence of the voters therein and whenever possible. such location shall be along a public road.R. 153 and 154 of the Omnibus Election Code shed light on this matter. The pre-conditions for declaring a failure of election are: (1) that no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force majeure. if any. There were 40 precincts were the people were said to have cast their votes but only 36 were successfully held the elections. as far as practicable. 2009 Facts Cawasa and Manamparan were the candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Nunungan. 4360 issued on May 21. COMELEC proclaimed Cawasa the winner so Manamparan filed a petition to annul said proclamation. In the regular elections Cawasa had more votes but in the special election Manamparan took the lead. SEC. after notice to registered political parties and candidates in the political unit affected. Sections 152. No designation of polling places shall be changed except upon written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct or agreement of all the political parties or by resolution of the Commission upon prior notice and hearing. May 30.Cawasa v COMELEC G. There was a failure of elections in the remaining 4. except in case it is destroyed or it cannot be used. Issue Whether the COMELEC en banc Resolution was issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction Held: Petition DISMISSED.Hence. – The location of polling places designated in the preceding regular election shall continue with such changes as the Commission may find necessary. fraud or other . Lanao del Norte. Petitioners fail to persuade. violence. 2001 specifying the polling places but also Sections 153 and 154 of the Election Code. –Each polling place shall be. No. terrorism. That no location shall be changed within forty-five days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election or a referendum or plebiscite. – A polling place is the building or place where the board of election inspectors conducts its proceedings and where the voters shall cast their votes. Polling Place. SEC. There is likewise no dispute that military personnel were appointed as members of the Board of Election Inspectors in the 4 precincts. Cabasaran and Liangan. Resolution AFFIRMED. 154. The transfer was made not only in blatant disregard of Comelec Resolution No. Requirements for polling places. 150469. to wit: SEC.

The circumstances were such that the entire electoral process was not worthy of faith and credit. the Comelec could not ascertain who voted during the special elections. Here. Inevitably. in practical effect no election was held. hence. The concurrence of these two circumstances justifies the calling of special elections. .analogous causes and (2) that the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the elections. the Comelec found that the special elections were vitiated by fraud due to the illegal transfer of the polling places and the appointment of military personnel as members of the BEI.

Since the validity and binding force of this special election has not been put at issue and since for all it is worth. both in the casting and canvassing of votes. Garay filed this petition. Province of Sorsogon. the popular will as clearly expressed in the votes cast and counted should prevail over dubious election documents of a previous failed election in the same precinct.the Board of Canvassers did not declare a winner. as voting had taken place and the election did not result in a failure to elect. This was sent by Gata to COMELEC. for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by . were candidates running for the position of vice-mayor in the Municipality of Matnog. such electoral exercise.election nonetheless. the people spoke freely and honestly in a contest voluntarily participated in by both parties herein. The tallied votes revealed that Garay was ahead with 20 votes. Matnog. assailed resolution is SET ASIDE. At first. garnered an overwhelming lead in the said precint. BEI issued a certificate of votes wherein Gata jr. However.this result did not include the votes in precinct 30-A of Barangay Culasi. then this Court's duty is to resolve the issue "in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority" as expressed in such special election. in the instant case. was conducted regularly and peacefully. In other words. This is due to the fact that some men forcibly took the balot boxes. 1996 Facts Garay and Gata jr.Garay v COMELEC 261 SCRA 222. the June 17. Aggrieved. and the votes not cast would affect the results of the. Hence. Hence. 1995 electoral exercise was not a failed election. Gata's tally board was not acknowledged but eventually COMELEC released a resolution certiying thevotes in said precinct by annuling the results of the special elections conducted. While it is true that the respondent Commission has the power to annul special elections or declare a failure of special elections where it is shown that no voting had taken place or the election therein resulted in a failure to elect. Issue Did the respondent Commission commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in setting aside the results of the special election it called due to a failure of elections and in declaring the winner on the basis of the Tally Board and the Certificate of Votes submitted by the private respondent Gata? Held Petition GRANTED.

Pre-proclamation Controversy .

Patoray v COMELEC 249 SCRA 440 Facts Patoray and Disomimba are opponents for the mayoralty post in the municipality of Tamparan. Section 20 of R. pre-proclamation controversies are limited to: (1) challenges directed against the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers (not he board of election inspectors). From the tally of the votes. but was directed primarily at the ballots reflected in the returns. The issue of whether or not the ballots were manufactured. It is settled that issues relative to the appreciation of ballots cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. 7166 applies only where the objection on the return being canvassed refers to issues proper in a preproclamation controversy. fabricated or not authentic involves an appreciation thereof. or (2) challenges related to election returns to which a party must have made specific objections. Hence. The court finds that the MBC did not err in refusing to consider the objections raised by private respondent during the canvass of the returns. Lanao del Sur. without prejudice to the final outcome and resolution of the election protest filed by private respondent before the RTC of Marawi City. DIsomimba objected to the inclusion of votes from 4 precincts saying it has been tampered with. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc alleging that the procedure in R. not the board of canvassers. Patoray was earlier declared as mayor but because of the turn of events an election protest was filed against him which was acted upon by the COMELEC. Issue Whether the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion Held Resolution annulling petitioner‘s proclamation is reversed and set aside. Patoray was ahead by 25 votes. did not challenge the returns. 7166 on pre-proclamation cases apply only when there is a valid ground for a preproclamation controversy. COMELEC excluded the 2 precincts resulting in a wipeout of Patoray's lead. In a resolution. Petitioner claimed that since the objections raised by private respondent pertained to the casting and appreciation of ballots. marked and invalid ballots. fabricated or not authentic.A. Under the Omnibus Election Code. and questions related thereto are proper only in election protests. .‖ The objection. Appreciation of ballots is the task of the board of election inspectors.A. private respondents objection was correctly overruled by the MBC. In the case at bar. the proper remedy was an election protest. as worded. considering that the election returns includes votes on ballots which are spurious. private respondent objected to the two returns on the ground ―that the election returns are manufactured.

Nos. all that a partial board can do to favor a party is to refuse to make a ruling on the latter‘s opponent‘s objections effectively preventing its review by this Commission. 1998 directing the exclusion of the same returns had already become final.R. entertain the allegations raised and resolve the issues involved in SPC No. and the resolution of January 2. the proclamation of Sema is null and void as it was based on an incomplete canvass. 1998 ruling. This was granted by COMELEC and Sema was declared winner. Aggrieved Manara appealed. A resolution was issued by the COMELEC suspending the proclamation of Sema as winner as well as a cease and desist order in assuming the position of Mayor. The court rules that Mañara has every right to expect a ruling from the Board on its objection over the latter‘s proceedings. 2000 Facts Sema and Manara were candidates for city mayor of Cotabato City during the May 11. 98-240. Issue whether or not the order of the CBC of Cotabato City dated May 29.Sema v COMELEC 347 SCRA 633. 134163-64 is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED. Larrazabal 180 SCRA 509). It is clear that the CBC acted without authority when it issued its May 29. The status quo order dated July 14. (Abella vs. Up to this time. 1999 denying due course to SPC No. 98-240 for allegedly having been filed out of time and affirming the proclamation of Sema as Mayor of Cotabato City. A proclamation made where the contested returns set aside will affect the result of the election and the board of canvassers proceeded to proclaim without the authority from the COMELEC is null and void . Consequently. the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion when it rendered the questioned resolution of October 18. 2000 denying Mañara‘s motion for reconsideration of the October 18. 1999 resolution. Held The COMELEC is ORDERED to direct the City Board of Canvassers of Cotabato City to reconvene within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision for the purpose of completing the canvass of votes and proclaiming the winner. The petition for certiorari in G. 1998 is hereby ordered LIFTED. the Board has not complied with its statutory responsibility to come up with a ruling thereon. The failure of the Board to discharge this obligation should not in any way prejudice Mañara‘s right to elevate the matter to this Commission on appeal. 1998 granting Sema‘s 28 petitions for exclusion of the 30 contested election returns is null and void for having been issued after its earlier ruling embodied in its orders of May 22 and 23. Accordingly. An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. however. This Commission must assume jurisdiction. Otherwise. It is in this light that the instant appeal must be considered seasonably filed. 1998 Sema together with several others filed for the exclusion of votes from 30 precincts.

A. Section 15. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General in his The petitioner's arguments are totally misplaced. Article VI which makes the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate and the House of Representatives the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. transmission and appreciation of the election returns or certificates of canvass falls within the sole jurisdiction of the (House) Electoral . Issue Section 15 of R. and qualifications of their respective members.A. 2413. R. 105278. Petitioner's objection relating to the preparation. November 18. 2413 disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in the election of members of the House of Representatives are unconstitutional. in order that the petition for disqualification against private respondent may not become moot and academic.Francis Pangilinan v COMELEC G. therefore. unconstitutional. returns. 7166 is consistent with Section 17. No. entitled "General Instructions for the Provincial/City/District and Municipal Board of Canvassers" pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed in the election of members of the House of Representatives. 7166 and Section 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. In fact. failed to act on the said motion. COMELEC contends that under Section 15 of R. however. 7166 is not. Pangilinan together with the two complainants filed an urgent motion to suspend canvass or proclamation. On the contrary. 7166 and Section 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. No. The COMELEC. No.R.A. Cadano and Umali as registered voters of the 4th district and as taxpayers filed a disqualification case against Belmonte because the latter was seen to have been inducing the voters of some of the barangays in the 4th district. 15 of R. it is in harmony with the 1987 Constitution. Pangilinan further objected to the continuation of the COMELEC.A. He was seen boasting about the things that he gave the people for free. Held Petition DISMISSED The court ruled that Sec. there was need for an immediate order directing the City Board of Canvassers of Quezon City to suspend at once the canvassing of the election returns and the proclamation of the winning candidate for Representative of the fourth district of Quezon City. 1993 Facts Pangilinan and Belmonte were both running for the position of Congressman in the 4th district of Quezon City.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful