FACTS: Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 Barangay Elections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protest before the respective MCTC’s. The winning candidates filed their answers praying that the petitions be dismissed based on the affirmative defense that the protestants failed to attach to their petitions the required certification on non-forum shopping as provided for in SC-AC No. 04-94. The MCTC initially ruled to dismiss but deferred t o the Secretary of Justice who then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled that the certification on nonforum shopping should be required in elections contests before the MTC’s. Thus this petition under Rule 65. HELD: The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is required for election contests. Yes. The Court, citing Loyola v. Court of Appeals, said that: “We do not agree that SC-AC No. 04-94 is not applicable to election cases. There is nothing in the Circular that indicates that it does not apply to election cases. On the contrary, it expressly provides that the requirements therein, which are in addition to those in pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, ‘shall be strictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, applications or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies other the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.’ Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus.” In this case, the petitioners filed the required certification 18 days after filing their petitions. It cannot be considered substantial compliance with the requirements of the Circular. Quite obviously, the reglementary period for filing the protest had, by then, already expired. Petition dismissed. Note: There can be substantial compliance even after a motion to dismiss has been filed on the ground of lack of certificate of non-forum shopping but it must be done asap (the next day) otherwise the value of the SC Circular would lose its value.

FACTS: ⊥ May 1994. Barangay Elections in Bislig, Tanauan, Leyte ⊥ Election protest filed by Arnulfo Santillano, Egonio as protestee, Beegan as intervenor ⊥ About revision of three ballot boxes completed in October 1994, Revision Committee presented its report to the Court November 3, 1994 ⊥ Problem arises when the abovementioned ballots were reopened for Xeroxing purposes for the perusal of the protestee’s counsel ⊥ Office and Court Administrator viewed acts of respondents in effecting the reopening of the ballot boxes and copying tantamount to misconduct in office ⊥ Balano (clerk of court) and Borja believed in good faith that they had the authority to allow such. HELD: Photocopying of ballots is not tantamount to misconduct in office. ⊥ ⊥ 18 As long as no tampering or alteration was manifest in Xeroxing/photocopying of court records, no liability attaches to anyone. Respondents are exonerated. FERMO V. COMELEC 328 SCRA 52 (VALDEZ)

FACTS: ⊥ LAXINA and FERMO- candidates for the position of Punong Brgy. in QC. (1997 elections) LAXINA was proclaimed winner ⊥ FERMO- filed election protest question results in 4 clustered precincts on ground of massive fraud and serious irregularities. ⊥ MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) and granted a motion for execution pending appeal. COMELEC reversed on ground that the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time appeal is decided—not a “good reason” to warrant execution pending appeal.



HELD: A motion for executing pending appeal on ground of term expiration is not “good reason” for issuance. Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction and possession of original record… in its discretion, order execution of judgment or final order even before expiration of the period to appeal ⊥ Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on “good reasons (combination of 2 or more will suffice): 1. PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED OR WILL OF ELECTORATE 2. SHORTNESS of remaining portion of term of contested office 3. LENGTH OF TIME that election contest has been PENDING ⊥ Shortness of remaining term- not good reason for execution of judgment pending appeal—RA 8524: extended term of office of Brgy. officials to 5 years (negates claim of FERMO ⊥ Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal, decision of FERMO’s proclamation as winner was stayed—status quo (last actual peaceful uncontested situation preceding the controversy) restored ⊥ LAXINA: entitled to discharge functions 19 SAQUILAYAN V. COMELEC 416 SCRA 658 (DINO) 6.

of action, on the basis of Pena v. HRET. * Pena v. HRET held that the bare allegations of massive fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism, without specification and substantiation of where and how these occurrences took place, render the protest fatally defective. Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC En Banc, SAQUILAYAN’s Motion to Dismiss was again dismissed, and the Election Protest Case was ordered to proceed. The present case is similar to Miguel v. COMELEC, which the COMELEC En Banc used as basis in ordering the Election Protest Case to proceed. IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precincts in their respective municipalities. As Miguel v. COMELEC is more recent than Pena v. HRET (as used by the COMELEC Division), then the former should prevail in case of a conflict. Furthermore, election contests involve public interest. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constituted an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Allowing the election protest to proceed would be the best way of removing any doubt as to who was the real candidate chosen by the electorate. Decision of COMELEC En Banc affirmed. SANTOS V. COMELEC 399 SCRA 611 (PADLAN)

HELD: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 20

FACTS: 1. SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of Municipal Mayor of Imus, Cavite. 2. SAQUILAYAN was proclaimed winner. 3. JARO instituted an Election Protest Case before the RTC, contesting the results of all 453 election precincts. He alleges the ff: a. Votes in favor of JARO were considered stray b. Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considered null and void, or counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN) c. Votes that were void (containing stickers or markings) were counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN, etc.. 4. SAQUILAYAN filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied by the RTC. 5. Questioning the denial of his Motion to Dismiss, the COMELEC (Division) ruled in favor of SAQUILAYAN and ordered the dismissal of the election protest. It ruled that JARO’s allegations failed to state a cause


 Petitioner (SANTOS) and Respondent (PANULAYA) were both candidate
for MAYOR of the Municipal of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections.

MUNICIPAL Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed PANULAYA as Mayor.


the issues revolve on whether this present electoral protest would still be valid. Miriam Defensor-Santiago (DS) ran for presidency in the 1992 National Elections.  RTC APPROVED motion for execution pending appeal. practically racing against time. Pres. To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would bring back the ghost of the "grab-the-proclamation-prolong the protest" techniques so often resorted to by devious politicians in the past in their efforts to perpetuate their hold to an elective office. HELD: Mere filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and to resolve pending incidents such as motions for execution pending appeal. The following constitute good reasons and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal: (1) public interest involved or will of the electorate. and that the board must act summarily.   PANULAYA filed with COMELEC a PETITION FOR STATUS QUO ANTE. in the sound discretion of the court.  SANTOS took OATH of office and ASSUMED duties and functions of his office. one cannot but perceive the wisdom of allowing the immediate execution of decisions in election cases adverse to the protestees.  COMELEC issued INJUNCTION against RTC to refrain from acting on motion for execution pending appeal. when it is considered that the board of canvassers is composed of persons who are less technically prepared to make an accurate appreciation of the ballots. subject to future contingencies attendant to a protest. RTC declared SANTOS as winner. on the other hand.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 3  RTC found that SANTOS obtained 76 votes more than PANULAYA. COMELEC ISSUED ORDER directing parties to MAINTAIN STATUS QUO ANTE. (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office. apart from his being allowed ample time for conscientious study and mature deliberation before rendering judgment. notwithstanding the perfection and pendency of appeals therefrom." The rationale why such execution is allowed in election cases is to give as much recognition to the worth of a trial judge’s decision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation by the board of canvassers. as a consequence. as determined by the trial court in the election protest. had to be respected and given meaning. reasons to be stated in a special order. while. but filed this present protest against the winner. Subsequently however. at the same time ENJOINING SANTOS from assuming functions of mayor. apart from their being more apt to yield to extraneous considerations. She won and assumed office as Senator in 1995. The trial in the RTC took more than a year. RTC voided MBC’s proclamation in favor of PANULAYA. This would. good reasons therefor. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT 21 DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. FV Ramos. while the three-year term of the Office of the Mayor continued to run. Between the determination by the trial court of who of the candidates won the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to proclaim. RAMOS 253 SCRA 559 (CONCEPCION)  PANULAYA APPEALED the RTC declaration in favor of SANTOS to the COMELEC. and not the decision of a court of justice? Indeed. All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal was that the immediate execution should be based "upon good FACTS: This is an original action filed before the SC acting as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. as long as there are.  SANTOS filed a MOTION FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL with the RTC. even after the . it is the court’s decision that should prevail. The will of the electorate. lay to waste the will of the electorate. Considering this factual milieu. the judge has benefit of all the evidence the parties can offer and of admittedly better technical preparation and background. She lost. and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. Why should the proclamation by the board of canvassers suffice as basis of the right to assume office. she ran for Senator in the 1995 Senatorial elections.

stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. the registered parties and organizations filed their Manifestations. it is mandatory that at least 20% of the members of the House of Representatives come from the party-list representatives. AND MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS. 2001 deadline. such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so. The Constitution vested Congress with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representatives. HELD: There was abandonment of protest. if elected. Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. her term as president would coincide with her term as senator. Also. Yes. 2001. she has effectively abandoned her determination to pursue this present protest. who were party-list organizations. she still wishes to present evidence. The COMELEC approved the Manifestations of 154 parties and organizations but denied those of several others. The COMELEC allege that verifications for the qualifications of these parties take a long process and as a result the 2 divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political parties only on February 10. Congress deemed it necessary to require FACTS: The Omnibus Resolution No. Before the February 12. it proclaimed 38 additional party-list representatives although they obtained less than 2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system on the ground that under the Constitution. Now. she would assume the office as senator. COMELEC 359 SCRA 698 (ENRIQUEZ) FACTS: Respondent proclaimed 14 party-list representatives from 13 parties which obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system as members of the House of Representatives. the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform the PET within 10 days if after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas. This is in accord with the constitutional doctrine that a public office is a public trust. **NOTES: determination of total number of party-list representatives= additional representatives of first party= additional seats for concerned party= 23 # d i s t r i c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ∗ . which she is now in. In doing so. LOCAL OFFICIALS.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 4 protestant has already assumed office as Senator. In assuming the office of Senator. ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Upon petition for respondents. It also prayed that the votes . HELD: It is not mandatory. Since DS has not informed the Tribunal of any such intention. 8 0 # ofvotesoffirstparty # ofvotesofpartylistsystem # v o t e s o f c o n c e r n e d p a r t y ∗ a d d i t i o n a l s e a t s f o r c o n c e r n e d p a r t y # v o t e s o f f i r s t p a r t y ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC 342 SCRA 244 (AGUINALDO) parties participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party list system to be entitled to a party-list seat. she entered into a political contract with the electorate. that. in 1996. for the 2001 elections. 3785 issued by the COMELEC is challenged insofar as it approves the participation of 154 organizations and parties in the 2001 party-list elections. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative. 2001 Elections. the SC as PET decides the case. Such abandonment operates to render this protest moot. DS filed her certificate of candidacy to run for senator without qualification or reservation. It merely provides a ceiling for the party-list seats in the House of Representatives. THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM 22 VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. etc. ACAP filed before the COMELEC a petition praying that the names of some respondents be deleted from the Certified List of Political Parties…Participating in the Party List System for the May 14. noting that should she win this protest. The COMELEC received several petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents as the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented and not the mainstream political parties. 2 0 .

in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place 3 rd or 4th in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress. The law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. 3785 The SC held that it is proper to remand the case to the COMELECT to determine whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the requirements of the law. Sec. The Record of the ConCom speaks clearly against the petitioner’s assertion. the ConCom chose the party-list system. The provision states that the purpose of the party-list system is to promote promotional representation in the election of representatives in the House of Representatives. In the end. the ConCom did not intend to reserve the party-list system to the marginalized or underrepresented. it is not its only purpose. Sec. ISSUE 2: WON the party-list system is exclusive to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations For political parties to participate in the party-list elections their requisite character must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system in the Constitution and RA 7941. the constitutional provision is not self-executory. Proportional representation does not refer to the number of people in a particular district. However. because the party-list election is national in scope. merely on the ground that they are political parties. Monsod stated that the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system. Sec. dissenting: The text of Art. Sec. Lack of well-defined constituency refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group. (1) The political party…must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In the ConCom deliberations. The persons nominated to the party-list system must also belong to the underrepresented and marginalized sectors. The purpose of the party-list system is to give “genuine power to our people” in Congress. the SC provides for guidelines to assist the COMELEC in its work. Furthermore. VI. 7941. Article IX-C provides that political parties may be registered under the partylist system. It refers to the representation of the marginalized and underrepresented as exemplified in Section 5 of the Act. In fact. a full. It provides for no basis for petitioner’s contention that whether it is sectoral representation or party-list system the purpose is to provide exclusive representation for marginalized sectors. In choosing this system. While the representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors is a basic purpose of the law. ISSUE 3: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. sectoral representation and party-list system. It is illogical to open the system to those who have long been within it – those privileged sectors that have long dominated the congressional district elections. In light of this. Two proposals for additional representation in the House of Representatives were submitted namely. hence RA 7941 was enacted. The party-list organization must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies. private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections. Indubitable. 3 of RA 7941 provides that a “party” is “either a political party or a sectoral party or a collation of parties”. free and open party system is guaranteed to obtain the broadest possible representation of a party. Mendoza. Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a similar petition against some of the respondents. they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the . While the mega-rich are numerically speaking. a minority. The SC held that it cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It points to those with disparate interests defined with the marginalized and underrepresented. In the end. Justice Mendoza holds that the majority misapprehended the meaning of Section 2 of RA No. organizations and parties. political parties – even the major ones-may participate in the party-list elections. they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives. and not for sectoral representation. Not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. These two are not the same. ISSUE 1: WON political parties may participate in the party-list elections The SC held that under the Constitution and RA 7941. regional and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) Even if major political parties are allowed to participate in the partylist system. To this end. 7 and 8. 11 of the same Act leaves no doubt as to the participation of political parties in the party-list system. 5(1)(2) provides for a party-list system of registered. Com.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 5 cast for the said respondents be not counted or canvassed and that the latter’s nominees not be proclaimed. the COMELEC’s role is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented become members of Congress under the party-list system. the party-list system mandates the opposite.

Veterans Federation Party (VFP). TRO partially lifted with regard to APEC and CIBAC. 2002 (ENRIQUEZ) particularly interested in the youth and professional sectors. JANUARY 29. poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. COMELEC GR 147589. CIBAC is composed of he underrepresented and marginalized and is concerned with their welfare. acting on behalf of the Comelec. CIBAC and AMIN should be proclaimed winners aside from those already validly proclaimed by the earlier Resolutions of the SC.6865% of the total votes cast for the party-list system. 2002 (ENRIQUEZ—ang bagong bayani ng 2D!) FACTS: The COMELEC issued a TRO against the proclamation of APEC. and o the giving of aid or support of political parties for or against a candidate's campaign ⊥ Occena prayed that the 1982 elections be declared null and void. o the intervention of political parties in a candidate's nomination and filing of his certificate of candidacy. CIBAC is The COMELEC determined that the following party-list participants. so also must its nominees. The OSG. or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the government. Inc. (6) not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. APRIL 10. and new barangay elections held without the ban on the involvement of political parties . (4) the party or organization must not be an adjunct of. in its Consolidated Reply dated October 15. Lakas NUCD-UMDP. (7) the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. have failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth in our Decision: Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD). COMELEC 127 SCRA 404 (ZUÑIGA) FACTS: ⊥ Samuel Occena filed a petition for prohibition to declare as unconstitutional the provisions in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP 222) which prohibited: o any candidate in the 1982 barangay election from representing himself as a member of a political party. APEC addresses the issues of job creation. Commission’s findings are adopted. CIBAC and AMIN because they failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth by this Court. absent any patent arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its action. Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC). CIBAC was reported to be merely an extension of the Jesus Is Lord (JIL) religious movement and did not represent the interest of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society and that Anak Mindanao (AMIN) was listed as having obtained only 1. (PHILRECA) and that it did not truly represent the marginalized sectors of society. 24 ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. 2001. No substantial proof that CIBAC is merely an arm of JIL. APEC and CIBAC have sufficiently met the 8-point guidelines of his Court and have sufficient votes to entitle them to seats in Congress.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 6 House of Representatives. 2001 and in a Manifestation dated December 5. ISSUE: WON APEC. elderly. The OSG explained the these are separate entities with separate memberships. despite their having obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast. Issues are factual in character. of votes. The COMELEC found that APEC was merely an arm of the Philippine Rural Electric Cooperative. (3) a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of the Act which enumerates the grounds for disqualification. modified its position and recommended that APEC and CIBAC be declared as having complied with the 8point guidelines ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS 26 OCCEÑA V. 25 ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. or that APEC is an extension of PHILRECA. not sufficient to meet the 2% required no. (5) party must not comply with the requirements of the law. its membership is composed not only of professionals but also of peasants. Although APEC’s nominees are all professionals. Abag Promdi (PROMDI). and Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC). RULING: AMIN did not get more than two percent of the votes cast. youth and women. Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC). COMELEC GR 147589.

"the barangay is the basic unit not only of our social structure but also of our political structure. The sponsors of the provision emphasized that under this provision. COMELEC also involved the restriction as that prescribed in Sec.. When petitioner was proclaimed the winner by the BBC. it is equally true that Congress in the exercise of its broad law-making authority can declare certain acts as mala prohibita when justified by the exigencies of the times. In upholding the constitutionality of what was then Sec. Some reasons for the restriction: . It would definitely enhance the objective and impartial discharge of their duties for barangay officials to be shielded form political party loyalty. which in actuality is taken by all as the party's blessings. Basilan in the 1997 barangay elections. Equality of chances may be better attained by banning all organization support. exercises administrative supervision over the barangay conciliation panels in the latter's work of settling local disputes. it is better that we elect the officials thereof through a non-partisan system. are non-partisan. 8(a) of Republic Act No. The barangays. also act as an agency for neutral community action such as the distribution of basic foodstuff and as an instrument in conducting plebiscites and referenda. not total.The Barangay Captain. i. The Barangay Captain himself settles or helps settle local controversies within the barangay either FACTS: Petitioner Amilhamja Kandum and respondent Hadji Gapur Ballaho were candidates for Punong Barangay in Barangay Look Bisaya. 27 KANDUM V. . Political parties may freely be formed although there is a restriction on their activities.The Barangay Captain and the Barangay Council. 6132. 1982 is prescribed." (Deliberations on Parliamentary Bill 2125 which later became BP Blg. 2000 (CHOTRANI) HELD: The ban on the intervention of political parties in the election of barangay officials is NOT violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form associations and societies for purposes not contrary to law. 222) . together with the members of the Lupon Tagapayapa appointed by him. Fernando's Concurring Opinion: Test of the permissible limitation on freedom of association: How should the limitation 'for purposes not contrary to law' be interpreted? It is submitted that it is another way of expressing the clear and present danger rule for unless an association or society could be shown to create an imminent danger to public safety. although it is true they are already considered regular units of our government. so that the country can utilize their services if elected. COMELEC GR 136969. their intervention in the election of barangay officials on May 17. The ban against the participation of political parties in the barangay election is an appropriate legislative response to the unwholesome effects of partisan bias in the impartial discharge of the duties imposed on the barangay and its officials as the basic unit of our political and social structure. The political bigwigs are meanwhile left to give their "individual" blessings to their favored candidates.there was predecoding of his grades before official decoding and publication) through mediation or arbitration. But the ban is narrow. Under the Barangay Election Act of 1982. Petitioner garnered 61 votes over respondent's 59 votes. 4 of BP 222. The case of Imbong v. It operates only on concerted or group action of political parties. respondent filed an election protest in the MCTC and secured a favorable decision. the court said that "While it may be true that a party's support of a candidate is not wrong per se. and in order that base will not be subject to instability because of the influence of political forces." The primary purpose of the prohibition was to avoid the denial of the equal protection of the laws.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 7 ⊥ ⊥ In 1982 the court considered the Comments of the Solicitor General as an Answer Note that the decision in the case was delayed because all the Justices resigned on May 1982 (*SC trivia: over allegations that the bar exam results of Justice Ericta's son were changed in his favor ." Teehankee's Dissenting Opinion: The restriction denies "non-political" candidates the very freedoms of effectively appealing to the electorate through the public media and of being supported by organized groups that would give them at least a fighting chance to win against candidates of the political kingpins. It would be a more prudent policy to insulate the barangays from the influence of partisan politics. apart from their legislative and consultative powers. they constitute the base of the pyramid of our social and political structure. The ban was to assure equal chances to a candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as well as nobility of purpose. JANUARY 18. the poor candidate has an even chance as against the rich candidate. there is no justification for abridging the right to form associations or societies.e. . Tipo-Tipo. the right to organize is intact.

whose decision shall be final. In other words. A motion for reconsideration was filed. Here an appeal is obviously not the proper remedy allowed by the COMELEC Rules Accordingly. Buhisan was proclaimed by the Board of Election Tellers as the duly elected SK Chairman. 2001 (PEÑAFLORIDA) the duly elected SK Chairman. Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. . Article IX of the Constitution. JANUARY 30. Section 2. Buhisan garnered 35 votes against Gorospe's 34 votes. acceptance of the petition is not a matter of course. the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases. 28 BUHISAN V. COMELEC GR 127328. not the RTC. Buhisan re-filed with the COMELEC her appellant's brief insisting that public respondent take cognizance of her appeal. On May 13 Gorospe filed before the MCTC of Lazi. COMELEC dismissed the appeal and informed Buhisan that the MCTC decision in the election protest may only be elevated to the Commission en banc via a petition for review and not by ordinary appeal. . public respondent cannot be faulted for grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal 29 MONTESCLAROS V. 1996 elections. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) lies with the COMELEC.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 8 Petitioner appealed the decision to the RTC. Also. But when the RTC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. The Commission en banc in meritorious cases may entertain a petition for review of the decision of the MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. 2. An appeal bond of P2. the COMELEC may entertain such petitions only on meritorious gronds. 2824 dated February 6. Unlike in ordinary appeals. which shall be refundable if the appeal is found meritorious. Also. Under paragraph (2). It is essential that a prior determination be made regarding the existence of meritorious reasons for the petition.-The proclamation of the winning candidate shall be final. The COMELEC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for having been filed out of time. Siquijor an election protest which seeks the annulment of the proclamation of Buhisan and to declare the former . COMELEC is afforted opportunity to examine the allegations on the face jof the petition if there is a prima facie showing that the MCTC committed an error of fact or law or gravely abused its discretion to warrant reversal or modification of the decision. San Juan. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: xxx (2) Exercise exclusive . appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction. COMELEC 382 SCRA 2 FACTS: Petitioner Jane Buhisan and private respondent Gordon Gorospe were candidates for the position of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman of Barangay Poblacion.000. (Appeal was filed 37 days after petitioner received copy of the decision of the MCTC) HELD: RTC doesn't have jurisdiction over election protests involving barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC through the MCTC . governing the conduct of Sangguniang Kabataan elections provides: Sec. Siquijor during the May 6. MCTC nullified Buhisan's proclamation and declared Gorospe as the SK Chairman. By prescribing a specific mode to be adopted in assailing the MCTC's decision. HELD: The COMELEC didn't commit any grave abuse of discretion with dismissing the appeal due a mere technicality. Finality of Proclamation. However.49.00 shall be required. 1996. Electoral Contests Adjudication Department of COMELEC returned the appeal. subdivision C. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction (the Metropolitan Trial Courts. Sec. this manner of appeal is discretionary on the part of the election tribunal. Buhisan appealed with the COMELEC.

2002 30 FACTS: HELD: ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES AND CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY 31 RECABO V.synchronization of brgy. political. provides that voters and candidates for SK elections must be at least 15 but less than 18 on the day of election HELD: The subject law doesn't disfranchise the petitioners. Signed the bill into law postponing the elections ⊥ During pendency of petition Congress enacted RA 9164. and SK elections on JUL 02.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 9 (VALDEZ) FACTS: ⊥ MONTESCLAROS (petitioners).o. Court cannot direct COMELEC to allow over-aged voters to vote or be voted in an election limited under RA 9164 o Congress has power to prescribe qualifications PETITIONERS: no personal and substantial interest in the SK elections— seeking to enforce right which has been already limited with the passage of RA 9164—ceased to be members of SK and no longer qualified to participate o Only those who qualify can contest. all 20 y. based on a statutory authority.… dev’t. any act disqualifying them—membership in the SK is mere statutory right conferred by law ⊥ No one has vested right to any public office. residents less than 18 y. It also doesn't deprive them of any property right. and not jointly with Robert Barbers (space left blank) as intended by the certificate of nomination ⊥ On the other hand Respondent Reyes’ certificate of nomination for Vicemayor was signed by no other than Fidel V. claims being in danger of disqualification to vote and be voted for in the SK elections should it be postponed from original date (MAY 02) to NOV 02 ⊥ RP Pres. ⊥ SK: youth organization originally established by PD 684 as KABATAANG BARANGAY (KB)—composed of all brgy.o. o LGC renamed KB to SK and limited membership to youths at least 15 but not more than 21 yo o SK tasked to enhance social. ⊥ ⊥ . AUGUST 13. Ramos (National Chairman LAKAS) and Jose De Venecia (Secretary General LAKAS) HELD: The certificate of candidacy of petitioner and that of his mother who he substituted as candidate for Vice Mayor DID NOT substantially complied with the requirements of being official candidates of the LAKAS party. of youth No vested right to the permanence of age requirement under LGC. power to make laws includes power to change laws. COMELEC 308 SCRA 793 (1999) (FLORES) ⊥ FACTS: ⊥ This is a petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the Comelec’s resolution cancelling Kaiser Recabo’s certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor in Surigao Del Norte ⊥ Kaiser Recabo claimed to be LAKAS NUCD-UMDP’s official candidate to the aforementioned position. substituting his mother Candelaria Recabo ⊥ Kaiser Recabo’s certificate of candidacy was only signed by Governor Matugas. ⊥ To allow Recabo to run would put the election process in mockery for we would in effect be allowing an anomalous situation where a single political party may field in multiple candidate for a singe election position Lakas designated 2 party officers to issue certificates of nomination. much less vested right to an expectancy of holding public office MONTESCLAROS V. economic. cultural. every law passed is always subject of amendment or repeal o Court cannot restrain Congress from amending or repealing law. COMELEC GR 152295.

43 (b) RA 7160: Term of office – no local official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position. shall be 3 years and no such official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. useless because already adjudged as an invalid nomination and substitution) Well-settled certificate filed beyond deadline not valid But Reyes’ motion to be declared winner. X Sec. which shall be determined by law. an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term Any subsequent election. a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate ⊥ 32 FACTS: HELD: DISQUALIFICATIONS 33 SOCRATES V. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. while respondents signed by Ramos and JDV Comelec declared petitioner’s mother as and independent candidate on account of the invalidity of her nomination. except barangay officials. former 3 term mayor Edward Hagedorn files his certificate of candidacy ⊥ Petitioner Adovo and Gilo files petition before Comelec to disqualify ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ .) Hagedorn claiming that he is disqualified from running for a 4th term. COMELEC 414 SCRA 299 (AQUINO. T. Sec. is no longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons First. thus there can be no valid substitution by petitioner for an invalid nomination Besides. who was removed from office thru a recall proceeding initiated by the majority of the incumbent barangay officials of the city ⊥ Petitioner filed a motion to nullify the recall resolution but was dismissed by the Comelec for lack of merit ⊥ Comelec set date for conducting the recall election. COMELEC 391 SCRA 457 (NEPOMUCENO) ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner is mayor of Puerto Princesa.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 10 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ petitoner’s nomination was signed only by one. like a recall election. 8 of 1987 Constitution: the term of office of elective local officials. garnering the second highest number of votes to Recabo can not be granted. wound be tantamount to substitution of judgment for the mind of the voter BAUTISTA V. petitioner filed his candidacy out of time for an independent candidate (although w/n prescriptive period of a substituted candidate. petition was dismissed HELD: Hagedorn is qualified to run in the recall election ⊥ Art. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official was elected These constitutional and statutory provisions have 2 parts The first part provides that an elective local official cannot serve ore than 3 consecutive terms The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in determining the 3term limit rule The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time does not interrupt the continuity of service The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms After 3 consecutive terms.

said defeat is an interruption in the continuity of his service as city mayor of Lucena. shall be 3 years and no such official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. The continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections. not any other subsequent election The framers expressly acknowledged that the prohibited election refers only to the immediate reelection. 2001 elections.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 11 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ reelection after three consecutive terms Second. which shall be determined by law. Adormeo filed a with the Provincial Election Supervisor a Petition To Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and or Disqualification of Talaga on . again he served a full term. He cites the case of Lonzanida giving 2 conditions for the disqualification 1) that the official has been elected for 3 consecutive terms in the same local govt post. This did not amount to a third full term. The term of office of elective local officials. and 3) in the recall election of May 12. 1998 elections. Comelec division ruled in favor of Adormeo. 2) election of May 1995. does not prohibit a subsequent reelection for a fourth term as long as the reelection is not immediately after the end of the third consecutive term A recall election midway in the term following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election but not an immediate reelection after the third term Neither does the constitution prohibit one barred from seeking immediate reelection to run in any other subsequent election involving the same term of office What the constitution prohibits is a consecutive fourth term The prohibited election referred to by the framers of the constitution is the immediate reelection after the third term. however. Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms having lost his 3rd bid in the May 11. HELD: Talaga is qualified to run for mayor. Bernas’ comment that “if one is elected representative to serve the unexpired term of another. Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms and for nearly 2 years he was a private citizen. The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. 8. Fr. except barangay officials. and not to any subsequent election. Adormeo contended that Talaga’s candidacy as Mayor was a violation of Sec 8 Art X of the Constitution--Sec. It was only by virtue of the recall that he served Tagarao’s unexpired term. the constitution prohibits immediate reelection for a fourth term following three consecutive terms The constitution. the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service Clearly. 2000 where he served only the unexpired term of Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao in the 1998 election. Talaga claims that he only served for 2 consecutive terms and that his service from May 2000 was not a full term because he only served Tagarao’s unexpired term by virtue of the recall election. and 2) that he has fully served 3 consecutive terms. Comelec en banc reversed. that unexpired term. hence this petition. will be considered one 34 FACTS: Pet Raymundo Adormeo and private resp Ramon Talaga were the only candidates who filed the certificates of candidacy for mayor of Lucena City in the May 14. no matter how short. Talaga was then the incumbent mayor. COMELEC 376 SCRA 90 (HOSAKA) the ground that the latter was elected and had served as city mayor for 3 consecutive terms as follows: 1) election of May 1992 where he served the full term. during the 6 year period following the two term limit The framers of the constitution did not intend “the period of rest” of an elective official who has reached his term limit to be the full extent of the succeeding term ADORMEO V. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

Ali Balindong. filed a special action for disqualification against Diangka and her husband alleging that they committed 2 acts of terrorism: * First. While it was not actually Diangka who committed the acts. her mere presence in the ambulance shows that she acquiesced to FACTS: Petitioner (SOLLER) and respondent (SAULONG) were both candidates for mayor of Bansud. E. RTC denied The denial by RTC of SOLLER’s motion to dismiss was questioned via petition for certiorari with COMELEC. COMELEC determined that it was actually Diangka’s husband who caused the commotion which prevented the voters from voting. HELD: 1. W/N COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction . Lanao del Sur. drop her off at the school. COMELEC: “petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of election return” RTC: election protest against SAULONG SOLLER filed motion to dismiss—COMELEC granted. received or made any contribution which are prohibited 36 SOON-RUIZ V. First. COMELEC determined that Diangka was at the front seat beside the driver in the ambulance when the watchers of Balindong were made to go down via threats. 1. she could be disqualified by the COMELEC. after they threatened the watchers. COMELEC GR 144323. hence COMELEC disqualified Diangka. Municipal board of canvassers proclaimed SOLLER duly elected mayor. b.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 12 term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed” only pertains to the members of the House of Representatives and not to local govt officials. HELD: Diangka can be held liable for the two acts of terrorism of her husband thus. through force and threats. she admitted that she requested that the driver. Petitioner was the wife of the incumbent Mayor. made the watchers of Balindong go down from the vehicle. Such shows she had control over the driver. but that order came in late and still Diangka was declared mayor. * Second. b) Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy. 35 DIANGKA V. the other mayoralty candidate. SAULONG filed two actions: a. Her excuse that she did not know nor was she in collusion with her husband can not hold water. meanwhile vice-mayor elect Macapodi assumed the mayor position. Diangka emerged the winner. Oriental Mindoro. 2000 (TAN. Neither can Talaga’s victory in the recall election be deemed as “voluntary renunciation” under the Constitution. c) Spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed d) Solicited. Diangka now assails the decision via certiorari. COMELEC ordered the board of canvassers to cease and desist from declaring Diangka as mayor. that Diangka’s husband went to the voting areas and caused a commotion that prevented voters from voting. SEPTEMBER 5. This together with her presence in the ambulance makes her guilty of the acts of terrorism in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.) FACTS: Petitioner Maimona Diangka filed a petition for certiorari questioning the decision of COMELEC in disqualifying her as candidate for Mayor of Ganassi. only Balindong and lawyer appeared. Second. Note: Grounds for Disqualification (Section 68 of Omnibus Election Code): a) Giving money or other material consideration to influence. she did not prove that her running was not a mere alter ego of her husband who is in his 3 term as mayor. In the hearing for the disqualification. 2. This certiorari was dismissed by the COMELEC en banc. that they loaded the ballot boxes into an ambulance then subsequently. COMELEC 323 SCRA 887 (REYES) her husbands acts and hence guilty also. In the results of the elections. induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions.

the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) was duty bound to tally and count the votes cast in favor of petitioner. and cannot be excused by the fact that a party has not actually resorted to forum shopping. ordered petitioner’s name to be stricken off the list of candidates and all votes cast in his favor not to be counted but considered as stray votes. YES. petitioner was voted by the electorate as municipal mayor. COMELEC en banc sustained annulment of proclamation of petitioner HELD: Petitioner shouldn't be disqualified. 2001. he received a telegram from the COMELEC notifying him that the COMELEC en banc denied his MR. a decision or resolution of a ⊥ FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner Papandayan and respondent Balt were contending candidates for mayor of Tubaran. Respondent filed pre-proclamation case. COMELEC 381 SCRA 133 (BAUTISTA) ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ disqualified based on affidavits submitted by respondent as evidence. Close scrutiny of the receipts show that respondent failed to pay the filing fee of P300. 37 PAPANDAYAN. once decided on the merits. a decision or resolution of the Commission en banc shall become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court. Yes. The protest should have also been dismissed for lack of proper verification (tantamount to filing an unsigned pleading). is cognizable on appeal by a division of the COMELEC. The COMELEC en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. PETITION GRANTED. which may no longer be entertained by the COMELEC after the winning candidates have been proclaimed. Thus. respondent’s petition was a pre-proclamation case. On election day. The decision of the COMELEC en banc is null and void. had not become final and executory. (c) Unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. Lanao del Sur in the May 14. JR. the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent’s election protest. particularly on Special Actions (Disqualification cases) # Sec. 2. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC 1st Division seeking the issuance of an order directing the Board of Election Inspectors to count and tally the ballots cast in his favor during the elections pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 4116. COMELEC issued an order suspending the proclamation of petitioner but despite said order. Any decision by it in the first instance is null and void. ⊥ COMELEC 2nd Division issued a resolution declaring petitioner to be . By resorting to the wrong remedy. Resolution provides that if the disqualification case has not become final and executory on the day of the election. Good faith is not an excuse. Municipal Board of Canvassers still proclaimed petitioner as winner. respondent may be claimed to have abandoned the pre-proclamation case that he filed. Errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable. Upon motion of respondent. COMELEC 1st Division set aside petitioner’s proclamation. W/N RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to dismiss respondent’s election protest. there is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protest should not be referred first to a division of the COMELEC for resolution. Moreover. V. ⊥ # At the time the elections were held in May 14. # COMELEC Resolution 4116 pertains to the finality of decisions or resolutions of the Commission en banc or division. The following day. then. Hence. The authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc. COMELEC erred in not ordering the dismissal of respondent’s protest case. 13. If the principal case. the assailed resolution. paragraphs (b) and (c) of said resolution provide: (b) In Special Actions and Special cases. and for failure to comply with the required certification against forum shopping.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 13 in not ordering the dismissal of SAULONG’s election protest. This requirement is mandatory. 2001 elections. BEI shall tally and count the votes of the candidate declared disqualified.

Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives: this Court. where the ground for the disqualification case is by reason of non-residence. . citing Faypon v. The fact that he and his wife transferred residence from Bayang to Tubaran shows that petitioner was relinquishing his former place of residence in Bayang and that he intended Tubaran to be his place of domicile. imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place. coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. (2) an intention to remain there. the change of residence must be voluntary. one intends to return. 7. and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. citizenship. Nueva Ecija in 2001.” as used in the election law. is in error in assuming that the issuance of a temporary restraining order by this Court within five (5) days after the date of the promulgation of the assailed resolution is the operative act that prevents it from attaining finality. he went home to Tubaran everyday after work. # Caasi v. Quirino. This is proof of animus manendi. the BEI shall tally and count the votes of such disqualified candidate. applied the concept of animus revertendi or “intent to return. Although petitioner worked as a private secretary of the mayor of Bayang. Petitioner has duly proven that. there was manifest intention on the part of petitioner to reside in Tubaran.” The fact that respondent made periodical journeys to his home province in Laoang revealed that he always had animus revertendi. # The record shows that when petitioner and his wife Raida Guina Dimaporo got married in 1990.” # COMELEC Resolution 4116 further provides that: 3. # Romualdez v. following its promulgation. the will of the electorate should be respected. they resided in Tangcal. From then on. Court of Appeals: respondent’s immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. # With due regard for the expertise of the COMELEC. # It is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the Constitution’s residency qualification requirement.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 14 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ Division shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days in Special Actions and Special cases and after fifteen (15) days in all other actions or proceedings. therefore. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ which when absent for business or pleasure. # The principle of animus revertendi has been used to determine whether a candidate has an “intention to return” to the place where he seeks to be elected. there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality. although he was formerly a resident of the Municipality of Bayang. we find the evidence to be insufficient to sustain its resolution. # When the evidence of the alleged lack of residence qualification of a candidate for an elective position is weak or inconclusive and it clearly appears that the purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding the victor’s right to the office. which he deemed to be the place of his conjugal abode with his wife. RTC. Tubaran. MAGNO V. COMELEC 390 SCRA 495 (GO) 38 FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner Nestor Magno ran for MAYOR of San Isidro. # The Court explained that in order to acquire a new domicile by choice. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time. # Respondent. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. # Co v. he later transferred residence to Tangcal in the Municipality of Tubaran as shown by his actual and physical presence therein for 10 years prior to the May 14. or for like reasons. 2001 elections. Being a green card holder was proof that he was a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. Corollary to this is a determination whether there has been an “abandonment” of his former residence which signifies an intention to depart therefrom. Br. Tacloban City: The term “residence. violation of election laws and other analogous cases and on the day of the election the resolution has not become final and executory.

He was able to obtain a copy of the petition and the May 22 Order of the COMELEC Second Division by personally going to the COMELEC Regional Office on May 23. Since he was discharged on March 1998. the COMELEC issued a resolution disqualifying petitioner and declaring the immediate proclamation of the candidate who received the highest number of votes. he is not qualified. The COMELEC en banc nullified the proclamation of respondent and ordered the proclamation of petitioner. Petitioner won. He alleged that the repair of the roads was undertaken without his authority. vileness or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men or society in general…’ Direct bribery contemplates taking advantage of his position and is a betrayal of the trust reposed to him by the public. violated Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code by distributing gravel and sand to voters to induce them to vote for him. *Court declared that it could not rule on Magno’s prayer for his proclamation as winner of the mayoralty race. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as ‘an act of baseness. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. . 72. HELD: Petitioner was not notified of the petition for his disqualification through the service of summons nor of the Motions to suspend his proclamation. V. DE VENECIA 393 SCRA 639 (AGUINALDO) who was then a mayor. More. Magno claims Sec 40 (a) RA7160 (Local Government Code) should apply instead of BP 881: A person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude may run after the lapse of 2 years after the service of sentence. They do not contain a copy of the summons allegedly served on the petitioner and its corresponding proof of service. The COMELEC delegated the hearing to the Regional Director. Respondent didn’t appeal from the decision. A voter filed with the COMELEC a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner. the COMELEC doesn’t have jurisdiction to annul her proclamation. Respondent intervened in the disqualification case and prayed for the suspension of the proclamation of petitioner. Petitioner filed his answer. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude.The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for representative. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Magno applied for probation and was discharged on March of 1998. Second. the proclamation of the petitioner was suspended in gross violation of section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides: "Sec. After a hearing on the motion to suspend the proclamation of petitioner. he was able to file his Answer to the disqualification case only on May 24. COMELEC disqualified petitioner based on a provision of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code) disqualifying a candidate convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude until after the lapse of 5 years from the service of sentence. 2001. directing the District Board of Canvassers to suspend his proclamation. it being outside its jurisdiction.71 Petitioner claims that prior to receiving a telegraphed Order from the COMELEC Second Division on May 22. Magno’s disqualification ceased on March 2000. 2001. The votes of petitioner were declared stray. Petitioner has not been served any summons. COMELEC suspended the proclamation because of the seriousness of the allegations against petitioner. Furthermore. he was never summoned nor furnished a copy of the petition for his disqualification. The records of the case do not show that summons was served on the petitioner. 39 CODILLA. Thus. Respondent was proclaimed elected and she assumed office.. no hearing has been done yet. HELD: First. SR. Sonia Isidro was declared Mayor while the case was pending. RA 7160 is a special law applying specifically to local government units. First. It impliedly repeals BP 881 should there be any inconsistencies. RA 7160 is the more recent law. Petitioner was not furnished a copy of the motion. Special law prevails. She argued that since she assumed office.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 15 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ Private Respondent filed a petition for disqualification of Magno because he was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of 4 counts of Direct Bribery and sentenced. On election day. RA 7160 should apply. 2001. private respondent never rebutted petitioner's repeated assertion that he was not properly notified of the petition for his disqualification because he never received summons. Second. BP 881 applies for the election of any public office.

WATCHERS. if for any reason. the Regional Election Director of NCR gave instructions to the BEI to tally separately either in some portion of the same election return not intended for votes for mayoralty candidates or in a separate paper the votes “Efren Bautista”. Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. in this case. subsequently denied. Aside from them. Bautista” and “Bautista”. First. ⊥ Before final determination of Edwin Bautista’s MR. On May 16. ⊥ MR was filed by Edwin Bautista. Second. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS. the right of an adverse party. petitioner was voted in office by a wide margin of 17. The Regional Election Director has yet to conduct hearing on the petition for his disqualification. After the elections. “E. ⊥ When the canvass of the election returns was commenced. . HELD: There was grave abuse of discretion in denying the inclusion as part of petitioner’s valid votes the Bautista stray votes that were separately tallied by the BEI and Board of Canvassers. Absent any finding of evidence that the guilt is strong. dismissed for lack of merit. 6646. his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office. 2001. the COMELEC can suspend proclamation only when evidence of the winning candidate's guilt is strong. PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES." (emphases supplied) In the instant case. a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election. ⊥ Petitioner filed with COMELEC a Petition to Declare Illegal the Proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. ⊥ # It must be emphasized that the case at bar involves a ground for disqualification which clearly affects the voter’s will and causes confusion that frustrates the same. is clearly affected. the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Navotas refused to canvass as part of the valid votes of petitioner the separate tallies of votes on which were written “Efren Bautista”.A. Under section 6 of R. COMELEC 298 SCRA 480 (SINGSON) FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner Cipriano “Efren” Bautista and private respondent were duly registered candidates for the position of Mayor of Navotas in the 1998 Elections. considered as stray votes. Respondent's Most Urgent Motion does not fall under the exceptions to notice and service of motions. Bautista” and “Bautista”. however. 2001. the petitioner. Nevertheless. “E. ⊥ COMELEC declared Edwin Bautista as nuisance candidate and consequently ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for the position of Mayor. ⊥ Petitioner filed a petition praying that Edwin Bautista be declared a nuisance candidate. petitioner has not been disqualified by final judgment when the elections were conducted on May 14. “Efren”. the COMELEC Second Division did not make any specific finding that evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong.72 This violates COMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring notice and service of the motion to all parties. the suspension of proclamation of a winning candidate is not a matter which the COMELEC Second Division can dispose of motu proprio. and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. OFFICIAL BALLOTS AND ELECTION RETURNS. then clearly. “Efren”. Its only basis in suspending the proclamation of the petitioner is the "seriousness of the allegations" in the petition for disqualification. there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC. No. BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 16 the election in which the disqualification is sought. The Most Urgent Motion contained a statement to the effect that a copy was served to the petitioner through registered mail. said Motion is a mere scrap of paper. In the case at bar. a certain Edwin “Efren” Bautista (Edwin Bautista) also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position.903. CASTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES 40 BAUTISTA V. respondent Locsin filed a Most Urgent Motion for the suspension of petitioner's proclamation. The records reveal that no registry receipt was attached to prove such service. upon request of petitioner’s counsel. Given the lack of service of the Most Urgent Motion to the petitioner.

000 electors could not have been intended for Edwin Bautista. COMELEC 289 SCRA 702 (FERNANDEZ) FACTS: ⊥ Manalastas.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 17 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ # Election Laws give effect to. allegedly known in Navotas as a tricycle driver and worse a drug addict. but Boboy” or “Boboy Tarugo” as his known appellation or nickname. as in this case. # Sec. and satisfactorily and finally shown as a candidate with no political line up. and no accomplishments which may be noted band considered by the public. the trial court was constrained to examine the contested ballots and the handwritings appearing thereon and came up with the declaration that Punzalan was the winner in the elections ⊥ various notices of appeal. as we mentioned. 21. 3) or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that a candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. ballots. # To rule otherwise will definitely result in the disenfranchisement of the will of the electorate. councilor and vice mayor. no personal funds that could have supported his campaign. extreme caution should be observed before any ballot is invalidated. herein petitioner. # Fatual circumstances and logic dictate that the “Bautista” and “Efren” votes which were mistakenly deemed as stray votes refer only to one candidate. motions for execution. not known as “Efren” as stated in his certificate of candidacy. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code – the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party. # In the appreciation of ballots. doubts are resolved in favor of their validity. the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense imputable to said BEI ⊥ Failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with their mandated administrative responsibility should not penalize the voter with disenfranchisement 41 . the situation that our election laws are enacted to prevent. Such votes. # Matters tend to get complicated when technical rules are strictly applied – technicalities should not be permitted to defeat the intention of the voter. the will of the voter. Thus. especially so if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself. irregularities and other illegal electoral practices during the registration and voting as well as during the counting of votes ⊥ Because of irregularities (massive fraud. Meneses filed his answer to both with counter protests: ordered consolidated and jointly tried by the court ⊥ Election contests sought the nullification of the election of Meneses allegedly due to massive fraud. petitions for certiorari. Official. rather than frustrate. election returns and tally sheets disappeared under mysterious circumstances and filled up ballots with undetached lower stubs and groups of ballot with stubs cut out with scissors were found inside ballot boxes) found after hearing the protests. which is. prohibition with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction ⊥ Comelec promulgated a resolution affirming the proclamation of Meneses HELD: On the first issue… ⊥ While RA 7166 (An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and For Electoral Reforms) requires the BEI chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot. PUNZALAN V. as against a known former public officer who had served the people of Navotas as Brgy. illegal electoral practices and serious anomalies. which represent the voice of approx. Meneses and Punzalan were among of the 4 candidates for mayor of the municipality of Mexico Pampanga ⊥ Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Meneses as the duly elected mayor ⊥ Manalastas and Punzalan separately siled election protests challenging the results of the elections. 2) or to cause confusion among voters by the similarity of the names of registered candidates. refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy 1) if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute.

2348 of the COMELEC. it is considered valid: o The Comelec watermark o Signature or initials or thumbprint of the Chairman of the BEI o Where the watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent to the naked eye. Section 14 of RA No. he withdrew his certificate of candidacy. categorically refers to "all candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy. The term "every candidate" must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign. Section 13 of Resolution No. Section 14 of the law uses the word "shall". ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ." Furthermore. particularly if public interest is involved— state has an interest in seeing that the electoral process is clean and expressive of the true will of the electorate. COMELEC 245 SCRA 759 (OBERIO) On the second issue… ⊥ The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the Comelec ⊥ The Comelec need not conduct an adversarial proceeding or a hearing to determine the authenticity of ballots or the handwriting found thereon. and should have either won or lost". One way to attain such objective is to pass a legislation regulating contributions and expenditures." having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy 3 days after its filing. COMELECimposed upon petitioner a fine of P10. Where the law does not distinguish. Such implies that the statute is mandatory. even evidence aliunde is not necessary to enable the Commission to determine the authenticity of the ballots and the genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots as an examination of the ballots themselves is already sufficient ⊥ Minor and insignificant variations in handwriting must be perceived as indicia of genuineness rather than of falcity ⊥ Carelessness. courts should not distinguish. this petition for certiorari. ⊥ Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of contribution and expenditures because he was a "non-candidate.000 for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. neither does it need to solicit the help of the handwriting experts in examining or comparing the handwriting. Petitioner posits that "it is xxx clear from the law that the candidate must have entered the political contest. Petitioner went to COMELEC en banc which denied the petition in its Resolution. Hence.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 18 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ A ballot without BEI chairman's signature at the back is valid and not spurious For as long as the ballot bears any one of the following authenticating marks. spontaneity. Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration which was denied by COMELEC. but also to one who withdrew his candidacy. Petitoner's argument is without merit. HELD: Petitioner should be held liable for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. unpremeditation and speed in signing are evidence of genuineness DOCTRINE: ⊥ the laws and statues governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities ⊥ an election protests is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative FACTS: Petitioner Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela. 7166 states that "every candidate" has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. the presence of red or blue fibers in the ballots Every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless there is a clear and good reason to justify its rejection ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES 42 PILAR V. 3 days later. in implementation of the provisions of RA 7166.

⊥ Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash alleging lack of . which approved the filing of a criminal complaint against petitioner. even if he himself were the complainant in his private capacity.The complaint in question in this case is one filed by Pardo in his personal capacity and not as chairman of the COMELEC.) FACTS: ⊥ Hon. seeking the inhibition of the entire COMELEC because of its bias in rendering a resolution. COMELEC resolved to file the necessary information against respondent and to file a criminal complaint against respondent for falsification ⊥ Director Balbuena filed an information for Violation of Section 74. even in the short span of his campaign. -No. criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may have incurred. 43 LAUREL V.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 19 ⊥ ⊥ and compelling the publication of the same. complaints filed by parties other than the COMELEC must be verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence. Pardo sent a verified letter-complaint to Jose P. investigator. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's protestations on COMELEC's having acted as complainant. ELECTION OFFENSES ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ jurisdiction and lack of authority on the part of Director Balbuena to file the information. There are two ways through which a complaint for election offenses may be initiated. prosecutor.There is nothing in the rules that require that only the COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to the Law Department for investigation. . .Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the COMELEC and need not be verified. 2348 also contemplates the situation where a candidate may not have received any contribution or made any expenditure. Balbuena charging Herman Tiu Laurel with "Falsification of Public Documents" and violation of [Section 74] of the Omnibus Election Code. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code provides that "the filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil. The evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all too remote. HELD: 1. 1996. On the other hand. P. ⊥ During en banc." Petitioner's withdrawal of his candidacy did not extinguish his liability for the administrative fine. It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has accepted contributions and incurred expenditures. in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code ⊥ Plaintiff filed a Motion for Inhibition. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. candidate. coalition of political parties or organizations under the partylist system or any accredited citizens arms of the Commission .There is no rule against the COMELEC chairman directing the conduct of a preliminary investigation. It was error for the Court of Appeals to hold there was no flaw in the procedure followed by the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. . or it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines. Court denied. registered political party. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and ruled that the proper procedure was followed by the COMELEC but directed the trial court to remand the case to the COMELEC for reception of petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated January 25. Such candidate is not excused from filing a statement. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE 323 SCRA 779 (AQUINO. judge and executioner in the conduct of the preliminary investigation ring hollow. 2. ⊥ It alleged that both his father and mother were Chinese citizens but when petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator he stated that his a natural-born Filipino citizen ⊥ An investigation was conducted by the COMELEC Law Department and a Report was made recommending the filing of Information. Bernardo P. Resolution No. BP Blg. It may be filed by the COMELEC motu proprio.

One day after filing such certificate (april 9). FACTS: ⊥ Florentino Bautista ran for the position of Mayor in Kawit Cavite ⊥ He filed a complaint against the incumbent Mayor Poblete and others supported by affidavits of 44 witnesses attesting to vote. This power is lodged exclusively with the COMELEC. petitioners name was repeatedly mentioned over the microphone. COMELEC cited RA 6646 otherwise known as “The Electoral Reforms law of 1987” which grants immunity from criminal prosecution persons who voluntarily give information and willingly testify against those liable for vote-buying or vote-selling. It constituted an election offense. Comelec en banc in a Resolution resolved to dismiss the filing of the case in the RTC.buying activities. The COMELEC is mandated by no less than the Constitution to investigate and prosecute. a raffle sponsored by Gillamac was held with home appliances as prize. 1997. resolution. it was widely published in the local news paper. This gave rise to a complaint for electioneering against petitioner and Gillamac filed by Antonio Luy. TAGLE 397 SCRA 618 (LIM) FACTS: Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of barangay chairman during the 1997 barangay elections in Cebu. as the latter would like the courts to do. Petitioner moved to quash on the basis that the previous dismissal of the Comelec en banc. “the following pleadings are not allowed. 3. that there was a streamer bearing the name of petitioner placed at the façade of the venue. -The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be restrained from investigating the complaint filed against petitioner. PEOPLE 331 SCRA 429 (CRUZ) It was also held that the Comelec en banc is the one that determines the existence of probable cause in an election offense. was immediately final and executory. HELD: A Motion for Reconsideration is allowed in election offense cases. Initially. 45 COMELEC V. violations of election laws. 1. But it may also be delegated to the State Prosecutor or to the Provincial or City Fiscal but may still be reviewed by the Comelec. 2. …(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 20 order or decision except in election offense cases… -No. ⊥ According to Tagle. “2nd Jing-Jing Faelnar’s Cup” which lasted until April 30. when necessary. And that Luy’s motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under Commission’s rules of procedure. Section 1. For the entire Commission to inhibit itself from investigating the complaint against petitioner would be nothing short of an abandonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code. ⊥ A separate complaint was filed by Rodelas and Macapagal with the provincial prosecutor against the witnesses (voteselling) ⊥ COMELEC en banc declared the resolution of the provincial prosecutor to institute criminal actions against the witnesses as null and void. the records show that there is basis to at least find probable cause to indict the petitioner for violation of the Omnibus Election Code and it appears from the records that Chairman Pardo had no other participation in the proceedings which led to the filing of the Information. for the witnesses to be exempt to should have committed the overt act of divulging information regarding the vote buying . It was alleged that it was actually a form of campaign done outside the official campaign period which should start on May 1. a basketball tournament was held in the sports complex dubbed as. 4. ⊥ Law department of COMELEC filed a motion to dismiss the case against the witnesses. Rule 13 of Comelec’s Rules of Procedure states. ⊥ The case was handled by a prosecutor of the COMELEC’s law department. 1997. 44 FAELNAR V. This was denied by respondent judge TAGLE. Antonio Luy moved for reconsideration prompting the Comelec to proceed with the filing of the case against petitioner.

7166. the votes not cast would affect the result of the election. Estino . orderly. * COMELEC. One of the effective ways of preventing the commission of vote-buying and of prosecuting those committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal liability in favor of the party whose vote was bought. . the COMELEC has been granted precisely the power to annul elections. however. two (2) conditions must concur: first. COMELEC 257 SCRA 1 (LAURENTE) ran for Vice-Governor * Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the COMELEC a recanvass of the election returns of Parang and Talipao. where the propriety of a pre-proclamation controversy ends. The COMELEC may exercise such power motu proprio or upon a verified petition. We hold that. it in effect. honest . Section 4 of Republic Act No. violence. The COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same. peaceful. even if there were voting.buying case. second. no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or." provides that the COMELEC sitting En Banc by a majority vote of its members may decide. private respondents objected to the inclusion in the canvass of the election returns of Parang. FAILURE OF ELECTION 46 LOONG V. before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election. Tulawie and p. The canvass of respondent PBC showed petitioners to have overwhelmingly won in the municipality of Parang. otherwise known as.The private respondents filed petitions with the COMELEC regarding the inclusion of the questioned certificates of canvass and that there was failure of election in said municipality due to massive fraud Petitioners. and. Where certain voters have already executed sworn statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-buying in a pending case. This is an important consideration for. and credible election is indispensable in a democratic society. the declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 21 HELD: Witnesses are exempt from criminal prosecution. * The reconstituted MBC. relieved all the regular members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) and ordered such recanvass by senior lawyers from the COMELEC office in Manila. ⊥ A free. as may be otherwise provided by law When the COMELEC nullifies a resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor which is the basis of the information for vote selling. among others. "The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991. Sulu but not ordering for special elections in the same municipality. it cannot be denied that they had already given information in the vote. likewise filed for failure of elections in 5 other municipalities COMELEC ruled annulling the results of the elections in Parang as well as holding in abeyance the proclamation of the winning candidates for Governor and ViceGovernor until further orders from the Commission but dismissed other petitions for other municipalities where it was alleged that there were also badges of fraud HELD: COMELEC was incorrect in annulling elections of Parang. merely noted said objections and forwarded the same to respondent PBC for resolution. terrorism. * PBC denied the objections of private respondents and still included the election returns of Parang municipality. We must add. fraud or other analogous causes. that the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the following: force majeure. The hearing of the case shall be summary in nature. ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ Under the present state of our election laws. there may begin the realm of a special action for declaration of failure of elections.This case stemmed from elections held in Sulu where LOONG and private respondent Tan ran for the position of Governor while pet. FACTS: . however. During the re-canvass. as without it democracy would not flourish and would be a sham. It was also incorrect in dismissing other petitions for failure of elections in other municipalities where there were also badges of fraud.r. and the COMELEC may delegate to its lawyers the power to hear the case and to receive evidence. accordingly. the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect. withdraws the deputation granted to the prosecutor.

and Private Respondent. in the case of actions for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections. Hassan. and (2) that the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections. 47 HASSAN V. were candidates for Vice-Mayor in Lanao del Sur ⊥ However. Hadji Nor Basher L. violence or terrorism. as the Omnibus Election Code denominates the same. In one of the precincts. decided to transfer the polling places to Liangan Elementary School which was 15 kilometers away from the polling place. due to threats of violence and terrorism in the area. the COMELEC team. the COMELEC. the petition for certiorari HELD: There was failure of elections. Hassan Buatan. Elections had to be set for the third time because no members of the BEI reported for duty due to impending threats of violence in the area. The peculiar situation of this case cannot be overstated. may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters' signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free. This in fact prompted COMELEC to deploy military men to act as substitute members just so elections could be held. COMELEC 264 SCRA 125 (LABAGUIS POGI) ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ their respective polling places The COMELEC team. ⊥ The concurrence of the following preconditions is necessary for declaring a failure of election: (1) that no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force majeure. moreover. while in the other 5 precincts. there was a failure of elections in six (6) out of twenty-four (24) precincts. and to thwart these threats of violence. Mangondaya P. Thus. Respondent = 1. Needless to say. The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO REINSTATE SPA 95-289 AND TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL EXAMINATION. The COMELEC can not turn a blind eye to the fact that terrorism was so prevalent in the area. the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) failed to report to ⊥ . in pre-proclamation cases. a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO CONDUCT SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARANG. the ballot boxes were burned.098 Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC assailing the validity of the re-scheduled special election COMELEC en banc denied the petition for a declaration of failure of the elections and ordered the Board of Canvassers to proclaim Private Respondent as the winning vice-mayoralty candidate Thus. OF PERTINENT ELECTION DOCUMENTS THEREIN AND TO HOLD SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES DISPUTED IN SPA 95-289 IN THE EVENT the COMELEC ANNULS THE ELECTION RESULTS THEREIN OR DECLARES THEREAT FAILURE OF ELECTIONS. This constrained the COMELEC team to appoint police/military personnel to substitute for the BEI The result of the special election was in favor of the Private Respondent: Petitioner = 879. SULU. The notice given ⊥ ⊥ FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner. terrorism. to an examination of the election returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 22 While the COMELEC is restricted. which was 15 kilometers away from the designated polling places The members of the BEI once more did not report for duty. the COMELEC is duty bound to investigate allegations of fraud. honest and clean. headed by Garcillano. IF ANY. violence and other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections. recommended the holding of special elections in said precincts and scheduled it The members of the BEI again failed to report The COMELEC team rescheduled the elections in Liangan Elementary School. and is DIRECTED TO SUPERVISE THE COUNTING OF THE VOTES AND THE CANVASSING OF THE RESULTS TO THE END THAT THE WINNING CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR AND VICE-GOVERNOR FOR THE PROVINCE OF SULU BE PROCLAIMED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

PASANDALAN V. (2) failure to sign of BEIs to sign their initials on certain ballots and (3) taking advantage of the fist fights. mat have different observations. some Cafgu’s stationed near the schools indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters to panic and leave the voting centers without casting their votes. the COMELEC totally ignored the fact that there were more than a thousand registered voters who failed to vote. Asum were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Lumbayanague. official ballots and other election paraphernalia were not delivered at all. ⊥ Comelec suspended proclamation of winning candidates ⊥ Petitioners filed a motion to lift suspension of proclamation. (2) the election was suspended on the same grounds in the 1st and (3) there was failure to elect still on the same grounds. 2001 elections ⊥ On May 23. The election was held in the precincts protested as scheduled. The evidence presented by Pasandalan were only affidavits made by his own pollwatchers.thus considered as self serving and insufficient to annul the results. AMPATUAN V. COMELEC 375 SCRA 503 (MARTINEZ) ⊥ 48 FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner Pasandalan and respondent Bai salamona L.546 registered voters in the five (5) precincts. violence or fraud. It was quite sweeping and illogical for the COMELEC to state that the votes uncast would not have in any way affected the results of the elections. ⊥ ⊥ The irregularities alleged should have been raised as an election protest and not in a petition to declare the nullity of an election. The 3 instances wherein a failure of election could be declared is not present (1) The election is not held – (election was still held). Bualan etc) on the ground that.(it was not). although present in the incident. Comelec granted and proclaimed the petitioners s winners. (1) while the election was ongoing. COMELEC 384 SCRA 695 (MACASAET) HELD: COMELEC didn't commit grave abuse of discretion in annulling electionm. The alleged terrorism was not of that scale to justify declaration of failure of elections. ⊥ Hence the petition in this court ⊥ 49 FACTS: ⊥ Petitioner Ampatuan and Respondent Candao were candidates for the position of Governor of Maguindanao during the 2001 elections ⊥ May 2001: respondents filed a petition with the comelec for the annulment of election results and/or declaration of failure of elections in several municipalities. While the difference between the two candidates is only 219 out of the votes actually cast. Lanao del surMay 14. Persons when asked about a same incident. (2) identical statementshuman perception is different for each. (2) the election is suspended. Credibility of the affidavits questioned: (1) it was pre-typed. ⊥ June 2001: Respondents filed with SC a petition to set aside Comelec order and prelim injunction to suspend effects of the proclamation of petitioners. terrorism. Out of the 1. the supporters of Asum took the ballots and filled them up with the name of Asum. They claimed that the elections were “completely sham and farcical”. Pasandalan filed for nullification of election results in certain barangays (Deromoyod. ⊥ Comelec’s ruling: No credence given to the allegations of Pasandalan. Lagin. and in some precincts. and (3) the election results in the failure to elect (Asum was elected through the plurality of votes). only 328 actually voted. The ballots were filled-up en masse by a few persons the night before the election day. the ballot boxes.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 23 ⊥ on the afternoon of the day before the scheduled special elections and transferring the venue of the elections 15 kilometers away from the farthest barangay/school was too short resulting to the disenfranchisement of voters. Instances to declare a failure of election does not exist (1) the election in a polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure. all that the poll watchers have to do is to fill it up and sign it. . neither was it suspended (as proved by the testimony of one of the election officers) nor was there failure to elect.

During the said election. This notwithstanding. fraud or other analogous cause Under the circumstances of the present case and based on applicable law. Sept 2001: Petitioners filed the present petition and claimed that by virtue of the proclamation. petitioner Basher got 15 votes and Razul got 10 votes. Omnibus Election Code provides that election tellers shall designate the public school or ay public building within the Barangay to be used as polling place. terrorism. such election results in a failure to elect on the ground of force majeure. the Comelec is duty-bound to conduct an investigation as to the veracity of respondents’ allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that attended the conduct of the May 2001 election. an election protest is the appropriate remedy. ⊥ In the case at bar. Election Officer Diana Datu-Imam claimed that the town mayor was too hysterical. The former is heard summarily while the latter involves a full-blown trial. the place where the voting was conducted was illegal. Second. Lanao del Sur was held twice (May and June 1997). voting started only around 9:00 pm because of the prevailing tension in the said locality. ⊥ There are only 3 instances where a failure of elections may be declared: 1) FACTS: Failure of elections in Barangay Maidan. 12 Baranggay Maidan. First. the law provides that the casting of votes start at 7 am and end at 3 pm except when there are voters present within 30 meters in front of the polling place . the proper remedy available to the respondents was not petition for declaration of failure of elections but an election protest. The tally sheet showed that respondent Ampatua got 250 votes. Petitioner now assails the validity of the COMELEC Resolution dismissing the Petition to Declare Failure o Election and to Call Special Election in Precinct No. by an urgent motion for a TRO filed by the petitioners. technical and summary proceedings BASHER V. With the arrival of additional troops. Oct 2001: Comelec ordered the suspension of the 2 assailed orders (with regard to respondents’ petition fro failure of elections and directing the continuation of hearing and disposition of the consolidated SPAs on the failure of elections and other incidents related thereto) Nov 2001: Comelec lifts the suspension order SC issues TRO enjoining Comelec from lifting suspension ⊥ the election in any polling place has not been declared 2) election in any polling place had not been suspended 3) after voting and during transmission of ER. Respondent was proclaimed winner. yelled and threatened her to declare failure of election in Maidan as the armed followers pointed their guns at her and her military escorts responded in the same manner. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736 (GONZALES) 50 ISSUE: W/N The Comelec was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide respondents’ petition for declaration for failure of elections after petitioners had been proclaimed HELD: No.ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 24 ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ July 2001: Comelec ordered the consolidation of the respondents’ petition for declaration of failure of elections. Complex matters which necessarily entail the presentation of conflicting testimony should not be resolved in random. HELD: There was a failure of election. and a special elections was scheduled for August 30. there was an invalid postponement of election. the election officer proceeded to Maidan to conduct the election starting at 9:00 pm until the early morning of the following day at the residence of the former mayor. the technical examination was held in abeyance until the present. we lift the TRO and allow technical examination to proceed with deliberate dispatch. ⊥ Validity of the proclamation may be challenged even after the irregularly proclaimed candidate has assumed office. ⊥ In order not to frustrate the ends of justice. However. ⊥ It is well to stress that the Comelec has started conducting the technical examination on Nov 2001. violence. election was held in the residence of the former mayor which is located in Barangay Pandarianao. Dissent: Justice Melo ⊥ Issue: is the declaration of failure of elections by the Comelec an executive-administrative function or a judicial function? ⊥ Held The authority given to Comelec to declare a failure of elections and to call for the holding and continuation of the failed election falls under its admin fxn. in virtue of which we issued a TRO. Petition dismissed ⊥ The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive comelec of its authority to annul any canvas and illegal proclamation.

ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST) 25 who have nor yet cast their votes. violence. Finally. orderly and honest election should become impossible the COMELEC moto proprio or upon written petition by 10 registered voter after summary proceedings shall suspend or postpone the proceedings. Election Officer did not follow the procedure for he postponement or suspension or declaration of failure of election. the electorate was not given ample notice of the exact schedule and venue of the election. insurrection. Third. mere announcement over the mosque is insufficient. Election Day was invalid because suspension of postponement of election is governed by law and it provides that when for any serious cause such as rebellion. terrorism. The election officer is without authority to declare a failure of election for it is only the COMELEC itself has legal authority to exercise such awesome power. loss or destruction of election paraphernalia and any analogous causes such nature that the free. She did not conduct any proceeding summary or otherwise to find out any legal grounds for the suspension or postponement or declaration of failure of election. Election was held after 9:00 pm until the wee hours the following day. . certainly such was not in accordance with the law.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful