You are on page 1of 40


Soller v. COMELEC G.R. NO. 139853

FACTS Petitioner and private respondent (Saulong) were both candidates for mayor of the municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1 ! elections" #he petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by the municipal board of canvassers" Private respondent filed a petition with the $OM%&%$ to annul the proclamation" &ater, private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner with the '#$" #he $OM%&%$ dismissed the pre(proclamation case filed by private respondent, while the '#$ denied petitioner)s motion to dismiss" Petitioner moved for reconsideration but said motion was denied" Petitioner then filed with the $OM%&%$ a petition for certiorari contending that respondent '#$ acted without or in e*cess of +urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private respondent)s election protest" #he $OM%&%$ en banc dismissed petitioner)s suit" Petitioner now ,uestions this decision of the $OM%&%$ en banc" ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to decide on the case. HELD #he S$ has ruled in previous cases that the $OM%&%$, sitting en banc, does not have the re,uisite authority to hear and decide election cases including pre(proclamation controversies in the first instance" #his power pertains to the divisions of the $ommission" -ny decision by the $ommission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void" .n the S$)s view, the authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, li/e the ,uestioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of the $OM%&%$ and not on the $OM%&%$ en banc"



FACTS On 01 March 1 2, -gapito -" -,uino filed his $ertificate of $andidacy for the position of 'epresentative for the new Second &egislative 3istrict of Ma/ati $ity" .n his certificate of candidacy, -,uino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district for 11 months" 4aced with a petition for dis,ualification, he amended the entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 15 days" #he $ommission on %lections dismissed the petition on 6 May and allowed -,uino to run in the election of ! May" -,uino won" -cting on a motion for reconsideration of the above dismissal, the $ommission on %lection later issued an order suspending the proclamation of -,uino until the $ommission resolved the issue" On 0 7une, the $ommission on %lections found -,uino ineligible and dis,ualified for the elective office for lac/ of constitutional ,ualification of residence" ISSUE 8hether 9residency: in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes 9domicile: to warrant the dis,ualification of -,uino from the position in the electoral district" HELD #he place 9where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,: where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i"e", his domicile, is that to which the $onstitution refers when it spea/s of residence for the purposes of election law" #he purpose is to e*clude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community

from ta/ing advantage of favorable circumstances e*isting in that community for electoral gain" -,uino)s certificate of candidacy in a previous (1 0) election indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of San 7ose, $oncepcion, #arlac for more than 20 years prior to that election" -,uino)s connection to the Second 3istrict of Ma/ati $ity is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area" #he intention not to establish a permanent home in Ma/ati $ity is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one" #he short length of time he claims to be a resident of Ma/ati (and the fact of his stated domicile in #arlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to ac,uire a new, residence or domicile but only to ,ualify as a candidate for 'epresentative of the Second 3istrict of Ma/ati $ity" -,uino was thus rightfully dis,ualified by the $ommission on %lections"



Facts Petitioner #ony &" Benwaren and private respondent %dwin $risologo were candidates for the position of Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of #ineg, -bra in the May 011; elections" 3uring the canvass of the election return of Precinct <o" 16-, counsel for petitioner ob+ected to the inclusion of the election return on the ground that the same was allegedly prepared under duress, force or intimidation, or was prepared by persons other than the Board of %lection .nspectors (B%.) concerned" #he MB$ deferred the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor because it contended that the contested election return from Precinct <o" 16- would affect the result of the election for the position" #o speedily settle and put an end to the controversy reconstitution of the MB$ with new members, to, among others, determine if the identity and integrity of the said ballot bo* and the ballots contained therein were not violated= and, proceed to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new

election return for the said precinct= and then canvass the said return and proclaim the winning candidate>s= or 3uring the e*amination of the election return, the MB$ found that the integrity of the ballot bo* was violated as it was left unattended and was never delivered to its proper custodian" #he ballots were not also placed in properly sealed or placed in enveloped prepared by $omelec" #he <ew MB$ proclaimed private respondent $risologo as the duly elected mayor of #ineg, -bra based on the results of the remaining uncontested election returns" 3ue to the unfavorable result, Benwaren filed a Petition to -nnul Proclamation or to Suspend the %ffects #hereof and Petition to 3eclare .llegal ?the@ Proceedings of the <ew Board of $anvassers of #ineg, -bra" .n a 'esolution dated 4ebruary 1!, 0112, the $OM%&%$ 4irst 3ivision dismissed the petition for lac/ of merit, declaring the <ew MB$ was specifically mandated by it to determine whether the identity and integrity of the ballot bo* for Precinct <o" 16- and its ballots were violated" #hus, it held that the matter was left to the sound discretion of the members of the <ew MB$, which complied with its order" .t added that the <ew MB$ is presumed to have regularly performed its official duty absent a strong proof to the contrary by petitioner" Petitioner filed a a petition for certiorari before the Supreme $ourt"

Issues: 1. #)e*)er or not $OM%&%$ gravely abused its discretion amounting to lac/ or e*cess of +urisdiction when it affirmed the ruling of the <ew MB$ that the integrity of the ballot bo* for Precinct <o" 16-, Barangay &anec, #ineg, -bra, and its contents had been violated"

0" 8hether or not $OM%&%$ gravely abused its discretion amounting to lac/ or e*cess of +urisdiction when it illegally proclaimed private respondent $risologo based on incomplete canvass of votes" 5" 8hether or not $OM%&%$ en banc 'esolution dated -ugust 51, 0112 was illegally promulgated since former $ommissioners Airgilio O" Barcillano and Manuel -" Barcelona, 7r" were no longer members of the $OM%&%$ at the time of promulgation" Ru in!: 1" <o, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of $omelec" #he $OM%&%$ 4irst 3ivision specifically mandated the <ew MB$ to determine whether the identity and integrity of the ballot bo* of Precinct <o" 16- and its ballots were violated" -fter convening for that purpose, the <ew MB$ found that the integrity of the ballot bo* of Precinct <o" 16- and its contents was violated and it issued a 'uling accordingly" #he $OM%&%$ upheld the factual finding of the <ew MB$ and declared that the <ew MB$ is presumed to have regularly performed its official duty absent any proof to the contrary by petitioner" #he factual findings of administrative agencies which have ac,uired e*pertise in their field are generally binding and conclusive on the courts in the absence of grave abuse and none has been shown in this case"

0" <o, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of $omelec" #he $OM%&%$ ruled that based on Section 01 (i) of 'epublic -ct <o" C166, earlier cited, the proclamation of private respondent $risologo was proper because the contested returns would not adversely affect the results of the election" .f the votes in Precinct <o" !- as reflected on the contested return are added to their votes in the uncontested precincts, the result would be 1! as against 0;, in favor of private respondent $risologo who still emerges the winner by a margin of si* (6) votes"

5" <o, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of $omelec" decision becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated" $onse,uently, if at the time of the promulgation of a decision or resolution, a member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated his office, his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled" Dowever, the 'esolution, in this case, remains valid because it is still supported by a ma+ority of the $OM%&%$ en banc"

4. r+%+&$& vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s $%& S.%/$ G.R. No. 13501( Se1*e,2er 233 1999
#his is a petition for certiorari ,uestioning the 'esolution of the $ommission on %lections dis,ualifying petitioner as a mayoralty candidate in the May 1 2 elections" &i/ewise, it see/s the review of a subse,uent resolution annulling petitioner)s proclamation as elected mayor in the May 1 ! elections"


Petitioner #rinidad won the May 1 2 elections" Private respondent Sunga filed a dis,ualification case against petitioner and as/ing the $OM%&%$ to proclaim him as the duly elected mayor" $OM%&%$ promulgated it decision on 7une 00, 1 !, dis,ualifying #rinidad" Petitioner filed a Motion 4or 'econsideration claiming that he was deprived of due process" Petitioner was again proclaimed winner in the May 1 ! elections" On October 15, 1 ! $OM%&%$ denied petitioner)s M' as well as annulling his proclamation as elected mayor" #hus this petition for certiorari" Issues:

1" 8O< petitioner was deprived of due process in the proceedings before the $OM%&%$ insofar as his dis,ualification under the May !, 1 2 and May !, 1 ! elections were concerned" 0" 8O< petitioner)s proclamation as Mayor under the May 11, 1 ! elections may be cancelled on account of the dis,ualification case filed against him during the May !, 1 2 elections" 5" 8O< private respondent, as the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes, may be proclaimed as Mayor in the event of petitioner)s dis,ualification" HELD

1" <O" Petitioner was able to file an -nswer with $ounter Petition and Motion to 3ismiss" De was also able to submit his counter(affidavit and sworn statements of forty(eight witnesses" De was also given a chance to e*plain in his Motion for 'econsideration" De was afforded an opportunity to be heard, through his pleadings, therefore, there is no denial of procedural due process" 0" <O" Petitioner cannot be dis,ualified from his reelection term of office" 'emoval cannot e*tend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed" .f a public official is not removed before his term of office e*pires, he can no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another term"

5" <O" -s earlier decided by the Supreme $ourt, the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is dis,ualified" #hat would be disenfranchising the electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the people)s right to elect officials of their choice"


ole%*+%o $%& Mo4+-$ vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s3 Re-*o $%& 5o%$s$% G.R. No. 148334 6$%.$r7 213 2004

#his is a petition for prohibition to set aside 'esolution <o" <B$ 11(112 dated 2 7une 0111 (9'esolution <o" 11(112:) and 'esolution <o" <B$ 11(116 dated 01 7uly 0111 (9'esolution <o" 11(116:) of respondent $ommission on %lections (9$OM%&%$:)" 'esolution <o" 11(112 proclaimed the 15 candidates elected as Senators in the 1; May 0111 elections while 'esolution <o" 11(116 declared 9official and final: the

ran/ing of the 15 Senators proclaimed in 'esolution <o" 11(112" Facts: 4ollowing the appointment of Senator #eofisto Buingona as Aice( President of the Philippines, the Senate on 4ebruary !, 0111 passed 'esolution <o" !;, calling on $OM%&%$ to fill the vacancy through a special election to be held simultaneously with the regular elections on May 1;, 0111" #welve senators, with 6(year term each, were due to be elected in that election" #he resolution further provides that the 9Senatorial candidate garnering the 15th highest number of votes shall serve only for the une*pired term of former Senator #eofisto Buingona, 7r" which ends on 7une 51, 011;" On 7une 2, 0111, after canvassing the election results, the $OM%&%$ proclaimed 15 candidates as the elected Senators, with the first 10 Senators to serve the une*pired term of 6 years and the 15th Senator to serve the full term of 5 years of Senator #eofisto Buingona, 7r" Bregorio Donasan ran/ed 15th" Petitioners -rturo #olentino and -rturo Mo+ica, as voters and ta*payers, filed the instant petition for prohibition, praying for the nullification of 'esolution <o" 11(112" #hey contend that $OM%&%$ issued 'esolution 11(112 without +urisdiction becauseE (1) it failed to notify the electorate of the position to be filled in the special election as re,uired under Section 0 of '- 66;2= (0) it failed to re,uire senatorial candidates to indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they see/ election under the special or regular elections as allegedly re,uired under Section C5 of BP !!1= and, conse,uently, (5) it failed to specify in the Aoters .nformation Sheet the candidates see/ing election under the special or regular senatorial elections as purportedly re,uired under Section ;, paragraph ; of '- 66;6" #olentino and Mo+ica add that because of these omissions, $OM%&%$ canvassed all the votes cast for the senatorial candidates in the 1; May 0111 elections without distinction such that 9there were no two separate Senate elections held simultaneously but +ust a single election for thirteen seats, irrespective of term": #olentino and Mo+ica sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order during the pendency of their petition" 8ithout issuing any restraining order, the Supreme $ourt re,uired $OM%&%$ to $omment on the petition" Donasan ,uestioned #olentino)s and Mo+ica)s standing to bring the instant petition as ta*payers and voters because they do not claim that

$OM%&%$ illegally disbursed public funds= nor claim that they sustained personal in+ury because of the issuance of 'esolutions 11( 112 and 11(116" Issue: 8O< the Special %lection held on May 1;, 0111 should be nullifiedE (1) for failure to give notice by the body empowered to and (0) for not following the procedure of filling up the vacancy pursuant to '"-" 66;2" HELD: (1) 8here the law does not fi* the time and place for holding a special election but empowers some authority to fi* the time and place after the happening of a condition precedent, the statutory provision on the giving of notice is considered mandatory, and failure to do so will render the election a nullity" #he test in determining the validity of a special election in relation to the failure to give notice of the special election is whether want of notice has resulted in misleading a sufficient number of voters as would change the result of special election" .f the lac/ of official notice misled a substantial number of voters who wrongly believed that there was no special election to fill vacancy, a choice by small percentage of voters would be void" (0) #here is no basis in the petitioners) claim that the manner by which the $OM%&%$ conducted the special Senatorial election on May 1;, 0111 is a nullity because the $OM%&%$ failed to document separately the candidates and to canvass separately the votes cast for the special election" <o such re,uirement e*ists in our election laws" 8hat is mandatory under Section 0 of '"-" 66;2 is that the $OM%&%$ 9fi* the date of election,: if necessary, and state among others, the office>s to be voted for" Significantly, the method adopted by the $OM%&%$ in conducting the special election on May 1;, 0111 merely implemented the procedure specified by the Senate in 'esolution <o" !;" .nitially, the original draft of said resolution as introduced by Senator 4rancisco #atad made no mention of the manner by which the seat vacated by former Senator

Buingona would be filled" Dowever, upon the suggestion of Senator 'aul 'oco, the Senate agreed to amend the resolution by providing as it now appears, that 9the senatorial cabdidate garnering the 15th highest number of votes shall serve only for the une*pired term of former Senator #eofisto Biongona, 7r":


$.le vs S$%*os

A./.s* 123 1991 G. R. No. 9033(

#his is a petition for certiorari see/ing the reversal of the resolutions of respondent Secretary dated -ugust ;, 1 ! and September 2, 1 ! for being null and void" Facts: -n election for the officers of the 4ederation of -ssociations of Barangay $ouncil (4-B$) was held on 7une 1!, 1 ! despite the absence of other members of the said council" .ncluding Petitioner was elected as the president" 'espondent Aerceles sent a letter of protest to respondent Santos, see/ing its nullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted" Petitioner denied the allegations of respondent Aerceles and denouncing respondent for intervening in the said election which is a purely non(partisan affair" -nd re,uesting for his appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being the duly elected President of the 4-B$ in $atanduanes" 'espondent Santos issued a resolution on -ugust ;, 1 ! nullifying the election and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the 'egional 3irector of 'egion A of the 3epartment of &ocal Bovernment" Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by respondent Santos in his resolution on September 2, 1 ! " #hus this petition before the Supreme $ourt" IssuesE 1" 8O< the respondent Santos has +urisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of the 4-B$"

0" 8O< the respondent Aerceles has the legal personality to file an election protest"

He d: 1" <o" #he Secretary of &ocal Bovernment has no +urisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the 4-B$" De is only vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations and to e*ercise general supervision over the local government as provided in the &ocal Bovernment $ode and in the -dministrative $ode" .t is the e*clusive original +urisdiction of the inferior to hear election protest and the $OM%&%$ have the appellate +urisdiction over it"

0" Fes" #he Bovernor has the personality to file the protest" Gnder Section 012 of the &ocal Bovernment $ode, the membership of the sangguniang panlalawigan consists of the governor, the vice( governor, elective members of the said sanggunian, etc" De acted as the presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan" -s presiding officer, he has an interest in the election of the officers of the 4-B$ since its elected president becomes a member of the assembly" .f said member assumes his place under ,uestionable circumstances, the sanggunian may be vulnerable to attac/s as to their validity or legality" #herefore, respondent governor is a proper party to ,uestion the regularity of the elections of the officers of the 4-B$" #he election of officers of the 4-B$ held on 7une 1!, 1 ! is null and void for not complying with the provisions of 3&B $ircular <o" ! (1 " 3&B $ircular <o" ! (1 provides that 9the incumbent 4-B$ President or the Aice(President shall preside over the reorganiHational meeting, there being a ,uorum": .t is admitted that neither the incumbent 4-B$ President nor the Aice(President presided over the meeting and elections but -lberto P" Molina, 7r", the $hairman of the Board of %lection Supervisors>$onsultants" #herefore, there was a clear violation of the said mandatory provision"

I Pending resolution, petitioner also filed a supplemental petition alleging that public respondent &ocal Bovernment Secretary, in his memorandum dated 7une C, 1 1, designated -ugusto -ntonio, despite him being absent on said election" #he Secretary of &ocal Bovernment has no authority to appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum ,ualification to be the president of the federation of barangay councils"


S+%+-$ vs M.l$ $%& Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s

.n this case, assailed was the $OM%&%$ 'esolution on Oct" 6, 1 ! in SP- <o" !(0 0, declaring the substitution of mayoralty candidate #eodoro Sinaca, 7r" by petitioner %mmanuel 3" Sinaca as invalid" Facts: .n the May 1 ! elections, petitioner %mmanuel Sinica was a substitute candidate for the mayoral post of the Matugas 8ing after their original candidate, #eodoro Sinica, 7r", was dis,ualified for being convicted of bigamy" De was proclaimed winner after the canvassing" (Matugas 8ing was a faction in the &-J-S(<G$3(GMP3 party, as well as the Barbers 8ing" %ach faction has separate candidates for the mayoral post in the Municipality of Malimono, Surigao del <orte") 'espondent Mula (who got Sinica, 7r" dis,ualified) filed a dis,ualification case against %mmanuel Sinica before the $OM%&%$" De alleged that said substitution was invalid becauseE a) Sinica was not member of the &-J-S party when he was nominated as a substitute= and

b) it lac/s approval of Sen" Barbers as a +oint signatory of the substitution" #he $OM%&%$ Second 3ivision dismissed the dis,ualification case" Dowever, when respondent Mula filed a Motion for 'econsideration, $OM%&%$ en banc set aside the resolution of the Second 3ivision and dis,ualified %MM-<G%& asserting that the substitution violated the provisions of Sec" CC of the Omnibus %lection $ode that the substitute must belong to the same political party as the substituted candidate" %mmanuel 3" Sinaca was not valid because he was an independent candidate for councilor prior to his nomination as substitute candidate in place of the withdrawing candidate who was a &a/as party member" #herefore, this case before the Supreme $ourt"

Issue: 8O< the substitution of %mmanuel Sinica was against the provisions of Section CC of the Omnibus %lection $ode" DeldE <O" Section CC of the Omnibus %lection $ode only mandates that a substitute candidate should be a person belonging to and certified by the same political party as the candidate to be replaced" Petitioner %mmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, had first withdrawn his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan Member before he +oined the &-J-S party and nominated by the &-J-S M-#GB-S 8ing as the substitute candidate" De had filed his certificate of candidacy and his certificate of nomination as &-J-S mayoralty candidate signed by Bov" Matugas with his written acceptance of the party)s nomination" #herefore, he is a bona fide &-J-S member" #here is nothing in the $onstitution or the statute which re,uires as a condition precedent that a substitute candidate must have been a member of the party concerned for a certain period of time before he can be nominated as such"


Ro,.$l&e89M$r-os vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s G.R. No.11990(:Se1*e,2er 183 1995

Facts: Petitioner .melda 'omualdeH(Marcos filed her $ertificate of $andidacy for the position of 'epresentative of the 4irst 3istrict of &eyte" Private respondent $irilo 'oy Monte+o, a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for cancellation and dis,ualification with the $OM%&%$ alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional re,uirement for residency" Private respondent contended that petitioner lac/ed the $onstitution)s one(year residency re,uirement for candidates for the Douse of 'epresentatives" Issue: 8hether or not petitioner has satisfied the residency re,uirement as mandated by -rt" A., Sec" 6 of the $onstitution He d: Fes" 4or election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile" #he $ourt upheld the ,ualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in

the district for only C months, because of the followingE (a) a minor follows the domicile of her parents= #acloban became petitioner)s domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought the family to &eyte= (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose= in the absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue= (c) the wife does not automatically gain the husband)s domicile because the term 9residence: in $ivil &aw does not mean the same thing in Political &aw= when petitioner married President Marcos in 1 2;, she /ept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium= (d) even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and ac,uired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose #acloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice


G$&or vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s G.R. No. L9523(5 6$%.$r7 223 1980

#his petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary in+unction was filed on 7anuary 01, 1 !1 at ;E;Cpm as/ing the Supreme $ourt to immediately order the respondent $OM%&%$ to include the name his name in the list of candidates for Mayor of the $ity of OHamiH" Facts: #he petition alleges that the petitioner is a candidate for the Office of Mayor of the $ity of OHamiH as .ndependent this coming 7anuary 51, 1 !1 local election" De filed his certificate of candidacy with the %lection 'egistrar of OHamis $ity on 7anuary C, 1 !1 because of the news in the Bulletin #oday" #he said news stated that the respondent $OM%&%$ issued a resolution for the e*tension of time for filing $O$"

Dowever, the President denied said resolution" #herefore, respondent $OM%&%$ informed the petitioner that his name might not be included in the list of candidates for mayor because of the said incident" #hus, this petition" ISSUE: 8O< the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner which was filed on 7anuary C, 1 !1 is valid" DeldE <O" - certificate of candidacy filed beyond reglementary period is void" Section C, Batasang Pambansa Bilang 20, provides that 9#he sworn certificate of candidacy shall be filed in triplicate not later than 7anuary ;, 1 !1": .t is a fact admitted by the petitioner that the President had not e*tended the period within which to file the certificate of candidacy" #his $ourt is powerless to grant the remedy prayed for in the petition" Daving been filed beyond 7anuary ;, 1 !1, the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner is void"


Q.+%*o vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s 'e-e,2er 13 2009

#his is a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the $OM%&%$ for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions" Facts: .n preparation for the 0111 elections, the $ommission on %lections ($OM%&%$) issued 'esolution <o" !6C! K the Buidelines on the 4iling of $ertificates of $andidacy ($o$) and <omination of Official $andidates of 'egistered Political Parties in $onnection with the May 11, 0111 <ational and &ocal %lections" Sec" ; of 'esolution <o" !6C! provides that 9-ny person holding a public appointive office or position * * * shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of

his certificate of candidacy (automatic resignation) however it e*empts those elected officials saying that 9-ny person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position": Sec"15(par" 5) of 'epublic -ct (9'"-":) <o" 56 providesE 9* * * any person holding a public appointive office or position * * * shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his>her office * * *": Sec" 66 of BP Blg" !!1, or the Omnibus %lection $ode, readsE 9* * * -ny person holding a public appointive office or position * * * shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy": Petitioners were appointive officers of the government who were planning to run in the 0111 elections sought the nullification of Sec" ;(a) on the ground, among others, that it is discriminatory and violates the e,ual protection clause of the $onstitution" Issue: 8O< $OM%&%$ resolution is constitutional"

He d: <o" Sec" ;(a) of the $OM%&%$ 'esolution is null and void for being violative of the e,ual protection clause and for being overbroad" Sec" 15(par" 5) of '"-" 56 L Sec" 66 of the Omnibus %lection $ode were also declared as G<$O<S#.#G#.O<-&" Sec" 66 of BP Blg" !!1 L '- !;56 relating to the automatic resignation of elective officials upon the filing of their $o$s was repealed by '"-" 116 (4air %lection -ct)" 9#here was, thus, created a situation of obvious discrimination against appointive officials who were deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices upon the filing of their $o$s, while elective officials were not":

4our (;) re,uisites of valid classification must be complied with in order that a discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutional norm of e,ual protectionE (1) .t must be based upon substantial distinctions= (0) .t must be germane to the purposes of the law" (5) .t must not be limited to e*isting conditions only= and (;) .t must apply e,ually to all members of the class" -ccording to the Supreme $ourt, the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offices as opposed to those holding elective ones is not germane to the purposes of the law" #he obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote one)s candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence on the electorate" and discipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty would be motivated by political considerations rather than the welfare of the public" #he restriction is also +ustified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electoral arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather than to their office wor/" .n considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their $o$s, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class" #he fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not +ustify such differential treatment" #he classification simply fails to meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of the law"

11. S$l-e&o II vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s A./. 1(3 1999

#his is a petition for certiorari see/ing to reverse the earlier 'esolution issued by its Second 3ivision on -ugust 10, 1 !" Facts:

Salcedo married $eliH, marriage contract issued by the Municipal $ivil 'egistrar of -+uy, .loilo" 8ithout his first marriage having been dissolved, Salcedo married private respondent $acao in a civil ceremony" #wo days later, %rmelita $acao contracted another marriage with a certain 7esus -guirre, marriage certificate filed with the Office of the $ivil 'egistrar" Petitioner Aictorino Salcedo .. and private respondent $acao Salcedo both ran for the position of mayor of the municipality of Sara, .loilo in the May 11, 1 ! elections, both of them having filed their respective certificates of candidacy" Dowever, petitioner filed with the $omelec a petition see/ing the cancellation of private respondent)s certificate of candidacy on the ground that she had made a false representation therein by stating that her surname was 9Salcedo": Petitioner contended that private respondent had no right to use said surname because she was not legally married to <eptali Salcedo" Private respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of Sara, .loilo" .n her answer, private respondent claimed that she had no information or /nowledge at the time she married <eptali Salcedo that he was in fact already married= that, upon learning of his e*isting marriage, she encouraged her husband to ta/e steps to annul his marriage with -gnes $eliH because the latter had abandoned their marital home" <eptali Salcedo filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death which was granted by the court that <eptali Salcedo and 7esus -guirre are one and the same person= and that since 1 !6 up to the present she has been using the surname 9Salcedo: in all her personal, commercial and public transactions" $omelec)s Second 3ivision ruled that since there is an e*isting valid marriage between <eptali Salcedo and -gnes $eliH, the subse,uent marriage of the former with private respondent is null and void" $onse,uently, the use by private respondent of the surname 9Salcedo: constitutes material misrepresentation and is a ground for the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy" Dowever, the $omelec en banc resolution, overturned its previous resolution, ruling that private respondent)s certificate of candidacy did not contain any material misrepresentation" - Motion for 'econsideration filed by the petitioner was affirmed by the division which gives rise to the petition to review such promulgation" Issue:

8hether or not the use by respondent of the surname 9Salcedo: in her certificate of candidacy constitutes material misrepresentation under Section C! in relation to Section C; of the Omnibus %lection $ode" He d: Private respondent did not commit any material misrepresentation by the use of the surname 9Salcedo: in her certificate of candidacy" - false representation under section C! must consist of a 9deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible": .t must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one)s ,ualifications for public office" #he use of a surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to one)s identity, is not within the scope of the provision" #here is absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, .loilo were deceived by the use of such surname by private respondent" Petitioner does not allege that the electorate did not /now who they were voting for when they cast their ballots in favor of 9%rmelita $acao Salcedo: or that they were fooled into voting for someone else by the use of such name" #he $ourt -44.'MS the en banc 'esolution of the $ommission on %lections denying the petition to cancel private respondent)s certificate of candidacy"

12. '.,1+*9M+-)ele%$ vs "o$&o

Nov. 103 2005

#his is a petition assailing $OM%&%$ resolution dis,ualifying 3umpit in the May 011; election" Facts: 3umpit(Michelena was a candidate for the position of mayor in the municipality of -goo, &a Gnion during the May 11, 011; SynchroniHed <ational and &ocal %lections" Boado sought 3umpit(Michelena)s dis,ualification and the denial or cancellation of her $O$ on the ground of material misrepresentation under Sections C; and C!of Batas Pambansa Blg" !!1" Boado, et al" alleged that 3umpit(Michelena, the daughter of $ongressman #omas 3umpit, Sr" of the Second 3istrict of &a Gnion, is not a resident of -goo, &a Gnion" Boado, et al" claimed that 3umpit( Michelena is a resident and was a registered voter of <aguilian, &a Gnion and that 3umpit(Michelena only transferred her registration as voter to San 7ulian 8est, -goo, &a Gnion on October 0;, 0115" 3umpit(Michelena countered that she already ac,uired a new domicile in San 7ulian 8est when she purchased from her father, $ongressman 3umpit, a residential lot on -pril 1 , 0115" She even designated a careta/er of her residential house" 3umpit(Michelena presented the affidavits and certifications of her neighbors in San 7ulian 8est to prove that she actually resides in the area" $OM%&%$ rules in favor of Boado et al" #he $OM%&%$ %n Banc denied in its ruling the motion for reconsideration filed by 3umpit(Michelena" Issues: 8O< 3umpit(Michelena satisfied the residency re,uirement under the &ocal Bovernment $ode of 1 1" He d: Du"#it$Miche ena failed to prove that she has complied with the residency re,uirement" #he concept of residence in determining a candidate)s ,ualification is already a settled matter" 4or election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile"

13. "$;$/$3 6r. vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s

G.R. No. 134(9( 6.l7 313 2000

#his special civil action for certiorari see/s to annul the en banc resolution of public respondent $ommission on %lections promulgated on 7une 0 , 1 !, in a $OM%&%$ special action case, SP- <o" !(5!5" Facts: Petitioner Banaga, 7r" and respondent Bernabe, 7r" were both candidates for vice(mayor of the $ity of ParaMa,ue in the May 1 ! election" .n said election, the city board of canvassers proclaimed respondent Bernabe, 7r", as the winner for having garnered C1, CC votes over petitioner Banaga, 7r")s 6!, C1 votes" 3issatisfied with the result, petitioner filed with the $OM%&%$ on May 1 !, a Petition to 3eclare 4ailure of %lections and>or 4or -nnulment of %lections, alleging that said election was replete with election offenses, such as vote buying and flying voters" De also alleged that numerous %lection 'eturns pertaining to the position of Aice(Mayor in the $ity of ParaMa,ue appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated" .n fact, there were people arrested who admitted the said election offenses" #herefore, the incidents were sufficient to declare a failure of elections because it cannot be considered as the true will of the people" Petitioner Banaga, 7r" is praying that he should be ad+udged as the duly elected Aice(Mayor in the $ity of ParaMa,ue, during the May 1 ! local elections" 'espondent $OM%&%$ dismissed petitioner)s suit and held that the election offenses relied upon by petitioner do not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus %lection $ode" #he election tribunal concluded that based on the allegations of the petition, it is clear that an election too/ place and that it did not result in a failure to elect and therefore, cannot be viewed as an election protest" #hus, this petition for certiorari alleging that the respondent $OM%&%$ committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac/ or e*cess of

+urisdiction for dismissing his petition motu propio without any basis whatsoever and without giving him the benefit of a hearing" Issues: 8O< petition to declare a failure of elections and>or for annulment of election is considered as an election protest" 8O< respondent $OM%&%$ acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners petition, in the light of petitioners foregoing contentions" He d: <o" Mr" Banaga, 7r")s petition doc/eted as SP-( !(5!5 before the $OM%&%$ was a special action under the 1 5 $OM%&%$ 'ules of Procedure" -n election protest is an ordinary governed by 'ule 01 on ordinary actions, while a petition to declare failure of elections is covered by 'ule 06 under special actions" Petitioner also did not comply with the re,uirements for filing an election protest such as failing to pay filing fee and cash deposits for an election protest" <o" 'espondent $OM%&%$ committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to declare failure of elections and>or for annulment of elections for being groundless" #he petition to declare a failure of election and>or to annul election results must show on its face that the conditions necessary to declare a failure to elect are present" 'espondent $OM%&%$ only based its decision on the provisions of the Omnibus %lection $ode with regard to declaring a failure of election" #here are three instances where a failure of election may be declared, namelyE the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fi*ed on account of force ma+eure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes= the election in any polling place has been suspended before the hour fi*ed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force ma+eure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes= or after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election

results in a failure to elect on account of force ma+eure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes" #he instances being not present in the petition of Mr" Banaga, 7r" #he respondent $OM%&%$ have no other recourse but to dismiss the petition"

14. Mer-$&o vs M$%8$%o

Facts: Petitioner %rnesto Mercado and Private respondent %duardo ManHano are candidates for the position of Aice(Mayor of Ma/ati $ity in the May, 1 ! elections" Private respondent was the winner of the said election but the proclamation was suspended due to the petition of %rnesto Mamaril regarding the citiHenship of private respondent" Mamaril alleged that the private respondent is not a citiHen of the Philippines but of the Gnited States" $OM%&%$ granted the petition and dis,ualified the private respondent for being a dual citiHen, pursuant to the &ocal Bovernment code that provides that persons who possess dual citiHenship are dis,ualified from running any public position" Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained pending until after election" Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for dis,ualification" $OM%&%$ reversed the decision and declared private respondent ,ualified to run for the position" Pursuant to the ruling of the $OM%&%$, the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor" #his petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the $OM%&%$ and to declare the private respondent dis,ualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of Ma/ati" Issue: 8hether or <ot private respondent is ,ualified to hold office as Aice( Mayor" He d:

3ual citiHenship is different from dual allegiance" #he former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states" 4or instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citiHens of a state which adheres to the principle of +us sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of +us soli" Private respondent is considered as a dual citiHen because he is born of 4ilipino parents but was born in San 4rancisco, GS-" Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citiHen of both states" $onsidering the citiHenship clause (-rt" .A) of our $onstitution, it is possible for the following classes of citiHens of the Philippines to posses dual citiHenshipE (1) #hose born of 4ilipino fathers and>or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of +us soli= (0) #hose born in the Philippines of 4ilipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers) country such children are citiHens of that country= (5) #hose who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter)s country the former are considered citiHens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citiHenship" 3ual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states" 8hile dual citiHenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual)s volition" By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citiHenship and in effect renounced his -merican citiHenship" #he filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his -merican citiHenship, effectively removing any dis,ualification he might have as a dual citiHen" By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a 4ilipino citiHen= that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country= that he will defend and support the $onstitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his -merican citiHenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citiHen" On the other hand, private respondent)s oath of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and ta/en part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citiHenship"

15. RA!MUN'O A'ORMEO <S. COMELEC3 E G.R. No. 140920. =e2r.$r7 43 2002


'espondent #alaga was elected Mayor of &ucena $ity in 1 0, re( elected in 1 2, but lost to #agarao in 1 ! elections" #agarao was recalled and in the May 10, 0111 recall elections, #alaga won and served the une*pired term of #agarao until 7une 51, 0111" #alaga was candidate for Mayor in the May 1;, 0111 elections, and a petition for cancellation of his certificate of candidacy was filed on the ground that he has served as Mayor for three consecutive terms" Issue: 8hether or not #alaga has served as Mayor of &ucena $ity for three consecutive terms" He d: #he term limit for elective local officials must be ta/en to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position" $onse,uently, it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office" De must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the dis,ualification can apply"

.n the case at bar, #alaga did not serve for 5 consecutive terms" 4or nearly 0 years, he was a private citiHen" #he continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1 ! elections" 9.f one is elected representative to serve the une*pired term of another, that une*pired term, no matter how short, will be considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed:Nthis comment of $onstitutional $ommissioner 4r" Bernas applies only to members of the Douse of 'epresentatives" Gnli/e government officials, there is no recall election for members of $ongress"

1(. RONAL' ALLAN >OE $.?.$. =ERNAN'O >OE3 6R. <S. GLORIA MACA>AGAL9ARRO!O >.E. . CASE No. 002. M$r-) 293 2005
Facts: .n the 011; election, Bloria Macapagal -rroyo (BM-) was proclaimed the duly elected President of the Philippines" #he second(placer in the elections, 4ernando Poe, 7r" (4P7), filed an election protest before the %lectoral #ribunal" 8hen the Protestant died in the course of his medical treatment, his widow, Mrs" 7esusa Sonora Poe a"/"a" Susan 'oces filed a motion to intervene as a substitute for deceased protestant 4P7" She claims that there is an urgent need for her to continue and substitute for her late husband to ascertain the true and genuine will of the electorate in the interest of the 4ilipino people" #he Protestee, BM- asserts that the widow of a deceased candidate is not the proper party to replace the deceased protestant since a public office is personal and not a property that passes on to the heirs" Protestee also contends that under the 'ules of the Presidential %lectoral #ribunal, only the registered candidates who obtained

the 0nd and 5rd highest votes for the presidency may contest the election of the president" Issue: May the widow substitute>intervene for the protestant who died during the pendency of the latter)s protest caseO He d: Only the registered candidate for President or for Aice(President of the Philippines who received the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or the Aice(President, as the case may be, by filing a verified petition with the $ler/ of the Presidential %lectoral #ribunal within thirty (51) days after the proclamation of the winner" -n election protest is not purely personal and e*clusive to the protestant or to the protestee, hence, substitution and intervention is allowed but only by a real party in interest" <ote that Mrs" 4P7 herself denies any claim to the office of President but rather stresses that it is with the 9paramount public interest: in mind that she desires 9to pursue the process: commenced by her late husband" Dowever, nobility of intention is not the point of reference in determining whether a person may intervene in an election protest" .n such intervention, the interest which allows a person to intervene in a suit must be in the matter of litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the effect of the +udgment" .n this protest, Mrs" 4P7 will not immediately and directly benefit from the outcome should it be determined that the declared president did not truly get the highest number of votes"

10. A'IONG v. COMELEC G.R. No. 10395( M$r-) 313 1992

FACTS: On 7anuary 15, 1 0, the $OM%&%$ promulgated 'esolution <o" 05;C pursuant to its powers granted by the $onstitution, the Omnibus %lection $ode, 'epublic -cts <os" 66;6 and C166 and other election laws" Section 12(a) of the resolution providesE Sec" 12" La%&u E ection 'ro#a!anda. N #he following are lawful election propagandaE

(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decalsP Provided, #hat decals and stic/ers may be posted only in any of the authoriHed posting areas provided in paragraph (&) of Section 01 hereof" Section 01 (&) of the same resolution providesE Sec" 01(&)" Prohibited forms of election propaganda" N .t is unlawfulEP (&) #o draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly e*hibit any election propaganda in any place, whether public or private, mobile or stationary, e*cept in the $OM%&%$ common posted areas and>or billboardsP Petitioner Blo Gmpar -diong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1 0 elections assails the $OM%&%$Qs 'esolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stic/ers in RmobileR places li/e cars and other moving vehicles" -ccording to him such prohibition is violative of Section !0 of the Omnibus %lection $ode and Section 11(a) of 'epublic -ct <o" 66;6" ISSUE: 8hether or not the $OM%&%$ may prohibit the posting of decals and stic/ers on RmobileR places, public or private, and limit their location or publication to the authoriHed posting areas that it fi*es"

HELD: #he petition is hereby B'-<#%3" #he portion of Section 12 (a) of 'esolution <o" 05;C of the $OM%&%$ providing that Rdecals and stic/ers may be posted only in any of the authoriHed posting areas provided in paragraph (&) of Section 01 hereofR is 3%$&-'%3 <G&& and AO.3" #he $OM%&%$Qs prohibition on posting of decals and stic/ers on RmobileR places whether public or private e*cept in designated areas provided for by the $OM%&%$ itself is null and void on constitutional grounds" #he prohibition unduly infringes on the citiHenQs fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the $onstitution (Sec" ;, -rticle ...)" Significantly, the freedom of e*pression curtailed by the ,uestioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party"

#he regulation stri/es at the freedom of an individual to e*press his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him" -lso, the ,uestioned prohibition premised on the statute ('- 66;6) and as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth" #he restriction as to where the decals and stic/ers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citiHenQs private property, which in this case is a privately(owned vehicle (#he provisions allowing regulation are so loosely worded that they include the posting of decals or stic/ers in the privacy of oneQs living room or bedroom") .n conse,uence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the $onstitution would be violated" Section 1, -rticle ... of the Bill of 'ights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law" (#he right to property may be sub+ect to a greater degree of regulation but when this right is +oined by a RlibertyR interest, the burden of +ustification on the part of the Bovernment must be e*ceptionally convincing and irrefutable" #he burden is not met in this case") -dditionally, the constitutional ob+ective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate e,ual opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies, mandated by -rticle .., Section 06 and -rticle S..., section 1 in relation to -rticle .S (c) Section ; of the $onstitution, is not impaired by posting decals and stic/ers on cars and other private vehicles" .t is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stic/ers on cars, ca esas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle" Dence, the preference of the citiHen becomes crucial in this /ind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate" .n sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and stic/ers on RmobileR places whether public or private e*cept in the authoriHed areas designated by the $OM%&%$ becomes censorship which cannot be +ustified by the $onstitution"



FACTS: Petitioner $o,uilla was born on 4ebruary 1C, 1 5! of 4ilipino parents in Oras, %astern Samar" .n 1 62, he +oined the GS <avy and was naturaliHed as a GS $itiHen" On October 12, 1 !, petitioner came bac/ to the Philippines and too/ a residence certificate" Subse,uently, petitioner applied for repatriation under '"-" <o" !1C1 to the special committee on naturaliHation" Dis application was approved on <ovember C, 0111, and on <ovember 11, 0111, he too/ oath as citiHen of the Philippines" On <ovember 01, 0111, petitioner applied for registration as a voter of Oras, %astern Samar, in addition, on 4ebruary 0C, 0111, he filed his certificate of candidacy stating therein that he had been a resident thereof for 0 years" On March 2, 0111, Mr" -lvareH filed for the cancellation of petitioner)s certificate of candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation by stating thereat that the latter has been a resident of Oras, %astern Samar for two years, when in truth and in fact he had resided therein for only about si* months since <ovember 11, 0111, when he too/ his oath as a citiHen of the Philippines" #he $omelec was unable to render +udgment on the case before the election" Meanwhile, petitioner was voted for and proclaimed mayor of Oras, %astern Samar" On 7uly 1 , 0111, the $omelec (0nd 3iv) ordered the cancellation of the petitioner)s certificate of candidacy" $omelec en banc affirmed the order, thus this petition" ISSUE: 8hether or not the petitioner had been a resident of Oras, %astern Samar at least one (1) year before the elections held on May 1;, 0111" RULI(): #he Supreme $ourt held that the term 9residence: is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to 9dwelling: or 9habitation:, but rather to 93omicile: or legal residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)" - domicile of origin is ac,uired by every person at birth" .t is usually the place where the child)s parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by ac,uisition of new domicile (domicile of choice)" .n the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin by becoming a GS

citiHen after enlisting in the GS <avy in 1 62" 4rom then on and until <ovember 11, 0111, when he reac,uired Philippine citiHenship, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines" .ndeed, residence in the Gnited States is a re,uirement for naturaliHation as a GS citiHen" 8herefore, the petition is without merit and 3.SM.SS%3"

1 " >)+l+11+%e "$r Asso-+$*+o% vs. COMELEC 140 SCRA 455 6$%.$r7 03 198(
FACTS: %leven petitions were filed for prohibition against the enforcement of BP !!5 which calls for special national elections on 4ebruary C, 1 !6 (snap elections) for the offices of President and Aice President of the Philippines" BP !!5 in conflict with the constitution in that it allows the President to continue holding office after the calling of the special election" Senator PelaeH submits that President Marcos) letter of conditional 9resignation: did not create the actual vacancy re,uired in Section , -rticle C of the $onstitution which could be the basis of the holding of a special election for President and Aice President earlier than the regular elections for such positions in 1 !C" #he letter states that the President isE 9irrevocably vacat(ing) the position of President effective only when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and ,ualified as President by ta/ing his oath office ten (11) days after his proclamation": #he unified opposition, rather than insist on strict compliance with the cited constitutional provision that the incumbent President actually resign, vacate his office and turn it over to the Spea/er of the Batasang Pambansa as acting President, their standard bearers have not filed any suit or petition in intervention for the purpose nor repudiated the scheduled election" #hey have not insisted that President Marcos vacate his office, so long as the election is clean, fair and honest" ISSUE: .s BP !!5 unconstitutional, and should the Supreme $ourt therefore stop and prohibit the holding of the electionsO HELDA #he petitions in these cases are dismissed and the prayer for the issuance of an in+unction restraining respondents from holding the

election on 4ebruary C, 1 !6, in as much as there are less than the re,uired 11 votes to declare BP !!5 unconstitutional" #he events that have transpired since 3ecember 5,as the $ourt did not issue any restraining order, have turned the issue into a political ,uestion (from the purely +usticiable issue of the ,uestioned constitutionality of the act due to the lac/ of the actual vacancy of the President)s office) which can be truly decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity at the scheduled election, since there is no issue more political than the election" #he $ourt cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give the incumbent president a new mandate or to elect a new president"

20. S$lv$ v. M$?$l+%*$l GR No. 132(03 18 Se1*e,2er 2000

FACTS: Salva, et al, officials and residents of Barangay San 'afael, $alaca, Batangas filed a class suit against the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of $alaca, and the $OM%&%$ for annulment of Ordinance<o" 2 and 'esolution <o" 5;2, enacted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, and $OM%&%$ 'esolution <o" 0 !C Ordinance <o" 2 declared the abolition of Barangay San 'afael and its merger with Barangay 3acanlao, and accordingly instructed the $OM%&%$ to conduct the re,uired plebiscite" 'esolution <o" 5;2 affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance <o" 2, overriding the veto e*ercised by the Bovernor of Batangas" $OM%&%$ 'esolution <o" 0 !C, on the other hand, provided for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the re,uired plebiscite scheduled on 0! 4ebruary 1 !, to decide the issue of the abolition of Barangay San 'afael and its merger with Barangay 3acanlao" #he trial court denied the motion for the issuance of a #'O and>or preliminary in+unction for lac/ of +urisdiction" -ccording to it, any petition or action ,uestioning an act, resolution, or decision of the $OM%&%$ must be brought before the S$" ISSUES: 8>< the trial court had +urisdiction to en+oin the $OM%&%$ from .Gmplementing 'esolution <o" 0 !C" HELD:

YES. Resolution No. 2987 which provides for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to the $OM%&%$)s quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of plebiscites, thus, the said resolution may not be deemed as a final order reviewable by certiorari by this Court. Any question pertaining to the validity of said resolution may well be taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts

#he powers vested by the $onstitution and the law on the $OM%&%$ may either be classified as those pertaining to its ad+udicatory or ,uasi( +udicial functions, or those which are inherently administrative and sometimes ministerial in character