You are on page 1of 61

1|Page

Soller v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 139853, September 5, 2000
Quisumbing, J.
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent (Saulong) were both candidates for mayor of the municipality
of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections. The petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by
the municipal board of canvassers. Private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the
proclamation. Later, private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner with the RTC. The
COMELEC dismissed the pre-proclamation case filed by private respondent, while the RTC denied
petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but said motion was denied. Petitioner
then filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari contending that respondent RTC acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private respondent’s election
protest. The COMELEC en banc dismissed petitioner’s suit. Petitioner now questions this decision of the
COMELEC en banc.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to decide on the case.
RULING: The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not
have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies
in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the
Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void. In the
SC’s view, the authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, like
the questioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC
en banc.

2|Page

FACTS
Petitioner and private respondent Fernando Cabitac were candidates for Vice-Mayor of Taytay, Rizal during the
May 2004 elections. Private respondent won the election and was proclaimed as Vice-Mayor. Petitioner after
compiling all copies of election returns filed a petition for correction of manifest errors in the election returns and
for a nullification of the proclamation of the private respondent as Vice-Mayor. The COMELEC First Division
dismissed the petition and was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc.
ISSUE
Whether or not COMELEC is required to go beyond the face of election returns and make the necessary correction
in a petition for correction of manifest errors in the election returns.
RULING
The COMELEC, in a petition for correction of manifest errors, is limited to an examination of the election returns
on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind the face of the returns.
[ADELINA TAMAYO-REYES, M.D. vs. COMMISSION ONELECTIONS and FERNANDO R. CABITAC. G.R. No. 175121.
June8, 2007. Nachura, J.

3|Page

FACTS
Private respondent Ceasar Vicencio was a candidate for the post of punong barangay in the July 2002 Synchronized
Barangay Election. In his certificate of candidacy, private respondent stated his profession as a certified public
accountant. Private respondent won in the elections and was proclaimed. Petitioner charged him before the Law
Department of the COMELEC of misrepresenting himself as a CPA and evidences were attached to the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent misrepresentation of profession or occupation in the Certificate of Candidacy a
valid ground for disqualification
RULING
Profession or occupation is not a qualification for elective office, and therefore not a material fact in the certificate
of candidacy. A misrepresentation of a non-material fact is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy.

NELSON T. LLUZ and CATALINO C. ALDEOSA, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CAESAR O. VICENCIO. G.R. No.
172840. June 7, 2007. Carpio, J.

321 votes while Alvarez garnered 16. Votes cannot be nullified on the mere sweeping allegation of the petitioner that fraud and irregularity attended the election. LAURENA. vs. It likewise laid down the guidelines for the retrieval of the ballot boxes and directed the payment of the required cash deposits to defray revision expenses. JR. Alvarez were candidates for mayor in the City of Muñoz.855 votes. the Second Division issued the assailed Resolution dismissing the protest. by the Court.4|Page FACTS Domiciano R. 174499.. In an Order. if not finality. the Second Division denied protestee’s call for the dismissal of the case. amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.On May 22. Nachura.534 votes difference Alvarez was proclaimed mayor of Muñoz on May 14. J . 2004. 2004 elections. Ample and credible evidence is necessary to back up such claim. 2004. With the admission of the parties ‘respective formal offer of evidence and the submission of their memoranda. THE COMMISSION ONELECTIONS and NESTOR L. With the3.2007. the ballots must be read and appreciated according to the rule that every ballot is presumed valid unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. and Nestor L. It recognized that ballot revision is the most expeditious and the best means to determine the truth or falsity of protestant’s allegations. Nueva Ecija in the May 10. DOMICIANO R. and to ascertain and carry out such will. No. Laurena. In the canvass of votes Laurena obtained 13. Laurena. This is especially true if the petitioner failed to make timely objections during the canvass of the votes. ALVAREZ G. claiming that massive electoral fraud and irregularities attended Alvarez’s victory. RULING Well-settled is the rule that the will of the voters is embodied in the ballots. R. On this matter. filed an election protest impugning the results of the elections in all 175 precincts of Muñoz. Jr. the findings of the COMELEC are accorded great respect. June 29. ISSUE Whether or not COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. as in this case.

so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.R. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Benemerito filed an election protest before the RTC questioning the results in 54 precincts in Pagudpud. Ilocos Norte. ET AL. SALES vs.Aggrieved. 174668 September 12. Ilocos Norte. Ilocos Norte. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Chico-Nazario. J. on the part of the COMELEC in affirming the questionable Orders of the RTC. the present Petition has been rendered moot and academic. RULING It is a rule of universal application. in the 10 May 2004 localelections. as a result of the 10 May 2004 elections expired on 30 June 2007. Sales’ term as mayor of Pagudpud. thus. MARLON T. G. ISSUE Whether there is a grave abuse of discretion. and he instituted a counter-protest also assailing the results of the 10 May 2004 local elections. And where the issue has become moot and academic. on the ground that literate voters were allowed to vote as illiterates.September 12. J. 2007 CHICO-NAZARIO.5|Page FACTS Petitioner Sales and respondent Thelma Benemerito (Benemerito) were both candidates for Mayor in Pagudpud. Ilocos Norte. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Sales as the duly elected Mayor of Pagudpud. almost. that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved. 2007. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In his answer to the protest. Sales claimed that Benemerito's allegations were misplaced and unsubstantiated. No. they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. there is no justiciable controversy. .

R. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City. 1995 KAPUNAN. the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of residence. COMELEC(248 SCRA 400) G. In his certificate of candidacy. Concepcion. Acting on a motion for reconsideration of the above dismissal. . Tarlac for more than 52 years prior to that election. Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district for 10 months. the Commission on Election later issued an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved the issue. 120265 September 18. J. On 2 June.. Aquino’s connection to the Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area.6|Page AQUINO vs. residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City. HELD The place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home. ISSUE Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes “domicile” to warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district. Faced with a petition for disqualification.e. i. The Commission on Elections dismissed the petition on 6 May and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May.” where he. The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community from taking advantage of favourable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. eventually intends to return and remain. Aquino’s certificate of candidacy in previous (1992) election indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose. Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on Elections. is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. Agapito A. he amended the entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. no matter where he may be found at any given time. The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. No. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a new.: FACTS On 20 March 1995. Aquino won. his domicile.

and mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTCs) in election cases involving elective municipal officials. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the mayor. 2000 PARDO. J. The court then declared private respondent as the winner.: FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of mayor of the municipality of Valenzuela. prohibition. the trial court set aside the final tally of valid votes because of its finding of “significant badges of fraud. The private respondent filed an election protest with the RTC. appeal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Metro Manila (later converted into a City) during the May 11. Relative to the appeal that petitioner filed with the COMELEC. The court came up with revision reports which also showed that the petitioner got the highest number of votes. 1998 elections. in its decision. HELD: Both the SC and COMELEC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari. In such case.R. The result is a failure of election for that particular office.” which it attributed to the present petitioner. the same would not bar the present action as an exception to the rule because under the circumstances. More importantly. The power to nullify an election must be exercised with the greatest care with a view not to disenfranchise the voters. and also filed a petition to the SC questioning the decision of the RTC. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. the trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. Angeles G. No. the extent of that power is limited to the annulment of the election and the calling of special elections. and only under circumstances that clearly call for such drastic remedial measure. It is the COMELEC en banc that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. Assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. The petitioner appealed to the COMELEC. The private respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the SC. the court cannot declare a winner. . 142907 November 29. Nevertheless.7|Page Case Digest on Carlos v.

2000 FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for Punong Barangay. However. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare the election as a failure alleging that no election was conducted in the place and at the time prescribed by law. Private respondent was proclaimed the winner. the voting only started at 9PM because of the prevailing tension in the locality.R. The electorate was also not given ample notice of the exact schedule and venue of the election. 139028 PANGANIBAN. COMELEC G. As to the time of voting. 2000) G. . HELD: The SC ordered the conduct of a special election. NO. No.: April 12. the election failed and was reset.8|Page Case Digest on Basher v.R. 139028 (April 12. The election officer did not follow the procedure laid down by law for election postponement or suspension or the declaration of a failure of election. the law provides that the casting of votes shall start at 7 in the morning and end at 3 in the afternoon. Again. COMELEC dismissed the petition. The election was declared a failure and a special one was scheduled. J. The Court held that the peculiar set of facts in the present case show not merely a failure of election but the absence of a valid electoral exercise. The place where the voting was conducted was illegal.

the Court assumed that the legislature intended to enact an effective law. (b). 123169 (November 4.: FACTS: A petition for recall was filed against Paras. and it must be considered together and kept subservient to its general intent. The recall election was deferred due to Petitioner’s opposition that under Sec. who is the incumbent Punong Barangay. The evident intent of Sec. as provided in par. Since the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set on the first Monday of May 2006.9|Page Paras v. 7160. No. COMELEC G. ISSUE: W/N the SK election is a local election. COMELEC Paras v. (a) and par. An interpretation should be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated. J. Thus. 74 of RA No. meaningless. no recall may be instituted.R. 74 is to subject an elective local official to recall once during his term. 1996) FRANCISCO. determines its construction. rather than the letter of a law. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to its context. interpreting the phrase “regular local election” to include SK election will unduly circumscribe the Code for there will never be a recall election rendering inutile the provision. inoperative or nugatory. no recall shall take place within one year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election. . In interpreting a statute. The spirit. HELD: No.

1995 (Constitutional Law – Requirements in challenging the constitutionality of the law) FACTS: Petitioners suing as tax payers. which collides with the Constitution (Sec 8. VS. and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.R.10 | P a g e MARIANO. ISSUE: Whether or not challenge to the constitutionality of questioned law is with merit. (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law are well-delineated. Art X & Sec 7. 242 SCRA 213. JR. 1995 PUNO. (2) the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. 118627. 7859 (An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati) on the ground that the same attempts to alter or restart the “3-consecutive term” limit for local elective officials disregarding the terms previously served by them. . digested G. Art VI).R.: G. They are: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy. HELD: No. March 7. assail a provision (Sec 51) of RA No. No. No. COMELEC. J. 118577 March 7.

Applying the 4 requisites of a valid classification. 13 of RA. December 1. 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. 14 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated appointive and elective officials. the Court upheld the substantial distinctions between the two and pronounced that there was no violation of the equal protection clause. the proviso does not comply with the second requirement – that it must be germane to the purpose of the law. 9006 repealing Sec. No. The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote one’s candidacy. Quinto and Gerino A. while still in office. 9369. or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence of the electorate. J. HELD: NO. could result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather than to their office work. Jr. The restriction is also justified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electorate arena. the Court held that the discussion on the equal protection clause was an obiter dictum since the issue raised therein was against the repealing clause. In the Fariñas case. ISSUE: Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid. 13 of R.: FACTS: Petitioners Eleazar P. integrity. R. 189698. The measure is further aimed at promoting the efficiency. Sec. It didn’t squarely challenge Sec. 2009 NACHURA. 66. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for giving undue benefit to elective officials in comparison with appointive officials.11 | P a g e Quinto vs Comelec G. the petitioners challenged Sec. Incidentally. . However in the present case. In this defense. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. Tolentino. the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from Sec.A.

hats. 6132. What was done cannot merit our approval under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis. L-32717 November 26. Respondent however contended that the prohibition was premised on a provision of the Constitutional Convention Act. matches. shirts. flashlights. athletic goods or materials. We view the matter differently.” It was its contention that the jingle proposed to be used by petitioner is the recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material. cigarettes. G. and the like.: FACTS: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) prohibited petitioner Amelito Mutuc. a candidate for the position of a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. wallets. lighters. request or distribute sample ballots. produce. No. fans (of whatever nature). under the phrase “and the like. bandanas.A. the last three words sufficed to justify such an order. RULING: For respondent Commission. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for distribution. petitioner. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens.” ISSUE: Whether “jingles” falls down on the prohibited electoral propaganda gadgets of R. the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. 1970 FERNANDO. respondent. MUTUC. J. vs. COMELEC AMELITO R. which made it unlawful for candidates “to purchase. from using “jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound systems and loud speakers” on 22 October 1970.12 | P a g e Mutuc vs. whether of domestic or foreign origin. .R. Petitioner impugned the act of respondent as violative of his right to free speech. NO.

Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal provsions in case of violation Responses of COMELEC -Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press but only a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason 3.R. Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of RA 6646 -Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the Organic Act. It has no statutory basis 2.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press 2. Allegations of Sanidad: 1.: PABLITO V. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras COMELEC . SANIDAD . FACTS: COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional . L-44640 October 12. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the province) HELD: Petiton is GRANTED. newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER.General Type of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ISSUE: Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No.respondent. 1989 to January 30. J. .13 | P a g e G. 2167 is constitutional or not. 6766 (An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last October 23. 1990. through its Solicitor. which paved for a call of a plebescite fo its ratification (original schedule was reset from December 27. 2167 was promulgated due to the enacted RA No.Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. TRO made permanent due to the follwing reasons: 1.petitioner. 1976 MARTIN. No. 1989.

hence. In the case at bar. In effect. 148326 November 15. applying Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code that any person who has been sentenced by final judgmentfor any offense for which he has been sentenced for a crime involvingmoral turpitude. he admits all the elements of the crime for which he was convicted. No. shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office.P. or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men. 2001 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ.14 | P a g e VILLABER vs. a consolidated petition to disqualify Villaber and to cancel the latter’s certificate of candidacy. COMELEC Case Digest VILLABER vs. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. 2001 elections. this petition. or good morals. Held: COMELEC believed it is. or conduct contrary to justice.: Facts: Both petitioner Villaber and respondent Douglas R. COMELEC issued the resolution declaring Villaber disqualified as a candidate. or to society in general. Cagas were rival candidates for a congressional seat in the First District of Davao del Sur during the May 14. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman. Cagas filed with the COMELEC. he is disqualified to run for any public office. 22. 22 involves moral turpitude. honesty. under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC 369 SCRA 126 G. Issue: Whether or not violation of B. petitioner does not assail the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. vileness. J. alleging that Villaber was convicted for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. Cagas further alleged that this crime involves moral turpitude. Hence. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness. Blg. . There was no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent COMELEC in issuing the assailed Resolutions. which would disqualify Villaber as a candidate for and from holding any public office.R. modesty.

This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group.15 | P a g e Imbong v Comelec G. HOLDING: The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly. This is a safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Constituional Convention. 1970 RA 6132: delegates in Constitutional Convention Ponente: Makasiar FACTS: This is a petition for declaratory judgment. 4.Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution -Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132: Congress acting as Constituent Assembly. and not the support of political parties. In this case. Batanes is equal to the number of delegates I other provinces with more population. L-32432 September 11. and validity of entire law Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8 ISSUE: Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention and whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional. 5 and Par 1 Sec 8. it applies to all organizations. this disqualification is only temporary. or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were attained by Resolution 2 and 4 .Gonzales: Sec. .Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof. 2.Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the basis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is not reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less population and vice versa. . These are 2 separate but related petitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the validity of RA 6132. No. has full authority to propose amendments.Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits.R. RATIO: . . specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as constitutional. Furthermore. Furthermore.

J. the exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. NO. which are given franchises. do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images.16 | P a g e TELEBAP vs. particularly the voters. 132922. G. §11 of the Constitution authorizes the amendment of franchises for "the common good. which is paramount. so that they will be fully informed of the issues in an election? "[I]t is the right of the viewers and listeners.: Facts: TELEBAP and GMA Network together filed a petition to challenge the validity of Comelec Time due to the fact that said provisions: (1) have taken properties without due process of law and without just compensation. COMELEC. alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. XII." 11 Nor indeed can there be any constitutional objection to the requirement that broadcast stations give free air time. 1998 (289 SCRA 337) MENDOZA. to amended by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that "any such franchise or right granted . whether by radio or by television stations. In truth. Since a franchise is a mere privilege. . not the right of the broadcasters. April 21. until the present case was brought. there are responsible scholars who believe that government controls on broadcast media can constitutionally be instituted to ensure diversity of views and attention to public affairs to further the system of free expression. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to assign. radio and television broadcasting companies." What better measure can be conceived for the common good than one for free air time for the benefit not only of candidates but even more of the public. All broadcasting. 9 A franchise is thus a privilege subject. is licensed by the government. provisions for COMELEC Time have been made by amendment of the franchises of radio and television broadcast stations and. broadcast stations may be required to give free air time to candidates in an election.R. . For this purpose. and (3) that it is in excess of the power given to the Comelec to regulate the operation of media communication or information during election period. Art. shall be subject to amendment. Held: Petitioners' argument is without merit. among other things. such provisions had not been thought of as taking property without just compensation." Indeed. (2) it denied the radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws. Even in the United States. . They are merely given the temporary privilege of using them.

161872 April 13. The COMELEC supposedly erred in disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the presidential candidates. April 13. he is capable of waging a national campaign since he has numerous national organizations under his leadership. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. the equal access clause is not violated. 161872. he also has the capacity to wage an international campaign since he has practiced law in other countries. however. there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations or the burdens which they create. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. In the case at bar. Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne by any one who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy. No.17 | P a g e Rev. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. by limiting the number of qualified candidates only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by political parties. 2004 TINGA. he possesses all the constitutional and legal qualifications for the office of the president.e. . No. The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations.” As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination. Ely Velez Pamatong Vs. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates. ISSUE: Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office? RULING: No.R. Commission on Elections G. 2004 G. What is recognized in Section 26. Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to "equal access to opportunities for public service" under Section 26.R. i.. and he has a platform of government. Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. J.: FACTS: Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President.

A. and maintained that election of Sanggunian members be “at large” instead of “by district”.” Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 1991. 7166. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s interpretation of Sec. (b) and (c). FACTS: [C]ongress passed R. approving the Project of District Apportionment submitted pursuant to Resolution No. its reason for being. and Resolution UND. apply to the May 11. R. It is “An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms. Authorizing Appropriations Therefor. divine its meaning. 7166. and for Other Purposes. 2313. the key to open the door to what the legislature intended which is vaguely expressed in the language of a statute is its purpose or the reason which induced it to enact the statute. 2313. 7166 will have to continue to be elected at large in the May 11. (d). 3. May 06.A. much less inutile. and that respondent COMELEC is cognizant of its legislative intent. Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to COMELEC in promulgating the aforementioned resolutions. The true import of Par. 1992.R. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit RATIO: Spirit and purpose of the law – The reason for the promulgation of R. COMELEC [G. its significance.A. 104712. which remained single-districts not having been ordered apportioned under Sec. 3 of R. Resolution No.18 | P a g e Manuel de Guia vs. 1992 elections.3 of R. of the number of elective members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in provinces with only one (1) legislative district and the Sangguniang Bayan of municipalities in the Metro Manila Area for the preparation of the Project of District Apportionment by the Provincial Election Supervisors and Election Registrars. 1992] 15 AUG Ponente: BELLOSILLO J. by district. . No. We must therefore. all of Sec. signed into law by the President on November 26.A. 92-010 holding that pars.A. 7166.A. elections. HELD: NO. 2379. 1861. (a). adopting rules and guidelines in the apportionment. 7166 is correct in assailing the aforementioned COMELEC Resolutions. 7166 is shown in the explanatory note of Senate Bill No. (d) is that Sangguniang Panlungsod of the single-district cities and the Sangguniang Bayan of the municipalities outside Metro Manila. As it has oft been held. as far as we can. although starting 1995 they shall all be elected by district to effect the full implementation of the letter and spirit of R. and the first sentence of par. No law is ever enacted that is intended to be meaningless.

2010 ELEAZAR P. contains two conflicting provisions. vs. 8678.A. 2010 National and Local Elections. No... 8678 are violative of the equal protection clause Held: Yes. 8678 as null and void. The fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts. JR. seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Section 4(a) of Resolution No. and It must apply equally to all members of the class. RESOLUTION PUNO. TOLENTINO. 9369 and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. QUINTO and GERINO A. Petitioners also contend that Section 13 of R.: Facts: Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. It must be germane to the purposes of the law. No. the basis of the assailed COMELEC resolution. .A. the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of Official Candidates of Registered Political Parties in Connection with the May 10. The measure encapsulated in the second proviso of the third paragraph of Section 13 of R. These must be harmonized or reconciled to give effect to both and to arrive at a declaration that they are not ipso facto resigned from their positions upon the filing of their CoCs. 9369 and in Section 66 of the OEC violates the equal protection clause.19 | P a g e G. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs. The classification simply fails to meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of the law. No.J. Respondent. COMELEC issued Resolution No.R. Petitioners. petitioners Eleazar P. filed the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari. 9369. who hold appointive positions in the government and who intend to run in the coming elections. There is thus no valid justification to treat appointive officials differently from the elective ones.A. the law unduly discriminates against the first class. namely: (1) (2) (3) (4) It must be based upon substantial distinctions. C. 189698 February 22. Jr. Tolentino. In order that there can be valid classification so that a discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutional norm of equal protection. specifically the elective ones. Issue: whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R. Quinto and Gerino A. Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file their CoCs. does not justify such differential treatment. No. it is necessary that the four (4) requisites of valid classification be complied with. but not considering as resigned all other civil servants.

this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V. Frivaldo admitted the allegation but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that his naturalization was merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting prosecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s agent abroad. J. Frivaldo declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from serving as a Governor of the Province of Sorsogon.R.20 | P a g e FRIVALDO vs. Issue: Whether or not Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer’s entire tenure. COMELEC 174 SCRA 245 G. 87193 June 23. of the Constitution. . such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. 1989 CRUZ. Even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship. Held: No. The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. No. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect and assume office in due time. a citizen of the Philippines.: Facts: Petitioner Juan G. among other qualifications. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be. COMELEC Case Digest FRIVALDO vs. Section 1. having been naturalized in the United States.

The enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. 235) and/or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate. falsified or prepared under duress (sec. which are the only instances where a pre-proclamation recount maybe resorted to. Held: The Court rules that Sanchez’ petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of the ballots cast in the senatorial elections does not present a proper issue for a summary pre-proclamation controversy. granted the preservation of the integrity of the ballot box and its contents. appear to have been tampered with. On July 16. The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under sec. promulgated its decision dismissing petitioner Sanchez’ petition for recount. 1987.21 | P a g e SANCHEZ. whose name had not been crossed out from the Comelec election returns and other election forms. reversed its order of dismissal and granted Sanchez’ petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of ballots. the Comelec. be directed to conduct a recount of the votes cast in the 1987 senatorial elections to determine the true number of votes to be credited to him and prayed further for a restraining order directing the Comelec to withhold the proclamation of the last four (4) winning senatorial candidates on the ground that votes intended for him were declared as astray votes because of the sameness of his surname with that of disqualified candidate Gil Sanchez. . vs. respondent Comelec. however. 1987. In the absence of any clear showing or proof that the election returns canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (sec. Issue: Whether his petition for recount and/or re-appreciation of ballots filed with the Comelec may be considered a summary pre-proclamation controversy or an election protest. by a vote of four to three. the difference of which affects the result of the election (sec. COMELEC Case Digest SANCHEZ. COMELEC 114 SCRA 454. 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. Sanchez’ petition must fail. by a vote of five to two. vs. must be prima facie considered valid for the purpose of canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning candidates. On July 24. The complete election returns whose authenticity is not in question. 234). The law and public policy mandate that all pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the Commission after due notice and hearing and just as summarily decided. 1987 Facts: Candidate Sanchez filed a petition praying that Comelec after due hearing. is restrictive and exclusive. 236).

paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution. citing Article IX (C). private respondent moved for dismissal. 95346 January 18. orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election contests involving elective municipal offices are final and executory. be brought to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari by the aggrieved party? Held: The fact that decisions. it is stated. After hearing. “We do not. Under Article IX (A). Private respondent filed an election protest before the RTC. Its First Division reversed the RTC decision and declared private respondent the duly-elected mayor.: Facts: Petitioner Galido and private respondent Galeon were candidates during the January 1988 local elections for mayor of Garcia-Hernandez. J. The COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest on physical evidence. Petitioner was proclaimed the duly-elected Mayor. the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner. the petition is DIMISSSED. the exercise of which should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of either party. Section 7 of the Constitution. does not preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari.R. . ACCORDINGLY. “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. executory and not appealable.22 | P a g e GALIDO vs. or ruling of each (Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt thereof. any decision. COMELEC Case Digest GALIDO vs. however. No. After the COMELEC en banc denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the decision of its First Division. therefore. Issue: Whether or not a COMELEC decision may. The COMELEC held that the fifteen (15) ballots in the same precinct containing the initial “C” after the name “Galido” were marked ballots and. Bohol. in support of its findings and conclusions. believe that the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the questioned decision. 1991 PADILLA. that “Final decisions. In his comment to the petition. and not appealable. and apply established jurisprudence. and that the extent to which such precedents apply rests on its discretion. final orders or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final. equity.” We resolve this issue in favor of the petitioner. Private respondent appealed the RTC decision to the COMELEC. Section 2(2). which petitioner cites. law and justice. order. Undaunted by his previous failed actions the petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari and injunction before the Supreme Court and succeeded in getting a temporary restraining order. if it sets aside the trial court’s decision involving marked ballots. COMELEC 193 SCRA 78 G. invalid.

The net effect is that the petitioner lost in the election. 1991 GUTIERREZ. The voters of the province voted for her in the sincere belief that she was a qualified candidate for the position of governor. 201 SCRA 253 Facts: Initially. Larrazabal was already proclaimed the Governor. sought to take his oath as governor of Kananga. He was repudiated by the electorate. Issue: Whether or not the candidate who got the second highest vote may be proclaimed as governor when the candidate for such position was disqualified. 100710 September 3. when the Commission granted the decision. JR. Silvestre dela Cruz (Benjamin Abella was allowed to intervene) filed a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify petitioner Larrazabal from running as governor of Leyte on the ground that she misrepresented her residence in her certificate of candidacy as Kananga. COMELEC G. The COMELEC granted the petition. Her votes were counted and she obtained the highest number of votes. who gathered the second highest votes in the said area. Leyte. . Held: The Supreme Court held that while it is true that SPC No..23 | P a g e ABELLA vs COMELEC Case Digest ABELLA vs. 88-546 was originally a petition to deny due course to the certificate of candidacy of Larrazabal and was filed before Larrazabal could be proclaimed. 1988 in the province of Leyte proceeded with Larrazabal considered as a bona fide candidate. Leyte. the fact remains that the local elections of February 1. when she was disqualified.R. hence. J. Abella. It was alleged that she was in fact a resident of Ormoc City like her husband who was earlier disqualified from running for the same office. No. However.

Lawful Election Propaganda. mobile or stationary. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and. Article III). Section 15(a) of the resolution provides: Sec. COMELEC G. The COMELEC’s prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on “mobile” places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds. 21(f).R. leaflets. paint. Republic Acts Nos. According to him such prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of Republic Act No.. public or private. It is unlawful:… (f) To draw. cards. Prohibited forms of election propaganda. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on “mobile” places. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen’s fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides: Sec. decals… Provided. JR. by displaying it on his car.: March 31. the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party. and limit their location or publication to the authorized posting areas that it fixes. whether public or private. J.24 | P a g e ADIONG v. HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. post. 2347 pursuant to its powers granted by the Constitution. 1992. display or publicly exhibit any election propaganda in any place. the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. a senatorial candidate in the May 11. inscribe. No. . That decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof. to convince others to agree with him. — The following are lawful election propaganda: (a) Pamphlets. 103956 March 31. 6646. 6646 and 7166 and other election laws. 15. 4. 1992 elections assails the COMELEC’s Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in “mobile” places like cars and other moving vehicles. 1992 FACTS: On January 13. The portion of Section 15 (a) of Resolution No. 1992 GUTIERREZ. Significantly. the Omnibus Election Code. except in the COMELEC common posted areas and/or billboards… Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong. 2347 of the COMELEC providing that “decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof” is DECLARED NULL and VOID.

the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the court but is merely required to comply with all the conditions prescribed in the probation order. Hence. It appears then that during the period of probation. the period within which a person is under probation cannot be equated with service of the sentence adjudged.R. was thereby suspended. the accessory penalties of suspension from public office. 2002 elections. 2006 TINGA. G. Moreno also argued that under the Probation Law. the final discharge of the probation shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed. The Investigating Officer of the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Samar recommended that Moreno be disqualified from running. The resolution of the present controversy depends on the application of the phrase “within two (2) years after serving sentence” found in Sec. hence he is qualified to run for Punong Barangay.: Facts: Norma Mejes filed a petition to disqualify Urbano Moreno from running for Punong Barangay on the ground that the latter was convicted by final judgment of Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months by the RTC. On motion for reconsideration filed with the Comelec en banc. The Comelec First Division adopted this recommendation. following the case of Baclayon v. 40(a) of the LGC. . The order of the trial court dated December 18. Moreno argues that the disqualification under Sec. During the period of probation. COMELEC. including the right to vote and be voted for in the July 15. Sec. as well as the accessory penalties. Citing the case of Baclayon v. attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended upon the grant of probation. which is dependent on WON his sentence was served Held: Moreno’s sentence was not served. the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment. Mutia. Clearly. the probationer is not even disqualified from running for a public office because the accessory penalty of suspension from public office is put on hold for the duration of the probation. Allegedly.25 | P a g e Moreno vs. Issue: Whether or not Moreno is qualified to run. the Resolution of the First Division was affirmed. In this petition. 168550 August 10. J. and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. He never served a day of his sentence as a result. the disqualification under the LGC does not apply to him. No. 40(a)1 of the Local Government Code (LGC) applies only to those who have served their sentence and not to probationers because the latter do not serve the adjudged sentence. He alleges that he applied for and was granted probation within the period specified therefore. from the right to follow a profession or calling. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends the execution of the sentence. Moreno filed an answer averring that the petition states no cause of action because he was already granted probation. 2000 allegedly terminated his probation and restored to him all the civil rights he lost as a result of his conviction. Mutia to the instant case.

rather it is a substantive one. pleads the annulment of Section 1 of Resolution No. J. Article IX of the Constitution. 118702 16 March 1995 Ponente: Puno. Minor adjustments does not allow the change in allocations per district. ISSUES: Whether COMELEC has the jurisdiction to promulgate Resolution No. It is then held that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated Section 1 of its Resolution No.R. 2736. Commission on Elections G. The meaning of minor adjustments is found in the debates of the Commission wherein it was stated that the transfer of one municipality in a district to another district is not a minor adjustment. Section 1 is then annulled and set aside. 2736 of the COMELEC. 2. which states: Sec.26 | P a g e Montejo v. representing the First District of Leyte. No. . The Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments of the reapportionment herein made. redistricting certain municipalities in Leyte as it is said to violate the principle of equity of representation. 2736 HELD/RULING: The basic powers of COMELEC are spelled out in Section 2(c). The petition praying for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Leyte is denied. Petitioner now seeks to transfer the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province. FACTS: Petitioner Cirilo Montejo.

The COMELEC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. No. Another person cannot substitute for an independent candidate. While COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a certificate of candidacy. Thus. its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and assumption of the position by Farinas is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Ruiz alleged that Farinas had been campaigning as a candidate for Congressman in the May 11. 137004. despite his failure to file a certificate of candidacy for said office. returns and qualifications ends. After the election. Under Art. since the latter was not the official candidate of LAMMP.: Facts: Guillermo Ruiz sought to disqualify respondent Farinas as a candidate for the position of Congressman in the First District of Ilocos Norte. the COMELEC’s decision to discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable. and assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives. VI. taken his oath. and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. in deference to the HRET’s own jurisdiction and functions. Ruiz filed a motion for reconsideration. contending that Farinas could not validly substitute for Chevylle Farinas.R. Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the determination of the validity of the certificate of candidacy of respondent Farinas is already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). On June 3. returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Held: There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it held that its jurisdiction over the case had ceased with the assumption of office of respondent Farinas as Representative for the first district of Ilocos Norte. COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election. July 26. On May 8. Farinas was duly proclaimed winner. but was an independent candidate. once a winning candidate has been proclaimed. 1998. COMELEC G. Thus. the COMELEC dismissed the petition of Ruiz for lack of merit. 2000 QUISUMBING. 17 of the Constitution. 1998. . the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election. Sec.27 | P a g e Guerrero vs. 1998 polls. Thereafter. Ruiz claimed that Farinas’ certificate of candidacy was fatally defective. 1988. Farinas filed his certificate of candidacy substituting candidate Chevylle Farinas who withdrew on April 3. On May 10. J. 1998. Farinas took his oath of office as a member of the House of Representatives.

: Facts: Petitioners sought to prevent the postponement of the 2002 SK election to a later date since doing so may render them unqualified to vote or be voted for in view of the age limitation set by law for those who may participate. While seeking to prevent a postponement of the May 6. It’s constitutionality not having been assailed in the first place.28 | P a g e G. . and that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents. that the petition presented no actual justiciable controversy. Petitioners also sought to enjoin the lowering of age for membership in the SK. in the present case. 152295 July 9. et al vs. 9164 has reset the SK elections to July 15. 2002. 2002 Montesclaros. RA 9164 which resets and prescribes the qualifications of candidates and voters for the SK elections was held to be applicable on the July 15 2002 election. RA No. Held: The Court held that. Petitioners do not have a vested right to the permanence of the age requirement under Section 424 of the Local Government Code of 1991. 684. Under the same law. Issue: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction imputable to respondents. which fixed the maximum age for membership in the SK to youths less than 18 years old. that petitioners did not cite any provision of law that is alleged to be unconstitutional. et al CARPIO. the original charter of the SK. The SK elections was postponed since it was deemed "operationally very difficult" to hold both SK and Barangay elections simultaneously in May 2002. petitioners are nevertheless amenable to a resetting of the SK elections to any date not later than July 15. 2002 SK elections. Comelec. The Court ruled that petitioners had no personal and substantial interest in maintaining this suit. a date acceptable to petitioners. J. No.R. Congress merely restored the age requirement in PD No. there was no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. 2002.

or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors. .29 | P a g e G. an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians. 2010 DEL CASTILLO. The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. Issue: Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list.: ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. rather than out of religious conformity.as a party list based on moral grounds. The proscription by law relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose (that is. Laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs. Comelec alleged that petitioner made misrepresentation in their application. In the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---not by our own laws or by any international laws by which we adhere. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Facts: Comelec refused to recognize Ang Ladlad LGBT Party. Ruling: Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s application for registration should be granted. No. gays. 190582 April 8.R. Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a violation of the nonestablishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution. the conduct prohibited or sought to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society"). J. The Comelec failed to substantiate their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society. bisexuals.

8436. any disbursement of public fund would be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and Rep. the assailed COMELEC resolution likewise contravened the constitutional provision that "no money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Moreover." It being “unofficial”. orderly.. Act No. JR.: SIXTO S. FRISCO SAN JUAN. to wit: (1)consideration of the area and available funds (2) notification to all political parties and candidates. BRILLANTES. Act No. ANGARA. 8173. . which is the 2003 General Appropriations Act. Section 27 of Rep. DRILON. BERNAS. EDGARDO J. as the citizens’ accredited arm.30 | P a g e G. No. The Omnibus Election Code in providing the powers and functions of the Commission subjects the same to certain conditions with respect to the adoption of the latest technological and electronic devices. Comelec contended that the resolution was promulgated in the exercise of its executive and administrative power "to ensure free. the duly-accredited citizen’s arm to conduct the “unofficial counting of votes for the national or local elections. and reiterated in Section 18 of Rep. HONESTO M. peaceful and credible elections” Comelec added that the issue is beyond judicial determination. The quick count under the guise of an “unofficial” tabulation would not only be preemptive of the authority of congress and NAMFREL. JR. to conduct the "unofficial" quick count as provided under pertinent election laws. vs. The aforementioned conditions were found to have not been substantially met. 9206. Act No. FRANKLIN M. Issue: Whether or not Comelec's promulgation of Resolution 6712 was justified. vest upon Congress the sole and exclusive authority to officially canvass the votes for the elections of President and Vice-President. Resolution 6712 was null and void. which provides for the electronic transmission of advanced result of “unofficial” count. JAIME Z. NORBERTO M. J. solely authorize NAMFREL. Ruling: The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution 6712.. GALVEZ-TAN. The issue squarely fell within the ambit of the expanded jurisdiction of the court. JOSE CONCEPCION. Resolution 6712. further bolstered by RA 8436. ISLETA. honest. AND JOSE A. DR. 7166. Petitionersin-Intervention.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Act No. respondent. Section 4 of the Constitution. Facts: Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Elections System including the assailed resolution. JOSE DE VENECIA.. SR.R. 163193 June 15. GUTIERREZ. Article VII. as amended by Rep. Petitioners claimed that the resolution would allow the preemption and usurpation of the exclusive power of Congress to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President and would likewise encroach upon the authority of NAMFREL. 2004 CALLEJO. GONZALES. but would also be lacking constitutional and/or statutory basis. petitioner.

the special election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election. the court had relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised our discretion to give due course to voters’ suits involving the right of suffrage.A. did Not Negate the Calling of such Election. considering that the issue raised in this petition is likely to arise again On the VAlidity of the Election. Guingona. On the issue of locus standi. 2001 Election was valid. 4Whether a Special Election for a Single. the Court will not interfere with the affairs and conduct of the Comelec.: ARTURO M. Three-Year Term Senatorial Seat was Validly Held on 14 May 2001 RULING: On the issue of jurisdiction. the declaration of the 13th elected senator. Further. The Court held that COMELEC’s Failure to Give Notice of the Time of the Special Election as required under RA 6645.Petitioners contend that. Thirteen senators were proclaimed from the said election with the 13th placer to serve that of the remaining term of Sen. the Court held that unless there had been a patent showing of grave abuse of discretion. . On the issue of mootness. 3Whether or not petioners had locus standi. SENATOR RALPH G. 2Whether or not the petition was moot. consequently.R. HONASAN FACTS: Petitioners assailed the manner by which the simultaneous regular and special elections of 2001 were conducted by the COMELEC. the Court held that the May 14. who vacated a seat in the senate. RECTO and SENATOR GREGORIO B. January 21. 6645 itself provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C. No. as amended. Court had jurisdiction because what petitioners were questioning was the validity of the special election on 14 May 2001 in which Honasan was elected and not to determine Honasan’s right in the exercise of his office as Senator proper under a quo warranto. a special and a regular election must be distinguished in the documentation as well as in the canvassing of their results. J. Section 2 of R. it was held that courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. there was No Proof that COMELEC’s Failure to Give Notice of the Office to be Filled and the Manner of Determining the Winner in the Special Election Misled Voters. MOJICA vs. if held simultaneously. Petitioners sought for the nullification of the special election and.31 | P a g e G. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. 2004 CARPIO. Finally. IT could not be said that the voters were not informed since there had been other accessible information resources. Issue: 1Whether or not Court had jurisdiction. 148334. The law charges the voters with knowledge of this statutory notice and COMELEC’s failure to give the additional notice did not negate the calling of such special election. No. much less invalidate it.

did not use his influence. the Court reversed the Comelec’s decision of disqualifying petitioner. 2009 YNARES-SANTIAGO. AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION when Comelec disqualified petitioner in view of the petitioner’s conviction. Gambling is not illegal per se. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HERMINIO G. . J.R. As found in the Sandiganbayan. Being so. while possession of business and pecuniary interest in a cockpit licensed by the local government unit is expressly prohibited by the present LGC. 180363 April 28. however. Ruling: The Court ruled that the crime for which petitioner was convicted in Sandiganbayan in 2005 did not involve moral turpitude. Issue: Whether or not there WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION. then Mayor of Valencia. TEVES Facts: In Oct 2007. Second. petitioner. The Comelec likewise rendered the issue raised by petitioner as moot since the latter lost in the said election. vs. its illegality does not mean that violation thereof necessarily involves moral turpitude or makes such possession of interest inherently immoral The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. allegedly. No.: EDGAR Y.32 | P a g e G. TEVES. petitioner was officially disqualified to run for a congressional seat in the May 2007 election because of a Sandiganbayan decision rendered against him in 2005 involving a crime. authority or power to gain pecuniary or financial interest in the cockpit. It was held that it was not for the judiciary to settle questions which is for other branches of the government to deal with. The case was not moot since the resolution of which would determine petitioner’s qualification in future elections. of moral turpitude.

and ordering a new registration of voters for the local elections.801 voters.000 persons actually voted out of the 39. Petitioner filed written objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground that they “appear to be tampered with or falsified” owing to the “great excess of votes” appearing in the said returns. do not show prima facie that on the basis of the old List of Voters. Facts: Petitioner Untalum obtained 482 votes while respondent Anni received 35. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers. R. Issue: Whether or not the election returns from Siasi should be excluded from the canvass of the results since the original List of Voters had been finally annulled. COMELEC issued annulling the Siasi List of Voters “on the ground of massive irregularities committed in the preparation and being statistically improbable”. not the Board of Election Inspectors and such challenge should relate to specified election returns against which the petitioner should have made verbal elections. 84843-44 January 22. that election returns from Siasi should be excluded from the canvass of the results since its original List of Voters had already been finally annulled. petitioner would have lead of 5. Held: The Siasi returns. 1990 MELENCIO-HERRERA.33 | P a g e UTUTALUM vs. The preparation of a voter’s list is not a proceeding before the Board of Canvassers. The list must then be considered conclusive evidence of persons who could exercise the right of suffrage in a particular election.” a proper subject matter for a pre-proclamation controversy and therefore cognizable by the COMELEC. . COMELEC 181 SCRA 335 G. however.801 voters. J.581 votes out of the 39. Petitioner’s cause of action is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation controversy. there is actually a great excess of votes over what could have been legally cast considering that only 36. To allow the COMELEC to do so retroactively would be to empower it to annul a previous election because of the subsequent annulment of a questioned registry. No. If the returns of Siasi were excluded.301 votes. Petitioner contends that the issue he raised referred to “obvious manufactured returns. COMELEC Case Digest UTUTALUM vs.

all of these are aimed at achieving an ideal: “free. with a margin of only two votes. and city officials designated by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. orderly. 1967 proclamation & consequently to inquire into the tampering of the election return in Precint 8. J. municipal. respondent Balindong went to Comelec with a petition for the annulment of the November 20. L-28955 23 SCRA 883. amongst the aspirants for Mayor of Ganassi. On January 6. all administrative questions. save those involving the right to vote. 1968 declaring that it has jurisdiction to open the ballot box in Precinct 8 of the municipality of Ganassi. Comelec has “direct and immediate supervision over the provincial. 1967 canvass and proclamation. respondent Alim Balindong. and that as a result of such tampering.” Implementing the constitutional precept. 1968 SANCHEZ. COMELEC G.34 | P a g e AGUAM vs. petitioner Uso Dan Aguam herein was made to win against respondent Alim Balindong by a margin of 3 votes. 1968. Respondent averred that the election return for Precinct 8 was tampered with by making it appear that Alim Balindong obtained 8 votes in said precinct when in fact he obtained 13 votes.” . in addition to the powers and functions conferred by the Constitution.: Facts: In the November. and for the opening of the ballot box in Precinct 8. Congress legislated in Section 3 of the Revised Election Code that. were: petitioner Uso Dan Aguam. 20. Marohombsar. Held: By constitutional mandate. affecting elections. upon petition of respondent Alim Balindong. 1967.” And. and to conduct an investigation into the authentic electoral return therefrom. petitioner Aguam was proclaimed Mayor-elect of Ganassi. and Ali Daud B. Lanao del Sur. Petitioner Aguam seeks to annul the resolution of the respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) of April 27.” The Constitution enjoins Comelec to “decide. Lanao del Sur.R. 1967 elections. At the canvassing held in Marawi City on November 20. No. Petitioner took his oath and thereafter assumed office as Mayor of Ganassi. 1968 May 28. Comelec “shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law. Issue: Whether or not Comelec has the jurisdiction to inquire into the nullity of the Nov. and honest elections.

No. and only the incumbent President has the authority and means of obtaining information on the peace and order condition of the country within which an electoral campaign may be adequately conducted in all regions of the nation. COMELEC Case Digest PERALTA vs. excluding the day before and the day of the election. the election for members in the interim Batasang Pambansa is an election in a state of emergency requiring special rules. 1978 ANTONIO. Article XII[C] of the Constitution. Article 1. the same does not violate the Constitution.” Issue: Whether or not the 45-day period is unconstitutional Held: The 45-day campaign period is constitutional. shall continue to exercise legislative power until martial law shall have been lifted. J. of the 1978 Election Code. Although the campaign period prescribed in the 1978 Election Code for the election of the representatives to the interim Batasang Pambansa is less than 90 days and was decreed by the President and not by the Commission on Elections as provided by Section 6 of Article XII-C of the Constitution. But even assuming that it should be the Commission on Elections that should fix the period of campaign.R. Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the 45-day campaign period because: (a) it was decreed by the President and not by the Commission on Elections as provided by Section 6 of Article XII-C and (b) the period should cover at least ninety days (90). 5. They argue that Section 6 of Article XII-C of the Constitution provides that the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter. The period of campaign shall not be more than forty-five days immediately preceding the election. .35 | P a g e PERALTA vs. L-47771 82 SCRA 30 March 11. the manner of election of members of the interim Batasang Pambansa shall be prescribed and regulated by law. Moreover. the constitutional mandate is complied with by the fact that the Commission has adopted and is enforcing the period fixed in Section 4. and the incumbent President under Amendment No. because under Amendment 1.: Facts: Section 4 of the 1978 Election Code provides that the election period shall be fixed by the Commission on Elections in accordance with Section 6. COMELEC G.

Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Article 38 of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. for giving money to influence. Alarilla both vied for the mayoral position of Meycauayan.e. and Vice Mayor are governed by Section 44. fails to qualify. or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office) in the Offices of the Governor. for committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy.e. Issue: Whether the disqualification of the mayor-elect warrants the declaration of any of the remaining qualified mayoral candidates. . the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. Vice Governor. Nolasco urged that as vice-mayor he should be declared mayor in the event Blanco was finally disqualified. On 9 May. Held: In a mayoralty election. July 21. and for spending in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by the Election Code (P10 million against 97. Bulacan to reconvene and to determine the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates who shall be immediately proclaimed. as mayor. J. is removed from office. Permanent vacancies (i. 122250 & 122258. No. Mayor. Both motions were denied. upon the canvassing of votes.36 | P a g e NOLASCO vs. refuses to assume office. induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing election functions. Bulacan during the election held 8 May 1995. Blanco moved for reconsideration while Nolasco. intervened in the proceedings. Hence. i. Blanco. Edgardo Nolasco was elected vice-mayor. Alarilla filed with the Comelec a petition to disqualify Blanco on grounds that the latter committed acts in violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. the Comelec disqualified Blanco on the ground of vote-buying and ordered the Board of Canvassers of Meycauayan. COMELEC 275 SCRA 762 Facts: Florentino P. the petition for certiorari.000 registered voters). Nolasco was adjudged as Mayor of Meycauayan. voluntarily resigns. when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office. On 15 August. COMELEC Case Digest [G. as vice mayor. 1997 PUNO.: NOLASCO vs. Blanco and Eduado A. dies. ViceMayor Edgardo C.R. Bulacan in view of the disqualification of mayor-elect Florentino P. Blanco garnered the highest number of votes.

before the Supreme Court. The COMELEC ordered the consolidation of respondents’ petitions and a random technical examination on several precincts. et al. was legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was put in issue by respondents. in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 2001. the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of failure of elections but an election protest. J. Of the Omnibus Election Code (Failure of Election).37 | P a g e Ampatuan. fell squarely within Sec 6. 2001 Maguindanao Provincial election after the order suspending such proclamation was lifted by the COMELEC. . “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 14. The Court held that respondents’ allegations of massive fraud and terrorism. vs. There can be no assumption that petitioners’ proclamation and assumption into office on June 30. No. COMELEC G. which led to a failure to elect. 149803. The Court. Issue: Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on respondents’ petitions even after proclamation of petitioners as winners Ruling: The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul election results and/or declare a failure of elections. Petitioners contended that by virtue of their proclamation. Respondents petitioned. January 31.: The petitioners were proclaimed victorious in the May 14. the suspension of the effects of the said proclamation and insisted that there had been a “failure of election”. directed COMELEC to proceed with the hearing of the consolidated petitions and the technical examination with deliberate dispatch. which issued the same. R. 2001 election”. 2002 PARDO.

et al vs. however. 162759 August 4.38 | P a g e Nicolas-Lewis. The voting mechanism in RA 9189 was practically set forth to provide a system wherein Filipinos of dual citizenship and are. Comelec. Issue: Whether or not petitioners may participate in the election sans the compliance of the 1 year residency. reasoning the petitioners faield to comply with the requirement of 1-year residency prior the elections as provided for under Article 5. Petitioners sought to avail their right of suffrage under RA 9189 or the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. Ruling: The Court held that those who retained or reacquired their citizenship under RA 9225 may exercise their right to vote under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. The Court held that present day duals may now exercise their right of suffrage provided they meet the requirements under Section 1.A. Article 5. Sec 1 of the Constitution. 9189 .: Facts: Petitioners were dual citizens by virtue of RA 9225. Comelec G. not residing in the Philippines are empowered to vote.R. Section 2 of the Constitution provides for the exception to the residency requirement in Section 1 of the same article. did not allow petitioners to vote in the 2004 election. No. J. at the same time. Article V of the Constitution in relation to R. RA 9189. 2006 GARCIA.

39 | P a g e

AKBAYAN YOUTH vs. COMELEC Case Digest
AKBAYAN YOUTH vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001 BUENA, J.:
Facts: Petitoners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the Comelec to conduct a special registration
before the May 14, 2001 General Elections of new voters. According to the petitioners around 4 Million youth
failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent Commission under R.A.
8189. On January 29, 2001 Commissioners Tantangco and Lantion submitted Memorandum No. 2001-027
requesting for a two-day additional registration of new voters, to be set on February 17 and 18, 2001 nationwide.
Subsequently, Comelec issued Resolution No. 3584 denying said request, it was the consensus.
Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which seeks to nullify respondent
Comelec’s resolution and / or to declare Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively
causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 3584
dated Feb. 8, 2001 as it denies petitioners’ right to vote.
Held: The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For registration is part and
parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the election process. Section 8 of R.A. 8189, provides
that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.
In the light of the foregoing the assailed resolution must be upheld. The so-called “stand-by powers” or “residual”
powers of the Comelec, as raised by the petitioners is provided under the relevant provisions of Section 29 of R.A.
No. 6646 and adopted verbatim in Section 28 of R.A. No. 8436, wherein the commission shall fix other periods and
dates for the accomplishment of pre-election acts if it is no longer possible to observe the dates and periods
prescribed by law, cannot be applied in this case. The Supreme Court held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies for
the purpose of upholding the resolution. Section 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised
or availed of and not otherwise. In the case at bar the Comelec stated the “operational impossibility” of holding
the additional two-day registration, and therefore Section 8 of R.A. 8436 may not apply. Comelec acted within the
confines of the applicable law in denying the petitioners’ request.

40 | P a g e

SUMULONG vs. COMELEC Case Digest
SUMULONG vs. COMELEC
73 P.R. 288, 1942
G.R. No. L-48609
October 10, 1941 ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Facts: Under the authority of Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657, Comelec adopted a resolution providing for
the appointment of election inspectors to be proposed by the political parties and persons named therein.
Petitioner, Juan Sumulong, President of the political party Pagkakaisa ng Bayan, claims the exclusive right to
propose the appointment of such inspectors. He contends that the resolution of the Comelec, by giving the socalled rebel candidate or free-zone faction of the Nationalista Party the right to propose one election inspector for
each of the precincts in each of the 53 legislative districts, contravenes Section 5 of the Commonwealth Act No.
657. He argues that under that section the Nationalista Party has the right to propose one, and only one inspector
for each precinct, and that the resolution has the effect of giving that party two inspectors in each and every
precinct within those legislative districts. Petitioner maintains that the discretion given by Section 5 of
Commonwealth Act No. 657 to the Comelec in the Choice of election inspectors is not absolute, but limited by the
provision of the Act that the majority party shall have the right to propose only one inspector.
Issue: Whether or not the Comelec, in giving the so-called rebel candidates and free-zone factions of the
Nationalista Party the right to propose election inspectors, has acted within the limits of the discretion granted to
it by law.
Held: The present case is not an appropriate case for review by the Supreme Court. The Comelec is a constitutional
body. It is intended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme of government. It should be allowed
considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for
which it was created – free, orderly, and honest elections. The Supreme Court may not agree fully with its choice
of means, but unless these are clearly illegal / constitute grave abuse of discretion, this court should not interfere.
The Comelec because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its knowledge derived
from actual experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide
complex political questions. Due regard to the independent character of the Commission, as ordained in the
Constitution requires that the power of the Supreme Court to review the acts of that body should, as a general
proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in appropriate cases.

41 | P a g e

G.R. No. 161434
March 3, 2004
MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. vs.COMELEC, FPJ and VICTORINO X. FORNIER,
G.R. No. 161634
March 3, 2004
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs.FPJ
G. R. No. 161824
March 3, 2004
VICTORINO X. FORNIER, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FPJ
VITUG, J.:
Facts:
Petitioners sought for respondent Poe’s disqualification in the presidential elections for having allegedly
misrepresented material facts in his (Poe’s) certificate of candidacy by claiming that he is a natural Filipino citizen
despite his parents both being foreigners. Comelec dismissed the petition, holding that Poe was a Filipino Citizen.
Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec, contending that only the Supreme Court may resolve the basic
issue on the case under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not it is the Supreme Court which had jurisdiction.
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Poe was a Filipino citizen.
Ruling:
1.) The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on questions regarding “qualification of a candidate” for the presidency
or vice-presidency before the elections are held.
"Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal" in connection with Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution,
refers to “contests” relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-President", of the
Philippines which the Supreme Court may take cognizance, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice-President
before the elections.
2.) Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding Poe as a Filipino Citizen.
The 1935 Constitution on Citizenship, the prevailing fundamental law on respondent’s birth, provided that among
the citizens of the Philippines are "those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines."

Tracing respondent’s paternal lineage, his grandfather Lorenzo, as evidenced by the latter’s death certificate was
identified as a Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at the
age of 84, Lorenzo would have been born in 1980. In the absence of any other evidence, Lorenzo’s place of
residence upon his death in 1954 was presumed to be the place of residence prior his death, such that Lorenzo Pou
would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. Being so,
Lorenzo’s citizenship would have extended to his son, Allan---respondent’s father.
Respondent, having been acknowledged as Allan’s son to Bessie, though an American citizen, was a Filipino citizen
by virtue of paternal filiation as evidenced by the respondent’s birth certificate. The 1935 Constitution on
citizenship did not make a distinction on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, thus, the allegation of bigamous
marriage and the allegation that respondent was born only before the assailed marriage had no bearing on
respondent’s citizenship in view of the established paternal filiation evidenced by the public documents presented.
But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be
held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in
relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

J. Petitioner Loong contends that SPA No.42 | P a g e LOONG vs. 90-006 was filed within the period prescribed by law. it can not supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code which is a legislative enactment . No. Thus. Section 3. petitioner filed with respondent Commission his certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region in the election held on 17 February 1990. 1999 PUNO. respondent Ututalum filed before the respondent Commission a petition seeking to disqualify petitioner for the office of Regional Vice-Governor. clearly does not fall under the grounds of disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy. Held: No. April 14. is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission which. Moreover. although a constitutional body. 90-006 (a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of petitioner Loong) was filed out of time because it was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. 133676.: Facts: On 15 January 1990. COMELEC Case Digest LOONG vs.R. Petitioner Loong sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the respondent COMELEC has no jurisdiction. Issue: Whether or not SPA No. The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum with the respondent COMELEC to disqualify petitioner Loong on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age. on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age. 1992 G. On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election). The motion to dismiss was denied by the COMELEC in a resolution which is the subject of this petition. COMELEC 216 SCRA 760. has no legislative powers. Rule 25 which allows the filing of the petition at any time after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.

” Private respondent revealed that a charge for fraudulent insurance claims. And obviously. however. Rodriguez was a candidate for Governor in the Province of Quezon in the May 8. Marquez.43 | P a g e RODRIGUEZ vs. 1996 G. The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one’s flight from a particular jurisdiction. 120099. being charged. 1996 FRANCISCO. 1985.” Held: No. His rival candidate for the said position was Bienvenido O.R..: Facts: The petitioner Eduardo T. J. July 24. herein private respondent. COMELEC 259 SCRA 296. Rodriguez. submitted a certification from the Commission of Immigration showing that Rodriguez left the US on June 25. Jr. No. The Supreme Court reiterated that a “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who. Private respondent filed a petition for disqualification before the COMELEC based principally on the allegation that Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice. Rodriguez is therefore a “fugitive from justice” which is a ground for his disqualification/ ineligibility under Section 40 (e) of the Local Government Code according to Marquez. flee to avoid prosecution. Issue: Whether or not Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice. 1995 elections. there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment or of a promulgated judgement of conviction. grand theft and attempted grand theft of personal property is pending against the petitioner before the Los Angeles Municipal Court.roughly five (5) months prior to the institution of the criminal complaint filed against him before the Los Angeles Court. . COMELEC Case Digest RODRIGUEZ vs.

No. Commission on Elections) G. . The Clerk of the Commission is likewise directed to docket the electoral aspect of the complaint as a disqualification case and immediately assign the same to a division which shall resolve the case on the basis of the recommendation of the Law Department.. Issues: W/N the COMELEC acted with GADLEJ in issuing the Resolutions Held: Yes. 2004 G. Capiz. The Law Department found a prima facie case and recommended the filing of an Information against the Petitioners. this Court ruled that a complaint for disqualification filed after the election against a candidate before or after his proclamation as winner shall be dismissed by the COMELEC. if the COMELEC finds no probable cause. the private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners with the COMELEC Law Department. a Resolution directing its Law Department to file the appropriate Information against the petitioners and directing the Clerk of the Commission to docket the electoral aspect of the complaint as a disqualification case. Therefore. COMELEC (Albaña v. No. 2003. SR. 2050 is as clear: COMELEC is mandated to dismiss a complaint for the disqualification of a candidate who has been charged with an election offense but who has already been proclaimed as winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers In Bagatsing v. 2004 CALLEJO. it is mandated to dismiss the complaint for disqualification. Second. ViceMayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of Panitan. Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. On May 18. In the case at bar.44 | P a g e Albana vs. 2001. 2001. the complaint shall be dismissed as a disqualification case but shall be referred to the Law Department of the COMELEC for preliminary investigation.R. a complaint for disqualification filed after the election against a candidate (a) who has not yet been proclaimed as winner. as laid down in paragraph 2.R. the petitioners and private respondents ran for the positions of Mayor. or (b) who has already been proclaimed as winner. Thus. J. On June 23. the COMELEC En Banc issued. the disqualification case should have been dismissed and instead referred for preliminary investigation to the Law Department. the complaint for disqualification was filed 7 days after the elections. 163302 July 23. 2001 elections. 163302 July 23. alleging that the latter committed acts of terrorism and engaged in vote-buying.: Facts: During the May 14. Acting on the said Resolution. the petitioners were duly elected and proclaimed winners. In both cases. on February 28. COMELEC.

R. the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. No. therefore. where the classification is germane to the purpose of the low and applies to all those belonging to the same class. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 L-52245 January 22. class legislation. but. It is for this very reason that inequality will neither result from the application of the challenged provision. 1980. WHEREFORE. 1980 MELENCIO-HERRERA. by virtue of a change of mind. and what is emphatically significant is that the retired employee has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work. 1980 G. L-52245 January 22. What is proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution which provides that “…. there is reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from which he had retired. Just as that provision does not deny equal protection. and is based on “purely arbitrary grounds. The tiredness of the retiree for government work is present.45 | P a g e DUMLAO vs. Held: In the case of a 65-year old elective local official. neither does it permit of such denial. The equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classification. . J: Facts: Petitioner Patricio Dumlao. he would like to assume again. as provided for in the challenged provision. Issue: Whether or not 1st paragraph of section 4 of BP 22 is valid. who has filed his certificate of candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming elections of January 30. The need for new blood assumes relevance. Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. That constitutional guarantee is not violated by a reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions. who has retired from a provincial.Any retired elective provincial city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired.” He likewise alleges that the provision is directed insidiously against him. city or municipal office. which. is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya.

R. 1994 respectively. Section 14 of R. No.: 245 SCRA 759 Facts: On March 22. In M.R. No. petitioner Juanito C. 115245.A. Well-recognized is the rule that where the law does not distinguish. On March 25. but also to one who withdrew his candidacy. 1992. 1992. Held: The petitioner is liable. Nos. courts should not distinguish. 7166 states that “every candidate” has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is liable for failure to file a statement of contributions and expenditures notwithstanding his having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy three days after his filing. PILAR vs. petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy. the COMELEC imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. . 93-2654 and 94-0065 dated November 3. 1995. July 11. No distinction is to be made in the application of a law where none is indicated. QUIASON. 1993 and February 13. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the COMELEC.46 | P a g e JUANITO C. J. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. the term “every candidate” must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign. COMMISSION ON ELECTION G. as the law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or withdrew the same. In the case at bench. Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela.

Issue: Whether or not the proportion of the the votes obtained to the number of registered voters of each district shall be factored to the number of voters who actually voted in determining the ranking in the Sanggunian.: Posted by Pius Morados on November 6. Ranking in the Sanggunian) Facts: Under the LGC. Petitioner claims that the ranking should not only be based on the number of votes obtained in relation to the total number of registered voters. Held: No.R. J. 1994 QUIASON. the position of vice-governor should be occupied by the highest ranking Sanggunian member. Comelec [299 SCRA 269] G. The law is clear that the ranking in the Sangguninan shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of the votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters of each district. The COMELEC issued a resolution certifying respondent as 1st in the order of ranking with petitioner as 2nd ranking member pursuant to the provisions above. 918 votes and respondent candidate Calisin from the 1st district garnered 28. and for purposes of succession. . ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each district. 335 votes. 2011 (Local Government. but also on the number of voters in the district who actually voted therein.47 | P a g e Victoria vs. petitioner candidate Victoria from the 2nd district garnered 32. In the Elections. No. Succession. 109005 January 10.

rather than frustrate. 1998 elections. not the situation in the case at bar. his name was not included in the list of candidates for mayor. 1998. and “Bautista” were made by the Board of Election Inspectors. 1998 MELO. It is improper and strained to limit petitioner’s votes to the ballots which only indicate the name “Cipriano” when it is of public knowledge that petitioner is also known by the appellation and nickname “Efren” which he in fact registered as his nickname. separate tallies of ballots on which were written “Efren Bautista”. extreme caution should be observed before any ballot is invalidated.R. Held: It must be emphasized that the instant case involves a ground for disqualification which clearly affects the voters’ will and causes confusion that frustrates the same. in the appreciation of ballots. the voters were informed of the Comelec’s decision to declare Edwin Bautista as a nuisance candidate. which was still pending at the date of election. doubts are resolved in favor of their validity. Petitioner filed a petitioner praying that Edwin Bautista be declared nuisance candidate. “Efren”. it has also been established that by virtue of newspaper releases and other forms of notifications. declared Edwin Bautista as a nuisance candidate and accordingly. in a resolution dated April 30. During the counting of votes. A certain Edwin “Efren” Bautista also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position. Edwin Bautista filed a motion for reconsideration. Thus. A stray vote is invalidated because there is no way of determining the real intention of the voter. the will of the voter. Significantly.48 | P a g e BAUTISTA vs. No. This is precisely what election laws are trying to protect. They give effect to. Bautista”. J. The municipal board of canvassers refused to canvass as part of the valid votes of petitioner theses separate tallies. 133840.: 296 SCRA 480. COMELEC G. . This is. Further. “E. November 13. Metro Manila in the May 11. Comelec. Issue: Whether or not these votes should have been included to those cast for petitioner. however. 1998 Facts: Petitioner Cipriano “Efren” Bautista was a duly registered candidate for the position of Mayor of Navotas.

Danilo Manalastas and Ernesto Punzalan filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G. . the COMELEC promulgated a resolution setting aside the trial court’s decision and affirming the proclamation of Meneses by the MBC as the duly elected mayor of Mexico. Castro wherein it was held that the absence of the signature of the BEI chairman in the ballot given to a voter as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal.: Facts: Danilo Manalastas. invoking the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bautista v. authenticating and thumbmarking of ballots. Thereafter. 1995. 1997. On May 24. Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained therein shall be nullified. signing. 126669. Pampanga. No. April 27. Punzalan maintains that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring as valid the ballots credited to Meneses which did not bear the signature of the BEI chairman at the back thereof. the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Ferdinand Meneses as the duly elected mayor. J. It is a well-settled rule that the failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with their mandated administrative responsibility. Punzalan filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution. After hearing the election protests. Pampanga. thereby frustrating the will of the people. While Section 24 11 of Republic Act No. otherwise known as “An Act Providing For Synchronized National and Local Elections and For Electoral Reforms. the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense imputable to said BEI chairman. the trial court rendered judgment on September 23.R. Ferdinand Meneses and Ernesto Punzalan were among the four (4) candidates for mayor of the municipality of Mexico.. 1998 April 27. Held: A ballot without BEI chairman’s signature at the back is valid. i. PUNZALAN vs. 7166.” requires the BEI chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot.R. 1995 elections. 1998 KAPUNAN. No. Issue: Whether or not the ballots without the BEI Chairman’s signature are valid. 126669 G. Pampanga during the May 8. Meneses filed a notice of appeal from the aforesaid decision On December 8.e. 1996 declaring Punzalan as the duly elected mayor.49 | P a g e Punzalan vs Comelec Case Digest ERNESTO M. should not penalize the voter with disenfranchisement.

. Iloilo in the May 1998 synchronized elections. Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC Second Division which excluded election returns from 3 precincts and directed the MBC to reconvene and finish the canvass of the remaining or uncontested returns and then. The MBC proclaim petitioner winner of the election. The duly proclaimed Vice-Mayor Betita. COMELEC G. The only evidence presented by the petitioner to prove the alleged irregularities were the self-serving contracts of his watchers and inspectors. Private respondent Bernal filed an urgent motion to declare void petitioner’s proclamation. Respondent Bernal was proclaimed by the newly-constituted MBC as the duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality. Returns cannot be excluded on mere allegations that the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns on their face appear to be regular and without any physical signs of tampering. No. The COMELEC en banc reversed the decision of the Second Division. and constituted a new MBC. J. 2001 QUISUMBING. Petitioner Dumayas asked the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC en banc resolution. During the canvassing by the MBC. Petitioner filed with COMELEC en banc a motion to cancel Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and motion declare void petitioner’s proclamation on the ground that respondent Bernal should be deemed to have abandoned said motion when he filed quo warranto action. 141952-53 April 20. Issue: Whether the COMELEC was correct in including in the canvass the election returns of the contested precincts? Held: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative.R. annulled the petitioner Dumayas’ proclamation. The election irregularities cited by the petitioner would require the presentation of evidence which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy which is summary in nature. to proclaim the winning mayoralty candidate. petitioner sought the exclusion of election returns for 3 precincts of Barangay Pantalan owing to alleged acts of terrorism. and private respondent Bernal filed n action for quo warranto against petitioner before the RTC of Iloilo.50 | P a g e DUMAYAS vs. COMELEC Case Digest DUMAYAS vs. intimidation and coercion committed in said precincts during the casting and counting of votes. Private respondent Bernal moved for reconsideration of the decision of the Second Division with the COMELEC en banc.: Facts: Petitioner Dumayas and respondent Bernal were rival candidates for the position in Mayor of Carles. The MBC denied petitioner’s objections and proceeded with the canvass which showed respondent Bernal garnering more votes than the petitioner.

Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code merely provides for the granting of actual and compensatory damages “in accordance with law. J. to do away with such provisions merely recognizes the maxim. Meanwhile. Sia was elected mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos. Following Sia’s proclamation.19 representing petitioner’s expenses in the election protest. 1992 issued an Order setting aside the preliminary injunction and thereby allowing petitioner to assume as mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos pending resolution of his appeal. Issue: Whether or not the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the lower court’s judgment. Private respondent appealed. However. petitioner filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court questioning the results of the elections in a number of precincts in the municipality. However. 1992 dismissing petitioner’s appeal for being moot and academic.R. petitioner obtained a plurality of 12 votes over the private respondent. No. The Regional Trial Court rendered its decision declaring petitioner the winner of the municipal elections and ordering the private respondent to reimburse petitioner the amount of P300. 108533 December 20. which was opposed by respondent. on April 7. following the synchronized elections of May 11. COMELEC G. in the revision ordered by the lower court. Consequently.” The intent. The Comelec. 1994 KAPUNAN. the Presiding Commissioner of the Comelec’s Second Division issued an Order dated July 18.51 | P a g e ATIENZA vs. The intent of the legislature to do away with provisions indemnifying the victorious party for expenses incurred in an election contest in the absence of a wrongful act or omission clearly attributable to the losing party cannot be gainsaid – in fine.856. This. settled in law that a wrong without damage or damage without wrong neither constitutes a cause of action nor creates a civil obligation. en banc. Held: The dismissal of an appeal in an election protest case for having become moot and academic due to the election of new municipal officials referred only to that part of the appealed judgment which was affected by the election and not to that portion relating to the award of damages. the Regional trial Court granted petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal.: Facts: Private respondent Antonio G. The Comelec issued a preliminary injunction stopping the enforcement of the order of execution. . 1992. moreover. Cebu in the 1998 local elections. it would appear virtually impossible for a party in an election protest case to recover actual or compensatory damages in the absence of a law expressly providing for situations allowing for the recovery of the same. petitioner has been unable to do.

Ramirez petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the 2 COMELEC en banc resolutions and to reinstate his proclamation as the duly elected vice-mayor. 122013.52 | P a g e RAMIREZ vs. citing Rule 27. . he was credited with lesser votes. Section 5 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules which provides correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of results during the canvassing as one of the pre-proclamation controversies which maybe filed directly with the COMELEC en banc. private respondent Go based on the results showing that Ramirez obtained more votes than Go. COMELEC Case Digest RAMIREZ vs. No. COMELEC 270 SCRA 590. J. Acting on separate motions filed by Ramirez and Go. Go petitioned COMELEC for correction of manifest error claiming that owing to error in addition. March 26. to constitute a new MBC in Gipolos. 1997 MENDOZA. the COMELEC en banc affirmed its earlier resolution. proclaim the winning candidate. Issue: Whether the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction to act directly on the petition for correction of manifest error filed by private respondent Go? Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution directing the MBC to reconvene and recompute the votes in the Statement of Votes and proclaim the winning candidate.: Facts: The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Gipolos. The Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC resolutions but directed COMELEC to reconvene the MBC or if this is not feasible. He alleged that the COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction over the controversy since it was not yet acted upon by a division of the COMELEC. Eastern Samar and to order it to promptly revise the Statement of Votes based on the election returns from all the precincts of the Municipality and thereafter.R. 1997 G. Eastern Samar proclaimed petitioner Ramirez winner in the vice-mayoralty race over another candidate.

and (3) List of projects and activities. the then Executive Secretary.53 | P a g e KILOSBAYAN vs. COMELEC received from petitioner Kilosbayan a letter informing the former of “two serious violations of election laws. to the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses for the twin purpose of filing an information in court and helping the Judge determine. Oct. shortly before the elections of May 11. 7180. No. allocates a specific amount of government funds for infrastructure and other priority projects and activities. Pursuant to the abovedescribed authority granted him. 128054. 128054 JR. in the course of preliminary inquiry. in effect. 1997 HERMOSISIMA.R. Such an authority was extended to all the Regional Directors of the DILG. in favor of “PYHSDFI” a private entity. the same cannot be justified upon hearsay evidence that is never given any evidentiary or probative value in this jurisdiction. In order to be valid. COMELEC ( G. Respondent Cesar Sarino. 1 of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) under Republic Act No. impartially.” among them that the amount of P70 million was released by the Budget Department. J. granted the abovementioned request of Secretary Sarino. Although only a low quantum and quality of evidence is needed to support a finding of probable cause. enter into..: October 16. thoroughly. No. respondent Tiburcio Relucio. which had reportedly engaged in dirty election tricks and practices in said elections and requesting that these offenses and malpractices be investigated promptly. requested for authority to negotiate. Held: The constitutional and statutory mandate for the Comelec to investigate and prosecute cases of violation of election laws translates. (2) Release of the amount directly to the appropriate implementing agency.” (PYHSDFI). No. 16. sign Memoranda of Agreements with accredited Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to utilize them to implement the projects of the CDF provided for under R. Issue: Based on recommendations by the Comelec Law Department. Facts: Special Provision No. . the Commission en banc dismissed the lettercomplaint for lack of evidence. Respondent Franklin Drilon. without fear of favor. entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with an accredited NGO known as the “Philippine Youth Health and Sports Development Foundation. 1992.R. Inc. 1997 ) G. 1992. on April 24.A. the then DILG Secretary. the use and release of said amount should have the following mandatory requirements: (1) Approval by the President of the Philippines. whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued. 7180.

L-32546 35 SCRA 285 October 17. It should be noted that Section 8(a) of the same law. COMELEC G. Badoy. It is not unconstitutional. No. if not approximate.:p Facts: Anacleto D. The restriction is only one of the measures devised by the law to preserve suffrage pure and undefiled and to achieve the desired equality of chances among all the candidates. was previously upheld to be valid. magazines and periodicals which shall be known as Comelec space. The evident purpose of the limitation is to give the poor candidates a fighting chance in the election. Held: Under Section 12 (F).” Comelec Resolution RR-724. prohibiting political parties from aiding candidates and thus was more restrictive than Section 12(F). The limitation in Section 12(F) is a reasoned and reasonable judgment on the part of Congress. Considering the foregoing limitation in Section 12(F) in the light of the other provisions of RA 6132 designed to maximize. 1970 MAKASIAR. and shall allocate this space equally and impartially among all candidates within the areas in which the newspapers are circulated. avers that he is a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention for the lone district of North Cotabato. Jr. J. Outside of said Comelec space. the moneyed candidate or individual who can afford to pay for advertisements. merely restates the ban in Section 12 (F). paid comment or paid article in furtherance of or in opposition to the candidacy of any person for delegate. comments or articles in favor of his candidacy or against the candidacy of another or which mention his name and the fact of his candidacy. or cause to be printed or published. any advertisement. to exempt him from the penal sanction of the law. He prays that Section 12(F) of RA 6132 be declared unconstitutional as the same denies individuals. and candidates the right to speak and write.54 | P a g e BADOY vs. Issue: Whether the ban in Section 12 (F) is valid or constitutional. it shall be unlawful to print or publish.R. unless all the names of all other candidates in the district in which the candidate is running are also mentioned with equal prominence. their freedom of speech and of the press. equality of chances among the various candidates in the same district. is required to mention all the other candidates in the same district with equal prominence. who are not candidates. as amended. the said restriction on the freedom of expression appears too insignificant to create any appreciable dent on the individual’s liberty of expression. discuss and debate in favor of their candidacies or against the candidacies of others. Section 12 (F) provides that the Comelec “shall endeavor to obtain free space from newspapers. or mentioning the name of any candidate and the fact of his candidacy. .

It made manifest that as of 17 January 1973. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in Javellana.J. It could even be said that there was a need for it. promulgated barely two weeks ago. C. No. the Javellana ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. Since then. The Executive Secretary. With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be obeyed. L-56350 April 2. National Treasurer [GR 56404] G. both members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present Constitution." Such a statement served a useful purpose. As was so convincingly demonstrated by Professors Black and Murphy. this Court stated that it did so by a vote of six to four. The latest case in point is People v. 1981 FERNANDO. Sola.: Facts: The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments. all doubts were resolved. and in force and effect when the Batasang Pambansa resolutions and the present petitions were promulgated and filed. Thereafter. goes further than merely assailing their alleged constitutional infirmity. In the latter case. as a matter of law. The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law. . The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law. In the dispositive portion of Javellana v. In declaring what the law is. also Gonzales vs. dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification. this Court has invariably applied the present Constitution. Commission on Elections [GR 56350. Samuel Occena and Ramon A. there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. the Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. It then concluded: "This being the vote of the majority. at least ten cases may be cited. respectively. During the first year alone of the effectivity of the present Constitution. Issue: Whether the 1973 Constitution was valid. a factor for instability was removed. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices. it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity. the present Constitution came into force and effect. What cannot be too strongly stressed is that the function of judicial review has both a positive and a negative aspect. Held: It is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution.55 | P a g e Occena vs. Gonzales. there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. are suing as taxpayers.R. It served to clear the atmosphere. 2 April 1981]. It is as simple as that.

cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. 127325 March 19.: Facts: Private respondent Atty. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. . therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. No such law has been passed. the IBP. Modernization and Action (PIRMA). which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision. Alexander Padilla. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid. Senator Roco. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid. and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenorsoppositors. 127325 . Issues (2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No.. He based this petition on Article XVII. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago.March 19. J. 1997 DAVIDE.56 | P a g e DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials. Held: The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. not to revision thereof. considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to people’s initiative. and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments. Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon. At thehearing.R.R. JR. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. 1997) G. Jesus Delfin. through People’s Initiative. COMELEC (G. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated. such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. president of People’s Initiative for Reforms. Public Interest Law Center. (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution. is void. Sec. No.

claims that its decision-making deliberations are internal. 2009 BRION.. between him and the respondent Pagdanganan. J. GR 188308. . exercising judicial power. quasi-judicial power) Facts: Petitioner Mendoza asserts that the COMELEC. the COMELEC under our governmental structure is a constitutional administrative agency and its powers are essentially executive in nature (i. Comelec. particularly with respect to election contests. ascertain the facts from these submissions. Held: No.57 | P a g e Mendoza vs Comelec. is quasi-judicial. and in the course of the exercise of its jurisdiction. The COMELECs adjudicative function is quasi-judicial since it is a constitutional body.: Posted by Pius Morados on November 13. conducted proceedings in the election contest within SET premises for the gubernatorial position of the Province of Bulacan. other than a court. quasi-judicial (to exercise original jurisdiction over election contests of regional. provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over election contests of other lower ranking officials). hence. without due regard to his fundamental due process rights of notice and participation. Despite the exercise of discretion that is essentially judicial in character. October 15. Judicial power in our country is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Under these terms. its adjudicative function. and on the basis of all these decides on the merits of the case and renders judgment. confidential and do not require notice to and the participation of the contending parties. it receives evidence. determine the law and the legal rights of the parties. exercised as it is in the course of administration and enforcement. to enforce and administer election laws). vested with authority to decide election contests. 2011 (Admin Law. to hold hearings and exercise discretion of a judicial nature.e. The COMELEC. and quasi-legislative (rulemaking on all questions affecting elections and the promulgation of its rules of procedure). Issue: Whether or not COMELEC has judicial power. COMELEC is not a tribunal within the judicial branch of government and is not a court exercising judicial power in the constitutional sense.

.R. or thumbprint of the Chairman of the BEI. LIBANAN vs. that the absence of the BEI Chairman’s signature at the back of the ballots could not but indicate that the ballots were not those issued to the voters during the elections thus. December 22.: G. What should. 129783. 1997 VITUG. No. to wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark. J.R. be given weight is the consistent rule laid down by the HRET that a ballot is considered valid and genuine for as long as it bears any one of these authenticating marks. provided that it bears any one of these other authenticating marks. the presence of red and blue fibers in the ballots. and (c) in those cases where the COMELEC watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent to the naked eye. After the canvass of the returns was made on 13 May 1995. to wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark. HRET G. the presence of red or blue fibers in the ballots. He averred that the law would require the Chairman of the BEI to authenticate or sign the ballot before issuing it to the voter. instead. It is only when none of these marks appears extant that the ballot can be considered spurious and subject to rejection. the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Eastern Samar proclaimed respondent Ramirez to have been duly elected Representative of the District. Issue: Whether or not the ballots without the BEI Chairman’s signature are valid. indicating that they were spurious and invalid. and (b) in those cases where the COMELEC watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent. No. Held: A ballot without BEI chairman’s signature at the back is valid and not spurious. Petitioner Libanan filed an election protest before the HRET claiming. or (b) the signature or initials. 129783. among other things.58 | P a g e Libanan vs Comelec Case Digest MARCELINO C. December 22. 1997 Facts: Petitioner Marcelino Libanan and private respondent Jose Ramirez were among the candidates for the lone congressional seat of Eastern Samar in the May 1995 elections.

on the ground that under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code private respondent was not qualified because he is a green card holder. Whether or not a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United States. hence.R. 1990 Facts: Private respondent Merito Miguel was elected as municipal mayor of Bolinao.S. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the U. 1990 GRIÑO-AQUINO. . His disqualification. 2. not of Bolinao. a permanent resident of the United States of America.S. J. COMELEC G. his election thereto was null and void.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local election on January 18. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. Issues: 1. No. Held: The Supreme Court held that Miguel’s application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U. hence. 88831 November 8. Pangasinan during the local elections of January 18. however. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U. 1988. prior to the local elections on January 18. was sought by herein petitioner. Mateo Caasi. 1988. the Court’s conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office.A.59 | P a g e CAASI vs. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines.: 191 SCRA 229.S. Whether respondent Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident of or immigrant to the U. 1988.

J.60 | P a g e LABO vs. 1989 CRUZ. He became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive process. COMELEC G. nor does the petitioner claim. It does not appear in the record.R. Labo is still an Australian citizen. that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship. The marriage was declared void in the Australian Federal Court in Sydney on the ground that the marriage had been bigamous. There is no claim or finding that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. 86564 August 1. As a condition for such naturalization. he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of Allegiance. No. renouncing all other allegiance. He was married in the Philippines to an Australian citizen. According to Australian records.: 176 SCRA 1 Facts: Petitioner Ramon Labo. . elected mayor of Baguio City was questioned on his citizenship. simplified in his case because he was married to an Australian citizen. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the Philippines. Held: The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to an Australian national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant.

The same was broadcasted live by 26 TV stations and 248 radio stations nationwide. . the SC cannot compel TV stations and radio stations to give UNIDO free air time as they are not party to this case. To ensure parity and equality. Under the Constitution. the ‘Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be responsible . it does not necessarily follow that he speaks with two voices when he dialogues with the governed. No. 1981.61 | P a g e United Democratic Opposition vs Commission on Elections G. COMELEC issued Resolutions 1467-1469 w/c basically provided that there be equal opportunity. UNIDO must sought contract with these TV stations and radio stations at their own expense. The YES vote was being advanced by KBL – Marcos’ Party. While the NO vote was being advanced by UNIDO. It is the considered view of the SC that when Marcos conducted his ‘pulong-pulong’ or consultation with the people on March 12. UNIDO assailed the denial as a denial of equal protection before the laws. . 1981 BARREDO. HELD: The SC ruled that UNIDO was not denied due process nor were they not afforded equal protection. 56515 April 3. . the BP proposed amendments to the 1973 Constitution. equal time and equal space on media use for campaigns for both sides. he did so in his capacity as President/Prime Minister of the Philippines and not as the head of any political party.R. Further. In instances where the head of state is at the same time the president of the political party that is in power. ISSUE: Whether or not UNIDO was denied equal protection by virtue of COMELEC’s denial of their request.: In 1981. J. COMELEC denied the demand. UNIDO petitioned before the COMELEC that they be granted the same opportunity as Marcos has pursuant to Res’ns 1467-69. On 12 Mar 1981. The president is accorded certain privileges that the opposition may not have. for the program of government and shall determine the guidelines of national policy’. Marcos campaigned for the YES vote via TV and radio from 9:30pm to 11:30pm. The amendments were to be placed to a plebiscite for the people’s approval.