Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
misconduct in elections. While COMELEC The election law has no justification except as a means for
has no jurisdiction over allegations of
election fraud, the courts are empowered assuring a free, honest and orderly expression of their views. It is
to do so. of the essence that corruption and irregularities should not be
permitted to taint the electoral process.
TOLENTINO v. COMELEC NOTICE IS PRESUMED WHEN SPECIAL ELECTION IS FOR
(CARPIO) SENATOR. NOTICE IS CHARGED BY THE STATUTE ITSELF: The
calling of an election, that is, the giving notice of the time and
Resolution No. 84 was passed by Senate place of its occurrence, whether made by the legislature directly
certifying the existence of a vacancy
following the confirmation of Sen. Guingona
or by the body with the duty to give such call, is indispensable to
as the VP of PGMA. The Resolution stated the election’s validity.26 In a general election, where the law fixes
that the 13th place shall be elected for the the date of the election, the election is valid without any call by
vacancy until the end of the vacated term.
the body charged to administer the election.27
Thereafter, COMELEC issued the assailed
resolution which declared HONASAN as In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statute that
elected to serve the unexpired term of
expressly provides that an election to fill a vacancy shall be held
GUINGONA.
at the next general elections fixes the date at which the special
It is not disputed that according to relevant election is to be held and operates as the call for that election.
laws:
Consequently, an election held at the time thus prescribed is not
In case a vacancy arises in Congress at least invalidated by the fact that the body charged by law with the duty
one year before the expiration of the term, of calling the election failed to do so.28 This is because the right
Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645, as amended,
and duty to hold the election emanate from the statute and not
requires COMELEC:
from any call for the election by some authority29 and the law thus
(1) to call a special election by fixing the date charges voters with knowledge of the time and place of the
of the special election, which shall not be
election.30
earlier than sixty (60) days nor later than
ninety (90) after the occurrence of the
vacancy but in case of a vacancy in the Conversely, where the law does not fix the time and place for
Senate, the special election shall be held holding a special election but empowers some authority to fix the
simultaneously with the next succeeding
regular election; and time and place after the happening of a condition precedent, the
statutory provision on the giving of notice is considered
(2) to give notice to the voters of, among mandatory, and failure to do so will render the election a nullity. 31
other things, the office or offices to be voted
for.
PURPOSE AND ROLE OF ELECTIONS: the consistent rule has been
to respect the electorate’s will and let the results of the election
stand, despite irregularities that may have attended the conduct
of the elections.35 This is but to acknowledge the purpose and
role of elections in a democratic society such as ours, which is: to
give the voters a direct participation in the affairs of their
government, either in determining who shall be their public
officials or in deciding some question of public interest; and for
that purpose all of the legal voters should be permitted,
unhampered and unmolested, to cast their ballot.
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
PUNO DISSENTING OPINION RIGHT TO VOTE IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT, ONLY STATUTORY:
IN TOLENTINO v. COMELEC In People v. Corral,[34] we held that (t)he modern conception of
suffrage is that voting is a function of government. The right to
vote is not a natural right but it is a right created by law. Suffrage
is a privilege granted by the State to such persons as are most
likely to exercise it for the public good. The existence of the right
of suffrage is a threshold for the preservation and enjoyment of
all other rights that it ought to be considered as one of the most
sacred parts of the constitution.
SUFFRAGE IS THE PRESERVATIVE OF ALL RIGHTS: The U.S.
Supreme Court recognized in Yick Wo v. Hopkins[38] that voting is
a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all
rights. In Wesberry v. Sanders,[39] the U.S. Supreme Court held
that no right is more precious in a free country than that of
having a voice in the election of those who make the laws, under
which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most
basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Voting
makes government more responsive to community and individual
needs and desires. Especially for those who feel disempowered
and marginalized or that government is not responsive to them,
meaningful access to the ballot box can be one of the few
counterbalances in their arsenal.[40]
ACTUAL NOTICE IS NECESSARY: Actual notice may be proved by
the voting of a significant percentage of the electorate for the
position in the special election or by other acts which manifest
awareness of the holding of a special election such as nomination
of candidates. In the case at bar, however, the number of votes
cast for the special election cannot be determined as the ballot
did not indicate separately the votes for the special election. In
fact, whether or not the electorate had notice of the special
election, a candidate would just the same fall as the 13th placer
because more than twelve candidates ran for the regular
senatorial elections. Nobody was nominated to vie specifically for
the senatorial seat in the special election nor was there a
certificate of candidacy filed for that position. In the absence of
official notice of the time, place and manner of conduct of the
special election, actual notice is a matter of proof. Respondents
and the ponencia cannot point to any proof of actual notice.
I respectfully submit that the electorate should have been
informed of the time, place and manner of conduct of the May
14, 2001 special election for the single senatorial seat . A
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven
years, two Members for five years, and the last Members for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of
the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
Section 2, Art. IX- C: The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers
and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections,
including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment
of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions
which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious
denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their
goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be
refused registration.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion
or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and
nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has
deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to, its directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the conduct
of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
discrepancies is not yet substantial to alter notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting proper
the results.
remedies, is null and void (Ibid.). In fact, as stated, the
After all ballots have been read, 1857 margin Commission on Elections declared the canvass and proclamation,
in favor of Cordero, Purisma called the BOC’s made by respondent provincial board of canvassers, null and void.
attention again. The BOC still denied the
request and proclaimed Cordero. Purisma
filed a petition with COMELEC. COMELEC
declared the canvassing null and void.
3.3 The PROVIDER shall be liable for all its obligations under this
Project and the performance of portions thereof by other persons or
entities not parties to this Contract shall not relieve the PROVIDER of
said obligations and concomitant liabilities.
PUNO CONCURRING It is clear that the COMELEC has not abdicated its constitutional
OPINION IN ROQUE v. and legal mandate to control and supervise the
elections. Smartmatic and TIM are merely service providers or
COMELEC
lessors of goods and services to the Commission. Indeed, Article
6.7 of the Automation Contract, provides that the entire process
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
III. VOTERS
1. QUALIFICATION FOR SUFFRAGE:
ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in
the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at
least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of
the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote
without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under
existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect
the secrecy of the ballot.
2. DISQUALIFICATIONS:
Section 118. Disqualifications, OEC - The following shall be disqualified from voting:
(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for
not less than one year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
granted amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this
paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five years
after service of sentence.
(b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent court or tribunal
of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government
such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any crime
against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance
with law: Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon expiration of
five years after service of sentence.
MACALINTAL v. COMELEC ABSENTEE VOTING: The method of absentee voting has been said
to be completely separable and distinct from the regular system
Macalintal assails the constitutionality of RA of voting, and to be a new and different manner of voting from
9189 or the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003. In particular, it assail Sec. 5 (d) on the that previously known, and an exception to the customary and
ground that it contravenes Sec. 1, Art. V of usual manner of voting. The right of absentee and disabled voters
the PC’s requirement that a voter must be a to cast their ballots at an election is purely statutory; absentee
resident of the Philippines for one year
preceding the election and 6 months in the voting was unknown to, and not recognized at, the common law.
locality where he will vote.
AN ABSENTEE IS STILL A RESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR
SEC. 5 (d): An immigrant or a permanent
resident who is recognized as such in the host PURPOSES OF DOMICILE: Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident
country, unless he/she executes, upon and vice versa; a person cannot be at the same time, both a
registration, an affidavit prepared for the resident and an absentee.30 However, under our election laws
purpose by the Commission declaring that
he/she shall resume actual physical and the countless pronouncements of the Court pertaining to
permanent residence in the Philippines not elections, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the
later than three (3) years from approval of Philippines as residence is considered synonymous with domicile.
his/her registration under this Act. Such
affidavit shall also state that he/she has not
applied for citizenship in another country. RESIDENCE AND DOMICILE IN ELECITION LAW: There is a
Failure to return shall be cause for the difference between domicile and residence. ‘Residence’ is used to
removal of the name of the immigrant or
permanent resident from the National indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary;
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her ‘domicile’ denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when
permanent disqualification to vote in absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a
absentia.
residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not
domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to
remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile
for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous
places of residence. His place of residence is generally his place of
domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily so since no length
of residence without intention of remaining will constitute
domicile.
PEOPLE v. CORRAL RIGHT TO VOTE IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT: The right to vote is
not a natural right but is a right created by law. Suffrage is a
Corral was charged with having voted illegally
while laboring under a legal disqualification
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
(ie sentenced by final judgement of privilege granted by the State to such persons or classes as are
imprisonment not pardoned)
most likely to exercise it for the public good.
V. CANDIDATES
In December 2004 she rushed back to RP due PHRASE “HAVING TO PERFORM AN ACT REFERS TO AN ACT
to his father’s deteriorating condition. FPJ
died. Because of this blow, she and PERSONALLY DONE BY THE CITIZEN: It has been argued that the
Llamanzares decided to move and reside process to determine that the child is a foundling leading to the
permanently in the Philippines. issuance of a foundling certificate under these laws and the
24 May 2005, she came home to the issuance of said certificate are acts to acquire or perfect Philippine
Philippines: citizenship which make the foundling a naturalized Filipino at best.
1. she secured her TIN. This is erroneous. Under Article IV, Section 2 "Natural-born
2. they purchased the condominium unit
3. they enrolled their children in PH Private citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
schools. without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship."
7 July 2006, Petitioner took her oath of
allegiance to RP pursuant to RA 9225 and
filed with BI a petitioner to reacquire 1. In the first place, "having to perform an act" means that the
Philippines citizenship. act must be personally done by the citizen. In this instance, the
October 2010, she was appointed as determination of foundling status is done not by the child but by
Chairman of the MTRCB. July 2012 she took the authorities.121
an Oath of Renunciation of Nationality of the
US. The Certificate of Loss of Nationality was
issued December 2012. 2. Secondly, the object of the process is the determination of the
whereabouts of the parents, not the citizenship of the child.
2 Oct 2012, petitioner filed with COMELEC
her COC for Senator wherein she declared 6
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
years and 6 months as residency prior to the 3. Lastly, the process is certainly not analogous to naturalization
2013 Election.
15 Oct 2015, she filed her COC for Presidency. proceedings to acquire Philippine citizenship, or the election of
In her COC she declared that she is a natural such citizenship by one born of an alien father and a Filipino
born citizen of the Philippines and a resident mother under the 1935 Constitution, which is an act to perfect it.
of 10 years and 11 months counted from 24
May 2005. This triggered the petitions to
have her COC cancelled and denied due REPATRIATION RESULTS IN THE RECOVERY OF ORIGINAL
course (CDDC). NATIONALITY (BENGSON III v. HRET): repatriation results in the
Arguments:
recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized
Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status
On Natural Born Citizenship: as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was
1. A foundling cannot be considered as a
NBFC.
originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine
2. Assuming she was a NBFC, she lost such citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-
status when she was naturalized as US born Filipino.
Citizen. NBFC should be continuous from
birth.
3. The burden of proving NBFC lies with “FROM BIRTH” MEANS “AT THE TIME OF BIRTH” the phrase
petitioner. "from birth" was clarified to mean at the time of birth: "A person
4. Assuming she is qualified to reacquire FC,
she did not reacquire the natural born status.
who at the time of his birth, is a citizen of a particular country, is
a natural-born citizen thereof." Neither is "repatriation" an act to
On Residency Requirement: "acquire or perfect" one's citizenship
1. Poe is bound by her declaration in her 2013
COC declaration.
2. Residency fulfillment should be reckoned UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THERE ARE ONLY TWO TYPES OF
from the date she reacquired her CITIZENSHIP: It is apparent from the enumeration of who are
citizenship—July 2006.
citizens under the present Constitution that there are only two
classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those
who are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not
a naturalized Filipino, ie., did not have to undergo the process of
naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a
natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said
enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing
Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason
therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would either be natural-
born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their
citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the
reacquisition thereof.
MAQUILING v. COMELEC The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to
Maquiling is a candidate for Mayor of one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
Kauswagan against Arnado and Balua.
Maquiling and Balua lost the election while citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of
Arnando won. Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective
position.
The winner, Arnado is a NBFC. He was
naturalized in the US and lost his FC.
Thereafter, he applied for repatriation and When Arnado used his US passport on 14 April 2009, or just eleven
took the Oath of Allegiance on 10 July 2008. days after he renounced his American citizenship, he recanted his
3 April 2009, he took hs Oath of Allegiance Oath of Renunciation36 that he "absolutely and perpetually
and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation. renounce(s) all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA"37 and that he "divest(s) himself of full employment of
30 Nov 2009, he filed his COC. In turn, Balua
filed a petition to disqualify Arnando on the all civil and political rights and privileges of the United States of
ground that he is neither a citizen and a America."38
resident. To prove his allegation, Balua
offered as evidence travel records indicating
Arnando’s use of his US Passport in April and We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using a
July 2009. foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino
citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by
COMELED 1D ruled in favor of the petitioner
and ordered that the Rule on Succession be representing himself as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
applied. COMELEC EB reversed the decision and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such
and ruled that the use of passport does not
operate back to revert to dual allegiance. reversion was not retroactive; it took place the instant Arnado
represented himself as an American citizen by using his US
Synthesis: passport.
1. He was a NBFC.
2. He was naturalized in the US.
3. He repatriated back. As a result, he became RENUNCIATION REQUIREMENT IN DUAL CITIZENS BY BIRTH VIS
a DUAL CITIZEN. A VIS BY NATURALIZATION: category of dual citizenship is that by
4. He took an oath of renunciation of US
citizenship. As a result, he became a FILIPINO
which foreign citizenship is acquired through a positive act of
CITIZEN. applying for naturalization. This is distinct from those considered
5. 11 days after, he used his US passport. This dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not required by law to
is in contravention of his OATH OF
RENUNCIATION. As a result, he reverted back
take the oath of renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate
to DUAL CITIZEN status. of candidacy already carries with it an implied renunciation of
foreign citizenship.39 Dual citizens by naturalization, on the other
hand, are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce
foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public
office.
FRIVALDO v. COMELEC LAW DOES NOT SPECIFY A DATE FROM WHICH CITIZENSHIP IS TO
BE RECKONED WITH: It will be noted that the law does not specify
Frivaldo ran and won with a margin of 20,000 any particular date or time when the candidate must possess
against his closest opponent Lee in the
Gubernatorial election. Prior to this, Lee filed citizenship, unlike that for residence (which must consist of at
a petition praying Frivaldo’s disqualification least one year's residency immediately preceding the day of
for he is not yet a Filipino citizen. election) and age (at least twenty three years of age on election
SC: Frivaldo re-assumed his citizenship on day)
June 30, 1995 -- the very day 32 the term of
office of governor (and other elective PURPOSE OF CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT: Philippine citizenship
officials) began -- he was therefore already
is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective public
qualified to be proclaimed, to hold such
office and to discharge the functions and office, 31 and the purpose of the citizenship qualification is none
responsibilities thereof as of said date. In other than to ensure that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance
short, at that time, he was already qualified
to another nation, shall govern our people and our country or a
to govern his native Sorsogon.
unit of territory thereof
consistent with the purpose for which such law was enacted. So
too, even from a literal (as distinguished from liberal)
construction, it should be noted that Section 39 of the Local
Government Code speaks of "Qualifications" of "ELECTIVE
OFFICIALS", not of candidates. iterally, such qualifications --
unless otherwise expressly conditioned, as in the case of age and
residence -- should thus be possessed when the "elective [or
elected] official" begins to govern, i.e., at the time he is
proclaimed and at the start of his term -- in this case, on June 30,
1995
a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a citizen of both states.
a failure of election. Decision was appealed term has no legal basis to support it; it disregards the second
to COMELEC.
requisite for the application of the disqualification, i.e., that he
COMELEC declared Alvez the real winner by has fully served three consecutive terms. The second sentence of
plurality of votes. (Feb 1998) the constitutional provision under scrutiny states, "Voluntary
1998- Lonzanida filed his COC for the same renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
position. Opponent, Muli filed a petition to considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the
disqualify him on the ground of the 3 TLR. full term for which he was elected. "The clear intent of the framers
COMELEC decided against Lonzanida and of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the three-
counted his purported 3rd term as fully term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the same
served. time respect the people's choice and grant their elected official
full service of a term is evident in this provision. Voluntary
renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the
computation of the three term limit; conversely, involuntary
severance from office for any length of time short of the full term
provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of
service. The petitioner vacated his post a few months before the
next mayoral elections, not by voluntary renunciation but in
compliance with the legal process of writ of execution issued by
the COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary severance from
office is an interruption of continuity of service and thus, the
petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term.
In sum, the petitioner was not the duly elected mayor and that
he did not hold office for the full term; hence, his assumption of
office from 1995 to March 1998 cannot be counted as a term for
purposes of computing the three term limit.
ABUNDO v. COMELEC The period during which Abundo was not serving as mayor
because of a prior declaration in favor of his opponent, should be
2001- Abundo elected Mayor considered as a BREAK IN HIS SERVICE.
2004- Abundo’s opponent initially was
declared the winner. In 2006, Abundo was
declared the real winner.
2007- Abundo elected again
2010- Filed COC for Mayor again.
He ran for the 2010 Presidential election A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former
where he placed second. Subsequently he
filed his COC for the Mayor of Manila. This President Estrada shows that both the principal penalty of
prompted petitioner to file a petition for reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are included in the
disqualification with COMELEC. The pardon. The first sentence refers to the executive clemency
COMELEC 2D and EB dismissed the petition
and MR respectively. extended to former President Estrada who was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion
Petitioner contends that the pardon granted perpetua. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned which
to Estrada was conditioned on the
relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence that followed, which
states that "(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights,"
expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from
the textof the pardon that the accessory penalties of civil
interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were
expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
ARATEA v. COMELEC The conviction of Lonzanida by final judgment, with the penalty
of prisión mayor, disqualifies him perpetually from holding any
public office, or from being elected to any public office. This
perpetual disqualification took effect upon the finality of the
judgment of conviction, before Lonzanida filed his certificate of
candidacy.
MENDOZA v. COMELEC
1995- Hagedorn elected mayor. three years. The clear intent is that interruption "for any length of
1998- Hagedorn elected mayor. Since this
was his 3rd term, he did not run during the time," as long as the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to break an
2001 election. elective local official's continuity of service.
2001- Socrates was elected mayor.
2002- Recall election were conducted.
Hagedorn submitted his COC.
Despite a favorable recommendation from IT IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR COMELEC TO CANCEL
the clarificatory hearing, his name was not
removed from the list of nuisance COC WITHOUT AFFORING A CANDIDATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
candidates. He filed a petition with COMELEC BE HEARD: The determination whether a candidate is eligible for
praying that his name be removed. the position he is seeking involves a determination of fact where
His petition was denied on the ground that it both parties must be allowed to adduce evidence in support of
was already moot since the ballots are their contentions. It should be stressed that it is not sufficient, as
already being printed. the COMELEC claims, that the candidate be notified of the
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
SC: petition is denied for being moot, caveat, Commission’s inquiry into the veracity of the contents of his
see doctrines.
certificate of candidacy, but he must also be allowed to present
his own evidence to prove that he possesses the qualifications for
the office he seeks.46 Respondent commits grave abuse of
discretion if it denies due course to or cancels a certificate of
candidacy without affording the candidate an opportunity to be
heard.
On the other hand, on May 5, 2010, Federico DIFFERENT DEADLINES FOR SUBSTITUTION BASED ON
filed his COC as a substitute for Edna. DIFFERENT GROUNDS ARE VALID: Different deadlines were set
Maligaya filed a petition to DDC the COC of to govern the specific circumstances that would necessitate the
Federico on the ground that the period to file substitution of a candidate due to death, disqualification or
COC for substitute candidates already lapsed withdrawal. In case of death or disqualification, the substitute had
after 14 Dec 2009. until midday of the election day to file the COC. In case of withdrawal,
which is the situation at bench, the substitute should have filed a COC
Edna’s name was retained in the ballots. She by December 14, 2009.
won the election. Thereafter, the votes were
credited to Federico. Maligaya filed a petition
to annul the proclamation of Federico. The reason for the distinction can easily be divined. Unlike death or
COMELEC EB issued the assailed Reso which disqualification, withdrawal is voluntary. Generally, a candidate has
ordered that Maligaya be proclaimed Mayor. sufficient time to ponder on his candidacy and to withdraw while the
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
printing has not yet started. If a candidate withdraws after the printing,
the name of the substitute candidate can no longer be
accommodated in the ballot and a vote for the substitute will just be
wasted.
ENGLE v. COMELEC
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, (a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers
meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar or other written or printed materials of a size
assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting not more than eight and one-half inches in
votes and/or undertaking any campaign or width and fourteen inches in length;
propaganda for or against a candidate;
(b) Handwritten or printed letters urging
(3) Making speeches, announcements or voters to vote for or against any particular
commentaries, or holding interviews for or candidate;
against the election of any candidate for
public office; (c) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters,
whether framed or posted, with an area
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign exceeding two feet by three feet, except
literature or materials designed to support that, at the site and on the occasion of a
or oppose the election of any candidate; or public meeting or rally, or in announcing the
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, holding of said meeting or rally, streamers
pledges or support for or against a not exceeding three feet by eight feet in size,
candidate. shall be allowed: Provided, That said
streamers may not be displayed except one
The foregoing enumerated acts if performed week before the date of the meeting or rally
for the purpose of enhancing the chances of and that it shall be removed within seventy-
aspirants for nomination for candidacy to a two hours after said meeting or rally; or
public office by a political party,
aggroupment, or coalition of parties shall (d) All other forms of election propaganda
not be considered as election campaign or not prohibited by this Code as the
partisan election activity. Commission may authorize after due notice
to all interested parties and hearing where
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
all the interested parties were given an equal projections except telecasts which may be
opportunity to be heard: Provided, That the allowed as hereinafter provided; and
Commission's authorization shall be
published in two newspapers of general (e) For any radio broadcasting or television
circulation throughout the nation for at least station to sell or give free of charge air time
twice within one week after the for campaign and other political purposes
authorization has been granted. except as authorized in this Code under the
rules and regulations promulgated by the
3. PROHIBITED ELECTION PROPAGANDA: Commission pursuant thereto.
Sec. 85. Prohibited forms of election Any prohibited election propaganda gadget
propaganda. - It shall be unlawful: or advertisement shall be stopped,
confiscated or torn down by the
(a) To print, publish, post or distribute any representative of the Commission upon
poster, pamphlet, circular, handbill, or specific authority of the Commission.
printed matter urging voters to vote for or
against any candidate unless they bear the
names and addresses of the printer and 4. PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTION:
payor as required in Section 84 hereof;
ARTICLE XI.
(b) To erect, put up, make use of, attach, ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND
float or display any billboard, tinplate- EXPENDITURES
poster, balloons and the like, of whatever
size, shape, form or kind, advertising for or Sec. 94. Definitions. - As used in this Article:
against any candidate or political party; (a) The term "contribution" includes a gift,
donation, subscription, loan, advance or
(c) To purchase, manufacture, request, deposit of money or anything of value, or a
distribute or accept electoral propaganda contract, promise or agreement to
gadgets, such as pens, lighters, fans of contribute, whether or not legally
whatever nature, flashlights, athletic goods enforceable, made for the purpose of
or materials, wallets, shirts, hats, bandanas, influencing the results of the elections but
matches, cigarettes and the like, except that shall not include services rendered without
campaign supporters accompanying a compensation by individuals volunteering a
candidate shall be allowed to wear hats portion or all of their time in behalf of a
and/or shirts or T-shirts advertising a candidate or political party. It shall also
candidate; include the use of facilities voluntarily
donated by other persons, the money value
(d) To show or display publicly any of which can be assessed based on the rates
advertisement or propaganda for or against prevailing in the area.
any candidate by means of cinematography,
audio-visual units or other screen (b) The term "expenditure" includes the
payment or delivery of money of anything of
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
(a) Public or private financial institutions: (g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service,
Provided, however, That nothing herein shall or members of the Armed Forces of the
prevent the making of any loan to a Philippines; and
candidate or political party by any such
public or private financial institutions legally (h) Foreigners and foreign corporations. It
in the business of lending money, and that shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or
the loan is made in accordance with laws and receive any contribution from any of the
regulations and in the ordinary course of persons or entities enumerated herein.
business;
Sec. 96. Soliciting or receiving contributions
(b) Natural and juridical persons operating a from foreign sources. - It shall be unlawful
public utility or in possession of or exploiting for any person, including a political party or
any natural resources of the nation; public or private entity to solicit or receive,
directly or indirectly, any aid or contribution
(c) Natural and juridical persons who hold of whatever form or nature from any foreign
contracts or sub-contracts to supply the national, government or entity for the
government or any of its divisions, purposes of influencing the results of the
subdivisions or instrumentalities, with goods election.
or services or to perform construction or
other works; Sec. 97. Prohibited raising of funds. - It shall
be unlawful for any person to hold dances,
(d) Natural and juridical persons who have lotteries, cockfights, games, boxing bouts,
been granted franchises, incentives, bingo, beauty contests, entertainments, or
exemptions, allocations or similar privileges cinematographic, theatrical or other
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
performances for the purpose of raising (b) For political parties. - Five pesos
funds for an election campaign or for the (P5.00) for every voter currently
support of any candidate from the registered in the constituency or
commencement of the election period up to constituencies where it has official
and including election day; or for any person candidates.
or organization, whether civic or religious,
directly or indirectly, to solicit and/or accept Any provision of law to the contrary
from any candidate for public office, or from notwithstanding any contribution in cash or
his campaign manager, agent or in kind to any candidate or political party or
representative, or any person acting in their coalition of parties for campaign purposes,
behalf, any gift, food, transportation, duly reported to the Commission shall not be
contribution or donation in cash or in kind subject to the payment of any gift tax.
from the commencement of the election
Section 14. Statement of Contributions and
period up to and including election day;
Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File
Provided, That normal and customary
Statement. - Every candidate and treasurer
religious stipends, tithes, or collections on
of the political party shall, within thirty (30)
Sundays and/or other designated collection
days after the day of the election, file in
days, are excluded from this prohibition.
duplicate with the offices of the Commission
the full, true and itemized statement of all
contributions and expenditures in
5. EXPENDITURES:
connection with the election.
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. Section 9 of the Fair Election Act124 on the posting of campaign
COMELEC materials only mentions "parties" and "candidates":
Petitioners posted tarpaulins with 6x10 ft in Sec. 9. Posting of Campaign Materials. - The COMELEC may
size within the compound of the diocese. The
authorize political parties and party-list groups to erect common
2nd tarpaulin categorized the names into
TEAM PATAY and TEAM BUHAY according to poster areas for their candidates in not more than ten (10) public
their votes to the RH Law. places such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like,
wherein candidates can post, display or exhibit election
The COMELEC City Officer notified the
petitioner to remove the said tarpaulin on propaganda: Provided, That the size ofthe poster areas shall not
the ground that it exceeds the limitation exceed twelve (12) by sixteen (16) feet or its equivalent.
imposed by COMELEC RESO which is 2x3 ft.
Independent candidates with no political parties may likewise be
After some correspondence, the petitioner authorized to erect common poster areas in not more than ten
filed the instant case. (10) public places, the size of which shall not exceed four (4) by six
(6) feet or its equivalent. Candidates may post any lawful
propaganda material in private places with the consent of the
owner thereof, and in public places or property which shall be
allocated equitably and impartially among the candidates.
The regulation must only be with respect to the time, place, and
manner of the rendition of the message. In no situation may the
speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content. For
this purpose, it will not matter whether the speech is made with
or on private property.
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
1 UTAK v. COMELEC SUPERVISORY POWERS OF COMELEC DO NOT EXTEND TO
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS: Notwithstanding the ostensibly
Assailed is RESO 9615 of COMELEC broad supervisory and regulatory powers granted to the
implementing RA 9006 with respect to COMELEC during an election period under Section 4, Article IX-C
posting of campaign materials. The assailed
provision prohibits the posting of campaign
of the Constitution, the Court had previously set out the
materials in public places without the limitations thereon. In Adiong, the Court, while recognizing that
consent of the owner. Public places, the COMELEC has supervisory power vis-à-vis the conduct and
according to the rule, includes PUVs and their
terminals.
manner of elections under Section 4, Article IX-C of the
Constitution, nevertheless held that such supervisory power does
Petitioner contends that the RESO violates not extend to the very freedom of an individual to express his
the right to free speech of the owners. The
fact that they enjoy a franchise, the franchise
preference of candidates in an election by placing election
distinct from the ownership of the PUV and campaign stickers on his vehicle.
terminals, hence they cannot be prohibited
from expressing their views through their
SUPERVISION DOES NOT EXTEND TO OWNERSHIP: The
properties.
COMELEC’s constitutionally delegated powers of supervision and
regulation do not extend to the ownership per se of PUVs and
transport terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to operate
the same.1âwphi1
No. of
Additional No. of votes of additional
seats concerned party seats
for = x allocated
concerned No. of votes of to
party first party the first
party
ANG BAGONG BAYANI v.
COMELEC
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
ROQUE v. COMELEC
CAPALLA v. COMELEC
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
IX. RECALL
X. FAILURE OF ELECTION
signatures and thumbprints in order to The fact that a candidate proclaimed has
determine whether or not the elections had assumed office does not deprive
indeed been free, honest and clean.[27] the Comelec of its authority to annul any
canvass and illegal proclamation.
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
that the intention was merely to prohibit trying to influence and induce his
display with intention to influence exercise constituents to vote for him. This would be
of suffrage. stretching the interpretation of the law too
far. Petitioner deduces from this act of gift-
SC affirmed the conviction. giving that respondent was buying the votes
of the Makati residents.
ELECTION PENAL LAWS ARE MALA
PROHIBITA, INTENT IS IMMATERIAL: the A finding of Vote Buying requires more than
law which the defendant violated is a a mere tenuous deduction to prove the
statutory provision, and the intent with offense of vote-buying. There has to be
which he violated it is immaterial. It may be concrete and direct evidence or, at least,
conceded that the defendant did not intend strong circumstantial evidence to support
to intimidate any elector or to violate the law the charge that respondent was indeed
in any other way, but when he got out of his engaged in vote-buying. We are convinced
automobile and carried his revolver inside of that the evidence presented, as well as the
the fence surrounding the polling place, he facts obtaining in the case at bar, do not
committed the act complained of, and he warrant such finding.
committed it willfully. The act prohibited by
the Election Law was complete. The ONG v. HERRERA- MARTINEZ
intention to intimidate the voters or to
interfere otherwise with the election is not FACTS:
made an essential element of the offense.
Unless such an offender actually makes use Petitioner Ong assails the appointment and
of his revolver, it would be extremely assumption as Councilor by respondent
difficult, if not impossible, to prove that he Herrera. Herrera replaced her deceased
intended to intimidate the voters father who was a member of the Liberal
Party. Ong was appointed by the Party
LOZANO v. YORAC Treasurer, however he was excluded from
the session hall. On the other hand, Herrera
FACTS: complied with the legal formalities prior to
appointment.
Defendant was
Ong seeks to have the appointment annulled
VOTE BUYING REQUIRES CLEAR AND on the ground that it violated the Election
CONVINCING PROOF: No clear and Ban under the OEC.
convincing proof exists to show that
respondent Binay was indeed engaged in SC affirmed the appointment and dismissed
vote buying. The traditional gift-giving of the the petition.
Municipality of Makati during the Christmas
season is not refuted. That it was ELECTION BAN UNDER OEC: Sec. 261 (g) of
implemented by respondent Binay as OIC the Omnibus Election Code provides thus:
Mayor of Makati at that time does not
sufficiently establish that respondent was
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
the COMELEC in accordance with its COMELEC contends that the Regalado ruling
implementing rules and regulations. is explicit that any movement is covered by
the prohibition. Second, COMELEC contends
TRANSFER IS MODIFIED BY WORD that while the order was issued prior to the
WHATEVER: Moreover, §261(h) of B.P. No. election period, they were implemented
881, as amended, provides that it is an during the election period.
election offense for —
SC found that reassignment is covered by the
Any public official who makes or prohibition. However, it found that Aquino
causes any transfer or detail cannot be held liable since the orders were
whatever of any officer or employee made prior to the election period. The law
in the civil service including public punishes the antecedent act and not the
school teachers, within the election effect.
period except upon prior approval of
the Commission. (Emphasis added). ANY MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL IS
COVERED BY OEC PROHIBITION: The terms
As the Solicitor General notes, "the transfer and detail are modified by the term
word transfer or detail, as used [above], is whatever such that "any movement of
modified by the word whatever. This personnel from one station to another,
indicates that any movement of personnel whether or not in the same office or agency,
from one station to another, whether or not during the election period is covered by the
in the same office or agency, during the prohibition
election is covered by the prohibition."
MOVEMENT CAN BE USED FOR
AQUINO v. COMELEC ELECTIONEERING: Any personnel action,
when caused or made during the election
FACTS: period, can be used for electioneering or to
harass subordinates with different political
Aquino, the president of Philhealth, issued persuasions. This possibility – of being used
reassignment orders two days before the for electioneering purposes or to harass
Election Period began. A day after the subordinates – created by any movement of
Election period began, he issued an Advisory personnel during the election period is
pertaining to the orders. This prompted precisely what the transfer ban seeks to
several affected employees to file a prevent.
complaint against him for violation of 261
(h), OEC. COMELEC found it appropriate to PLAUSIBILITY NOT ACTUALITY MATERIAL IN
file the information against petitioner. UNLAWFUL TRANSFERS: Thus, it is
immaterial whether or not the personnel
Petitioner contends that reassignments action has in fact been actually used for
cannot be covered by the prohibition. He electioneering purposes or whether there
also contends that the orders were issued has been any allegation in the complaint to
prior election period, hence not covered. this effect. The mere existence of such
plausibility for electioneering is the reason
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
that animated the legal prohibition against result desired by the antecedent acts, such
any personnel action, including transfers and as the actual or physical act of transferring,
reassignments, during the election period. are no longer the concern of the legal
prohibition.
ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF 261 (H): By its
terms, Section 261(h) provides at once the LAW PUNISHES HIS ACTIVE ACTS,
elements of the offense and its exceptions. CONVERSELY LAW DOES NOT PUNISH HIS
The elements are: PASSIVE ACTS: During this phase of the
entire transfer or reassignment process, the
(1) the making or causing of a government official responsible for issuing the order
official or employee’s transfer or detail plays an active role at its center. The issuing
whatever; of the order are his very acts. Thus, if the
orders are issued prior to the start of the
(2) the making or causing of the transfer or election period, they are automatically
detail whatever was made during the rendered beyond the coverage of the
election period; and prohibition and the issuing official cannot be
held liable for violation of Section 261(h) of
(3) these acts were made without the BP 881. Conversely, if the orders are issued
required prior COMELEC approval. during the election period and without
COMELEC approval, these are covered by the
As this provision operates, the making or prohibition and renders the issuing official
causing of the movement of personnel liable for violation of Section 261(h).
during the election period but without the
required COMELEC approval is covered by COMELEC v. TAGLE
the prohibition and renders the responsible
person liable for the offense. Conversely, the FACTS:
making or causing (of the movement of
personnel) before or after the election period The petition is an offshoot of the case filed
even without the required COMELEC by Bautista against the winning mayor of
approval, or during the election period but Kawit for violation of 261 (b), Vote Buying to
with the required COMELEC approval are not which COMELEC recommended the filing of
covered by the prohibition and do not render appropriate information.
the responsible person liable for this election
offense. Before trial on the Vote Buying Case
commenced, a separate action was filed
LEGAL PROHIBITION APPLIES ONLY TO THE against the witnesses in the Vote Buying
ANTECEDENT ACT: The legal prohibition on Case for the same offense. Prosecutor filed
transfer or detail undoubtedly affects only the cases with RTC Imus. Thereafter,
those acts that go into the making or COMELEC issued a minute resolution finding
causing or to the antecedent acts. Any act the witnesses accused in this case to be
that occurs or is performed after the exempt from prosecution. It filed a motion
antecedent act of making or causing or those to dismiss with RTC Imus, however
acts performed to carry out an event or respondent judge denied the motion on the
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
ground that the witnesses have not 1080 had already executed sworn
performed the overt act of testifying statements attesting to the corrupt practice
required by law yet. of vote-buying in the case docketed as
Criminal Case No. 7034-99. It cannot then be
IMMUNITY MAY BE GRANTED FOR denied that they had already voluntarily
PROSECUTION OF VOTE BUYING/ SELLING: given information in the vote-buying case. In
One of the effective ways of preventing the fact, they willingly testified in Criminal Case
commission of vote-buying and of No. 7034-99 per petitioner’s Memorandum
prosecuting those committing it is the grant filed with this Court
of immunity from criminal liability in favor of
the party whose vote was bought. This grant TAPISPISAN v. COURT OF
of immunity will encourage the recipient or
acceptor to come into the open and APPEALS
denounce the culprit-candidate, and will
FACTS:
ensure the successful prosecution of the
criminal case against the latter. Congress
Petitioner Tapispisan is a public school
saw the wisdom of this proposition, and so
teacher. The controversy began when the
Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646 on Prosecution
Division Superintendent issued a
of Vote-Buying and Vote-Selling concludes
designation order addressed to Rumbaoa
with this paragraph:
and Teves as OIC Head Teacher and OIC
Principal respectively.
REQUISITES TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR
IMMUNITY: The giver, offeror, the promisor
Remotely, in the CA the court ruled that the
as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient
designation cannot be a prohibited act
and conspirator referred to in paragraphs (a)
during the election period.
and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals:
SC dismissed the petition.
Provided, That any person, otherwise guilty
under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives As a corollary, such designation did not
information and willingly testifies on any violate Resolution No. 2731 dated December
violation thereof in any official investigation 5, 1994 of the Commission on Elections,
or proceeding shall be exempt from which declared as a prohibited act the
prosecution and punishment for the transfer of officers and employees in the civil
offenses with reference to which his service during the election period from
information and testimony were given: January 8, 1995 up to June 7, 1995. Transfer
Provided, further, That nothing herein shall is defined as "a movement from one position
exempt such person from criminal to another which is of equivalent rank, level
prosecution for perjury or false testimony. or salary without break in service involving
the issuance of an appointment."21 The
Respondent judge lost sight of the fact that designation of respondents Rumbaoa and
at the time the complaint for vote-selling
Teves did not involve a movement from one
was filed with the Office of the Provincial
position to another. Neither did it involve
Prosecutor, the respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-
the issuance of any appointment to the said
ELECTION LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
positions in their favor. In fact, respondents and legal meanings, transfer and detail must
Rumbaoa and Teves retained their be construed as such.
incumbent positions at the Villamor Air Base
Elementary School. As such, their Obviously, the movement involving Causing
designation could not be considered as a did not equate to either a transfer or a
"transfer" within the meaning of a detail within the contemplation of the law if
prohibited act during the election period. Mayor Biron only thereby physically
transferred her office area from its old
CAUSING v. COMELEC location to the Office of the Mayor "some
little steps" away.34 We cannot accept the
FACTS: petitioner’s argument, therefore, that the
phrase "any transfer or detail whatsoever"
Petitioner Causing is the municipal civil encompassed "any and all kinds and manner
registrar since 1993. In 2010, Mayor Biron of personnel movement,"35 including the
issued a Memo ordering Causing to be mere change in office location.
detailed at the Office of the Mayor, her table
will be provided there.