ELECTION LAW SYLLABUS (2016-17)

I. Election and Suffrage

1.Definition
Suffrage - the right to vote in the election of officers chosen by the people and in the determination of questions submitted to the people. Includes
within its scope: election, plebiscite, initiative and referendum.

Election - the people choose the representatives to whom they will entrust the exercise of powers of government.
1. Regular - is an election participated in by those who possess the right of suffrage and not disqualified by law and who are registered voters
2. Special - is one which is held when there is failure of election on the scheduled date of regular election in a particular place or which is
conducted to fill up certain vacancies, as provided by law

Plebiscite - the people ratify any amendment to or revision of the Constitution and may introduce amendments to the constitution.

Initiative - the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any law or part thereof passed by the
Congress or local legislative body.

Recall - a method of removing a local official from office before the expiration of his term because of loss of confidence.

Referendum – the people can approve or reject a law or an issue of national importance.
- the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local government units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by
the sanggunian.

2. History
3. Readings:
Moya v. Del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199 (1930) It is sufficient to observe, however, in this connection that whatever might have been said in
cases heretofore decided, no technical rule or rules should be permitted to defeat the
WRONG SPELLING RULE. intention of the voter, if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, not from evidence
aliunde. This rule of interpretation goes to the very root of the system. Rationally, also, this
must be the justification for the suggested liberalization of the rules on appreciation of ballots
which are now incorporated in section 144 of the Election Code (Commonwealth Act No. 357).

Badelles v. Cabili, G.R. No.L-29333, 27 February
1969
Election Officers failed to observe election law
thus making illegitimate voters vote
It would follow then that if the grievance relied upon is the widespread irregularities and the
flagrant violations of the election law, the proper remedy is the one availed of here, the
protest. If there be a failure to observe the mandates of the Election Code, the aggrieved
parties should not be left remediless. Under the law as it stands, it is precisely an election
protest that fitly serves that purpose. It was sought to be thus utilized in these two cases,
perhaps in a rather awkward and far from entirely satisfactory manner. Than itself is no reason
for the courts to slam the door against any opportunity for redress. Yet, that is what would
happen if the order of dismissal complained of were not set aside.
 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno in Tolentino Informing the electorate on the issues and conduct of an election is a prerequisite to a free,
v.COMELEC, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. Free elections does not only mean that the
G.R. No. 148334, 21 January 2004, 465 voter is not physically restrained from going to the polling booth, but also that the voter is
unrestrained by the bondage of ignorance. We should be resolute in affirming the right of the
Original Ruling: Valid; Gregorio Honasan validly electorate to proper information. The Court should not forfeit its role as gatekeeper of our
won in the special elections ranking the 13th gihest democratic government run by an informed majority. Let us not open the door to ignorance.
number of votes as the lack of notice to the public
of special elections does not affect the result of
such election

PHIL 385-476

II. Commission on Elections

1. History
2. Composition
- Composed of 1 Chairman, and 6 Commissioners

3. Qualifications
Sec. 54. Qualifications. - Only members of the Philippines Bar shall be eligible for appointment to the position of regional director, assistant
regional director, provincial election supervisor and election registrar: Provided, however, That if there are no members of the Philippine Bar
available for appointment as election registrar, except in cities and capital towns, graduates of duly recognized schools of law, liberal arts,
education or business administration who possess the appropriate civil service eligibility may be appointed to said position.

4. Powers and Functions (1987 Constitution, Omnibus Election Code)

Sec. 52. Powers and functions
of the Commission on
Elections. - In addition to the
powers and functions
conferred upon it by the
Constitution, the Commission
shall have exclusive charge of
the enforcement and
administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of
elections for the purpose of
ensuring free, orderly and
honest elections, and shall:
(a) Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over national and local officials or
employees, including members of any national or local law enforcement agency and
instrumentality of the government required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct
of elections. In addition, it may authorize CMT cadets eighteen years of age and above to act
as its deputies for the purpose of enforcing its orders.
The Commission may relieve any officer or employee referred to in the preceding paragraph
from the performance of his duties relating to electoral processes who violates the election
law or fails to comply with its instructions, orders, decisions or rulings, and appoint his
substitute. Upon recommendation of the Commission, the corresponding proper authority
shall suspend or remove from office any or all of such officers or employees who may, after
due process, be found guilty of such violation or failure.
 (b) During the period of the campaign and ending thirty days thereafter, when in any area of the
country there are persons committing acts of terrorism to influence people to vote for or against
any candidate or political party, the Commission shall have the power to authorize any member
or members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Bureau of Investigation, the
Integrated National Police or any similar agency or instrumentality of the government, except
civilian home defense forces, to act as deputies for the purpose of ensuring the holding of free,
orderly and honest elections.

(c) Promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions of this Code or other laws which
the Commission is required to enforce and administer, and require the payment of legal fees and collect
the same in payment of any business done in the Commission, at rates that it may provide and fix in its
rules and regulations.
Rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission to implement the provisions of this Code shall
take effect on the sixteenth day after publication in the Official Gazette or in at least daily newspapers
of general circulation. Orders and directives issued by the Commission pursuant to said rules and
regulations shall be furnished by personal delivery to accredited political parties within forty-eight
hours of issuance and shall take effect immediately upon receipt.
In case of conflict between rules, regulations, orders or directives of the Commission in the exercise
of its constitutional powers and those issued by any other administrative office or agency of the
government concerning the same matter relative to elections, the former shall prevail.

(d) Summon the parties to a controversy pending before it, issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or hearing before it, and delegate such power to
any officer of the Commission who shall be a member of the Philippine Bar. In case of failure of a
witness to attend, the Commission, upon proof of service of the subpoena to said witnesses, may
issue a warrant to arrest witness and bring him before the Commission or the officer before whom
his attendance is required.
Any controversy submitted to the Commission shall, after compliance with the requirements of
due process, be immediately heard and decided by it within sixty days from submission thereof.
No decision or resolution shall be rendered by the Commission either en banc or by division unless
taken up in a formal session properly convened for the purpose.
The Commission may, when necessary, avail of the assistance of any national or local law
enforcement agency and/or instrumentality of the government to execute under its direct and
immediate supervision any of its final decisions, orders, instructions or rulings.
 (e) Punish contempts provided for in the Rules of Court in the same procedure and with the same
penalties provided therein. Any violation of any final and executory decision, order or ruling of the
Commission shall constitute contempt thereof.

(f) Enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders and instructions which shall have
precedence over those emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court and those
issued in habeas corpus proceedings.

(g) Prescribe the forms to be used in the election, plebiscite or referendum.

(h) Procure any supplies, equipment, materials or services needed for the holding of the election
by public bidding: Provided, That, if it finds the requirements of public bidding impractical to
observe, then by negotiations or sealed bids, and in both cases, the accredited parties shall be duly
notified.

(i) Prescribe the use or adoption of the latest technological and electronic devices, taking into
account the situation prevailing in the area and the funds available for the purpose: Provided, That
the Commission shall notify the authorized representatives of accredited political parties and
candidates in areas affected by the use or adoption of technological and electronic devices not less
than thirty days prior to the effectivity of the use of such devices.

(j) Carry out a continuing and systematic campaign through newspapers of general circulation,
radios and other media forms to educate the public and fully inform the electorate about election
laws, procedures, decisions, and other matters relative to the work and duties of the Commission
and the necessity of clean, free, orderly and honest electoral processes.

(k) Enlist non-partisan group or organizations of citizens from the civic, youth, professional,
educational, business or labor sectors known for their probity, impartiality and integrity with the
membership and capability to undertake a coordinated operation and activity to assist it in the
implementation of the provisions of this Code and the resolutions, orders and instructions of the
Commission for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections in any constituency.
Such groups or organizations shall function under the direct and immediate control and
supervision of the Commission and shall perform the following specific functions and duties:

A. Before Election Day: 1. Undertake an information campaign on salient features of this Code and help in the dissemination of
the orders, decisions and resolutions of the Commission relative to the forthcoming election.

2. Wage a registration drive in their respective areas so that all citizens of voting age, not otherwise
disqualified by law may be registered.
 3. Help cleanse the list of voters of illegal registrants, conduct house-to-house canvass if necessary, and
take the appropriate legal steps towards this end.

4. Report to the Commission violations of the provisions of this Code on the conduct of the political
campaign, election propaganda and electoral expenditures.

B. On Election Day: 1. Exhort all registered voters in their respective areas to go to their polling places and cast their votes.

2. Nominate one watcher for accreditation in each polling place and each place of canvass who shall
have the same duties, functions and rights as the other watchers of political parties and candidates.
Members or units of any citizen group or organization so designated by the Commission except its lone
duly accredited watcher, shall not be allowed to enter any polling place except to vote, and shall, if they
so desire, stay in an area at least fifty meters away from the polling place.

3. Report to the peace authorities and other appropriate agencies all instances of terrorism,
intimidation of voters, and other similar attempts to frustrate the free and orderly casting of votes.

4. Perform such other functions as may be entrusted to such group or organization by the Commission.
The designation of any group or organization made in accordance herewith may be revoked by the
Commission upon notice and hearing whenever by its actuations such group or organization has shown
partiality to any political party or candidate, or has performed acts in excess or in contravention of the
functions and duties herein provided and such others which may be granted by the Commission.

(l) Conduct hearings on controversies pending before it in the cities or provinces upon proper motion
of any party, taking into consideration the materiality and number of witnesses to be presented, the
situation prevailing in the area and the fund available for the purpose.

(m) Fix other reasonable periods for certain pre-election requirements in order that voters shall not be
deprived of their right of suffrage and certain groups of rights granted them in this Code.

Unless indicated in this Code, the Commission is hereby authorized for fix the appropriate period for
the various prohibited acts enumerated herein, consistent with the requirements of free, orderly, and
honest elections.
5. Field Offices
Sec. 53. Field offices of the Commission. - The Commission shall have the following field offices:
A. Regional Election Office, headed by the Regional Election Director and assisted by the Assistant Regional Director and such other subordinate
officers or employees as the Commission may appoint.
B. Provincial Election Office, headed by the Provincial Election Supervisor and assisted by such other subordinate officers or employees as the
Commission may appoint.
C. City/Municipal Election Office, headed by the City/Municipal Registrar who shall be assisted by an election clerk and such other employees as
the Commission may appoint.

The Commission may delegate its powers and functions or order the implementation or enforcement of its orders, rulings, or decisions
through the heads of its field offices.

6. Readings:

The Omnibus Election Code;

Purisima v. Salanga, 15 SCRA 704 (1965)
Interpretation of election laws should give effect to the expressed will of the electorate. Patent
erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the votes stated in the election returns
strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for canvass and proclamation. A comparison with
the other copies, and, in case of discrepancy, a recount, is the only way to remove grave doubts
as to the correctness of said returns as well as of ascertaining that they reflect the will of the
people.
Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911
Roque v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188456, 10
September 2009 (see “ponencia” and separate
concurring opinion of CJ Puno) and 10 February
2010 (Motion for Reconsideration)
Arroyo v. DOJ and Comelec, G.R. No. 199082, 18
September 2012 and 23 July 2013
Constitutionality of DOJ-COMELEC Joint
Committee
the Commission on Elections simply performed a function as authorized by the Constitution,
that is, to "have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections and ... exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by
law." The Commission has the power to decide all administrative questions affecting elections,
except the question involving the right to vote.
It is in this proceedings that the Commission on Elections exercises its supervisory and
administrative power in the enforcement of laws relative to the conduct of elections, by seeing
to it that the canvass is based on the election returns as actually certified by the members of the
board of inspectors. Once the Commission on Elections is convinced that the elections returns in
the hands of the board of canvassers do not constitute the proper basis in ascertaining the true
result of the elections, it should be its concern, nay its duty, to order the taking of such steps as
may be necessary in order that the proper basis for the canvass is obtained or made available.
Sec. 6 of RA 8436 may be broken into three essential parts,
the first partaking of the nature of a general policy declaration: that Comelec is authorized to
automate the entire elections.
The second part states that for the regular national and local elections that shall be held in May
2007, Comelec shall use the AES, with an option, however, to undertake automation, regardless
of the technology to be selected, in a limited area or, to be more precise, in at least two highly
urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to be chosen by the
Comelec.
the last part, phrased sans reference to the May 2007 elections, commands thus: [I]nsucceeding
regular national or local elections, the [automated election system] shall be implemented.
Taken in its proper context, the last part is indicative of the legislative intent for the May 2010
electoral exercise to be fully automated, regardless of whether or not pilot testing was run in
the 2007 polls.
the Comelec is granted the power to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute cases of
election offenses. This is necessary in ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections. On the other hand, the DOJ is mandated to administer the criminal justice system in
accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the investigation of the crimes,
prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional system. Undoubtedly, it is the
Constitution, statutes, and the Rules of Court and not the assailed Joint Order which give the
DOJ and the Comelec the power to conduct preliminary investigation. No new power is given to
them by virtue of the assailed order. As to the members of the Joint Committee and Fact-
Finding Team, they perform such functions that they already perform by virtue of their current
positions as prosecutors of the DOJ and legal officers of the Comelec. Thus, in no way can we
consider the Joint Committee as a new public office.
 Ongsioko Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, 25
June 2013 and 22 October 2013
Requisites for HRET to Acquire Jusrisdiction:
The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his
oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and
the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
From the foregoing, it is then clear that to be considered a Member of the House of
Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the following requisites:
(1) a valid proclamation,
(2) a proper oath, and
(3) assumption of office.
Here, the petitioner cannot be considered a Member of the House of Representatives
because, primarily, she has not yet assumed office. To repeat what has earlier been said, the
term of office of a Member of the House of Representatives begins only "at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election." Thus, until such time, the COMELEC retains
jurisdiction.

III. Voters

1. Qualifications for suffrage

- “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
[Sec. 1, Art. V, Constitution].

2. Disqualifications
A. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year (unless granted a plenary pardon or an
amnesty); but right is reacquired upon the expiration of 5 years after service of sentence.
B. Any person adjudged by final judgment of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the government or any crime against national
security (unless restored to full civil and political rights in accordance with law); but right is reacquired upon the expiration of 5 years
after service of sentence.
C. Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.

3. Local Absentee Voters

4. Overseas Absentee Voters

A. QUALIFIED All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise
disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the day of
elections, may vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-
list representatives. (Sec. 4 R.A. 9189)
B. DISQUALIFIED Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with
Philippine laws;

2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and

who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country;

3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by

a court or tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less
than one (1) year, including those who have committed and been found
guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal
Code, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty; Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote
under this subsection shall automatically acquire the right to vote upon
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Provided, further,
That the Commission may take cognizance of final judgments issued by
foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject
to the formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on
execution of judgments;

An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the

host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit
prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she
shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not
later than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under
this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the cause for
the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from
the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia.

5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or

incompetent by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as
verified by the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign service
establishments concerned, unless such competent authority
subsequently certifies that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent. (Section 5. R.A. 9189)
5. Detainee, PWDs, IPs, Media
- The application for registration of a physically disabled person may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the applicant
[Sec. 14, R.A. 8189]

6. Readings:

The Omnibus Election Code (Sec. 118)

E.O. No. 157 (Local Absentee Voting Law)

R.A. No. 7166 (Sec. 12)

RA No. 10380 (Local Absentee Voting for Media)

R.A. No. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), as amended R.A. No. 10590 (The OverseasVoting Act of 2013.)

Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013,
July 10, 2003
Absentee Voting Act. Issue: Residency.
The qualified Filipino abroad who executed an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile
in the Philippines and presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this
country. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 does not only require the promise to resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of registration but
it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a green card holder, a temporary visitor or even
on business trip, must declare that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country.
Thus, he/she must return to the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met according to
RA No. 9189.

People v. Corral, 62 Phil. 945 (1936)
The right of the State to deprive persons to the right of suffrage by reason of their having been
convicted of crime, is beyond question. "The manifest purpose of such restrictions upon this
right is to preserve the purity of elections. The presumption is that one rendered infamous by
conviction of felony, or other base offense indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit to exercise the
privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The exclusion must for this reason be adjudged a mere
disqualification, imposed for protection and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege
and not the denial of a personal right.
IV. Registration of Voters
- In order that a qualified elector may vote in any election, plebiscite or referendum, he must be registered in the Permanent List of
Voters for the city or municipality in which he resides [Sec. 115, BP 881]

1. Qualification of Voters
A. Filipino Citizen
B. Age of majority at the date of the election
C. Residency: 1 year in the Philippines, 6 months in the locality he’s registered
D. Non of the disqualifications

2. Disqualifications
- The same grounds as the disqualifications for suffrage.

3. Election Registration Board

- The Board shall be composed of the Election Officer as chairman, and as members, the public school official most senior in rank and
the local civil registrar, or in his absence, the city or municipal treasurer. No member of the Board shall be related to each other or to
any incumbent city or municipal elective official within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. Every registered party and
such organizations as may be authorized by the Commission shall be entitled to a watcher in every registration board.

4. Deactivation, Reactivation, Cancellation

Sec. 123. Cancellation and exclusion in the transfer of names. - In transferring the names of the voters of the precinct from the list used in the
preceding election to the current list, the board shall exclude those who have applied for the cancellation of their registration, those who have
died, those who did not vote in the immediately preceding two successive regular elections, those who have been excluded by court orders issued
in accordance with the provisions of this Code, and those who have been disqualified, upon motion of any member of the board or of any elector
or watcher, upon satisfactory proof to the board and upon summons to the voter in cases of disqualification. The motion shall be decided by the
board without delay and in no case beyond three days from its filing. Should the board deny the motion, or fail to act thereon within the period
herein fixed, the interested party may apply for such exclusion to the municipal or metropolitan trial court which shall decide the petition without
delay and in no case beyond three days from the date the petition is filed. The decision of the court shall be final. The poll clerk shall keep a
record of these exclusions and shall furnish three copies thereof to the election registrar who shall, in turn keep one copy and send the two other
copies thereof to the provincial election supervisor and the Commission, to be attached by them to the permanent list under their custody.

5. Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings ; Jurisdiction

Proceedings:
a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be filed during office hours.
b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served upon the members of the Board and the challenged voter upon
filing of the petition.
c) A petition shall refer only to one precinct and shall implead the Board as respondents.
d) No costs shall be assessed agaipst any party in these proceedings. However, if the court finds that the application has been filed solely to harass
the adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses.
e) Any voter, candidate or political party affected by the proceedings may intervene and present his evidence.
f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered upon a stipulation of facts. If the question is whether or not
the voter is real or fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima facie evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious.
g) The petition shall be heard and decided within 10 days from the date of its filing. Cases appealed to the RTC shall be decided within 10 days
from receipt of the appbal. In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not later than 15 days before the election and the decision shall
become final and executory.
Jurisdiction:
- MTC
- Appealable to RTC
6. Readings: Omnibus Election Code
R.A. No. 8189 (The Voters Registration Act of 1996)
Yra v. Abano, G.R. No. 30187, 15 November 1928
Qualified Elector = Voter, not Candidate
Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, 26
March 2001
Kabataan Party-list v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221318, 16
December 2015
NoBio-NoBoto
The Election Law, as amended, in section 404 provides that "No person shall be eligible .
. . for any elective . . . municipal office unless, within the time fixed by law, he shall file a
duly sworn certificate of candidacy. Said certificate shall declare . . . that he is a resident
of the . . . municipality, . . . in which his candidacy is offered; that he is a duly qualified
elector therein, and that he is eligible to the office."
It should not be forgotten that the people of Meycauayan have spoken and their choice
to be their local chief executive is the respondent. The will of the electorate should be
respected
a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum
requirements set by the fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present,
under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the Voters
Registration Act of 1996.
Stated differently, 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. Thus, contrary to petitioners argument, registration
cannot and should not be denigrated to the lowly stature of a mere statutory
requirement.
The Court held that biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the
right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has
the right to reasonably regulate.
Thus, unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a
literacy, property or other substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of
the Constitution -that is, one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is
bereft of any rational basis to a person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to
further the public good -the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this
case.
V. Candidates
1. Qualifications
Qualification for Philippine
President and Vice-President: (63
OEC)
Qualifications for Philippine
Senators:
Qualification for Philippine
Congressmen (District
Representative):
Qualification for Philippine Party-
List Representative (Sectoral
representative):
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. registered voter
3. able to read and write
4. at least 40 years of age on the day of election
5. resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election.
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. at least 35 years old on the day of the election
3. able to read and write
4. registered voter
5. resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of the
election
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. on the day of the election at least 25 years old
3. able to read and write
4. registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected
5. resident thereof a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election.
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. able to read and write
3. registered voter
4. resident of the Philippines for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceeding the day
of the election
5. bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent
6. on the day of the election is at least 25 years old BUT in case of youth sectoral
representative, at least 25 years and not more than 30 years old at the day of the election
 Qualifications for Philippine Local
Officials:
2. Disqualifications
OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Sec. 12. Disqualifications. –
1. citizen of the Philippines
2. on the day of election at least 23 years old for Governor, Vice-Governor, member of
sangguniang panlalawigan, mayor, vice-mayor, sangguniang panglungsond in highly urbanized
cities; while at least 21 years old for the said officials in component cities and municipalities; at
least 18 years old for members of the sangguniang panglungsod, sangguniang bayan and
sangguniang barangay and punong barangay; at least 15 years old and not more than 21 years
of age for Sangguniang kabataan.
3. able to read and write FIlioini or any other local language or dialect
4. registered voter in the constituency in the locality
5. resident thereof for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election
1. Any person who has been declared by competent
authority insane or incompetent,
2. or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion
3. orfor any offense for which he has been sentenced to a
penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude,
- shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any
office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or
granted amnesty.
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified
from running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judg ment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same
right after the effectivity of this Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.

3. Certificate of Candidacy

4. Nuisance Candidate
Sec. 69. Nuisance candidates. - The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that:
1. said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or
2. to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or
Poe-Llamanzares v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not provide that
Nos.
221697 & 221698-700,
08 March 2016
Maquiling v. Comelec (G.R.
No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
Arnado v. Comelec, G.R. No.
210164, 18 August 2015
FOUNDLING ISSUE
adoption confers citizenship upon the adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the first place to be
adopted. The most basic of such laws is Article 15 of the Civil Code sum, all of the international law conventions and
instruments on the matter of nationality of foundlings were designed to address the plight of a defenseless class
which suffers from a misfortune not of their own making. We cannot be restrictive as to their application if we are
a country, which calls itself civilized, and a member of the community of nations.
RESIDENCY ISSUE
the COMELEC refused to consider that petitioner's domicile had been timely changed as of 24 May 2005. In this
connection, the COMELEC also took it against petitioner that she had entered the Philippines visa-free as a
balikbayan. Balikbayans are not ordinary transients. The COMELEC, by its own admission, disregarded the evidence
that petitioner actually and physically returned here on 24 May 2005 not because it was false, but only because
COMELEC took the position that domicile could be established only from petitioner's repatriation under R.A. No.
9225 in July 2006. However, it does not take away the fact that in reality, petitioner had returned from the U.S. and
was here to stay permanently, on 24 May 2005.
COMELEC’s JURISDICTION
The prior determination of qualification may be by statute, by executive order or by a judgment of a competent
court or tribunal.
Article IX-C, Sec 2 of the Constitution provides for the powers and functions of the COMELEC, and deciding
on the qualifications or lack thereof of a candidate is not one among them.
Clearly, the amendment done in 2012 is an acceptance of the reality of absence of an authorized proceeding for
determining before election the qualifications of candidate. Such that, as presently required, to disqualify a
candidate there must be a declaration by a final judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought to be
disqualified "is guilty of or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the
Constitution."
Arnado failed to comply with the second requisite of Section 5 (2) of RA 9225 on April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when he used his US passport after executing said affidavit. Consequently, at
the time he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, Arnado had yet to comply
with said second requirement. The Comelec also noted that while Arnado submitted an affidavit dated May 9, 2013,
affirming his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation, the same would not suffice for having been belatedly executed.
while in this case Arnado won by landslide majority during the 2013 elections, garnering 84% of the total votes cast,
the same "cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for qualifications and disqualifications."
Caballero v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 209835,
22 September 2015
Frivaldo v. Comelec, G.R. No.
120295, 28 June 1996
Mercado v. Manzano, G.R.
No. 135083, 26 May 1999
Villaber v. COMELEC, G.R. No. “moral turpitude,” have consistently adopted the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary as “an act of baseness,
148326, 15 November 2001
RA 9225 does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor
does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the
concerned natural-born Filipino.
RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. This is only logical and consistent with the general intent
of the law to allow for dual citizenship. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and
foreign citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is also
a citizen.
(P.D. 725) which is to be given retroactive effect, but even the repatriation granted under said law to Frivaldo on
June 30, 1995 is to be deemed to have retroacted to the date of his application therefor, August 17, 1994. The reason
for this is simply that if, as in this case, it was the intent of the legislative authority that the law should apply to
past events i.e., situations and transactions existing even before the law came into being in order to benefit the
greatest number of former Filipinos possible thereby enabling them to enjoy and exercise the constitutionally
guaranteed right of citizenship, and such legislative intention is to be given the fullest effect and expression,
then there is all the more reason to have the law apply in a retroactive or retrospective manner to situations, events
and transactions subsequent to the passage of such law.
ISSUE OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP there was a valid election of citizenship.
It should suffice that upon filing of certificates for candidacy, such persons with dual citizenship have elected their
Philippine citizenship to terminate their dual citizenship. In private respondent’s certificate of candidacy, he made
these statements under oath on March 27, 1998: “I am a Filipino citizen…Natural-born”. “I am not a permanent
resident of, or immigrant to, a foreign country.” “I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will support and
defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto…”The filing of such
certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he
might have as a dual-citizen.
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.”
a conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 “imports deceit” and “certainly relates to and affects the good moral
character of a person….”Thus, paraphrasing Black’s definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately
reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary
rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals.
In fine, we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent COMELEC in issuing the assailed Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Lonzanida v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 135150, 28 July 1999
Abundo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. Same same same
201716, 08 January
2013
Marquez v. COMELEC, 243
SCRA 538
Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 192221, 13 November
2012
Atty. Risos-Vidal v. Comelec
and Estrada, G.R. No.
206666, January 21, 2015)
1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and
2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.
First, the petitioner cannot be considered as having been duly elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and
second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of
office. After a re-appreciation and revision of the contested ballots the COMELEC itself declared by final judgment
that petitioner Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections and his previous proclamation as winner was
declared null and void. His assumption of office as mayor cannot be deemed to have been by reason of a valid
election but by reason of a void proclamation.
Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, to the extent that it
confines the term "fugitive from justice" to refer only to a person (the fugitive) "who has been convicted by final
judgment." is an inordinate and undue circumscription of the law.
Unfortunately, the COMELEC did not make any definite finding on whether or not, in fact, private respondent is a
"fugitive from justice" as such term must be interpreted and applied in the light of the Court's opinion. The omission
is understandable since the COMELEC dismissed outrightly the petition for quo warranto on the basis instead of Rule
73 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Oversight Committee.
NUISSANCE CANDIDATE (SIMILAR LAST NAME)
As far as COMELEC is concerned, the confusion caused by similarity of surnames of candidates for the same position
and putting the electoral process in mockery or disrepute, had already been rectified by the new voting system
where the voter simply shades the oval corresponding to the name of their chosen candidate. However, as shown
in this case, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010, nine days before the elections, with sufficient
time to delete the names of disqualified candidates not just from the Certified List of Candidates but also from the
Official Ballot.
The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots on
election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the automated voting system especially considering
that voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide
candidate they intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots to correct the same.
YES. Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and political rights,
which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of
the pardon extended to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is likewise
unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
Aratea vs. COMELEC, 683 We hold that Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed Mayor because Lonzanida’s certificate of
SCRA 1 (2012) candidacy was void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was never a candidate at all. All votes for Lonzanida were stray
votes. Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest number of votes for the position
of Mayor.
Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, 683 The perpetual special disqualification against Jalosjos arising from his criminal conviction by final judgment is a
SCRA 1 (2012) material fact involving eligibility which is a proper ground for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code. Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy was void from the start since he was not eligible to run for any public office
at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. Jalosjos was never a candidate at any time, and all votes for Jalosjos
were stray votes. As a result of Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy being void ab initio, Cardino, as the only qualified
candidate, actually garnered the highest number of votes for the position of Mayor.

Quinto vs. COMELEC, 606 In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their
SCRA 258, December 1, CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly
discriminates against the first class.
2009 the provision pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction as to whether they occupy
high positions in government or not. Certainly, a utility worker in the government will also be considered as ipso
facto resigned once he files his CoC for the 2010 elections.

Quinto vs. COMELEC, 613 2009 Ruling is INVALID!

SCRA 385, Feb. 22, 2010 Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office
by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed
therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their
designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity
and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
By repealing Section 67 but retaining Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, the legislators deemed it
proper to treat these two classes of officials differently with respect to the effect on their tenure in the office of the
filing of the certificates of candidacy for any position other than those occupied by them. Again, it is not within the
power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this classification.

Mendoza vs. COMELEC, G.R. The failure of the COMELEC En Banc to muster the required majority vote even after the 15 February 2010 re-hearing
No. 191084, March 25, should have caused the dismissal of respondents Election Protest. Promulgated on 15 February 1993 pursuant to
Section 6, Article IX-A and Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is clear on this
2010 matter.Without any trace of ambiguity, Section 6, Rule 18 of said Rule categorically provides as follows:

Socrates vs. COMELEC, 391

SCRA 457, Nov. 12, 2002
Pamatong v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 161872,
April 13, 2004
Timbol v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 206004
(Resolution), [February 24,
2015])
Rulloda v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 154198,
[January 20, 2003], 443 PHIL
649-656
Federico v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 199612,
[January 22, 2013], 702 PHIL
68-92
No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed
by law. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing
in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
In election cases, due process requirements are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
Ø COMELEC declared Timbol a nuisance candidate without giving him a chance to explain his bona fide intention
to run for office. It issued Resolution No. 9610 when Timbol appeared before Valencia in a clarificatory hearing.
This was an ineffective opportunity to be heard.
GEN RULE: SUBSTITUTION OF IND. CANDIDATE IS NOT ALLOWED
EXEMPTION: SUBSTITUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO BRGY OFFICIAL
The absence of a specific provision governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections can not be inferred as
a prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where the same
is not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow the substitution of candidates where no political parties are
involved than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law.
The substitute for a candidate who died or suffered permanent incapacity or disqualified by final judgment, may file
his certificate of candidacy up to mid-day of election day. If the death or permanent disability should occur between
the day before the election and mid-day of election day, the substitute candidate may file the certificate with any
board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or in the case of a candidate for
President, Vice-President or Senator, with the Law Department of the Commission on Elections in Manila.
The rule being cited by the Law Department that the substitute for a candidate who withdrew may file his certificate
of candidacy as herein provided for the office affected not later than December 14, 2009, is far from germane
considering that the vacancy arose by reason of the death of Governor Sanchez. (LATE SUBSTITUTION RULE)
Without question, the votes garnered by Edna could not be credited to Federico as he was never a legitimate
candidate. As there was an invalid substitution, there could not be a valid proclamation. In effect, the second COCVP
in his name had no legal basis. Granting that those who voted for Edna had in mind to vote for Federico, nonetheless,
the fact that there was no compliance with the rules cannot be ignored.
 Engle v. Commission on LATE RESOLUTION BY THE COMELEC POLPAR MEMBERS APPLICABLE TO ALL, MAY BE SUBSTITUTED EVEN IF
Elections, G.R. No. 215995, INDEPENDENT

[January 19, 2016] COMELEC En Banc rendered a formal ruling on their status as independent candidates, months before the election,
such that the Liberal Party was officially notified that its candidates in Camiguin can no longer be substituted in the
event of their death, withdrawal or disqualification. Thus, the mandatory application of the rules was justified. In
petitioner's case, no official pronouncement was made by the COMELEC regarding her husband's status as an
independent candidate and the validity of her filing a COC as his substitute until July 5, 2013, long after the elections
were held. Indeed, it behooved the COMELEC to similarly resolve petitioner's case prior to the elections had it
wanted to treat all political parties equally.
3. by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the
certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

RA No. 10742 aka Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2015

VI. Campaign, Election Propaganda, etc.

1. Concept, Campaign

An act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to public office. Public expressions or opinions or
discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election or on attributes of or criticism against probable candidates proposed to be nominated
in a forthcoming political party convention shall not be construed as part ofany election campaign or partisan political activity

2. Campaign Period; Election Period (SEC 3 OEB)

Sec. 3. Election and campaign periods. - Unless otherwise fixed in special cases by the Commission on Elections, which hereinafter
shall be referred to as the Commission, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of the election and shall
end thirty days thereafter.
The period of campaign shall be as follows:
1. Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election - 90 days;
2. Election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa and Local Election - 45 days; and
3. Barangay Election - 15 days.
The campaign periods shall not include the day before and the day of the election.
However, in case of special elections under Article VIII, Section 5, Subsection (2) of the Constitution, the campaign period shall be
forty-five days.

3. Lawful election propaganda (4)

 Sec. 82. Lawful election propaganda. - Lawful election propaganda shall include
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials of a size not more than eight and one-half
inches in width and fourteen inches in length;
(b) Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any particular candidate;
(c) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an area exceeding two feet by three feet, except that, at
the site and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of said meeting or rally, streamers not
exceeding three feet by eight feet in size, shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may not be displayed except one week
before the date of the meeting or rally and that it shall be removed within seventy-two hours after said meeting or rally; or
(d) All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by this Code as the Commission may authorize after due notice to all
interested parties and hearing where all the interested parties were given an equal opportunity to be heard: Provided, That the
Commission's authorization shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation throughout the nation for at least twice
within one week after the authorization has been granted.

4. Prohibited election propaganda (4)

Sec. 85. Prohibited forms of election propaganda. - It shall be unlawful:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) To print, publish, post or distribute any poster, pamphlet, circular, handbill, or printed matter urging voters to vote for or
against any candidate unless they bear the names and addresses of the printer and payor as required in Section 84 hereof;
(b) To erect, put up, make use of, attach, float or display any billboard, tinplate-poster, balloons and the like, of whatever size,
shape, form or kind, advertising for or against any candidate or political party;
(c) To purchase, manufacture, request, distribute or accept electoral propaganda gadgets, such as pens, lighters, fans of whatever
nature, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, shirts, hats, bandanas, matches, cigarettes and the like, except that
campaign supporters accompanying a candidate shall be allowed to wear hats and/or shirts or T-shirts advertising a candidate;
(d) To show or display publicly any advertisement or propaganda for or against any candidate by means of cinematography, audio-
visual units or other screen projections except telecasts which may be allowed as hereinafter provided; and
(e) For any radio broadcasting or television station to sell or give free of charge air time for campaign and other political purposes
except as authorized in this Code under the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Any prohibited election propaganda gadget or advertisement shall be stopped, confiscated or torn down by the representative of
the Commission upon specific authority of the Commission.

5. Prohibited contributions (8)

Sec. 95. Prohibited contributions. - No contribution for purposes of partisan political activity shall be made directly or indirectly
by any of the following:
(a) Public or private financial institutions: Provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the making of any loan to a
candidate or political party by any such public or private financial institutions legally in the business of lending money, and that
the loan is made in accordance with laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business;
(b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public utility or in possession of or exploiting any natural resources of the nation;
(c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contracts or sub-contracts to supply the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions
or instrumentalities, with goods or services or to perform construction or other works;
 (d) Natural and juridical persons who have been granted franchises, incentives, exemptions, allocations or similar privileges or
concessions by the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
(e) Natural and juridical persons who, within one year prior to the date of the election, have been granted loans or other
accommodations in excess of P100,000 by the government or any of its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities including
government-owned or controlled corporations;
(f) Educational institutions which have received grants of public funds amounting to no less than P100,000.00;
(g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; and
(h) Foreigners and foreign corporations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution from any of the persons or entities enumerated herein.
Sec. 96. Soliciting or receiving contributions from foreign sources. - It shall be unlawful for any person, including a political party
or public or private entity to solicit or receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or contribution of whatever form or nature from any
foreign national, government or entity for the purposes of influencing the results of the election.

6. Lawful expenditures; Limitations on Expenses

Sec. 101. Limitations upon expenses of political parties. - A duly accredited political party may spend for the election of
its candidates in the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates an aggregate amount not exceeding the
equivalent of one peso and fifty centavos for every voter currently registered therein. Expenses incurred by branches,
chapters, or committees of such political party shall be included in the computation of the total expenditures of the political
party.
Expenses incurred by other political parties shall be considered as expenses of their respective individual candidates and
subject to limitation under Section 100 of this Code.
Sec. 102. Lawful expenditures. - To carry out the objectives of the preceding sections, no candidate or treasurer of a political
party shall, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure except for the following purposes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) For travelling expenses of the candidates and campaign personnel in the course of the campaign and for personal expenses
incident thereto;
(b) For compensation of campaigners, clerks, stenographers, messengers, and other persons actually employed in the
campaign;
(c) For telegraph and telephone tolls, postage, freight and express delivery charges;
(d) For stationery, printing and distribution of printed matters relative to candidacy;
(e) For employment of watchers at the polls;
(f) For rent, maintenance and furnishing of campaign headquarters, office or place of meetings;
(g) For political meetings and rallies and the use of sound systems, lights and decorations during said meetings and rallies;
(h) For newspaper, radio, television and other public advertisements;
(i) For employment of counsel, the cost of which shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses
which a candidate or political party may have incurred under Section 100 and 101 hereof;
(j) For copying and classifying list of voters, investigating and challenging the right to vote of persons registered in the lists
the costs of which shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political
party may have incurred under Sections 100 and 101 hereof; or
(k) For printing sample ballots in such color, size and maximum number as may be authorized by the Commission and the
cost of such printing shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political
party may have incurred under Sections 100 and 101 hereof.
7. Statement of Contributions and Expenses
8. Readings: Fair Elections Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9006)
R.A. No. 7166, Secs. 13 & 14
Chavez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162777, 31 August
2007
ENDORSMENT
petitioner cannot claim that the subject billboards are purely product endorsements and do not
announce nor solicit any support for his candidacy. Under the Omnibus Election Code, election
campaign or partisan political activity is defined as an act designed to promote the election.
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
(underscoring ours)
When he filed his certificate of candidacy for Senator, the billboards featuring his name and
image assumed partisan political character because the same indirectly promoted his candidacy.
Therefore, the COMELEC was acting well within its scope of powers when it required petitioner
to discontinue the display of the subject billboards. If the subject billboards were to be allowed,
to the disadvantage of other candidates who do not have the same chance of lending their faces
and names to endorse popular commercial products as image models. This, without a doubt,
would be a circumvention of the rule against premature campaigning.
Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181614, 11
September
2009 and 25 November 2009
PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING
a candidate may already be liable for premature campaigning after the filing of the certificate of
candidacy but even before the start of the campaign period. From the filing of the certificate of
candidacy, even long before the start of the campaign period, the Decision considers the partisan
political acts of a person so filing a certificate of candidacy "as the promotion of his/her election
as a candidate." Thus, such person can be disqualified for premature campaigning for acts done
before the start of the campaign period.
In short, the Decision considers a person who files a certificate of candidacy already a "candidate"
even before the start of the campaign period.
The assailed Decision is contrary to the clear intent and letter of the law.
The essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person
engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity; (2) the act is designed to promote
the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; (3) the act is done outside the
campaign period.
The second element requires the existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate is
one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an elective public office. Unless one has filed his
certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The third element requires that the campaign
period has not started when the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed.
PENERA DOCTRINE
. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy
this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign
period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by
a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period.
In ruling that Penera is liable for premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start
of the campaigning, the assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.
SWS v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147571, 05 May 2001 To implement 5.4, Resolution 3636, 24(h), dated March 1, 2001, of the COMELEC enjoins
Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an election
and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an election.

5.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a
direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only
for a limited period, and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved
by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression.

GMA Network Inc. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, “aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and
02 September 2014 constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out and communicate with the
people. “Freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press are at the core of civil liberties and
have to be protected at all costs for the sake of democracy.

We refuse to believe that the advertising contracts between ABSCBN Corporation and Scenema
Emilio Ramon “E.R.” P. Ejercito v. Comelec, G.R. Concept International, Inc. were executed without Ejercito’s knowledge and consent. As found
No. by the COMELEC First Division, the advertising contracts submitted in evidence by San Luis as
well as those in legal custody of the COMELEC belie his hollow assertion. His express conformity
212398, 25 November 2014 to the advertising contracts is actually a must because noncompliance is considered as an
election offense.

The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the candidate’s allowable limit of
election expenses does not trample upon the free exercise of the voters’ rights of speech and of
expression under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution. As a content-neutral regulation, the
law’s concern is not to curtail the message or content of the advertisement promoting a
particular candidate but to ensure equality between and among aspirants with "deep pockets"
and those with less financial resources
 The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political consequences enjoys a high degree of
The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, G.R. No. protection.
205728,
Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election propaganda, being
21 January 2015 petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted against the RH Law and rejecting those who
voted for it, holds no water.
Political speech refers to speech “both intended and received as a contribution to public
deliberation about some issue,” “fostering informed and civic minded deliberation.” On the other
hand, commercial speech has been defined as speech that does “no more than propose a
commercial transaction.” The expression resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is, however,
definitely political speech.
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality
With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality
allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are
government policies that take religion specifically into account not to promote the government’s
favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without
hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise
of, a person’s or institution’s religion.
Lemon test
A regulation is constitutional when:
1. It has a secular legislative purpose;
2. It neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. It does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.

1-UTAK v. Comelec, G.R. No. 206020, 14 April
2015
The prohibition of posting campaign materials in PUV and terminals constitutes a clear prior
restraint on the right to free expression of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals. As a
result of the prohibition, owners of PUVs and transport terminals are forcefully and effectively
inhibited from expressing their preferences under the pain of indictment for an election offense
and the revocation of their franchise or permit to operate.
VII. Political Party; Party-List Organization

1. Definitions: PP, PLO

"political party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office."

2. Groups which cannot be registered as political parties

A. religious denominations or sects;
B. those who seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means;
C. those who refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution; and
D. those supported by foreign governments [Sec. 2(5), Art IX-C].

3. Grounds for cancellation of registration

A. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
B. It advocates violence or unlawful means to achieve its goal;
C. It is a foreign party or organization;
D. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or indirectly or
through its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;
E. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
F. It has made untruthful statements in its petition; and
G. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year from the time the petition is filed.

4. Registration; Manifestation to participate in the party-list system

Sec. 61. Registration. - Any organized group of persons seeking registration as a national or regional political party may file with the Commission
a verified petition attaching thereto its constitution and by-laws, platform or program of government and such other relevant information as may
be required by the Commission. The Commission shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within ten days from the date it is
submitted for decision.
No religious sect shall be registered as a political party and no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to
accreditation.

5. Refusal and/or cancellation of registration

6. Nomination of party-list nominees

7. Qualifications of party-list nominees

A. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines; A registered voter;
B. A resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the election day;
C. Able to read and write;
D. A bona fide member of the party he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding election day; and
E. At least twenty-five (25) years of age on election day.

8. Manner of Voting; Number; Raffle

9. Readings:

Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. Article VI of the Constitution, easily conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested
with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of
136781, 06 October 2000 representation. The Constitution explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total
membership in the House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives.

The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution
and the law, but with the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or representative
state, all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives
chosen by them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the
mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list
system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing
significant legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even
legislative districts are apportioned according to "the number of their respective inhabitants, and
on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local representation.
Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by
26 means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the election to the House of
Representatives of Filipino citizens,
June 2001 1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole.

The key words in this policy are "proportional representation," "marginalized and
underrepresented," and "lack of well-defined constituencies."

The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and
underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5. 36 Concurrently, the persons
nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties."

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it

demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-
list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a
statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the
words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in
a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.

The 80-20 rule is observed in the following manner: for every 5 seats allotted for legislative
Barangay Association for National Advancement districts, there shall be one seat allotted for a party-list representative. Originally, the 1987
and Constitution provides that there shall be not more than 250 members of the lower house. Using
the 80-20 rule, 200 of that will be from legislative districts, and 50 would be from party-list
Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections, representatives. However, the Constitution also allowed Congress to fix the number of the
G.R. membership of the lower house as in fact, it can create additional legislative districts as it may
No. 179271, 179295, [April 21, 2009], 604 PHIL deem appropriate. As can be seen in the May 2007 elections, there were 220 district
131-184) representatives, hence applying the 80-20 rule or the 5:1 ratio, there should be 55 seats allotted
for party-list representatives.

How did the Supreme Court arrive at 55? This is the formula:
(Current Number of Legislative DistrictRepresentatives ÷ 0.80) x (0.20) = Number of Seats
Available to Party-List Representatives
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 02 1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or
April organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize
2013 along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented"
sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-
list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether
major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system.
The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party
through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented" or
lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized
and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-
defined political constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the
sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent those who lack "well-defined political
constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of
advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of
their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.
 Palparan v. HRET, G.R. No. 189506, 11 February Sec. 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. – No person shall be nominated as party-list
2012 representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a
resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the
day of the election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which
he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at
least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.

In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his
term.
In the cases before the Court, those who challenged the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and
Palparan claim that the two do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that
they ought to represent. The Party-List System Act provides that a nominee must be a "bona fide
member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent."7
It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this particular qualification of a nominee—the need
for him or her to be a bona fide member or a representative of his party-list organization—in the
context of the facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and Palparan’s relation to Aangat Tayo
and Bantay, respectively, and the marginalized and underrepresented interests that they
presumably embody.

VIII. Automated Elections (* ALL ON R.A. 9369)

1. History

2. Automated Election System

- a system using appropriate technology for voting and electronic devices to count votes and canvass/consolidate results

3. Paper-based Election System

4. Minimum System Capabilities

"SECTION 6. Minimum System Capabilities. - "The automated election system must at least have the following functional capabilities
(a) Adequate security against unauthorized access;
(b) Accuracy in recording and reading of votes as well as in the tabulation, consolidation/canvassing, electronic transmission, and storage
of results;
(c) Error recovery in case of non-catastrophic failure of device;
(d) System integrity which ensures physical stability and functioning of the vote recording and counting process;
(e) Provision for voter verified paper audit trail;
(f) System auditability which provides supporting documentation for verifying the correctness of reported election results;
(g) An election management system for preparing ballots and programs for use in the casting and counting of votes and to consolidate,
report and display election results in the shortest time possible;
 (h) Accessibility to illiterates and disabled voters;
(i) Vote tabulating program for election, referendum or plebiscite;
(j) Accurate ballot counters;
(k) Data retention provision;
(l) Provide for the safekeeping, storing and archiving of physical or paper resource used in the election process;
(m) Utilize or generate official ballots as herein defined;
(n) Provide the voter a system of verification to find out whether or not the machine has registered his choice; and
(o) Configure access control for sensitive system data and functions.

"In the procurement of this system, the Commission shall develop and adopt an evaluation system to ascertain that the above minimum
system capabilities are met. This evaluation system shall be developed with the assistance of an advisory council."

5. Continuity Plan
SECTION 13. Continuity Plan. - The AES shall be so designed to include a continuity plan in case of a systems breakdown or any such
eventuality which shall result in the delay, obstruction or nonperformance of the electoral process. Activation of such continuity and
contingency measures shall be undertaken in the presence of representatives of political parties and citizens' arm of the Commission who
shall be notified by the election officer of such activation.

"All political parties and party-lists shall be furnished copies of said continuity plan at their official addresses as submitted to the
Commission. The list shall be published in at least two newspapers of national of circulation and shall be posted at the website of the
Commission at least fifteen (15) days prior to the electoral activity concerned.”

6. Advisory Council; Joint Congressional Oversight Committee

"SECTION 8. The Advisory Council. - The Commission shall create an Advisory Council, hereafter referred to as the Council, which shall be
convened not later than eighteen (18) months prior to the next scheduled electoral exercise, and deactivated six months after completion
of canvassing: Provided, for purposes of the 2007 elections, the Advisory Council shall be immediately convened within ten (10) days after
the effectivity of this Act.

"The Council shall be composed of the following members, who must be registered Filipino voters, of known independence, competence
and probity;
"(a) The Chairman of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) who shall act as the chairman of the
Council;
"(b) One member from the Department of Science and Technology;
"(c) One member from the Department of Education;
"(d) One member representing the academe, to be selected by the chair of the Advisory Council from among the list of nominees
submitted by the country's academic institutions;
"(e) Three members representing ICT professional organizations to be selected by the chair of the Advisory Council from among the list
of nominees submitted by Philippine-based ICT professional organizations. Nominees shall be individuals, at least one of whom shall be
experienced in managing or implementing large-scale IT projects.
"(f) Two members representing non-governmental electoral reform organizations, to be selected by the chair of the Advisory Council
from among the list of nominees submitted by the country's non-governmental electoral reform organizations.

"A person who is affiliated with any political party or candidate for any national position, or is related to a candidate for any national
position by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, shall not be eligible for appointment or designation to the Advisory
 Council. Should any such situation arise at any time during the incumbency of a member, the designation or appointment of that member
shall ipso facto be terminated.

"Any member of the Advisory Council is prohibited from engaging, directly or indirectly, with any entity that advocates, markets, imports,
produces or in any manner handles software, hardware or any equipment that may be used for election purposes for personal gain.

"Any violation of the two immediately preceding paragraphs shall disqualify said member from the Advisory Council and shall be punishable
as provided in this Act and shall be penalized in accordance with the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and other related laws.

"The council may avail itself of the expertise and services of resource persons who are of known independence, competence and probity,
are nonpartisan, and do not possess any of the disqualifications applicable to a member of the Advisory Council as provided herein. The
resource persons shall also be subject to the same prohibitions and penalties as the members of the Advisory Council.

"The Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) shall include in its annual appropriation the funds necessary to
enable the Council to effectively perform its functions.”

"SECTION 33. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - An Oversight Committee is hereby created composed of seven members each
from the Senate and the House of Representatives, four of whom shall come from the majority and three from the minority, to monitor
and evaluate the implementation of this Act. A written report to the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be submitted by the
Advisory Council within six months from the date of election. The oversight committee shall conduct a mandatory review of this Act every
twelve (12) months from the date of the last regular national or local elections."
"The oversight committee shall conduct a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the performance of the different AES technologies
implemented and shall make appropriate recommendations to Congress, in session assembled, specifically including the following:
"1. An assessment and comparison of each of the AES technologies utilized, including their strengths, weakness, applicability or
inapplicability in specific areas and situations;
"2. An evaluation of their accuracy through a comparison of a random sample of the AES election results with a manual tabulation, and
the conduct of similar tests;
"3. As to the scope of AES implementation in the subsequent elections, provide for recommendations as to whether any of the following
should be adopted:
"a. Further test application of the AES or a particular AES technology used in the 2007 elections, whether in the same or others areas;
"b. An increase or enlargement of areas for implementation of the AES or an AES technology and not a full implementation; or
"c. A full implementation of the AES.
"4. As to the kind of AES technology, provide for proposals as to whether:
"a) A particular AES technology should no longer be utilized for being obsolete, inapplicable, inaccurate or with a defect which
cannot be remedied;
"b) An enhancement or improvement is needed to an AES technology which was used in the 2007 elections to make it more
functional, appropriate and accurate;
"c) A particular AES technology is already appropriate and should be utilized fully for subsequent elections; or
"d) The testing or adoption of new technologies which may have emerged after the 2007 elections is needed.”

7. National Board of Canvassers

Sec. 22. Canvassing Committees. - The board of canvassers may constitute such number of canvassing committees as may be necessary to
enable the board to complete the canvass within the period prescribed under Section 231 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881: Provided, That each
committee shall be composed of three members, each member to be designated by the chairman and members of the board and that all
 candidates shall be notified in writing, before the election, of the number of committees to be constituted so that they can designate their
watchers in each committee. The committees shall be under the direct supervision and control of the board.

8. Readings: R.A. No. 9369

Roque v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188456, 10 September The Comelec is an independent constitutional body with a distinct and
pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its
2009 awesome functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and
lead implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, it
AUTOMATED ELECTIONS ISSUE should not be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be
justified in the case of an organization of lesser responsibility.
There is nothing in Art 3.3 of the automation contract, even if read
separately from other stipulations and the provisions of the bid
documents and the Constitution itself, to support the simplistic
conclusion of abdication of control pressed on the Court.

Capalla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201112, 13 June 2012
A winning bidder is not precluded from modifying or amending certain
provisions of the contract bidded upon. However, such changes must
not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter
the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to
the other bidders of the opportunity to bid on the same terms. The
determination of whether or not a modification or amendment of a
contract bidded out constitutes a substantial amendment rests
on whether the contract, when taken as a
whole, would contain substantially different terms and conditions that
would have the effect of altering the technical and/or financial
proposals previously submitted by the other bidders. The
modifications in the contract executed between the government and
the winning bidder must be such as to render the executed contract
to be an entirely different contract from the one bidded upon.
IX. Recall
- “Recall” is the termination of official relationship of a local elective official for loss of confidence prior to the expiration of his term through
the will of the electorate.

1. Grounds
- Loss of confidence

2. Procedure
A. A written petition for recall duly signed before the election registrar or his representative, and in the presence of a representative of the
petitioner and a representative of the official sought to be recalled, and in a public place in the province, city, municipality, or barangay,
as the case may be, shall be filed with the Comelec through its office in the local government unit concerned. The Comelec or its duly
authorized representative shall cause the publication of the petition in a public and conspicuous place for a period of not less than ten
(10) days nor more than twenty (20) days, for the purpose of verifying.
B. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall announce the acceptance of candidates to
the position and thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall include the name of the official sought to be recalled.

3. Readings: R.A. No 7160, Secs. 69-74

R.A. No. 9244

COMELEC Resolution No. 7505

Claudio v. COMELEC, 331 SCRA 388
RECALL ELECTIONS
Garcia v. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100
Recall is a process which involves the following steps:
(1) the convening of the preparatory assembly or gathering of the
signatures of at least 25% registered voters in the LGU;
(2) the filing of the recall resolution or petition with the COMELEC;
(3) the verification of the resolution or petition;
(4) fixing of the date of the recall election; and
(5) holding of the election.
That the word “recall” used in Sec. 74(b), LGC, refers to the
recall election itself is due to the following reasons:
(1) Sec. 69, LGC provides that the power of recall shall be exercised by
the registered voters of the LGU to which the local elective official
belongs. It is clear that the power of recall referred to in Sec. 69 is the
power to retain/replace officials and not the power to initiate recall
proceedings. Thus, the limitations under Sec. 74 (Limitations on
Recall) apply only to the recall elections.
In Garcia v. COMELEC, the delegation of the power to initiate recall
proceedings from the electorate to the PRAs was questioned. The
Supreme Court held that what the Constitution gave to the people is
the power to recall and not the power to initiate the recall
proceedings. The holding of the PRA is not the recall itself.
Under Sec. 32(a) of RA No. 6735 it provided the 3 systems of initiative,
namely:
1. Initiative on the Constitution – petition to amend the
Constitution
2. Initiative on statutes – petition proposing to enact a national
legislation
3. Initiative on local legislation – petition proposing to enact a
regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or
ordinance
Under its Sec.16(a), it provided the limitations on local initiatives,
which is “the power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than
once a year.”
 Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, [November 25, 2014])
COMELEC MAY AUGMENT FUNDS
YES. IT CAN AUGMENT FROM SAVINGS ITS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
PERSONNEL SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER OPERATING
EXPENSES. RECALL ELECTIONS ONLY NEED OPERATING EXEPENSES
BECAUSE THE EXISTING PERSONNEL ARE THE SAME PERSONNEL WHO
WILL EVALUATE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECALL PETITIONS.

However, contrary to the COMELEC’s assertion, the appropriations for

personnel services and maintenance and other operating expenses
falling under “Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall
votes and plebiscites” constitute a line item which can be augmented
from the COMELEC’s savings to fund the conduct of recall elections in
2014. The conduct of recall elections requires only operating
expenses, not capital outlays. The COMELEC’s existing personnel in
Puerto Princesa are the same personnel who will evaluate the
sufficiency of the recall petitions. and conduct the recall elections.

X. Failure of Elections, Postponement of Elections, Special Elections

1. Grounds
FAILURE:
A. the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed] OR
B. suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting] OR
C. after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass, such election
results in a failure to elect]
D. Because of (Sec. 6, BP 881)
• force majeure
• violence
• terrorism
• fraud
• other analogous causes

POSTPONEMENT:
A. Any serious causes: (examples)
 B. Violence
C. Terrorism
D. Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records
E. Force majeure
F. Analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any political
subdivision

SPECIAL:
A. In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of Representatives at least 1 year before the expiration of the term
B. Elections to be held not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy
C. Vacancy in the Senate: simultaneously with the succeeding regular election (Sec. 4, RA 7166)

2. Call of Special Elections

Called by COMELEC
- for above mentioned grounds

COMELEC role:
• send sufficient copies of resolution for the holding of the election to its provincial election supervisors and election registrars for
dissemination

Who in turn: post copies in at least 3 conspicuous places preferably where public meetings are held in each city or municipality affected (Sec.
7, BP 881)

• Readings: OEC, Article I, Secs. 6-7

Sison v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134096, 03 March 1999
Ampatuan v. COMELEC, 375 SCRA 503
Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code,
there are only three (3) instances where a failure of elections may be
declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the
hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of
the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof such election
result in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism , fraud, or other analogous causes. We have painstakingly
examined
petitioner's petition before the COMELEC but found nothing therein
that could support an action for declaration of failure of elections. He
never alleged at all that elections were either not held or suspended.
Furthermore, petitioner's claim of failure to elect stood as a bare
conclusion bereft of any substantive support to describe just exactly
how the failure to elect came about.
Elucidating on the concept of failure of election, we held that:
―xxx before Comelec can act on a verified petition seeking to
declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must concur:
first, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date
fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
resulted in a failure to elect; and
second, the votes cast would affect the result of the election.
In Loong vs. Commission on Elections, this Court added that the cause
of such failure of election should have been any of the following: force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous cases.‖
In another case, we ruled that ―while it may be true that election did
take place, the irregularities that marred the counting of votes and the
canvassing of the election returns resulted in a failure to elect.
XI. Election Offenses
Registration Certificate of Counting and
Election Period Campaign Period Election Day Other Offenses
Candidacy Canvassing of Votes

Threats, intimidation,
terrorism, use of
fraudulent devices or
other forms of
coercion to compel or
Cont Tran induce:
inued sfer by any public (a) registration or
misrepresentation or official of officers and refraining from
holding out as a employees in the civil registration of
candidate of a service without the any voter
disqualified candidate prior approval or Engaging in an (b) participation in a
or a nuisance sanction by COMELEC election campaign or Failure to complete campaign or
Failure to register and Vote-buying and vote-
partisan political canvass within the
vote may be said to candidate, declared (Sec. 261h, BP 881) selling (Sec. 261a, B.P. refraining or
so by final and activity outside the required period (Sec. desistance from any
be no 881)
executory judgment unless done to campaign period (Sec. 231, BP 881) campaign
(Sec. 27(f), RA 6646) promote efficiency in 80, BP 881) (c) the casting of any
the government vote or omission to
Knowingly inducing or service vote
abetting such (PeoplevReyes) (d) any promise of
misrepresentation such registration,
campaign,
vote, or omission
(Sec. 261e, B.P. 881)
 In a special election,
in order to discourage
any other person or
persons from filing a
certificate of
candidacy in order to
eliminate all other Susp
longer an offense. Art. potential candidates: ension by any public
official of an elective Tampering,
V, Sec. 1 of the 1987 (Sec. 5, RA 8295)
local official without Failure by the BEI increasing, decreasing
Constitution states (a) coercion
that suffrage "may" (b) bribery prior approval of the Appointment or use Chairman to affix his votes, or refusal to
Coercion of election
be exercised by (c) threats COMELEC (Sec. 261x, of special policemen, signature on the back correct tampered
officials and
B.P. 881) special agents or the of the ballot before votes after proper
qualified citizens of (d) harassment employees
like (Sec. 261(m), BP delivering it to the verification and
the Philippines; he (e) intimidation
881) voter (Sec. 24, RA hearing by any
1935 and 1973 (f) terrorism unless for purposes of
7166) member of the BEI
Constitutions used (g) actually causing / applying the Anti-
(Sec. 27b, R.A. 6646)
"shall." inflicting / producing: Graft and Corrupt
(i) violence Practices Act
(ii) injury
(iii) punishment
(iv) torture
(v) damage
(vi) loss
(vii) disadvantage
 Undue influence
which may induce
one:
(a) to vote or
Violation by assistor withhold his vote, or
of any or both of Refusal by any (b) to vote for or
duties to prepare the member of the BEI to against any candidate
Organization or
voter’s ballot and to issue to duly in any
Failure of the BEI to maintenance of
Use of armored land, take formal oath to do accredited watchers election, or any
post the list of voters reaction forces, strike
water or aircraft (Sec. so in accordance with the Certificate of aspirant for the
in each precinct (Sec. forces, or similar
261r, B.P. 881) the instructions of the Votes cast and the nomination or
9, RA 7166) forces (Sec. 261u, B.P.
voter without announcement of the selection of an official
881)
revealing the contents election (Sec. 27c, candidate in a
of such ballot (Sec. R.A. 6646) convention of a
196, BP 881) political party (Sec.
261j, B.P. 881)
 Con
spiracy to bribe voters
(Sec. 261b, B.P. 881)

Disputable
presumption of such
conspiracy =
proof that at least 1 Carrying deadly
Unlawful voter in different weapons in the
electioneering: precincts representing polling place and
solicitation of votes or at least 20% of the within a radius of 100
Refusal by a public meters thereof (Sec.
undertaking any total precincts in any
Change or alteration utility or Failure by BOC 261p, B.P. 881)
propaganda on the municipality, city or
or transfer of a voter's transportation Chairman to give
day of registration province has been
precinct assignment in company operating notice of meeting to
before the BEI and on offered, promised or unless peace officer
the permanent list of under a certificate of other members of the
the day of election, given money, valuable or public officer
voters without his public convenience to BOC or to a candidate
for or against any consideration or other authorized
express written carry official election or political party as
candidate or any expenditure by a by COMELEC to
consent (Sec. 4, RA mail matters free of required (Sec. 27e,
political party within candidate's relatives, supervise the
8189) charge (Sec. 261dd R.A. 6646)
the polling place and leaders and/or election, in cases
(4), B.P. 881)
a radius of 30 meters sympathizers for the of affray, turmoil, or
thereof (Sec. 261k, purpose of promoting disorder
B.P. 881) the election of such
candidate (Sec. 28, RA
6646)
 Carrying firearms
outside residence or
place of business,
although possessing a
permit therefor (Sec.
261q, B.P. 881)

Within 45 days before unless cashier or

Acceptance of
a regular election and disbursing officer,
appointment,
30 days before a Policemen and Until proclamation, while in the
assumption of office, Coercion of
special election, provincial guards failure to preserve performance of their
and/or actual service subordinates to vote
appointment of new acting as private and secure ballot duties, or person who
as member of the for or against any
employees, creation bodyguards or boxes by BOCs and by nature of his
Election Registration candidate (Sec. 261d,
of new positions, security (Sec. 261t, local treasurers (Sec. official duties,
Board although B.P. 881)
promotion, or giving B.P. 881) 18, BP 881) profession, business
ineligible thereto (Sec.
salary increases (Sec. or occupation
45d, RA 8189)
261g, B.P. 881) habitually carries
large sums of money
or valuables

not applicable to
motor vehicle, water
or air craft

Unjustified
Within 45 days before discrimination against
Unauthorized printing
a regular election and any political party,
Dismissal of of official ballots and
30 days before a coalition or
employees, laborers, election returns with
also, knowingly special election, aggroupment of
or tenants for refusing printing
appointing such release, disbursement parties or any
or failing to vote for establishments not
ineligible person or expenditure of candidate in the sale
any candidate (Sec. under contract with
public funds for most of air time by any
261d(2), B.P. 881) the COMELEC (Sec.
kinds of public works operator of a radio or
27a, R.A. 6646)
(Sec. 261v, B.P. 881) TV station (Sec. 261dd
(5), B.P. 881)
Within 45 days before
a regular election and
Removal, destruction, Being a “flying voter”:
30 days before a
obliteration, or voting more than
special election,
tampering of lawful once in the same Wagering upon the
undertaking the
election propaganda, election, or, not being results of elections
construction of public
or preventing the a registered voter, (Sec. 261c, B.P. 881)
works or issuance or
distribution thereof voting at all (Sec. 261z
use of treasury
(Sec. 83, BP 881) (2), B.P. 881)
warrants (Sec. 261w,
B.P. 881)

Intervention by
Within 60 days before public officers and
Sale, etc. of
and 30 days after employees in the civil
intoxicating liquor on
election day, illegal service in any partisan Holding fairs,
the day for voter
release of prisoners political activity cockfights, jai-alai,
registration, or the
by person/s required except to vote or, if etc. (Sec. 261dd (3),
day before or on
by law to keep them he is a peace officer, B.P. 881)
election day (Sec.
in their custody (Sec. to preserve public
261dd (1), B.P. 881)
261n, B.P. 881) order (Sec. 261i, B.P.
881)

Use for an election

campaign or any
partisan political
activity of:
(a) public funds or
money deposited Opening booths or
with, or held stalls for the sale,
Feigning of illness by
in trust by, public dispensing or display
any member of the
financing institutions of wares,
BOC in order to be
or by merchandise or
substituted on
government offices, refreshments in any
election day until
banks, or agencies polling place or within
proclamation (Sec.
(b) facilities owned or 30 meters thereof
224, BP 881)
controlled by the (Sec, 261dd (2), B.P.
government, incl. 881)
GOCCs and the AFP
(c) equipment owned
or controlled by the
government (Sec.
261o, B.P. 881)
 Use of prohibited
forms of election
propaganda
(Sec. 27, RA 6646)

1. Vote-buying, vote-selling, electoral sabotage, etc.

2. Persons criminally liable

Section 263. Persons criminally liable. - The principals, accomplices, and accessories, as defined in the Revised Penal Code, shall be
criminally liable for election offenses. If the one responsible be a political party or an entity, its president or head, the officials and
employees of the same, performing duties connected with the offense committed and its members who may be principals, accomplices, or
accessories shall be liable, in addition to the liability of such party or entity.
3. Penalties
For an Individual For a Foreigner For a Political Party

(1) Imprisonment 1-6 years, without probation (Sec.

264, BP 881) (1) Imprisonment 1-6 years, without probation (Sec.
(2) Disqualification to hold public office 264, BP 881) Fine not less than P10,000 after a criminal
(3) Deprivation of the right of suffrage (2) Deportation after service of sentence conviction
(4) Where stated, cancellation or revocation of
certificate of public convenience or franchise
(5) Where stated, other penalties

4. Prosecution
- COMELEC has exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases involving violations of election laws. (Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C,
Constitution; Sec. 268, BP 881; De Jesus v People).
- However:
• This power may be validly delegated to the Provincial Prosecutor or to the Ombudsman.
• It is not the duty of the COMELEC to gather proof in support of a complaint field before it (Kilosbayan v COMELEC, 1997).
• Should COMELEC fail to act on any complaint within 4 months from its filing, the complainant may instead file the complaint with the fiscal or
the Department of Justice, if warranted (Sec. 265, B.P. 881).
- Investigation and prosecution of election offenses shall be given priority by the COMELEC. The investigating officer shall resolve the
case within 5 days from submission.

5. Prescription
- 5 years from date of commission
- If the offense be discovered in an election contest proceeding, the period of prescription shall commence on the date on which the
judgment in such proceedings becomes final and executory. (Sec. 267, B.P. 881)

6. Jurisdiction
- RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal actions or proceedings for violation of election laws (Sec. 268,
BP 881; Juan v People, 2000).
- The courts shall give preference to election cases over all other cases, except petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Their trial shall be
commenced without delay and shall be conducted continuously until terminated. The case shall be decided within 30 days from its
submission for decision (Sec. 269, BP 881).

7. Readings: OEC, Article CCII, Secs. 261-268

R.A. No. 9369

People v. Ferrer, 54 O.G. 1348
Mappala v. Nunez, 240 SCRA 600
People v. Bayona, 181 Phil. 186
The trial court is of the opinion that causing cigarettes or pamphlets to
be distributed to the people who attended a political meeting does
not constitute a violation of sec 51 of the Revised Election Code,
because it is not giving "food" for tobacco is not food; nor does it
constitute a violation of that part of section 51 which makes
unlawfully the contributing or giving, directly or indirectly, of money
or things of value, because the information merely charges the
defendant with-having caused cigarettes, etc. to be distributed.
True, cigarettes are not food, but they have and are of value and the
charge that the defendant caused cigarettes and pamphlets
concerning the Liberal Party to be distributed to the people who
attended a political meeting mentioned in the information is a
sufficient allegation that he gave or contributed things of value for
electioneering purposes.
To support a conviction under Section 261(p) of the Omnibus election
Code, it is not necessary that the deadly weapon should have been
seized from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a
radius of 100 meters therefrom. It is enough that the accused carried
the deadly weapon "in the polling place and within a radius of one
hundred meters thereof" during any of the specified days and hours.
After respondent himself had found that the prosecution had
established these facts, it is difficult to understand why he acquitted
Alejandro of the charge of violation of Section 261(p) of the Omnibus
election Code.
Desiderio who had been designated to supervise the elections in the
Province of Capiz, contented that he could not leave his revolver in his
automobile without the risk of losing it because he was alone.
The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the
intent with which he violated it is immaterial. It may be conceded that
the defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate
the law in any other way, but when he got out of his automobile and
carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the polling place,
he committed the act complained of, and he committed it willfully.
The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete.
Lozano v. Yorac, G.R. No. 94521, 94626, 28 October
1991
Ong v. Martinez, G.R. No. 87743, 21 August 1990
Ban on Appointment during election period
in dismissing the petition for the disqualification of respondent Binay.
No clear and convincing proof exists to show that respondent Binay
was indeed engaged in vote buying. The traditional gift-giving of the
Municipality of Makati during the Christmas season is not refuted.
That it was implemented by respondent Binay as OIC Mayor of Makati
at that time does not sufficiently establish that respondent was trying
to influence and induce his constituents to vote for him.The charge
against respondent Binay for alleged malversation of public funds
should be threshed out and adjudicated in the appropriate proceeding
and forum having jurisdiction over the same. Consequently, it was
properly dismissed by the Commission on Elections
The permanent vacancy for councilor exists and its filling up is
governed by the Local Government Code while the appointment
referred to in the election ban provision is covered by the Civil
Service Law.
For having satisfied the formal requisites and procedure for
appointment as Councilor, which is an official position outside the
contemplation of the election ban, respondent's appointment is
declared valid.
The issue on the alleged discrepancy between the dates of petitioner's
oath and his residence certificate need not be tackled now because it
will not anymore affect the recalled appointment of petitioner. If ever,
the matter casts a doubt on petitioner's credibility and honesty.
Regalado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 115962, 15 February First. The two elements of the offense prescribed under 261(h) of the
Omnibus Election Code, as amended, are:
2000 (1) a public officer or employee is transferred or detailed within the
election period as fixed by the COMELEC, and
(2) the transfer or detail was effected without prior approval of the
Transfer During Election Period COMELEC in accordance with its implementing rules and regulations.
The transfer may be from one department or agency to another or
from one organizational unit to another in the same department or
agency: Provided, however, That any movement from the non-career
service to the career service shall not be considered a transfer.
Thus, contrary to petitioners claim, a transfer under 24(c) of P.D. No.
807 in fact includes personnel movement from one organizational unit
to another in the same department or agency.

Aquino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 211789-90, 17 March
2015
Read in the light of this ruling, we affirm the COMELEC’s
interpretation of the phrase "transfer or detail whatever" as we find
the Regalado interpretation consistent with the legislative intent.
Indeed, as used in Section 261(h) of BP 881, the term whatever should
be not be read strictly in conjunction with only either the term
transfer or the term detail; nor should the phrase transfer or detail
whatever be read in isolation from the purpose of the legal
prohibition. Rather, consistent with our rules in reading provisions of
law, the term – whatever – as well as the phrase – transfer or detail
whatever– should be understood within the broader context of the
purpose of BP881. They should likewise be understood within the
context of all other laws that the COMELEC is required to administer
and enforce. This is the proper approach that anyone, including this
Court, should take when reading Section 261(h), as well as all other
provisions of BP 881 and other election laws.
, we reiterate our observation in Regalado that any personnel action,
when caused or made during the election period, can be used for
electioneering or to harass subordinates with different political
persuasions. This possibility – of being used for electioneering
purposes or to harass subordinates – created by any movement of
personnel during the election period is precisely what the transfer ban
seeks to prevent.
COMELEC v. Tagle, 397 SCRA 618 (2003)
Tapispisan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157950, [June
8, 2005], 498 PHIL 733-751
At the time when the complaint for vote-selling was filed with the
office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the respondents had already
executed sworn statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-
buying. It cannot then be denied that they had already voluntarily
given information in the vote-buying case.
The giver, offeror, the promissory as well as the solicitor, acceptor,
recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals:
Provided, that any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs
who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies on any
violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding shall be
exempt from prosecution and punishment for the offenses with
reference to which his information and testimony were given:
Provided, further, that nothing herein shall exempt such person from
criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.
To be considered as a qualified next-in-rank the employee should have been
appointed permanent to a position previously determined to be next-in-rank, and
should meet the requirements for appointment thereto as previously determined by
the appointing authority and approved by the Commission
Sec. 47. Dismissal of Protest. A protest shall be dismissed on any of the following
grounds:
(d) No appointment has actually been issued to the protestee .
The CSC, in its Resolution No. 972501 dated April 14, 1997 dismissing petitioner
Tapispisans protest, declared that only appointments/promotions and not designation
can be the subject of a protest. Designation, being temporary in nature, does not
amount to the issuance of an appointment, but is a mere imposition of additional
duties. This construction given by the CSC should be given great weight and respect. As
this Court has time and again ruled: [a]lthough technically not binding and controlling
on the courts, the construction given by the agency or entity charged with the
enforcement of a statute should be given great weight and respect, particularly so if
such construction has been observed and acted on for a long period of time.
 Causing v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 199139, 09 September
2014
Petitioner was transferred to another office
XII. Election Adjudication System
1. Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts
2. Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts
3. Jurisdiction of COMELEC
Electoral Tribunals of the
Supreme Court
Senate and HoR
• Each electoral tribunal has
9 members:
the sole judge of all 3 Supreme Court Justices,
contests relating to the and
election, returns, and 6 members of the Senate exclusive original
disqualifications of the or House, chosen on the jurisdiction over municipal
basis of proportional and barangay officials,
President and Vice-
President (Sec. 4, Art. VII, representation from the respectively
Constitution) political parties and the
parties or organizations
registered under the
party-list system
represented therein. (Sec.
17, Art. VI, Constitution)
• The rules of procedure of
such tribunals shall
prevail over the provisions
of the Omnibus
Obviously, the movement involving Causing did not equate to either a transfer or a
detail within the contemplation of the law if Mayor Biron only thereby physically
transferred her office area from its old location tothe Office of the Mayor "some little
steps" away. We cannot accept the petitioner’s argument, therefore, that the phrase
"any transfer or detail whatsoever" encompassed "any and all kinds and manner of
personnel movement,” including the mere change in office location.
Equally material is that Mayor Biron’s act of transferring the office space of Causing was
rooted in his power of supervision and control over the officials and employees serving
in his local government unit, in order to ensure the faithful discharge of their duties and
functions.
RTC MTC COMELEC
MTCs have jurisdiction over
cases involving • exclusive original
qualifications of candidates jurisdiction over all
for the Sangguniang election contests relating
Kabataan filed after the to the elections, returns,
election. and qualifications of all
Where filed before the elective (1) regional, (2)
election, these are decided provincial, and (3) city
by the Election Officer. officials.
(Nachura)
appealable to the SC
 ElectionCode
(LazatinvHRET)

1. Judicial review of a
decision of the Electoral
Tribunal is possible only appellate jurisdiction over
in the exercise of all contests decided by trial
supervisory or courts of general
extraordinary jurisdiction (i.e. RTCs)
jurisdiction, and only involving elective municipal
upon showing that the officials, or decided by trial
Tribunal’s error results courts of limited
from a whimsical, jurisdiction (i.e. MTCs)
capricious, unwarranted, involving elective barangay
arbitrary or despotic officials.
exercise of power
(PuzonvHRET,1989).
Final, executory, and not
appealable. However, this
does not preclude a
recourse to the Supreme
Court by way of a special
civil action for certiorari
(Galido v COMELEC) where
COMELEC’s factual
determination is marred by
grave abuse of discretion
(Alvarez v COMELEC).
An order regarding the
revision of ballots is an
interlocutory order because
it still requires a party to
perform certain acts leading
to the final adjudication of
the case (Bulaong v
COMELEC).

4. Procedure in election contests: Courts, COMELEC

5. Procedure in HRET, SET, PET
 COMELEC COURTS HRET SET PET

• filing of a verified petition

and payment of docket
fees
• within 3 days from filing of
the petition, issuance of
summons by Clerk of Court
of the COMELEC or its
division
• filing of Answer, including
counter-protest or
counterclaim if any, within • hearing; reception of
5 days from service of
summons
• filing of Reply or Answer to
the Counter- Protest or
Counterclaim within 5
days from receipt of
Answer
• hearing and reception of
evidence
• decision by COMELEC
1. If by a Division, within 10
days; becomes final and
executory after 15 days from days from promulgation. No
promulgation.
The aggrieved party may file 3. appealable to COMELEC
a timely MFR within 5 days 4. filing of a notice of appeal
from promulgation, on the
grounds that the evidence is promulgation of the decision
insufficient to justify the
decision, or that the said
decision is contrary to law.
2. If by the COMELEC en banc,
within 30 days; becomes
final and executory after 30
days from promulgation.
• filing of verified petition
• filing of Answer within 5 days
from receipt of notice of
filing of petition
evidence to be completed
within 30 days from its
1.
commencement
2.
• decision
1. as to who among the parties 3.
has been elected, or, in a 4.
proper case, that none of 5.
them has been legally
elected
2. within 30 days from date of 6.
submission for decision and 7.
within 60 months after filing 8.
of protest becomes final 5 9.
MFRs! (Veloria v COMELEC)
within 5 days from
Summons
Answers and counter
protest
motions
filling fees and cash deposits
Production and custody of
ballot boxes and election
document
preliminary conference
revision of ballots
presentation of evidence
decision
A. Summons
1. Summons
B. Answers and counter
2. Answers and counter
protest
protest
C. motions
3. motions
D. filling fees and cash
4. filling fees and cash deposits
deposits
5. Production and custody of
E. Production and custody of
ballot boxes and election
ballot boxes and election
document
document
6. preliminary conference
F. preliminary conference
7. revision of ballots
G. revision of ballots
8. presentation of evidence
H. presentation of evidence
9. decision
I. decision

6. Readings: Article IX (c), Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution

Article XXI, Secs. 249-252, OEC 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials;
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804
COMELEC Resolution No.9164
Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
192474, 26 June 2012
Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
179431-321, 22 June 2010
Pimentel III v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 178413, 13 March
2008
Tan v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos.
166143-47, 166891, 20
November 2006
FAILURE OF ELECTION
REQUISITES
Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 enumerates only three instances in which the party- list organization can
substitute another person in place of the nominee whose name has been submitted to the COMELEC, namely:
(a) when the nominee dies;
(b) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; and
(c) when the nominee becomes incapacitated.
The enumeration is exclusive, for, necessarily, the general rule applies to all cases not falling under any of the
three exceptions.
According to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, Congress and the
COMELEC en banc, acting as the NBC, shall determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of
canvass for President, Vice- President and Senators, respectively, as accomplished and transmitted to them by
the local boards of canvassers. For the province of Maguindanao, it is the PBOC which transmits the PCOC to
the NBC. For the 14 May 2007 senatorial elections, the NBC excluded from the national canvass the Bedol
PCOC submitted by the PBOC- Maguindanao after it found the same to be tainted by irregularities and
statistical improbabilities. Thereafter, the SPBOC-Maguindanao was created, which re- canvassed the
Maguindanao MCOCs and prepared and submitted to the NBC the second Maguindanao PCOC.
Hence, the four criteria enumerated in Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9369, must be applied by the NBC to the secondMaguindanao PCOC.
The COMELEC correctly dismissed the Petitions for Declaration of Failure of Election since the electoral anomalies alleged
in the petitions should have been raised in an election protest, not in a petition to declare a failure of election. Under
Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991,[68] the COMELEC en banc is
empowered to declare a failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. From the above-cited proviso,
three (3) instances justify the declaration of failure of election, to wit:
1. the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes;
2. the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account
of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
3. after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof,
such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes.
XIII. Appeal and Other Election Issues

A. Quo Warranto
- It is a proceeding to unseat an ineligible person from office. An election protest more than seeks to oust the winner. It is strictly a
contest between the winning candidate and the defeated candidate.
- Who may File: any registered voter in the constituency
- Grounds:
1. ineligibility, or
2. disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
- When to File: within 10 days from proclamation of the results of the election

2. Substitution
- Any candidate may withdraw his/her candidacy anytime before election day.
- Substitution is only allowed in the following instances:
1. death
2. withdrawal
3. disqualification
- No substitution is allowed for an independent candidate. Only candidates who are members of and are nominated by a party can be
substituted.
- Substitute candidate may file his/her certificate of candidacy not later than mid day of election day
- No person who has withdrawn his/her candidacy for a position shall be eligible as a substituted candidate for any other position.
- The filing of the withdrawal shall not affect the civil, criminal, or administrative liabilities the substituted candidate may have
already incurred.
- In case of valid substitutions, votes cast for substituted candidates are considered stray, except if the substitute candidate has the
same surname. Official ballots shall provide spaces where voters may write the names of the substitute candidates. (Fair Election
Act)

3. Withdrawal of COC

4. Execution of Pending Appeal

5. Appeal fee/Filing fee

6. Readings: Secs. 73, 76, 253, OEC

COMELEC Resolution No. 9518

Dumayas v. COMELEC v. 357
SCRA 358
Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No.
136351, 28 July 1999
Luna v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
165983, 24 April 2007
Cerafica v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 205136,
02 December 2014
Loreto-Go v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 147741, 10 May 2001
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing
of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the
COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his
proclamation. Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of certain exceptions, as where:
(a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted;
(b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy;
(c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a
proclamation;
(d) the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the
pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and
(e) the proclamation was null and void
the quo warranto petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition to annul petitioners proclamation over
which COMELEC exercises original exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, it could not be deemed as a proper
remedy in favor of respondent Bernal, Jr. even if his name was included in the title of said petition.
There was a valid substitution. The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. In Sanchez v. Del Rosario, the Court ruled that
the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance
of the COMELEC.
There was a valid substitution. The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. In Sanchez v. Del Rosario, the Court ruled that
the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance
of the COMELEC.
COMELEC has the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of COCs. The question of eligibility or
ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC.
While it may be true that Section 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, adopted on 20 November 2000,
requires that the withdrawal be filed before the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy
was filed, such requirement is merely directory, and is intended for convenience. It is not mandatory or
jurisdictional. An administrative resolution can not contradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supply a
deficiency in the law. Hence, the filing of petitioner's affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy for mayor of Baybay
with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte sufficed to effectively withdraw such candidacy.
Divinagracia v. COMELEC,
G.R. Nos. 186007 &
186016,
27 July 2009
Payment of appeal fees
Santos v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
155618, 26 March 2003
Navarosa v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 157957, 18 September
2003
The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court’s
decision in election contests involving municipal and barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice
of appeal and the payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee tothe court that rendered the decision within the five-
day reglementary period. The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of
P3,200.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as amended, does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or ipso
facto dismissal of theappeal.
The following constitute good reasons and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant
execution pending appeal:
(1) public interest involved or will of the electorate;
(2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and
(3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending.
A supersedeas bond secures the performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case of its
affirmation. Section 3 finds application in ordinary civil actions where the interest of the prevailing party is
capable of pecuniary estimation, and consequently, of protection, through the filing of a supersedeas bond.
Thus, the penultimate sentence of Section 3 states: The bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion
with notice to the surety. Consequently, it finds no application in election protest cases where judgments
invariably include orders which are not capable of pecuniary estimation such as the right to hold office and
perform its functions.
As applied to the present case, the supersedeas bond petitioner Navarosa filed can only answer for that
portion of the trial courts ruling ordering her to pay to respondent Esto actual damages, attorneys fees and the
cost of the suit. It cannot secure execution of that portion proclaiming respondent Esto duly elected mayor of
Libacao, Aklan by popular will of the electorate and authorizing him to assume the office. This anomalous
situation defeats the very purpose for the filing of the supersedeas bond in the first place.