Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ELECTION LAW JURISPRUDENCE-cd
ELECTION LAW JURISPRUDENCE-cd
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the President can renew the
ad interim appointments of by-passed appointees. Matibag v.
Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
AFFIDAVITS AS EVIDENCE
APPEAL, PERFECTION of
APPEAL, RIGHT TO
APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
The appreciation of the contested ballots and election
documents involves a question of fact best left to the
determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked
with the supervision of elections all over the country, as it is
the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive
original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional,
provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction
over election protests involving elective municipal and
barangay officials. In the absence of grave abuse of
discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the
factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions rendered
by the said Commission on matters falling within its
competence shall not be interfered with by this Court.
Balingit v. Comelec et al, G.R. No. 170300, Feb. 9,
2007
BILLBOARDS, ADVERTISEMENTS
CANDIDATE
Election Jurisprudence Page 11
CERTIORARI
Election Jurisprudence Page 15
We have said time and again that the special civil action of
certiorari is not a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of
appeal. Cantoria v. Comelec. G.R. No. 162035, Nov. 26,
2004.
CITIZENSHIP, QUALIFICATION
DECISION, COMPLETENESS
DISQUALIFICATION
ELECTION
Election Jurisprudence Page 29
1
Bandala v. Comelec, supra note 2.
Election Jurisprudence Page 33
The only case where this Court has held that a party is
estopped to contest the election of the winning candidate is
in the case of a tie where the candidates who were declared
to have obtained equal number of votes had voluntarily
submitted themselves to the drawing of lots to determine
the winner, as provided by law. It was ruled by this Court
that the candidate who lost in the drawing of lots is
estopped from contesting the election of the one who won in
the draw, because by submitting himself to the draw the
defeated candidate is considered to have admitted that the
announcement made by the board of canvassers regarding
the tie was the result of a valid and lawful canvass. The
candidate who submitted himself to the draw is considered
as having deliberately induced his opponent to believe that
canvass which resulted in a tie was legal and he had thereby
led his opponent to act upon such belief in the validity of the
canvass and the tie, so that he can not be permitted to
repudiate his own acts.
Election Jurisprudence Page 35
was paid way beyond the said period. His motion should
have been dismissed outright for failure to pay the filing fee
on time. Failure to pay filing fees will not vest the election
tribunal jurisdiction over the case and such procedural lapse
warrants the outright dismissal of the action. Alejandro v.
Comelec et al., G.R. No. 167101, September 12, 2006
FILING FEES
FORUM SHOPPING
place a little less than two years after the issuance of the
November 12, 2005 Resolution. Balingit v. Comelec et al,
G.R. No. 170300, Feb. 9, 2007
HONEST MISTAKE
HRET, JURISDICTION
INHIBITION
Commissioner Lantion’s voluntary piecemeal inhibition
cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules
does it allow a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with
reservation. To allow him to participate in the En Banc
proceedings when he previously inhibited himself in the
Election Jurisprudence Page 49
JUDGMENT, VALIDITY OF
JUDGMENT OF COMELEC
Besides, it is a settled rule that the COMELEC’s judgment
cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Aradais v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 157863. April 28, 2004
JURISDICTION; ESTOPPEL
JURISDICTION, COVERAGE
JURISDICTION, RETENTION OF
MANIFEST ERROR
A petition for correction of manifest errors filed directly with
the COMELEC should thus pertain to errors that could not
have been discovered during the canvassing, despite the
exercise of due diligence. Petitioner Arzagon, however,
together with the other petitioners, initially filed a petition
for correction of manifest errors with the PBOC, evidently
showing that the errors sought to be corrected were
discovered during the canvassing. Cerbo et al. v. Comelec
& Mangudadatu, G.R. No. 168411, February 15, 2007
MAXIMS
Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their
rights. Ampo v. CA & Pp, G.R. No. 169091, FEBRUARY
16, 2006
MINUTE RESOLUTION
The motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and its
filing did suspend the period for filing the petition for
certiorari in this case. The mere reiteration in a motion for
reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and
passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro
forma; otherwise, the movant’s remedy would not be a
reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other
remedy. But, as we have held in another case:
Election Jurisprudence Page 60
NEIGHBORHOOD RULE
We agree with the COMELEC En Banc. In each of these
ballots (Exhibits “1,” “2,” “5” and “6”), the space for Punong
Barangay is blank. “Tibong Co” is written on the first line of
the space for Barangay Kagawad. The votes are valid for Co
under the neighborhood rule. Abad v. Comelec, G.R. No.
167438, July 25, 2006, citing Ferrer v. Comelec, 386
Phil. 431, (2000)
NEW MATTERS
The foregoing issue and the incidents thereunder were
never raised by the petitioners during the proceedings
before the RTC. Suffice it to say that issues raised for the
first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings
in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Matters, theories
or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings
cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are
raised for the first time. To consider the alleged facts and
arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on
the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.
Dicman et al. v. Cariño, G.R. No. 146459, June 8, 2006
NOMINATION, SUBSTITUTION
Election Jurisprudence Page 64
POLITICAL PARTY
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
It is clear from the foregoing that after the board has ruled
on the petition for exclusion, it is duty bound to suspend the
proclamation to give the other party an opportunity to
question the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the
board within 48 hours from the suspension of the
proceedings, and of an appeal with the COMELEC, within five
days from the same suspension. Failure to comply with
these requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio.
Cambe v. Comelec et al., G.R. No. 178456, January 30,
2008
Verily, the order of the trial court in the election protest case
does not conflict with nor diminish the legal effect of the
COMELEC en banc Resolution of 18 September 2006,
invalidating eight (8) of the nine (9) questioned election
returns. Particularly, the order is not inconsistent with the
directive of the COMELEC to the Election Officer of Indanan
to convene the BEI in the concerned precincts for a recount,
after notice to the parties and after ensuring that the
integrity of the ballot boxes are not compromised. Jainal v.
Comelec, Talib & Ahajan, G.R. NO. 174551, March 7,
2007
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY V.
ANNULMENT OF ELECTION
PRESCRIPTION
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
PROBABLE CAUSE
PROCEDURAL RULES
PROCLAMATION, SUSPENSION OF
PROCLAMATION, VOID
It is clear from the foregoing that after the board has ruled
on the petition for exclusion, it is duty bound to suspend the
proclamation to give the other party an opportunity to
question the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the
board within 48 hours from the suspension of the
proceedings, and of an appeal with the COMELEC, within five
days from the same suspension. Failure to comply with
these requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio.
Cambe v. Comelec et al., G.R. No. 178456, January 30,
Election Jurisprudence Page 82
2008
The proclamation of petitioner in this case is void for three
(3) reasons: (1) it was based on a canvass that should have
been suspended with respect to the contested election
returns; (2) it was done without prior COMELEC authorization
which is required in view of the unresolved objections of
Talib to the inclusion of certain returns in the canvass; and
(3) it was predicated on a canvass that included unsigned
election returns involving such number of votes as will affect
the outcome of the election. Jainal v. Comelec, Talib &
Ahajan, G.R. NO. 174551, March 7, 2007
PROMULGATION
In Lindo v. Commission on Elections, this Court held that the
5-day period for the filing of an appeal commences from the
date of receipt of copy of the decision. As correctly ruled by
the COMELEC: (SALLY A. LEE vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and LEOVIC R. DIONEDA, , G. R. No.
157004, 2003 Jul 4, En Banc)
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
“Proportional representation” here does not refer to the
number of people in a particular district, because the party-
list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to
numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group.
Rather, it refers to the representation of the “marginalized
and underrepresented” as exemplified by the enumeration
in Section 5 of the law; namely, “labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals.” Ang Bagong Bayani et al. v. Comelec
G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001
QUOROM
To begin with, even if the votes of Commissioners Sadain
and Tuason are disregarded (for whatever reason), a quorum
still remains, with three of the then five COMELEC
Commissioners voting to deny petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. Pedragoza v. Comelec & Sumulong,
G.R. No. 169885 July 25, 2006
Election Jurisprudence Page 83
RECALL
REMEDY
Election Jurisprudence Page 84
REPATRIATION, REQUISITE
The law is clear that repatriation is effected “by taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration.” Hence, in addition to taking the Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the registration
of the Certificate of Repatriation in the proper civil registry
and the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting
the repatriation of a citizen. Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R.
No. 163256. November 10, 2004
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Election protests are guided by an extraordinary rule of
interpretation that statutes providing for election contests
are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the
people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated
Election Jurisprudence Page 92
SUBSTITUTION, COC
Not to be overlooked is the Court’s holding in Miranda vs.
Abaya, that a candidate whose certificate of candidacy has
been cancelled or not given due course cannot be
substituted by another belonging to the same political party
as that of the former. Ong v. Alegre & Comelec, G.R. No.
163295, January 23, 2006
SUBSTITUTION, DISQUALIFICATION CASE
SUFFRAGE, RIGHT TO
SUMMARY PROCEEDING
Election Jurisprudence Page 94
This Court held that the two conditions for the application of
the disqualification must concur: a) 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. Lonzanida v. COMELEC
311 SCRA 602, 611 (1999).
VERIFICATION, LACK OF
We can find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC in countenancing the lack of verification of the
motion for reconsideration in view of what the poll body
deemed as the higher interest of justice. Tiu v. Comelec,
G. R. No. 168795, August 2, 2005
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION
VSAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
2
Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R.
No. 97105, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 808,
Election Jurisprudence Page 100
VOID JUDGMENT