POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER platforms of government including its 2. Based on certain illegal acts (Vote 1.
sed on certain illegal acts (Vote
ELECTION LAWS
Election
 Embodiment of the popular will,
the expression of the sovereign
power of the people.
Components:
 Choice or selection of candidates
to public office by popular vote
 Conduct of the polls
 Listing of votes
 Holding of Electoral campaign
 Act of casting and receiving the
ballots from the voters
 Counting the ballots
 Making the election returns
 Proclaiming the winning
candidates
Regular election – refers to an election
participated in by those who possess the
right of suffrage and not disqualified by
law and who are registered voters.
Special election – is 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.
Political Parties
Definition (Omnibus Election Code)
An organized group of persons pursuing
the same ideology, political ideas or
1. Election offenses under Sec 68 of
branches and divisions.
Types of Political Parties
1) Registered Parties:
1. Dominant Majority Party – usually
the administration party; entitled to
a copy of election return
2. Dominant Minority Party – entitled
to a copy of election return
3. Majority Political Party
4. Top 3 Political Parties – entitled to
appoint principal watcher and a
copy of the certificate of canvass
5. Bottom 3 political parties – entitled
to appoint principal watcher
2) Non-registered parties
Criteria to Determine the Type of Political
Party
1. Established Record of the said
parties, showing in past elections
2. Number of Incumbent Elective
Officials
3. Identifiable political organizations
and strengths
4. Ability to fill a complete slate of
candidates
5. Other analogous circumstances
Grounds for Challenging the Voter
1. Illegal voters ( Not Registered /
Using the name of another /
disqualified )
buying)
Acquisition of Juridical Personality
It is acquired upon registration with the
COMELEC.
Forfeiture of Status as a Registered
Political Party
The status shall be deemed forfeited if the
political party, singly or in coalition with
others, fails to obtain at least 10% of the
votes cast in the constituency in which it
nominated and supported a candidate/s in
the election next following its registration.
There shall be notice and hearing.
Candidates
Rules on Filing of Certificates of
Candidacy
1. No person shall be elected into
public office unless he files his
certificate of candidacy within the
prescribed period
2. No person shall be eligible for
more than one office. If he/she
files for more than one position,
he shall not be eligible for all
unless he cancels all and retains
one
3. The certificate of candidacy shall
be filed by the candidate
personally or by his duly
authorized representative.
4. Upon filing, an individual becomes
a candidate, he is already covered
by rules, restrictions and
processes involving candidates.
Grounds for Disqualification
the Omnibus Election Code (OEC)
2. Not possessing qualifications and
possessing disqualifications under
the Local Government Code
2.1 Sentenced by final judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude or for an
offense punishable by one year or more of
imprisonment within two years after
serving sentence
2.2 Removed from office as a result of an
administrative case
2.3 Convicted by final judgment for
violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic
2.4 Dual citizenship ( more specifically,
dual allegiance)
2.5 Fugitives from justice in criminal or
non-political cases here or abroad
2.6 Permanent residents in a foreign
country or those who have acquired the
right to reside abroad and continue to avail
of the same right
2.7 Insane or feeble-minded
1. Nuisance candidate
2. Violation of sec 73 of OEC with
regard to certificate of candidacy
3. Violation of sec 78 which is
material misrepresentation of
reqts under sec. 74.
* Disqualifications (from continuing as a
candidate or from holding the office if
already elected):
Any candidate, who in an action or protest
in which he is a party is declared by final
decision of a competent court guilty of, or
is found by the Commission of having:
1. Given money or other material
consideration to influence, induce
or corrupt the voters or public
officials performing electoral
functions.
2. Committed acts of terrorism to
enhance his candidacy
3. Spent in his election campaign an
amount in excess of that allowed
by the Omnibus Election Code )
4. Solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under this
Code
5. Violated any of the following
sections: Section 80, 83,
85,86,261
6. Permanent resident of or an
immigrant to a foreign country
shall not be qualified to run for any
elective office UNLESS he/she
has waived his/her status as a
permanent resident/immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with
the residence requirement
provided for under election laws.
Effect of a Disqualification case (under RA
6646)
1. Any candidate who has been
declared by final judgment to be
disqualified shall NOT be voted
for. The votes cast in his favor
shall not be counted.
2. If the candidate is not disqualified
by final judgment before the
election and receives the highest
number of votes in the election,
the court or COMELEC will
continue with the trial and hearing
of the action, inquiry or
protest. Upon motion of the
complainant or intervenor, the
court or COMELEC may order the
suspension of the proclamation of
the candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
Nuisance Candidates
A. The term refers to candidates who
have no bona fide intention to run for the
office for which the certificate of candidacy
has been filed and would thus prevent a
faithful determination of the true will of the
people.
B. Power of COMELEC
1. May refuse to give due course to
or cancel a certificate of
candidacy of a nuisance
candidate. This can be done
motu proprio or upon verified
petition of an interested party.
There should be a showing that:
1. Certificate of candidacy has been
filed to put the election process in
mockery/disrepute or
2. To cause confusion among the
voters by the similarity of the
names of the registered
candidates
3. Other circumstances which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate
has no bona fide intention to run
for the office…
Petition to deny due course to or to cancel
a Certificate of Candidacy
A. Exclusive ground: A material
representation in the certificate of
candidacy is false.
B. The petition should be filed not later
than 25 days from the filing of the
certificate of candidacy.
C. It should be decided not later than 15
days before the election, after due notice
and hearing.
Election Campaign/Partisan Political
Activity
Ø Definition
1) It refers to an act designed to promote
the election or defeat of a particular
candidate/s to a public office
2) It includes:
A. Forming organizations, associations,
clubs, committees or other groups of
persons for the purpose of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign for or
against a candidate.
B. Holding political caucuses,
conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or
other similar assemblies for the purpose of
soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
campaign or propaganda for or against a
candidate.
C. Making speeches, announcements or
commentaries or holding interviews for or
against the election of any candidate for
public office.
D. Publishing or distributing campaign
literature or materials designed to support
or oppose the election of any candidate.
E. Directly or indirectly soliciting votes,
pledges or support for or against a
candidate.
3) When the acts enumerated above are
NOT considered an election
campaign/partisan political activity.
If the acts are performed for the purpose
of enhancing the chances of aspirants for
nomination for candidacy to a public office
by a political party, aggroupment, or
coalition of parties.
RA 9006 – FAIR ELECTION ACT
Important Features:
1) Repeal of Sec. 67 of the OEC – Now,
any ELECTIVE official, whether national or
local, running for any office other than the
one which he is holding in a permanent
capacity shall not be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of
his certificate of candidacy.
2) Lifting of the Political Ad Ban
– Written and Printed Materials (8.5” W x
14L”)
Letters
Posters (2’ x 3’) in common-private poster
areas ( not more than 10 public places
per political party or independent
candidate, 12’ 16’), private places and
public places
Rally streamers (3’ x 8’) NOT MORE
THAN 2
Paid Advertisements at Discounted Rates
Print : 1/4th page in broadsheet and ½
page in tabloid 3x a week
Television: 120 minutes for candidate for
nationally elective office and 60 for local
Radio: 180 minutes for candidate for
nationally elective office and 90 for local
COMELEC free space (3 national
newspaper for nationally elective officials
and 1 national newspaper for local) and
airtime
(3 national television networks for
nationally elective officials and 1 station
for local ) : equal allocation for all
candidates for 3 calendar days
Authorized Expenses ( multiplied with the
total number of registered voters )
 P 10 for president / vice president
 P 3 for other candidates for
every voter currently registered in
the constituency
 entering the cause of deactivation.
P 5 for independent candidates
and political parties
Voters
Qualifications
 Age: 18 years old and over.
 Residence
1. He /she should have resided in
the Philippines for one year and
2. Resided in the city/municipality
wherein he proposes to vote for at
least 6 months immediately
preceding the election.
Residence Requirement
If the transfer of residence is due to any of
the following reasons, the person
concerned will be deemed NOT to have
lost his original residence:
A. Transfer solely because of occupation,
profession, employment in private or
public service
B. Educational activities
C. Work in military or naval reservations
D. Service in the army, navy or air force,
national police force
E. Confinement/detention in government
institutions in accordance with law.
RA 8189 – VOTER’S REGISTRATION
ACT OF 1996
Q: Can there still be general registration of
voters?
A: No more, because 8189 (7) provides for
such only for the May ’98 elections
Q: What kind of registration system do we
have?
A: Continuing, Computerized and
Permanent
Disqualifications
A. If sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than 1 year and
such disability was not removed by
plenary pardon or has not been granted
amnesty. However, any person
disqualified to vote shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration
of 5 years after service of sentence.
B. Any person who has been adjudged by
final judgment by competent court or
tribunal of having committed any crime
involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion or any crime
against national security:
1. UNLESS restored to his full civil and
political rights in accordance with law.
2. However, he shall regain his right to
vote automatically upon expiration of
5 years after service of sentence.
C. Insane or incompetent persons as
declared by competent authority.
Jurisdiction in Inclusion/Exclusion cases
A. The municipal and metropolitan trial
courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters of inclusion
and exclusion of voters from the list in
their respective municipalities or cities.
Petition filed at any time except 105 days
before regular election or 75 days before
special election
B. Decisions may be appealed to the RTC
within 5 days from receipt of notice of
decision.
C. RTC will decide the appeal within 10
days. Decision is final and executory.
D. Note: Relate this to Article IX of the
Constitution which provides that the
COMELEC has no jurisdiction over
questions involving the right to vote.
E. Exclusion is through sworn petition and
not later than 100 days before regular
election; 65 days before special election
Grounds when the List of Voters will be
altered:
 Deactivation/ Reactivation
 Exclusion/ Inclusion
 Cancellation of Registration in
case of Death
 New voters
 Annulment of Book of Voters
 Transfer of Residence
How is challenge to right to register
effected?
Who – any voter, candidate, political party
representative
How – in writing, stating grnds, under
oath, proof of notice of hearing
Deactivation means removing the
registration records of persons from the
precinct book of voters and place the
same, properly marked and dated in
indelible ink, in the inactive file after
How is reactivation of registration effected
?
Sworn application for reactivation
Affidavit
Not later than 120 days before regular
election and 90 days before special
election
Annulment of Book of Voters is through
verified petition; notice and hearing; not
prepared in accordance with law or
prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery,
impersonation, intimidation, force, any
similar irregularity or which contains data
that are statistically improbable
Cannot be done within 90 days before
election
Postponement of Election
Causes
 Violence
 Terrorism
 Loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia/records
 Force majeure
 Other analogous causes
Effect
It is impossible to hold a free, orderly and
honest election in any political subdivision
COMELEC can postpone the
election (when decided by a majority vote
of the COMELEC sitting en banc, RA
7166):
A. Motu proprio
B. Upon a verified petition by any
interested party, after due notice and
hearing
Date of new election
The date of the postponed election should
be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended, or which
resulted in a failure to elect. It should not
be later than 30 days after the cessation of
the cause for such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to
elect.
Failure of Election
Causes
 Force majeure
 Violence
 Terrorism
 Fraud
 Other analogous causes
Under RA 7166, the causes for the
declaration of the failure of election may
occur before or after the casting of votes
or on the day of the election.
Effects of above causes
A. Election in any polling place was not
held on the date fixed;
B. Election was suspended before the
hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting
C. Elections results in a failure to elect
(after the voting and during the
preparation and transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof)
AND the failure or suspension of the
election would affect the result of the
election
Remedy
COMELEC can call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held,
suspended, or which resulted in a failure
to elect. The election should be held not
later than 30 days after the cessation of
the cause of the postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to
elect. This is decided by the COMELEC,
by a majority vote of its members, sitting
en banc.
RA 7941 – Party-List System Act
 Seeks to promote proportional
representation
 Any party already registered need
not register anew. File
manifestation not later than 90
days before election.
Grounds for refusing or canceling
registration of Party-Lists groups
1. Religious sect or denomination,
organization
2. Advocates violence
3. Foreign party or organization
4. Receives foreign support
5. Violates election law
6. Untruthful statements in its
petition
7. Ceased to exist for at least one
year
8. Failed to participate in the last two
preceding elections or fails to
obtain at least 2% of the votes
cast under the party-list system in
the 2 preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has
registered
Nomination of party-list reps should not
include any candidate for any elective
office or a person who has lost his bid for
an elective office in the immediately
preceding election
Incumbent sectoral representatives in the
House of Representatives who are
nominated in the party-list system shall not
be considered resigned
Party List Reps constitute 20% of the total
number of the members of the House of
Reps including those under the party-list
How do we determine the number of party
list seats in the House of Reps?
(# of District Reps / 0.80) x 0.20 = # of
party list reps
 There are presently 208 legislative
districts, according to the
Veterans Federation Case
 The 5 major political parties are
now entitled to participate in the
party list system
 Parties receiving at least 2% of
the total votes cast for the party-
list system shall be entitled to one
seat each
 No party shall be entitled to more
than 3 seats
 Currently, there are 260 seats. So
20 % of 260 is 52 seats. But this is
only a ceiling.
 A list with 5 names should be
submitted to COMELEC as to who
will represent the party in the
Congress. Ranking in the list
submitted determines who shall
represent party or organization.
Rules for Appreciation of Ballots
 Liberal Construction in favor of the
validity of the ballot
 Look at the ticket slate, consider
locality or literacy rate
 Rule 211 of the OEC
  Incumbency / Surname
 Cannot ascertain – STRAY VOTE
Pre-Proclamation Controversies
Definition
1. A pre-proclamation controversy
refers to any question pertaining
to or affecting the proceedings of
the board of canvassers which
may be raised by any candidate or
by any registered political party or
coalition of political parties before
the board or directly with the
COMELEC.
1. It would also refer to any matter
raised under Sections 233, 234,
235, and 236 of the Omnibus
Election Code in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody, and appreciation of the
election returns. (Board of
canvassers have original
jurisdiction while COMELEC have
appellate jurisdiction)
1. When election returns are
delayed, lost or destroyed
(Sec.233)
2. Material defects in the
election returns (Sec. 234)
3. When election returns
appear to be tampered
with or falsified. (Sec.
235)
4. Discrepancies in election
returns (Sec. 236)
C. Those that can be filed with
COMELEC directly are the ff:
 Issue involves the illegal
composition or proceedings of the
board of canvassers, as when a
majority or all of the members do
not hold legal appointments or are
in fact usurpers
 Issue involves the correction of
manifest errors in the tabulation or
tallying
of the results during the canvassing
Recount
There can be a recount under the grounds
of 234-236. The returns involved will affect
the results and the integrity of the ballot
box has been preserved
Issues that may be raised in a pre-
proclamation controversy
1. Illegal composition or proceedings
of the board of canvassers
2. The canvassed election returns
are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to
be tampered with or falsified,
or contain discrepancies in the
same returns or in
authentic copies thereof.
3. The election returns were
prepared under duress, threats,
coercion, or intimidation, or they
are obviously manufactured, or
not authentic.
4. When substitute or fraudulent
returns in controverted polling
places were canvassed, the
results of which materially affected
the standing of the aggrieved
candidate/s.
Procedure
A. Contested composition or proceedings
of the board (under RA 7166)
It may be initiated in the board or directly
with COMELEC.
B. Contested election returns (under RA
7166)
Matters relating to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody
and appreciation of the election returns,
and certificate of canvass, should be
brought in the first instance before the
board of canvassers only.
Summary nature of pre-proclamation
controversy
1. Pre-proclamation controversies
shall be heard summarily by the
COMELEC.
2. Its decision shall be executory
after the lapse of 5 days from
receipt by the losing party of the
decision, unless restrained by the
SC.
Effect of filing petition to annul or suspend
proclamation
It suspends the running of the period
within which to file an election protest or
quo warranto proceedings.
When not allowed
Pre-proclamation cases on matters
relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the
election returns or the certificates of
canvass NOT allowed in elections for:
(under RA 7166)
 President
 Vice-President
 Senator
 Member of the House of
Representatives
BUT: The appropriate canvassing
body motu propio or upon written
complaint of an interested person can
correct manifest errors in the certificate of
canvass or election returns before it.
BUT: Questions affecting the composition
or proceedings of the board of canvassers
may be initiated in the board or directly
with COMELEC.
When pre-proclamation cases are deemed
TERMINATED (RA 7166)
1. All pre-proclamation cases
pending before the COMELEC
shall be deemed terminated at the
beginning of the term of the office
involved and the rulings of the
boards of canvassers concerned
deemed affirmed.
B. This is without prejudice to the filing of
a regular election protest by the aggrieved
party.
C. HOWEVER: Proceedings MAY
CONTINUE if:
1. The COMELEC determines that
the petition is meritorious and
issues an order for the
proceedings to continue or
 2. The Supreme Court issues an
order for the proceedings to
continue in a petition for certiorari.
Election Contest
Original Jurisdiction
COMELEC has ORIGINAL jurisdiction
over contests relating to the elections,
returns, qualifications of all elective:
 Regional
 Provincial
 City officials
Appellate Jurisdiction
COMELEC has APPELLATE jurisdiction
over all contests involving:
A. Elective MUNICIPAL officials decided
by trial courts of GENERAL jurisdiction
B. Elective BARANGAY officials decided
by trial courts of LIMITED jurisdiction
Who can file a petition contesting the
election
Any candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been
voted for the same office
Purpose of an election contest
The defeated candidate seeks to outs the
proclaimed winner and claims the seat.
Final COMELEC Decisions
Provision that decisions, final orders,
rulings of the Commission on election
contests involving municipal and barangay
offices are final, executory and not
appealable:
A. This only applies to questions of FACT.
( Flores v. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484)
B. It does NOT preclude a special civil
action of certiorari. (Galido v. COMELEC,
Jan. 18,1991)
Distinctions between Pre-Proclamation
Controversy and Election Contest
1) Dividing line: Proclamation of a
candidate
2) Jurisdiction
A. Pre-proclamation controversy
1.The jurisdiction of COMELEC is
administrative/quasi-judicial
2.It is governed by the requirements of
administrative due process
B. Election contest
1.The jurisdiction of COMELEC is judicial
2.It is governed by the requirements of
judicial process
3) In some cases, even if the case
(involving municipal officials) began with
the COMELEC before proclamation but a
proclamation is made before the
controversy is resolved, it ceases to be a
pre-proclamation controversy and
becomes an election contest cognizable
by the RTC.
4) However, in some cases, the SC
has recognized the jurisdiction of
COMELEC over municipal cases even
after proclamation. Relate to the provision
in RA 7166 allowing pre-proclamation
controversy proceedings to continue even
after a proclamation has been made.
Election Offenses ( Selected Offenses)
Vote buying and vote-selling
A. Covered acts
1.Give, offer or promise money or
anything of value
2. Making or offer to make any
expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause
an expenditure to be made to any person,
association, corporation, entity or
community
3.Soliciting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, any expenditure or promise of
any office or employment, public or private
B. Purpose of acts
1. To induce anyone or the public in
general to vote for or against any
candidate or withhold his vote in the
election or
2. To vote for or against any aspirant for
the nomination or choice of a candidate in
a convention or similar selection
C. Under RA 6646 (Prosecution of vote-
buying/selling)
1. Presentation of a complaint supported
by affidavits of complaining witnesses
attesting to the offer or promise by or the
voters acceptance of money or other
consideration from the relatives, leaders or
sympathizers of a candidate is sufficient
basis for an investigation by the
COMELEC,directly or through its duly
authorized legal officers.
2. Disputable presumption of conspiracy:
Proof that at least one voter in different
precincts representing at least 20% of the
total precincts in any municipality, city or
province has been offered, promised or
given money, valuable consideration or
other expenditure by a candidate relatives,
leaders and/or sympathizsrs for the
purpose of promoting the election of such
candidate.
3. Disputable presumption of involvement
Proof affects at least 20% of the precincts
of the municipality, city or province to
which the public office aspired for by the
favored candidate relates. This will
constitute a disputable presumption of the
involvement of such candidate and of his
principal campaign managers in each of
the municipalities concerned in the
conspiracy
Coercion of a subordinate
A. Who can be held liable
1. public officer
2. officer of a public/private
corporation/association
3. heads/superior/administrator of any
religious org.
4. employer/landowner
B. Prohibited acts
1. Coercing, intimidating or
compelling or influencing, in any
manner, any subordinates,
members, parishioners or
employees or house helpers,
tenants, overseers, farm helpers,
tillers or lease holders to aid,
campaign or vote for or against a
candidate or aspirant for the
nomination or selection of
candidates.
 2. Dismissing or threatening to
dismiss, punishing or threatening
to punish by reducing salary,
wage or compensation or by
demotion, transfer, suspension
etc.
Appointment of new employees, creation
of new position, promotion or giving salary
increases:
A. Who can be held liable: Any
head/official/appointing officer of a
government office, agency or
instrumentality, whether national or local,
including GOCCs.
B. Prohibited acts
1.Appointing or hiring a new employee
(provisional, temporary or casual)
2.Creating or filling any new position
3.Promoting/giving an increase in salary,
remuneration or privilege to any
government official or employee.
C. Period when acts are prohibited
1. 45 days before a regular election
2. 30 days before a special election
D. Exceptions
1. Upon prior authority of COMELEC
if it is satisfied that the position to
be filled is essential to the proper
functioning of the office/agency
concerned AND that the position
is not filled in a manner that may
influence the election
2. In case of urgent need, a new
employee may be appointed.
Notice of appointment should be
given to COMELEC within 3 days
from appointment.
Prohibition against release, disbursement
or expenditure of public funds
A. Who can be held liable: Any public
official or employee including barangay
officials and those of GOCCs/subsidiaries
B. Prohibited acts:
The release, disbursement or expenditure
of public funds for any and other
kinds of public works
C. Period when acts are prohibited:
1. 45 days before a regular election
2. 30 days before a special election
D. Exception
1. maintenance of
existing/completed public works
project.
2. work undertaken by contract
through public bidding, or by
negotiated contract awarded
before the 45 day period before
election
3. payment for the usual cooperation
for working drawings,
specfications and other
procedures preparatory to actual
construction including the
purchase of material and
equipment and incidental
expenses for wages.
4. Emergency work necessitated by
the occurrence of a public
calamity but such work shall be
limited to the restoration of the
damaged facility.
5. Ongoing public work projects
commenced before the campaign
period or similar projects under
foreign agreements.
Suspension of elective, provincial, city,
municipal or barangay officer
A. General rule: public official CANNOT
suspend any of the officers enumerated
above during the election period.
B. Exceptions
1. With prior approval of COMELEC
2. Suspension is for the purpose of
applying the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act
In relation to registration of voters/voting
 Unjustifiable refusal to register
and vote
 Voting more than once in the
same election/voting when not a
registered voter
 Voting in substitution for another
with or without the latters’
knowledge and/or consent etc.
Other election offenses under RA 6646
1. Causing the printing of official
ballots and election returns by
printing establishments not on
contract with COMELEC and
printing establishments which
undertakes unauthorized printing
2. Tampering, increasing or
decreasing the votes received by
a candidate or refusing after
proper verification and hearing to
credit the correct votes or deduct
the tampered votes (committed by
a member of the board of election
inspectors)
3. Refusing to issue the certificate of
voters to the duly accredited
watchers (committed by a member
of the BEI)
4. Person who violated provisions
against prohibited forms of
election propaganda
5. Failure to give notice of meetings
to other members of the board,
candidate or political party
(committed by the Chairman of the
board of canvassers)
6. A person who has been declared
a nuisance candidate or is
otherwise disqualified who
continues to misrepresent himself
as a candidate (Ex. by continuing
to campaign) and any public
officer or private individual who
knowingly induces or abets such
misrepresentation by commission
or omission.
7. If the chairman of the BEI fails to
affix his signature at the back of
the official ballot, in the presence
of the voter, before delivering the
ballot to the voter. (under RA
7166)
Prescription of Election Offenses
 1. Election offenses shall prescribe
after 5 years from the date of their
commission
2. If the discovery of the offense is
made 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
Jurisdiction of courts
1. RTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any
criminal action or proceedings for
violation of the Code.
2. MTC/MCTC have jurisdiction over
offenses relating to failure to
register or vote.
Reports:
1. SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all
citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least
eighteen years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least one
year, and in the place wherein they propose
to vote, for at least six months immediately
preceding the election. No literacy,
property, or other substantive requirement
shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.
2. Mandates of COMELEC
According to the constitution, the
COMELEC shall exercise and perform
the following powers and functions:
 Enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall.
 Exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over contests relating
to the elections, returns and
qualifications of elective regional,
provincial and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over contests
involving elective municipal
officials or barangay officials
decided by trial courts.
 Decide all questions affecting
elections, including determination
of the number and location of
polling places, appointment of
election officials and inspectors,
and registration of voters.
 Deputize law enforcement
agencies and instrumentalities of
the government, including the
Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), to ensure peaceful, orderly
and credible elections.
 Register political parties,
organizations or coalitions, and
accredit citizens’ arms or
watchdogs.
 File petitions in court for inclusion
or exclusion of voters, and
investigate and prosecute cases of
violations of election laws,
including election frauds, offenses,
and malpractices.
 Recommend to Congress
measures to minimize election
spending, limit places for
propaganda materials, and prevent
and penalize all forms of election
frauds, offenses and nuisance
candidates.
 Submit to the President and
Congress a comprehensive report
on the conduct of each election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or
recall.
3. The aforecited provision of law is
implemented by Rule 29 of
COMELECs Rules of Procedure,
Section 2 of which states:
Sec. 2. Indirect Contempt. After
charge in writing has been filed
with the Commission or Division,
as the case may be, and an
opportunity given to the
respondent to be heard by himself
or counsel, a person guilty of the
following acts may be punished
for indirect contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of the responsible officer
of the Commission in the performance of
his official duties or in his official
transactions;
b) Disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, judgment or
command of the Commission or any of its
Divisions, or injunction or restraining order
granted by it
(c) Any abuse of or any inlawful
interference with the process or
proceedings of the Commission or any of
its Divisions not constituting direct
contempt under Section 1 of this Rules;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly
or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice by
the Commission or any of its Divisions;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney and acting
as such without authority; and
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly
served.
SEC. 3 Penalty for Indirect Contempt. If
adjudged guilty, the accused may be
punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand (P1,000.00) pesos or
imprisonment for not more than six (6)
months, or both, at the discretion of the
Commission or Division.
The language of the Omnibus Election
Code and the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure is broad enough to allow the
initiation of indirect contempt proceedings
by the COMELEC motu proprio.
Furthermore, the above-quoted provision
of Section 52(e), Article VII of the
Omnibus Election Code explicitly adopts
the procedure and penalties provided by
the Rules of Court. Under Section 4, Rule
71, said proceedings may be initiated
motu proprio by the COMELEC, viz:
4.
SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced.
Proceedings for indirect contempt may be
initiated motu proprio by the court against
which the contempt was committed by an
order or any other formal charge requiring
the respondent to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect
contempt shall be commenced by a
verified petition with supporting particulars
and certified true copies of documents or
papers involved therein, and upon full
compliance with the requirements for filing
initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the
court concerned. If the contempt charges
arose out of or are related to a principal
action pending in the court, the petition for
contempt shall allege that fact but said
petition shall be docketed, heard and
decided separately, unless the court in its
discretion orders the consolidation of the
contempt charge and the principal action
for joint hearing and decision.

Hence, the COMELEC properly assumed

jurisdiction over the indirect contempt
proceedings which were initiated by its
Task Force Maguindanao, through a
Contempt Charge and Show Cause Order,
notwithstanding the absence of any
complaint filed by a private party.
ELECTION LAWS QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
Q — Rev. Nardo B. Cayat filed his
certificate of candidacy for Mayor of
Buguias, Benguet for the May 2004
elections. Thomas Palileng, another
candidate for Mayor filed a petition to
annul/nullify his certificate of candidacy
and/or to disqualify on the ground that
Cayat has been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude. Twenty three
days before the election, Cayat’s
disqualification became final and
executory. He, however won and was
proclaimed and assumed office. Palileng
filed an electoral protest contending that
Cayat was ineligible to run for mayor. The
Vice-Mayor intervened and contended that
he should succeed Cayat in case he is
disqualified because Palileng was only a
second placer, hence, he cannot be
declared as the winner. Is the contention
of the Vice-Mayor correct? Why?
ANS: No, because there was no second
placer, hence, Palileng should be
proclaimed as the winner on the following
grounds:
First, the COMELEC’s Resolution of 12
April 2004 cancelling Cayat’s certificate of
candidacy due to disqualification became
final and executory on 17 April 2004 when
Cayat failed to pay the prescribed filing
fee. Thus, Palileng was the only candidate
for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in the 10
May 2004 elections. Twenty-three days
before the election day, Cayat was already
disqualified by final judgment to run for
Mayor in the 10 May 2004 elections. As
the only candidate, Palileng was not a
second placer. On the contrary, Palileng
was the sole and only placer, second to
none. The doctrine on the rejection of the
second placer, which triggers the rule on
succession, does not apply in the present
case because Palileng is not a second-
placer but the only placer. Consequently,
Palileng’s proclamation as Mayor of
Buguias, Benguet is beyond question.
Second, there are specific requirements
for the application of the doctrine on the
rejection of the second placer. The
doctrine will apply in Bayacsan’s favor,
regardless of his intervention in the
present case, if two conditions concur: (1)
the decision on Cayat’s disqualification
remained pending on election day, 10 May
2004, resulting in the presence of two
mayoralty candidates for Buguias,
Benguet in the elections; and (2) the
decision on Cayat’s disqualification
became final only after the elections.
(Cayat v. COMELEC, April 27, 2007).
Q — It was contended that the doctrine
of rejection of the second placer laid down
in Labo v. COMELEC should apply. Is the
contention correct? Why?
ANS: No. Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, which
enunciates the doctrine on the rejection of
the second placer, does not apply
because in Labo there was no final
judgment of disqualification before the
elections. The doctrine on the rejection of
the second placer was applied in Labo
and a host of other cases because the
judgment declaring the candidate’s
disqualification in Labo and the other
cases had not become final before the
elections. Labo and other cases applying
the doctrine on the rejection of the second
placer have one common essential
condition – the disqualification of the
candidate had not become final before the
elections. This essential condition does
not exist in the present case. (Cayat v.
COMELEC).
Reason in Labo.
In Labo, Labo’s disqualification became
final only on 14 May 1992, three days after
the 11 May 1992 elections. On election
day itself, Labo was still legally a
candidate. In the case of Cayat he was
disqualified by final judgment 23 days
before the 10 May 2004 lections. On
election day, Cayat was no longer legally
a candidate for mayor. In short, Cayat’s
candidacy for Mayor was legally non-
existent in the 10 May 2004 elections.
Q — What is the effect if a candidate is
disqualified by final judgment? Explain.
ANS: The law expressly declares that a
candidate disqualified by final judgment
before an election cannot be voted for,
and votes cast for him shall not be
counted. This is a mandatory provision of
law. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646,
The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987,
states:
Any candidate who has been declared by
final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him
shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final
judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and
receives the winning number of votes in
such election, the Court or Commission
shall continue with the trial and hearing of
the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon
motion of the complainant or any
intervenor, may during the pendency
thereof order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever
the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of
1987 covers two situations. The first is
when the disqualification becomes final
before the elections, which is the situation
covered in the first sentence of Section 6.
The second is when the disqualification
becomes final after the elections, which is
the situation covered in the second
sentence of Section 6.
The present case falls under the first
situation. Section 6 of the Electoral
Reforms Law governing the first situation
is categorical: a candidate disqualified by
final judgment before an election cannot
be voted for, and votes cast for him shall
not be counted. The Resolution
disqualifying Cayat became final on 17
April 2004, way before the 10 May 2004
elections. Therefore, all the 8, 164 votes
cast in Cayat’s favor are stray. Cayat was
never a candidate in the 10 May 2004
elections. Palileng’s proclamation is
proper because he was the sole and only
candidate, second to none. (Cayat v.
COMELEC).
Q — Why is the proclamation of Cayat
void? Explain.
ANS: Cayat’s proclamation is void
because the decision disqualifying him
had already become final on 17 April
2004. There is no longer any need to
ascertain whether there was actual
knowledge by the voters of his
disqualification when they casted their
votes on election day because the law
mandates that Cayat’s votes “shall not be
counted”. There is no disenfranchisement
of the voters. Rather, the voters are
deemed by law to have deliberately voted
for a non-candidate, and thus their votes
are stray and “shall not be counted”.
(Cayat. v. COMELEC).
Q — Is the intervention of the Vice-
Mayor proper? Why?
ANS: No. The petition-in-intervention
should be rejected because the doctrine
on the rejection of the second placer does
not apply to this case. The doctrine
applies only if the winning candidate’s
disqualification has not yet become final
and executory before the election. In this
case, the disqualification was final and
executory before the election, hence,
there was no second placer. (Cayat v.
COMELEC).
Three-term limit; even if “as caretaker”.
Q — Mayor Marino Morales ran for a
fourth term despite having served for three
(3) consecutive terms as Mayor of
Mabalacat, Pampanga. In answer to a
petition to cancel his certificate of
candidacy, he alleged that while he served
his second term, he did it as a “caretaker
of the office” or as a “de facto officer”
because he was suspended by the
Ombudsman from January 16, 1999 to
July 15, 1999 and that his proclamation
was declared void and which became final
and executory on August 6, 2001. The
COMELEC declared him disqualified.
Before the Supreme Court, he contended
that his second term from July 1, 1999 to
June 30, 2001 may not be counted since
his proclamation was void. Is the
contention correct? Why?
ANS: No, because his service from July
1, 1999 to June 30, 2001 was for a full
term, hence, the three-term limit rule
applies to him. This is especially so that
he assumed office. He served as mayor
up to June 30, 2001. He was mayor for the
entire period notwithstanding the decision
in the electoral protest case ousting him
as mayor. As held in Ong v. Alegre, G.R.
Nos. 162395 and 163354, January 23,
2006, 479 SCRA 473, such circumstance
does not constitute an interruption in
serving the full term. In Ong, he served the
full term even as there was a declaration
of failure of election.
Section 8, Article X of the Constitution
provides that the terms of the office of
elected local officials x x x, shall be three
years and no such official shall serve for
more than three consecutive terms. x x x
Section 43(b) of R.A. No. 7160 (the Local
Government Code) clearly provides that
no local official shall serve for more than
three consecutive terms in the same
position.
Morales has been mayor of Mabalacat
continuously without any break since July
1, 1995, hence, he is disqualified. (Rivera
III, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167591
and Dee v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No.
170577, May 6, 2007).
Q — Explain the reason for the
maximum term limit.
ANS: The framers of the Constitution
wanted to establish some safeguards
against the excessive accumulation of
power as a result of consecutive terms.
As held in Latasa v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
154829, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA
601, the three-term limit is an exception to
the people’s freedom to choose those who
will govern them in order to avoid the evil
of a single person accumulating excessive
power over a particular territorial
jurisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay
in the same office. (Rivera III, et al. v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 167591 and
companion case, May 9, 2007).
Q — Is not the case of Morales similar to
the case of Lonzanida v COMELEC?
Explain.
ANS: No. In Lonzanida v. COMELEC,
while he assumed office, he voluntarily
vacated when there was a declaration of
failure of election. He did not fully serve
the term, hence, he was qualified to run
for a third term.
The difference between the case at bench
and Lonzanida is at once apparent. For
one, in Lonzanida, the result of the
mayoralty elections was declared a nullity
for the stated reason of “failure of
election”, and, as a consequence thereof,
the proclamation of Lonzanida as mayor-
elect was nullified, followed by an order for
him to vacate the office of the mayor. For
another, Lonzanida did not fully serve the
1995-1998 mayoral term, there being an
involuntary severance from office as a
result of legal processes. In fine, there
was an effective interruption of the
continuity of service.
On the other hand, the failure-of-election
factor does not obtain in the present case.
But more importantly, here, there was
actually no interruption or break in the
continuity of Francis’ service respecting
the 1998-2001 term. Unlike Lonzanida,
Francis was never unseated during the
term in question; he never ceased
discharging his duties and responsibilities
as mayor of San Vicente, Camarines
Norte for the entire period covering the
1998-2001 term.
Instead, Ong v. Alegre applies to Morales.
Francis Ong was elected and assumed
the duties of the mayor of San Vicente,
Camarines Norte for three consecutive
terms. But his proclamation as mayor in
the May 1998 election was declared void.
As ruled, his service for the term 1998 to
2001 is for the full term. Clearly, the three-
term limit rule applies to him. There is no
reason why this ruling should not also
apply to Morales who is similarly situated.
(Rivera III, et al. v. COMELEC, et al., May
9, 2007).
Q — Morales cited Borja v. COMELEC
to apply to him. Is this case applicable?
Why?
ANS: No, because with the death of Mayor
Cruz, Capco assumed office as mayor by
virtue of the principle of succession, he
being the vice-mayor. He was not
therefore, elected even if he served the
rest of the term of the mayor, hence, his
assumption of the office of the mayor upon
the death of the incumbent mayor may not
be regarded as a term.
Similarly, in Adormeo v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 147927, February 4, 2002, 376 SCRA
90, it was held that assumption of the
office of mayor in a recall election for the
remaining term is not the “term”
contemplated under Section 8, Article X of
the Constitution and Section 43(b) of R.A.
7160 (the Local Government Code). There
was a “break” in the service of the mayor.
He was a “private citizen” for a time before
running for mayor in the recall elections.
(Rivera III, e al. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R.
No. 167591, May 9, 2007).
Q — What is the effect if the certificate of
candidacy of a candidate is cancelled?
Explain.
ANS: Any candidate who has been
declared by final judgment to be
disqualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes cast for him shall not be counted.
(Secs. 6 and 7, RA 6646).
Any vote in favor of a person who has not
filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor
of a candidate for an office for which he
did not present himself shall be
considered as a stray vote but it shall not
invalidate the whole ballot. (Sec. 211,
Omnibus Election Code).
Morales can not be considered a
candidate in the May 2004 elections. Not
being a candidate, the votes cast for him
should not be counted and must be
considered stray votes. (Rivera III, et al. v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 167591, May 9,
2007).
Q — It was contended that since
Morales was disqualified, the second
placer should be proclaimed as the
winner. Is the contention correct? Why?
ANS: In Labo v. COMELEC, the Court
has ruled that a second place candidate
cannot be proclaimed as a substitute
winner.
The rule is that, the ineligibility of a
candidate receiving majority votes does
not entitle the eligible candidate receiving
the next highest number of votes to be
declared elected. A minority or defeated
candidate cannot be deemed elected to
the office.
As a consequence of ineligibility, a
permanent vacancy in the contested office
has occurred. This should now be filled by
the vice-mayor in accordance with Sec. 44
of the Local Government Code. (Rivera III,
et al. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No.
167591, May 9, 2007 citing Labo v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 105111, July 3,
1992, 211 SCRA 297).
Q — What are the requirements which
must concur for the three-term limit to
apply?
ANS: For the three-term limit to apply,
the following two conditions must concur:
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. (Lonzanida v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495, September
3, 1998, 295 SCRA 157; Ong v. Alegre,
479 SCRA 473; Adormeo v. COMELEC,
376 SCRA 90; Rivera III, et al. v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 167591, May
9, 2007).
Effect if there is a tie.
Q — What is the proper procedure to be
resorted to in case of a tie? Explain.
ANS: To resolve the tie, there shall be
drawing of lots. Whenever it shall appear
from the canvass that two or more
candidates have received an equal and
highest number of votes, or in cases
where two or more candidates are to be
elected for the same position and two or
more candidates received the same
number of votes for the last place in the
number to be elected, the board of
canvassers, after recording this fact in its
minutes, shall by resolution, upon five
days notice to all the tied candidates, hold
a special public meeting at which the
board of canvassers shall proceed to the
drawing of lots of the candidates who have
tied and shall proclaim as elected the
candidates who may favored by luck, and
the candidates so proclaimed shall have
the right to assume office in the same
manner as if he had been elected by
plurality of votes. The board of canvassers
shall forthwith make a certificate stating
the name of the candidate who had been
favored by luck and his proclamation on
the basis thereof.
Nothing in this section shall be construed
as depriving a candidate of his right to
contest the election. (Sec. 240, BP 881;
Tugade v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No.
171063, March 2, 2007).
Withdrawal of certificate of candidacy.
Q — Hans Roger filed his certificate of
candidacy but withdrew the same. He was
substituted by Joy Luna but the
COMELEC denied due course to her
certificate on the ground that Hans being
under age, he could not have filed a valid
certificate of candidacy. There was,
however, no petition to deny Hans
certificate of candidacy. Did the
COMELEC act correctly? Why?
ANS: No. The COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring
that Hans Roger, being under age, could
not be considered to have filed a valid
certificate of candidacy and, thus, could
not be validly substituted by Luna. The
COMELEC may not, by itself, without the
proper proceedings, deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in
due form. (Cipriano v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 158830, August 10, 2004, 436 SCRA
45). 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.
If Hans Roger made a material
misrepresentation as to his date of birth or
age in his certificate of candidacy, his
eligibility may only be impugned through a
verified petition to deny due course to or
cancel such certificate of candidacy under
Section 78 of the Election Code.
In this case, there was no petition to deny
due court to or cancel the certificate of
candidacy of Hans Roger. The COMELEC
only declared that Hans Roger did not file
a valid certificate of candidacy and, thus,
was not a valid candidate in the petition to
deny due course to or cancel Luna’s
certificate of candidacy. In effect, the
COMELEC, without the proper
proceedings, cancelled Hans Roger’s
certificate of candidacy and declared the
substitution of Luna invalid. (Luna v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 165983, April
24, 2007).
Pre-proclamation controversy; extent of
power of COMELEC.
Q — What is the extent of the power of
the COMELEC in pre-proclamation
controversy? Explain.
ANS: It is a well-established rule in pre-
proclamation cases that the Board of
Canvassers is without jurisdiction to go
beyond what appears on the face of the
election return. The rationale is that a full
reception of evidence aliunde and the
meticulous examination of voluminous
election documents would run counter to
the summary nature of a pre-proclamation
controversy. However, this rule is not
without any exception. In Lee v.
Commission on Elections, it was held that
if there is a prima facie showing that the
return is not genuine, several entries
having been omitted in the questioned
election return, the doctrine does not
apply. The COMELEC is thus not
powerless to determine if there is basis for
the exclusion of the questioned returns.
(G.R. No. 157004, July 4, 2003, 405
SCRA 303; Ewoc, et al. v. COMELEC, et
al., G.R. No. 171882, April 3, 2007).
Handwritings have only one general
appearance.
Q — May the COMELEC invalidate
certain ballots merely on a finding that the
writings have the same general
appearance and pictorial effect? Explain.
ANS: No. General resemblance is not
enough to warrant the conclusion that two
writings are by the same hand. (Silverio v.
Clamor, 125 Phil. 917 (1967)).
In order to reach the conclusion that two
writings are by the same hand there must
not only be present class characteristics
but also individual characteristics or ‘dents
and scratches’ in sufficient quantity to
exclude the theory of accidental
coincidence; to reach the conclusion that
writings are by different hands we may
find numerous likeness in class
characteristics but divergences in
individual characteristics, or we may find
divergences in both, but the divergence
must be something more than mere
superficial differences. (Osborn’s
Questioned Documents, p. 244; Delos
Reyes v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No.
170070, February 28, 2007).
Neighborhood rule.
The votes contested in this appeal are all
misplaced votes, i.e., votes cast for a
candidate for the wrong or inexistent
office. In appreciating such votes, the
COMELEC may applied the
“neighborhood rule.” As used by the Court,
this nomenclature, loosely based on a rule
of the same name devised by the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) in Nograles v. Dureza, HRET
Case No. 34, June 16, 1989, 1 HRET
Rep. 138), refers to an exception to the
rule on appreciation of misplaced votes
under Section 211(19) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) which
provides:
Any vote in favor of a person who has not
filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor
of a candidate for an office for which he
did not present himself shall be
considered as a stray vote but it shall not
invalidate the whole ballot.
Section 211(19) is meant to avoid
confusion in the minds of the election
officials as to the candidates actually
voted for and to stave off any scheming
design to identify the vote of the elector,
thus defeating the secrecy of the ballot
which is a cardinal feature of our election
laws. (Amurao v. Calangi, 10 Phil. 347
(1958)). Section 211(19) also enforces
Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code
which provides that in preparing the ballot,
each voter must “fill his ballot by writing in
the proper place for each office the name
of the individual candidate for whom he
desires to vote.”
Excepted from Section 211(19) are ballots
with (1) a general misplacement of an
entire series of names intended to be
voted for the successive offices appearing
in the ballot (Cordero v. Hon. Moscardon,
217 Phil. 392 (1984)); (2) a single (Farin v.
Gonzales, 152 Phil. 598 (1973)) or double
(Sarmiento v. Quemado, No. L-18027, 29
June 1962, 5 SCRA 438) misplacement of
names where such names were preceded
or followed by the title of the contested
office or where the voter wrote after the
candidate’s name a directional symbol
indicating the correct office for which the
misplaced name was intended (Moya v.
Del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199 (1939)); and (3) a
single misplacement of a name written (a)
off-center from the designated space
(Mandac v. Samonte, 54 Phil. 706 (1930)),
(b) slightly underneath the line for the
contested office (Sarmiento v. Quemado,
No. L-18027, 29 June 1962, 5 SCRA 438;
Moya v. Del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199 (1939)),
(c) immediately above the title for the
contested office ((Villavert v. Fornier, 84
Phil. 756 (1949)), or (d) in the space for an
office immediately following that for which
the candidate presented himself. ((Abad v.
Co, G.R. No. 167438, 25 July 2006, 496
SCRA 505 and Ferrer v. Commission on
Elections, 386 Phil. 431 (2000)). In these
instances, the misplaced votes are
nevertheless credited to the candidates for
the office for which they presented
themselves because the voters’ intention
to so vote is clear from the face of the
ballots. This is in consonance with the
settled doctrine that ballots should be
appreciated with liberality to give effect to
the voters’ will. (Velasco v. COMELEC, et
al., G.R. No. 166931, February 22, 2007).
Marked ballot.
Q — When is a ballot considered as
marked? Explain.
ANS: In order for a ballot to be
considered marked, in the sense
necessary to invalidate it, it must appear
that the voter designedly place some
superfluous sign or mark on the ballot
which might serve to identify it thereafter.
No ballot should be discarded as a
marked ballot unless its character as such
is unmistakable. The distinguishing mark
which the law forbids to be placed on the
ballot is that which the elector may have
placed with the intention of facilitating the
means of identifying said ballot, for the
purpose of defeating the secrecy of
suffrage which the law establishes. Thus,
marked ballots are ballots containing
distinguishing marks, the purpose of which
is to identify them. (Perman v. COMELEC,
et al. G.R. No. 174010, February 8, 2007,
Tinga, J).
Failure of election.
Q— When is there failure of election?
ANS: There are three instances where a
failure of elections may be declared, thus:
(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 has
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 results in a
failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes.
In all three instances, there is a resulting
failure to elect. In the first instance, the
election has not been held. In the second
instance, the election has been
suspended. In the third instance, the
preparation and the transmission of the
election returns give rise to the
consequent failure to elect; the third
instance is interpreted to mean that
nobody emerged as a winner. (Mutilan v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 171248, April
2, 2007).
Note:
None of the three instances is present in
this case. In this case, the elections took
place. In fact, private respondent was
proclaimed the winner. Petitioner contests
the results of the elections on the grounds
of massive disenfranchisement, substitute
voting, and farcical and statistically
improbable results. Petitioner alleges that
no actual election was conducted because
the voters did not actually vote and the
ballots were filled up by non-registered
voters.
Q — May an interlocutory order of a
COMELEC Division be the subject of
certiorari to the SC? Explain.
ANS: As a rule, No. The exception is in
an unusual case where the petition for
certiorari questioning the interlocutory
order of a COMELEC Division was
pending before the SC, the main case
which was meanwhile decided by the
COMELEC En Banc was likewise elevated
to the Court. Thus, there was a situation
where the petition for certiorari questioning
the interlocutory orders of the COMELEC
Division and the petition for certiorari and
prohibition assailing the Resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc on the main case
were consolidated. The issues raised in
the petition for certiorari were also raised
in the main case and therefore there was
actually no need to resolve the petition
assailing the interlocutory orders. (Rosal v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 168253 and 172741,
March 16, 2007; Soriano, Jr., et al. v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 164496-505,
April 2, 2007).
Note:
The general rule is that a decision or an
order of a COMELEC Division cannot be
elevated directly to the SupremeCourt
through a special civil action for certiorari.
Furthermore, a motion to reconsider a
decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a
COMELEC Division shall be elevated to
the COMELEC En Banc. However, a
motion to reconsider an interlocutory order
of a COMELEC Division shall be resolved
by the division which issued the
interlocutory order, except when all the
members of the division decide to refer the
matter to the COMELEC En Banc.
Thus, in general, interlocutory orders of a
COMELEC Division are not appealable,
nor can they be proper subject of a
petition for certiorari. To rule otherwise
would not only delay the disposition of
cases but would also unnecessarily clog
the Court docket and unduly burden the
Court. This does not mean that the
aggrieved party is without recourse if a
COMELEC Division denies the motion for
reconsideration. The aggrieved party can
still assign as error the interlocutory order
if in the course of the proceedings he
decides to appeal the main case to the
COMELEC En Banc. The exception
enunciated in Kho and Repol is when the
interlocutory order of a COMELEC
Division is a patent nullity because of
absence of jurisdiction to issue the
interlocutory order, as where a COMELEC
Division issued a temporary restraining
order without a time limit, which is the
Repol case, or where a COMELEC
Division admitted an answer with counter-
protest which was filed beyond the
reglementary period, which is the Kho
case.
The Court has already ruled in Reyes v.
RTC of Oriental Mindoro, that “it is the
decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC
En Banc that, in accordance with Section
7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution, may be
brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari.” The exception provided in Kho
and Repol is unavailing in this case
because unlike in Kho and Repol, the
assailed interlocutory orders of the
COMELEC First Division in this case are
not a patent nullity. The assailed orders in
this case involve the interpretation of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Neither
will the Rosal case apply because in that
case the petition for certiorari questioning
the interlocutory orders of the COMELEC
Second Division and the petition for
certiorari and prohibition assailing the
Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc on
the main case were already consolidated.
The Court also notes that the COMELEC
First Division has already issued an Order
dated 31 May 2005 dismissing the
protests and counter-protests in EPC Nos.
2004-36, 2004-37, 2004-38, 2004-39,
2004-40, 2004-41, 2004-42, 2004-43,
2004-44, and 2004-45 for failure of the
protestants and protestees to pay the
required cash deposits. Thus, the Court
have this peculiar situation where the
interlocutory order of the COMELEC First
Division is pending before the Court but
the main case has already been dismissed
by the COMELEC First Division. This
situation is precisely what the Court are
trying to avoid by insisting on strict
compliance of the rule that an interlocutory
order cannot by itself be the subject of an
appeal or a petition for certiorari.
Misrepresentation in a certificate of
candidacy; effect.
Q — When is misrepresentation in a
certificate of candidacy material? Explain. qualification for elective office,
misrepresentation of such does not
constitute a material misrepresentation.
Certainly, in a situation where a candidate
ANS: A misrepresentation in a certificate misrepresents his or her profession or
of candidacy is material when it refers to a occupation in the certificate of candidacy,
qualification for elective office and affects the candidate may not be disqualified from
the candidate’s eligibility. Second, when a running for office under Section 78 as his
candidate commits a material or her certificate of candidacy cannot be
misrepresentation, he or she may be denied due course or canceled on such
proceeded against through a petition to ground. (Nelson T. Lluz, et al. v.
deny due course to or cancel a certificate COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 172840, June
of candidacy under Section 78, or through 7, 2007).
criminal prosecution under Section 262 for
violation of Section 74. Third, a
misrepresentation of a non-material fact,
or a non-material misrepresentation, is not
a ground to deny due course to or cancel
a certificate of candidacy under Section
78. In other words, for a candidate’s
certificate of candidacy to be denied due
course or cancelled by the COMELEC, the
fact misrepresented must pertain to a
qualification for the office sought by the
candidate. (Nelson T. Lluz, et al. v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 172840, June
7, 2007).

Q — If a candidate misrepresents his

profession, is he disqualified? Explain.

ANS: No. No elective office, not even the

office of the President of the Republic of
the Philippines, requires a certain
profession or occupation as a qualification.

Profession or occupation not being a