ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY • that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY:
SECTION 73. Certificate of Candidacy. — No person shall be eligible
for any elective public office unless he les a sworn certificate of candidacy
within the period fixed herein.
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the
election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written
declaration under oath.
No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the
same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one
office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the expiration
of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who was
filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office
for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for
the other office or offices.
The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy shall not affect
whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may
have incurred. (Sec. 19, 1978 EC)
▪ Definition:
➢ A certificate of candidacy is a formal manifestation of a person’s
intent to run for office in the government.
▪ Who Can File:
➢ Any person (qualified) may file a certificate of candidacy.
▪ When: (Sec. 7, RA 7166)
➢ Not later than the day before the date legally fixed for the beginning
of his campaign period.
▪ Form:
➢ It must be under oath and notarized.
▪ Where: (Sec. 7, RA 7166)
o President, Vice-President and Senators = main office of the
COMELEC in Manila
o Members of the House of Representatives = with the provincial
election supervisor of the province concerned
o For Provincial Offices = with the provincial supervisor concerned
o For City or Municipal Offices = with the city or municipal election
registrar concerned
➢ The certificate of candidacy shall be filed by the candidate personally
or by his duly authorized representative.
➢ No certificate of candidacy shall be filed or accepted by mail,
telegram or facsimile.
▪ Contents of COC: (Sec. 74 OEC)
➢ The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person ling it is
announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is
eligible for said office;
• for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including
its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector
which he seeks to represent;
• the political party to which he belongs;
• civil status;
• his date of birth;
• residence;
• his post office address for all election purposes;
• his profession or occupation;
• that he will support and defend the Constitution of the
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto;
• that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated
by the duly constituted authorities;
P a g e | 11
country;
• that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily,
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
• and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true
to the best of his knowledge.
▪ Effect:
a) Candidates Holding Appointive Office Or Position (Sec. 66 OEC) —
Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including
active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers
and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations,
shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing
of his certificate of candidacy.
b) Candidates Holding Elective Office (Sec. 67 OEC). — Any elective
official, whether national or local, running for any office other than
the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
President and Vice-President, shall be NOT considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
(As amended by Com.Res. 10420, Sec. 24 B)
➢ Elective officers are not considered resign because if done so
it would be a betrayal of trust of the public.
▪ Ministerial Duty of COMELEC: (Sec. 76 OEC)
➢ The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or
officer designated by the Commission or the board of election
inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial
duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of
candidacy.
➢ The Commission does NOT have the power to deny acceptance of a
COC.
CHALLENGES UPON ONE’S CANDIDACY
A. PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION: (Sec. 68, OEC)
➢ This provision is to disqualify a candidate;
o From RUNNING into office; and
o From ASSUMING office
▪ Who Can File?
▪ Grounds:
(a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
(b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
(c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed
by this Code;
(d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under
Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
(e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v,
and cc, sub-paragraph 6,
➢ Any candidate who is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having
(committed the acts above) shall be disqualified from continuing
as a candidate, OR if he has been elected, from holding the office.
TRINIDAD v. COMELEC, GR No. 135716
Facts:
"Petitioner (herein private respondent) Manuel C. Sunga was one of the
candidates for the position of Mayor in the 1995 elections.
Private respondent (herein petitioner) Ferdinand B. Trinidad, then
incumbent mayor, was a candidate for re-election in the same
municipality.
CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
Sunga filed with the COMELEC a letter-complaint for disqualification
against Trinidad, accusing him of violation under OEC.
The election results showed that Trinidad garnered the highest number
of votes, while Sunga trailed second.
Sunga moved for the suspension of the proclamation of Trinidad.
However, notwithstanding the motion, Trinidad was proclaimed the
elected mayor, prompting Sunga to file another motion to suspend the
effects of the proclamation.
The COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the petition for disqualification.
the Commission on Elections disqualified petitioner as a candidate for
Mayor in the 1995 elections.
It also questions the 1998 COMELEC Resolution which not only denied
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, but also annulled his
proclamation as elected Mayor in the 1998 elections.
The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
and also annulled his proclamation as duly elected Mayor in the 1998
elections.
Private respondent's motion to be declared Mayor was, however,
denied.
Issues[1]:
• Was petitioner deprived of due process in the proceedings before
the COMELEC insofar as his disqualification under the 1998
elections was concerned? (YES)
We note that petitioner's term as Mayor under the 1995 elections
expired on June 30, 1998. Thus, when the first questioned Resolution
was issued by COMELEC on 1998, petitioner was still serving his term.
However, by the time the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner was
filed on 1998, the case had already become moot and academic as his
term had already expired.
With the complaint for disqualification of private respondent rendered
moot and academic by the expiration of petitioner's term of office
therein contested, COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in
proceeding to disqualify petitioner from his reelected term of office in
its second questioned Resolution on the ground that "it comes as a
matter of course after his disqualification in SPA No. 95-213
promulgated after the 1998 election."
While it is true that the first questioned Resolution was issued eight (8)
days before the term of petitioner as Mayor expired, said Resolution
had not yet attained finality and could not effectively be held to have
removed petitioner from his office.
Indeed, removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the
alleged misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed
before his term of office expires, he can no longer be removed if he is
thereafter reelected for another term.
Petitioner was NOT accorded due process insofar as this issue is
concerned.
Issue[2]:
• May petitioner's proclamation as Mayor under the 1998 elections
be cancelled on account of the disqualification case filed against
him during the 1995 elections? (NO)
Finally, we see no error in the COMELEC's rejection of private
respondent's move to be declared as Mayor on account of petitioner's
disqualification.
To begin with, the issue had been rendered moot and academic by the
expiration of petitioner's challenged term of office. Second, even in law
and jurisprudence, private respondent cannot claim any right to the
office.
As held by the COMELEC, the succession to the office of the mayor shall
be in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Code.
Which, in turn, provides that the vice mayor concerned shall become
the mayor.
P a g e | 12
The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may
NOT be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified
The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He
was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not
be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field
which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have
substantially changed.
The fact that despite the disqualification case filed against petitioner
relating to the 1995 elections, he still won the mandate of the people
for the 1998 elections, leads us to believe that the electorate truly chose
petitioner and repudiated private respondent. To allow private
respondent, a defeated and repudiated candidate, to take over the
mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise
the electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the
importance and meaning of democracy and the people's right to elect
officials of their choice.
B. PETITION TO DECLARE NUISANCE CANDIDATE: (Sec. 69 OEC)
▪ How is One a Nuisance Candidate?
1) if it is shown that 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
3) by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the
candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office.
▪ Who Can File?
a) The Commission (motu proprio)
b) Any registered candidate for the same office (verified petition)
▪ Form:
➢ Under Oath
▪ When:
▪ Where to File:
➢ To the Commission
▪ How:
➢ Must personally file with the Commission
➢ NOT allowed trough mail
PAMATONG v. COMELEC, GR No. 161872
Facts:
Petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for
President.
Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refused to give due
course to petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy.
The COMELEC declared petitioner and thirty-five (35) others nuisance
candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not
nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered
political party with a national constituency.
In this Petition For Writ of Certiorari, petitioner seeks to reverse the
resolutions which were allegedly rendered in violation of his right to
"equal access to opportunities for public service" under Section 26,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution, by limiting the number of qualified
candidates only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign
and/or are nominated by political parties.
Petitioner likewise attacks the validity of the form for the Certificate of
Candidacy prepared by the COMELEC. Petitioner claims that the form
does not provide clear and reasonable guidelines for determining the
qualifications of candidates since it does not ask for the candidate's bio-
data and his program of government.
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
Issues [1]:
• WON a declaration of nuisances’ candidates is valid? (YES)
Ruling:
"Equal access to opportunities for public office" is the claim that there
is a constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly
in his case, to seek the presidency. There is none.
What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed
by law.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right
nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right.
Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact
positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible
into public office.
The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be
subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the
privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates" and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6452 outlining the instances wherein the COMELEC may
motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of
Candidacy.
The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and
the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide
intention to run for office is that the State has a compelling interest to
ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly.
Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the
opportunities for logistical confusion. These practical difficulties
should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct of a
mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should
be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary
and proper.
The COMELEC itself recognized that there is a need to limit the number
of candidates especially in the case of candidates for national positions
because the election process becomes a mockery even if those who
cannot clearly wage a national campaign are allowed to run.
Owing to the superior interest in ensuring a credible and orderly
election, the State could exclude nuisance candidates and need not
indulge in, as the song goes, "their trips to the moon on gossamer
wings."
Issue [2]:
• WON the form of the COC is valid? (YES)
Ruling:
The certificate of candidacy is sufficient in form having all the necessary
details required under Sec. 74 of Omnibus Election Code. It does not ask
for more or less, just the exact requirements mandated by law.
C. PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE: (Sec. 78 OEC)
▪ Who Can File?
➢ Any person may file
▪ Form:
➢ Must be under oath
▪ When to File?
➢ At any time not later than twenty-five (25) days from the time of the
ling of the certificate of candidacy.
▪ Exclusive Ground:
➢ Material Misrepresentation of any of the items under Sec. 74.
➢ Requisite:
P a g e | 13
✓ Materiality
✓ Intent to Deceive
▪ Period to Decide:
➢ shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen
(15) days before the election.
➢ Not mandatory
▪ Effects To The Votes Garnered By The Candidate At Issue:
o Judgement BEFORE election = votes are counted.
o Judgement AFTER election = votes are NOT counted.
SALCEDO II v. COMELEC, GR No. 135886
Facts:
Neptali P. Salcedo married Agnes Celiz, which marriage is evidenced by
a certified true copy of the marriage contract issued by the Municipal
Civil Registrar.
Two days later, Ermelita Cacao contracted another marriage with a
certain Jesus Aguirre, as shown by a marriage certificate filed with the
Office of the Civil Registrar.
Petitioner Victorino Salcedo II and private respondent Ermelita Cacao
Salcedo both ran for the position of mayor of the municipality of Sara,
Iloilo, both of them having filed their respective certificates of
candidacy
However, petitioner filed with the Comelec a petition seeking the
cancellation of private respondent's certificate of candidacy on the
ground that she had made a false representation therein by stating that
her surname was "Salcedo."
Petitioner contended that private respondent had no right to use said
surname because she was not legally married to Neptali Salcedo.
Private respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of Sara,
Iloilo.
The Comelec's Second Division ruled that since there is an existing valid
marriage between Neptali Salcedo and Agnes Celiz, the subsequent
marriage of the former with private respondent is null and void.
Consequently, the use by private respondent of the surname "Salcedo"
constitutes material misrepresentation and is a ground for the
cancellation of her certificate of candidacy.
However, in its en banc Resolution the Comelec overturned its previous
resolution, ruling that private respondent's certificate of candidacy did
not contain any material misrepresentation.
The record shows that respondent Ermelita C. Salcedo married Neptali
Salcedo.
Under Article 370 of the Civil Code, the respondent may use her
husband's surname. Hence, there is no material misrepresentation nor
usurpation of another's name.
Issues:
Whether the use of such surname constitutes a material
misrepresentation under section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (the
"Code") so as to justify the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy.
(NO)
Ruling:
In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate of
candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course to or cancel
such certificate upon the filing of a petition by any person pursuant to
section 78 of the Code
CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
In order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under
section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned
therein pertain to a material matter
There are two instances where a petition questioning the qualifications
of a registered candidate to run for the office for which his certificate of
candidacy was filed can be raised under the Omnibus Election Code
(B.P. Blg. 881), to wit:
(1) Before election, pursuant to Section 78 thereof which provides
that:
`Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person
exclusively on the ground that any material misrepresentation
contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The
petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days
from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall
be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days
before the election.
and
(2) After election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof, viz:
`Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting the
election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional,
provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn
petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days
after the proclamation of the results of the election."
The only difference between the two proceedings is that;
• under section 78, the qualifications for elective office are
misrepresented in the certificate of candidacy and the proceedings
must be initiated before the elections,
• whereas a petition for quo warranto under section 253 may be
brought on the basis of two grounds - (1) ineligibility or (2)
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines, and must be initiated
within ten days after the proclamation of the election results.
It could not have been the intention of the law to deprive a person of
such a basic and substantive political right to be voted for a public office
upon just any innocuous mistake.
Petitioner has made no allegations concerning private respondent's
qualifications to run for the office of mayor. Aside from his contention
that she made a misrepresentation in the use of the surname "Salcedo,"
petitioner does not claim that private respondent lacks the requisite
residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to
run for a local elective office as provided for in the Local Government
Code.
Thus, petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the
misrepresentation allegedly made by private respondent in her
certificate of candidacy pertains to a material matter.
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false representation under
section 78 must consist of a "deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform,
or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.
The use of a surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the
public as to one's identity, is NOT within the scope of the provision.
There is absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were
deceived by the use of such surname by private respondent. Thus, we
hold that private respondent did not commit any material
misrepresentation by the use of the surname "Salcedo" in her certificate
of candidacy.
When a challenge to a winning candidate's qualifications however
becomes inevitable, the ineligibility ought to be so noxious to the
P a g e | 14
Constitution that giving effect to the apparent will of the people would
ultimately do harm to our democratic institutions."
TECSON v. COMELEC, GR No. 161434
Facts:
Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr.
(hereinafter "FPJ"), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
President of the Republic of the Philippines
In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or
"Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place
of birth to be Manila.
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner, initiated a petition before the
Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") to disqualify FPJ and to deny
due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that
FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by
claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth, according
to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe,
was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national.
Challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under
Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the
Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the
basic issue on the case.
Petitioners Tecson, et al. invoke the provisions of Article VII, Section 4,
paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution in assailing the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC when it took cognizance of SPA No. 04-003 and in urging the
Supreme Court to instead take on the petitions they directly instituted
before it.
Issue [1]:
• Is Fernando Poe, Jr., a natural-born Filipino or is he not? (YES)
(After a long-winded discussion)
Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization"
that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of
Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe,
father of respondent FPJ.
The 1935 Constitution, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers
are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate
or illegitimate.
Issue [2]:
• WON there was material misrepresentation? (NO)
While the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that
respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence
on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he
cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in
his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to
Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code.
To prove whether or not there has been material misrepresentation, it
must not only be material, but also deliberate and willful.
Issue [3]:
• WON the Supreme court has jurisdiction over the case? (NO)
Decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification cases may be reviewed
by the Supreme Court per Rule 64 in an action for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7,
"The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose."
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
A perusal of the phraseology in Rule 12, Rule 13, and Rule 14 of the
"Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,"
The rules categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
"President" or "Vice-President", of the Philippines, and NOT of
"candidates" for President or Vice-President.
It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined
by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would NOT include
cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a
candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are
held.
D. SUBSTITUTIONS:
SECTION 77. Candidates In Case Of Death, Disqualification, Or
Withdrawal Of Another. — If after the last day for the ling of certificates of
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party
dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to,
and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to
replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute
candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate
of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections
not later than mid-day of the day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or
disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-
day of election day, said certificate may be led with any board of election
inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case
of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the
Commission.
▪ Instances: an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party
➢ dies,
➢ withdraws or
➢ is disqualified for any cause
▪ Who Can File?
➢ only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party
may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died,
withdrew or was disqualified.
▪ Requirement:
o The substitute must file his certificate of candidacy for the office
affected in accordance with the preceding sections.
o He must be nominated and certified by the political party concerned
▪ Reason:
➢ Substitution is allowed so as to continue the agendas of the political
party of the candidate who died, withdraws or was disqualified.
▪ When:
➢ not later than mid-day of the day of the election.
▪ Where:
➢ If the death, etc., should occur between the day before the election
and mid-day of election day = may be filed with any board of election
inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate,
➢ In the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of
the country = with the Commission.
▪ Effect of Substitution: (R.A. 9006, Sec. 12)
SECTION 12. Substitution of Candidates. - In case of valid
substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the
substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not
invalidate the whole ballot. For this purpose, the official ballots shall provide
spaces where the voters may write the name of the substitute candidates if
they are voting for the latter: Provided, however, that if the substitute
candidate of the same family name, this provision shall not apply.
P a g e | 15
➢ the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as
stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
➢ the official ballots shall provide spaces where the voters may write the
name of the substitute candidates.
➢ HOWEVER, if the substitute candidate of the same family name, this
provision shall not apply
RULLODA v. COMELEC, GR No. 154198
Facts:
In the barangay elections, Romeo N. Rulloda and Remegio L. Placido
were the contending candidates for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas.
Romeo suffered a heart attack and passed away.
His widow, petitioner Petronila "Betty" Rulloda, wrote a letter to the
Commission on Elections seeking permission to run as candidate for
Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband.
Petitioner garnered 516 votes while respondent Remegio Placido
received 290 votes.
The Board of Canvassers proclaimed Placido as the Barangay Chairman
of Sto. Tomas.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, seeking to annul
Section 9 of Resolution insofar as they prohibited petitioner from
running as substitute candidate in lieu of her deceased husband; to
nullify the proclamation of respondent; and to proclaim her as the duly
elected Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas.
Private respondent Remegio Placido filed his Comment, arguing that
since the barangay election is non-partisan, substitution of candidates
is not allowed. Moreover, petitioner did not file any certificate of
candidacy; hence, there was only one candidate for Barangay Chairman
of Sto. Tomas, namely, respondent Placido.
Issues[1]:
• WON a candidate for the barangay elections, non-partisan, could be
substituted upon his death? (YES)
Private respondent argues that inasmuch as the barangay election is
non-partisan, there can be no substitution because there is no political
party from which to designate the substitute.
Such an interpretation ignores the purpose of election laws which is to
give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters.
It is well-settled that in case of doubt, political laws must be so
construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely
expressed through the ballot.
Contrary to respondent's claim, the absence of a specific provision
governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections cannot be
inferred as a prohibition against said substitution.
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.
Issue[2]:
• WON Petitioner was able to file a COC? (YES)
Private respondent likewise contends that the votes in petitioner's
favor cannot be counted because she did not file any certificate of
candidacy.
His claim is refuted by the Memorandum of the COMELEC Law
Department as well as the assailed Resolution No. 5217, wherein it
indubitably appears that petitioner's letter-request to be allowed to run
as Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband was
treated as a certificate of candidacy.
CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
ONG v. ALEGRE, GR NO. 163295
Facts:
Private respondent Joseph Stanley Alegre (Alegre) and petitioner
Francis Ong (Francis) were candidates who filed certificates of
candidacy for mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte. Francis was then
the incumbent mayor.
Alegre filed with the COMELEC Provincial Office a Petition to Disqualify,
Deny Due Course and Cancel Certificate of Candidacy of Francis.
The petition to disqualify was predicated on the three-consecutive term
rule. The First Division of the COMELEC rendered, citing the case of
Borja, a resolution dismissing the said petition of Alegre.
The COMELEC en banc issued, a resolution reversing the resolution of
the COMELEC's First Division and thereby (a) declaring Francis "as
disqualified to run for mayor; (b) ordering the deletion of Francis' name
from the official list of candidates; and (c) directing the concerned
board of election inspectors not to count the votes cast in his favor.
The following day, Francis seeked the assistance of his political party,
the Nationalist People's Coalition, which immediately nominated his
older brother, Rommel Ong (Rommel), as substitute candidate.
COMELEC Commissioner issued a Memorandum addressed to PES
ordering her to implement the resolution of the COMELEC en banc "that
substitution is not proper if the certificate of the substituted candidacy
is denied due course.
Issues[1]:
• WON petitioner Francis's assumption of office as Mayor for the
mayoralty term 1998 to 2001 should be considered as full service
for the purpose of the three-term limit rule? (YES)
For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply,
two conditions or requisites must concur, to wit:
(1) that the official concerned has been elected for three (3)
consecutive terms in the same local government post, and
(2) that he has fully served three (3) consecutive terms.
The disqualifying requisites are present herein, thus effectively barring
petitioner Francis from running for mayor.
There can be no dispute about petitioner Francis Ong having been duly
elected mayor of that municipality in the May 1995 and again in the May
2001 elections and serving the July 1, 1995- June 30, 1998 and the July
1, 2001-June 30, 2004 terms in full.
We hold that such assumption of office constitutes, for Francis, "service
for the full term", and should be counted as a full term served in
contemplation of the three-term limit prescribed by the constitutional
and statutory provisions, supra, barring local elective officials from
being elected and serving for more than three consecutive term for the
same position.
His full term from 1998 to 2001 could not be simply discounted on the
basis that he was not duly elected thereto on account of void
proclamation because it would have iniquitous effects producing
outright injustice and inequality as it rewards a legally disqualified and
repudiated loser with a crown of victory.
Issue[2]:
• WON the substitution by Rommel Ong should be granted? (NO)
As it were, existing COMELEC policy provides for the non-inclusion of
the name of substitute candidates in the certified list of candidates
pending approval of the substitution.
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.
P a g e | 16
this does not include those cases where the certificate of candidacy of
the person to be substituted had been denied due course and cancelled
under Section 78 of the Code.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. While the law enumerated the
occasions where a candidate may be validly substituted, there is no
mention of the case where a candidate is excluded not only by
disqualification but also by denial and cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy.
There can be no valid substitution for the latter case, much in the same
way that a nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy is denied
due course and/or cancelled may not be substituted.
MULTIPLE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDATES: (SEC. 73, Par. 3)
xxx No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in
the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one
office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the expiration
of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who was
filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office
for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for
the other office or offices. xxx
➢ If a candidate files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office,
he shall NOT be eligible for any of them.
➢ HOWEVER, before the expiration of the period for the filing of COC, the
person who was filed more than one COC may declare under oath the
office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of
candidacy for the other office or offices.
LONE CANDIDATE LAW: (R.A. 8295)
SECTION. 2. Proclamation of a Lone Candidate. – Upon the
expiration of the deadline for the filing of the certificates of candidacy in a
special election called to fill a vacancy in an elective position other than for
President and Vice President, when there is only one (1) qualified candidate
for such position, the lone candidate shall be proclaimed elected to the
position by proper proclaiming body of the Commission on Elections without
holding the special election upon certification by the Commission on
Elections that he is the only candidate for the office and is thereby deemed
elected.
➢ When there is only one (1) qualified candidate for such position, the
lone candidate shall be proclaimed elected to the position.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
SECTION. 116. Who May Be Registered In The List. - All persons
having complied with the requisites herein prescribed for the registration of
voters shall be registered in the list, provided they possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications of a voter. Those who failed
to register in the election of 1984, for any reason whatsoever, may register in
accordance with the provisions of this Code. Any person who may not have
on the date of registration the age or period of residence required may also
be registered upon proof that on the date of the election, plebiscite or
referendum he shall have such qualifications.
▪ Who May Register:
1) Qualified voters:
➢ Qualification:
o Citizen of the Philippines,
o eighteen years of age or over,
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
o shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and six
months immediately preceding the election,
o not otherwise disqualified by law,
2) Persons who may not have qualified at the time of registration
 There must be proof that on the date of the election, plebiscite
or referendum he shall have such qualifications.
▪ Disqualified Voters: (Sec. 11)
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.
➢ Unless subsequently declared by competent authority that
such person is no longer insane or incompetent
▪ When to Register:
o 120 days before a Regular Election
o 90 days before Special Election
➢ On the 7th and 6th Saturdays before a regular election or
➢ On the 2nd Saturday following the day of the proclamation calling for
a new special election, plebiscite or referendum. (SEC. 126)
▪ Re-Registration:
➢ A voter who is registered in the permanent list of voters need not
register anew for subsequent elections
➢ UNLESS:
o He transfers residence to another city or municipality, or
o his registration has been cancelled on the ground of
disqualification and such disqualification has been lifted or
removed.
➢ A voter whose registration has been cancelled due to failure to vote
in the preceding regular election may register anew in the city or
municipality where he is qualified to vote.
▪ Remedies:
a) Petition for Inclusion
b) Petition for Exclusion
[SEE TOPIC: INCLUSION & EXCLUSION OF VOTERS]
DOMINO v. COMELEC, GR No. 134015
Facts:
DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province of
Sarangani.
Private respondents Grafilo, et.al, filed with the COMELEC a Petition to
Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy. Alleging that
DOMINO is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of the province
of Sarangani where he seeks election.
DOMINO maintains that he had complied with the one-year residence
requirement and that he has been residing in Sarangani since January
1997.
P a g e | 17
The COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a resolution declaring
DOMINO disqualified as candidate for lack of the one-year residence
requirement.
Issue[1]:
• Whether or not the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani and not
of Quezon City is final, conclusive and binding upon the whole
world, including the Commission on Elections? (NO)
The COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition to deny due course to or
cancel certificate of candidacy. In the exercise of the said jurisdiction, it
is within the competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false
representation as to material facts was made in the certificate of
candidacy, that will include, among others, the residence of the
candidate.
The determination of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in the
exclusion proceedings DOES NOT preclude the COMELEC to pass upon
the issue of compliance with the residency requirement.
The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the list of
voters are summary in character. Thus, the factual findings of the trial
court and its resultant conclusions in the exclusion proceedings NOT
conclusive upon the COMELEC.
Moreover, the Metropolitan Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction when
it declared DOMINO a resident
It is NOT within the competence of the trial court, in an exclusion
proceeding, to declare the challenged voter a resident of another
municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower court over exclusion cases is
limited only to determining the right of voter to remain in the list of
voters or to declare that the challenged voter is not qualified to vote.
Issue[2]:
• Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in the subject
congressional district for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the May 11, 1998 elections? (NO)
Three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a
residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once established it
remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but one
residence or domicile at a time.
Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos
Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice at
Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy.
To successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one
and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.
There must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi.
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile, physical presence
in the locality involved and intention to adopt it as a domicile, must
concur in order to establish a new domicile.
The lease contract entered into does not adequately support a change
of domicile. The lease contract may be indicative of DOMINO's intention
to reside in Sarangani but it does not engender the kind of permanency
required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile.
Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon
City is further strengthened by his act of registering as voter in one of
the precincts in Quezon City.
Issue[3]:
• Whether or not respondent COMELEC has jurisdiction over the
petition a quo for the disqualification of petitioner? (YES)
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
The COMELEC jurisdiction continues even after election, provided that
the winning candidate has NOT been proclaimed or has taken his oath
of office.
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's sole and exclusive
jurisdiction begins only AFTER a candidate has become a member of
the House of Representatives.
Considering that DOMINO has not been proclaimed as Congressman-
elect in the Lone Congressional District of the Province of Sarangani he
cannot be deemed a member of the House of Representative.
Hence, it is the COMELEC and not the Electoral Tribunal which has
jurisdiction over the issue of his ineligibility as a candidate.
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION: (SEC. 29, RA. 8189)
SECTION 29. Cancellation Of Registration. — The Board shall cancel
the registration records of those who have died as certified by the Local Civil
Registrar. The Local Civil Registrar shall submit each month a certified list of
persons who died during the previous month to the Election Officer of the
place where the deceased are registered. In the absence of information
concerning the place where the deceased is registered, the list shall be sent
to the Election Officer of the city or municipality of the deceased's residence
as appearing in his death certificate. In any case, the Local Civil Registrar shall
furnish a copy of this list to the national central file and the proper provincial
file.
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a list
of those persons who died whose registrations were cancelled, and furnish
copies thereof to the local heads of the political parties, the national central
file, and the provincial file.
▪ Cause for Cancellation = Death
▪ Who Cancels? = The Board (ERB), as certified by the Local Civil Registrar.
➢ The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a list
of those persons who died whose registrations were cancelled, and
furnish copies thereof to the local heads of the political parties, the
national central file, and the provincial file.
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION OF VOTERS
PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF VOTERS: (SEC. 34, RA 8189)
SECTION 34. Petition For Inclusion Of Voters From The List. — Any
person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the Board
or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a
petition to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at
any time except one hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election or
seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be supported by a
certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of
his petition upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15)
days after filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of
voters, the Board shall place the application for registration previously
disapproved in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the
application for registration date of the order of inclusion and the court which
issued the same.
▪ Who May File:
o Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved
by the Board; or
o Those whose name has been stricken out from the list
▪ When To File:
➢ Any time
 Except;
o one hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election
or
P a g e | 18
o seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election.
▪ Requirement: It shall be supported by;
o a certificate of disapproval of his application and
o proof of service of notice of his petition upon the Board.
➢ The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after filing.
PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF VOTERS: (SEC. 35, RA 8189)
SECTION 35. Petition For Exclusion Of Voters From The List. — Any
registered voters, representative of a political party or the Election Officer,
may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a vote from the
permanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the
challenged voter at any time except one hundred (100) days to a regular
election or sixty-five (65) days before a special election. The petition shall be
accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter and
shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board
shall, upon receipt of the final decision, remove the voter's registration
record from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of exclusion
therein, and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.
▪ Who May File:
o Any registered voters,
o representative of a political party or
o the Election Officer
▪ When To File:
➢ Any time
 EXCEPT:
o one hundred (100) days to a regular election or
o sixty-five (65) days before a special election.
▪ Requirements:
o Must be under a sworn petition
o Giving the name, address and the precinct of the challenged voter at
o Accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged
voter
➢ Shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
JURISDICTION: (SEC. 33, RA 8189)
SECTION 33. Jurisdiction In Inclusion And Exclusion Cases. — The
Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their
respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan
Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial
Court within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said
decision shall become final executory. The regional trial court shall decide
the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision
shall immediately become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration
shall be entertained.
▪ Who Has Jurisdiction:
➢ The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction
➢ Appealable to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) within five (5) days
from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become
final executory.
 The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten (10)
days from the time it is received and the decision shall
immediately become final and executory. No motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained.
➢ Stipulations are not allowed
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
➢ Presumption: Non-appearance of the petitioner is deemed a non-
existent voter.
▪ Effect: Not Res Judicata:
➢ the decision of the court is only valid in regards to that election. It
does not attain res judicata.
DEACTIVATION AND REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION
DEACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION: (SEC. 27, RA 8189)
SECTION 27. Deactivation Of Registration. — The Board shall
deactivate the registration and remove the registration records of the
following persons from the corresponding precinct book of voters and place
the same, properly marked and dated in indelible ink, in the inactive file after
entering the cause or ceases of deactivation:
a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one (1) year, such disability not having
been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, that
any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service
of sentence as certified by the clerks of courts of the Municipal/Municipal
Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan.
b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent
court or tribunal of having caused/committed any crime involving
disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition,
violation of the anti-subversion and rearms laws, or any crime against
national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in
accordance with law: P r o vid e d , That he shall regain his right to vote
automatically upon expiration of ve (5) years after service of sentence;
c) Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent
unless such disqualification has been subsequently removed by a
declaration of a proper authority that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent;
d) Any person who did not vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular
elections as shown by their voting records. For this purpose, regular
elections do not include the Sangunian Kabataan (SK) elections;
e) Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the court;
and
f) Any person who has lost Filipino citizenship.
For this purpose, the clerks of court of the Municipal/Municipal
Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan shall
furnish the Election Officer of the city or municipality concerned at the end
of each month a certified list of persons who are disqualified under
paragraph (a) hereof, with their addresses. The Commission may request a
certified list of persons who have lost their Filipino Citizenship or declared
as insane or incompetent with their addresses from other government
agencies.
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a
certified list of those persons whose registration were deactivated and the
reasons therefor, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of political
parties, the national central le, provincial le, and the voter concerned.
▪ Grounds: (Sec. 27)
a) Final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than 1 year
b) Final judgment for any crime involving disloyalty to the government
c) Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent
authority
d) Failure to vote for 2 successive regular elections
e) Court order in exclusion proceedings
f) Loss of Filipino citizenship
g) Failure to validate
➢ The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a
certified list of those persons whose registration were deactivated
and the reasons therefor xxx
REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION: REMEDY: (Sec. 28)
P a g e | 19
SECTION 28. Reactivation Of Registration. — Any voter whose
registration has been deactivated pursuant to the preceding Section may file
with the Election Officer a sworn application for reactivation of his
registration in the form of an affidavit stating that the grounds for the
deactivation no longer exist any time but not later one hundred twenty (120)
days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.
The Election Officer shall submit said application to the Election
Registration Board for appropriate action.
In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve
the registration record from the inactive file and include the same in the
corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or representatives of
political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications.
▪ Who May File:
➢ Any voter whose registration has been deactivated
▪ Where To File:
➢ file with the Election Officer
➢ The Election Officer shall submit such application to the Election
Registration Board for appropriate action.
▪ Requirement:
o a sworn application for reactivation of his registration
o form of an affidavit
o stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist
▪ When To File:
➢ Any time but not later than 120 days before a regular election and 90
days before a special election.
CAMPAIGN AND EXPENDITURES
MANNER / CONDUCT OF ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN:
▪ General Policy:
➢ It is the policy of the state to ensure a FAIR, HONEST, and ORDERLY
election / campaign.
▪ Restrictions:
(a) Content-Based Regulation:
➢ A regulation of speech or expression that is based on the
substance of the message being communicated, rather than just
the manner or method in which the message being expressed.
➢ It acts upon a clear and present danger rule that a speech or
expression would or likely to result in.
➢ Ex: Decals or stickers are very large such that it exceeds Comelec
standard. It will still be upheld in your favor as part of your
freedom of expression.
(b) Content-Neutral Restriction:
➢ A restriction on the manner in which an expression can be
communicated or conveyed. These restrictions apply equally to
all communications, regardless of the message or view being
espoused.
➢ Only a substantial governmental interest is required for its
validity.
➢ Ex: Requirement of a permit on conducting a public rally.
▪ COMELEC Regulation:
➢ It is within the power of the Comelec to impose regulations that are
content-neutral, such as those touching on size, place and manner of
publication.
HOWEVER…
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC, GR No. 205728
Held:
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
The state is not supposed to dwell on the content of the campaign
materials UNLESS there is clear and present danger.
The tarpaulin consists of satire of political parties that "primarily
advocates a stand on a social issue; only secondarily—even almost
incidentally—will cause the election or non-election of a candidate. It is
NOT election propaganda as its messages are different from the usual
declarative messages of candidates.
The tarpaulin is an expression with political consequences, and "[t]his
court's construction of the guarantee of freedom of expression has
always been wary of censorship or subsequent punishment that entails
evaluation of the speaker's viewpoint or the content of one's speech."
The regulation is content-based. The Decision discussed that "the form
of expression is just as important as the information conveyed that it
forms part of the expression, and size does matter.
ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN PERIOD: (SEC. 2, OEC)
SECTION. 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.
▪ Election Period:
➢ Begin = 90 days before the day of the election
➢ End = 30 days thereafter
▪ Campaign Period:
o Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election = 90 days;
o Election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa and Local Election =
45 days
o Barangay Election = 15 days.
o Special Elections (Art. 8, Sec. 5 (2) of the Constitution) = 45 days
➢ NOT including the day before and the day of the election.
▪ “Election Campaign”: (Sec. 79 (b), OEC)
- or "partisan political activity" refers to an act designed to promote
the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a
public office.
➢ Included Acts:
1) 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;
2) 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;
3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public
office;
4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials
designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or
against a candidate.
P a g e | 20
▪ Importance:
➢ Candidates are only allowed to conduct any partisan activity during
the campaign period.
➢ The same activities done outside the campaign and election period is
an election violation.
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES: (ART. XI, OEC)
▪ “Expenditures”: (Sec. 94, (b)
➢ includes the payment or delivery of money of anything of value, or a
contract, promise or agreement to make an expenditure, for the
purpose of influencing the results of the election.
➢ It shall also include the use of facilities personally owned by the
candidate, the money value of the use of which can be assessed based
on the rates prevailing in the area.
▪ Who May Incur Expenditures: (Sec. 103)
o The candidate,
o The treasurer of a political party or
o Any person authorized by such candidate or treasurer
➢ The authority to incur expenditures shall be in writing, copy of which
shall be furnished the Commission signed by the candidate or the
treasurer
▪ Extent On Spending:
(a) Of Candidates: (Sec. 100)
➢ (Not exceeding) one peso and fifty centavos (P1.50) for every
voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his
candidacy
➢ Includes:
o those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate,
whether in cash or in kind,
o including the use, rental or hire of land, water or aircraft,
equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia used in
the campaign:
 If the candidate is the owner:
The Commission is empowered to assess the
amount commensurate with the expenses for the
use thereof, and shall be included in the total
expenses incurred by the candidate.
(b) Of Political Parties: (Sec. 101)
➢ not exceeding the equivalent of one peso and fifty centavos (P1.50)
for every voter currently registered
➢ 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 Sec. 100.
STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES:
SECTION. 107. Statement Of Contributions And Expenditures. -
Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, not later than seven
days, or earlier than ten days before the day of the election, file in duplicate
with the office indicated in the following section, full, true and itemized,
statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the
election.
Within thirty days after the day of the election, said candidate and
treasurer shall also file in duplicate a supplemental statement of all
contribution and expenditures not included in the statement filed prior to the
day of the election.
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES] P a g e | 21

▪ Who Shall Submit: ▪ Time To Vote: (Sec. 190)

o Every candidate and o Start = 7:00am
o Treasurer of the political party o End = 3:00pm

▪ When To Submit:
➢ not later than 7 days, or earlier than 10 days before the day of the
elections
▪ Where To File: (Sec. 108)
a) Candidates for President and Vice-President = with the Commission
b) Candidates for Members of the Batasang Pambansa = with the
provincial election supervisor
➢ Except those of candidates in the National Capital Region =
with the regional election director of said region
c) Candidates for provincial offices = with the provincial election
supervisor
➢ EXCEPT when there are voters present within thirty meters in front
of the polling place who have not yet cast their votes, in which case
the voting shall continue but only to allow said voters to cast their
votes without interruption.
 Procedure: The poll clerk shall, without delay, prepare a
complete list containing the names of said voters
consecutively numbered, and the voters so listed shall be
called to vote by announcing each name repeatedly three
times in the order in which they are listed.
 Any voter in the list who is not present when his name is called
out shall not be permitted to vote. (vote considered waived)

d) Candidates for city, municipal and barangay offices = with the COUNTING OF VOTES: (ART. 18)
election registrar
▪ Manner of Counting:
▪ Form: (Sec. 109) ➢ Must be counted Publicly and Without Interruption.
o In writing
o Subscribed and sworn (under oath) ▪ Counting / Appreciation of Ballots: (Sec. 211)

▪ Contents: (Sec. 109) a) “Idem Sonans”:

(a) the amount of contribution, the date of receipt, and the full name and
exact address of the person from whom the contribution was
received;
(b) the amount of every expenditure, the date thereof, the full name and
exact address of the person to whom payment was made, and the
purpose of the expenditure;
(c) any unpaid obligation, its nature and amount, and to whom said
obligation is owing; and
(d) such other particulars which the Commission may require.
➢ If the candidate or treasurer of the party has received no
contribution, made no expenditure, or has no pending obligation, the
statement shall reflect such fact.
▪ Effect of Non-Submission: (Sec. 111)
o Person elected cannot enter upon the duties of his office.
o Other sanctions provided in the OEC.
➢ The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which
nominated the winning candidate.
CASTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES
➢ is a legal doctrine whereby a person's identity is presumed
known despite the misspelling of his or her name. The
presumption lies in the similarity between the Phonology, or
sounds of the correct name and the name as written.
b) “Neighborhood Rule”:
➢ where the name of a candidate is not written in the proper space
in the ballot, but is preceded by the name of the office for which
he is a candidate, the vote should be counted as valid for said
candidate.
➢ Such rule is usually applied in consonance with the intent rule
which stems from the principle that in the appreciation of the
ballot, the object should be to ascertain and carry into effect the
intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable
certainty.
c) “Equity of the Incumbent”:
➢ If there are two or more candidates with the same full name, first
name or surname and one of them is the incumbent, and on the
ballot is written only such full name, first name or surname, the
vote shall be counted in favor of the incumbent.

CASTING OF VOTES: (ART. 17) FAILURE AND POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION

▪ Manner / Conduct: FAILURE OF ELECTION: (SEC. 6, ART. 1, OEC)

➢ Publicly and Without Interruption
SECTION. 6. Failure Of Election. - If, on account of force majeure,
▪ Marked Ballots: violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election in any
➢ Ballots with marks purposely placed thereon by the voter with a polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended
view to possible future identification, which invalidates it. before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting
➢ Void and shall not be counted. and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and
▪ Spoiled Ballots: in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the
➢ A ballot paper that is invalid because the person voting has inadvert result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition
ently not marked it properly. by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding
➢ As long as it’s unintentional, it’s allowed. What is prohibited is or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a
marked ballots. failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
➢ The spoiled ballot shall be returned to the election officer and the suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days
electorate is given a new ballot. after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the
election or failure to elect.
▪ Remedy:
➢ Recount in case of discrepancy ▪ When Is There Failure of Election?

CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
1) If the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed,
on account of; (FVTFO)
o force majeure,
o violence,
o terrorism,
o fraud, or
o other analogous causes.
➢ Here, the election has NOT yet started because of causes.
2) Election 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;
➢ Here, the election process has started but was suspended in the
middle because of causes.
3) After the voting and during the preparation and the 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.
➢ Here, the election process was finished but during the
transmission of ER, causes arise.
▪ Requirement:
➢ In any of such cases, the failure of election should affect result of the
election. If immaterial, there’s no point.
➢ There are two conditions that must be met before you can avail
Petition To Annul;
o The illegality must affect more than 50% of the votes cast
o You can distinguish good ones and bad ones
▪ Duty of the Commission:
➢ The Commission shall call for the Holding Or Continuation of the
election.
➢ When to Resume: on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held BUT not later than 30 days after the cessation of the
cause.
POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS: (SEC. 5, ART. I, OEC)
SECTION. 5. Postponement Of Election. - When for any serious cause
such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that the
holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in
any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or upon a verified
petition by any interested party, and after due notice and hearing, whereby
all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
postpone the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to
the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to
elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
▪ Cause of Postponement:
o violence,
o terrorism,
o loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records,
o force majeure, and
o other analogous causes
such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election
should become impossible.
▪ Who Can Postpone:
o The Commission (motu prorio), or
o Verified petition by any interested party
▪ Requirement:
P a g e | 22
➢ after due notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are
afforded equal opportunity to be heard
▪ When Election Can Resume:
➢ a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election
not held BUT not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause.
SPECIAL ELECTIONS: (SEC. 7, ART. 1, OEC)
SECTION. 7. Call Of Special Election. –
1. In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa eighteen months or
more before a regular election, the Commission shall call a special
election to be held within sixty days after the vacancy occurs to elect the
Member to serve the unexpired term.
2. In case of the dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa, the President shall
call an election which shall not be held earlier than forty-five nor later
than sixty days from the date of such dissolution.
▪ Cause for Special Election:
(1) Vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa 18 months or more before a
regular election
➢ Who Calls the SE: The Commission.
➢ When held: within 60 days after the vacancy occurs
➢ the elected shall only serve the unexpired term.
(2) Dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa
➢ Who calls the SE: The President
➢ When held: not earlier than forty-five nor later than sixty days
from the date of such dissolution
ELECTION INSPECTORS / CANVASSERS / WATCHERS
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS: (BEI)
SECTION. 215. Board Of Election Inspectors To Issue A Certificate Of
The Number Of Votes Polled By The Candidates For An Office To The
Watchers. - After the announcement of the results of the election and before
leaving the polling place, it shall be the duty of the board of election
inspectors to issue a certificate of the number of the votes received by a
candidate upon request of the watchers. All the members of the board of
election inspectors shall sign the certificate.
▪ Composition: (3 Public School Teachers)
o 1 Chairman
o 1 Proctor
o 1 Member
➢ In the absence or lack of public-school teachers, COMELEC can hire;
o private school teachers OR
o employees in the civil service OR
o citizen of known probity and competence
➢ in any case; must be a (1) registered voter and (2) must not be
related to a candidate up to 4th civil degree of sanguinity.
▪ Duty:
o Conduct the counting of votes
o Issue a Certificate of Votes; received by a candidate upon request of
the watchers.
 All the members of the board of election inspectors shall sign
the certificate.
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
▪ Powers Of The Board Of Election Inspectors:
1) Conduct the voting and counting of votes in their respective polling
places;
2) Act as deputies of the Commission in the supervision and control of the
election in the polling places wherein they are assigned, to assure the
holding of the same in a free, orderly and honest manner; and
3) Perform such other functions prescribed by this Code or by the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Commission.
BOARD OF CANVASSERS: (BOC) (ART. 19)
➢ There shall be a board of canvassers for each Province, City,
Municipality, and District of Metropolitan Manila. (Sec. 221)
➢ The COMELEC shall have direct control and supervision over the board
of canvassers.
▪ Composition:
o 1 Chairman
➢ (Provincial/City) Election Supervisor; or
➢ a Senior Lawyer in the Regional Office of COMELEC
o 1 Vice-Chairman
➢ (Provincial/City) Fiscal or Prosecutor
o 1 Member
➢ (Provincial/City) Superintendent of Schools
➢ For Municipal;
o Chair - Official Municipal Registrar of COMELEC
o V-Chair - Municipal Treasurer
o Member - Most senior district school supervisor/principal
▪ Disqualification:
➢ Members of the board of canvassers shall NOT be related within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the
candidates or to any member of the same board.
▪ BOC Election Offences:
➢ Any member of the board of canvassers feigning illness in order to
be substituted on election day until the proclamation of the winning
candidates shall be guilty of an election offense.
➢ Failure to serve during the election = Election Offense
➢ Failure to proclaim is an election offence, so is to proclaim
erroneously.
▪ Duties Of The Board: (Sec. 231)
a) Receive the election returns and to immediately canvass those that
may have already been received
b) Make a total of all the votes canvassed so far for each candidate for
each office
c) Prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the
imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member
d) Proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest number
of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay
▪ Manner of Canvassing:
➢ Start not later than 6pm
➢ It shall meet continuously from day to day until the canvass is
completed, and
➢ May adjourn only for the purpose of awaiting the other election
returns from other polling places within its jurisdiction.
➢ It shall be unlawful for any person to delay, obstruct, impede or
prevent through force, violence, coercion, intimidation or by any
means, the transmittal of the election returns or to take away,
abscond with, destroy, deface or mutilate or substitute the election
P a g e | 23
returns or the envelope or the ballot box containing the election
returns or to violate the right of the watchers.
➢ The watchers xxx shall have the right to accompany the members of
the board of election inspectors or the election registrar in making
the delivery to the boards of canvassers.
➢ Failure to proclaim is an election offence, so is to proclaim
erroneously.
▪ Time To Complete Canvas:
➢ must complete their canvass within;
o Municipalities = 36h
o Cities = 48h
o Provinces = 72h
➢ Subject to reasonable exemptions.
➢ Violation hereof shall be an election offense punishable under
Section 264.
▪ People NOT Allowed in the Canvassing Room:
o AFP
o PNP
o Barangay Tanods
o Armed civilians
o Other Militant Forces
➢ However, the board of canvassers, if it deems necessary, may make
a call for the detail of policemen or any peace officers for their
protection or for the protection of the election documents and
paraphernalia in the possession of the board, or for the maintenance
of peace and order.
 who shall be in proper uniform, and shall stay outside the
room near enough to be easily called by the board of
canvassers at any time.
▪ Proclamation of Winner: Requirement: The board of canvassers shall:
o Prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the
imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member,
o Supported by a statement of the votes received by each candidate in
each polling place and, on the basis thereof,
o Shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest
number of votes cast.
➢ Failure to comply with this requirement shall constitute an election
offense.
➢ An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal CANNOT be a basis of a valid
proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the
electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted.
▪ Election Resulting In Tie: (Sec. 240)
➢ No special elections
➢ The board of canvassers shall proceed to the drawing of lots (or coin
toss) of the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected
the candidates who may be favored by luck.
AGUJETAS v. CA, GR No. 106560
Facts:
Petitioners Agujetas and Bijis, former Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
respectively of the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of
Davao Oriental assail the decision of the public respondent Court of
Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding
them guilty as charged for failure to proclaim a winning elected
candidate.
The Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Davao Oriental
proclaimed the winners for Governor, Vice-Governor, and Provincial
Board Members for Davao Oriental in the 1988 election.
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
The eighth board member proclaimed, Pedro Pena, garnered 30,679
votes when another candidate for the Board, Erlinda Irigo, got 31,129
or 450 more votes than Pena.
Before the proclamation was made, when the certificate of canvass and
proclamation statements of winning candidates were finished, a verbal
protest was lodged by Irigo Batitang, daughter of candidate Irigo and
her designated representative during the canvassing proceedings,
addressed to the Committee.
Criminal charges were filed against the Board Members, for Violation of
the Omnibus Election Code.
According to petitioners, the Omnibus Election Code does not punish
the preparation of an incorrect certificate of canvass, nor an erroneous
proclamation made by the Board; what it does punish is that, having
thus prepared the corresponding certificate, the board for some reason
fails to make the corresponding proclamation on the basis thereof.
Issues:
What is being penalized by the pertinent provision of the Omnibus
Election Code?
Ruling:
The second paragraph of Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code
reads:
"The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of
canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of
the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the
votes and received by each candidate in each polling place and, on
the basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who
obtained the highest number of votes cast in the province, city,
municipality or barangay. Failure to comply with this requirement
shall constitute an election offense."
In proclaiming an erroneous winner, they actually failed to proclaim the
winning candidate, in this case, Erlinda Irigo.
The Situation presented by petitioners would not exculpate them from
criminal responsibility for, whichever way the matter may be looked
into, whether as erroneous proclamation of a losing candidate or failure
to proclaim the winning candidate, the result is the same - the winning
Candidate was not proclaimed, and hence, injustice is the end result.
To go by the explanation as proposed by the petitioner would be
tantamount to tolerating and licensing boards of canvassers to "make
an erroneous proclamation" and still be exculpated by just putting up
the inexcusable defense that the "foul-up resulted from the erroneous
arrangement of the names of candidates"
On the second assigned error.
"The timely verbal protest of the daughter-watcher of Mrs. Erlinda Irigo
did not trigger on the part of the PBC (Provincial Board of Canvassers)
the responsible action of verifying the basis of the protest.
The 3 Members of the PBC could not attribute to the Committee on
Tabulation the blame for their errors as the PBC members themselves
were the ones who certified under oath the said Certificate of
Proclamation and the Tabulation Committee members were totally
under their direct supervision and control.
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does NOT require proof.
CORRECTION OF MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE TABULATION/TALLYING OF
RESULTS DURING CANVASSING:
▪ Grounds:
P a g e | 24
a) Where a copy of the election returns or certificate of canvass was
tabulated more than once
b) Where two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct
were tabulated separately
c) Where there was a mistake in the copying of the figures from the
election returns to the statement of votes by precinct or from the
municipal/city Certificate of Canvass to the Statement of Votes by
municipality; or from the Provincial/City Certificate of Canvass to the
Statement of Votes by province/city
d) Where there was a mistake in the addition of the votes of any
candidate
▪ Procedure Before The Canvassing Board:
i. Correct the manifest errors motu propio or upon verified petition
by any candidate, political party, organization, coalition, after due
notice and hearing
ii. Order of promulgation which must be in writing
iii. Appeal to the COMELEC within 24 hours from the promulgation
iv. No proclamation of winning candidate during pendency of appeal,
UNLESS the votes are not affected by the appeal
v. Appeal must implead as respondents the canvassing Board and all
parties who may be adversely affected
vi. Clerk of Court of COMELEC issues summons, with copy of the
appeal to the respondents
vii. Clerk sets appeal for hearing
viii. COMELEC decides en banc
ELECTION RETURNS: (SEC. 212, ART. 18, OEC)
▪ Who Prepares The Election Returns:
➢ The Board Of Election Inspectors.
▪ Manner:
➢ Simultaneously with the counting of the votes in the polling place.
▪ Requirements:
o Shall be closed with the signature and the clear imprint of the
thumbmark of the right hand of all the members
o Shall be sealed in the presence of the watchers and the public, and
placed in the proper envelope, which shall likewise be sealed and
distributed as herein provided.
o Prepared in sextuplicate
➢ If the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the members of the board of
election inspectors or some of them as required in this provision are
missing in the election returns, the board of canvassers may
summon the members of the board of election inspectors concerned
to complete the returns.
▪ Discrepancies In Election Returns: (Sec. 236)
➢ The Commission shall proceed summarily to determine whether the
integrity of the ballot box had been preserved
➢ Shall order the opening of the ballot box to recount the votes cast in
the polling place solely for the purpose of determining the true result
of the count of votes of the candidates concerned.
▪ Tampered Or Falsified ERs:
o left the hands of the board of election inspectors, or
o otherwise not authentic, or
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
o were prepared by the board of election inspectors under duress,
force, intimidation, or
o prepared by persons other than the member of the board of election
inspector. (considered as manufactured)
DISPOSITION OF CONTESTED ELECTION RETURNS: (SEC. 20, RA 7166)
xxx
c) Simultaneous with the oral objection, the objecting party shall also enter
his objection in the form for written objections to be prescribed by the
Commission. Within twenty-four (24) hours from and after the presentation
of such an objection, the objecting party shall submit the evidence in support
of the objection, which shall be attached to the form for written objections.
d) Upon receipt of the evidence, the board shall keep up the contested
returns, consider the written objections thereto and opposition, if any, and
summarily and immediately rules thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on
the prescribed form and authenticate the same by the signatures of its
members.
xxx
i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless
authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the object brought
to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof
shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect
the results of the election.
▪ Form of Petition:
o Initially Oral; then
o Written (within 24 hours)
➢ Within (24) hours from and after the presentation of such an
objection, the objecting party shall submit the evidence, which shall
be attached to the form for written objections.
▪ Effect Of Petition:
➢ The BOC shall NOT proclaim any candidate as winner unless
authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the object
brought to it on appeal by the losing party.
➢ Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio,
UNLESS the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of
the election.
ESPIDOL v. COMELEC, GR NO. 164922
Facts:
Petitioner Raymond P. Espidol and private respondent Wilfredo L.
Tabag were rival candidates for Mayor.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) convened at the
municipality's Barangay Training Center to commence the canvassing.
In the evening of May 11, 2004, just after the adjournment of the
canvassing proceedings, he and his group of tabulators were harassed
and intimidated by allies and political supporters of petitioner Espidol.
The Commissioner requested for a transfer of the canvassing venue to
Manila citing as reason the volatile peace and order situation.
The MBC reconvened and resumed the canvassing of the election
returns.
Private respondent Tabag, through his lawyers, orally sought the
exclusion of several election returns.
Despite these objections, and without any formal or written ruling
thereon, the MBC included the contested election returns.
P a g e | 25
Private respondent Tabag, through counsel, filed a petition with the
MBC vigorously opposing the impending proclamation on the ground
that the proceedings of the board were irregular.
Nonetheless the MBC proceeded to proclaim petitioner Espidol as the
winning candidate for mayor.
The counsel of private respondent Tabag submitted to the MBC his
written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of the contested
election returns. The MBC did not make a formal or written ruling
thereon.
In defiance of the said order, petitioner Espidol took his oath of office
as Mayor
The COMELEC Second Division promulgated the Resolution declaring
petitioner Espidol's proclamation illegal.
Issue[1]:
• WON there was material defect in the ER? (NO)
The MBC violated its duty.
Section 234 of the OEC is quoted anew:
Sec. 234. Material defects in the election returns. - If it should
appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the
election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all the
members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most
expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction'
Consequently, the absence of these signatures and thumbmarks
rendered the said election returns materially defective and, therefore,
proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy.
Issue[2]:
• WON MBC violated its duties? (YES)
• In.Re. construction of “simultaneous”
In no single instance did the MBC make any written ruling on the
numerous petitions for exclusion filed by private respondent Tabag.
Even those objections made in writing by private respondent Tabag
were not acted and ruled upon by the MBC; Neither did it act on the
several written notices of appeal filed by private respondent Tabag.
The word "simultaneous" must not be given a strict and constricting
meaning.
There is no debate that an oral objection must be reduced into writing.
However, there was never any discussion that the same shall be
submitted at the same moment as the oral objection.
The fact that the rule speaks of an oral objection separate from the
written form contemplates that both forms may be submitted at
different moments, as long as this is done within reasonable time.
It is therefore, the consideration of this Commission that the board of
canvassers should not rule on the objections of the parties until the
twenty-four-hour (24) period has lapsed, unless they already have with
them the written objections as well as the evidence. In that case,
submission of written objections within twenty-four (24) hours
together with the evidence, may be considered substantial compliance
with the rule.
Under Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166, the board of canvassers is mandated
to grant an objecting party 24 hours from the time of the presentation
of the oral objection to submit its evidence.
The proclamation of petitioner Espidol was clearly made with undue
haste, considering that it was made even before the lapse of the 24-hour
period given to private respondent Tabag under Section 20(c) of R.A.
No. 7166 to submit the evidence and written objections in support of
his oral objections.
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
In the process, the MBC not only deprived private respondent Tabag of
the right to appeal its ruling to the COMELEC, it likewise deprived the
latter body to rule on the objections of private respondent Tabag.
Such act of the MBC violated Section 20 (i) of R.A. No. 7166
(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as
winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has
ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party.
Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio,
unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of
the election.
In addition, it is significant to note that the COMELEC Second Division
found a discrepancy between the number of votes cast for the
mayoralty candidates and the number of registered voters who actually
voted.
The total number of votes cast for the mayoralty candidates exceeded
the total number of those who actually voted by 858.
This finding was affirmed by the COMELEC en banc.
"any error in the Statement of Votes would affect the proclamation
made on the basis thereof. The true will of the electorate may thus
be not fully and faithfully reflected by the Proclamation"
Under the foregoing circumstances, the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it nullified the proclamation of petitioner
Espidol.
WATCHERS: (ART. 15, OEC)
▪ Who Are Entitled To Watchers: (Sec. 178)
a) Candidates
b) Political Parties or
c) Coalition of Political Parties
▪ Qualifications: (Sec. 178)
o A qualified voter of the city or municipality,
o Of good reputation and
o Shall not have been convicted by final judgment of any election
offense or of any other crime,
o Must know how to read and write Pilipino, English, Spanish
o And not related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity to the chairman or any member of the board of election
inspectors in the polling place where he seeks appointment as a
watcher.
▪ Number of Watchers: (Sec.178)
➢ One (1) watcher in every;
o Polling Place and
o Canvassing Center
▪ Rights and Duties: (Sec. 179)
o The right to stay in the space reserved for them inside the polling
place.
o The right to witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the
board of election inspectors,
o To take notes of what they may see or hear, to take photographs of
the proceedings and incidents, if any, during the counting of votes, as
well as of election returns, tally boards and ballot boxes,
o To file a protest against any irregularity or violation of law which
they believe may have been committed by the board of election
inspectors or by any of its members or by any persons,
o To obtain from the board of election inspectors a certificate as to the
filing of such protest and/or of the resolution thereon,
o To read the ballots after they shall have been read by the chairman,
as well as the election returns without touching them,
o They shall not speak to any member of the board of election
inspectors, or to any voter, or among themselves, in such a manner
as would distract the proceedings, and
P a g e | 26
o To be furnished with a certificate of the number of votes in words
and figures cast for each candidate, duly signed and thumb marked
by the chairman and all the members of the board of election
inspectors.
➢ Refusal of the chairman and the members of the board of election
inspectors to sign and furnish such certificate = Election Offense and
shall be penalized under this Code.
▪ Other Watchers: (Sec. 180)
➢ The duly accredited citizens arm of the Commission shall be entitled
to appoint a watcher in every polling place.
➢ Other civic, religious, professional, business, service, youth and any
other similar organizations, with prior authority of the Commission,
shall be entitled collectively to appoint one watcher in every polling
place.
▪ Watchers In National Elections:
➢ Only 6 recognized principal watchers
➢ From the 6 major political parties (1 each)
➢ COMELEC will choose the parties, based on;
o Established record in the past elections
o Number of incumbent officials and candidates
o Identifiable political organizations and strengths
o Ability to fill the complete slate
o Other analogous circumstance
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES (PPC): ART. 20
▪ “Pre-Proclamation Controversies” (Sec. 241)
➢ refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of
the board of canvassers or any matter raised under Sections 233,
234, 235 and 236 in relation to the; (PTRCA)
o Preparation,
o Transmission,
o Receipt,
o Custody and Appreciation of the election returns.
➢ Purpose of this kind of this controversy is to ascertain winners of the
election on the basis of ER duly automated by the BEI and admitted
by the BOC.
▪ Who Can File:
a) Any candidate; or
b) Any registered political party or coalition of political parties
▪ Where To File:
a) The Board; or
b) Directly with the Commission
▪ Issues That May Be Raised: (Sec. 243)
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) 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 other authentic copies thereof
as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places
were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing
of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.
➢ These grounds are Restrictive and Exclusive.
▪ Rule:
➢ In a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC, as a rule, is
restricted to an examination of the election returns on its face and is
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate
election irregularities.
➢ As long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished
on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind
them to verify allegations of irregularities.
➢ If the ground you are alleging is in relation to irregularities in the
conduct of the election = remedy is to file Election Protest.
▪ When Pre-Proclamation Cases NOT Allowed: (Sec. 15, R.A. 7166)
➢ Pre-proclamation cases in elections for PRESIDENT, VICE-,
SENATOR, CONGRESSMAN AND PARTY-LIST are NOT allowed on
matters relating to;
o preparation,
o transmission,
o receipt,
o custody and
o appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass.
➢ Also, no PPC’s are allowed in Barangay Elections.
➢ But the canvassing board may correct manifest errors in the
Certificates of Canvass or Election Returns, motu proprio or upon
verified petition of an interested person.
 “Manifest Errors” - this are errors that appears in the face of
the canvass and obvious to the understanding.
▪ Procedure For Contesting Election Returns: (Sec. 245) / (Sec. 20, RA 7166)
i. Oral protest
ii. BOC will proceed with the uncontested ER and postpone the
canvassing of the contested ER
iii. File written protest within 24 hours from the oral protest. Any
parties may also file a written and verified opposition within 24
hours.
iv. BOC will make a ruling.
v. Losing party may manifest his/her intent to appeal.
vi. If there is ITA, suspend canvass.
vii. Within 24 hours, aggrieved written and verified ITA
viii. Upon receipt of notice of appeal, copy furnishing the parties, BOC
shall report to COMELEC.
ix. Within 5 day, unextendible, appeal to COMELEC.
x. COMELEC must decide it within 7 days.
xi. Decision will be final within 7 days from the receipt of the decision
to the losing parties.
➢ The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner
unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the
objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party
➢ Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio,
UNLESS the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of
the election.
▪ Nature of Proceedings: (Sec. 246)
➢ All pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the
Commission
➢ Its decisions shall be executory after the lapse of 5 days from receipt
by the losing party of the decision of the Commission, unless
restrained by the Supreme Court.
P a g e | 27
▪ Partial Proclamation: (Sec. 247)
➢ Notwithstanding the pendency of any pre-proclamation
controversy, the Commission may, motu proprio or upon the filing of
a verified petition and after due notice and hearing, order the
proclamation of other winning candidates whose election will not be
affected by the outcome of the controversy.
▪ Jurisdiction: (Sec. 242)
➢ The COMELEC shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-
proclamation controversies.
➢ It may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice
and hearing, order the partial or total suspension of the
proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual partially or totally any
proclamation.
▪ Petition To Annul Or To Suspend Proclamation: (Sec. 248)
➢ Is a remedy where there is a manifest error in the face of the election
returns and a winning candidate is about to be or has already been
proclaimed on the bases thereof.
➢ It is filed in conjunction with PPC
➢ Effect: The filing shall suspend the running of the period within
which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings.
BELAC v. COMELEC, GR No. 145802
Facts:
Rommel Diasen and Dominador Belac were candidates for governor in
the province of Kalinga
Diasen objected to the inclusion of the election returns of 42 precincts
in the said municipality, and of the election returns of 28 precincts of
the town of Tinglayan.
In his petition with the Provincial Board of Canvassers, respondent
Diasen raised the following grounds:
He alleges that the votes for petitioner Belac were all padded through
"Operation Dagdag"; the election returns for him (Diasen) was
tampered, falsified and manufactured; and that the election returns
were already prepared even before the counting of votes.
However, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proceeded to include in
its canvass the results as stated in the election returns for Pinukpuk.
The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Belac as the duly
elected governor for the province of Kalinga.
Diasen appealed to the COMELEC (First Division), which in turn
dismissed Diasen's appeal for lack of merit.
Almost two years after, the COMELEC en banc promulgated the first
assailed Resolution modifying the ruling of the First Division.
They directed to proceed with the canvassing of votes for the office of
the provincial governor deducting from the Certificates of Canvass of
the Municipalities of Tinglayan and Pinukpuk.
The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Diasen as the duly
elected governor.
Issue:
• Whether or not respondent COMELEC in a pre-proclamation case
can go beyond the face of the election returns. (NO)
Ruling:
The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues
enumerated under sec. 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. The
enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in pre-
proclamation controversy, is restrictive and exclusive.
CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
Respondent Diasen's petition pertains to a pre-proclamation
controversy.
The Provincial Board of Canvassers explained that it refused to exclude
the Certificate of Canvass of Tinglayan because it was regular on its face
and the grounds raised by respondent Diasen are not among those in
the list enumerated by law. Nothing therein shows it was
manufactured or prepared under duress, threat or intimidation or that
it was tampered or falsified.
In a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC, as a rule, is restricted
to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to
go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities.
"The prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction xxx is that as long as the
returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the
Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to verify
allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of the votes."
By their very nature, and given the obvious public interest in the speedy
determination of the results of elections, pre-proclamation
controversies are to be resolved in summary proceedings without the
need to present evidence aliunde and certainly without having to go
through voluminous documents and subjecting them to meticulous
technical examinations which take up considerable time."
In granting respondent Diasen's motion for reconsideration, in
concluding that there were serious irregularities, tampering and
falsification of the questioned election returns; and that they were
manufactured, respondent COMELEC looked beyond the face of the
documents, hence, exceeding its authority, contrary to the
Jurisprudential mandate.
We thus hold that respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it granted respondent Diasen's motion for
reconsideration.
SEBASTIAN v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 139573-75
Facts:
Petitioner June Genevieve Sebastian was the mayoralty candidate in
Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte. Private respondent Salvador Royo was the
mayoralty candidate.
Petitioners sought the exclusion from the canvass of several election
returns from certain precincts in barangays Kimamon.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied the petition, prompting
petitioners to file three separate appeals with the COMELEC
The COMELEC Second Division ordered the exclusion of 25 election
returns from the canvass of votes in Sto. Tomas.
The COMELEC en banc reversed the ruling of the COMELEC Second
Division.
The COMELEC pointed out that it could not justifiably exclude from the
canvass of votes, in a pre-proclamation controversy, election returns
that on their face appear regular.
Petitioners assert that the preparation of the returns had been marred
by undue influence and intimidation, thus affecting their regularity, due
execution and authenticity. Petitioners argue that this justifies the
examination of circumstances beyond the face of the returns.
Issues:
• WON COMELEC failed to consider what they claim to be evidence
of undue influence thus affecting their regularity, due execution
and authenticity, justifying the examination of circumstances
beyond the face of the returns. (NO)
Ruling:
We find this argument untenable.
P a g e | 28
A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the
election returns on their face. The COMELEC as a general rule need not
go beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged election
irregularities.
In our view, there is no exceptional circumstance present in this
controversy to justify the summary annulment of the canvass and the
annulment of petitioner Antonio's proclamation.
To require the COMELEC to examine the circumstances surrounding
the preparation of election returns would run counter to the rule that a
pre-proclamation controversy should be summarily decided.
The canvass and proclamation must be delayed as little as possible.
That is why such questions which require more deliberate and
necessarily longer consideration, are left for examination in the
corresponding election protest.
Petitioners have not demonstrated precisely how the preparation and
appreciation of election returns were adversely affected by, as alleged
by petitioners, "harassments of petitioners' supporters,”.
OCAMPO v. COMELEC, GR No. 136282
Facts:
Francisco D. Ocampo and Arthur L. Salalila were candidates for Mayor
in the Municipality of Sta. Rita, Province of Pampanga.
During the canvassing of the election returns, petitioner moved for the
exclusion of the election returns in 8 precincts, considering that the
turnout of votes was allegedly lopsided against his favor.
The grounds for the exclusion of the election returns in the
aforementioned precincts were: i.e.:
(1) that the same were obviously manufactured;
(2) they were defective for they contained no data on the number of
registered votes in the precinct, actual number of votes cast and
the number of valid votes cast; and
(3) other alleged discrepancies in the data on votes cast and total
number of registered voters and excess ballots.
Finding the contested election returns to be genuine and authentic and
without merit, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) ruled to order
the inclusion in the canvass of the contested election returns.
Petitioner went to the COMELEC and filed a formal appeal.
The COMELEC Second Division, rendered a Resolution stating that the
Respondent MBC should have at least suspended its canvass in so far as
the question or contested election returns were concerned.
patent irregularity in the election returns it is imperative for the board
to stop the canvass of such returns so as to allow time for verification.
Private respondent Salalila filed a motion for reconsideration.
The COMELEC en banc promulgated the questioned Resolution
reversing the findings of the Comelec Second Division.
Issues:
• Whether or not to include in the canvass the contested election
returns
Ruling:
The findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their
specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and
in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from
an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive,
and should not be disturbed.
There was a painstaking review and examination of the returns by the
COMELEC en banc which does not warrant a different conclusion from
this Court.
CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
That the election returns were obviously manufactured must be
evident from the face of said documents.
In the absence of a strong evidence establishing spuriousness of the
returns, the basic rule that the election returns shall be accorded prima
facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the count of the votes
for canvassing and proclamation purposes must perforce prevail.
The COMELEC en banc did not find any signs of alterations or tampering
on the election returns nor did the petitioner present any hard evidence
of such irregularity.
The only thing which we surmise came too close to such a change was
the written superimposition made on the family names of the
candidates in the election returns.
This was certainly not an alteration or tampering since the COMELEC
en banc found that such superimposition was necessarily done in order
to make the names readable.
The bare fact that candidates for public office had received zero votes
is NOT enough to make the returns statistically improbable.
We cannot, with certainty, conclude from the facts before us that the
returns questioned were "not true returns of legal votes actually cast,
but simply manufactured evidences of an attempt to defeat the popular
will.
While the aforesaid grounds may, indeed, involve a violation of the
rules governing the preparation and delivery of elections returns for
canvassing, they DO NOT necessarily affect the authenticity and
genuineness of the subject election returns as to warrant their
exclusion from the canvassing.
LUCMAN v. COMELEC, GR NO. 166229
Facts:
Petitioner Bairansalam Laut Lucman and private respondent Mosama
M. Pandi were mayoralty candidates in Lanao del Sur.
Private respondent objected to the inclusion of ten election returns,
although only six of these are subjects of the present controversy.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers (Board) overruled private
respondent's objections on the disputed returns, and proclaimed
petitioner as the winning candidate.
Private respondent filed with Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an
appeal from the ruling of the Board alleging massive fraud and
irregularities in the conduct of the elections, e.g., force, threat and
intimidation were employed on the voters, double voting, substitution
of voters, snatching of ballots, padding of ballots and existence of flying
voters.
In the present case, the objections initially raised by private respondent
before the Municipal Board of Canvassers were proper in a pre-
proclamation controversy, i.e., the election returns is obviously
manufactured and/or falsified, it is not authentic, it contains
alterations.
However, in his appeal to the COMELEC, he further alleged that the
elections held in the precincts clustered in the Pooni Lomabao Central
Elementary were tainted with massive election irregularities.
According to private respondent, there were "massive substitution of
voters, snatching of ballots from the voters by people identified with
the Lucman who filled them up against the will of the voters, etc.
Issues:
Whether the appeal from the Board of Canvassers to the COMELEC
(First Division) interjected by private respondent makes a case for a
pre-proclamation controversy.
Ruling:
P a g e | 29
Obviously, the foregoing allegations pertain not only to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns,
but to the conduct of the elections as well.
Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the
resolution of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to
pierce the veil of election returns which appear to be prima facie
regular, on their face, are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy.
Such issues should be posed and resolved in a regular election protest,
which is within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC).
Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper
grounds in an election contest but may not as a rule be invoked to
declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the greater number
of the electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of only a relative few.
Hence, as correctly argued by petitioner, private respondent's cause of
action before the COMELEC is proper for an election protest and not a
pre-proclamation controversy, and the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in entertaining private respondent's
petition/appeal.
MILLA v. BALMORES-LAXA, GR No. 151216
Facts:
Petitioner Manuel Milla and respondent Regina Balmores-Laxa were
candidates for councilor of Gerona, Tarlac.
Petitioner was proclaimed as the eighth winning candidate by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers (BOC)
One month after petitioner's proclamation, respondent filed a petition
with the COMELEC against petitioner and the BOC for "correction of
entries in [the] Statement of Votes . . . based on fraud and irregularities
in [the] canvassing of votes."
The petition alleged that the entries for four precincts in the Statement
of Votes did not correspond to the election returns for the respective
precincts.
The COMELEC En Banc, found that Given the attendant evidence at
hand, specifically the unexplained mismatched inscriptions in the
entries for the questioned precincts in the Statement of Votes
And declared herein petitioner's proclamation null and void, and
proclaimed respondent as the eighth winning candidate.
Petitioner maintains that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over the
petition as it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
The petition to correct the Statement of Votes should have been filed
within 5 days thereafter conformably with Section 5, Rule 27 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Issues[1]:
• WON error in the Statement of Votes relates to a Pre-
Proclamation Controversy? (YES)
The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and
of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the
validity of the proclamation.
If a candidate's proclamation is based on a Statement of Votes which
contains erroneous entries, it is null and void. It is no proclamation at
all and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive
the COMELEC of the power to annul the proclamation.
In the case at bar, as the Statement of Votes contained erroneous
entries, the COMELEC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over
respondent's petition for the correction thereof and declaration of
nullity of petitioner's proclamation.
Issue[2]:
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES] P a g e | 30

• WON the action has prescribed? (NO) a) Regional Trial Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
all election contests involving elective municipal officials.
While our election laws are silent when such and similar petitions may
be filed directly with the COMELEC, the above-quoted Section 5, Rule b) Municipal Trial Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
27 of the Rules of Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five (5) days all election contests involving elective barangay officials.
following the date of proclamation.
▪ How Initiated:
The COMELEC, however, could suspend its own Rules of Procedure so ➢ Filed directly with the proper court
as not to defeat the will of the electorate. ➢ In three legible copies
➢ Plus such number of copies corresponding to the number of
For adherence to technicality that would put a stamp on a palpably void
protestees or respondents.
proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will,
➢ Petition must be verified and accompanied by a certificate of non-
cannot be countenanced.
forum shopping.
Issue[3]:
• WON the pre-proclamation issue has been terminated upon the
beginning of term of office? (NO)
ELECTION PROTEST (EP):
Sec. 16. Pre-Proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and
Municipal Offices. - ▪ “Election Protests”:
➢ Refers to an election contest relating to the election and returns of
All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be elective officials
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved ➢ Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office;
XXX HOWEVER, proceedings may continue when on the basis of  However, contests for offices of the Sangguniang Bayan may
evidence thus far presented, the Commission determined that the be consolidated in one case.
petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the
proceeding to continue ▪ Who Can File:
➢ Any candidate who;
The COMELEC issued Resolution declaring the termination of all pre- o duly filed a certificate of candidacy; and
proclamation cases EXCEPT those included in the list annexed thereto o has been voted for the same office.
which list included respondent's petition before the COMELEC subject
of the present petition. ▪ Period Of Filing:
➢ Within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the
By his admission, the petition filed by respondent before the COMELEC
election.
involves a pre-proclamation controversy, not an election contest and
indeed it is not, for while the petition alleged fraud and statistical
▪ Grounds:
improbability, the remedy sought was merely for correction of
➢ Frauds or Irregularities in;
erroneous entries in the Statement of Votes which were based on the
o the conduct of the elections,
election returns.
o the casting and counting of the ballots and
Issue[4]: o the preparation and canvassing of returns.
• What is the proper remedy?
➢ The issue is who obtained the plurality of valid votes cast.
As the petition then of respondent involves a pre-proclamation
controversy, following Sec. 3 of Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution which ▪ Effect Of Filing:
provides: ➢ Pendency of election notice is not sufficient basis to enjoin the
protestee from assuming office.
Sec. 3. XXX pre-proclamation controversies. XXX shall be heard and
decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of ➢ A protestant has the right to withdraw his protest or drop polling
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. places from his protest. The protestee in such cases has not cause to
complain because the withdrawal is exclusive prerogative of the
It should have first been heard and decided by a division of the protestee
COMELEC, and then by the En Banc if a motion for reconsideration of
the decision of the division were filed. ▪ Period To File:
Since, the COMELEC sitting en banc acted on respondent's petition
▪ Where To File:
which was NOT first passed upon by a division, it acted without
o Pres & V.Pres –> SC en banc (PET)
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
o Senator –> SET -> SC
The assailed Resolution of the COMELEC is thus null and void and it is o Congressman –> HRET -> SC
in this light that the present petition is GRANTED. o Reg’l/Prov’l/City Offices –> COMELEC –> SC (R.64/65)
o Municipal Offices –> RTC -> COMELEC
o Brgy. Offices –> MTC -> COMELEC
POST-ELECTION DISPUTE
▪ Procedure: (Sec. 254)
IN GENERAL:
▪ Payment Of Docket Fee:
These are the filing of pleadings, practice and procedure in Election ➢ P500.00 for each interest
Protests And Petitions For Quo Warranto before courts of general ➢ Each interest mentioned above shall pay an additional amount of
jurisdiction and courts of limited jurisdiction relating to elective municipal P10.00 as legal research fee.
and barangay officials.
▪ Counter-Protest:
▪ Nature ➢ It is the desire to impugn the votes received by the protestant in
▪ Purpose other precincts.

▪ Jurisdiction:

CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES] P a g e | 31

➢ Must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of notice of the filing
of the petition and a copy of the petition.
▪ Nature of the Case / Decision of COMELEC:
➢ Summary Proceeding
➢ Appealable / does not preclude the Courts to render judgement
▪ Effect of Appointment & Subsequent Election:
➢ Protest is considered as abandoned.
KHO v. COMELEC, GR No. 124033
Facts:
Petitioner Kho, a losing candidate in the 1995 gubernatorial elections
in Masbate, filed an election protest against private respondents
Espinosa to set aside the proclamation of the latter as the Provincial
Governor of Masbate and to declare him instead the winner in the
elections.
COMELEC First Division was correct when it held in its order that no
final decision, resolution or order has yet been made which will
necessitate the elevation of the case and its records to the Commission
en banc.
No less than the Constitution requires that the election cases must be
heard and decided first in division and any motion for reconsideration
of decisions shall be decided by the commission en banc.
The orders and the other orders relating to the admission of the answer
with counter-protest are issuances of a commission in division and are
all interlocutory orders because they merely rule upon an incidental
issue regarding the admission of Espinosa's answer with counter-
protest and DO NOT terminate or finally dispose of the case as they
leave something to be done before it is finally decided on the merits.
QUO WARRANTO (QW):

It appears that Espinosa received the summons but, he filed his answer
with counter protest 9 days after only.
When Kho received the answer with counter-protest to Espinosa, he
filed on the same date a motion to expunge the said pleading because it
was filed way beyond the reglementary period of five (5) days as
provided for under Rule 10, Section 1, Part II in relation to Rule 20,
Section 4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
The Respondent COMELEC First Division, however, issued an order
admitting Espinosa's answer with counter-protest.
▪ “Quo Warranto”: (under the Omnibus Election Code)
➢ (under the Omnibus Election Code) refers to an election contest
involving the qualifications for office of an elective Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer.
➢ The issue is whether the respondent possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law.
▪ Who May File:
➢ Any registered voter who has voted in the election concerned.

Kho filed a manifestation and motion, this time addressed to the ▪ Grounds:
COMELEC en banc, reiterating the arguments he asserted in his motion o Ineligibility; or
for reconsideration. o Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

But the COMELEC First Division, denied the prayer for the elevation of ▪ When To File:
the case to en banc because the orders were mere interlocutory orders ➢ within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the
which would not necessitate the elevation of the case to en banc, and election.
merely took note of the other prayers in the manifestation and motion.
▪ Quo Warranto v. Election Protests:
Kho filed the instant petition arguing that the respondent COMELEC Quo Warranto Election Protests
First Division committed grave abuse of discretion or without or in Matter It concerns of the It primarily concerns
excess of jurisdiction in admitting the belatedly filed answer with Candidates themselves election returns
counter-protest of Espinosa, and in refusing to elevate the case to the Who Can Any registered voter may Only certified candidates
Commission en banc. File file can file
Grounds Grounds are Ineligibility Grounds are for Fraud and
Issues[1]: or Disloyalty of the Irregularities in the
• May the Commission on Elections entertain a counter-protest Candidate election
filed by a party after the period to file the same has expired? (NO) Effect of While the respondent The protestee may be
Filing may be unseated, the ousted and the protestant
Private respondent Espinosa filed his answer with counter protest way petitioner will NOT be seated in the office vacated
beyond the reglementary period of five (5) days provided for by law. seated
Period To Within 10 days from proclamation of the results of the
Under Section 1, Rule 10 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the File election
answer must be filed within five (5) days from service of summons and To Vest
Payment of Docket Fees
a copy of the petition. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure the Jurisdiction
protestee may incorporate in his answer a counter-protest.
▪ Quo Warranto v. Pre-Proclamation Controversies:
A counter-protest is tantamount to a counterclaim in a civil action and Quo Warranto Pre-Proclamation Controversies
may be presented as a part of the answer within the time he is required It concerns of the Candidates refers to any question pertaining
to answer to protest. themselves to or affecting the proceedings of
the board of canvassers or any
The counter-protest must be filed within the period provided by law, matter raised in relation to;
otherwise, the forum loses its jurisdiction to entertain the belatedly o the preparation,
filed counter-protest. o transmission,
o receipt,
As such, the COMELEC First Division has no jurisdictional authority to o custody and appreciation of
entertain the belated answer with counter-protest much less pass upon the election returns.
and decide the issues raised therein.
Any registered voter may file Can be filed (a) By any candidate;
Issue[2]: or (b) By any registered political
• Whether or not the case should be referred to the COMELEC en party or coalition of political
banc? (NO) parties

CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
Filed to the Courts (MTC / RTC) Filed to (a) The Board; or (b)
Directly with the Commission
Requires a full-blown trail Only a summary proceeding
DUMAYAS v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 141952-53
Facts:
Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates
for the position of mayor in Iloilo.
During the canvassing, all of Barangay Pantalan were protested for
inclusion in the canvass before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC
for brevity) by petitioner-appellant Dumayas Jr. The grounds relied
upon for their exclusion are all the same- that is, "violation of Secs. 234,
235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws; acts of
terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts prohibited by law."
The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioner's objection to the
inclusion of the contested returns and proceeded with the canvass.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC. The appeal was given
due course by the COMELEC Second Division which rendered a
resolution finding the preparation of the contested election returns to
be tainted with irregularities and EXCLUDED the Election Return.
Petitioner was proclaimed winner of the election after excluding from
the canvass the election returns from the three contested precincts in
accordance with the COMELEC Second Division Resolution.
Private respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to declare void
ab initio the proclamation of petitioner
Meanwhile, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Betita filed an action for
quo warranto against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court.
Respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by the newly-constituted
Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly-elected Mayor of the
Municipality of Carles, thereby unseating petitioner Dumayas.
Issue[1]:
• Should respondent Bernal, who was named as petitioner in the
quo warranto proceedings commenced before the regular court,
be deemed to have abandoned the motions he had filed with
respondent Commission? (NO)
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.
Once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election
protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will
have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so
as to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
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.
An examination of the petition filed primarily by Vice-Mayor Betita with
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that it is neither a quo
warranto petition under the Omnibus Election Code nor an election
protest.
P a g e | 32
A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO under the Omnibus Election Code
raises an issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It
is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not necessarily
to install the petitioner in his place.
An ELECTION PROTEST is a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and
counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the
question of who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and
therefore is entitled to hold the office.
Although said petition is also denominated as a quo warranto petition
it is different in nature from the quo warranto provided for in the
Omnibus Election Code where the only issue proper for determination
is either disloyalty or ineligibility of respondent therein.
Neither can it be considered as an election protest since what was put
forth as an issue in said petition was petitioner's alleged unlawful
assumption of the office of Mayor by virtue of his alleged illegal
proclamation as the winning candidate in the election.
A closer look at the specific allegations in the petition disclose that is
actually an action for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation on the
ground of illegality and prematurity.
Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its
discretion, when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal's motion
for reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner's
proclamation as void ab initio.
Note that under the allegations cited above, the determination of
Betita's right would ultimately hinge on the validity of petitioner's
proclamation in the first place.
Where a proclamation is null and void, it is no proclamation at all such
that the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the
COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the
proclamation.
Issue[2]:
• Did the COMELEC err in ordering the inclusion of the contested
election returns in the canvassing of ballots? whether the MBC's
proclamation of petitioner Dumayas as the winning candidate in
the 1998 mayoralty election is null and void. (YES)
Although petitioner's proclamation was undertaken pursuant to the
resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division, it appears plain to us that
the latter grievously erred in ordering the exclusion of the contested
returns from Precincts.
The Comelec en banc correctly reversed the Second Division by holding
that petitioner Dumayas failed to justify the exclusion of said returns
on the ground of duress, intimidation, threat or coercion.
The only evidence submitted by petitioner to prove said irregularities
were self-serving affidavits executed by his watchers and supporters.
In sum, we hold that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second Division. The appeal
brought by petitioner from the order of inclusion issued by the MBC
should have been dismissed by that Division right away, since the
grounds for exclusion relied upon by petitioner are not proper in a pre-
proclamation case, which is summary in nature.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
SENATORIAL & HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL:
(SEC. 17, ART. VI, 1987 CONSTITUTION)
▪ Composition:
➢ Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine (9) Members;
o 3 shall be Justices of the Supreme Court
➢ Designated by the Chief Justice,
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
➢ The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.
o 6 shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be
➢ who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the
parties or organizations registered under the party-
list system represented therein.
▪ Original Exclusive Jurisdiction:
➢ All contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members.
▪ Appeals:
➢ Appealable to the Court of Appeals within five days after receipt of a
copy of the decision.
➢ No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the court.
▪ Procedure In Election Contests: (Sec. 254)
i. Notice of the protest contesting the election of a candidate shall be
served upon the candidate by means of a summons.
➢ except when the protestee, without waiting for the summons,
has made the court understand that he has been notified of the
protest or has filed his answer hereto;
ii. The protestee shall answer the protest within five (5) days after
receipt of the summons, or, in case there has been no summons, from
the date of his appearance and in all cases before the commencement
of the hearing of the protest or contest.
➢ The answer shall deal only with the election in the polling places
which are covered by the allegations of the contest;
iii. Should the protestee desire to impugn the votes received by the
protestant in other polling places, he shall file a counter-protest within
the same period fixed for the answer.
➢ The protestant shall answer the counter-protest within five days
after notice;
➢ Within the period of five days counted from the filing of the
protest any other candidate for the same office may intervene in
the case as other contestants and ask for affirmative relief in his
favor
iv. If no answer shall be filed to the contest, counter-protest, or to the
protest in intervention, within the time limits respectively fixed, a
general denial shall be deemed to have been entered
➢ In election contest proceedings, the permanent registry list of
voters shall be conclusive in regard to the question as to who had
the right to vote in said election.
BARBERS v. COMELEC, GR No. 165691
Facts:
Robert Z. Barbers ("Barbers") and Biazon were candidates for re-
election to the Senate of the Philippines
The COMELEC sitting en banc as the NBC for the election of Senators
promulgated Resolution proclaiming the first 11 duly elected Senators
in the elections.
The COMELEC declared that it would proclaim the remaining 12th
winning candidate for Senator after canvassing the remaining
unsubmitted COCs.
The COMELEC promulgated Resolution proclaiming Biazon as "the 12th
ranking duly elected 12th Senator of the Republic of the Philippines.
P a g e | 33
Claiming that Biazon's proclamation was void, Barbers filed a petition
to annul the proclamation of Biazon as Senator
Thus, Barbers insisted that "suspension of the effects of the
proclamation" of Biazon was necessary. Barbers stressed that there
could be no valid proclamation based on an incomplete canvass.
Issues[1]:
• WON the SC has jurisdiction over the issue? (NO)
Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have
an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. xxx
The word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal ("SET")
underscores the exclusivity of the SET's jurisdiction over election
contests relating to members of the Senate.
Since Barbers contests Biazon's proclamation as the 12th winning
senatorial candidate, it is the SET which has exclusive jurisdiction to act
on Barbers' complaint.
"where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the
congressional elections, the remedy of petitioner is to file an electoral
protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives."
As in the present case, Barbers assails Biazon's proclamation as the
12th duly elected Senator, Barbers' proper recourse is to file a regular
election protest with the SET.
The alleged invalidity of Biazon's proclamation involves a dispute or
contest relating to the election returns of members of the
Senate. Indisputably, the resolution of such dispute falls within the sole
jurisdiction of the SET.
Issue[2]:
• WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
proclaimed Biason with an incomplete canvas? (NO)
An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a
subsequent proclamation.
HOWEVER, this is true only where the election returns missing or not
counted will affect the results of the election.
SEC. 233. When the election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed. In
case its copy of the election returns is missing, the board of canvassers
shall xxx obtain such missing election returns from the board of
election inspectors concerned, OR xxx the board of canvassers, upon
prior authority of the Commission, may use any of the authentic copies
of said election returns or certified copy of said election returns issued
by the Commission.
The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the
election returns have been received by it, may terminate the canvass
and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of the available
election returns if the missing election returns will not affect the results
of the election.
The Supervisory Committee's report shows that the total number of
registered voters in areas where special elections were still to be
conducted was only 2,931, covering only 19 precincts in three
municipalities.
Assuming that the remaining uncanvassed votes of two thousand nine
hundred thirty-one (2,931) in places where special elections are yet to
be held were all votes in favor of petitioner Barbers, nevertheless, this
will not materially affect the results of the election.
The COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the assailed Resolutions affirming Biazon's proclamation since the
CVJP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES]
uncanvassed returns and the results of the special elections to be held
could not materially affect the results of the elections.
RIVERA v. COMELEC, GR No. 95336
Facts:
Petitioner Juan Rivera and private respondent Juan Mitre Garcia II were
candidates for the position of Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Rivera as the duly
elected Mayor by a majority of ten (10) votes.
Garcia filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court. The trial
court rendered its verdict finding Garcia to have obtained 6,376 votes
(higher) as against Rivera's 6,222.
Rivera appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC en banc denied the
motion and re-affirmed the decision of its First Division declaring
Garcia as the duly elected Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay but with a
winning margin of one hundred twenty-three (123) votes over Rivera.
Rivera filed the present petition seeking annulment of the COMELEC en
banc decision rendered in favor of respondent Garcia.
He also contends that since the COMELEC decision has not yet become
final and executory, the COMELEC has no authority to issue the assailed
order and writ of execution.
On the other hand, private respondent relies on Article IX, (C), Section
2 (2), paragraph 2 of the Constitution which provides that decisions,
final orders, or rulings of the Commission on Elections in contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final,
executory and not appealable.
Issues:
Whether the decisions of the COMELEC in election contests involving
elective municipal and barangay officials, being final and executory and
not appealable, preclude the filing of a special civil action of certiorari?
(NO)
Ruling:
We resolve this issue in favor of the petitioner.
Under Article IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution, which petitioner
cites in support of this petition, it is stated: '(U)nless otherwise
provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each (Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.'
The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on
Elections in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices
are final, executory and not appealable, DOES NOT preclude a recourse
to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari.
Obviously, the provision of Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution
applies only to questions of fact and not of law.
We find that the said decision was not arrived at capriciously or
whimsically by respondent COMELEC.
A painstaking re-evaluation of the questioned 67 ballots was made by
the COMELEC en banc; fourteen (14) ballots originally adjudicated in
Garcia's favor were overruled by the Commission en banc, thus
reducing the number of votes in his favor to 894 votes out of the 2,445
contested ballots.
On the other hand, 16 ballots were added in Rivera's favor, thus
increasing the votes in his favor to 1,087 votes.
MIRO v. COMELEC, GR No. 57574
Facts:
P a g e | 34
Petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of the Commission on
Elections which affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance
dismissing the petition of protest filed by him in Election Case for lack
of jurisdiction.
Petitioner Miro filed the election protest before the Court of First
Instance, alleging the Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Pablo
declared the herein contestee Cayetano B. Cauan as the Municipal
Mayor-elect of San Pablo,
Private respondent as protestee filed his answer with counter protest
and motion to dismiss praying that the case be dismissed on the ground
that the jurisdictional allegations that contestant has filed a certificate
of candidacy and of the date of proclamation have not been alleged in
the petition of protest.
The Court of First Instance issued an order dismissing the election
protest on the sole ground that the failure of the protestant to allege the
date of proclamation of the protestee renders the court without
jurisdiction to try and decide the protest
Petitioners appealed to the COMELEC, which affirmed the order of
dismissal, stating that the "omission is a fatal defect as it is
jurisdictional.
Issues:
Ruling:
The law applicable is Section 190 of P.D. No. 1296, otherwise known as
the Election Code of 1978, which provides that:
"Sec. 190. Election contests for municipal and municipal district
offices.- A sworn petition contesting the election of a municipal or
municipal district officer shall be filed with the proper Court of First
Instance by any candidate for the same office who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy, within ten (10) days after the proclamation of
the election."
This provision is amplified by Section 2, Rule II of Resolution No. 1451,
promulgated by COMELEC. (basically, having the same provision)
In order that the Court of First Instance may be able to exercise special
or limited jurisdiction in election cases, the following special or
jurisdictional facts must be alleged in the election protest, to wit:
a) that the protestant was a candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and was voted upon in the election;
b) that the protestee has been proclaimed in the said election; and
c) that the petition was filed within ten (10) days after the
proclamation.
There is no question that the petition of protest contains averments
that sufficiently comply with the first two (2) requisites of jurisdiction.
The only question hinges on the third requisite.
The motion of protest was filed twenty (20) days after the election day,
such that the court was unable to determine whether it was filed within
two (2) weeks following the proclamation.
Where, however, even without a statement of the date of the
proclamation, the timeliness of the filing of the petition of protest could
be determined in some way, the court must not close its eyes to the facts
and dismiss the case by mere technicality.
The protestant's compliance with the mandatory provision of law
requiring that an election protest must be filed within two (2) weeks
following the date of the elected candidate's proclamation must appear
either expressly or by implication.
In other words, where the court, on the basis of the records of the case,
can infer that the case was filed on time, the court is with jurisdiction to
try and decide the case.
CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES] P a g e | 35

In this case, We hold that the absence of averment as regards the date
of the proclamation, is not fatal so as to prevent the court from
acquiring jurisdiction over petitioner's petition of protest.
Respondent-protestee's admission in his answer with counter-protest
and motion to dismiss of his proclamation, attaching thereto the
certificate of canvass and proclamation showing that he was
proclaimed on January 31, 1980 erases all doubts as to the timeliness
of the filing of the protest.
By these facts, therefore, it becomes undisputable that the petition of
protest was filed on time and respondent court should not have
dismissed the case.
Laws governing election protests must be liberally interpreted to the
end that the popular will expressed in the election of public officers will
not, by reason of purely technical objections, be defeated.
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Commission on Elections
is hereby SET ASIDE.
The death of the protestee De Mesa did not abate the proceedings in the
election protest filed against him, and it may stated as a rule that an
election contest survives and must be prosecuted to final judgment
despite the death of the protestee.
The death of the protestant, as in this case, neither constitutes a ground
for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction
to decide the election contest.
Public policy demands that an election contest, duly commenced, be not
abated by the death of the contestant.
Issue[2]:
• WON Private Respondent has proper standing? (YES)
The asseveration of petitioner that private respondent is not a real party
in interest entitled to be substituted in the election protest in place of the
late Jamilla, is utterly without legal basis.
The Vice Mayor elect has the status of a real party in interest in the
continuation of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene therein.

▪ Effect of Death: In.re. Election Protest: For if the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the Vice-Mayor
succeeds to the office of Mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected
DE CASTRO v. COMELEC, GR No. 125249 cannot assume the post."
Facts:

Petitioner was proclaimed Mayor of Gloria, Oriental Mindoro. In the same

elections, private respondent was proclaimed Vice-Mayor of the same PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL: (RA 1793)
municipality.
▪ Composition:
Petitioner's rival candidate, the late Nicolas M. Jamilla, filed an election o The Chief Justice (as Chairman)
protest before the Regional Trial Court. o 10 members of the Supreme Court.

During the pendency of said contest, Jamilla died. ▪ Original Exclusive Jurisdiction:
Four days after such death the trial court dismissed the election protest ➢ All contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
ruling as it did that "[a]s this case is personal, the death of the protestant the president-elect and the vice-president-elect of the Philippines.
extinguishes the case itself. The issue or issues brought out in this protest
have become moot and academic."
ELECTION OFFENSES (ARTICLE 22, OEC)
Private respondent filed his Omnibus Petition/Motion (For Intervention
and/or Substitution with Motion for Reconsideration). PROHIBITED ACTS: (Sec. 261)

The trial court denied private respondent's Omnibus Petition/Motion. 1) Vote-buying and vote-selling.
2) Conspiracy to bribe voters.
Unable to agree with the trial court's dismissal of the election protest, 3) Wagering upon result of election.
private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before 4) Coercion of subordinates.
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC); 5) Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other
forms of coercion.
COMELEC ruled that an election contest involves both the private 6) Coercion of election officials and employees.
interests of the rival candidates and the public interest in the final 7) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position,
determination of the real choice of the electorate, and for this reason, an promotion, or giving salary increases.
election contest necessarily survives the death of the protestant or the 8) Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service.
protestee. 9) Intervention of public officers and employees.
10) Undue influence.
Issue[1]: 11) Unlawful electioneering.
• WON the death of the candidate automatically renders the election
protest moot and academic? (NO) ▪ Penalties:
o Imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years
Ruling:
➢ Shall NOT be subject to probation.
We agree with COMELEC. o Sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and
deprivation of the right of suffrage
While the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public
officer, an election protest is NOT purely personal and exclusive to the ➢ If he is a foreigner = deportation after the prison term has been
protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the served.
court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings.
➢ Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not
An election contest, involving as it does not only the adjudication and less than ten (10) thousand pesos.
settlement of the private interests of the rival candidates but also the
paramount need of dispelling once and for all the uncertainty that ➢ In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released from any
beclouds the real choice of the electorate, is a proceeding imbued with penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period, persons who are
public interest which raises it onto a plane over and above ordinary civil required by law to keep said prisoner in their custody = penalty of
actions. PM (Max) if the prisoner or prisoners so illegally released commit
any act of intimidation, terrorism of interference in the election.

CVJP
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND ELECTION LAW [NOTES] P a g e | 36

➢ Any person found guilty of the offense of failure to register or failure

to vote = fined one hundred pesos + disqualification to run for
public office in the next succeeding election following his conviction
or be appointed to a public office for a period of one year following
his conviction.

▪ Authority To Prosecute:
➢ The Commission shall have the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under
this Code, and to prosecute the same.

➢ HOWEVER, COMELEC may delegate the case to the Office of the

Fiscal.

➢ In the event that the Commission fails to act on any complaint within
four months from his filing, the complainant may file the complaint
with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper
investigation and prosecution, if warranted.

▪ Arrest In Connection With The Election Campaign:

➢ No person shall be arrested and/or detained at any time for any
alleged offense committed during and in connection with any
election through any act or language tending to support or oppose
any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties under or
pursuant to any order of whatever name or nature and by
whomsoever issued.

▪ Prescriptive Period:
➢ Election offenses shall prescribe after five (5) years from the date of
their commission.
➢ If the discovery of the offense be 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:
➢ The Regional Trial Court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction
to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of
this Code

➢ EXCEPT those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure

to vote
 shall be under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan or
Municipal Trial Courts.

▪ Preferential Disposition Of Election Offenses:

➢ The investigation and prosecution of cases involving violations of the
election laws shall be given preference and priority by the
Commission on Elections and prosecuting officials.

➢ Their investigation shall be commenced without delay, and shall be

resolved by the investigating officer within five (5) days from its
submission for resolution.

➢ The courts shall likewise give preference to election offenses over all
other cases, except petitions for writ of habeas corpus.

➢ Their trial shall likewise be commenced without delay, and shall be

conducted continuously until terminated, and the case shall be
decided within thirty days from its submission for decision.

CVJP